Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Oversighting of User:JPatrickBedell

I've started a discussion at this at Wikipedia_talk:Oversight#User:JPatrickBedell, but with no response addressing this case. This isn't a matter for arbitration, but seeing as oversight essentially seems to be under ArbCom control this seemed an appropriate location to ask for more input. So, please see the discussion page. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

So this is what "arbitration" has become?

There was a time when careful considerations were made for disputes and other issues on this site. Sometimes the process went slowly, but as anyone who has ever been upset knows, time is usually very good in allowing emotions to subside, among other benefits.

The Arbitration Committee is increasingly skirting its duties by relying on motions. A motion was attempted in the MZMcBride case, motions are being considered in the Trusilver and Durova cases, and a motion was used in the BLP fracas. And those are just the motions I can remember off-hand.

The harm and potential harm from these quickly drafted and enacted motions is clearly evident. The BLP-related motion is causing further problems. Undoubtedly the Trusilver and Durova motions, if passed, will similarly cause further problems.

Thoughtful deliberation and time are often much better than hasty politicking. Anyone who has ever dieted or been injured knows that the "quick fix" is usually the easiest way to ensure further complications down the road.

The Arbitration Committee will make its own bed and be forced to sleep in it. Just know that it absolves everyone from sympathizing with your complaints come morning. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

So you're basically suggesting that ArbCom has been taking the easy way out? I've noticed lately that motions have become more and more common, for reasons unknown. The fact that less cases have been opened and quite a bit more motions have been used to resolve the matter indicates either that ArbCom doesn't see a need for a case, or that they feel that they need to be as quick as possible and not consume extra time. I hold no positions on the sudden common use of motions. —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The Committee uses motions when it feels that a full case would prolong the dispute unnecessarily and the facts of the dispute are clear and generally agreed on by all parties. In both of the current situations (Trusilver/Sandstein and Durova/SH), the facts are obvious: in Trusilver's case, the situation took place essentially on the Committee's doorstep, and in Durova's case, they are both making the same accusations of each other, and neither is disputing the fact that they'd much like to avoid each other from now on. In both of the current situations, prolonging the dispute would not be helpful: in Trusilver's case, the Committee is now aware that there are some problems with the way AE is run, and that would be best settled quickly to avoid future misunderstandings, and in Durova's case, a full case would waste everyone's time, especially when both parties are agreeing to a simple motion that can solve the situation in one blow. If one of the two conditions I mentioned in the first sentence really doesn't apply, then we will certainly open a case, as we have done six times so far this year. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Those who are unhappy with wiki arbitration are more than welcome to run in the next election, get elected, and fix everything to their liking. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Or we could simply abolish the Arbitration Committee altogether. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 20:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

And never, ever desysop anyone anymore. :) --Conti|✉ 20:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee may be like democracy ("the worst form of government until you consider all the other forms"), but I sincerely doubt it. In a lot of ways, its continued existence isn't the result of necessity, but inertia. And, after all, one look at the way it was started indicates what level of "consensus" the body as a whole has overall.

Even some of the powers delegated to it have been slowly wrenched from its claws (notably, the election of Oversighters and CheckUsers), with a lot of actual community support behind doing so. I think there's a pretty decent case for letting the Wikimedia Foundation deal with any actual legal issues and letting the Community deal with content disputes. When you look at how the vast majority of other wikis and even most other online communities function, I don't think you'll find a lot of bureaucratic institutions similar to the English Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee. I'd be interested in evidence to the contrary, though. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what you are saying above sounds like some sort of alternate reality. Arbcom was originally appointed to handle the "personnel problems" that administrators and the community couldn't or wouldn't deal with; after that point, there has always been election for candidates. The last time that candidates weren't selected in the order of highest percentage of support was before any of the current arbitrators were elected. Problematic behaviour on the part of community members remains the primary focus of the Committee. The election of oversighters and checkusers draws surprisingly little response from the community, with less than 10% of regularly active editors commenting. The community does retain responsibility for dealing with the content disputes; that's not our scope. Arbcom rarely deals with legal issues. You are correct, though, that few online communities have a similarly open process for dealing with problematic members; most of them are run by unelected moderators who simply ban those problem users without recourse, do the equivalent of checkusering people without anyone knowing who has access to those tools or how it is being used, and deletions are permanent and leave no particular traces. Of course, Wikipedia also has one other major difference compared to other online communities. That is the development of a broad swath of content over a vast array of subjects. Those who are not here to do that, or to carry out activities that support the development and improvement of the encyclopedia, will probably feel more at home on Twitter or Facebook or any number of other online communities. Risker (talk) 07:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Focusing a bit on the original post, about twelve hours following it, Cool Hand Luke introduced a more lenient motion that appears to now have a majority of support. From what I've been watching, it looks like the original motion was put forth in haste and, with a little time, perspective emerged and emotions subsided among the Arbitrators and they are now being more reasonable. Funny, that. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

"There was a time when careful considerations were made for disputes and other issues on this site." MZMcBride, please name this golden age of ArbCom. Cool Hand Luke 21:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

From memory, that was the Geriatic Sloth With Osteoporosis When Resolving Urgent Issues era ArbCom. Is it not acknowledged that every ArbCom is worse than the one before, until sufficient time has passed and what was the red mist when editing workshop pages has mellowed and settled upon ones glasses? Just think, in another few years this current membership will be looked back upon fondly (well, perhaps not in every instance - but certainly better regarded than presently.) LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions only goes back to about July 2008. This means that either motions in lieu of cases are a relatively new thing, or they're not well-documented. Perhaps Paul August or someone has a more complete index?

There's a balance to be struck, to be sure, between an incredibly slow Arbitration Committee and a hasty one. Perhaps this incarnation of the Arbitration Committee is simply overcompensating? Though, the point about this Trusilver motion still stands. I don't think it felt right to most people (a few hard-liner Arbitrators excluded) to de-admin a user for a single unblock. Perhaps I'm simply misinterpreting what's been happening, and if so, feel free to correct me or point me in the right direction.

It did occur to me that in some ways, this reminds me of the two de-admin→re-admin incidents with Jimbo Wales. In both cases, there was a hasty reaction (removing administrator rights) and a reversal shortly after, when "the fear of God" had been put into the administrators. Seems to fit the bill here with Trusilver, as well. Though, again, if I'm way off the mark, let me know. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

So the golden age was before the adoption of closed motions? The good ol' days when cases could open and close in less than a week? I don't think much has changed here; the main difference is that we have more established norms for running a case, which makes very fast cases with relatively uncontroversial facts impossible. For those, we now use motions. Cool Hand Luke 00:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that the ArbCom has made good progress on developing a process that allows them to expedite decisions on cases that aren't as convoluted as others. I don't see a problem. Cla68 (talk) 22:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Cla68. An expedited process is usually better than a drawn-out one, and I'm skeptical that the arbs pay much attention to the Workshop and Evidence pages anyway. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you both are pretty familiar with how Arbitration cases generally evolve. Do you think if a full case were opened, there would be very good odds that Trusilver would be de-adminned? It's not just about means here, I'm arguing that the ends are affected by this hastening, often negatively. If a full case were opened and this were the only evidence to present (a poor unblock), it would fall drastically below the typical level and standard of evidence needed to remove an administrator. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I'm even more familiar with how Arbitration works. There's been no movement on this motion, and it still passes. I do not think the result would be different in a full case. I think it's probably a disproportionate sanction, but the current ArbCom is fairly law and order. Cool Hand Luke 02:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration cases have a much higher profile and attract much more drama than they did in, say, 2007. Where the facts are well known it does make more sense to pass a motion than to permit the parties to engage in a months-long festival of bickering.

Remember that the committee's powers are derived from Jimbo's. Typically parties would come to him with a dispute on which no consensus was possible, and he would settle it. This is the nature of the powers wielded here. A long hearing is, or should be, the last resort for very complex cases. Tasty monster (=TS ) 00:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

MzMcbride, you seem to be ignoring ArbCom's remit when you say it should be dissolved and its powers returned to the community. ArbCom exists to resolve disputes that the community can't. If you were to return this duty to the community we'd never get anything done. Ironholds (talk) 04:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Ironholds, I think the point here is that ARBCOM don't actually arbitrate in disputes, and yet we do need an arbitration committee that does arbitrate in disputes. The present ARBCOM do anything but arbitrate. Arbitration means identifying the opposing points of view in a dispute and discussing those points of view with the parties. It involves pushing each party to find out where the raw nerves are. It then involves proposing wordings which give priority to the reader, highlighting the controversies to the reader, while attempting to show some sensitivities to the extreme points of view on both sides. Recently I tried to arbitrate at Jerusalem. It wasn't easy. I concluded that the neutral American readers should have priority, and that the controversy should be weaved through the presentation of the facts in the introduction. I attempted to cater for the sensitivities on both the Palestinian side and the Israeli side. But the problem was that the extremists on the Israeli side didn't want to have the controversy reported alongside the status quo. An arbitration committee's job should be to continue pushing at both sides with a view to recommending a solution in which the neutral reader takes priority. But the present arbitration committee doesn't arbitrate. They merely ascertain which editors appear to be the most vulnerable numerically, and they then proceed to throw the book at them and send them off the pitch. That is the coward's way out of solving a problem. And ARBCOM have now realized that they can reach this same goal with a swift resolution, rather than going through all the unnecessary drama of a full drawn out case. ARBCOM in its present form needs to be swiftly abolished, since all it does is cause strife and discord. David Tombe (talk) 07:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Than that's a problem of linguistics, not jurisdiction. The initial description of arbitration you've given is completely unrelated to what you've recommended at the end. What you've described as "arbitration" is performed by the Mediation Committee; if you feel there's a dictionary problem there, put in a request for move :P. Ironholds (talk) 08:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

As an example of this; you seem to believe that the priority is the "neutral reader", i.e. the content. The Arbitration Committee does not get involved in content disputes - that's the Mediation Committee's job. I'd suggest looking at the organisations' initial goals and aims rather than Webster's.Ironholds (talk) 09:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that there is a mediation committee. Who is on the mediation committee? And why was the argument at 'speed of light' sent to ARBCOM and not to the mediation committee? David Tombe (talk) 11:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

See WP:MEDCOM. If the issue is one of user behaviour, ArbCom deals with it. If it is one where the primary problem is a group at loggerheads over content, MedCom deal with it. In the "speed of light" case, while it initially started as a content dispute (and would have been perfectly valid as a MedCom case) the increasing user misbehaviour in it moved it closer to ArbCom's jurisdiction. After all, mediation only works if both parties are fine with compromise. Ironholds (talk) 11:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

This is all news to me. I didn't know about WP:MEDCOM. It's existence clearly wasn't advertised when it was most needed, and I think that you have got some of your facts wrong regarding how the 'speed of light' case ended up at ARBCOM. I tried to mediate in the dispute just as I did at Jerusalem, and I saw exactly what happened. No attempt was ever made to invoke the official WP:MEDCOM. And I was not aware of any behavioural problems that warranted the involvement of ARBCOM. Now that I know that an official WP:MEDCOM does actually exist, I am more convinced than ever that ARBCOM serves no purpose beyond creating strife and discord, and that it should be abolished. Any disruption on wikipedia can easily be dealt with by ordinary administrators. What is really needed now is a mobile desysoping unit, contactable by e-mail, who can examine administrator abuse, unblock, and if necessary desysop. Division of power is the only way that harmony and progress can be restored on wikipedia. David Tombe (talk) 12:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You were sanctioned by ArbCom, and now you attack it and suggest abolishment. I'm not sure many people will be convinced by that argument. Jehochman ^Talk 12:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

There have been many suggestions for community removal of adminship (see Wikipedia:RFDA). Many, many suggestions have been made but no consensus has arisen so far. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 12:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately Jehochman, most people who haven't been sanctioned by ARBCOM are unaware of how an ARBCOM case proceeds. I can testify on the basis of first hand knowledge. David Tombe (talk) 12:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

But some are! And yet the people we see campaigning for its dissolution are yourself and MzMcBride - both people who have been sanctioned - and nobody else. Curious, don't you think? Ironholds (talk) 14:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Your statement, by the way, that disputes can be dealt with by admins - have you spent any time hanging around ANI? Or read the administrator policy? Admin-enacted blocks aren't entirely binding, administrators don't always agree with each other and even when they do, the community doesn't always agree with them. Some people reach such a medium of community love and hate that it's impossible to get decent consensus on whacking them with the shovel, regardless of how much dramah they cause. There's a reason this was handled by Jimbo and then ArbCom in the first place - because letting the community deal with every single problem, even when ArbCom disputes are by definition those which the community has been unable to solve, doesn't work. Ironholds (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Ironholds, I take it that you are trying to say that because I have been sanctioned by ARBCOM that my view on the matter is not impartial. Well of course there is never any shortage of people hanging around the ARBCOM noticeboard claiming that everything that ARBCOM does is correct, and so we need to balance those two factors out before coming to any premature conclusions. In answer to your question above, 'No. I don't spend any time hanging around AN/I apart from when I am participating in a thread.'

It seems to me that you are hanging around this notice board to uphold the party line, which of course means that you are naturally going to brush aside any suggestions that ARBCOM should be abolished. And you are mistaken in thinking that I actually came here expecting ARBCOM to take my views on board and to immediately rush through a resolution to abolish themselves. I was merely demonstrating a bit of solidarity with MzMcBride. That's all. I had never heard of MzMcBride before, but it seems that he has also seen the true nature of ARBCOM, and so he has my full sympathy. And by the way, I don't want the community to handle every single problem. I want to see a few 'ad hoc' mobile units created. David Tombe (talk) 14:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement blocks

I've said it on the noticeboard, where I haven't gotten a response, so I'll say it here again: The current arbitration enforcement system (any admin's discretion to block, no admin may undo of their own volition, Arbcom supervises) can work and can be the way of least drama, but *only* if Arbcom actually *does* supervise, and comments on controversial blocks even if they are already expired.

It is my opinion that a large part of why Trusilver decided to unblock out of principle is because he was convinced that the AE block would never be reviewed, following the close of the ANI discussion. In this particular case, the enforcement block was very much controversial in the community, but I have not seen any statement whether the block or block length was appropriate. SirFozzie gave some technical comment at the ANI discussion, but was not willing to comment on the actual block. In the motions, I see some opinions hinting that this block may not have been appropriate, but I haven't seen an arbcom statement so far whether it sees the block as correct and proportional - if I missed it, please point me towards it. If you require an official appeal, then I hereby request one, as a matter of principle (yes, one of those). A restarted community discussion would not, I believe, be fruitful in this case.

I am convinced that if you are unwilling to comment on AE blocks when they are controversial, even post facto, to give some kind of guidance for the future, and to give the assurance that "AE admining is not a license to kill", we will get into the same situation again. I'm not looking for consequences of any kind, still have no opinion myself, and I for one am thankful that Sandstein is doing this thankless job. Just a "yep, that's what we'd have done" or "that was over the top" will suffice - but I feel that some such a statement is absolutely required for future guidance, and most importantly to give admins in the same situation as Trusilver, who believe that an AE block was unfair in any way, assurance that it will not simply be ignored even if it's only a few more hours till the block expires.

Without such feedback, I'm certain that the system will break down again.

Amalthea 12:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't discussed this with my colleagues and am therefore speaking without my fez on, but probably the easiest and quickest way to get a formal endorsement or otherwise of individual adminstrator-imposed restrictions is via the Ban Appeals Sub-Committee. Roger Davies ^talk 12:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Any other comments? Is BASC now officially the venue for AE action reviews? It's not quite part of their mission statement. I'm not trying to be difficult, only wanting to prevent such problems in the future, and following up some comments in the motion. Amalthea 09:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Ironically, my core point is that Arbcom mustn't ignore certain issues, lest they will provoke issues like that again. Fits that I'm being so totally ignored. Amalthea 12:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Any block may be appealed to BASC however they typically don't review short term blocks. For example, a 72 hour block will usually run out by the time you get Arbcom to respond and react; it's just the dynamics of action by committee. This is why we have emergency procedures in place for real emergencies requiring only agreement of 3 arbs (such as when an admin goes rogue). Personally I agree with Sandstein's block. As for Trusliver, this admin wheel warring, especially at AE, needs to stop. I'd suggest if anyone has a concern over an AE action that they: 1) email arbcom and put at least "AE block review" in the subject line and 2) post a note on each BASC members talk page. I will ask arbcom about adding this to the BASC guidelines. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.
What annoys me about this situation is not this particular desysopping, or this particular AE block. It annoys me that Arbcom was happy to spend lots of time on sanctioning the incident, but hardly any at preventing the cause (that WP:AE ambiguity wasn't the problem). (ETA: "Annoy" is too strong a word, I have no emotional stake here. I find it handled unsatisfactorily. I annoys me though that my point is being largely ignored, without even someone claiming that I'm wrong.)
As I've said, I don't find it essential that an AE block is reviewed immediately. What is essential is that editors know that a Arbcom will eventually comment on a controversial AE block, and that AE isn't a license to kill, as Cool Hand Luke put it. In the Trusilver case, it was unfortunate that the community discussion was cut short by delegating the review to Arbcom. A community consensus (of either kind) would I believe have prevented the problem. Once it was, though, that was the equivalent to dropping the matter entirely and moving on. If Arbcom has generally no intention or no time to review controversial AE blocks and BASC isn't reviewing short term AE blocks, then stress on WP:AE that AE blocks should only be appealed in a community discussion, since Arbcom doesn't normally respond. Fine by me. If you're simply lacking time to do all that's asked of you, then that might the core of the problem that needs addressing. But don't just ignore this.
A similar thing *already* happened with Tothwolf (talk · contribs): He was indef blocked due to an email following an AE block. The indef was appealed to the community, an arbitrator said essentially "Na-uh, we'll take care of it", Arbcom didn't make any follow-up statement despite numerous direct requests (essentially "we're busy, ask again later"), so after 18 days of silence an uninvolved admin simply unblocked. Almost the same situation.
If you ignore this and just continue with business as usual, it will happen again. Amalthea 10:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I virtually throw up my hands in resignation. I'm not getting replies addressing my point, so I don't know whether I'm wrong, not clear enough, or y'all just don't care. Handle it as you wish (i.e. not, apparently), but I am now convinced that Arbcom is part of the problem here, although obviously the part that has more pull.
I'm very suddenly and to me surprisingly starting to believe that the current organization is a very bad idea. I don't know if you sought or were pushed into a more absolutist role then initially envisaged, but you either need to go all in and handle it (benevolently), or pass the ball back. What's happening right now is just bad management. Amalthea 10:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the wall of silence—I think your point is a good one, and it is being discussed internally. At this point, I'm inclined to agree with Roger that the supervisory aspect could be handled by BASC, but that's also easy for me to say, since I haven't served a term on BASC yet. Steve Smith (talk) 13:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Internal mailing lists are double-edged swords; you of course need a place to speak your minds, handle sensitive data, and sometimes to appear as one entity, but the lack of transparency makes it hard to witness progress, and topics that aren't pressing or exciting enough tend to get dropped. But I'm looking forward to some kind of result then. Amalthea 15:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

It is being discussed now. But this isn't actually a very good page to push things forward, as not many people (and clearly not many arbitrators) watch it. I only found out about this discussion because of it being flagged up a few times by my colleagues. There have been discussions within the community and ArbCom before on how to make AE more efficient and less random and to encourage more participation by admins, and to ensure it is not such a stressful experience for all, but it is difficult. Almathea, have you read the RFC on this that took place last year? WP:AERFC is the link. It might be a good time to have another RfC, but I would suggest some preliminary discussion to ensure it is set up fairly to represent all views, and doesn't skew to the first view posted. Carcharoth (talk) 22:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkpage of the announcement noticeboard didn't seem right, and mails to arbcom-l didn't prove particularly fruitful in the past either, so this appeared to be a good alternative. And I wasn't aware of the previous RFC on the topic, no. What was the result? Heh.
I for one have no problem with AE and its rules in principle. The more I thought about this, I think the core problem here and the larger issue in general is the lack of issue tracking and transparency of arbcom-related actions, where the common people's hands are pretty much tied and one has to hope for some result coming out of the arbcom-l-blackbox. Amalthea 15:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Next election of Checkusers

As a sysop over the past 2-1/2 years, I've found that it would be extremely useful to have Checkuser functions, especially to avoid collateral damage when making blocks. As my block log shows, I've rarely blocked established users (the last was 11/25/09). I've actually avoided range blocks entirely, due to the risk of blocking a whole country and innocent noobs, and have almost never made 5-i indef blocks. Meanwhile, the vandalism on my user and talk pages has become frantic. I'm interested in acquiring checkuser functions. When is the next election, or can the ArbCom appoint me? Would going back to WP:RFA help? Bearian (talk) 23:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

mmh, yesterday you have blocked a German user for 3 months, because he had given you a note to his talksite. You have named that vandalism. Before you have tried to delete an article because the author had been blocked in the meantime. You reason was Notability questionable and was created by a now-banned user accused of sockpuppetry. As every student knows, being accused of something means nothing, especially when you are the accuser by yourself according to this edit. Might be interesting whether you will find someone to give you the checkuser-tools 78.55.203.154 (talk) 17:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom is working on getting things ready for the next CU/OS election. I hope to get an announcement out soon with details on eligibility and how to apply. KnightLago (talk) 18:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Implementation of bureaucrat removal of admin and crat flags

Following from the two discussions on giving bureaucrats the technical ability to remove admin and bureaucrat flags, in February 2009 and then January 2010, and the more recent discussion on implementation; a clear conclusion is that a concrete policy governing bureaucrats' use of this tool is desired. Accordingly, there is now a policy proposal at Wikipedia:Administrators#Bureaucrat removal, which mandates bureaucrats to remove rights only in the uncontroversial instances. Please come and share any thoughts on the proposal at the associated discussion. Happy‑melon 12:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

How do you report administrators and bots who vandalise?

(e.g. rouge admins and thier bots and aliases)

How do you report administrators and bots who vandalise? Dogo Argentino and Peter Bielkowicz have been repeatedly vandalised by bots, scripts/programs i.e. WP:TW Huggle i.e. CheesyBiscuit and administrators like Ohnoitsjamie Grayshi who was user GraYoshi2x and others swicthing SQL text so its difficult to check what was even revised! Please check Ohnoitsjamie and Woogee page full of lament. I am not the only frustrated user trying to build wikipedia... —Including agressive blocks by Rodhullandemu This is a Very valid complaint! Please Check refs on Peter Bielkowicz and health and other atributes of Dogo Argentino plus recent edits of both pages! --83.9.215.46 (talk) 23:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:AN or WP:A/R. MBisanz ^talk 00:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Revisiting the Bogdanov Affair?

The article Bogdanov Affair is about an academic dispute which spilled over into disruptive editing of the article itself. In Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Regarding_The_Bogdanov_Affair it was decided that new users editing the page would be presumed to be external participants in the affair and were subject to bans; a relatively intrusive notice was added to the top of the article to warn them of this. I believe it's now been years since any such disruptive editing took place; indeed, the notice was removed by Jac16888 (talk · contribs) over two years ago citing the ruling's age, with no attendant return to vandalism. I've just restored the notice, partly since it's really Arbcom's decision to remove and partly because making new users subject to bans but not warning them is hardly an ideal solution. However, I agree with Jac16888 and would like to suggest that Arbcom considers repealing the motion: there's no point having a big notice which is distracting to readers and scary to newbies if the risk of disruption is now gone.

Apologies if this is the wrong venue for such a request. Olaf Davis (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

It is nearly 4.5 years now. If you think a formal motion to remove the notice is needed, I suggest filing a request for amendment. Please ask a clerk if you need further assistance. Carcharoth (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't realised requesting amendments went under the normal RfAr procedure. Thanks, I think I know what to do. Olaf Davis (talk) 22:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Duplicate BLP motion

In case the committee is not aware, there is a page that duplicates (and goes beyond) the Motion regarding BLP deletions at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Motion regarding biographies of living people deletions. This duplicate page was drafted by editors apparently aligned on one side of the BLP debate. It seems to put words in the committee's mouth, or at the very least frames their words with a specific intent, and I do not believe such a page is appropriate to have.

I personally would choose to redirect the duplicate, "unofficial" page to the official announcement of the motion, but I assume I would be reverted if I did so. Can I call upon the committee to comment on this matter?--Father Goose (talk) 03:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The Committee is, indeed, aware of that page. In your view, what makes its existence inappropriate? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 03:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a potential for confusion, that people reading the essay think it represents an official or sanctioned interpretation of the decision on the motion - or is the decision itself. One would think a careful editor would take this for the essay it is, but apparently some people are confused. For example, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Header incorrectly (?) links via a redirect to the essay rather than the motion, as a pending request. The proposed policy Wikipedia:Unreferenced biographies of living people contains a link to the essay that is incorrectly noted as a WP:PIPE to the motion. A primary author of the essay attempted to include it as a "see also" link from WP:BLP.[1] At a minimum, essays about Arbcom actions should not contain titles or redirects that would confuse people in this way. It also seems misplaced to save it under WP:ArbCom. I wonder whether controversial essays about ArbCom actions should be stored in WP space at all, but I think that would be a question for the community, not ArbCom. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a good summary of the problems. Expanding upon that: to my knowledge, it is the only page in Category:Wikipedia Arbitration Committee rulings that was not written by the committee itself. The duplicate BLP page contains quite a few statements not authored by the committee, and it emphasizes portions of the motion in ways that I feel alter its message.

But by having it as a subpage of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee, in such an official tone, it is easily mistaken as a page authored by the committee. While you personally may be comfortable with it, do your colleagues also implicitly endorse it? And are they or you comfortable with further editing of it by the community? A comparable page, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, is labeled as being off-limits to editing by anyone but ArbCom members. A similar tag cannot be applied to the BLP page, because it wasn't authored by ArbCom in the first place.

Unless you're all prepared to vote on adopting it as a restatement or superset of the summary motion, my thinking is it shouldn't be in the arbcom "namespace"; shouldn't be marked as one of your rulings; and shouldn't even be marked as a {{supplement}} of WP:BLPDEL -- unless you (ArbCom) are comfortable positioning yourselves as having a role in authoring policy and associated pages.--Father Goose (talk) 07:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Subpages of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests, and related pages are within the full control of the committee, and exist to facilitate the committee's work. It was my assumption that any page therein was assented to and authored by the committee. Having this page within the "official" pages is misleading. The essay would be better placed at somewhere like Wikipedia:Biographies of living people/Summary of motion regarding BLP deletions. AGK 11:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I'll just be bold and move it to regular "Wikipedia" space. If the committee wishes to take possession of the page and claim it as their words, to be edited only by them, then by all means, the committee may reverse my actions.--Father Goose (talk) 20:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Good call on moving it somewhere else. KnightLago (talk) 23:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Unethical? Without commenting on the actual move that took place, I do wish to comment that I found it a tad unethical on the part of User:Father Goose to move the page without initiating discussions on its talk page, or informing perhaps the major author (that is me). But I would give him a huge benefit of doubt. I'm leaving this note to mention that I intend reverting some of his changes, but also do some editing on the page because of the following reasons:

I believe the page should be edited to remove all external additions (that is, information that does not pertain to the arbcom ruling) and should be kept under the arbcom umbrella, more or less.

Why! Because the ruling and its background need a good summary; and I do believe the summary is justified for readers who might not be able to reach the original arbcom ruling or might be able to understand the sequence of events.

How! We could place the tag that this is an archive version and that people should not change the contents (which I plan doing).

Kindly do change (or revert) if you're unsatisfied with the changes I've undertaken. However, kindly in the future ethically inform the parties involved, especially as they might be able to bring in interesting, yet opposing viewpoints. Thanks ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 06:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Wifione, if you regard yourself as "the major author" - looking at the page history, that is reasonable - then that is all the more reason not to have this in the Arbcom workspace, as you aren't the Arbitration Committee. If you regard it as a good idea to continue actively editing the page, that is another reason not to have it in the Arbcom workspace, since it's currently presented as an archive related to a past case and keeping it in Arbcom space asserts that Arbcom is saying exactly this. I would strongly suggest that one of the following should happen: 1.) Preferably, Arbcom should own the fact that this is a problem, and should move the page out of their workspace with instructions not to return it. 2.) If Arbcom continues not to own this, the authors of the page, such as yourself, should own the problem - this involves an understanding that there is in fact a problem - and move the page yourself 3.) If neither of the above can actually happen, some concerned editor should send the page to MfD for deletion. As I am a concerned editor as described in clause 3, I intend to implement that action unless I see one of the other two being undertaken. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Even in greatly condensed form the essay is unofficial and presents an incomplete (and therefore biased) assessment of the situation. The ArbCom issue at hand was not over whether unsourced BLPs should be deleted, but whether administrators should be engaging in out-of-process use of tools on an IAR basis over the objections of others to do so, and whether blocking administrators who were doing that and wheel warring over the same were acceptable. The committee wisely told everyone to calm down but, unwisely, also commended the administrator - which lead them to have to issue a clarification that further out-of-process article deletions were not acceptable. To say that there was some support and some opposition to the actions, without mentioning that consensus on the ensuing RfC soundly rejected the "delete on sight" approach, presents an inaccurate picture of community consensus and is therefore inappropriate as any official summary of what happened. Although it is marked as an essay, marking it archived, edit warring over attempts to move it, and titling it to suggest that it is the definitive summary, are all inconsistent with presenting a fair picture of where the community stands on the issue. If anyone wishes to opine about arbcom, BLPs, deletion criteria, and such, there are plenty of places and ways to do it. Pushing those opinions into policy space is not the most helpful approach. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I have asked Wifione to move the article from the Committee's space as soon as possible. KnightLago (talk) 14:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the messages. I have no issues over the page being moved back to where FatherGoose had moved it to initially (As I'm not an admin, I won't be able to do the same - as the page already exists. It'll be nice if FatherGoose, or one of the admins, could do the same). Having said that, I'm sure that "the relevance of involving parties involved in the creation of any page is not forgotten in future discussions" by editors wishing to move pages, however qualified or however high-up they might be. To that effect, I appreciate FatherGoose's reply and Knight's note on my talk involving me post my bringing up the issue. Thanks again for the messages and warm regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 08:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Thread at WP:AN regarding new developments in arbitration enforcement policy

[2] Beeblebrox (talk) 20:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

CheckUser and Oversight Elections

The Arbitration Committee has determined that there is a need for additional oversighters and checkusers to improve workload distribution and ensure complete, timely response to requests. Beginning yesterday, experienced editors are invited to apply for either or both of the Oversight or CheckUser permissions. Current holders of either permission are also invited to apply for the other. The last day to request an application is April 10, 2010. For more information, please see the election page.

For the Arbitration Committee - KnightLago (talk) 16:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Wikipedia:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement

Hello everybody. After the most recent flareup in the Israel/Palestine wikiconflict (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive606#Enough), I've proposed and - after positive initial feedback - drafted a framework for a Wikipedia:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement. Before widely advertising this on the admin noticeboards, I'd appreciate it if arbitrators and clerks could give the project framework a brief look just in case they find some aspect of it unhelpful. Any improvements or comments are of course also appreciated. I'm not looking for an official seal of approval, but I want to make sure that we are not somehow working at cross-purposes to the Committee. Thanks, Sandstein 21:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Having briefly looked over the project's pages, I think this is a commendable effort, and would encourage all administrators regularly involved in enforcement activities to participate. The Committee has traditionally made few significant inroads in streamlining the enforcement processes—due, in no small part, to the fact that we are necessarily detached from how these processes work on a day-to-day basis—and it would be quite beneficial if the administrative corps were able to improve the process without the need for us to be directly involved. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned about "Users". That takes the focus away from "articles" and invites a defacto black-list of editors on both sides of a contentious issue. Other than that, one-stop shopping for key conflicts and issues is both useful and (used properly) informative. Apologies I'm not a clerk or an arbitrator, however, I am an interested party. PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 01:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

CheckUser and Oversight Elections have started

The May 2010 CheckUser and Oversight Elections have started. Please see the election page for details.

For the Arbitration Committee - KnightLago (talk) 14:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

You have mail

Arbcom, you have mail awaiting moderation. As in a previous case an email of mine to you seemed to get lost in the system, I'm giving you a reminder here. DuncanHill (talk) 22:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, both DuncanHill and LessHeard vanU. Both emails have been received and acknowledged. Risker (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Admin status

I have been advised this is the place for this, I thought AN and then BN and have been directed here. I am not forum shopping this, just looking for the right place to ask as imo as it seems a situation that is in need of attention.

User:Tbsdy lives seems to have left under quite strange circumstances, and actually since he was re-sopped at the Bureaucrats noticeboard as a returnee under no cloud there were multiple instances of disruption involving him, he has retired as I know and has user page deleted. One of his essays was nominated for deletion today and he appears to still be watching his talkpage as he commented soon after http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tbsdy_lives&curid=27358511&diff=363746318&oldid=363741621 by saying "don't care" and deleting the template. As it was also mentioned on Newyokbrad's talkpage recently I was wondering, what is his current Administrator status and what would be the position regarding that status if he chose to return? At this present time he appears to still be a Sysop. Off2riorob (talk) 17:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Off2riorob. We are aware of the concerns you and others have expressed, have been watching closely, and anticipate a resolution in the near future. As Tbsdy lives is not actively editing or using administrator tools, it does not constitute an issue that requires immediate response, but we haven't forgotten. And yes, this is probably the right forum, sorry you got the runaround. Risker (talk) 17:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

At this present time he appears not to be a Sysop per this list, but there is no public explanation for that circumstance in this log. — Jeff G. ツ 20:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

For technical and historical reasons, granting of administrator rights (sysopping) is done by an English Wikipedia bureaucrat and appears in the En-WP logs, but removal of rights (desysopping) has to be effectuated by a steward on Meta and appears only in the logs over there. This is a well-known issue that applies to anyone whose adminship has been resigned or removed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Jeff, this link may help. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It does, thanks! — Jeff G. ツ 04:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks. I think at some closure would be a good thing in this case. I realize it is a sensitive issue and that it is not an immediate problematic issue. I appreciate the reply, ta. Off2riorob (talk) 18:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

This matter is being followed up. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

As noted on the Bureaucrats' noticeboard this morning, Tsbdy lives agreed to resign his adminship, and the rights have been removed. Under the circumstances of his departure, the right to have adminship restored on request would not apply. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

(posting under a cable account that will soon no longer be used). I only knew about this because I checked Newyorkbrad's talk page and noticed that this had been taken here by following various links. I have been in correspondence with a variety of people via email, and I readily accede to NYB's request. Certainly I have no intention of editing here any more - my only further comment is that the fact that I have been called a liar by a number of people is defamatory, uncivil, insensitive and a violation of WP:NPA and WP:AGF. - 122.107.77.70 (talk) 12:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

hOUNDinofde de disabld gozUNchekdher!!

fe c blok usr史凡o/en.wp jan09!!

just 1/anothe ex:"I have diagnosed Sven with w:Münchausen syndrome and I find indef-block justified.--Vahagn Petrosyan 11:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[3][de meta-guysresignd-unde presurfromEPet.al?[dey'dme blokd asSven70 on wp jan2009 metryin2makmycase:(
- admits'imslf:"Because typing is hard! Duh. :) --Vahagn Petrosyan 23:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC) [4]
Thank you for your input, but we currently have 101 admins here. We are capable of resolving the issue without interference from outside. --Vahagn Petrosyan 19:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC) [5]
" Add to this occasional drama queen outbursts in Beer Parlour like this.

   Please, take up another hobby. Origami, for example. --Vahagn Petrosyan 20:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

[6]as aside[jew-rant];or":#No Gypsies

No Puerto Ricans"[7]>en.wt,nice place uh?[gros abus sems purgd ofref---Please note, I have [[Repetitive Strain Injury]] and find typing very hard. I use a form of shorthand, which may be difficult to understand. I can be contacted through MSN (sven70) or Skype (sven0921) if my meaning is unclear. (talk) 01:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee is only able to deal with issues that occur on the English Wikipedia. The discussion you've referenced is on the Wiktionary project who have their own forms of dispute resolution that you can follow. Unfortunately I am not familiar with their process for requesting unblocks, though looking at the Help pages seems to suggest you can request an unblock on your talk page or email the blocking admin. Sorry we couldn't be of further assistance. Shell ^babelfish 01:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

thisnedsWMF2lukin2>pl'elpme2pudis onpropesite4elp!!---Please note, I have [[Repetitive Strain Injury]] and find typing very hard. I use a form of shorthand, which may be difficult to understand. I can be contacted through MSN (sven70) or Skype (sven0921) if my meaning is unclear. (talk) 01:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer status

Dear Arbcom, please accept my apologies, I have been remiss. Please see this. I have little stomach for a long, prolonged and ultimately fruitless kerfuffle with the admin cadre regarding this. With respect to removal of reviewer rights (should I request/accept them), it seems that the admin cadre will be unilaterally empowered to remove rights I have enjoyed for years, to edit semi-protected articles at whatever capricious whim they deign to be valid. I have suggested that the power to remove my right to edit, and have that edit viewed by the public, which is fundamental to my enjoyment of wikipedia, is one which only ARBCOM should have the power to revoke. Furthermore, the capricious and false removal of such rights should be subject to ARBCOM sanction with desyssop a natural consequence of vexatious removal. Are you willing to take on such a role? --Joopercoopers (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that no one seems to have noted your query in the past week; this is not a heavily watched page compared to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests. The short answer to your question from my point of view is that how these new rights are handled is a policy matter, and that the arbitrators will undertake any responsibilities the community chooses to confer upon us. A more useful answer might be that I hope there are few, if any, controversies about conferral of reviewer rights, just as the implementation of the rollbacker right has probably run more smoothly than some people anticipated at the outset. And certainly I hope we can avoid disputes about who may have the reviewer role during the course of the current trial, which is of very limited scope. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I initiated a thread (prior to noticing this) at Wikipedia talk:Reviewing#On denying requests for reviewer permission, which should address, and hopefully alleviate, Joopercoopers' concerns. –xeno^talk 15:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I need help finding Info

Where can I find requests the Arbitration Committee has agreed with and granted? Lechonero (talk) 15:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests has most of them. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Lechonero (talk) 15:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Please check policy addition

Please could someone knowledgeable take a look at this and check whether I've described the meanings of 1RR and 0RR correctly. (They were previously defined in an essay rather than in policy, and not very rigorously.)--Kotniski (talk) 12:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

CU/Oversight election

So, after a month and a half of now fizzled out conversation on the subject, ArbCom has yet to comment as a group on what, if any, action will be taken regarding the "unacceptable result" of the recent elections. I guess I thought that announcing that the result was not acceptable indicated that something was going to be done about it, but to all outward appearances it seems the result is going to be allowed to stand. The RFC on the subject has never been closed either. I don't mean to be pushy, but an up or down answer on whether the result is going to be allowed to stand or if some other action is going to be taken seems to be in order. I just want closure on this thing. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

This has been the subject of discussion on the arbitrators' mailing list over the last couple of days, and I expect we'll have something solid to announce within a week. Steve Smith (talk) 21:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a relief, I was starting to wonder if this hadn't fallen off the radar altogether. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd be lying if I said that our attention to it hasn't been a little intermittent, but it's squarely on our radar now. Assuming that things can be squarely on one's radar. Steve Smith (talk) 21:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a note that this is still on our radar and progressing forwards. Carcharoth (talk) 07:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Logo

It's a stale joke, its inclusion is completely contrary to other similar pages, and it's ugly. Are there reasonable arguments for keeping it at the top of the page? --MZMcBride (talk) 00:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Besides that you unilaterally removed it? It's not ugly. It's been there awhile and you're the only one to complain. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It was unilaterally added. WP:BRD is something you're surely familiar with. (Or, if not, we're in the D stage.) I don't think being the single voice of complaint is a valid reason to use such an ugly logo. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's neither here nor there; the decision to use a logo is not generally based on whether there are complaints about it. Your point about the logo being "ugly" is noted, however; if you are so inclined, please create a logo that you find more attractive, and we will consider using it instead. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 13:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

No, Kirill. This is a community page. It should follow community standards. The standard is not include overly large and unattractive logos at the top of the page. Is there a reason to make an exception here? --MZMcBride (talk) 17:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Two reasons come to mind:

There are many project-space pages which include logos of various sorts, particularly those associated with groups of Wikipedians; the use of the logo here, while not necessarily standard in the minutiae of formatting, is by no means exceptional in principle.
Even if the logo were exceptional, it is a well-established community principle that the Arbitration Committee has authority over the layout and contents of pages related to arbitration.

As I've mentioned, you're certainly welcome to propose an alternative layout if you find this one not to your liking; but I see no justification in either policy or convention for the idea that you should have the authority to force changes on it unilaterally. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 17:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The use of such a prominent logo/header does seem to be unusual. By way of comparison, WP:MEDCAB has a logo lower down on the page, and WP:MEDCOM does not appear to have any logo at all. Apparently (from the edit history) at least two arbitrators wish to have the logo retained, and their opinions have significant weight with regard to arbitration pages. Admittedly however, on a basic level, the logo does not seem to fit well, perhaps because such bold logos are highly uncommon. Lewis Windsor (talk) 05:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

If there really was nothing more significantly wrong with WP's arbitration system than whether the committee had a big logo on its page, I think we could all be very happy.--Kotniski (talk) 17:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, we haven't heard many complaints recently, but that may be simply because there's no good venue for them. Would it be worthwhile to either (a) open another RFC on the arbitration system or (b) create a more obvious way for people to register their thoughts on it? We're certainly very interested in hearing what people think we should be doing differently; if we don't get feedback, it's difficult for us to improve. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 17:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, there was a time when quite a lot of people were giving feedback, but it seemed always to be ignored (for example, ArbCom were always promising that a new draft of arbitration policy was just around the corner, but of course it never materialized, and eventually debate just fizzled out).--Kotniski (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The delays in getting a new Arbitration Policy out were largely (though somewhat indirectly) my fault; my resignation from the Committee last year left that effort stranded with nobody really driving it forward, and it has been steadily pushed down the priority list by more pressing issues this year. I will try and get some movement going on it shortly, however; I realize it must be frustrating to see no progress on the matter.

I assume, however, that the delays in producing a new draft are not the only concern people have? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 18:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, seeing we're on the subject of concerns people have, there's the checkuser/oversight election thing.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

A draft motion is currently being discussed on arbcom-l; we should have something ready for publication within the next few days. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 18:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Good to hear! I'm assuming it's not the same sort of "should be ready for publication" that the drafting arbitrator said in the Race and Intelligence case, where IIRC, an approximate date was set 3 times and the expectation was not met on all 3 occasions, leaving the duration of delay to something like a month and a half. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

From experience, that's the sort of length of time I understand ArbCom to mean when they say "a few days". As for concerns, mine are that the arbitration process still doesn't seem to be directed towards solving Wikipedia's problems, just providing a venue for a drama-fest and then handing out prizes for performance. (Though I'm not a regular observer - things may have improved somewhat.)--Kotniski (talk) 09:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Your comment has some level of relevance; the case I referred to was directed to arbitration on the basis that it would effectively resolve the dispute (eliminating the drama fest), but the effect of the delay has achieved the opposite (the casepages are still officially a drama fest). I thought that after getting the first two estimations so incredibly wrong, another arbitrator would have taken over by now given: (1) there are apparently no issues with management; (2) that's not what case pages exist for, and, (3) all arbitrators should be up to date with what has been posted in evidence anyway. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Updating Arbitration policy

The latest draft of the proposed update to the Arbitration policy is here with discussion of the draft here. All editors are cordially invited to participate. Roger Davies ^talk 03:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you all add Captcha to the emails for safety? 72.148.31.114 (talk) 08:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Question

This is possibly a dumb question. Is it generally ok to ban one specific user from editing pages previously edited by one particular user, or from reverting this users edits? This just happens on huwiki based on the decisions of the Hungarian Arbitration Committee. I'm curious what is the opinion here about this, and whether this practice is the violation of the three-revert rule for example. Föld-lét (talk) 09:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

(Sorry, just a private answer, not being a member of the Committee) As far as I understand you, the type of ban you describe is quite common (it tends to be called an "interaction ban"). I don't see why it would be in violation of the three-revert rule. In any case Hungarian WP has its own rules and customs, not bound by those of English WP.--Kotniski (talk) 15:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Well because some editors may have the right to revert 0 times. I think this is quite simple, isn't it. But anyway, if this practice is common, than I guess there's little to do against it right now. Wikipedia is heading towards less freedom.

Wikipedias have to have something in common at some point, and maybe the fundamental rules is that. Thank you a lot for your answer. Föld-lét (talk) 17:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The three-revert rule (at least, in its English Wikipedia form) isn't intended as giving everyone a right to revert a certain number of times (you can still be warned and blocked for edit-warring if you don't breach 3RR), but rather laying down a bright line, saying that while you may be blocked for all sorts of behaviour, step over this line and it becomes particularly likely you'll get blocked. (I don't agree with the 3RR by the way, partly because of the fundamental but apparently quite reasonable misunderstandings it generates.) --Kotniski (talk) 09:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

ACE2010 General Questions

Feedback on the draft General Questions from arbitrators and clerks (and any other interested editors at this early stage) would be welcome. The election coordinators from ACE2009 plan to put these Questions to an RfC in the next month. This would assist in making the formal election process shorter than the 49 days it took last year. (The plan is to start the election around the same time—early November—but to finish early rather than late December.)

Your advice concerning technical, practical, logistical and linguistic matters is particularly sought, so that we can present the community with a set of questions that is likely to gain consensus without major changes.

The draft is in my userspace at the moment for want of a better place; we intend to move it into mainspace when it is in a more settled form.

LINK

Thank you. Tony (talk) 07:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Update on Audit Subcommittee

The Audit Subcommittee is a subcommittee of the Arbitration Committee, tasked to review and act upon concerns and complaints about checkuser and oversight activities received from the community. Membership consists of three community representatives elected by the community, who serve one-year terms; and three arbitrators, who rotate through this assignment for approximately six months.

In advance of the scheduled election/appointment of community representatives to the Audit Subcommittee, a summary of activity has been posted on the subcommittee's report page.

The community is invited to discuss this report, as well as preferred methods and terms for the selection of community representatives to participate in the audit process. The result of the discussion will inform the Arbitration Committee on how best to proceed before progressing to another election cycle.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) Cross-posted by NW (Talk) 20:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Input needed from an Arb

Here, regarding User:Bad edits r dumb. It is my understanding that Arbcom is in possession of the Checkuser data identifying Berd's previous account. Without providing any identifying data, of course, can a member of Arbcom please comment on the points raised in the (sprawling) thread? Specifically: was this a proper use of WP:CLEANSTART? Was the user in good standing at the time of the clean start? Is the behaviour going on right now (refusal to use proper English, etc) the same as or similar to behaviour of the previous account? Was the previous account blocked for the same or similar disruptive actions as are occurring now? → ROUX ₪ 07:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

A vote of 5 to 2 (in favor of releasing this information) took place here: [8]. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 08:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom is not goverend by external votes of this nature!!! and u can make it 5 to 3 because I refuse to support (although I am admittedly biased in favor of maintaining my privacy).--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 08:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Clarification: The identity of this user is not being requested. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 08:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The account has since been indefinitely blocked, making this request somewhat moot. –xeno^talk 13:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Request. Actually, this issue IS NOT YET ready to be laid to rest. If the user "returns with a new account" as has been suggested on the AN/I thread and the user's talk page, can someone please educate me as to how this would not be sockpupetting? Thorncrag 20:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Do We Have Consensus To Continue?

Do we have consensus to continue this arbitration committee?199.126.224.245 (talk) 12:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

See user's talk page and block log for context. Hans Adler 13:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I see they just came off a one month block "due to abuse by banned user 100110100 (talk · contribs)." Dougweller (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

ommision

Not that it is going to keep me up nights or anything, but is there some reason I'm not listed in the section on the functionaries mailing list? Beeblebrox (talk) 00:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Um, you're too cool to enumerate? :-) Not that I know of. Feel free to plug yourself in. — Coren ^(talk) 00:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Announcing the 2010 Arbitration Committee Elections

Preparations are underway for the annual elections to the Arbitration Committee, due to take place mid-November to mid-December. Provisional election pages have been set up based on the model of the 2009 elections, which were conducted using the SecurePoll secret ballot system. The proposed timetable allows for a 10-day nomination period (from Sunday November 14 to Tuesday November 23), a 10-day voting period (Friday November 26 to Monday December 6), and a subsequent period for the vote to be audited by independent scrutineers.

Until the call for nominations on November 14, the parameters of the election are open to community examination and feedback. A draft set of nine general questions to be posed to each candidate has been established (voters will also be able to ask unique questions of individual candidates). Editors interested in helping to organise the elections are encouraged to sign up as volunteer coordinators.

Working as an arbitrator is an important and demanding role, and there is perennial need for new volunteers to take it on. This year, 10 arbitrators are expected to be chosen; experienced and committed editors are urged to seriously consider standing.

Discuss this at the election talkpage.

For the coordinators, Skomorokh 11:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Lifting editing restrictions

Please assist I have been all over the place trying to get these editing restrictions lifted and the most recent avenue was posting to User talk:Coren twice (last post) with no response. Will someone please respond to me on this matter--preferably on my talk, but I'll check here also? Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Justin, based on the info at WP:ARBCOM#BASC, I surmise that you should email your appeal to the ArbCom Ban Appeals Subcommittee at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. PhilKnight (talk) 15:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Nominations are now open for the 2010 Arbitration Committee Elections

Nominations are now open for candidates to run in the 2010 Arbitration Committee Elections.

To become an arbitrator is to take on an important and demanding role, and there is perennial need for new volunteers to step forward. This year, an unprecedented 11 arbitrators are expected to be chosen. Nomination is open to any editor in good standing over the age of 18, who is of legal age in their place of residence, and who has made at least 1,000 mainspace edits before the opening of the nomination period; candidates are not required to be administrators or to have any other special permissions. Experienced and committed editors are urged to seriously consider standing. Thoughts and advice from past and present members of the Arbitration Committee are available at the following pages:

October 2010 Signpost interview: "So what is being an arbitrator actually like?"
Arbitrator Risker's "Thoughts for Arbitration Committee Candidates"

Nominations will be accepted from today, 14 November 2010 through 23 November 2010, with voting scheduled to begin on 26 November. To submit your candidacy, proceed to the candidates page and follow the instructions given. For the coordinators, Skomorokh 00:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate arb conduct

Ball's in your court: [9] [10]. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Given that said arbitrator's seat is up for election this year, I expect the matter will soon be resolved to the community's satisfaction, one way or another. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 20:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Kirill-- I just saw this, and hadn't realized that. Perhaps I shouldn't have taken so much time hoping she might apologize to FAC reviewers. :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

And perhaps even less time making repeated attacks while ignoring my immediate apology the moment the error in my comment was mentioned [11]. Shell ^babelfish 00:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Nice edit summary; if you'd like, I can rustle up a few admins who'd gladly RevDel it for you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Since we've established that this is essentially a dead issue at this point perhaps we could just, you know, stop stirring the pot. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee Elections: voting now open

Voting is now open in the November-December 2010 elections to elect new members to the Arbitration Committee. Voting will be conducted using the Securepoll extension and will close on Sunday 5 December 2010 at 23:59 (UTC).

In order to be eligible to vote, an account must have had made at least 150 mainspace edits on or before 1 November 2010 (check your account). Blocked editors may not vote, and voting with multiple accounts or bot accounts is expressly forbidden. Note that due to technical restrictions, editors who have made more than 150 mainspace edits on or before 1 November 2009 but no longer have access to the account(s) used will not be able to vote. If you have any questions about this, please ask on the election talkpage.

For each candidate, voters may choose to Support or Oppose the candidacy, or to remain Neutral (this option has no effect on the outcome). Voting must be done in a single sitting, with a verdict made on every candidate. After your entire vote has been accepted, you may make changes at any time before the close of voting. However, a fresh default ballot page will be displayed and you will need to complete the process again from scratch (for this reason, you are welcome to keep a private record of your vote), as your new ballot page will erase the previous one. You may verify the time of acceptance of your votes at the real-time voting log. Although this election will use secret ballots, and only votes submitted in this way will be counted, voters are invited to question and discuss the candidates throughout the election.

To cast your vote, please proceed here.

For the coordinators, Skomorokh 00:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Official Comment required

We have always been told for several years that former Arbs and non-Arbs had no access to confidential Arbcom files and sensitive and private information concerning editors. This has now been proven to be not the case. In short, security is at best non-existant and incompetent; at worst, the community's trust has been abused. Can we have some official comment on how and why this has been allowed to happen and exactly who has been permitted into these confidential areas, supposedly only for identified and trusted Arbs and exactly what part they took in decision making. Some details are here [12] others I dont't yet have permission to disclose. Giacomo 20:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I have two questions.

Why are user account being renamed? This would seem to invite leaks or abuse by unauthorized parties. This resource contains highly sensitive information; best practices for access control should be followed. If access is no longer needed, an account should be deleted or disabled.
I'm told when an Arb resigns, his account is "renamed" and he's not told the new name, in other words he is locked out. What has happened here, is that certains arbs wer renamed and locked out other arbs (I'm not at the moment saying who) were permitted to stay, contrary to what the community was informed. As you say, this remanng is wrong too, as who does the renaming and can they be trusted not to tell the former arb his new name. It's not good. Giacomo 21:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Should the community have an Ombudsman to monitor ArbCom to make sure they do as they say? Checks and balances have value. Jehochman ^Talk 21:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

There will now no doubt be a short delay while some absurdly improbable answer to your first question is concocted. The answer to your second is of course obvious. Malleus Fatuorum 21:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no such thing as totally secure information on the internet. When someone claims there is, that's the time to check and see if you've still got your wallet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no such thing as totally secure information, fullstop. In this case however it appears that access was allowed either incompetently or deliberately to those who ought not to have been allowed it, no great hacking skill required. Malleus Fatuorum 22:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Certainly. And negligence/incompetence/"not paying attention" (as this appears to be) worries me a lot more than does deliberate maliciousness. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I find it interesting that the arbitrators are swinging the blame to the developers, who will no doubt in turn try to swing the blame on to "the community" or whatever. The real lack here though is of some kind of checking that what is claimed to have been done has actually been done. AGF can only be distorted so far, beyond that it becomes lunacy. Malleus Fatuorum 01:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To put this in context: the access control approach mentioned on Malleus' tak page—renaming the accounts of former arbitrators to names unknown to the original users—was first used in May 2009. Prior to that date, access control was provided directly by the developers, who manually disabled accounts at our request. In particular, the arb-wiki accounts used by the former arbitrators who were removed from arbcom-l as part of the arbcom-l-functionaries-en split were set to "disabled" by Tim Starling in February 2009. Our understanding, based on comments made by Tim and Brion Vibber at the time, was that accounts disabled in this manner were unable to log in to the wiki at all, even to read it.

Given the information that has been provided to us, it appears that this understanding was not correct; in other words, some or all of the "disabled" accounts in this batch apparently retained the ability to view material on the arb-wiki. The accounts in question were not used to perform any edits or other actions on the arb-wiki subsequent to their being disabled; however, we cannot determine whether, or when, any of the accounts may have been used to view information on the wiki, as viewing of pages is not tracked by CheckUser-accessible logs.

We have used the newer procedure to remove access to all accounts in question, and are currently discussing whether additional security measures may be necessary in the future.

We are, of course, deeply grateful to Giano for his prompt actions in bringing this problem to light. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 21:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

To respond to Jehochman's questions above:

As I understand it, the problem was, in fact, with the accounts that were "properly" disabled, not with the ones that were renamed. Now, granted, the renaming is a crude method at best; but, given the apparent flaws with the other one, I'm not really certain whether we have any truly secure option at the moment. MediaWiki doesn't really support deleting accounts in the conventional sense.
I don't think that would have helped avoid this particular case, given that it was primarily a technical flaw rather than a procedural one. Whether one is desirable in a more general sense is a matter for the community to debate.

Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 21:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Kirill, do you have any idea why so many of the arbs who remained appear to be those closest to Jimbo? Giacomo 21:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The accounts in question all belong to the 2004–08 arbs who were removed from arbcom-l when we decided to limit that list to current arbs. Obviously, many in that group had, or appeared to have, a close relationship with Jimbo due to their history on ArbCom. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that for four years the illusion that ex-arbitrators had no access to confidential information was in fact just that, an illusion? An illusion created by whom? Malleus Fatuorum 22:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Two years, not four—ex-arbitrators had official access to everything until early 2009—but you're otherwise correct. Our belief that the accounts could not be used to read the wiki was based on information from the developers who disabled them for us; we did not believe it necessary to investigate the matter beyond that. Obviously, that turned out to be a mistake. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

So why did the developers mislead you, if that's what you're claiming? Malleus Fatuorum 22:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I very much doubt they intentionally misled us; they don't really take part in Wikipedia affairs beyond being developers, so what motivation would they have? The most likely explanation, in my opinion, is that there's an actual software problem such that "disabled" accounts don't behave as they should; given that they're not widely used, it's not unreasonable to think that it may not have been discovered until now. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Their motivation might stem from who pays their wages, or who they think pays their wages, or who they think is "in charge" of wikipedia, not for me to say. What I will say though is that I find the explanations offered so far to be so unconvincing that they might as well be in a different zip code. Malleus Fatuorum 22:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I will acept that at face value, but can you now give the community a cast iron guaratee and promise that as from today only current elected Arbs have assess to Arb files, wikis, mails and lists etc. Giacomo 22:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

That's very much the goal. Having said that, MediaWiki has limited security capabilities; I suspect we'd need to move to another platform to really guarantee locked-down access. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Kirill, while on the topic, could you clarify to what extent new arbs will have access to highly sensitive, personal and confidential information provided to the ArbCommittee before the new arbs' terms? Are new arbs able to see old maillist archives? If so, how should one forward sensitive personal info to ArbCom in the future? If private e-mail to an individual arb is used, does that info then not end up in archives that future arbs can access? I'm sure you understand the nature of my concern about some info I've forwarded in the past. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

At the moment, the situation is this:

The official arbcom-l archives are fully accessible to everyone who is subscribed to the list; the new arbs will thus have access to everything that's been sent (or forwarded) to arbcom-l once they join the list.
The various secondary and ad-hoc lists that have been used to compartmentalize discussion away from arbcom-l (in the case of certain recusals, etc.) are not centrally archived; new arbs will not have access to material discussed on those lists unless they obtain it from someone who took part in those discussions.

As far as sending information to ArbCom is concerned, there is unfortunately no good solution. Almost everything that we do requires discussion among multiple arbitrators, which necessarily means that whatever we're discussing winds up on arbcom-l—and thus in the archives.

Now, personally speaking, I wouldn't be opposed to periodically purging the archives; but I suspect the community would be rather upset with us if we were to do so. All I can really recommend, at this point, is that the community not elect arbitrators whom they wouldn't trust with sensitive information. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Kirill-- that is as I suspected, and the basis for my concern that we not elect 18 arbs no matter how low the percentage supports just to satisfy last year's unfortunate RFC that brought the committee size to 18. I'm uncomfortable with support percentages below 65%. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It remains bizarre that it's easier to become an arbitrator than it is to become an administrator. Malleus Fatuorum 22:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The information provided by GiacomoReturned and confirmed by Kirill is indeed a matter of concern. Another slightly more secure method, off the cuff, would be to request that the resigning arbitrator communicate their password to a trusted party, who would then scramble it. But it strikes me as very problematic that the Arbitration Committee uses a system to store confidential information to which access cannot be securely disabled. A solution for this should urgently be found prior to the upcoming changes in personnel. I agree with Giano (now that is something that I am unaccustomed to saying ...) that the community has a right to a thorough and credible explanation about which unauthorized persons were apparently allowed to access confidential arbitral information, and who allowed them to do so. (After Kirill's edit-conflicted explanation, I understand that this was an unintentional technical error; but I agree with Giano that we need a confirmation that a better system is being put in place.) Sandstein 22:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that having someone else scramble the passwords would be effective in all cases—what if the ex-arbitrator couldn't, or wouldn't, provide their password?—but it's certainly something to consider. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Please don't do anything else creative. ArbCom has been creative enough with the security arrangements. Please do something very standard. Presumably you have an Apache HTTP server. It is very easy to use .htpasswd to restricts access. Somebody needs to get on the ball. Jehochman ^Talk 22:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

They need to find it first. I have rarely read such unadulterated nonsense as the excuses being touted here. Malleus Fatuorum 22:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We'll have to take it up with the Foundation, since they're the ones providing all our infrastructure.

(It would be quite easy to set this up if we used some third-party hosting service, of course; but there have been concerns raised about using non-WMF servers for our work, so that's not a particularly good option.) Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Kirill, this is all pretty basic stuff, I discovered the matter in an idle moment by "knocking on the door". If I type in my name or Malleus' it says "No such account" If I type in your name, it says "wrong password". This morning, it was admitting James Forrester, Fred Bauder and a host of other intimates of Jimbo's - I won't embarrass them all by naming them. Now much as I would like to claim to be computer genius, I rather think a 5 year old could have realised and sussed there was a problem here. Somebody has cocked up big time, and we have a right to know who exactly has been sifting through confidential information and why. No one is blaming you, Risker and co who have tried to sort this, but I'm sure you will agree, it is not good enough, if this was an accident, then perhaps new developers need to be employed. Giacomo 22:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps the problem here isn't so much incompetence or dishonesty but that the software is irremedially fucked. Just look at how long a proper implementation of pending changes has been repeatedly delayed. There are only a limited number of explanations for that and this most recent cock-up. Malleus Fatuorum 23:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Possibly, but I was surprised to see that "Jimmy Wales" has an account there at the moment. Giacomo 23:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Why would that be surprising? Jimmy has always had and continues to have access to arbcom-l, so it would stand to reason that he has access to the arbwiki as well. NW (Talk) 23:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I suppose so; at least the rest seem to have gone today, it's quite fun just typing in to see whose in and out. Giacomo 23:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It's surprising because he isn't an arbitrator. How many other non-arbitrators have access to this confidential information? Malleus Fatuorum 23:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Other than Jimbo (who's always had access to ArbCom materials—I don't think anyone has ever claimed otherwise) the only people who should have access at the moment are the twelve current arbitrators and the WMF staff that have server-side access to the wiki. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 23:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't ask who should have access at the moment, but clearly many who shouldn't have access did. How can we be certain that it's now only the 12 current arbitrators and Jimbo? Malleus Fatuorum 23:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Until the developers tell us that those other accounts are definitely disabled, we can't. Short of deleting the entire arb-wiki, there isn't really anything we can do to secure the material that we haven't already done at this point. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Didn't they tell you that before? What's changed? Malleus Fatuorum 00:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

We're talking to different developers, for one. But, more generally, we have to trust the developers on some level. If they really weren't being forthright with us, they wouldn't bother fiddling with accounts; they'd simply grab the raw dumps of the wiki. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, and it's not often you will hear me say this, but I think Kirill and Risker are doing their best and no other arbs care very much, not exactly rushing to post here are they? Even the wider community does not seem that fussed. At the moment, I don't think they have a clue how many old arbs, clerks and hangers on are in there. It's going to take a while to flush it out, but I appreciate thatat least Kirill is standing up here and trying to explain. Giacomo 23:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

How pleasant that they're not fussed: I am. I would not have discussed some very sensitive confidential information with some former arbs. This Is Not Good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

To hopefully allay your concerns a bit, there is fairly little private information (of the sort that gets sent to arbcom-l) on the arb-wiki; the bulk of the material there are records of ban appeals and internal ArbCom deliberations. It's still not the sort of thing that we'd like to see passed around, obviously; but it's an order of magnitude less sensitive than the mailing list. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We're trying to get some answers from the WMF technical staff as to (a) whether the disabled/renamed/etc. accounts have indeed been secured and (b) whether we have any way of discovering if any of them have been used since being disabled; until we get those answers, I'm not sure how much more information we'll be able to provide on our own. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 23:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

And as usual that will be obfuscated by a delaying request for patience. There is an ongoing election, therefore answers need to be forthcoming PDQ. Malleus Fatuorum 00:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Kirill, it's not the accounts which have been renamed which are the problem, it's the one's which have not - old arbs and hangers on just wandering in off the street for a look around. Giacomo 00:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

All the former arbitrators' accounts have been renamed. At the moment, we're going on the assumption that this will prevent anyone from "wandering in", although it probably wouldn't stop someone dedicated enough. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec3) Not counting the fact that it is, in fact, physically painful for me to type here at this time, have you perhaps considered the possibility that we care just as much but have little to add at this time that Kirill has not already stated? When this came to our attention, he volunteered to handle this thread and, unless we have something productive to add, there is little point to chime in here just to say "me too". — Coren ^(talk) 00:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

What I'm left wondering is why Giano managed to ferret out this abuse and none of you sitting arbitrators did, or indeed seem to consider it a matter of very great importance. Malleus Fatuorum 00:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Because, when we were told by a dev that "the account is disabled and can no longer log in", it's quite reasonable to presume that the account is, in fact, disabled and cannot log in. Unless someone who actually has the password to that account tries to log in and check, it's not possible to know beyond the assurances we had from the devs. Giano manaed to "ferret out" this problem because one of the users who had one of those supposedly disabled accounts gave it to him.

That said, the only "abuse" I see is people who know they shouldn't be using those accounts using them covertly— I have no reason to believe that the devs intended for the security hole, or that they knew it existed. In all likelihood, it's a simple, old-fashion, bug. — Coren ^(talk) 00:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

So there were an unknown number of "supposedly disabled" accounts that weren't actually disabled at all? That's either a deliberate deceit or a gross incompetence. Malleus Fatuorum 00:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Even if one of us had tried to log in using a former arbitrator's username, we would not have been able to access anything on the wiki unless we also happened to know the former arbitrator's password, since the login attempt would simply have failed. At worst, we could have discovered the fact that one could determine which usernames were registered by trying them through the login prompt; that's admittedly a security flaw, but not a critical one. The main problem—that the ex-arbs' accounts were still active—could only be discovered when one knew both the username and the corresponding password. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Because Giano is very wise and has just has another brainwave. If you go to Special:Listusers on any wiki it gives a list of the users on that wiki. Giacomo 00:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thankfully that doesn't work correctly on a private wiki; it asks you to log in. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Coren, please don't go jumping to conclusion [13], you are not adjudicating on an arb case now, try to deal with fact please. You have no idea how I "ferreted" it out. Just be grateful that I did. Giacomo 00:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I echo Kirill in thanking you for bringing this to our attention. An official comment from the committee, if any, would take a little while y'know. Cool Hand Luke 06:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

A few points to make here:

I endorse what Kirill said above, in particular his description of how the disabling of the accounts was handled back in 2009.
One thing that might need to be looked at (once the security loopholes have been patched up as best as possible - and no, getting someone else to scramble your password isn't a good idea, as there is no guarantee they won't reactivate the account) is exactly why accounts started to be renamed instead of disabled, and why (when that approach was adopted) the older accounts weren't renamed (I actually thought they had been). As best I can recall (and I will go and check this), there is an option for bureaucrats on a wiki (on the arbwiki at least) to set an account to "inactive". Either that, or the "get a developer to disable the account" option was taking too long and the "rename the account" option was adopted instead.
Could those asking why all arbitrators aren't dealing with or commenting on this, please give said arbitrators some time to respond and accept that not all arbitrators are required to post here (as I said above, Kirill's post above explains what happened here).

If it is necessary to prepare and publish a list of arbwiki user accounts, with the dates of renaming and "disabling" (using the on-wiki user names of the arbitrators, rather than the arbwiki usernames), to provide more transparency and confidence here, I'd be prepared to draft such a list for publication. Carcharoth (talk) 08:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we would all prefer to see the files and privately given information you have collected and stored on us all deleted for our own safety. Just play with yourselves in there, leave us out of it. Giacomo 21:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser can still determine who actually logged in, correct? Just run a checkuser and see which of the former arbs logged in. This should ferret out Giano's mole (if any) and also arbs who were logging in when they shouldn't have been. 98.133.113.144 (talk) 06:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about arbwiki, but the way checkuser works here on EnWiki, one can really only see when changes are made (new accounts, edits, etc.). Merely logging in is not entered into the CU log. -- Avi (talk) 07:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

If the devs are willing to cooperate, "select user_name, user_real_name, user_touched from user;" should reveal the last account activity (including login) [14]. Given the seriousness of this issue and the implicit assumptions of privileged access to the arbwiki, a persuasive case can be made that at least one person should have access to this information in order to divulge, at least in general terms, whether access has been done, and its most recent occurence. On a side topic, I disagree with Carcharoth that getting someone else to scramble your password is not an effective remedy - if the scrambler is properly selected, subsequent reactivation shouldn't be an issue. When it comes to computing, ultimately you have to trust someone to properly execute. Franamax (talk) 09:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and we did exactly this, which is why we know who the two editors who have attempted to log in with arbitrators' accounts are. — Coren ^(talk) 23:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I would bet there have been lots of attempts, as a link was posted and curious editors will try to duplicate the experiment using improper passwords, to see if the messages are as described. From the documentation linked by Franamax, it seems that only successful login attempts are logged. Do you mean to say that there were two incidents of unauthorized access? Jehochman ^Talk 02:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

No, we are unable to confirm any unauthorized access to the actual content on the wiki. A developer was able to provide us with a log of failed login attempts. These were attempts to gain unauthorized access to current Arbitrator accounts by guessing the accounts' passwords much as we occasionally see when someone attempts to guess an account's password on the regular wiki. There were only two people in those logs who are not current Arbitrators. KnightLago (talk) 03:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)KnightLago, if I understand you correctly, no one (ex-arb or anyone else) was able to (improperly) gain access to the arbwiki and read the content by logging in. Since the claim is that improper access might have been happening on my watch as an active arb after arbcom made the decision to remove access from everyone except the sitting arbs and Jimbo, I would appreciate a full update of the research done by the Committee about the possible security breach. I know that our intention was to remove access from all the former arbs and my understanding was that the developers tinkered with the accounts so as that they would not have the ability to gain access. After the leaks of arbcom emails (in 2008 and 2009), I thought the security of the arbwiki had been examined and no problem found, so I was surprised to hear the claim that former arbs had access. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 09:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
We'll shortly have a whole committee statement on the matter, but the short of it is that nobody has successfully accessed anything, and the method by which the accounts are disabled now has a shiny new tool to make it simpler and more consistent. — Coren ^(talk) 13:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
So in a nutshell, Giano's research of the arbwiki gave rise to him noticing that different former arbs accounts reacted differently when attempting to log in to them. When he noticed the different ways, he mistakenly thought that some former arbs still had access. In reality it was only an indication of the different methods used to disable the accounts. So, there was not a major security problem after all. As a result of the investigation, the developers put a new and improved way to disable the accounts on the arbwiki. Glad to hear that there was no problem after all. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 13:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
That is pretty much it. — Coren ^(talk) 17:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

How to improve security

I have confirmed that Giano's observations are correct. The security measures of ArbWiki are unacceptable. There is a risk that at least one userid and password can be cracked. Most likely somebody has a weak password, or somebody is reusing a password from another site. With a large enough user group, there are always a few people who fail to maintain best practices. Given the level of determination of some Wikipedia trolls, I believe the ArbWiki will periodically be subject to attack. Moreover, given the number of users, there is a risk that one of them could leak confidential material.

I did not test this because such a test could be disruptive, but may I ask does ArbWiki disable an account if there are N failed login attempts? Most reasonable systems do.
Another improvement would be to configure ArbWiki only to accept connections from whitelisted IP addresses. To add a new IP address to the list, the user has to be able to receive a link or one-time code sent to the email address associated with the account.
As for the possibility of leaks, the solution is to require strong identification of all ArbWiki users, and keep that identification on file. There should also be a written confidentiality agreement.
Logs of all activities should be kept and periodically scanned for irregularities.
Even with strong security, social engineering techniques can be used to crack an account. See Operation Aurora. To counteract this risk, older materials could be moved offline. Access becomes a little slower, but the volume of material available to be leaked is reduced.

To what extent are these improvements possible, and will you follow up on them? Jehochman ^Talk 12:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

As I have explained above, trying to log in as a name gives/gave an indication of who has an account/access and who does not. Obviously, I was one of those mentioned above who "attempted" to log in. Attempting to log in as GiacomReurned gives the response "no account by that name" (as one would expect) attempting to log in as "A sitting arb/name" using the password 123455789 gives the resposse "incorrect password" Now, here is the interesting thing, useing the same password (if anyone was seriously using that password then the wiki deserves to be hacked) Flo's and most other ex-arbs' (I did not try them all) name gave a "no account" as one would expect. However, Jimbo, James Forrester, Fred Bauder and two other ex arbs all received an "incorrect passoword" - identical to a current Arb. Finding out if the Arbs have a secret file is similarly easy - I'm not going to post the link on wiki, but I have explained to Risker to pass on to the Arbs, but beleive me, if I could work it out (and I did it all on my own) then a child could. The reason I had the links in the first place was because I naively doubted the existence of these secret files on individual editors, so a former editor sent me the link to the file on themself. Obviously, I could not read it, but from that one link, one can tell by the tabs what would be available on the wiki if one was able to log in. For those concerned, I can assure them, I was not able to log, nor did I seriously try to, neither do I know of another editor who did succeed in logging in. Once, I had convinced myslef there was a problem, I made it public and notified the Arbcom. The problem seems to have been confined to a small and select group of former Arbs. Furthermore, it's my view that most (if not all) of the present arbs had no idea of the situation, I would even stake my reputation (such as it is) that Kyril and Risker at least had no idea - I doubt very much we will ever know the full truth, or indeed who still has access or who did. However, I very much resent insinuations ny Knight Largo in sinister emails to me over the last week, that I was conspiring to compromise arbcom security and gain private information presumably with a desire to broadcasr private information; we have seen too much of the shoot the messenger mentality on Wikipedia. The moment I was sure there was problem - so did you all - and shortly after that Kyril confirmed it. Giacomo 13:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay. The good news is that it was a very limited problem (and maybe more of a potential problem than a major existing breach.) And now it is fixed with the new improved tool to disable the accounts. That is goodness indeed. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 14:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Perhaps ArbCom could also do something very simple and effective: Move the ArbWiki and especially its login page, to a non-obvious, non-public url. People cannot attack a resource if they don't know where it is located. Jehochman ^Talk 15:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

What idiocy. Security through obscurity doesn't work. Especially on the Internet. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, Jimbo is supposed to have access to the arb wiki, IIRC. -- Avi (talk) 16:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

What concerns me is that data on individual users is being kept for no good reason, now I know we will be told that there is good reason, and I'm sure in rare instances that is correct, however, the majority of problem users are not criminials or indeed done anything illegal; thay have merely just been perceived as irksome to the project. Without naming individual's names, I've been told by an Arb that this is true of many of the pages. These need to be deleted after a few months - keeping an idividual's private data private from that person is illegal in almost all European coutries and morally wrong in all countries. In fact, once it's downloaded to a British computer it becomes subject to British law, wherever its origin may lie. Over a dozen (who knows how many more) new people get to look at it every year - it's an invasion of privacy - most of the date on non-criminal cases needs to be deleted. Giacomo 16:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard of these secret files. If files are being kept on editors—files that increasing numbers of people have access to as new Arbs are elected every year—those editors have to be made aware of them and the contents, so they can at least correct errors or add a rebuttal. Giano is right: this is a data protection and privacy issue, if it's correct that it's happening. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The "secret files" are, in most cases, things such as list of disclosed alternate accounts provided by those users so that if we or future committees stumble on the alternates, they'll be known. Sometimes, they are notes of limited usefulness over time, that probably could and should be cleaned up (things like dates of last appeals, pointers to mailing list threads so we can find data and so on). Most of that stuff shouldn't be made public for a number of reasons, but isn't privacy matters by any stretch.

There is a small minority of genuine privacy data, but that's also the one we generally need to keep around for future committees (things about real life stalking and harassment, for instance, that needs to be documented). — Coren ^(talk) 17:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Coren, I'm thinking the editor the file is about should be allowed to see it, and add his corrections if appropriate. That's standard procedure for most institutions that keep files on people. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not super urgent, but at some point could the Committee disclose what sorts of things are kept in the files, why, and what the data retention (and destruction) policy is for each class. For instance, We keep items of type X to help process appeals. These items are deleted after 2 years. It is very helpful to have public documentation, in so much as it is possible, to prevent people from forming conspiracy theories about secret files or their potential misuse for wikipolitics. A few arbitrators should volunteer to monitor use of the wiki and make sure nothing is kept there inappropriately, and that stuff is cleaned up as promised, that former arbitrators are being removed from the access list. There should be an occasional public report to confirm that this wiki is being managed properly. A bit of time invested up front can save a lot of time wasted later arguing over needless controversies. Jehochman ^Talk 18:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps an even better idea would be to delegate management of these privacy concerns to the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee. That way there would be at least some independent oversight by the community. Jehochman ^Talk 18:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Figuring out a data retention policy is a good idea (and indeed something that has seen some recent discussion on-list by the arbs), but hits a number of relatively mundane hurdles — the primary being that the current mailing list software does not allow selective cleanup of its archives and that is where most of the history of the committee lives.
Otherwise, if we're only considering the wiki, it would indeed be a good idea to do this exercise at regular interval though the idea of allowing the non-arbitrator members of AUSC access to the wiki is something that needs a great deal more thought and discussion (though it's not necessarily a bad idea). — Coren ^(talk) 18:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Then the software needs to be abandoned and changed. I know of at least one editor on whom you maintain a file, who has done nothing but be de-sysopped (in many people's view, wrongly) he has written numerous FA's and never performed an illegal act, there is no justification for the keeping of a file - I wonder how may other similar files exist. It's all very well telling us, it's just uninteresting data, it may well be, it may not be. You have morally and many places legally no right to retain this without disclosure to the person concerned - it's not realy up to you to decide. This is an encyclopedia not the Stasi. Giacomo 18:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

We do what we can with the software available now. That means ArbCom needs to create data retention standards, and then AUSC or some body like it needs to ensure compliance. If the wiki can be cleaned up, start with that.
If the mailing list software does not have the necessary features, then it should be upgraded or replaced. We should never say "impossible". Instead, say what needs to be done and what resources are needed. We have many technologically savvy volunteers who could help. Jehochman ^Talk 19:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but I have an idea to put people's minds at rest, and prove Coren is speaking the truth. If he emails my file to me, (so long as it contains nothing identifying - I can "XXX" IP numbers from the numerous checkusers on me etc.) I will post it here in full (I have nothing to be shamed of); I did email the arbcom for a copy last week, but received no reply. Then we will all know whether we have something to worry about or not, but I want three Arbs to verify that it is the full file. Giacomo 19:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

You don't seem to have any such file. (At least not under any username I know you've used in the past; nor indeed anything with "giano" in it). Nothing deleted either. A quick search shows you mentioned by some other editors in letters to us, a few mentions in motion work related to (very visibly public) incidents on-wiki, one line in a large table of disclosed alternate accounts, and some obsolete planification around the defunct advisory council idea (that probably now bears deleting though perhaps its calcified husk might be left as a warning to future arbs). All told, your name is mentioned on 20 pages, but none of those is about you. — Coren ^(talk) 19:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not filed under my name. Risker will tell you where to find it, now be a good chap and run along and get it - would you? i'm sure all the jokes about the frantic file burning when I was runing in 2007, were just that because you can't delete them can you? anyway, the 20 mentions will be a good start. Giacomo 19:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've got access to the logs and as far as I can tell the very first edit to that wiki dates from 26 October 2007, and for the next couple of days is the typical setting up of minimal templates and categories you'd see on any new mediawiki install. Then the whole thing becomes pretty much unused until early 2008 where it starts seeing sporadic use. With a wiki barely months old at the election (and basically empty), there wouldn't be much of a file to burn (and I can find no discussion of the election at all, let alone of any candidates). — Coren ^(talk) 20:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

OK <long silence> let's just assume (we don't have to accept it) you are not keeping a page on me, but you are keeping one on User:Geogre, why is that? Why is he a greater threat than me? What determines the manifestation of a page? Giacomo 20:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

In that particular case, because the Committee apparently wanted somewhere to draft these motions. Shell ^babelfish 20:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

To answer the general question, what "determines" the manifestation of a page is either (a) the necessity to document something for future committees, or (b) the necessity to work on something collectively by tweaking a document (which an email list sucks very much at). Sometimes a little bit of both. In your example, the motions were terse and did not spell out specific evidence; but evidence was nonetheless examined to reach it. — Coren ^(talk) 20:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Giano, I know this will come as a big shock to you, but there is no "Giano" page on the arbwiki. There are early drafts of some arbcom cases in which you were a party, we have a notation registering your legitimate alternate account, and there's discussion about inviting you to join the Advisory Council on Project Development (which invitation you accepted). Your name comes up here and there but is not the primary focus of the discussion. Realistically, if anyone needs to find out about you, we all know where the RFAR archives are, and they're on this wiki. A very significant proportion of the pages on the arbwiki are workspaces to draft cases or motions, plus some standard procedures and paragraphs, and a general discussion board that doesn't get a lot of use anymore. Risker (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, so why is the file on Geogre retained, if that's all it contains why the need, why the secrecy? You are making this secrecy, I merely point out it exists - and how many similar such pages are there? Giacomo 21:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a balancing act between trying to keep records of what we have done (and why), making sure that future arbitrators have all the information they need, and not making a public wall of shame for any editor. Some of the information of those pages need to be kept in confidence (like email excerpts, analysis of checkuser data, etc). Some is musings by arbs as they evaluate the evidence and possible responses. This is something you most definitely would not want to be in public view because that causes myriads of problems (look how the community finally realized that long documentation on bad repeat vandals both stimulated the vandal and copycats); yet it is valuable for future committees.

There aren't very many of them; I'm not going to count or enumerate them (obviously), but there are less than 100 and much are recent appeals or details on long-term vandals, with a couple dozen just of "things to note" about certain editors (usually email from them) which may become important in the future. (For instance, one is an email giving us details of a real identity and information about a stalker pursuing that person, in case a dispute arises in the future). At a first glance, I estimate that roughly half of those could safely be deleted by now — and that would probably be a good thing to do — but it's hardly an urgent thing.

I certainly have no problem with discussing with any editor the contents we keep about them on simple request; this has never been about secrecy, but about privacy and discretion. None of what I read (and I read more of those I ever did in the past day) is shameful or wrong, but it's often like dirty laundry: you probably don't want to hang it in public if you don't have to. — Coren ^(talk) 02:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

To answer one of Jehochman's questions above (these were good questions, but Giano's arrival in the thread overwhelmed it somewhat): "does ArbWiki disable an account if there are N failed login attempts" - I asked this same question a few days ago in the internal discussions. I was told by someone who codes Mediawiki that this is possible (i.e. a "password-attempt throttle" exists in Mediawiki). How to turn it on for the arbwiki, I wouldn't have a clue, though we do have people who could turn it on for us if we asked. I will ask for this to be bumped up the priority list. Carcharoth (talk) 03:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Throttling is enabled by default (see mw:Manual:$wgPasswordAttemptThrottle). It is functioning on the ArbCom wiki (and most likely has been all along). —Emufarmers^(T/C) 04:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  - That's good. You all ought to choose non-obvious usernames, such as Carcharoth187, so that bad actors can't lock you out by repeatedly attempting to force your password. In addition, it would be really smart to move the login page to a non-obvious place where only people who are authorized can find it. Jehochman ^Talk 04:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
    - The throttling just prevents that IP address from trying to log in again for 5 minutes. If it actually disabled the account, it would, as I recall Rob Church once nicely phrasing it, "introduce a straightforward vector for abuse".[15] —Emufarmers^(T/C) 05:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

A serious question for the committee

What do you intend to do with Legitimus? Who is he? And why is he such a prolific editor in areas related to Paedophilia and Child sexual abuse? If the ArbCom deemed that Tyciol, a less prolific paedophilia POV pusher, had to be banned, why not block this one until an explanation is given? A security and morality check is in order here. Peter Damian the Late (talk) 22:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Obvious sock is obvious ;/ How and ever - is there any evidence (diffs, etc) that this guy is pushing a pro-pedo stance here. Because if he is, he'll be blocked pretty quickly - Alison ^❤ 22:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked Peter Damian the Late as either a sock or an impersonator of Peter Damian (talk · contribs). Sandstein 22:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It's actually JtV, as I suspected. I just checked & no other accounts under that IP. It's still an interesting question ... - Alison ^❤ 22:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, then you may want to adjust the blockedsock template on the late Late as required. Sandstein 22:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

What checks did you carry out before assuming that this was a Peter Damien sock, and implicitly therefore accusing him of being a pedophile? Malleus Fatuorum 13:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks like he read the username. I agree it is either a sock or an impersonator. No need to figure out which, because the correct action in both cases is to block the account. Jehochman ^Talk 18:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I have made a quick check of a sample of Legitimus's edits, and have found no evidence of his being a "paedophilia POV pusher", though I have not done a thorough check. However, there is a concerted campaign against Legitimus by a number of accounts, including User:Peter Damian, User:Pedolicious, User:Peter Damian the Late, User:Pedolicious, and User:Carly Morrow. All of these are indefinitely blocked, all of them except Peter Damian are single purpose accounts which have done nothing except take part in this campaign. There can be very little doubt that they are sockpuppets. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Who is JtV? JamesBWatson (talk) 20:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

A well-known long-term abusive vandal. Per WP:DENY, that's all I want to say about him. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thus illustrating the need for ArbCom to have a secure mailing list, secure wiki, and strong identification procedures for its members. Jehochman ^Talk 13:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

... none of which it has of course, as recent events have demonstrated. All it has is an "but we've 'always' done it this way" attitude. Malleus Fatuorum 13:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Reminder: last chance to vote in the Arbitration Committee Elections

This is a brief reminder to all interested editors that this weekend is the final chance to vote in the December 2010 elections to elect new members to the Arbitration Committee. Voting began last Friday and will close just before midnight UTC, end of Sunday 5 December (earlier for North America: just before 4 pm west coast, 7 pm east coast). Eligible voters (check your eligibility) are encouraged to cast their votes well before the closing time in light of the risk of server lag.

Arbitrators occupy high-profile positions and perform essential and demanding roles in handling some of the most difficult and sensitive issues on the project; editors are urged to vote for the candidates they consider best suited to service. The following pages may be of assistance to voters in coming to an informed decision: candidate statements, questions for the candidates, discussion of the candidates and personal voter guides.

Proceed here to cast your vote

For the election coordinators, Skomorokh 19:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The importance of an non-administrator ArbCom member

It is important to have non-administrator arbcom members. Currently, all arbcom members are admins. I think that at least 1 arbcom spot should be reserved for non-administrators. The arbcom's verdict should represent users with all rights and positions. Therefore, the ArbCom should have at least 1 non-admin member. MikeNicho231 (talk) 18:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a case to be made that since none ever got elected to date the community isn't willing (yet, at least). Because of this, I don't think it's reasonable to require a non-admin arbitrator, but they have always been welcome to run. — Coren ^(talk) 23:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

There certainly is a case to be made, but it's not the one that you're making. Malleus Fatuorum 23:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Well said. I doubt we will have a non-admin arbcom member until the community first decides to allocate one seat for this purpose. That would be a good first step in improving representation. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

This is something I have been concerned about for some time. More so that I see not being an admin cited in a certain election guide as a reason not to vote for someone, as if it was some sort of badge or pre-requisite or "qualification". I too feel there is the need for one such earmarked seat, although the execution of such may need some considerable thought. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

As much as I hated reading "oppose, not an admin" in voters guide's, I also hate the idea of mandating a non-admin. DC T•C 03:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

What we ought to do is make clear how a non-admin would serve. There should be a process for giving non-admins any necessary access during their term, perhaps with a restriction that access is only to be used for looking at deleted pages and version, not for actually performing admin actions. Furthermore, I would favor all arbitrators behaving as non-admins for the duration of their terms. We have seen many dramas created when Arbs use sysop tools, rather than leaving those actions to clerks or administrators at large. Jehochman ^Talk 03:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

See now, there's that bad faith again: that arbitrators should be rendered incapable of being anything other than arbitrators during their term since they cause "drama". Risker (talk) 03:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

See now, there's that arbitrator arrogance again. Anybody who disagrees with you is apparently exhibiting "bad faith". Fine, you can have a conversation with yourself if you don't want to hear any criticism. Jehochman ^Talk 03:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Jehochman, there's a difference between criticizing a specific action or a specific actor and criticizing an entire group. According to the logic you have just used, all administrators should be barred from using their tools because, simply put, most "drama" admin actions are done by administrators. Because arbitrators are a small group, specifically tasked to make decisions that are sometimes not able to be explained onwiki because they are based on non-public information, yes they are more likely to have to take actions that are "dramatic" than the average administrator will. Risker (talk) 04:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Strike out your accusations of bad faith against me, please. Jehochman ^Talk 04:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I will be happy to do so when you are ready to strike your suggestions that arbitrators, as a defined group, should have their tools removed because when using them they cause "drama". I repeat, if you have a concern about a specific action or actor, it is reasonable to criticize that act. You have not done so, yet you tar all arbitrators with the same brush; you have assumed that arbitrators as a group act improperly when using their tools. Risker (talk) 04:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Please strike your accusations of bad faith against me. I cannot have a rational discussion with you when you resort to that sort of posturing. I am not accusing arbitrators of doing something wrong -- I am saying that as a class of users, when these users operate sysop tools, they tend to cause a lot of needless ruction and confusion because users often do not know if the action is official or not. It is a much better practice for the Committee (or a few members acting on behalf of the Committee) to post a statement, and have a clerk implement the sysop action. This alleviates the doubts about whether the action is official or not, overturnable or not, reviewable or not. It might be healthy for arbitrators to be reminded of what it feels like to be an ordinary editor. If you cannot see that I am making a serious statement, not an assumption of bad faith, then you ought to ask me for clarification, rather than jumping to your own assumptions of bad faith. Jehochman ^Talk 04:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Jehochman, have you sat down and really scrutinized the admin logs of all arbitrators when making such statements? Certainly the overwhelming majority of my admin actions have been in the course of being an administrator, not wearing my arbitrator hat, and those actions that need to be referred to Arbcom are clearly labeled. On the whole, that is what I see with other arbitrators as well. If I see an account that is a banned user creating disruption, I do not believe that the community expects me to write up an explanation and hope that some other admin will pull the trigger: I think they expect me to block the account. I do not believe that, in those rare moments when I am doing new page patrol, anyone expects me *not* to delete a page that clearly falls within the criteria for speedy deletion; they expect me to delete it. If I am answering OTRS tickets, and I revdelete a disruptive or potentially libelous edit, or I semi-protect a page that has had significant IP vandalism, those are *my* actions and I own them, not the Arbitration Committee. Tossing the burden on to another administrator is unreasonable, particularly when they cannot be party to the evidence behind the decision to block; "Risker said so" should never have to be uttered by any administrator. Risker (talk) 05:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course, I can accept there are circumstances where admin-arbs need to act with their tools (such as blatant vandalism), and it would not be desirable to unnecessarily reduce the pool of admins capable of using same. I would not have any issue with this, provided that conflicts of interest or potential conflicts are properly managed. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with Jehochman's point that Arbs should not use their admin tools while they are serving arbs; it's akin to a judge leaping down from his chair with a pair of handcuffs and a gun. Giacomo 08:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

You guys might be able to get a wider audience at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2010/Feedback since a non-admin seat I would assume isn't in the cards for the just concluded election.--Tznkai (talk) 03:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It is an interesting point. From my perspective, I don't see adminship as in any way mandatory, and based on my experience an articulate non-admin with a good work ethic and an interest in dispute resolution would make a fine addition to the Committee. I think there are lots of potential candidates in that subgroup. Personally, I have voted in several elections for good candidates who happen not to be administrators. Risker (talk) 03:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said elsewhere, as long as the prospective arbitrator is willing to abide by foundation policy about identifying if haveing access to private information, I see no need why they need to be an admin. Admin members of ArbCom or other functionaries are more than capable of supplying the Arbs with the necessary deleted or oversighted edits; that actually is part of the functionaries job--to do the maintenance work and allow arbcom the time to deliberate. In my opinion, there are any number of editors not currently admins whom I think would make good arbitrators, just as there are many admins whom I believe have talents other than suited to be an EnWiki arbitrator :) -- Avi (talk) 04:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It would probably be simpler, from a simply practical perspective, to give the bit to the new arbitrator with a proviso that it be only used on "official" business— though I would tend to expect that anyone who got elected would be able to pass RfA I see no reason why that should be mandatory. — Coren ^(talk) 04:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Although, there are many who believe that RfA has gotten to be more difficult to survive than ArbElections, 8-) -- Avi (talk) 04:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I quite like this idea of having a wider range of arbs on the committee - one rather gets the feeling at the moment that they all come from the same clique (that's not meant as a criticism, just an observation). Though I'm not sure that formally reserving one seat for a non-admin is the best way to go - perhaps better to conduct an informal campaign, leave messages at Wiki Project pages encouraging experienced editors to stand, making it clear that non-admins are equally encouraged (and encouraging people to encourage their respected colleagues to stand).--Kotniski (talk) 07:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

As I've said before, anyone who thinks that the committee is somehow homogeneous has no idea how robust the discussion between us can get. :-) We're a surprisingly diverse body. — Coren ^(talk) 03:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, one can't read that without thinking just a little bit of the scene in Yes Minister where Sir Humphrey says to a meeting of permanent secretaries "what a diverse lot we are", and rows of grey suits nod in enthusiastic agreement... ;) --Kotniski (talk) 09:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, one of the ways that all of ArbCom is part of the same clique is the the same clique that whole bunches of people are in. What I've called the hooked-in community, or the wider (interested in) Dispute Resolution community. There are 135,263 active users according to Special:Statistics. Less than 1000 users voted in the recent elections, and I'm guessing that includes a non trivial number of old timers like myself suddenly showing up

What I'm getting at is that the admin/non-admin divide is not nearly as concerning as the structural bias in taking a small group of editors who share on some level a conviction that formal DR is Important. If you're going to talk about enforced diversity, you'd be better off getting someone from outside of our Beltway (with apologies to those unfamiliar with US politics). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tznkai (talk • contribs) 04:00, December 7, 2010

That number of 135,263 active users is actually a bit misleading, since it's derived from the number of accounts who have made even a single edit over the last month. If we count the number who have made at least 5 edits, the number drops to about 35,000, and if we are counting active participants in the project, who have over 100 edits/month, the number drops to about 3600.[16] My guess is that most of the voters were from that latter number, in which case getting 850-1000 votes out of a community of roughly 4000 seems about right. --El on ka 04:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the committee is, by necessity, a volunteer body; there is little incentive for someone not otherwise interested in dispute resolution to even learn about the committee — let alone run for a seat. And one couldn't contemplate drafting someone into taking a seat, after all. Arbitrate or be banned? — Coren ^(talk) 04:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Recruitment perhaps? Not just for Arbcom mind you, but a drive at getting more new admins, and more new users generally. To put it another way, I've been gone for a while, and when I came back, it was pretty much the same folks talking (having remarkably similar arguments) as when I left. I love you all, but it might be time to shake things up a little.--Tznkai (talk) 04:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

How though? The wiki is a passive medium, it only filters what happens by. Who has shown up lately (or ever) to finish off the core topics?? Which particular bar for adminship should be lowered? Which for arbship? My interpretation of the remedy is a need for a deep outreach to generalist writers - but where are these found? There have been some academic efforts to require wiki-writing, perhaps those should be supported - but even there, I've seen an effort run afoul of copyvio concerns. As the encyclopedia becomes more "finished", the new entrants will increasingly become single-focussed. So we need to develop strategies to encourage a wider focus once we accomodate the narrow-focus editors, or to attract and encourage more generalists. I don't think we need more "easy-access" admins (what purpose would that serve?) nor mandatory non-admin arb-seats (what purpose**2?) The drive should be getting more interested editors period (semi-colon and then getting them interested in governance). Shaking up the top won't really affect the bottom. Franamax (talk) 07:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

My comment is from the POV of a critic of the current setup in Wikipedia re: admins, longtime low-grade abuse by admins and the need for some form of community de-adminship (per WP:CDA). But that said, I do not advise an attempt to create a mandated seat on the Arbitration Committee for a non-administrator. In brief, just trying to set up such a seat would be a wiki-circus and unlikely to be approved anyway, in my view. Jusdafax 06:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Further vague thoughts: I think the way the committee functions is a bar to many editors' wanting to become involved - being an arb is presented almost as a full-time job, and as a serious responsibility with legal implications etc., which would all tend to put someone off if they weren't especially interested in the area of dispute resoluion as a process in itself. i wonder if it might not be a good idea to split off the behind-the-scenes, access-to-confidential-information aspects of the job (which should be handled by people who really are known and trusted as human beings) from the public dispute arbitration process (which could also be much improved, streamlined and better focused), where we really do want a wide range of editors from different parts of the project. --Kotniski (talk) 09:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Nothing will change until the increasing shortage of volunteers across the entire project, not just ArbCom, becomes a problem that not even the most myopic can ignore. Malleus Fatuorum 04:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure you mean the entire project, or just the areas you are active in or take an interest in? I've always, when I've looked up and around me (outside the areas I follow or am active in), been surprised at just how large Wikipedia is and how much of it does function without collapsing, or even without large numbers of editors to maintain those areas. The lesson I've always taken away is that Wikipedia is too large and diverse for most generalisations to apply, unless you have concrete stats and data to back up what you say (and by this, I mean new data, not just what has been mentioned previously - take the previous stats and build on them - see how things have changed since then). Carcharoth (talk) 07:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I mean the entire project. The number of active editors (more than 100 edits per month) was down to 3,644 as of last September, which if you discount the active administrators probably leaves only a core of 3,000 or so active editors. Malleus Fatuorum 13:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Kotniski's suggestion, which has been made before. The public face of arbitration, on case pages, could certainly do with more people willing to get involved and help with sorting through evidence, leaving arbitrators to exercise their judgment when they come to review the case. Any experienced editor, especially those who have not edit in the topic area in dispute, is capable of helping out at cases, but it rarely happens. Carcharoth (talk) 07:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

@Giano

See Don't repeat yourself. The address should be posted in exactly one place, or else a template should be used to generate the address. Repeating the address in multiple places can lead to maintenance headaches because one instance may be updated, and another not. Then nobody will know which is accurate. Jehochman ^Talk 20:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Repeated or not; I am delighted to see it is now clear. Giacomo 21:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Ban Appeals Subcommittee

"Arbitrators typically spend three months on the subcommittee, with a staggered rotation; one member is replaced each month." Oh, for... will you stop saying that! It's getting on my nerves! Now you know that the same three arbs (SirFozzie+Mailer Diablo+Shell Kinney) typically spend the entire early pleistocene era on the BAS. Don't you? And wouldn't banned users have a more reasonable snowball's chance in hell of getting a fresh hearing occasionally if there was some new blood on the subcommittee now and then? Yes I think they would! Bishonen | talk 21:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC).

Yeah, we know. This is being discussed. What may happen is that a raft of "issues" related to arbitration will be pushed out in a boat at the beginning of the new year, and discussion will be invited. But it would be good to balance things and not have too much disucssion that peters out and goes nowhere. i.e. It would be a good idea to have a list of major issues discussed on-wiki over the next few weeks, so the new ArbCom have some idea of what the editorial community want them to focus on. There are some hints from the election pages, but a more structured discussion might help. Certainly the future and composition of AUSC and BASC would be one topic. Carcharoth (talk) 08:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I fully expect to step down in favor of the new arbs on AUSC/BASC when they get up to speed (and to be honest, I quite welcome it). I've done both for 10-11 months in a row, so I agree with Bish that new blood is needed, we're just trying not to scare off the new guys ;). SirFozzie (talk) 21:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Email

Hey. I have sent an email on December 9th, but have not yet received a reply. Should I resend, or wait a bit longer? Kind regards. Reh man 02:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Received a response. Thanks. Reh man 07:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Unblock User Wikidrips

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wikidrips —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.55.165.144 (talk) 20:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Renaming users under sanctions

Can I please apologise for any inconvenience I may have caused by recently renaming someone while sanctions remain active against them.

I am struck by the fact that to-date I've made 300+ renames, and it has never occurred to me that this may be a problem. I have looked at the policies this morning, and can't find a mention of it, but I am rather sleep-deprived - is it enshrined somewhere in policy, and if not, do you think it ought to be?

If you do decide (or have already put into policy) that it is a problem worth addressing, can I tentatively suggest it is applied by Arbcom, rather than Crats and our clerks. The renaming process is already very bureaucratic. I know, it goes with the territory, as the name "bureaucrat" suggests, but I am particularly wary of adding more screeds to the already offputting list of instructions at the name change pages, especially as this is something that applies to a tiny minority of editors.

I think the responsibility should be placed on the user under sanction, and it should be an automatic addition to every sanction, or to every sanction where you deem it necessary.

Looking forward to your views. I'll crosspost a reference to this thread at WP:BN, as my opinion is representative only of myself, not the other Crats.

Cheers, --Dweller (talk) 11:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 4#Changes of account name by restricted users. T. Canens (talk) 11:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. And glad the onus is on the user under sanctions. How is a user under sanction made aware of this provision? --Dweller (talk) 11:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

True, it would be a bit time-consuming to look up the existence of any sanctions every time we went to make a rename. But I agree that there needs to be some sort of notification of this, either when requesting a rename or when receiving such sanctions. And I think the notice makes more sense to be given at the time that the sanctions are placed. Useight (talk) 20:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Do note that the arbitration ruling only applies when changing a username "with a suppressed redirect from the old name". –xeno^talk 01:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd imagine that it also applies to {{db-u1}}'ing the resulting redirect, right? T. Canens (talk) 06:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, in that the result is the same. –xeno^talk 01:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Understood. However, I think it's still problematic that this provision seems to apply to all users under sanction, with the direst consequences hanging over their heads, but they are unaware of it. --Dweller (talk) 07:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Why not make it part of the advice to bureaucrats to look up the user's old name in WP:RESTRICT? In answer to Dweller's question (above) as to whether it's enshrined in policy, this is covered in the current guideline, WP:Changing username guidelines, which says ''If a user is currently restricted by arbitration committee rulings, renaming might cause confusion..." This guideline could be updated to propose usage of WP:RESTRICT in rename decisions. EdJohnston (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It could also be added to the instructions for users requesting a name change. That'd put the primary burden on users to check to make sure they are not under any sanction. Will Beback talk 22:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

These are both good ideas. I was thinking it may not be entirely fair for the rule to be limited to arbitration restrictions only; making it a requirement to check the RESTRICT listing, as EdJohnston proposes, would probably address that issue. Also, as this is not the first time this issue has popped up, the crats may benefit from the guidance if we spell it out. It could also be added to the instructions as Will suggests (to clarify the part of the burden that is on the editor). Although crats might (currently) argue that they acted in good faith on what the editor said, it is (no longer) entirely necessary to rely on editor's statements alone. That is, both the editor and the crat can check the listing to be on the safe side before a request is filed (in the case of the editor) or the action is taken (in the case of the crat). And given that crats are meant to be experienced users, I'd think they would be able to go through WP:RESTRICT with much more ease than some of the editors who might request a name change; in fact, they probably have a better understanding than several of those editors. Accordingly, the main burden does not rest with the editor alone. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

We perform hundreds of renames and very few individuals are covered by this restriction. Making the process even more bureaucratic than it already is, is therefore not a sensible way forward. This is a matter for Arbcom and the user concerned. It is a simple matter to automatically add the restriction on every list of sanctions, with the dire warning you already have. But what is not fair is for the users to have the dire warning, without knowing about it. --Dweller (talk) 08:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Dweller, it is not realistic to expect bureaucrats to have to check at RESTRICT when performing every rename (though perhaps the bots could be programmed to check and make a clerk note). –xeno^talk 14:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't follow your reasoning Dweller nor do I see how it is "not realistic" Xeno; it takes a minute to go to the WP:RESTRICT page and to do a search on the page for the user's username. Obviously, if the crats have some automated script or bot which can essentially do the same thing, as Xeno suggests, then great. But I don't think any editor is going to be impressed if bureaucrats, who voluntarily accept (and are elected to take) extra responsibility, are going to shirk that altogether because an extra minute is added to each rename. Efficiency is important, but it is not the only priority, and while there may be few individuals covered by such sanctions, there are certainly more than enough for the Community's liking. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The committee generally does not restrict sanctioned users from requesting renames in the first place (as long as they are done transparently, with redirects from the old name to the new name). So it's going to be an extra minute per rename - out of several hundred per month - for a once-in-a-blue moon situation (that does not even apply to the present case!). If the committee has taken the rare step of restricting a user from changing their username at all, the onus lies with the restricted user not to violate that restriction by seeking a rename. –xeno^talk 15:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

In other words, it is only an issue for the once-in-a-blue moon situation you've described which involves a small subset of the already-few individuals who are subject to restrictions. How many of the users who have been restricted by ArbCom fall into that category? (Simply saying "very few" is really getting tedious now). I would find it intriguing if crats are going to say it is unrealistic to watch out for (example) 3 users at the moment and that it is going to add a full minute to each rename and that they bear no responsibility whatsoever if they perform an action that inadvertantly or otherwise violates the relevant ruling. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

If I were to hazard a guess (along with taking a quick look at WP:RESTRICT), I'd say it's fairly close to zero. Some users have been instructed to inform the committee of any name change (cf. Mantanmoreland), but I don't see that any ^{of the users currently listed at RESTRICT} are restricted from changing their name. –xeno^talk 16:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC) ^{17:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)}

Well it's either zero or it's not - more certainty would be appreciated. But assuming that it is zero, with the exception of one part, I am in agreement with Dweller's proposal: "it should be an automatic addition to every sanction, or to every sanction where you deem it necessary". The part that I am in disagreement with is what I believe Dweller means in this part: "the responsibility should be placed on the user under sanction" and they alone should be responsible rather than the crats. The editor is certainly responsible for making a request where they are not supposed to; should they do so, the restriction would be enforced. However, the editor is not responsible for a bureaucrat who, in good faith or otherwise, takes an action that they should not have taken because they failed to take reasonable care. It goes towards evidence of sound judgement in a crat. I think I and EdJohnston had similar proposals about what is reasonable and that basically meant that crats check WP:RESTRICT each time; you say that is unrealistic. Fine, then you (ArbCom) need to specifically tell the crats each time and the crats need to organise their own log for those situations (if they do not want to go through RESTRICT). Similarly, if that ever arose in Community sanctions, then the Community will need to have informed crats. With any luck, this is all moot and such situations will not arise in the future. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

If the committee (or the community) ever restricts a user from seeking a rename, then I agree that they should advise the bureaucrat team (who can then keep an eye out for any restriction-violating requests from that user). So far the only case I found is here. –xeno^talk 17:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm slow with this, but that implies that Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_4#Changes_of_account_name_by_restricted_users no longer stands. Is that the case? --Dweller (talk) 13:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It only applies if the user is asking for the rename to be performed with "suppressed redirect[s] from the old name" (i.e. wanting to be renamed without having redirects from the old name to the new name). –xeno^talk 13:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The most workable solution, IMO, is to make clear on the CHU page that the user must disclose any sanctions they are currently under when they seek a rename. If they fail to disclose an applicable sanction, then it's their problem. If they disclosed one and the crat mistakenly renamed (without redirect) anyway, it's the crat's problem. Also, it might be a good idea to add the link to the arbcom announcement to the boilerplate used by arbcom clerks when closing a case. It is old and hard to find. T. Canens (talk) 13:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that renaming without redirect is only done by special request; such requests will usually prompt the bureaucrat to take a closer look at the rename than normal. –xeno^talk 13:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

True. But that still leaves my underlying problem: do users being placed under restriction know that if they find a crat who isn't careful, they risk such dire consequences? It doesn't seem equitable. --Dweller (talk) 14:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, you came here not wanting to write more into the CHU instruction page but maybe that is the simplest solution -

Please note that if you are currently under sanctions imposed by the Arbitration Community or the community, renames must be done in a transparent fashion (e.g. with redirects from your old name to your new name). It is also strongly advised that you notify the Arbitration Committee of your username change and conspicuously note your previous username on your user and user talk page for a reasonable length of time.

Something like that^. –xeno^talk 14:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a poor solution, sorry. We already know two things about the CHU instructions: 1) they're too long already 2) a large percentage of name change requesters don't bother reading them. We can add to that 3) this provision doesn't apply to the vast majority of them. I'm not sure why there's such reluctance to add a template to the arbcom sanctions, so that only those affected are notified and it's written on a page that we can pretty much guarantee will be carefully read by those it applies to. --Dweller (talk) 14:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

We could do that, but it wouldn't solve the problem of all the users already under sanctions. Fact is, this is a rare issue - so rare that to my knowledge it has never presented itself (the case you brought here was not an issue because redirects were created) - and I think we've already spent much longer on it than was necessary. If a sanctioned user does something dodgy like requesting a rename asking for suppressed redirect and not mentioning their sanctions, they are trying to avoid scrutiny and that is going to reflect poorly on them, and them alone. If the committee intends to prohibit renames for a particular user, they will say so in the ruling. Tacking something on to every sanction for some hypothetical future rename to warn the user against something they might not have even thought of seems overkill. Jmho (speaking for myself, not the committee).

Perhaps something could be written at Wikipedia:Arbitration guide#Case enforcement and after the case on this; which would be more visible than something stuck in the ACN archives.

Also note that our CHU guide already mentions arbitration rulings: Wikipedia:Changing usernames guidelines#When changing usernames is probably inappropriate. –xeno^talk 15:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom reform

I've written an essay called WP:ArbCom reform. Comments welcome. PhilKnight (talk) 13:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

If you will excuse the impertinence, has this been through peer review with your more ~~jaded and embittered~~ long-serving colleagues? Interested in learning insider's view of the viability of mooted reforms before commenting... Skomorokh 13:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Good question. The answer is: no, quite the opposite. There's a discussion on the arbcom mailing list about how the subcommittees could be more effective. The range of views includes there should be an on-wiki discussion about recruitment / selection mechanism through to the view the subcommittees should be independent. It looks like the 'official' discussion will be leaning more towards the former, hence my essay. PhilKnight (talk) 14:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Delegating authority to subcommittees is a good idea, but I recommend that they not be set up as independent bodies. That would raise the question of who decides in the case of disagreements between the several bodies, and who appointins or elects the new bodies. With subcommittees, your can draw on a pool of already-elected persons and any disagreements are easily settled by means of a vote of the full Arbitration Committee. Sandstein 14:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

No point wasting any time commenting or reading it, nothing will change. Giacomo 14:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I would strongly support splitting off the ban appeals subcommittee and making it independent of the ArbCom. Separation of powers is important. One of the functions of the BASC is to re-evaluate ArbCom's banning decisions. In the real world, an appeal will be handled not by the same court which made the original decision, but by another one. The original decision makers may be unable to spot their mistakes, or may be unwilling to admit them. The advantages of making BASC separate from ArbCom should therefore be obvious. But there are also disadvantages, such as: 1) to make a decision regarding the appeal, the BASC members need access to the original evidence - which may have been declared secret by ArbCom. There would need to be some mechanism to share info between ArbCom and BASC. 2) BASC members would have to be elected - this would create yet another election, and the community might get tired of having too many of them. One solution could be to combine ArbCom and BASC elections; the next 5 persons who did not cross the election threshold would be appointed to BASC instead, if they have said during the elections that they are willing to take this position as well. Nanobear (talk) 15:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this is factually incorrect. BASC's main function is for appeal of community noticeboard decisions and long blocks imposed by individual administrators. I can't remember the last time we had one from someone sanctioned directly by ArbCom in a case. If it arose however, it's not that difficult to find arbitrators who were inactive or recused on the original case, or weren't seated when it was heard. In arbitration cases incidentally, the issue is rarely whether the evidence is secret but the sheer volume of it: mass appeals in large and messy cases would be a logistical nightmare to deal with. Roger ^talk 15:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

As Roger says, appeals of ArbCom bans to BASC is very infrequent; we haven't had one in months. The purpose of the subcommittee is to give users an independent panel from the community to appeal. Otherwise, ANI bans would simply re-run themselves every few months. I would support two minor changes for dealing with infrequent ArbCom ban appeals: (1) allowing ArbCom bans not based on non-public information to be appealed to the community, which is already theoretically possible according to current BASC procedure, although I don't think it's ever been used; (2) requiring recusal for arbitrators involved in a previous ArbCom ban (possibly even appointing a temporary committee if none are available).

That said, I think it's also worth reflecting how post-conviction petitions are considered in most American courts. They not only go to the same judiciary, but in many cases they go to the same judge for the sake of judicial economy. Cool Hand Luke 16:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest (and recently did) a split along the lines: matters requiring access to confidential information vs. matters requiring only examination of on-wiki actions. We have to be very careful about who we allow to access this information (personally I would prefer not to give someone access to my private details just because their on-wiki personality was trusted by 40% more voters in the latest poll than distrusted it) - I would say that being known and trusted personally by members of the board ought to weigh more than election-winning ability in that case. But for the second category - looking at on-wiki disputes and judging who or what is right and wrong - it's clearly more important to get a cross-section of experienced editors that tend to represent the community as a whole. --Kotniski (talk) 16:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

A split may encourage candidates

I support a split of ArbCom functions into policymaking, dispute resolution, and appeals as PhilKnight suggests in his essay. I have been asked in the past to run for ArbCom. I have considered it each year, but always recoiled due to the incompatibility between the workload and the time I have available to donate. If the workload was split out between 3 different groups, I would be happy to offer my services to one of them. There may be other qualified candidates who feel the same way, but don't nominate themselves due to the workload. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure where this idea that policymaking is part of ArbCom's remit came from. ArbCom members could, of course (and perhaps do) make a great contribution to the policymaking process, based on their experiences of what went wrong in past crises and a vision of what processes we should have to prevent such situations developing in the future, but that would surely be informally as individuals, not as a body?--Kotniski (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I interpreted "policy making" as making judgments that must be carried out (such as topic bans, blocking the Church of Scientology IP addresses, 1RR restrictions on articles, etc.), not creating Wikipedia policies. I wrote my comment above with that understanding.

In fact, I don't even really see a legitimate split between dispute resolution and appeals - surely ArbCom is intended as a "court" of appeal in any case, so it should be handling only appeals - earlier stages in the DR process ought to be being handled by admins and mediators.--Kotniski (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Such a split is analogous to a court system. When you appeal a judgment, you don't go back to the same court, and you don't face the same judge and jury. The appeal goes to a different court. I think such a split in ArbCom would be useful in that it eliminates the perception of pre-loaded bias if the panel reviewing the appeal is different from the panel who made the original ruling. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm slightly puzzled by the policy-making too. In fact, ArbCom did try to get a separate policy-advisory body off the ground a year or so back (because there's a chronic need for it) but we probably went about it the wrong way. Despite various community noises about setting something else up to fulfil such a role, nothing has come of it.

On your other point, the ArbCom case load has been steadily dropping for years as more and more is dealt with by the community. What tends to come to us is the rump of cases that are too complicated for community processes to handle. Roger ^talk 18:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Trust me, if there were a separate appeal body with the power to overturn community, arbitration enforcement, checkuser and ArbCom decisions it would very soon have a very much greater workload than the present ArbCom's, plus all the aggravation and harrassment that goes with it. Roger ^talk 18:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

We have that already with administrators. If an editor appeals a block, any administrator has the power to overturn it. So what? An ArbCom appeals body doesn't have to review all cases (look how many cases the US Supreme Court decides to ignore every year). The types of cases it would review would be determined by some guidelines, so that it is not possible to appeal each and every arbcom decision. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

But do you see my point that ArbCom already is the appeals body? (Or should be, in a healthy decision-making process.) When a problem arises, it's up to mediators to smooth things over and administrators to make/enforce decisions. We only need something like ArbCom when people are still not satisfied with what the admins have decided (or the community appears to have decided) and need those decisions to be reviewed by new minds. ArbCom shouldn't be taking on issues that haven't been through these normal processes to completion. Except (as far as I can see) in cases which involve consideration of private information, which is where my suggested split comes in.--Kotniski (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Question on arbcom-audit-en

Do all arbitrators have access to the archive of arbcom-audit-en ? Cenarium (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

As a practical matter, no - but access would be granted on request if they required it. –xeno^talk 23:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts on any possible appeal by User:Ottava Rima

I am recused on all matters involving Ottava, but I do have one modest suggestion to make.

It has been said that Ottava was banned for one year therefore should be unblocked. That's half right. The original decision says:

3) Should Ottava Rima elect to return to editing Wikipedia, he shall be placed on probation for a period and under conditions to be determined prior to his return to editing. Should he wish to return to editing, Ottava Rima shall contact the Arbitration Committee via email after completing not less than half of his scheduled ban to discuss terms of the probation; the discussion may include the involvement of the community at the applicable noticeboard or as a motion of the Arbitration Committee.

Therefore, in order to be unbanned, Ottava must negotiate conditions for probation. If Ottava does contact ArbCom for an unblock, he should first be asked to propose terms to accompany his unblock. The feasibility of his proposed terms will (1) provide a starting point for negotiating an unblock, and (2) demonstrate whether Ottava understands his problematic behavior. Cool Hand Luke 18:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll also be recused on all matters involving Ottava, but my opinion would be that, although I have extreme reservations, he deserves an unblock. He was rightly blocked for his general obnoxiousness and refusal to admit that he was capable of being wrong, but people can change. If he hasn't changed, he'll be swiftly re-blocked, and all that's lost is a small amount of time dealing with him; since any unblock will make it very clear that he's in the last-chance saloon and any misconduct will result in reblocking, a reblock won't (hopefully) provoke the "he didn't deserve it" chorus. If he has changed, we regain someone who was willing to write in an area which has historically been badly underrepresented on Wikipedia. I would endorse an unblock, with the proviso that it's made very clear that any attempts to pick fights will result in immediate and permanent banning. – iridescent 20:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The re-block might be swift, but his supporters will start a huge pie fight over the matter. It'll be a big time sink, I don't see anything wrong with a few conditions upfront. RxS (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

My proposal would be:

He comes back under strict non-tendentiousness guidelines - this means:

Succinct and to the point replies when reviewing or discussing article content.
AGF at all times (avoid gratuitous acrimony).
No more than two posts on the same argument/rebuttal unless there is new material to discuss.
Hence, not to post lengthy negative or argumentative posts that offer no new angle.

Any admin is able to call him and block him if they feel he is being tendentious. The committee recognises there is some considerable leeway in the definition of this and thus infractions are to be posted and discussed at Arbitration Enforcement.

(In essence, the onus is on Ottava to steer WELL CLEAR of acrimony or face long blocks, and not to risk wikilawyering borderline definitions of tendentiousness. I am thinking in lieu of mentoring, we just adopting this approach. It will either work or it won't. I'll wait for some feedback before posting a motion. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Ottava is the worst kind of problematic editor. He's rude, condescending, deliberately confrontational at every turn, unbelievably arrogant, but also very smart and an excellent contributor of content. That's why it took so long for him to get the boot. How to get back the content contributions without all the needless, endless, nasty, deliberately created drama is a tough question. I don't get the impression Ottava is a teenager, most adults will not have undergone massive changes in their outlook on life in the space of a year. So I can't say I even support this idea but should it be done it would need to be just about the toughest probation ever done, with no loopholes for him to sneak through, and without some "escalating series of short blocks" as that approach has proven to be ineffective time and again with this type of user. A "one strike, you're out" approach is the only option that should be on the table if and when he does ask to be unblocked. A total interaction ban with anyone he's picked a fight with in the past, an infinite civility probation and a ban on starting ANI (or other drama) threads without running them past an uninvolved party to be evaluated for merit first. And even that should only be considered if he owns up to his past behavior. I don't mean an apology, just an acknowledgement that his problems here were of his own making. Otherwise it's a foregone conclusion not in anybody's best interest. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy to add ban on initiating discussion on any other user's conduct. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

As I was involved in the original case, clearly I can offer my opinion, but I can't vote if this comes to a vote amongst Arbs, rather than community opinion. My feeling is that when he asked last time we ought - as with most other ban appeals - to have indicated that six months of reasonably trouble free editing elsewhere was a prerequisite. So far he hasn't achieved this - if he had, I would be in favour of an unblock. I'd even forgive the big blowup on Commons, as it concerned a third party who, as far as I am concerned, is the complete definition of a troll, even if he isn't anything worse. As it is, I would be in favour of that standard offer being made - six months editing elsewhere without a fantastic blowup, bizarre accusations, reams of wikilawyering, unwarranted aggrandisement etc (ie the behaviour that caused the ban in the first place). Show us that you can handle content disputes, do that, no problems.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- What ought to have happened last time is water under the bridge, the one year ban is now up. Time to move on. Malleus Fatuorum 21:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm allowed to post here or not, but if not then whoever please feel free to delete this. As one of those who has had occasional fallouts with Ottava in the past I would not like him, if allowed back, to be blocked again just because he and I fell out again, no matter who was at fault. And given the childish notion of "incivility" that's so prevalent here I doubt that anyone placed under an "infinite civility probation" would last here more than a couple of weeks. (Did you really mean "infinite" Bebblebrox? If you did, would you also agree to an infinite civility probation? After all, aren't administrators supposed to be setting an example? Doesn't the word "probation" imply some kind of an end date anyway?) Malleus Fatuorum 21:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I dont think thats likely in fairness. As somebody who considers Ottava a friend but has had very very, very, harsh words with him in the past, normally when friends fall out they are given latitude by admins with civility buttons. One thing I'll say for Ottava is that he could have had me blocked a fair few times, but didn't go running. Ceoil 21:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

(e.c.) On a related point, Casliber's idea of putting complaints about a returned OR under the auspices of WP:AE is a recipe for rapid blocking. AE is structured to make the first admin to move's actions virtually impossible to alter, even if they represent a gross over-reaction. Coupled with the fact that AE has regulars who act like a tactical to strategic nuclear-level response is needed in most cases and the result is utterly predictable: some OR opponents would go looking to drag OR to AE as soon as possible and would repeat the tactic until the desired and inevitable long-term block was imposed whether OR's actions warranted it or not. EdChem (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

That's my concern, that some will just be looking for reasons to block, and whatever he does the noise they drum up will drown out common sense. Some temporary restrictions may make sense, like a ban on starting ANI threads without running them past an uninvolved party to be evaluated for merit first, but that might be good advice for anyone to follow. Others though, like he must "own up to his past behavior" just stick in my craw. Malleus Fatuorum 22:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I did indeed mean infinite, but maybe "civility probation" isn't the best way to describe it. We all have our moments where we get angry or are a bit rude, but OR made a habit out of it, to the point where most users who did not work in the topic areas he worked in knew him only as someone who deliberately stirred up conflict. We need some way to guarantee that behavior will not return. I do agree with you (no really) that the definition of civility is highly variable and subjective. I wouldn't want to see anyone kicked off for a single incident of intemperance, but OR made a career out of it and we can't assume that in the past year he has left that attitude behind him. I don't really even support this idea, but Wikipedia is the land of endless "last chances" so if we are going to consider it we need some mechanism to insure the problems of the past are not repeated, otherwise it is a pointless endeavor that will only end badly for all concerned. On another note: has he in fact asked again to return or is this a purely hypothetical discussion? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that should he return, he should be given a "guardian" of some kind; someone (not one of his friends and not of his choosing), with unquestioned authority to block him at any sign of trouble. (Yes, I'm aware that this approach failed spectacularly with Mattisse, but that was mainly because the mentors were—rightly—trying to rehabilitate her and thus reluctant to pull the trigger; if this approach is retried, it needs someone who won't give him the benefit of the doubt.) I disagree with Malleus that "own up to his past behavior" is bad; it may be worded slightly crudely, but most (if not all) of Ottava's problems stemmed ultimately from the fact that he genuinely couldn't see why he was upsetting and annoying people, and that he gave the impression of being totally unwilling ever to compromise. Without a recognition that (whatever he may think of it) his actions came across as obnoxious, there's frankly no point in his returning; if he wants to come back, he needs to recognize that he needs to change to accommodate us, even if he thinks he's in the right and everyone else is in the wrong. – iridescent 22:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the Mattisse situation was indeed a spectacular failure, but not altogether with your analysis of why that was. One of the few mentors who would indeed have pulled the trigger (me) was unable to do so, for obvious reasons; if Ottave has to have a "guardian" as one of the conditions for his return then it would obviously need to be an administrator everyone could agree was completely unpartisan. Malleus Fatuorum 22:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

To nonpartisan, add "immune to wheedling" and "willing to participate", and you see the problem in finding someone. I could only think of a few names, and most of those are virtually inactive whereas this needs someone willing to be here at short notice. (I don't propose nominating people for this role, unless and until it's decided that the pseudomentoring approach will be taken, so nobody bother suggesting names at this stage.) – iridescent 22:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

To add another dimension, I guess that fundamentally we may perhaps also disagree on the value of what someone says they will do as opposed to what they actually do. I rarely accept apologies, for instance, as I much prefer to wait and see how people actually behave. If there are no more problems, then no need of an apology, other than in passing and in good-hearted discussion over a pint. Demanding apologies doesn't sit well with me. Malleus Fatuorum 22:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's so much a case of demanding an apology, as demanding a recognition of the problem. When you get in trouble, you may not agree with whatever policy is being used to justify the block, but you understand why it's happened—your issues are with Wikipedia's policies and the way they're interpreted. In Ottava's case he gave the impression of genuinely not understanding why screaming abuse at people might be considered annoying; unless and until there's some kind of "I may not agree with Wikipedia's policies, but nonetheless I'm going to abide by them" statement, there's no point in his returning unless it's a "give him enough rope" exercise to give a pretext to ban him permanently. There may be something to be said for that—indeed, I'd argue that he should be given the chance if that's what he wants—but it's unfair both to him and to those who'll be dragged into it, if he comes back without a recognition that the problem is him, not everyone else. – iridescent 23:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, even I can see that. I guess it's just the way the demands are being framed I'm complaining about. Or perhaps the way that I perceived they were being framed. Malleus Fatuorum 23:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, of course you can comment here, Malleus. Just an ordinary WT page. I am glad that this stimulated some conversation. Cool Hand Luke 00:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) He's asked, and we are now discussing (here). I think we ned to be stricter with editors editing 'in the vicinity' of a sanction. Thus my call that admins are allowed some latitude with interpreting tendentiousness. Yes it paints a big red target on Ottava's forehead but I want to send the message that he simply can't post 'bordering-on-argumentative' posts again and really needs to stick to article building and succinct and proactive communication on article improvement. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

If you read my initial remark, I was perfectly clear that I am not suggesting an apology, forced or otherwise. In fact I would never suggest that, it is as pointless as it is demeaning. I am suggesting he simply acknowledge that he caused his own problems. If he can't do that then I see no point on even considering unblocking. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- I believe that I've met Iridescent at least halfway, but I think that's a step too far. I am very uncomfortable about apportioning blame, as I could make a very good case (and at least to to me a convincing one) that the blame lies with the way that wikipedia's policies are unevenly applied. I have agreed with Iridescent that a recognition of the reasons for the ban, whether Ottava believes those reasons to be valid or not, is a reasonable prerequisite before it's lifted. To go further, also demanding an admission of guilt, is distasteful. Who is to say where blame lies? Perhaps wikipedia caused Ottava's problems rather than the other way around. Malleus Fatuorum 23:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Given that he seems to have experienced exactly the same problems everywhere he has gone, possibly not. I do agree with you that assigning blame and forcing apology are pointless. What I would like to see is an understanding, even if it is along the lines of "I now understand that this club has rules against wearing knickerbockers and singing the Marseillese after 9pm. I believe these rules to be silly and unhelpful, and with a distinct anti-french bias, but I realise that turning up at midnight in golfing knickers giving voice to the national anthem of the French republic is going to get me thrown out." Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Surprisingly, I find myself agreeing with Malleus. As far as I'm concerned Ottava need acknowledge nothing, wrongdoing or otherwise; anything he could say with words he could just as easily demonstrate with his actions. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 00:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not out to humiliate him, if there is a way to get some assurance that these behaviors won't be repeated without having to specifically take the blame that's fine. We are all expected to abide by consensus whether we agree with it or not, I believe that is essentially what we are both saying. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Essentially, yes. However, I think we differ insofar as I see no need to have him make a statement of any kind as anything that he could say he could just as easily demonstrate with his actions. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 00:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Actions speak louder than words, that is true. However, I feel that at the very least we should expect some sort of agreement on what types of behaviors will lead to the block being re-instated, and that it should be made clear that testing the limits of said restrictions will not be tolerated either. That is as much in ORs interest as in the projects. We've seen before where users under restriction found clever ways to circumvent the spirit if not the letter of the restriction. Then we have these prolonged arguments at AE that just muddy the waters further, lead to wheel warring, etc. It's hard to draw a bright line when it comes to a behavioral problem that is not as easily definable as say edit warring or POV pushing, but I think we need at least an outline of such a a restriction to avoid gaming by either OR or his "opponents". It should also be clear that interaction bans are a double edged sword, users who have had past conflicts with OR may run into him by chance, but they shouldn't be stalking his edits. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm beginning to see you in a different and not altogether more flattering light Elen. I have agreed that a recognition of the cause of the past problems is not an unreasonable request, but you seem to be angling for something more like a mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa, a debasement in other words. Sorry, it seems that we were agreeing, and I misread. Oops! Malleus Fatuorum 00:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Ottava needs to choose his battles more carefully. He continuously rushes in and takes a hasty position, from which he is too proud to withdraw. I very much agree with a mentor, a single mentor, an admin and not one of his friends. I think if Ottava expects to be allowed back, he has to accept it will be within a confined space. For his own good, almost. Ceoil 00:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Precisely. I think that Ottava is the best person to decide what sort of limits he will be able to work within. We could devise all sorts of ingenious restrictions, but if he's not willing or able to abide by them, it will end poorly. Cool Hand Luke 00:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps BASC should ask him to email them with details then. I think we are all looking for more or less the same thing here, a simple set of guidelines that define what is ok and what is not, with any grey area weighted in favor of "not." Beeblebrox (talk) 01:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, although Ottava's unban request would be handled by the whole non-recused committee (and as you can see above, there are several recusals). Cool Hand Luke 01:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Playing devils advocate here, but perhalps his return could be limited by topic. Eng lith obviously, and hes a very strong and perceptive reviewer; so GAC and FAC. No doubt he would be appreciated there, and they are areas where he is known (and generally liked). Ceoil 02:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps for a limited period, but not long term. Ottava is also knowledgable on 17th-century English history for instance, particularly as it relates to the persecution of Catholics at that time. And there may well be many other areas I'm unaware of where his input could be valuable. Malleus Fatuorum 02:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Frankly I'm not one for 'people can change', after a point they cant, but I like to think his obstinacy is down to age. I'm not sure what your getting at here Malleus, but my openion is that until he grows up and starts listening to others and gives thoes around him the benifir of the doubt and the right to be heard with out being labeled 'part of the problem', his edit rights should be choked to areas where he can reasonably be expected to act without too much conflict. Ceoil 02:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not about anyone changing, which would be an absurd demand. It's simply about a recognition of the rules of engagement here, whether or not we can all agree with them. Malleus Fatuorum 04:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Certainly not long term (I get it now...sorry v slow here!). Yeah but he needs to rebuild trust. Ceoil 02:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

My only contact with this person (as far as I remember) was in a dispute about what to call Lord Byron's article, over which we strongly disagreed, but looking at the background it would seem that the user doesn't have any behavioural problems that can't be corrected or suppressed by mentoring and close observation, and if he's desirous of returning we shouldn't pass up the opportunity to benefit from his positive contributions.--Kotniski (talk) 08:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm in favor of letting him come back with no particular pre-conditions. My Matisse experience taught me that we should either let an editor edit freely, a volunteer organization doesn't have the resources available for micro-management, or we should wield the stick heavily (for the same reason). Ottava deserves a chance but a fair chance should not come with strings attached. --rgpk (comment) 19:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Howeever in the discussion above there is a sentiment expressed that Ottava may have been/still be unaware of why their behavious was so disruptive. If this is the case, then a no-strings return would be tantamount to starting a "Community ban proposal" sub-thread here. If someone has almost drowned, it's not a fair chance to just toss them back into the pool. Franamax (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

No way. You can tell exactly how Ottava will behave on Wikipedia should he return simply by checking what he's been up to on other Wikimedia projects during his ban (click "SUL" at the bottom of his Contributions page). His extensive block logs on Wikimedia Commons [17] and Wikiversity [18] have all been acquired over the past year, for the same sort of disruption which earned him his ban here. His block on Wikisource [19] for "Disruptive editing: incivility, excessive aggressive, not conducive to constructive discussion" was earned on 30 December 2010, i.e. only a few weeks ago. He also has Wikiversity blocks from January of this year; in fact, most of his activity there over the past few months seems to have been taken up with interpersonal feuding. This guy thrives on confrontation. Allowing him back on Wikipedia.en will merely give him a bigger stage for his drama. Yes, he's changed over the past year: he's got even worse. --Folantin (talk) 10:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

arbitration of non-english pages?

does the arbitration committee handle disputes on articles which are written in other languages? Tsukihimelov (talk) 05:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

If you mean article hosted on another Wikipedia project, no. This is the Arbitration Committee for the English language Wikipedia, and all articles on this project are expected to be written in English. Not all WP projects have or desire a committee like this but they should have some form of dispute resolution available. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

does that mean, for example, the german language wikipedia project may have its own form of committee or resolution system different from the english language wikiepdia project? Tsukihimelov (talk) 07:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes. MBisanz ^talk 08:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Please see m:Arbitration Committee for a list of Wikipedia languages that have ArbComs of their own. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

limited discussion of the ArbCom itself

How limited? Where is the 'unlimited' place for discussion of the ArbCom itself? Koakhtzvigad (talk) 09:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you serious? AGK [•] 11:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes.

In the past two months I have encountered inexplicable interpretations of policy and guidelines, and therefore I now ask for specific guidance in interpreting everything in Wikipedia because of the seemingly intentionally integrated vagueness.

Therefore, I'd like to know how limited is defined here, so I am not banned of blocked for something which has perhaps become an unwritten convention

Also I would like to find out if, depending on the answer to above, a less constricted forum exists in Wikipedia. I have seen mention of the Wikipedia:Village Pump, but it seems more project-oriented, and its interface seems confusingly diverse for my proposal which is basically directed at the primary policy-generating/enforcing organ of the Wikipedia, at least as I understand it Koakhtzvigad (talk) 12:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't really seem to mean anything, apart from, I guess, that discussion is to abide by the limits of reasonable length and relevance to the Arbitration Committee: so no circular, rambling threads, and nothing that clearly doesn't concern the ArbCom as a body. Regarding your mission to "ask for specific guidance in interpreting everything in Wikipedia", I wonder if you have ever read Wikipedia:Ignore all rules? When using the project space (and indeed any page on Wikipedia), use your common sense to determine whether your edit is helpful. Regards, AGK [•] 13:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I understood it as meaning discussion of ArbCom as a body, not of particular actions of ArbCom or members thereof in particular cases. Though nothing bad will happen to you if you raise something in the wrong venue (unless you're being particularly unpleasant about someone) - the worst that will happen is that someone will point you to the right venue.--Kotniski (talk) 14:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

It should be pointed out as well that ArbCom is not the "primary policy-generating/enforcing organ of the Wikipedia." The community at large generates the policies, regular editors and admins are the primary enforcers, and it is only after there is prolonged disagreement or failure to curb a problem that ArbCom gets involved. They make decisions based on policy but it is rare (and to many users undesirable) for them to actually create a new policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

In that case I would like to know why the combination of ArbCom and/or "The community at large" promote editorial conflict in Wikipedia? Koakhtzvigad (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Some diffs of such promotion would be useful. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, could you elucidate? –xeno^talk 21:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Something to do with his earlier block and current two week topic ban both replaced to ArbCom decisions perhaps? Dougweller (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The phrasing of the question leaves no room for disagreement, like the old "Have you stopped beating your wife?" trick. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

So how should I have stated what was more of a suggestion than a question? And has been answered with a 'yes'? Dougweller (talk) 07:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I think Beeblebrox was referring to Koakhtzvigad's bulleted question above, not your question. This is getting messy, it's lucky it's only a limited discussion :-)--Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, the danger of time-threaded replies. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Demiurge is correct, apologies for not being clearer. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes Dougweller, something to do with the recent "introduction" I had with the "arbitration" process, of course. Historically grievances have been powerful catalysts for change Koakhtzvigad (talk) 04:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Evidence is provided at the very end, but, control yourself.

This turned into an essay, so be prepare to read something which is too long.

The problem is cultural rather than behavioural. Its not specific actions and decision of the individual members of the ArbCom or "The community", but the culture of conflict (abstract) that permeates the operations of Wikipedia.

This realisation only occurred to me when I was accused of "wikilawyering" as if lawyering was "a bad thing".

Any society's stability is measured only by the cohesion of its members through their adherence to the explicit rules of community/society ("what is normal, appropriate, and expected." [20]).

This stems from a systems design engineering primary goal - achievement of system reliability through stability (aka civil society). And, both Wikipedia software, and its users are part of the same system whether they like it or not.

The lack of reliability and accuracy in Wikipedia are symptomatic of an unstable system. I don't know what revision of the Wiki software Wikipedia runs on now, but I bet its a stable and generally debugged version. ArbCom needs to address the other part of the system, its users.

The role of lawyers in any community/society is - interacting between its members, and the administration that manages these rules, ideally creating conflict-free society. However, the Wikipedia "legal code" is to me rather "murky". Administrators seem to be occupied with the punitive functions, and not wikilawyering. There is no systematic derivation, creation, formulation and revision of the rules. At least they are not easily accessed or visible to me.

I shouldn't have to ask for advice on any given rule where it deals with an open system of knowledge such as here. It should be explicitly stated and "idiot proof".

And, although the "Red pillar" of Wikipedia is that Wikipedia does not have firm rules. Rules on Wikipedia are not fixed in stone, and the spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. in fact this is not true as is abundantly clear from the contents of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. But, lack of rules is not a good thing! Try raising a child based on that idea, or running a business, or a community. It doesn't work.

My particular area of interest is conflict management/resolution, and in part, conflict in its broader sense of war. When I was accused of "edit warring", I realised that there are a vast number of conflicts continuously ongoing in Wikipedia, largely because the rules are lacking in explicitness.

Given Wikipedia is a virtual community, it too has to enact rules that are clearly defining of itself, but, it does not. There is inherent vagueness in almost every policy and convention I have looked at. So much so that no real community would survive by them. Imagine living in a country which has for one of its laws Ignore all rules. Usually the remedy is not less rules, but more, and of greater severity, with public administration being conducted by the military, known for its clarity due to its inherently-anarchical operating environment. Shall I provide a link to today's news in Egypt?

No wonder the Wikipedia sanctions are discretionary; greater vagueness of Wikipedia rules invites greater scope for discretion in their application against users that seek to a) exploit the vagueness of rules, and b) evade the effects of rule application, and c) abandon contributing and migrate to other online communities, often enforced.

Wikipedia is therefore a transmigratory community, and not a stable one. Each successive population therefore tries to reinvent the wheel.

It has even been loosing the "admins" (assumed custodians) at a steady rate for years. This is because most normal would be participants are social animals and seek a stable community membership.

Immeasurable amounts of text are contributed to resolving conflicts based on these vague community rules. Can anyone estimate the time and energy thus wasted in improving existing articles? Why are not the same amounts of effort expanded on better defining the rules that would prevent incident creation in the first place?

And yet these rules/policies/conventions and guidelines remain vague, often seemingly conventional in that their true meaning is only arrived at by one having to experience them!

Imagine a society where one only learns its rules by actually committing every crime in the legal code, and being processed through the judicial system. This, is Wikipedia.

Few people in real life have the desire, or need to voluntarily come into to contact with the judicial system. Most are only intuitively aware of the do's and dont's of the society without having a legal code familiarity. This is not something that can be said about Wikipedia.

This rules/policies/conventions and guidelines vagueness invites their challenging/breaching (intentional or not), and, as in my case, incomprehension, and therefore promotes friction and conflict.

Having examined several discussions on the current text of at least two such policies, and reviewed several others more briefly, I realised that it is the ArbCom that is ultimately responsible for conflict prevention in the first instance, rather than its focus on resolution, and not "The community", because the later is far too dynamic and transitory to achieve stable consensus. In any case, few have the stamina to seek previous consensus attainments on every policy/convention etc. issue they encounter in Wikipedia, assuming they are here to edit articles and not, er..."wikilawyering".

ArbCom is elected to leadership, and therefore has the responsibility for providing community with a directing influence. This is how all currently extant societies function. There are leaders, who present a set of explicit society/community goals, and followers that agree to comply with the methods of attaining them, given the resources.

While the stated Wikipedia goal is "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.", in fact it has only about 70,000 editors while having about 365 million readers. This means that the actual goal is "The free encyclopedia that anyone can use."! It is only worth using IF there is a sense of reliability and accuracy in Wikipedia, when any given article achieves a stable version, i.e. one that is not in need of revision.

Achievement of this goal is seemingly not the objective of Wikipedia community, although many goals are stated. It seems to me this largely stems from the lack of English comprehension by the community. Many English words, and the concepts they stand for, are adulterated. Foremost of them is the word editing which is surprisingly ill defined in its article. Editing is a process, but performed with an intention of producing a correct, consistent, accurate, and complete output, and not a never-ending process or revision of itself. For, if it was, no painting would ever be finished, book written, film shown in cinemas, etc. Such creative but unfinished products are often described as halted due to inner conflict of their creators.

Conflict generated through lack of clarity in the community participation prevents article completion, and ArbCom/community does nothing about this prevention. It therefore must mean that it encourages this constant state of conflict, and therefore attainment of objectives and goals.

For the physics-minded reading here, another word for conflict is friction. Eventually, given enough friction, entropy sets in, and the process begins to decay, which is happening already.

I want to know why this culture of conflict is allowed to persist. Koakhtzvigad (talk) 04:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia is, to use your phrase, a transmigratory community. I for one am glad that there is not a set of rules written by a prior generation, because I doubt I would like the rules they wrote. I suspect that our successors will be glad that we did not write firm rules, because we would do a very poor job of it, if done by 'consensus'. If you want to write about modes of wiki community management, I think you will enjoy Meatball Wiki. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion, but I would like to indulge myself by contributing knowledge to Wikipedia articles.

My point is that I can't do this in an environment predisposed to conflict.

And you are quite wrong. There is a set of rules written by the previous generations. Its just not a very good set.

I see no answer to my question though Koakhtzvigad (talk) 06:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

part 2

I'll provide answers interlined though I realise this is not the done thing.

Some thoughts in passing in reply to Koakhtzvigad.

The definition of wikilawyering is very different from the traditional concept of "being a lawyer" with which you seem to compare it. It has a clear and, to most of us, useful meaning.
- This is because Wikipedia redefined "lawyering". The point of lawyering is to represent a non-lawyering client, and help the client evade a negative court outcome. This is common sense.
- In law there are Legal principles, a wholly unreferenced stub in Wikipedia.
- In Wikipedia there are:

Wikipedia:Purpose

The three P's

Wikipedia:(Three) Core content policies

Wikipedia:Trifecta: This three-point simplified ruleset was the precursor to the Five Pillars page

Wikipedia:Five pillars

meta:Founding principles

Wikipedia:8 simple rules for editing our encyclopedia

Wikipedia:Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia

wmf:Values: The six values of the Wikimedia Foundation

wikiversity:Wikimedia Ethics

BUT

All of the above are so poor in composition that they "encourage"

1. Using formal legal terms in an inappropriate way when discussing Wikipedia policy; - as users grapple for some terminology they can identity with in defending their actions or behaviour

2. Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles; - because the "spirit" of the principles is "in the eye of the beholder

3. Asserting that the technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express; - there is a seeming lack of understanding in the relationship between the words "principle", "policy", "rules" though in Wikipedia these are more "regulations", and "guideline". One look at these articles with explain why there is a wide ranging failure to create these in Wikipedia. Its poor '"Governance'" (as an article and as it is applied to Wikipedia), hence my question to ArbCom.

4. Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions. - Dooh! Would that be because some are missing the "spirit" of the principles, or are so left-brained that they DO deal with the literal interpretation of what they see before them, and attempt to function within that criteria?

Or is your argument that relying on adherence to principles (backed by rules), rather than adherence to solidly fixed rules, is a mistake? If so, I think many would disagree with you.
- Quite frankly I don't care how many people disagree with me. In general statistics only work at procedures like elections. Nowhere are the "principles", "policies", "regulations", and "guidelines" arrived at through statistical data sampling. Least of all consensus which only describes "how" the data is used i.e. "majority of opinion" not 'Who" participates which is why the Random House Dictionary adds a note that "Many say that the phrase consensus of opinion is redundant and hence should be avoided" elucidating that" The expression is redundant, however, only if consensus is taken in the sense "majority of opinion" rather than in its equally valid and earlier sense "general agreement or concord." Criticism of consensus of opinion has been so persistent and widespread that the phrase, even though in common use, occurs only infrequently in edited formal writing. The phrase general consensus is objected to for similar reasons.

Consensus is now widely used attributively, especially in the phrase "consensus politics"." But as you appreciate "consensus politics" is agenda-based within the spectrum of generally "adversarial political environment". Hence the never-ending Wikipedia search for consensus.

You claim that Wikipedia rules are not easily accessible and visible, apparently by comparison to laws of civil societies such as nation states. That's really a rather preposterous claim, given the well advertised complexity and proverbially asinine nature of some legal codes - and the stipulation (mostly absent on Wikipedia) that ignorance of the law is no defence.
- Well actually no. That particular statement is such an old "legal principle" it is learned in Latin language, along with the others, such as:

Ubi jus, ibi remedium

Communis error fecit jus

Quod remedio destituitur ipsa, re valet si culpa absit

ln jure non remota causa sed proxima, spectatur

Actus Dei nemini facit injuriam

Lex non cogit ad impossibilia

lgnorantia facti excusat,—ignorantia juris non excusat (your example)

Volenti non fit injuria

lnterest reipublicee ut sit finis litium

Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa (was applied to me recently)

Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea

De minimis non curat lex

Most are therefore well embedded in at least Western cultures, but are generally accepted in most global cultures where law at least in its basic principles is derived from European models.

However, I can not claim ignorance because I '"had"' read the relevant "law" when I was warned, but it didn't reflect the explanation I later received from some admin. It seems to me I was at that time fully within my rights to deem his/her advice as his/her personal interpretation of the Wikipedia "law" doubtful given there was no indication that particular individual had policy-making authority within Wikipedia. (Is this "wikilawyering"?)

Wikipedia does not have a lack of rules or absence of rules, it merely allows some common sense when implementing them.
- You mean as in common sense based on Aristotelian, Liberal Enlightenment philosophy with a dash of Church dogma thrown in, or on Commonsense reasoning? It was related to me by someone learned in Talmud that common sense doesnt have the value you attribute to it due to the persistent encounter of the logical formula "you would think..., but...". Rather more sobering is the news of Roleystone Kelmscott Bushfire started by an individual with previously impeccable common sense and knowledge of law. I therefore urge Wikipedians to consult

/arguments.html#commonsense this list.

You say there is inherent vagueness in every policy you have looked at. They are open to interpretation, of course, but for the most part you need to point out examples and explain how you would make them less vague. 3RR, at least, seems pretty simple and inflexible.
- So why is it that I needed an explanation of the 3RR if it is so simple? In fact I am not alone. The most recent version of the "pretty simple and inflexible" rule is dated 19:06, 20 January 2011 by Nucleophilic (->The three-revert rule: Since there are some exceptions, '"a little more accurate'"). The "earliest" revision is dated 05:26, 26 April 2003 by Infrogmation (redir Wikipedia:Complaints about other contributors). Six and a half years, and still revising a "pretty simple and inflexible" rule? :::And the answer I got was "Also, you say that you dont have time for arbitration...well, the fact is that some issues on Wikipedia are going to result extremely long, painful processes. I mean, if editing in say, Israeli-Palestinian issues was smooth and uncontroversial, I would actually think something is 'Wrong" with the process, not right. If you're not interested in being involved in those discussions, then, yes, you're right, that part of Wikipedia is not right for you. And, really, there's nothing wrong with that. Qwyr/ian (talk) 02:05,12 January 2011 (UTC)" which confirmed my suggestion that Wikipedia is conflict-based because "no" subject need invite arbitration.

"users that seek to a) exploit the vagueness of rules, and b) evade the effects of rule application, and c) abandon contributing and migrate to other online communities, often enforced" ... if they are doing (a) and (b), then aren't they bad faith users and thus (c) is a good thing?
- Maybe I should have used b), c) and d) because obviously the a) = continuous participation in the conflict-based environment I'm seeking a justification for. Some have become so accustomed to this environment, that they positively thrive in it, while others, including former ArbCom members, have fallen fowl of it!

Agreed, much time and energy is wasted on conflicts.
- See below on how much....its quite staggering

But your solution to this is that people (starting with arbcom or led by arbcom, perhaps) should spend less time working on content and more time improving rules. This, you speculate, would ultimately lead to less time on conflicts and more on content. But I suggest it would just lead to even more rulecreep ~~(why isn't that a shortcut yet?)~~, plus a good dose of extra conflicts over the many rule changes required.
- At this time I am not making any suggestions. The first step it to realise there is a problem. As I showed above, rule creep is a fact of life in Wikipedia, but is not easily realised. It is so because it is a part of the same culture of "anyone can edit", i.e. there is no defined state of completion.The rules by which Wikipedia exists are not externalised, and therefore are a sort of "ArbCom Project". While rules in the real world are deliberated, gazetted, and codified, this is not true in Wikipedia. However, the system of governance can not be a part of the system it is seeking to govern. The privilege of leadership is its authority, at least where I live.

There would be, I predict, an inverse relationship between improvement in regulation and reduction in conflict, hence increase in editing activity (satisfying the "purpose" condition).

If you examine the history of law, at least Western, you will see a trend from the simple (read vague) rule by personal decree evolve into the highly complex legal codes of today. However, the societies with more complex legal systems tend to be more stable. Where rule by personal decree returned, disruption through conflict inevitably followed.

"Prevent incident creation" is a worthy goal but unrealistic. Rigid sets of access rights and some paid staff to administrate them would achieve it, but that is not going to happen and would be undesirable for most contributors anyway.
- You say"unrealistic" as if anyone has tried to "realise"this goal? Please point me to where strategies were suggested, developed and put into practice, but which failed. You offered two, but that is not a very extensive list.

"Imagine a society where one only learns its rules by actually committing every crime in the legal code". That's not what's happening at all. Some people learn about Wikipedia rules (especially NOLEGALTHREATS) by breaking them. But most do not. Rules on edit warring are not only clear, but the appropriate behaviour is obvious to most reasonable people - constantly reverting an opponent just because you can is clearly silly.
- Again you are wrong. Such a silly thing was done to me by an experienced administrator, and seconded with a block though I can assure you I am "still" far from "clear" on how I breached the "as written" or even "in the spirit of policy.

You suggest that the community is too unstable to achieve a meaningful concensus because of its relatively high turnover rate. But this isn't true. What concensus positions of the community have fluctuated? Was it 5RR instead of 3RR, back in 2007? Does the community reverse its opinion on allowing IPs to edit, twice a year? Do significant parts of the community think that BLPs shouldn't be edited conservatively now? Some would suggest that the normative traditions the community holds are actually too strong, that the ingrained traditions frustrate change and discourage newcomers - the exact opposite of your suggestion that concensus is too inconsistent.
- Now you are asking me to do research on Wikipedia policy history! But, I shouldn't have to do that. However, my organizational experience suggest that high staff turnover leads to over-emphasis on authoritarian management as organisational goals become less achievable with less experienced personnel. The fact that only about 70,000 editors participate NOW, from a readership of 365 million in an environment where "anyone can edit' suggests that Wikipedia has in fact became the preeminent example of online authoritarianism. Its not that consensus positions have fluctuated, but that the vagueness of these positions (the "normative traditions") persisted which drives conflict, and user non-participation/exodus/eviction. And yet, most participants do not come from a traditional society. Wikipedia may be a refuge for some, but it is a culture shock to most.

Writing in an IRC world, one author fairly well described the environment of Wikipedia (love of knowledge) through another love analogy "Net.romances display computer-mediated relationships at their most idyllic. However, disinhibition [enabled by no personal disclosure] and increased freedom from social norms [ignore all rules] have another side. Along with increased broad-mindedness and intimacy among some users goes increased hostility on the part of others. 'Flaming', the expression of anger, insults and hatred, is a common phenomenon in all forms of computer-mediated communication, and IRC is no exception. Anonymity makes the possibility of social punishment for transgression of cultural mores appear to be limited. Attracting the anger of other users of the system is a relatively unthreatening prospect - although it is possible for users to ignore a particular user, all that user need do is change his or her nickname to 'start afresh' with the people whom he or she had alienated. Protected by terminals and separated by distance, the sanction of physical violence is irrelevant, although, as I shall discuss later, social sanctions are present and often in a verbal form that apes physical violence. The safety of anonymous expression of hostilities and obscenities that would otherwise incur social sanctions, encourages some people to use IRC as a forum for airing their resentment of individuals or groups in a blatantly uninhibited manner" ("Electropolis: Communication and community on Internet Relay Chat", Elizabeth M. Reid, Honours Thesis, 1991, University Of Melbourne Department Of History)

In Wikipedia I see same environment of hostility, but one governed by different rules.

A consensus being created "from the grassroots" is indeed the opposite way round to how most societies function, but it's far from proven that it's a method that doesn't work. That's not to say more leadership is a bad thing. But seeking "strong leadership" is exactly the outcome of many real-world grassroots revolutions, with negative results, so perhaps not a road to go down.
- l would argue it is proven by the relative paucity of the existing societies, even communities, that are governed by consensus.

I am not advocating a "strong leadership" whatever you mean by that, but one that takes responsibility for the community. Currently, I don't see it. The vast majority of articles are not what I would call quality reads. The few that are more developed are often subject to intense division of editorial opinion, such as the Arab-Israeli Conflict range. It seems to me that more clearly defining editorial standards, and relating editing experience to Wikipedia needs would go a long way to solving many conflict issues.

Your concerns about a lack of stable versions of articles seem unrelated to your concerns about the processes for dealing with editors. The fact that there are however many hundreds of millions of readers, is a sign that yes indeed, readers find the articles of use despite their "unfinished" nature.
- The lack of stable article versions is directly related to users editing in a conflict-based environment. Articles can go through a history of editing and revising before a user may appear that actually has subject expertise. However, anonymity and "I was here first=consensus" creates situations where many such individuals will attempt to correct what is to them blatant misinformation, and one they would not encounter in their professional capacity. They are then subjected to "behavioural modifiers" of the Wikipedia sanctions which they, as I have done, will try to negotiate while attempting to set the record straight.

The record that 365 million Internet users visited Wikipedia says nothing about the quality of the articles though. And, do these include the vandalising IPs?

You end by conflating the ideas you've expounded on conflict among editors created by what you see as vagueness in rules, with the openness to further development that all articles have. The former is an unavoidable product of a very open editing system, and the latter is a project aim in itself. (Although featured articles allow some level of perceived "completion" for articles.) The two don't seem to have much in common, to me. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Exactly the point, the project aim is not served by the project methodology! While it is true that encyclopedia is intended to be "cycled" through revisions as any given subject attains greater definition of detail about it, the open editing system that serves this is (to me) clearly geared against this goal by failing to even establish what the subject is about in many instances, and subsequently sapping very limited resources from completion of encyclopedia in general.

And here is another proof of the general environment of conflict that pervades Wikipedia. ...and the top ten most edited Wikipedia pages are (Period: 2008-04-24 — 2008-05-23 (UTC))

(Pages with the most revisions (limited to the first 1000 entries); data as of 17:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC) statistic suggests consistency over more than two years)

1 Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism 4 18321 371616

2 Wikipedia:Sandbox 4 14480 36178

3 Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports 4 11691 15234

4 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/incidents 4 9710 242552

5 User:Cyde/List of candidates for speedy deletion/Subpage 2 8333 59163

6 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard 4 5265 97200

7 Wikipedia:Requests for page protection 4 4046 97514

8 Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous 4 3905 132939

9 Template talk:Did you know 11 3726 65685

10 Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalismfTB2 4 3613 37294

NOTE: Would be nice if this was updated every so often since I doubt anyone will download hundreds of megabites, never mind gigabites of Wikipedia stat data.

Much of the Sandbox activity is from IPs, SoxBot and registered users restoring the optimistic "hello, wikipedians!"

Reference desk requests say it all - Is there anyway I can get a faster answer? It is the same reason so many articles are unfinished - inability to focus and commit, a general effect of 'too much" in the Internet.

The rest are, with the exception of Template talk:Did you know, all conflict-related.

Template talk:Did you know is a sort of "fast-food" version of Wikipedia, offering a large quantity of largely useless and disconnected information of the trivia variety, or to put it another way Is Google Making Us Stupid?

And so my question stands, why is the purpose-guarding/policy-making Wikipedia "cell" called ArbCom which for all intents and purposes has the governance responsibility in Wikipedia editing allow the environment of conflict to persist?

PS. Please don't refer to my "sanctions" I am preparing appeals, but my time for such "diversions" is restricted Koakhtzvigad (talk)

09:56.13 Februarv 2011 (UTC)