I'll probably be taking a few weeks off from formal Arbitration Committee work for my other main enjoyment on wiki -- helping other editors and admins on a piecemeal basis with "whatever comes along", and content work, project space work and cleanup fitted around that.
I probably won't be able to get away for this during January - March (first 3 months of 2009 committee) so if it looks quiet-ish during late October - December, I might try to do so then. Not a big deal, figured I'd mention in plenty of time. FT2(Talk | email) 10:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify... later in the year, and for enjoyment and balance, not stress. FT2(Talk | email) 06:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Noting that there is another upcoming election cycle, I would like to formally announce my resignation from the Arbitration Committee, effective immediately.
Thank you for your Committee work, The Uninvited Co. As I told you privately, I think of your past comments often as I consider proposals in case rulings. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, so do I. Not perhaps "think" in quite the same sense. Bishonen | talk 12:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC).
Thank you for your work, UC. Caulde 18:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your efforts with the Committee. Cla68 (talk) 06:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Point of note: Arrangements have been made to have Uninvited Company's seat filled in the course of the December 2008 Arbitration Committee Elections, which is now on-going. Thanks for your substantial service and dedication to your Committee work, UC. AGK 22:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Bluelinking
I'm not about to revert a clerk on an arbcom page, not even on a stylistic nicety.[1] However, what's the point of bluelinking ex-arbs who don't have userpages. It just creates the false impression that there's a page there to click on. If redlinks are thought undesirable (and why?) can I suggest de-linking, rather than giving a false positive for a link.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 18:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, upon reflecting on this again, I concur with you; I've reverted myself. Occasionally, in my constant striving for appearance perfection, I go a bit overboard. :-) Regarding simply removing the red links and having no link whatsoever, that's a good solution, actually, although for now I'm simply leaving the page as it was before. Regards, AGK 18:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Proposed reform of ArbCom Policy
Aside from the community itself (whose operations are always public and transparent), ArbCom is the principal organ that has power over editors. I believe therefore that we need to change this policy so that all ArbCom proceedings are public and transparent. I realize that this would also mean limiting ArbCom to its principal mission, the last resort for resolving disputes among editors who in the course of working on articles violate personal behavior policies.
I realize that there are some cases, principally concerning abuses of power by ArbCom and people delegated to use checkuser, that raise confidentiality issues and require privacy. In the discussion of a curent case brought to ArbCom by Thatcher, Mackensen wrote that it should never have been made public in the first place. I think we need a clearer barrier between these different kinds of cases. Therefore, I propose creating a separate committee to deal specifically with these cases.
Since ArbCom already complains of being overburdened, I imagine its members would welcome this.
I hav eno specific proposals about who the new committee would be constituted or function. Obviously its mission would need to be very dlearly defined, and limited. And there would need to be some mechanism for appeal. But I would invite others to make specific proposals. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
My tenure
I will be resigning from ArbCom effective the end of the current term. Three years is too long (for me, anyway.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for your service to date. For the record, Josh's seat has been entered onto WP:ACE2008. AGK 18:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Arbitration Committee Elections 2008 - Request for Questions to the Candidates
Nominations for the December 2008 Arbitration Committee Elections will be accepted from 10 November to 24 November, and voting is scheduled to run from 1 December to 15 December. In an effort to give all candidates the chance to answer general questions about themselves and their candidacy, we are currently soliciting input from the community. Any editor who wishes to submit questions for all the candidates should do so by visiting Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/Questions/General and following the instructions. On 17 November, the list of questions will be posted to each candidate's questions page, where they will provide answers (Subsequent nominees will have their question pages created with the same list). Questions to specific candidates may be posted at that time, as well. Please discuss at the election talk page if you have any questions about the question process. Thanks, UltraExactZZClaims~ Evidence 14:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
W. Frank
Please would you unblock me?
I am very willing to submit to whatever terms you feel appropriate.
I feel that I have been blocked for quite a long time now and learned from the experience.
I also feel that I can contribute usefully to improving our articles.
(As a courtesy, I first made this request to the admin that blocked me but {I think} he has declined to act on his own judgement and suggested I appeal to you directly.)
Thank you for considering my request.
W. Frank, Glasgow, 21 November 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.141.249 (talk) 23:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Please send an e-mail to the Arbitration Committee mailing list or to an active arbitrator for forwarding to the list, containing links to prior discussions and any other information you think would be relevant to this request. The e-mail address is on the project page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Inactive for a while
I'll be inactive on RFAR for November and possibly part of December, to spend a month or so on mainspace, project work and admin work generally. I'll also be completely leaving all CU work (except quick or serious cases) to other checkusers now we have them, as well as working in the background on some long term matters relevant to ongoing problems we're familiar with. If a seriously problematic RFAR case wanders by I might be active on that one, but we'll see - that's a possibility any time of the year. For the record, this is much more in the nature of a well deserved vacation following a year's arb-ing, than any kind of tiredness. Unless said otherwise, I'm inactive on RFAR cases probably till around the end of November or Arbcom elections. FT2(Talk | email) 08:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
With the new committee now in place, it looks like I'm active again. The time was appreciated though I didn't get to do all I hoped. Thanks :) FT2(Talk | email) 22:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Would someone please update the membership chart to reflect the one-year term extension for Thebainer? I'm afraid I don't know how to edit this type of chart. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
The chart does not seem to be working...
Is this problem only in my browser, or are other users seeing no chart upon expanding the box on WP:AC?
Well, the recent chart isn't loading at all for some reason. I had similar trouble when expanding the old/full chart - since I made a change to it, I just see a lot of coloured boxes now and no text. :S Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
The look fine to me both with IE6 at work and Google Chrome at home. UC's resignation also needs to be added to the Recent changes chart. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Now they look fine, yes. (Firefox on Linux.) I have no idea what changed, but back in November it was for me as Newyorkbrad and Ncmvocalist described it. — the Sidhekin (talk) 08:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Matthew Hoffman motion
Newyorkbrad's proposal has the support of 5 arbitrators. There are 12 active arbitrators, one (Charles) is recused, another (bainer) abstains, so that's a majority, right? Can this be closed and implemented, if that's not a problem? I'd prefer this didn't drag out any longer. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't think so. There are 10 active arbitrators (excluding Deskana, Charles and Stephen/bainer). This still leaves the majority requirement of 6 supports by arbs. It would've been 9 active arbs with a majority of 5 if FT2 didn't vote. In any event, I've nudged another arb today in the hope that something can be implemented without further delay. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, 6 is a majority. There are 13 Arbitrators active on this case (see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee#Current members, but count FT2 as active in light of his participation in the Committee discussion section and his casting of a vote on each motion). After deducting 1 active member per Charles' recusal and (for Newyorkbrad's proposal only—there are different circumstances on this next point on the other motions) another per Bainer's abstention, the number of active Arbitrators is 11.
I've written a guide for calculating the majority at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Procedures#Calculating the majority. Looking up "11," the majority is 6. Et voilà: we need 6 arbitrators to cast a "support" vote (presuming no more abstain)—one more than has already—for this motion to carry.
Point of note: This comment is an alternative explanation of the circumstances we are dealing with here to Ncmvocalist's, above, which is equally as correct as mine!
Hope this helps. AGK 22:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I believe at this point another abstention would also pass the motion.--Tznkai (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
That is correct. (Support votes seem to be more common than abstentions, however.) AGK 18:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Links
Should there be a link to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration at the top of this page? It seems like a lot of people might be coming to this article looking for that one. If there is a bright and shiny link I didn't see it, and I looked for it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
There is in fact a link to Requests for Arbitration ("RfAr") on this page. See the green "Please click here to file an Arbitration case" text in the grey header at the page-top? That's our link to RfAr (which I agree should be linked on this page, for usability purposes).
Would you still suggest that link may not be conspicuous enough? If so, we could look at adjusting the page layout.
I still don't see it. I see links to Arbcom elections and Admin coaching at the top. Maybe my monitor is cutting it off? Is it on the far right? Further down there's a green and red "active" and "inactive". Do I need glasses?
And then there's some other page for Arbitration enforcement too? Is that linked? So much to keep track of. I think there should be clear links, but if you say they are there I'll have to take your word for it.
I always find these pages and I can never figure out how to get to the actual action. Is it part of a conspiracy to make sure I don't make any complaints, or am I a bit slow?ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh now I see it. Way down in that box with some deceptively innocent title about "requests for". Yeah, I think it needs a clear link. FOR ARBITRATION CLICK HERE. FOR ARBRATION ENFORCEMENT CLICK HERE. :) Seriously it's hard to find when you're hunting around and you don't know what things are called. Maybe buttons would be good. A big red button I could find. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and did you mean at the top of this page? I see now there's a link up there too, but who looks for links on a talk page? I'm thinking this is definitely some kind of conspiracy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
If you are looking to have a link on Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee (you referred in your initial comment to this page, but I would deduce from your searching the attached project page—rather than this talk page—that you meant the other page), there are in fact two. :) AGK 18:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Indeed by "this page" I meant this article page not this talk page. Should we keep the noobs guessing? Now that I'm in the know I say screw em! Let them wander around like idiots in a never ending circuit of policy pages that don'thave obvious links to the pages they're looking for. :) What do you think? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that before requesting arbitration, one would be well-served by making oneself familiar with the entire process. From that perspective, maybe a little wiki-hunting is a good thing. However, it takes me exactly one click to navigate from this project page to the instructions for filing a case ("Requests for arbitration" in the navbox). Pretty difficult to simplify a single-click process. Franamax (talk) 02:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Indeed when you know where to look it's easy to find! I don't have any desire to request arbitration. My suggestion was related to making the arbitration pages easier to navigate. But if you think having the only clear links at the top of the talk page (are talk pages the logical place to look for links?) or buried in the the third topic 14 or so items down in the infobox is the best place to put links, then so be it. I now know how to find it, despite this article page's poor design, but someone unfamiliar with the organizational system and methods (madness?) of Wikipedia might not. I always find it amusing that there is so much reluctance to make Wikipedia friendlier, easier to navigate, and more welcoming to newcomers. When it comes to warning someone who doesn't know any better about a "bad" edit a giant warning sign and template is necessary, but for navigating policy pages perhaps subtlety is the best approach? Maybe we could have the links be hidden and show up only when you scroll over them? Or make it into an acronym. I love acronyms! LMIHTF :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Arbs Elect
I think this information is useful on a number of levels, and I believe it should be included immediately. I trust the regular consensus process here (of course!) and I think this is exactly as it should be! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Please remove it, Privatemusings. The positions are not confirmed; for example, many of us have not yet complied with the requirements for identification, nor have we confirmed acceptance of any offer of appointment. Until the official announcements are made, please do not include names. Thanks. Risker (talk) 01:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
compromise wording? - I'm not sure there's actually any 'official' announcement beyond Jimbo's rights as our constitutional monarch - similar to the taking of tea at Buck Palace. Election winners are widely reported as 'xxx elect' and I think it's a good idea? whaddya reckon? Privatemusings (talk) 01:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the list for now. Please wait until the official announcement, out of respect for all of the candidates if nothing else. Risker (talk) 01:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
oh I'm not going to edit again, Risk - that'd be foolish - but I think it'd be better up there (kinda like calling Obama the 'President Elect' - I'll check now to see if we do that.....). Congrat.s by the way, and I'll not edit the project page at all again this year. best, Privatemusings (talk) 02:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)yup - we do say 'president elect', even before the official announcement.... but I learnt something today - the electoral college met yesterday! who knew!
PM, that was premature, please wait til it's official. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
PM, as far as I'm concerned, it's like sending out birth announcements before the baby is born. Everyone knows who's pregnant, but strange things can happen. I do understand where you are trying to go, but let's take things one step at a time, okay? Risker (talk) 02:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Risker; this page should reflect the current status; the 2008 election has no outcome yet, for reasons best handled elsewhere. John Vandenberg(chat) 02:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
The 'Arbitrators Elect' list has been removed by Risker; the correct move, IMO. It was quite inappropriate. PM., I don't think it's wise to push the "Jimbo shouldn't be in charge of appointments any longer" argument in such a trivial way. Let's be professional here. AGK 19:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Per the above. This page should list users who are arbitrators or users who have been arbitrators. This is not the page for statistical results of an election. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm shocked, shocked to find that PM would make an edit that did not have universal consensus! I'm sure it won't happen again. ++Lar: t/c 20:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
/me offers Lar a nice cup of chamomile tea to calm his frayed nerves - and goes off to unblock / reblock Giano in a bid to help with the really pressing matters before the arbcom..... ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Separate mailing lists
I have a concern about Arbcom maintaining a separate mailing list for active arbitrators only. This is an issue that perhaps the new arbitrators should think about tackling. Already the existence of separate lists has led to one significant communication failure that I am aware of, where a question was asked of the active arbitrators' list and no one knew the answer, but a former arbitrator did know the answer but didn't know the question had been asked.
I know the list was set up in response to community concerns about the participation of former arbitrators. However I think the committee should re-evaluate this matter. If the committee also recognizes trust or access issues with respect to former arbitrators, it should purge the list (en masse or selectively, despite the drama that some would try to drum up as a result). If the committee does not see trust or access issues it should do away with the sub-list and just tell the community "We respect your concerns but disagree." In short, I think all arbcom business (including discussion of all sensitive matters and including whatever advice-giving Jimbo feels he needs) should be handled on a single list. Either purge arbcom-L, or endorse the participation of everyone on Arbcom-L, but don't try to have it both ways. I don't think that is working. Thatcher 16:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
If none of the active arbitrators knew how to answer a question, and thus the question fell through the cracks, that's an indictment of the arbs, not an argument to put former arbs onto a single list. I support either 1) two lists, with active only being the one for main business, and the other being for when advice is needed or 2) one list for active arbs only. But I do not support former arbs being on the main list. That's my view. ArbCom is free of course to do as they see fit, it's their decision, but it's my view. ++Lar: t/c 17:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
This may be a moot point. I had thought there were two lists. But Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee#Mailing_list suggests not. Either I'm misremembering or there is some confusion somewhere. ++Lar: t/c 17:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
To the best of my knowledge there is a separate, secret* mailing list that is only for current Arbitrators. (*It has, in fact, been discussed on-wiki a few times, but don't ask me for diffs.) And, there certainly was a second list at the time of the message to which I referred above. In this specific case, an Arbitrator asked whether anyone knew if edits by FT2 to zoophilia had been oversighted, as claimed by Peter Damian. At the time, the oversight log was broken. The two people who knew of the oversight matter without relying on the log (Jimbo and David Gerard) did not see the question since it was sent to the active arb list, not Arbcom-L. But I want to focus this discussion on the question of arbitrator mailing lists and community trust, not on the particulars of the Damian case. Certainly I have seen on numerous occasions various members of the community argue for separate mailing lists or to exclude certain or all former arbs from Arbcom-L. (Again, no diffs, sorry.) I wanted to raise the question of whether this is a good thing or not. Thatcher 18:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Thatcher, Jimbo and FT2 would be on the arbs-only list, and both of them would have known about the oversighting. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 19:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I just found out that Jimbo is on the arbs-only list, but that is a matter for a different page, I think. Here I would like to focus on whether or not there should be a separate list at all. Thatcher 19:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to focus on which case the situation arose either. But I have heard via rumor/hearsay/(not always reliable sources :) ) that this has happened more than once. The new AC would be well served to maybe look into some sort of troubleticket/tracking system if there is more to that than rumor so that mails don't get lost, and that every mail gets a response (unless its from a repeat pesterer). That seems different to me than whether there should be one or two lists. I'll repeat what I said, personally I think having all former arbs on the main (and only) list is not necessarily goodness.... presumably at least for some, the community has indicated less trust than for others. I do favour two lists though, as I have in the past found that sort of thing useful in other organizations (an ex officer's list so the current officers can ask for advice, memory, etc., has stood me well in more than one organization I was in)... All THAT said, it's ArbCom's call. But it should be clearly stated whatever it is. ++Lar: t/c 19:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
SlimVirgin: Why would Thatcher be subscribed to an ArbComm mailing list? He's is a clerk, not an arbitrator or ex-arbitrator. (FT2 and Jimbo both would, though, yes.) FWIW, I can endorse Thatcher's statement above, which suggests this sub-list has been discussed on-Wiki on a few occasions. (I also have noticed it being referred to in passing, and also on another private mailing list by an arbitrator.) It seems to be an "open secret," or at least a fact the Committee don't wish to make a big deal out of (and understandably so). Like Thatcher, however, I can offer no diffs; I am positive I have seen it referred to on-Wiki, but, after a quick leaf around, I cannot pinpoint where. I'm sure somebody will be able to offer evidence, if they are dubious as to how trustworthy Thatcher or I am. :-) AGK 19:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
AGK, I think you are seeing something that is not there. Slim and I have no significant disagreement. The question I wish to raise (being separate from the other matter) is whether or not there should be multiple lists. I tend to think that people either are trusted or they are not, and that the second list was created because there was a recognition that some members of the list are not trusted but an unwillingness to deal with it in a more decisive manner. Lar raises an interesting alternative, that there should be two lists but there should be some method of incident tracking.Thatcher 19:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
AGK, that was a misunderstanding, and my fault. I was addressing Thatcher, not including him in the list. :-) Sorry for not writing clearly. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 05:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
As an alternative suggestion, let Jimbo create a new mailing list to get advice from trusted ex-officers, call it Jimbo-L or kitchencabinet-L. If there is to be a list called Arbcom-L, that is officially promoted as the place to send Arbitration Committee business, then the only subscribers should be members of Arbcom or former arbitrators whom the present Committee vouch for and are willing to entrust and delegate all their sensitive communications to.Thatcher 00:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Interesting. Who are these "trusted ex-officers" then? I disagree with who should be on the official list. Only arbitrators should have access. People who resign have no need for access to the list. Either they want to do the work, or they don't. There should not be an in-between. If a case desperately needs their attention, they can be cc'd the mails, or be temporarily added. I couldn't possibly trust ArbCom to choose ex-arbitrators who can have access to the list, because the current committee appears to be at odds with the community at large, so cannot be trusted to do such a thing. Majorlytalk 00:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm torn on this point. Instinctively, I don't support having ex-arbs on the mailing list, for all the reasons others have listed. On the other hand, I feel this committee has become detached from the community, in part because they set up a separate list. It has meant they've been cocooned from advice that more experienced arbs might have given them, about what will and won't wash with the community. I think it has contributed to a seige mentality and a political blindness, and also an arrogance on the part of some of them that they can do whatever they want. The wider list provides an anchor and an institutional memory. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 05:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
In regards to the original problem of the oversighted edit, the appropriate way to have reached the oversighters, if the log was down, would have been to email oversight-l. There is not enough discussion or questions being asked on that list, if you ask me; I have said as much to the arbs over a month ago. Regarding arbcom-l, I strongly believe that only the current arbs should be on the main arbcom-l list for a lot of reasons. I agree that an additional list for ex-arbs could be useful, and that would give the arbs a clear direction in which to send requests that need the attention of ex-arbs. Currently the ex-arbs need to follow all discussions in order to know when they are needed. John Vandenberg(chat) 06:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Time for me to point out, yet again, that in my view oversight-l is confusingly named. It applies to en:wp only... requests for oversight on other wikis get sent there and apparently at least sometimes, get lost, rather than brought to the attention of oversighters on other wikis. The list should be moved to oversight-en-l to free up the name for global use (in parallel to how there is a checkuser-l which is global in remit). Some clarification has happened on meta but not enough. A new ArbCom ought to tackle enabling the list admins to make this change. ++Lar: t/c 14:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
In response to some comments above that this was previously discussed but people can't remember where, there was at least one discussion back in February 2008. See here. There were other references to this separate mailing list at various points before and after that discussion, but that is the only discussion I've found so far. Still, that should help to trace things back further if needed. Carcharoth (talk) 22:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the second list - Jimmy was voted for access onto it during October 10 - 12. He wasn't on it beforehand. The separate list was a common point raised by the community in the 2007 elections, due to concerns that a case might be prejudiced or the committee compromised in some instances, if an involved ex-arb had access to see the private discussions. It also exists in recognition that the main list is insufficiently certain of privacy, for some of the serious real-world harassment or privacy issues that can arise. A third reason is that it provides a recourse if something warrants just discussion by the arbitrators alone, for any reason. The main list is used routinely for other matters. FT2(Talk | email) 21:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
No secret scheming
Except for matters that require privacy, all ArbCom discussions should be in public where they can be observed. Recent events show the caustic effects on trust of secretive scheming. JehochmanTalk 00:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I would hope this is what happens already. Oh right, I forgot, checkuser appointments, which do not require any privacy. Majorlytalk 00:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Your comments might carry more credibility if you didn't shout "CHECKUSER APPOINTMENT" every time Arbcom did something you didn't like. (Much like Everyking and Proabivuoac and any number of other editors afflicted with monomania. By the way, if you didn't hear, I've resigned.) Thatcher 00:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
That's great news! Though you didn't address the point I made. Arbcom discusses things in secret unnecessarily. This of course has nothing to do with your appointment; I supported Alison, Lar, Deskana, Nishkid64, Luna Santin, Avraham and Rlevse all getting CU, all who were discussed in über secrecy on the list. I didn't complain about them. Has it not occurred to you I complained for reasons other than what you believe? Like the fact you barely edit the encyclopedia, you're cold, unfriendly, impersonal, often nasty, and of course let's not forget the fact you posted parts of a private conversation onto my RFA. I didn't want to make this personal; just a fact that arbcom does CU appointments in secret. It's true whether I say it, or whether someone else says it. But since you appear to hold a grudge from well over a year ago, there's not much I can say for you. Majorlytalk 00:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't hold a grudge, as such, but your opposition was personally hurtful to me and yes, I remember it. And obviously so do you. ("That's great news!"). I do support more transparency from Arbcom. In the specific Giano/Moreschi case for example, having the names is a big improvement over a tally or simple assertion. The question is whether having the text of the discussion itself would shed even more light on the subject or just add heat and smoke. Thatcher 01:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Well I truly am sorry if my opposition was hurtful. It's unfortunate though, because I used to highly respect you, but I lost respect for you that day when you did what you did to me, on my RFA. My "It's great news" was supposed to be sarcastic, I heard you resigned ages ago, and that was only in response to your comment telling me you resigned (as if I really care? I got over your appointment some time ago, and learned to live with it after I heard how hard you worked as one.) Back on topic, this particular case, which does not require privacy, does not need ArbCom intervention. We could just forget this, and get on with more productive things, but knowing ArbCom, I doubt they'd want to let it rest. Majorlytalk 01:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I am resigning from the Arbitration Committee, mainly due to inactivity. I feel that my seat would be better taken up by someone who is capable of being more active. I am suffering from long term illness which is affecting my activity on Wikipedia. Although I do not wish to disclose exactly what this illness is, it is serious enough that I have had to take a year out of university in the middle of my third year, due to missing a lot of lectures.
I will continue to offer my support to the Committee as a checkuser and oversighter. A Committee that does not have to do the majority of its own checkuser work is a Committee that can spend more time voting on cases and doing other more important things. A substantial amount of delegation already takes place in this regard, but now I will be the one who it is delegated to, rather than one of the ones who delegates it. This also means I will be able to take longer breaks, if necessary due to my illness, and not disrupt the business of the Committee quite as much.
I would also like to make it clear that I was not certain of my resignation until a few hours ago. I could still have, at any point, e-mailed Jimbo and told him that I was not resigning anymore.
I will continue to be an active Arbitrator until the appointment of the new Arbitrators.
Thank you, Deskana, for your work with the Committee over the past year. It is unfortunate that your illness has kept you away from your pleasures and responsibilities, both in real life and on Wikipedia. I wish you good health in the months and years to come. Risker (talk) 20:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to hear of your resignation Deskana, hope you can contribute when you can. As we've discussed your illness at length, I understand why, and I'm kept my word not to say anything to anyone and will continue to keep that promise. I wish you well in all endeavors and hope to see you back. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Your "real" life > Wikipedia. Good luck, and thanks for all the hard work. Godspeed in your endeavors.--Tznkai (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm in the same situation as Rlevse, and make the same promise.
I'm impressed by your stepping down—it was a mature move—and thank you for your service to date. It's a shame you only had a little while you were able to arbitrate.
Deskana, I can't say much more than what Risker and Tznkai have said already - although your contribution history cannot tell us a true story of how much work you've actually done on the Committee (as with the other arbitrators leaving this year), I'd like to emphasize the fact that your efforts are appreciated. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Improving ArbCom co-ordination
Hi everyone,
The ArbCom is currently undergoing a streamlining process to improve our efficiency, and address the general concerns raised. This involves more heavy use of a private wiki, and having a co-ordinator who will help the mailing list function better by making sure that matters aren't lost, and by maintaining a list of matters that need to be addressed, both matters relating directly to cases and more general mailing list matters.
This idea was previously thrown around, however none of the Arbitrators of the time (myself included) were inclined to take up the job. This is understandable, given that it would likely include a large amount of work (though certainly not as much as being an active Arbitrator!).
Now that I have resigned, I volunteered to take up the position. There were several reasons for this. The first is because the work will not be as stressful as being an Arbitrator, partially because there will be zero decision making in the role. Secondly, because I resigned after only one year of service, I still feel as if I have two years where I should be serving the community. Co-ordinating ArbCom matters serves both the Committee and the community, as a more efficient Committee makes a happy community.
The two outward facing roles that I would be taking on as a co-ordinator are...
Tracking incoming e-mails. This includes sending acknowledgement of receipt and trying to be sure matters aren't lost or passed over by accident, which has regrettably happened from time to time.
Being a first point of call for users wishing to track the progress of their e-mails
Funnily, the co-ordinator idea is an old one that I decided to bring up again, and wasn't actually initiated by the new users who were elected. I state this because I find it a funny co-incidence that all the new users who were elected with the general mandate to reform the ArbCom were actually not the ones that spearheaded the idea. :-)
I am informing you all so that you know that we're taking your concerns regarding our general performance onboard and trying to come up with ways to fix the problem.
Further clarification based on a few private questions I've been asked: I am still resigning. Former Arbitrators still retain access to the private wiki and to the mailing list. I will essentially be a clerk for the mailing list, making sure that things don't get forgotten and helping the Arbitrators organise themselves. --Deskana(talk) 17:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
You might consider help ticket software. When somebody writes, open a ticket that can be tracked by ticket number. There should be a report listing open tickets. When an issue is resolved, a message should be logged, and a response sent to the user for each and every ticket. JehochmanTalk 17:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
This was something that was considered, but I personally do not feel the throughput of e-mails that need external response justifies setting up such a system, when having one person looking over the e-mails would suffice. Most of the chatter on the list is of an internal nature. --Deskana(talk) 18:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I think you should separate the internal chatter from the inbound requests. I feel very strongly that a well run organization will respond to each and every customer inquiry. Best practice is to send one email, even an automated one, saying that the request has been received and logged #(drop in number). When the request is closed, another email is sent with the resolution (e.g. "The Arbcom thanks you for your inquiry, but has decided that no further action is required."). This is infinitely better than no response at all. Many people have complained about getting no response whatsoever to their inquiries. JehochmanTalk 18:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Do you forsee any expansion of your role should the new arbs, generally elected on an undertaking to improve the service ArbCom provides, instigate new procedures or methodology in handling cases that are not within the remit of the clerks to shepherd through? An arbcom for change, as this one may be, may require someone with the recent knowledge, present non participation and remaining trust that you have to ensure that any transitions in process are handled smoothly. In that last point, I certainly hope that your health and time available to the project would enable you to perform such tasks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm basically around to help co-ordinate however is best. So if there are structural changes that the clerks can't help with, then I would be happy to help. I view this role as being somewhat flexible and the purpose of it being "general co-ordination" so I'd be adapting it to help out wherever possible. --Deskana(talk) 18:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Proactively taking up this initiative on behalf of both the community and the Committee is something else that everyone will appreciate - I don't think anyone would have good cause to oppose this idea either. Good on you. ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
On the subject of email tracking, have you considered setting up an OTRS queue? Stifle (talk) 10:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
It's been discussed many times over the years, but in general we don't want people to get confused between Arbitration (community) work, and OTRS (Foundation) work. Perhaps a second installation of OTRS, but then you've got all the over-heads without much of the benefit.
The ticket queue is just a tool. You merely put a different skin on it for ArbCom. JehochmanTalk 11:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
On a separate note from the above discussion - I really, really hope that when you say "more heavy use of a private wiki", you are talking strictly about coordination, task-organization and to-do lists. Discussion of actual (public) cases should be done on-wiki wherever it's possible. This has been a huge theme in the past year: where the hell did this decision come from?
I'd even be thinking that a to-do list should be maintained on-wiki for cases, motions, clarifications, etc., such that people could check in one place to see "arbitrator X hasn't voted on issues W, Y and Z". For public cases at least, timeliness is important, the more transparency the better. Franamax (talk) 13:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Most of what I'm doing on the private wiki right now concerns only the e-mails received by the Arbitration Committee, which obviously can only take place on a private wiki. --Deskana(talk) 13:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Franamax: I think was Deskana meant by that comment is that a number of matters that would otherwise be handled on the mailing list due to their sensitive nature will now be handled on the private ArbComm wiki. Based on my usage of the Mediation Committee's private Wiki, I would argue that private sites facilitate easier tracking of pending matters and co-ordination of discussions; think of this as a change of environment to one which will result in less matters being forgotten about in the mess that is mailman. Make sense? AGK 22:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I am exceptionally glad to see this appointment being made (and, as an aside, think Deskana is a very good chap to fill the role). I was considering running for the Committee this year with the intention of overhauling the mailing list; this, however, is a step in the right direction. I think OTRS software would reduce workload, yes; I don't buy into the argument that it would cause confusion with m:OTRS; just call it something different and, per Jehochman, give it a different skin. If Deskana is willing to put in the grunt work to make sure everything is tracked and resolved in due course, then a mailing list could work too. AGK 15:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
This is a great move for ArbCom. Deskana is just the kind of guy they need to act as gateway to the committee. However, I suggest that he should still be allowed to vote in Arbitration cases, and that his vote be given special weight since he is the co-ordinator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.168.12.141 (talk) 09:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually, a good argument can be made (and, indeed, Deskana makes that argument himself) that his retirement is the reason why he will have the time and concentration necessary to do that job right. Being an active arbitrator is an extraordinarily demanding job (in time and emotional investment) that leaves little time for much else. — Coren(talk) 18:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Arbitration Committee work
A brief community update on some Arbitration Committee matters since the announcement of the new arbitrators.
The 2009 committee (7 continuing arbitrators, 10 new appointees) has been busy, despite the time of year. Some of the activity is worth mentioning publicly, so the community has a bit of a heads-up on some areas of improvement and change that are being worked on. For example:
1) In the past, over-reliance on email has led to huge problems - especially, matters that became left uncompleted or buried under new email due to pressure of new emails.
The last week has seen considerable improvement over 2008 regarding internal co-ordination, including the tracking of emails, proposals, key information, and other matters needing attention.
As a byproduct this has already allowed a number of users to target specific areas of work, possibly leading to better co-ordination of time and energy. For example, Deskana as co-ordinator, myself handling a large part of maintenance and the proposals section, Roger Davies taking a lead on checkuser appointment handling, and so on.
2) A range of proposals are under discussion, and will probably be rolled out into Arbitration use or broached publicly over the coming weeks or couple of months. So there is likely to be considerable change and reform. Examples of the areas under review include:
Review of checkuser and oversight appointment process
Reviewing how situations known to have a high risk of disruption or problems are handled by the Committee
In depth review of the so-called "civility issue", and the divisions and issues which surround it within the community, especially in the context of disputes and RFAR cases of the kind where arbitration may be sought.
Selecting a more robust decision process for the committee so that questions whether something is "a committee decision" or not are no longer a source of confusion.
Review of the workshop, and beyond that, of Requests for Arbitration case pages, and of the Arbitration pages within the wiki generally.
Communications generally (probably in tandem with the above)
Better communal guidance, and considering our approach in advance internally, when significant disputes involving well known "problem scenarios" arise
Handling of bans, and "admin abuse" appeals
Handling of emails and other administration requests
Transparency to the community in decision-making
I should emphasize this is a snapshot of some matters being worked on, as well as case discussions and other emails. It may give an idea of a few things that might see the light of day. Some are difficult and sensitive and may take time. A program of reform like this might be rolled out over a period of months. It cannot be known how these will go this early on, so for now no further detail, just a brief snapshot. But they may give some idea of the activity going on behind the scenes.
Thank you for the insight, and please do continue reporting such developments. Skomorokh 15:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
With the new ArbCom I'd suggest a regular 'status report', perhaps even monthly. Even if it is general, we'd still like to know that the committee is doing something. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Second the idea of some sort of regular report so that we at least know the committee is doing some or is deadlocked and not doing anything. :) MBisanztalk 16:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually, from my interpretation of the new Committee's thoughts, we will move most of these discussions on site soon, so you can see them live. ;-) We want to provide as much transparency as possible. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
That sounds like good news if your interpretation is correct. Davewild (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I'd rather not have someone who is a brand new arbitrator and checkuser be in charge of CU appointments. John Reaves 20:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
We haven't changed our manner of working. No one person is in charge of anything that the Committee does. FT2 is giving a his opinion of the past few days work, that's all. :-) FloNight♥♥♥ 20:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Not "in charge of checkuser appointments", but "taking a lead on their handling". In this case, that arbitrator has been taking a lead in making sure the discussions and consensus-seeking about how we handle checkuser are progressing, and keeping that general area of discussion on track and moving as it develops. A Good Thing - although a bit ambiguous :) Checkuser appointments themselves command one of the highest levels of consensus of any matter we deal with, and no one person "takes a lead" on it. FT2(Talk | email) 21:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Proposed Policy Update
As a reminder, a proposed update to the Arbitration Policy resulting from last fall's RfC and drafted largely by NewYorkBrad is still posted here. I believe discussion stalled during the elections, but it might be something the new committee wishes to review. --InkSplotch (talk) 05:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Proposal: CheckUser and Oversight appointments
Your opinion is sought on a proposal from ArbCom for handling future CheckUser and Oversight appointments. The proposal in full is here and all comments are welcomed. --ROGER DAVIEStalk 18:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Maybe you should also leave a note at WP:VP and/or WP:AN. Tiptoetytalk 18:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Roger did AN. I'm going to do VP now (after working out which one) and then try and work out how {{cent}} works. Carcharoth (talk) 00:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes it is. Tiptoetytalk 01:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Arbitration Committee Coordinator announcement
As part of a comprehensive updating of its systems and processes, the Arbitration Committee has decided to appoint one of its sitting
arbitrators to act as coordinator. This role carries no additional substantive authority but will primarily involve scheduling work flow and setting target dates for completion of tasks.
Arbitrator Kirill Lokshin (talk· contribs) has been offered and has accepted this assignment, effective immediately, with the title of Coordinating Arbitrator. Arbitrator Roger Davies (talk· contribs) will serve as his Deputy.
Additionally, as previously announced, former arbitrator Deskana (talk· contribs) will continue to coordinate the ArbCom mailing list.
For the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I would like to thank my fellow arbitrators for giving me this opportunity to help improve the efficiency and responsiveness of the Committee over the coming year.
We're currently compiling an agenda with milestone dates for the next few months. Current priorities include:
Improved mailing list structure and usage
Improved transparency of decision-making
Case acceptance thresholds
Improved CheckUser and Oversight assignment and review
Improvements to arbitration enforcement
A new layout and structure for case workshop pages
Improved procedures for handling appeals
An update of the Arbitration Policy
This list is still a work in progress, but I hope to publish the agenda with target dates by the end of the month.
We're also working on many logistical improvements; expect, among other things, a new central location for Committee announcements, perhaps followed by more extensive cleanup and rationalization of the many existing arbitration-related pages, as well as updates to the various arbitration guides to make them more useful and to better reflect current norms (as promised in the Eastern European disputes case).
Any comments or questions are very welcome, either here or on my talk page. Kirill 18:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I suggest you cross-post the above to AN. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the announcements. Are setting case acceptance thresholds and altering the Arbitration policy within the remit of the Committee? Skomorokh 18:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
They have been in the past, and nothing has changed that would have changed the rules that I'm aware of. Even the RfC didn't seriously challenge the committee's control over its own policy, that I recall. Avruch T 19:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
How peculiar. Thanks for the info. Skomorokh 19:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
ClerkBot
I'm working on a replacement bot for automatically opening ArbCom cases (more info). One part of opening a case is leaving the messages for the involved parties and those two who commented, {{ArbComOpenedParty}} and {{ArbComOpenedComment}}. Both templates are signed "On behalf of the Arbitration Committee", is a bot leaving the message on behalf of the ArbCom acceptable? Would it need some form of "bot clerkship" or just an endorsement from the ArbCom? BJTalk 19:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Not sure about the answer to your question, though FWIW I support the idea. Wizardman 20:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Hm, maybe just have it sign on behalf of whatever clerk closed the case? The real purpose of having clerks do it is so that parties know who to contact if they have issues with the closure, or general questions. Tiptoetytalk 04:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Bjweeks and I are working on a way which will allow the opening/closing clerks' signature to be included, as I don't think it's desirable to have ArbComBot signing it. Users will use the person who signs it to ask questions about the case, and obviously ArbComBot isn't that smart :) Daniel (talk) 04:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, I guess this is {{resolved|Stupid question}}. BJTalk 04:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Would Arbitrators like to comment on FT2's claim in User_talk:FT2#Promised clarifications that they are the reason for his delay in answering certain questions? DuncanHill (talk) 20:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Please note that the Arbitration Committee have announced that they have established a new central noticeboard, which will serve as a forum for arbitration-related announcements, notices, and other discussion. Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard for more details.
Could someone update the list of current Arbitrators to reflect the recent resignation? DuncanHill (talk) 13:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Now I have re-read the open letter and accompanying clarifications, I see that it is not entirely clear whether or not anyone has resigned, so the delay is understandable. DuncanHill (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
co-ordinator
I'm sort of assuming that Desk is continuing to organise things on the mailing list, despite his break? I'm not sure it's a great look (particularly externally) to have the named, and wiki-linked co-ordinator of the list saying he's sick of some users, so is on a break :-) I'm sure someone in the know can clear this up :-) Privatemusings (talk) 22:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
When Deskana is away or unavailable, members of the Arbitration Committee step up to the plate and ensure that emails are responded to and logged. Risker (talk) 06:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
coolio - now I would edit the page to reflect that, but I don't think I'm allowed? ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 06:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)I'll do so anyways in 24 hours or so if someone clever doesn't fix it first :-)
No, there is no need to do so. Even in his absence, he remains the coordinator. The rest of us are just covering the desk and do not become the coordinator. Compare it to a workplace: when the president of a company is on holiday, nobody else becomes the "temporary" president. Risker (talk) 07:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
ah - well I'd suggest de-linking Deskana's username, and contact info (if indeed it's not accurate - otherwise just delink the username) - something like this;
The current coordinator is Deskana. or;
The current coordinator, Deskana, is on a 'wiki break' however the list is continually monitored, so please feel free to send all enquiries to the address above.
this is like the smallest deal in the whole world ever, but on balance I reckon it might help - I'll leave it there, so it's your call :-) Privatemusings (talk) 07:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Arbitration Commitee announcement: new mailing list structure
The Committee has decided to implement several changes to its existing mailing list structure:
The Committee's main mailing list, arbcom-l, will be restricted to sitting arbitrators, the designated mailing list coordinator, and Jimbo Wales.
The Committee's private wiki will be identically restricted.
The current "sitting arbitrators only" list will be retained as a backup to arbcom-l, but will not be normally used.
A new mailing list, functionaries-l, will be created, with membership open to all arbitrators, former arbitrators in good standing, and CheckUser and Oversight operators.
The resolution authorizing this was passed 12/0, with votes in favor by Carcharoth, Casliber, Cool Hand Luke, Coren, FayssalF, FloNight, John Vandenberg, Kirill Lokshin, Rlevse, Roger Davies, Vassyana, and Wizardman, and no votes against or abstentions.
For the Committee, Kirill 23:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Cross-posted by Tznkai (talk), On behalf of the committee 23:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Committee agenda as of January 20
Listed below are the items which currently comprise the agenda of the Arbitration Committee.
Two points that should be kept in mind:
Several of the measures being considered may require some form of community ratification prior to being fully adopted. The target date for this is not explicitly listed, but can be assumed to occur after the final date for internal Committee deliberations.
The target dates are not set in stone; while we will make our best effort to meet them, there are any number of unforeseen circumstances which may cause them to change, and they are subject to revision as other issues arise.
The agenda is as follows:
Decide on updates to arbitration enforcement procedures
Initiate RFC by January 21
Compile RFC results by February 21
Draft reform proposals by March 7
Finalize reform proposals by March 21
Determine procedure for publishing proposals
Decision by January 31
Appoint CU & OS operators
Finalize election setup by January 31
Finalize appointments by February 28
Determine case acceptance criteria
Decision by January 31
Determine procedure for emergency rights removal
Draft proposal by January 31
Decision by February 14
Decide on designating an IRC liaison
Compile chanop comments by January 31
Decision by February 14
Decide on appointing CU & OS auditors
Finalize proposal by February 7
Finalize appointments by February 28
Determine recusal standards
Draft proposal by February 7
Decision by February 21
Determine workshop page structure
Decision by February 14
Determine how to deal with users leaving during cases
Draft proposal by February 14
Decision by February 28
Decide on acceptance of private evidence
Draft proposal by February 14
Decision by February 28
Prepare updated guide to arbitration
Draft by February 21
Finalized by March 7
Determine how to deal with users returning from bans
Draft proposal by February 21
Decision by March 7
Decide on locations of arbitration pages
Draft structure by February 21
Decision by March 7
Implementation by March 14
Move forward on handling civility
Detailed agenda by February 28
Determine procedure for handling banned user appeals
Draft proposal by February 28
Decision by March 14
Determine approach to considering off-wiki actions
Draft proposal by February 28
Decision by March 14
Determine standards of conduct in requests for arbitration
Draft proposal by March 7
Decision by March 21
Develop an arbitrator recall process
Draft proposal by March 7
Final proposal by March 21
Prepare updated Arbitration Policy
Draft by March 7
Finalized by March 21
Move forward on content dispute resolution
Detailed agenda by March 14
Decide on using summary motions in rejected cases
Draft proposal due March 14
Decision due March 21
Prepare updated transition document
Draft by October 31
Finalized by November 30
Prepare updated induction document
Draft by October 31
Finalized by November 30
For the Committee, Kirill 01:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Cross-posted by Tznkai (talk), On behalf of the committee 17:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Declaring Alternate Account
I didn't know i had to declare my Public account here, it is User:Hereford Public, its use is for being used on public networks which is allowed by WP:Sockpuppet.
Main Account Hereford(talk· contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user ·block log)
You do not have to, it is just a good practice. Also, the mailing list is generally a better place to do it. Cheers, Tiptoetytalk 05:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Apology re:Date-delinking injunction
I apologise for my violation of the temporary injunction placed on mass delinking of dates. Working primarily to ensure that date formats in articles were consistent, I carried out the task with a tool that simultaneously delinks dates. In making the dates consistent, I unwittingly allowed some dates to be delinked; I should have been more aware. I also manually delinked dates from a handful of articles while browsing, and had not read the injuction carefully enough to realise that even manual delinking was covered. Again, I sincerely apologise. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Your apology is greatly appreciated. Cheers, Tiptoetytalk 05:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
email address
Is there a publicly reachable email address that goes only to current committee members? I see the page now says that arbcom-l is limited to current committee members - is this correct? --Random832 (contribs) 14:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Yup, have you seen the new arbitration committee noticeboard? Don't have the link handy. Avruch T 15:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
In light of the concerns expressed by numerous members of the community regarding the voting method selected for the CheckUser and Oversight elections, the Committee has amended the election policy to allow votes both for and against a candidate, and to specify appointments based on percentage of support rather than raw support.
The measure authorizing this amendment was passed 10/0:
Supporting: Carcharoth, Casliber, Cool Hand Luke, Coren, FloNight, Kirill Lokshin, Risker, Roger Davies, Sam Blacketer, Wizardman
Opposing: None
Abstaining: None
Not voting: FayssalF, Jayvdb, Newyorkbrad, Rlevse, Stephen Bain, Vassyana
It should additionally be noted that this matter was dealt with on a quite urgent basis, and a number of arbitrators have not yet had the opportunity to enter formal votes on the measure; we expect that the tally above will be updated once this has occurred.
For the Committee, Kirill[pf] 04:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Cross posted by Tznkai (talk)on behalf of the Arbitration Committee 04:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
CU/OS election has started!
Your participation is needed! The historic first-ever CheckUser and OverSight election run by the Arbitration Committee has just started. It's taking place here. Editors are needed urgently to scrutinise the candidates so that those appointed are the best possible people for the job. Your participation here is important to make the election a success. Thanks in advance, --ROGER DAVIEStalk 00:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Seeking a timeline on the "date" case
We ask that ArbCom treat the "dates" hearing as a high priority, for the following reasons:
Duration: The case has dragged on for more than a month.
Abundant text already. The Workshop page continues to blow out with diffs and other claims that we believe are of no further assistance to arbitrators in their task. It now contains 790 Kb, 105 thousand words, 3/4 of a million characters, and 3,200 "paragraphs", covering 221 pages in Word (Ariel, single-spaced); this is in addition to extremely large Evidence and Application pages.
Style guide locked: It appears that one of our most important style guides, MOSNUM, has been entirely locked down in relation to this case for a considerable period.
Personnel: It involves many well-established and prominent editors whose time and energy continues to be diverted in monitoring the case, since it is an official process and involves significant personal exposure.
Proposals: Two proposals aimed at moving the issues forward in practical terms have recently been made, here and here; we believe these may assist the ArbCom process.
Please do. There will be no progress on the actual content issue (date linking/autoformatting) until this ends. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
BTW: I count the "dates" hearing as being 198 “page downs” in a 1022-pixel-wide window. That is the equivalent of 40 meters of scrolling—a thirteen-story-tall building. If the workshop doesn’t get some attention soon, we can add a new unit of length to accompany the Smoot. Rather than saying “The Harvard Bridge is 364.4 smoots long”, we can say, “the moon is 28.2 date delinking workshops away.”
Since it is clearly an exceedingly onerous task for any human to wade through all that, I propose that we create a new subpage to the workshop, where the two warring camps here each post a 2000-word proposed solution that cuts to the heart of the matter and omits tangential sniping and proposed *solutions* like “tie so‑n‑so to a post and execute him at dawn.” Greg L (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Support It would help analysis if two classes of subpages were created: 'primarily about people'; and 'primarily about date linking policy'. Lightmouse (talk) 12:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Support The denigrating of conscientious people who had consensus (and worked in good faith) to improve WP has gone on long enough. The process should now end in order to clear the way for bots (perhaps modified to meet emerging community consensus) to continue the necessary work of the removal of the unwanted date-links found throughout WP (something for which the various RfCs have shown overwhelming support). The current "evidence" page has long since devolved into an "airing of grievances" page, and is being diluted further away from the crucial point of deciding matters to do with date-delinking. I urge the arbitrators to ignore the so-called "behavioural" issues, simply because the only way to move forward is to specify policy that meets community consensus—hence obviating behavioural problems resulting from future edits. I believe that everyone supporting the delinking of dates is willing to move forward in just such a way, and have promoted proposals to obtain that outcome for the entire WP community. HWV258 22:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Comment There has been much bad behaviour over this arbitration and I think we would all like to see a light at the end of the tunnel, however the case is not urgent. I would draw the Arbcom's attention to the fact that the proposals linked by Tony above do not address the root problem of the arbitration case: The bot-enforcement of a disputed guideline. In my opinion, the fact that multiple changes to MOSNUM have been proposed on the Arbitration page, and on Jimbo's talk page (rather than on talk:MOSNUM) is a display of poor judgment on the part of experienced editors who should know better. As I have submitted in my evidence, this case has similar ramifications to that of Betacommand, in particular as regards the bot-enforcement of rather arbitrary and poorly agreed rules over the whole encyclopaedia by a very small group of experienced editors who are extremely resistant to comments about the value of the edits. With that said though, one of the primary problems with Betacommand was the extreme urgency of the task, which meant that considerable latitude in poor behaviour was tolerated in order that the task should be completed on-time. In this case I do not see any such urgency, and I cannot honestly see the problem for wikipedia if the MOSNUM locking and injunctions were to remain in place for a couple of years. I would urge the Arbcom to allow sufficient time for the dust to settle, and I would submit to the Arbcom that haste in this case is both unnecessary and possibly counterproductive.
The sole exception to this lack of urgency is perhaps the content-dispute as indicated above. I would notify the Arbcom that several parties have brought a content dispute (over the wording of MOSNUM) to the Arbitration. Perhaps it would be constructive for the Arbcom to indicate whether it considers rulings on content disputes to be within its remit in this particular case. Perhaps it is unclear to the parties since the article is in wikipedia space rather than in conventional article space. This might save some time. Regards, AKAF (talk) 10:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
The historic first-ever checkuser and OverSight election run by the Arbitration Committee is due to close at 23:59 (UTC) today! If you wish to vote, you need to do so soon. Your participation here is important to make the election a success! Thanks in advance, --ROGER DAVIEStalk 13:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Dates case: Calling for Ryan Postlethwaite to step aside as clerk
It is inexplicable that Ryan Postlethwaite is removing posts by editors who clearly support one side of the argument, without publicly disclosing the scope of the case, and thus his criteria for such removals. The initial comments by arbitrators on the application page were a collection of the thoughts of individual arbitrators; they cannot possibly form the basis of a scope, and by no stretch of the imagination could be considered a substitute for evidentiary rules. I note that the clerk has stated in relation to this case that:
"Some cases change scope as they go on".
OK, who decides how the scope changes? Is this the official line? Specifically, is the case about ad hominem statements, or is it about date-delinking? Is it about the role of bots? Is it about Lightmouse's previous account? Is it about the role of MOS?
We are in the dark.
A ragbag of issues has been spattered over the pages thus far, without intervention by either clerk to ensure that arbitrators and parties are presented with a manageable, understandable, focused and fair body of evidence; yet Ryan Postlethwaite now concedes—in a grotesque understatement—that it is a "convoluted" case. Why has he waited until now? Why is he removing text in a highly selective and apparently biased fashion? The latest was this one. Since ad hominem attacks on people, including me, have been the order of the day in the Workshop, why is the defence of a party against such attacks regarded as inadmissible? I note full-bodied support of Ryan's actions by a member of the opposing group, Hex. Does this say something about balance and favour?
During ArbCom cases, participants get more leeway to say and do what they like. The reason for this is so that all views can be aired on the table and all points can be put across to the arbitrators. A greater number of viewpoints allows the committee to determine the best course of action.
Are these the personal views of the clerk, or are they written down somewhere so that participants know where they stand? He still hasn't responded to the queries by me and dabomb, now archived, and to many posts on his current talk page. He fails to communicate properly as he is bound to as a clerk and by the admin policy he is obliged to follow.
Clerking requires a balanced blend of caution and boldness, and more caution than typically encouraged on Wikipedia, making proper temperament very important. Potential Clerks are expected to be:
"this will pass and I'm almost positive nothing bad will come of it for you."
Some of us gulped at the lack of neutrality and detachment in his "advice" to a third party, Reedy (unwise bits italicised by me): "You don't have to comment if you don't want to, but it might be good to clarify things from your perspective.... to be on the safe side it might be best to set the record straight."
I began to wonder about the whole ArbCom process when MBisanz was permitted to introduce completely irrelevant and unfounded accusations against me, which Ryan later—after my belly-aching—partly conceded should have been removed. That Bisantz's accusations, on circumstantial evidence, was a breach of WP:UNINVOLVED, given his unsuccessful attempt to close down my AdminReview initiative only a few weeks before, makes it yet more flagrant abuse of what is meant to be a balanced, focused, fair judicial process; it is certainly is not that.
Yes, Greg should have tried to communicate with the clerk about his removal of Greg's proposal before reverting; that was Greg's mistake, but people do become angry and frustrated when they're being high-handed. Ryan should have made blocking a last resort (please see WP:ADMIN on that matter), particularly as his job is to treat the parties fairly, and to be seen to do so. His quick-off-the-mark blocking of a party, without attempting to calm the situation and reflect on the cause of the problem, is at odds with the requirement that clerks exercise "more caution than is typically encouraged on Wikipedia". He needs to explain his removals in relation to the stated scope of the case. In particular, he needs to explain why he resorted to the blocking of a party with apparently casual indifference when Greg had significantly altered his posts in the reverts. The clerk needs to explain in the same terms why Lightmouse's entrieshe arbitrarily removed several days ago were worthy of removal. I don't see where Noetica has been informed that his contribution some weeks ago has been suddenly expunged from the Workshop.
I think he is a nice fellow, and I'm sorry to speak so plainly. It is clear also that the system is broken, such that this case would be challenging for the most experienced and skilled clerks. However, Ryan Postlethwaite is clearly out of his depth: he should resign. Tony(talk) 15:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Tony, Ryan was operating under instructions from me, in my role as an arbitrator, and I most certainly will not be calling for his resignation on this point; in fact, I would have preferred that he be far more ruthless in removing off-topic posts. Last night's work resulted in a few contributors striking their own comments that were not helpful or were off-topic, moving a few off-topic threads, and reduced an 812kb page to just over 700kb. I hope that none of the parties are on dial-up, as they won't be able to open the page. In your desire to have Ryan disciplined, you too have missed my message, which is that a significant amount of the commentary on the page is unhelpful in reaching a decision, and that there is so much off-topic commentary that it is extremely difficult to identify what is actually useful. Perhaps you can go and review your own contributions and strike out any that are not on point for the topics under discussion. I again encourage all participants to strike out off-topic posts or to move them to the talk page. Risker (talk) 15:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Then there is a problem with your decision making. I reduced the size of my proposal by replacing it with the 1227-word, seven-step proposed solution. This was after I was told that I couldn’t post it as a separate proposal. And I get blocked for that. Arbitration committees must understand that interpreting RfCs had better be within the scope of their duties because RfCs are central to the Wikipedia process and there will always be editors who refuse to believe and accept the results. This is the root cause underlying all the editwarring and bickering on WT:MOSNUM. If you can’t understand and accept this obvious fact, then you need to recuse yourself from this. Until then, I will have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with this since I have absolutely no confidence in your ability to lead. Goodbye to you sir. Greg L (talk) 15:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
How many times is it possible to say "goodbye, I will have nothing to do with this" and yet keep posting, I wonder? — Hex(❝?!❞) 16:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Rejoinder to Risker by Tony. Risker, your response covers only a small proportion of my points. Here is my rejoinder:
I applaud your action in instructing the clerk to take action, but this is rather late in the day for that—the damage has already been done. I ask that you consider encouraging ArbCom to make structural changes to minimise the chance that this situation ever arises again. In particular, I ask that someone do something to re-assure the parties that the process hasn't completely collapsed. Confidence needs to be restored. You will see signs of serious loss of faith without looking hard: that is not good for the project.
The issues concern Ryan's behaviour some time before your instructions as well; I believe that he has not acted on your current instructions in an even-handed way. I believe it would have been appropriate to announce your instructions publicly.
I did not call for ArbCom or any particular arbitrator to ask for Ryan's resignation: I have asked for it myself already. Nor did I ask for Ryan to "be disciplined" (your attribution of "desire" on my part is an unfortunate choice of wording—I derive no pleasure from this at all). It is probably up to Ryan to decide: he needs to weigh up the costs and benefits of continuing as clerk when several key parties to the hearing have lost confidence in his role. I can't see how justice can be seen to be done under those circumstances, but that is only my personal opinion.
"a significant amount of the commentary on the page is unhelpful in reaching a decision, and that there is so much off-topic commentary that it is extremely difficult to identify what is actually useful"—well, I can't disagree with you there. That was central to my post. The scope was never defined and there are no evidentiary rules; on the contrary, the process appears to encourage bloat. I feel for arbitrators in this respect.
"Perhaps you can go and review your own contributions and strike out any that are not on point for the topics under discussion." It's hard to know whether one's own contributions are "on point" when the scope is not defined. My contributions have been relatively short and focused, I believe. I wonder why the green box I contributed, which I felt would assist arbitrators, has not been removed under the circumstances. Again, we are in the dark.
"I again encourage all participants to strike out off-topic posts or to move them to the talk page."—Again? I see no prominent message from you to this effect. Just what is off-topic? Please refer to my questions about this above. Tony(talk) 15:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
To determine whether or not a post on the workshop page is off-topic, first read the proposal (principle, finding of fact, remedy, enforcement). If one's comment does not respond to the specific proposal, then it is almost certainly off-topic. Posts or portions of posts that comment on the contributors rather than the proposal are particularly unhelpful. Risker (talk) 16:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
So the relevance of a proposal is not the test, but only the responses to it? Bizarre. So all of the ad hominem proposals are just dandy-doo, but comment on a contributor to a proposal and you're dead? Curiouser and curiouser. By scope, I was referring to the case, as you'd expect to be established at the start, not to "micro-scope" within each Proposal, which appear to be admissible no matter what their topic (unless you're Greg or Lightmouse). Tony(talk) 16:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
An appropriate comment to a proposal one feels is not relevant and is not based on the evidence would be "This proposal is not relevant or supported by evidence." Nine words would be helpful. Three paragraphs saying essentially the same thing is unhelpful. A helpful comment for a proposal one feels is very important would be "I agree with this proposal for reasons x, y, and z; and here are two links to evidence to support it." Discussion within the thread should be specific to the proposal. Case scope isn't completely limited at the time of acceptance because one cannot predict what evidence will surface during the course of the case. Risker (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if you noticed that someone who posted just such a message to relevant proposals, albeit an apparently excessive number of times, has been chastised for that, and had all instances of it removed by another editor without any clerk intervention until the editor screamed in protest? Even then, he was ruled out of order by Tiptoety (I just know xhe's an admin whatever role xhe has in this game was not made clear). Ohconfucius (talk) 02:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
How absurd. Of course I supported Ryan's actions, as I've been telling people they've been using the workshop wrongly for a long time. — Hex(❝?!❞) 16:30,
Absurd indeed, and it should have spurred Ryan into action. Instead, it's taken him four whole goddamned weeks for him to get his arse into gear, and only because User:Risker kicked it. You took it upon yourself to do some of the cleanup that should rightly have been done by him is an admission of that fault, and now you say he done nuthin' wrong? Ohconfucius (talk) 02:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
But, Risker, the difficulty is how to know which proposals are relevant, when the scope of the case hasn't been defined. If this case is about behavioural issues, then any proposal on how to handle delinking is not relevant and all the ad hominem stuff is relevant. Conversely, if it's about whether and when and by what means delinking is allowed, then the behavioural stuff is not relevant but proposals to clarify linking guidelines are relevant. We need clarity about what this case is for before anyone, participant or clerk, starts moving or removing contributions. Colonies Chris (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
The problem here seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the arbitration process. The workshop is used to help the Arbitrators find proposals they can use. This whole situation started because I removed this. The reason I removed it was simple - it was for use by the participants of the case, not the arbitrators. If you guys wish to solve the dispute without arbitration, then please do so and good on you. The proposal that Greg put forward was to do just that - it was not a proposal that the arbitrators could use as a binding resolution, merely an attempt to solve this without the arbitrators. This also required a lot of discussion - something that the workshop page isn't well suited for. By moving it to the talk page, it still allowed you all to discuss it (and for the arbitrators to see it if they wished), but it provided a better environment to talk about the issues at hand. I'm not stepping down from this case because I haven't done anything wrong. Tony is very wrong with his accusation of bias - I have no interest in whether dates are linked or not and neither have I ever had any major dealings with any of the participants. If more people from one "side" of this dispute seem to be formatting their edits wrongly or acting disruptively then it's obvious that their edits are going to receive more attention from the clerks - but that is on an individual basis, not collective. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
You have done nothing wrong... My contention is that you have not done anything of great relevance concerning this case, and what little you have done you botched. If any doubt exists about this, take a look at the Evidence page, which contain all manner of trash, detritus, and whatever the cat dragged in. When asked important questions, you make a polite reply, paying lip service, when someone has serious question to press you further on, you typically walk away leaving the questions unanswered. This has happened to me at least twice, and I believe Tony eluded to it above in his opening statement. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Comment Although I am unhappy with the recent events, I will not call for anybody's resignation just yet. I believe that there were two specific events that caused this confusion:
If you guys wish to solve the dispute without arbitration, then please do so and good on you. Thanks. That is exactly what we will endeavor to do now Ryan. You and Risker have made it exceedingly clear that determining the community consensus on date linking and bot activity as evidenced by the RfCs is well beyond the purview of the arbitration committee. I must profess that this attitude/position has me thunderstruck. So, back to WT:MOSNUM where the community consensus will be ascertained, and a guideline on date linking that is compliant with the community consensus will be posted to MOSNUM. Notwithstanding that this dispute originated from WT:MOSNUM, all editors were much better behaved over there and there was infinitely better oversight by admins there to keep order. Greg L (talk) 01:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
"all editors were much better behaved over there" - this from you! Ha! Ha! Oh my aching sides! — Hex(❝?!❞) 05:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
"If you guys wish to solve the dispute without arbitration, then please do so and good on you"—I agree that that's a green light to continue solving the "problem" outside of this "arbitration". It's now been made clear that this "arbitration" is only going to achieve a nebulous judgment as to who poked out their tongue the furthest, so why should we wait for its outcome (in terms of moving WP forward)? Now that we've been shown that there will be no attempt to forge a solution, lets transfer the proposal for date-delinking to the MOSNUM page and nut out a solution. C'mon lads; are you with me? HWV258 02:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC). P.S. as I've unfortunately put so much time into it, could someone please let me know how this "arbitration" ends? Thanks.
Comment to Dabomb: I fail to see how any of this is your fault. You were acting boldly according to Risker's instructions, which I find questionable for the reasons expressed by Tony and Colonies Chris above. In my view, the entire responsibility lies with Ryan P. You were just helping out, and did Ryan a very considerable favour and should at least buy you a drink, if not dinner. If it weren't for your efforts, Ryan will still be cleaning up those pages until Thursday of next week. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Further statement by Tony
Failure of natural justice.ArbCom policy states that "The Committee will decide cases according to ... sensible 'real world' laws". "Real world" laws, one presumes, involve fundamental principles prevailing in English-speaking jurisdictions—equal treatment before the law, and the notion that "justice must not only be done: it must be seen to be done". I am not for one minute persuaded by clerk Postlethwaite's or arbitrator Risker's defence of my accusations of bias both before or after "instructions" by Risker. The clerk's simple claim that my assumption of bias was "very wrong" will convince no one: substantive and detailed rebuttal is required to win back confidence. Hex has underlined this bias by twice chiming in vociferously to support the clerk's actions.
What is the scope? The root of the problem is that the scope has never been defined, and it is inexplicable that no one at ArbCom will tell us, despite repeated requests. Is it about ad hominem comments, bots, RfC interpretations, or date-delinking behaviour/policy? The process is protracted, and the belated attempts to reduce the ridiculous word-count smack of decision-making on the hop. You cannot do it in reverse; it has to be constrained in scope at the start. ArbCom, itself addressing "abuse of process", has stated that: "Removing evidence from any Arbitration page is unacceptable. Modification of other users' edits of Arbitration pages, inserting peripheral material, and especially deleting them or portions of them will not be tolerated." Yet there have been flagrant, apparently partisan removals, with the encouragement of the clerk (whether or not under direct instruction), and despite the complaints of those who have been disenfranchised by such arbitrary removals. Why was this behaviour by a member of one side tolerated in clear contravention of the policy, yet good-faith attempts by the other side to find solutions to the cause of the problems have been censored arbitraritly?
Conflict of interest abounds. I've discussed some evidence of this by the clerk already. More obviously, a trainee clerk, MBisantz, showed galling ignorance of the concept of fairness and relevance in his posts to the Workshop page. Amazingly, the rules allow clerks to be involved as third parties, undermining their neutrality in cases they do manage. More to the point, why has such a person been selected as a trainee clerk without assessing his knowledge of such basic matters as conflict of interest and neutrality through the avoidance of such engagement. Again, the "caution" expected of clerks appears to be worth nothing.
Loss of confidence in the process. It is strikingly clear by now that a number of key participants and observers have lost confidence in both the clerk and the process—a "judicial" process that claims to be fair and authoritative and retains the right to mete out significant punishment. The whole thing is an embarrassment to Wikipedia, and is in need of urgent reform. I don't know how the Committee thinks any judgement arising from this mess could be held in respect. It must, given the very evident flaws I have outlined here, be contrary to the Committee's policy obligation to decide cases "with an eye to the expectations of the community". Tony(talk) 15:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
SupportI had a hand in crafting Tony's statement, and I am completely behind it. My own statements were published here in this page earlier today. I feel that both Bisanz and Poss should go immediately. Had I known before today that Bisanz held position as a trainee clerk, I would have asked for his removal earlier.. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Support Well done to all who helped on Tony’s post here. I agree with every bit of it, particularly the rubric, “Loss of confidence in the process.” I note the lack of the word “total” in that, but that’s OK. I am absolutely aghast at how mishandled this ArbCom workshop has been. Greg L (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Comment I was approached by a couple of arbitrators after this case had been accepted asking if I would like to consider applying to become a clerk. I did apply and was accepted by the committee as a clerk trainee. As was thoroughly discussed by Newyorkbrad at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking/Evidence#Complete_denial_of_natural_justice, any involved parties (such as myself), will not be taking any action with regard to functionary roles in the case (arb, clerk, admin, etc). Since being appointed a clerk-trainee on February 2nd, I haven't taken any actions in relation to this case, so I cannot see how any conflict of interest exists. MBisanztalk 16:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
(e.c.) Standing there and formulating proposals to punish just about all parties one by one is not the high level of caution envisaged in the clerks policy. Your job is to stand above all that so that the community can trust your ability to operate without favouritism or bias in a case you do manage. Besides, there's something plain undignified about it for someone with that role. But on a second level, you invite suspicious, even perceived suspicion, that your failure, twice, to close down a draft process that was not to your liking, developed by one of the parties, was influential in your actions to announce totally irrelevant accusations about that party, all the more unfair because taken way out of context in this hearing. When this was pointed out, you did more than ignore the issue: you redoubled your smear attempt. It's worthy of resignation. Tony(talk) 16:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
MBisanz is not a clerk on the Date delinking case. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Whether or not Biz is a clerk in this particular case is largely irrelevant, to my mind. By accepting the role of Trainee clerk, he signed on to much more than "occasional non-partisanness" (sic), and it seems from the above rejoinder that he still does not realise this. He may think he was being even-handed in proposing motions to censure all and sundry, but in fact, putting his mitt in there has given him a stake in the process, which thoroughly contaminates his official role. At the time I criticised his proposal [against Tony] for being off the mark and irrelevant, I never realised that he was in such a conflict of interest. For information, he submitted his "evidence" on 13 FebruaryJanuary. His actions at the date-relinking case certainly threaten the perception that justice is being served at ARBCON, and therefore bring it into disrepute. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Just a minor point of information, the diff cited as evidence submission on "13 February" is dated January 13, 2009 according to the MediaWiki clock and also according to my own personal recollection. MBisanztalk 02:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
What a load of cobblers. Once again Tony attempts to hold up my support of a point of order - that the arbitration is not the correct forum for such discussions, being primarily on behavioral issues as indicated by ArbCom acceptance statements (a point which I had espoused long before any form of action was taken) as some sort of evidence of "bias" in the process. This is little more than a tantrum. — Hex(❝?!❞) 16:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Every time you open your mouth, Hex, you make it worse for yourself. I doubt that you understand why. Tony(talk) 16:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Nebulous and vaguely threatening! Fantastic. Thanks for your contribution. Looking forward to see what you come up with next. — Hex(❝?!❞) 16:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
If the arbs have a lick of sense left, they'll return the situation to the status quo ante. An overwhelming majority of Wikipedians want to see almost no dates or date fragments at all bluelinked and are happy with their removal by a bot. Our side has the bot, theirs doesn't and never will (BAG will never approve a bot to perform automated relinking.) Locke Cole and his small band of diehards can follow Lightbot around and try to undo its changes by hand. After a while their brains will turn to mush from the tedium and they die. Everyone wins.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 18:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
What a rude, unhelpful and inappropriate comment. Insulting the Arbs on the ArbCom talk page, no less; you've outdone yourself. — Hex(❝?!❞) 18:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Anyone who is interested can see the history behind the drafting of Tony1's statement here. Tennis expert (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
That's right, Tennis. The process of drafting Tony's statement was quite transparently assisted by other concerned members of the community. I am one of those. We don't all find it necessary to operate in secret, you know. Some of us have the courage of our Wikipedian convictions, and still believe in community consultation.
Now that I have monitored a whole case this far (and had my one contribution to proceedings summarily excised, without notice or explanation) I am appalled at the whole ArbCom process. So of course I support Tony's efforts to have it examined and reformed.
The goal of the workshop is to find proposals that the arbitrators can use. Your comment, in summary, consists of the following:
Tony and I [Noetica] have worked together on MOS
I no longer wish to participate on MOS/MOSNUM
I object to the proposed findings against Tony
Tony is more productive than the other participants so they should shut up
The other participants bark like dogs
The other participants are deliberately wasting the arbitrators' time.
And you're suprised that it was moved to the workshop's talk page? — Hex(❝?!❞) 22:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Noetica, exactly who is operating in secret? Tennis expert (talk) 23:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
[Amended: see post from GMW, and my response, below.–Noetica] I certainly do not endorse your points above as an adequate paraphrase, Tennis Hex. Rather than add to the frenzy of proposals (some essentially reiterating existing proposals) well beyond any reasonable interpretation of the case before ArbCom, I commented at just one location. Who else showed such restraint? But to answer your questions:
Yes, I was surprised at first, for two reasons: It is not the role of a clerk to judge the content of a sole contribution to this process from a major player in developing Wikipedia's manual of style, and to remove it without explanation, notification, or respect for procedure. Have another look at the much longer material plastered all over the Workshop page, from editors who are not parties, and not big contributors at MOS. (In fact, some are its enemies!) It ought to be of interest, perhaps, that I have withdrawn from MOS work; and it ought to be of interest that I do not participate in blood sport here at this ArbCom action either.
Who operates in secret? I make no secret of the fact that Tony and I have worked together, with all of the public and private dialogue that working together involves. Anyone watching MOS would know that! I have said that I value his work, and I value our collaboration to improve Wikipedia. Against all the odds, and against certain jackals barking at our feet, we have done a damn good job with WP:MOS, at least. Any objective observer can see how it has improved since our intervention, and after the consultations we have initiated on several issues there. Tony has done much more than I have, in fact, even if my edit count at WP:MOS is slightly higher than his as things stand.
Look again. I didn't paraphrase anything. Tennis expert (talk) 00:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
You [Hex; and to be taken as amended in what follows] were selective, and did not show how the points that you isolated were connected. You chose particular characterisations of my remarks that cast them in a certain light, to suit your own polemic purposes. That could have been to any of the innumerable "contributions" on the Workshop page. It is apparent to anyone who knows what side you [Tennis] take in all of this (and don't deny that you take a side) that yourHex's purpose just now was to belittle my measured contribution to the process. I, on the other hand, condemned a great mob of tricoteuses who salivate in anticipation of the demise of the talented and the industrious.
Only another partisan of your own stripe [Hex and Tennis] will be impressed. Waste my time no longer; I am not interested in any of this unproductive squabbling, and only intervened when I saw an immensely productive colleague opportunistically threatened.
Ahem, because Tennis Expert did not indent his reply immediately below Hex's, it was easy to mistake the two editors' comments for a single one. The snarky list of bullet points was Hex's.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 01:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks GMW. I missed that. Tennis, it is a good idea to show where your own post begins more clearly: an extra line, or a further indent, or a signature on a separate final line (see my own signature).
Noetica, it would seem that certain parties, now lacking in substantive arguments, are once again resorting to personalising the message around Tony. BTW, the other name you were looking for is Locke, of course. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC) [edited for clarification]
Sorry, Ohconfucious. I genuinely cannot tell whom you are addressing, or precisely what you mean to say. Please give names, and say things directly.
I wonder who these "certain parties" are. I know you can't mean me, since it would be a mistake to confuse restraint (a refusal to join in interminable fruitless actions like the present one before ArbCom, except with a single short submission in defence of a threatened colleague) and a "lack of substantive arguments". I have not engaged with the substance of the case, since I think that would be a ruinous waste of my time and energy; so of course I have not adduced "substantive arguments" concerning it. That doesn't mean I don't have them!
Since to a casual reader you might seem to mean me, I request that you clarify your post.
Done, apologies for the confusion. I was addressing you, talking specifically about Hex and whatshisname, both of whom should just go home with their knitting. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
If you hadn't rushed to respond, Noetica, you would have seen that I was responding to you and not Hex (the "who is operating in secret" question should have been an additional clue as Hex said nothing about secrecy). The lack of an additional indention was, therefore, not an error. Tennis expert (talk) 04:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Tennis, I have no time to deal in clues, only in clarity. A terse, seven-word post following immediately upon a longer contribution may easily appear to be a part of that contribution. Those who devote their waking hours to sifting through this detritus might have been able to sort it out rapidly, but I have other things to do. It would be helpful, in dense and interlaced dialogue such we have here, if you and Hex would consider the alternatives I suggested, including signing on a separate line. (This is a simple matter of procedure, and not an invitation to yet another tangential dispute.)
Support. The main problem is with an undefined scope. The lack of boundaries has meant an explosion into such a wide range of issues, that it's hard to imagine how anything useful could come out of this now. A few attenuated death-sentences for those who acted in good faith; a few slaps on wrists for those who were passionate in reverting to the status quo; but what are we actually going to do about all those linked dates that the community clearly doesn't want? Surprisingly (to me anyway), it seems the only thing that won't be decided is what is going to be done about the issue to which the arbitration page name refers ("Date delinking"). I do feel as if I've just stepped out of a darkened theatre after watching a movie I didn't understand, and am dazed, confused and directionless in the blinding sun. HWV258 22:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Comment: In the approximately 48 hours since I asked that people review their evidence and workshop commentary on the case itself, because it was so verbose it had become nearly unreadable, instead of doing that the editors involved in this case have generated over 50kb complaining about the pruning activities. Complaints have been made about a lack of direction, and when some is given, it is met with hostility and vituperation in every direction. This is not helping at all to resolve the issues in this case, unless one considers the issue to be excessive verbiage. Risker (talk) 02:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Something which would be helpful, no essential, is clear scope, so that parties know what is relevant and what is not. Of course, anyone can say lets get the hacksaw out, but without that fundamental clarity, you risk chopping down the tree. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Comment: Risker, it is approximately 48 since you haven't clearly expressed the scope of the case. If we knew the scope, it would be clearer what might be removed, and instead of arbitrary (and grossly unfair) removals of contributions, we would all know where we stood. Of course, expressing/deciding finally what the scope of the case is would underline why this should have been done at the start. You need to be very careful in removing material ipso facto, after the even, when parties and others in good faith have tried to assist the process. Doing so risks bring the whole house crashing down.
I ask that you get together with your colleagues on ArbCom and determine the scope. Then communicate that to all of the parties. Then we will know where we stand. Tony(talk) 03:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
To Risker: Meanwhile, even as we speak, Tennis Expert and Locke Cole keep adding text and diffs and text and diffs to the Evidence page, making it fatter and fatter and fatter. Your clerk Ryan Postlethwaite did make one removal, of text provided by Lightmouse. He has not excised any of the miles and miles of text put in by Tennis Expert, Locke Cole or their confederates to date. But he has edit-warred with Greg L and blocked Greg L. Why has your clerk not enforced the instruction clearly set out at the top of that page, namely to limit submissions to 1000 words and 100 diffs? Why have you arbitrators not reminded the clerk of his obligation?--Goodmorningworld (talk) 03:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Yep, and we still have "WP is not like Survivor Island". That, of course, is germane to the price of fish in Denmark. Tony(talk) 03:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. It seems like Ryan's learnt nothing from the discussion in the last 24 or so hours. For information, one "non-party" has contributed 178k to that page, out of a total of 449kB (saying nothing about relevance, or lack thereof). I am wondering for how much longer this sort of obsessive-compulsive behaviour is going to be tacitly encouraged, through silence and/or inaction. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I suggest that all involved read this, which is a subpage of Wikipedia:Arbitration guide, a blue link on the project page for which this is the discussion page (and also a green link in the infobox at the top of this page). While not perfect, it provides plenty of information on how to present a case, how not to present a case, and that the Committee isn't going to be ruling on content. Our purpose is to review the behaviour related to the matter under dispute. Evidence such as timelines of the dispute (with links to key events), behaviour outside of policy, disruption beyond the page(s) where the dispute is purported to be centred, is the most useful. Findings of fact should have at least one diff supporting them, and the diffs used should have been presented at the evidence phase. In a nutshell: the scope of this case is the behaviour of those who have been participating in the dispute revolving around delinking of dates. Risker (talk) 04:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
So briefly, Risker, just so we can all be clear about this: Everything's fine, no clerk has acted in a way that might be questionable, the procedures are in no need of scrutiny, and no one (including myself) has any ground for any objection whatsoever, and specific calls to reverse poorly judged decisions by a clerk can be ignored. Right? Is that how things stand, in your view? Because if it is, I now want even less to do with your kangaroo court than I have had already.
And just as briefly, so if it was only ever going to be about who poked their tongue out further, why was this (the scope) not clearly explicated at the start? Why is it only after much work by parties that we suddenly find that date de-linking has nothing, zilch, niente to do with it? Why did the clerk not alert the parties to this the first time anything that we now learn was off-topic was posted? Either I'm misunderstanding something basic here, or the clerk has been monumentally incompetent.Tony(talk) 05:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I've only briefly skimmed this and won't comment on the rest yet, but clerks can make workshop proposals on cases, even if they're the case clerk. It's just like arbs who vote making proposals. See AGK proposals, the case clerk, in Footnoted quotes: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Footnoted_quotes/Workshop#Proposals_by_AGK. IIRC I never did so on a case I clerked, but it is allowed. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
To Rlevse: Has the thought occurred to Arbcom that Locke Cole, having lost in his attempts to gain community consensus for keeping dates and date fragments bluelinked, may have decided to go out in a blaze of glory? Bringing this case and throwing open tens of thousands of edits by several editors open to scrutiny for "behaviorial violations" would surely cook his own goose as he is so clearly a repeat offender, but with any luck he could drag down some of his adversaries with him?--Goodmorningworld (talk) 04:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
To Goodmorningworld, blaze of glory indeed. The total opposition to any form of delinking is just the WP form of religious fundamentalism. The colours are nailed to the mast, as you will see that there is now a proposal for an indefinite injunction on delinking at Workshop. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
To Rlevse: With all due respect, just because there are no rules to suggest a clerk (or trainee clerk, in the case we are talking about) cannot post proposals does not mean they should. As Tony said in his statement, if "The Committee will decide cases according to ... sensible 'real world' laws", a clerk to the court, by proposing judicial sentences for a judge to consider, would be 'seen to be' corrupting the process. Arbs making their own proposals is wholly different and appropriate - judges will rule and decide on appropriate sentences according the merits of the case in relation to statute and case law. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I would say that an acceptable exception to the above, would be if the Clerk was a party to a given dispute. In that case, xhe may make proposals in his/her personal capacity without appearance of conflict of interest. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
My two cents: Date delinking is indeed the locus of dispute, but ArbCom will not issue a content decision about date delinking itself. The second paragraph of the requests for arbitration page makes it very clear ArbCom handles behavioral issues and does not produce content decisions. The accepting comments by arbitrators in the case further reinforce the focus on conduct. I'll grant you that more direct guidance and enforcement from the beginning might have been best, but limiting the scope to conduct is hardly an obscure principle.
Regarding Ryan's edits, I don't see anything particularly wrong with the edits he's made. This was general feedback and appropriately moved to the talk page. This is a proposal that could be run by the community, but in no way resembles a proposal that ArbCom could or would act upon. This was general commentary, not evidence. All of Ryan's actions seem to be of this sort. Despite the outcry, the removals seem quite reasonable and perfectly sensible. If anything, the arbs and clerks should be more aggressive in clearing up evidence and workshop pages. If you feel similar material to what was removed remains on the workshop or evidence pages, feel free to politely raise the issue on the accompanying talk page for the arbs and clerks to review. Vassyana (talk) 06:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Would you kindly comment after taking a look at this edit, then please? Ohconfucius (talk) 07:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Please note, that was the first edit of Ryan's that I linked and addressed. Vassyana (talk) 07:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Please note, Vassanya, that Ohconfucious's request that you look at that edit was perfectly reasonable, because apparently you have failed to grasp the force of the deleted text. That was my sole contribution, in fact.
If I had wanted to act like several others here, I might have peppered the Evidence page and the Workshop page with many fragmented posts. I might have made a suite of proposed findings on my own initiative, as vacuous and futile as the majority of those that clutter the pages now. But I showed restraint, and I made a single posting at one location. This was my text, and I posted nothing else at all in this whole ArbCom case:
Noetica's only submission to the Date Delinking case (censored by removal)
[I comment only here, specifically on the proposal against Tony, but also generally against abuses of this ArbCom process that threaten individual editors. –Noetica]
Preliminary observations
As the statistics show, Tony and I have been the most prolific contributors at WP:MOS, and I have therefore come to know intimately both his operating style and the substance of his work. I have had differences with him concerning each. How could it be otherwise – for independent, competent, and energetic editors working on the same project? But we have forged an excellent working relationship, and I am proud of the advances in MOS since he and I became seriously involved with it. It is fatally easy to dwell on small perceived flaws in substance and style, as many in their submissions here have done: as if imperfections were not inevitable in such major undertakings at Wikipedia generally. But let any independent observer review the remarkable progress at WP:MOS, and at WP:MOSNUM (where statistics show Tony as the most prolific contributor). Tony has also been extremely productive at WP:FAC; and that includes, as it should, seeing that candidates respect the explicit FAC requirement to respect MOS guidelines. The consequent improvement in these articles – the public face of Wikipedia, for interested onlookers – is beyond reasonable doubt.
I no longer intend to participate at WP:MOS and WP:MOSNUM, and I have given my reasons for that decision elsewhere. Briefly, I find that progress is impossible beyond a certain ceiling. Holding back from mention of individual editors, I diagnose flawed protocols, inadequately understood principles, and generally a lack of common purpose. If these matters are not addressed systematically, with participation from the wider WP community, ArbCom will have many more fruitless disputes on its hands than the present one. And untold hours and days of editors' time will also be wasted.
Opposing the proposed measure against Tony
I object in the strongest terms to this opportunistic abuse of ArbCom to censure or sanction particular editors: Tony, Greg L, or anyone else. As a fundamental principle in such proceedings as this, the issues have to be rationally distinguished and classified. At least this has been achieved, in the bizarre Bleak House complexity of the current case. But this process of distinction and classification is only a first procedural step, and not a justification for spurious additions to the case. Some proposals ought to be peremptorily ruled out as entirely alien to the case, no matter how neat the headings appear or how subtly they are grafted on to the true matter that is to be decided.
This opportunistic attack on Tony is one such proposal. So, I should add, are proposals concerning other editors; so are Locke Cole's proposed findings of fact that lead in solemn sophistic procession up to this attack; and so are very many proposals that with nefarious but transparent intent waste ArbCom's time to re-affirm the bleeding obvious. Why not add "Go placidly amid the noise and haste ...", while we're at it?
Tony is a true asset to Wikipedia, and I will not stand by and see him assailed on specious grounds by less constructive editors, in a case concerned with other matters. When those editors are as productive and progressive themselves, or have a tenth as much to their credit as Tony has, then they might have some credibility. Let them yap away, in their own forums; but let them waste no more of ArbCom's time on such captious nonsense as we see here. Any editor who seeks to make real changes and real improvements will attract censure from those who have not yet developed such vision and competence. I wish for some of Tony's detractors that they will eventually experience this themselves.
Meanwhile, the dogs bark, but the caravan moves on. I throw them this proposal to chew on, to counter the jungle of verbiage in which they have sought to entangle us: "... remember what peace there may be in silence".
Some may not like the style. That's irrelevant! I deplore the style of most submissions in the case, myself. My style is unusual, but it is chosen for a purpose to communicate clearly all that I wanted to say in this case. There is specific content, concerning the capacity of ArbCom to make decisions of certain types – desperately important, given that the wider community has no inkling of what's going on in this misdescribed case. It threatens to have implications far beyond the matter of datelinking. I wrote:
If these matters are not addressed systematically, with participation from the wider WP community, ArbCom will have many more fruitless disputes on its hands than the present one. And untold hours and days of editors' time will also be wasted.
That is not mere "general feedback", Vassyana. It a warning from an experienced observer who has been deeply involved in developing style guidelines for Wikipedia. Nor is this mere "general feedback":
I object in the strongest terms to this opportunistic abuse of ArbCom to censure or sanction particular editors: Tony, Greg L, or anyone else. As a fundamental principle in such proceedings as this, the issues have to be rationally distinguished and classified. At least this has been achieved, in the bizarre Bleak House complexity of the current case. But this process of distinction and classification is only a first procedural step, and not a justification for spurious additions to the case. Some proposals ought to be peremptorily ruled out as entirely alien to the case, no matter how neat the headings appear or how subtly they are grafted on to the true matter that is to be decided.
I can only think that you are a novice in such matters, if you think that is to be lightly dismissed. I prefer to set aside the theory that you are a craven apologist for whatever some officious ArbCom clerk here takes it into his head to do. I hope I am wrong, and I mean no personal attack (just as I named no names in my submission, though I might have).
Ryan Postlethwaite probably removed my comment (silencing me, under threat of an indefinite block if I reverted his action) because he didn't understand it, and it was easy to remove – unlike the tangled coils of text that surrounded it on the page. Shame! And more shame, that anyone should reflexly defend such behaviour.
I see little reason to have any more involvement here. I'm deeply disappointed.
No one said your comments were to be dismissed. Comments may be substantive and yet still unsuitable for the evidence or workshop pages. You were not silenced and your comments were not deleted. The posting was moved to the talk page,[2] which is not at all the same thing. Vassyana (talk) 08:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
A flimsy, hasty, post hoc justification for a palpable error of judgement. A good 80% of the dross on that Workshop page could have been sidelined by removal to the talk page – including many of the actual proposed findings. And everyone here knows it. If you and others at ArbCom persist in refusing to consider the thoughtful submissions of your most serious editors (some who do not embroil themselves in the controversy over datelinking, like myself), why continue to pretend that this is in any sense a community process?
i share the utter confusion and dismay that others have expressed above. Risker says that evidence of behaviour that goes against policy is helpful to the process - so will ArbCom please state what the policy (ie consensus) is on linking/delinking dates and years, so that we know whose editing behaviour is in line with policy and whose isn't? if ArbCom will not address that question then who will, how and when? thanks for any available clarity Sssoul (talk) 08:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
<-Vassyana said "If you feel similar material to what was removed remains on the workshop or evidence pages, feel free to politely raise the issue on the accompanying talk page for the arbs and clerks to review.". Well how about the clerks acting proactively for a change? However, as to scope, if you want bad behaviour, the example of Tennis expert climbing of the Reichstag which happened not long ago just before your very eyes (which was just moved to WP:AE) is a very fine example indeed of the kind of sorry and pedantic behaviour that many innocent editors have been subjected to since the beginning of this saga in August. You will all have seen how I am still being hounded for making some real contributions in compliance with a consensus-agreed guideline, while those same individuals continue to nothing productive but comb for diffs which may or may not incriminate somebody on the opposing side. You will certainly have missed User:Jclemensbeing taken to DRV for having deleted several 'copy and paste' talk archives of mine dating back to December 2007 and earlier. It's been a veritable nightmare, and I am just sick and tired of the endless stalking by Tennis expert, and to a lesser extent Locke Cole. I JUST WANT TO GET BACK TO WORK. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
A case dealing with all the goings on at MOSNUM has been brewing for years. Parties there have rarely been able to get along and each side has true believers. That this case was accepted should not be a surprise to anyone. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
And the huddled masses gathered at the base of a high mountain. In the heat of the setting sun, the collective suffering was intense, however the sad and pathetic wretches who had gathered strained their weary necks upwards for a sign. At length, and nearing their end, the people shielded their eyes as they noticed movement on a ledge far beyond their reach. A hushed thrill waved through the crowd. “An Arbitrator” whispered one. “No, surely not” dared another. “Yes, yes” insisted yet another. “It is the answer to our dreams” a hopeful dared. “Quiet! We are here for a judgment. Quiet!” implored the people’s leader.
From far above, the Arbitrator proffered his hand (with palm downward and fingers outstretched) toward the distant horizon. He was resplendent in a flowing red satin gown which was lined with a beautifully soft white fur, and trimmed with gold cloth and precious stones. A couple of clerks wrapped themselves around his feet and tried to sleep. When a satisfactory silence had been achieved, he gave a bored glance downwards, cleared his throat, and intoned in a voice of perfect pitch and pure power “In a nutshell: the scope of this case is the behaviour of those who have been participating in the dispute revolving around delinking of dates.”
Being so far away, the Arbitrator could not distinctly determine the reaction to his words, but he knew there had been a reaction. Beneath him, the weak collapsed to the ground and began renting their clothing, pulling at their hair and wailing inconsolably. The strong became weak at the knees and had to steady each other. Even though his heart had been ripped out, and with tears streaming down his face, the people’s leader made a last ditch appeal towards the shadow high above. In a faltering voice he called out “But we have been in the wilderness for so long; many of us are starving, and the weak will not survive the night. Please! We need help with our real problems.” The Arbitrator wanted to return to his lair, but at the plea, his gaze focussed and attempted to find the source of the voice. A low guttural laugh escaped his hardened lips as he boomed “What does that mean to me?”
Choking with tears, the leader made a last attempt. “Many of us have acted in good faith, and have been severely chastised for our hard work. We have been taken to task and beaten into submission for so long that we know of no other existence. We have only ever worked hard to please you, and to provide you with a reason for your own existence. We have come here in order to hear the pronouncement of those we were told to be wise and pure of heart. We need help with a way forward into the brightness and prosperity of the promised land. Why will you not help us with our real problem?” There was more the leader wanted to say, but all he could do was lower his head and sob into his hands. He knew he had failed.
“Enough!” screamed the Arbitrator. The clerks sat bolt upright and looked out over the doomed scene. A pronouncement had been made, and it was unheard-of to question the judgement of an Arbitrator. It was time to end the suffering. With a hardening of his mouth, shards of boiling fire streamed from his once-again outstretched hand. Beneath him, the good (and the not so good) were laid waste with banishments, injunctions, and much, much worse. When silence had once more returned, and the ashes settled, the Arbitrator slowly folded his arms and smiled. Gloom had once again descended upon the world—and it was good.
“Next!” he bellowed.
Arbcom needs to lift the injunction against date delinking immediately
Now that we have been told the scope of the case, what's in it ("conduct", "behavior") and what's not ("content"), it is clear that Arbcom erred grievously in imposing an injunction against large-scale delinking of dates. Arbcom should get on already with what they have said they want to do. Issue findings of fact and remedies on things such as "incivility", "edit warring", and the like. The operation of Lightbot is not a "behavior issue". A bot is not sentient. It does not express opinions, nor insult people. It exhibits no behavior beyond the execution of its tasks. Lightbot's operation was duly approved by the Bot Approvals Group and it enjoys the approval of the community.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
How a bot or script is used is a behavior issue. Bot policy governs the use of bots and scripts, and if they are being used outside that policy, it is a behavior issue on the part of the operator. The most recent case I recall addressing this was Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2, see specifically the tenth and eleventh principles, the third through fifth findings of fact, and the first four remedies. The injunction definitely addresses a conduct issue. GRBerry 18:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Especially since very serious concerns have been raised during the course of this arbitration regarding the conduct of Lightmouse in relation to his operation of Lightbot. — Hex(❝?!❞) 21:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
The injunction should be lifted immediately, as it is completely meaningless in light of the arbitration committee's decision to allow this kind of delinking by an editor whose alternative account is currently blocked and whose main account was previously blocked for exactly that kind of edit. Tennis expert (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Another example of mass delinking by Ohconfucius that appears to be OK now. Tennis expert (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Shock, horror! Could it be that for the very first time in Wikipedia history, User:Tennis expert and User:Ohconfucius are actually in agreement over something?? It appears clear now, per GMW, that this is a 'content' issue which Arbcom will never take sides on. I totally support lifting the injunction — just like no page can be protected indefinitely, life has to go on. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
The injunction was made in order to suspend activities while user conduct in those very activities was investigated. Your contempt for the process, by ignoring it and continuing with those activities, is now crystal clear. — Hex(❝?!❞) 21:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
It has been demonstrated here by myself and Tony (and others) above that this entire process leaves a lot to be desired, and may already be in disrepute without much intervention on my part. Notwithstanding, I haven't done anything in breach of the injunction recently, as has been confirmed by two Arbs, so I am a bit mystified by that accusation by Hex. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
For the reference of anyone reading through all this, Ohconfucius was later blocked for two weeks for using multiple IP addresses to evade a 72-hour block issued for him violating the injunction. — Hex(❝?!❞) 18:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Betacommand case was very different. BC [REDACTED] flew off the rails and screamed and cursed at innocent editors. Lightmouse, on the other hand, is a model Wikipedian who always gives substantive responses to questions and critiques.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Just a heads up: File:Radioactive.png was tagged as having a duplicate on Commons and I'm replacing all its instances here by File:Radioactivity symbol.png. However, that image was used by Alkivar on his signature, and is therefore used in a number of pages. I did most of the work this morning but there are a few instances left (fully protected pages), including his votes to the 2006 ArbCom Election. Any objections? -- lucasbfrtalk 10:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Another failure of due process
I'm sure many users are perplexed that Ryan Postlethwaite—the clerk for the "dates" hearing—has launched a page entitled Date linking RfC in his own userspace.
Clerks have unusual powers over the participants at a hearing, and are thus bound by rules to protect themselves, ArbCom, and not least the participants at hearings. Four of these rules are relevant to the clerk's creation of this page:
Clerks are "the appointed representatives of the Arbitration Committee, and act on behalf of the Committee in some circumstances".
"If a particular Clerk has a serious conflict of interest regarding the subject-matter of a case or one or more of the parties to it, that Clerk should recuse himself or herself from the case in favor of some other Clerk".
In view of these four requirements, why are we left pondering the following questions?
Status. What is the status of the clerk's new page WRT the hearing and ArbCom, and does it have any special standing because it has been started by the clerk of the hearing, at the same time as the hearing?
Scope. Will the clerk's new page and the RfC it appears to foreshadow have any official bearing on the parallel live hearing, or is he acting as a normal editor in launching it? If the latter, is this not an undesirable blurring of roles? The status of the page is of particular concern given the mixed message by arbitrators themselves concerning the scope of the hearing—at the Application page, the Workshop page, and on this page. The scope of the live ArbCom "dates" hearing is still uncertain, despite Risker's post above. Will the Arbitrators be influenced by the page and/or any resulting RfC in their handling of the "dates" case?
Lack of communication. Whatever the status of the clerk's page, given his official role at the parallel hearing, I wonder why there is no official announcement of these matters, to put our minds at rest (including those of the arbitraters).
Unclear purpose. What is the purpose of the page? The clerk's opening statement, far from clearing this up, begs important questions: "... the wider community might not be familiar with the concept [of date-linking/delinking]. A description of the process and description of the overall dispute should come before any voting/comments section in the RfC." Where is there a foregrounding of an impending RfC, and would it be under the auspices of ArbCom?
Who is invited to contribute to the page? The launching of the page has apparently not been advertised to either the participants at the hearing or the broader community (despite the use of "the wide community" as a point of departure, above). I stumbled on the page by accident.
POV. There is significant bias towards the date-linker POV in the wording and structure of the page. I have pointed out just a few examples of this on the talk page. Does the presence of the page in the clerk's userspace suggest his endorsement of this skew? What would result if both sides of the issue started seriously editing this page? Would it descend into another dispute over wording? To make matters worse, the wordings have no attributions.
Acting under instructions? The clerk has already been "instructed" privately by an arbitrator to remove posts at the Workshop page, and has done so in a way that has brought into question the neutrality of the position and has led to calls for his recusal, by the rule clearly set out at the Clerks' noticeboard (see above). Has he again been privately instructed to launch the new page? We could be forgiven for suspecting that this behaviour has been repeated, since the ArbCom process does not seem to value open communication.
This time, it would be appreciated if responses referred explicitly to the numbered points.Tony(talk) 16:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
File:Clerk.pngNotwithstanding the caption on his userpage, this Wikipedia Administrator was clearly not at work when this picture was taken.Agree Also, under Tasks, where it says that a clerk’s tasks include keeping the requests for arbitration ("RfAr") pages organised, including enforcing Committee guidelines on statements and comments, it is very implicit that clerks are supposed to be attentive to the proceedings so that they are properly supervised, organized, and productive. Ryan’s clearly “hands-off approach,” during the month-long proceedings, and then his seeming “where the hell did all this text come from?”-reaction resulted in a scandalous amount of editor time being utterly flushed down the toilet. The ArbCom workshop grew to a total scrolling length on my 17-inch monitor of 40 meters (the equivalent of a 13-story-tall building).
In my humble opinion, Ryan had (and has) good intentions but is simply too busy attending college classes and engaging in other, non-Wikipedia ‘activities’ to invest the required attention and exercise due diligence.
Moreover, Ryan can not be expected to singularly shoulder his failure to properly clerk on the workshop (and the resultant generation of what must be hundreds of man‑hours of content that is later declared irrelevant). All the arbitrators who had signed onto the workshop should have been providing infinitely better guidance and direction. Clearly, everyone is volunteering their time on Wikipedia. But if one commits to take on a task whereby dozens of others in a community are relying upon you, one must not pay lip service to the task and effectively ignore it. If one finds they don’t have time to do what they committed to do, they should announce as much to all the other parties and quickly recuse themselves.
Seriously, when I was participating in the ArbCom workshop and was responding to what I found to be shear nonsense by other editors, I actually thought that arbitrators and clerks were watching over the proceedings, analyzing the logic of the arguments, and watching to see who truly was being uncivil and disruptive. I know… idealistic, silly, näive Greg. Greg L (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I, at least, read that page. Cool HandLuke 22:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Objection How the hell is it appropriate to put a photo of another editor onto a discussion page? And just what are those scare quotes on "activities" supposed to imply? This is disgusting. — Hex(❝?!❞) 20:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Clarification needed Is it a failure of due process or a denial of natural justice? I'm confused. Tennis expert (talk) 20:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
It would appear that armed with all these, you would be well equipped to work that one out. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Agree When I started commenting and offering my views to Ryan on the subject of his 'Arbcom sponsored RfC', I realised there was nothing explicit, but assumed that it had ArbCon's tacit approval. If it does, then I agree with Tony that it should be spelt out. If it doesn't, it would amply demonstrate the dangers of clerks acting under their own initiative in this way, albeit in the best of faith. Like it or not, clerks (and trainee clerks) represent the authority of Arbcom, and everything they do in these pages is a reflection of that, and they should certainly be made more aware of that. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Comments
Quick comment: "The launching of the page has apparently not been advertised to either the participants at the hearing"... just wondering, did you not see the discussion about it here? That's how I became aware of it. — Hex(❝?!❞) 16:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
This is going to have to be very quick, but I've got my mediation head on here and I'm trying to get a binding compromise that all parties respect. A clear RfC that both sides to this dispute have worked on may finally solve this dispute once and for all. I created the page in my userspace as a working area for everyone to throw ideas into. We haven't moved onto even constructing the RfC yet - that will come over the next week as we put everyones ideas together and will of course be in wiki space. It's my hope that the RfC is overseen by ArbCom (that is my ultimate hope (we construct the RfC together and put it to the committee to formalise)). I've actually no interest in the content issues - none whatsoever, I just want to try and help the parties come to a suitable compromise without the need for formal sanctions against a ton of users. I'm planning to spend all day on it tomorrow actually and try an start parsing everyones comments. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Ryan: Perhaps what you suggest is a workable solution. However, I think it is highly inappropriate for anything to be done in your userspace. There, it lacks an implicit endorsement of being a formal proceeding of ArbCom. Please explain. Are you willing to move User:Ryan Postlethwaite/Date linking RfC into ArbCom/Workshop-space? Is that page still effectively part of the solution in your mind? Are we to think it is an adjunct to your newest page (Wikipedia:Date linking request for comment/Call for participation), are are we to consider that it is being superseded by this new page? Greg L (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
None of my points has yet been addressed. Are they going to be? Tony(talk) 12:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I thought the problem before arbcom was about date policy. Then somebody said arbcom will not get involved in date policy. Now it looks like arbcom decided to appoint a mediator to run RFCs about date policy. I am not familiar with arbcom hearings and it is confusing. Can arbcom answer Tony's questions please? Lightmouse (talk) 13:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Replying as an individual, not as a response for the group:
No special status. Ryan has been very forthright that this is an action he decided to undertake.
See #1. It has no special or particular bearing on the ongoing case beyond what any other further attempt at dispute resolution would bear. (As a matter of common sense, good faith DR attempts can have an influence on ArbCom decisions, particularly if they seem viable.)
Ryan has been very forthright about the status and purpose of the page. If you are unsure, you could ask Ryan politely about the matter.
See #3. What role, if any, ArbCom will play in relation to the RfC is still undecided. It could be simply endorsed in the sense that ArbCom encourages such an RfC. It could be supervised by ArbCom in the sense that behavioral and discussion environment issues will be reviewed on a periodic basis by the Committee. There's plenty of other possibilities as well. Until the proposed decision is fully developed and a decision reached by the Committee, any guesses are purely conjecture.
Ryan has made it clear people are welcome to contribute and participate in the discussion.
Do what is expected for any other discussion on Wikipedia: Work it out in a civil and constructive manner.
See #1.
If you have further questions, I will do my best to answer them. Vassyana (talk) 06:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
if you're interested in how onlookers perceive this: i was sure that Ryan's undertaking was on behalf of the Arbitration Committee - why else would an ArbCom clerk launch something directly related to a current case?? on the ArbCom Workshop talk page where he announced it he calls it "ArbCom-sanctioned" - so if it isn't being done on behalf of ArbCom, that definitely needs to be made way clearer. Sssoul (talk) 07:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
To me, Ryan was pretty clear about it. It's a proposal that he said he was going to try and work on. Immediately above, Ryan states: (empahsis added) "It's my hope that the RfC is overseen by ArbCom (that is my ultimate hope (we construct the RfC together and put it to the committee to formalise))." His statements and tone appaear fairly consistant in this regard. Vassyana (talk) 08:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
The whole process is definitely broke, badly. I have proposed a fix for the part which referrs to clerks' action here. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Reply to Vassyana. Thank you for replying; I know this is an extremely busy period for arbitrators, and I think the parties will be grateful that you're prepared to respond to queries. My rejoinders follow:
Ryan may have been forthright about creating the page, and has made comments in his user space on it, but nowhere can we find reference to how it relates to the hearing, and whether his role as Clerk is being confused with an external initiative, unendorsed, that appears to brush right up against the "scope" of the hearing, which is still the subject of confusion among arbitrators (I can provide diffs), clerk, and participants.
You say, "good faith DR attempts can have an influence on ArbCom decisions, particularly if they seem viable", but we've been told by at least one arbitrator that the scope of the hearing is restricted to "behaviour" and not the technical issues covered on Ryan's user-space pages. Now, it appears, non-behavioural issues are within the scope; I believe it is unfair to leave participants guessing about what will and will not be within the ambit of the judgement. It also makes the task of negotiating within ArbCom prone to messiness. My head is spinning. We need a clear directive on scope.
See my Point 1. (Your italicisation of politely may imply that I have not always been polite to the clerk, but I believe I have expressed my objections only in professional, technical terms.)
Would it not have been proper to have waited until ArbCom's decision on the case first? The judgement might have included a clear directive to the parties to negotiate the wording of an RfC, under the management of a clerk, to report back to ArbCom by a certain date. At the moment, the status of the clerk's pages seems to be in limbo-land. Because his role is unclear, I believe the pages lack any credibility. They seem to be almost entirely dominated by the pro-linkers, possibly because others feel that to contribute would plunge the whole thing into chaos. Strong, clear direction from ArbCom, with skilled, active management under the official endorsement of the Committee is probably required. I believe that the loss of confidence in the role of the current clerk's handling of the hearing and the calls for his recusal (thus far unheeded) rule out his involvement in such a procedure. This is not a personal statement, but a matter of correct procedure and the avoidance of even the appearance of CoI, as mandated by the rules.
His invitation is clouded by the problems I have outlined already.
We would like to; but skilled, neutral, relatively interventionist mediation and the authority of ArbCom are probably required as a support to resolve such a difficult dispute. (By "difficult", I do not mean that I myself think a solution is difficult.) Tony(talk) 08:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
1. It's a proposal. Outside of that, it bears no special relationship with the case. The Committee may or may not choose to accept the proposal and take a role in it, the same as any other proposal raised in relation to a dispute before ArbCom.
2. Movement towards dispute resolution can reveal a lot about behavioral issues and impact the Committee's judgement about the potential for continuing conduct concerns. Conduct has a direct impact on the potential success of dispute resolution and the viability of consensus. As a general example of how it relates to arbitration, if someone generally refuses to participate in discussion and consistantly makes unilateral edits, indications that they will adjust their behavior and work civilly towards consensus will have an impact on what remedies the Committee will impose on that editor.
4. It's a catch-22. Do it before the end of the case and there may be some confusion, as things are still up in the air. Do it after the end of the case and the chance to have ArbCom take a role (even if just to endorse/encourage the general approach) is minimal, at best. If it is intended for ArbCom to take some role, it is best to proceed before the case moves towards conclusion, so that arbitrators make take the proposal into account.
6. What kind of role do you feel that ArbCom needs to take? What would be the minimum necessary? What would be overstepping the bounds?
Again, I will do my best to answer any further questions. I will address the recusal issue separately to avoid derailing this particular conversation. Vassyana (talk) 08:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
(Outdent) I will be very forthright, though please keep in mind this is the reply of an individual, not the Committee. As such, feel free to take it with a few grains of salt. The absence of civil attempts to have the pages handled in way that the objecting parties would view as more balanced is deafening. Complaints about Ryan's clerking were generally raised in confrontational, snarky, and otherwise unhelpful ways. Arbitrators and clerks cannot be expected to recuse every time one side or another doesn't like how something was handled or objects to certain actions. This is especially so when there is a failure to address the matter in a civil and nonconfrontational manner without immediate assumptions of the worst. This is not something specific to arbitration, but an application of general principles that run across the wiki. We discourage assuming the worst. We expect objections to be raised in a polite and rational manner. We expect people to undertake civil attempts to resolve concerns and reach some resolution. If someone feels there is a bias, strongly assertions without clear evidence or attempting to have the "other side" treated in an equitable fashion will almost always result in the complaint being disregarded by the community. And so on. The farther one gets away from these basic principles, the more likely that administrators, arbitrators and the community will disregard any complaints raised. Vassyana (talk) 09:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
... there was nothing "confrontational, snarky" or otherwise inappropriate about my attempts to contribute to that page, or about my requests for Ryan's input on one particular issue there. he hasn't responded. i don't know how to interpret that silence.
and this is not meant "snarkily" either: the fact that "To [you], Ryan was pretty clear about" the status of that page isn't sufficient; it needs to be clear to the wider community, not just to ArbCom members, when/whether a clerk is acting on ArbCom's behalf. and in this case it certainly wasn't clear until you clarified it this morning. Sssoul (talk) 13:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
The SNR is fairly low, but I did unfairly cast all complaints in the same net. I have corrected the statement above to better reflect the situation. I have also clarified that I meant complaints about Ryan's clerking. Regarding the clarity issue, I truly do not understand the confusion over Ryan's statements since his language and tone makes explicitly clear the status of the proposal, as noted in my response. Regardless, I am glad if my comments and responses have helped clear up any confusion. Vassyana (talk) 13:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I hope at least you agree with my sentiment that there's room for improvement in the case-handling. I have been attacking Ryan, true, but I hope you can see where my (and some others') frustrations lie. You can see from my motions posted to Workshop that I feel that the way things work at present is partly at fault, and I hope the issues highlighted can be addressed. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
There's certainly room for improvement and I can understand the frustration. However, the manner of raising the issue has been less than ideal, as I note above. While we are a diverse lot and we're not going to follow through on every suggestion, the arbitrators as a whole are quite open to reasonable feedback and suggestions. Vassyana (talk) 14:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Vassyana, thanks for rephrasing; and thanks again for clarifying that this RfC draft is Ryan's personal initiative, not part of his role as ArbCom clerk. it would be excellent to put a clear statement to that effect on that page (i understand that you think it's clear enough already, but it isn't to everyone, and it needs to be).
meanwhile, i don't understand why Ryan is disregarding my attempts to contribute to that page. i've asked twice for his input on a specific issue. his silence is impossible to interpret, and doesn't exactly encourage participation. Sssoul (talk) 14:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
No problem. I am glad that I could help clarify a few things. Vassyana (talk) 14:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Response to Vassyana. I had hoped for a more neutral, technical response, whether or not with the invited "grain of salt". I do appreciate your gesture in engaging with us here, Vassyana; however, I wish to take issue with you on a few points.
"Complaints about Ryan's clerking were generally raised in confrontational, snarky, and otherwise unhelpful ways." "... a failure to address the matter in a civil and nonconfrontational manner without immediate assumptions of the worst."
I am disappointed to be accused by implication of incivility (unless I'm misreading your intended meaning). Please point out where my comments have been uncivil or "snarky"; that itself is an aggressive comment—one that I believe my tone and choice of words have not matched; at least I hope they haven't.
"Confrontational"—I have been firm in my statements—and perhaps blunt in a few places—but the process has shown itself to be shambolic, unfair, and lacking in basic judicial process; it has lost the confidence and respect of a number of participants and observers. This is not a matter of sweetness and light, and I encourage ArbCom to do something about it systemically; that is why I'm bothering to engage with ArbCom on this page and on the level of process, rules, and "black-letter" policy. If I were concerned only with my own ass, I'd probably back down and meekly accept what I see. However, my concern is not for myself, but for the longer term and wider good of the project. In particular, I'm concerned, as I know others are, that Arbitrators' skills, time and effort be given justice; I want the system to work much better for them, and at the moment it seems to be unnecessarily arduous. I would not be able to cope with the task as currently designed. Please accept that in this respect, my motivations are entirely in good faith. I also mean no offence to you, other arbitrators or clerks on a personal level; I want to make this very clear.
"and otherwise unhelpful ways"—What I say may be discomforting, but again, I believe that it is helpful to criticise process and procedure, and in a forthright manner where indicated. Clearly, these matters need frank and full discussion, especially in the light of the impending review of ArbCom policy.
"Arbitrators and clerks cannot be expected to recuse every time one side or another doesn't like how something was handled or objects to certain actions."
That is true, but the matters raised here go beyond what any side in the hearing "doesn't like"; they concern much broader principles that WP needs to get right at this peak "judicial" process—one that reserves the right to issue punishments mild and severe. The hearings matter; they affect people's lives and reputations; this is why reform is urgently required. Tony(talk) 15:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I would also like to say that I spoke out *against* personal attacks and *called for* a debate about date policy. Part of the confusion started when discussion of date policy was ruled out of scope at a late stage. Yet we now see arbcom members/administrators talking about date policy matters. I think it *is* a dispute about date policy, not a matter of deciding "which one of you is Spartacus?". It may surprise arbcom members/administrators that we fail to distinguish between official parts of the process and unofficial parts. However, all actions and words by arbcom members/administrators are relevant to the case, as far as I can see. It would help reduce confusion, even at this late stage, if we could read a scope statement. Lightmouse (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Two questions
Will a clerk/arb reply to Tony's questions two sections above?
Can we have a rough timeline on the remainder of the case? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
For #1, i haven't read through the case enough yet to answer that; been working on other cases. For #2, a proposed decision should be up soon, fingers crossed on that. Wizardman 03:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the prompt response. I hope I am not prying too much, but what does "soon" mean? Two to four days? A week? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Background: A week ago, Newyorkbrad informed me that (hopefully) a decision would be reached soon (in the next few days). Dabomb87 (talk) 03:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Once it's finished being written by the arb writing it up (which one it is escapes me right now), it'll be posted. I know it's at least started though. Wizardman 05:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Community comment on policy and procedure drafts
Listed above is a schedule for the preparation and discussion of a large number of policy reviews and initiatives by ArbCom, specifying timelines for the availability and decision-making WRT each draft.
This ambitious schedule—which seems to be coming to a head in March—is presumably related to the recent substantial change in ArbCom's membership; I believe it is likely to be regarded with enthusiasm by editors who are keen to see the Committee take on a more dynamic, reformist role in the project.
The titles of some of the drafts indicate the importance of the current program of decision-making. In particular, there are:
"Updated guide to arbitration" (draft by February 21; finalised by March 7)
"Updated Arbitration Policy" (draft by March 7; finalised by March 21)
Several documents related to the policy and procedures of hearings.
I wonder whether (i) community input will be sought on any of these drafts; and (ii) the timelines are still current. Tony(talk) 07:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
(i) Community input is always welcomed. (ii) It is probably not current, due to a variety of factors, but the items remain on our agenda. Vassyana (talk) 15:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Vassyana! Tony(talk) 15:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Repost of question
A week ago, I addressed a question specifically to arbitrator Risker on this page. Two days later I repeated the question on her Talk page. For reasons unknown to me, Risker has elected not to reply to my question. (Most unfortunate, that.) I am now posting the question for the third time and would explicitly encourage any arbitrator to respond:
Meanwhile, even as we speak, Tennis Expert and Locke Cole keep adding text and diffs and text and diffs to the Evidence page, making it fatter and fatter and fatter. Your clerk Ryan Postlethwaite did make one removal, of text provided by Lightmouse. He has not excised any of the miles and miles of text put in by Tennis Expert, Locke Cole or their confederates to date. But he has edit-warred with Greg L and blocked Greg L. Why has your clerk not enforced the instruction clearly set out at the top of that page, namely to limit submissions to 1000 words and 100 diffs? Why have you arbitrators not reminded the clerk of his obligation?
I would also add that Tennis Expert alone is not 15% over the limit for the Evidence page, nor 20% or 50%, but easily a thousand percent over the limit. Locke Cole also has far exceeded the Limit given by the very clear instructions.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, with (at least some) of both sides being WP:UNCIVIL on the RfAr and talk page, it's not suprising that additional evidence is being found. I think TE is providing too much "evidence" to be considered, but all the diffs I've checked are as represented, and part of the locus of the RfAr involves the amount of disputed behavior occuring. If TE were not to keep adding evidence, we could be sure that some of the date delinkers would continue to say "only a small fraction of the edits are disputed."
(I'm generally considered to be on the linking side, although I agree that it appears the majority of date and date-fragment links are inappriate, but a large number are appropriate.) — Arthur Rubin(talk) 22:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
The delinkers most definitely can say "only a small fraction of the edits are disputed". The fact that TE alone endlessly disputed and edit warred (as his diffs demonstrate) over it does not make delinking widely disputed. See my evidence for proof of community acceptance. Colonies Chris (talk) 22:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I guess TE's edits are necessary then, because they show a few thousand disputed edits. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 22:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
What utter nonsense. There aren't even a thousand diffs in his evidence (though heaven knows it's long enough), and most of those are his desperate attempts to prove that everyone who's ever disagreed with him is part of a vast conspiracy of evildoers. And almost all the diffs specifically related to delinking show him alone repeatedly relinking even against the wishes of other regular editors of tennis articles. I repeat, read my evidence. How come my unlinkings have provoked almost no adverse reaction, if unlinking is 'widely disputed'? Colonies Chris (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Counting the individual edit warring by yourself and others plus the tag-team edit warring by yourself and others, I've provided far more than 1,000 diffs. But if I haven't provided enough to satisfy your curiosity, please let me know. I can certainly provide more. Tennis expert (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
1,333 edit warring diffs to be exact. Tennis expert (talk) 23:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I have demonstrated here that most of these are the very same articles which Tennis has been "involved in". I'll preface this by saying I believe there may be some double-counting of the "tag team" allegation which are already included in individuals' totals. Of those 1,333 edits –I'm just gonna take his word for it– he is personally responsible for reverting at least 741, a tad over half. Goodnight from me. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
As much as I agree with Chris, Ohconfucius and GMW—guys, I think further disputes on this page will have utterly no bearing on the results of this case. I'm getting the sense that the arbitrators are sick of the drama; I suspect that we are all too. So why don't we all take a breather and use our talents where they are most needed? Tony(talk) 13:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Further perception of biased process in arbitrary application of injunction
I draw arbitrators' attention to the fact that an apparently wayward reading of the temporary injunction on date-relinking and unlinking has resulted in the blocking of Dabomb87 for unlinking dates in one single article, on one occasion alone. This is at variance with both the wording of the injunction and Arb. Vandenburg's subsequent comments on it (diffs on request). It is also in rude contrast with trainee-clerk Tiptoety's gentle slap on the wrist when faced with Kendrick7's hundreds of date-relinkings. This most recent blocking, by Jehochman (I believe an unsuccessful candidate in the recent ArbCom election) has not been reversed, and is not doing any good for public perceptions of ArbCom hearings as fair and quasi-judicial procedures that embrace real-world legal principles (see the policy).
Jehochman's response to complaints here included an exasperated statement:
"Those silly arbitrators should update their injunction so that it says what they mean."
This is not a sentiment I endorse; I repeat it here to convey to arbitrators that there is confusion and a continuation of manifestly unfair treatment of one side over the other. I have also pointed out that there are two possible (probable?) breaches of WP:ADMIN in this block. Following the admin policy that blocks are a last resort would be much safer in such situations, and would be just so simple: communicate with the editor first, rather than blocking then dealing with the detritus.
The indiscriminate blocking of experienced users is having a detrimental effect on WP. Blocks appear to be very ineffective at changing behaviour; gaining rapport and communicating takes more time and skill, but in the end is a much better way of dealing with ruffled waters.
So, what is to be done about this block, which—whether arbitrators like it or not—is adding to community disquiet over the ArbCom process? Tony(talk) 11:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Jehochman did inform Dabomb of the block before it was placed, along with a thorough explanation and polite suggestions on how to be unblocked promptly. While the merits of the block itself could be argued, Dabomb was certainly aware of the dispute over date linking, the arbcom injunction, and the disputed status of the MoS page. So I don't see that a lack of warning was an issue here. I think that Jehochman's phrase "testing the limits" does seem to apply, unfortunately. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
How is unlinking one article testing the limits of an injunction against "a program of mass delinking"? How does this constitute such by any reckoning. Now be reasonable, please. If ArbCom wants to issue a legal injunction, the wording is all we have to go on. Yes? Tony(talk) 13:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I can unlink 100 articles by doing them one at a time. The user did not just make one edit. They unlinked all the dates in an article that have been stable, Featured, and date linked for a period longer than 18 months. The edit summary made clear that the user was carrying on the dispute that was subject of arbitration and a temporary injunction. They were not just doing routine editing. Administrators are selected for our judgment. The nature of disruptive editing is that no matter what rules are made, no matter how carefully they are written, people will look for loopholes and edges to try to get their way. When we see that sort of behavior, and when the user is fully on notice, sanctions are necessary as deterrence. You've been told the same story multiple times by multiple people. Will you listen or will you keep pushing until you get external restraints on your editing? Your asking the same question over and over again and refusing to hear the answer is textbook pestering. JehochmanTalk 13:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Don't threaten me with blocking for asking for a justification from you. That is way beyond your brief, and so is referring to arbitrators as "silly". You committed an error of the first order, which has now been corrected by another admin. Unlinking in a single article, no matter how long the links have been there, is no "program of delinking". You need to apologise, not threaten me. It's admining of the worst type.Tony(talk) 14:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. Here is the clarification:
== Question about date delinking injunction ==
The injunction prohibits using a script to delink, but presumably delinking in the course of ordinary editing is allowed. Is it allowed to delink in the course of making other improvements to many articles, such as updating infoboxes or adding categories? --NE2 01:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
If you are consciously removing each bracket, and edit articles at a rate which is consistent with that, the injunction doesnt restrict you. The injunction doesnt completely prohibit the use of scripts, however editors should not be primarily focused on delinking. The injunction was intended to put a pause on the delinking drive, and one user+bot (user:Ohconfucius) has been blocked for continuing the delinking after the injunction. John Vandenberg(chat) 07:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Why am I copying the clarification here in full, instead of linking to it? Because last time Jehochman was pointed to the link, he did not read it.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 13:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Assumptions of bad faith lead nowhere good. The injunction is at WP:ARBDATE/Injunction. If it needs to be clarified, the clarification should be made there. It is bizarre that you think administrators should wade through volumes of talk page archives to look for opinions by individual editors and try to synthesize them to understand the injunction. A lone arbitrator does not have the power to modify a Committee vote. No, we learn what the injuction means by reading the injunction text and applying common sense. Wikilawyering, badgering and pestering will only get you folks sanctioned. Stop now. Show us that you have self-control. JehochmanTalk 13:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Here you are threatening again. The injunction is a legal statement, so wikilawyering accusations are inappropriate, since people are put in a legally binding situation. May I remind you that admin policy states that admins are obliged to "respond promptly and civilly to good-faith concerns about their administrative actions and justify them when needed". I do not believe that the comments made here by me or GMW are in bad faith. Nor do I think your comments are made in bad faith; on the contrary, they seem well-meaning, but a lapse in judgement. Tony(talk) 14:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
"Legally binding situation"? I think you need to leave Wikipedia alone for a while and spend some time in the real world, Tony. — Hex(❝?!❞) 15:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
As you can see, John clearly says "[i]f you are consciously removing each bracket", and Dabomb87's edit fails that:
2009-03-11T00:07:19 – Enables a script to automatically remove all date links.
2009-03-11T00:08:57 – Removes date links using the script and a provocative edit summary: delinking dates and making dates the right format: this is a featured article and therefore must comply with all MOS guidelines
I don't think there is anything surprising about this block. If those on the delinking side want to keep the situation calm and foster an environment where we might actually reach some consensus on these issues they need to stop pushing the limits and thumbing their nose at others in the dispute. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
What nobody has pointed out so far is that the block of Dabomb87 came nine days after I had already cautioned him over several edits in which he delinked dates (rather than taking it to WP:AE - so much for good faith). It cannot be argued that he did not know what he was doing. — Hex(❝?!❞) 15:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Can we move on? I was blocked, I didn't edit for a couple hours, I requested an unblock via email, I was unblocked, case closed. Let's get off the subject. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Outgoing arbs
Isn't it time these were removed to the formers list? Majorlytalk 14:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee receives a substantial amount of e-mail each day on its mailing list, arbcom-l. To streamline the process of handling arbcom-l traffic and improve response times, the Committee has adopted a new procedure for handling incoming mail, which supersedes the current mailing list coordinator position.
The procedure was adopted by a 13/0 vote, with no abstentions:
Support: Carcharoth, Casliber, Coren, FayssalF, FloNight, John Vandenberg, Kirill Lokshin, Newyorkbrad, Risker, Rlevse, Roger Davies, Sam Blacketer, Vassyana
Oppose: None
Abstain: None
Not voting: Cool Hand Luke, Stephen Bain, Wizardman
The Committee wishes to thank Deskana for his diligence as mailing list coordinator over the past three months. Deskana went above and beyond the call of duty in continuing to assist the Committee despite having no obligation to do so following his retirement; if not for his efforts, the Committee would be in a significantly worse position at the moment.
For the Committee, Kirill[pf] 00:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Cross-posted by Tznkai (talk) on behalf of the Arbitration Committee 13:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
New ban appeals subcommittee and procedure
One of the Arbitration Committee's responsibilities is to address appeals received via e-mail from banned or long-term blocked users. To improve the level of attention and response time for these requests, the Committee has formed a Ban Appeals Subcommittee, which will consist of three arbitrators. This subcommittee will consider ban appeals and recommend actions regarding them to the Committee as a whole, as outlined in the newly adopted procedure for handling ban appeals.
The subcommittee was created by a 15/0 vote, with no abstentions:
Support: Carcharoth, Casliber, Cool Hand Luke, Coren, FayssalF, FloNight, John Vandenberg, Kirill Lokshin, Newyorkbrad, Risker, Rlevse, Roger Davies, Sam Blacketer, Vassyana, Wizardman
Oppose: None
Abstain: None
Not voting: Stephen Bain
The procedure was adopted by a 10/0 vote, with 2 abstentions:
Support: Carcharoth, Casliber, Coren, John Vandenberg, Kirill Lokshin, Newyorkbrad, Rlevse, Roger Davies, Sam Blacketer, Wizardman
Oppose: None
Abstain: FayssalF, Vassyana
Not voting: Cool Hand Luke, FloNight, Risker, Stephen Bain
The subcommittee will begin work on April 1, and will initially consist of Carcharoth, FayssalF, and Roger Davies. It is likely that the membership of the subcommittee will be rotated approximately quarterly; further appointments will be announced at the appropriate time.
For the Committee, Kirill[pf] 00:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Cross-posted by Tznkai (talk) on behalf of the Arbitration Committee 13:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Policy and Conduct reform
The agenda had drafts for the changes to policy and conduct to be done by now. Have they been, and can we see them? --Barberio (talk) 10:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
There has been work done on a draft combining aspects of the previous two drafts, and discussion is ongoing at the moment. I will raise your post with my colleagues and urge that this new draft be published as soon as possible so that the community can comment and assist with suggestions for improvements. I will also ask for an update to the agenda, as the dates seemed to have slipped somewhat. Carcharoth (talk) 23:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I read the latest draft today. It looks good and I think that if should be ready to put on site soon. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Policy toward obeying the laws in the countries in which wikipedia operates
Perhaps I missed it but I looked through Wikipedia's policies I did not see that Wikipedia affirms that it will abide by the laws in the countries in which it operates. Is it Wikipedia's policy to abide by the laws in the countries in which it operates? I also did not see any policy concerning defamation: In law, defamation (also called calumny, libel, slander, and vilification) is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image. It is often, but not always,[1] a requirement that this claim be false, and, or alternatively, that the publication is made to someone other than the person defamed.
In common law jurisdictions, slander refers to a malicious, false and defamatory spoken statement or report, while libel refers to any other form of communication such as written words or images. Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism.
What is Wikipedia's policy concerning obeying the law concerning defamation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerryofaiken (talk • contribs) 15:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is usually covered under U.S. law, specifically the laws of Florida and California. The Toolserver is covered under German law. The policies you are looking for are WP:LIBEL and WP:NLT. MBisanztalk 15:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Designated drafting arbitrators
To assist with managing case workflow, and to provide a default point of contact for case matters, the initials of the designated drafting arbitrator(s) for each case will now be displayed on {{ArbComOpenTasks}} next to those of the designated clerk(s) for that case.
This proposal was approved by a 10/0 vote, with no abstentions:
Support: Carcharoth, Coren, FayssalF, FloNight, John Vandenberg, Kirill Lokshin, Rlevse, Roger Davies, Vassyana, Wizardman
Oppose: None
Abstain: None
Not voting: Casliber, Cool Hand Luke, Newyorkbrad, Risker, Sam Blacketer, Stephen Bain
Cross-posted on behalf of the Arbitration Committee, hmwithτ 02:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Draft arbitration policy
The Committee has prepared a provisional draft of an updated arbitration policy for initial community review. All editors are invited to examine the text and to provide any comments or suggestions they may have via one of the two methods specified on the draft page.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, [[Sam Korn]](smoddy) 11:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
In order to provide the community with a more up-to-date understanding of the Committee's plans, the published agenda will now be updated on a regular schedule (nominally once a week). Future updates will not be formally announced; editors interested in following the agenda may wish to watchlist it. The agenda will also remain displayed at the top of the Committee's noticeboard.
In the near future, we anticipate adding cases in progress and the associated milestone dates to the agenda.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoetytalk 17:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
To provide better monitoring and oversight, the Arbitration Committee has decided to establish an Audit Subcommittee, which will investigate complaints concerning the use of CheckUser and Oversight privileges on the English Wikipedia. The subcommittee shall consist of three arbitrators appointed by the Committee and three editors elected by the community. The Committee shall designate an initial slate of three editors until elections can be held.
The initial membership, the procedures for the subcommittee, and more details on the election process will be published in the near future.
For the Committee, Kirill[pf] 22:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Recent Comments