Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

ArbCom logo

• By the way, I notice that this noticeboard page features an image of the scales of justice within its title. Having such an image gives the impression that ArbCom wants to present an image of being a quasi-legal body. If this is not the case, then you probably shouldn't have that image in your title. Cla68 (talk) 05:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, indeed, though I've always thought of it as more tongue-in-cheek than factual. But then again perhaps not everyone has my sense of irony. Anyhow, following Lord Roem's use of this beta logo in the Signpost recently, we've been chatting about replacements.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• I figured it was probably meant tongue-in-cheek. But, you have to admit, you guys do use some legal jargon in how you phrase things in your announcements and case decisions. Perhaps there just any easy way around that. Cla68 (talk) 06:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, some of it is avoidable, some less so. A lot of it is down to individual arbitrators styles, I suppose.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

(od) Incidentally, it would be good to hear suggestions for an alternative logo, focusing on the dispute aspects rather than the quasi-judicial thing.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Here are my suggestions for a new ArbCom logo. These are, of course, entirely neutral! :)

• 
• 
• File:LeYak200198.jpg
• 
• 

The last second from right there is particularly apropos, though I'm sure there's plenty who think the first is more accurate :) --Hammersoft (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I like the first one but we should change the pink circle in the background into the Wikipedia logo.:-) Kumioko (talk) 16:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Ok, so modified and added to the above gallery. So what do you think? :) --Hammersoft (talk) 18:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• Nothing with Zorro?  Roger Davies ^talk 07:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• 

This was discussed previously at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Archive_6#Change_to_the_image, where my proposal, to the right, was squarely shot down.MBisanz ^talk 17:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, this is growing on me.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

While it is a great piece of graphic design, it is would be a presumptuous not to say unfortunate logo for ArbCom. Firstly the fasces (from where I believe the word fascist arose) are a Roman symbol of power. We do not want a committee that sees fit to promulgate images of power. Secondly the design as a whole is based on the symbol for an American court and is therefore extremely parochial, legalistic and possibly contempt of court to boot! Rich Farmbrough, 01:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC).

Ah, perhaps a dove then ...  Roger Davies ^talk 13:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• I prefer number three, but have a concern that they are all copyvios!!! Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
  • And 5 more than most ;)  Roger Davies ^talk 13:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

An oak tree, I believe, is a symbol of justice, or was, in some cultures.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I vote for this one. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

It might be a very good idea. Rich Farmbrough, 16:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC).

Latest addition to the Arbitration Committee clerk team

Original announcement

Great addition to the Arbcom team, and a big loss to the Signpost. Nice poaching, you guys/gals. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

You're kidding right? Rich Farmbrough, 20:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC).

Huh? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Lord Roem's attitude to the Arbitration Committee suddenly became very defensive a week or so ago. In particular he said that it was standard practice to protect talk pages once and Arb case has closed (it had actually never been done before and has now been reversed). I thought that was very odd at the time. Once again editors are proved only too human. Rich Farmbrough, 16:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC).

I don't really know about that situation and don't have the inclination to learn. All I can comment on is his relatively long and helpful tenure at the SP, at which I think he did a fabulous job. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed he did. And indeed it is not a big deal. But it is a little sad. Rich Farmbrough, 02:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC).

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough

Original announcement

Quite beyond the pale. The Committee has gone beyond simple laziness to a level of deliberate misrepresentation. It is clear form examining the evidence and workshop evidence that this is not the case. Either the committee has not examined the evidence or they pass this amendment to bolster the weak case despite it. Rich Farmbrough, 15:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC).

Unblocking ones own bot has been for years. Nearly every bot operator with Admin rights has done it and in fact its common practice. If this is to be a new policy then it shouldn't be used as part of the case until the policy change has actually been implemented. Kumioko (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

If you'll look at the original and modified wording, you'll note that the new wording clarifies that there are plenty of situations where unblocking your own bot is not a problem, vs. the original wording that did not. Jclemens (talk) 16:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

What's the point of this resolution? I don't understand why the committee would issue a new resolution without issuing or repealing restrictions. Nyttend (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

It's simply making explicit what was implicit here, by implementing a wording tweak that was proposed and supported, but not implemented, during the case. While ArbCom decisions do not form binding precedents, having a known suboptimal finding that omitted aspects of why the actions were problematic was better fixed than left untouched. Jclemens (talk) 18:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The previous finding simply said I had unblocked my own bots. That was a wholly unexceptional statement detailing wholly unexceptional actions - albeit not supporting the draconian punishment meted out. This finding, bluntly, lies. It is quite clear that it is false and any investigation will demonstrate that. It is better to do these things right than do them half-assed then do them over. However that is the preferred modus operandi, so it seems that is what we shall have to do. Rich Farmbrough, 02:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC).

It's a somewhat belated response to substantial discussion on the relevant talk page asking for that finding to be clarified. Rich may disagree with the factual claim, but it more clearly respects what custom/policy is than the previous version. Rd232 ^talk 19:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually no. The previous version was at least accurate, if misleading. The only reason it was there was that the drafting Arb had no clue about policy, and once the inaccurate policy statement was removed it was left - a table with no legs - not really a table but at least an honest piece of wood. Attempting to make the FoF damning to support the remedies (i.e. working backwards, as indeed the whole case clearly was from the start) the Committee provided legs of spaghetti and called it a table, resulting in an unholy mess. Their trademark, at least in this case. Rich Farmbrough, 02:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC).

Botpol is messy, It says 'don't operate a bot without approval' everywhere, and then the whole approval process is comprised of you demonstrating yourself in the act of breaking the rules. It was nothing but a perfect Catch 22 for me right there. Seems to me that Botpol is half finished or a work in progress rather than the Gospel according to John. Just saying. Penyulap ☏ 21:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like an excellent thing for the community to provide clarity on, because it is not ArbCom's job to make policy, and the objection we remedied by this amendment was that we were not using phrasing that reflected actual practice. Jclemens (talk) 21:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

This is just another example of the half assed, unclear and self serving decrees that Arbcom has done lately that have lit up the Arbcom discussion pages. The big problem I have with this is that no one is going to enforce it unless they feel like it because they have a problem with a specific bot or operator. This is just an after market way of Arbcom covering their butts for the poor decision against Rich. Kumioko (talk) 23:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, Kumioko, the only bots or operators that are sanctioned by ArbCom are those where there has been a failure of prior dispute resolution. We only deal with situations where the community has not been able to reach a satisfactory conclusion despite appropriate efforts to find one. ArbCom intervention should indeed be the exception, rather than the rule. Jclemens (talk) 04:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's really true in this case, nor was it true with the Will Bebeck case or several others I could mention. It wasn't even particularly true with the Betacommand case. Kumioko (talk) 11:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Could you show me the full extend of dispute resolution that has been attempted on Rich Farmbrough? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Never fear. I have provided a means for ArbCom to redeem itself in this respect, which, being honourable people, they will undoubtedly grasp with both hands. Rich Farmbrough, 02:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC).

They are currently failing to grasp with both hands.... Rich Farmbrough, 03:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC).

Arbitration motion regarding submission of evidence in arbitration cases

Original Announcement

Noting here that a related motion and discussion can be seen here. It would be nice to tie together such motions and discussions thematically, so there is a sense of continuity. Carcharoth (talk) 06:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• Hasn't this been the rule, or similar, for quite some time? Enforcement > new rules. Stifle (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The difference is more space is now allotted for named parties to cases, instead of 500/50 for all comers. Courcelles 21:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

    I believe there should be a delineated process to formally object to an inclusion on some ground, requiring the committee either sustain or overrule the objection in proximity. There are too many things that should be "removed, refactored, or redacted" which are not! and legitimate objections fall upon blind eyes. IMO My76Strat (talk) 21:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

    My76Strat, you're always welcome to email the clerks list or leave a message on a case clerk's talk page if you feel something should be "removed, refactored, or redacted". Lord Roem (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

    Yes I understand, and appreciate your extenuation. My comment is more procedural and it allows for consistent alignment with the committee mindset. For example if user Ae states "A significant number of xe's edits are..." I might object saying "significant is vague puffery" If the committee sustains, Ae might refactor and state: "Too many of xe's edits are..."where I might again object stating that "it predicates a conclusion not in evidence" Ae might be left to withdraw his assertion or state "two of ex's edits have been..." My concern is that we allow weasel sentiments and fact synthesis to pollute the integrity of our evidence well and then acknowledge the water has a foul taste. This is as important as a blp and we should not allow a standing case to be written to any standard less. IMO My76Strat (talk) 22:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

    Is my comment above so far out in right-field that it doesn't even qualify to be answered? My76Strat (talk) 05:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

    ...maybe... (joking). My simple reply would be this: That would be *way* too much unnecessary work. Arbitrators are clueful enough to understand when someone is using evidence in an improper way or is using false synthesis. And give credit to the drafting arbs where its due. They take these things seriously - and being on the "inside" only entrenches that understanding - they really want to get it right. So this 'objection' system...sort of already exists in the arbs' minds. No need to make it a drawn-out process as you suggest. Status quo works, at least in this context. Additionally, it makes the system become really really legalistic. I would hope we could try our best to stay away from that. -- Lord Roem (talk) 06:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

    Thank you Lord Roem. I see your counsel as reasonable. It is sufficient for me. Best - My76Strat (talk) 06:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Amendment: Brews ohare topic-ban (Speed of light)

Original Announcement

• Good. Where problem tendentious editing is involved, and where there is an ongoing or historic pattern of the same behavior, I encourage AC to use this approach more often. There is little that is worse than editors discovering that they will need to be exhausted forever in order to have Community standards and policies against disruptive and tendentious editing enforced effectively. AGF is not a suicide pact, and Wikipedia is not therapy; if after being subject to remedies of the existing case (and enforcement blocks leading to a 1 year site ban) an editor is returning to the same problematic editing habits in a particular topic area, there is simply no alternative. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

2012 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Call for applications

Original Announcement

The statement: "Prospective candidates should be familiar with (i) the English Wikipedia CheckUser and Oversight policies; and (ii) the Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy and related documents." leaves the impression that the call is for editors who want both permissions, but not just one or the other. I don't think this is the case.SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

That is a wrong impression for the truthful gist is that regardless of role, a working familiarity with each is requisite for either. While specific information is not exchanged, interactions are common, often necessary. The application will ask about all three and expect you to construct examples. My76Strat (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

That surprises me. I reviewed the questions and answers at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2011 CUOS appointments. I don't have a clue which IP ranges are used by ISPs in Turkey, to pick one response in the CU area, but I am unclear why I need to know this to determine whether a particular edit is eligible for oversight. I did feel that I could answer all the questions posed to those asking for Oversight, so I'm missing the overlap. (Technical, that is, I understand the overlap in areas of trust, but that's not an issue.) I haven't seen the actual application, so maybe that asks some questions I cannot answer adequately.SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

That's not what the original statement means, or what My76Strat was suggesting. All functionaries need to be familiar with both the CheckUser and Oversight policies to the extent that they provide guidance on the handling of private data. Checkusers and Oversighters will sometimes work together (to clear up after particularly abusive sockmasters posting OS-worthy material, for instance) and need to understand the limits of the other party's activities; and have an appreciation of how to treat private data generated from the 'other' tool when they encounter it. All functionaries are 'qualified' to receive private data, of any form, if required (as the exact counterpoint to private data not being shared with any other functionaries unless it is required); if a Checkuser needs to share CU data with an Oversighter to resolve an issue (or vice versa) then it will be shared, and handled appropriately. Happy‑melon 21:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Seconding Happy-melon here. It's the policies relating to both functions that you need to read up on, not how the tools work, as you might need to see information from the other tool at some point. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

If you are suggesting that it is routine for users with oversight to see the information generated by the checkuser tool or similarly as routine for a checkuser to see the suppressed information after suppression, for the needs of their own responsibility, then it is true that I am mistaken. For I disagree. I'll simply leave it there. My76Strat (talk) 23:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Could I suggest you try reading the thread again. You, me and Happy-melon were apparently all saying the same thing up to this post of yours, now I don't know what your original response meant at all. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes you may Elen. I am surprised you still think so little of me so as to presume I hadn't. My76Strat (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I think highly of you. I just find you a little hard to understand sometimes. But in this case my concern is that Happy-melon also found you hard to understand maybe, and has interpreted what you were saying in the wrong way, as you now seem to be disagreeing with it. However, I phrased it badly now I look at it again - which is what I meant to say. Could you take a look at the thread again. I agreed with Happy-melon who thought he was agreeing with you, but you disagree with me, so we must have gone astray somewhere. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Elen, I wish I could express myself better. The Lord knows that I try (ain't that right Lord Roem). To make a long story short, I just realized where I misread a passage from Happy-melon, and then further misapplied your endorsement of them as supporting the thing I had misread. Had I read it correctly at first, I would not have even had a comment. I suppose it's like yesterday when a user asked a question about a plant and I gave a medium length answer about a planet. I guess it's time for some new glasses. I apologize. My76Strat (talk) 01:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

No worries. I guess it was one of those "I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realise that what you heard is not what I meant..." Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly one of those times; with a few more twists; worth untwisting. For you see, I had prepared a thoughtful reply for Sphilbrick 20:59. That edit conflicted with Happy-melon and before I could resolve it, wouldn't you know; my internet connection goes down; for hours. At first I was stuck; froze in edit mode; but able to see Happy's regards. I read his, and mine, and again, and I did feel we had essentially said the synonymous thing. My error was reading the first sentence, "That's not what the original statement means, or what My76Strat was suggesting.", and mentally processing it as if it implied; That's not what the original statement means, nor was My76Strat correct.

So I looked and looked to see where did we diverge so greatly that I needed being corrected. By the time my connection did restore, I had watched some tv, went to the store, and visited with my dad (all good). And I somehow forever lost the comment I did wish to publish for Sphilbrick (not so good). I return to find your comment which appears to imply; Happy is right, and it's kinda that way. I take this as two people who feel that correcting me was the right thing needed in this thread (falls in the not good range).

It wasn't until after we said what we said; when I copy pasted what he said to show you what I thought he said when I saw that what he said wasn't what I thought he said but in fact it was what you said you thought he had said; and I had already written many words that didn't need to be said now that I knew what he said was what you thought he said instead. So I erased them, and told you the short version. And now here, a bit more.

Before I do close here, I want to summarize the most important aspects of the {{ec}}comment I had for Sphilbrick that was lost: I think you would be a very good candidate and encourage you to go forward with requesting the trust. Peace - My76Strat (talk) 04:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all the responses. I had read the Checkuser policy before and reread it last night. My original impression had been that being a Checkuser required a skill set I hadn't acquired, and that still remains true. I failed to distinguish between policy and subject knowledge. However, I understand the policy, and accept that both permissions require a sensitivity to handing private information, so see why they are both listed. (And thanks for the !vote of confidence.)SPhilbrick(Talk) 11:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Has there ever been a user that was given checkuser or oversight permission that wasn't already an administrator?--Rockfang (talk) 10:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

No. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 10:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I was not aware of the situation Risker pointed out below. However, it is still true that nobody was appointed directly as a checkuser or oversighter without having administrator permissions. That counts for something, right guys? Er, guys? Are you still there? </selfdeprecatinghumour> ;-) --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 10:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

If we haven't, it's because we haven't had a serious candidate (that I can remember), not because of a blanket ban. Happy‑melon 11:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes. A former AUSC member, Bahamut0013, was not an administrator when he was appointed to the AUSC. Risker (talk) 10:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both for responding.--Rockfang (talk) 11:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Motion on Rich Farmbrough enforcement

Original Announcement

• I'm struggling to see the point of this motion because it doesn't do much more (and created far more drama) than a request to WP:AE would have done. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
• Just an FYI - the discussions involving this and related motions can be found here. Lord Roem (talk) 19:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to have to ask

Is it a problem if RF (manually, of course) answers queries on his talk page whilst he's away? Nobody Ent 21:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The block doesn't extend to removing talk page access, so I think it's fine if he answers questions on his page. Lord Roem (talk) 21:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, not the Committee, I see no problem with this. Courcelles 01:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Motion on procedural motions

Original Announcement

Only 24 hours? I understand the general theory that Wikipedia time is faster than normal time, but 24 hours is awfully short. Can it be "at least a week" or something? --MZMcBride (talk) 03:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

If you read through the original motions and discussions (follow the link on the original announcement), you will see that it was originally a week, and then reduced to a day. I made a long comment pointing out (like you) that a day isn't really enough, and that the real difficulty is deciding what level of response within a day (or even a week) justifies withdrawing, modifying or abandoning the change being announced.

In practice, I don't expect this change in procedures to amount to much (it appears to have been started in response to objections about how the clarification/amendment merger was done and announced at this noticeboard with no preliminary notices). The key is that the principle of announcing substantive changes has been established (though really, that principle already existed, even if it might have been an unwritten one, and the problem is still deciding what is substantive). Anything after that depends. If something really controversial is announced, there will be enough reaction after a day, and people arriving after more than day will object if the day wasn't enough, and the discussion will likely be still going on even then.

The potential problems will be when some borderline change gets voted through, and someone does raise a valid objection (that ArbCom fail to foresee), but doesn't notice the change or raise their objection until several days have passed. The key then will be whether ArbCom are flexible enough to go back and change things again, and to recognise whether the 1-day notice period contributed to insufficient scrutiny of the change. Hopefully ArbCom won't be doing too much tweaking of processes, as this might lead to neglect of their core function of hearing and dealing with cases. Carcharoth (talk) 07:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology

Original Announcement

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change

Original Announcement

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change (2)

Original Announcement

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology (Sanctions)

Original Announcement

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology (2)

Original Announcement

Arbitration motion on decision elements

Original Announcement

Arbitration motion on standardized enforcement

Original Announcement

Amendment: Scientology (Lyncs)

Original Announcement

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay closed

Original Announcement

2012 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Invitation to comment on candidates

Original announcement

Are support comments sufficient, or do we need to be verbose about it? Nobody Ent 01:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Community members are encouraged to write as much or little as they feel will be helpful; if one can provide an example of good (or concerning) actions, that can be particularly useful, but please feel free to participate to the extent you feel comfortable. Risker (talk) 02:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding User:Carnildo

Original announcement

Was this part of an arbitration case or an emergency action? Nyttend backup (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi - I think the overwhelming consensus and especially User:Silk Tork's comment here makes the reason for this clear - Youreallycan 19:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The original announcement was missing this link to the arbitration motion, which I have since corrected. Apologies for the confusion this may have caused. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 19:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I came here via WP:AN, so I left a note there with a link to the discussion. Nyttend (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

It appears he never has community consensus in the first place to be an administrator. It also appears this isn't his first time in being desysopped. Sad that it's come this far. 134.241.58.251 (talk) 19:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, still confused. Was the motion proposed independent from any request for arbitration case? (I mean, did ArbCom itself decide to get involved here, or did someone else request that ArbCom review Carnildo's actions?) /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Carnildo himself requested review for his action, according to his statement here. --Conti|✉ 22:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

It goes something like this:

1. Block was made by Carnildo
2. Carnildo immediately emailed ArbCom about the block
3. ArbCom reviewed the block and felt it to be grossly inappropriate
4. ArbCom reviewed Carnildo's history, including a previous desysop and an RfA that failed community consensus but was somehow pushed through
5. ArbCom then desysopped Carnildo

I think this sums it up. 134.241.58.253 (talk) 23:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• I still feel like this was grossly improper of Arbcom, as Carnildo was clearly trying to address an on-wiki statement that was more or less a threat of police action (an activated threat, I suppose). And Carnildo even followed proper process and informed Arbcom about his action for review. This response is so out of proportion and I still don't understand why Judith is not indefinitely blocked for doing as such. Silverseren^C 01:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• I 100% support desysopping Carnildo in principle, but in this manner? I'm not so sure this one egregious lapse in judgment is enough to warrant an immediate desysop; I still feel as if a full arbitration case would have been more ideal, so as to give the broader community a chance to gain more awareness of this user's past administrative actions and the controversies he was embroiled in. That said, I'm not one to enjoy stoking the flames of drama, least of all when it involves directing some sort of harsh commentary towards another individual. I do see the convenience of an ArbCom motion, and in fact I highly doubt the community has any real confidence in Carnildo's judgment, so this method does bypass much of the bureaucracy and negativity associated with a full fledged case. The fact remains though, I'm still very much on the fence about it. Master&Expert (Talk) 02:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  • While I won't guess at the reasoning of the committee in this particular case, motion work is generally the best solution when the facts are not in question; there is little point in hashing over evidence if the only thing left is a decision on whether or not the incident necessitates a sanction (and which). — Coren ^(talk) 03:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
• "Long term poor judgement in his use of administrative tools" implies that there is another problem besides the Itsmejudith issue. Is there one that isn't more than five years old (a wiki-eternity) like the infamous Superbowl 2006 Wheel War? Why wasn't it mentioned if there is? —Kusma (t·c) 06:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  • A loaded question with a falsehood as its premise. A 2008 incident was mentioned, at least four times. It's the fourth bullet point and in two of the arbitrator votes, for starters. Go and read again. Uncle G (talk) 14:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Apparently I fail at reading in the morning. And at looking through Carnildo's (rather short) admin logs. So he was essentially admin-topic-banned from a certain area since 2008 and then violated that ban with his recent action. Asking Arbcom to review his ban-violating action did not make them consider it not to be a violation. OK, I feel informed now. Thank you, Uncle G. —Kusma (t·c) 17:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
      • "Asking Arbcom to review his ban-violating action did not make them consider it not to be a violation." Yeah, that's one of the main problems I have. Silverseren^C 21:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
        • Silver seren, why do you have a problem with this? It should be obvious to most people that if you are banned from acting in a certain area, that you don't take actions in that area. Taking actions and then submitting them for review is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for those actions. And to respond to your other point you made earlier in this section (at 01:24, 6 July 2012) about 'threat of police action', at least two people (me and SPhilbrick) have tried to explain on your talk page where you might be getting the wrong end of the stick here. Could you at least try and understand what we are saying there before repeating your (misleading, IMO) views here about whether WP:NLT ('no legal threats') applies here? Though I see you (Silver seren) have started this discussion, which is fair enough. Carcharoth (talk) 22:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
          • I have a problem because Carnildo was properly following the rules of WP:CHILDPROTECT and he was then desysopped for it. Again, I ask, why is Itsmejudith not blocked for accusing another user of pedophilia? Silverseren^C 04:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about? He did the opposite of following WP:CHILDPROTECT, he blocked an editor who was trying to enforce WP:CHILDPROTECT and allowed a group of editors to continue expressing views that are contrary to WP:CHILDPROTECT. And he had a topic ban for using his tools in that field altogether.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I think he means the part that says "questions or accusations directed against a particular editor in project space may result in a block for the editor who posted them." --Conti|✉ 12:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

AH yes. But he still could have avoided that even happening if he had followed WP:CHildprotect earlier and blocked those expressing the view that pedophilia is not harmful to children which is also mandated by the same policy. So it was a strangely selective enforcement of the policy in any case.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I could have, except for three things: 1) There was no "earlier": the state of the thread when I encountered it contained both the claim about mental harm and the accusation of illegal sexual activity. 2) No claim that "pedophilia is not harmful" was made. The claim was that under certain circumstances, no mental harm would take place, with the unstated implication that substantial physical harm would take place. 3) Blocking for pro-pedophile advocacy would have been a clear-cut violation of the 2008 restriction. --Carnildo (talk) 01:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

That is a quite peculiar argument since blocking for anti-pedophilia advocacy obviously also violates it, and nobody forced you to take any action at all - so why take one directed at only on one side when you were violating the ban anyway. And you could also have simply decided to close the discussion. So all in all judgment was bad either way.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't block for pro-pedophile advocacy, and I didn't block for anti-pedophile advocacy. I blocked for making accusations of criminal conduct. --Carnildo (talk) 08:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• Arbcom has reviewed an incident in which one editor used the phrase "prima facie paedophile" to refer to another editor, and they have declined to pass judgement on that action. Either the accusation was supported by sufficient evidence, or it was not. It seems to me that Arbcom was justified in taking the action that it did take, but I don't see why they didn't follow their general practice of considering the behavior of all involved parties. ReverendWayne (talk) 02:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• Indeed, and several users pointed out in the discussion that what the user had said was not as such. Not to mention Judith saying "Someone proposes that the rape of a baby is unproblematic", which is not at all what the user said. Why exactly do we only follow the one part of WP:CHILDPROTECT and ignore the other, namely, "Comments posted on Wikipedia suggesting that an editor may be a pedophile will be RevDeleted promptly, to avoid issues of privacy and possible libel. You should raise your concerns only by email; questions or accusations directed against a particular editor in project space may result in a block for the editor who posted them." This is what Carnildo did and it was fully within the proper process. Silverseren^C 04:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Are the actions of Itsmejudith properly before the committee for review? No, they are not. This was a motion regarding an administrator taking a specific action in a topic ban area that he believed to be justified, and ArbCom pretty much unanimously disagreed. This was not a case: all the evidence was on-Wiki, available for all to see, and the facts were not contested. If a case had been opened, would Itsmejudith have been reprimanded in some way? Probably, but that's just one arbitrator's guess. Was the unblock of Itsmejudith repudiated by the committee? I suppose one might interpret the actions that way, but the rationale given by Risker, acting on behalf of the committee, was "Review by Arbitration Committee", nothing more. That review resulted in the desysop of Carnildo, and the committee was, and is, silent as a body on Itsmejudith's actions, although I and other arbs have stated our individual interpretations of the events. Bottom line? The motion restricts itself to the use of tools by an administrator in an area where there had been at least two documented prior instances of poor judgment and a never-rescinded administrator "topic ban" over the past six years. Jclemens (talk) 06:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
    • If a user is unblocked with the summary of "Review by Arbitration Committee", do you really think any admin will dare to reblock and not fear immediate desysopping? Until now I was under the impression that the user in question was unblocked by arbcom, and that the block therefore was explicitly discarded as a "bad block" that should not have happened. And, subsequently, that the actions of the user were acceptable. If that's not the case, fine. But it would be really nice if arbcom would confirm that calling another user a pedophile, directly or implicitly, is not acceptable at all. --Conti|✉ 12:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
      • How do you think the unblock message could have been better worded such that it was clear that the conduct of the administrator in question was under review, without making it seem like he'd already been tried and convicted by the committee? In this case, I'm sure Risker would have responded appropriately, had anyone asked her about the unblock vs. Itsmejudith's behavior, as would have someone from the committee had the question been addressed to us in email, which it was not. At any rate yes, it's not acceptable--although it may be understandable and even potentially excusable--for editors to react as Itsmejudith did. Since the topic is so contentious, my personal opinion that discussions should generally be limited to specific encyclopedic improvement, done at relevant article talk pages vs. open fora like the reference desk, and scrupulously worded to avoid provoking such overreactions. Jclemens-public (talk) 19:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
        • Thank you. I suppose the unblock wording was fine, what was missing was a mention that this was more about the admin's past behavior rather than the appropriateness of Itsmejudith's comments. I got that from you now, though, so all's fine. :) --Conti|✉ 10:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, running to father for review in fear of what mother will say after review is not going to change the ultimate outcome that much in the end. I also agree with Master&Expert's comments above. FWIW, Carnildo ended up with a remedy which was less harsh in the end (as he did not need to go through another full case). Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• Jclemens, when you use language such as "The motion restricts itself" it sounds like Arbcom had nothing to do with it. This is precisely what I am trying to understand: why did Arbcom choose to deal with this matter in a way that did not place the actions of Itsmejudith properly before the committee for review? What rule has been drawn that distinguishes this incident from others where a case is opened and the conduct of all parties is considered? ReverendWayne (talk) 12:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Because it was a use of administrative tools against a prior arbcom prohibition on such use by that specific admin. Admin misconduct comes to the committee, who has the remit and authority to intervene in such cases. We dealt with the one facet of the evolution that required ArbCom intervention, and restricted our involvement to that specific question. Jclemens-public (talk) 19:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• Presumably one lesson that comes out of this is "If you want Arbcom to lift a restriction they've imposed on you, ask before you act." In this case I think that the Arbs have got it right, but I can foresee a future situation where an admin skirts the edge of an old restriction and a trout slap would be more appropriate. ϢereSpielChequers 13:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Absolutely correct, but I think the other issue that I've seen is that the committee is increasingly unwilling to retain admins in whom we do not have complete confidence to act as an administrator in any area or facet of Wikipedia. That is, when we've recently considered making more administrator topic bans, we have instead opted for desysop'ing. Thus, I would hope the applicability of this particular situation to administrator conduct is actually pretty rare and increasing in rarity. Jclemens-public (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I am very concerned about this action. It appears that ArbCom now have total power over who remains an admin, regardless of community views. Their role thus becomes one of general governance, rather than arbitration. This is something I hinted at in a previous discussion on "motions". Many previous notable Abitrators have specifically and emphatically eschwed and repudiated this role, this committee need urgently to do the same. Rich Farmbrough, 00:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC).

ArbCom have always had that power. It is just that the 'community' are now (more so than in the past) reluctant to over-turn that by re-instating someone via a request for adminship (even one that comes quite a bit later). They tend to assume (correctly in most cases) that there is no smoke without a fire. The fact that ArbCom recently rejected a request to deal with a matter related to the RfC on pending changes actually shows that ArbCom are moving away from governance matters. Whether that is a good thing or not is not entirely clear. Carcharoth (talk) 01:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

It is entirely clear. The ambit of the committee should be set by the community at large. The situation where an arbitrator is able to convene a star chamber, is contrary to the intent that is clear from the name - arbitration is the purpose of the committee. Similarly creating precedent, policy and pandering to passive-aggressives. There is a substantial amount of useful work to be done, I think, in reviewing and revising the way ArbCom works. Unfortunately I have been prevented from contributing significantly to this (or indeed anything much) in the few months I had free between concluding my contract with Oxford Internet Institute and flying out to America today. Rich Farmbrough, 05:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC).

It might be better if we all put the past behind us because any suggestion of a star chamber in this case is wildly inaccurate. Also, I doubt very much whether a general community discussion of the incident would result in anything other than barnstars for all the involved arbs. Johnuniq (talk) 08:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I hope this motion isn't taken or meant to be taken as an endorsement of Itsmejudith's behaviour on the reference desk thread. I read over the thread and found her participation to be needlessly polarizing, with several severe personal attacks. The block was too much, but it doesn't change the fact that her behaviour was grossly inappropriate. ArbCom should at least issue a strong warning to her against casting aspersions. ThemFromSpace 21:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

This is the wrong place to debate that, so I'll just say nonsense: "needlessly polarizing" is not a correct interpretation of an attempt to stop a discussion that was indistinguishable from either a troll festival or an attempt to use Wikipedia to advance the argument that sex with children is harmless. Johnuniq (talk) 23:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I have to echo Silverseren's concern - establishing a "ask Arbcom to review a potentially incorrect action --> Arbcom summarily de-sysops you" precedent seems like it will only encourage "don't ask Arbcom to review a potentially incorrect action --> Arbcom may not notice and be able to address the issue." --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 18:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that this particular block would have come to the Committee's attention pretty quickly, even if Carnildo had not advised us of it himself (although we did appreciate that he did so). Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Arbcom warnings not made public

Could arbcom please release a list of all the private-but-not-confidential actions it maintains, and voting records for those private-but-not-confidential actions? In this case, it appears that Carnildo was privately banned from taking admin action in a topic area, but there is no reasonable expectation of confidentiality here, in that there is no private information. It was my previous understanding that some active arbitrators rejected any restrictions on admin actions - either desysop, or unrestricted - I'll find and provide citations if an arbitrator requests. It is not appropriate to take one stance in public and one in private. It is not appropriate to keep a secret list of sanction admins so that the community will not doubt the propriety of admins. Sunlight and all. Hipocrite (talk) 12:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I wish that list existed. I don't know why there wasn't a record made on wiki - it's way before my time, although clearly Carnildo remembered it, as well as longer term members of Arbcom. But what does concern me is that I was reliant on someone remembering it existed and digging it out of the email archive. I do think if any of the "old timers" can remember any similar instances we should make a record of anything still extant, and perhaps draw a line on anything that wasn't recorded formally and no-one can remember during this exercise. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Edit_restrictions#Placed_by_the_Arbitration_Committee exists -- would that suffice or should their be a separate Wikipedia:Admin_restrictions#Placed_by_the_Arbitration_Committee? Nobody Ent 15:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

That's where these things should be. I cannot think of another example where an admin was restricted from taking admin action in an area, although they probably exist, but there probably aren't enough to warrant a separate list. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe there have been times when we have determined that we consider an administrator "involved" in a topic area or vis-a-vis a particular user. That would operate as a restriction against the admin using the tools in that area or with respect to that user (although it doesn't necessarily mean the administrator has done anything wrong). I believe these findings are reflected in case decisions on-wiki. I also wouldn't be surprised if there were times when one or more arbitrators has counseled an admin "you'd probably be better off staying away from administrating in X topic area," but I can't recall any other instances of a formal communication from the Committee as was sent to Carnildo. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Not sure about Arbcom warnings not made public, but some of the public ones can be seen in the archives of this noticeboard, as well as in cases where restrictions were imposed. One of the main thrusts of the climate change case, for example, was about (alleged) admin involvement with respect to enforcement of the community sanctions regime, though I can't recall right now what was decided there. Carcharoth (talk) 22:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Found the link now: here. The only other public admin restriction I can recall was here, and that also involved climate change. There may be more in the archives. Carcharoth (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

2012 CheckUser and Oversight appointments & personnel changes

Original announcement

• For the record, during the course of confirming appointments, arbitrator Courcelles carried out some tests to verify that a non-administrator could appropriately carry out all functions related to the Oversighter role. Unfortunately, during these tests we discovered that it is not possible for a non-administrator to carry out deletion-suppression, a function that had not been included in the prior community discussion about devolving these tools. As a result, we felt that improvements to the oversighter toolkit must be made before placing a non-administrator in that role; unfortunately this meant that we could not appoint Mlpearc during this round. With the significant number of fine oversighter candidates, the committee elected to encourage Tiptoety to continue his fine work as a checkuser rather than adding additional tasks at this time. Risker (talk) 02:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I am very pleased with the expansion of our oversight team and the users that were granted the tool. Manuals sent, accounts processed, we're always ready to help.

Now get off my lawn. Keegan (talk) 06:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'm glad to see so many editors I hold a high opinion of being in this group. Best of luck to everyone! -- Lord Roem (talk) 11:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
• Notwithstanding criticism of the past, I am pleased to see the culmination of this round and happily concur with the eclectic result of a combined best effort. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 12:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2 closed

Original announcement

I tried to write this out several times while the case was in the proposed decision phase and each time it just came out as a bitter rant. Here's hoping this will be better. The most disappointing thing about this case for me was that we've lost Ohconfucius as an editor and in entirely avoidable circumstances, even if it was necessary to ban him from Falun Gong-related articles. Looking at the diffs provided in the finding of fact, I agree with Risker that they do not show an anti-Falun Gong POV, but rather an attempt to conform to NPOV. However, the real problem is that even if he made anti-Falun Gong edits, it is absolutely ridiculous to label him a pro-PRC POV pusher – as anyone who has ever collaborated with Ohconfucius can tell you, his personal opinion of the PRC government is definitely not "pro" and he has regularly added content that is critical of the PRC. IMO, the reason we've lost this fantastic contributor is because, if the arbs who supported this FoF so obviously haven't done any significant research before being happy to make such an accusation, why should anyone believe that any of the other findings of fact, remedies, principles, etc. have been thoroughly researched? Jenks24 (talk) 13:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Lord Roem clerk appointment

Original announcement

• Congratulations, Lord Roem! I think you've been doing an excellent job and been very professional. I appreciate the work you're doing here. Kind regards. 64.40.54.48 (talk) 09:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Perhaps, but he strikes me as a bit of a dodgy fellow. Too "WP Perfect" - kind of a hat gatherer. Ever since his trainee clerkship and failed WP:RfA, he turns up at RfA and other project noticeboards to give lofty-sounding endorsements of just the right people. I don't like to impute bad motives, but there are elements about it that seem to reek of flattery and pretentiousness. 174.253.202.230 (talk) 18:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
    • If you find nothing bad to say about someone, criticize him for being too smooth. Only on Wikipedia. --Conti|✉ 19:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Lord Roem was a trainee clerk, clerking one of the more.. strident cases that I can remember. Clerking that case was like throwing a new lion tamer in a cage with 50 angry lions. He did a good job in trying to keep things under control, all things considered, working with other members of the clerking team as needed to review issues and to get a second opinion when necessary. He did everything we expect of full clerks. This is more of a formality, but when you do the job of a full clerk, we unanimously agreed that he deserved to be one. SirFozzie (talk) 20:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• Great work, Lord Roem. To the 174... editor, WP:GOLDENTICKET. Keegan (talk) 05:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Fair enough, that is a nice essay. I hope you will take my response as pleasant banter, not irritating argumentation.

The essay depicts what some believe ought to be the case. However, such an idyllic egalitarian wonderland does not accurately describe any community of humans that I am aware of. One cannot alter reality by decree, and power nearly always translates into prominence. Some roles are more equal than others.

I did not intend to be unkind, I was only noting what seemed to be a tendency towards accumulation of prominent positions and the making of authoritative comments. I am sure this person is a lovely fellow, I just happened to note a propensity that I found interesting. YMMV (and your mileage may very well be more correct than mine). Take care 174.255.188.140 (talk) 05:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC) not sure why my IP changes all the time, one of the mysteries of life I suppose.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth closed

Original announcement

I seriously don't get this. I got desysopped because I restored an admin decision that was reverted without discussion? The idea was so ludicrous that I'd forgotten the motion was even being discussed. It seemed uncontroversial: we don't go around reverting admin decisions that we disagree with, and arbcom found that the revert was inappropriate. (And I didn't continue when it was repeated.) So what gives? — kwami (talk) 16:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It seemed uncontroversial to you to breach admin policy (by wheel warring) in a situation which was clearly not urgent and where you were involved? And what about the pattern of edit-warring or move-warring - do you also think it seems uncontroversial for administrators to engage in such conduct (and that too, while being party to an arbitration case)? Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

And the admin who started the wheel warring, against an RfM decision? That's acceptable? When have I ever done such a thing? — kwami (talk) 16:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The first reversal is not wheel warring; wheel-warring is where a reversed action is reinstated. In order for admins to avoid wheelwarring, policy says very clearly in bold "Do not repeat a reversed administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it. Do not continue a chain of administrative reversals without discussion. Resolve admin disputes by discussing." It then says "Wheel warring usually results in an immediate Request for Arbitration. Sanctions for wheel warring have varied from reprimands and cautions, to temporary blocks, to desysopping, even for first time incidents". What prevented you from discussing the matter with the other administrator first? In fact, why was it that you needed to intervene and not one of the many other uninvolved admins available? Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I saw an abuse and I corrected it. Wouldn't an uninvolved admin also have been punished for wheel-warring? — kwami (talk) 08:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Involved or uninvolved, there is an accountability provision in admin policy. Admins who wish to reinstate the action would have been expected to discuss the matter with the admin who reversed the action before intervening; a failure to do so amounts to poor judgment. The poor judgment is compounded where the admin is clearly involved. This is because involved admins have (or at least are seen to have) a conflict of interest. Also, what involved admins see, and the judgment they exercise in response to what they see, can be clouded by their strong feelings in relation to the topic, and this can significantly affect the quality of their judgment. These are among the reasons why the community enacted the requirement in admin policy that involved admins should refrain from intervening, and leave it to uninvolved admins. If on top of that already poor judgment, there is either evidence of that admin's poor conduct or that admin not appearing to be learning from experience, that might suggest that an individual should not have access to their admin privileges for at least a period of time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Was Kwami's editing history a factor in the decision to desysop him? The only reference to such a history is Ncmvocalist's above reference to Kwami's "pattern of edit-warring or move-warring." Because Kwami's past isn't mentioned elsewhere, it seems like it's the one instance of admin tool misuse alone that prompted the desysopping, which would be excessive. If the contextualization of his behavior was a factor in the decision, it might be fair to be overt about this pattern at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 18:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Let me note that kwami is currently under a 24 hr block arising from a separate matter, hence may not be able to respond here for a while. Looie496 (talk) 18:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

For my part, I was defending kwami on the talk page for the proposed decision until he move-warred at Animal rights movement. At that point, I could no longer argue that this was an isolated incident. And at least one arbitrator said this influenced her to vote the way she did. The fact that kwami has now unrelatedly gotten an edit warring block makes me think this desysopping was pretty much inevitable at some point and might as well have happened now. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The case was going on for over a month. The first arb voted for a desysop about 12 days ago. There was plenty of time to put up your defense. If you couldn't be bothered to keep an eye on an Arb Case regarding your use of tools, you don't have a lot of room to complain post close.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

In reading through the ArbCom, kwami's name is rarely mentioned either one way or the other. There was clearly a lot of concern over every other admin's use and misuse of tools and kwami was not even the last admin to wheel war over this. So either desysop all the admins who wheel-warred or slap the wrists of all. My concern over the process is that only one admin who misused their tools was desysoped, and that with very little discussion during the ArbCom. The overall impression that many editors who have commented seem to have been left with is a great disparity in punishments where the "crime" seems to have been very similar. It's not a question of the severity of punishment if all the involved admins are treated similarly, but a question of equality across the board--similar punishments for similar infractions. I was not involved in any way in the issue at Perth or in the ArbCom, but this is my opinion looking at the evidence presented in the ArbCom. --Taivo (talk) 22:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

How can you say his name wasn't mentioned, he's mentioned on the evidence page, the workshop page, and the proposed decision page. You can argue your point, I've got no desire to be some sort of arbcom apologist, but the time to argue it was in the 2 weeks that the voting was ongoing, if not before. Not one post or comment from Kwami during the entire process. He had his time to argue, and he apparently ignored it.--Cube lurker (talk) 22:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

But he's not mentioned a whole lot at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth, which I think is what Taivo was referring to. Looking through the various discussion pages for the case, it seems like Kwami was desysopped for a pattern of behavior, rather than the individual act described at the ArbCom page, which makes the main case page itself misleading. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 23:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything I've said. He was a named party to the case. (Notified on both initiation of request and case acceptance). Evidence was presented. Actions discussed at workshop. Remedies proposed. Remedies voted on. Time elapsed over 1 month. All apparently ignored, and now that it's over he wants to complain. I'm not talking about right or wrong, i'm talking about the fact that you can't ignore the entire process and then after it's over complain that you don't like the result.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

That's because you're focusing on Kwami's aside that he'd forgotten about the ArbCom and ignoring the core of the issue. The decision, as it is stated, is so absurd that two other editors (myself and Taivo) have come here to agree with Kwami that desysopping for a single admintool misuse is excessive (and capricious, given the treatment of other participants). After some hunting, I found that the stated reason for desysopping that drew us here in the first place ("for use of administrative tools while involved in an editing dispute, and for reinstating a reverted administrative action without clear discussion leading to a consensus decision") is not the reason he was desysopped. Instead, per the discussions here, here, and here, it was a pattern of behavior that prompted people to vote for desysopping.

Please understand, I'm not making the case that Kwami shouldn't have been desysopped. I'm saying that the reasoning was not made clear; Kwami's pattern of behavior is not mentioned anywhere at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth and doesn't appear to be a factor considered until one does some digging. I see a number of problems with this kind of opacity in arbitration decisions, one of which is the very confusion that brought us here. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 02:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Cube lurker, I'm not addressing this at the request of kwami or any other editor. This is a concern I have, as Aeusoes1 has clearly stated, based solely on the decision document produced for the Perth arbitration. I shouldn't have to read ten other documents in order to clearly determine why kwami was desysopped and no other admin got more than a slap on the wrist. Kwami is hardly mentioned in the decision document, but his punishment is the most severe and based solely on the decision document, totally out of line with the punishments meted out to the other admins, whose behavior is far more seriously discussed. If you're going to desysop someone based on an Arbitration decision (and only slap the wrists of others), then you must spell out the reasoning on the final decision document and not just assume that editors are going to hunt down the relevant discussion on a page that isn't even linked to. As it is, the decision document fails to make any kind of a case against kwami to justify desysopping when every other involved admin just got a slap on the wrist (actually not even that much, just "admonishments"). --Taivo (talk) 03:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to read ten other documents in order to clearly determine why kwami was desysopped—That's just how arb cases are written up, though, I guess; I'm not sure how this could be improved much. The main page says Kwamikagami is desysopped for use of administrative tools while involved in an editing dispute, and for reinstating a reverted administrative action without clear discussion leading to a consensus decision.—ie, wheel warring, which wp:WHEEL notes can lead to "desysopping, even for first time incidents". And while involved; administrative action while involved is kind of a big deal. You can dig around on the workshop/proposed decision pages to find out more. There's a not-very-convincing section in the evidence page about Kwami's past edit-warring. There's a note at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth/Proposed_decision#Kwamikagami_desysopped by one of the voters pointing to the animal-rights wheel war while the vote was ongoing; so you can see that this second wheel-warring incident while the vote about the first one was ongoing was obviously a factor. You can also see there and in the discussion that a huge community appeal for clemency had some sway; more so in Gnangarra's case, who despite being involved was at least not wheel warring again while the vote was going on, as far as I know. So anyway, with a little trouble you can find the details. Again, I can't imagine how this could be done better; ideas? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

IMHO, the simplest solution is mentioning Kwami's history of contentious editing or the Animal rights movement issue at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 17:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, one very simple solution is to have an uninvolved editor read the final decision to see if it makes sense. The Perth decision reads like this:

• Editors A, B, C, D, E engaged in this bad behavior
• Discussion of editors A, B, D, E and their behavior--accusation, defense and counter-defense
• Editor C says, "This is what I did. I thought it was the right thing to do. When the 'war' kept on going, I didn't do anything else."
• Judgment: Editors A, B, D, E get admonished
• Judgment: Editor C gets hammered with a major punishment

That's exactly how the final decision reads, without any justification whatsoever for the major penalty that Kwami suffered when everyone else simply got admonished (not even temporary suspensions of their admin privileges). Use your supposedly superior admin skills, guys and girls, and think about what you are presenting to the editorship at large. You cannot expect people to read multiple pages in order to understand your ruling. It must all be there on the final decision page. If you don't justify a given penalty on the decision page, then you are unjustified in meting out that penalty. --Taivo (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Except that editors A,B,D and E didn't have a previous history of edit and move warring, including a couple of blocks. It's mentioned on the decision page, and referenced heavily on the Evidence page, which is one click away. It's not as if it's on a collection of completely unrelated pages. However, this now appears to be moot since Kwami appears to have retired. Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

If by "decision page" you mean Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth, which lays out the "final decision" then it's simply false that Kwami's history was mentioned. The main case page is very explicit about everything else and, without mention of Kwami's past troubles with admin tools, makes desysopping him seem capricious. Let me be clear: it's not just that one has to do some hunting to find greater details with the case, it's that the final decision gives a false reason for desysopping him.

Also, we shouldn't use Kwami's apparent resignation as a reason to ignore the problems of transparency under discussion. I hope people can understand the notion of larger principles being at stake. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 19:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Black Kite, it is absolutely false that Kwami's history was mentioned at all on the decision page (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth). Everything an editor needs to know about the decision needs to be summarized on the decision page, without requiring an editor to 1) find the right link to the "Evidence" page and 2) pore through pages of argumentation. The final decision page must be a summary of the decision as well as a summary of the justification for that decision. In this case the decision page reflects very, very poorly on the Arbitration committee because its decision concerning Kwami looks capricious and unfair. It's that simple, Black Kite. You simply can't excuse the appearance of an unfair judgment simply by saying "it's just a click away". An uninvolved editor reading that decision page will not "click", but will look at that decision and say, "What the heck? That's not right." The decision page says that Kwami engaged in behavior that every other admin on that page engaged in, but was punished ten times more severely than any other involved admin. There is simply not one single word of explanation why his punishment was more severe. It reflects poorly on Wikipedia and poorly on Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes. Whether Kwami was treated fairly or not in an absolute sense isn't the question. The decision page clearly shows that he was not fairly treated and was singled out for excessive punishment. If you want to leave the opposite impression, then I suggest you rework that decision page and the processes by which decision pages are prepared. --Taivo (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, his history was mentioned on the decision page, because at least two of the arbs involved clearly stated that they voted for a desysop because of his previous history, and I wouldn't be surprised if others did too (compare the voting on Gnagarra). Whether that was the correct decision is another issue; personally I would have gone for a last chance type deal because of his positive content contribution, but that's something that you'd have to discuss with the arbs. I would also suggest that Kwami's complete refusal to engage with the case didn't help his cause - saying "I did this because I thought it was right, and I'm not saying anything else" is unhelpful. Black Kite (talk) 00:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

No, Black Kite, you are wrong. You show me where on this page that any admin mentions Kwami's past actions as being a basis for his unfair treatment. You can't. I just reread it and there is not a single, solitary statement concerning why he got a punishment ten times worse than any other admin who engaged in exactly the same activity. You are imagining it. And what is wrong if Kwami said, "This is what I did and I thought it was the right thing to do. That's all I have to say about it"? Do you want him to say that 50 times over and over? Indeed, Kwami is mentioned only very rarely on that page, including this from one of the admonished admins: "I do feel bad for Kwamikagami, who clearly felt he was trying to halt a wheel war instead of participating in one." There is not a single, solitary word on that whole page justifying crucifying Kwami and just "admonishing" the other admins, all of whom seem to have been much more involved in the problem. --Taivo (talk) 00:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

That is a summary page, just as it is for every ArbCom case. Reasoning is given in the evidence and proposed decision pages. You need this page. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying it was the correct decision, but to say it wasn't discussed is clearly wrong. And if you're involved in such a case, not engaging with that case is unlikely to help you; you need to provide more justification than a single sentence. Black Kite (talk) 00:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I have been involved in ArbComs before so I know the process, but I'm saying that the only page the majority of editors are ever going to look at is the final summary page. THAT page must contain a summary of why five editors were only admonished and one editor was crucified. And the crucified editor was the one who seemed to be the least involved. Don't try to justify a lousy summary page that doesn't explain the full decision. You can see with this conversation how many editors think that Kwami got the shaft just because of the non-summary summary page that everyone is going to read. I'm also not saying that it wasn't discussed, but the summary page gives the wrong reason why Kwami was singled out. It names three other admins who misused their tools (by your definition), but doesn't offer a single, solitary word why only one of those admins was desysopped. Not one word. That's the problem. Your summary page simply makes the Arb Committee look capricious and arbitrary. --Taivo (talk) 01:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps that would be a good idea. I'm not going to argue that point; the summary page is somewhat lacking in detail. Black Kite (talk) 01:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

"Lacking in detail" is quite the euphemism. It's basically misstating the rationale given in the discussion fora. Either way, mention of Kwami's history in the decision page wouldn't require a significant addition to the decision page to fix the problem. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 04:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but how would you change this? Exactly what should change? The verbiage on the main page, eg Kwamikagami is desysopped for use of administrative tools while involved in an editing dispute, and for reinstating a reverted administrative action without clear discussion leading to a consensus decision. He may regain the admin toolkit through a fresh request for adminship. is word-for-word what was voted on at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth/Proposed_decision. The wording of these gets tweaked, alternatives with slightly different connotations are proposed, etc, etc, ad nauseum until one passes a vote. I suppose for this one I've quoted there is probably a significant chunk of thought and rationale for several arbitrators missing (the part about Kwami's alleged past behavior) and you could go complain to the drafting arbs about it, or maybe to eg. Risker for not insisting that her reason for voting be mentioned in the decision. (However, for some arbitrators I get the feeling that wheel warring while involved was reason enough for desysopping.) But other than that what could be done differently by the process? What exactly are you asking for here? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

If one person gets "admonished" for something, and another person gets "desysopped" for exactly the same thing, then there is clearly information missing. It's clear that the second person must be being desysopped for that plus something else (otherwise why the different treatment?), so that "something else" needs to be spelt out explicitly and supported by evidence. But see my comments below; the whole process, and the actions taken as a result, are fundamentally misconceived. Victor Yus (talk) 16:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you've restated the problem again. How do we fix it? (well, this problem, not the one you mentioned below) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Next time, any decisions imposing similar sanctions should state in much more detail what the sanctions are being imposed for, or more generally, the full reasoning behind them. Victor Yus (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on how you look at it. I'm not entirely sure that providing further detail in the desysop wording would be beneficial for a desysopped admin, as it could significantly limit the possibility of regaining tools in the future - whether or not each person thinks this is a benefit/detriment to the project is subject to interpretation I'm sure you'd appreciate. Whether or not he sees it now, he has an opportunity to work on the issues raised during this case (explicit or not in the final page) and apply for adminship after a period of time, if he wishes to regain his tools. At the time of such a RFA, there is no doubt that some reference will be made to this case by the Community, but I think there is a chance that other issues would not be mentioned unless the pattern has continued or he has not worked on those issues. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Per the move of Animal rights movement, after appeal by several editors to his talk page and notification at AN/I, he reversed the move. Esp since that particular move was just the addition of a hyphen, I don't think it was a very serious issue, and I don't think it should be a factor in this particular discussion. It bothered me a bit at the time, but I don't think I was aware that an ARBCOM case was pending, and certainly didn't mean to influence that case via my relatively minor request for admin help. As to the issues above, while I'm not an admin I do agree that de-sysoping for this one particular incident is overdone, especially since it was a single wheel war (and not a long-term pattern or long set of disruptive edits).--KarlB (talk) 02:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Esp since that particular move was just the addition of a hyphen, I don't think it was a very serious issue—You must be new here. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Totally new. And wait until someone tries to replace a dash with a hyphen. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

And I wasn't even notified of that ANI. I self-reverted because someone gave an intelligent reason why we might not want to apply the MOS in that case. I didn't learn there was an ANI until ErikHaugen emailed me. — kwami (talk) 08:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, I did notify you of the ANI shortly after it was posted: [1].--KarlB (talk) 13:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

For those who did not follow it, this case was pending for several weeks and was intensely debated by the arbitrators and by other members of the community as well. There were proposals made by my colleagues to desysop three administrators for their roles in the Perth move dispute ("wheel war"). I opposed all of these proposed desysoppings as being disproportionate and excessive. There was also quite a bit of community opposition to the proposed desysoppings expressed on the talkpage. Ultimately, two of the proposed desysoppings were voted down in favor of milder remedies (although Gnangarra's was a very close call), while this one passed, regrettably in my personal opinion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

This case just shows again how stupid the current arbitration setup is. Instead of taking those in dispute and bringing them together, we've taken two quite trivial incidents, created masses of drama over them, and ended up removing an experienced and productive (though clearly fallible) administrator from the pool, apparently for no reason except that the crowd demanded at least some blood, and this one was chosen pretty much at random, or as a punishment for disrespectfully getting on with working on Wikipedia while all this was going on rather than wasting his time engaging in this petty and pointless process. (It might also be noted that moving pages over redirects is only barely an administrative action anyway, and in at least one of the two "incidents" it was just a normal editing action.) What should have been done was for a couple of arbs to take all these admins to one side for a firm but friendly chat, reminding them about the relevant standards of conduct and obtaining assurances that they understand and will try to avoid similar errors in future. If any dispute remained unsettled about what the titles of these articles ought to be, based on discussion to date, then ArbCom could have usefully arbitrated that - but it seems that ArbCom currently never actually arbitrate anything as such, just hand out counterproductive and fairly arbitrary punishments (or in WikiSpeak that should probably be !punishments).Victor Yus (talk)

I should note that I was pleased that a couple of arbitrators withdrew their votes to desysop Gnangarra, thereby ensuring that this proposal didn't pass, and I hope that the lack of support for this proposal on the proposed decision's talk page influenced them. Nick-D (talk) 08:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but this whole voting thing is the wrong approach as well. This was a case of handbags where the required action was a quiet firm word to all involved, not an escalation of a trivial matter into a major dispute. Victor Yus (talk) 10:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you. Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who has been following the edit-warring noticeboard over the past couple of years is aware of how frequently Kwami's name appears there as a participant in disputes. Edit warring and move warring are certainly part of the same issue. It is unfortunate that the present sanction risks the loss of Kwami's contributions, but it does fit with Arbcom's recent pattern of sanctions for administrators. In former times they would sometimes choose to suspend adminship for a period rather than lift it completely. EdJohnston (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

That would have been a somewhat better option, I suppose. If a volunteer is generally productive but has their faults, you've got to engage with them and show them how to reform. "Sanctions" should be a last resort, since as you say, they risk (or entail) the loss of the person's contributions. Unfortunately, ArbCom seems capable of doing very little except impose sanctions, and thus isn't really assisting the project in the way that it could. Victor Yus (talk) 16:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Victor, is the "required action" ever to desysop? Do you think this process is reasonable for those cases? This committee decides whether to take cases or whether other dispute resolution fora are more appropriate; do you really disagree with this structure or is your point more that the committee never should have taken this case? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I guess yes, there must be a point where the last resort is reached (or there have been really serious breaches) and desysopping is appropriate. In that case the present process is reasonable in principle (though it could be handled a bit differently, without the battleground atmosphere). I guess the committee might have referred the case to a more appropriate DR forum, but there probably isn't one - in such circumstances the committee should have a different way of proceeding, perhaps based on providing one or two of its members as mediators "with teeth", to talk to those involved and hammer out a solution with them (which in this case would mostly involve making sure they understand what they did wrong and accept that they should not do similar things in future). Sorry if this all seems too girly-touchy-feely, but Wikipedia is supposed to be a cooperative volunteer project, not a fight club. Victor Yus (talk) 16:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

A 'quiet firm word' (Victor Yus's phrase) can be used by individual admins, but it is not clear how Arbcom could do that. And what about restrictions. Can you imagine the idea of putting an admin under a WP:1RR restriction? Any admin who needs that probably shouldn't be one any more. Admins are supposed to have the judgment needed to *enforce* 1RRs. The kinds of measures that are reasonable for Arbcom to use have to be very dramatic and not susceptible to nuance. This suggests to me that admins who edit-war most likely should be promptly blocked like anyone else, so that things don't escalate to Arbcom in the first place. EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

What I envisage is that aribtrators could give admins a "quiet firm word" in much the same way (but with a somewhat greater degree of formality) that admins give other editors quiet firm words. Explicit restrictions like 1RR should not be necessary, provided the admin gets what the problem is (and if he really doesn't, then the next step will be to take the matter to full ArbCom as is done now). I totally disagree that Arbcom should only be allowed to do dramatic things - that seems part of the problem at the moment, far too much drama, not enough constructive solution-finding. And most people who edit war every day are not blocked or sanctioned or anything; if an admin is doing it then it's a problem that certainly should be escalated to somewhere, and ArbCom is the only real possibility - the only place where there are people who carry greater authority (or perhaps "clout") than an ordinary admin - but once it gets there, there should first be an attempt to solve the problem constructively, before resorting to more "dramatic" measures. Victor Yus (talk) 06:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Your point that this is a storm in a teacup is one that I have some sympathy with. However, given the restrictions on wheel-warring I don't think the Committee had much choice other than to take the Case on once it was nominated. Indeed, your complaint might be better addressed to the nominator for ensuring that an annoying spat turned into a full scale drama - although he was clearly within his rights. The law is indeed an ass. Talking of which, it is not so very long ago that there were various complaints that Arbcom was not taking sysop misdemeanours seriously enough. It isn't possible to please everyone (and I don't personally support every decision taken in this judgement) but erring in the direction of holding admins to a high standard is, in my view, preferable to allowing them to misbehave with impunity. Ben MacDui 09:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree; I just think the methods used to achieve that high standard (and also to resolve other types of problems that come to ArbCom) need to be subtler and much more constructive, as befits a community of volunteers working together on a project. Victor Yus (talk) 11:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break

Noting here for the record that kwami has replaced his userpage with what looks like a departure essay (though see also his user talk page). The basic argument used (which as others have said he should have raised during the case, not now) seems to be that he was enforcing the original close (the 'consensus name'). The idea being that an edit war or move war has a 'right' and a 'wrong' side. Which kind of misses the point about the restrictions on edit warring and move warring. It doesn't matter who is 'right'. It matters that the warring stops with a step-change to a discussion. The idea being that you point out to the admin that consensus exists for the move, and then get an extra consensus on top of that, rather than just enforcing the original (presumably disputed) consensus. That seems to be the basic misunderstanding here.

On whether the noticeboard summary and the final decision page lack the detail needed for those looking at this case for the first time, I've re-read them and I agree that it would have been better to flesh out why kwami was being desysopped and Gnangarra wasn't. The reasoning can be seen on the proposed decision page and the proposed decision talk page, but that is not really sufficient. Also, the noticeboard summary only links to Perth article and not to the users who were sanctioned, which seems different to how such decisions are normally summarised. I'll mention at the clerks noticeboard in case none are following this thread. Are any arbs willing to comment on whether the final decision should have been fleshed out more? Carcharoth (talk) 18:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• I hate to say it, but I agree with the ArbCom's decision to desysop Kwami. There've just been too many instances of abrasiveness on his part, both in his editing patterns and interactions with other users, for me to feel confident in him continuing to hold administrator status. I'm sorry, Kwami. Master&Expert (Talk) 19:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Maybe, but if that was the reason, then that should have been made clearer in the proposed decision. The more I think about it, the more I think those commenting above are right, that the current final decision is not clear enough. This seems to be a genuine case where a request for clarification might actually help. I've also raised procedural points here and here, the first on the minor point about adding username links that I mentioned above, the second on whether more notification is needed during case. Somewhat to my surprise, given the number of people calling for leniency on their behalf, I've realised that neither kwami nor Gnangarra commented at the proposed decision talk page (Deacon did) and it seems that none of the parties were formally notified during the case that sanctions had been proposed against them (there seems to be a presumption that parties drop everything and follow cases from the moment of notification, they should at least be able to request notification of the proposed decision). I've not yet looked into how much the parties commented during the earlier case stages, but I do think that arbitrators have a duty of care to ensure that no matter how many other people are commenting at case pages, that lines of communication remain open to the parties to a case (i.e. those facing sanctions or redress), and that it is ensured first that the parties are having their say, or have been notified, and only then do you turn to address what others are saying (even if they are speaking 'on behalf' of others). I may file a request for clarification on the desysop disparity later tonight depending on any further comments made here. Carcharoth (talk) 20:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• • I completely agree, Carcharoth. From what I can tell, after the initial notification that "his name had come up in reference to an ArbCom action", there was no further contact with Kwami until he was summarily desysopped. --Taivo (talk) 22:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

    • Well, that's not entirely correct. After the original "you are involved" message, they were informed that the case had been opened; that latter message provided links to all pages related to the case, including a link to the guide for the process. -- Lord Roem (talk) 11:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

    Well yeah, for the sake of clarity, it's always best to elaborate on everything factored into a decision as serious as a desysop. So I do agree with you guys there as well. Master&Expert (Talk) 22:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

    While I agree that it would be good practice to notify the parties when the proposed decision is posted, I don't think that it's unreasonable to expect that these editors (and especially those who are admins) would keep an eye on the case, and comment where necessary - we expect that editors will watchlist pages of interest to them, and arbitration cases in which they're a named party obviously falls into this category. I note that ArbCom has in the past sanctioned parties for not engaging with cases (for instance, Thumperward at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement#Final decision); whether this is a good idea or not, it's not new. Nick-D (talk) 00:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

    Carcharoth—it's difficult to say for sure why Kwami was desysopped, since the proposal for desysopping for wheel warring while involved got 11 different support votes, all by people probably thinking slightly different things. At least 2 voted for that proposal despite saying their real reasons for supporting had to do with other alleged bad behavior—do you think those arbitrators (and the other 3 that didn't support Gnangarra's desysop, so presumably wouldn't just desysop anyone for wheel warring while involved) ought to have made another proposal with verbiage like "and for a history of edit warring" before supporting? Does that normally happen, in your experience, Carcharoth? If so, getting arbs to do that might be the answer to the complaints above about the unsatisfying lack of detail in the final decision page. I'll note that it might be reasonable to guess that most of the arbs supporting Kwami's desysop—although probably not the 7 required for majority—did so simply for wheel warring while involved as the decision says. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 04:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

    • I would also note that kwami is still contributing in spite of what Carcharoth has noted. While it might be well-intentioned for someone else to seek clarification or amendment (due to questions in the interim), I think this would be better treated as one of those situations where it is left to kwami to decide whether he wants it clarified on that page, or if he prefers to work on the issues and seek re-election with the wording as it currently stands. The latter is less complicated because if he seeks reelection without working on those issues, others will raise those issues during such RFA. Obviously, if the intention is to make it more complicated, then only the first sentence of this comment would stand and the rest might as well be ignored. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

      That is a good point (that kwami is still contributing). I agree it is best left to kwami to decide on whether clarification is needed or desired (I won't point this out to him myself, but if others reading this do so I'd appreciate being told if any clarification request is filed). I have said more (a bit tl;dr) here. To reply here to ErikHaugen, yes, in my experience when there is a clear disparity in sanctions between two users and it is not clear from the proposed decision why there is that disparity, the arbitrators are normally willing to add principles and findings to make things clearer. The only people that can answer why that wasn't done in this case are the arbs themselves that were active on the case. Carcharoth (talk) 12:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I actually think Kwami's involvement isn't that relevant to addressing this issue. An important factor here is the larger principle of the summary page having an adequate summary. We don't want to set (or reinforce, I'm not normally involved in ArbComs) the precedent that grossly inadequate rationales for ArbCom decisions are appropriate. More importantly, we don't want to give future clerks et al. a misleading impression that giving different punishments to different participants for the same action in the same ArbCom is appropriate. That sort of thing wouldn't be appropriate (I know that's not what happened here, but the summary gives that impression, which is what I think is wrong). — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 15:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Re: Carcharoth: Lord Roem is a trainee, so it's possible that he didn't know. I shall inform him. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 06:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Perth (arbitrary break): Kwami and the prior discussion finding

I notice it says on the proposed decision page that Kwami "participated in the request for move discussion, and reinstated the original decision by moving the pages at 02:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC) without discussing the matter first", however if you look at the actual page, there is quite a bit of discussion and perhaps even agreement over the next course of action. On Gnangarra's section, it was noted "He had been discussing the matter" and diffs given, but not on Kwami's section. Neotarf (talk) 14:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Neotarf, that's incorrect, from the time of JHunterJ's initial move, through to Kwami's reversal, Kwami didn't discuss the matter. I've copied the relevant edits into the collapsed section below:

Extended content

(del/undel) 02:16, 10 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . m Talk:Perth/Archive 1 ‎ (Kwamikagami moved page Talk:Perth, Western Australia/Archive 1 to Talk:Perth/Archive 1) (del/undel) 02:15, 10 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . m Talk:Perth/to do ‎ (Kwamikagami moved page Talk:Perth, Western Australia/to do to Talk:Perth/to do: please don't wheel war. take move request to ANI if need be.) (del/undel) 02:15, 10 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . m Talk:Perth/Archive 3 ‎ (Kwamikagami moved page Talk:Perth, Western Australia/Archive 3 to Talk:Perth/Archive 3: please don't wheel war. take move request to ANI if need be.) (del/undel) 02:15, 10 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . m Talk:Perth/Archive 2 ‎ (Kwamikagami moved page Talk:Perth, Western Australia/Archive 2 to Talk:Perth/Archive 2: please don't wheel war. take move request to ANI if need be.) (del/undel) 02:15, 10 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . m Talk:Perth ‎ (Kwamikagami moved page Talk:Perth, Western Australia to Talk:Perth over redirect: please don't wheel war. take move request to ANI if need be.) (del/undel) 02:15, 10 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . m Perth ‎ (Kwamikagami moved page Perth, Western Australia to Perth: please don't wheel war. take move request to ANI if need be.) (del/undel) 02:14, 10 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . m Talk:Perth (disambiguation)/Archive 1 ‎ (Kwamikagami moved page Talk:Perth/Archive 1 to Talk:Perth (disambiguation)/Archive 1: please don't wheel war) (del/undel) 02:14, 10 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . m Perth (disambiguation) ‎ (Kwamikagami moved page Perth to Perth (disambiguation) over redirect: please don't wheel war) (del/undel) 02:05, 10 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+681)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language ‎ (→‎Word or expression that originally meant literally what it said but no longer means literally what it says, but is still in use) (del/undel) 01:53, 10 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+189)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language ‎ (→‎Japanese romanization) (del/undel) 01:39, 10 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . m Franks ‎ (del/undel) 01:15, 10 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+339)‎ . . User talk:Kwamikagami/Archive 17 ‎ (→‎Wikimedia Ghana wants you on board) (del/undel) 15:40, 9 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+9)‎ . . 50000 Quaoar ‎ (per further talk at DP) (del/undel) 15:39, 9 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+9)‎ . . 90377 Sedna ‎ (per further talk at DP) (del/undel) 15:39, 9 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+9)‎ . . 90482 Orcus ‎ (per further talk at DP) (del/undel) 15:39, 9 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+9)‎ . . (225088) 2007 OR10 ‎ (per further talk at DP) (del/undel) 15:37, 9 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+367)‎ . . Talk:List of gravitationally rounded objects of the Solar System ‎ (→‎move?) (top) [rollback | sum] (del/undel) 15:35, 9 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+127)‎ . . Talk:Dwarf planet ‎ (→‎Wording in individual articles) (del/undel) 14:41, 9 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-56)‎ . . Roog ‎ (del/undel) 14:39, 9 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-41)‎ . . Roog ‎ (→‎Etymology) (del/undel) 14:37, 9 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+411)‎ . . N Talk:Roog (Serer deity) ‎ (←Created page with 'I don't know if Gravrand is competent to speak on Serer religion, but he apparently in not qualified to speak on etymology. He says Roog is a corruption of Koox,...') (del/undel) 14:30, 9 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-126)‎ . . Roog ‎ (copy edit) (del/undel) 14:27, 9 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-842)‎ . . Roog ‎ (→‎Etymology) (del/undel) 14:21, 9 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-3,639)‎ . . Roog ‎ (→‎Etymology: del. more Gavrand nonsense) (del/undel) 14:19, 9 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-27)‎ . . Faro (mythology) ‎ (Undid revision 496746239 by Tamsier (talk) not RS) (top) [rollback | sum] (del/undel) 14:16, 9 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-41)‎ . . Sandawe people ‎ (Undid revision 496745718 by Tamsier (talk) apparent error) (del/undel) 14:07, 9 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . Shilha language ‎ (→‎Writing system) (del/undel) 14:06, 9 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+509)‎ . . Berber Arabic alphabet ‎ (top) [rollback | sum] (del/undel) 14:06, 9 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-44)‎ . . Central Atlas Tamazight ‎ (del/undel) 14:03, 9 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+44)‎ . . Central Atlas Tamazight ‎ (Undid revision 496748377 by Kwamikagami (talk)) (del/undel) 14:02, 9 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-44)‎ . . Central Atlas Tamazight ‎ (del/undel) 13:58, 9 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-17)‎ . . Berber Arabic alphabet ‎ (del/undel) 13:45, 9 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+148)‎ . . (225088) 2007 OR10 ‎ (Undid revision 496708701 by Ckatz (talk) no objection on talk) (del/undel) 13:44, 9 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+169)‎ . . 90482 Orcus ‎ (Undid revision 496708694 by Ckatz (talk) no objection on Talk) (del/undel) 13:43, 9 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+165)‎ . . 90377 Sedna ‎ (ref) (del/undel) 13:43, 9 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+29)‎ . . 50000 Quaoar ‎ (del/undel) 13:42, 9 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+138)‎ . . 50000 Quaoar ‎ (del/undel) 13:40, 9 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-12)‎ . . 90377 Sedna ‎ (Undid revision 496708691 by Ckatz (talk) no objection raised on Talk after several days) (del/undel) 13:39, 9 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-10)‎ . . 50000 Quaoar ‎ (Undid revision 496708677 by Ckatz (talk) no objection raised on Talk after several days) (del/undel) 13:39, 9 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+332)‎ . . User talk:Ckatz ‎ (→‎DP wording: new section) (del/undel) 04:35, 9 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-7)‎ . . Andhra Pradesh ‎ (over precision) (del/undel) 02:48, 9 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+10)‎ . . Khariboli ‎ (rv: 1 pointless & 1 inconsistent)

PhilKnight (talk) 15:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) PhilKnight, that is the log for after the move, not before. Here is the discussion that occurred between JHunterJ's move and Kwami's move. I have added bolding to the part that pertains to the rationale for Kwami's move:

Extended content

The result of the move request was: pages moved per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I will update the hatnote to include a direct link to the location in Scotland, so that readers seeking that will still be the same one-click from it. Both have long-term significance, but the readership usage does indicate a better efficient arrangement by putting the Australian city at the base name, and being the namesake is not one of the primary topic criteria (which also leads to the arrangement of places like Boston). -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC) Changed to no consensus. Previous close sounds too much like a support and too little like an impartial close. Discussion has clearly yielded no consensus nor has it revealed any clear policy application. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC) My closing comments were not a vote, but a summary of the applicable guidelines brought up in the discussion. If you ignore WP:NOTVOTE and simply count heads, yes, there appears to be no consensus, but if you read the text and discard the ones that do not line up with Wikipedia guidelines and policies (WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, WP:RMCI), there move was indicated. You should have gotten an uninvolved admin to review. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC) J, there is indisputably no consensus on the discussion; that's not "head-counting", that's reading the discussion. "Consensus" is not a synonym for "something I agree with", it is a state of agreement/disagreement. If you wanted to express your opinion on the topic like you've done, you should be taking part in the discussion, not closing (as it stands you've made no reference to the discussion you implicitly claim to have read). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC) I have posted to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive755#Perth to ask that the original closure be restored, and then any editor who wishes can take the issue to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closure review. I believe the latter is the standard procedure for contesting a closure, rather than unilaterally reversing it. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 00:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC) D, there is only disputably no consensus in the discussion, and I dispute it after sifting the !votes through relevant guidelines and policies. You are a member of the Scotland Wikiproject and not impartial. Search for "PRIMARYTOPIC", "primary", "usage", "significance", and "namesake" in the discussion below to see the parts that I made reference to in my closing comments. the proper reference to the "primary topic" guidelines. I have no connection to Australia or its project, and some MacAdams ancestry, so any partiality I have (other than towards Wikipedia guidelines) would have been opposite the close I made. "A close I don't agree with" is not a synonym for "not impartial". -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC) I restored the move. If it is was badly done, of if JHunterJ has a COI, there are channels to deal with that. Wheel warring over a controversial article is not a constructive approach. And given how long this debate has been going on, the time it would take to go through channels is not significant. — kwami (talk) 02:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Neotarf (talk) 00:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Neotarf, the edits I quoted were from before the move. PhilKnight (talk) 00:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I see now, the order is reversed, with later ones on top. Kwami comments at 02:26, 10 June 2012; it seems to be a response to or continuation of the previous discussion, specifically about getting someone to restore the title in order to take it elsewhere for proper discussion. I have bolded Kwami's comment as well. Neotarf (talk) 00:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, but as far as I can tell, the finding of fact in regard to Kwami is correct. PhilKnight (talk) 07:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

No, no, no, no, not correct at all. The finding says there was no discussion, but there was discussion here [2] and here [3] and here [4]

This discussion is the crux of the entire problem. 1) JHunterJ admits there was no consensus to move, but moves anyway, citing PRIMARYTOPIC. 2) P.T. Aufrette asks for the original closure be restored, saying that is the standard procedure for contesting a closure. 3) Kwami complies with P.T. Aufrette's request, citing the need to go to the proper venue for contesting any conflict of interest issues, instead of just reverting.

This "conflict of interest" issue has been causing great disruption with RM discussions, and was in part the reason for the creation of the new Move Request Review procedure. Many say that JHunterJ acts as if any particular titling issue can be resolved by applying one particular policy, PRIMARYTOPIC, while ignoring all other applicable titling policies, and ignoring consensus. So far, four of his RM closures have been brought to Move Request Review and many have called his closures a "supervote". This takes place within the context of the larger issue of whether a particular policy can become written in stone to the point where it trumps consensus. This Perth case has been at ANI and RMV without touching on this "conflict of interest" issue. When the Perth case was brought to ArbCom, several editors said that JHunterJ had COI and should have recused himself.

This "conflict of interest" issue is why the case was brought to ArbCom. This is what the community cannot agree on, and what they want someone to resolve. But instead, ArbCom has shot the messenger.

Neotarf (talk) 11:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The finding is "Kwamikagami participated in the request for move discussion, and reinstated the original decision by moving the pages at 02:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC) without discussing the matter first." Your diffs don't show this is wrong, as they show comments made by other editors, and an edit by Kwami after the move. PhilKnight (talk) 13:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, Kwami had the last word, there's no doubt about that. But how could anyone say there was no discussion? Kwami's "if JHunterJ has a COI" clearly refers to the heated discussion between JHunterJ and Deacon of Pndapetzim over JHJ's impartiality. And Kwami's statement: "...there are channels to deal with that. Wheel warring over a controversial article is not a constructive approach. And given how long this debate has been going on, the time it would take to go through channels is not significant..." is clearly in response to, and in agreement with, P.T. Aufrette's request that the "original closure be restored" as "the standard procedure for contesting a closure". [5] And at this point, it did look like consensus; they had agreed to disagree, and the discussion did indeed move to other channels for dispute resolution. What was left to say?

I would be a lot more sympathetic to the idea that the arbs might have examined the above conversation prior to voting if someone had discovered that the second diff in the "Proposed findings of fact" for Gnangarra doesn't work. [6] I'm not saying I could have done any better if presented with a huge volume of verbiage that I was not even being paid to look at, but in this case it's not just something like a hyphen versus a dash slipping through the cracks, it's a question of fairness.

The background definition of wheelwarring also needs to be examined more closely. With edit warring there is a "bright line" of 4RR in 24 hours, but edit warring is also defined by patterns and not just stringent rule. That is, intentions are taken into account, such as waiting 25 hours for that 4th revert. With wheelwarring, I understand there is no "bright line", that is, everything is taken in context. The actions of the involved admins should be considered within the timeline of other actions, and along with stated and observed intentions, such as taking the dispute to various dispute resolution processes.

The more I look at the details of Kwami's supposed wheel warring (at animal rights movement) during this case — that supposedly was a deciding factor in the decision to desyssop — the less convinced I am that it was actually wheelwarring. There should have been a separate finding for this. I don't know if Wikipedia operates on a presumption of innocence or a presumption of guilt, but if a decision about Kwami was going to be made based on something that was not presented in the evidence, then new evidence for that should be presented, and it should be examined openly. Neotarf (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Ironically, the move logs you quoted there just prove my point about the failure of arbitrators to actually engage with the parties to this case. kwami clearly said there in the move log: "please don't wheel war. take move request to ANI if need be". That by itself Neotarf (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)should make it obvious that he (rightly or wrongly) didn't see himself as wheel-warring and was asking people to stop and discuss the matter. Now, he may have been wrong to do that, and he may have been wrong to 'communicate by move log summary' instead of telling the admin directly, but then the question arises, why did no arbitrator make the effort to go to kwami's talk page and ask him directly what he meant by his move log summary and why he didn't think that it was wheel-warring? (If going to someone's talk page feels wrong, post a formal question in the section provided for that and ask a clerk to notify the party). That is the logical thing to do when trying to sort out such a case. If you expect administrators to go to other people's talk pages and discuss things with them, surely the same should be expected of arbitrators, or is is a case of being summoned to answer a case and having to go there? If so, the case notifications should make that clear. Though it seems if you don't turn up to a case, the arbitrators won't actually notice anyway. Drafting and voting on proposals seems to be more important than actually talking to the parties facing sanctions. About the log for that period, you can replace the above with this link. Carcharoth (talk) 18:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Carcharoth, Kwami didn't just " 'communicate by move log summary' instead of telling the admin directly", the exact statement was "I restored the move. If it is was badly done, of if JHunterJ has a COI, there are channels to deal with that. Wheel warring over a controversial article is not a constructive approach. And given how long this debate has been going on, the time it would take to go through channels is not significant." Here is the link [7], and here is the exact diff [8], although it needs to be read in context with the rest of the discussion. I read it as a response to this request [9]. (The edit summary says "requesting restoration of original close, which can be contested in the standard way at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closure review rather than by unilateral reverse"). Neotarf (talk) 01:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe my move was in response to that, as well as to JHunterJ's defense of his close here: [10] — kwami (talk) 06:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be a very clear case of the Arbitration Committee imposing a judgment on kwami that is totally out of line based on the facts of this case. Kwami was clearly trying to help the situation rather than continue a wheel war. He said as much in his defense, "I thought I was doing the right thing." Wikipedia is becoming less and less like the cooperative encyclopedic endeavor that it once was and is becoming more and more focused on breeding a generation of wikilawyers who do nothing but find ways to use its policies as hammers. While Newyorkbrad was a welcome voice of reason in this particular arbitration, I can't say that about any of the other arbitrators involved. Has absolute power corrupted? When I first started asking questions here, I was willing to give the Arbitration Committee the benefit of the doubt, but the more I've read, the more I'm convinced that kwami's punishment was more of an abuse of too much power without a sufficient process to constrain that power. Who is watching the watchers? --Taivo (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Kwami wheel warred while involved, and my first preference was to admonish him, and my second preference to desyop. I honestly don't consider that to be totally out of line or an abuse of power. PhilKnight (talk) 23:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

All these admins were wheel-warring while involved, PhilKnight. That's the problem. But even though Kwami was the least involved of all the admins in this case, he was slapped with a major penalty and the others weren't even slapped on the wrist with minor penalties. "Admonishment" is nothing. Kwami was unjustly treated and the more I read the more I'm convinced of this. You didn't vote to desysop anyone else even though their involvement in this problem was clearly far more than Kwami's. Sorry PhilKnight, but your "it wasn't my first choice" rings hollow since it was still one of your choices. Those who were causing the problems here got no penalty, the one who was involved the least got desysopped. I ask my question again, "Who's watching the watchers?" This is wikilawyering run amok and simply encourages the environment of more and more wikilawyers on more and more pages driving the best and most qualified editors away. --Taivo (talk) 01:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

One more comment on the issue of "preference" in ArbCom voting--it doesn't mean a damn thing. If you write "second choice" after a "Yes" vote it's still counted as a "Yes" vote for that question just like the other "Yes" votes. The result of the vote for Kwami to be desysopped was 11 to 1, not 10.5 to 1. The whole notion of ArbCom members writing "second choice" is ludicrous. It is the equivalent of giving one member of a firing squad a blank, so that there is plausible deniability, but it doesn't matter one whit to the executee. If you didn't want him desysopped, then you should have voted "No" on the desysop option, not "second choice". --Taivo (talk) 06:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Tavio, in case you don't understand, first and second preferences are used to determine which motion passes in situations where two or more alternate motions are passing. Otherwise, Deacon wasn't wheel warring, at least not according to WP:WHEEL, and Kwami's conduct wasn't mitigated by discussing the move before hand. PhilKnight (talk) 07:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean "Taivo"? In the end, the Arbitration Committee needed a sacrificial lamb to appease the policy gods, so they picked the admin who said the least during the proceedings and had a back history that could be used to justify their actions. So Kwami is desysopped and nothing happens to anyone else involved. --Taivo (talk) 13:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about the typo. PhilKnight (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment, since someone just told me this was still going on:

I thought I was helping by enforcing the RfM decision. Although I had voted some time earlier, that wasn't my reason for restoring the move, which was simply that when an admin closes a RfM, they shouldn't be reverted arbitrarily. Arbcom agreed with me on this point. This wasn't a case of an admin making a WP:BOLD move out of the blue, being reverted with a coherent objection, and then me redoing the move because I liked it, but of the closure of a RfM after extended discussion being reverted because someone disagreed. We can't have a functional RfM system if anyone who disagrees with the closing decision can just revert it: In a case like this, which has seen multiple page moves, isn't that what an RfM is designed to resolve? 

I was asked here why I didn't let an uninvolved admin handle it. Well, after being reverted, that's what I did.

As for not defending myself on these pages, the initial Arbcom proposal looked like a case of several people being trouted for not discussing things properly. I didn't see much point in expending a lot of verbiage justifying my actions. I see too much of that: the "squid defense", as Stephen Jay Gould once put it: hiding behind a cloud of ink. I figured that people could judge for themselves from the page histories; my talking wouldn't change the facts, and therefore shouldn't effect that. If I got trouted, fine, I'd learn that I shouldn't interfere in such cases; or Arbcom might agree with me, since (I thought) I was defending the integrity of WP. So I expected to eventually be told what they'd decided, either to be trouted for inappropriate (but minor) action, told that I went about it the wrong way, etc. Whatever the decision, I'd have a better idea what to do in such cases in the future, and I had no problem with Arbcom making that call. Since I wasn't engaged in further discussion, I had no idea that the originally minor case had escalated to this extent. Evidently I wasn't notified. I was taken by surprise when I was told I was desysopped, and at first I thought it was a prank. Then I came here and was told that to some extent it was my fault I got desysopped for, in essence, not wikilawyering my case, that I should have been making these arguments all along when I was perfectly willing to let Arbcom decide on the facts instead, and to notify me of what if anything I had done wrong.

— kwami (talk) 23:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• @Kwami: The evidence in an RFAR case generally gets bigger and bigger, and even though there are more ArbCom members than when I initially started as AC Clerk, it still doesn't mean that ArbCom can really gather its own evidence. (as in, except extremely special cases, they can only do with what they are given.) Thus, it still falls to all participants in an RFAR to follow-up with evidence that others have provided against them and defend, etc. (This is also why evidence limit exist, so to make life simpler for all involved.) - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 07:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Kwami, with all respect, if you really take such a lackadaisical approach to matters you're involved in then you deserved to have lost the tools. It's a pretty basic expectation that admins will take part in discussions concerning their use of the tools, especially when this is raised in one of the dispute resolution forums. Nick-D (talk) 08:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, this was presented as a matter of trouting inappropriate behavior, and I had no problem with that. It was not presented as s.t. that needed much defense: If Arbcom decided to admonish me for going about the problem in the wrong way, I had no problem with that, and no reason to think it would be anything more than that. We're constantly chiding each other for not assuming good faith, and here it turns out that I had assumed too much good faith: that what was presented as a minor problem would be treated as a minor problem. — kwami (talk) 09:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Third arbitrary break

Initially started in wrong section and moved here. Carcharoth (talk) 21:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I must admit I'm slightly surprised that very little comment has been made here so far about [the Fae case] compared to others. The Perth case decision is generating far more commentary, and from what I've seen so far, some valid points are being raised. It's not the usual rhetoric, but a range of editors actually making cogent points. The more I look at it, the more I think something went wrong there in the approach the arbs took to that case. It will be interesting to see whether ArbCom can be responsive to that or not, or whether the usual post-case apathy will kick in at some point. Carcharoth (talk) 06:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Carcharoth, remember that Kwami could stand for re-election at WP:RFA today if he wants to. Considering the vote was 11-1, I doubt that ArbCom are going to overturn the decision. PhilKnight (talk) 07:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

To be blunt: no, he can't. 'Tools removed by ArbCom and applying for them back a week later' – no one is going to pass that RfA, no matter how good an admin they were. If you want to stand by your decision, that's fine, but don't point to RfA as if it's a realistic option. Jenks24 (talk) 07:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, this may be an exception. The disapproval with arbcom here is even more unified than it was with RF a few months ago. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay Carcharoth, I'll bite - what do you think went wrong? Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly the sort of thing I have been talking about. Decisions like this to desysop kwami for doing what they thought was the appropriate thing is causing other admins to think twice about being bold and doing what are sometimes controversial admin functions. As for standing for reelection why on Earth would they want too. RFA is a painful process and its highly unlikely that the majority would want to go through it. In many cases its very likely that they won't even edit anymore so we are essentially eating our own young. This is just another example of a bad decision. Kumioko (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Disregarding everything else, I think it's highly unlikely that any ArbCom decisions have had an effect on the RfA trend. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying it was a good decision, but I want to address one point that keeps coming up. I think most admins know that wheel warring while involved is probably not a good idea. I also think most admins know what wheel warring is, and wouldn't use an edit summary like "stop wheel warring" when they reinstate a reversed administrative operation. Also, after getting named as a party at arbcom for a case of several people being trouted for not discussing things properly—even if that's all it was—most admins would probably not restore their own page moves after getting reverted before any kind of discussion. This is all pretty straightforward to most admins, I think; this is not near the gray area where we want admins to "be bold and do something controversial". ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks, Cas. Here is my take on things. What has been going on here should be clear from the threads above, from the talk page of the proposed decision and the thread at WT:AC/C (the one about notifying parties to cases). But if you want a new summary here it is along these sort of lines: I get that people can dismiss most concerns with a "kwami should have been more attentive to what was happening", but the basic gripe I have is that it seems that no arbs or clerks managed to notice that Gnangarra and kwamikagami (two of the four parties facing sanctions) were essentially absent from the case. That is the sort of detail that I thought arbs used to be attentive about, and to be aware of. Nick-D correctly pointed out that kwami should have paid more attention himself, but fails to address the point that Gnangarra was on a break and didn't ask for the case to be delayed while he was on his break. Should Gnangarra have paid more attention to the case, or does it not matter in his case because the desysopping narrowly failed to pass?

There is also a procedural point that kwami may have seen the initial proposed decision (only proposing an admonishment) and not been aware that desysopping proposals were added later (he has said he was completely blindsided when the final decision and desysopping notification appeared on his talk page and he thought it was a prank. Whether you believe that or not (on balance, I wouldn't disbelieve it), it should at least be responded to.

The other point is that some of the timelines and points raised above do seem to actually be making a good case that there has been a misunderstanding over what kwami did and intended to do (see in particular what kwami himself has said). My view is that both kwami and ArbCom should have made more effort here. ArbCom should have made an effort to get kwami's side of the story, and kwami should have made an effort to present his side of things. i.e. A general all round failure of communication. (Yes, I know people will say that the onus was on kwami, but it reflects poorly on ArbCom that they seemingly couldn't be bothered to try and get the views of two of the parties placed on the record other than the initial statements made).

Cas, is that clear enough, or would you like it broken down a bit more to make it easier to follow? It really is worth reading what others have said above and elsewhere as well (there is a very important general complaint being made that the final decision is very unclear to those looking at it for the first time, many of whom understandably fail to comprehend why kwami was desysopped and Gnangarra wasn't - that is a failure of the arbs to add the necessary clarity to the case to distinguish the two remedies). If you think it is worth other arbitrators looking in more detail at this (rather than just a cursory glance and moving on), please do point them here. It may be that kwami would like some sort of clarification or amendment request filed to present his side of things (or maybe not), and it may be worth clarifying the final decision regardless (see what was said here). The question I suppose is whether ArbCom is flexible enough to listen to what has been said here, or is more likely to go 'meh' and move on. The human face of ArbCom versus the bureaucratic side of things. Carcharoth (talk) 21:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It's worth noting that most editors - including, I suspect, a majority of admins - aren't at all familiar with ArbCom's procedures. I know I wasn't at the time I participated in the only case to which I've been a party. From what I've seen, the Committee and clerks are aware of this and generally do a good job of making allowances (though I think that too much leeway is given to uncivil editors who continue to use cases to mount personal attacks). In this case the proposed decision contained some elements which I don't believe had been raised in the workshop, and the proposal to desysop Gnangarra was (in my view) pretty extreme given his good history, so improved communications would have helped. I suspect that this case may have fallen victim to the unusually complex and resource-intensive Fæ case which was going on at the same time. Nick-D (talk) 23:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Whether the arbs agree with that or not is another matter. I'm hoping (though not holding my breath) that some of the arbs will be willing to admit that communication with the parties facing sanctions could have been better in this case. I wrote a lot more, but deleted it as I want to hear what arbs have to say and I've said enough already. Carcharoth (talk) 00:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

For the records I think the Ban for Fae was probably appropriate given the circumstances. I do think that a lot of time was probably wasted on the case given that the hend result was clear from the beginning I just think that Kwami became collatoral damage in this case and that was the point I was trying to make above. It seemed more like Arbcom was trying to make a point and showing they had the power rather than they were doing it because the recipient warranted to be desysopped. Kumioko (talk) 12:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Until Wikimania -- I.e. after the closure of the evidence phase, there was no serious prospect of Fae being banned. His adminship resignation was heading to being marked as under a cloud, but the ban was entirely a late stage twist. ϢereSpielChequers 19:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

My views on the desyopping remedy are set forth on the proposed decision page and its talkpage. I also agree that given that Kwamikagami was obviously not participating in the arbitration case, it would have been good practice to give him a heads-up when a proposal to desysop him was added to the proposed decision. The Committee has discussed making sure this happens if a similar situation arises in future cases, and I will make a point of making sure that such notifications are given. In fact, in this instance, given that I devoted several days of my wikilife to trying to head off what I considered three disproportionate and unencessary deysoppings that were proposed in this case, I probably should have posted such a message to Kwamikagami myself or asked a clerk to do so. However, based on the arbitrators' subsequent comments, it does not appear that any communication failure in this regard impacted the result.

In view of (among other things) the issues raised on this talkpage after the case closed, I have considered proposing a motion to modify the sanction imposed on Kwamikagami. However, I have no reason to believe that any of the arbitrators who voted in favor of the deysopping is prepared to change his or her view. It would serve no purpose for me to move to reopen this issue unless there is some reasonable possibility that a new vote would lead to a different result.

Finally, although I continue to disagree with the outcome of the case very strongly, I do not agree with those who are seemingly attributing bad-faith motivations to other arbitrators. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Brad, thanks for the comments here. In particular, thanks for saying that "The Committee has discussed making sure [notification] happens if a similar situation arises in future cases, and I will make a point of making sure that such notifications are given". Before you posted what you said above, it appeared that the Committee were ignoring this matter. In particular, Casliber asked me a direct question above, and then completely failed to come back with any sort of reply at all to what I said in response to him, which was more than a bit disappointing (I waited patiently for much of the week). I would have asked Casliber on his talk page if he was intending to reply, but it looks like he is busy with article-related stuff (much like kwami was when no-one bothered to go to his talk page). There are direct parallels here. Just as some said that kwami should have followed the case and not needed notification, you would expect that an arbitrator who asks a direct question should not need reminding four days later to check to see if a reply has been posted (even though I moved the subthread, it is not difficult to follow where the question went to). I was hoping Casliber would post something along the lines of "yes, I agree", or "no, I disagree", or "we are discussing this". But instead, just nothing. On the more general matter, might I suggest that if the committee are discussing matters mentioned on this noticeboard talk page, that they should either post updates like the one you have just made, or at the least leave a note saying that the matter is being discussed.

There is also the point that this is not just about the sanction imposed, but also about the clarity of the decision handed down. Have the committee been discussing that? It's all in the posts above, so I won't bother to repeat it, but the point has been made several times that some additional clarification would help here, or at the least recognising that cases hastily closed or changed at the last minute, may end up looking a bit strange (i.e. too much focus on whether remedies were passing or not, and not enough focus on whether the remedies would make sense in terms of the principles and findings). I would have expected the more legal-minded of those on the committee to have picked up on that, or at the least be suggesting that a post-case clarification would help. Carcharoth (talk) 00:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

@Carch - Any admin brought before the committee with use of tools brought into question should be aware that desysopping will be discussed at some point. Anyone who's been here for any length of time knows that aribtration is the place of last resort and the place where sanctions get handed out frequently. I didn't participate in the case, and my time has been limited for the past few weeks, so didn't follow it closely. Had I been involved in this case and I noticed a party that was not participating, then yes I'd think seriously about pinging them. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't aware that you weren't active on the case (I had assumed that you had been when you asked that question above). I think the wider point about communication has been made here. I'll just reiterate what I said above, that both parties to the case (kwami and others) and arbitrators should have made more effort to communicate here. I would hope that in future that all arbitrators active on a case and voting sanctions through will check to see if the person facing sanctions has participated in the post-acceptance stages of the case. That should be an absolute minimum standard. And if someone isn't participating, ping them (you might find out why they are not participating, it is dangerous to make assumptions as different editors have different reasons for this), wait a bit, and if they still ignore the case, then propose and vote through a standard set of principles and findings about non-participation in cases. Should all be part of the standard checks and balances.

Anyway, I know from personal experience how difficult it is for ArbCom as a body to change and accept criticism, so I'll leave it there. Having you and Brad accept that the criticism about notification is at least in part justified, and both saying that you would have (or would have considered) notifying people if you have noticed they weren't participating in the case, is enough for me (though if other arbitrators were to step up and say something, that would show they are willing to respond in public). If kwami wants to take any of this further, that is up to him. And if others want to carry on with the point about the lack of clarity of the decision, that's up to them. I'd support that, but as I only really have time to reply here at weekends, I'll leave this for now. Carcharoth (talk) 11:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The only other Arbcom case I followed was capitalization, [11] because it also involved WP:TITLE. That case took 3 months to resolve and had 19 editors named as "involved parties". Most of them just stated briefly whatever they knew about the subject, then made some comment along the lines of "Let me know if I need to pay attention to this discussion." I only realized it just now, but Kwami was also named as an involved party and made a similar statement. There was also comment to the effect that "'involved party' does not mean 'potential recipient of sanctions', it just means "person who participated in discussions related to the dispute". Is it really clear what someone needs to do when they are named as a party?

I have been watching to see if Arbcom will offer some further explanation of the decision, but it seems not. It would certainly help further discussion about admin behavior. For one, it seems there were quite few people who lacked an understanding of wheelwarring: involvement, use of tools, how many reverts, etc. Since the current official description wheelwarring seems to be counterintuitive, this also raises question about whether the policies and guidelines have really been decided on by consensus of the best practices of what we already do, or if they need to be reconsidered. If there is a consensus that wheelwarring is a Bad Thing, and if wheelwarring is to be defined differently between admins and regular editors; at the very least, there should be a practice in place to notify someone when they have crossed the threshold and give them the opportunity to revert. This was done on Kwami's talk page with so-called animal-rights wheel war move that was much discussed behind the scenes during the case. Instead of tsk-tsking the sequence of events, it should be taken as an example of how this type of notification can work to guide admin actions.

But there were several involved admins, and only one desyssop, so the issue wasn't wheel warring. Kwami's talk page now has some statement about "my general lack of diplomatic skills". While I haven't personally interacted much with this individual, it strikes me as an unfair thing to say, and something Arbcom could offer some feedback on, if for no other reason than as guidance for other admins.

Too many of Wikpedia's procedures resemble a frat hazing. Maybe it's time to discuss "community de-adminship" again, to remove arbcom as the only route for de-adminship. There's a project for RfA reform here now, they would probably welcome suggestions: [12] Neotarf (talk) 12:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that reviewing the proposed decision page and talkpage reflects the basis for the decision, even if it's not fully clear from the actual decision itself. The proposed decision as posted included only admonition remedies, but very quickly, three desysoppings were proposed—of Deacon (who took the second action in the so-called "wheel war"), Kwamkagami (the third), and Gnangarra (the fourth).

Ultimately, Deacon wound up receiving the originally proposed admonition because several arbitrators concluded that an initial reversion of an admin action, while not best practice, restored the status quo and wasn't wheel-warring.

Gnangarra was right on the verge of being desysopped for "wheel warring while involved" (since he'd !voted on the disputed pagemove), and was spared at the very last moment (after the case was already slated to close) because two arbitrators changed their votes based on the fact that Gnangarra had apparently never engaged in any similar behavior during a productive five-plus year tenure as an administrator. I believe the arbitrators who voted to desysop Gnangarra still think that that would have been the right result and that a serious mistake was made in backing off (although the two arbitrators who changed their minds at the last moment are not exactly softies).

As for Kwamikagami, despite his own record of very solid contributions as an editor and an administrator, no one could make the claim that he's never been accussed of edit-warring or move-warring before, so no one changed their votes at the last minute. I argued on his behalf that he thought he was doing the right thing in the situation, and that desysopping was disproportionate and excessive. The other arbitrators obviously disagreed with me to greater or lesser extents.

I don't mean to speak for my "stricter" colleagues, but I think some of them thought that it was necessary to accept this case to emphasize a "bright line" rule that "wheel warring" is not permitted, especially by "involved" administrators, and that a violation will lead to desysopping. I'm obviously not a fan of wheel-warring or move-warring either, but I'm equally not a fan of bright-line rules about sanctions if they mean we don't consider the specific facts and equities of each individual case. It is not as if the project is so beseiged by wheel-wars and move-wars that we needed to find someone to make an example of in order to crack down on the practice. In fact, as far as I recall, this Committee's last "wheel warring" case was more than three and one-half years ago, and resulted in no desysoppings at all. (Subsequently Trusilver was desysopped on motion by a divided vote for violating a so-called bright-line rule against reversing arbitration enforcement actions without consensus—but that's a special circumstance, and even so, the summary desysopping for a single incident was quite controversial at the time.)

I suppose what I am saying here is that it's understandable to disagree with the decision—I still disagree with it myself—but there shouldn't be much confusion regarding what the basis for it was. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Newyorkbrad that was a very good summary of what happened and it does finally clear up what was going through Arbcom's head.I do also disagree with this decision, obviously. As I have stated before though I also think that there are 2nd and third level consequences to Arbcom's repeatedly desysopping admins who are only a party to and not a direct recipient in, these cases. The message that Arbcom is sending, whether their intention or not, is that Admins who are a party to a case, regardless of the level of their involvement, are going to be subject to review and possibly liable to receive some sort of sanction as well. This leads to at least 2 possible results. Admins will be less willing to make "difficult or unpopular decisions" and admins will be less likely to participate in these cases. In both cases its an undesirable result. Over the last several months there have already been at least a dozen discussions on various pages about this by various individuals who say that they are thinking twice about performing certain actions, even applying for adminship, because if they do they could be opening themselves up to Arbcom. I am 100% certain that is not how Arbcom wants to be viewed but that is whats happening because of these types of decisions. I have certainly been an outspoken critic but there are a lot more folks out there that think these decisions are doing more harm than good. Many are just afraid to speak up so those that are asking for these cases, agree with Arbcom or are trying to be Arbcom are the majority of the ones that are commenting. Just be clear that not everyone out there agrees with these cases nor with the decisions levied from them. They just don't want to get involved in them either. Kumioko (talk) 15:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Kumioko, see my reply to you above; it really is not hard to avoid using administrative tools while you're involved in an issue. This is pretty straightforward. It's also pretty straightforward to not adopt 0RR on administrative actions. This shouldn't be difficult, and I don't think these are the "difficult or unpopular" decisions that we want admins to make! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Everyone makes mistakes and many of the rules are subjective so no rule in WP, no matter who obvious it may appear, is as clear as you make it sound. You can believe it or not, you can agree with it or not, but the bottom line is the decisions made here have a ripple effect. One ripple moves the water, more ripples start to shuffle the grass and wet the rocks, eventually those ripples will begin to erode away at things. Speaking on ORR we should never impose a punishment below 1RR or else we tell editors that they cannot revert vandalism. This is precisely the sort of short sighted and nonsensical punishment that Arbcom should not be doing. Just something to think about. Kumioko (talk) 18:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

BASC mailing list

Original announcement

Please note that the creation of a dedicated mailing list for ban appeals is intended to streamline our internal "paperwork" flow relating to communications about requests concerning banned and long-term-blocked users. This is not meant as any sort of substantive change regarding how we consider these requests or the criteria we use in deciding them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I would have expected this to also be a necessary prerequisite for bringing non-arbitrators on board the BASC; can we get an update on where the committee stands on that? — Coren ^(talk) 23:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the committee is mostly taking a mental break after three grueling and concurrent cases. There are no active ArbCom discussions on it at this point, but individual arbitrators (other than me, of course...) may be personally working offline on proposals after the last round of input. Jclemens (talk) 06:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I know what that feels like. Thanks for the update. — Coren ^(talk) 12:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ closed

Original announcement

• I note that all of Fae's previous accounts and socks are not blocked. Seems like it would be appropriate for an Arb to block them all. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

  I've blocked all of the accounts that were listed in finding of fact 2, which I omitted to do when blocking the primary account. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you, arbitrators, for issuing such a carefully weighed decision in this case, and for enacting remedies which are both justified by and proportionate to the infractions of the three non-filing parties. I am hopeful that this decision will allow the community to move on from what was probably the most toxic interpersonal dispute I witnessed during my time on Wikipedia, and perhaps the worst to reach the Arbitration Committee since C68-FM-SV. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
  • And thank YOU for taking the time to recognize us for the time and investment that we make into seeking appropriate and proportionate balance. The encouragements seem few and far between compared to the loud and unhappy voices at times. Jclemens (talk) 22:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Take heart from the fact that while thanks for your efforts may not be verbalized often, it is viewable in the stable growth (both size and quality) of the encyclopedia. The only reason you don't have 100 more commendations like the one above is that the editors who benefit from your work are too busy editing! 174.233.131.24 (talk) 05:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'll go ahead and echo A Stop at Willoughby's encouragement. You all have worked hard on three simultaneous, contentious cases and made an effort to reach equitable judgments in each of them. Not that I endorse every decision in all particulars (I haven't spent enough time reviewing the evidence, especially the off wiki stuff in the Fae case, to form a complete judgement), but it is clear to me that the arbiters have, collectively and to all appearances individually, made a concerted effort to get things right. Thus, in my considered opinion, the criticism which has been directed at the committee qua committee (as opposed to concerns voiced about certain specific findings or remedies) is essentially meritless. Thank you for your work. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Yeah, this in particular was a thought-provoking case. Your words of encouragement are much appreciated. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
    • My initial post here was off-topic (it was really about the Perth case). So I'm removing it and the responses, and placing them in the above section with a diff here of the removal, the re-addition, and a link to the new location. Carcharoth (talk) 20:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Thanks for taking the time to wade through the morass of accusations to come to a decision that should put an end to this drama for now. While I don't know if anyone is totally satisfied with the decision, I think we can all respect the time and effort you put into sorting this all out. As some advice for future cases, perhaps you guys should stop the countdown clock from ticking when introducing new sanctions and imposing punishments at the 11th hour. When the case has already gone on over a month the least you could do is leave it open a few more days for parties to comprehend, analyse, and discuss the ramifications of the evidence given (in this case, Fae's appeal to the WMF). ThemFromSpace 14:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• I was recused in this case and inactive on the other two (our busiest time fell at my busiest time of the year), but as a general matter I don't think anyone is ever totally satisfied with an arbitration decision. It's the nature of the beast. AGK [•] 19:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't really follow the case too much and didn't really even comment to the end. This was partially because the end was never in doubt, the user, as with almost all other users who have been brought before Arbcom was banned from editing. It seems this is, with very little exception, the only punishment available to use. Kumioko (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Rack and thumbscrews don't work so well in cyberspace. I would point out that in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree_shaping#Remedies no one got banned, and in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Monty Hall problem#Remedies the user who was banned only suffered that fate because of the extraordinary rampage he went on during the case. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Besides, Kumioko's rant (I'm sorry, as they themselves note, they didn't follow the case, so all I can term their statement a rant riddled with confirmation bias) ignores the facts on the issues. If the situation was so sure that a party would get banned, why would I post a complete Proposed Decision and then add it in? Whenever I draft a case, I'm certainly not looking at the situation saying "Gee, who can I ban on this case?". The ban was only added after a completely unprecedented level of stonewalling and disruption. Up until this point, all that was passing was an admonishment, and a note that the party had resigned their tools during the case and a new RfA would be required. To say that "banning was inevitable" is not only wrong, it quite simply shows willfull ignorance.

The job we do here on the Committee isn't any fun. It's not supposed to be any fun. Arbitrators give up a lot of their time to try to deal with the various issues that require top-level dispute resolution. That means the Committee gets drawn into every heated dispute that lower levels on Wikipedia haven't been able to resolve. Over time, this is Chinese Water Torture of the soul.. we do this job not for fame or money (The most famous any of us have ever gotten was Stephen Colbert going.. WIZARDMAN??? over the Scientology case). We do this because we agree with the goals of Wikipedia, a free encyclopedia that's available to all.

Criticism of what we do is inevitable. The only people who wouldn't get criticized would be those people who don't do anything in the role, but then again, they would be criticized for that too. I'm not saying we can't be criticized.. what I'm saying is that if you're going to do it, please have your facts straight and have it be more than "You sanctioned (me or someone that I liked/worked with", which sadly is a really high percentage of the criticism we face.".

Also, when the end of the year rolls around, if you think you can do a better job, please, PLEASE run. As I say on my user page.. "Several years ago, I took umbrage with a Committee decision, and I wondered how the Old Guard could have got it so wrong. Now, after three years in the job, I AM the Old Guard." That's why I'm not running this year when my term expires. For not only the Committee's sake (the job is not a lifetime appointment, it must always have new blood and new ideas to keep things from stultifying), but for my own sake, because when everything you do Wikipedia wise has to deal with the worst of Wikipedia has to offer (Nasty personal disputes, nationalistic wars, amount of quibbling over small things that just shouldn't matter, etcetera).. you lose track of the BEST that Wikipedia has to offer.. the ability to contribute to an encyclopedia that so many people use every day, the feeling of looking over an article you started, reworked or just made a small addition to, and saying "Hey, I did that!". SirFozzie (talk) 21:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Nice rant, SirFozzie! :-) Seriously, I agree with every word you say. I would add that an important part of the job is to look past what those embittered by past arbitration cases say, and to see what others are saying (i.e. don't miss what others are saying and don't miss valid criticism because there is some not-so-valid criticism around). The other, very important point, is that (from what I was told) I got mentioned by Colbert as well (mispronounced as well, apparently). That must never be forgotten... Carcharoth (talk) 21:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I followed the case fairly closely and believe the committee and clerks did an outstanding job. The findings are all well-founded and the remedies are all well-targeted and proportional, and some control was exerted over the worst excesses on the talk pages. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

What really gets me after six years of participating in Wikipedia is that dealing with established editors who don't believe all the rules apply to them is still as big of a problem as it always has been. The rules are applied so inconsistently by WP's administration in venues like ANI and AN. This issue of fairness, or lack thereof, is what drew me to this case. Why wasn't this problem resolved earlier? Why were some editors allowed to insult, hector, and make ad hominem attacks against other editors participating in the second RfC? Why hasn't the problem with Commons' administration been corrected by the WMF? Cla68 (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to discredit my statement as a rant that's perfectly fine with me because in the end I am contributing to the encyclopedia rather than following these predetermined cases. The fact remains that nearly every editor brought before Arbcom was banned with very few exceptions. Regardless of whether I followed the case or not the outcome would have been the same as it is a predetermined fact of the Arbcom's actions. Several Arbcom members have even stated bluntly to the fact that if they were innocent they wouldn't be at Arbcom in the first place. As for showing willful ignorance I can promise you that I can provide more links of cases where the member was banned than you can provide they weren't and that is a fact. Not an opinion, a speculation or an exaggeration. That is because Arbcom cares more about process than the facts and the arguments. Yes they keep the cases open for weeks or months and let everyone vent but in the end the result is the same. Indef blocked, desysopped and or severely restricted. You and the other members of Arbcom can attempt to discredit me as much as you want but as hurtful and as irritating as it may be the statements I am making are 100% true. As for criticism I am not overly critical of other areas of Wikipedia as far as I know. There are plenty out there. The only other one I believe that I have made mention of rather harshly is the RFA process that I also consider to be completely and utterly broken. I wouldn't be criticising Arbcom now if I thought that they were performing their duties accurately and fairly. They are doing neither regarding User cases. Expedient yes, fairly no! Now I am not talking about the whole Fae case here I am talking specifically of the Arbcom decision to desysop Kwami. A very bad decision against a very active contributor and is going to have reprecussions in the community. For the record I am not saying this because me and Kwami are friends, in fact we have had some negative run ins in the past (back in February for one) but I largely think they are a good Admin and a net loss to the pedia. Kumioko (talk) 23:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The reason so many parties get a ban is because we require previous dispute resolution unless the case involves disputes about administrator tools. The committee exists to break logjams not of our making, not of our choosing, but those brought to us by the parties with clear and convincing evidence that the community has tried to resolve them and failed. The primary job of ArbCom is to resolve disputes among parties who are too powerful or well connected to be sanctioned by any other community-based process, but who should be sanctioned for the health of the encyclopedia: we ban the unbannable who deserve it. It's a dirty job, but the community elected us to do it. Jclemens (talk) 23:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

That does a good job of explaining what the purpose of Arbcom is but I still cannot see how the committee's decisions regarding Rich Farmbrough, Will Beback, Kwami or half a dozen others have benefited the pedia. In fact the sanctions and or banning of these individuals in connection with the 2nd and third level effects have dramatically decreased the effectiveness and health of the pedia. Edits are not getting done, bot tasks are not getting done, there is a big backlog in the CCI areas will worked on, admins are hesitant to take action, overall drama is up around the pedia, editors are leaving at an increasing rate, etc. Many of these are influenced or directly related too the decisions of Arbcom over time. You can call me a nut, an idiot, a heretic or whatever. That is what I am seeing as I edit tens of thousands of articles and watch over 22000 pages. You may not agree, you may not want too, but at some point its going to become apparent that there is at least a degree of truth to what I am saying. Wikipedia is changing for the negative and Arbcom actions against users are helping to make that happen. Just like gun control doesn't stop crime, Arbcom actions don't stop disagreements. For what its worth I have largely agreed with the committees non user related decisions. Its the user related decisions that need serious scrutiny and review in my opinion. Kumioko (talk) 00:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

@Jclemens: "The reason so many parties get a ban is because we require previous dispute resolution unless the case involves disputes about administrator tools" .. In the Rich Farmbrough case ArbCom had to scrape everything together to find anything that could be explained as abuse of administrator tools. All ArbCom could find was editing through protection on templates, and unblocking own bots, a common practice that a significant part of the bot-running administrators is guilty of. So no, ArbCom does not need disputes about administrator tools, anything goes to open a case. And I hope that the community did not elect the members of ArbCom to santion editors where the community itself is not powerful enough to do it - I hope the community elected the members of the ArbCom to protect Wikipedia, a task that, IMHO, ArbCom has completely forgotten (per Kumioko, I think that ArbCom actually damages Wikipedia more than what it stops by banning editors). One can only wonder why there are so few encouragements. It is shocking that practically every single case results in banning at least one of the editors, it suggests that it is always the fault of those editors, and never the community (but guess what, the community elected you). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not that the community is not powerful enough to do it, but rather that the community is not united enough to do it. Even so, you see a number of reasonable sanctions that are proposed but not passed in most cases, because an insufficient number of arbitrators are convinced that they are merited. At any rate, since ArbCom cannot make policy, feedback on user conduct is all we have with which to work. I agree that ArbCom should commission better tools to provide positive feedback for administrators who are doing a good job. If we get a break from some contentious cases, I'll see what I can do to get something like that off the ground... Jclemens (talk) 05:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Providing feedback for administrators who are doing a good job is not a task of the Arbitration Committee.

Now that is funny - the community is not united enough to sanction editors. Because the community can not reach consensus whether something that an individual did was actually wrong, ArbCom will (almost without failure) ban that individual (with a few exceptions, which generally means only to desysop the individual). Because the part of the non-united community that actually thinks that it is not the individual that is at fault is by definition wrong. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

@JClemens, what you describe as your duty is not arbitration, it's retribution. The only other constant in the committee's decision over the past months aside from "desysop and ban" as a whole is your incredibly high tolerance of harassment combined with absurdly heavy-handed punishment of the victims who don't have an exemplary conduct themselves. MLauba ^(Talk) 09:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Retribution ("Punishment inflicted in the spirit of moral outrage or personal vengeance", per Wiktionary) requires an interest other than the proper working of the encyclopedia-creation project. My belief in appropriately harsh penalties is based on a desire to ensure that the project continues smoothly, at the expense of those whose conduct, no matter how well-intentioned, has threatened that smooth working. I seek not merely to solve the current problem, but the next one as well. I would actually rather subject chronically misbehaving editors to a Total Perspective Vortex-like attitude adjustment than a ban, but that, alas, is purely fictional. Jclemens (talk) 05:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

'a desire to ensure that the project continues smoothly' .. as I said above, ArbCom is damaging the project more than the disruption it prevents. You are elected to protect the Wikipedia, a task that you have utterly forgotten to perform. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps your assurances would be more credible if the committee's recent votes didn't so often have an undertone of "how DARE he!". Or looking at Perth (which you claim serves to "scare other admins"), the almost ban of Gnangarra over one single mistake cannot in any way or form be considered arbitration. What you and your peers apparently fail to comprehend is that the problem admins are those who believe that they don't make any mistakes and know better than the community. The bar set by Perth and your absurd votes reinforces that rather than remedying it. Mature people make mistakes, admit them, learn from them and move on. Desysopping (or banning non-admins) removes that. Dirk is right. The current arbcom majority is a net negative to the project. MLauba ^(Talk) 08:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

(Replying to SirFozzies statement). ArbCom does not see every unresolved heated dispute, but only a small subset. Many editors just have enough sense to just walk away before the dispute gets to that level, which is not to say the issues are resolved. It's also pretty much impossible for us peanut gallery types to have our facts straight because so much of ArbCom proceedings are done off-wiki (per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Transparency_and_confidentiality). Nobody Ent 00:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• I also am of the opinion that the Committee got it right. And I say that as someone who followed the case closely, and ended up concluding that some of my initial beliefs had been wrong. I'm especially struck by what Sir Fozzie said here, and my heart goes out to you. I keep finding myself thinking that all of you on ArbCom are overworked, and that we, collectively, need to come up with a way to reduce the workload. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Well, one way would be for WP's admin corps to do a better job at policing editor behavior, especially by established editors, so that fewer cases need to go all the way to ArbCom. Cla68 (talk) 23:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• That is a complete impossibility though. Any such action would be contentious, and therefore would require consensus to achieve. And as anyone who regularly watches ANI will know, all you need as an established editor is just enough friends capable of scuttling any consensus to ensure you become practically untouchable. Some of these cases come to ArbCom because the community lacks the ability to overcome such gaming of the system. (and FTR, I am speaking in general terms, not making a point about Fae's case, as I did not follow it closely.) Resolute 17:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone else find it incredible and/or shocking that a sitting member of the WMF has been banned from the flagship project of the WMF? 24.61.9.111 (talk) 05:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

WP UK is a separate organization from the WMF. Cla68 (talk) 08:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Really it's a lot like these things in the outside world; if you accept that in some cases influential (or perceived to be influential) individuals will sometimes be in the wrong (which seems like a given) then it's reassuring to know that they don't get a free pass when it happens. (If you think the decision was itself an injustice then that's another matter, but not related to any shock based on his position in WMUK/WCA) 46.31.205.66 (talk) 12:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't anyone see a problem with banning an official chairman of the WMF from Wikipedia? 24.61.8.83 (talk) 17:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe Kat Walsh has been banned.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'm with everyone else on this page in that I fully support the decision to ban Fæ from Wikipedia. It's a damn shame, though. Fæ's initial situation was somewhat reminiscent of The Undertow/Law from three years back, as he had also made a clean start under a new name and acquired adminship through actively deceiving the community; most would say that's a serious offence, but I truly believe that there are many others among us who've abandoned their old accounts to edit under a new name despite having been controversial to some degree or another, and their true history remains undiscovered to this day. In my mind, whatever. If you're secretly coming back and have no intention of causing any further trouble (or have otherwise matured to the degree where you can avoid provoking drama), then I honestly don't really care. But Fæ's actions went far beyond just tricking people into giving him a set of tools on some website (one of the most visited sites in the world, yes, but still). He actually attempted to use a real-world position of trust (membership of the WMF board) for the purposes of diluting a case that had been levied against him for deceiving the community. I have absolutely no confidence in Fæ's honour, or his integrity. I suspect he will never regain even a modicum of the trust necessary to be welcomed back here. And like I said, it's a shame — if he hadn't done what he did during the ArbCom case, then all that would have happened was that he'd have been desysopped without prejudice against him filing another RfA for reinstatement at any time. Master&Expert (Talk) 22:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • There are several crucial differences. When Fae ran we knew there were edits from an undisclosed former account, and we only had a partial picture. Unlike the Law case we weren't deceived, half of the opposes were because those editors weren't prepared to support an RFA without knowing the former account. I can't believe that anyone who participated in the Fae RFA wasn't aware that this was an editor who wasn't prepared to let the community check all their previous edits. If Fae had run his RFA whilst simply not mentioning his undisclosed accounts then people would be entitled to feel misled, if those accounts had had blocks or bans then it would have been more reminiscent of the Law/Undertow situation, but until Arbcom banned him I don't think that Fae had ever been blocked. ϢereSpielChequers 09:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
    • You have a point. I had forgotten the fact that Fæ was open about having edited under a prior account. Nevertheless, there remain feint similarities between the two cases (albeit much less pronounced than I had thought prior). Master&Expert (Talk) 23:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
  • User:Fæ has not been, nor is, a member of the WMF board. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 11:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Something to that effect, then? He had some real-world involvement with Wikimedia, if I recall correctly. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Fae doesn't have a position of responsibility with the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), however he is chair of both Wikimedia UK (WMUK), and Wikimedia Chapters Association (WCA). PhilKnight (talk) 23:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Ah, so that's what he does. Is he still the chair of those two groups? I don't think they are tenable positions for him anymore. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
        • That's entirely up to WMUK and WCA to decide, of course. Jafeluv (talk) 09:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
          • And for others to have opinions about, of course. Given the funding and other support that Wikimedia Foundation gives to WMUK and that the source of much of that funding directly or indirectly is Wikipedia users, it would be silly to pretend that Wikipedia users don't have a legitimate interest in this topic. 46.31.205.66 (talk) 12:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
            • Just my opinion but his seats on Wikimedia UK (WMUK), and Wikimedia Chapters Association (WCA) is outside the scope of Arbcom and this decision. Kumioko (talk) 15:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Fae has resigned from his position at Wikimedia and a new chair will be elected tonight. Dougweller (talk) 15:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I understand Fae resigned this morning from his position as chair of Wikimedia UK. There's a statement from Jon Davies, the Wikimedia UK Chief Executive.[13]. PhilKnight (talk) 16:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan

Original announcement

• Unfortunately, a poor decision, hastily made, with very little input from the community. Hopefully this is not the norm for arbitration proceedings. --regentspark (comment) 19:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree. I knew nothing of this and the scope seems to be excessive. A dreadful piece of work that is only going to make life harder for those us of intent on fixing the phenomenal number of problematic articles in the face of a tidal wave of new contributors coming via the ill-conceived strategies of WMF. Better to tackle those strategies that to go down this route. - Sitush (talk) 20:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I said my piece there, and all I'll add is that I'm going to make a lot of allowances for editors who are genuinely doing a good job and make far more liberal use of semiprotection than would normally be permitted. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
      • I just realized that I had made a statement in the original RfArb in January 2007 a few months after I had arrived on Wikipedia. Apparently, it was on account of my statement that the RfArb's name was changed from "Pakistani Nationalism" to "India-Pakistan." I believe, both decisions, of then and of now, were less than fair. Then, a much-FA'd administrator user:Rama's Arrow, well-versed in Wiki-rules, managed to eject four impulsive Pakistani nationalists who were battling his (more canny) Indian nationalist friends. (Later, I seem to remember, both Rama's Arrow and his friends, robbed perhaps of foes to do battle with, themselves unraveled and left Wikipedia.) Now, some half a dozen editors, half from India and half from Pakistan, whom, with one exception, I had never heard of until last week, but who, also with exception, are well-versed in Wiki-rules and their selective uses and abuses, have managed between them to bring on the possibility of a discretionary ban, broadly construed, on all contributors to India-Pakistan-related articles. How many India-Pakistan pages have these six edited? A couple of dozen? A couple of hundred? What is that in the vast rigmarole of all subcontinental articles? Why couldn't ArbCom have simply thrown out all six editors, or followed precedent and thrown out the Pakistanis, allowing, in their wake, the Indians to unravel in plain sight? It would have been the more economical and the more effective solution. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
• I'm all for this. It's time Wikipedia took a hardline stance on nationalist disruption, whether from seasoned editors or new ones, and neither are exempt from discretionary sanctions. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Containing the disruptive tendencies of nationalism would have some merit. Alas, I am either completely misreading the outcome or the actual effect is to impose discretionary sanctions about anything Indian, Pakistani or Afghan. An entirely different ball game. Have I completely misread this? - Sitush (talk) 23:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
    • (Reply to Heimstern) :I'm afraid, some of the nationalists of today are too Wiki-rules-savvy to be easily caught. The average administrator of today, on the other hand, is not knowledgeable enough, unless they want to spend an inordinate amount of time, to even judge who is causing the nationalist disruption (in terms of promoting manifestly false content). They can, of course, choose the easy option and slap penalties on both parties involved, but that only leaves the article permanently unfinished and compromises the objectivity of the encyclopedia. Even the above-average administrators have nowhere near the level of subcontinental knowledge of someone like user:Dbachmann, and he eventually gave up on India-Pakistan, mainly because a new brand of nationalist, impeccably attuned to the ins and outs of civility, began to cause the disruption. I believe this dubious power in the hands of contextually ill-equipped administrators will lead to an increase in low-grade complaining, where one disputant will be looking to get the other penalized. It is better to limit and clearly delineate the major problem area (within the vast universe of India-Pakistan) as was done with the caste-related articles, so that a handful of administrators, who with time will become more knowledgeable and experienced with regards content, can apply the discretionary bans more effectively. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
      • This is probably one of the most absurd decisions I have seen in my time on en.wiki and only serves to remind me that I should stop contributing here sooner rather than later. A clarification request was brought in regarding a few editors, specifically related to the geo-political dispute. Now, Arbcom apparently thinks that rather than waste their time trying to look into this particular dispute it would be better to impose discretionary sanctions on any topic related to these countries, thereby passing the buck to already overworked AE admins. The discussion itself is an indicator of probably who disconnected I am with the rest of the en.wiki community. There was only one arb who shared my concerns (and thank you for that lone voice, NYB), and given that the arbs have all received strong community support, it's only likely that RP, Fowler, Sitush, and I are probably in the minority on what we should expect here, especially given that none of the serious contributors or admins who work in this area were even informed that such a discussion was taking place. I stopped taking actions on blocking NP a long time back when the community decided he wasn't a threat, now Arbs think that everything from NP level disruption to the annoyances in television related articles are the same, so fair enough, feel free to sort out the problems applying these discretionary sanctions. Meanwhile, I think it's probably a good time for the more active contributors to India related projects to refocus their attentions elsewhere(Sorry Blade, there are very few admins who will follow your advice.) —SpacemanSpiff 04:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• If the problem is (as seems to have been articulated above) that certain editors are able to game the system, and that AE admins may be unable to cope with this with the necessary level of discretion to distinguish good-faith content creators from those pushing a nationalist POV (remember that editors with a good working knowledge or better of this area have to weigh in on the discussions to point out such things), then it may be that a full case will be needed. May I suggest reviewing this decision after a suitable period of a few months (or sooner if things are obviously not working out)? Any well-reasoned request, with diffs, would likely be accepted by the committee if presented as a review of this initial decision. Carcharoth (talk) 06:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• The India-v.-Pakistan thing is a continuing problem, mirroring one in the external world of course. But this sweeping decision covers Regional differences and dialects in Indian English (AfD discussion), List of Jains, lots of caste articles (where the problem is of a rather different nature), and goodness knows how many articles like Kunkeshwar (AfD discussion) (where again the problem is of a different nature). This is as about as unfocussed a way to address the problem as passing a motion for The Troubles case that relates to "all pages related to countries in Europe, broadly construed".

  Oh, and The Blade of the Northern Lights: You unknowingly demonstrate a continuing problem with the English Wikipedia. Its community is rather bad at recognizing Indian English, to the extent that I've seen it treated as vandalism on occasion. Bebe Nanaki (AfD discussion) was nominated for deletion because -ji wasn't recognized. These people aren't practicing. They are writing what is, to them, normal English, just as your spelling of "practice" with a 'c' rather than an 's' when used as a verb is normal to you.

  Ironically, when it comes to Pakistani English (AfD discussion) the article itself talks about another dialect that is treated badly in general and the AFD discussion exemplifies the specific India-v.-Pakistan problem at hand. ☺

  Uncle G (talk) 09:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else here, but I work with some great Indian and Bangladeshi editors. I have no objection to Indian English, but this and Abul Hayat are clearly not the work of someone who speaks fluent English. It's not that hard to tell the difference, and is a very real problem; it's more evident in castes, but a few days on NPP will invariably bring you into contact with plenty more such articles, most of which will be even worse. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

(Reply to The Blade) I guess I'm confused. Are these examples of articles where you would apply discretionary sanctions? I do agree with you, and I've said this on WT:INDIA, that there are thousands of articles on South Asia topics that have been languishing in stub or list forms. It may be that some South Asian editors find narrative difficult to manage. Although they speak and write English, they might not feel confident enough to write flowing text. But that is not so bad. There are lots of Wikipedia editors who, in a few minutes, could fix those articles, and I'm not sure how discretionary powers would help. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

They're examples of the distinction between Indian English and English from someone who's obviously not fluent. Mostly I'd simply semiprotect articles, as most of the time that more or less heads things off at the pass, as most of the disruption comes in the form of either copyvios or useless puffery/attempts at denigration from new users (c.f. Malhoo), but I likely wouldn't impose full-blown DS. I would be willing to do it on articles like Iron pillar of Delhi, for reasons that seem self-evident, but I'd keep that to a bare minimum. I do think we'd probably be able to do without DS just fine, but if they're used right they could be very beneficial. I know it's not the same, but it's really helped in caste articles; if we very carefully do it here, I can see it having a similar effect. That said, if I see them being misused by other admins I'll join attempts to behave them removed; but hey, it can't hurt to at least try this. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• This is a very good decision. The editing environment surrounding articles on these countries is toxic at times (especially on topics where nationalism becomes involved), and this will help admins to respond to problems. Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me a little bit crazy that admins are only permitted to respond to certain types of problems if they occur within subject areas that ArbCom has specifically delineated. Surely if those problems are worthy of a response, then they are worthy of the same response wherever they occur, whether or not ArbCom has explicitly predicted their occurrence in that place. Victor Yus (talk) 10:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

That isn't the case at all. Admins can respond to problematic editing in a pretty robust fashion when required. This just specifies some particularly problematic areas where admins have additional authority (and I think that most admins would be aware that they need to use this cautiously). Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

My point is that it shouldn't be necessary to designate certain areas (particularly areas so vast as a whole subcontinent) as problematic. Admins can see for themselves whether a particular article is becoming problematic, and respond to the problems appropriately. The appropriateness of any response to a known problem should not be dependent on whether the article in question is in a subject area which ArbCom happens to have drawn a line around. I also can't help suspecting a large dose of Western-centrism in this decision (India and Pakistan are a long way away so we can just lump them together as a single "problem area"). I doubt we would ever see such a decision concerning "all articles relating to the USA", even though that country's conservatives and liberals and pro- and anti-abortionists and so on are regularly fighting on Wikipedia. Victor Yus (talk) 10:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You are entirely right on that, I don't see the Barack Obama article probation automatically being extended to cover all articles pertaining to the US, Kenya, Indonesia etc. Likewise, it's difficult to see how a request for clarification pertaining to the editing of a handful of editors should end up in such an ill-thought sanction that covers a gamut of topics and editors, especially when not one of these many editors or projects (outside of the select few whose combined edits is less than many of the active contributors to those projects) that are involved was informed, a common courtesy offered even at ANI. But quite apparently, knowing and understanding the issue isn't a requirement here. —SpacemanSpiff 10:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think that many people would be comfortable with individual admins having the power to (for example) ban editors from working on particular topics as the discretionary sanctions allow. I'm an experienced admin, and I don't think that should be a standard part of the admin toolkit, but it is necessary for particularly problematic areas (the alternative is to continuously bombard ANI and ArbCom with issues concerning clearly problematic behavior which have to be resolved through lengthy processes). In regards to your claim of "Western-centrism", I'd suggest that you review the list of topics currently under discretionary sanctions here; most are on 'western' topics. Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but on very specific ones, like "abortion" (if that's one of the ones you mean). The further you get away from New York and London, the less specific you start to get ("Eastern Europe", "India+Pakistan+Afghanistan"). Spaceman's Obama example illustrates my point. Victor Yus (talk) 10:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, but the point being made is that topic bans on "Western" topics don't cover entire (very large) countries. We have a rapidly increasing number of editors from the subcontinent in question, partly thanks to efforts of the WMF. Should all of these editors be individually informed of this decision on their talk pages? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

While I can see the point of the objections raised here, as a matter of principle, I don't think it will be much of a practical issue. The deluge of problematic edits on everyday trivialities – e.g. the daily copyright infringements, vanity articles, illiterate English and so on – have always been met with "traditional" admin actions where necessary, and there is usually very little doubt about which editors are responsible for the disruption and which editors are doing the positive work of trying to clean up after them. Discretionary sanctions are unlikely to be applied in any of these situations. The discretionary sanctions are really only for the high-profile political-ideological stuff – and there I'm sure they will come in useful, just as have done on other geographical hotspots. In areas like the Balkans or Eastern Europe, too, we have the same kind of nominal over-extension of the scope of sanctions: these decisions too were originally motivated by fairly specific political disputes, but now they nominally cover half a continent. That doesn't mean we invoke them every day whenever somebody writes a silly vanity article about a Polish pop band, or uploads a few copyvio images of Albanian football players. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

So maybe some of use are having a hard time figuring out what these discretionary sanctions really are. Could you give us an example of a situation where discretionary sanctions were applied and where the ordinary tools at an admin's disposal would not have sufficed? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, there are plenty of such examples in the logs of WP:ARBMAC, for instance. The point is, with normal admin measures you have a much smaller range of possible measures: it's either a block or no block. Blocks for tendentious editors are done rarely – typically, nothing is done until somebody is stupid enough to fall for a clear 3RR violation or engage in a really egregious pattern of personal attacks, and even then the blocks are typically only short-term, so they don't really resolve the issues in the long run. Other, community-imposed sanctions such as topic bans typically take a huge process and are often quite difficult to garner sufficient consensus for. Which means that the most pernicious long-term problem editors – highly tendentious, stubborn agenda editors who manage to stay just below 3RR most of the time – are quite difficult to stop, and many admins shy away from doing anything about them, for fear of the shitstorms that often follow. Once you have discretionary sanctions, these types of agenda editors can be dealt with far more efficiently – if it can be shown they have a persistent pattern of "battleground behaviour" of whatever type and are an overall negative influence in the area they edit, you can go to a medium-to-longterm topic ban fairly quickly. On the Balkans topics where this was first tried on a larger scale, it's done a world of good. (Actually, in my experience it works best if sanctions are handed out quickly and unbureaucratically, and by administrators who are fairly close to the field of editing and know the disputes based on their own observation, rather than after lengthy discussions at WP:AE, which sometimes have the bad side effect of training problematic editors to become even more skillful litigants and block-shoppers.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd be interested in hearing your opinion as to why on some topics - say Balkans/ARBMAC - DS has worked pretty well, whereas on other topics, like, say, I-P, at the very least it has not worked at all (I don't think that's a controversial claim), and if anything has made things worse (that's somewhat more controversial, but I think it can be backed up by facts - AE icontinues to be filled up with litigatious reports, and the problems have spilled over into Islam-related-but-not-Israel-related topics (as some kind of proxy battleground or something)). I'm sure there are exogenous factors specific to a particular topic area (like the intensity of editor interest in getting their POV into thr articles), but the nature of the admin actions might also play a significant role. Basically, just DS *can* be a good idea, it doesn't always follow that they *always are* a good idea, and having observed AE for awhile, it does seem like sometimes DS amounts to exporting new weapon technology to war torn countries. I am of two minds of this specific extension of DS (though I think that if you're gonna do it, Bangladesh should've been included to preempt future wikilawyering). We will live, we will see.VolunteerMarek 23:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• If it wasn't bad enough that we have a Committee making such a seriously incompetent decision, we apparently have Nick-D and Heimstern making incompetent statements like "this is a very good decision". What exactly would that be - the decision to put off useful Indian contributors from protecting the Indian articles against socking? To counter the efforts to bring useful contributions to the area? Or was it the choice to undo the more successful efforts in deterring disruption for period sof time? Yes, the new regime will encourage disruptive users to be more persistent; it does not deter them because they know how easily it is to appear as a useful contributor to the time-limited AE admin whose ego manages to mean more than the rest of the project. And for what...this petty squabble concerning a few of the newer editors? When we have a decision which is so great at further chipping away at the integrity and already-diminishing quality of this encyclopedia, what else is left? Carcharoth enthusiastically says say a well-reasoned request back to this oh-so-wonderful Committee is going to address the problem; sure, if there's any useful contributors left and with the patience to go through this useless drama, why not? Obviously that still doesn't take away from the fact that this is more evidence of a majority of the Committee which has no actual idea what it is doing (instead, attempting to plug holes without any thought to the consequences). The worst (and perhaps unforgivable) part about this debacle was that the Committee was alerted to the fact that it did not notify the relevant contributors (and Wikiprojects) but still pushed ahead anyway. Each of the contributors who commented expressed their disapproval with all pages related to India being part of this joke of a decision, yet apparently a clerk has enacted this. The fact that the drafter of this stupid motion, Kirill Lokshin, put the convenience for AE admins as the priority (in response to Newyorkbrad's query) says enough. If evidence was presented to support this measure to put sanctions on all pages related to India, I sure must have missed it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, based on my experience of the seemingly endless nationalism-based editing conflicts on a wide range of topics relating to these countries, it is a good decision. I presume that your experiences have been different and/or you have a different perspective, and that's fair enough. You don't need to go around calling people 'incompetent' though. Nick-D (talk) 11:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Incompetent? Don't be a dick, Vocalist. People can disagree with your statements without themselves or their statement being incompetent. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

"Should all of these editors be individually informed of this decision on their talk pages? No, but there are well-known, highly-active, forums such as WT:INDIA that ArbCom surely knows about, and at which they have now, belatedly, posted. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Can we have a list of all the articles falling under the "India-Pakistan" umbrella that have seen the same level of edit-warring, POV-pushing, etc. as Abortion, Arab-Israeli conflict, Ayn Rand, Climate change, Cold fusion, Falun Gong, Gibraltar, Longevity, Monty Hall problem, Muhammad, Pseudoscience, Homeopathy, Race and intelligence, September 11 attacks, and Shakespeare authorship question—all articles under the discretionary ban regime? Perhaps, User:Kirill Lokshin, proposer and major commentator in the ArbCom discussion, could provide this. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Are the arbitrators actually noting the comments and requests here? There is plenty of justified criticism and frustration about the lack of courtesy (notification) to contributors who would actually want to provide input prior to a motion being decided, let alone enacted. In fact, one would have hoped there would at least be some courtesy in owning up to the mistake rather than continuing the unseemly non-responsiveness. I mean, it was arbitrators from this same Committee who expected administrators to follow a case in which they are a party. Maybe those same arbitrators could explain how they expected the regular contributors to Indian articles would be expected to follow a case from 2007, or how they could reasonably be expected to watchlist a clarification/amendment page(s) which have changed at least 3 times since 2007? Or was this just one of those cases where you only listen to AE administrators and would place no weight on anything else said by users who primarily edit and admin those articles? Is that why you didn't bother to inform the relevant Wikiprojects? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• It makes me wonder if something similar to the recent motion about procedural changes would be useful for all motions on the clarification/amendment page as well, inform ACN and AN, and they can't pass until a day after those notifications are made. Courcelles 18:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• I like Courcelles' suggestion and I concur with Ncmvocalist that it is not ideal to institute discretionary sanctions in a topic area which was last involved in an arbitration case which closed several years ago. However, discretionary sanctions are only used on editors who have demonstrably misconducted themselves, and only after a clear warning by an uninvolved administrator. My conscience rests easy that these editors might find themselves actually sanctioned.

  As for the tit-for-tat enforcement reports that plague topics which are subject to discretionary sanctions: that seems to be limited to a handful of topic areas, and in any case frivolous reports or reports made by people with "unclean hands" are usually swiftly declined (and the complainant sanctioned for his or her trouble). I for one will take to heart the suggestions that sweeping updates to a decision need to be advertised more widely; but I do struggle to see the grounds to object to the end result. AGK [•] 22:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• While I appreciate the sentiment, reports made by people with "unclean hands" generally end up wasting at least 168 man-hours from all the claims, counterclaims, and time spent by a neutral administrator going through the mess before them before it is finally dealt with. While having discretionary sanctions is better than the alternative, we really need to come up with a solution for dealing with frivolous or voluminous complaints. NW (Talk) 23:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• A word on the admins' noticeboard about more hands and eyes needed to patrol hotspots maybe? Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• As far as general sanctions, if editors don't edit contentiously there shouldn't be a problem (1- or 2RR is still problematic elsewhere on wikipedia, we just don't scrutinise it to the level of sanctions. More generous use of semi-protection might be helpful for established editors as well) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem here is that the decision making process, in particular the complete lack of any attempt to seek community input, itself was flawed and that has lead to a less than optimal decision. Restrictions of any kind should be lightly applied, and we should all (arbs as well as admins) be wary of applying sanctions, especially without appropriate community input. In this particular case there was no trigger for the complaint itself and, in fact, the case was brought right after the community had decided to remove restrictions on the editors involved. What exactly is the point of applying discretionary sanctions when the community is loosening restrictions escapes me completely. Chances are we're just going to see more drama, every incident involving any of the editors named is likely to be accompanied by pointers to 'discretionary sanctions' (cf. this complaint). Sadly overlooked and completely unmentioned in the entire case is the fact that all four editors involved - TopGun, Darkness Shines, Mar4d and JCAia - are making a useful contribution to the encyclopedia. At a minimum, TopGun and Mar4d fill an important Pakistani hole in our editor base and Darkness Shines and JCAIa keep them honest. The danger here is that, with restrictions or sanctions, one or more of these editors will either leave Wikipedia or will be kicked out and the loss will be ours. Discretionary sanctions are the easy way out when you have complaining admins, but do we elect arbs to simply take the easy route? --regentspark (comment) 03:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC) I know. All this doesn't really matter in the long run. But I just had to get this off my chest :) --regentspark (comment) 03:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

WT:BAN

Perhaps there is a touch of wp:canvass to this post, but I believe there's valid cause for it as well. Because this committee deals so often with "ban" and "block" decisions, I would very much like their individual input on the WP:BAN policy discussion currently underway at WT:BAN (note:, and thanks, to Jclemens who has/is already participating). — Ched :  ?  05:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Is this dispute over yet?

I was uninvolved in the Article Titles dispute and the resulting WP:ARBATC ArbCom case. However, I am concerned by the extremely unfriendly and unwelcoming warning that greets every editor at the top of the talk page of the WP:Article_titles policy page. To the best of my knowledge, it is rare to have such warnings on policy pages. I've noticed that since the ArbCom case has concluded, there has not been a single violation of the descretionary sanctions, and not a single editor been warned about the sanctions.[14] Is this dispute over yet? If so, is there any support for lifting of descretionary sanctions? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

As long as the discretionary sanctions are in place, there needs to be some sort of warning note on the talkpage. I agree that the notice could be worded is a different and more positive fashion; perhaps you or someone would like to propose a variation.

It would be great news if there are no longer any disputes on these pages that require discretionary sanctions to remain in place. Unfortunately, my occasional perusing of AN and ANI suggests that disputes concerning article titles and capitalization continue to arise. Perhaps, though, they have been more about the titling and capitalization of individual names and titles, as oppose to the policy pages themselves? Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

proposed Nobody Ent 19:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Count format

Is / where is the format of case acceptance numbers (e.g. 6/0/3/2) documented? Nobody Ent 12:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

It's noted at the end of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header which is transcluded on the main requests page. Eluchil404 (talk) 14:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list

Original announcement

As more of a general observation than a comment specifically on this motion (which seems entirely sensible), there seems to be something of an uptick in Eastern European-related drama at the moment. I'm not sure what the reason for this is, but I'd suggest that it be taken into account when considering any further updates to the Eastern Europe-related cases. Nick-D (talk) 00:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles

Original announcement

Motions regarding discretionary sanctions and Falun Gong 2

Original announcement

Is ArbCom permitted to create a situation in which community consensus does not prevail? By requiring an appeal only to ArbCom, and not also allowing the community to judge, this seems to violate the principal of consensus. Feedback? 134.241.58.240 (talk) 19:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Those three editors were sanctioned as part of an Arbitration case, WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2. This motion changed where the definition of their sanction was, but that was all; the note in the summary that they may only appeal to the Committee is simply reinforcing the point that their sanction was issued by the Committee through a case, and not by an individual adminstrator through discretionary sanctions. As a result, their only route of appeal is through a request for amendment to have the original sanction repealed. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 19:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I understand, but what if the community has a discussion and decides those sanctions no longer apply to one or more of those editors? 134.241.58.253 (talk) 20:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Then someone should file a request for amendment, pointing to that discussion. The community, by itself, cannot override the remedies in an arbitration case, but I cannot imagine a situation where the committee would refuse to amend a case to conform with community consensus when a clear consensus is demonstrated. In fact, we usually try to leave stuff up to the community as much as possible; the difficulty is things don't get in front of us unless the community has tried and failed multiple times to handle a situation on their own. If a clear community consensus was demonstrated after the fact, that would indicate that the community is now able to handle matters on their own, and thus arbitration is no longer necessary to resolve the dispute. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 20:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding User:EncycloPetey

Original announcement

I understand EncycloPetey has left the project anyway, and was therefore not able to put his side of the case. Given this it would have made more sense to simply suspend Admin rights, leaving the door open in the event that he was to return. Rich Farmbrough, 14:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC).

Rich: Speaking only for myself, I would be willing to consider that option if or when EP returns to editing. I don't think it's any secret that other resolutions to the RFAR than desysopping were possible. AGK [•] 17:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

He is active in other Wikimedia projects, and was contacted by e-mail. He could have put his case at any time, and apparently chose not to do so, knowing that desysoping was the most probable outcome of the case. Requiring him to go through RfA again doesn't seem an onerous burden. I believe many members of the community would be upset were the Committee to unilaterally make him an admin again without the community input that an RfA allows. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

For myself, I would never support such a thing. If we have desysopped (as opposed to a level 1 emergency removal, but finally desysopped), I consider RFA the only venue competent to return the tools, ArbCom really shouldn't be doing things the community has a perfectly normal method of considering and acting upon. Courcelles 02:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if anyone else enjoyed the comment from an Arbitrator that "one is left with little option if the volunteer will not engage with the issue, but to remove their ability to make the mistake again", when ArbCom members who choose to not engage with issues / mistakes simply refuse to admit to error or engage and sail on knowing there is no ability to remove their ability to repeat their mistakes? 121.217.36.168 (talk) 00:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned in another post recently look at it from the users point of view. Once an editor has been brought before Arbcom and Arbcom accepts the case the result is virtually always the same regardless of the discussions or dialogues. The user gets desysopped and or blocked. So why would a user, knowing this, waste their time fighting what has already been predetermined by Arbcom at the moment they accept the case. The Arbcom is understandably annoyed that the user didn't come back to edit but continued to edit elsewhere but IMO they brought it on themselves with their history of previous cases. Kumioko (talk) 00:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The irony is that the editor would most likely not have been desysopped if he'd simply made a statement saying that he was wrong and that he won't do it again. Instead he chose to assume that he was going to be desysopped no matter what he'd do, and so he was desysopped because he chose not to do anything. --Conti|✉ 01:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

That may very well be true but I certainly understand things from the users point of view. Kumioko (talk) 01:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

While in many cases, the likely outcome of a case is that someone is going to get banned (I don't have any stats on this but I'd expect it would occur at least 70% of the time, with the other 30% leading to some other form of editing restriction or desysopping against someone), it is not a foregone conclusion. I, and several other of the arbitrators (based on mailing list discussion) would have been quite open to handling this particular issue with an admonishment if EncycloPetey had at least acknowledged that his involvement in those situations meant he should not have used his admin tools. This is the case all over Wikipedia: unblock requests, appeals of editing restrictions, even deletion debates. If the subject of the discussion makes a genuine effort to understand the problem at hand and seek to improve upon it (in the case of deletions, if editors make a significant effort to improve an article), they are much less likely to be sanctioned (or deleted). I will grant that such leniency may be less common at arbitration than other venues, but that's likely because parties to cases have had multiple chances to come to that epiphany at lower levels of the DR ladder. In this case, this was a concern about the use of admin tools, so there were fewer prior chances, and a greater chance for EncycloPetey to turn this around into something more amicable. As it was, he refused to participate beyond his initial statement, which failed to provide any of the assurances the Committee had already stated we were looking for. This refusal to participate is almost the precise opposite of what I mentioned before. It shows no understanding of the problem whatsoever, no desire to learn from the feedback being provided by the dispute resolution process (as acrimonious as it may be, it is nonetheless feedback). When this does happen, and in the face of clear evidence as we had here, the Committee has little choice but to act as we did, since the community has vested in us the sole authority to do so. Should EncycloPetey wish to return to Wikipedia, he is certainly welcome to do so; and I would hope that he does, so that in time he can work to understand what happened here (albeit belatedly) and eventually return to the admin corps.

Sorry for the long rant. I've pondered a number of times about the "someone's getting banned" perception of Arbcom cases and how to change that, but I've honestly no idea how to do so other than try and make people understand that we're really not out to get them, and in most cases we hate banning people just as much as they hate getting banned. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hersfold's impression of the arbitrator opinion on this matter is identical to mine; had EncycloPetey engaged this process, the odds this process ends with an admonishment are high, the only ways this was going to be a desysop was if EncycloPetey said the totally wrong things, or if he ignored the process. Courcelles 03:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Well needless to say I don't really agree but that's no big deal at this point and rather moot. Another productive editor is gone and desysopped for a relatively minor isolated incident. I also don't agree with the assessment about cases ending in admonishment being high. There are a lot of admonishments for third parties related to the subject your right but typically those that are directly related and named parties get desysopped or blocked. I'm going to drop it at this point and move on. Like I said the editor is gone so there's no sense in quibbling. Kumioko (talk) 03:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you just agreed with me, actually... I said bans/desysops do tend to be more likely for named parties, but that I'd prefer lesser sanctions be more common. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

It's disappointing that my point has been missed. It related not so much to the outcome for EncycloPetey as it did to the processes of ArbCom and the hypocrisy of demanding that editors admit to their mistakes whilst Arbitrators adopt a position of infaliability. Arbitrators make some huge mistakes, yet almost never admit to even the possibility of errror, and there is no mechanism by which their power to repeat their mistakes can be removed. EP has been run off the project by a frequent ArbCom mistake, assuming the outcome of a situation before even hearing all the evidence. As Hersfold has noted above, there is no possibility of this case resulting in anything but a ban or a desysop ("the likely outcome of a case is that someone is going to get banned (I don't have any stats on this but I'd expect it would occur at least 70% of the time, with the other 30% leading to some other form of editing restriction or desysopping against someone)" - note that the possibility of a non-punitive outcome is not even suggested in Hersfold's percentages) as no question of editing problems was alleged. As JClemens noted, a case was certain irrespective of EP's response ("The contested administrator actions enumerated above warrant a case ... nor do I see any way that EncycloPetey's presumably forthcoming statement would forestall such a case opening"). Risker concurred ("I believe the case should be accepted, despite the fact that we have not yet heard from EncycloPetey") as did Elen of the Roads ("Accept. Per Risker, despite EncycloPetey not having responded yet"). In other words, the case was declared inevitable before EP offered any comment, and the outcome of that was known to all even without it opening. Newyorkbrad, probably the most respected ArbCom member, had the decency to want to wait for a comment from EP, but even he had already reached and expressed his conclusion ("EncycloPetey needs to abide by the current policies in this area"). In the circumstances, why would EP choose to stay around for a process with a pre-determined outcome? It is ironic that Brad went on to write of policy that is "not merely a bureaucratic obstacle to quality control but serves important purposes that should be respected," yet the idea of waiting for evidence before forming an opinion and deciding a sanction (something which should be integral to the ArbCom policies) is treated as a mere bureaucratic obstacle to the operations of the Committee. Is it any wonder that so many ArbCom cases are recognised by those involved to be heading to a pre-determined outcome? 121.217.36.168 (talk) 05:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

PS: I have not bothered to discuss numerous mistakes made by the Committee collectively, or by individual Arbitrators, as they are fairly well known already. Please, don't imagine that this omission was due to a lack of examples.

I have deliberately stayed at the side of this, onlooking what was going on (commenting is futile anyway, it is a freight train with only one possible outcome). I second the contribution of 121.217.36.168. To be clear:

• If you are in front of your second AN/I, you must be guilty of something worthy of an ArbCom.
• ArbCom is accepting such cases - even without waiting for a statement: They was before AN/I twice, there must be something we need to do.

It is a complete red herring here, that if EncycloPetey would have made a proper statement, that then the outcome would have been different. It would even be a red herring to consider that if EncycloPetey would have made that statement at AN/I before this case was filed. Sure, the outcome might have been different at the end of this situation. But seen the greediness that the Arbitration Committee showed to accept this case shows that they at that point already found enough for a case, hence enough to presume that something needed resolution, I doubt whether the outcome would have been much less than a full case and a severe admonisment. And then, seen the greed that they have shown to desysop EncycloPetey lacking a case and a statement shows that they do think that the encyclopedia needed protection from EncycloPetey. Why else desysop? Prevention of what? The Arbitration Committee, as usual, acted on a presumption of guilt here. Not that 'guilt' or 'abuse' is needed: you've been brought before ArbCom, so the Arbitration Committee will resolve it. Even if EncycloPetey would have handed over his sysop bit by himself, a similar resolution would have followed. Point is: EncycloPetey was before ArbCom, resistance is futile.

But lets say that EncycloPetey would have said 'OK, sorry, will not happen again' (including or excluding handing over his bit). Does anyone really believe that the case would have ended there? No, because at the first sign of something, people will be pointing back: 'Look, he was before ArbCom' (like the community did with the second AN/I - look, he has been here before, so now it is ArbCom (again). And again, this case was technically accepted before EncycloPetey could even have made that statement.

Or would enough of the votes of Arbitrators that accepted the case have turned into declines so we would not have gone to a full case? Well, seen that the case was accepted without a statement that seems unlikely. But the result would have been the same. At some time in the future (whether it be 1 week or 6 years), at the first sign of something, people will be pointing back.

Or if we would go through a complete case, and the Arbitration Committee would have come to a conclusion that EncycloPetey did the right thing? Would that have changed things. No. Still, on a next occasion of something, people will be pointing back at this.

Even if the members of the Arbitration Committee collectively decide that what they did here was wrong, revert their decision and remove the case data from existence. Or if the community collectively decides that this is the wrong result and overturns the Arbitration Committee (which they can't do anyway): EncycloPetey is gone. If it makes the community, and the members of the Arbitration Committee feel better, consider EncycloPetey retired and that they will be returning in the future - only to give the then serving Arbitration Committee a chance to ban him (you can't desysop him, and he was already guilty here).

So anyway, the result would have been the same. Look at the older cases where editors go before ArbCom for a second or third time. Or cases where editors go before AN/I for a second or third time (like here). There must be something wrong, no matter how far you improve, it is simply never enough, because you have been there before. The only way the community wants this resolved, is to make sure that you can never do it again.

Do the arbitrators, or the community, really believe that there was any other outcome? Do you expect EncycloPetey to believe such a thing? I don't think he did. And I don't believe it either.

EncycloPetey has done the wise thing, walk away.

Bye EncycloPetey, I hope you enjoy your off-en.wikipedia activities. This place is not fun anymore. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

If he had accepted that what he did was wrong and said that he would not it again, there would not have been a desysop. If he had said all that on the original AN/I thread, there most likely would not even have been an arbcom case request. But he basically argued that he was right and that he had all the right in the world to do what he did, and that's the reason that led to his desysopping. What else should have happened here, if not a desysop?

As for the concept of people being remembered from previous arbcom cases: Isn't that how it works? Is arbcom supposed to ignore patters of misbehavior and not take previous admonishments/punishments into account? Don't admins do exactly the same when they see a user with a large block-log and subsequently block him for a longer duration than the last block? Of course, people can change for the better, and in an ideal world a perfect arbitration committee will take this into account and make sure that a user did or did not change before handling out their ruling, but I just can't figure out why the idea of looking at previous incidents is supposed to be a bad thing. --Conti|✉ 08:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

"What else should have happened here, if not a desysop?" - "Don't admins do exactly the same when they see a user with a large block-log and subsequently block him for a longer duration than the last block?". --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

So, a slap on the wrist for using your tools while involved and then not seeing what's wrong with that? --Conti|✉ 09:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, there was the case when Arbitrator X made a blatantly involved block on an editor he strongly disliked after Arbitrator Y made an unsupportable accusation of outing... ArbCom demonstrated their infalliable judgment by doing nothing except refusing to take a case when a former Arbitrator indicated he would not let other mistakes by X go undiscussed. Of course, that was the correct decision to demonstrate that ArbCom members are subject to the same rules as other admins for their admin actions, because one could not possibly think there are any differences in equality amongst admins – it's just some are more equal than others. By the way, Conti, if you'd like to engage with the substantive points made by either Dirk or myself, rather than just saying everything was EncycloPetey's fault, that'd be nice. 121.217.36.168 (talk) 10:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Conti, some editors have established that EncycloPetey was acting while involved, others don't agree with that that strictly. You are obviously one of the former, and then 'obviously' a desysop is needed. "[U]sing your tools while involved and then not seeing what's wrong with that?" - that is what you established, Conti, others don't see it so clear, and you (and those others who see it like that) have certainly not managed to convince EncycloPetey that he was involved, or managed to explain why you think he was involved.

And what do we do here, Conti - We do not see a large block log, we see 2 cases 5 months apart, 6 examples in 2.5 years. No RFCs, no blocks, no sanctions, no edit restrictions, no .., nothing. Two AN/I threads 5 months apart. If there was more, one could consider 'blocking for a longer duration than the last block' .. no, we immediately escalate to Arbitration, and we immediately desysop - the only solution. And you have the audacity to ask "What else should have happened here, if not a desysop?" Did anyone try to solve the problem with EncycloPetey, in stead of escalating to AN/I and insisting he is wrong (I did not see evidence for that other attempts to solve the problem, and I think neither did ArbCom). Everyone jumped on it, even the members of the ArbCom did not wait for statements and technically accepted the case without hearing. (To me, in all cases it takes two to tangoEdit War, and whether or not the other party is right, edit warring is never the way forward, for neither party - yet, did anyone report EncycloPetey for edit warring, and did EncycloPetey get a block for it? I don't know, I have not seen that evidence, yet ArbCom has decided without that as well ..).

You just proved my point so clearly: "Do the arbitrators, or the community, really believe that there was any other outcome? Do you expect EncycloPetey to believe such a thing? I don't think he did. And I don't believe it either.".

Well, you got your desysop, and the community got their loss of a productive editor. Obviously there was no other solution possible, Conti. Obviously. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

You mention that there has been no attempt to solve the problem with EncycloPetey, and I absolutely agree that this should have been the first step here. Once someone starts an AN/I thread, things may spiral out of control pretty quickly, as they did here, and it is next to impossible to control what happens. I'm pretty sure you know that as well as I do. I'm not trying to say that EncycloPetey is the devil and everyone else is a saint in this situation. But as you say, it takes two to tango, and it takes both sides of a dispute to deescalate it. And as far as I can see, neither side tried to do so, not those that quickly escalated the issue, nor EncycloPetey. He did not acknowledge that there even might possibly be a problem, and pretty much left Wikipedia the moment the arbcom case was started (again, I agree that things went far too quickly here). What happened was unfortunate, but from the actions of both sides it looked inevitable to me.

And while we're at it, yes, it would be really nice to see arbitrators not accepting or declining cases until all parties are heard. I don't think it would have changed anything in this case, however. --Conti|✉ 13:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

That is what I mean, Conti, I appreciate that thought. Two AN/I threads are enough to bring things to ArbCom. I find that very worrying. Well, actually, in the beginning, those two AN/I threads were enough to consider a RFC/U. But no attempts, at all, to resolve it in a friendly way. No: DR it is, and DR it will be. There is no attempt to solve it without admission of guilt: 'whether or not what you did in the examples is a case of being involved, consider next time when you are reverting an editor a couple of times to bring them to AIV or AN3 or whatever, and not block them yourself, or protect the pages yourself.' Or even stated as a firm warning. But the threads are full of the accusations, 'forcing' EncycloPetey to admit guilt, a need to escalate, and editors felt the need to bash him around so much that this is the result - the editor walks away.

I doubt if it would have made a difference, indeed. Even if the AN/I thread would have simply died, it may have reoccured again soon(ish) and that might then have been the final drop. Of course, no-one would consider to solve it otherwise - It is the tendency of the community to escalate. It is not the Arbitration Committee that is at fault of how this escalated, though they certainly did no attempts to de-escalate it themselves (more an eagerness to escalate it further), nor has the community tried to stop ArbCom.

ArbCom has now shown that this works. Blind acceptance. There is a current thread on AN/I on an admin who is, though without use of tools, being accused of 'behaviour unbecoming of an administrator'. I wonder, is that enough for next time? Probably. But for EncycloPetey it is too late, there is no way the community can repair this.  :-( --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Lordy, although I believe you to be an intelligent and thoughtful man, you do talk some bollocks. If you can't see the difference between EncycloPetey being challenged on his actions and retiring in a huff, more or less saying that if he couldn't do what he wanted it wasn't fun any more, and MuZemike blowing his stack then being man enough to apologise and say he thinks he needs a break, well you're not looking very hard are you. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point, Elen. Not that I had hope that something else would be coming from you (unfortunately, I do not have any hope that something else would be coming from the majority of the members of the Arbitration Committee). There was something about a pot and a kettle that comes to mind. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You know, all the individual words in that post were real words, but I have no idea what point you are trying to make here. Other than that you don't like me, which we'll take as read. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I know. And you may be wrong. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

No come on, what is your point. Are you saying that all the editors who filed the RfAR were wrong? Are you saying that the community should expect no actions when admins repeatedly violate policy and fail to address challenges (bearing in mind that this was the second time the guy had been at ANI). How many second chances should people get? Should admins get an infinite number? Are good editors really exempt from following the rules. Was it more fun when there were no rules, and the weak just went to the wall? I mean, what is the actual point you are trying to make?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Elen of the Roads (talk • contribs) 13:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

No, I am not arguing that, I am not saying that anywhere. Let me ask you a question: I have repeatedly stated (last time a couple of answers back) that I don't think Wikipedia is fun anymore. Why do you think I say that? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

People claim it is too hard to remove the bit and then people complain that it is too easy. Wikipedia may well be the best soap opera on the internet. Resolute 13:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

To that I agree, Resolute. It are probably not the same people who are arguing that, though. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

As a side note, Resolute, I do think that it should be easier .. but not in a process system like the current form of ArbCom, and I am also not sure in which way it should be, or whether it would be possible in a reasonable form. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Elen, I gather that you are having trouble understanding the points Dirk is making. Is the same is true of the points I have made? Haven't I said anything that was worthy of any kind of response - from you or any other Arbitrator? In case it isn't clear, my points were not about whether or not EP had misused his tools (about which I have essentially zero interest) but about problems with the ArbCom and particularly the position of assumed infalliability that is regularly adopted by Arbitrators. You yourself asserted that EP had to be prevented from repeating mistakes at the same time that you and fellow Arbitrators repeated the mistake of deciding an issue without bothering to even wait for all the evidence. How is the community supposed to prevent ArbCom from repeating its mistakes? 121.217.36.168 (talk) 14:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a very powerful point, "and the weak just went to the wall?". Thanks for making it Elen.. My position has been that there could have been more than one outcome for this case and my concern was that the most serious had been applied when another sanction might have been as useful. But having been in situations where I was helpless against some powerful admins, I have to say yes,.admins, whatever they were originally meant to be, have it in their power to protect editors but also to abuse them even in small and sometimes hidden ways. They must be held accountable because they have this power. A revelation. I feel better about the outcome of this case given your comment. (olive (talk) 14:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC))

Thanks Olive. That was the concern of all the filing parties - the effect this had on other editors. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

@121.217 - in this case, considerable evidence was presented by the filing parties, and was available for review by the Arbs. WP:INVOLVED is fairly clear, and reverting good faith editors then locking the article to your preferred version, then blocking the other editor, is uncontroversially a breach. I don't know why you keep saying there was no evidence - have you not read the actual case? Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Elen, I did not and have not said there was no evidence, I said a decision was made without waiting for all the evidence. If the distinction is hard to understand, try asking NYB why he did not vote accept or decline without waiting for EP to comment.

Further, you are skipping over the important points that I am making. I have watched ArbCom on and off for ages. I've seen Arbitrators decline to investigate a blatant violation of WP:INVOLVED by one of their colleagues. I've seen Arbitrators abuse editors on case pages whilst claiming that there is no need to recuse when acting as chief prosecutor and claiming to remain an impartial "judge". I've seen Arbitrators ignore vast swathes of evidence (ask CHL if such a case doesn't leap to mind). I've seen Arbitrators refuse to engage with criticism of their decisions, fully protecting case pages and archiving discussions here simply because they refuse to discuss their actions (aren't admins required to discuss their actions, why do Arbitrators sometimes refuse to do the same). I've seen recused Arbitrators step back into cases, seen recused Arbitrators responding to supposedly confidential emails to ArbCom that they shouldn't even see, and watched clerks follow their instructions instead of telling them that a recused arbitrator has no more right to instruct a clerk than does any other editor. You said that EP had to be desysopped to prevent him repeating mistakes. What about when ArbCom makes mistakes, how are Arbitrators prevented from repeating their mistakes? In case you are wondering, yes I have been an editor on and off over the years and have added considerable content. I've never been blocked, never been a party to a case, and ArbCom is one reason that I don't edit regularly. 121.217.36.168 (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

@DirkBeetstra - OK, here's your challenge. What is a fun way of telling an admin that what they are doing is misusing their tools and unfair to other editors. What is a fun way of dealing with that situation where the admin doesn't want to take any notice and doesn't think he has done anything wrong. What would YOU have done that was fair to the editors he reverted, locked out and blocked? Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• I would have waited until I heard evidence from all sides. Simply because one or more editors are upset with somebody doesn't make them right and the somebody wrong. ArbCom didn't do that though. They agreed to accept the case even before EP had had a chance to respond. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, EncycloPetey made a statement. It's not as if he was prevented from saying more. It was his choice to respond the way he did - bearing in mind a previous point made by Little Olive Oil that his first response might have been one of shock rather than how it sounded, he had plenty of chance to say more. In fact, one could interpret his responses as being along the lines that he realised he'd been rumbled but he wasn't going to admit he was wrong. Come on - you're Arbcom for a day. You've got half a dozen mixed admins all seeing a big problem with his edits. You've got the responses he has chosen to give, at ANI, at RfAR, at his WikiProject. How long would you have waited for him to say something else. A month? A year? Forever? Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Elen, yours was the fourth vote to accept, and it came 2 hours and 31 minutes after the initial request. ArbCom regularly mentions that it can't act quickly with members in different time zones so a day is needed for coordination. You gave EP barely 10% of a day. Your point about a month or a year would be less hypocritical if you'd waited even a day for EP to respond to the RfAr. 121.217.36.168 (talk) 15:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Concur with the IP. Elen, there was absolutely no need for there to be a massive rush. Yet, that is what ArbCom did. Even before EP had made a statement, there was a net 4 to accept the case [15]. EP was an editor of 7 years, an administrator of 5 years, with even by the worst estimates a better than 98% success rate in his administrator actions. He deserved respect. Instead, he was insulted, sometimes grossly, by contributors to the request and ArbCom did nothing to reign in those contributors, instead rushing to accept the case before EP had even logged in. It is no small wonder that in his second to last edit here he said "I feel railroaded and surrounded by hungry sharks". --Hammersoft (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• I am going to add to this - when EP logged in, there was an opening statement, 6 more opening statements (and one opening statement questioning the process), and 4 votes to accept (and two comments). Not that I really expect that EncycloPetey would have answered in a different tone, but there is a significant chance that EncycloPetey's statement would have been worded differently, completely differently, when it would have been on a situation where there were only an opening statement by the initiating party (or only by editors who are named parties in the opening statement).
• This is a recurring thing, and the hypocrisy of it is sky-high. Yes, I know, I am attacking the members of the Arbitration Committee again (actually I am attacking the proper process, or the lack thereof, but likely things will be taken personally), but this is a lighting example of things not changing, even though members are aware of the discrepancies. And although some of the members are personally following them (some of the Arbitrators have commented, but, as appropriate, not !voted), they do not enforce it and I do not see an on-wiki attempt to change these discrepancies - as a piece of evidence, in a recent case a party was added to the case during the case. According to ArbCom's policy, that party should have 7 days to put up their statement/evidence - which needed the closing time of the evidence phase postponed. The party indicated not to need that much time, but the party did not get the full 7 days, nay, the party was refused the full 7 days (in particular, by a drafting arbitrator) with a statement along the lines of Elen's statement here "How long would you have waited for him to say something else. A month? A year? Forever?". Needless to say, the drafting Arbitrator, repeatedly, prolonged the posting of the draft proposed decision in that same case because they did not have time to word, compile, and/or post the draft. They can take 'forever', parties however are denied that (except if they of course ask the committee for more time, then they may get it).
• Point is, there is a significant chance that the rushing of acceptance by the Arbitration Committee here has influenced the outcome of the case, and although you may have been right that this was the final outcome anyway, the outcome may very well have been different if the arbitration committee, or even the community, would have shown respect in stead of the current mentality.
• The community, and with them the Arbitration Committee, did not show any, any respect to EncycloPetey. And the only defense that you guys now have is that the desysop is the right decision because EncycloPetey did not want to respect the Arbitration Committee or the community. He may have made a mistake, he may have misinterpreted parts of policy, but he did not deserve the disrespect that the community and the Arbitration Committee have shown him. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)(expanded upon reread Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC))

• I think ArbCom basically got it right here, thank you. I would think that, of course, being a leader of the anti-admin cabal and lynch mob and all, but I think it's important to say it here. I often don't fully appreciate how crappy it must be to deal with The Giant Firehose of Criticism that accompanies every decision you make. Thanks - a lot - for volunteering to try to keep the peace between hundreds of eggshells armed with hammers. The next time I'm tempted to say something snarky or snide about something y'all have done, I'll try to find it in me to put myself in your shoes for a moment, and then STFU.

  Two takeaways, I think. First, it probably is best going forward to avoid officially accepting a case before the subject has had a reasonable chance to respond; otherwise it allows the focus to be shifted away from the merits of the case, to whether procedure was followed. The same things would have happened here, of course, but there would be one less diversionary tactic available. Second, I think I saw, fairly recently, someone somewhere suggest some sort of admin conduct review board, with the power to require a new RFA, to take issues like this up short of a full case. That sounds like a good idea. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

@Elen, I already answered that, and explained that. You however have dodged the question. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• I think this is a correct decision. If administrators abuse tools in the ordinary editing process, ArbCom needs to act as a mechanism of supervision and control and should not hesitate to remove buttons. It's not too much to ask for a new RfA debate on the restoration of buttons; if ArbCom has messed up, things can easily be reversed in that way. Chances are, however, that a new community debate would handily back up the decision here... Carrite (talk) 17:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Temporary suspension of admin bit

There might be an option to put a 'Suspended' status for admins into policy. That is, Arbcom lifts the tools pending a further discussion. The committee would let the bureaucrats know what 'suspended' means. A criterion for lifting the suspension would be stated at the time it was issued. This is not the first time where the failure of an editor to respond has left the arbs uncertain of whether to proceed to a conclusion. A case was closed at AE recently due to the targeted editor becoming unavailable for comment. The closure was "This request is archived until such time as User:XXXX returns to editing." In this particular case, nobody complained. EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

That's a constructive suggestion. At the moment, Arbcom is only empowered to do temporary desysops in emergencies (compromised accounts, admin's gone postal etc), which this wasn't. Suspension without prejudice (or at least nominally without prejudice) is a standard practice in the workplace following a serious allegation, so it's not at all an off the wall solution. However, I doubt it would satisfy the chaps above. In fairness, there is a sense in which it could be seen as prejudging the issue, or attempting to force the chap to 'answer to his accusers', so would need to be handled carefully. I wonder what the community more widely would think. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't really believe that its not in Arbcoms power to do a limited duration punishment but if that is the case and they would actually use it then maybe someone could write up something and suggest that Arbcom have an expanded amount of options available as punishments. If the Arbcom has the ability to block, ban, desysop, etc. then we should allow them the flexibility to do those temporarily without restricting them to only permanent affects. It seems to be that it is in the best interest of the pedia to allow them to give reduced duration punishments. Since its always the same 3 or 4 given out I am not even sure what is in the power at the moment frankly but this suggestion seems reasonable to even me. Kumioko (talk) 10:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

EdJohnston isn't referring to a punishment at all, only a suspension of admin bit until the admin addresses the issue. Arbcom at the moment can only do this in an emergency, where the admin is actively doing weird things (not just making a few dodgy decisions). Nearly always, the upshot is that either the account has been compromised or the admin has been having a problem. If it turns out to be a hack by /4chan/ for instance, the admin can get his bit back as soon as that's established (along with a lecture on internet security). You can read all the current policies at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy. It might be possible to introduce an option to suspend the bit if an admin is accused of tool misuse and declines to make a response - although how long would you let it go on? Could it be indefinite? Just taking the bit away for say three months aa a REMEDY is something that used to be done years ago, but the current position that the community seems to take is that (a) that's just punishment, because (b) if an admin has done something worthy of losing the bit, they should go thru RFA to see if they still have/have regained the community's trust.Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I actually disagree with Elen on whether or not this is within Arbcom's remit: the Committee has issued suspensions of admin permissions in the past while awaiting response from the subject of the suspension. The one difference in those situations is that the admins involved were not actively participating in any other Wikimedia project and, to the best of my knowledge, have never returned. Indeed, I would have preferred that option, as I indicated in my comments on this discussion. Risker (talk) 13:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Very true (about the remit question). The examples you (Risker) provided in your comment (which came in only a short time before the motion was closed and enacted) were ones that I had forgotten. I provided a similar (but different) example in my comments as well. What is not clear is how many arbitrators (or indeed other editors) saw either of those comments. It sometimes feels like half the room is having a conversation that the other half of the room is not aware of, or fails to read. Would Elen (for example) be prepared to say whether she had read my comments and Risker's comments (that were made at the actual request) before the motion closed? My impression (from the above comment she made in response to EdJohnston about remit) is that she may not have done, but maybe I'm misreading that.

In general, I think a bit more flexibility from ArbCom in terms of process and sanctions wouldn't go amiss. There is a bit too much of a "you must respond to our questions" and "desysop or don't desysop". There should be room for alternatives outside those areas, including being prepared to go slower with requests (even, indeed especially, if there are no currently open cases), listening more to those facing or those formally requesting sanctions than to the crowd of onlookers, and being more open to considering admonishments and warnings. The point is to get named parties engaged with the process, not discourage them from participating. A simple thought experiment should suffice: all arbitrators reading this should imagine what it would feel like to have a case request filed against them while they were away for part of the day (maybe even asleep). Would they prefer to be able to respond to the initial filing of the request and have arbitrators assess their response alongside the case request, or would they be willing to only have their say after numerous onlookers had distorted the picture and arbitrators had already commented or accepted a case?

Until you have actually been in that position, it can be hard to understand why people are so insistent that it is best practice to let the named party to a single-party request have their say before others and arbitrators have their say. There is a world of difference between being able to respond up-front and early on in a discussion, and coming late to a discussion and trying to correct what has already been implicitly accepted. There is probably a serious case to be made for asking the clerks to ensure that where the main named parties have not yet made statements, that the responses from both arbitrators and other editors are limited to either "this request should be declined" or "awaiting statements from XYZ". That would go a long way to making things more civil and less confrontational. Carcharoth (talk) 04:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the speed of things, that really needs to slow down, would it be an idea that the development of the case-requests would be as follows (I know, more bureaucracy, but I think this is a lighting example of how wrong things go when this freight train is hitting you - As I stated above, I do not think that this would have changed really a lot in the EncycloPetey case, but it might have kept things cooler, and EncycloPetey may very well have made another statement.):

1. Someone opens a case request; in that request, they themselves post a statement, and in that request, they name who they consider named parties.
2. Only the named parties are allowed to post statements with a time limit of 3-4 days (at least 'a weekend' plus a day - 24 hours would be a bare minimum, and could still be too short). Other editors are not allowed to comment at that point, and Arbitrators are not to accept or decline at that point, and preferably do not even comment at that point. This stage ends at the stated time, OR when all named parties have commented, whichever is earlier. This phase gets officially closed by a clerk (similar as closing an evidence phase). If parties are aware at that point and did choose not to comment, then that is it. If it is known that a party is not available in this period, or still not aware the time period may be lengthened (by clerk comment). All comments by other parties or Arbitrators during this phase either constitute reason to add that editor as a party, or to blank that statement (or Arbitrator comment/!vote).
3. Other editors are allowed to post their statements if they feel like, Arbitrators are allowed to accept/decline.

I hope the Arbitration Committee will consider this as a suggestion for a change of their Procedures. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

For what's it worth, I agree this was handled a little too quickly. However, I gather the rapid closing of this motion was a one off, and I'm unconvinced that we need to make a formal change to the procedures. PhilKnight (talk) 15:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• @PhilKnight and Carcharoth; thank you both for noting this case was handled too quickly. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for noting that this case was handled too quickly.

Regarding "I gather the rapid closing of this mortion was a one off .." - I was talking about the rapid 'opening' of a case (or accepting; actually, the motion was not rapidly closed, time was taken for that). Before considering that this is a 'one time off' - at this point the case was initiated for 22 hours and 59 minutes (initiated '22:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)' - last comment '21:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)') when one of the Arbitrators accepts the case. User:Noetica at that point did not respond yet. Their first edits by Noetica to the case request were to add more parties, their statement is at 05:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC), about 35 hours after the case was initiated. By that time, 3 arbitrators had accepted the case. The case request had 4 net votes to accept a mere 2 minutes later (I'll leave the exercise regarding the evaluation of timings for the 11 parties added by Noetica 16 minutes before the case turned to 4 net accept votes), or the one party added when the tally was at 5 accept votes (about 16 hours before the case was really accepteD)). Now I understand that that case, nor it's evolution is by no means any comparison to this case, still this shows that scenarios similar to what happened with EncycloPetey, and why I think that a consideration to formalise the process would be good. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Well done

I am glad to see that the ArbCom-process sometimes does function as it should. EncycloPetey has been abusing admin-powers for years and years, violating core content policies on a regular basis, and shares responsibility for some of the worst errors in this project. One of the most unpleasant users in the Wikimedia-universe. - A longtimer (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)