Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive 3

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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Question; involved parties

Hi. A quick question. In listing "involved parties" in an arbcom about an editor's behavior at an AfD and related matters, is it sufficient to contact all the editors who discussed his behavior with him? Where there was also a follow-up AN/I, is it sufficient to copy the closer of the AN/I (or should I leave word of the arb case at the AN/I? Or are the commenters at the AN/I who were not involved with his behavior also considered "invloved parties" requiring contact?) Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

For a totally non-official answer, here's one: involved ("named") parties are you (if you're filing the case) and those editors who have a dispute involving behavioural issues for which other resolution avenues have proved impossible. For these people, you need to show evidence of direct involvement and prior efforts at dispute resolution. Generally, an ANI thread is not dispute resolution in and of itself. An ANI thread is often seen as dispute escalation in fact. Named parties are generally expected to respond to the proposed case, since there is a presumption they have something to actually answer for.

As far as notification, for the "named" parties, it is mandatory. For other editors who you think may be able to comment on the case request, you could look at WP:CANVASS. You are expected to not just recruit "supporters" to your cause, you should inform either none or all of the interested observers whether or not they might support your views. Do one or the other. Franamax (talk) 04:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Tx. So far, I've essentially limited myself to the first part, in that I have named those editors who complained about the particular editor's misbehavior that is the subject of the arb and who have been identified in the arb request. All of the editors have tried -- at minimum -- to address these behavioral issues with the editor, and I've provided diffs for all (some have gone further). I also added the closer to the AN/I (an apparent mistake on my part; he had no view before or since, but I mistakenly thought it appropriate as a courtesy), and another editor named as being involved in an unrevealed COI situation that is part of the asserted misbehavior.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Table of Contents Clarification

I have noted for some time that the Committee requests page has a somewhat out-of-control Table of Contents. I believe greater clarity would be achieved with the Template:TOC limit, which forces the table to list only level 2 and 3 subheadings. This will really help navigation. I am going to WP:BOLD and insert it, but if anyone is opposed, feel free to revert. —Finn Casey * * * 01:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

To locate and edit a section now, one has to scroll through the entire page; if a toc limit is needed, perhaps this is not deep enough. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I can understand that concern. Perhaps a modification to toc-limit-4 would be in order. That would be less chaotic than the previous situation with fifth and sixth level headers appearing on the table. I will implement it, let me know what you think. —Finn Casey * * * 02:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

As a minimum, that would help; each participant needs to get to their own section without having to scroll the entire page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Options

Per the above comment, perhaps the first modification was excessive. The Template:TOC limit can be modified to suppress only certain level headings. I will implement the next level of permissiveness, TOC-4. To summarize our options:

Original unmodified - all headings are listed in table of contents. (to view this, erase the {{TOC limit|4}} from the project page, and click "show preview")
Most restrictive TOC level suppressor - only level two and above headings are displayed. (to view this, erase the |4 from the TOC limit template on the project page, and click "show preview")
Current Compromise Modification - only level three and above headings are displayed. (current form)

The goal is to balance the ability to find specific sections with the need for concise clarity (that is, after all, the purpose of a table of contents). The more detail that is included, the harder it becomes to wade through all the sub-sub-sub headings to find the right one. Opinions regarding the preferred method are welcome. —Finn Casey * * * 02:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it may be helpful to keep the point of sub-sections of this page in mind: each editor edits only their own section. We need to be able to get to at least those, and probably the next level. It's a matter of functionality of the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The TOC level restriction currently in use seems fine to me, so I guess option three has my support. AGK 18:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Template for filing arbcom enforcement request

I attempted to use the template for filing an arbcom enforcement request, but it doesn't format. Can someone explain how to do it correctly? Thanks. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 09:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Already fixed, and explained at your talkpage Fritzpoll (talk) 09:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The screener solution

To elaborate on this suggestion, one of the most troublesome things to deal with as a mentor are occasions when the mentoree ventures out on their own and takes action that is provocative and objectionable but probably sub-blockable. I wish you had come to me first is a conversation I've had many times with most of my mentorees, and probably Mattisse's mentors have had with her too. No mentor likes to engage in damage control because the action is usually right on the edge. So unless the mentor's criticism is both stern and public the mentor is liable to get accused of enabling bad behavior; often the situation isn't quite black and white.

Earlier this year certain members of the Committee tried to initiate a version of "empowered" mentorship that was basically reactive. That model was unworkable. Mentorship itself as an arbitration remedy seldom succeeds. After the ADD case and this one, perhaps the reason is becoming more clear. It puts the cart before the horse to say that mentorship exists to avoid sanctions. Mentorship actually exists to render sanctions unnecessary. The more visible and politicized a mentorship becomes, the harder it is for that mentorship to succeed.

The screener alternative is not mentorship. Mainly a screener function is to sift wheat from chaff and prevent "drama" before it starts. Instead of I wish you would come to me before you post that the situation becomes You must come to me before you post that. If the screener feels like incorporating mentorship into that model they're free to do so. Principally it saves the the effort of putting out fires, which is a primary cause of mentor burnout.

The main obstacle to be anticipated is the "under the radar" post: subtle context-driven snarks that slip through the screening process. A fair and reasonable solution could probably deal with that, along with provisions for what would follow if evidence mounts that the screening process is being gamed. Durova³⁶³ 20:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The screener function you describe is pretty much what I was trying to suggest back then (although it is clear in retrospect that naming it "mentorship" — or indeed even using the name while discussing it — was the source of much confusion). That function of screening needs to be empowered with the ability to enforce to be usable, hence the necessity to allow the screener to apply sanctions liberally at discretion. — Coren ^(talk) 22:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Similar vein, broadly speaking. Instead of a red light/green light for an entire page or subject, this functions post by post. So instead of the screener getting kicked around as the political football of both sides for a "big" approval, the screener makes a series of little decisions quietly. More work at the front end, but overall less stressful because it allows for better time management: fewer forest fires. Durova³⁶³ 05:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Awful lot of hard work for the screener though but I suppose they could do it in shifts. Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Mccready has been blocked

I don't know if this is the right place but I have blocked User:Mccready who currently has a request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#McCready_edit_warring_topic_ban]] following this sequence. The discussion follows from prior attempts from other admins at dealing with the topic ban at issue and so the prior conduct may be relevant. The block is for one week, but if it affects the Arbitration request in any way, I will (or anyone else can) unblock him to allow him to speak. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, noted, also you can copy his statement from his talk page to the arb page if you desire that in place of unblocking. MBisanz ^talk 05:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Formalities

In the case concerning the Audit Subcomittee I notice that a couple of arbitrators have recused "as a formal matter". What does that mean? Is this typical language when recusing that I've just never picked up on before or does it denote some special characteristic of the recusal? 80.65.247.36 (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Special: Risker and Newyorkbrad sit on the Audit Subcommittee. Mackensen (talk) 03:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

GiacomoReturned / Carcharoth

I appreciate I'm a nobody and I apologise if this has already been addressed elsewhere but I can't help noticing recent parallels to the current Giano case. Another arbitrator recently threatened Giano with a block over issues so closely related that... let's face it, it's the same topic and same concerns exactly. In relation to John Vandenberg's comments about arbitrators appearing to act in an official capacity, it's perhaps worth noticing that that arbitrator was acting on behalf of a group (referred to as "us") that at least might reasonably have been taken to mean the committee. "If you continue with this sort of behaviour, the only thing you are likely to force us to do is block or ban you for your behaviour."

Some questions:

Was Carcharoth acting on behalf of the committee? If so then would best practice have been to give details of a committee motion supporting his threats?
Was Carcharoth acting on behalf of some other group when he mentioned "us" - if so then did that group include Coren?
If Carcharoth wasn't acting on behalf of the committee then did his choice of words wittingly or unwittingly give the impression that he was, and would it be advisable to be more careful in creating such impressions?
Having threatened Giano with a block for pretty much the same issues, can Carcharoth really justify non-recusal in a case over just such a block being applied and reversed?

217.28.2.130 (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

You might find it surprising what can be justified by Carcharoth. U A 20:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but in the past he's struck me as a pretty decent sort of guy. I suspect his non-recusal here arises more from not thinking it through than any deception (of others or of self) 217.28.2.130 (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I was aware of that post I had made to Giano's talk page (though some of my subsequent comments may only be in the page history because Giano removed some of my subsequent posts there). I was, in fact, surprised that Giano hadn't pointed out that I had warned him about this. Anyway, earlier today, during discussions on the secondary arbitration mailing list (set up for discussions about this request), I pointed out two things: (1) That I had earlier warned Giano (in the post you link to); and (2) That there was another point where I was involved in what happened here (I participated in the oversight-l mailing list thread about the incident that prompted the AUSC report). I said that I would disclose both these points when I next commented on the request. I am now going to read the request and see where it has got to, and post some more thoughts on all this (based mostly on what was discussed today), including a response to what you have said here about possible recusal. Carcharoth (talk) 02:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC) I seem to have ended up answering the recusal question in a response elsewhere - see here for why I think this prior warning is not grounds for recusal. Carcharoth (talk) 04:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration discussion; very important

Community review and input is requested here. Durova³⁸⁶ 23:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed new policy for arbitrators

Per some discussion I found at arb-related pages, I have proposed a modest new policy with regards to how arbitrators should conduct administrators actions. U A 21:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Rules and precedents

From his comments and relief, I think Coren may be under the impression that Carcharoth's assurance that no "binding precedent" will be created by this ruling is in some way different to the assurances that no binding precedents are created by any of the other ArbCom rulings either. 217.28.2.130 (talk) 09:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps either Coren or Carcharoth, or even better both of them, would like to comment on that. DuncanHill (talk) 10:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Given that I've supported the motion to close, this is moot. In general, ArbCom rulings do not set binding precedents, though contrary to what is said, they can set precedents in the sense that they can inform later discussions and rulings (the most common being re-using principles from previous cases). But equally, previous decisions can be overturned and previous principles torn down and rewritten (the guiding principle is to look at what current Wikipedia policies and guidelines say). In this case, if admonishments had been proposed (and though I still think they were warranted, merely that they were possible is enough), then they wouldn't have set any sort of precedent at all. The reassurance Coren wanted, which I was happy to give, is that the general 'arbitrators taking admin actions' issue will be discussed by the new committee, and not decided here and now. Carcharoth (talk) 06:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Carcharoth is correct; every decision by the committee sets precedent, even if it's not binding, because past decisions inform future ones (we try to be consistent if nothing else). My issue was only about the iffyness of deciding the general issue by a fraction of the committee, but it is clear in retrospect that the unrecused arbitrators also noticed and considered that problem and planned accordingly. — Coren ^(talk) 12:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

And Wikipedia is clearly going to benefit from the precedents set by this whole extended incident.</sarcasm> The motion to close establishes the precedent that misuse of administrator tools by arbitrators will not face sanction - and worse, that the Committee will not even investigate such misuse. On the ARBADMIN talk page I noted that the Committee faces a no win situation in investigating such cases. I am dismayed, however, to learn that in the case of Coren's egregious block of Giano that the non-recused arbitrators lack the collective wisdom to recognise that their actions are tantamount to a declaration that any and all use of administrator tools by arbitrators will be tolerated. Choosing to pretend that the AUSC "report" actually addresses the issues raised by the Randy oversighting and that everything is peachy is taking a do-nothing action that will do enormous damage to ArbCom as an institution. As far as I can see, there is only one path forward that allows the committee to avoid choosing from the dreadful options available... I sure hope you are privately lobbying for it to happen. EdChem (talk) 13:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

We don't use arbitration to investigate alleged single incidents of abuse. Any two editors who've attempted and failed to resolve a dispute with an arbitrator have the option of starting an WP:RFC/U. In that regard arbitrators are reviewable and can be compelled to resign by the community. Jehochman ^{Make my day} 14:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

This "single incident of abuse" includes an accusation of outing by an arbitrator, an AUSC statement (for it certainly does not deserve the descriptor "report") that ignores major issues, and a misuse of the admin tools so egregious that virtually no non-arbitrator was willing to endorse it. There is vastly more than sufficient basis for an ArbCom case here - and that's without including peripheral issues like the absurdly short ban discussion at ANI that preceeded the inappropriate oversight. Unfortunately, ArbCom have decided to pretend nothing much happened and to adopt a position of blanket immunity for arbitrator's administrative actions, akin to the sovereign immunity enjoyed by heads of state. I think that the precedent that has been set is both appallingly foolish and incredibly dangerous. It has undermined the legitimacy of ArbCom as an institution and simultaneously tarnished the reputation of every Arbitrator who was a party to it.

Jehochman, I am aware you are trying to kill off the discussion about community-initiated admin recall in favour of pretending that RfC/U can somehow compel resignations. I believe that you believe you are pushing for the best outcome that is possible, but I also believe that your approach is doomed. RfC/U cannot force a resignation any more than it can force any other binding outcome. Certainly it would be a high effort-low reward approach for dealing with Arbitrator misconduct. What is needed is a binding Arbitrator Recall mechanism so that the question of whether an Arbitrator retains the trust of the community can be tested... but who knows if we'll ever get one. The 2009 Committee promised one (and did achieve some useful reforms early in its term) so maybe it will happen some day. If we are fortunate, such a recall mechanism could be adapted to administrator recall. At the moment, however, there is no method of forced accountability for arbitrators and only a tenuous one for administrators. And the present ArbCom have justed acted to undermine the notion of administrator accountability. What a notable achievement for the end of the year... the incoming arbitrators must be so grateful to be starting out with the foolish actions of their predecessors and colleagues hanging over their heads. EdChem (talk) 16:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as one of the presumed Arbitrators elected, I could not disagree with you more re: Recall. Administrators and ESPECIALLY arbitrators are there to make the tough decisions. They will not make everyone happy. In fact, if they only anger half of the people with every decision they make, then they're lucky. I do support Requests for administrator recall (There've been two semi-frivolous attempts to recall me, but I still stand for administrative recall, because I do agree with you that it's a good check.. for me. But only for me. If people do not wish to place themselves under the same terms, I can't force them, nor should I.) Is it a factor when and if someone runs for admin? Sure, if people want it to be.

But ANY community mandated "De-admin" process will have these issues where they will be gamed by partisans in the worst areas, and that is why I will oppose any such system that does not solve that issue. I invite your attention to the recently closed EEML case.. if community mandated recall of administrators was an option there, don't you think they would have used it? (This is just my opinion, I have only read what is public in the discussions, and nothing from ArbCom's discussion, as since I am only presumptive and not formally elected yet, I do not have access to the archives). I do think that a RfC/RfArb chain (or RfRecall if they are open to it) is the best method to fairly and honestly present issues with individual administrators and their actions. SirFozzie (talk) 16:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

In fact, if [arbitrators] only anger half of the people with every decision they make, then they're lucky. I couldn't disagree more... if arbitrators are making decisions that anger more than half of the community on a regular basis then they are incompetent. Angering more than half the parties to a case - like the recent EEML case - is to be expected from time to time, but when most of the people watching on and commenting are angered then there is good reason to stop and rethink. Take the travesty that was the Matthew Hoffman case, another situation that involved inappropriate and unethical behaviour by ArbCom members... many watchers of that case criticised it and were angered, and after numerous appeals the 2009 Committee finally had the decency to undo the actions of the earlier committee. Another case that leaps to mind is Mantanmoreland, where there was community outrage at the decision and where the odd behaviour of the then-Committee remains unexplained. Fortunately, widespread anger with Committee decisions has been the exception rather than the rule.

I invite your attention to the recently closed EEML case.. if community mandated recall of administrators was an option there, don't you think they would have used it? Yes, I do think a recall process would likely have occurred in the EEML case; fortunately, none was needed as ArbCom emergency de-sysopped Piotrus. If you meaant to suggest that the EEML participants might have attempted arbitrator recall had a mechanism existed, perhaps they would have - but I don't believe that in any appropriately designed recall system they would have garnered sufficient community support for any recall to occur. Designing in safeguards to avoid frivilous and vexatious recall attempts is necessary, but potential for misuse of recall processes or gaming by partisans are not reasons for not developing any recall process in the first place. Recall mechanisms are about accountability for egregious misbehaviour, and about testing whether an individual retains the confidence of the community. They are a necessary safeguard in a balanced and just system. In the recent Law/Undertow issue, for example, the Committee would have benefitted from an extant recall mechanism. In the absence of one, the Committee decided to act on its own in making a determination about confidence. It was unfortunate that they erred in pretending they could stand in the place of the community in determining confidence; they should have explicitly stated they were considering whether various administrators retained the confidence of ArbCom and acted on that basis, rather than behaving as if the community should or would have the same confidence in those individuals as did ArbCom.

But ANY community mandated "De-admin" process will have these issues where they will be gamed by partisans in the worst areas, and that is why I will oppose any such system that does not solve that issue. ... I do think that a RfC/RfArb chain (or RfRecall if they are open to it) is the best method to fairly and honestly present issues with individual administrators and their actions. These statements highlight the source of the fundamental difference in our perspectives. RfC/RfAr retains all the power with the "governing class" (for want of a better term) and away from the community. Your blanket refusal for any de-admin process unless it is un-gameable suggests a similar lack of trust in the wisdom of the community as a whole. For me, the starting point is that the power of admins and arbitrators is derived ultimately from their endorsement by the community, and the inviolable ability of the community to remove that endorsement is a natural consequence. As a result, from my perspective there can be no reasonable de-adminship process unless it is decided by the will of the community - and so requiring ArbCom involvement is not acceptable. ArbCom has certainly been empowered to de-sysop but a refusal to act by ArbCom cannot reasonably prevent the community acting on its own authority. Community initiated actions would hopefully be rare, but from time to time they will be necessary. Your statements suggest to me that you are more concerned with preserving the power held within existing structures, even at the cost of disempowering the community. I agree with you to the extent that the integrity of power structures is worthy of protection, in this case from misuse and gaming of recall procedures, and that the collection of powers into administrator and arbitrator corps is necessary. However, I cannot agree to place the importance of those structures above the right of the community to exercise its authority to determine which of its members are elevated into those positions of power. EdChem (talk) 19:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

As an addendum to your "No method of forced accountability for arbitrators", there is a tried-and-true methods that's worked on politicians ever since the US was formed. It's called "Vote da bums out!". With 1-2 year terms, any misstep by an arbitrator will be remembered long enough that it will likely sink any chance at re-election. Besides, considering the many seperate ArbCom resignations over the last eighteen months , I'd say that arbitrator accountability is alive and well. It may not be enough to settle your instant reactions, but it is there. SirFozzie (talk) 18:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrators aren't supposed to perform a governing function, nor act like politicians. But, if you really want a US political analogy, try impeachment - a mechanism included in the US Constitution because no one should be above the law. Regarding the resignations, some might have proceded by the arbitrator initiating a recall process had such an option been available - similar to the way Casliber acted, for instance. It is unfortunate that we lost some good arbitrators to resignations in situations where I believe no recall procedure would have passed because they retained the confidence of the community - but of course they had the right to resign if that was their decision. The point of forced accountability, however, is for when an individual decides to keep his or her head down and tries to weather the storm. EdChem (talk) 19:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, impeachment doesn't work for your example. Did "The Community" (ie America) vote on the impeachment of Bill Clinton? No, they didn't. The procedure set up meant the house filed the impeachment charges, and the senate tried the case. That's similar to the RfC (House) and RfArb (Senate). SirFozzie (talk) 20:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, but my analogy was not about the procedure involved in the process, it was about the existence of the process itself. In other words, it wasn't about the "how" of impeachment but rather about the "what" - that an impeachment process exists. EdChem (talk) 20:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

(de-indenting for Sanity :)) And I say that the current proceedure (RfC/RfArb) IS an impeachment process. I would assume any arbitrator who screwed up that bad to require a RfC/RfArb would resign as well, so it can be said to exist already. SirFozzie (talk) 20:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Medieval Warm Period and Financial Post

User:William M. Connolley has been accused of a conflict of interest for global warming and of creating systematic bias in Wikipedia to the effect of minimizing the Medieval Warm Period to further an environmental agenda. Where should this be addressed? - Roy Boy 23:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

In the first instance, his talk page, then WP:COIN if difficulties remain. --TS 23:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

As the article asserts 5,000+ articles effected, we may want to be pro-active. I will begin on WP:COIN. - Roy Boy 00:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

As WMC has only edited that many articles in total, you can rest assured that most of them are irrelevant to any environmental agenda. Dougweller (talk) 07:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

This is an attempt at swiftboating, pure and simple. It has no place here. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Yet any attempt on WP to prevent free discourse on such matters is likely to result in far worse long-term consequences regarding public attitudes towards WP. We are far better off discussing what may be meritless topics impacting WP, than to be perceived as sweeping all controversy under a large rug. Collect (talk) 16:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Brews ohare at AE

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Brews ohare is getting out of hand. I ask that an administrator take control of the discussion.

The only questions to be decided at AE, based on Brews ohare's arbitration sanctions, are:

Is the article that Brews edited (indeed, created) physics-related, and therefore within his topic ban? (This is the only question that the request for enforcement raised.)
Was Brews' editing of the article and talk page discussion disruptive or tendentious? (Brews' detractors added this issue after the answer to the first question became so clear.)

The answer to both questions is, No. However, discussion has spiraled off in other directions. There is now a debate between pure mathematicians and applied mathematicians (those who use the math, such engineers and physicists) about the article's approach; the mathematicians actually disdain the use of sources, among other differences. And this has degenerated into name-calling and questioning one another's good faith and motives. David Tombe's arguments in Brews' support are not helping Brews or the process: Tombe was sanctioned in the same arbitration as Brews (which diminishes his credibility) and his manner is combative. Could an administrator please step in to take control of this melee? Thank you.—Finell 05:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You are asking in the wrong place (as you can see by the lateness of this reply, not many people follow this talk page). If you want an admin to take control of the situation, post at the enforcement thread. If you want arbitrators to clarify the situation, you can post a request for clarification, but that will take far longer than the AE thread. Hopefully, the AE thread has already been resolved. Carcharoth (talk) 10:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Indeed, I see it has been archived already.

Badagnani

Are outside views possible or how does one go about adding additional parties? While the arbitration case has been opened it only includes his latest dispute and this is in fact a long term issue that has gone on with this editor and involved dozens of other editors. I wouldn't want arbcom to get the wrong impression that the issue is only with the most recent behaviour, so I'd like to add a statement about my interaction with him a year ago to provide context if at all possible.--Crossmr (talk) 06:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Any user may post a view in the same format as is indicated on the page and any reasonably related editor can add themselves (and only themselves) to the list. If you aren't sure if you are related enough to be a party, you can ask a clerk if you should be added or just make an uninvolved comment. MBisanz ^talk 06:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

"clearly inappropriate"

Daniel removed some of my statement with edit summary "Remove table per instructions of arbitrators as 'clearly inappropriate'."[1] Am I to understand that an arbitrator requested this be removed; or was Daniel interpreting a general remit? Would anyone care to explain to me what makes this "clearly inappropriate"? Hesperian 11:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I asked Daniel to remove it. The table was clearly inappropriate because it has no evidential value and serves only to place undue weight to your statement. Roger Davies ^talk 11:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If we're to stick to presenting evidence, don't you think you guys ought to stick to reading and digesting it? Conversely, when you guys decide you've seen enough evidence to start making and endorsing summary motions, oughtn't we be permitted to move on to critiquing those motions? You can't have it both ways, Roger. You don't get to move on from the evidence phase yourselves, and at the same demand that everyone else restrict themselves to presenting evidence that you don't plan on reading. From where I sit t feels like you've trotted out some procedural loophole in order to stifle legitimate criticism. Hesperian 11:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

We're probably talking at crosspurposes. The objection is purely to the use of a table. Feel free to cover the same ground in normal text format. Roger Davies ^talk 12:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Requests for comment regarding biographies of living people

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people --MZMcBride (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Effect of the BLP motion

The motion now apparently to be approved says that the deletions in question were "reasonable exercise of administrative discretion", that "the administrators who carried out these actions are commended for their efforts to enforce policy and uphold the quality of the encyclopedia, but are urged to conduct future activities in a less chaotic manner." and that "The administrators who interfered with these actions are reminded that the enforcement of the policy on biographies of living people takes precedence over mere procedural concerns." It also recommends that an RfC or similar discussion determine "the most efficient way to proceed with the effective enforcement of the policy".

Many editors, on both sides of the issue, are reading this to say that continuation of mass deletions, without discussion, is perfectly acceptable, indeed laudable, and that interfering with such deletions is not acceptable, and possibly subject to sanction. This view seems supported by the statement (in voting reasons section) by Coren (talk · contribs) that "Unless the articles are individually demonstrated to be both neutral and verified (and not merely hypothetically verifiable), then deleting them is not only permissible, but obligatory." This view seems opposed by Coren's statement that "the chosen language, "commended [...] but urged" is intended to mean something along the lines of "You did something of positive value but in a poorly chosen manner"; it is by no mean an unconditional endorsement of the manner in which the deletion[s] have taken place." and by the statement of Shell Kinney (talk · contribs) (with which two othe arbitrators have indicated agreement) that "as Coren mentioned, this is not a suggestion that mass deletion (or any deletion) is the way forward nor a carte blanche to act (deletion or otherwise) before the community has a chance to sort this out."

I note that Scott MacDonald (talk · contribs) seems to have continued multiple undiscussed deletions up at least 13:12, 21 January 2010, which, unless I'm being fooled by a timezone error, is after the 5th vote for the motion was posted. Although of course the motions has not yet been officially adopted, with nine votes in favor it looks, well, rather likely at the moment. Based on this, and on the history of the issue, and the statements of various admins, it seems to me likely that such deletions will continue as things now stand.

If the ArbCom really wants to have future deletions occur only via some yet to be determined mechanism with consensus support (whether a variant of WP:PROD, a new WP:CSD, a variant of Incubation or some other mechanism) than I think it would be wise to amend its motions, or pass a further motion, to explicitly say that future mass deletions are not acceptable, or under what if any circumstances they would be subject to future sanction. If this is not done, any admin who wishes to continue such deletions can cite the "commended" language and the warning against interference, and argue that in the absence of future interference, deletions will not be "chaotic". In the face of this motion, It would be hard to block for such actions.

I ask the ArbCom hypothetically, if such deletions continue and some admin does block the deletors and that block is brought here as a violation of this ruling, how will you handle the matter?

I ask the ArbCom to at least consider a temporary injunction against future mass deletions, pending community discussion and adoption of some mechanism for handling unsourced BLPs. Such an injunction could include a time limit by which, if no such process is adopted, the floodgates will open, or should I say the drains.

In the absence of any explicit comment by the ArbCom on future deletions, there is IMO less incentive for those favoring deletion to work on a mechanism that balances the competing interests at stake here, and even if adopted, more chance that such a mechanism will fail if any admin feels free to avoid it by unilateral deletion. DES ^(talk) 22:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

In one-and-a-half years on Wikipedia, this is the only time I've seen something to which my reaction could accurately be described as outrage. I do not think it is acceptable to summarily delete unsourced BLPs out of process; I do not think it is acceptable for administrators to say "screw the community" and "screw consensus" when taking administrative actions; and I especially do not think it is acceptable for ArbCom to commend such actions and such administrators. ArbCom has given a green light to actions that ignore community consensus and community-established policies and processes. Our policy on BLPs does not in any way, shape, or form give administrators free license to delete BLPs that do not contain copyright violations, libellous text, or otherwise contentious material. Our policy on BLPs does not in any way, shape, or form give administrators free license to delete unreferenced BLPs summarily simply because they are unreferenced, not without going through our long-established deletion processes. Our policy on BLPs does not in any way, shape, or form condone administrators deciding to hold community consensus in contempt and taking unilateral actions that are highly contentious. Moreover, our policy on administrators tells us that admins are no different from other editors, save access to a few buttons. But you know what? If actions like these can be taken – if admins can wipe out countless editors' non-contentious work on a biography simply because it has yet to be referenced – if admins can drastically reduce this encyclopedia's coverage and make it difficult for users to restore that coverage – then the aforementioned policy is complete B.S. If ArbCom endorses – nay, commends – "enforcing" a policy by trampling and ignoring others, then ArbCom is seriously misguided.

It is not the place of ArbCom to settle good-faith content disputes, nor is it the place of ArbCom to make policy. Both are the community's responsibility. In this motion, by commending the admins in question rather than desysopping them, and by warning other admins against interfering with such summary deletions, ArbCom has created a new de facto criterion for speedy deletion. This is not acceptable, and it is a major overreach on ArbCom's part. The committee must not dictate policy by fiat in this way, nor should they invoke the "ignore all rules" policy in such controversial circumstances. No criteria should be added to the CSD without establishing consensus for the criterion at WT:CSD first. As such, I do not consider much of this motion to be a valid exercise of ArbCom's power, and I urge administrators not to invoke this motion in order to summarily delete unreferenced BLPs. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree. But if the motion is "not valid", what action should you or another admin take should some admin ignore your urging and continue unilateral deletions of unreferenced but uncontentious BLPs? (a hypothetical i think likely to be realized) DES ^(talk) 22:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not an admin, so there's nothing I personally can do. That said, I think admins can avoid violating WP:WHEEL by (a) selectively restoring unreferenced BLPs that may meet WP:N, WP:V, etc. and do not contain contentious material, and immediately adding references themselves or sending to PROD or AfD; (b) selectively restoring unreferenced BLPs flagged as being under the scope of certain WikiProjects to subpages of those WikiProjects, tagged with {{noindex}}; or (c) selectively restoring unreferenced BLPs to the article incubator. Merely reverting a deletion on the basis that the ArbCom motion is invalid would surely be considered wheel-warring; however, I believe Jimbo described such deletions as an application of WP:BOLD. The next step, then, is logically to revert and discuss. I think an AfD and a move to a WikiProject or the Incubator are both valid applications of the "discuss" part of BRD. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

One of the problems is that even with a list of the deleted articles, the categories are missing. I'd be happy to take on any Australian politics ones and pass them around to my fellow editors, but there's no way from a big list to tell which ones were in our maintenance categories. Also note there is a confirmed MediaWiki problem with watchlist where articles are known to disappear ... I replenish my watchlist every few months off the same base list and usually find around 100 or more have disappeared from the watchlist. Orderinchaos 03:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Normally I'm a big fan of WP:DEADLINE... but maybe not this time. How about ArbCom tacks on a clarifier, to wit, "the community needs to put a process (fitting certain parms specified as follows??) in place that gets the job done satisfactorily by date X. Admins are not to do any additional summary deletions until after X. If by X, the process is in place, that is what they will use. If it is not in place by then, the community is reminded that they were required to create one, and the summary deletions may then resume". Make X something reasonable. (2 weeks? a month at the most). Then, having boldly led, get out of the way and let the community organise one that is satisfactory to all concerned. ++Lar: t/c 23:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Lar here. As long as we don't then get people prodding this way by the thousands this might be an ok way forward. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

To be blunt, I don't trust ArbCom in the slightest to set any such deadlines. It is useful for petty disputes, but this is so far beyond a 17 man panel it isn't funny. Also, such a deadline would only encourage those in favour of mass unilateral deletions to obstruct the discussions and proposals since their attempts at rewriting policy would come into effect by default once that time limit expired. Lets not compound ArbCom's mistake with that motion by giving it a back door to rewriting policy. That is the the job of the community and the Foundation. Reso lute 23:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, accept that it is clear that a large minority of the community is likely going to do whatever they want without intervention. This at least has the potential of resulting in them using a set process rather than continuing a borderline civil war. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The RfC is generating numerous ideas already. Lets not hasten the start of that civil war by giving ArbCom the authority to tell one side when it can begin the massacre. There is no need at this point for any kind of deadline. I will accept, however that that may change into the future if the current discussion falters without a consensus. Reso lute 00:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The lesson out of this is: if trying to change policy, abuse Wikipedia cornerstone policies to your heart's content, abuse anyone who gets in the way, get enough people on your side, and ArbCom will back you all the way. The decision taken is cowardly and compromised in the extreme and we will see another case, with sanctions, here in a couple of months as the two sides are entrenched. Orderinchaos 03:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it time for another RfC on Arbcom? Their support for admins who have openly declared contempt for the community as part of their justifications for their actions suggests to me that the time is getting close. DuncanHill (talk) 03:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Some answers

Placed here so as to not clutter the voting sections even more.

@Cyclopia: My statement means exactly what it says, your confusion stems for mistaking the objective ("build a free encyclopedia") with the means ("the community"). Building this encyclopedia bears a number of ethical responsibilities which the community cannot override. The committee's responsibility is to the project, not the contributors — even though they generally align.

@Balloonman: "[...] but then you support a proposal that praises them for doing so." One does not preclude the other; it's possible to do a good thing the wrong way; it means that a better way needs to be found, not that what was done becomes bad.

— Coren ^(talk) 00:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

So to be clear, in your view if an admin goes back on another deletion spree say right now what happens? JoshuaZ (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

My personal opinion there should be clear enough: a new deletion spree at this time would be met with a high-velocity trout. The original deletions were bold and defensible; attempting to circumvent genuine attempts to solve the problem now would amount to raising shit needlessly. (In particular, there is an RfC where discussion is taking place, and which may yet end up solving the problem). — Coren ^(talk) 01:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if you want a very good interpretation of my position, the Interpretation by Scott MacDonald hits the nail square on the head as far as I'm concerned. — Coren ^(talk) 01:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Good to know. That moves this from the "I think you're crazy" category to the "I disagree with you but understand where you're coming from" category. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Requesting a temporary injunction (arbitrators please read)

I'm not sure where to post this, so hopefully this will reach the ArbCom's attention.

I'd like to request a temporary injunction against User:JBsupreme. Over the past day, even after being added to this case, he has been tagging dozens of BLPs with {{prod}}, along with an insistence that the prod not be removed (example). This is contrary to prod's purpose, and is about the nearest thing to "rogue deletions" that a non-admin can do. This is just pouring that much more gasoline on the flames of this case, and I see no sign that he will stop unless someone of authority steps in and tells him to.

Thanks.--Father Goose (talk) 03:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, before Cyclopia and others edit-warred and got the page stuck on the proverbial "wrong version", that is precisely how the prod tag should be used on this atrocious articles. Tarc (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the particular tag in the example because the article appeared accurate, sourceable, and uncontroversial - but I'll leave the job for someone else to fix this article and remove the other tags. I've already done more than my share today by fixing three or four articles today. It's a real concern that diligent editors who actually care about the content being lost shouldn't be forced to do make-up work at a schedule dictated by whim. JBsupreme's tagging seems aggressive and indiscriminate - they've tagged articles good and bad, and a number of articles that had sources. It would be a good idea if people calmed down and stopped escalating the matter with provocative steps like this while there's an Arbcom case on and many proposals afoot to deal with the matter in a more orderly fashion. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

What Tarc conveniently omits is that the warring over PROD started when several people tried to add the new language "Prods on BLPs may not be removed" earlier today, and several others objected. The whole point is to stop warring at this point and let ArbCom sort it out. Capisce? Good.--Father Goose (talk) 05:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer to stop warring and let the community figure it out. JBsupreme, however, does not get to unilaterally re-write policy. We don't need an injunction to stop him from inappropriately trying to force his own viewpoint on the issue. Remove the PROD tags as per normal and tell him to take the articles to AfD if he has an issue. Reso lute 05:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to edit-war with him across dozens of pages -- that would just make me an involved party. The committee needs to step in and say, "okay, you've made your point, stop now."

If I brought the matter up at ANI at this moment, he would probably be blocked then unblocked by various parties to this fight. ArbCom needs to step in.--Father Goose (talk) 09:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

My $0.02, post it to ANI if it continues. Literally, by acronym definition of PROD, it's not a "mark for delete" nor can it be. The editor named is also not an admin, so though that by itself doesn't matter it at least means any violation of the "do not remove" is an empty threat since it would basically require going to ANI (either way) just to get enforced. If it starts an edit war or disaster at ANI, hold those persons responsible and maybe someone will actually notice the gigantic mess and comment on the policy looting since yesterday. Hell, I'd even say lock all deletion-related policy pages to the versions before the encouraged "lone admin" deletions started so no one has to worry about those articles and people can actually go back to editing. Since ArbCom tries to make clear it doesn't deal with policy they need to account for people interpreting their decisions as such when motions have contentious wording they won't clarify. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 13:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I endorse Father Goose's reasonable call here. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm recused as a clerk, but I can provide the advice that this probably will not be acted on unless filed as a formal request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests_for_amendment. MBisanz ^talk 19:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Strongly endorse Father Goose's injunction.

I guess JBsupreme is under sanctions?

I don't think any editor should have to put up with this repeated bullying, especially from veteran editors who are supposed to know better, who know the rules which were built on years of community consensus, are reminded of the rules again, and yet still persist to threaten good faith editors with blocks who abide by those rules. Ikip ^{Frank Andersson (45 revisions restored):}_{an olympic medallist for f**k's sake} 19:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

His edit summaries while edit-warring are way too over the top as well: "UGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH PEOPLE WHEN WILL YOU LEARN??? PLEASE, FLAGGED REVISIONS, WHERE THE HELL ARE YOU?," "holy crap I cannot believe User:Jheald restored text," etc." Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

If you read FG's comment, it says he is asking arbcom to enact an injunction to put JBsupreme under sanction. Arbcom hasn't acted on the request yet, probably since it was not formally made on the proper page. MBisanz ^talk 19:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It's moot now. ArbCom has effectively greenlighted summary deletion of unsourced BLPs by passing the motion: [2]. But I have to think this matter will be back before Arbcom in a very, very short time. Quality punt, fellas.--Father Goose (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

"clearly inappropriate"

Daniel removed some of my statement with edit summary "Remove table per instructions of arbitrators as 'clearly inappropriate'."[3] Am I to understand that an arbitrator requested this be removed; or was Daniel interpreting a general remit? Would anyone care to explain to me what makes this "clearly inappropriate"? Hesperian 11:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)