Revision as of 04:57, 1 July 2009

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52

This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

• WT:AC/N
• WT:ACN

Discussion of agenda

Agenda

Discussion of announcements

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science amended

Original announcement.

Arbitration motion regarding Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Midnight Syndicate

Original post

Arbitration motion regarding Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand

Original post

Arbitration motion regarding Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria

Original post

Ban Appeal Sub Committee - amending procedure

Announcement

Arbitration motion regarding Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine

Original post

Appeals to the Ban Appeals Subcommittee: Aarandir & Anonimu

Announcement

Changes of account name by restricted users

Original announcement

New rules for inactivity on internal resolutions

Original announcement

CheckUser and Oversight elections

Original announcement

Link for further information: WP:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight elections/August 2009

Are there minimum qualifications to be able to become a candidate, such as being an administrator, or having been an admin for a certain period of time? J.delanoy_adds 02:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

No, there aren't; the only qualification is completing the Committee's vetting process. Kirill  02:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

But I suppose non-admins won't get to the election stage, they'll be vetted-out ? Cenarium (talk) 17:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Since our biggest need now is for people that can handle complicated situations that often require admin tools, I think that people that are not admins would not be useful in the job. I'm talking about the most serious cases that need prompt and comprehensive management. I wouldn't encourage people to offer their services for this job, unless they have been an admin and have some experience dealing with disruptive users and vandals. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder that the Arbcom doesn't own mediawiki:watchlist-details and if you want to add the elections notifications to it, please observe and respect the community way to handle that by starting a discussion on the talk page beforehand where you can argue why this is needed. In short, don't do like last time, especially with the announcements of results. Thanks, Cenarium (talk) 17:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. Was there a discussion about it last time? I only see a minor correction being made at MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details#February 2009 CheckUser and Oversight elections.

Maybe these could be added to the Misplaced Pages:Watchlist notices#Standing notices ? Obviously that is something for the community to consider. John Vandenberg 09:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity: What are the Committee's criteria for “vetting”? How does it decide whether a candidates “vetting” was successful/unsuccessful? I think a bit more transparency might be useful here. — Aitias // discussion 18:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Eighteen months ago, the community was simply informed of the names of editors who were granted these permissions. A year ago, the community was told who was going to receive these permissions unless a serious contra-indication was raised. This time, the community has the opportunity to specifically voice an opinion on all nominees put forward by the Committee, and the community's voice plays a critical role in the final decision. I'm not sure how much more transparent you can reasonably expect us to be, while still respecting the confidentiality of the editors who express an interest, and meeting our fiduciary duties with respect to privacy-related permissions. Risker (talk) 19:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Procedure for internal resolutions

Original announcement

Provisional suspension of community ban: Thekohser

Original announcement

Is there a reaons why this was done? The list of sock puppets is impressive. After so much dishonesty over such a long period are we expecting the person to change his behavior, and if so what basis is there for that belief? It seems like the overturning of community bans should be better explained.   Will Beback  talk  01:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

If he doesn't immediately change his behaviour he'll be banned again very swiftly indeed as there are many restrictions in place.  Roger Davies 02:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Time will tell. The basic idea of paid editing is fine by me; it is happening here anyway whether people like it or not, so may as well get it out in the open. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

He has specifically undertaken not to engage in paid editing here.  Roger Davies 02:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

And how is anyone to know whether he's being paid? The restriction is unenforceable in practice, so may as well drop it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Given that this place is run by a bunch of pseudonyms whose I.P.s can be checked only under very limited circumstances "It's unenforceable so may as well drop it" seems, as slopes go, not unslippery. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Foolish. --jpgordon 03:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Where did the discussion about overturning the ban take place? Where is the reasoning? -->David Shankbone 03:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I also hope someone is thinking of the children. Privatemusings (talk) 03:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)actually I reckon everything has progressed pretty transparently apart from specific arb discussion and voting, which for some reason seems to occur only a private wiki?

I'll repeat the question: why?   Will Beback  talk  03:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather ask "Why not?" *Dan T.* (talk) 04:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

For starters, see "An annotated listing of sockpuppets and related accounts" at User talk:Thekohser#Thekohser responds. That's a lot of disruption. How many other editors have been allowed back after creating that many socks? Overturning a community ban shouldn't be done without a reason. It's only fair to the community.   Will Beback  talk  04:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Was he community banned? I thought he was Jimbo-banned? Steve Smith (formerly Sarcasticidealist) (talk) 04:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a confusing mess. Jimbo unblocked him here after initially blocking him. User:JzG then declared him banned here inspite of this on the name he switched to, User:Zibiki Wym. The unblock finally came on User:Thekohser, here. JzG's unilateral (and in hindsight, probably inappropriate, unless someone links a discussion endorsing that) declaration of an initial community ban is what made this get confusing, at least initially. rootology (C)(T) 04:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you paying royalties to George Bernard Shaw? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like a familiar set of questions to when I was unblocked. This comment by Lar in particular still sticks out to me from 23 May 2008:

"...the number of people likely to be watching him closely, the risk to the project if he was shining us on is low, he would be reblocked swiftly I would expect. And the potential gain in contributions and in good will is very large. Seems a good gamble to me."

Whatever really happens here is up to Greg alone. rootology (C)(T) 03:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd repeat those words in this case if I thought it necessary... because they fit here, as Root so ably notes. ++Lar: t/c 04:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

He can be a smartass and a gadfly, something I do myself (though not as flamboyantly). I find this sort of thing to be much less objectionable than the attitude of punitive vindictiveness seen in those who forever oppose any reinstatement of a banned editor such as him, like the cop in Les Miserables pursuing to the ends of the earth the guy who stole a loaf of bread. *Dan T.* (talk) 04:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

do you hear the people sing? la di di da di da di da.. etc. etc. Privatemusings (talk) 04:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)although don't confuse Schoenberg with Schoenberg...

Eh? Sometimes your musings are just a bit too obscure. :) ++Lar: t/c 04:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Singing the song of angry men, it is the music of the people who will not be slaves again. When the beating of your heart echoes the beating of the drums, there is a life about to start when tomorrow comes. Viridae 04:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Will you join in our crusade? Who will be strong and stand with me? Somewhere beyond the barricade Is there a world you long to see? Do you hear the people sing? Say, do you hear the distant drums? It is the future that they bring When tomorrow comes... KillerChihuahua 21:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• I think the issue here is not the merits of this particular decision, but that a decision to overturn a community ban was made in secret, and nobody feels it important to at least explain to the community why they did so. The implications are a little bit bigger than Greg's case. -->David Shankbone 04:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• It was handled exactly the same as mine. I asked on my talk page, I mailed a bit, then they did it and announced it. It was no different. rootology (C)(T) 04:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Your good work aside, you aren't a reason that this is a good/acceptable way to make decisions. -->David Shankbone 04:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. Why aren't I? In many circles I was far more hated that Greg could ever dream of being, no matter hard he tries. rootology (C)(T) 04:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• You aren't for the same reason Greg is not. This is about principles, not people. Are you saying that you have no issue that ArbCom feels no need to explain why they rule against the community? -->David Shankbone 04:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• You know I'm the last person who wouldn't call the AC on the carpet over something. ;) But like I said here, was Greg actually community banned with an endorsed roll call on it like we're supposed to do, or are we basing it on JzG's purported declaration? rootology (C)(T) 04:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

David, ArbCom, per policy, hears appeals against bans and has done for years. Appeals are historically dealt with off-wiki. Nothing remarkable there.  Roger Davies 04:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

What Roger said. As far as we're concerned, this was a routine appeal from a banned user, and we have lifted the ban because we believe that, with the restrictions we have imposed, the potential risk of further disruption is minimal, and is outweighed by the potential benefit to the project. Kirill  04:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's hope this works out. It seems like it hasn't in the past, but perhaps the user has changed.   Will Beback  talk  06:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

What, exactly, "hasn't worked in the past"? Unbanning Greg? When was this actually tried (except extremely briefly way back near the beginning of his troubles)? Unbanning other banned users? It's been done quite a few times, sometimes successfully and sometimes unsuccessfully. Personally, I find the process by which users get declared "banned" to be far from a "good/acceptable way to make decisions". It's done sometimes by purported "community discussion" that consists of a handful of people who happen to show up on a talk page somewhere, usually dominated by a clique of the Usual Suspects, then declared to be final by some power-drunk admin. Then the same clique circles their wagons to insist that the alleged ban is permanent and irrevocable, using everything the user ever does in reaction to what he perceives as an unfair ban to be further evidence in favor of keeping it. Having the also-imperfect but at least more organized ArbCom as a safety valve seems like a good idea, especially when it's not controlled by the same clique that dominates other areas of this site (a few years ago, it sometimes seemed to be, but currently it seems pretty independent). *Dan T.* (talk) 11:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

My question is, who is going to be counting his edits to make sure he only edits outside mainspace when he has sufficient "credit" built up? If he just spends a week huggling... Nathan 12:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It's kind of a silly rule; he might be in violation of it already just for responding to stuff on his own talk page. There's a spirit behind it that has some sense to it (to get him to actually do something useful instead of just involve himself in drama), but making it a hard-and-fast rule leads to all sorts of senselessness once it starts being enforced by the anal-retentive obsessives around here. *Dan T.* (talk) 12:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Kirill, Roger, and the rest of ArbCom: we currently have a pretty strong movement that is against the JIMBO system, of which you all could be considered a part (he appoints you). I find your responses to be a little tone deaf to a large segment of this community that is against what is perceived as a lack of accountability and openness in the way this site is administered. Do you guys really think, particularly in a high-profile case such as this, that it's a good idea to be making decisions in private and announcing it as if you don't need to be bothered to explain yourselves to the community? Even dictatorships give reasons for decisions to their populaces. Regardless of what you have done in the past, if this is the way decisions are going down then I think Giano has a point and it's a surprise he doesn't raise issues like this in his RFC on governance. You guys are playing with fire, and you're providing fuel to the Anti-JIMBO movement, and it would be wiser for you guys to start recognizing that and stop this manner of decision-making. At the very least, you should be providing explanations for everything you do that effects this community. I see no argument against that, and if this kind of decision-making continues, I would probably join Giano in seeking to change the JIMBO system. -->David Shankbone 12:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Eh, mountains and molehills, seriously. If there's disruptive behavior, the account can be re-blocked. The past history regarding this account is well-documented and plenty of admins around here are trigger-happy. I don't see a real issue with giving someone a second chance. Generally speaking, some of this project's biggest problem users have been people we've ostracized or alienated. I would say it's nearly a universal truth that a forgiving community is better than an unforgiving one. We'll see what happens here. Go out on a climb, extend a bit of good faith, and hope everything works out. If not, Special:Block is a click away. --MZMcBride (talk) 12:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
    • We are talking about two separate things and your response doesn't address what I wrote. -->David Shankbone 12:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Well, yes. I was hoping you wouldn't notice and you'd drop the other point altogether. Until you make a clearer argument and support assertions like "a large segment of this community that is against what is perceived as a lack of accountability and openness," esp. with regard to this situation or "un-bannings" in general, there's not much to discuss. We certainly wouldn't allow statements like the ones you've been making to sit in our articles, we'd tag them or remove them. I'm not inclined to give them much weight or credit here either. --MZMcBride (talk) 12:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
        • That's a rather dickish response to what is an obvious concern. Raising article policy in a discussion about secret, unexplained ArbCom decisions doesn't give much weight or credit to your intellectual reasoning, so I guess we're even. But I guess that's why I addressed it to ArbCom members and not to you. And if you need a citation, I provided one above. -->David Shankbone 13:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
          • David, I'm more than happy to discuss and debate this with you, but (candidly) I don't know what exactly you're trying to argue. I see a lot of points that you could be making, but without clarification, it's nearly impossible to have a productive conversation. From what I'm reading, you seem to be arguing that the community should be in charge of community ban appeals. Or, you could be arguing about generic transparency. Or, it could be a combination of these two arguments or something else I've missed entirely. But at the moment, I simply keep seeing the word "Jimbo" being shouted and that's not something that's easy to have a productive or constructive conversation around. If you want to continue this, I'd be more than happy to, here or elsewhere (my talk page, yours, whatever)—it's an interesting intellectual debate that I think is worth having. I apologize if my comments seemed brusque or dickish. We'll just attribute that to morning grumpiness. :-) Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
            • MZM, as a supporter of the JIMBO system I'm arguing for transparency to keep that system in-tact. This Arbitration Committee is part of that system. I dislike the lack of transparency, that these sorts of decisions are being handed to the community without explanation. I have a fundamental problem with that. If the lack of transparency--except where discretion is necessary to protect users--is an inherent part of Arb/Jimbo, then my support for that system would likely cease. The real fly in my ointment is that I can't see any reasoning or justifications for overturning a community ban, regardless of the merits of doing so. I want to see the logic. That's all. It's surprising to me that things have been going this way. You'll note it's not often you see my name popping up on administrative discussions. -->David Shankbone 14:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
              • Let me put a different spin on this. User:Smith is convicted of being a public nuisance and is banished from the community by a bunch of people gathered in the town square, some of whom just happened to be passing by, others of whom deliberately hang out in the public square so they can be involved in the community's daily business. You want Smith's appeal to be handled in the public square, preferably by the same public that banned him, and if the appeal is going to be decided by the town elders, then it must be decided in the town square where the rest of the townspeople can eavesdrop, comment, interject, and otherwise attempt to influence the deliberations. How delightfully 18th century New England Puritan of you. Thatcher 14:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
                • Jehochman's algorithm is pretty succinct: 1) Announce that the un-ban appeal is under consideration, and solicit comments from the community; 2) deliberate--in secret, if you wish--with both the user's and the community's comments in mind; and 3) announce the decision and the rationales for the decision. That's a one-size-fits-all prescription. What are you suggesting is better, or less New England Puritan? -->David Shankbone 15:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
                  • Quoting with slight modification, 1) Announce that the un-ban appeal is under consideration, and solicit comments from the community; 2) deliberate--in secret, if you wish--with both the user's and the community's comments in mind; and 3) announce the decision and the rationales for the decision, which will in all likelihood be unpopular with a substantial fraction of discussion participants, no matter what the outcome, leading to cries of "why did you ask for opinions if you were just going to do it anyway?. Thatcher 15:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
                    • Why ask the community for input on anything? Why don't we just have admins and Arbs make all the decisions and tell us how things are to go? You might be on to something, Thatcher. All those messy ANI and content discussions would be better handled on private wikis and IRC as well, with decisions simply announced. Sounds like the kind of place people would want to join! -->David Shankbone 16:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
                  • Just out of curiosity, why has this particular unblock brought you out so much in force against the system as it's existed for years and dozens if not tens of dozens of unblocks before? rootology (C)(T) 15:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
                    • If you want to ask me a personal question, please do so on my talk page as it distracts from the discussion. -->David Shankbone 15:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
                      • No, it's not a personal question, and the reasoning behind why a given person is pushing for something on-wiki in a group discussion has direct bearing on the standing of that line of questioning, it's validity, and the validity of the questioner. I know this is not a popular idea, to question in this way, but I'm not a popular person, and before anyone dreams of saying it--questioning AGF is perfectly in line with AGF itself. Why have you never complained about the Arbcom unblock process until Greg was unblocked? Why is he a different creature? rootology (C)(T) 16:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
                        • It is a personal question because it goes to my motivations, as opposed to procedure and policy arguments. The answer is pretty simple, and is found in my response to FloNite: why are you assuming that a content editor with roughly 20,000 edits, only 2,000 of which are to ProjectSpace, knew that decisions were being made in this manner? You seem to be assuming this about "Kohs! Kohs! Kohs!" but I've already stated I agree with the ends in this case, but not the means. The same is true for yours. I don't think it's wise to focus on singular motivations in discussions. -->David Shankbone 18:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
              • Taking the road that wasn't taken, do you believe a community-led discussion regarding this user would have been productive? Do you think it would have resulted in the right™ outcome? Thatcher makes a pretty reasonable point below: can we expect the community to hear appeals of its own decisions?

                The Arbitration Committee maintains a private mailing list and a private wiki; it's contrary to the general idea of openness that's usually seen around here, but I'm not sure I see a compelling reason (or ability) to try to stop private chat.

                Not sure how much (if any) of this addresses your underlying concerns about this ban appeal being granted, but it is hopefully some food for thought. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

                • I don't think it would have been productive to have this be a "community-led" decision. Without stepping too much into the case-at-hand, I think they ruled correctly. But I saw no effort to at least acquire input from the community, nor did I see any effort to allay concerns over transparency issues by coming out with justifications for the rulings. The underlying assumptions appear to be "We already know what the community thinks, and we don't have to tell them why we are overruling them." That's what is troubling. It's so simple: decisions that affect the community should have community input, and the results should be justified. I have yet to see a cogent argument against that. -->David Shankbone 14:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
                  • Well said. You make some very good points. I'd be interested to hear answers from some of the Arbitrators in response to these points. Kirill? --MZMcBride (talk) 15:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• Outdent. (Speaking for myself and not a formal Committee position.) For starters. ArbCom is part of the Community. I firmly think that the Arbitration Committee is a much broader representation of the Community than the people that appear to discuss a specific topic in a threaded discussion on the ArbCom discussion pages. The pros and cons of the unblock and the specific editing restrictions were robustly discussed for weeks. Additionally, while in some cases the Community needs to speak about something in order for ArbCom to understand the issue, User:Thekohser's unban appeal was not one of those situations. The issues involved in the situation are widely known making it possible to weigh the different options for editing restrictions and the likely success of the unban. As well, that he was being consider for an unnban was not a secret. He is coming back with an user name already associated with him. Discussion about it has occurred in various venues both off and on site. And last, if we actually did miss an important point and someone wants to raise it, then this page is here for that to happen. If there are substantive rather than procedural issues that we need to address, then I'm happy to listen. I suggest that the procedural issues be discussed in the appropriate venue such a policy discussion page. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Does it concern you that you are making a lot of assumptions? They seem to be that everybody knows what's happening on all the far corners of this site; that situations haven't changed since the last discussions, that they were complete and that there is not new information relevant to your deliberations; and that discussion after-the-fact will have any effect on an already-announced decision? Those are mistaken assumptions. You said, "The pros and cons of the unblock and the specific editing restrictions were robustly discussed for weeks." - where? You said "that he was being consider for an unnban was not a secret." - where did you announce this, or were you relying on the Misplaced Pages/Review grapevine to get the word out? Do you think it's wise to govern this site with such rationales? And once again, my questions are not specific to this case. -->David Shankbone 16:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm aware of the fact that you disapproved of the user being unbanned. You stated the reason on site, on this page several weeks back. So that is not an assumption. That is a fact. If you want to update the Committee about a new issue or concern then do so instead of complaining about the process. A discussion about the process can happen in an organized way in another more appropriate venue. Currently, unbann appeals are going to happen off site because we reject many more than we approve and the process would cause loads of stress for the people that think that it could happen because a request is filed. The majority of the Community Ban appeals are heard by a the Ban Appeal Subcommittee. They have done excellent work processing the appeals in a timely manner and have gotten good results so far, I think. Saying no to an appeal is the safest route to take in most instances but not always the right one for the benefit of the encyclopedia. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
      • You're addressing assumptions I never said you made since I wasn't referring to myself, and I wasn't referring to this specific instance. The only reason I knew is because Greg announced it himself. So let's say User:X is banned, and goes through all of this exactly as Rootology or Greg did. Then you unban him and leave the announcement on their Talk page. All of a sudden User:Y pops up and says, "How could you have unbanned that editor?! I didn't even know you were considering it and they recently started harassing me in real life." What do you do then after your weeks of robust discussion? Why not put an announcement on User:X's page that there is a serious ban appeal under consideration to alert people familiar with that editor to weigh in with information they think is relevant, both pro and con? If you want me to take it to "another, more appropriate venue" the result will be a new policy discussion about ArbCom governance and procedure, instead of civilly discussing it here. I thought this was a better, less complicated way to have my concerns addressed; but if I'm continually told to shoo then that's what I'll do. -->David Shankbone 20:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
        • With respect, David, this is one of the reasons why we vote for the members of the ArbCom, to take the decisions away from the hubbub of the passing AN board dramah vultures (I'm self referencing here). As RD and Flo have noted, ban appeals have been dealt with this way previously. We are also not aware of the divisions within the ArbCom for the same reasons, there is a general notification with a bare noting of those in favour and those who did not vote for whatever reason - there is an assumption of consensus because there are no "dissenting" votes, but it may have been so very much closer. Unlike nearly every "public" arena of WP, ArbCom does seem to work to debating rules; whoever makes the best argument, notwithstanding the individuals own views, gets the result they desire. Even if every other member was against it, it could be that the one person who advocated the lifting simply had the best backing in policy, rules and guidelines - and since those same policies, etc, are the consensus of the community written large, then the ArbCom simply enacted the consensus as expressed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• Is there any reason this appeal could not have been listed publicly at WP:RFAR? Jehochman 13:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Appeals from banned editors are almost always handled through email, since, being banned, they're not permitted to file them on-wiki. As we've said, there has been no special treatment for this user, as compared to the other users who've submitted ban appeals over the past several months. Kirill  13:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
    • There's going to be a lengthy discussion no matter what. Why not post the appeal publicly, first, take comments, and then decide? What you've done here is run the same process, but backwards: decide, public statement, comments. Same effort either way. Jehochman 13:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
      • So, someone who was "community banned" by a possibly faulty process must undergo that same process to be unbanned? Why bother to have an Arbcom then, or at least, why delegate ban appeals to Arbcom. Community bans may only be appealed to the community? Thatcher 14:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
        • "Possibly faulty process" describes ArbCom just as well as a community ban. Anything can be possibly faulty. What happened was Action, Announcement, Discussion. A much better algorithm would be Announcement, Discussion, Action. Jehochman 15:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
          • At least, having several independent entities faulty in their own different ways provides for some useful checks and balances to arbitrary power. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Query: If he violates his restrictions, who would do the re-blocking/banning? It would definitely need to be an Official Arbcom Action to minimize drama (and even then, there would be much drama). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

If anyone cares, I recused because of my off-wiki interactions with Kohs. I really don't know what to expect, but the sense I have is that he will be closely watched by the Committee and swiftly blocked if problems emerge. The Guido unblock turned out this way, and I think there wasn't too much drama. Cool Hand Luke 15:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

This does bring up the interesting question of the value of having the AC and Jimmy as the final arbiters, and whether a counter-body 100% community elected with the ability to countermand them 100% when needed would be a good idea. Checks and balances are never, ever a bad thing. Single points of failures are always a bad thing, though. rootology (C)(T) 16:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom is 100% community elected. Although Jimmy technically makes the appointments, he appoints on the basis of the poll results.  Roger Davies 17:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but he's asserted multiple times that he can countermand you guys and the elections. What if a given person ran and got a top result, and he decided not to seat them or bypass them in favor of another user? rootology (C)(T) 17:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Rootology's point, and I think more accurate than saying "is 100% community elected" would be to say "is historically community elected". Of course, in situations where there are close votes or ties, Jimmy would be a decider. -->David Shankbone 18:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if we used this very slightly modified version of election scoring that I wrote last year to score them, the mathematical odds of a tie happening are virtually nonexistant. rootology (C)(T) 18:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

My question for Roger still stands. rootology (C)(T) 18:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Sigh.
2. He has said that, like the Queen of England, he retains the authority to dissolve Parliament, and expects to use it about as often as she does. (If you think Jimbo is sitting in his office micromanaging enwiki content or even the arbitrators, you don't know him or his role very well.)
3. Joining Misplaced Pages and then complaining about Jimbo's role is like jumping in a lake in the middle of winter and complaining about the cold. There are many other social and Web 2.0 sites that would welcome the skills and dedication found in most Misplaced Pages editors. (I spent the winter season away from Misplaced Pages, answering tax questions on a tax software company's web 2.0 site. Got a nice gift as a thank you, too.) There are other fish in the sea. Thatcher 18:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It is actually useful to have someone who could veto an appointment if for example information about grossly unacceptable behaviour came to light at too late a stage for it to reflect in votes already cast. (Though in this case, I suspect Jimmy might well appoint and then ask ArbCom to look it the appointment as a matter of urgency.) My experience of him is that he has neither the time nor inclination to micromanage ArbCom.  Roger Davies 18:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Very quick question here to clarify something; What would happen if the community went ahead an immediately reinstated a community ban? Could they overrule this decision? Not thinking of starting a ban discussion because I think TK has something to give here, but it's an interesting question. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I would hope, Ryan, that our administrators would not act unless they were able to justify a block based on the actions of the account - regardless of whose account we were talking about. Thekohser has some very specific editing conditions that, so far, he is meeting. Blocking an account that is operating fully within Misplaced Pages rules, and indeed within additional conditions over and above our standard policies, would be inappropriate; I would hope that none of our administrators would overlook this.

There has been some commentary above opining that the community should review community bans. As Iridescent points out on Thekohser's talk page, and I agree, the majority of the community of editors don't care whether or not Thekohser edits; however, those who don't care one way or the other are the editors least likely to comment on any block/unblock discussion. This holds true, regardless of the blocked account. This is, of course, an important reason why "community bans" are often reviewed by the (generally) uninvolved Arbitration Committee; the people most interested in commenting on such a review are those who hold strong opinions one way or another, and thus it's not a community consensus discussion but a discussion amongst those with vested interests. Risker (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Since it was held confidentially we don't know whose input was sought in this appeal. The impression I get is that none was sought, so the only discussion was between "TK" and the ArbCom. If there are other members of the community that have strong views or evidence then I don't see why those shouldn't have been heard too. For example, the ArbCom could have announced that they were hearing a private appeal of the ban and asked for interested parties to submit anything relevant to the matter. I can imagine how most RfARs would go if only one side were allowed to make a case.   Will Beback  talk  02:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Most of the objections to having community input, as well as the objections to having ArbCom handle the entire process in private, would be met if ArbCom announced that it had provisionally decided to unblock a user and would welcome community input for a week before making a final decision. To announce an already-made decision means ArbCom members are invested in the success of its outcome, which makes it difficult to take back the unblock decision if commenters come up with great reasons to continue the block (and to take it back is pretty unfair -- or at least overly painful -- to the blocked/unblocked/reblocked party). After a week, ArbCom members can ask themselves whether or not they've changed their minds and make an anouncement either way. Also, this gives the community the chance to email ArbCom members. Also, every unblock should be accompanied by a stated reason, even if that reason is very vague. -- Noroton (talk) 01:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

This has been a very interesting discussion, with some very good ideas aired. Perhaps the best of these is the suggestion about including a rationale. To be honest, in this instance, I thought it was implicit but that might just be me. I'm not sure how community input is best sought though; perhaps asking that they be constructive and forward-looking rather than revisiting the original ban discussion is the answer. Many historic problems can be easily addressed by (i) getting the banned user to acknowledge the previous problems and commit to avoid them in future; (ii) tight editing restrictions, tailored to address specific behavoural issues; and (iii) a low theshold for revoking the ban suspension. Anyway, this can be looked at in more depth when the ban appeal procedures come up for review, sometime in July.  Roger Davies 06:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect for the ArbCom's timetable, events have moved this matter forward, and the appeal procedures are currently under review, with or without the participation of ArbCom members.   Will Beback  talk  22:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Considering the user in question has said many times on WR that he plans on destroying Misplaced Pages (now "from the inside"), I think this was a rather uninformed idea by the ArbCom... --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 21:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Appropriate venues

This was a routine ban appeal heard and handled in the routine way, as has been done for a long time (with the exception that for the last few months there has been a subcommittee to whom some of the legwork is delegated). Many of the comments here seem to be about the nature of this routine. If the desire is to alter the banning policy then discussion should be held on the policy's talk page, and not in this thread about a particular user's appeal. --bainer (talk) 05:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I should mention that the ban appeal procedures are up for review in a couple of weeks and input then would be very helpful, when the new draft is posted.  Roger Davies 06:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I've made a suggestion at Misplaced Pages talk:Banning policy#Appeals of community bans.   Will Beback  talk  06:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Second draft of updated arbitration policy

Original Announcement

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Seeyou

Original Announcement

• Good call. PhilKnight (talk) 23:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Format of requests for amendment

Original announcement

• Note: Further to a request from the Committee over clerks-l, the clerks are currently drawing up drafts for an implementation of this announcement. Any suggestions as to what we would be wise to include (or to steer clear of including) in the new format for amendments would be appreciated. AGK 16:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

A Man In Black

Original announcement, Final decision.

What is the appropriate forum for community discussion of the issues mentioned during arbitrator discussion of Remedy 5: Ikip warned? I don't know if I or another user will file anything soon – Ikip has been barely active recently – but I thought I'd ask while the case was fresh. Flatscan (talk) 04:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse

Original post