Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) at 06:45, 16 August 2007 (Archiving 2 thread(s) from Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is an archive of past discussions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for 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.

how to find open cases?

how do you actually find open cases? I cannot find any link off this page - which I find a bit odd. --Fredrick day 19:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Look at the box on the right, near the top. Fred Bauder 19:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Remember you are on the talk page, look at the project page. Fred Bauder 19:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

sorry that's what I meant by "this page" = the project page - the box at the top on the right just seems to link to various policies and guideline pages. I'm still don't see how I get to open cases. --Fredrick day 19:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This is the talk page - move to the top and press project page, relatively near the top in a huge pink box there is a list of all the open cases. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Fredrick, below the "policies" box you are looking at should be another box which is the one you want. On my browser it is right opposite the table of contents. Newyorkbrad 19:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Right that's starting to make more sense - can I suggest that something more explict such as "current cases" is added to the title of that box - to the untrained eye or a novice (which I'm not after 10,000 or so edits) it's not clear what that is --Fredrick day 19:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I would support that. I'm also not a novice and it took me a minute to find the list of current cases not long ago. --Tango 22:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like this has been done. Newyorkbrad 12:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom Policy Proposals

Two ArbCom policy proposals. They're sufficiently different that I'm putting them under different subheadings. Chris Croy 04:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Justify

Some of those monster arbcom cases are created by massive lists of parties by the petitioner. There's always one user who says "WTF am I doing here?" Why not require people explain why every single one of the listed parties is an involved party? It would probably cut down on case size and time wasting by users that aren't actually involved.

• I like this. --jpgordon 04:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Good idea, but precedent has been set that it is not necessary for any reason to be stated. The case I was dragged through didn't even have a "Case summary" and the reason for the case was never defined. But my Arbs refused to follow existing policy to merely explain their votes, so why bother with any policy? (SEWilco 17:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC))
  • Pros: Eliminates uninvolved or peripherally involved editors as parties at the acceptance stage, thereby (1) avoiding stress of such editors, (2) simplifying the proceedings, (3) reducing opportunities to use this type of proceeding to harass such editors, and (4) eliminating the possible inclusion of such editors in contentious workshops or in vaguely worded remedies.
  • Cons: Would require the arbitrators to review the role and responsibility of each editor named in a case very early in the proceedings, thereby (1) complicating and prolonging the case acceptance process, (2) requiring the arbitrators to address the potential role of specific editors before the evidence has been submitted, and (3) where an editor asks out of the case and the arbitrators keep the editor in, creating a possibility that people will inappropriately infer that that editor had done something wrong, because otherwise they would no longer be a party. Newyorkbrad 19:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I wasn't imagining anyone approving or disapproving of the reasons. My hope is that just having to sit down and explain why this person or that person is involved would cause people to stop adding so many parties to their cases. Chris Croy 22:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
      • That's why I like it. --jpgordon 19:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Statute of Limitations

What if ArbCom used a statute of limitations? At least one arbiter has already indicated he sort of uses one, but perhaps this should be formalized. I'd suggest any conduct that occurred more than a year before the case was initiated should not be considered except in cases of sock puppetry. We should allow people to reform. If someone was an unrepentant POV warrior but cleaned up their act and has edited peacefully for a year their old actions shouldn't be held against them. The sock puppetry exception is because there's a consensus that abusive sock puppetry is the worst crime you can commit, see . Real life doesn't have a statute of limitations for murder, we shouldn't have one for sock puppetry.

• I think it's really a case-by-case thing; is there any particular ArbCom action you've seen that would have worked differently if this were the rule? --jpgordon 04:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not thinking of any in particular, Uninvited Company's comment just inspired this line of thought. But a quick googling turned up this . I believe at least the second finding of fact would be nulled by a statute of limitations policy. Unless I develop the power to stop time and read minds over the internet, it's unlikely I could even hope to determine what cases this would change the outcome of. I've figured out some individual tendencies(e.g. Fred starts sharpening his knives when people spam up the Workshop with tons of proposals), but given the paucity of public arbcom debate I've no ability to predict how you would act if certain diffs were taken out of play. Chris Croy 05:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Most revert paroles and probations are stated to last a year. In some cases, probation is indefinite. Of course, for the truly reformed editor, even perpetual probation or parole will not hinder their editing since they no longer do whatever it was that got them into trouble. But I understand that it can be seen as a black mark by some. One possibility that has been used in a couple of recent motions on old cases would be to state that probation or parole remedies would expire "After one year, or 6 months after the last enforcement action, whichever is longer." Thatcher131 06:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Unless I'm misunderstanding, that's not the point; the suggestion seems to be that actions older than X not be usable as evidence. When considering if sanctions are necessary due to current behavior, it doesn't seem like a good idea to disregard past behavior, good or bad. --jpgordon 16:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• As a practical matter, ArbCom is rarely if ever going to accept a case involving non-recent conduct. However, certainly in the Henrygb case, and in the Runcorn matter (if it had been handled as a case rather than summarily), misconduct from longer than a year ago was considered, and a rule saying that it couldn't be would have been problematic as applied. Newyorkbrad 19:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

If someone does something wrong and then goes a year without doing anything wrong, I can't see an case against them being accepted. If someone's been doing something wrong for 18 months, there is no point ignoring the first 6 months of it. So, all in all, a bad idea. --Tango 19:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

If someone is doing something now and did it in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, well sure, it's all relevant to show an ingrained pattern. But, of course, the relevant question is future behavior. Fred Bauder 19:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, but past behaviour is our best tool for predicting future behaviour - it's often very inaccurate, but it's the best we've got, so let's not arbitrarily remove a chunk of it. --Tango 22:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Motion in Zero/Zeq

Perhaps you can slow down for just a moment. An unintended side-effect of the decisions rendered (and not rendered) in Z/Z is that a fairly provocative editor seems to believe he has been given license to taunt an admin. Passing the current motion (one more supporting vote) will come very close to actually giving him this license.

East Jerusalem. I don't quite understand what Zeq's diffs are meant to show, but please note that none other than SlimVirgin, who certainly does not edit with a pro-Palestinian pov, writes on the talk page: Thanks, Roland. It was indeed page 254 that Zero cited, and his summary of what it says is entirely accurate. Thank you for looking it up ].

Apes and Pigs. Zero has 'confessed.' I wouldn't have. Unless Zeq owns the article, how is this admin action against Zeq? I did not understand your recent decision to mean that Zero was advised not to take administrative action in any Israel-Palestine related article. Is that what you meant? Jd2718 23:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

With regard to Apes and pigs, I believe the gravamen of the issue is that Zeq was the creator and only editor of the article. Newyorkbrad 23:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

So ownership's established?

Not that Zero will necessarily listen to me, but I will advise him to surrender the tools. Otherwise he has just been set up to be baited until he makes a more serious mistake. Jd2718 23:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that isn't the arbitrators' intent. Perhaps some of them will comment here. Newyorkbrad 00:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope some of them do. When I read the very strong reasons for not adopting "one hat at a time" they really caught me. A hamstrung admin really can become a target. Jd2718 00:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

A cool head can not be baited into a rash act. There are a large number of methods that a concerned admin can use to attract the immediate interest of other admins. Zero needs to maintain a cool head, and contact another admin if Zeq provokes him in the future. Zeq does not own any articles, but as the result of this ruling, Zero will indeed be prevented from deleting articles on which Zeq is a significant contributor, which is not only appropriate given their history but is something Zero agreed to less than a month ago. Zeq is on probation and may be banned from editing any article or topical area that he disrupts. A simple report to one of the approrpiate noticeboards (WP:ANI or WP:AE) is all that is needed to deal with Zeq in the future. Thatcher131 00:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Not everyone has the temperament to be an Administrator. Administrators are taunted regularly by problem editors. They must deal with the situation calming and according to the guidelines established. In this case specific remedies were passed about Zeq that need to be followed. If Zero000can can not deal with problem editors then he needs to stop interacting with them by giving up the administrative tools or limiting his use of the tools to non-controversial maintenance tasks. Not acceptable to use his tools in relation to an editors where he has a longstanding dispute. Especially after he was advised not to do so by ArbCom and other options are given. FloNight 12:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not an easy conclusion to come to, given Zeq's troublesome behavior, but Zero000 will use common sense or lose his tools. Fred Bauder 14:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope that Arbcom will look at this case holistically, and consider the following. Apes and pigs was a POV-fork presenting incendiary subject matter in a highly tendentious manner and sourced exclusively to MEMRI, WorldNetDaily, a Fox News segment, and a "symposium" in FrontPageMagazine. From an ideological newbie this would be an understandable mistake, and a teaching opportunity regarding what WP is and is not. Zeq however has been editing for almost two years. Here he appears to have been prankishly thumbing his nose at basic WP policies. On East Jerusalem, on the other hand, he appears to have been prankishly thumbing his nose at Zero himself. Zero gave an impeccable citation, complete with page reference (p.254). Zeq then created a talk page subsection headed "Is the source misrepresented by Zero?" and wrote "Zero have inserted the words "from all religions" . I wonder if this is the source. According to the source I have the complete paragrpah talks specifically about Israeli jews not being allowed into the wall." "The complete paragraph" Zeq is talking about comes from page 241. In other words, Zeq ignored Zero's actual citation, found a different paragraph on a different page that he could construe as being at odds with Zero's edit, weirdly suggested that this paragraph from page 241 must have been Zero's paragraph from page 254, and on the basis of this dizzying sophistry prominently floated the accusation that Zero was misrepresenting sources. Since Zero's ability to remain "cool" seems to be at issue, it should be noted that he didn't respond to this self-evidently specious charge and gratuitous provocation, even as other editors and admins went on to take it seriously. Zero's action regarding Apes and pigs was doubtless hasty, and went against the spirit (if not quite the letter) of the previous Arbcom decision; what should be factored into the equation, however, is the extent to which Zeq's editing and general behavior represent an unusual standing provocation to a good-faith admin.--G-Dett 15:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• How bloody hard is it to ask another admin for assistance? --jpgordon 15:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Not hard, and in the interest of circumspection he surely should have done so. That said, I do think Jd2718 has a good point above, that deleting Apes and pigs was not self-evidently an "administrative action against Zeq."--G-Dett 15:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
    • It was to anyone with the common sense to (a) look at the article history; (b) notice it was primarily written by Zeq; (c) recognize the name Zeq as the one he'd been having ongoing issues with; (d) recognize the name Zeq as the one he'd been advised not to take any further administrator actions against or in relation to; (e) recognize that deleting an article is an administrator action...shall I go on? Nobody's being hamstrung here; incitement to riot is not an excuse for rioting. --jpgordon 15:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I would have thought Apes and pigs should be immediately deleted without any need to examine it's content or author. If, by chance, the article turns out to have merit it can be re-instated, perhaps after talk. If there is to be any examination of motives, then the creator of this article will be in the spotlight and certainly not the admin who (may have) over-speedily deleted it. The project cannot be seen to tolerate inciting hatred - or certainly not when doing so has been considered full and complete justification to perma-block other editors on (laughably untrue) charges of doing this exact same thing. PalestineRemembered 17:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

PR, the deleted article, though it had its shortcomings, did not incite hatred towards anyone, but only discussed some who direct racist epithets towards others; e.g.: It's pretty rich to equate quoting hate speech with inciting hate towards the quoted.

Zero0000's summary, "speedy deletion of disgusting islamophobic article." and his subsequent statement, "I found an article called something like "pigs and monkeys"...no redeeming features at all but just pure islamophobic pornography... if a Nazi came along and wrote a similar article about "some Jews" were hyperbolic, inaccurate, and deeply unfair, seeing as most editors cannot view the deleted article but only take Zero's word for it. Would he have blanked Islam and Antisemitism#Jews transformed into apes and pigs with the same summary?Proabivouac 18:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the article you've referenced isn't deleted immediately too. (It does have "The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article or section are disputed.") It's quite wrong to take the contents of someone else's scriptures and clip from them in this fashion in the project. There are web-sites that do this kind of thing to the Talmud (at least, I think they do, I strictly avoid hanging round in such places - I've done that all along, it's not just that I'm terrified of absorbing something they say and being permanently labelled as a Holocaust Denier).

Like I said, this looks like a non-issue - the motives of the creator of this article are in grave doubt, and deleting it immediately is for the good of the project. PalestineRemembered 18:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The following statement, "According to Lewis, the language of abuse was often quite strong among Muslims and the conventional epithets for Jews are apes, and for Christians are pigs." is cited to Bernard Lewis, while Khaleel Mohammed is also quoted. While there does often seem to be an OR-element in such discussions, it's not as if Misplaced Pages editors are making this up. And though MEMRI is undeniably partisan, they're not making it up, either, as you can see for yourself.Proabivouac 19:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac,

What you write is correct but the heart of the matter is the difference between you who quote Lewis and -if you would develop such article- would find others sources introducing all Pov about that difficult matter and Zeq who quotes MEMRI and who only gathers islamophobic arguments in wikipedia.

About Zero0000. When you are a good faith contributor with a wide knowledge on a topic, when the articles on which you work are systematically in editwar due to a contributor who has only poor knowledge on the subjet (not to say worse...), when nothing improves and more when it doesn't seem you are practically supported (only blamed and asked to keep ice-cooled), how could you withstand ?

I think wikipedia can be happy he didn't leave to Citizendium. Alithien 20:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac - There are all sorts of things that Misplaced Pages editors are not making up, I don't think I need to remind people how far this incitement to hatred can go. But I'm bemused that this material is included in articles, let alone as the title of articles. In the dim and distant past (maybe 4 weeks ago), I was linked to such people myself, the ArbCom has yet to decide whether I am guilty of visiting and quoting from Holocaust Denial sites. But in this case, it seems to be suggested that Misplaced Pages should either carry such material, or at least highlight it's existence. I'm not sure whether dedicated anti-Islamic hate-merchants will quote Misplaced Pages for their material or not, but I'm quite sure it's deeply unpleasant and not convinced we should provide a jumping-off platform for them.

PS - I'm not simply inventing a new persona of being opposed to religious intolerance - it's something I've always believed, and provably for quite a number of years. PalestineRemembered 21:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Jpgordon, your point about incitement is well taken, and I won't gainsay your expertise about the Arbcom ruling, especially in light of Zero's guilty plea. Without your guidance, however, I suppose I would have understood "admin action against Zeq" to be referring to actions affecting Zeq personally (blocks, bans, 3RR warnings and reported violations, ANI reports, etc.), rather than actions affecting content Zeq has authored or is otherwise attached to.--G-Dett 17:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, it's the vagueness there that led to the clarification -- both of what it means when we "advise" an administrator, and what we meant by the decision. --jpgordon 17:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Requests for clarification of policy

(moved from main RfAr page)

While Arbcom does not make policy, part of its role is to clarify and interpret policy.

Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons#BLP deletion standards

Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons#BLP deletion standards is a new section whose interpretation by the community and arbcom is critical to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (14th nomination). The community is providing its input at that deletion discussion page. I request that arbcom provide its input in the form of participating in the closing of that deletion discussion to whatever degree arbcom feels is appropriate. WAS 4.250 23:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Um. no.--jpgordon 04:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Request

I don't mean to be rude, but can the active members of the Arbitration Committee please evaluate the current cases and put in their two cents at the proposed decision page? Some of these cases are getting quite ugly (particularly Hkelkar 2), because the involved parties are frustrated about the delay in reaching a decision. I would hope that if these cases were to be decided on more quickly, then such conflicts like wouldn't happen. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 17:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Excuse me, Hkelkar 2 got ugly long before there was any "frustration about the delay." --jpgordon 20:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • ...and it's only getting worse because of the delay. RA wasn't as hostile at the beginning of the case, but he's been venting out his anger on anyone (including you and the rest of ArbCom) because of the delay in the decision. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Response to charges made by User:Ryulong

I attempted to edit the project page, but could not do so probably because it requires a logged in account. Ryulong has stated that anon ip accounts are being used for sinister purposes and that they are being used to establish false personas for User:Husnock. I fail to understand where this is coming from. For one thing, someone using an ip without logging in isn't a crime- it just means they didnt want to log on. If they use multiple ip addresses for sockpuppet purpuses, that is one thing, but that was not the case here. 195.229.236.213 is a shared ip address used by hundreds of people; if one of these people is the user who was once Husnock, who cares. As for 38.117 and 38.188 those are VPN accounts used by the 195 address since the 195 is in the Middle East and often blocks parts of Misplaced Pages. There was no attempt at deception there, I believe it was pointed out several times that the 195 ips and the 38s were coming from the same place and, once again, they were never used for sockpuppet activites. Ryulong's entire beef seems to be with this initial edit . That edit was made in good faith (I know becuase I made it) about a real world situation and has been explained, resolved, and worked out to my satisfaction on the Admin Noticeboard. Ryulong then blocked the ip address for no other reason than "used by Husnock" and then blocked the VPN 38 address after it was explained that the Husnock arbitration case never amounted to a block. The full statement made about Ryulong's activites is here: This admin improperly blocked an account and now, for some reason, is trying to stir things up some more. 195 and the others might be Husnock, they might not, point is there is no Misplaced Pages regulation that states whoever is using an ip has to identify themselves if they already have a registered account. And I think, at least in the case of 195, its pretty clear that more than one person uses that account. So, I have to wonder why Ryulong is making these charges. -38.119.112.188 09:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be best if you brought this up at WP:AN/I. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

See main RfAr page where Thatcher131 states that he has unblocked these IPs. Newyorkbrad 19:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately the main RFAR page was briefly semi-protected to deal with a spammer. Thatcher131 22:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent spamming

Time to contact the ISP methinks. I've checked out five of the IPs used and all return Belgacom. – Chacor 13:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Meh. Some stupidity between the socialist web sites workforall.org and workforall.net. I don't understand why the .net guy keeps spamming his request here. Does he think that the 50 times it has been removed were all accidents, and the case will suddenly be accepted on the 51st attempt? Bottom line (since he is probably reading this) is the following:

1. The Arbitration committee does not decide content issues, only serious editor conduct problems.
2. The removal of WorkForAll.net links is an editorial decision made by multiple editors and there is no evidence that policies were violated.
3. Arbitration is the last step in the dispute resolution process. If you think the decision to remove the links was wrong, you should start with a request for comment to solicit the views of additional editors.
4. Misplaced Pages should not be used as a vehicle to promote private web sites. The fact that some articles have inappropriate links to some web sites is a reason to find and remove them, not to add more ("Other crap exists so mine should too" is not an acceptable argument here).
5. If you persist, you will be reverted and blocked. You are way outnumbered by the recent changes patrol, by the way. If necessary, we can block your entire ISP, which is bound to make them take notice of you. So please stop. Thatcher131 13:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

He's taken to vandalizing the talk pages of users who remove his "request". He got me and Calton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) this morning (Thanks to Lectonar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for cleaning it up!). Adam 15:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I reproteced the page again today with an expiry of 2 weeks. Seems he reposted as soon as the expiry went away last time. Hope I wasn't out of line in doing this. ^demon 13:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The IP has been blocked for 24 hours. Might be time to start writing that email to Belgacom. – Chacor 13:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

He can reset his IP quite easily it seems. Thatcher131 13:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Two weeks seems like a long time. I wonder if we should put a notice on the page advising users to contact a clerk for help. On the other hand, I have never seen a legitimate request filed by an IP editor. Hmmm. Thatcher131 13:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I think if an IP editor did have a legitimate request (ie: they know enough about policy to know what would be appropriate), they would know enough to ask on this page or a clerk for help. ^demon 14:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Please remember to restore move=sysop permanently every time; protects w/ expiration dates potentially leave pages vulnerable to attacks. - Penwhale | 09:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Although Thatcher seems to be on the money, I must say that I have seen some fairly good IP statements on proposed cases. That note may not be astray. Daniel 06:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Durova

Durova, you may want to discuss here instead of on the main page. I get from the instructions that we are not to get into discussions there and your responding to my statement invites continued back and forth discussion. My only question for you is what does this mean? "Per Justanother, alternative methods of resolution are not available." You are implying that I said what, exactly? --Justanother 04:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It's customary at RFAR to respond to another editor's statement by appending one's own. The particular comment of yours that comment responded to is I should mention that I am not looking for any WP:DR vis-a-vis Durova for her actions. I'd already recommended DR repeatedly before opening this request. Unfortunately for this situation, user conduct WP:RFC would be difficult to pursue with this many editors and mediation requires the consent of all parties. Durova 17:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Druova, that makes your method a self-fulfilling prophesy. You say it's too many people for an RfC, I disagree. I doubt that I would even be involved in an RfC on COFS. And, I don't see any reason for Justanother to be involved in an RfC on COFS either. My only reason for involvement was to try and stop the high speed railroading witch hunt that was out to HANG those people that have tried our patience long enough. The entire situation was based on multiple repeated usage of prior one-sided 'reports' of suspicion and innuendo. Anyone who looks at it fairly, will see that COFS does not have a horrible block log. COFS has 2 blocks for 3RR. The other blocks were for 'suspicion' and were unblocked. COFS has not been given a fair due-process. From what I can tell, COFS doesn't even edit all that much.

Jehochman clearly doesn't like those people (Scientologists). And, because your apprentice fast tracked it out of COIN, where it belonged, and into CSN where it didn't belong, and then because you two (reinforced by each other's posts) effectively tag-teamed COFS and ram rodded your own personal consensus, you forced me to be involved, in order to try to slow things down and to try to inject reason. But it was clearly too late, as you had already made up your mind. And, in the end, you 'declared' a non-existent 'consensus' for your ruling, and requested another admin on AN/I close the ticket and bless your decree. I don't think it was intentional, I think you just got caught up in your own personal views, the two of you reinforced each other, and it got out of control. (Note: your indef block of Bus stop, where numerous editors posted on your talkpage in surprise of your drastic measures. Bus stop may need a community ban, but he hasn't had proper WP:DR either. You took that from him.)

I believe that, as a team, either you or Jehochman should have recused yourselves from commenting. Based on your own remarks on your talkpage, you are clearly very proud of your 'personally trained wiki-sleuths'. It makes perfect sense that Jehochman would want to impress you with his tenacious attack. It also explains his attack on me (defending you) with his AN/I post, after I did everything he asked me to do. Whether or not you technically violated any wiki-rules or policy, or whether it technically qualified as anything like meat puppets, I don't know. But it certainly was a bit unethical from my perspective.

Smee and Anynobody have been a driving force against COFS for POV reasons, from the beginning. They continue to throw out the same 'sock puppet check' (because that is all they really have). And what they don't point out is that, during their 'witch hunt', an admin finally told them to knock off the fishing, when they finally went too far and added me to the list. Then you and Jehochman (presumably duped by the numerous 'reports') effectively team up with them and rammed this through. (Granted they did not arrive in this situation at the beginning, but they have been involved in the campaign from the beginning, and they have certainly jumped in and proudly displayed their socks check and argued for banning).

There isn't any evidence of misconduct that I saw presented. There is only evidence of reports of suspicion, filed time and again, for the most part by anti-Scientologists. If you honestly take time to read through it, taking yours and Jehochman's comments out, there is not a lot left. If you two were truly NEUTRAL, then why did you dominate the conversation? Why did Jehochman produce '2 fresh diffs' (25 hours old and 10 hours apart) to justify your views of warring? A neutral admin, with no 'adjenda', would have listened to the case being presented and then ruled. Jehochman steered it to the CSN, and then both you and Jehochman took very active roles in prosecuting the case. And THAT is why I got involved. There was no evidence of a neutral party. those people have tried our patience long enough.

What, exactly, is the question of the dispute?

1. COI? then it should have been on COIN. How strict a definition of COI are we going to apply to these articles? And, are we willing to apply it across the board evenly to both sides?
2. Disruption? There is no evidence of disruption.
3. POV? Scientology articles are full of pov editors on both sides.

I've said it twice before and I'll repeat it here: If we are going to take a bite of the apple, we better be prepared to eat the whole damned apple. The tension over the Scientology articles won't be resolved by banning the editors from either side, who aggressively remove POV, unless our goal is to allow the Scientology articles to be written POV.

And the really funny part about all this, if there is a funny part, is that I have unanswered concerns about COFS too. You called me a defender, which I find funny. Because not once have I defended a single action of COFS. My efforts have been to slow things down, get them into the correct venue, and make sure that we don't mis-convict someone. You concluded that means I am guilty of some unidentified off-line collusion, and then tied an apology to some action on my part to 'apologize to your apprentice'. And you accused me of being a long-term vandal with a new account, who will be 'discovered' by thorough investigation by your sleuths. (Simply because I voiced firm opposition to you?) Tag-team attack COFS, Tag-team defend each other.

Durova, we got off to a bad start, and for that I'm sorry. You have said this is a hobby for you, and you clearly enjoy the investigations and banning. But the people here are real. They are not simply a hobby. The views being expressed in these articles are real and they stir up very strong emotional and powerful feelings. Scientology is a religion. It isn't mine, but it is a religion. Some of the pro-Scientologists are fanatics, AND some of the anti-Scientologists are fanatics. Some aren't fanatics at all, but are simply here to defend their religion against attack and some are here to attack that religion (though they may not accept that it is a religion). When someone defends against a fanatic, their actions may seem extreme. Upon reflection, perhaps that's why my actions seemed extreme to you?

Personally, I believe you got a bit carried away here. I think you might want to consider taking a break from the CSN board, and reflect on what you want to contribute to wikipedia, and how that can and does impact real lives. Maybe even take a short break from 'training sleuths' and look at your motivation for doing it.

I don't know what the future will bring. But I do know that I hope it brings a peaceful resolution to this entire situation, so that we can return to writing articles. After all, that is the reason for wikipedia. Peace.Lsi john 18:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

(EC) OK on the "discussion" then. Durova, you misunderstand my comment, I fear. I said that I (as in me) was not looking for any help or WP:DR as regards your actions as they relate to you as an editor or as an admin. Meaning that I was not doing a "Bad Durova". I think you made an error and I "called" you on the error. That is it. I say you made an error, you likely feel that you did not. Had the close of the CSN incident just been the end of the inappropriate action against COFS then that would have been the end of my problem with your error; "no harm, no foul". Now I think that you are perpetuating your error. You no doubt feel that you are not. Again, if this Arb does not fly then "no harm, no foul". I would hope that by then, error or no error on your part, you move on. But I was not (and am not) looking to open WP:DR on what I perceive as an error. I AGFed that you were acting in good faith. I did not think that you were acting correctly but I assumed that you were acting in good faith. You misinterpreted my statement to mean that "alternative methods of resolution are not available" to you? To you, not to me? That you had no other means to take up some objection that you have with me? It must be with me because I have no say over what remedies are available as regards another and this case is about COFS, you don't need my blessing for anything about her. You know that. You could have opened a MedCab or started a User RfC or just taken the COI discussion back to COIN like I recommended time and again. So why are you concerned over something I said about my worries or lack of them? Why are you so quick to make my words so important that they motivate you to start an Arb over more appropriate remedies (wish that you had made my words more important a bit earlier.) Did you misinterprete my statement to justify your own ends, to justify you bringing this here instead of just letting it go (AGF well running a bit dry now). I suspect that this is not about COFS. I suspect that you are seeking vindication. Again, at the expense of COFS. --Justanother 18:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll add briefly *gasp* that I too think you were acting in Good Faith (as evidenced by the wiki-link in my above post). I think both of you made some bad-faith comments and decisions, but I believe overall you have good intentions.

I, too, after the CSN closed, had hoped the matter would be 'returned to a lower DR level', and was saddened to see you (a supposedly uninvolved admin) escalate the situation to Arbcom for resolution. Like Justanother, it seems to me that you brought this here for vindication. I would request that you please take time to reflect on that possibility, and if it has any ring of truth for you, consider withdrawing the Arbcom request. Peace.Lsi john 19:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

There are a few additional reasons why arbitration seems like the appropriate venue for this dispute. User conduct RFC is best suited to examine the conduct of one or two editors. Until I saw El C's closure I had considered possibly two RFCs: one on COFS and, if you prefer, one on myself. Yet that solution would be ill-suited for you to present evidence against anti-Scientology editors - and by that I mean users who edit Scientology articles, which to the best of my knowledge neither I nor Jechochman have done. Mediation is usually better at addressing multi-sided disputes, but it only works when all parties are willing and the only type of mediation (WP:CEM) that addresses disputes where policy issues dovetail with content disagreements does not handle multi-sided cases where sockpuppetry is an issue. Even if an exception were made, it seemed implausible that either of you would accept that venue because I founded CEM and its only other mediator besides myself is one of my admin coaching trainees.

Arbitration offers you several advantages. A good part of your argument hinges upon a dispute with the checkuser result on COFS: the Committee is better suited than I am to reexamine that (rank and file sysops generally trust the accuracy of such reports). Arbitration also offers you the chance to present solid evidence against anyone involved whom you think has acted inappropriately and if my list of involved parties is incomplete you may ask the clerk to expand it. The Committee also has a unique ability to implement article parole, which could help stabilize and improve things at Scientology. For an example of how that works see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education.

If part of your reticence to arbitrate involves concerns about prominent Google indexing, I understand. The Committee has occasionally accepted requests to hear cases confidentially via e-mail. You could ask for that here - I don't know whether the request would be granted, but I'd voice no objection. Also I'm willing to withdraw the request for arbitration if all three of you (Lsi john, Justanother, and COFS) enter WP:ADOPT and accept a one month community topic ban on COFS. Durova 20:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea whom you are even talking to in most of that.

1. I have no desire to RfC you. I think you made some judgment errors, end of story. Only by pushing it are you compounding your errors. I've repeatedly told you that I have no desire to engage in any of these litigious processes. Twice now Ive been forced to. Once by Jehochman, and now again by you. Personally, I would be thrilled if you would simply reflect on the possibility that my observations are valid. Maybe I'm not 100% right. Maybe I'm only 10% right.. ... maybe?
2. I have no desire to RfC Anti-Scientology editors I've have more than sufficient cause to file complaints against Smee if that had been my goal or desire. I suspect I have enough so called 'evidence' to have Smee removed from wikipedia, so? There are plenty of people I could ask for help.. even you.. if thats where I wanted to go. I don't want to go that route.
3. I have no desire to RfC Pro-Scientology editors. (Seeing a pattern here?) I'm quite capable of doing research, finding diffs and establishing patterns... so? that won't resolve anything at all. The only people who would really care, would be those who have an interest in adminship. The rest would simply find proxies, and come back as new users, and begin again. You think it must be resolved by force, I think it can be resolve by some level of cooperation. And, at least the way it is now, we know who is who... sort of.
   If I wanted to pursue DR attacks on people, this would have been the perfect opportunity to try to jump past all the normal WP:DR and go after Smee. But that would not have been appropriate. Smee may be a pov-spa account, but even Smee deserves due-process.
4. If you haven't edited Scientology articles, and I have edited virtually no Scientology articles, and to my knowledge we have not edited any other articles together, why do you keep suggesting that we should be in mediation with/against each other? Do we have a problem that I'm unaware of? I've expressed my concerns about you (above). Either you accept them, or you 'consider the possibility' that some of it may have validity, or you dismiss my objections completely. IMO the first two would be mature responses, the last would not, as even the second leaves the possibility for rejection 'after consideration'. Either way, once the COFS arb situation is resolved, we go our separate ways, no harm done (presumably). I certainly have no desire to waste time filing RfC's against you. I don't even know you. I don't have much respect for the way you and Jehochman have handled this situation, but that certainly isn't sufficient for an RfC.
5. Assuming I would reject WP:CEM simply because you helped found it.. is.. well..it is what it is. And it shows that you know nothing about me at all. Actually, no offense, but you are giving yourself too much importance in my decision making.
6. Arbitration doesn't offer me any advantages here. I'm not here to defend COFS. I'm here to make sure the process isn't hijacked (even in good-faith). And I'm here to make sure someone doesn't get lynched. How many times do I have to say that before you hear it? I have questions about COFS, but they certainly don't need to be answered here, at least not yet.
7. socks check: The IP that I saw in some post for COFS, was a Scientology address. Reportedly it is a church proxy. If so, then there is no way to know how many users are editing from that location. And there is no way to know which ones are socks of each other. Unless you have administrative access to the network, you can only 'guess' and 'ponder' whether two people are really one. And that pretty much craps all over the AGF guideline.
   So moving along, have there been any documented violations of abuse from that proxy address? Has COFS been involved in vote stacking? Has COFS made any edits which are clearly violations of a policy and not just subjective opinion? If not.. move along.. nothing to see here.. these are not the droids you are looking for..let them pass... (from starwars).
8. Google indexing - I'm lost. What is google indexing and how does it apply to COFS / COI / SOCKS? If it applies to anything else, then it is not relevant here.

Durova, judging by the number of times you've tried to get me to pursue litigation here, you clearly enjoy being involved in the litigation process, and bless you for your contributions. Truly. And, what I experience from you is someone who got a bit overzealous and got caught up in the excitement of 'fresh meat' and the two of you fed off of each other with 'similar' posts, and the situation escalated out of control. I think you did it in good faith, but even good faith efforts can go badly.

This case shouldn't be here. It should be in an RfC. COFS could even open one on him/her self. Opponents of COFS could have done this all by themselves. You did not need to open this arbcom. You were not involved. So, I suggest that you ask yourself, WHY you felt it was necessary for YOU to open this by YOURSELF? I truly believe if you honestly reflect on that question, you will see the situation as others here see it is. Q:Why was Durova the only/best person who could bring a successful conclusion to this situation by opening an arbcom?

As for me going into a mentor program, I perceive that as your hobby again. You appear to attached 'mentorship' onto almost every situation I've seen in the past week. It seems to be another pet project of yours. Never mind that none of this is about me, though you have tried to make it about me. There is nothing that has established a need for my entering a mentor program. Note that I'm not rejecting a mentor, I'm rejecting that you have any grounds to propose it to me.

Your bias clearly shows, when you did not include Smee or Anynobody in the mentorship offer, even though you have seen significant information to suggest their need for it, (eg: Smee's 7 blocks for disruptive editing).

I'll tell you what... If you want to make this about you and me I'll make you a counter-offer: I'll enter a mentor program, if you take a wiki-break from all AN, AN/I and CSN conversations, from training admins, and from participating in significant decisions about blocks and bans for 3 months. Whether or not you leave the COFS at arbcom is irrelevant to that offer, and you don't even have to establish any grounds for me to get a mentor.

No hard feelings here. I still say, lets go edit articles. Peace.Lsi john 21:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

We have a good chance to clear up the issue of COFS' status once and for all. Is COFS, by virtue of using the CoS for Internet access too close to edit those articles? I don't see any need for bans or blocks to resolve this question. All COFS has to do is come here, and agree to accept the arbitrator's decision. Likewise, John, I hope that you will learn more about Misplaced Pages, because, please don't take this the wrong way, you are a bit of a loose canon. You have tremendous energy and potential. If you would learn more about how this incredibly complex system works, you could be a great asset. Being an admin trainee is essentially the same thing as joining WP:ADOPT in my opinion. Getting a mentor who will teach you is a good thing. Why not if you have the opportunity? Learning is good! I agree with you completely that we should work on creating good and featured articles. As soon as we stop the Scientology edit wars, that article could become a featured article and end up on the home page of Misplaced Pages. (An article I worked on will run on the home page Monday.) This would be a good thing for the Scientologists, I think. I have nothing against them whatsoever. If you look at my interactions with Keith Henson, you'll see that I opposed anti-Scientologist abuses there. Jehochman 22:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment. A Very Very Ironically interesting choice of words on the loose cannon claim, as I used that exact term to describe someone yesterday and again today (Whom I described is the ironic part). It's also ironic that a friend recently told me how much of a mirror I am to others.

My friend, likewise, hopefully you won't take this the wrong way, your edit statistics (much like Durovas) indicate that you are here to work the 'boards' more than improve mainspace articles. And if that is the result of the 'mentorship' programs, then, unless Durova accepts my counter-proposal to take a 3 month wikibreak from her hobby and stay in mainspace, I'll pass on the Mentorship offer for now. I'm not an 'edit-count' guy. But I am a statistics guy.. its not how much, but where and what percentage. Perhaps a way to distinguish us, is that I edit in the trenches and try to prevent your 'boards' from ever seeing the problem. If I (and others like me) are successful, you'll be bored and end up back in mainspace. You've only seen one very small aspect of me, and unfortunately it seems you've jumped to a decision and a conclusion about my need for mentorship (and possibly done some research to prove your conclusion), which is not generally a good thing to do. (Durova certainly seems to have done that, as evidenced by her clear misinterpretation of a talkpage comment I posted). I, on the other hand, AGF that you are simply an over-enthusiastic apprentice with good intentions that needs a little more time to grow and mellow out. Your barcode and wi-fi articles are interesting, as I use both of those daily. Perhaps we'll meet in mainspace some day after all. Peace.Lsi john 23:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, though I'm probably twice your age, I suspect that we're more alike than you may realize, which may account for your attitude toward me. Peace.Lsi john 23:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I am approximately 40. My picture, though current, makes me look young. My attitude? I generally empathise with you, though occasionally we butt heads. Jehochman 02:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I would be be willing to enter WP:ADOPT. Whom do you think I should adopt? I have informally adopted a few editors already. --Justanother 21:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and Durova, if you are truly interested in having this Arb be against "anti-Scientology editors" and you have some evidence to bring then perhaps you should continue. And I may have something I can contribute. Though, again, I do not see much in the way of WP:DR leading to this point and, overall, things have been pretty quiet over at the Scientology series articles lately since Smee backed away from them. --Justanother 22:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

If you would like more advanced training, consider the admin coaching program instead. Jehochman 22:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but I am one of those "don't wanna be an admin" guys. --Justanother 22:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, I think Durova is assuming you have evidence to present. Anynobody 05:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

But I am not the one asking for this action so that does not make sense to me. And since Smee has stopped her WP:TE and the Scientology articles are pretty quiet with both sides working together fairly well then what would we be looking to accomplish? I am not looking to "punish" Smee for her past indiscretions nor would such punishment occur. So long as Smee steers clear of the topics that are problematic for her (or rather for which her involvement is problematic for others and for the project as a whole) then the purpose of an arb is already accomplished; Misplaced Pages "justice" being, I assume, similar to Scientology justice with justice actions only aimed at changing the inappropriate behavior and as soon as that behaviour is stopped then the justice is stopped. --Justanother 11:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Well said. Punishment and revenge are completely different animals. As long as the inappropriate behavior has stopped, there is no point to punishing anyone. And, I have no interest in revenge, as retaliation is contraindicated with my philosophy of life.

Justanother, I believe thats the second (or third) time I've seen a similar reference to Scientology. Are you suggesting that wikipedia and Scientology are similar? Peace.Lsi john 12:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I have moved my response to the off-topic subject of similarities between Misplaced Pages and Scientology to my talk page. --Justanother 14:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

There's no concept of punishment in Misplaced Pages. Anything that's done is for preventative reasons. Keep in mind that just because people behave for a few days or weeks, doesn't automaticaclly mean that precautions against future disruption aren't necessary, but of course, any demonstration of civility and self-control is a very good first step. Jehochman 14:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

A good deal of this thread should probably be at our talk pages instead of here at RFAR, but I thank both Lsi john and Justanother for offering to enter mentorship. I recommend it often because WP:ADOPT is a very good program. If COFS agrees also I'll withdraw the request. And to speak to Lsi john's concerns, I opened this request with the expectation that the Committee would examine the behavior of all parties, including myself. I understand that this is a multifaceted dispute. Durova 16:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

All due respect, Durova, but are you and I speaking the same language? I cannot recall ever having my words here misinterpreted so consistently. If I say "up" are you now going to respond "Now that Justanother agrees with my assessment that it is down"? I find your consistent misinterpretation worrisome since you would apparently like to set yourself up as the (mostly sole) dispenser of the most extreme sanction this society imposes; the community ban. If that is the level of your ability to understand another's position then I really, truly, think that you should limit your involvement in your "hobby" to research and presenting your findings to others that are more suited to negotiation. --Justanother 17:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Durova, I am equally encouraged by your williness to refrain from admin duties, and stick to mainspace edits, for three months. In all honesty, I had not expected you to even consider the proposal, let alone accept it. Though I was sincere in its offer. It appears I may have misjudged you. Peace.Lsi john 17:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

If I misread that part of your statement I apologize. The arbitration request can go forward where you can certainly propose desysopping if you think it's merited. Also see Category:Wikipedian administrators open to recall. Until the Committee or the community say otherwise, I'll continue to interpret this as sufficient endorsement of my actions. Please take further non-arbitration comments to user space. Durova 18:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Justanother 18:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Justanother whether you asked for this action or not, here is your chance to prove your often repeated accusation of anti-Scientology bias. Because editing has slowed down around Scientology articles does not mean it won't start again at any time. I personally believe you have been and still are confusing the POV of the editors with the POV of available WP:RS, WP:V sources. Anynobody 00:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not say that "editing has slowed down", I said "the Scientology articles are pretty quiet with both sides working together fairly well". Quiet, meaning less noise, more people working together and talking things out instead of blindly reverting one another. I put that down mainly to the absence of one editor and it ain't COFS. And to a lesser degree to the absence of a couple more editors . . . and they ain't COFS. I edited a bit today over at Scientology and it was almost pleasurable, not like the medieval dentistry it has been in the past with other personnel there. But they ain't there now and there is nothing to address at this arb level. If that changes in the future I am perfectly capable, etc. Sorry, AN. If you have something to address then you bring something. Please quit trying to make a massive amount of unnecessary work for me. I got better things to do. --Justanother 02:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite bans (moved from clerk notes section of Pigsonthewing request)

ArbCom cannot ban editors indefinitely. - Penwhale | 00:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

. —freak(talk) 00:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This statement has been made by various arbitrators who have indicated that either as a limitation on the authority originally delegated by Jimbo and/or as a matter of policy, the Arbitration Committee will not issue a ban of more than one year's duration. (Notwithstanding, they have actually done so in a couple of cases). Compare colloquy here (where it was I who asked the question). Newyorkbrad 02:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

In Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/MONGO, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic, and Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist, the ArbCom have either endorsed an indefinite community ban, or banned someone indefinitely right off their own bat. Moreoever, in this case, the editor in question has already been banned for a year. Moreschi 07:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Except very limited circumstances, ArbCom has never outright banned anyone indefinitely on its own. - Penwhale | 17:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the only times they've indefinitely banned have been where sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry has been clear. Endorsing an indefinite ban is not the same as prescribing one. Ral315 » 18:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Almost true but not quite 100— a couple of exceptions are cited above. Newyorkbrad 14:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

MONGO appears that PrivateEditor = Rootology, Free Republic merely endorses a ban made by the community, and ScienceApologist appears to apply to a user with two accounts. Is this not the case, or are there actually cases where non-puppetry indefs have been enacted by ArbCom? Ral315 » 06:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Fred Bauder proposed to ban Private Editor indefinitely in the MONGO case well before adding a finding of fact that he was the same editor as Rootology. I think the real common element in the few decisions that imposed indefinite bans is that JamesF, the leading proponent of the view that ArbCom lacks power to ban for more than a year, was on wikibreak. Newyorkbrad 14:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This is correct; sometimes my colleagues on the Committee forget some of the guiding principles of Arbitration. James F. (talk) 10:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Now, that is a little bit unfair to your colleagues, James. Not everyone's been arbitrating since the committee started 3-plus years ago. This "guiding principle of arbitration" doesn't seem to be written down anywhere that's been cited in this or the prior conversation. Until you mentioned it a few weeks ago, I'd never heard it articulated, and I've been following these pages as closely as anyone for a year now. If a one-year limit should be respected, that case can be made, but I don't think the other arbs should be faulted for overlooking a "guiding principle": it's not like they are commanding the the offending editors be hit on the head with sticks or something.... Newyorkbrad 12:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Either way, I will point out that the only good ban is the indefinite one. Everything else just makes the situation worse, provided the user has sufficient patience to last for a year without obvious sockpuppetry (rare, I admit). If the ArbCom won't indefinitely ban, who will? Moreschi 12:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The community can indefinitely ban, of course, and ArbCom will sometimes endorse community bans. But under the Arbitration Policy,long practice, bans imposed directly by ArbCom are limited to a year. Thatcher131 13:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't seem to be in the official policy but it is how ArbCom has handled things for a long time. Thatcher131 13:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe so, but the Arbitration Committe have handed out indefinite bans before, and I do not understand why they would limit their right to do so. Moreschi 13:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I recall a comment from either Kat or Rebecca to the effect that everyone should have the possibility of reform and it is not ArbCom's role to decide that someone is irredeemable. In most cases, banned users sockpuppet so much that their bans get extended over and over again until someone makes it indefinite. JamesF seems to be the main proponent of this theory at the moment, maybe the cases that passed an indef ban were ones where he was inactive? Of course, there are usually 10-12 active Arbitrators on any given case so 6-7 votes for an indefinite ban would override any historical objections. Or you could run for ArbCom yourself. :) Thatcher131 13:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom? Me? The day I do that you can take me off to Broadmoor: I have no wish to clear up the emotional urine of others :)

My point is that right now we have this case, where a user was banned for a year, did not sockpuppet (or he wasn't caught), came back from the ban, and has since continued to disrupt (or so I, and others, assert). Quite what should be done here, I don't know. Nor is it for me to decide, but this is a case where a year-long ban has proved ineffective. BTW, I would consider it completely the case that some people are not possible to reform (usually the nationalist trolls, but that's a different argument). Moreschi 13:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that a maximum of a year ban is proportionate for clearly and persistently disruptive users and fair to others (incl. me) who were indef topic banned without doing much wrong. See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2/Proposed_decision#Proposals_to_ban_Andries_for_responsible_editingAndries 21:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Formatting Change

In the Workshop, comments on proposals are broken up in a very odd way. First the list arbitrators are listed, then the involved parties, and then everyone else. If all anyone did was comment on what they thought of the proposal and move onto the next, it would be fine. The problem is that no-one uses the workshop that way. People talk to each other. People DEBATE with one another. This leads to very difficult-to-read workshops as various groups of people go back and forth across three different locations. I understand why ArbCom doesn't allow replying to another party in another party's evidence section, but is there any reason for the current workshop format? Chris Croy 19:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The workshop page is intended for comments about the proposals not back forth discussion. Each case workshop page has a talk page for discussion. I encourage users to start threads there instead of having back and forth discussion on the workshop pages. FloNight 19:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I have sometimes seen a comment by one person lead to a comment by someone else, that eventually leads to a new principle or a change of approach by an Arbitrator, but I have never seen a productive outcome from an extended conversation. We clerks could probably be more aggressive about moving actual conversations to the talk page. Thatcher131 20:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Instead of using a bare bones template...

...why not design case pages with each request, even for rejected ones? Archives would still be easy to handle, and yet it would put a little less strain on the clerks for having to create a case page when a request gets accepted. Diez2 04:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• I've been wondering about the same question for quite a while. I always assumed that ArbCom had a reason of some sort, given how annoying the current structure is. --jpgordon 14:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I know that Thatcher131 has tried to make the request template easier for newcomers to the arbitration page to handle. One virtue of the current system is that all pending requests are on one page for arbitrators to scroll through, instead of on separate pages, though I suppose a transclusion system as at RfCU or RfA could be used. If the transclusion method were used though, we (clerks) would still need to set up a casepage for each newly opened case, as the long "proposed decision" portion would not be part of the request page format (unless it were included but commented out). As for rejected cases, the idea of having an archive for rejected requests (as opposed to just a listing of them) was shot down the last time it was raised here (I think by me) on the ground that many rejected requests are frivolous and contain personal attacks and shouldn't be kept around. On balance, the format should be whatever is most convenient for the parties and the arbitrators. I'd welcome input from those who were around when this was all set up as to the thinking behind the current template system. Newyorkbrad 14:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I suspect we could design a transclusion system but the idea that it would be less work for the clerks is not borne out by my experience when RFCU went to a transclusion system. (Among other things, fixing and listing botched transclusions, the page contents would still have to be shuffled between the main and talk page as appropriate, and the workshop, evidence and proposed decision pages would need to be created.) Keeping an archive of rejected cases suffers from the problems cited by Brad, plus the fact that some people seem to get cases brought against them over and over that are never accepted, creating a naming problem. On the other hand, deleting the subpages of rejected requests would make them even less accessible than they are now. Ultimately, if ArbCom tells us to "make it so" we will. Thatcher131 16:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Plus right now there is only one page to watchlist to see what's going on. All the Arbitrators and clerks would have to watchlist every new case subpage, even though fewer than half of filed requests get accepted. Thatcher131 16:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
        • I do wish there was a one-click "put all the relevant pages on my watchlist". --jpgordon 06:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
          • Nope, you have to do it the long way, and you can't even ask the clerks to help. :) Newyorkbrad 12:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
            • I've got a way to do it in 8 mouse clicks rather than 12, but I don't think its worth the effort. You could ask the devs for cascading watchlists... Thatcher131 20:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
              • I have an idea. We could place links to watchlist all four case pages, main, evidence, workshop, and proposed decision, on Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Template. While it would still take a click to get there and four clicks to watchlist everything, all the necessary links would be lined up next to eachother, and page loading to get the watchlist tab would not be necessary. I'll add this now function now. Picaroon (Talk) 00:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
                • There we go. Five clicks (one to get to the case page, and one for each of the four links) will now watchlist all five pages for you. With thanks to CBM for technical help. Picaroon (Talk) 00:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
                  • That's what I had in mind but it's still 8 clicks (you have to hit the "back" button each time). Thatcher131 01:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
                    • Not any more.... The devs improved "watch this page" about a week ago so that the notice that the page has been added to one's watchlist now appears on the top of that page rather than a separate page. Try it. :) Newyorkbrad 02:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

My Edit of 08:32, 9 July 2007 UTC (diff)

PierreLarcin overwrote case David Laibman with his own new case (case Rotary International) (diff). Given the edit summary I surmised this was unintentional, and so restored case David Laibman as it was immediately prior to Pierres' edit, while leaving Pierres' new case in. I also updated the Arbitrator's opinions and date/time opening stamp on Pierres' new case, as they had been carried over from case Davie Laibman and were thus not relevant to the new case. I hope this is satisfactory; if not, I await blasting on my talk page :-) — digitaleon • talk @ 08:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I double-checked it and it looks fine. Thanks! Thatcher131 10:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I did not see the separation line between cases and the way to open a new one.

Oops, I apologize for adding work. PierreLarcin 84.102.229.154 19:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Cascading protection

I think it's a really good idea for someone to turn cascading move protection on all pages so that only admins can move them around. hbdragon88 00:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

What pages are transcluded on here that are pagemove vandal targets? The header subpage, the how-to page, and some templates seem to be it. Or do you mean something else? Picaroon (Talk) 00:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking all arbitration cases. Is that possible? I guess they're not high-profile enough. hbdragon88 00:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Knock on wood, this hasn't been necessary. If there is a problem in the future, it will be dealt with, but see WP:BEANS. Also, I think you may have been referring more to conventional move-protection, rather than cascading protection. Newyorkbrad 20:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration statistics

People interested in the arbitration process might find a page I created interesting. See User:Picaroon/Stats. I've already caught a few errors, so while it is mostly accurate, don't take the numbers as absolutely authoritative. I'll continue updating it, hopefully. Picaroon (Talk) 02:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Rotary International

I see User:Rotary International has been added as a party to the RFAR for Rotary International, but there is no such user. Perhaps it's a joke or a WP:POINT? Does anyone want to check that? AndyJones 12:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I suspect it is a good faith mistake, perhaps using {{tl|userlinks|| instead of {{la}}; however, it appears it will be moot in 2 days. Thatcher131 12:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so sure Thatcher31. I suspect PierreLarcin considers that the Rotary as a whole (i.e. Rotarians contributing in WP) is a stakeholder here. But I may be wrong and the best to do is wait for his answer.--Bombastus 12:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Warning to Requesters

Don't expect a whole lot from the administrator in a case. I mistakenly thought the admin would check the articles and in a minute or two spot the problem with our near-vandal that has been plaguing the three of us editors for a couple of weeks. No dice. The admin who looked at our case decided I hadn't gone into enough detail about how many times I had tried to contact this guy (it was dozens) with no answer whatever until the arbtitration. Since he knows he will be kicked off if he loses, he replied to the only one that counts, which wasn't the three editors who have been trying to get answers out of him these past few weeks. So forget what they say about "not being too long." They are looking for details about trying to communicate. I assume they don't want details about the difference of opinion but I won't really be sure until our complaint gets rejected again, I guess. Student7 21:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you may be confusing the "administrators" with the "arbitrators." When there is a problem with inappropriate editing conduct (as opposed to a content dispute), which is not resolved by interacting directly with that editor, you can bring the matter to the attention of administrators such as by posting a report on the administrators' noticeboard. This is not a stage in the dispute resolution process, per se, but it is how immediate user-conduct issues can be addressed. Filing a user-conduct request for comment concerning an editor's conduct represents another alternative. For article-content disputes, there are other procedures that can be used. There are also mediation alternatives, all of which are discussed at the dispute resolution page. Arbitration is the last step in the dispute resolution process, although ultimately which cases to take is a decision for the arbitrators. Please also note that if a case is rejected because earlier steps in the dispute resolution process have not yet been tried, it can be brought back here later on if those steps than are tried and are unsuccessful. I hope this is helpful. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your measured words of reason. I did not truly appreciate the difference between an admin and an arb. I was concerned that I was dismissed by the arb a bit too quickly. We've been getting shot at here in the trenches for a while now on two articles and I found it hard to take when the arb seemed overly concerned with "form" and "procudure" without really being very much help. In the meantime, one of the other editors who did dot all his eyes, submitted it "properly," did finally get someone's attention, so we may now have a promise of some sort of logical process. We will see. Student7 01:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Change to wording of Proposed decision template re number of arbitrators and recusals

I have made a change in the wording of the sentence on the /Proposed decision template which sets forth the number of arbitrators and majority. A complete explanation is here and comments would be welcome. Newyorkbrad 00:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Would you fix the capitalization as well? It should be arbitrators, not Arbitrators, which not only seems a tad bit self-aggrandizing, but is incorrect according to WP:MOSCL. 166.166.107.172 04:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a style preference consistently expressed by one of the a/Arbitrators, which as a mere c/Clerk i/I don't feel empowered to override. Newyorkbrad 07:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Look at the behavior of all involved parties

I think that it is important to remind all involved users that their past and ongoing conduct likely will be examined by the Committee as it relates to an arbitration case. Sometimes editors are surprised to find themselves named as parties later in a case. We do not limit ourselves to only examining the party originally named in the dispute by one side. Remember that once a case is opened we will look for all serious user conduct issues. Take care, FloNight 15:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, a more accurate statement would be that usually the Arb Comm does so. You collectively explicitly choose not to do this recently, and as a result produced one of your worst decisions in recent memory, and one that is better forgotten than remembered. GRBerry 13:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

May I edit your evidence template, arbs?

Crossposted to Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Template/Evidence.

Hi. I've written a couple of tutorials on how to produce diffs and permanent links, and have gotten good feedback about their usefulness. My impetus was the utter practical uselessness, (though perhaps philosophical interest) of help:diff, which is usually linked to when newbies ask how to produce diffs. I don't understand above one word in ten in it, so how's a newbie supposed to?

Also, help:diff is only about diffs, whereas it's sometimes a lot more convenient to link one's evidence to a short section on a talkpage or on ANI. If those section links aren't done right, they'll go dead as soon as the page is archived. In the case of ANI, that means after a day or two. I noticed yesterday that one user went into his evidence section in the COFS case and effortfully changed all his section links to point to the archive into which they had just disappeared. I mentioned the tutorials to him, and he said he had been trying unsuccessfully to find that kind of information when he compiled his evidence. So, what do you say, arbitrators, would you like me to mention this simple tutorial and/or this really, really simple tutorial at, say, the top of the evidence template? I've discussed it with NYBrad, and he seemed to think it would be helpful. Changing the relevant paragraph to something like this is what I have in mind:

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are not sufficient. Never link to a page history or an editor's contributions, as those will probably have changed by the time people click on your links to view them. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See diff and link tutorial.

Bishonen | talk 23:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC).

Sounds good & useful to me at least. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Mackensen (talk) 23:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Not an arbitrator, but I like these explanations very much. I remember asking at the help desk once how to link to a diff, after not having been able to find a good explanation anywhere else, and I will redfacedly admit that I wasn't familiar with the "permanent link" feature until I read this tutorial yesterday. Newyorkbrad 23:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I think the template actually belongs to the clerks, though. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes of course. Errr ... what brilliant tutorials! Ummm ... are they by Bishzilla?! (Psss ... she's got a flaming mouth pointed at my head!) Paul August ☎ 16:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it looks very good and helpful! :) Cbrown1023 talk 23:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Pointless non-clerk non-Arbitrator snowball support...? Daniel 00:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. I know you're only being so nice because you're scared of Bishzilla, but I've gone ahead and edited the template. Bishonen | talk 08:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC).

Arbitrators who become inactive mid-case

When Essjay retired in March, there was discussion about whether votes he'd cast in cases prior to that should stand (see here for example). To quote Doc Glasgow's comment there:

I'd call as a matter of equity that Essjay's votes be struck and the majorities adjusted. That's simply for reasons of fairness and process and not because of what's happened with Essjay. The arbitration process isn't simply a case of arbs putting their crosses on the ballot paper in hard ink, but until the time of its closure it is an ongoing discussion. New evidence or argument may be presented at any time - and arbs weigh that up and may change their opinions (several have already done so in this case). By resignation, Essjay's votes have become fossilised - he cannot participate in that debate - he cannot be influenced by subsequent arguments from the community or his peers. He is no longer exercising judgement in this case, thus he cannot be counted as an active judge.--Doc 17:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

That argument is persuasive and Essjay's votes where removed from the vote totals by Paul August. The thought occurs to me as to whether this should also apply where an Arbitrator becomes inactive during a case. The logic is the same- they will not be alive to further arguments that may be presented or shifts in the positions of other Arbitrators. Evidence may be presented at any time after the proposed decision is first created, and Arbitrators appear to pay attention to Community reactions to those proposed decisions. Should the inactive Arb return before the close of the case there is no issue, but given that the closing times of cases are unpredictable that will not always be the case.

I was wondering if there were any thought from others (and especially members of ArbCom) as to whether it should be come standard practice to indent and discount the votes of Arbs who become inactive during a case as well as those who leave the Committee? WjBscribe 15:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, keep in mind that "Inactive", when applied to members of ArbCom, merely means that they have not edited a case page in the recent past, not necessarily that they're unavailable or away. Kirill 16:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have said when Arbitrators put themselves to "Away" - that seems an indication that even if they continue to edit Misplaced Pages, they are not going to be acting as an Arbitrator for a period of time. WjBscribe 17:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No, because each of the arbitrators works with our fine clerks to figure this out each time we are away. We each handle it differently. Also depends on how long we are going to be away and how many open cases we voted in. There should be no one way to handle this issue. FloNight 18:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Content dispute?

I'm slightly surprised that the ArbCom thinks that the "Allegations of apartheid" case is a pure content dispute. Many editors have said that it's an issue of disruption, creating articles that the creators don't think should exist in the encyclopedia, etc. Plenty of diffs have been provided, and there's at least one blunt statement that the other articles were indeed created with disruption in mind, not for their content. I'm not sure how that adds up to a content dispute. Zocky | picture popups 03:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Unlike many who have discussed this subject, I think that you correctly identify the issue in the arbitration request, that is whether what has occurred is "disruption." Some editors think it is, some don't. I don't. (I do think that the flurry of AfD's and merge tags, which is still going on, combined with some of the language used in some of the AfD nominations, is somewhat disruptive, but that's not what the request was about.) Some people (including me) do want consistency, and there is no rule that says we cannot seek it, in a non-disruptive manner. 6SJ7 04:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This is likely off topic here, but anything that may increase understanding is probably helpful, so here goes: Everybody wants consistency. The people who think this is disruptive simply don't agree that having the same kind of article about widely publicized allegations by well known people on one side, and the widespread off-hand use of the term on the other is consistent. That's where the content dispute is, and that's really not a problem for the ArbCom.

The issue that the ArbCom should be dealing with is that while people disagree on whether there should be an article about allegations of apartheid in and by Israel, both sides seem to agree that the other articles shouldn't exist, but one side is arguing for them to be kept in AFDs. Zocky | picture popups 04:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. And please note, the content dispute isn't about whether apartheid exists in Israel or any other country. It's about whether encyclopedia-worthy allegations of apartheid in those countries exist. Zocky | picture popups 04:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Clerks

I have done a general updating and copyediting of the above page. Review and comments very welcome. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 21:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I feel badly disenfranchised

Strike 1 for the Misplaced Pages cabal, 0 for the little guys. I feel totally sick at the way the Abu badali arbcom went and I want you to know that this process is totally pointless for any "joe blogs" Wikipedian who has been harassed and wronged by another editor. All that happens is that all his friends gang up, claim the guy is the best thing since sliced bread and let him off with a quick slap on the wrist. All the while those who had the problem in the first place feel like they are being ignored and then get the attention turned on themselves and their own edits. Until ArbCom cases are done by people who have had no major prior contact with the parties concerned, this process is going to be a corrupt farce. This from Howcheng was the most disgusting thing I have ever seen on here. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 21:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can recall I've never had any prior contact with Abu badali. Paul August ☎ 21:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that everyone did, but that there were enoguh there to swing the balance. I may be totally wrong, but I got the distinct impression that there was bias towards Abu badali through the whole process. I'm going to leave it there, because this has me steamy, but I just felt that I wanted to make this feeling clear. I don't usually get teary over anything internet-related, but Abu badali's actions and then the resulting Arbitration actually had me in tears because I felt so harassed and put upon (in the first instance) and frustrated (by the Arbitration). And then these guys start to blame me? PageantUpdater talk • contribs 21:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if any of the other ArbCom members had "major prior contact" with him either. I see no evidence for the claim that any of the arbiters who participated in the case behaved in any way inappropriately. I am sorry you feel frustrated by Abu badali's actions and the result of the arbitration. It is next to impossible to resolve a case in a way which satisfies everyone. In fact we often satisfy no one. That's the nature of the beast. Paul August ☎ 22:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

By major prior contact I mean... talk page communications, backing him up on IFDs etc. It wouldn't have been so bad if I felt I was being listened to. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 22:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You are being listened too, but I'm afraid you're seeing a conspiracy where there isn't one. If any of the committee members felt that they would be partial or biased arbitrators, then they would have recused from the case per the arbitration policy. It you'd like to show specific instances of prior contact with Abu badali in image related fora, feel free, but until then you aren't going to see much recognition of your allegation. Picaroon (t) 02:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It's also a little bit late to raise this issue, even if it were to have any substance. There's only a limited number of arbitrators, so anyone is free to look over the list and raise any concerns they have about a particular arbitrator sitting on their case. (Such concerns are usually unjustified, but "usually" doesn't mean "never.") A suggestion of recusal made after the case is over is too late to do any good. Newyorkbrad 02:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I can't be bothered fighting any more. I just have to accept that this place isn't perfect and get over it. Doesn't mean I have to be happy, doesn't mean I believe this was fair, but it's clear I'm just going to have to give in. I've had enough. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 03:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

(Disclosure: I am not an admin. I have never communicated with either PageantUpdater or Abu badali. Of the admins involved in this Arb case, I have communicated once with Mackensen on an unrelated issue.)

Having read the above complaint, checked out the talk pages of both parties and read over the Arb decision I don't feel that PageantUpdater has good cause to complain that the Arb was biased. Of the three proposed remedies, the first two finished with a vote of 3-4 against and 3-3 respectively, while the final remedy was unanimous. This alone disproves the notion that "his friends gang up, claim the guy is the best thing since sliced bread and let him off with a quick slap on the wrist". There was clearly a genuine discussion going on here, with a genuine result. I feel that PageantUpdater, having "lost" this case, is simply looking for a way to rubbish the result rather than accept that the case proceeded just as an Arb case should.

Imo, the right result was reached in this case and I think it will be a great shame if PageantUpdater chooses to conclude from this process that Misplaced Pages is, as the editor's user page puts it, "going down the drain". -- Hux 15:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The issue isn't a cabal. The only cabal type behavior I've seen on Misplaced Pages is completely irrelevant to this case. But from what I've seen, I get the feeling that Arbcom avoided an actual sanction because more than a symbolic resolution would "embolden the enemy bad image users". That is very scary. -Amarkov moo! 00:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

Why don't you guys put requests for clarification on to it's own subpage and transclude it in? The logic behind this is A. less edits to the main page, and B. if someone wants to reference a previous clarification discussion, it would be a lot easier to find the diffs without having to wade through the edits to the requests section. Kwsn 22:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

When a request for clarification is resolved, if anything substantive was addressed or resolved, we now generally archive the discussion to the talkpage of the original case it relates to, so you should be able to find it without hunting through diffs. Newyorkbrad 22:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)