Revision as of 14:16, 13 May 2009

• WT:AC/N
• WT:ACN

Discussion of agenda

Audit subcommittee

I'm a bit confused:

1. Appoint initial subcommittee members by April 25
2. Prepare subcommittee procedures by April 25
3. Appoint final subcommittee members by June 1

Why two groups of members?--Tznkai (talk) 01:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The structure of the subcommittee isn't final yet—although I would expect an announcement very soon—but one of the possibilities is to have a mix of Committee-appointed and community-elected members; the gap in the schedule is intended to cover a possible election. Kirill  01:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Hokay. --Tznkai (talk) 01:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of announcements

Notification of injunction relating to RFAR/MZMcBride

Original announcement

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science

Original announcement

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand

Original announcement

Ireland article names

Regarding remedy 2 of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Remedies: On January 26, I accepted the appointment as a moderator. Two weeks ago I started a wikibreak because I need more time for things that are important in my live now. I tried to honor my commitment by sporadically showing up just for the Ireland question, but I now realize that this is not practical, and I made an announcement at WT:IECOLL#Resignation. In reply, someone proposed that I should ask an arbitrator to join instead of me. I think this makes sense, as ArbCom is very familiar with the issue, and an arbitrator would enjoy a position of authority, which seems to be needed at the moment. — Sebastian 01:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, is anyone here? Please arbcom, this issue has been dragging on for years, and dozens of editors have now put a lot of effort into working through the arbcom-sanctioned process to find a solution.

However, the process which the moderators established at WP:IECOLL now appears to have run out of steam. There was a period of taking statements from participants which lasted for about six weeks and closed on 31st March. But despite several requests from participants, there is still no indication that the moderators appointed by arbcom are anywhere near making any decision about how to proceed, let alone putting anything in place.

It would be a great pity if this effort to settle a long-running dispute was to run into the sands, and without a third moderator it seems at the moment that this may be what happens. Please can arbcom appoint a replacement for Sebastian (who appears to have been the most active of the moderators), and get this process moving again? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for all the efforts sought so far to help sorting out this dispute. I really appreciate and value the help provided by Sebastian here and feel very sorry for the resignation. We are discussing this at the ArbCom level for the time being and will seek a replacement within 48h.

In principle, I am not against the participation of an arbitrator in the process as suggested by Sebastian. However, I'd prefer reviewing the situation at the IECOLL project and see if there are other existing ideas to make sure decisions we'd take are appropriate and correct. -- FayssalF - 18:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Aitias motion 2

The current reading of this motion gives Aitias full support to start a new account and run for RFA. Given that this account is already strongly suspected to be a second or alternate account of someone, this motion absolutely should be rewritten or clarified. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, this motion is rewarding him for simply resigning instead of dealing with his issues. Tiptoety 17:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll add another motion that require Aitias to edit with only the Aitias account until the issues in this case are resolved. Does that clarify it to your satisfaction? FloNight♥♥♥ 17:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that should do it. Thanks for the quick response. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

What's the ratoinale for motion 3 specifying a shorter duration of 6 months rather than the standard full year allowance? Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

hmmm. I'm not understanding your question. There is no standard allowance as far as I'm aware.

The idea to include Motion 3 was not mine but I agree with the reasoning behind the idea. In this particular case, I think 6 months is a reasonable amount of time for Aitias to return and address the concerns expressed at RFArb. I don't think it is wise to delay making a ruling much past that time since the context of the situation gets lost over time. And editors may be unavailable to contribute their evidence to the case down the road. This is s/w expanding the Committee prior ruling about admin leaving but a step in the right direction, I think. We need for our admin to participate in dispute resolution. If they are not able to do it because for any reason, then we need for them to take a break from using the tools by voluntarily desysop. If they choose to not do it, then a involuntary temporary suspension of adminship is in order. I would like to see this become the norm so there is not ambiguity about admin that leave or drastically reduce their participation on site during a case, and then return to active editing at a later time (often as the case is closing). FloNight♥♥♥ 20:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I will take much of the credit and/or blame for motion 3. I'm not familiar with any one-year precedent as referenced by Ncmvocalist, but would welcome any clarification. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I certainly don't consider it a matter of blame; I was more curious than anything else - but my bad (in terms of how I worded it). What I meant to say was something along these lines: when a user goes on break, that is already a remedy of one sort. Given that in the past (on at least one occasion), the Committee has refused to review a situation until after a minimum 6 month period, I was a little confused as to why it was made as a maximum 6 month period here. Also, not to say that he's banned in any way, but given that the relative effect of 'retirement' is presumably close to that of a ban, I wasn't sure why the wikibreak (if it is that) should not be allowed for a full year period (like with typical ArbCom bans). Does that make sense?

In response to FloNight's comment: seeing we're speaking of a more broad sort of principle, than a specific one to Aitias, I'd like to bring up a previous case briefly. Some might assert that there was ambiguity with respect to one of the administrators at the end of the omnibus case; a wikibreak was able to do wonders, and he only returned to editing towards the end of the case. And to add to that success story, his participation in DR was considered by many to be extremely limited. This was despite a reasonably clear consensus (via RfC) that supported a desysop at the time. As such, if the proposed 'new norm' was in place, I pose the question as to whether the case of that particular admin would've ended with the same successful result? Personally, I don't think so, had someone touched his tools at the outset, but I'm open to explanations. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

My concern was that it's not reasonable to expect users to present evidence in 2010 about events that happened early in 2009. Hence the need for some time limit on how long we might be expected to open a case as, in effect, a continuation of the current request. In the meantime, it's up to Aitias to decide whether he wants to return, and whether he wants to continue as an administrator, so we should all let him take his time and decide what he wants to do. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

All the information that I read directly from Aitias (on site and by email to ArbCom) indicated that Aitias did not plan to participate in the case any time soon and likely never. I agree with Newyorkbrad that delaying this request for arbitration indefinately is not reasonable. Six months seems like a sensible amount of time to draw the line for when we would open this current case if he returned and wanted his tools returned. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Aitias_desyssop

Motions passed. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Motions Re: Aitias

Original announcement

New mail handling procedure

Original announcement

New ban appeals subcommittee and procedure

Original announcement

The first step in the procedure is:

1. The Coordinating Arbitrator or his deputy shall refer all appeals from banned or long-term blocked users received by the Committee to the Ban Appeals Subcommittee.

• Did the Committee have in mind what "long-term" means? It would be a simple matter to specify and might save later queries.
• I notice that the Coordinating Arbitrator is a "he", whereas "his or her" and the commonly used and now well-accepted singular they appears more than once elsewhere in the procedure. Could "his" be changed to "they" to make it grammatically consistent (and to adhere to modern language practice)? Tony (talk) 14:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The Coordinating Arbitrator is a "he" and so is the deputy, because of that the wording makes sense to me. I really don't think we need to change the wording for now since this is specific to our current Committee's way of organizing our work and is not binding on later Committees. And it is still early in the year, we may alter our methods and processes this year. :-) FloNight♥♥♥ 17:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

We don't have a precise definition of long-term. Obviously, nothing less than ~2 weeks will be considered, simply because the block will have expired by the time we come to a decision; beyond that, it depends on the circumstances.

As far as the wording is concerned, please feel free to fix any obvious grammatical mistakes in the text. Kirill  03:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Stability in the community is aided by clear direction from ArbCom, so a wording such as "normally four weeks, although the Committee may on application consider appeals for shorter blocks" might be beneficial. There is no reason that a subsequent Committee might not use this process—even though it would not be "bound by pecedent"—especially if the process is transparently and clearly laid out, and has been demonstrated to work to the Committee's satisfaction.

FloNight, my point rested on the fact that the Coordinating Arbitrator might subsequently be a "she". Gender-neutral language, as used in the rest of the text, is typical usage in such circumstances.

Kirill, thanks, but it's well-written apart from the two points I made, and I'd be reluctant to change ArbCom text unless there were a significant need.

May I pass on that I was pleased at the Committee's establishment of this process, as I'm sure many other editors were. Thank you. Tony (talk) 14:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Notification of second injunction relating to RFAR/MZMcBride

Original announcement

Assuming good faith, MZMcBride deleted 352 articles in 8 minutes using tabs. He didn't edit all day (whereas he normally does), so this seems to be precisely what happened. Cool Hand Luke 23:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

He didn't delete 352 articles, he deleted via G8 the talk pages of 352 deleted articles and projectspace pages, almost all of which were speedy-deletes, junk pages, and pages in the wrong namespace. The problem here is ... ? Given the second injunction, though, ("There is no restriction against his proposing lists of pages to be deleted by other administrators, provided that the deleting administrator exercises his or her own judgment in determining that deletion is appropriate.") if anyone would like to undelete those pages, I'd be quite happy to delete them again. Black Kite 23:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom's apparent inability to provide a reasonable answer to either your question, or the similar variants that were posed at workshop and proposed decision talk pages, suggest that the following is accurate.

The problem here is simple. The wider community is either unaware that this is happening (when these motions were being voted on), or can't be bothered saying (or better yet, doing) something about it when they do find out, or have lost faith in certain arbitrators' ability to open their ears/eyes to common sense when they get it wrong. Certain arbitrators are therefore able to take advantage of this fact and do anything and everything they can to effectuate their personal views, regardless of if they do in fact conflict with the views of the wider community. Indeed, this also allows arbitrators to claim that the patience of the community and the Committee is being tested, when really, the issue solely rests with ArbCom, its delegates and of course, the grudge-holders; some users will obviously fall under more than one of these categories. Merely being elected by the community doesn't mean that your view = the community's, or that the community's patience has been exhausted merely because yours has.

Sometimes, the community gets the decisions it wants and ArbCom provide genuine reasons which are in line with what is expected in a decision. Other times, ArbCom provide other reasons that are divorced from the real reasons that they made a decision - they cover up those reasons because it is directly against what is expected from the community, and because it is the only way to save face over stupid decisions that were made based on personal reasons that should not have played a part in that decision.

Ironically, a lot of foolish and ill-considered decisions seem to be made whenever ArbCom perceives that its authority and willingness/ability to make good decisions is being questioned. But to summarise, the problem = the community's constant inadequate response and mechanisms to deal with ArbCom's foolish, ill-considered and/or poor decisions. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)modified slightly

One of the issues in the case now ongoing is that MZMcBride may be acting harmfully by using an automated process to perform a large number of deletions, which may include some that are harmful. Because this issue had been raised, the committee placed a temporary injunction to instruct him not to perform large numbers of deletions by any automated or semi-automated process. The injunction was there to allow us (and also anyone who wished to present evidence in the case) to check his actions. By doing a large number of actions again, even if he managed to do them manually (which I should say I think is unlikely), he was again making it very difficult to check on the reasonableness individual actions. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with you, except that these were all G8 deletions - talk pages of already deleted articles/projectspace pages - which actually makes it very easy to check on them. I can think of practically no situation in which we do not delete the talkpages of deleted articles - most of these had merely been forgotten by the deleting admin. Black Kite 19:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The first injunction makes sense - the second does not. If the first injunction was to tackle the issue of numbers of deletions per minute rather than just deletions made using automated tools, then the blame rests with ArbCom for putting through an injunction that had such a clear loophole in it, and that failed to tackle the underlying issue. ArbCom should've then recognised its mistake and attempted to fix their fault (aka not MZM's fault) by modifying the original injunction to say: "MZM may only delete X number of pages every X minutes/hours". Clear and simple - if he violated that, he deserves to lose his tools wrt to deleting, and if he violated the subsequent one, then he should lose his tools. For ArbCom to instead to advance prevention to the point of punishing by 'banning from deleting except obvious' for something that is neither here nor there is poor form. Contrary to the note that they left at the end that it does not reflect prejudgement, it blatantly gives all appearances of prejudging. And to add even further insult to injury, what the community did establish quite clearly is that there are not enough admins - to outright prevent him from doing what he's expected to do is downright wrong. And finally, for any member of ArbCom to claim that community patience is exhausted over deletions that weren't established as problematic (or deletions that seem to lack having the ability of being problematic in the eyes of the community, per Black Kite) is downright wrong. 4 reasonably well supported reasons to demonstrate what sort of decision making has gone on here. It should be no surprise how I personally consider that there is a sense of deja vu in this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to echo the same clarification done by my colleague Sam Blacketer. I'd be glad to address the rest of the concerns in a better atmosphere if we refrain from using the term 'stupid' when criticizing. -- FayssalF - 18:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree; the term stupid was not quite an accurate description of what was supposed to be meant. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ncmvocalist. Well, the second injunction's aim (the first one as well) is to let ArbCom review the already existing evidence and prepare the Proposed Decision with the minimum interference possible. ArbCom has not decided yet whether the deletions are legit or not but in order for it to make a fair decision questionable deletions have to stop. Otherwise, they are just complicating the case. As for the community and ArbCom patience, we must remember that the community referred the case to ArbCom because the community couldn't arrive to a decision. You not being impatient doesn't mean that others are happy with the last deletions. And since MZMcBride has an open ArbCom case, they could just ask ArbCom before doing anything questionable. X deletions per minute or hours is just Wikilawyering. Whatever limitation you'd put you'd have a bunch of people arguing against (i.e. no, 20 per minute. no, 70 per hour. no, 300 per second, etc...) It is about the essence. -- FayssalF - 23:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

the community referred the case to ArbCom because the community couldn't arrive to a decision - This is not at all true. The RFAR started within 48 hours of the "secret pages" incident, maybe within 24, I'd have to check, but it basically killed the discussion on AN. It was ArbCom, not the community that decided to explicitly skip the normal route of requiring an RFC before starting a case. Mr.Z-man 23:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I would be surprised if you could find anyone who could raise a reasonable objection to the cleaning up of orphaned talkpages. Black Kite 23:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Guys, the case presentation and the evidence page suggest otherwise and ArbCom is reviewing everything in detail. And cleaning up of orphaned talkpages is not the whole story. ArbCom has nothing to do with 'content'. -- FayssalF - 00:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you elaborate what you mean by "not the whole story"? If it's only regarding the sorts of pages that Black Kite brought up, then sorry, it does have something to do with ArbCom - yes, you should not look at it as a content consideration, but you are expected to look at a behavioural Misplaced Pages norm if that's what is being suggested by a member of the community. Such norms, have after all, been used and considered in previous ArbCom decisions. If there's something else beyond that when you say "not the whole story", I (among others) would appreciate a little bit more specificity - as you know, I cannot view what has been deleted to make sense of that part of your comment.

To respond to your previous comment, I don't agree that people would argue for 300 deletions per minute or 60 deletions per minute or that sort. To be frank, I also don't think MZM would've minded being restricted to a mere (but strict maximum of) 10 deletions per minute as it's an entirely reasonable expectation given the circumstances - did any of you attempt to discuss this possibility with him before imposing this second injunction? Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid you are asking me to elaborate on things before voting the final decision. Anyway —and refer to my last sentence below,— I'll try to address as many concerns as possible.

I must say... did MZMCbride make any attempt to seek advice or clarifications from the Committee or anyone before acting? He's the one before ArbCom; not the opposite. You would not expect anything different than that in the real and logical world. Take any scenario (someone already in trial goes acting questionably again without consulting) or example you like so that my example would not be labelled as cherry-picked.

Now, neither of us is a robot and our relationships here are based on human interactions; consulting with each other, listening, reaching consensus, etc... So these are "such norms". Now, you tell me again, did MZMCBride consult with you, me, ArbCom or anyone on earth before acting questionably for the-not-first-time? The ArbCom job is to look into evidences and though it sometimes extends its remit when it is necessary it should not extend it more than necessary. That said and still MZMCBride received the first batch of questions and had an arbitrator consulting with him off-wiki before the second injunction. ArbCom don't usually go beyond its primary functions though it did this time.

Misplaced Pages is an un-individualistic project and one should expect others to be impatient when repeated instances of questionable individuality comes to play. Impatience should also be expected from people who already look at and verify existing evidence when hit by a new wave of evidence —a situation which could have been easily avoided. If you want the "whole story", you must bring history (the big picture including prior cases) with you and look at it for facts. I'd really advice against a short-sighted Committee and I don't believe this needs more elaboration. Again, Misplaced Pages is an un-individualistic project. Remember that principle and go back to the Five pillars.

I'll be glad if you believe that it was quite a satisfying elaboration on what I had said. The rest (30, 20, 70 per minute) remains plain and mere Wikilawyering though it ceases to be wikilawyering when discussed with the community before acting (norms). Note that my stance may change depending on MZMcBride new answers and clarifications to the Committee's questions. -- FayssalF - 02:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

MZM is indeed in front of ArbCom. However, I, an uninvolved user (who reads, words and helps with imposing numerous sanctions at community level), find that when an injunction unambiguously provides that one should "refrain from using automated tools (including bots and scripts) to delete pages or nominate them for deletion", then normal deletions that aren't assisted by bots or automated scripts may continue. A reasonable uninvolved person would interpret that questionable actions occurred (or may occur) while using bots, rather than when doing them individually (manually) one-by-one.

That is the essence of the injunction, and I would see no need for any further clarification, even if a user is on "trial". I expect someone (even you) to disagree with me on what I've just said, but I know for a fact that I'm looking at this in good faith (over looking at this foolishly). I myself consider that discussion would be necessary when it is too vague (at which time, onus would be on MZM to seek clarification/consenus/whatever from ArbCom before acting - I consider that this was not such a case).

I will slightly digress though. If I was on the receiving end of the injunction, I may have insisted on clarification because I am more than just a reasonable person; I would consider a very unusual interpretation - one that involves one of two other scenarios. (Scenario 1) where ArbCom, in implementing injunction 1, may have intended on preventing all deletions from occurring . (Scenario 2) where ArbCom, in implementing injunction 1, may have intended trap me (in this case, MZM) into "appearing to" violate the injunction so as to make an easier case for desysop .

How would either scenario work? A few deletions (individually) per minute, even if they are different numbers, would be enough for anyone (including grudge-holders) to make out a claim that the deletions are like a bot - many deletions per minute, even if they are different numbers like in this case, could also leave it open for anyone (including grudge-holders) to claim that the deletions are like a bot. Of course I concede that whether ArbCom in the end directly/indirectly endorsed/rejected such a claim is another story. But the nature of the lose-lose situation (of repeatedly hearing those claims for merely doing what was expected of you) is interesting - we're in the delicate stage of dispute resolution where this sort of hassle could drive a contributor away. That would be very convenient, particularly in the light of the suggestion that there are users (even arbitrators) who are growing impatient of MZM retaining his tools. I hope what I've said in these paragraphs makes sense; given the above, I hold very strong reservations about deeming that x deletions per y minutes is mere wikilawyering.

All that said, wrt to the whole story bit, I am relatively satisfied with your elaboration, and thank you. I note that should a full picture (and history) be taken into consideration, there is a dire need for this to be strongly reflected in the Fofs for disclosure. I also note my deliberate request prior to voting. While discussions like this one may do nothing to change prejudgements or upcoming decisions or injunctions or anything else similar, at least here is a written attempt of trying to avoid the need for criticism after the very final event(s), given that criticism has directly followed interim events. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I had a lengthy response prepared for Black Kite, but most of this has been subsumed into a series of new questions for MZMcBride (which I hope to post soon). For now: "There is no question of undeleting them. The question here is not whether the deletions were correct or not (I'm prepared to assume they were correct). However, if they were undeleted, and you deleted them again, the onus is still on you to personally check all 352 of them, and not presume they are valid G8 deletions. i.e. An assumption of correctness is OK as far as not undeleting goes, but *re-deleting* requires a check." I'll give an example: deletion log, along with history, where the recreating editor says: "sorry, why wasn't this made into a redirect?". If you go through MZMcBride's deletions, you do find blue links, some of which don't impact the original deletion, but some that do. This underscores my point that if something has been recreated, you can't just automatically redelete it without checking. Some other examples: Talk:Red Dragon FM, Talk:Lodge Street Temple, The sovereign art foundation. Behind each of those is a story (and often some clean-up to do), but my point here is that if someone has undeleted or recreated, you need to find out what has happened. Carcharoth (talk) 08:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

One more point: "most of these had merely been forgotten by the deleting admin" - when did this culture of leaving the talk page deletions to a bot develop? Is there not a reminder in the system prompting admins to check and delete associated talk pages as well? Carcharoth (talk) 08:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It has been that way for sometime, I use a database query output and go through about once a week, and generally find about 50 or so such pages needing deleting. I know Fritzpoll and I once went through and deleted about 300 file talk pages left over from moves to commons that admins forgot to do. I suspect it is a symptom of our declining admin ranks and overall backlog of admin tasks. MBisanz 08:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Returning to a point above, what concerns me about the deletion of Least common denominator (which was a broken redirect at the time of deletion) is that there are links from article space using that title. Did those links exist at the time of deletion? Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lowest common denominator (disambiguation) is what caused that broken redirect. It is a specific example of a type of broken redirect that needs dealing with by hand, not by bot deletion. I believe the approved bot (User:RedirectCleanupBot?), since retired, explicitly avoided deleting this type of 'in use' redirect for that reason (though such 'in use but broken' redirects do need fixing urgently, giving rise to the argument that automated deletion will prompt editors to fix the redlinks). Carcharoth (talk) 08:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC) This is getting beyond a discussion of the noticeboard announcement - could sometime redirect the discussion somewhere else?

OK, I was wrong. RedirectCleanupBot restricted itself by history - only broken redirects with one revision. It didn't concern itself with how many articles were linking to the redirect, which I should have realised. Carcharoth (talk) 08:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

Is the noticeboard proper going to undergo any sort of regular archiving?--Tznkai (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Kirill created Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 1 on January 17th, it might be nice to get some guidance as to how often to archive and how to coordinate archiving the Noticeboard and talk page jointly. MBisanz 22:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I would say that judgment is best applied on a case by case basis. I would expect that any superseded notice can be archived immediately, that notices which are no longer particularly relevant should be archived, and that a default lifetime of a month to six weeks sounds about right as a rule of thumb. — Coren  02:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Four to six weeks sounds good for a default archiving time, for both the notices and the associated discussions. Kirill  12:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Designated drafting arbitrators

Original announcement

• A very good idea and one which I support. One query I had was would the arbitration committee please expand on the phrase managing case workflow. What will that entail? Seddσn 19:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • We don't really have a formal definition, at this point. The idea is that they'll take the lead on drafting, interacting with the parties, and so forth; but I expect the exact parameters will be worked out in practice rather than being defined in advance. Kirill  05:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding User:Mitchazenia

Original announcement

I am still pretty new to Misplaced Pages so I don't know the backround of this. Is that available? I have looked at Mitchazenia's contributions and I am rather impressed. Basket of Puppies 19:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, just follow the motion link at the announcement and you get to the case. --Amalthea 20:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride

Original announcement

Should this read "Should MZMcBride request restoration of adminship privileges, he will be required to submit a request for adminship for approval of the Committee."? --NE2 00:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

 Fixed - My bad. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Tiptoety 00:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so it's "submit a request for adminship or request approval of the Committee." Very different - or maybe not, given that if the committee wanted to torpedo an RFA they'd find a way --NE2 00:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, since the RFA has been withdrawn, I think it is safe to comment now. I will say that the filing of the RFA while the case was not yet closed did provoke discussion among arbitrators. I can't speak for others, but I personally said I wasn't going to go near the RFA unless gross misunderstandings were being stated and accepted without rebuttal. If you want to start a general discussion on when and under what circumstances it is appropriate to start an RFA following a resignation while a case is in progress (remembering to keep the discussion generalised), then I for one would be happy to take part in such a discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 04:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

That arb-com scope is expanding: MZMcBride and those working with him are commended for developing an innovative method to identify articles with potential BLP issues, but are strongly urged to consult and carefully consider whether the current location and nature of the listing of the output of the script represents the most appropriate means of addressing the issues raised. Hiding T 13:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

How so? You mean content versus conduct scope? Since the case is closed, can you think of a suitable venue to discuss the point you've raised here? Carcharoth (talk) 04:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy discussing it here if that's okay, the link I followed said to discuss the announcement here. I've been through the evidence page and there's no evidence presented regarding "blp", although I just ran a find over the page so I may have missed something. What bothers me initially is the language of the "finding of fact". Is this a finding of fact, or editorialising. There seems to be a disconnect between the evidence and the fact itself. I'm just not sure finding of facts are there for the arb-com to editorialise. I thought they were to establish the facts of the facts of the case, not the opinion of arb-com regarding those facts. It may be a fact that arb-com would like to urge or even strongly urge discussion, but in that sense, aren't the arb-com just another set of editors? My understanding of arb-com's scope is that it will not make editorial statements. That finding of fact reads like editorialising. According to the arb policy, findings of fact take the form "XXX has/has not engaged in YYY behavior . (diff of incident 1) (diff of incident 2) (further diffs)". Now I'm having trouble fitting this into that form. The first part, where you commend MZMcBride, might loosely translate as MZMcBride has engaged in good faith efforts to build the encyclopedia, but the second part, where someone is strongly urging, looks like MZMcBride has failed to engage in consensus. But that's not reflected in the evidence, the language or anything else. Has the community strongly urged this? Where's this coming from, and how does it fit into arb-scope? Maybe you need to set up a separate section for commendations, although I personally would oppose such a thing, it's a little frivolous, and I think it misses the point of what arbitration and the committee is supposed to be. You're there to settle disputes. I can't see how that includes strongly urging further discussion of an editor's actions, or to carefully consider locations and such. I think there's a lo9t of issues with this finding of fact, and yes, I guess they relate to issues of content and behaviour and to editorialising and fact finding and to conflict of interest as well. How does an arbitrators opinion on what issues need discussion and where the best place to post a list have bearing on any case, and how are we supposed to work this out if the issues aren't discussed on wiki? The only discussion I can find is Wikipedia_talk:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Proposed decision#.22Commended and urged.22. That's the only place I can find discussion of the proposal, and Brad states "I don't believe the community has expressed any view on this point one way or the other". So to me this isn't within the scope of arb-com. There's no current dispute here. I don't think it's arb-com's place to be starting disputes, or telling the community what they need to think about. And going further, I'm now a little concerned with Brad's actions. He accepted this case a couple of days after starting discussion with MZMcBride on this very issue. Now I'm starting to put two and two together and come up with an answer that may be four and may be five, and I don't want to do that, but... I'm starting to have concerns here. Maybe this is a case Brad should have brought as a participant? I don't know, but like I say, I have concerns. This isn't, for me, what an arbitration committee is supposed to do. This is starting to become more like investigating committees and so on. For me, there are ramifications that need addressing. Hiding T 11:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, as I was one of two arbs to oppose that remedy, I may not be the best person to ask. You are probably best off asking Brad (who drafted the proposed decision) and others. You might also want to read the arb discussion that took place around the wording of principle 8. I will let Brad (and the other arbs) know about what you have posted here. Carcharoth (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Update: Brad has asked that the following be posted: that he has been "travelling the past few days with limited Internet access and that will respond to this discussion when home (tomorrow night or Monday)". Carcharoth (talk) 00:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I can add something to this discussion. When the Committee has elected to review the actions of an administrator, it has always historically been about the cumulative behaviour over time, and not restricted to one or two incidents. MZMcBride's case was not out of the ordinary in that respect at all, particularly as he had already been admonished previously. One of the issues that arose in this case was that of some of MZMcBride's userpages, one of which directly related to an issue within the purview of the Arbitration Committee (use of oversight and hiding of revisions). Many arbitrators, myself included, will look a little more deeply into the editing history of parties involved in an RFAR prior to making a decision whether or not to accept a case; remember that the submissions on the RFAR help us to determine whether or not there is a reason to accept a case, but do not strictly define the case itself. Many cases go in directions that would not be immediately apparent at the time of accepting the case, based on submitted and discovered evidence. Elsewhere, I have discussed the challenges the Committee faces in ensuring that important information is not overlooked simply because none of the parties have decided to submit it as evidence. When it comes to cases, Arbcom is not a court meting out justice, it's a dispute resolution body charged with finding the best solution for the encyclopedia as a whole. Therefore, where necessary, Committee members may well present evidence or review evidence that is not brought forward by an active or independent party.

This particular iteration of the Committee has been a little more flexible in recognising positive contributions made by the main party(s) of cases; after all, editors frequently look to Arbcom decisions for guidance in similar situations, so there is value in noting when someone is "caught doing something right". Generally speaking, the work that MZMcBride and others working with him have been doing on BLPs is notably positive for the encyclopedia: articles are being improved, references are being added, and material that does not meet our core editing policies is being removed. The cautionary note recognises two basic facts: a large aggregation of examples of articles with likely BLP infractions can be something of a minefield itself; and other of MZMcBride's userspace pages have raised some concerns. I don't think the Committee strayed in making this finding. Risker (talk) 04:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you've followed what I'm getting at really, but you do raise some interesting points for further discussion. I'm not sure how it is within the arbitration committee's scope to be judge, jury and executioner. I'm also a bit worried about evidence being considered which isn't posted publicly, especially when it is uncovered by acting arbitrators who are supposed to be arbitrating a case. I'm also concerned that arbitrators are apparently free to pursue personal agendas within a case. That you don't find that alarming is also alarming. I'm also alarmed that the arbitration commitee and individual members seem to have no problem with issuing decrees as to what the community must do. That too is alarming. You are supposed to be people who settle disputes for the community. You are not people who get to tell the community what to think about. From where I sit, you get to do that at a personal level, not as a sitting arb through arbitration findings of facts. I'm becoming rather unsettled at recent arbitration findings and the current new policy draft. Let me toss this question in the mix: is an arbitrator supposed to be neutral? Hiding T 14:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

An issue that is repeatedly identified as being a "Misplaced Pages problem" is the appropriation of terms to mean something different on Misplaced Pages than they do in real life. "Arbitration" doesn't mean the same thing here as it does outside the boundaries of the encyclopedia, nor does "neutral"; I can think of several other terms where the Misplaced Pages meaning is quite different. In the real world, "arbitration" is a process by which two parties are led to a mutually acceptable agreement. On Misplaced Pages, "arbitration" usually deals with multiple parties who have different agendas, but its primary party (the encyclopedia, and by extension the editing community at large) is formally represented only rarely. The Arbitration Committee's decisions need to be acceptable to the encyclopedia. While it would be preferable that all participants in a case some away feeling that the decisions made are "mutually acceptable", one must recognize that, for example, there aren't a lot of admins who think they should be desysopped, or editors who think they should be banned. The Committee has no coercive powers and cannot force people to provide evidence. I would like nothing better than for editors disinterested in the outcome of a case to dig up the objective evidence that would ultimately support a decision, but this is a volunteer project and if nobody volunteers to do that kind of work then it is up to the Committee to do it. Risker (talk) 15:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

We're getting off track, and for my part I apologise. To get things back to where I think they should be, let me ask, do you feel a finding of fact should recommend or urge something, or do you think a finding of fact should reflect that something is a gray area or unclear or something like? Hiding T 16:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at WT:BAG#BAG and bot policy with regards to names that is potentially related to remedy #4, specifically the clause that MZMcBride's bot accounts must be "clearly identified as bots". The question is whether the bots Basketrabbit and Whip, dip, and slide should be renamed to contain "bot" per Misplaced Pages:Bot policy#Bot accounts. Comments are welcome at WT:BAG. Anomie⚔ 01:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I will raise this with my colleagues. Personally, I don't think we need to do anything. It's BAG's job to sort that out. Carcharoth (talk) 04:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Fine with me, I just thought you should be aware of the possibly-related discussion. Anomie⚔ 10:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

My own two cents on the matter is that, as long as the bot is clearly identified as such (such as with the {{bot}} template), then the name is not that critical. I wouldn't be inclined to make a big deal out of this. — Coren  13:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm back from a few days of travelling and had promised to respond to Hiding's comments, although Risker has said much of what I would have said. One of the things she has said that I agree with is that when we take a case to deal with an editor's conduct and particularly an administrator's conduct, the committee will often evaluate the admin's overall record. This is particularly true when we conclude that the administrator has acted inappropriately in some or other fashion and must then turn to a decision on sanction. I think that every administrator has been in the position of looking at an editor who has misconducted himself or herself, and turned to a scan of the overall contributions to determine whether the violation appears to have been a completely isolated episode, or part of a lengthy series of transgressions, and whether it was a good-faith mistake by a newish user or something different from that. With appropriate modifications for the circumstances, that is similar to the calculus that arbitrators need to use in making sanction decision in admin-conduct cases. MZMcBride has said, in discussing this case (in his reconfirmation RfA, among other places) that the real question that should be asked is "is Misplaced Pages better off with or without as an administrator?" That question can hardly be answered by looking at one isolated series of deletions and without at least some reference to the overall record.

Here, the finding and remedy relating to BLP were hardly central to the case, and omitting them would not have changed the general tone of the decision, or the principal remedy that a majority of the committee (not including myself) had settled on before MZMcBride resigned. Having said that, it bears emphasis that the BLP finding was, on balance, a positive rather than a negative one in evaluating MZMcBride's performance. Although some arbitrators questioned the language of my finding that improving the level of compliance with the BLP policy remains the most important ethical issue facing Misplaced Pages, I consider that this finding is not only true, but quite obvious (it bears emphasis that no one has ever suggested to me what might be a more important issue for us to address). So I was pleased that MZMcBride had come up with an innovative and useful means of making a bit of progress on the issue, even though I had concerns (as Risker has identified) concerning the precise means of implementing that means. I see no substantive basis for quarrel with this finding. In any event, as indicated, its presence did not change the ultimate result of the case.

I also see no basis for the expressed concern that I either relied upon non-public information or was pursuing an agenda of my own by including the BLP-related findings. Unlike a "real-world" court case, where the judge and members of the jury are expected to have no personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts (because if they do, it will generally be by coincidence, and there are any number of others who can substitute for them), in the bulk of Misplaced Pages arbitration cases, the vast majority of the evidence consists of edits to Misplaced Pages which any of us can read and experience for ourselves. We are not, as has been limited, to diffs that a particular party may have put on the evidence page, although we do have an obligation (which was satisfied in this case) to make sure that the parties are on notice of the types of evidence we are considering. Here, even apart from the fact that the concurrence of many other arbitrators was required to adopt any other proposal, the fact that the BLP-related page might be mentioned in the decision was apparent at least from the time I posted the proposed finding to the Workshop for comment.

Nor is concern about BLP some oddball idiosyncrasy of mine: The need to consider the effect of our articles on the living persons who are their subjects has been the focus of several previous decisions of this committee, including the Badlydrawnjeff case (decided before I was an arbitrator), and the Footnoted quotes case (decided while I was away from Misplaced Pages, though I have endorsed the BLP-related portion of the decision), as well as Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war, which I drafted. I don't believe that at this late date, a passing observation, by the Arbitration Committee or anyone else, that BLP is important, could really be a matter of controversy.

I hope this is responsive to the points that were made above; if I have overlooked anything, please let me know. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• I hadn't wanted to focus on any particular arbitrator's conduct, my main concern was the language used in this finding of fact, as I restated to Risker. But obviously I wandered, and the debate has run away from me. I'm really worried by the above response. You see no basis for my expressed concerns. Basically my concerns are baseless? I'm just going to move on. This is one of those internet conversations where everyone is defending rather than discussing. They seem to be more and more prevalent on Misplaced Pages, more's the pity. If I was accusatory or adopting the wrong tone or approach to get my points considered, I apologise. It's one to learn from, for sure. Hiding T 09:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Agenda as of April 8

Original announcement

This committee agenda contains no less than twenty items, few of which pertain whatsoever to actually resolving disputes. We have such important problems as how to name arbitration pages, dedicating more time to how the committee should be handling its mail, and again attempting to come up with bureaucratic procedures for emergency rights removal, despite having been basically mocked by the community for wasting time on this barely two months ago.

The arbitration committee was created to resolve disputes. Yet this committee can find twenty other things to dedicate their time to than actually delving into the mire of cases and sorting them out. You can't even satirise this. Rebecca (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

And now we have clerks, as the representatives of the committee, deleting criticism of the committee from where it was originally posted, and reposting it in a much less widely read venue. The committees of previous years certainly had their failings, but trying to suppress criticism wasn't one of them. Rebecca (talk) 01:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

As I have already stated on my talk page: The announcement was made by Kirill on WP:AC/N, then later cross posted by Tiptoety on RfAr. WT:AC/N serves as a centralized discussion for arbitration related announcements, such as agendas. If you'll notice, Tiptoety's post had a "discuss this" link. I am not silencing your criticism, but in fact, putting it on the same board as all the other items are discussed. Check the timestamps. I understand your concern, but I assure you, you have it exactly backwards.--Tznkai (talk) 01:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

There had been a lengthy discussion on WT:RFAR about these very issues, which this merely served to illustrate. You then attempted to delete my post from there, and shift it to somewhere where there was no such discussion happening, and which I suspect most of the people involved in that discussion would not have on their watchlists. You did this in your capacity as a representative of the committee. How do you think I should take that? Rebecca (talk) 02:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

If by most people, you mean yourself, several arbitrators, Durova, NCMvocalist, and yellowmonkey, MBisanz, and myself, I think you don't have anything to worry about. And my explanation is the simplest one. I'm centralizing discussion to where it should go, back into the proper context. Now, I don't have any numbers on hand, but I think this page has approximately the same viewership as the previous one, and I think the previously mentioned people are aware of it, or shortly will be.--Tznkai (talk) 02:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

As Tznkai points out, the announcement was accompanied by a prominent link to a central location for discussion of it. WT:RFAR is for discussion of requests for arbitration, not a forum for everything related to the Committee. Kirill  02:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I only just noticed this. I would consider a criticism on time spent on cases compared to time spent on this 'agenda' to be relevant to requests for arbitration. I probably look at WT:RFArb more often, because the notes (even criticisms) there happen to interest me more than much of the other stuff here. A bit of consistency from the beginning could have avoided this unintended issue; whether all of us would have posted had the discussion been happening here is questionable. In any case...perhaps those posting announcements (whether it's arbitrators or its delegates) can consider using something similar to what is used on PD talk pages? I mean, if someone tries to fix which arbitrator is on the active list, they will be directed to the one central page...perhaps the same can be done for these announcement/announcement discussions? Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Audit Subcommittee established

Original announcement

OK, I'll bite... oversight of Oversight? Mr Stephen (talk) 22:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

WT:Review Board has most of the community discussion on this. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 22:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• I found two things interesting about this. First, in the time that it takes for the Arbitration Committee to pick the initial three non-committee members, the community could hold its own elections. Is it really necessary to have ArbCom do the early appointments? Also, why are Arbitrators on this "subcommittee" at all? Wasn't the purpose of the Review Board to have independent auditors who have time to spend on this and who do not ordinarily perform Checkuser or Oversight functions (as the current arbitrators all do)? NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 22:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not convinced that an election process could be set up and properly advertised (much less completed) by the time we appoint someone, particularly since we're still working out some of the details like term lengths and so forth. It's a fair point that the initial appointments may not actually get to consider any cases, depending on how rapid the turnaround is.
  • As far as the presence of arbitrators on the subcommittee is concerned, that's something that may wind up being an interim measure—a fully elected subcommittee was one of the options we considered. For the time being, we decided it would be easier to get things running with a few arbitrators in the mix, particularly since we don't have a good count of viable potential candidates. I would expect that we'll return to this question closer to the end of the year, once we have a better sense of how many subcommittees we need and how we can get them all to work smoothly.
  • (It's worth pointing out that a number of current arbitrators do not use their tools on a routine basis.) Kirill  23:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, it is unfortunate that the term "oversight" has been completely subverted in WP terms to mean something quite different from (a) its normal English meaning and (b) the meaning the developers intended it to have when it was introduced. Really, the "oversight" role does nothing more than that -- allow oversight of others' using HideRevision. But too late for that now.

Secondly, is it possible to further clarify the scope and remit of this of this body? (I say this obviously as an interested party in that I am both an oversighter (!) and a member of the cross-wiki body whose job is to look at breaches of the privacy policy, especially in relation to CheckUser.) I personally think that the constant elections the current Committee favours are irritating and unnecessary, but I understand that various newly-elected members see that as a central campaign promise... ] 23:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The remit of the subcommittee will essentially be to look at complaints about CU/OS use that currently go to the Committee (in the same way that the Ban Appeals Subcommittee looks at ban appeals). What exactly the subcommittee is going to do with these complaints will be covered by the procedures, but those won't be ready for another week or two. Is there something in particular you'd like to see described in detail?

As far as elections go, I'm hoping that we can coalesce all the various elections we're introducing into a single cycle next year, to avoid election burnout. Kirill  23:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm even less keen on the idea of consolidated elections -- but not enough to make a fuss about it. I can see it reducing general scrutiny, which is the major benefit of elections, by mere volume of candidates.

I would like it to be clarified what kinds of case the Subcommittee would look at (this is nebulously defined with the status quo ante, so it's not something missing from the proposal as something that needs clarification generally). Questions would include:

• Does the Subcommittee intend to investigate breaches of the privacy policy?
• If not, what will happen when a case involves, but is not limited to, a breach of the privacy policy?

The general question, therefore, is how the Subcommittee should act with regards to the Ombudsman Commission.

Thanks, as ever, for being willing and forthcoming in responding to questions/feedback, Kirill ] 00:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, okay; I'll make sure those points are covered in the procedures. Kirill  00:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I have one major concern, and one suggestion. The major concern is size of the subcommittee. During the review board/audit panel discussions, all of the discussion assumed either majority or unanimous votes, or some combination of the two. Even numbers are bad for majority votes, and groups larger than five, in my opinion, are bad for ever achieving unanimity. The suggestion is that the focus of the appointed group be on establishing internal procedures, standards of conduct, details, voting behaviors, and similar ground work, so when (the elections do come around, the community has a good idea what to elect for. This is somewhat analogous to a provisional government.--Tznkai (talk) 00:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

With regards to the size and votes, if the subcommittee is unable to decide, due to being even in number, the matter would likely be referred to the full committee. This is a feature rather than a bug ;-) One of the main task of the subcommittee will be to collate and assess evidence. Even if they dont make any decisions, they will be an enormous help if they only construct a well formulated body of evidence coupled with opinions for the Committee to review. I have also put forward an idea to have add an additional member to the sub-committee who only votes in a tie breaking situation. John Vandenberg 01:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It is worth giving some attention to how the subcommittee will operate, too -- even if the specifics are left until the subcommittee is formed. E.g. how will a request be made; is the investigation to be public; is the investigation to be publicly announced and privately decided; what "teeth" does the subcommittee have; etc. ] 11:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, we're working on all of those (although many of the day-to-day details will probably be left to the subcommittee to determine themselves). Kirill  13:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Notification of injunction relating to West Bank - Judea and Samaria

Original announcement

User:Thekohser ban review?

Your opinions are noted, but this is not going in a helpful direction. Risker (talk) 15:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Relocation of arbitration pages

Original announcement

It looks a lot more confusing with all those redlinks... Many of the redlinks on the left-hand side are talk pages that either never existed or will be redirected on creation. Anyway, I want to raise three points here:

• (1) Centralisation of discussion (too much or just right?)
• (2) Merging clerks noticeboard into a talk page (differences between talk pages and noticeboards)
• (3) Moving Arbitration Enforcement from an administrators' noticeboard subpage to an Arbitration Committee subpage

I'll raise these in separate sections below for ease of discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 09:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Centralisation of discussion

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee (with active talk page)
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Clerks (with active talk page)
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard (with active talk page)
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Requests (with active talk page)

That is four active talk pages, probably more than enough to be going on with. There will still be the problem of people posting stuff to the arbitration noticeboard talk page that is off-topic. My view is that the scope of each of these four talk pages should be clearly defined, and clerks should help keep things in the right place. My other concern is that the amount of talk pages being redirected to WT:ARBCOM will overload that talk page. Currently, discussion of arbitration policy, discussion of arbitration enforcement, discussion of the guide to arbitration, discussion of arbitration procedures, and discussion of active sanctions, will all end up on WT:ARBCOM. It might be necessary to keep a close eye on WT:ARBCOM and archive the discussions thematically according to which 'page-that-has-a-talk-page-that-redirects-here' is being discussed, and to make sure things don't go too off-topic. Thoughts? Carcharoth (talk) 09:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Merging clerks noticeboard into a talk page

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Noticeboard merged to Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks

The clerks noticeboard will get merged to the talk page of the clerks description page, thus making the talk page the noticeboard. This may be problematic, as talk pages and noticeboards are very different things. If this merge does take place, there should then be a notice directing people who want to talk about the general concept of clerks and what they should be doing, to another place - WT:ARBCOM? But in general, this may help tighten things up a bit. Do the clerks (and others) have strong opinions here? Carcharoth (talk) 09:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I would keep these separate for the sake of simplicity -- the noticeboard is for events, the talk page is for meta-discussion. While there is a benefit from having a single page to watch, I don't think it outweighs the need for a simple structure. WP:AC/CN is complex enough already. ] 10:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the idea is a wholesale move. Directing discussion that would have been at the talk page of WP:AC/C elsewhere, and putting WP:AC/C/N on that talk page instead. If the noticeboard is kept, the talk page (Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Noticeboard) and its archives would likely be directed/moved elsewhere, to reduce the amount of side-discussion that gets missed. Another example of one of those obscure talk pages is Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks. Unless people are available to watch and follow disparate discussions, it becomes very fragmented. OK, I've been talking about centralisation of talk pages, not the proposed merger of the clerks noticeboard, but still, it seems sort of related. I agree that keeping WP:AC/C and WP:AC/C/N separate might be best (despite my support of the overall structural changes). The origins of the clerks noticeboard can be seen here, with an early version here (from January 2006). Carcharoth (talk) 11:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

As it stands, AC/CN has pretty much only the clerks activity on it, and its rather sparse at that. I think the move might be good so outside parties will find it easier to contact clerks and make requests.--Tznkai (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Moving Arbitration Enforcement

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement moved to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Requests/Enforcement

Someone needs to tell those active at Arbitration Enforcement that you are proposing to move that noticeboard across to a subpage of the Arbitration Committee, and a note at WP:AN would also be a good idea. I think the recent(-ish) RFC on arbitration enforcement did sort of say that this sort of thing might be a good idea, but this bit definitely needs wider discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 09:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Unless enforcement will primarily be by arbitrators and its delegates, I see no reason for a move - it is very much administrators who do the enforcement in most (though not all) cases. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Root Page?

It feels weird to me that Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee would be the root page. Surely the Committee descends from the Policy and not the other way around right? I'd suggest that a new page be created at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration (currently a redirect to ArbCom) to serve as both the root page and provide a high level overview / portal to the other pages. Dragons flight (talk) 03:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure that "descent" is a useful term here; the policy governs the activity of the Committee, but neither can really exist without the other. Of all the pages available, the main Committee page provides the most useful overview to what arbitration actually is and how it's conducted; I don't see the benefit of creating yet another (unmaintained) page merely to provide a different root.

We are, incidentally, working on a new navigation template for arbitration pages that will provide links to all of these items; that should eliminate the need for a dedicated portal, I think. Kirill  04:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) "... the main Committee page provides the most useful overview to what arbitration actually is and how it's conducted"? Personally, I don't think it actually is much good as an overview of arbitration or how it's conducted. By my count WP:ARBCOM has about 6 sentences explaining arbitration, before launching into Committee composition, history, and other functions. In my opinion, that intro is really too brief if it is to serve as the main introduction to the topic. I also don't see that page as a good navigational aid either, i.e. the traditional role of a root page in a complex hierarchy. More importantly, I don't think the Committee's page ought to have those roles. Arbitration is an important community process, and I'd argue that it ought to have its own plain language introduction page. Since you are reorganizing it also makes sense to make such a page be the root of your tree, but that isn't the only motivation. Dragons flight (talk) 04:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

So you are proposing, essentially:

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration
  • Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Committee
  • Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Policy
  • Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests

and so forth? Kirill  05:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. In general I'd put Case, Policy, Committee, Requests, etc. as subpages of Arbitration. One might argue that Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Committee/Noticeboard is better than Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Noticeboard or something like that in a couple cases, but as a general rule I'd think Arbitration makes a more logical root and place for introduction. Just my two cents, anyway. Dragons flight (talk) 05:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a neater solution than the one below, too. The Committee may have responsibilities beyond RFAR, but its role and duties are directly due to Arbitration Policy. Putting the committee on one root, and the policy that defines it as a subpage to a root that solely relates to RFAR cases, seems odd.

The alternatives seem to either be 3 roots (committee, policy, dispute cases) or one root (arbitration). Since all matters, RFAR and otherwise, are matters handled by the arbitration committee, grouping them under arbitration, even if not arbitration themselves, would have the advantage of simplicity. A user visiting a WP:ARB subpage would know beyond doubt this is the root for all matters to do with the arbitration committee, its cases, its other duties, its policy, and all things to do with the arbitration committee or arbitration generally. The root page would then outline these and provide pointers where to go for what. A visible "one stop shop" like this has distinct advantages over a multiple-root structure. FT2  15:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Another naming quirk (albeit a minor one) is that the Committee has responsibilities that extend beyond "arbitration" (such as appointing functionaries, etc.); so having everything under "arbitration" wouldn't really be accurate either. Kirill  04:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I do like this proposal. One added benefit is that it shortens the page names. We could retain "Arbitration Committee" as a separate root, under which other committee activities are placed. (e.g. the noticeboard) John Vandenberg 05:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

So the final structure would be something like this:

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee (with active talk page)
  • Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Clerks (with active talk page)
  • Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard (with active talk page)
  • Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Procedures
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration (with active talk page?)
  • Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Active sanctions
  • Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Case/CASENAME (multiple pages)
  • Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration
  • Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index transcluding:
    1. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Cases
    2. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests
    3. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Motions
    4. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Principles
  • Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Policy
  • Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests (with active talk page) transcluding:
    1. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Appeal
    2. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case
    3. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification
    4. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

That could work, I suppose. The only drawback would be adding another talk page to watch (at Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration); any way we could avoid that? Kirill  05:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

A protected redirect to a more suitable place for discussions would do the trick. — Coren  14:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It could be a feature to separate discussion about Arbitration from discussion about the committee. John Vandenberg 23:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. We'll need to put together a header template for the talk pages explaining what goes where. Kirill  03:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Motions

We also have two motions (Jack Merridew and SlimVirgin) to add into the restructure. John Vandenberg 10:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Motions should be located at whatever the spawning request is (appeal, clarification, etc.) in the future; I don't think we need to conform the new structure to everything that might have been done in the past. Kirill  14:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• I have no objections against moving such pages around for a solid naming convention, but care should be taken that existing links are pointed in the right direction and that existing Shortcuts are retained so old hands are not presented with an empty page when they try the shorthand they know. - Mgm| 10:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Audit Subcommittee procedure, term lengths, and members

Original announcement

I might have missed it on an other noticeboard, but how will it articulate with Resolution:Access to nonpublic data? Will non-arbcom members get an unlimited access to the CU and OS logs, or will they have to request the relevant log snippets from the arbcom members (which would impede with their ability to broaden their investigation)? -- lucasbfr 07:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The non-arbcom members will need to be identified as part of their appointment, which will mean that they will have unrestricted access to review CU and OS information. The arbcom members may choose to withhold certain details that were sent to arbcom-l, but that would be a matter of discretion, IMO. John Vandenberg 10:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• When in doubt, create more bureaucracy. Sigh. Josephine Jellybean she has a bureaucracy machine. She can make anything spit red tape. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The pressing issue on wikipedia is how to create more elections. More elections means more politics, more politics means more drama. Drama is always to be encouraged. Don't be so boring.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

A major website built and operated by many thousands of people as this is, cannot avoid having questions from time to time about use of tools that aren't open to public review. A distinct review structure helps reaffirm scrutiny. We may not need it often, but it is needed, and it needs to include users who do not routinely use the tools (ie with a different perspective) to be more sure of being effective in that role. Above a certain size additional structure is needed - we could cut bureaucracy down by not having it, the cost would be that in various cases it might have helped, we don't have that capability readily to hand or users feel a doubt if their concern genuinely was examined; both are a rich source of problems and increase of drama. FT2  15:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• While an interesting analysis, it's worth noting that there's no effort anywhere on the project to reduce bureaucracy. Humans are very good at creating bureaucracy. We strongly seek what we perceive as order out of chaos. We do it in pattern matching with visual cues, for exmapel the ablitiy of the hmuan eye to raed txet that is spleled worng but bgeins and ends in the crorect lteter and has the same lnegth. When we see chaos, we attempt to add order to it. However, bureaucracy as a solution is but one possible way of managing solutions. In this particular case, we've developed a bloated bureaucracy to handle checkuser and oversight auditing. Yet, apparently no consideration has been given to other potential solutions to the problem. The question isn't how we handle an ever increasing number of checkusers, oversighters, checkuser and oversight actions and audits descending therefrom. The question is how do we develop a system whereby as the scale of the project increases the need for these actions remains constant, or failing that, minimal. If you answer that question, you do not need a bloated bureaucracy with elections, term limits, policies, procedures and God knows what else wrapped into it. Nobody's attempted to answer that question. Until some effort is made to answer that question, I would never accept (and neither should anyone else here!) a new bureaucracy here.
• Misplaced Pages is supposed to be lightweight. Anyone can edit. Introducing all manner of bureaucracy to manage this environment is a testament to the failure of the model, not the outcome of the model. Develop a better model.
• You defend the bureaucracy. I quote Laurence J. Peter, "Bureaucracy defends the status quo long past the time when the quo has lost its status". Also worth mentioning, and certainly more succinct then I have been, "The Bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the Expanding Bureaucracy".
• The system you have developed solves the problem of the system you have developed without fixing the system you have developed. Beer cans and bailing wire, but it will be defended to the last breath. Count on it. Bureaucracy serves itself. Within weeks, people will have cute little icons to stick in the upper right of their pages proudly showing that gosh gee willikers, they are part of the audit subcommittee! All tremble and bow before the almighty bureaucracy.
• Are we so entrapped by the enfeeblement of our minds that we can not imagine a solution that avoids bureaucracy? I challenge you to come up with a solution that doesn't create bureaucracy. You could at least try. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You had roughly 4 months to propose non-bureaucratic solutions to the question of how to review checkuser and oversight performance at Misplaced Pages talk:Review Board. Thatcher 18:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• And since I wasn't aware of the issue until now, I have no voice in the matter and am a non-person. Therefore, I'm just bitchin' and moanin' and can't do a damn thing about it. I understand. The opinions of people who aren't party to every shred of discussion on a debate do not matter. Blithely plod into the future! Onward Misplaced Pages soldiers... --Hammersoft (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
• You know, thinking about this for the last few minutes I really find the attitude above to be repulsive. It's like saying "You had the last five miles to help us avoid driving over the cliff". Misplaced Pages isn't some monolithic entity engaged in a hierarchical structure that is incapable of engaging in change without first running everything up to the highest power that be. I'm calling this bureaucracy a failed idea because, frankly, it is. My opinion has every bit as much weight as Jimbo Wales' opinion in this matter. I'm not suggesting you call a screeching halt to everything and consider what I have to say before moving forward. But, I do think it incredibly bad form to ignore perfectly valid opinions that could have a dramatic effect just because those opinions weren't expressed at a convenient time.
• Any bureaucracy that is created can be undone by the simple notion of not implementing it and choosing a different course. Don't be a slave to past decisions. Don't restrict yourself only to that which you know through conveniently timed discussions. You're better than that, and you know it. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I'm confused, Hammersoft. This is not a situation where the Arbitration Committee is creating bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. There have been concerns expressed about the use of restricted-access tools (checkuser and oversight) put forth by several Wikipedians. The Committee agrees that use of these tools needs greater review, because of the potential for improper use - review that requires committed time, a degree of knowledge, an above-average understanding of the policies involved. The Committee's decided to identify specific individuals and ask them to undertake this task. We think it is something that should remain in place once established. I realise that potential privacy violations aren't of equal concern to all users, but any that relate to the use of Checkuser or Oversight/revision hiding tools are on our plate to investigate. The logs of use of these tools are private by necessity (their public access would violate the WMF privacy policy), and so we cannot rely on the "many eyes" principle to ensure that everyone using the tools is doing so using best practices, or even consistent practices. Do you have an alternative solution that would help us ensure that best practices are being used by those who have access to privacy-related tools? Risker (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting anyone is creating bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. Rather, bureaucracy is often the tool used by humans as we are good at creating it. Hammer, nail,...everything nail.

Ok, so there's concerns created about the use of the tools. Has there been any analysis of what those concerns are? If there's no analysis, then any answer designed to respond to those concerns has a decent chance of being a failure.

The committee agrees that greater review is needed. How did they achieve this agreement? Did they do it based on an analysis of the concerns voiced? If not, again, that agreement is potentially a failure.

Is there potential for improper use? Maybe. Has it happened? I don't know. Even if it has happened, maybe it's a one off event, unusual because of unrelated reasons. Everyone agrees that the New Madrid Seismic Zone is under very strong stress. We know for a fact that huge earthquakes have happened there in the past. Yet, are new buildings in metro areas within the zone required to adhere to earthquake survivability standards? No. If something has happened with abuse of the tools, there might be a better solution than creating a bureaucracy that will very likely feed itself. Create a review board, and guess what will happen? People will clamor for review.

You think it should remain in place once established. With all respect, this is naive. You have no idea of how it will work in practice. You have nothing to base that on. Yet, you've already decided this bureaucracy will remain in place permanently. Stunning.

Ever consider that the use of checkuser and oversight could be reduced by other means? There are other potential tools. Tools might even be developed that could potentially cap the need for checkuser and oversight. There are other solutions. Where is oversight used most? How is it used? What sorts of things have been removed by oversight? I realize this might be hard to tell, but some semblance of analysis of the problem must occur before you can begin to think of a solution. Is checkuser effective? How many socks has it uncovered vs. how often it is used? Is there maybe another way of detecting socks that can be done using other tools? What about detecting negative edits without having to checkuser? Perhaps the new abuse filters will have a dramatic impact on the number of checkusers even asked for. How many checkuser requests are misses? If nobody can point to any analysis of the problem, I have to call a spade a spade, and this bureaucracy is flawed reasoning.

What I'm seeing is an assumption that checkusering and oversight must be done at the rate it's happening, that there are no other tools, and since ArbCom is charged with reviewing their use that therefore they must review their use.

I have some ideas on how this could be handled. But any ideas I have are just as flimsily based as this notional bureaucracy is without the analysis of the problem being done. It's damned easy to create bureaucracy. It's not so easy to approach a problem with logical, reasoned decision making processes. Show me there is a real problem that can not be addressed without a bureaucracy. Right now, you can't because there's no problem analysis. After reading the archives of this page, it's no wonder most people disagree with this proposal. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You raise some interesting points here, but I don't think they weigh convincingly against the proposal. To answer your first few questions: that there has been abuse is an undeniable fact. There have been investigations by the Committee, both official and unofficial, and at least one resignation that I'm aware of. It is very important to remember that discussion an "analysis" of the sitaution is almost impossible except by those who have access to the necessary data to analyse, and the necessary fora in which to discuss without breaching the Foundation Privacy Policy. To expect to have seen a full and public copy of the discussion amongst the Committee that led to this conclusion is not realistic.

With regards your other points, I don't think any CU/OS would do anything but welcome anything that reduced the demand for CheckUser and Oversight activity. I remember, for instance, that a full third of all CheckUsers and Oversighters commented on the first FlaggedRevs poll, and that both groups were 100% in support in the final poll. I expect the result was similar for the more recent FlaggedRevs implementation. Equally, I am aware of close collaboration between Checkusers and Andrew Garrett, the lead developer of the AbuseFilter, to make that extension more effective at combatting vandalism that would otherwise require Checkuser intervention. Everyone wishes that that ideal world would come to pass where these two extensions are no longer required. I think most of us accept, however, that that utopia will never be found. Happy‑melon 22:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

There is also the issue that, as Risker notes, you have not in fact made any attempt to, in your own words, steer the car away from the cliff, only that the cliff is, in your opinion, there. To add my own slightly eccentric metaphor, we have come to the conclusion that we are being chased by some sort of mythical monster (the several recent, and legitimate, complaints over the use of CU/OS) from which we need to escape. Through a wide consultation with the community, it was concluded that the road we now travel is the best course of action. Is your contention that the problem/monster does not in fact exist, and that it is therefore not necessary for us to 'go' anywhere?? If so, I think you'll need to provide some powerful evidence for that assertion, as it flies in the face of recent events. If you accept that it is necessary to take action of some sort, then "just bitchin' and moanin'" about the action that is being taken is not the slightest bit of good to anyone. If you have a proposal for a road to travel that avoids both the monster and the cliff, then it is never too late to hear it, be it five miles or five metres from the 'edge'. But complaining that the proposed solution to a problem is not optimal, without providing a better solution (and thereby demonstrating its inferiority) is not particularly helpful. Happy‑melon 20:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The wide consultation with the community you speak of was several times referred to as rejecting this proposal. My contention is you haven't even looked at the rear view mirror or looked over your shoulder to try to figure out what the threat is. There's no analysis of this problem, and no other proposed solutions that I have seen except bureaucracy. I am not saying there is no problem. I am saying without an analysis of the problem you could just as well be running towards the monster as away from it. You've no idea which direction you're running in. And forgive me, but I will bitch and moan about a solution as much as I think productive when I find the basis on which that solution was made to be faulty, as appears to be the case here (unless of course you can point to some analysis of the problem that was performed that I'm unaware of). I do have potential proposals, but as I mentioned above, they are as equally invalid as this bureaucracy without any analysis of what the problem is. To continue the parable, a monster is noted, people run away, and the people running in the direction of bureaucracy are saying "Don't bitch! At least we're running!" My apologies for finding that to be hysterically irrational :) --Hammersoft (talk) 20:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

At least we are clear on one thing: RPGs are the solution to the world's communication problems :D I understand your position much more clearly with the application of a few judicious Final Fantasy characters :D I agree with you to a certain extent that we're not entirely sure which way we're running, but I would counter that the nature of the monster is that we don't know where it's coming from, and hence where we need to run to. By its very nature whatever audit process is instituted will not know in advance what tasks it will have to handle or whom it will be investigating, because if otherwise the abuses it is required to investigate wouldn't have happened.

However, in general terms there really isn't much flexibility in the nature of the process that needs to be created. It is a fact that abuses of the CU/OS permissions have occurred in the past that fell outside the remit of the Foundation Ombudsmen Commission, yet were severe enough to warrant investigation, and in some cases, resignation. It is a fact that the CU/OS process cannot be made any more publicly-viewable than it currently is. Therefore if you accept the premise that the current situation is unacceptable, then the only conclusion is that we must task some body, extant or new, with the duty of auditing the process on behalf of the wider community who cannot be allowed to audit the process themselves. Since the current situation includes the expectation that the CU/OS members will watch each other, and yet we have concluded that that situation is unacceptable, then there is no extant body that can fulfil that role, hence we require a new one. Everything henceforth is essentially semantics. This would seem to me to be the "analysis" you speak of. Or how is that argument flawed? Happy‑melon 21:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

On reading your response to Risker above, I'll accept that the argument above requires the additional premise that the legitimate use of CU/OS must continue essentially unaltered. I believe that this conclusion is valid, or at least that users without access to the CU/OS logs are in no position to make that judgement. Ironically, the Audit Committee itself would be best placed to investigate the veracity of this assumption. Happy‑melon 21:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a brief comment. Hammersoft is right to say that analysis is needed. I would suggest that this is one of the things the new body could do, or be asked to do. The potential of the abuse filter to change the way things are done is also true, but who watches those using the abuse filter? Carcharoth (talk) 21:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to respond to one element above. I hope I've seed planted, and really hope the conversation takes off in a great direction without more input from me. That might be wishful thinking in that I may have done a very poor job of expressing myself :) Anyways, the point I wish to address:

"the argument above requires the additional premise that the legitimate use of CU/OS must continue essentially unaltered. "

I don't accept that. I accept that certainly OS is needed, but maybe not as much as currently. I do not accept that CU is needed at all, if other tools are applied. Maybe we can come up with better solutions. Let's take one potential example. Let's say analysis shows that 95% of oversight happens on BLPs. A further analysis of this 95% shows that nearly 100% of the edits that need to be oversighted have been performed by accounts with under 100 edits. If that were the case, I could see things changing such that the abuse filter detects non-auto confirmed users (being moved to those with less than 100 edits and less than <timeframe>) attempting to edit an article in Category:Living people and stops the edit. Alternatively, since BLPs are highly problematic with regards to legal issues, I could see us changing protection of the BLPs so only administrators can edit them. We already proactively protect templates against vandalism from non-administrators. So, proactively protecting BLPs would not be unprecedented, and in this case there's even more motivation to do so. Vandalism is vandalism, but libel is serious. So, if this were the case the need for oversighters might fall off so much that it could be vested solely in the hands of the ArbCom. But, without analysis...we just don't know. As for the need for CU, I have high hopes for the abuse filters. If a vandal is a vandal, and is picked up by the abuse filters, does it matter it's a sock? I don't think so. Whether it's a mob of thousands of vandals or one vandal hitting thousands of times, the effect is the same; nothing. Blocking isn't the only tool in the quiver. CU really addresses easy cases. WP:SSP I think does a better job of detecting the hard cases. Plus, CU can readily get false positives. Plenty of people use Misplaced Pages from dynamic IP pools. Picking up all the accounts from a single IP and blocking them all isn't the best solution. The larger question in dealing with vandals isn't how to catch a *particular* vandal. It's how to go about reducing the opportunity to vandalize. The disease is the ability to vandalize. The symptom is vandals. Treat the disease, and the vandals (and therefore CU) become meaningless. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

That's probably a discussion that should be somewhere else, but the problem with our preventive tools is the high amount of false positives. The community has a very low acceptance level for mistakes where users in good faith can't provide acceptable content (to take your example, say the subject of a BLP wants to remove libelous content). AbuseFilter is a step in the right direction to lower the need for CheckUser and OverSight. However there is a need to do post-mortem analysis of edits to detect abuse, and it needs a human eye (example). -- lucasbfr 12:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• A human eye doesn't require bureaucracy. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but having an outsider body being able to control OS and CU and try to put to rest concerns of abuse is a good thing (the ombudsmen can't deal with it). Whether this will succeed or not is an other matter, I think abuse conspiracy theories will never die. -- lucasbfr 13:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• I still say analysis needs to be done, and before this bureaucracy is put in place. You could just as likely worsen the situation. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Appointments have been announced. If you have suggestions for analysis, you could talk directly to one or more of the appointed members and see what they think. They should, in theory, have more time to consider this than other arbs or editors following this thread. Carcharoth (talk) 02:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Another "We've already done this, so too late" response. Sigh. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Rather, "We have decided to do this after long internal and external discussion, and are not persuaded to halt the process by the last minute objections of someone who just heard about it, doesn't like it, and has already declared it a failure." I'm sure that if you have a better suggestion, people will listen. Thatcher 16:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• If an analysis was actually done regarding the problem, I might be able to provide a suggestion that was worth something. As is, EVERY suggestion, including the one being implemented, is worth as much as a wet pig foot. You don't have to drive over the cliff. It's a completely inadequate answer to say "Oh well. We're at warp speed now. We're making lots of progress, and I guess we'll just have to find out what happens when we drive off the cliff" You can't seriously believe that you're (ArbCom) that obtuse. No analysis = bad solution. You have an opportunity to correct this train wreck. The only time that train wreck can't be fixed is after it happens. I don't care how late in the process it is. That's an empty argument. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Once again, your argument would be highly convincing if it did not require us to make the blind assumption that the cliff of which you speak is actually there. We are not being obtuse, we are simply reluctant to pull an emergency stop and have to spend the next month getting up to speed again, merely because one person has made the apparently unsupported claim that there is imminent disaster in the direction we are headed. Happy‑melon 16:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree both with the assertion that no analysis is being done and that Thatcher is part of ArbCom. I seem to recall an essay, an election, and quite abit of discussion that included concerns about CU/OS oversight.--Tznkai (talk) 16:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me put it another way. You suggested above that we need to analyze the complaints more systematically. Fine, but how exactly do you go about doing that? Part of the problem is that checkuser occurs without an outside body looking over its shoulder. There is no one with the data, the time, and the mandate to do the analysis you suggest - until now. If AUSC had been, I dunno "working group the analyze the work of checkusers and oversighters, address concerns and to propose solutions" it would be exactly as bureaucratic.--Tznkai (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

One observation. Audit is not the same as "reviewing when complaints are made". It implies actively checking the work done, or sampling it in a periodic or methodical manner". No audit as such, is contemplated, if I understand the proposal? FT2  02:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The meaning of the word audit encompasses individual transactions as well as the broader review you describe. Since this is a delegation of Arbcom authority and is not exactly the same as the Review Board proposal, I suppose we should ask Arbcom if they have any opinions on scope. Personally, I am somewhat lazy by nature and don't foresee myself peering over the shoulders of the CU/OS team on a regular basis unless there was a very good reason to do so. Thatcher 16:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Some questions:

If some of these things haven't been contemplated (I'm sure most of them have been), what was the rationale behind announcing the subcommittee fait accompli and making it a permanent body? It often makes much more sense to put a time limit on new bureaucracy, a fixed point for review and reauthorization to discover if this new innovation makes sense or is performing to expectations. Nothing like that seems to have been implemented in this case, has it? Nathan 17:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The Ombudsman Commission is responsible to the WMF and has a very tight scope involving the privacy policy, and their scope involves multiple wikis. The Audit Subcommittee is limited to en-wiki, and has a larger scope involving local policies and standards.

As for the permanent subcommittee notion, remember that all of the ArbCom reforms, this one included are exactly as permanent as the committee wants them to be. The next formulation of the Committee could easily dispose of these structures by motion. I doubt they will, but its entirely possible. --Tznkai (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The Ombudsman Commission was not "reconceived and reconstituted" -- last year's members reached the end of their term and a new panel was appointed. Two more members were appointed this year in comparison to last year to avoid inactivity; that is the sole change. ] 17:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Perhaps "reconstituted" is in a sense still correct, but I see that I was confused as to reconceived. My confusion comes from some comments by Michael Snow on the Foundation-l mailing list relating to reevaluating the commission and its effectiveness in response to concerns. I asked him if this might involve assigning the role to a WMF employee, and he acknowledged that this was a possible outcome among others. I'm not sure what has gone on with this behind the scenes (this exchange was in the first part of January), but I can see how it would be difficult to create a subcommittee that accomodated the future role of the commission if nothing more definitive has been determined. Nathan 18:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, if there have been such changes, I'm unaware of them. And, all in all, I hope I would be aware of them! ] 18:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

An attempt to answers some of Nathan's questions (subject to correction by others):

• The Audit subcommittee was instituted as an extension/delegation or ArbCom responsibility, and in that sense is different from the Review Board. Some of the feedback from the Review Board proposal was that we should take the bull by the horns and do something, as opposed to endless proposals, and that this was within our remit anyway. Hence this being a subcommittee, rather than a separate body.
• Extent of previous problems? I don't know. Possibly this new subcommittee will be able to help answer that.
• Membership selection: initially interim appointments and then by election (for the non-arbs); by volunteering (for the arbs).
• Arbs on the subcommittee have, as far as I know, agreed not to use the tools while they are on the subcommittee (6 months). I presume the same holds for non-arbs. Some of the details of this may still need to be worked out, as if no-one else is around to do oversight, use of that tool may be needed, followed by immediate review (for transparency). The revision suppression tool is reversible, so less problematic. Checkuser, actually running a check is something I think all have agreed not to do. All members of the subcommittee do, however, need to use the tools to view logs of oversight and checkuser actions and to verify what actions were taken. Also, arbs and non-arbs should have experience of using CU and OS. I believe Tznkai is the only current member who doesn't have direct experience (though that perspective is needed as well). Some arbs (including me) declined to volunteer precisely because they have little or no experience using the CU and OS tools.
• Permanent body because throwing together an ad-hoc body each time takes time. Also, a permanent body can be tasked with ongoing monitoring and auditing, if analysis of the activities suggest that is needed. One of the things urgently needed, for example, is a way to monitor how swiftly oversight requests are being dealt with, and to get more oversight people working the queue of requests, if that is needed.

Hope that answers some of the questions (again, subject to correction from others). Carcharoth (talk) 05:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Carcharoth for the responses. Nathan 14:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Notification of injunction relating to Macedonia 2

Original announcement

I closed Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kaimakchalan due to this injunction. After the arbcom case closes the AfD needs to be reopened, as my closure did nothing to resolve the problem it discusses. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Um... surely one should redirect to the other? That should have been a speedy keep no matter what, but I'm not sure what ArbCom wishes with respect to mergers like this. --NE2 11:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

That article should never have been taken to AfD. It's a simple merger, nothing more. The only question is what title the content should reside at. Speaking personally, I would say merge to the title that was created first (conveniently the one that is claimed to be the correct transliteration), leave a redirect in the other location, and defer the decision as to which is the correct spelling until after the case. I'm also not entirely sure whether disputes over diacritics in titles is really part of this case. The ROM/FYROM/M dispute is about names, not spellings. Carcharoth (talk) 21:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

<sigh> Battle of Kajmakcalan uses yet another spelling. Carcharoth (talk) 21:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

A comment from the nominator later in the AfD makes clear that he/she was also not sure whether this should be part of the case, and wanted to be safe rather than just going ahead with the merge and being thought in violation. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I have merged the two under Kajmakčalan. This is not a politically disputed naming choice, has nothing to do with the country naming issue or any other conflict related to the Macedonia naming dispute, and should in no way be understood to be covered by the injunction. Okay, if there was a wiki-political issue of choosing between a Greek or Macedonian name form, it might be different, but that's not what the two name forms were. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you to the users for taking the appropriate actions. PMK1 (talk) 08:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Prem Rawat 2

Original announcement

"Dates" case and temporary injunction: likely timing?

I'm sorry to post an unusual request here, but the circumstances are unusual:

• the case is one of the largest ever (if not the largest), is prominent in the community, and involves a great number of editors as parties and associates; it comprises more than 150 thousand words (plus more than 50 thousand words of deleted and associated talk-page text) and has cost many thousands of hours of editorial time;
• the case has lasted for almost three and a half months, and relevant activity on the case pages petered out long ago;
• the temporary injunction against the unlinking of chronological items has lasted for almost three and a half months;
• the whole of MOSLINK remains locked;
• parts of MOSNUM are still locked.

Yet the process solutions (probably the long and the short of the behavioural solutions that concern the ArbCom case) are widely regarded to be at hand: the associated RFC has produced results that enable the community to move forward.

• In the case of date-fragments (years and month-days), the Clerk has inserted the two texts that gained landslide endorsements.
• In the case of date autoformatting, it is widely accepted that the next move is to run a bot to remove the remaining old coding (which piggybacks on the wikilinking system).

This way forward is frozen until ArbCom lifts the temporary injunction. Many editors are expressing their frustration that it is still in force more than a week after the extended RFC process, involving more than 500 editors.

I wonder whether the community can be given some kind of idea of when it should expect (1) the injunction to be lifted, and (2) the judgement of the case to come out. We look forward to a return to normal life on WP. Tony (talk) 09:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not closely involved with this case and can speak neither for the drafting arbitrator nor ArbCom but I imagine the delay is in assembling the applicable findings of fact. As you know, ArbCom's role in this is not to decide the merits of linking versus delinking but to examine the behaviour of individual editors during this longstanding dispute and put in place appropriate remedies. In a large case, this is a long and laborious task.  Roger Davies 09:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. However, we are left wondering why the injunction cannot be lifted. It is no longer applicable or useful in the light of community opinion, as expressed at the RfC. Tony (talk) 10:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Equally, the injunction only applies to automated delinking and there doesn't seem to any particularly pressing reason why this needs to be urgently resumed.  Roger Davies 10:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Tony, the drafting is complete, except for a few recent events that I am catching up on, and I'm reviewing it to ensure there are no further FoF that can be found. btw, the injunction should not affect normal editing. John Vandenberg 10:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your assumption of the "way forward" regarding date auto formatting. The community has not rejected the system, but rather come to a "no consensus" conclusion. That does not mean you demolish the existing system, it means you continue discussion to try and find something people can reach consensus on. You haven't done that. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, although I will delink articles if the community decides it is appropriate to let this issue die for now, I think just the high volume of interest due to the extremely wide ramifications this change represents should clearly represent a no consnsus vote. Just the fact that the vast majority of articles will need to be edited should cause us hesitation.--Kumioko (talk) 14:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Or…, the ArbCom can use this latest RfC as a showcase and paradigm to better define “consensus” so Misplaced Pages no longer suffers from paralysis of our own making and unending bickering. The concept of giving 0.03% of our readership (the very ones most keen on the issue of date formats no less) a special view of article content (autoformatting of dates) that the vast majority of our readership can’t see hadn’t been thought through well at all. I’d hazard a guess that the decision to do so was imposed upon Misplaced Pages by a developer over a very short period with little to no input from the community.

  This is similar to what happened with our most-unfortunate adoption of the use of “mebibyte (MiB)” and “kibibyte (KiB)” in computer-related articles. No other computer manufacturer or computer-related publication on this entire pale blue dot used such terminology when communicating to a general-interest audience. Even Misplaced Pages’s own edit summaries displaying the file size of our articles ignored the practice and continued to use the conventional terminology (e.g. “This page is 35 kilobytes long”).

  The decision that Misplaced Pages would adopt a proposal by a standards body (the IEC) that hadn’t yet been embraced by anyone else on this planet was based upon a 20:6:1 vote conducted over five days on WT:MOSNUM and was pushed through by a lead-proponent administrator without his ever posting RfC notices on our computer-related article talk pages that such a move was being contemplated. That admin admitted that no consensus had been achieved in that initial vote. Yet he and his cohorts demanded that a clear, overwhelming consensus was required to undo the practice. So it took three years and 16 “Binary” archives to undo that ill‑considered move.

  As we all know, our readership suffered for three long years. Our readership was horribly confused by reading “The XYX-9000 computer came stock with 512 mebibytes (MiB) of RAM…” and made Misplaced Pages look like it’s computer-related articles had been hijacked by a propeller-beanie crowd trying to get Misplaced Pages ready to join the United Federation of Planets.

  Now we’re here again, facing the same sort of arguments: “It was sooooo fun and sooooo easy to implement, but now it takes a really high hurdle to undo it.” We don’t have to submit to such logic. It appears there was no overwhelmingly large, well discussed, widely advertised series of RfCs and group discussion where hundreds of editors with diverse backgrounds and points of view arrived at a consensus to do autoformatting in the first place. Where is this discussion where someone said “coding ] is a great idea because—even though 99.97% of our readership (I.P. users) will see leading‑zero, all‑hyphen crud like 2005-08-04—bickering editors who come to Misplaced Pages all tall, wide, and handsome and Want It Their Way™®© will see *pretty* dates like 4 August 2005? Where is this widely discussed consensus that it is OK to give a privileged few pretty results and everyone else (the very people we’re really writing for) sees junk?

  We have now had an RfC that 1) had been fairly shepherded with arbitration oversight to ensure a lack of bias, 2) had been very widely advertised to solicit a wide diversity of expert input, and 3) there had been a large degree of input from the community. Whenever this three‑criteria test exists, a clear majority one way or another should be considered as sufficient to implement or unimplement something. Otherwise, issues can drag on (literally) forever. It’s time to add some specificity to the definition of “consensus” on Misplaced Pages so editors can get on with life for God’s sake. Greg L (talk) 17:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: With regards to this matter, can the Committee please ensure that if any automated removal of linked dates is proposed, the automated procedure is explicitly limited to perform only that task? In the past, the Lightmouse scripts used for removing date links have also been used concurrently to strip away links from other text, such as geographic and religious other terms. There is disagreement as to the second matter, and no consensus as to what constitutes a "common" term. As such, and given that the recent RfC was exclusively about dates, other operations should not be part of what would be a massive automated operation affecting most articles. (FYI, this comment is not in any way an endorsement of said removal.) --Ckatz_spy 17:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Ckatz. You write There is disagreement . Unless the practice is to make gold dust pour out of readers’ USB ports, there is always “disagreement” on practices. The litmus test for bot activity is whether it is properly implementing MOS and MOSNUM guidelines. I would imagine that the MOS guidelines regarding geographic and religious terms were properly drafted after the normal amount of discussion. Once again, perhaps it is time to slap a {disputed} tag on the portions of MOS with which you disagree. But it is unfortunate to see poor bot operators hung by their petards and ANIs filed against them every single time an editor somewhere feels righteous indignation about what a bot is doing.

  If, however, Lighmouse’s bot is performing edits that are contrary to MOS or are not addressed by MOS, then I agree with you. Greg L (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Response to CKatz: Lightbot has never removed geographical or religious terms. Nobody has ever proposed such a thing. Lightbot doesn't have authority to do that. I don't believe Lightmouse wants to do it. The monobook script has the option to remove multiple geographical terms if a human editor decides that is what they want to do. It is not Lightmouse's responsibility. The monobook script does not remove religious terms. Perhaps we are seeing an urban legend starting. Tony (talk) 18:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you Tony. I didn’t have the expertise to evaluate the truth of Ckatz’s allegation and operated on the assumption that it was based on fact. What I do have is a sense that we need to tweak many of our processes (conducting RfCs, interpreting RfCs, directing disaffected editors to the equivalent of WP:Sucks to be you. Deal with it in order to expediently get them out of the way, and conducting ArbComs) so fewer man‑centuries of editors’ time is spent bickering and more is spent on editing. Greg L (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Greg, it's not an "allegation" - and Tony1 really (really really) needs to read posts thoroughly before responding to them. I clearly stated " strip away links from other text", not "remove terms". ("Religious" was an honest error, but it does not change the point one bit.) The script Lightmouse (not Lightbot) created last year removes links from so-called "common" terms (currently, geographical and professional terms) in addition to the date delinking. The RfC dealt explicitly with the issue of dates, and as such any bot activity to mass-delink dates should only do that - nothing else. (As for the "common terms" section of the MoS, which was an undiscussed reversal of the MoS to begin with, there has been some discussion over the past while, but it has obviously taken a back seat to the dates matter. Again, my point is that any script addressing the Dates RfC should only deal with dates.) --Ckatz_spy 22:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Ckatz, I share your concerns and also ask that going forward from here any script used to address DA should be limited to only deal with dates. Bleakcomb (talk) 23:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, I agree with you, to a certain extent, Ckatz. During the ramp-up, where Lightmouse may be tweaking his bot, I agree we should consider restricting it to just date delinking—after Lightmouse has been closely consulted on the matter to ensure we’ve got a solid understanding of all the ramifications of doing so, including the workload on the guy. It is surprising just how sure some editors can be about what should and shouldn’t be done when they don’t really have a clear understanding of all the technical intricacies.

  I can see the virtue where it would leave articles in a better and less confusing state if editors can just hit the link and undo only date‑delinking actions. After the tweaking process and he’s ready to roll up his sleeves, Lightmouse shouldn’t have to come to Ckatz or Locke Cole to see if they are at peace with what his bot does—Locke may never be at peace with it. Lightmouse should merely have to look to MOS, MOSNUM, and their related pages for guidance on what his bot should be tackling (plus the regular venues on Misplaced Pages where bot activity is overseen).

  If our guideline as to what “common”’ items in What generally should be linked is in error or is unsuitably vague, please address the shortcomings there, Ckatz.

  I’m, uhh… touchy on this subject of bot‑operator-bashing because Locke used Wikilawyering to do an end‑run on the community’s will and halt the only practical mechanism to implement the MOSNUM guideline on delinking dates. Lightmouse, like the rest of us, is a volunteer and his services are valuable and greatly appreciated on Misplaced Pages. From what I’ve seen, he needs no help or counseling on how to listen to legitimate editor feedback when his bot dicks up; he quickly tweaks his bot and goes back to work. Where Lightmouse does need help is when he gets dragged kicking & screaming into ANI’s and ArbComs, with jewel-like proposals such as “Lightmouse is barred for six months from constructing, designing, or advocating bots to enforce any portion of WP:MOS or its subpages.” Seeing that sort of crap even suggested about a valued and prolific editor really pissed me off. If I’m tired of seeing all the attempted gang rapes of Lightmouse in the showers, he must be sick to death of them. Greg L (talk) 23:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Well, there's no "bot-operator-bashing" on my part; Lightmouse is mentioned only because it's his script, and that's how everyone refers to it. The point remains, however, that any script-based implementation of an ArbCom decision should only address that decision; any other changes should be kept completely separate. That way, ArbCom-sanctioned edits are isolated from other edits, which helps to reduce disputes and reverts. --Ckatz_spy 05:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with many of the above that the injunction needs to be lifted ASAP. We've got a lot of work to do removing links from this list in preparation for turning off dynamic dates. At present, that's the only thing that will be done using a bot. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Ryan, the community rejected date links, but not date auto formatting. Removing the one removes the other, so really, now is not the time to lift the injunction or begin automated removal of the markup around dates. I've proposed a better alternative on your talk page and will now do so here: ask the devs to turn off links to date articles when marked up. This is simpler; it leaves the auto formatting (which has not been rejected) and removes the date links without the need for bots to clutter editors watchlists with unnecessary edits. Further, if auto formatting can be fixed, I'd hate to have to run through the articles again to re-markup dates. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Well… you are just all over the place with your “I object to the verdict” message, aren’t you Locke? Ryan’s answer to your duplicate post is here. The verdict is that the community certainly did to reject autoformatting. But you aren’t going to accept that verdict, are you? Your suggestion otherwise amounts to “the clear majority doesn’t want autoformatting but since the majority isn’t great enough to satisfy me, the logical next step is to ask the community what kind of autoformatting it ought to have that it doesn’t want.” (*sound of game-show “wrong answer” buzzer)*

  As to your if auto formatting can be fixed-comment, save your keyboard the wear. The community rejected the entire broad principle of autoformatting (the “generalities”—as you wanted it); there is nothing to fix. For God’s sake, give it up. Greg L (talk) 01:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• There's been no "verdict". There is no consensus on the matter of date auto formatting, and taking a "throw the baby out with the bathwater" view is unhelpful to reaching a consensus. From WP:CON; Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and their (strict) logic may outweigh the "logic" (point of view) of the majority. New users who are not yet familiar with consensus should realize that polls (if held) are often more likely to be the start of a discussion rather than the end of one. Editors decide outcomes during discussion.. Read that carefully and maybe you'll start to understand that a majority supporting a poor argument doesn't a consensus make. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• I see. It’s not strictly numbers. Silly me. Indeed, as we had been saying during the dispute over the IEC prefixes (mebibyte v.s. megabyte), the logic of arguments is every bit as important as shear numbers when determining consensus. I agree. A thousand pardons. Golly then… you should make the arbitrators and Ryan aware of this as they seem clueless on this news. Well then… I guess it is now incumbent upon you to prove to the arbitrators how your arguments have an inescapable logic or Universal Truth™®© that trumps the silly, silly, illogical arguments of the majority who think that even registered editors should see precisely the same content that we make I.P. users see and that date formats just isn’t worth all the damned fuss. I’ll sit back and watch as you pull that one off. (*sound of popcorn being munched*) Greg L (talk) 02:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Greg, and everyone else pushing for their "solution", go discuss this elsewhere; better yet, go do something else like fix BLPs. This noticeboard is for discussing notices from the committee. If you must discuss this, please do it on the talk page of the proposed decision. Thank you. John Vandenberg 02:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Sure. Fine. What are BLPs? Biographies of living persons. Not my area of expertise (but I get your point nevertheless). Greg L (talk) 03:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:UBLP - no experience reqd. John Vandenberg 03:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Ryan, the proposed decision affects the people already involved in this dispute, and covers any users who might wish to become involved in implementing the "solution". We will be expecting high standards from anyone who wants to be involved in this issue going forward, and the injunction wont be lifted until those remedies, and enforcement, is decided upon. John Vandenberg 01:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

May I ask how long that will take to be decided? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Refer to my earlier comment in this thread. John Vandenberg 02:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I saw that, but there was no associated timeframe. Is it safe to assume 7–10 days? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

That will be a reasonable timeframe for the proposed decision to be published; it may take longer for the arbs to decide. John Vandenberg 02:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, thank you. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Case milestones on the agenda

Original announcement

While commitment to deadlines is to be admired, especially after the delays of last year, might this not put a strain on the Committee to rush things in certain cases? Are you going to give yourselves leeway when new information comes to light in the late stages of cases? Skomorokh 02:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes; the milestones on the agenda can be (and regularly are) changed if new circumstances arise. We'll try to stick with the listed dates in the absence of a good reason to slip them, though. Kirill  02:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

That seems prudent, thanks for the swift response. Skomorokh 02:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Procedure for temporary removal of permissions

Original announcement

Since it doesn't forbid individual users from asking a steward, this is mostly a moot point, but isn't the "Level I" procedure pretty much the same thing that the community registered a rather clear disapproval of a couple months ago? Mr.Z-man 01:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

More or less, although there are a number of other changes we made based on feedback there (i.e. mandating that a case be opened if we don't return the permissions automatically). Much of the disapproval was, I think, due to the perception that we were interfering with the stewards and their handling of emergencies; we've tried to make it clear, here, that this procedure is merely a description of how the Committee will decide on authorizing something, and has no impact on anything outside our internal communications. Kirill  01:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I remember suggesting back then that mere cosmetic alterations would resolve objections to that section. No one disapproved of that idea at the time, even when I repeated it. I don't think the clear disapproval was quite what Mr Z-man thinks it was. Personally I think the announcement resolves several of the original objections raised and shows Arbcom incorporating feedback from the community.--BirgitteSB 02:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Interim appointments to the Audit Subcommittee

Original announcement

(While I honestly understand that we do, but still...) - Do we really need to have elections in this case? Those three look great to me. - jc37 01:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

This team will only be the initial team. At least one of the non-arb members have said they only wish to be a member of this interim committee. It is up to the community to decide when to hold elections, but I expect the community will let the current team get it off the ground before replacing them. John Vandenberg 01:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. You actually explained some things I might've wondered, if I had given it more thought : )

My initial post was mostly a case of: "(Picks my teeth/jaw up off the floor) - We get those as a team for, well, really, for anything? Wow." : ) - jc37 01:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

For now, I have agreed to serve on the interim committee but I probably won't stand for election. That may change, of course, but for now I feel more comfortable with a limited role. Thatcher 02:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, speaking at least for myself, I'm glad you're offering to help in whatever way you feel confortable. Thanks : )

As an aside (to no one in particular), I suppose I should mention that my comments were mostly about the first two. Though only because I'm not sure I remember ever seeing User:Tznkai. - jc37 02:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like progress is being made on a previously unaddressed (or not adequately addressed) issue. Good work, again, Committee. Cla68 (talk) 02:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent choices, in my opinion. I agree with Jc37 above, actually - I wouldn't mind them being longer term. Just my opinion. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic choices for a supervisory and policing role of this nature. rootology (C)(T) 03:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Great choices, just remember to pick a snappy name for your mailing list and a good acronym for requests pages, WP:AUSC sounds too Australian. MBisanz 03:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

This is no reflection or reference to anyone anywhere (obviously), but when I saw that acronym, I thought immediately of Auschwitz... - jc37 03:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest something a bit easier to get at first glance, WP:AUDSUB? -- lucasbfr 12:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. Kirill  12:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I presume the Arbitration Committee intends to have Tznkai identify to the Foundation before he can assume any practical role as a member of this subcommittee. Daniel (talk) 04:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. John Vandenberg 04:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent appointments. Thanks for volunteering, Mackensen, Thatcher and Tznkai, and good luck! ] 07:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I fully support the selection, but can I ask how it was made? How did the committee come to find those three volunteers? Happy‑melon 16:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

They know us and trust us so they asked us. The appointments are only until elections are held. Thatcher 18:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll add that all three had expressed an interest in this area; Mackensen is a former WMF ombudsman, Thatcher has written on the subject and participated in discussion of the earlier proposal, and Tznkai had been active in the discussion of the earlier proposal as well. Risker (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Revised plan for relocating arbitration pages

Original announcement

• For WP:RFAR and Index pages, might I suggest not moving the pages to the new title and just redirecting the page to preserve the history? I think RFAR has about 50,000 edits and moving them to a new title would probably break a good number of history links both on and off wiki. MBisanz 02:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • AFAIK, any link which uses revision numbers (which should be the overwhelming majority of diff and history links) continues to work properly even if the underlying page is moved, so I don't think this will be a significant problem in practice. Kirill  02:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Hmm, ok, that should be fine, but there are about 40 redirects to each of the main Arb pages, so those should be targeted to prevent double redirects. MBisanz 03:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• Active sanctions - what is meant by this? Regardless, paperwork at WP:Editing restrictions and WP:General sanctions will need to be filled out - so if it's a mere duplicate, I don't consider it useful. This is especially so with regards to a central location for all sanctions being listed - inclusive of community measures. I would find it inappropriate to attempt to make the community list its sanctions in an arbitration location, or, for these community and arb measures to be listed distinctly (it's the one place that has an absolute need to be central, so any administrator can check if any given sanction is active or not). Superseding items, etc. will no doubt be missed. I'd seen comments regarding WP:AE and its relevant proposal in more than one venue, but I have seen little or no community discussion on this - can someone please link me to it? Thanks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Given the lack of any other comments on the matter since we've put the original plan up for discussion, I would have to say that your concern about community sanctions being listed on an "arbitration" page isn't widely shared.

Having said that, if you have some reasonable alternative location in mind (e.g. Misplaced Pages:Active sanctions), please suggest it. The precise location of that page isn't the driving factor behind the move; the main intent is to combine the three pages currently tracking sanctions into a single page. Kirill  14:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I think inviting community input on this particular issue would be helpful in determining if your conclusion was actually in line with others views....

I've only specified 2 pages; what was the third page you are referring to in terms of the proposed merge? WP:Active sanctions would've been my suggestion for that end; though if I can find a better name, will suggest it in due course. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposals_on_logging_active_sanctions for community views. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The third page is Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Admin enforcement requested; it's the most useless of the three, since it's redundant to both the sanction lists and the normal closure announcements. Kirill  04:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that page is more like AE though (except it's Committee requests rather than community requests) - I've never thought of it as falling in the same category as the other two pages. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser usage statistics

Announcement

• Just a note, glancing at the numbers. 1 log item != 1 investigation, a typical sockpuppetry case takes between 2 and 20 checks (I average at 6 checks per investigation). -- lucasbfr 13:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Ireland Collaboration: Stepping down as moderator

I am sorry to inform you that I will resign as a moderator of WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. I have failed to provide any usefull contributions as such, and find myself unable to assign any more time and effort. The two main reason being that 1) I have no experience in such a big mediation, and accepting the task has been a mistake. 2) I have been involved in a dispute of my own that is consuming all my attention, making it impossible for me to focus on any other task that requires a long-span attention. — Edokter • Talk • 22:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I've also resigned. Consequently, 3 new moderators are required. PhilKnight (talk) 22:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Updated procedure for handling incoming mail

Original announcement

Access to CheckUser and Oversight

Motion

Who does this affect? I see that there are only five users who have no Checkuser activity in the last six months; two of whom are devs. Are the devs included in this motion? What are the parallel results for Oversight? Is the new RevDeleted method considered equivalent to old-style HideRevision? More detail needed, please. Happy‑melon 12:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The developers are beyond the scope of the Arbitration Committee, so I dont think they were implied in this motion. For oversight, RevDeleted actions in response to requests to oversight-l would definitely count, especially if those actions had "Suppress data from administrators as well as others" enabled. John Vandenberg 12:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC) minor update. 13:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• FYI. The users who had no Checkuser and no Oversight activity were notified of the this new policy and given the option of voluntarily requesting that their OS and CU bit be removed instead of having it revoked by this policy. We are in the process of forming a list of people with oversight access alone that need to be contacted because they have no or very limited use of the tool for the past year. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

For checkuser, the affected users are The Epopt, Redux, and UninvitedCompany. Oversight stats are being compiled. Thatcher 14:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for comments on content dispute resolution

Original announcement

West Bank - Judea and Samaria

Original announcement

I'd like a clarification of the scope of the "any Arab-Israeli conflict-related article/talk page". Specifically, would it apply to articles such as Talk:The Independent, where within hours of the topic ban going into effect, one of the banned parties has jumped into a Talk page discussion about a front page of the paper which has become controversial in the context of the Arab/Israeli conflict. NoCal100 (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)