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

If a registered user (let's say, an admin) casts inappropriate votes (i.e., BS reasoning) on multiple RFAdminship's, can he be brought before RFArb? Note that he hasn't defended these votes, and when one of the nominees in question (not me) posted a question on his user page, it went unanswered. Could I bring him before the committee? (The user in question: User:freestylefrappe; one of the RFA's: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Lifeisunfair) Matt Yeager 09:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Clarification of apparent ArbCom decision to indefinitely ban User:Poetlister as suspected sock puppet of User:RachelBrown

This is a message to the ArbCom team.

I have been advised that User:Poetlister was indefinitely banned because of being a suspected sock puppet of User:RachelBrown, which apparently was done because of a ruling by the Arbitration Committee. I asked to be directed to where this has happened, and no answer was given (in 6 hours). I have searched your archives and cannot find the existence of an arbitration against Poetlister, nor can I find any administrative notes regarding the lead up to this ban. Please can you direct me towards where this has happened.

The claim is that Poetlister and RachelBrown both voted in the same manner on up to 5 AFDs, and that this may have influenced closing admins. However, AFD is not a vote, so I do not see how this can be a bannable offence, even if they were the same person. If they were, they would be guilty of sock puppetry, which is bad, but surely not something which can be punished by an indefinite ban.

Secondly, RachelBrown last used Wikipedia on 10 December 2005, the last major contribution being 3 December 2005, yet Poetlister was banned on 22 December 2005, fully 2 weeks after RachelBrown last edited. As such, a claim of sock puppetry seems to be theoretically impossible, unless it is a historical case, as RachelBrown has not even edited anything for 2 weeks (3 weeks since any major edits). Thus, if there were any evidence of sock puppetry, it could only have happened prior to this.

Thirdly, RachelBrown, Poetlister and a 3rd user had lodged complaints with regards to the actions of Lulu of the Lotus Eaters, with support from SlimVirgin with regards to their editing of List of Jewish jurists, specifically that Lulu had violated 3RR, had spuriously added tags, had wiped useful content, had wrongly ignored evidence of claims and claimed WP:V violations on cited sources, and removed lists. At one point, Lulu deleted names from the list of people who were "Judge of the Supreme Court of Israel" claiming that there was no evidence that they were Jewish. Lulu also deleted names of people who were listed in the "Jewish Year Book", stating that if its not on the internet its not evidence, in spite of quotes and ISBN numbers given. Generally, Lulu failed to adhere to WP:CIVIL and WP:BITE and may have engaged in WP:No personal attacks against these users.

This case was at the stage of mediation, and Lulu refused mediation, meaning that it would then go forward to a Request for Comment, and may have ended up in the Arbitration Committee. In effect, it was already at the RfC stage, although this had not been formalised.

The blocking could be seen as a deliberate disruption of due process, and it needs to be explained in full, especially because of the nature of the behaviour of Lulu et al in relation to this. I note an existing ArbCom surrounding User:SlimVirgin, and this could potentially be added to that in some way. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 05:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure who Zordrac is, but I'm almost certain that s/he has a closer connection to RachelBrown/Poetlister than s/he is stating. Zordrac has taken in the last day to writing all over user talk pages scurrilous things about me, even though I've never interacted with this user (under this name) before. Just for the record:

Basically, every single thing claimed by Zordrac is false. By his own description, he's acting as a meatpuppet for Poetlister, at this point, so I guess that probably speaks to motives.

• I most certainly did not, at any point, violate 3RR on List of Jewish jurists. FWIW, I don't think RachelBrown/Poetlister did either (though I suppose if they are really sockpuppets, that might do it).
• I did not remove any listed name because Jewish Year Book is not a reliable source (even though it is probably not a reliable source). I removed some names, however, because no source whatsoever was provided (within the article namespace), including Jewish Year Book. Thankfully, Jayjg eventually fixed this lacuna by adding footnotes to JYB next to some of the names; I never removed any name so cited.
• Obviously, I never claimed that a Supreme Court Justice of Israel was not Jewish. I questioned whether a figure who did not apparently merit a WP article was notable (and asked why that particular justice, but not the dozens/hundreds of others who have served on that court).
• Clearly, RachelBrown/Poetlister were not new users when they started the "add names to Jewish lists" crusade. So biting newcomers is irrelevant.
• I also did not add the "disputed" tags to the page in question, that was RachelBrown/Poetlister. If anything, I argued that the more limited "accuracy" tag should be used rather than the "totallydisputed" tag.
• Elsewhere, Zordrac claims that Poetlister would have written an RfC one hour later if she had not been blocked. It's certainly a peculiarly detailed insight for an uninvolved editor to have about Poetlister's alleged plans.
• Zordrac/Poetlister/RachelBrown seem to subscribe to a silly idea that I am in some cabal to orchestrate a block. I had no idea a block was discussed or placed prior to being informed of such on my user talk page.

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Please note that this was a request for clarification directed to Arbitration Committee members, not to Lulu, who is not an arbitration member and hence is not someone whose input is welcome.

I have never met Poetlister or had any contact with any of the persons involved, and, as has been stated and proven elsewhere, my involvement was that I received an e-mail from Poetlister asking for me to help her, as I had helped out many other newbies in distress over similar incidents.

Lulu has gone to many places making false claims about me, which I believe has contributed to this problem. I ask that her comments here be disregarded as this is purely a request for clarification towards ArbCom members, rather than being an invitation to personal attacks from Lulu. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 19:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• I'm not connected with anyone here, but I'd very much like clarification on this mess too. Dan100 ( Talk) 20:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with any pending arbitration. From the block log:

• 20:33, December 23, 2005 Dan100 unblocked User:Poetlister (pending evidence)
• 21:52, December 21, 2005 Mindspillage blocked "User:Poetlister" with an expiry time of indefinite (sockpuppet of RachelBrown, used for edit warring/vote stacking/etc.)

Mindspillage blocked Poetlister for vote stacking, using technical evidence provided by checkuser. [1] Kelly Martin rechecked hte evidence and came to thes same conclusion [2] There's nothing to see here, move along. Raul654 20:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

At this point, I have little expectation that Jimbo will ever actually hear my appeal, although he has said he would. It's been well over a month now. I think something else needs to be considered. What if we had a single person hear the appeal, but not Jimbo, acting in Jimbo's place? Or a small committee of three, something of that sort? If it is clear Jimbo is, for practical purposes, no longer fulfilling his role in this regard, we need to develop an alternative process. Everyking 06:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd support lifting of your restrictions if you went for two months without mentioning Snowspinner. It's Christmas Day. Go have some fun and think some good thoughts about your fellow man. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 14:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

That would demonstrably defeat the purpose of why Everyking wants them lifted. Phil Sandifer 18:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Given that (1) you were blocked a few days ago for sniping at snowspinner, (2) had to sign a special agreement to be unblocked just a couple days ago, and then (3) within an hour or so after it expired you immediately went back to sniping at Snowspinner - it is clear and demonstrable that you have no intention of leaving snowspinner alone if we suspend the decision. Raul654 18:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Whats the big deal about Snowspinner? Can't they just have it out and be done w it? Sam Spade 19:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

He has Snowspinner on the brain, but is a perfectly good administrator so mutual destruction will be of no benefit Fred Bauder 19:18, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

IMO their both good guys, and should be able to resolve their differences. My guess is that (if done properly) would work better than an artificial armistace. My advice is for them to try chatting on another medium. I have found I get on much better w some people via a different medium (email, IM, etc...). Of course they'd have to both be willing, and etc... Sam Spade 19:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

We've pretty much gotten on like siamese fighting fish in every medium tried. Phil Sandifer 19:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... perhaps you have too much in common? Sam Spade 19:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Little Dutch boy syndrome Fred Bauder 19:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not just snowspinner - prior to the third arbitration decision, EK had basically taken to sniping at (among other things) every arbcom decision as well, without researching the facts Raul654 19:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and I just saw this linked from EK's user page. Raul654 20:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

How charming. Phil Sandifer 21:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I think we could all resolve to be more cautious and less controversial. I do. Sam Spade 21:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Sam Spade 21:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any real responses to the actual proposal I made. Everyking 22:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps that is a sign of something. Phil Sandifer 23:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, if it's a bad proposal, someone can tell me why, can't they? It seems entirely reasonable to me: convicted users are entitled to request an appeal from Jimbo, but Jimbo is not exercizing this function any more; therefore we should have an alternative process. I suggested that the alternative be selecting one or several respected and uncontroversial users to hear appeals in Jimbo's place. What on earth could be wrong with that idea? Everyking 23:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems entirely reasonable to me: convicted users are entitled to request an appeal from Jimbo They're entitled to ask, yes; they're not entitled to an answer, any more than every legal decision is entitled to be heard by the US Supreme Court. Your sense of entitlement -- in more than one sense -- is wildly at variance almost everyone else's, as demonstrated by three ArbCom proceedings, two or so RFCs, and blocks I've utterly lost count of.

If you were serious about writing and editing an encyclopedia -- as you claimed when you said that every one of your few thousand edits you did in lieu of actually responding meaningfully to your last ArbCom proceedings -- perhaps you could, you know, write and edit an encyclopedia, instead of playing new tactics in an endless game of What Can I Get Away With This Time in your transparently obvious vendetta against Snowspinner. You promised to behave, and whether or not there is an enforcement mechanism for that behavior is immaterial if you're sincere. -- Calton | Talk 00:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

But Jimbo agreed to hear my appeal. If he rejected it, that would be one thing, but he accepted it. Sure, I have a certain sense of entitlement. I think I'm entitled not to be treated like crap.

As for the encyclopedia thing, I feel like A) I do plenty of editing already (unlike Snowspinner), and B) you can't always make a neat division here, between the encyclopedia and policy issues. I believe that my contributions to policy matters are important, because we need sane judgments and practices from those at the top, and moreover I have a personal stake in this particular issue. I'm not sure you can count on the ship to get to the right destination if the captain is drunk. You need to either replace the captain or keep a very close eye on him. Everyking 00:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Ding ding ding! What's that sound? It's Raul's 11th law rearing its ugly head. Raul654 01:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Raul, your 11th law is stupid - people who are not harmed don't complain. For that reason, the pool of complainers will contain only those harmed - rightly or wrongly. For your rule to be valid, you need to add "where's there's smoke, there's fire" and the 80/20 rule. Combine those and we find that 20% of the time, complainers tend to be right. This is my observation and it's why I now edit exclusively as an anon-ip. Too many petty snipers around who heave around charges and acccusations. As anon-ip, I can change my persona like others change their socks. On the other hand, EK is complaining because his EK persona is important to him. My advice to EK is: change your IP and re-register with a new name. Edit under new name in parallel with the EK account and only drop EK if/when Arb-bullies cut the crap. If they never do, EK has new persona to move to. BTW: Raul needs a 12th rule: The more "decisions" rendered and "bannings" which occur, the greater the number of socks, anon-ips and re-joiners. 70.84.56.175 08:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree that I'm asking for the rules to really be changed, anyway. I'm asking for a change in the process that will enable to rule to actually be carried through—because it has now become non-functional, since the person who is responsible for it is not fulfulling the job, possibly due to overwork regarding other aspects of Wikipedia. Everyking 01:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, and I hesitate here to point out the obvious, but - where has Jimbo ever said he'd entertain an appeal from you? This is certainly news to me. Raul654 01:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

He has said so twice on his talk page. Once he agreed to hear it, then when I complained it was taking too long he reiterated that he intended to get to it eventually. Everyking 01:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[3] — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 01:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Wait, this is a complaint that Jimbo took more than 10 days over the Christmas season to get to the appeal? After Everyking demanded the case sit open for three months before the arbitrators act? Why is the process expected to wait endlessly for him, but to speed through major holidays when it conveniences him? Phil Sandifer 01:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

All I asked for in the most recent case against you was to not be treated like crap. Your response has been to treat me more shittily than ever before, including wikistalking me, personal attacks, and constant accusations. And then you have the unmitigated gall to act like you're the one who's put upon, and to suggest that Jimbo, who has been a bit busy this month what with the constant news coverage about Wikipedia's failures, owes you anything? Why? Because your crusade against other users is pure and noble, whereas the one I'm allegedly on - one you have never once substantiated with a shred of evidence, instead claiming that nobody would look at the evidence - is evil? That you are engaged in a continual, petty, and harassing crusade against me is a source of irritation. That you are capable of being indignant that the crap you fling in my general direction at every opportunity is not met with open arms by the Wikipedia community, however, blows my mind. Phil Sandifer 01:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The way I remember it, "all you asked for" was the right to be able to criticize me while banning me from criticizing you. I asked you nicely for an agreement that neither of us would criticize the other, and you flatly refused, then promptly submitted a RfAr. You have never been given a tenth of the mistreatment you have dished out to me and many others, and it's absurd and downright insulting for you to act like a victim—and to accuse me of acting falsely victimized! Which one of us refused the equal arrangement that would have eliminated the possibility of further bickering between us? Which one of us filed the cases, without any attempt at prior dispute resolution? Which one of us is under sanctions imposed at the request of the other? Everyking 05:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

That would be you, actually - you pulled out of the agreement after flatly lying about what it said. As for cases, if I recall correctly the case that sanctioned you was filed after the mediation cabal and mediation by the arbcom both broke down - both times after you violated the agreements. And the only criticism I leveled against you during the entire time of the arbcom-negotiated agreement was when YOU signed off on an RfC against me - I was perfectly content to ignore you, and I remain so, save for your mysterious talent for showing up on any page in the Wikipedia namespace that I edit, and several in the article namespace. And I hardly asked for the right to criticize you - I asked for the agreement that you had signed on for to remain in place after you decided it was inconvenient. And since your case, I have not gone and found you on a single page. Your talk page is not on my watchlist, I have not looked at your contribs list. You are consistently the one to find me and to carp on about your grudge against me, and then you have the gall to act like I'm the one who criticizes you. That is, simply put, a bald-faced lie, and you full well know it. Phil Sandifer 05:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I pulled out of the agreement only after you insisted on your right to criticize me while I was prohibited from criticizing you. That was a point of honor and I was not going to just sit back and remain a part of something so ridiculously unfair. The only reason the ArbCom case was ever done was because of your insistence that you be allowed to criticize me while I could not criticize you. Simple as that. All you had to do was say, "OK, I won't criticize you if you continue to not criticize me", and that would have been the end of it. But you preferred arbitration. If I lied about the agreement, let's see you back that up with a diff. My point was that I wanted a modification to the agreement—that's why I asked you to agree to it as an amendment. I did not try to claim it was in the agreement to begin with, as you know, but I did assert it was in keeping with the spirit of the agreement and it was something that just hadn't been raised at the time the agreement was being hammered out. Everyking 05:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

You know perfectly well the agreement was hammered out in IRC and that no diff to give you. I could give a diff that shows you claiming the agreement did prohibit me from criticizing you in direct contradiction with what you just said, but why? It remains transparent what happened - you signed an RfC against me, I called you on it, and you pitched a fit. You specifically wanted me to be unable to respond to you on that. You started a conflict with me, and then tried to rewrite the rules against you to prohibit me from responding, and then claimed I was being unfair when I called bullshit. The spirit of the agreement was a gentleman's agreement that I would leave you alone - which I did. You came after me anyway, and then got mad when I didn't ignore you. Phil Sandifer 05:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I meant on-wiki, not IRC, obviously. As in me claiming the agreement said something it didn't. If I did say that it must have been due to ignorance and I couldn't have maintained that claim for long. As long as I can remember, my point has been that there should have been an amendment to the agreement, and you rejected that amendment. As for the RfC argument, that's invalid because the arbitrators specifically noted that I was still allowed to participate in dispute resolution processes with you. Your usual ally David Gerard even remarked on the RfC page that it was fine for me to endorse the RfC. So there really can't be any question about this. Everyking 06:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't care that you endorsed the RfC. I care that you expected me not to respond to your endorsing the RfC. Phil Sandifer 06:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Everyking, I'd hardly say that you are being treated like crap, people are discussing this with you and nobody is hindering your ability to discuss the issue despite the fact that most users have seemingly got tired of this after the third arbcom case, though I do agree that if Jimbo said he would do something he should do it and if he has no intention of doing anything he should tell you outright that he's rejecting your appeal of the arbcom decision just as a matter of professionalism and honesty. In terms of what is being asked of you in terms of your stance towards Snowspinner, I don't think it's that much to ask and if you just do that then nobody will have any problems with anyone else. I may be oversimplifying the situation though and someone please respond and tell me if I am but the fact that the issues between all of you is still going on frankly seems silly. Jtkiefer ^{T | C | @} ---- 01:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• I would suggest that both Everyking and Snowspinner install a piece of software that make them unable to view each others' contributions or comments. R adiant _>|< 11:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I gotta say something since this is the same person who faulted me just a few days ago for doing the exact same thing he's doing now. [4]

My belief here (considering I don't see how what he did there didn't violate WP:POINT for disruptiveness, thus making it impossible to WP:AGF in this case), is that Tony's trying to strawman himself, thus trying to gain pity for himself after a series of incidents( see this as well, as no doubt other things) of what he and Kelly Martin termed as a "entering an incandescent rage", or that this is some desperate plea for help.

Tony is like many other prolific editors: he often creates problems whenever it comes to a page where there's something for something, but he's one of our finest elsewhere. And much like others afflicted with this ailment, which seems corrolary to Luigi 30's Law, he is quickly burning out, perhaps to the point where he will leave forever.

Ultimately, the issue here isn't Tony. Tony's just a symptom of a much larger problem that most people have ignored and some have tried to fix until they gave up to the futility of their circumstances. That problem is simple: Our policy system no longer works.

Tony's issue here with the Catholic Alliance is a common one, most policies/guidelines contradict other polices and guidelines, which in itself is ultimately contradicted by WP:IAR, a rule that is becoming more and more commonly used as these contradictions become endemic, despite people such as Tony who decry IAR while using it in cases like these recent mfd (Perhaps it should be "Ignore Some Rules", but you get my drift.)

This needs to be discussed in greater detail, but for now, Tony needs to be far away from and of the something for something pages. Either from a mandatory wikivacation or from refocusing his efforts on another project or a whole bunch of barnstars cheering him up so he doesn't feel like he's alone trying to "fix" things or what have you, I know first hand that it sucks feeling at the end of your wick like you have to save Wikipedia singlehanded, i've felt like this for the past few months.

And remember, the longer we have to wait for the reform of creation/refinement/annulment/enforcement regarding policies and guidelines, the more times you'll see moments like this. karmafist 08:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree. It's very easy to feel isolated when you are fighting (real or perceived) vandalism. Of course we all have subtly different visions of what WP is, that is one of the 'pedia's great strengths as well as a constant source of tension. Karmafist is probably right that what Tony needs is a beer and some Wikihugs. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/ _[C] AfD? 10:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I think I have missed something. If Tony was posting this "RfAr" to request help in deleting the "Catholic Alliance", then it appears that it has already been deleted. The AfD entry is still there, but the main article is not there. If Tony was actually requesting that the ArbCom order the article deleted, then perhaps that request is now moot. If he was actually requesting that other admins delete it, then perhaps that request has been accomplished. I agree that there is no place for Wiki-projects whose mission is to push a POV, especially since I have an RfAr pending in which I was falsely accused of exactly that. Robert McClenon 18:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

You did miss something, Robert. He was posting this not to help in the mfd(which is already over), but rather that he's miffed that the thing was deleted and undeleted umpteen times for something he thinks was a clear cut case. karmafist 20:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. It should have been a clear-cut case. However, he is making it even more confusing by using the RfAr article space, which is for arbitration requests, as a talk page to sound off. The dispute resolution process is troubled enough without people semi-intentionally troubling it. Robert McClenon 21:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I have no intention of going looking for trouble. If left alone, I will leave alone. Phil Sandifer 17:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Will this new ruling affect my ability to participate in dispute resolution with Snowspinner? At present I am planning on an Arb case against him. Everyking 05:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Should you wish to initiate ArbCom proceedings against Snowspinner, you may do so by emailing the complaint to any Arbitrator (as may any person, actually). The Arbitration Committee will then determine if your complaint deserves a public hearing, and if it does, will open the matter on your behalf. Kelly Martin ( talk) 05:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you realize how crazy that is? Everyking 05:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Well, if you think that's crazy, all you have to do is convince a single other editor that Snowy has been abusing admin rights, and let that editor post the case. That said I've seen people complain about Snowy for several months but have not noticed any actual evidence. R adiant _>|< 12:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • That's pretty clever of them, though: If you want to believe whay everybody says, Snowspinner is the Devil, hates everybody, abuses his admin powers, and eats cute puppies alive. If you believe the way things actually are, he, uh, isn't.-- Sean| Bla ck 08:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
    • This link will show the 3vil truth about Phil! R adiant _>|< 10:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Wow. 3 days... I know New Years Resolutions are usually broken quickly, but this is a little much. karmafist 19:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I think you misunderstand the nature of the statement - it wasin response to the question of whether I would engage in conflict with a specific other user. This dispute had nothing to do with him. Phil Sandifer 19:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Benjamin Gatti has posted several "comments on above" on his Arbcom evidence page. I thought that comments like that weren't allowed on the evidence pages? As proof that it's ok, Ben points to the Deeceevoice case, where it wasn't questioned. Could you clarify this for me? I always thought that the "evidence anaysis" part of the Workshop was for this purpose and that the evidence page was supposed to just have...well...evidence. -- Woohookitty ^{(cat scratches)} 06:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Right from the evidence page:

"If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user."

Pretty clear I'd say. -- Woohookitty ^{(cat scratches)} 07:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Never mind. Taken care of. -- Woohookitty ^{(cat scratches)} 07:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Ben has now created an "annotated" page, in which he mirrors the Evidence page with his comments again placed in the evidence sections of others. So now we have two Evidence pages. Simesa 10:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I have an idea for a compromise about the term expiration question: how about the ArbCom doesn't accept any new cases until Feb., but it can continue working on already accepted cases during January? Everyking 06:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Compromise for what? I'm not seeing any problem requiring any kind of compromise: ArbCom's term lasts until the next batch assumes duties, end of story. -- Calton | Talk 09:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought there were two competing views on this, that it should end on Jan. 1 and that it should run until the new com is in. There was a request for clarification about this. Everyking 14:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there was a request for clarification about this, the result of which you have conspiciously ignored in your comments here - that the arbcom will continue on as-is until Jimbo and the community come to some kind of decision as to how and who the replacements will be. Raul654 19:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Um. Doesn't my idea kinda fall under "community"? Everyking 19:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

No. No. No. Your idea is to stop having arbitration, or to limit the scope of arbitration, until the "community" and the king decide how to set up the ArbCom. Your idea is not part of the "community", but a suggestion to allow the "community" to fall apart in the absence of checks on trolls and flamers for a while. Robert McClenon 01:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Not accepting cases would result in a big backlog. A few of the refused cases would involve serious disruption. (Although opinions may differ regarding our effectiveness.) Fred Bauder 15:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I can only speak for myself, but I don't think the current ArbCom has been doing a very good job and I would rather let a new committee with a genuine mandate decide the issues that get presented. Everyking 19:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I can only conclude that this entire thread has been, from its beginning, some form of performance art or improv comedy. Raul654 20:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

You already told me I was crazy, so wouldn't it be easier to just assume its a manifestation of my craziness? Anyway, I don't see the problem with this. What is it? The Arb terms technically should have already ended; I'm saying let them continue working on existing cases for another month, but limit their powers a bit in the meantime. This falls about as nearly halfway as anything I can think of. Everyking 20:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

A Comment

I agree with Everyking's statement that the current ArbCom has not been doing a very effective job, but both of Everyking's suggestions miss the whole point and would make things worse. The problem with the current ArbCom is an institutional one rather than a pesonal one. It is not that it consists of the wrong arbitrators, which seems to be what Everyking is saying. It is that it has more cases than it can handle in a timely manner under the current procedures. As a result, it takes too long to ban trolls and flamers, and the conflicts that are caused by the trolls and flamers simmer longer before they are addressed. To the extent that the ArbCom's decisions have been insufficiently precise, it is primarily because they have a difficult tradeoff between taking too long to craft the right remedy and crafting any remedy in a timely manner. Preventing the ArbCom from taking any new cases would simply leave Wikipedia defenseless against trolls and flamers (since Jimbo does not have time to ban them, and not all of them can be dealt with cleanly by administrative blocks). Does Everyking have some plan for vigilante justice while the ArbCom is shut down or partially shut down?

I don't think that this thread is "performance art" or "improv comedy". If so, that would fall under WP:POINT. I think that the whole thread is simply misguided, and is disrupting WP without making a point. Robert McClenon 20:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• Jimbo has suggested that it may be possible to enlarge the ArbCom. That may alleviate these problems. R adiant _>|< 20:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, enlarging the ArbCom will only help if it splits arbitration into two levels, a first level, in which cases are heard quickly, by one or three arbitrators, and a second phase, in which they are heard by the full ArbCom. My own opinion is that the current ArbCom works well as an appellate court, but that there should also be a Traffic Court division. Many of the disputes that are now being taken to the ArbCom are really basically disputes that should first go to a Traffic Court with very quick justice and the right to appeal to a court with more deliberative procedures. Robert McClenon 00:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

How does one request arbitration? There is a hefty edit war occurring on Kent Hovind between user:Jason Gastrich and user:WarriorScribe. Jason Gastrich seems to find pleasure in reverting any and all edits by WarriorScribe. Icj tlc 19:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

To add a request, you edit the "current requests" section of the RFArb article. There's a template inside a comment at the beginning of this section; cut and paste the template (but not the comment braces), and fill it in. Make sure you've gone through other steps in the dispute resolution process first, though, or the request is likely to be rejected. -- Christopher Thomas 20:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response, in the mean time, I did dispute resolution process and have requested Cabal Mediation. Thanks again. Icj tlc 20:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi -- recently I noticed a request at WP:RFP to protect the talk page of User:Gimmiet (AKA Gabrielsimon), currently on a rather restrictive probation for his past actions. The user requesting protection said that Gimmiet has been blanking his talk page and refuses to consider simply archiving it, in the process removing many administrator notices, warnings and notices of violations/blocks that are directly related to his probation. (From what I gather upon reading his comments, he's feeling picked on and wants reminders about his poor behavior -- current and past -- nuked.) So it's been requested that his talk page be protected for a short time. My question is this: As I understand it, normally users are allowed to blank their talk pages if they so choose, including removing administrator notices. But should less latitude be extended to someone with Gabrielsimon's track record, given that context about his probation is also being removed? I'm unsure, so thought I'd ask here for opinions. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/ mrp 17:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The enquiry was removed for a second time [5], since user:Raul654 considered it to be answered. It may be answered to some, but I don't agree. Assumptions based on common sense is hardly an answer. Common sense and assumptions do not extend the terms of office of the members of the arbitration committee, the determination by the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation does. It does not take much time for the Board to confirm this, so as to provide the procedurally foundations for members of the arbitration committee to continue to exercise their power. Otherwise we have no foundations to consider the decisions made by these members to be valid ones. — Insta ntnood 20:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Stop wasting our time. The question is answered. What do you want me to say? "If you re-list the question, you will be banned by especial resolution of the Committee until such time as the community vote starts."?

The reason for the delay is the community's tardiness, and is not our first choice of how things should have played out; hamstringing the entire dispute resolution would be mind-blowingly moronic. We're not going to do it. Sorry. Instead, I'd advise expending your energies on getting the community to actually do something.

James F. (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[via edit conflict]

From Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee:

It should be noted that while appointments are generally to specified terms, all Arbitrators serve at Jimbo's pleasure, and are not automatically removed at the expiration of those terms, but only by the appointment of a replacement or otherwise by Jimbo's will.

This seems pretty clear to me. -- Christopher Thomas 21:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quote Christopher. The matter is now obvious. :-) — Insta ntnood 21:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the ArbCom should simply avoid closing any cases during this time. That will give the new com the chance to overrule anything done during this interim period if it wants to, and will keep decisions made now from seeming illegitimate. Everyking 21:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Since it's pretty clear that the terms of office of the members do not end automatically when the terms nominally expire, IMO the decisions they make are equally legitimate and valid. — Insta ntnood 21:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the ArbCom should simply avoid responding to Everyking's remarks during this time. Has it ever occurred to Everyking that banning trolls and flamers cannot necessarily wait until Everyking provides a vote of confidence in the new ArbCom? Robert McClenon 21:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, they already more or less ignore me. And I don't see the big deal about waiting four weeks to close things. I doubt we will have any huge problems with "trolls and flamers" in the next four weeks (if we do, there's always temporary injunctions, remember), and the current ArbCom has been making at least as many bad rulings as good ones, so I figure if they didn't make any rulings we'd probably come out about even anyway. They could still work on cases and have them fully prepared for the new Arbs to endorse or reject on Feb. 1. Everyking 21:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, they already more or less ignore me. Have you considered the possiblity that there's a reason for that? No? Didn't think so. -- Calton | Talk 01:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

So the new arbitrators would have an additional massive workload over and above the already massive workload that they are going to have anyway. Dumb idea. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

A little extra work to make things more fair isn't a bad exchange. If I'm elected, I'll be happy to do the extra work. Everyking 22:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Heh, you will change your tune fast enough if you ever do get elected and dig into some of these complicated things. Remember what ever you do must satisfy the rest of the arbitration committee, not just be fair according to your lights. Fred Bauder 18:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

In what way is it unfair now? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

You're being given an extra month that you wouldn't ordinarily have. Everyking 22:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Which is unfair how exactly? This isn't kindergarden it's not turns on the swing. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Everyking wants to be an arbitrator, but can't say what is unfair about the present ArbCom, other than that he thinks it is not doing a good job. That is a truly remarkable campaign tactic, to give me no idea what he would do differently except slow down a type of justice that must be done quickly. Robert McClenon 22:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The biggest problem that the current ArbCom has is its backlog, including cases against problematical editors who have the same effect as trolls. Everyking proposes to deal with the problem by creating a longer backlog. Bizarre. Robert McClenon 22:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and that has nothing to do with what I've actually said. Everyking 23:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

And what exactly have you said? Robert McClenon 02:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Final examination in Wikipedia Culture 101: Score all ArbCom rulings since 1 October 2005 on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is clearly bad, 2 is somewhat bad, 3 is neutral, 4 is somewhat good, and 5 is clearly good. Then explain how the bad rulings are the result of bad arbitrators rather than of time pressure. Robert McClenon 02:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Final examination in Wikipedia Culture 102: Annotate all cases currently in evidence or voting by the ArbCom and identify whether any of these cases involve trolls or flamers. If they do, explain how introduce more backlog will be useful. If they do not, comment on whether they were reasonably accepted by the ArbCom as possibly involving trolls and flamers. Alternatively, explain how trolls and flamers are mythical. Robert McClenon 17:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Wrong again: ...the current ArbCom has been making at least as many bad rulings as good ones.... I'm guessing the "bad rulings" are "not letting Everyking do whatever he wants." -- Calton | Talk 01:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Bingo! Robert McClenon 02:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

If this were Usenet, Everyking would have made himself invisible to me by now. Robert McClenon 21:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes it is better to resolve disputes quickly, even if the resolution does not satisfy everyone, than to wait to find the perfect method of dispute resolution. Robert McClenon 21:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

When will the EffK case go into voting?

It is true that I, as one of the originating parties, have continued to post evidence, but that is only because the evidence page is still open and the editor in question is continuing to engage in behavior that other editors consider disruptive. Would it be possible for the ArbCom either to go into voting or at least consider a temporary injunction?

I realize that the ArbCom has a backlog to decide. I am simply requesting to have this case moved from the Evidence backlog into the Voting backlog. Thank you. Robert McClenon 22:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

As defendant I say that I have asked the user Robert McClenon to voluntarily submit himself to the same process of adjudication, in demonstration of his good faith, in line with his professed advice as per the other involved user Str1977. Both of these users are inextricably involved in this case, and I who first tried to posit the arbitration, some seasons ago, include clear request tpo the arbitrators that be that they define this possibility. McClenon advise me to so request, I have done so at three places, and I do so now again. I have not edited a single Article since 15 december, and will not be editing one until Arbitration . Therefore this request for urgency is unnecessary, unless it is simply for me to be censored from responding and proposing at discussions where good faith requires relevant explanation and source. I make no bones of this user's degree od fault in the entire poorly judged case. it is factor, as is the case, of the extremely troubled historical concatenation. Please, again, hear my request for a proper complete case of us three Users. I object to the POV stated here, and would like to direct good will to the attempt I made at Vatican Bank talk, to present a useful 'template' for semi-hagiographic, and sourced solution to article resolution. This has found favourt today from several users, and I dispute the term or categorrisation of disruption. I should not be panalised for having something to state, when others have no more than their wish for a factually hagiographical presentation of the history. If such a request cannot be made, I refer to my earlier letter to Arbcom discussions that a case be brought against the truly obstructive users Str1977 and this Robert McClenon. I explained at my evidence, and I added important evidence there yesterday, as my estimation of wiki transgression demanded. EffK 01:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The Committee may wish to be aware that a user signing himself user:shock_puppet has posted an allegation (on the Userboxes Talk page) that Kelly Matrin is the sock-puppet of someone called Willy on Wheels, whom user:shock_puppet speaks in negative terms. Either one or other (sp or KM) must, I suggest, be guilty of bad faith. If sp, then I suggest that this raises the spectre of the RfAr being used as a means of venting a grudge rather than as an open-handed dispute resolution process -- SockpuppetSamuelson 13:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I blocked this user indefinitely, he has two edits, one was to vandalise a userbox and the other was to make this ludicrous accusation. I think it's safe to say that shock_puppet ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a reincarnation of some blocked/banned user. In the future, I think that WP:AN/I is a better place for this kind of message. Talrias ( t | e | c) 13:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked the IPs from which this editor edited as open proxies. Both show, on CheckUser, the typical evidence of an open proxy being used by WoW/Milkman type vandals. There are a large number of users created from these IPs which I will have to investigate and kill; I'll be getting to that later. The IPs blocked were 204.13.170.30 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 62.214.98.9 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Kelly Martin ( talk) 14:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm new to the RfAr page - what ever happened to the RfAr on Kelly Martin et al? -- Dschor 07:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

rejected Jtkiefer ^{T | C | @} ---- 07:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess that is hardly a surprise. Should be a fun week. -- Dschor 07:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Hugs and kisses to you too, honeybuns. Kelly Martin ( talk) 07:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I can feel the wikilove. Time for a cold shower. -- Dschor 07:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

These two cases already have more than enough supporting votes for closure, so can someone officially close them, hopefully before the ArbCom election starts?

History and diff links are insufficient, the full text of all cases should be in a standard archive so they can be indexed and searched by a search engine such as google (or history is made to appear non dynamic, and hence indexable). zen master T 18:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfounded cases can be quite scurrilous. The don't need to be open to googling or hang around as a reminder to either those who attacked or were attacked. I speak as a victim. Fred Bauder 23:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

That might explain a handful of cases but why the complete lack of archiving for this important page (I don't mean this discussion page, I mean the project page)? zen master T 23:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Cases that are accepted are archived fully, along with the decisions reached and all the other associated procedural folderol. (At Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests.) In general, about the only useful information one could extract from a complete record of the rejected cases would be a list of Wikipedia's vexatious litigants.

There is an informal record of rejected cases at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests. Though not maintained or required by policy, it looks to be a farily complete log. Is there some aspect of Wikipedia's function that is currently hindered by not archiving the requests in some additional manner? TenOfAllTrades( talk) 00:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Not maintained is not archived which is unlike most any other page on wikipedia. If wikipedia info is not searchable through say google it thwarts an investigation into obfuscation or any general analysis. zen master T 01:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I have a very serious question. If some of you really believe that a cabal is suppressing the truth in Wikipedia, why do you continue to demand that Wikipedia be cleaned up, rather than starting a competitor?

'An investigation into obfuscation'? TenOfAllTrades( talk) 01:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

He means that if Arbcom cases aren't archived, conspiracy sleuths won't be able to discover the tyrrany of the cabal. -- causa sui ^talk 01:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

It's just very surprising this page, unlike most every other page on wikipedia, isn't properly archived. zen master T 02:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Obviously some (angry) Wikipedians believe that there is a cabal, and that it is suppressing the record of cases. I do not think that there is a cabal, but there are Wikipedians who have a certain amount of respect. My real question is: Why, if anyone believes that Wikipedia is a corrupt encyclopedia maintained by a cabal, do they continue to flame away at it? Everything in Wikipedia is subject to the public license. Anyone who thinks that they have a better Wikipedia concept can mirror the entire Wiki and start their own encyclopedia. Robert McClenon 02:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

If anyone believes that a cabal is controlling Wikipedia and biasing the truth, they can mirror its content. That might be a more intelligent idea than just flaming. Robert McClenon 02:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the only site currently that has the funding to handle significant traffic, if you'd like to donate elsewhere let me know. The issue is the percent chance people will ever be exposed to alternative content (in many cases the truth). It's interesting whoever came up with the "cabal" name for the people behind the curtain as that is an incomplete description but it does indeed make a charge of "flaming" rather easy. The way to fight the controlling of content is to expose the various techniques used to perpetuate that, not simply move it elsewhere (where it would likely happen all over again). zen master T 04:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I have a great idea - if Zen-master (or anyone else) thinks that this page should have a complete archive, they are fully welcome to compile and maintain such a list. I, for one, have more than enough to do here without wasting my time on such a useless endevour. But, oh wait, it's a lot easier to complain that others (the arbcom) aren't doing it than it is to compile such a list oneself. Raul654 04:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, perhaps I will take it upon myself to see to it that this page is properly archived from now on and/or write a bot to go through history and find what hasn't been properly archived. Though I am wary of those who would damage the readability of the archives. In case you are wondering if I am not giving the benefit of the doubt I have seen such techniques used before on the Talk:Race and intelligence page. zen master T 04:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• Zen, if you wish that a proper archive be made for rejected ArbCom cases, I'd suggest you create it. {{ sofixit}}. R adiant _>|< 11:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok, but my question remains, by what vast oversight or conspiracy is this important page within Wikipedia not properly archived? zen master T 00:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
    • There is a hidden archive that is only accessible to members of the cabal. This is part of their conspiracy to take over the world one website at a time. R adiant _>|< 00:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Basically because people have better things to do with their time, particularly arbitrators. [[Sam Korn]] 00:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, some people have nothing better to do with their time than complain about why Wikipedia is mismanaged. Robert McClenon 00:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Mismanagement is one thing, vast dereliction (at least) is another. I apologize for ruffling feathers but I remain shocked this page is not currently archived. zen master T 00:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The point is this—Wikipedia is a volunteer-driven project. Things happen here because members of the community feel that those things need to be done, and because those same members go ahead and do them. If you want this page to be archived–or if you want to accomplish any task on this wiki–there are two things you can do:

1. You can find someone with the technical ability to carry out the task and the willingness to give up some of his time to do it; or
2. You can do it yourself.

If you would like to go with the second route, assume the title of Grand High Archivist of RFArb and set up formal archives, I doubt that anyone would stand in your way. If you prefer to go with option #1, you're going to have to do the legwork yourself; the other posters on this thread don't seem to see a pressing need for formal archives. Using your time and effort complaining here that nobody else is willing to build archives for you just isn't a productive use of your time or everyone else's bandwidth and server space. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 02:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades states that there are two choices for an editor who observes that something is not being done and would be useful: find someone else with the ability and time to do it; or do it yourself. There are actually three options. The two previous ones are the ones that are most likely to be useful. However, an easier option is to complain at great length about the "vast dereliction", whether by volunteers or by the Cabal, and how it interferes with "investigation into obfuscation" and so on. That is easy, and can be self-satisfying, at least for complainers. Robert McClenon 18:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not talking about the 2 or 3 option dichotomy of user "choices", I am investigating the vast possibilities and plausibility of reasons and explanations for why one of the most important pages on Wikipedia is not already being sufficiently archived, if for nothing else to ensure that it doesn't happen again in the future on other important pages. For one of the most important pages on Wikipedia to not already be archived then whatever mistake was made would have to have been vast, in my interpretation it's that surprising that this page is not being archived already. Your "so fix it" response seems exponentially disproportional to the importance of this page being archived properly. Aren't you the least bit concerned that one of the most important pages within Wikipedia isn't being archived? I only noticed the lack of archiving after I believe it was user Carbonite who outright deleted a subsection relevant to my old arbitration case, so the issue is actually much more serious than even a (vast) lack of archiving for one of the most important pages on Wikipedia. I understand all Wikipedia content that isn't subsequently deleted by an admin is (theoretically) available in history but the issue is percent chance of someone ever reading and understanding context, relevance, and comprehending the core issues of a subject or in this case an arbitration case. Properly archived pages are indexed by search engines such as google (which makes things very easy to find), history is not. zen master T 19:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I've never deleted anything related to your case from the ArbCom pages. Stop making wild accusations. If you took 30 seconds to look through the history you might have found this. Carbonite | Talk 19:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for errantly guessing it was you. But the question then is even more pertinent, a member of the arbitration committee was selectively deleting relevant subsections from the RfA project page. I just realized that if a page isn't being properly archived that means editors are already selectively deleting subsections, how did that (bad) habit start on one of the most important pages within Wikipedia? Perhaps the solution going forward is to encourage all editors of this page to archive information rather than delete it to history? zen master T 20:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand Wikipedia appears to be a "volunteer project" and I should "just fix it", but my question was very specific: how did the previous volunteers arrange it, through inadvertent oversight or worse, such that one of the most important pages on Wikipedia wasn't already being properly archived? Is it ok with you if fellow volunteers try to ensure that similar mistakes don't happen a second time or elsewhere? zen master T 16:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

So What Do You Want to Do About It?

Zen-Master says that he would rather not focus on the two or three options as to what to do now, but is "investigating the vast possibilities and plausibility of reasons and explanations for why one of the most important pages on Wikipedia is not already being sufficiently archived, if for nothing else to ensure that it doesn't happen again in the future on other important pages". As Zen-Master comments, there are a vast number of possible reasons. Is he conducting an independent investigation that will produce a report, or is he asking for someone else to conduct an investigation that will produce a report? If it is the former, then I would ask whether he has any specific questions for other editors to respond to. The latter is just another form of complaining.

Article talk pages are for discussion of articles, and so should be product-focused. Wikipedia talk pages are for discussion of Wikipedia, and so can be process-focused as well as product-focused. My question is whether Zen-Master is suggesting any improvements in Wikipedia processes, or whether he just wants to complain about flawed processes and "vast dereliction" by volunteers. To answer the question that he asked me on the talk page of Woohookitty, I would submit that endless complaining without constructive suggestions is disruptive. Robert McClenon 20:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Going forward we should encourage all editors to archive subsections of the Request for Arbitration project page rather than delete them, even a member of the Arbitration committee, Fred Bauder, seems to have gotten into a bad habit of deleting to history rather than archiving here. zen master T 20:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

A practice I will continue Fred Bauder 18:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Why do you do that though? Outright blanking of a section rather than archiving is not standard practice on almost every other Wikipedia page, even more odd considering just how important the RfA page is. zen master T 21:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

This isn't unusual for Wikipedia namespace. Village Pump isn't archived either. Though I don't understand why. At any rate, it's not the *shudder* cabal. Derex 15:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

How do you know it isn't the "cabal"? zen master T 21:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Alright, you got me. Maybe it is. Who's in the cabal anyway? Derex 21:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know either which is why I came up with a very specific question: what made you state, conclusively, that there isn't a "cabal"? And I'd be interested in learning who was the one that first coined the word "cabal" to describe whatever it is anyway? Fred Bauder's blanking of sections from the request for arbitration page is an, at least, censorship-esque, if not cabal-esque thing to do, especially considering that is not a standard wikipedia practice. It doesn't make sense and seems exponentially disproportional that all dinky (almost non-notable) articles have their discussion pages archived better than one of the most important governance pages within Wikipedia. zen master T 22:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The reason that he stated that it was not the "cabal" is it is a standard statement in all electronic forms that There Is No Cabal (TINC). As to who originated the phrase "cabal", see Backbone cabal and There Is No Cabal. Robert McClenon 23:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, if there really is a cabal, then why do you expect that denouncing it will do any good? Robert McClenon 23:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I kind of like Zen's question. If there isn't a secret cabal, how do you know that? And if there is, how do I know you're not in it? ... runs out to buy some tinfoil. Derex 23:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

"There is a cabal" and "There is no cabal" are useless cliches. Instead, we should examine and investigate specific actions and the plausibleness and disproportion or degree of inconsistency in things like the blanking of sub sections in one of the most important pages within Wikipedia by a current member of the arbitration committee. zen master T 23:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The juxtaposition of "there is a cabal" and "there is no cabal" is not a cliche, but a koan. For failure to recognize a koan, your Zen-master's license has been revoked by the Buddha whom you met on the road. Get a different login. Robert McClenon 01:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

presumably, he's dead. Derex 01:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Responding to Robert, the phrases collectively represent a useless (misdirecting) dichotomy not a juxtaposition. Instead of repeating labels such as "cabal" we should analyze specific actions such as a member of the arbitration committee blanking sub sections of one of the most important pages inside Wikipedia. zen master T 02:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Briefly, it's nothing so sinister as a cabal. The phrase there is no cabal came out of Usenet quite a while ago, and has since been adopted and adapted to apply to any situation where accusations of conspiracy arise. It even has its own acronym–TINC–widely recognized by experienced netizens. On Wikipedia, trolls have discovered a simple yet brilliant algorithm for raising the maximum amount of nuisance for a minimum of effort. (I can't take credit for this; it comes from a post to WP:AN/I, I think.)

1. Was the action committed by one admin?
   • Yes: Cry foul—it was obviously a rogue admin acting unilaterally.
   • No, there were warnings/acts from two or more admins: Cry foul—it was the work of a cabal, clique, or gang of rogue admins acting in concert.
2. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Here at WP:RFArb, I can see a handful of reasons why not all of the content is indefinitely retained.

1. It's a large, busy page, so it is useful to clear off things that don't need to be here as quickly as possible.
2. Active cases that result in ArbCom action get their own subpages; these tend to be the most contentious aspect of ArbCom action anyway.
3. Most of the rejected cases are rejected on the bases of being solved through other means (community imposes a block, parties resolve dispute through discussion, Jimbo steps in, case is over something too minor for the ArbCom to deal with). Aside from allowing us to compile a formal list of vexatious litigants, tracking these cases probably isn't helpful—and we have a pretty good idea who the vexatious litigants are anyway.
4. Everything is still in the page history; anything that is absolutely essential can be retrieved.
5. There is a general reluctance to impose additional chores on an already overloaded ArbCom.
6. Per the comments above, nobody has been sufficiently concerned by the lack of formal archives to do anything about it.

Once again, you're more than welcome to fix the perceived problem yourself; asking other busy people to do it for you just isn't going to work. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 22:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

"The plausibleness and disproportion or degree of inconsistency in things" is a useless cliche. Robert McClenon 01:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I realize do to the holiday's last month the arbitration committee didn't have a lot of time to vote in and close cases. It is now Janurary and I'm wondering what's happening. The case that I have been involved in has come to a dead standstill with four votes. As for being patient, it's been two months since the case was open. Maybe it's time to close some of these cases so the backlog doesn't get worse. Davidpdx 03:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Not sure which case, but the election slows things down. Fred Bauder 00:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm also wondering: when the elections conclude and the new Arbitrators take office, what will happen? I presume that votes from (if we have any) non-returning Arbitrators will still be valid, and new members are allowed to participate? Just curious. Thanks! Flcelloguy ( A note?) 23:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

We generally allow new arbitrators to recuse from old cases.That would mean existing arbitrators would finish them up. However there may not be very many continuing arbitrators. If there are not enough we might decide that the new arbitrators ought to weigh in. Fred Bauder 00:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Fred, I understand that is the case. My question is however, the people that are arbitrators still have that office. Why then are so very few of them active. I also realize the fact that some may have gotten burnt out.

Certainly if you agreed in principal to do this job, you should finish it. At this point there is going to be a back log of cases so long, the new arbitration committee will be spending the entire year trying to get through it.

It simply doesn't make sense. Davidpdx 13:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it makes a lot of sense. If you are damned if you do and damned if you don't, you find doing nothing quite agreeable. A successful arbitrator has to be able to make a mistake (or do something unpopular) and still move on to the next item on the agenda and start fresh. Fred Bauder 15:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of speed, it seems that opening cases have also proceeded rather slowly. Six out of Seven "Active" arbitrators have made edits at in the last two days. Yet, there are no more than 3 votes on the opening of any case. Another case has been lying there for over 15 days, and there are only two votes on it. How is this possible?

Which is why when I see a "recusal" vote, it simply kills me because a) Fred Bauder is the most active arbitrator and b)its probably going to take twice as long to be accepted or rejected. CJK 15:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

CJK, I can see what your saying about new cases, however it seems to me that the cases that have been accepted should be first priority. If need be, put a hold on accepting new cases until some of the current ones can be closed. It seems completely stupid to accept a bunch of cases when cases have been sitting open in voting for almost a month with nothing being done. Davidpdx 13:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

True. It seems that the whole process is inefficient, with not enough arbitrators and not enough time they are willing to contribute. CJK 20:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

What is this, WikiCourt? Captain Jackson 16:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, want to play? Fred Bauder 16:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe the canonical response is "would you prefer a nice game of chess?" - David Gerard 16:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

A couple weeks back, I spent some time lightly refactoring a few RFARs. In general, I reformatted some things to make it easier to read (like adding bullet points), hunted down diffs when the parties didn't do it themselves, and deleted pointless threaded arguments between the parties (but left discussion where someone was asking for clarification). No one complained, but I haven't done it much since. Before I do anything else, I'm interested in what current (and maybe future) arbitrators think about this:

1. Should someone not on the arbitration committee be doing refactoring of any kind? If so, to what extent?
2. Should a "clerk" exist in some kind of official capacity?
3. Should clerks, official or otherwise, edit RFARs for:
   • Supplementary information
   • Readability
   • Clarity (removing confusing information)
   • Brevity (removing irrelevant information, removing "outside views" by uninvolved third parties)
   • Civility (removing threaded arguments between involved parties, personal attacks)

Orinigally, I started doing it just because I like to read RFARs so I can know what is going on with the Wiki, but some of the writing was making my eyes bleed; and I thought it could do the Arbs a favor considering how busy they already are. I recognize some people may have significant reservations about a "random Joe" like myself editing a page this sensitive though, so I'd like to get some input. -- causa sui ^talk 03:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

You are playing with fire. Even an arbitrator will get into trouble doing what you are doing. We are considering using newly retired arbitrators for clerks as well as certain other users. I'll pass your interest on to the mailing list and discuss it on our irc channel. Are you currently a member's advocate? That is part of what they ought to be doing for their clients. Fred Bauder 13:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not a member's advocate. Evidentally, they either aren't doing it, or not everyone has an advocate. -- causa sui ^talk 19:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

No, not everyone has an advocate. There are some big problems with the AMA - some of it is the style of argument preferred by many advocates, which is overly legalistic in a way that simply does not work well. Part of it is that users do not magically become coherent when talking to their advocates - the completely batshit crazy tend to remain so in all cases. Phil Sandifer 22:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

What that means is that incoherent editors will be unable to find an advocate who will work with them. Robert McClenon 16:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Terrible RfArs

causa sui makes an observation with which I agree: "some of the writing was making my eyes bleed". That is, most of the RfArs filed in the past two months have been horrendously written. I would like to commend Schmucky the Cat for actually filing an RfAr that shows reasoning rather than anger. My own suggestion would be that no one should refactor RfArs except for a party or the party's advocate, and that I agree with Fred Bauder that that is what advocates should be doing. I would suggest that the arbitrators should frequently postpone voting on whether to accept an RfAr until it is refactored by its parties. I would strongly urge NOT removing personal attacks. The personal attacks in an RfAr are evidence of a pattern of personal attacks. Robert McClenon 15:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC) Also, threaded arguments between parties in an RfAr or RfC are "coloring outside the lines". Dispute resolution is used when other, less structured forms of discourse have failed. "Coloring outside the lines" should be viewed as bad faith pleading. Robert McClenon 15:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC) Those opinions are worth what you paid for them. Robert McClenon 15:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

How about requiring that parties to an arbitration must be represented as a competent advocate? Fred Bauder 19:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess that could work if you could find enough competent people who are willing to be advocates. Also, a lot of the people who end up in RFArs are disagreeable people who might not like the idea of other people representing them. -- causa sui ^talk 19:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I partly agree and partly disagree with Fred Bauder's suggestion. Parties to arbitration should be permitted to appear pro se, but should be expected to be competent. I understand that one of the more difficult aspects of litigation in which a party is pro se is how much latitude the judge should allow for lack of knowledge by the litigant. Ryan is right that many of the parties are disagreeable people. A few of them at least can write well-structured English, but some are just too angry to organize what they write. I assume that is what is meant by stream-of-consciousness posts, which are said to be unwelcome. Robert McClenon 20:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Stream of consciousness has no relationship to rationally presented argument and is seemingly wikipedia/college speak for length . It is misused and it is purely offensive- a personal attack in fact. Fred seems to be suggesting that trials have lawyers here, and he should know. As to the word disagreeable, that is a POV and rather dangerous to use. What is equally dangerous is that very serious cases could rest on incomplete defendent understanding of the editorial means for posting in these inner pages. I for one was begging for arbitration for ages, and unable to achieve it. I am relieved that it has now been posted. I rather have to say that in a case such as mine, that I would not expect anyone but the most daring and anonymous to concern themself at all, as the stakes are billions and the cohorts are rampant. And yet an anonymous advocate knda goes against one's faith and adds to one's doubts. In fact in my case I must say to Jimbo and everyone that all but the anonymous and completely so should recuse themselves from my case immediately. That Jimbo has a duty of care. Someone else pleasesend him the message, as I don't want to poke the stick in there at all. Duty of care. Incidentally I formulate and post a new brevity of my experience in Wikipedia. I say IT is in clear and present intellectual danger, from the users I specify. I say this in purest good faith, as I see daily excisions of material and a great wash of bad faith. My trial connects with this to its core. Some of the users on this page close to here know exactly. I would also repeat here this question -If someone else who is an evidential party to a trial includes diffs from another or second third party as that party's evidence, either party's, evidence, does that second third party become subject to equal scrutiny by the trial? EffK 13:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Can some third party please explain what EffK just posted? Robert McClenon 20:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I couldn't possibly have made a better case for my own proposal. If we don't have the power to remove this kind of random ranting from unrelated discussion, how can we have any kind of ordered, reasonable discourse on anything? -- causa sui ^talk 20:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

You're not under any obligation to reply to the incoherent nonsense that gets posted here, and neither are we, beyond our rejection votes ;) Raul654 20:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, having smaller, more concise evidence pages would make for faster arbitration. I have been advocating the arbcom forming some sort of clerk's office to do that for us. Raul654 20:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

That post that some of us do not understand, to be sure, was not a Request for Arbitration, but was posted by a party to a case that has already been accepted. Robert McClenon 12:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to be pushy, but what's the hangup? :) This kind of thing, in my experience, gets stuck in the bureaucratic machine and never gets implemented, whether there is a good reason for not doing it or not. -- causa sui ^talk 15:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Ask and ye shall recieve. I've done the write up here - Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerk's office and let the rest of the committee know. It's been getting generally positive comments, so it should be off the ground soon enough. Raul654 18:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Why hasn't anything been done in this case? Why does it continue to remain in the "evidence" phase? It is by far the oldest case still on the docket, and yet it remains in the "evidence" phase, even though plenty of evidence has been given. EffK is continuing to cause active harm to wikipedia, and the arbcom has yet to do anything, in spite of accepting the case nearly two months ago. john k 19:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that I am recording the active harm. I still cannot understand why this user attacks good faith use and notice of source? Why join with those whom he kows to be in contumate hypocrisy? Specify the active harm, or I take this as further confirmation of your abandonment of Wikipedia principles even beyond the abandonment of verifiability. EffK 12:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for Preliminary Injunction

The evidence entered by Musical Linguist documents the active harm that is continuing in the past few days. Could the arbitrators please consider the request for a preliminary injunction (in the workshop)? Robert McClenon 13:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for History Check on Case

Something is peculiar about the History of the Evidence in this case. Could one of the arbitrators please request a developer check? The diffs appear to show that Fred Bauder posted a link to the evidence in the section of evidence presented by EffK. On the one hand, I don't think that an arbitrator should be posting evidence in a case that he will judge. On the other hand, I don't think that an arbitrator is posting evidence in this case. If Fred Bauder is posting evidence, then he is becoming an advocate, and should recuse. However, I think it is more likely that EffK posted the diff, and that the Wiki log is wrong. (The edit summary appears to have been written by EffK, not by Fred Bauder.) Robert McClenon 20:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Question apparently answered, in that EffK requested ArbCom assistance in fixing the diff. Robert McClenon 20:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I request ArbCom assistance in judging the case. Robert McClenon 20:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

He couldn't get his browser to work on such a long page, so he asked me to post it. He was able to put it on the talk page. I am recused in that case anyway. Fred Bauder 01:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

We may post evidence in any case we chose to anyway. Looking for evidence you find evidence of all sorts. Fred Bauder 01:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Fred- it's all working today. Good thing too as I was able to rescue a spare diff. I don't pretend to understand why things work or don't work ! I got in via your edit there Fred and it loaded like a snap from that diff. As to the requesting-surely we are all now requesting Arbcom assistance in judging the case. What assistance is Robert McClenon looking for ? I am very glad to see that he is now equally subject to arbitration scrutiny. can any one tell me-is advocacy sensible or necessary at this juncture. Anybody else wanna be a martyr. Or if we win ,join the banning squad ? EffK 12:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Request Explained

The assistance that I am requesting from the ArbCom is that they take the case from evidence into voting so that they can judge the case. As Mindspillage has said, there is already enough evidence. As long as the evidence record stays open, it will just get more of the same. Robert McClenon 16:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Fred Bauder wrote: We may post evidence in any case we chose to anyway. Looking for evidence you find evidence of all sorts. I assume that he means that the arbitrators may conduct their own investigation, like a court under civil law, or a grand jury, or certain administrative tribunals. That is reasonable. However, in that case, I assume that the arbitrators would mark the evidence as being entered by the arbitrators. Robert McClenon 20:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I would assume, given the premise that the evidence is shared - remember that things like checkuser requests are generally not. Phil Sandifer 22:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I propose the following policy change:

An RfAr by a Wikipedia user, will be automatically deleted in 1 week unless it is seconded by two other Wikipedia users that are qualified to second. The qualification for seconding an RfAr is that the Wikipedia user must have done at least <x> edits at least <y> weeks before the RfAr nomination was made.

Questions, comments, and suggestions are appreciated.

Regards, Carl Hewitt 09:08 22 January 2006

• I'd agree. I would think various other qualifications should also be made, as there is clearly need . EffK 13:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• I'm assuming RfAr is meant here, and I think this is not needful, RfArs already can fail quickly for lack of support without this extra step being required. ++ Lar: t/ c 14:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee is discussing doing something along this line. We are getting some requests that are just not expressed well enough to permit determination of what the dispute is without extensive independent research. One proposal is to require someone bringing a case to "hire" a members advocate. And require the members advocate to present the case in an adequate way. If a user presents a request that just doesn't make sense it does seem rather doubtful that they are doing very good work editing anyway. Fred Bauder 16:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you need the formalism? Couldn't one of you just post in the accept/decline/recuse/unsure section (Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0)) something like 'we're not sure what this is trying to say' and if no one pops in to explain it/clarify it/act as an advocate, then just vote decline with reason (unable to comprehend issue) or whatever... Just a suggestion. ++ Lar: t/ c 21:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

If an arbitrator can't tell what the person is even saying, they should reject the case. What you are proposing doesn't seem to be any different. -- causa sui ^talk 21:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course, the temptation is to dig in and find out what the dispute is about. But this takes a lot of time and effort. Fred Bauder 21:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)