Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:35, 24 January 2011

This Arbitration Committee has been mentioned by a media organization: Ramey, Corinne (May 7, 2018). "The 15 People Who Keep Misplaced Pages's Editors From Killing Each Other". Wall Street Journal.

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

WT:AC Archives

Late 2003 – May 2005 May 2005 – April 2006 April 2006 – April 2008 April–October 2008 October 2008 – April 2009 April 2009 – March 2010 March 2010 – February 2011 February 2011 – July 2011 July 2011 July 2011 – October 2011 October 2011 – late May 2012 late May 2012 – September 2012 September 2012 – February 2013 March 2013 – July 2013 July 2013 – November 2013 November 2013 – October 2014 October 2014 – November 2015 November 2015 – December 2016 January 2017 – January 2019 January 2019 – May 23, 2019 May 21, 2019 – January 2020 February 2020 – March 2021 March 2021 – June 2022 June 2022 – July 2023 August 2023 – present

This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Ban Appeals Subcommittee

"Arbitrators typically spend three months on the subcommittee, with a staggered rotation; one member is replaced each month." Oh, for... will you stop saying that! It's getting on my nerves! Now you know that the same three arbs (SirFozzie+Mailer Diablo+Shell Kinney) typically spend the entire early pleistocene era on the BAS. Don't you? And wouldn't banned users have a more reasonable snowball's chance in hell of getting a fresh hearing occasionally if there was some new blood on the subcommittee now and then? Yes I think they would! Bishonen | talk 21:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC).

Yeah, we know. This is being discussed. What may happen is that a raft of "issues" related to arbitration will be pushed out in a boat at the beginning of the new year, and discussion will be invited. But it would be good to balance things and not have too much disucssion that peters out and goes nowhere. i.e. It would be a good idea to have a list of major issues discussed on-wiki over the next few weeks, so the new ArbCom have some idea of what the editorial community want them to focus on. There are some hints from the election pages, but a more structured discussion might help. Certainly the future and composition of AUSC and BASC would be one topic. Carcharoth (talk) 08:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I fully expect to step down in favor of the new arbs on AUSC/BASC when they get up to speed (and to be honest, I quite welcome it). I've done both for 10-11 months in a row, so I agree with Bish that new blood is needed, we're just trying not to scare off the new guys ;). SirFozzie (talk) 21:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Email

Hey. I have sent an email on December 9th, but have not yet received a reply. Should I resend, or wait a bit longer? Kind regards. Rehman 02:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Received a response. Thanks. Rehman 07:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Unblock User Wikidrips

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Wikidrips —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.55.165.144 (talk) 20:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Renaming users under sanctions

Can I please apologise for any inconvenience I may have caused by recently renaming someone while sanctions remain active against them.

I am struck by the fact that to-date I've made 300+ renames, and it has never occurred to me that this may be a problem. I have looked at the policies this morning, and can't find a mention of it, but I am rather sleep-deprived - is it enshrined somewhere in policy, and if not, do you think it ought to be?

If you do decide (or have already put into policy) that it is a problem worth addressing, can I tentatively suggest it is applied by Arbcom, rather than Crats and our clerks. The renaming process is already very bureaucratic. I know, it goes with the territory, as the name "bureaucrat" suggests, but I am particularly wary of adding more screeds to the already offputting list of instructions at the name change pages, especially as this is something that applies to a tiny minority of editors.

I think the responsibility should be placed on the user under sanction, and it should be an automatic addition to every sanction, or to every sanction where you deem it necessary.

Looking forward to your views. I'll crosspost a reference to this thread at WP:BN, as my opinion is representative only of myself, not the other Crats.

Cheers, --Dweller (talk) 11:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 4#Changes of account name by restricted users. T. Canens (talk) 11:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. And glad the onus is on the user under sanctions. How is a user under sanction made aware of this provision? --Dweller (talk) 11:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

True, it would be a bit time-consuming to look up the existence of any sanctions every time we went to make a rename. But I agree that there needs to be some sort of notification of this, either when requesting a rename or when receiving such sanctions. And I think the notice makes more sense to be given at the time that the sanctions are placed. Useight (talk) 20:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Do note that the arbitration ruling only applies when changing a username "with a suppressed redirect from the old name". –xeno 01:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd imagine that it also applies to {{db-u1}}'ing the resulting redirect, right? T. Canens (talk) 06:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, in that the result is the same. –xeno 01:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Understood. However, I think it's still problematic that this provision seems to apply to all users under sanction, with the direst consequences hanging over their heads, but they are unaware of it. --Dweller (talk) 07:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Why not make it part of the advice to bureaucrats to look up the user's old name in WP:RESTRICT? In answer to Dweller's question (above) as to whether it's enshrined in policy, this is covered in the current guideline, WP:Changing username guidelines, which says ''If a user is currently restricted by arbitration committee rulings, renaming might cause confusion..." This guideline could be updated to propose usage of WP:RESTRICT in rename decisions. EdJohnston (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It could also be added to the instructions for users requesting a name change. That'd put the primary burden on users to check to make sure they are not under any sanction.   Will Beback  talk  22:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

These are both good ideas. I was thinking it may not be entirely fair for the rule to be limited to arbitration restrictions only; making it a requirement to check the RESTRICT listing, as EdJohnston proposes, would probably address that issue. Also, as this is not the first time this issue has popped up, the crats may benefit from the guidance if we spell it out. It could also be added to the instructions as Will suggests (to clarify the part of the burden that is on the editor). Although crats might (currently) argue that they acted in good faith on what the editor said, it is (no longer) entirely necessary to rely on editor's statements alone. That is, both the editor and the crat can check the listing to be on the safe side before a request is filed (in the case of the editor) or the action is taken (in the case of the crat). And given that crats are meant to be experienced users, I'd think they would be able to go through WP:RESTRICT with much more ease than some of the editors who might request a name change; in fact, they probably have a better understanding than several of those editors. Accordingly, the main burden does not rest with the editor alone. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

We perform hundreds of renames and very few individuals are covered by this restriction. Making the process even more bureaucratic than it already is, is therefore not a sensible way forward. This is a matter for Arbcom and the user concerned. It is a simple matter to automatically add the restriction on every list of sanctions, with the dire warning you already have. But what is not fair is for the users to have the dire warning, without knowing about it. --Dweller (talk) 08:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Dweller, it is not realistic to expect bureaucrats to have to check at RESTRICT when performing every rename (though perhaps the bots could be programmed to check and make a clerk note). –xeno 14:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't follow your reasoning Dweller nor do I see how it is "not realistic" Xeno; it takes a minute to go to the WP:RESTRICT page and to do a search on the page for the user's username. Obviously, if the crats have some automated script or bot which can essentially do the same thing, as Xeno suggests, then great. But I don't think any editor is going to be impressed if bureaucrats, who voluntarily accept (and are elected to take) extra responsibility, are going to shirk that altogether because an extra minute is added to each rename. Efficiency is important, but it is not the only priority, and while there may be few individuals covered by such sanctions, there are certainly more than enough for the Community's liking. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The committee generally does not restrict sanctioned users from requesting renames in the first place (as long as they are done transparently, with redirects from the old name to the new name). So it's going to be an extra minute per rename - out of several hundred per month - for a once-in-a-blue moon situation (that does not even apply to the present case!). If the committee has taken the rare step of restricting a user from changing their username at all, the onus lies with the restricted user not to violate that restriction by seeking a rename. –xeno 15:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

In other words, it is only an issue for the once-in-a-blue moon situation you've described which involves a small subset of the already-few individuals who are subject to restrictions. How many of the users who have been restricted by ArbCom fall into that category? (Simply saying "very few" is really getting tedious now). I would find it intriguing if crats are going to say it is unrealistic to watch out for (example) 3 users at the moment and that it is going to add a full minute to each rename and that they bear no responsibility whatsoever if they perform an action that inadvertantly or otherwise violates the relevant ruling. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

If I were to hazard a guess (along with taking a quick look at WP:RESTRICT), I'd say it's fairly close to zero. Some users have been instructed to inform the committee of any name change (cf. Mantanmoreland), but I don't see that any are restricted from changing their name. –xeno 16:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Well it's either zero or it's not - more certainty would be appreciated. But assuming that it is zero, with the exception of one part, I am in agreement with Dweller's proposal: "it should be an automatic addition to every sanction, or to every sanction where you deem it necessary". The part that I am in disagreement with is what I believe Dweller means in this part: "the responsibility should be placed on the user under sanction" and they alone should be responsible rather than the crats. The editor is certainly responsible for making a request where they are not supposed to; should they do so, the restriction would be enforced. However, the editor is not responsible for a bureaucrat who, in good faith or otherwise, takes an action that they should not have taken because they failed to take reasonable care. It goes towards evidence of sound judgement in a crat. I think I and EdJohnston had similar proposals about what is reasonable and that basically meant that crats check WP:RESTRICT each time; you say that is unrealistic. Fine, then you (ArbCom) need to specifically tell the crats each time and the crats need to organise their own log for those situations (if they do not want to go through RESTRICT). Similarly, if that ever arose in Community sanctions, then the Community will need to have informed crats. With any luck, this is all moot and such situations will not arise in the future. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

If the committee (or the community) ever restricts a user from seeking a rename, then I agree that they should advise the bureaucrat team (who can then keep an eye out for any restriction-violating requests from that user). So far the only case I found is here. –xeno 17:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm slow with this, but that implies that Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_4#Changes_of_account_name_by_restricted_users no longer stands. Is that the case? --Dweller (talk) 13:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It only applies if the user is asking for the rename to be performed with "suppressed redirect from the old name" (i.e. wanting to be renamed without having redirects from the old name to the new name). –xeno 13:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The most workable solution, IMO, is to make clear on the CHU page that the user must disclose any sanctions they are currently under when they seek a rename. If they fail to disclose an applicable sanction, then it's their problem. If they disclosed one and the crat mistakenly renamed (without redirect) anyway, it's the crat's problem. Also, it might be a good idea to add the link to the arbcom announcement to the boilerplate used by arbcom clerks when closing a case. It is old and hard to find. T. Canens (talk) 13:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that renaming without redirect is only done by special request; such requests will usually prompt the bureaucrat to take a closer look at the rename than normal. –xeno 13:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

True. But that still leaves my underlying problem: do users being placed under restriction know that if they find a crat who isn't careful, they risk such dire consequences? It doesn't seem equitable. --Dweller (talk) 14:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, you came here not wanting to write more into the CHU instruction page but maybe that is the simplest solution -

Please note that if you are currently under sanctions imposed by the Arbitration Community or the community, renames must be done in a transparent fashion (e.g. with redirects from your old name to your new name). It is also strongly advised that you notify the Arbitration Committee of your username change and conspicuously note your previous username on your user and user talk page for a reasonable length of time.

Something like that^. –xeno 14:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a poor solution, sorry. We already know two things about the CHU instructions: 1) they're too long already 2) a large percentage of name change requesters don't bother reading them. We can add to that 3) this provision doesn't apply to the vast majority of them. I'm not sure why there's such reluctance to add a template to the arbcom sanctions, so that only those affected are notified and it's written on a page that we can pretty much guarantee will be carefully read by those it applies to. --Dweller (talk) 14:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

We could do that, but it wouldn't solve the problem of all the users already under sanctions. Fact is, this is a rare issue - so rare that to my knowledge it has never presented itself (the case you brought here was not an issue because redirects were created) - and I think we've already spent much longer on it than was necessary. If a sanctioned user does something dodgy like requesting a rename asking for suppressed redirect and not mentioning their sanctions, they are trying to avoid scrutiny and that is going to reflect poorly on them, and them alone. If the committee intends to prohibit renames for a particular user, they will say so in the ruling. Tacking something on to every sanction for some hypothetical future rename to warn the user against something they might not have even thought of seems overkill. Jmho (speaking for myself, not the committee).

Perhaps something could be written at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide#Case enforcement and after the case on this; which would be more visible than something stuck in the ACN archives.

Also note that our CHU guide already mentions arbitration rulings: Misplaced Pages:Changing usernames guidelines#When changing usernames is probably inappropriate. –xeno 15:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom reform

I've written an essay called WP:ArbCom reform. Comments welcome. PhilKnight (talk) 13:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

If you will excuse the impertinence, has this been through peer review with your more jaded and embittered long-serving colleagues? Interested in learning insider's view of the viability of mooted reforms before commenting... Skomorokh 13:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Good question. The answer is: no, quite the opposite. There's a discussion on the arbcom mailing list about how the subcommittees could be more effective. The range of views includes there should be an on-wiki discussion about recruitment / selection mechanism through to the view the subcommittees should be independent. It looks like the 'official' discussion will be leaning more towards the former, hence my essay. PhilKnight (talk) 14:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Delegating authority to subcommittees is a good idea, but I recommend that they not be set up as independent bodies. That would raise the question of who decides in the case of disagreements between the several bodies, and who appointins or elects the new bodies. With subcommittees, your can draw on a pool of already-elected persons and any disagreements are easily settled by means of a vote of the full Arbitration Committee.  Sandstein  14:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

No point wasting any time commenting or reading it, nothing will change.  Giacomo  14:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I would strongly support splitting off the ban appeals subcommittee and making it independent of the ArbCom. Separation of powers is important. One of the functions of the BASC is to re-evaluate ArbCom's banning decisions. In the real world, an appeal will be handled not by the same court which made the original decision, but by another one. The original decision makers may be unable to spot their mistakes, or may be unwilling to admit them. The advantages of making BASC separate from ArbCom should therefore be obvious. But there are also disadvantages, such as: 1) to make a decision regarding the appeal, the BASC members need access to the original evidence - which may have been declared secret by ArbCom. There would need to be some mechanism to share info between ArbCom and BASC. 2) BASC members would have to be elected - this would create yet another election, and the community might get tired of having too many of them. One solution could be to combine ArbCom and BASC elections; the next 5 persons who did not cross the election threshold would be appointed to BASC instead, if they have said during the elections that they are willing to take this position as well. Nanobear (talk) 15:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this is factually incorrect. BASC's main function is for appeal of community noticeboard decisions and long blocks imposed by individual administrators. I can't remember the last time we had one from someone sanctioned directly by ArbCom in a case. If it arose however, it's not that difficult to find arbitrators who were inactive or recused on the original case, or weren't seated when it was heard. In arbitration cases incidentally, the issue is rarely whether the evidence is secret but the sheer volume of it: mass appeals in large and messy cases would be a logistical nightmare to deal with.  Roger 15:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

As Roger says, appeals of ArbCom bans to BASC is very infrequent; we haven't had one in months. The purpose of the subcommittee is to give users an independent panel from the community to appeal. Otherwise, ANI bans would simply re-run themselves every few months. I would support two minor changes for dealing with infrequent ArbCom ban appeals: (1) allowing ArbCom bans not based on non-public information to be appealed to the community, which is already theoretically possible according to current BASC procedure, although I don't think it's ever been used; (2) requiring recusal for arbitrators involved in a previous ArbCom ban (possibly even appointing a temporary committee if none are available).

That said, I think it's also worth reflecting how post-conviction petitions are considered in most American courts. They not only go to the same judiciary, but in many cases they go to the same judge for the sake of judicial economy. Cool Hand Luke 16:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest (and recently did) a split along the lines: matters requiring access to confidential information vs. matters requiring only examination of on-wiki actions. We have to be very careful about who we allow to access this information (personally I would prefer not to give someone access to my private details just because their on-wiki personality was trusted by 40% more voters in the latest poll than distrusted it) - I would say that being known and trusted personally by members of the board ought to weigh more than election-winning ability in that case. But for the second category - looking at on-wiki disputes and judging who or what is right and wrong - it's clearly more important to get a cross-section of experienced editors that tend to represent the community as a whole. --Kotniski (talk) 16:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

A split may encourage candidates

I support a split of ArbCom functions into policymaking, dispute resolution, and appeals as PhilKnight suggests in his essay. I have been asked in the past to run for ArbCom. I have considered it each year, but always recoiled due to the incompatibility between the workload and the time I have available to donate. If the workload was split out between 3 different groups, I would be happy to offer my services to one of them. There may be other qualified candidates who feel the same way, but don't nominate themselves due to the workload. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure where this idea that policymaking is part of ArbCom's remit came from. ArbCom members could, of course (and perhaps do) make a great contribution to the policymaking process, based on their experiences of what went wrong in past crises and a vision of what processes we should have to prevent such situations developing in the future, but that would surely be informally as individuals, not as a body?--Kotniski (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I interpreted "policy making" as making judgments that must be carried out (such as topic bans, blocking the Church of Scientology IP addresses, 1RR restrictions on articles, etc.), not creating Misplaced Pages policies. I wrote my comment above with that understanding.

In fact, I don't even really see a legitimate split between dispute resolution and appeals - surely ArbCom is intended as a "court" of appeal in any case, so it should be handling only appeals - earlier stages in the DR process ought to be being handled by admins and mediators.--Kotniski (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Such a split is analogous to a court system. When you appeal a judgment, you don't go back to the same court, and you don't face the same judge and jury. The appeal goes to a different court. I think such a split in ArbCom would be useful in that it eliminates the perception of pre-loaded bias if the panel reviewing the appeal is different from the panel who made the original ruling. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm slightly puzzled by the policy-making too. In fact, ArbCom did try to get a separate policy-advisory body off the ground a year or so back (because there's a chronic need for it) but we probably went about it the wrong way. Despite various community noises about setting something else up to fulfil such a role, nothing has come of it.

On your other point, the ArbCom case load has been steadily dropping for years as more and more is dealt with by the community. What tends to come to us is the rump of cases that are too complicated for community processes to handle. Roger 18:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Trust me, if there were a separate appeal body with the power to overturn community, arbitration enforcement, checkuser and ArbCom decisions it would very soon have a very much greater workload than the present ArbCom's, plus all the aggravation and harrassment that goes with it.  Roger 18:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

We have that already with administrators. If an editor appeals a block, any administrator has the power to overturn it. So what? An ArbCom appeals body doesn't have to review all cases (look how many cases the US Supreme Court decides to ignore every year). The types of cases it would review would be determined by some guidelines, so that it is not possible to appeal each and every arbcom decision. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

But do you see my point that ArbCom already is the appeals body? (Or should be, in a healthy decision-making process.) When a problem arises, it's up to mediators to smooth things over and administrators to make/enforce decisions. We only need something like ArbCom when people are still not satisfied with what the admins have decided (or the community appears to have decided) and need those decisions to be reviewed by new minds. ArbCom shouldn't be taking on issues that haven't been through these normal processes to completion. Except (as far as I can see) in cases which involve consideration of private information, which is where my suggested split comes in.--Kotniski (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Question on arbcom-audit-en

Do all arbitrators have access to the archive of arbcom-audit-en ? Cenarium (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

As a practical matter, no - but access would be granted on request if they required it. –xeno 23:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts on any possible appeal by User:Ottava Rima

I am recused on all matters involving Ottava, but I do have one modest suggestion to make.

It has been said that Ottava was banned for one year therefore should be unblocked. That's half right. The original decision says:

3) Should Ottava Rima elect to return to editing Misplaced Pages, he shall be placed on probation for a period and under conditions to be determined prior to his return to editing. Should he wish to return to editing, Ottava Rima shall contact the Arbitration Committee via email after completing not less than half of his scheduled ban to discuss terms of the probation; the discussion may include the involvement of the community at the applicable noticeboard or as a motion of the Arbitration Committee.

Therefore, in order to be unbanned, Ottava must negotiate conditions for probation. If Ottava does contact ArbCom for an unblock, he should first be asked to propose terms to accompany his unblock. The feasibility of his proposed terms will (1) provide a starting point for negotiating an unblock, and (2) demonstrate whether Ottava understands his problematic behavior. Cool Hand Luke 18:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll also be recused on all matters involving Ottava, but my opinion would be that, although I have extreme reservations, he deserves an unblock. He was rightly blocked for his general obnoxiousness and refusal to admit that he was capable of being wrong, but people can change. If he hasn't changed, he'll be swiftly re-blocked, and all that's lost is a small amount of time dealing with him; since any unblock will make it very clear that he's in the last-chance saloon and any misconduct will result in reblocking, a reblock won't (hopefully) provoke the "he didn't deserve it" chorus. If he has changed, we regain someone who was willing to write in an area which has historically been badly underrepresented on Misplaced Pages. I would endorse an unblock, with the proviso that it's made very clear that any attempts to pick fights will result in immediate and permanent banning. – iridescent 20:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The re-block might be swift, but his supporters will start a huge pie fight over the matter. It'll be a big time sink, I don't see anything wrong with a few conditions upfront. RxS (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

My proposal would be:

He comes back under strict non-tendentiousness guidelines - this means:

• Succinct and to the point replies when reviewing or discussing article content.
• AGF at all times (avoid gratuitous acrimony).
• No more than two posts on the same argument/rebuttal unless there is new material to discuss.
• Hence, not to post lengthy negative or argumentative posts that offer no new angle.

Any admin is able to call him and block him if they feel he is being tendentious. The committee recognises there is some considerable leeway in the definition of this and thus infractions are to be posted and discussed at Arbitration Enforcement.

(In essence, the onus is on Ottava to steer WELL CLEAR of acrimony or face long blocks, and not to risk wikilawyering borderline definitions of tendentiousness. I am thinking in lieu of mentoring, we just adopting this approach. It will either work or it won't. I'll wait for some feedback before posting a motion. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• Ottava is the worst kind of problematic editor. He's rude, condescending, deliberately confrontational at every turn, unbelievably arrogant, but also very smart and an excellent contributor of content. That's why it took so long for him to get the boot. How to get back the content contributions without all the needless, endless, nasty, deliberately created drama is a tough question. I don't get the impression Ottava is a teenager, most adults will not have undergone massive changes in their outlook on life in the space of a year. So I can't say I even support this idea but should it be done it would need to be just about the toughest probation ever done, with no loopholes for him to sneak through, and without some "escalating series of short blocks" as that approach has proven to be ineffective time and again with this type of user. A "one strike, you're out" approach is the only option that should be on the table if and when he does ask to be unblocked. A total interaction ban with anyone he's picked a fight with in the past, an infinite civility probation and a ban on starting ANI (or other drama) threads without running them past an uninvolved party to be evaluated for merit first. And even that should only be considered if he owns up to his past behavior. I don't mean an apology, just an acknowledgement that his problems here were of his own making. Otherwise it's a foregone conclusion not in anybody's best interest. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy to add ban on initiating discussion on any other user's conduct. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• As I was involved in the original case, clearly I can offer my opinion, but I can't vote if this comes to a vote amongst Arbs, rather than community opinion. My feeling is that when he asked last time we ought - as with most other ban appeals - to have indicated that six months of reasonably trouble free editing elsewhere was a prerequisite. So far he hasn't achieved this - if he had, I would be in favour of an unblock. I'd even forgive the big blowup on Commons, as it concerned a third party who, as far as I am concerned, is the complete definition of a troll, even if he isn't anything worse. As it is, I would be in favour of that standard offer being made - six months editing elsewhere without a fantastic blowup, bizarre accusations, reams of wikilawyering, unwarranted aggrandisement etc (ie the behaviour that caused the ban in the first place). Show us that you can handle content disputes, do that, no problems.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • What ought to have happened last time is water under the bridge, the one year ban is now up. Time to move on. Malleus Fatuorum 21:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if I'm allowed to post here or not, but if not then whoever please feel free to delete this. As one of those who has had occasional fallouts with Ottava in the past I would not like him, if allowed back, to be blocked again just because he and I fell out again, no matter who was at fault. And given the childish notion of "incivility" that's so prevalent here I doubt that anyone placed under an "infinite civility probation" would last here more than a couple of weeks. (Did you really mean "infinite" Bebblebrox? If you did, would you also agree to an infinite civility probation? After all, aren't administrators supposed to be setting an example? Doesn't the word "probation" imply some kind of an end date anyway?) Malleus Fatuorum 21:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I dont think thats likely in fairness. As somebody who considers Ottava a friend but has had very very, very, harsh words with him in the past, normally when friends fall out they are given latitude by admins with civility buttons. One thing I'll say for Ottava is that he could have had me blocked a fair few times, but didn't go running. Ceoil 21:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• (e.c.) On a related point, Casliber's idea of putting complaints about a returned OR under the auspices of WP:AE is a recipe for rapid blocking. AE is structured to make the first admin to move's actions virtually impossible to alter, even if they represent a gross over-reaction. Coupled with the fact that AE has regulars who act like a tactical to strategic nuclear-level response is needed in most cases and the result is utterly predictable: some OR opponents would go looking to drag OR to AE as soon as possible and would repeat the tactic until the desired and inevitable long-term block was imposed whether OR's actions warranted it or not. EdChem (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• That's my concern, that some will just be looking for reasons to block, and whatever he does the noise they drum up will drown out common sense. Some temporary restrictions may make sense, like a ban on starting ANI threads without running them past an uninvolved party to be evaluated for merit first, but that might be good advice for anyone to follow. Others though, like he must "own up to his past behavior" just stick in my craw. Malleus Fatuorum 22:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• I did indeed mean infinite, but maybe "civility probation" isn't the best way to describe it. We all have our moments where we get angry or are a bit rude, but OR made a habit out of it, to the point where most users who did not work in the topic areas he worked in knew him only as someone who deliberately stirred up conflict. We need some way to guarantee that behavior will not return. I do agree with you (no really) that the definition of civility is highly variable and subjective. I wouldn't want to see anyone kicked off for a single incident of intemperance, but OR made a career out of it and we can't assume that in the past year he has left that attitude behind him. I don't really even support this idea, but Misplaced Pages is the land of endless "last chances" so if we are going to consider it we need some mechanism to insure the problems of the past are not repeated, otherwise it is a pointless endeavor that will only end badly for all concerned. On another note: has he in fact asked again to return or is this a purely hypothetical discussion? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• My personal opinion is that should he return, he should be given a "guardian" of some kind; someone (not one of his friends and not of his choosing), with unquestioned authority to block him at any sign of trouble. (Yes, I'm aware that this approach failed spectacularly with Mattisse, but that was mainly because the mentors were—rightly—trying to rehabilitate her and thus reluctant to pull the trigger; if this approach is retried, it needs someone who won't give him the benefit of the doubt.) I disagree with Malleus that "own up to his past behavior" is bad; it may be worded slightly crudely, but most (if not all) of Ottava's problems stemmed ultimately from the fact that he genuinely couldn't see why he was upsetting and annoying people, and that he gave the impression of being totally unwilling ever to compromise. Without a recognition that (whatever he may think of it) his actions came across as obnoxious, there's frankly no point in his returning; if he wants to come back, he needs to recognize that he needs to change to accommodate us, even if he thinks he's in the right and everyone else is in the wrong. – iridescent 22:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• I agree that the Mattisse situation was indeed a spectacular failure, but not altogether with your analysis of why that was. One of the few mentors who would indeed have pulled the trigger (me) was unable to do so, for obvious reasons; if Ottave has to have a "guardian" as one of the conditions for his return then it would obviously need to be an administrator everyone could agree was completely unpartisan. Malleus Fatuorum 22:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• To nonpartisan, add "immune to wheedling" and "willing to participate", and you see the problem in finding someone. I could only think of a few names, and most of those are virtually inactive whereas this needs someone willing to be here at short notice. (I don't propose nominating people for this role, unless and until it's decided that the pseudomentoring approach will be taken, so nobody bother suggesting names at this stage.) – iridescent 22:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• To add another dimension, I guess that fundamentally we may perhaps also disagree on the value of what someone says they will do as opposed to what they actually do. I rarely accept apologies, for instance, as I much prefer to wait and see how people actually behave. If there are no more problems, then no need of an apology, other than in passing and in good-hearted discussion over a pint. Demanding apologies doesn't sit well with me. Malleus Fatuorum 22:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think it's so much a case of demanding an apology, as demanding a recognition of the problem. When you get in trouble, you may not agree with whatever policy is being used to justify the block, but you understand why it's happened—your issues are with Misplaced Pages's policies and the way they're interpreted. In Ottava's case he gave the impression of genuinely not understanding why screaming abuse at people might be considered annoying; unless and until there's some kind of "I may not agree with Misplaced Pages's policies, but nonetheless I'm going to abide by them" statement, there's no point in his returning unless it's a "give him enough rope" exercise to give a pretext to ban him permanently. There may be something to be said for that—indeed, I'd argue that he should be given the chance if that's what he wants—but it's unfair both to him and to those who'll be dragged into it, if he comes back without a recognition that the problem is him, not everyone else. – iridescent 23:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, even I can see that. I guess it's just the way the demands are being framed I'm complaining about. Or perhaps the way that I perceived they were being framed. Malleus Fatuorum 23:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) He's asked, and we are now discussing (here). I think we ned to be stricter with editors editing 'in the vicinity' of a sanction. Thus my call that admins are allowed some latitude with interpreting tendentiousness. Yes it paints a big red target on Ottava's forehead but I want to send the message that he simply can't post 'bordering-on-argumentative' posts again and really needs to stick to article building and succinct and proactive communication on article improvement. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• If you read my initial remark, I was perfectly clear that I am not suggesting an apology, forced or otherwise. In fact I would never suggest that, it is as pointless as it is demeaning. I am suggesting he simply acknowledge that he caused his own problems. If he can't do that then I see no point on even considering unblocking. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I believe that I've met Iridescent at least halfway, but I think that's a step too far. I am very uncomfortable about apportioning blame, as I could make a very good case (and at least to to me a convincing one) that the blame lies with the way that wikipedia's policies are unevenly applied. I have agreed with Iridescent that a recognition of the reasons for the ban, whether Ottava believes those reasons to be valid or not, is a reasonable prerequisite before it's lifted. To go further, also demanding an admission of guilt, is distasteful. Who is to say where blame lies? Perhaps wikipedia caused Ottava's problems rather than the other way around. Malleus Fatuorum 23:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Given that he seems to have experienced exactly the same problems everywhere he has gone, possibly not. I do agree with you that assigning blame and forcing apology are pointless. What I would like to see is an understanding, even if it is along the lines of "I now understand that this club has rules against wearing knickerbockers and singing the Marseillese after 9pm. I believe these rules to be silly and unhelpful, and with a distinct anti-french bias, but I realise that turning up at midnight in golfing knickers giving voice to the national anthem of the French republic is going to get me thrown out." Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Surprisingly, I find myself agreeing with Malleus. As far as I'm concerned Ottava need acknowledge nothing, wrongdoing or otherwise; anything he could say with words he could just as easily demonstrate with his actions. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 00:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not out to humiliate him, if there is a way to get some assurance that these behaviors won't be repeated without having to specifically take the blame that's fine. We are all expected to abide by consensus whether we agree with it or not, I believe that is essentially what we are both saying. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Essentially, yes. However, I think we differ insofar as I see no need to have him make a statement of any kind as anything that he could say he could just as easily demonstrate with his actions. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 00:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Actions speak louder than words, that is true. However, I feel that at the very least we should expect some sort of agreement on what types of behaviors will lead to the block being re-instated, and that it should be made clear that testing the limits of said restrictions will not be tolerated either. That is as much in ORs interest as in the projects. We've seen before where users under restriction found clever ways to circumvent the spirit if not the letter of the restriction. Then we have these prolonged arguments at AE that just muddy the waters further, lead to wheel warring, etc. It's hard to draw a bright line when it comes to a behavioral problem that is not as easily definable as say edit warring or POV pushing, but I think we need at least an outline of such a a restriction to avoid gaming by either OR or his "opponents". It should also be clear that interaction bans are a double edged sword, users who have had past conflicts with OR may run into him by chance, but they shouldn't be stalking his edits. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm beginning to see you in a different and not altogether more flattering light Elen. I have agreed that a recognition of the cause of the past problems is not an unreasonable request, but you seem to be angling for something more like a mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa, a debasement in other words. Malleus Fatuorum 00:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Ottava needs to choose his battles more carefully. He continuously rushes in and takes a hasty position, from which he is too proud to withdraw. I very much agree with a mentor, a single mentor, an admin and not one of his friends. I think if Ottava expects to be allowed back, he has to accept it will be within a confined space. For his own good, almost. Ceoil 00:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press