Misplaced Pages

talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:05, 8 March 2014 editDoc James (talk | contribs)Administrators312,283 edits →change to block of User:Will Beback← Previous edit Revision as of 01:44, 8 March 2014 edit undo76.126.140.150 (talk) →change to block of User:Will Beback: +cmtNext edit →
Line 207: Line 207:
Agree entirely with MONGO, it's time to unblock Will, and I also hope arbitrators stop blanking his appeal on his page. To the jaundiced eye, those blankings don't ''only'' bring the message "as always, we will hear this appeal by email only", they also say "and we don't want outsiders and plebeians to be able to ''read'' you appeal, either, because it's none of their business." But I look at it like this: no, it's not the community's business to hear the appeal — "hear" used in the sense of assess and respond — it's arbcom's, via e-mail. But I refuse to believe Will hasn't ''also'' submitted his appeal by e-mail, or soon will. What harm can the double posting do? Is it really not of any use to arbcom to get some community input, for instance in this thread here? You don't have to acknowledge it or respond or anything, I can see how that could be awkward. Keep your own discussions in camera by all means. But it's ''really'' disappointing if the committee's mindset is that we don't want no stinking commentary. Are you by any chance confusing yourselves with a jury, which needs to remain unpolluted by input from the outside? If that's it, just get over yourselves, please. ] &#124; ] 00:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC). Agree entirely with MONGO, it's time to unblock Will, and I also hope arbitrators stop blanking his appeal on his page. To the jaundiced eye, those blankings don't ''only'' bring the message "as always, we will hear this appeal by email only", they also say "and we don't want outsiders and plebeians to be able to ''read'' you appeal, either, because it's none of their business." But I look at it like this: no, it's not the community's business to hear the appeal — "hear" used in the sense of assess and respond — it's arbcom's, via e-mail. But I refuse to believe Will hasn't ''also'' submitted his appeal by e-mail, or soon will. What harm can the double posting do? Is it really not of any use to arbcom to get some community input, for instance in this thread here? You don't have to acknowledge it or respond or anything, I can see how that could be awkward. Keep your own discussions in camera by all means. But it's ''really'' disappointing if the committee's mindset is that we don't want no stinking commentary. Are you by any chance confusing yourselves with a jury, which needs to remain unpolluted by input from the outside? If that's it, just get over yourselves, please. ] &#124; ] 00:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC).
::Yes it does sort of give the appearance that arbcom wishes to operate in secrecy and without community input or oversight. Per here it appears that Will emailed Arbcom Jan 16th,2014. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC) ::Yes it does sort of give the appearance that arbcom wishes to operate in secrecy and without community input or oversight. Per here it appears that Will emailed Arbcom Jan 16th,2014. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
*The only purpose of indefinite bans of content creators is bullying. There's no need in indefinite bans. They do not help the project. They even harm the project. In the worst case scenario reblock takes only a minute. Indefinite bans create endless dramas, and take lot's of time. Just think about that:Will submitted his latest request somewhere in January. Now is the March, and he still got no response. Besides many banned users are not interested in ever again editing this site. They simply want to leave, but for whatever reason leave unbanned. I know at least three such persons, but the arbcom and a few anonymous bullies who call themselves "the community" do not let them to leave. It is not only inhumane,not only sick it is insane.] (]) 01:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:44, 8 March 2014

Shortcuts
What this page is for:
This page is for discussion of formal announcements by the Committee, including clarification of the specifics of notices.
What this page is not for:
To request arbitration, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests. For information on the Committee, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee. To report a violation of a Committee decision, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.
Archiving icon
Archives

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


This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

One thing the Arbitration Committee STILL needs to address

Picking up from Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 25#3 things the new arbitration committee needs to address, as no one bothered notifying me of it, despite my being mentioned and it obviously being of high importance to me and my possible return as an active editor:

Sandstein continues to misconstrue to nature of the log entries with regard to myself, Noetica, Ohconfucius and Neotarf. They were not simply "warnings", they were direct (and unsupportable) accusations of wrongdoing. No one has ever asked to be "unwarned", that's an absurd red herring. Sandstein erred in making false accusations, whether he intended to or not, and refuses to even acknowledge that such a view could exist. Sandstein does not have to admit fault to be undonr on this. It does matter. At least two of these productive editors have quit the project over this (me, other than tying up some loose ends, and Noetica quit completely). We don't give a darn about being "warned" that we're aware of restrictions in some case, blah blah blah, what we care about is the false accusation of wrongdoing. I made this clear something like a year ago. Arbs agreed that the wording of the accusation/warning was unjust and promised a resolution to this matter. Nothing has happened. I used to put in tens of thousands of edits a year. Sandstein's obstinacy and the ArbCom's own inaction in dealing with this has cost the project my labor. If you're happy about that, just do nothing. If you want to make this right, clear those bogus accusations from the log for starters. I could have filed a big ArbCom psychodrama case about all this (and about Sandstein later ignoring other admins observations that he was clearly personally involved and that had no cause to block - he actually un-recused himself after agreeing to recuse because he couldn't resist imposing a short block against me, without any consensus that there should be one). Numerous parties urged me to make an ArbCom case about it, and wanted to join in. But I just walked away. I didn't come here for politics and personal psychodrama., but to help build an encyclopedia. I don't need an apology from Sandstein or even an admission of wrongdoing. I simply want his verging-on-slanderous accusation against me of "continued" wrong-doing to be voided from the log. A baseless personal attack like his, with administrative imprimatur, is not tolerable, and is a blatant policy violation per WP:NPA anyway. All four of us have asked for this to be fixed and have met with nothing but silence from ArbCom, AE, and ANI, and nothing but derision and dismissiveness from Sandstein, who deliberately tries to make this seem to be about some crazy notion of "unwarning" someone. It's never been about that, it's been about the abuse of administrative power for blatant character assassination, with apparent impunity. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 11:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

If you wish to appeal this, you may do by filing a "request for amendment" of the case under which the warning was issued. You do that here. The committee does not act of its own volition in these things. That said, the way that discretionary sanctions work is currently being changed. One current proposal is that all existing warnings be downgraded to simple alerts/notifications; and that alerts/notifications will cease to have effect once a year has elapsed. So, should this new proposal be adopted, the whole thing becomes moot.  Roger Davies 13:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't have any faith that Arbcom would take any action on it if it was submitted. Personally I wouldn't waste the time but that's up to you. I also don't see how 1 year is going to matter. It will still be in the record and will be held against the editor forever. It should also be noted that the "new" DS system will make it easier to be abused. That's kind of an important point that I tried and failed to make before. Especially now that the Arbcom doesn't "act of its own volition" to review cases where DS's were levied unfairly or used abusively. Since they are the only ones that have the power to do so, that to me is a serious problem since many of the DS's deal with people who have been blocked and couldn't submit a clarification or amendment if they wanted too. 108.45.104.158 (talk) 14:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC) This is Kumioko evading his indef block as BannedEditor' BMK (talk) 00:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Administrators have very broad discretion to deal with disruption; that is a fact of life. Different admins have different approaches; that is also a fact of life. There is also a broad spectrum of possibilities when examining all administrative actions; these possibilities range from correct in all respects, to good faith but mistaken, to abusive. The difference between one possibility and another is often slight. Before determining what happened in any particular situation, and determining the correct response, the committee will wish to hear from all concerned in an appropriate forum.

Your suggestion that the committee does nothing about administrative misconduct is misleading and inaccurate: in the first four weeks of the 2014's committee tenture, two admins were desysopped and another was admonished.

I asked you (assuming you're Kumioko) for evidence of abuse and you simply repeated the allegation. If editors have an issue concerning an individual admin, they need to follow procedures (optionally an RFC/U but certainly a case request, with proper evidence, to ArbCom). Banned editors may appeal by email. Simply conducting grumpy guerrilla warfare is not the answer. Incidentally, your remarks about the DS review are inaccurate and misinformed. Significant changes are being discussed (though these won't please everyone as they fall short of scrapping DS altogether and desysopping the entire admin corps ).  Roger Davies 19:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Although I would favor scrapping DS's I also realize that is unrealistic. I know why they were created and I remember what life was life before them. Frankly, more problems have been created by having them that were solved with their creation. I also agree that there is a spectrum of possibilities and some of the better admins use the spectrum. Unfortunately a few of the admins who deal a lot with DS's favor the extreme end of the spectrum and their discretion is often questionable. Since they are admins dealing with DS's however the community generally assumes without hesitation that the editor being banned is a menace to the project. This is often not the case and we lose a valuable editor. Just to clarify I am also not calling for the admin corps to be eliminated, what I do think needs to happen is abusive admins with a history of abuse be dealt with. Unfortunately the way the system works its easier for one admin to ban an editor indefinitely than it is for the admin to lose thier tools. I don't know if you have noticed but the project has seen a flood of editors leaving, both admins and regular editors. A lot of this can be attributed to the dozen or so abusive admins who are allowed to do whatever they want with impunity. Also I have mentioned several names of those who are abusive and I have been blocked for doing so (the excuse was personal attacks). Well for that and so I couldn't participate in the discussions about me. So please forgive me if I am not in a hurry to name names or provide links so that I can be called out for attacking or so I can again become the target of those admins since no one will do a damn thing about it when they do. 108.45.104.158 (talk) 00:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Roger Davies, could you tell me where the review draft provides that "alerts/notifications will cease to have effect once a year has elapsed"? I can't find it in the review draft. – On the merits of this case, I have repeatedly informed SMcCandlish that they are free to appeal admin AE actions that they disagree with, but so far they have chosen not to do so. I can't therefore quite tell what the point of these repeated complaints is, as I have already discussed the issue at great length with SMcCandlish at the time when the warning was made. They have since received an AE topic ban, which they have also not appealed, so contesting the prior warning now seems doubly pointless.  Sandstein  15:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
The reason is because he has a right to appeal and long discussions with you, irrespective of how informative, aren't really a substitute. Now I really hate the way the whole DS thing is getting complex and legalistic; and ArbCom is spending far more time on it than it ought. However, if there's a credible allegation that the basis for all this was dodgy (and I have not seen any credible evidence yet, just a great deal of rhetoric), then it needs looking at and, if necessary, fixing.  Roger Davies 16:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Evidently they have a right to appeal. My point is that I think that they should choose to either do that or stop engaging in, as you say, angry rhetoric.  Sandstein  16:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I think I said "a great deal of rhetoric" but the substantive point you're making is fair enough.  Roger Davies 17:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
The one-year sunset clause is contained in version 3, which is currently being drafted and should be up for consultation soon. AGK 15:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
The sunset clause has been discussed on the talk page, and is a very good idea. It is unreasonable to expect people to remember that they've received an alert for what have been a trivial edit a long time after the event. I expect the community at large will strongly support this. If you'd like to revisit the discussion, or open it up afresh, on the DS page, feel free to do so (though if I get time this afternoon, I'll put some text there myself).  Roger Davies 16:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks!  Sandstein  16:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Why was I not informed of this discussion? "Appeal or stop engaging in angry rhetoric", indeed. I did appeal this, back in December, and was told to wait for the discretionary sanctions policy discussion to end. The Arbcom could have stopped the whole thing with one motion. The exiles could have been free to come back. And three months down the road, the proposal is still under discussion, and there is still nothing in the proposal that would address this problem. Kumioko was right. And he is right about this as well: the proposal as it now stands would unnecessarily expose a broad group of editors--individuals who have never had the propriety of their actions questioned--to these speed-banning notifications. —Neotarf (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

So there isn't announcements of declined cases?

This would be a good idea for logs I think. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it would be good to have a log (though not everyone would agree with announcements).  Roger Davies 10:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
The log of declined requests is kept at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests if that's what you're looking for. I don't really see a need for announcing declined requests, it's important to announce motions (whether in lieu of a case, on a request for clarification or amendment, or a stand-alone arb motion) and cases being closed as they change or introduce arbitration policy or restrictions on editors or pages. However declined cases and requests for clarification and amendment don't. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I really don't know how that log escaped me as I use it all the time. My own feeling about announcing declines is that it would serve mainly to perpetuate drama, and thus sidestep any closure a decline usually brings.  Roger Davies 13:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Declined cases often contain useful information. Arbitrators sometimes suggest other dispute resolution steps, and additional information regarding the criteria by which the committee accepts / rejects cases is useful to editors evaluating conflicts for possible referral to the committee. NE Ent 13:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I also don't see a need for formal announcements, but adding links to logs and/or relevant archives at Template:ArbCom navigation seems like a good way to help curious users find recently closed items without having to spend all day squinting at page histories trying to find the relevant revisions. I've had to do this myself when I missed something and it is very annoying. Adding a few links should help with transparency in our proceedings without encouraging drama mongering. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Hadn't noticed the declined requests page. Better - still, this page acts (somewhat) as a feedback page.....maybe the same over there.....will take a look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Roger is right that announcing declined cases can perpetuate drama. I share his bewilderment that he and you both (possibly momentarily) missed that we have had a log for declined requests for years (certainly ever since both he and you have been/were on the committee). Were you really never aware of the existence of that log? Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests is not on the template Beeblebrox mentions, but is a click away via Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index which is on that template (under the name 'Archive of proceedings'. I think that is sufficient. Carcharoth (talk) 17:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I think that those of you who have talked about not wanting to perpetuate drama are correct about that. I just saw the clarification discussion about the recently-declined case about two users following the announcement of another user's death, and it seems to me that those members of the Committee who distanced themselves from the decision to decline did exactly the wrong thing, in terms of not perpetuating drama. If it's declined, it's declined. Individual members should not be undermining the decision to decline, once it's been made. All that does is perpetuate the drama. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
When I wrote that, I did not know that it would be reopened. But, seeing what has happened since, anyone who wanted to not perpetuate the drama, well, I think you pretty much failed at that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration Request/Kevin Gorman Motion Passed

Original Announcement
  • I've gone ahead and responded in this diff, although I'll be archiving it from my talk page shortly. This was a poorly written motion and a poorly named case. Unless I'm mistaken, this is the only arbcom case named after a single person where the only two blocks handed out during the course of the case were to a person not named in the title of the case. As it stands, this motion is factually inaccurate in at least one place, but more importantly, omits a hell of a lot.
I wouldn't be making this comment if a similar motion had passed a week ago, but as it is, this motion is both factually incorrect in at least one place and omits a hell of a lot. I understand passing something to end drama - trust me, I don't want this RFAR to continue any more than arbcom does - but I'm still severely disappointed that arbcom didn't spend fifteen minutes to write a reasonable motion. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Kevin, this addition to the case page with the edit summary "presumably last comment" looks a lot like trying to get the last word. Complaining on your talk page is a common response to ArbCom actions, and expected, but the content and your comments at the case page suggest that you still don't understand why so many are unimpressed with you. You keep saying you understand but your actions scream that you see yourself as wronged and having made no significant mistakes. You created this mess and though Giano has acted unwisely and been blocked, you are the administrator who has misused ArbCom sanctions and constantly directed blame at others. The admonishment was necessary because your actions say you haven't got the message yet, and I think you are fortunate it didn't snowball into a desysop. EdChem (talk) 02:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Not trying to get the last word in out of anyone, rather trying to get a word in before the entire RFAR was deleted, which happened minutes after I posted. I should've been more clear in my editsum and said something more like 'presumably last comment by me.' Given that the RFAR was promptly deleted, there was a solid chance of me not managing to make a final comment. The thread created a mess, I exacerbated it, Giano made it worse, and arbcom made it comical. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • So, fault lies with the original IP poster, Eric, other contributors to the discussion at Jimbo's talk, you, Giano, and ArbCom? It's nice that you are in there, at least... would you like to also blame me, the posters at the RfAr, and the other commenters at the clarification discussion? Perhaps Jimbo for not jumping on the thread? You would be damaging your reputation much less if you stopped blaming everyone else and reflecting meaningfully on your own actions. EdChem (talk) 03:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • To an extent? Yes, absolutely, some fraction of blame lays with most of those people. I readily accept my share of the blame, regret my actions, and will not repeat them. As a very simple example: consider what drama would have been involved if arbcom had either decided to admonish me a week ago, or had decided to stick to it's original decision not to do so a week ago? It would have been a fraction of what ended up being involved. It's pretty hilariously ridiculous that people who held no opinion on my original action spoke up pointing out that arbcom's subsequent actions made them look silly. It is an incredibly rare circumstance where the blame for an entire event lays entirely on one person, and this wasn't one of those cases. This could've been stopped more than week ago if I had taken appropriate action, and could've been stopped a solid week ago if arbcom hadn't engaged in Vaudevillian shenanigans. And yes, since you asked: I consider you to have played a minor role in this dramafest, given that you intentionally or not directly misrepresented my statements to imply I was being untruthful. I act according to what I believe is right, and I've done so long before I became an administrator, whether my opinions are popular or unpopular. To be honest? I could care less what your opinion of me is; your actions have spoken louder than your words, both in perpetuating drama and in perpetuating a false narrative and mistruths. The fact that you think this was likely to snowball in to a desysop is also informative. Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Rockfang, did you not archive the case page before posting the decision because the arbitrators need to formally decline it now? This sequence of notifying then archiving the decision is unfortunate as it allows a last word to be added by a party. Maybe procedures need to cover avoiding similar situations in the future? EdChem (talk) 02:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Because the case request was declined by motion I thought it would be logical to process the motion first, and then the declining of the case. With regards to avoiding similar situations in the future, being new at this, I suspect it took me a bit longer to complete the entire process when compared to the average clerk. As I get more adept, I believe the amount of time it would take me would decrease which could make things smoother.--Rockfang (talk) 02:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Rockfang, I know you are a new member of the Clerk team and everyone has to learn, I am not criticising your speed or intent, just suggesting that archive then posting - or at least close discussion, post result, then archive - would avoid parties trying to inject a last word, as Kevin did here after your notification. Other Clerks will be able to say what the usual practice is, but I would hope that comments deliberately made during a close would be avoided and discouraged. Regards. EdChem (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I have found the past couple days of metropolitan arbcom mindbogglingly surreal. Kevin G's "getting the last comment in" is one of numerous things that so just doesn't matter. Quite simply, Eric was pretty much spot on in assessment of the Wales talk page thread, which should have been stopped much sooner. Suicide is a real problem, which, according to our article, kills two thousand real life people a day. That is both important and something we are, per WP:SUICIDE "ill equipped to deal with." (In other words -- what Eric said in a non politically correct fashion.) The rest of who said who about who and edit warred and got blocked by whom and redacted and reverted ... pffft. NE Ent 03:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd like to echo what NE Ent said. The best thing to do here is step back and try and regain some perspective. Misplaced Pages is not really the best place to discuss matters such as this. Discussion gets out of control. It can cause a great deal of hurt. ArbCom can't wave a magic wand and make that go away, or make people act sensibly in discussions. If such discussions take place, they need to be carefully and sensitively moderated and that doesn't always happen effectively on Misplaced Pages. Despite there being a lot to potentially discuss here, about what could have been done better during the arbitration request and what led up to it, a lot of that can be done in the abstract away from these specific examples. There will inevitably be some further discussion here, but let's try and keep it brief and to the point. Carcharoth (talk) 06:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • NE Ent is, for the large part, correct, although I certainly disagree with his suggestion that I was simply trying to get the last word in. I was just trying to respond to an unbalanced motion before the entire case was deleted. As far as I know this is the first arbcom case in history where (a) it was named after a sole party who acted in good faith and (b) the only person who was actually sanctioned was not named in the case. Carch and the rest of the arbs who participated in this bungle: I readily acknowledge that I fucked up, severely, but at the same time, I sincerely hope that the rest of you realize that you also fucked up, and that you don't do the same thing in the future. This issue should have been silent a week ago, and it is almost entirely due to the actions of certain arbitrators that it wasn't. The IP post started a flare, Eric made it worse, and I unintentionally touched off a firestorm. In a way that completely boggles my mind, the actions of certain arbitrators managed not only to perpetuate my original and severe set of mistakes, but to misjudge the situation even further and multiply the resultant drama many times over. If this RFAR is a taste of the upcoming committee, then I fear significantly for the next arbcom term. And Carch, you could have waived a magic wand, either by admonishing me a week ago, or by sticking by what you thought was right and not doing so now. Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
@Kevin. Did you react to Eric rather than looking at the whole picture? Did it not occur to you that the IP was posting in disguise and with the possibility (turns out that they are a site banned user) that they might be avoiding scrutiny per WP:ILLEGIT? What action might you have taken to check out the OP? You did claim some expertise in your RfA relating to socking. Second, ask yourself this. If the IP had disclosed the identity of the young man, rather that the thinly disguised euphemism, "John", would you have let that go? Could that have been a breech of another of your RfA claimed areas of expertise, BLP? "John" was easily identifiable so by extension WP:BDP could have justified closure of the thread long before Eric turned up. If your answer to either of these is that, as the first Admin. committed to action on that thread, you only saw fault with Eric's post then the community is fully entitled to clarify your actions in singling out only his vociferous opposition to the thread which, while creating shock and horror, actually breached very little and certainly not the policy you relied upon. You need to forget the Arbs. bureaucratic bumbling over the last week. You seem bitter that you have been "hooked" a second time for the same issue. Don't be. If you wish to rebuild community confidence start by asking yourself what else you could have done, including the alternatives I have suggested above. Leaky Caldron 11:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Leaky: I've answered literally every question you have posted, most of them multiple times, over the last week. Regarding community confidence: I'm comfortable that I have general support (which is not to imply they agree with all actions I take - or will take,) from more than a big enough portion of the community to feel comfortable. Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Care to put your money where your mouth is by submitting a reconfirmation RFA? If you have general support it should be no problem to prove it.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I suspect I'd pass, and suspect it would be an utter waste of time. I also probably should've said 'the segment of the community that is here to actually build an encyclopedia.' Your last article space edit appears to have been in 2012 and you've barely made fifty nonarticlespace edits in the two years since - if you lack confidence in me, it doesn't particularly bother me. That said, not engaging with you on this talk page further to avoid unnecesary drama. Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I rather doubt it would pass, Kevin, but I agree it would waste time. Please drop the stick. Jonathunder (talk) 00:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Regardless of the merits of the case, I sincerely hope that Arbcom itself takes some time for self reflection on how poorly the committee members handled this entire debacle. At the time this was dragged up from the graveyard, Kevin had already backed off, had been soundly rebuked by several members of the community and had already promised not to repeat his behaviour. So what purpose did Roger Davies' motion serve, other than as an attempt at appeasing Eric? Certainly you have failed to win over any respect from the complainers you sought to appease, and you have lost a considerable amount of respect from segments of the community at large. Your preference to simply bury your head in the sand when it comes to dealing with this group was already bad enough. But now you have shown Eric and Giano that if they throw a temper tantrum, you will cave in a desperate bid just to make it all go away. We all know they will pull this stunt again in the future - who wouldn't repeat what works? So the question, my friends, is whether this was a precedent setting mistake? Are you going to allow yourselves to be manipulated and embarrassed again next time one of them pulls a diva ragequit? And should people who don't have as many friends as the other side expect to get thrown under the bus just so you can say you did something? Resolute 14:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm bluntly wondering if there's a way to file an RFAR on, um, arbcom. I agree more or less with your entire post, but do find it also worth noting that even with this outcome I'm pretty sure looking at his talk page that even Giano is pondering roughly the same question I am. Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
As amusing as that would be, in reality, there is little to do at this point but let the drama die down. I did think it was important that arbcom be aware of how bad this looks on them, but I remain hopeful (some would probably say naïvely) that the committee will consider both its handling of this case and the potential consequences of their actions such that we will not see a repeat in the future. Resolute 15:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
To be clear, I don't intend to try to do something of that nature, although I do believe that arbcom owes pretty much everyone involved in that case an explanation of their actions, withholding any necessarily private details. I don't accept the idea that a lower standard of public accountability should apply to the freaking arbitration committee than is regularly applied to anyone else. I can believe that such an explanation could be provided in a relatively drama free format accompanied by a brief period of public comment in a way I more or less outlined here. Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
To the arbs: I realize how annoying it is when someone says I told you so, but if you look at the talk section just above this one, well, I told you so. And I agree with everything that Resolute said here. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

What exactly is the point of an admonishment?

Kevin started throwing his back in your face as soon as you proposed it, and hasn't stopped since. He's declared on his talk page that any "troll" who mentions it will be reverted immediatley. Such trolls are most likely to be the next editors he treats in the same way he treated Eric.

Admonishments are widely ridiculed within the community. They make you look weak and indecisve. If you're going to do something, do something meaningful. You don't have to go the whole hog. Why not get into the habit of removing the tools for a month or more, with no need to go to RfA to get them back?

As a committee, what good do you think admonishments do? What effect do they have on the people who receive them? What effect do they have on the reputation of the committee? Is their overall effect on the project positive or negative? 188.29.42.250 (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The point of an admonishment is, I believe, to set on record ArbCom's disapproval of a party's actions and is effectively a 'black mark' on that party's 'record'. Should that party again find themselves before ArbCom for similar misconduct, having been previously admonished, there is a very good chance they would face tangible sanctions, such as a siteban or a desysop. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Although I thankfully had noting to do with this particular mess, I can confirm that this description accurately portrays what this arb understands the purpose of an admonishment to be. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I agree with both of you. That's how I understand the intended purpose of an admonishment, too. And as to my second and third paragraphs...? 188.29.36.180 (talk) 09:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Kevin ignore the above section

  • First, Kevin should just move on. The next demand made of you (for the umpteenth time) just say to yourself, 'it's over, and there is nothing left to say,' and stick to that - no matter the provocation. Trust someone else will deal with it if it gets relentless. And next time you respond to the irate someone who will criticize your admining (and it will happen) remember to keep civil.
Second, it is rather inciteful that Carcharoth notes that moderating is difficult, but BLP actually requires that moderation (either, self-moderation or induced moderation) occur everywhere on the Pedia. So, here an admin tried to moderate, and without any of the trappings -- or time -- that Arbitration has. BLP issues happen in real time and arise in real time, and have to be dealt with in real time, expiditously. So, arguing that someone should have acted sooner, or later, or different to moderate the discussion is in the end only so helpful, after-the-fact. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding the Toddst1 request for arbitration

Original announcement
  • This is another... odd motion. Has any motion previously passed that instructed an administrator to categorically not use their tools while remaining an administrator? Given that admins have access to several tools that the usage of is literally not tracked, how does arbcom intend this to be an enforceable motion? If arbcom has lost faith in Toddst enough to instruct him categorically to not use his tools, surely that's enough cause for a desysop pending the outcome of the case, where his tools could either be restored or denied based on the outcome of the case? Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Looking at the details of the motion, I do so that one previous similar motion has been passed. I'm still curious how this is supposed to be enforceable though, given that admins have access to unlogged tools. I'm also still curious why there's enough distrust in Toddst to instruct him not to use any of his tools, but not to actually take them away so as to prevent him from doing so. Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I originally wrote the motion with a request that he stop using his tools while the case was pending. The only goal there was that, since he seemed to be gone anyway, he not be permitted to just come back like nothing happened and start using them again. However, the point was brought up that that just asking him to do so is the sort of thing that can cause problems down the road and the motion was modified. In hindsight I think we should have just left it out entirely, but as Toddst1 has indef blocked himself it seems more or less moot now anyway. So, lesson learned on my part, but in the end it probably makes no difference in this specific instance. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Beeblebrox, can Toddst1 "un-indefinitely block" himself or would that require another administrator to do? If so, then the question is moot because while he could return to editing as an IP, he would not have access to admin tools. Just wanted to make sure I understood this unusual situation. Thanks. Liz 20:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not Beeblebrox, but yes, admins can unblock themselves. It's possible to disable the option site-wide, but proposals have failed in the past, on the grounds that a) a surprising number of admins have accidentally blocked themselves at some point or another, and b) disabling the option would theoretically allow a rogue admin to block the rest of the corps with a script and wreak havoc until the stewards show up. — PinkAmpers& 02:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, PinkAmpers&. I'm actually not too surprised, I've looked at a fair number of block logs and it seems like one of the first thing new admins do is try out the tools by placing a block on themselves or an obvious target, to see how blocking works and sometimes, they immediately unblock. I can see how the rogue admin scenario, while unlikely, is certainly possible and if it occurred, would cause significant disruption. Liz 17:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  • So let me get this right. A formal case won't be opened unless Toddst1 returns to active adminship, but if he does use his tools before that, he will be desysopped. However, the only way he can return to adminship is to unblock himself, which is a use of tools and will lead to him being desysopped. Well, there's a Catch22 for you. Black Kite (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Liz, yes it is technically possible to unblock oneself. If you look at my block log, you'll see an example. BK, yes, it's theoretically almost a Catch 22, but in practice I don't imagine people will count undoing his own self block against him. Plus he could always request an unblock from another admin. He blocked himself pretty late in the process, so it's not like the motion was crafted after he did it; we just felt it wasn't worth redrafting it when the intent was still intact. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I would add that if it is a Catch-22 it is one of Todd's own making. Nobody, anywhere in these proceedings, suggested that he should be indef blocked. That was his decision and he did it with his eyes open. Again, I would take that as a signal that this is all academic at this point. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, Floquenbeam. It's appreciated! Liz 00:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration motions regarding Ryulong

Original announcement

So according to Motion 2, in the statement

For contacting administrators in private to seek either blocks on users he is in dispute with, or the performance of other administrative actions. Any further occurrence would lead to sanctions.

"Any further occurrence would lead to sanctions" is removed from the admonishment? Maybe this is my ignorance but wouldn't such behavior (contacting admins in private seeking blocks) lead to a sanction from any editor who was found doing this? I think this behavior, no matter who did it, should result in a sanction. Liz 19:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Please read the discussion that occurred during the motion, and then if you still have questions, ask them here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I can tell you that in my years as an admin I have been contacted numerous times off-wiki (by email, I don't use IRC) and although I have not always taken the action requested I have generally not found such requests to be inappropriate. If an action genuinely needs to be taken it hardly matters how the admin performing the action became aware of the need. If we didn't allow this, within reasonable limits, then we should just not have any ways to contact admins off-wiki. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Okay, Floquenbeam, I was hoping to spare myself reading through the entire discussion but I'll go to the source.
And, Beeblebrox, I guess I am showing my ignorance to find your remarks quite surprising. I would never think of approaching an admin off-wiki to take action against another editor. It seems secretive and not in line with the transparency of having open discussions on Misplaced Pages. The only instance where I could see this as an alternative to open discussion is if there are privacy concerns that would involve outing either editor or if there were legal or criminal concerns or if it is an ARBCOM case. Otherwise, it seems to be unfair to the targeted editor, that there is this off-wiki, private conversation about their behavior without them allowed to defend themselves.
But I realize that this is tangential discussion regarding this case and just end it with saying I am surprised that this is the normal state of affairs for admins. Liz 00:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
The transparency is in the block logs. If it particularly matters by what medium the sysop was alerted to a discussion, they can be asked and should tell you. Otherwise, all that probably matters is whether the actual action they took was in the project's best interests. (Despite this comment, I agree we are going off-topic. ;-)) AGK 09:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
My last word (promise): I think what actions are "in the project's best interests" is debated every single day on Misplaced Pages, on user and article talk pages and noticeboards. It's a subjective judgment where experienced admins (and arbitrators!) can legitimately disagree. If it was that black-and-white and uncontroversial, there wouldn't be so much constant discussion about how contentious issues or disruptive editors should be addressed. And I hope you can understand how having back channels to admins which can lead to something as serious as an editor indefinite block can give the appearance of impropriety and cliquishness (hence, much of the past controversy about the IRC channels).
And finally, if the "transparency is in the block logs" then I think it is essential that they fully explain the rationale for the block and that the editor who is affected is told this rationale and also it is explained how a block can be appealed. While this is often done, it doesn't seem to be mandatory as I have seen plenty of blocked editors not even receive a block notice on their talk page.
Okay, that's it. This is off-topic but I felt this was just an outsider's view that I had to add to the discussion. Now, I'll go back to editing. Liz 17:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Follow up on Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel closed case

In the wake of the Kafziel case, some concerning BATTLEGROUND nature has been exhibited by Hasteur, and I'm not the only one to have noticed. I've been struggling with this issue since his 19:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC) comment on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Articles for creation of So help me, if a drive does move forward I'm inclined to adopt Kafziel-style tactics.... The next comment that concerned me was I don't care any more... Since any editor can lead a consensus of one and rampage through anything I'll do AFC reviewing how I please and we can find ourselves in whatever pickle we do down the road. on the same day... The reason I didn't come here then requesting a review is because Hasteur and I have been going back and forth about this a little, and I've been holding firm my ground. As such, I felt that it would be unfair for me to be the one to come here and ask for a review. I was hoping Hasteur would come to his senses and/or would just drop his issue, this is not the case and it was brought to my attention today that he has exhibited that he has every intent of being POINTy and disruptive in an attempt to make his point and make the project cave to what he wants. He was asked about this by and administrator on his talk page, and his response was If I have to do ~200 supremely low quality reviews a day just to keep the quantity of pending reviews at a stable level because no other reviewers are doing anything.... The relevant discussions that may be of interest to you in reviewing this are:

  • Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#A drive in March? - Starting point of the escalation that has brought me here. My view of the situation are as follow:
    Fremantle99 created a page for a March BackLog-Drive (an internal process for reviewing a larger scale of pending submissions)
    Chris troutman asked if there was consensus for a drive, of which Fremantle99 replied they were not aware one was needed.
    I responded that a consensus was not required as it is a volunteer process that members could choose to participate in or not.
    Hasteur objected to there being a drive, in which consensus is not required.
    Due to a request to hold release of a new version of the script in the Dec/Jan drive (by me or that I at least supported as I remember), I stipulated that before this drive is started it will need to clearly be declared that this drive will not, and can not, hold up production and release of new versions of the script as they are badly needed nor can this drive hold up discussion or development of what we want/expect to be able to make the new Draft: namespace do for the project.
    • Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Conclusion 1
      Josve05a asked if there will be a drive or not because the above discussion was unclear to them.
      I responded there will indeed be a drive, and re-stipulated that the drive alone would not be allowed to be cause to hold up any development of Draft: or releases of the AFCH.
      Hasteur left a very frustrated response worried about things that had already been stipulated would not be allowed to be an issue, of which I responded in that manner.
    • Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Conclusion 2
      Josve05a asked if there will be a drive again because the above discussion did not clear it up for them.
      Hasteur accused them of forum shopping (for asking over and over in the same discussion thread, this is hardly forum shopping)
  • Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Template-protected edit request on 24 February 2014
    Hasteur requested an edit to {{AFC submission/tools}} to disallow pages to be moved to WT:Articles for creation/ project space and only allow them to be moved to ]
    I felt this was a POINTy request and declined it stating that "Draft:" was not the preferred location for submissions at this time but saying some of the other incidental requests I would add to the template for him when I had a moment (as I remember I was heading to class).
    Hasteur did not find this acceptable and called for another  Template editor to answer the request, of which Jackmcbarn obliged him and declined his request.
    Three and a half hours later, I kept my promise and completed the parts of his edit request that there was agreeance on (diff)
  • Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Helper tools feature request - copyvio scan - separate disagreement where Hasteur is claiming that offering a link to allow reviewers to scan for copyvios shouldn't be allowed because it takes up to two minutes for those scans to run and that is a waste of time and I countered with a rhetorical question of so you would rather them waste four minutes waiting for an edit page to load where they can get to the existing link/button anyways which seemed to elude him.
  • User talk:Hasteur#Strange review - Huon asking about the following POINTy draft review.
  • User talk:Hasteur#Draft:Ken Block (businessman) - DESiegel asking about a POINTy draft declining as fails to meet GNG when the draft does meet the second point.

Until the committee decides an appropriate course of action, I'm done discussing anything with Hasteur related to WP:WikiProject Articles for Creation. Note, I've intentionally not pinged Hasteur here at this time because I'm unsure of what protocol is in these cases, feel that a notification from me specifically would cause a more defensive stand on Hasteur's part, and expect an ArbCom committee member will be able to inform him in a much more calming and appropriate manner than I can at this point. Thank you for your time. — {{U|Technical 13}} 03:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the protocol here, but as there are no sanctions against him AE can't be used. If this has been going on for a long time and has been extremely disruptive to the AfC project it may warrant a case of its own. That being said, perhaps the Kafziel case shouldn't have been only about Kafziel. KonveyorBelt 20:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I meant long term sanctions like topic bans, a 1RR limit, or discretionary sanctions. Admonishments aren't restrictions and don't have any real long term effect except the informal provision that some might keep it in mind when dealing with other problems, and are not really eligible for AE. KonveyorBelt 23:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Fair enough I suppose. What do you suggest the proper course of action from here would be? This behavior simply can't go on, and I want to make sure I follow proper process in getting the disruptive behavior stopped. Thanks for any input you can offer, Konveyor Belt. — {{U|Technical 13}} 00:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I can only see it getting worse, but due to the editor conflict between him and I, I don't want to be the one to say that is necessary. Perhaps Huon, DESiegel, one of the other involved editors, or another arbitrators opinion would be best here. — {{U|Technical 13}} 02:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I have not been very active on AfC over the past month or more, and while I have been active in the past, and was fairly active at the time of the events that led to this Arb case, I have never been as active as Hastur, Ann Delong, or other AfC regulars. Most of my exchanges with Hastur have been positive. The exchange over the Ken Block draft, mentioned above, was not, but was in no way disruptive. Hastur reviewed the draft, and declined it as not sufficiently demonstrating notability, a very common decline reason at AfC. The drafter came to the help desk to ask what more was needed, and I responded with this and a bit later with this I then left a message for Hastur and got this response. I disagree with that response, and said so, and acted on my views (I approved the draft and nominated it for a DYK slot) I did not find his response or indeed his action "disruptive". I do fear that Hastur is feeling oppressed by the backlog at AfC, and the very limited effort other editors are making, and is perhaps acting too rapidly to give drafts optimal attention. But not without reason. I have seen what seems to me a similar sort of backlog-inspired rush at NPP and SDC-CAT in the past. On the other issues mentioned above, i do think the AfC process should move to the Draft namespace as soon as is reasonably feasible, but i have no opnion on whether the various scripts and tools are ready for that and if not when they would be, nor on the other matters mentioned above. Disagreement and drama are always unfortunate, but if there have been actions needing arbcom intervention, i am not aware of them. If I am being asked to convey concerns to Hastur, i am willing to formulate a message, but i would like a clearer indication of what concerns i am being asked to raise and who is aking or endorsing the request. @Technical 13 and Konveyor Belt:DES 14:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you DES for your response and thoughts on the matter (or at least the part of the matter to which you were referred). This is exactly the reason that I don't want to say if it should be pursued or not as an issue.
I think that a great many of the AfC reviewers are feeling overburdened and oppressed by the backlog and the changes, and I am not sure that is a valid reason for his POINTy and disruptive behavior. I think that reviewers feeling this pressure as well as the number of editors that have been focusing on CSD:G13 assessments are the primary reasons they are not reviewing pending submissions. This being the case, since the backlog is all but dealt with, I think that a backlog drive is exactly what is needed to get the submission backlog to a less scary place so that more reviewers feel comfortable with reviewing submissions.
I am not entirely in concurrence that the move to Draft: needs to happen in a rushed manner. I believe the rushed creation of the namespace was a horrible start and is greatly to blame for many of the issues that have happened since then. There had been no Draft: namespace on this wiki for over a decade, and to bring up the idea and create it in a matter of months left way too much undiscussed and unprepared. The process in which to use this namespace and the tools should have been developed and the entire thing should have been introduced to the wiki in one big package. I digress on that issue as this is not the place for that discussion, and I only bring it up because I do believe that it is one of the greater factors in the emotions driving Hasteur's actions. I could of course be completely wrong about that, but I choose to AGF and believe that is what is happening.
I think that the best course of action here is to draft up an WP:ARCA request as Beeblebrox indicated below and inform Hasteur at the time of its submission. I would be grateful to any contributions you would be willing to offer to this draft if you are interested. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} 15:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • If you are presenting evidence to the committee, diffs are always preferred, as opposed to links to numerous conversations. As the adminishment was already part of a full case, WP:ARCA would probably be the appropriate place to present this material to the committee. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

February 2014 functionary changes

Original announcement

change to block of User:Will Beback

The user had been blocked in an Arbcom decision; recently he tried to use his talk page to appeal the block, whereupon an Arbcom member deleted the appeal and revoked the editor's talk page privileges . The Arbcom decision was offered as the reason for the revocation of talk page access, but the new block was not logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy_ban_appeal#Log_of_blocks.2C_bans.2C_and_restrictions. Queries on the Arbcom member's talk page have not yet been answered after 17 hours, so I'm asking here:

  1. did the committee decide to take these actions, or were they unilateral?
  2. are these actions the result of the arbitration case, and if so shouldn't the change to the block settings be logged there?
  3. was the unblock request deemed inappropriate purely because it was posted to his talk page, or for some other reason such as its content or timing?
  4. has the committee decided that, in general, it will accept unblock requests only via e-mail?
  5. if the committee now prefers to accept unblock requests only via e-mail, would it care to explain why? —rybec 20:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that arbcom only deals with these sorts of things via email.--MONGO 21:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that ArbCom doesn't deal with them at all, simply turns them down as a matter of course. Eric Corbett 21:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
That understanding appears to differ from the edit comment on the revert: "rv, per Misplaced Pages:ARBPOL#Forms_of_proceeding; as always, we will hear this appeal by email only" --Guy Macon (talk) 22:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Doesn't differ from it all, simply a different method of delivery. Eric Corbett 22:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Speaking as someone from the inside - I do wonder and regret that we didn't reply to some emails sooner. We didn't turn down unblock/unban requests as a matter of course...but concede a low proportion were reversed. At least that is my impression. Be good to get some percentages on that actually. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I've seen several supposedly one-year bans that seem to get automatically rejected on appeal after the year is up and become de facto permanent bans. I guess you have too. Eric Corbett 23:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Fixed terms ban aren't really much use as they assume that problems will magically be fixed by the end of them. What the committee is looking for is evidence that the user has moved on from the behaviour that was responsible for the ban in the first place.  Roger Davies 00:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree with that and am aware that many people don't recognize past mistakes. Sometimes though I wasn't so sure...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If fixed-terms bans aren't much use then why issue them, when we all know that appeals will be rejected? What kind of evidence can a banned editor possibly produce to convince a committee with that mindset? Eric Corbett 00:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
The committee rarely issues fixed term bans. They're usually of the "can be appealed after twelve months" variety. What mindset are you talking about? On the sunstantive point, it's not usually difficult to tell from correspondence with the editor whether they're still dwelling on old stuff, still old nursing old grudges etc.  Roger Davies 00:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

There are an extremely tiny number of former editors that don't deserve a second chance....in this case, arbcom should definitely lift this ban and allow this editor to return. Its understandable that you want examples of good behavior...not always easy to find unless you look at Commons (if they participate there) or some other wiki...but seems Will has acknowledged past mistakes and made overtures to avoid repeating them. Its not like Will won't have a bunch of editors watching his every move. Arbcom allowed Rootology to come back for heavens sake...and he later went on to become an admin.--MONGO 00:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

What about the situation where an editor has, over the years, had second chance after second chance after second chance? Not all of it immediately apparent to the casual observer? How many occasions do you continue to give the benefit of the doubt when experience?  Roger Davies 00:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't know how many chances Will has been given...if we're permitted to discuss that publically then that would help as I am not aware of everything involving that editor. If he has been given multiple second chances then his appeal would indeed need to be convincing.--MONGO 00:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes so Will has offered apologies to all involved and stated that he will not do it again. Not sure what more is demanded of him? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree entirely with MONGO, it's time to unblock Will, and I also hope arbitrators stop blanking his appeal on his page. To the jaundiced eye, those blankings don't only bring the message "as always, we will hear this appeal by email only", they also say "and we don't want outsiders and plebeians to be able to read you appeal, either, because it's none of their business." But I look at it like this: no, it's not the community's business to hear the appeal — "hear" used in the sense of assess and respond — it's arbcom's, via e-mail. But I refuse to believe Will hasn't also submitted his appeal by e-mail, or soon will. What harm can the double posting do? Is it really not of any use to arbcom to get some community input, for instance in this thread here? You don't have to acknowledge it or respond or anything, I can see how that could be awkward. Keep your own discussions in camera by all means. But it's really disappointing if the committee's mindset is that we don't want no stinking commentary. Are you by any chance confusing yourselves with a jury, which needs to remain unpolluted by input from the outside? If that's it, just get over yourselves, please. Bishonen | talk 00:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC).

Yes it does sort of give the appearance that arbcom wishes to operate in secrecy and without community input or oversight. Per here it appears that Will emailed Arbcom Jan 16th,2014. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The only purpose of indefinite bans of content creators is bullying. There's no need in indefinite bans. They do not help the project. They even harm the project. In the worst case scenario reblock takes only a minute. Indefinite bans create endless dramas, and take lot's of time. Just think about that:Will submitted his latest request somewhere in January. Now is the March, and he still got no response. Besides many banned users are not interested in ever again editing this site. They simply want to leave, but for whatever reason leave unbanned. I know at least three such persons, but the arbcom and a few anonymous bullies who call themselves "the community" do not let them to leave. It is not only inhumane,not only sick it is insane.76.126.140.150 (talk) 01:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)