Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth closed

Original announcement

I seriously don't get this. I got desysopped because I restored an admin decision that was reverted without discussion? The idea was so ludicrous that I'd forgotten the motion was even being discussed. It seemed uncontroversial: we don't go around reverting admin decisions that we disagree with, and arbcom found that the revert was inappropriate. (And I didn't continue when it was repeated.) So what gives? — kwami (talk) 16:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It seemed uncontroversial to you to breach admin policy (by wheel warring) in a situation which was clearly not urgent and where you were involved? And what about the pattern of edit-warring or move-warring - do you also think it seems uncontroversial for administrators to engage in such conduct (and that too, while being party to an arbitration case)? Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

And the admin who started the wheel warring, against an RfM decision? That's acceptable? When have I ever done such a thing? — kwami (talk) 16:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The first reversal is not wheel warring; wheel-warring is where a reversed action is reinstated. In order for admins to avoid wheelwarring, policy says very clearly in bold "Do not repeat a reversed administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it. Do not continue a chain of administrative reversals without discussion. Resolve admin disputes by discussing." It then says "Wheel warring usually results in an immediate Request for Arbitration. Sanctions for wheel warring have varied from reprimands and cautions, to temporary blocks, to desysopping, even for first time incidents". What prevented you from discussing the matter with the other administrator first? In fact, why was it that you needed to intervene and not one of the many other uninvolved admins available? Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I saw an abuse and I corrected it. Wouldn't an uninvolved admin also have been punished for wheel-warring? — kwami (talk) 08:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Involved or uninvolved, there is an accountability provision in admin policy. Admins who wish to reinstate the action would have been expected to discuss the matter with the admin who reversed the action before intervening; a failure to do so amounts to poor judgment. The poor judgment is compounded where the admin is clearly involved. This is because involved admins have (or at least are seen to have) a conflict of interest. Also, what involved admins see, and the judgment they exercise in response to what they see, can be clouded by their strong feelings in relation to the topic, and this can significantly affect the quality of their judgment. These are among the reasons why the community enacted the requirement in admin policy that involved admins should refrain from intervening, and leave it to uninvolved admins. If on top of that already poor judgment, there is either evidence of that admin's poor conduct or that admin not appearing to be learning from experience, that might suggest that an individual should not have access to their admin privileges for at least a period of time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Was Kwami's editing history a factor in the decision to desysop him? The only reference to such a history is Ncmvocalist's above reference to Kwami's "pattern of edit-warring or move-warring." Because Kwami's past isn't mentioned elsewhere, it seems like it's the one instance of admin tool misuse alone that prompted the desysopping, which would be excessive. If the contextualization of his behavior was a factor in the decision, it might be fair to be overt about this pattern at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 18:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Let me note that kwami is currently under a 24 hr block arising from a separate matter, hence may not be able to respond here for a while. Looie496 (talk) 18:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

For my part, I was defending kwami on the talk page for the proposed decision until he move-warred at Animal rights movement. At that point, I could no longer argue that this was an isolated incident. And at least one arbitrator said this influenced her to vote the way she did. The fact that kwami has now unrelatedly gotten an edit warring block makes me think this desysopping was pretty much inevitable at some point and might as well have happened now. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The case was going on for over a month. The first arb voted for a desysop about 12 days ago. There was plenty of time to put up your defense. If you couldn't be bothered to keep an eye on an Arb Case regarding your use of tools, you don't have a lot of room to complain post close.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

In reading through the ArbCom, kwami's name is rarely mentioned either one way or the other. There was clearly a lot of concern over every other admin's use and misuse of tools and kwami was not even the last admin to wheel war over this. So either desysop all the admins who wheel-warred or slap the wrists of all. My concern over the process is that only one admin who misused their tools was desysoped, and that with very little discussion during the ArbCom. The overall impression that many editors who have commented seem to have been left with is a great disparity in punishments where the "crime" seems to have been very similar. It's not a question of the severity of punishment if all the involved admins are treated similarly, but a question of equality across the board--similar punishments for similar infractions. I was not involved in any way in the issue at Perth or in the ArbCom, but this is my opinion looking at the evidence presented in the ArbCom. --Taivo (talk) 22:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

How can you say his name wasn't mentioned, he's mentioned on the evidence page, the workshop page, and the proposed decision page. You can argue your point, I've got no desire to be some sort of arbcom apologist, but the time to argue it was in the 2 weeks that the voting was ongoing, if not before. Not one post or comment from Kwami during the entire process. He had his time to argue, and he apparently ignored it.--Cube lurker (talk) 22:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

But he's not mentioned a whole lot at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth, which I think is what Taivo was referring to. Looking through the various discussion pages for the case, it seems like Kwami was desysopped for a pattern of behavior, rather than the individual act described at the ArbCom page, which makes the main case page itself misleading. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 23:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything I've said. He was a named party to the case. (Notified on both initiation of request and case acceptance). Evidence was presented. Actions discussed at workshop. Remedies proposed. Remedies voted on. Time elapsed over 1 month. All apparently ignored, and now that it's over he wants to complain. I'm not talking about right or wrong, i'm talking about the fact that you can't ignore the entire process and then after it's over complain that you don't like the result.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

That's because you're focusing on Kwami's aside that he'd forgotten about the ArbCom and ignoring the core of the issue. The decision, as it is stated, is so absurd that two other editors (myself and Taivo) have come here to agree with Kwami that desysopping for a single admintool misuse is excessive (and capricious, given the treatment of other participants). After some hunting, I found that the stated reason for desysopping that drew us here in the first place ("for use of administrative tools while involved in an editing dispute, and for reinstating a reverted administrative action without clear discussion leading to a consensus decision") is not the reason he was desysopped. Instead, per the discussions here, here, and here, it was a pattern of behavior that prompted people to vote for desysopping.

Please understand, I'm not making the case that Kwami shouldn't have been desysopped. I'm saying that the reasoning was not made clear; Kwami's pattern of behavior is not mentioned anywhere at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth and doesn't appear to be a factor considered until one does some digging. I see a number of problems with this kind of opacity in arbitration decisions, one of which is the very confusion that brought us here. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 02:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Cube lurker, I'm not addressing this at the request of kwami or any other editor. This is a concern I have, as Aeusoes1 has clearly stated, based solely on the decision document produced for the Perth arbitration. I shouldn't have to read ten other documents in order to clearly determine why kwami was desysopped and no other admin got more than a slap on the wrist. Kwami is hardly mentioned in the decision document, but his punishment is the most severe and based solely on the decision document, totally out of line with the punishments meted out to the other admins, whose behavior is far more seriously discussed. If you're going to desysop someone based on an Arbitration decision (and only slap the wrists of others), then you must spell out the reasoning on the final decision document and not just assume that editors are going to hunt down the relevant discussion on a page that isn't even linked to. As it is, the decision document fails to make any kind of a case against kwami to justify desysopping when every other involved admin just got a slap on the wrist (actually not even that much, just "admonishments"). --Taivo (talk) 03:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to read ten other documents in order to clearly determine why kwami was desysopped—That's just how arb cases are written up, though, I guess; I'm not sure how this could be improved much. The main page says Kwamikagami is desysopped for use of administrative tools while involved in an editing dispute, and for reinstating a reverted administrative action without clear discussion leading to a consensus decision.—ie, wheel warring, which wp:WHEEL notes can lead to "desysopping, even for first time incidents". And while involved; administrative action while involved is kind of a big deal. You can dig around on the workshop/proposed decision pages to find out more. There's a not-very-convincing section in the evidence page about Kwami's past edit-warring. There's a note at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth/Proposed_decision#Kwamikagami_desysopped by one of the voters pointing to the animal-rights wheel war while the vote was ongoing; so you can see that this second wheel-warring incident while the vote about the first one was ongoing was obviously a factor. You can also see there and in the discussion that a huge community appeal for clemency had some sway; more so in Gnangarra's case, who despite being involved was at least not wheel warring again while the vote was going on, as far as I know. So anyway, with a little trouble you can find the details. Again, I can't imagine how this could be done better; ideas? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

IMHO, the simplest solution is mentioning Kwami's history of contentious editing or the Animal rights movement issue at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 17:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, one very simple solution is to have an uninvolved editor read the final decision to see if it makes sense. The Perth decision reads like this:

• Editors A, B, C, D, E engaged in this bad behavior
• Discussion of editors A, B, D, E and their behavior--accusation, defense and counter-defense
• Editor C says, "This is what I did. I thought it was the right thing to do. When the 'war' kept on going, I didn't do anything else."
• Judgment: Editors A, B, D, E get admonished
• Judgment: Editor C gets hammered with a major punishment

That's exactly how the final decision reads, without any justification whatsoever for the major penalty that Kwami suffered when everyone else simply got admonished (not even temporary suspensions of their admin privileges). Use your supposedly superior admin skills, guys and girls, and think about what you are presenting to the editorship at large. You cannot expect people to read multiple pages in order to understand your ruling. It must all be there on the final decision page. If you don't justify a given penalty on the decision page, then you are unjustified in meting out that penalty. --Taivo (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Except that editors A,B,D and E didn't have a previous history of edit and move warring, including a couple of blocks. It's mentioned on the decision page, and referenced heavily on the Evidence page, which is one click away. It's not as if it's on a collection of completely unrelated pages. However, this now appears to be moot since Kwami appears to have retired. Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

If by "decision page" you mean Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth, which lays out the "final decision" then it's simply false that Kwami's history was mentioned. The main case page is very explicit about everything else and, without mention of Kwami's past troubles with admin tools, makes desysopping him seem capricious. Let me be clear: it's not just that one has to do some hunting to find greater details with the case, it's that the final decision gives a false reason for desysopping him.

Also, we shouldn't use Kwami's apparent resignation as a reason to ignore the problems of transparency under discussion. I hope people can understand the notion of larger principles being at stake. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 19:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Black Kite, it is absolutely false that Kwami's history was mentioned at all on the decision page (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth). Everything an editor needs to know about the decision needs to be summarized on the decision page, without requiring an editor to 1) find the right link to the "Evidence" page and 2) pore through pages of argumentation. The final decision page must be a summary of the decision as well as a summary of the justification for that decision. In this case the decision page reflects very, very poorly on the Arbitration committee because its decision concerning Kwami looks capricious and unfair. It's that simple, Black Kite. You simply can't excuse the appearance of an unfair judgment simply by saying "it's just a click away". An uninvolved editor reading that decision page will not "click", but will look at that decision and say, "What the heck? That's not right." The decision page says that Kwami engaged in behavior that every other admin on that page engaged in, but was punished ten times more severely than any other involved admin. There is simply not one single word of explanation why his punishment was more severe. It reflects poorly on Wikipedia and poorly on Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes. Whether Kwami was treated fairly or not in an absolute sense isn't the question. The decision page clearly shows that he was not fairly treated and was singled out for excessive punishment. If you want to leave the opposite impression, then I suggest you rework that decision page and the processes by which decision pages are prepared. --Taivo (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, his history was mentioned on the decision page, because at least two of the arbs involved clearly stated that they voted for a desysop because of his previous history, and I wouldn't be surprised if others did too (compare the voting on Gnagarra). Whether that was the correct decision is another issue; personally I would have gone for a last chance type deal because of his positive content contribution, but that's something that you'd have to discuss with the arbs. I would also suggest that Kwami's complete refusal to engage with the case didn't help his cause - saying "I did this because I thought it was right, and I'm not saying anything else" is unhelpful. Black Kite (talk) 00:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

No, Black Kite, you are wrong. You show me where on this page that any admin mentions Kwami's past actions as being a basis for his unfair treatment. You can't. I just reread it and there is not a single, solitary statement concerning why he got a punishment ten times worse than any other admin who engaged in exactly the same activity. You are imagining it. And what is wrong if Kwami said, "This is what I did and I thought it was the right thing to do. That's all I have to say about it"? Do you want him to say that 50 times over and over? Indeed, Kwami is mentioned only very rarely on that page, including this from one of the admonished admins: "I do feel bad for Kwamikagami, who clearly felt he was trying to halt a wheel war instead of participating in one." There is not a single, solitary word on that whole page justifying crucifying Kwami and just "admonishing" the other admins, all of whom seem to have been much more involved in the problem. --Taivo (talk) 00:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

That is a summary page, just as it is for every ArbCom case. Reasoning is given in the evidence and proposed decision pages. You need this page. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying it was the correct decision, but to say it wasn't discussed is clearly wrong. And if you're involved in such a case, not engaging with that case is unlikely to help you; you need to provide more justification than a single sentence. Black Kite (talk) 00:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I have been involved in ArbComs before so I know the process, but I'm saying that the only page the majority of editors are ever going to look at is the final summary page. THAT page must contain a summary of why five editors were only admonished and one editor was crucified. And the crucified editor was the one who seemed to be the least involved. Don't try to justify a lousy summary page that doesn't explain the full decision. You can see with this conversation how many editors think that Kwami got the shaft just because of the non-summary summary page that everyone is going to read. I'm also not saying that it wasn't discussed, but the summary page gives the wrong reason why Kwami was singled out. It names three other admins who misused their tools (by your definition), but doesn't offer a single, solitary word why only one of those admins was desysopped. Not one word. That's the problem. Your summary page simply makes the Arb Committee look capricious and arbitrary. --Taivo (talk) 01:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps that would be a good idea. I'm not going to argue that point; the summary page is somewhat lacking in detail. Black Kite (talk) 01:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

"Lacking in detail" is quite the euphemism. It's basically misstating the rationale given in the discussion fora. Either way, mention of Kwami's history in the decision page wouldn't require a significant addition to the decision page to fix the problem. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 04:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but how would you change this? Exactly what should change? The verbiage on the main page, eg Kwamikagami is desysopped for use of administrative tools while involved in an editing dispute, and for reinstating a reverted administrative action without clear discussion leading to a consensus decision. He may regain the admin toolkit through a fresh request for adminship. is word-for-word what was voted on at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth/Proposed_decision. The wording of these gets tweaked, alternatives with slightly different connotations are proposed, etc, etc, ad nauseum until one passes a vote. I suppose for this one I've quoted there is probably a significant chunk of thought and rationale for several arbitrators missing (the part about Kwami's alleged past behavior) and you could go complain to the drafting arbs about it, or maybe to eg. Risker for not insisting that her reason for voting be mentioned in the decision. (However, for some arbitrators I get the feeling that wheel warring while involved was reason enough for desysopping.) But other than that what could be done differently by the process? What exactly are you asking for here? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

If one person gets "admonished" for something, and another person gets "desysopped" for exactly the same thing, then there is clearly information missing. It's clear that the second person must be being desysopped for that plus something else (otherwise why the different treatment?), so that "something else" needs to be spelt out explicitly and supported by evidence. But see my comments below; the whole process, and the actions taken as a result, are fundamentally misconceived. Victor Yus (talk) 16:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you've restated the problem again. How do we fix it? (well, this problem, not the one you mentioned below) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Next time, any decisions imposing similar sanctions should state in much more detail what the sanctions are being imposed for, or more generally, the full reasoning behind them. Victor Yus (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on how you look at it. I'm not entirely sure that providing further detail in the desysop wording would be beneficial for a desysopped admin, as it could significantly limit the possibility of regaining tools in the future - whether or not each person thinks this is a benefit/detriment to the project is subject to interpretation I'm sure you'd appreciate. Whether or not he sees it now, he has an opportunity to work on the issues raised during this case (explicit or not in the final page) and apply for adminship after a period of time, if he wishes to regain his tools. At the time of such a RFA, there is no doubt that some reference will be made to this case by the Community, but I think there is a chance that other issues would not be mentioned unless the pattern has continued or he has not worked on those issues. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Per the move of Animal rights movement, after appeal by several editors to his talk page and notification at AN/I, he reversed the move. Esp since that particular move was just the addition of a hyphen, I don't think it was a very serious issue, and I don't think it should be a factor in this particular discussion. It bothered me a bit at the time, but I don't think I was aware that an ARBCOM case was pending, and certainly didn't mean to influence that case via my relatively minor request for admin help. As to the issues above, while I'm not an admin I do agree that de-sysoping for this one particular incident is overdone, especially since it was a single wheel war (and not a long-term pattern or long set of disruptive edits).--KarlB (talk) 02:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Esp since that particular move was just the addition of a hyphen, I don't think it was a very serious issue—You must be new here. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Totally new. And wait until someone tries to replace a dash with a hyphen. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

And I wasn't even notified of that ANI. I self-reverted because someone gave an intelligent reason why we might not want to apply the MOS in that case. I didn't learn there was an ANI until ErikHaugen emailed me. — kwami (talk) 08:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, I did notify you of the ANI shortly after it was posted: [1].--KarlB (talk) 13:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

For those who did not follow it, this case was pending for several weeks and was intensely debated by the arbitrators and by other members of the community as well. There were proposals made by my colleagues to desysop three administrators for their roles in the Perth move dispute ("wheel war"). I opposed all of these proposed desysoppings as being disproportionate and excessive. There was also quite a bit of community opposition to the proposed desysoppings expressed on the talkpage. Ultimately, two of the proposed desysoppings were voted down in favor of milder remedies (although Gnangarra's was a very close call), while this one passed, regrettably in my personal opinion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

This case just shows again how stupid the current arbitration setup is. Instead of taking those in dispute and bringing them together, we've taken two quite trivial incidents, created masses of drama over them, and ended up removing an experienced and productive (though clearly fallible) administrator from the pool, apparently for no reason except that the crowd demanded at least some blood, and this one was chosen pretty much at random, or as a punishment for disrespectfully getting on with working on Wikipedia while all this was going on rather than wasting his time engaging in this petty and pointless process. (It might also be noted that moving pages over redirects is only barely an administrative action anyway, and in at least one of the two "incidents" it was just a normal editing action.) What should have been done was for a couple of arbs to take all these admins to one side for a firm but friendly chat, reminding them about the relevant standards of conduct and obtaining assurances that they understand and will try to avoid similar errors in future. If any dispute remained unsettled about what the titles of these articles ought to be, based on discussion to date, then ArbCom could have usefully arbitrated that - but it seems that ArbCom currently never actually arbitrate anything as such, just hand out counterproductive and fairly arbitrary punishments (or in WikiSpeak that should probably be !punishments).Victor Yus (talk)

I should note that I was pleased that a couple of arbitrators withdrew their votes to desysop Gnangarra, thereby ensuring that this proposal didn't pass, and I hope that the lack of support for this proposal on the proposed decision's talk page influenced them. Nick-D (talk) 08:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but this whole voting thing is the wrong approach as well. This was a case of handbags where the required action was a quiet firm word to all involved, not an escalation of a trivial matter into a major dispute. Victor Yus (talk) 10:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you. Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who has been following the edit-warring noticeboard over the past couple of years is aware of how frequently Kwami's name appears there as a participant in disputes. Edit warring and move warring are certainly part of the same issue. It is unfortunate that the present sanction risks the loss of Kwami's contributions, but it does fit with Arbcom's recent pattern of sanctions for administrators. In former times they would sometimes choose to suspend adminship for a period rather than lift it completely. EdJohnston (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

That would have been a somewhat better option, I suppose. If a volunteer is generally productive but has their faults, you've got to engage with them and show them how to reform. "Sanctions" should be a last resort, since as you say, they risk (or entail) the loss of the person's contributions. Unfortunately, ArbCom seems capable of doing very little except impose sanctions, and thus isn't really assisting the project in the way that it could. Victor Yus (talk) 16:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Victor, is the "required action" ever to desysop? Do you think this process is reasonable for those cases? This committee decides whether to take cases or whether other dispute resolution fora are more appropriate; do you really disagree with this structure or is your point more that the committee never should have taken this case? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I guess yes, there must be a point where the last resort is reached (or there have been really serious breaches) and desysopping is appropriate. In that case the present process is reasonable in principle (though it could be handled a bit differently, without the battleground atmosphere). I guess the committee might have referred the case to a more appropriate DR forum, but there probably isn't one - in such circumstances the committee should have a different way of proceeding, perhaps based on providing one or two of its members as mediators "with teeth", to talk to those involved and hammer out a solution with them (which in this case would mostly involve making sure they understand what they did wrong and accept that they should not do similar things in future). Sorry if this all seems too girly-touchy-feely, but Wikipedia is supposed to be a cooperative volunteer project, not a fight club. Victor Yus (talk) 16:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

A 'quiet firm word' (Victor Yus's phrase) can be used by individual admins, but it is not clear how Arbcom could do that. And what about restrictions. Can you imagine the idea of putting an admin under a WP:1RR restriction? Any admin who needs that probably shouldn't be one any more. Admins are supposed to have the judgment needed to *enforce* 1RRs. The kinds of measures that are reasonable for Arbcom to use have to be very dramatic and not susceptible to nuance. This suggests to me that admins who edit-war most likely should be promptly blocked like anyone else, so that things don't escalate to Arbcom in the first place. EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

What I envisage is that aribtrators could give admins a "quiet firm word" in much the same way (but with a somewhat greater degree of formality) that admins give other editors quiet firm words. Explicit restrictions like 1RR should not be necessary, provided the admin gets what the problem is (and if he really doesn't, then the next step will be to take the matter to full ArbCom as is done now). I totally disagree that Arbcom should only be allowed to do dramatic things - that seems part of the problem at the moment, far too much drama, not enough constructive solution-finding. And most people who edit war every day are not blocked or sanctioned or anything; if an admin is doing it then it's a problem that certainly should be escalated to somewhere, and ArbCom is the only real possibility - the only place where there are people who carry greater authority (or perhaps "clout") than an ordinary admin - but once it gets there, there should first be an attempt to solve the problem constructively, before resorting to more "dramatic" measures. Victor Yus (talk) 06:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Your point that this is a storm in a teacup is one that I have some sympathy with. However, given the restrictions on wheel-warring I don't think the Committee had much choice other than to take the Case on once it was nominated. Indeed, your complaint might be better addressed to the nominator for ensuring that an annoying spat turned into a full scale drama - although he was clearly within his rights. The law is indeed an ass. Talking of which, it is not so very long ago that there were various complaints that Arbcom was not taking sysop misdemeanours seriously enough. It isn't possible to please everyone (and I don't personally support every decision taken in this judgement) but erring in the direction of holding admins to a high standard is, in my view, preferable to allowing them to misbehave with impunity. Ben MacDui 09:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree; I just think the methods used to achieve that high standard (and also to resolve other types of problems that come to ArbCom) need to be subtler and much more constructive, as befits a community of volunteers working together on a project. Victor Yus (talk) 11:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break

Noting here for the record that kwami has replaced his userpage with what looks like a departure essay (though see also his user talk page). The basic argument used (which as others have said he should have raised during the case, not now) seems to be that he was enforcing the original close (the 'consensus name'). The idea being that an edit war or move war has a 'right' and a 'wrong' side. Which kind of misses the point about the restrictions on edit warring and move warring. It doesn't matter who is 'right'. It matters that the warring stops with a step-change to a discussion. The idea being that you point out to the admin that consensus exists for the move, and then get an extra consensus on top of that, rather than just enforcing the original (presumably disputed) consensus. That seems to be the basic misunderstanding here.

On whether the noticeboard summary and the final decision page lack the detail needed for those looking at this case for the first time, I've re-read them and I agree that it would have been better to flesh out why kwami was being desysopped and Gnangarra wasn't. The reasoning can be seen on the proposed decision page and the proposed decision talk page, but that is not really sufficient. Also, the noticeboard summary only links to Perth article and not to the users who were sanctioned, which seems different to how such decisions are normally summarised. I'll mention at the clerks noticeboard in case none are following this thread. Are any arbs willing to comment on whether the final decision should have been fleshed out more? Carcharoth (talk) 18:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• I hate to say it, but I agree with the ArbCom's decision to desysop Kwami. There've just been too many instances of abrasiveness on his part, both in his editing patterns and interactions with other users, for me to feel confident in him continuing to hold administrator status. I'm sorry, Kwami. Master&Expert (Talk) 19:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Maybe, but if that was the reason, then that should have been made clearer in the proposed decision. The more I think about it, the more I think those commenting above are right, that the current final decision is not clear enough. This seems to be a genuine case where a request for clarification might actually help. I've also raised procedural points here and here, the first on the minor point about adding username links that I mentioned above, the second on whether more notification is needed during case. Somewhat to my surprise, given the number of people calling for leniency on their behalf, I've realised that neither kwami nor Gnangarra commented at the proposed decision talk page (Deacon did) and it seems that none of the parties were formally notified during the case that sanctions had been proposed against them (there seems to be a presumption that parties drop everything and follow cases from the moment of notification, they should at least be able to request notification of the proposed decision). I've not yet looked into how much the parties commented during the earlier case stages, but I do think that arbitrators have a duty of care to ensure that no matter how many other people are commenting at case pages, that lines of communication remain open to the parties to a case (i.e. those facing sanctions or redress), and that it is ensured first that the parties are having their say, or have been notified, and only then do you turn to address what others are saying (even if they are speaking 'on behalf' of others). I may file a request for clarification on the desysop disparity later tonight depending on any further comments made here. Carcharoth (talk) 20:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• • I completely agree, Carcharoth. From what I can tell, after the initial notification that "his name had come up in reference to an ArbCom action", there was no further contact with Kwami until he was summarily desysopped. --Taivo (talk) 22:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

    • Well, that's not entirely correct. After the original "you are involved" message, they were informed that the case had been opened; that latter message provided links to all pages related to the case, including a link to the guide for the process. -- Lord Roem (talk) 11:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

    Well yeah, for the sake of clarity, it's always best to elaborate on everything factored into a decision as serious as a desysop. So I do agree with you guys there as well. Master&Expert (Talk) 22:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

    While I agree that it would be good practice to notify the parties when the proposed decision is posted, I don't think that it's unreasonable to expect that these editors (and especially those who are admins) would keep an eye on the case, and comment where necessary - we expect that editors will watchlist pages of interest to them, and arbitration cases in which they're a named party obviously falls into this category. I note that ArbCom has in the past sanctioned parties for not engaging with cases (for instance, Thumperward at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement#Final decision); whether this is a good idea or not, it's not new. Nick-D (talk) 00:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

    Carcharoth—it's difficult to say for sure why Kwami was desysopped, since the proposal for desysopping for wheel warring while involved got 11 different support votes, all by people probably thinking slightly different things. At least 2 voted for that proposal despite saying their real reasons for supporting had to do with other alleged bad behavior—do you think those arbitrators (and the other 3 that didn't support Gnangarra's desysop, so presumably wouldn't just desysop anyone for wheel warring while involved) ought to have made another proposal with verbiage like "and for a history of edit warring" before supporting? Does that normally happen, in your experience, Carcharoth? If so, getting arbs to do that might be the answer to the complaints above about the unsatisfying lack of detail in the final decision page. I'll note that it might be reasonable to guess that most of the arbs supporting Kwami's desysop—although probably not the 7 required for majority—did so simply for wheel warring while involved as the decision says. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 04:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

    • I would also note that kwami is still contributing in spite of what Carcharoth has noted. While it might be well-intentioned for someone else to seek clarification or amendment (due to questions in the interim), I think this would be better treated as one of those situations where it is left to kwami to decide whether he wants it clarified on that page, or if he prefers to work on the issues and seek re-election with the wording as it currently stands. The latter is less complicated because if he seeks reelection without working on those issues, others will raise those issues during such RFA. Obviously, if the intention is to make it more complicated, then only the first sentence of this comment would stand and the rest might as well be ignored. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

      That is a good point (that kwami is still contributing). I agree it is best left to kwami to decide on whether clarification is needed or desired (I won't point this out to him myself, but if others reading this do so I'd appreciate being told if any clarification request is filed). I have said more (a bit tl;dr) here. To reply here to ErikHaugen, yes, in my experience when there is a clear disparity in sanctions between two users and it is not clear from the proposed decision why there is that disparity, the arbitrators are normally willing to add principles and findings to make things clearer. The only people that can answer why that wasn't done in this case are the arbs themselves that were active on the case. Carcharoth (talk) 12:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I actually think Kwami's involvement isn't that relevant to addressing this issue. An important factor here is the larger principle of the summary page having an adequate summary. We don't want to set (or reinforce, I'm not normally involved in ArbComs) the precedent that grossly inadequate rationales for ArbCom decisions are appropriate. More importantly, we don't want to give future clerks et al. a misleading impression that giving different punishments to different participants for the same action in the same ArbCom is appropriate. That sort of thing wouldn't be appropriate (I know that's not what happened here, but the summary gives that impression, which is what I think is wrong). — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 15:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Re: Carcharoth: Lord Roem is a trainee, so it's possible that he didn't know. I shall inform him. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 06:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Perth (arbitrary break): Kwami and the prior discussion finding

I notice it says on the proposed decision page that Kwami "participated in the request for move discussion, and reinstated the original decision by moving the pages at 02:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC) without discussing the matter first", however if you look at the actual page, there is quite a bit of discussion and perhaps even agreement over the next course of action. On Gnangarra's section, it was noted "He had been discussing the matter" and diffs given, but not on Kwami's section. Neotarf (talk) 14:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Neotarf, that's incorrect, from the time of JHunterJ's initial move, through to Kwami's reversal, Kwami didn't discuss the matter. I've copied the relevant edits into the collapsed section below:

Extended content

(del/undel) 02:16, 10 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . m Talk:Perth/Archive 1 ‎ (Kwamikagami moved page Talk:Perth, Western Australia/Archive 1 to Talk:Perth/Archive 1) (del/undel) 02:15, 10 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . m Talk:Perth/to do ‎ (Kwamikagami moved page Talk:Perth, Western Australia/to do to Talk:Perth/to do: please don't wheel war. take move request to ANI if need be.) (del/undel) 02:15, 10 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . m Talk:Perth/Archive 3 ‎ (Kwamikagami moved page Talk:Perth, Western Australia/Archive 3 to Talk:Perth/Archive 3: please don't wheel war. take move request to ANI if need be.) (del/undel) 02:15, 10 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . m Talk:Perth/Archive 2 ‎ (Kwamikagami moved page Talk:Perth, Western Australia/Archive 2 to Talk:Perth/Archive 2: please don't wheel war. take move request to ANI if need be.) (del/undel) 02:15, 10 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . m Talk:Perth ‎ (Kwamikagami moved page Talk:Perth, Western Australia to Talk:Perth over redirect: please don't wheel war. take move request to ANI if need be.) (del/undel) 02:15, 10 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . m Perth ‎ (Kwamikagami moved page Perth, Western Australia to Perth: please don't wheel war. take move request to ANI if need be.) (del/undel) 02:14, 10 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . m Talk:Perth (disambiguation)/Archive 1 ‎ (Kwamikagami moved page Talk:Perth/Archive 1 to Talk:Perth (disambiguation)/Archive 1: please don't wheel war) (del/undel) 02:14, 10 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . m Perth (disambiguation) ‎ (Kwamikagami moved page Perth to Perth (disambiguation) over redirect: please don't wheel war) (del/undel) 02:05, 10 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+681)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language ‎ (→‎Word or expression that originally meant literally what it said but no longer means literally what it says, but is still in use) (del/undel) 01:53, 10 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+189)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language ‎ (→‎Japanese romanization) (del/undel) 01:39, 10 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . m Franks ‎ (del/undel) 01:15, 10 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+339)‎ . . User talk:Kwamikagami/Archive 17 ‎ (→‎Wikimedia Ghana wants you on board) (del/undel) 15:40, 9 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+9)‎ . . 50000 Quaoar ‎ (per further talk at DP) (del/undel) 15:39, 9 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+9)‎ . . 90377 Sedna ‎ (per further talk at DP) (del/undel) 15:39, 9 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+9)‎ . . 90482 Orcus ‎ (per further talk at DP) (del/undel) 15:39, 9 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+9)‎ . . (225088) 2007 OR10 ‎ (per further talk at DP) (del/undel) 15:37, 9 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+367)‎ . . Talk:List of gravitationally rounded objects of the Solar System ‎ (→‎move?) (top) [rollback | sum] (del/undel) 15:35, 9 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+127)‎ . . Talk:Dwarf planet ‎ (→‎Wording in individual articles) (del/undel) 14:41, 9 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-56)‎ . . Roog ‎ (del/undel) 14:39, 9 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-41)‎ . . Roog ‎ (→‎Etymology) (del/undel) 14:37, 9 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+411)‎ . . N Talk:Roog (Serer deity) ‎ (←Created page with 'I don't know if Gravrand is competent to speak on Serer religion, but he apparently in not qualified to speak on etymology. He says Roog is a corruption of Koox,...') (del/undel) 14:30, 9 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-126)‎ . . Roog ‎ (copy edit) (del/undel) 14:27, 9 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-842)‎ . . Roog ‎ (→‎Etymology) (del/undel) 14:21, 9 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-3,639)‎ . . Roog ‎ (→‎Etymology: del. more Gavrand nonsense) (del/undel) 14:19, 9 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-27)‎ . . Faro (mythology) ‎ (Undid revision 496746239 by Tamsier (talk) not RS) (top) [rollback | sum] (del/undel) 14:16, 9 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-41)‎ . . Sandawe people ‎ (Undid revision 496745718 by Tamsier (talk) apparent error) (del/undel) 14:07, 9 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . Shilha language ‎ (→‎Writing system) (del/undel) 14:06, 9 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+509)‎ . . Berber Arabic alphabet ‎ (top) [rollback | sum] (del/undel) 14:06, 9 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-44)‎ . . Central Atlas Tamazight ‎ (del/undel) 14:03, 9 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+44)‎ . . Central Atlas Tamazight ‎ (Undid revision 496748377 by Kwamikagami (talk)) (del/undel) 14:02, 9 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-44)‎ . . Central Atlas Tamazight ‎ (del/undel) 13:58, 9 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-17)‎ . . Berber Arabic alphabet ‎ (del/undel) 13:45, 9 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+148)‎ . . (225088) 2007 OR10 ‎ (Undid revision 496708701 by Ckatz (talk) no objection on talk) (del/undel) 13:44, 9 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+169)‎ . . 90482 Orcus ‎ (Undid revision 496708694 by Ckatz (talk) no objection on Talk) (del/undel) 13:43, 9 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+165)‎ . . 90377 Sedna ‎ (ref) (del/undel) 13:43, 9 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+29)‎ . . 50000 Quaoar ‎ (del/undel) 13:42, 9 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+138)‎ . . 50000 Quaoar ‎ (del/undel) 13:40, 9 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-12)‎ . . 90377 Sedna ‎ (Undid revision 496708691 by Ckatz (talk) no objection raised on Talk after several days) (del/undel) 13:39, 9 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-10)‎ . . 50000 Quaoar ‎ (Undid revision 496708677 by Ckatz (talk) no objection raised on Talk after several days) (del/undel) 13:39, 9 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+332)‎ . . User talk:Ckatz ‎ (→‎DP wording: new section) (del/undel) 04:35, 9 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-7)‎ . . Andhra Pradesh ‎ (over precision) (del/undel) 02:48, 9 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+10)‎ . . Khariboli ‎ (rv: 1 pointless & 1 inconsistent)

PhilKnight (talk) 15:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) PhilKnight, that is the log for after the move, not before. Here is the discussion that occurred between JHunterJ's move and Kwami's move. I have added bolding to the part that pertains to the rationale for Kwami's move:

Extended content

The result of the move request was: pages moved per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I will update the hatnote to include a direct link to the location in Scotland, so that readers seeking that will still be the same one-click from it. Both have long-term significance, but the readership usage does indicate a better efficient arrangement by putting the Australian city at the base name, and being the namesake is not one of the primary topic criteria (which also leads to the arrangement of places like Boston). -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC) Changed to no consensus. Previous close sounds too much like a support and too little like an impartial close. Discussion has clearly yielded no consensus nor has it revealed any clear policy application. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC) My closing comments were not a vote, but a summary of the applicable guidelines brought up in the discussion. If you ignore WP:NOTVOTE and simply count heads, yes, there appears to be no consensus, but if you read the text and discard the ones that do not line up with Wikipedia guidelines and policies (WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, WP:RMCI), there move was indicated. You should have gotten an uninvolved admin to review. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC) J, there is indisputably no consensus on the discussion; that's not "head-counting", that's reading the discussion. "Consensus" is not a synonym for "something I agree with", it is a state of agreement/disagreement. If you wanted to express your opinion on the topic like you've done, you should be taking part in the discussion, not closing (as it stands you've made no reference to the discussion you implicitly claim to have read). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC) I have posted to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive755#Perth to ask that the original closure be restored, and then any editor who wishes can take the issue to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closure review. I believe the latter is the standard procedure for contesting a closure, rather than unilaterally reversing it. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 00:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC) D, there is only disputably no consensus in the discussion, and I dispute it after sifting the !votes through relevant guidelines and policies. You are a member of the Scotland Wikiproject and not impartial. Search for "PRIMARYTOPIC", "primary", "usage", "significance", and "namesake" in the discussion below to see the parts that I made reference to in my closing comments. the proper reference to the "primary topic" guidelines. I have no connection to Australia or its project, and some MacAdams ancestry, so any partiality I have (other than towards Wikipedia guidelines) would have been opposite the close I made. "A close I don't agree with" is not a synonym for "not impartial". -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC) I restored the move. If it is was badly done, of if JHunterJ has a COI, there are channels to deal with that. Wheel warring over a controversial article is not a constructive approach. And given how long this debate has been going on, the time it would take to go through channels is not significant. — kwami (talk) 02:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Neotarf (talk) 00:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Neotarf, the edits I quoted were from before the move. PhilKnight (talk) 00:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I see now, the order is reversed, with later ones on top. Kwami comments at 02:26, 10 June 2012; it seems to be a response to or continuation of the previous discussion, specifically about getting someone to restore the title in order to take it elsewhere for proper discussion. I have bolded Kwami's comment as well. Neotarf (talk) 00:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, but as far as I can tell, the finding of fact in regard to Kwami is correct. PhilKnight (talk) 07:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

No, no, no, no, not correct at all. The finding says there was no discussion, but there was discussion here [2] and here [3] and here [4]

This discussion is the crux of the entire problem. 1) JHunterJ admits there was no consensus to move, but moves anyway, citing PRIMARYTOPIC. 2) P.T. Aufrette asks for the original closure be restored, saying that is the standard procedure for contesting a closure. 3) Kwami complies with P.T. Aufrette's request, citing the need to go to the proper venue for contesting any conflict of interest issues, instead of just reverting.

This "conflict of interest" issue has been causing great disruption with RM discussions, and was in part the reason for the creation of the new Move Request Review procedure. Many say that JHunterJ acts as if any particular titling issue can be resolved by applying one particular policy, PRIMARYTOPIC, while ignoring all other applicable titling policies, and ignoring consensus. So far, four of his RM closures have been brought to Move Request Review and many have called his closures a "supervote". This takes place within the context of the larger issue of whether a particular policy can become written in stone to the point where it trumps consensus. This Perth case has been at ANI and RMV without touching on this "conflict of interest" issue. When the Perth case was brought to ArbCom, several editors said that JHunterJ had COI and should have recused himself.

This "conflict of interest" issue is why the case was brought to ArbCom. This is what the community cannot agree on, and what they want someone to resolve. But instead, ArbCom has shot the messenger.

Neotarf (talk) 11:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The finding is "Kwamikagami participated in the request for move discussion, and reinstated the original decision by moving the pages at 02:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC) without discussing the matter first." Your diffs don't show this is wrong, as they show comments made by other editors, and an edit by Kwami after the move. PhilKnight (talk) 13:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, Kwami had the last word, there's no doubt about that. But how could anyone say there was no discussion? Kwami's "if JHunterJ has a COI" clearly refers to the heated discussion between JHunterJ and Deacon of Pndapetzim over JHJ's impartiality. And Kwami's statement: "...there are channels to deal with that. Wheel warring over a controversial article is not a constructive approach. And given how long this debate has been going on, the time it would take to go through channels is not significant..." is clearly in response to, and in agreement with, P.T. Aufrette's request that the "original closure be restored" as "the standard procedure for contesting a closure". [5] And at this point, it did look like consensus; they had agreed to disagree, and the discussion did indeed move to other channels for dispute resolution. What was left to say?

I would be a lot more sympathetic to the idea that the arbs might have examined the above conversation prior to voting if someone had discovered that the second diff in the "Proposed findings of fact" for Gnangarra doesn't work. [6] I'm not saying I could have done any better if presented with a huge volume of verbiage that I was not even being paid to look at, but in this case it's not just something like a hyphen versus a dash slipping through the cracks, it's a question of fairness.

The background definition of wheelwarring also needs to be examined more closely. With edit warring there is a "bright line" of 4RR in 24 hours, but edit warring is also defined by patterns and not just stringent rule. That is, intentions are taken into account, such as waiting 25 hours for that 4th revert. With wheelwarring, I understand there is no "bright line", that is, everything is taken in context. The actions of the involved admins should be considered within the timeline of other actions, and along with stated and observed intentions, such as taking the dispute to various dispute resolution processes.

The more I look at the details of Kwami's supposed wheel warring (at animal rights movement) during this case — that supposedly was a deciding factor in the decision to desyssop — the less convinced I am that it was actually wheelwarring. There should have been a separate finding for this. I don't know if Wikipedia operates on a presumption of innocence or a presumption of guilt, but if a decision about Kwami was going to be made based on something that was not presented in the evidence, then new evidence for that should be presented, and it should be examined openly. Neotarf (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Ironically, the move logs you quoted there just prove my point about the failure of arbitrators to actually engage with the parties to this case. kwami clearly said there in the move log: "please don't wheel war. take move request to ANI if need be". That by itself Neotarf (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)should make it obvious that he (rightly or wrongly) didn't see himself as wheel-warring and was asking people to stop and discuss the matter. Now, he may have been wrong to do that, and he may have been wrong to 'communicate by move log summary' instead of telling the admin directly, but then the question arises, why did no arbitrator make the effort to go to kwami's talk page and ask him directly what he meant by his move log summary and why he didn't think that it was wheel-warring? (If going to someone's talk page feels wrong, post a formal question in the section provided for that and ask a clerk to notify the party). That is the logical thing to do when trying to sort out such a case. If you expect administrators to go to other people's talk pages and discuss things with them, surely the same should be expected of arbitrators, or is is a case of being summoned to answer a case and having to go there? If so, the case notifications should make that clear. Though it seems if you don't turn up to a case, the arbitrators won't actually notice anyway. Drafting and voting on proposals seems to be more important than actually talking to the parties facing sanctions. About the log for that period, you can replace the above with this link. Carcharoth (talk) 18:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Carcharoth, Kwami didn't just " 'communicate by move log summary' instead of telling the admin directly", the exact statement was "I restored the move. If it is was badly done, of if JHunterJ has a COI, there are channels to deal with that. Wheel warring over a controversial article is not a constructive approach. And given how long this debate has been going on, the time it would take to go through channels is not significant." Here is the link [7], and here is the exact diff [8], although it needs to be read in context with the rest of the discussion. I read it as a response to this request [9]. (The edit summary says "requesting restoration of original close, which can be contested in the standard way at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closure review rather than by unilateral reverse"). Neotarf (talk) 01:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe my move was in response to that, as well as to JHunterJ's defense of his close here: [10] — kwami (talk) 06:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be a very clear case of the Arbitration Committee imposing a judgment on kwami that is totally out of line based on the facts of this case. Kwami was clearly trying to help the situation rather than continue a wheel war. He said as much in his defense, "I thought I was doing the right thing." Wikipedia is becoming less and less like the cooperative encyclopedic endeavor that it once was and is becoming more and more focused on breeding a generation of wikilawyers who do nothing but find ways to use its policies as hammers. While Newyorkbrad was a welcome voice of reason in this particular arbitration, I can't say that about any of the other arbitrators involved. Has absolute power corrupted? When I first started asking questions here, I was willing to give the Arbitration Committee the benefit of the doubt, but the more I've read, the more I'm convinced that kwami's punishment was more of an abuse of too much power without a sufficient process to constrain that power. Who is watching the watchers? --Taivo (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Kwami wheel warred while involved, and my first preference was to admonish him, and my second preference to desyop. I honestly don't consider that to be totally out of line or an abuse of power. PhilKnight (talk) 23:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

All these admins were wheel-warring while involved, PhilKnight. That's the problem. But even though Kwami was the least involved of all the admins in this case, he was slapped with a major penalty and the others weren't even slapped on the wrist with minor penalties. "Admonishment" is nothing. Kwami was unjustly treated and the more I read the more I'm convinced of this. You didn't vote to desysop anyone else even though their involvement in this problem was clearly far more than Kwami's. Sorry PhilKnight, but your "it wasn't my first choice" rings hollow since it was still one of your choices. Those who were causing the problems here got no penalty, the one who was involved the least got desysopped. I ask my question again, "Who's watching the watchers?" This is wikilawyering run amok and simply encourages the environment of more and more wikilawyers on more and more pages driving the best and most qualified editors away. --Taivo (talk) 01:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

One more comment on the issue of "preference" in ArbCom voting--it doesn't mean a damn thing. If you write "second choice" after a "Yes" vote it's still counted as a "Yes" vote for that question just like the other "Yes" votes. The result of the vote for Kwami to be desysopped was 11 to 1, not 10.5 to 1. The whole notion of ArbCom members writing "second choice" is ludicrous. It is the equivalent of giving one member of a firing squad a blank, so that there is plausible deniability, but it doesn't matter one whit to the executee. If you didn't want him desysopped, then you should have voted "No" on the desysop option, not "second choice". --Taivo (talk) 06:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Tavio, in case you don't understand, first and second preferences are used to determine which motion passes in situations where two or more alternate motions are passing. Otherwise, Deacon wasn't wheel warring, at least not according to WP:WHEEL, and Kwami's conduct wasn't mitigated by discussing the move before hand. PhilKnight (talk) 07:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean "Taivo"? In the end, the Arbitration Committee needed a sacrificial lamb to appease the policy gods, so they picked the admin who said the least during the proceedings and had a back history that could be used to justify their actions. So Kwami is desysopped and nothing happens to anyone else involved. --Taivo (talk) 13:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about the typo. PhilKnight (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment, since someone just told me this was still going on:

I thought I was helping by enforcing the RfM decision. Although I had voted some time earlier, that wasn't my reason for restoring the move, which was simply that when an admin closes a RfM, they shouldn't be reverted arbitrarily. Arbcom agreed with me on this point. This wasn't a case of an admin making a WP:BOLD move out of the blue, being reverted with a coherent objection, and then me redoing the move because I liked it, but of the closure of a RfM after extended discussion being reverted because someone disagreed. We can't have a functional RfM system if anyone who disagrees with the closing decision can just revert it: In a case like this, which has seen multiple page moves, isn't that what an RfM is designed to resolve? 

I was asked here why I didn't let an uninvolved admin handle it. Well, after being reverted, that's what I did.

As for not defending myself on these pages, the initial Arbcom proposal looked like a case of several people being trouted for not discussing things properly. I didn't see much point in expending a lot of verbiage justifying my actions. I see too much of that: the "squid defense", as Stephen Jay Gould once put it: hiding behind a cloud of ink. I figured that people could judge for themselves from the page histories; my talking wouldn't change the facts, and therefore shouldn't effect that. If I got trouted, fine, I'd learn that I shouldn't interfere in such cases; or Arbcom might agree with me, since (I thought) I was defending the integrity of WP. So I expected to eventually be told what they'd decided, either to be trouted for inappropriate (but minor) action, told that I went about it the wrong way, etc. Whatever the decision, I'd have a better idea what to do in such cases in the future, and I had no problem with Arbcom making that call. Since I wasn't engaged in further discussion, I had no idea that the originally minor case had escalated to this extent. Evidently I wasn't notified. I was taken by surprise when I was told I was desysopped, and at first I thought it was a prank. Then I came here and was told that to some extent it was my fault I got desysopped for, in essence, not wikilawyering my case, that I should have been making these arguments all along when I was perfectly willing to let Arbcom decide on the facts instead, and to notify me of what if anything I had done wrong.

— kwami (talk) 23:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• @Kwami: The evidence in an RFAR case generally gets bigger and bigger, and even though there are more ArbCom members than when I initially started as AC Clerk, it still doesn't mean that ArbCom can really gather its own evidence. (as in, except extremely special cases, they can only do with what they are given.) Thus, it still falls to all participants in an RFAR to follow-up with evidence that others have provided against them and defend, etc. (This is also why evidence limit exist, so to make life simpler for all involved.) - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 07:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Kwami, with all respect, if you really take such a lackadaisical approach to matters you're involved in then you deserved to have lost the tools. It's a pretty basic expectation that admins will take part in discussions concerning their use of the tools, especially when this is raised in one of the dispute resolution forums. Nick-D (talk) 08:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, this was presented as a matter of trouting inappropriate behavior, and I had no problem with that. It was not presented as s.t. that needed much defense: If Arbcom decided to admonish me for going about the problem in the wrong way, I had no problem with that, and no reason to think it would be anything more than that. We're constantly chiding each other for not assuming good faith, and here it turns out that I had assumed too much good faith: that what was presented as a minor problem would be treated as a minor problem. — kwami (talk) 09:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Third arbitrary break

Initially started in wrong section and moved here. Carcharoth (talk) 21:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I must admit I'm slightly surprised that very little comment has been made here so far about [the Fae case] compared to others. The Perth case decision is generating far more commentary, and from what I've seen so far, some valid points are being raised. It's not the usual rhetoric, but a range of editors actually making cogent points. The more I look at it, the more I think something went wrong there in the approach the arbs took to that case. It will be interesting to see whether ArbCom can be responsive to that or not, or whether the usual post-case apathy will kick in at some point. Carcharoth (talk) 06:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Carcharoth, remember that Kwami could stand for re-election at WP:RFA today if he wants to. Considering the vote was 11-1, I doubt that ArbCom are going to overturn the decision. PhilKnight (talk) 07:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

To be blunt: no, he can't. 'Tools removed by ArbCom and applying for them back a week later' – no one is going to pass that RfA, no matter how good an admin they were. If you want to stand by your decision, that's fine, but don't point to RfA as if it's a realistic option. Jenks24 (talk) 07:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, this may be an exception. The disapproval with arbcom here is even more unified than it was with RF a few months ago. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay Carcharoth, I'll bite - what do you think went wrong? Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly the sort of thing I have been talking about. Decisions like this to desysop kwami for doing what they thought was the appropriate thing is causing other admins to think twice about being bold and doing what are sometimes controversial admin functions. As for standing for reelection why on Earth would they want too. RFA is a painful process and its highly unlikely that the majority would want to go through it. In many cases its very likely that they won't even edit anymore so we are essentially eating our own young. This is just another example of a bad decision. Kumioko (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Disregarding everything else, I think it's highly unlikely that any ArbCom decisions have had an effect on the RfA trend. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying it was a good decision, but I want to address one point that keeps coming up. I think most admins know that wheel warring while involved is probably not a good idea. I also think most admins know what wheel warring is, and wouldn't use an edit summary like "stop wheel warring" when they reinstate a reversed administrative operation. Also, after getting named as a party at arbcom for a case of several people being trouted for not discussing things properly—even if that's all it was—most admins would probably not restore their own page moves after getting reverted before any kind of discussion. This is all pretty straightforward to most admins, I think; this is not near the gray area where we want admins to "be bold and do something controversial". ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks, Cas. Here is my take on things. What has been going on here should be clear from the threads above, from the talk page of the proposed decision and the thread at WT:AC/C (the one about notifying parties to cases). But if you want a new summary here it is along these sort of lines: I get that people can dismiss most concerns with a "kwami should have been more attentive to what was happening", but the basic gripe I have is that it seems that no arbs or clerks managed to notice that Gnangarra and kwamikagami (two of the four parties facing sanctions) were essentially absent from the case. That is the sort of detail that I thought arbs used to be attentive about, and to be aware of. Nick-D correctly pointed out that kwami should have paid more attention himself, but fails to address the point that Gnangarra was on a break and didn't ask for the case to be delayed while he was on his break. Should Gnangarra have paid more attention to the case, or does it not matter in his case because the desysopping narrowly failed to pass?

There is also a procedural point that kwami may have seen the initial proposed decision (only proposing an admonishment) and not been aware that desysopping proposals were added later (he has said he was completely blindsided when the final decision and desysopping notification appeared on his talk page and he thought it was a prank. Whether you believe that or not (on balance, I wouldn't disbelieve it), it should at least be responded to.

The other point is that some of the timelines and points raised above do seem to actually be making a good case that there has been a misunderstanding over what kwami did and intended to do (see in particular what kwami himself has said). My view is that both kwami and ArbCom should have made more effort here. ArbCom should have made an effort to get kwami's side of the story, and kwami should have made an effort to present his side of things. i.e. A general all round failure of communication. (Yes, I know people will say that the onus was on kwami, but it reflects poorly on ArbCom that they seemingly couldn't be bothered to try and get the views of two of the parties placed on the record other than the initial statements made).

Cas, is that clear enough, or would you like it broken down a bit more to make it easier to follow? It really is worth reading what others have said above and elsewhere as well (there is a very important general complaint being made that the final decision is very unclear to those looking at it for the first time, many of whom understandably fail to comprehend why kwami was desysopped and Gnangarra wasn't - that is a failure of the arbs to add the necessary clarity to the case to distinguish the two remedies). If you think it is worth other arbitrators looking in more detail at this (rather than just a cursory glance and moving on), please do point them here. It may be that kwami would like some sort of clarification or amendment request filed to present his side of things (or maybe not), and it may be worth clarifying the final decision regardless (see what was said here). The question I suppose is whether ArbCom is flexible enough to listen to what has been said here, or is more likely to go 'meh' and move on. The human face of ArbCom versus the bureaucratic side of things. Carcharoth (talk) 21:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It's worth noting that most editors - including, I suspect, a majority of admins - aren't at all familiar with ArbCom's procedures. I know I wasn't at the time I participated in the only case to which I've been a party. From what I've seen, the Committee and clerks are aware of this and generally do a good job of making allowances (though I think that too much leeway is given to uncivil editors who continue to use cases to mount personal attacks). In this case the proposed decision contained some elements which I don't believe had been raised in the workshop, and the proposal to desysop Gnangarra was (in my view) pretty extreme given his good history, so improved communications would have helped. I suspect that this case may have fallen victim to the unusually complex and resource-intensive Fæ case which was going on at the same time. Nick-D (talk) 23:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Whether the arbs agree with that or not is another matter. I'm hoping (though not holding my breath) that some of the arbs will be willing to admit that communication with the parties facing sanctions could have been better in this case. I wrote a lot more, but deleted it as I want to hear what arbs have to say and I've said enough already. Carcharoth (talk) 00:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2 closed

Original announcement

I tried to write this out several times while the case was in the proposed decision phase and each time it just came out as a bitter rant. Here's hoping this will be better. The most disappointing thing about this case for me was that we've lost Ohconfucius as an editor and in entirely avoidable circumstances, even if it was necessary to ban him from Falun Gong-related articles. Looking at the diffs provided in the finding of fact, I agree with Risker that they do not show an anti-Falun Gong POV, but rather an attempt to conform to NPOV. However, the real problem is that even if he made anti-Falun Gong edits, it is absolutely ridiculous to label him a pro-PRC POV pusher – as anyone who has ever collaborated with Ohconfucius can tell you, his personal opinion of the PRC government is definitely not "pro" and he has regularly added content that is critical of the PRC. IMO, the reason we've lost this fantastic contributor is because, if the arbs who supported this FoF so obviously haven't done any significant research before being happy to make such an accusation, why should anyone believe that any of the other findings of fact, remedies, principles, etc. have been thoroughly researched? Jenks24 (talk) 13:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ closed

Original announcement

• I note that all of Fae's previous accounts and socks are not blocked. Seems like it would be appropriate for an Arb to block them all. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

  I've blocked all of the accounts that were listed in finding of fact 2, which I omitted to do when blocking the primary account. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you, arbitrators, for issuing such a carefully weighed decision in this case, and for enacting remedies which are both justified by and proportionate to the infractions of the three non-filing parties. I am hopeful that this decision will allow the community to move on from what was probably the most toxic interpersonal dispute I witnessed during my time on Wikipedia, and perhaps the worst to reach the Arbitration Committee since C68-FM-SV. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
  • And thank YOU for taking the time to recognize us for the time and investment that we make into seeking appropriate and proportionate balance. The encouragements seem few and far between compared to the loud and unhappy voices at times. Jclemens (talk) 22:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Take heart from the fact that while thanks for your efforts may not be verbalized often, it is viewable in the stable growth (both size and quality) of the encyclopedia. The only reason you don't have 100 more commendations like the one above is that the editors who benefit from your work are too busy editing! 174.233.131.24 (talk) 05:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'll go ahead and echo A Stop at Willoughby's encouragement. You all have worked hard on three simultaneous, contentious cases and made an effort to reach equitable judgments in each of them. Not that I endorse every decision in all particulars (I haven't spent enough time reviewing the evidence, especially the off wiki stuff in the Fae case, to form a complete judgement), but it is clear to me that the arbiters have, collectively and to all appearances individually, made a concerted effort to get things right. Thus, in my considered opinion, the criticism which has been directed at the committee qua committee (as opposed to concerns voiced about certain specific findings or remedies) is essentially meritless. Thank you for your work. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Yeah, this in particular was a thought-provoking case. Your words of encouragement are much appreciated. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
    • My initial post here was off-topic (it was really about the Perth case). So I'm removing it and the responses, and placing them in the above section with a diff here of the removal, the re-addition, and a link to the new location. Carcharoth (talk) 20:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Thanks for taking the time to wade through the morass of accusations to come to a decision that should put an end to this drama for now. While I don't know if anyone is totally satisfied with the decision, I think we can all respect the time and effort you put into sorting this all out. As some advice for future cases, perhaps you guys should stop the countdown clock from ticking when introducing new sanctions and imposing punishments at the 11th hour. When the case has already gone on over a month the least you could do is leave it open a few more days for parties to comprehend, analyse, and discuss the ramifications of the evidence given (in this case, Fae's appeal to the WMF). ThemFromSpace 14:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• I was recused in this case and inactive on the other two (our busiest time fell at my busiest time of the year), but as a general matter I don't think anyone is ever totally satisfied with an arbitration decision. It's the nature of the beast. AGK [•] 19:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't really follow the case too much and didn't really even comment to the end. This was partially because the end was never in doubt, the user, as with almost all other users who have been brought before Arbcom was banned from editing. It seems this is, with very little exception, the only punishment available to use. Kumioko (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Rack and thumbscrews don't work so well in cyberspace. I would point out that in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree_shaping#Remedies no one got banned, and in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Monty Hall problem#Remedies the user who was banned only suffered that fate because of the extraordinary rampage he went on during the case. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Besides, Kumioko's rant (I'm sorry, as they themselves note, they didn't follow the case, so all I can term their statement a rant riddled with confirmation bias) ignores the facts on the issues. If the situation was so sure that a party would get banned, why would I post a complete Proposed Decision and then add it in? Whenever I draft a case, I'm certainly not looking at the situation saying "Gee, who can I ban on this case?". The ban was only added after a completely unprecedented level of stonewalling and disruption. Up until this point, all that was passing was an admonishment, and a note that the party had resigned their tools during the case and a new RfA would be required. To say that "banning was inevitable" is not only wrong, it quite simply shows willfull ignorance.

The job we do here on the Committee isn't any fun. It's not supposed to be any fun. Arbitrators give up a lot of their time to try to deal with the various issues that require top-level dispute resolution. That means the Committee gets drawn into every heated dispute that lower levels on Wikipedia haven't been able to resolve. Over time, this is Chinese Water Torture of the soul.. we do this job not for fame or money (The most famous any of us have ever gotten was Stephen Colbert going.. WIZARDMAN??? over the Scientology case). We do this because we agree with the goals of Wikipedia, a free encyclopedia that's available to all.

Criticism of what we do is inevitable. The only people who wouldn't get criticized would be those people who don't do anything in the role, but then again, they would be criticized for that too. I'm not saying we can't be criticized.. what I'm saying is that if you're going to do it, please have your facts straight and have it be more than "You sanctioned (me or someone that I liked/worked with", which sadly is a really high percentage of the criticism we face.".

Also, when the end of the year rolls around, if you think you can do a better job, please, PLEASE run. As I say on my user page.. "Several years ago, I took umbrage with a Committee decision, and I wondered how the Old Guard could have got it so wrong. Now, after three years in the job, I AM the Old Guard." That's why I'm not running this year when my term expires. For not only the Committee's sake (the job is not a lifetime appointment, it must always have new blood and new ideas to keep things from stultifying), but for my own sake, because when everything you do Wikipedia wise has to deal with the worst of Wikipedia has to offer (Nasty personal disputes, nationalistic wars, amount of quibbling over small things that just shouldn't matter, etcetera).. you lose track of the BEST that Wikipedia has to offer.. the ability to contribute to an encyclopedia that so many people use every day, the feeling of looking over an article you started, reworked or just made a small addition to, and saying "Hey, I did that!". SirFozzie (talk) 21:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Nice rant, SirFozzie! :-) Seriously, I agree with every word you say. I would add that an important part of the job is to look past what those embittered by past arbitration cases say, and to see what others are saying (i.e. don't miss what others are saying and don't miss valid criticism because there is some not-so-valid criticism around). The other, very important point, is that (from what I was told) I got mentioned by Colbert as well (mispronounced as well, apparently). That must never be forgotten... Carcharoth (talk) 21:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I followed the case fairly closely and believe the committee and clerks did an outstanding job. The findings are all well-founded and the remedies are all well-targeted and proportional, and some control was exerted over the worst excesses on the talk pages. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

What really gets me after six years of participating in Wikipedia is that dealing with established editors who don't believe all the rules apply to them is still as big of a problem as it always has been. The rules are applied so inconsistently by WP's administration in venues like ANI and AN. This issue of fairness, or lack thereof, is what drew me to this case. Why wasn't this problem resolved earlier? Why were some editors allowed to insult, hector, and make ad hominem attacks against other editors participating in the second RfC? Why hasn't the problem with Commons' administration been corrected by the WMF? Cla68 (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to discredit my statement as a rant that's perfectly fine with me because in the end I am contributing to the encyclopedia rather than following these predetermined cases. The fact remains that nearly every editor brought before Arbcom was banned with very few exceptions. Regardless of whether I followed the case or not the outcome would have been the same as it is a predetermined fact of the Arbcom's actions. Several Arbcom members have even stated bluntly to the fact that if they were innocent they wouldn't be at Arbcom in the first place. As for showing willful ignorance I can promise you that I can provide more links of cases where the member was banned than you can provide they weren't and that is a fact. Not an opinion, a speculation or an exaggeration. That is because Arbcom cares more about process than the facts and the arguments. Yes they keep the cases open for weeks or months and let everyone vent but in the end the result is the same. Indef blocked, desysopped and or severely restricted. You and the other members of Arbcom can attempt to discredit me as much as you want but as hurtful and as irritating as it may be the statements I am making are 100% true. As for criticism I am not overly critical of other areas of Wikipedia as far as I know. There are plenty out there. The only other one I believe that I have made mention of rather harshly is the RFA process that I also consider to be completely and utterly broken. I wouldn't be criticising Arbcom now if I thought that they were performing their duties accurately and fairly. They are doing neither regarding User cases. Expedient yes, fairly no! Now I am not talking about the whole Fae case here I am talking specifically of the Arbcom decision to desysop Kwami. A very bad decision against a very active contributor and is going to have reprecussions in the community. For the record I am not saying this because me and Kwami are friends, in fact we have had some negative run ins in the past (back in February for one) but I largely think they are a good Admin and a net loss to the pedia. Kumioko (talk) 23:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The reason so many parties get a ban is because we require previous dispute resolution unless the case involves disputes about administrator tools. The committee exists to break logjams not of our making, not of our choosing, but those brought to us by the parties with clear and convincing evidence that the community has tried to resolve them and failed. The primary job of ArbCom is to resolve disputes among parties who are too powerful or well connected to be sanctioned by any other community-based process, but who should be sanctioned for the health of the encyclopedia: we ban the unbannable who deserve it. It's a dirty job, but the community elected us to do it. Jclemens (talk) 23:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

That does a good job of explaining what the purpose of Arbcom is but I still cannot see how the committee's decisions regarding Rich Farmbrough, Will Beback, Kwami or half a dozen others have benefited the pedia. In fact the sanctions and or banning of these individuals in connection with the 2nd and third level effects have dramatically decreased the effectiveness and health of the pedia. Edits are not getting done, bot tasks are not getting done, there is a big backlog in the CCI areas will worked on, admins are hesitant to take action, overall drama is up around the pedia, editors are leaving at an increasing rate, etc. Many of these are influenced or directly related too the decisions of Arbcom over time. You can call me a nut, an idiot, a heretic or whatever. That is what I am seeing as I edit tens of thousands of articles and watch over 22000 pages. You may not agree, you may not want too, but at some point its going to become apparent that there is at least a degree of truth to what I am saying. Wikipedia is changing for the negative and Arbcom actions against users are helping to make that happen. Just like gun control doesn't stop crime, Arbcom actions don't stop disagreements. For what its worth I have largely agreed with the committees non user related decisions. Its the user related decisions that need serious scrutiny and review in my opinion. Kumioko (talk) 00:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

@Jclemens: "The reason so many parties get a ban is because we require previous dispute resolution unless the case involves disputes about administrator tools" .. In the Rich Farmbrough case ArbCom had to scrape everything together to find anything that could be explained as abuse of administrator tools. All ArbCom could find was editing through protection on templates, and unblocking own bots, a common practice that a significant part of the bot-running administrators is guilty of. So no, ArbCom does not need disputes about administrator tools, anything goes to open a case. And I hope that the community did not elect the members of ArbCom to santion editors where the community itself is not powerful enough to do it - I hope the community elected the members of the ArbCom to protect Wikipedia, a task that, IMHO, ArbCom has completely forgotten (per Kumioko, I think that ArbCom actually damages Wikipedia more than what it stops by banning editors). One can only wonder why there are so few encouragements. It is shocking that practically every single case results in banning at least one of the editors, it suggests that it is always the fault of those editors, and never the community (but guess what, the community elected you). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

@JClemens, what you describe as your duty is not arbitration, it's retribution. The only other constant in the committee's decision over the past months aside from "desysop and ban" as a whole is your incredibly high tolerance of harassment combined with absurdly heavy-handed punishment of the victims who don't have an exemplary conduct themselves. MLauba ^(Talk) 09:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

(Replying to SirFozzies statement). ArbCom does not see every unresolved heated dispute, but only a small subset. Many editors just have enough sense to just walk away before the dispute gets to that level, which is not to say the issues are resolved. It's also pretty much impossible for us peanut gallery types to have our facts straight because so much of ArbCom proceedings are done off-wiki (per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Transparency_and_confidentiality). Nobody Ent 00:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• I also am of the opinion that the Committee got it right. And I say that as someone who followed the case closely, and ended up concluding that some of my initial beliefs had been wrong. I'm especially struck by what Sir Fozzie said here, and my heart goes out to you. I keep finding myself thinking that all of you on ArbCom are overworked, and that we, collectively, need to come up with a way to reduce the workload. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Well, one way would be for WP's admin corps to do a better job at policing editor behavior, especially by established editors, so that fewer cases need to go all the way to ArbCom. Cla68 (talk) 23:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone else find it incredible and/or shocking that a sitting member of the WMF has been banned from the flagship project of the WMF? 24.61.9.111 (talk) 05:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

WP UK is a separate organization from the WMF. Cla68 (talk) 08:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Really it's a lot like these things in the outside world; if you accept that in some cases influential (or perceived to be influential) individuals will sometimes be in the wrong (which seems like a given) then it's reassuring to know that they don't get a free pass when it happens. (If you think the decision was itself an injustice then that's another matter, but not related to any shock based on his position in WMUK/WCA) 46.31.205.66 (talk) 12:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't anyone see a problem with banning an official chairman of the WMF from Wikipedia? 24.61.8.83 (talk) 17:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe Kat Walsh has been banned.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'm with everyone else on this page in that I fully support the decision to ban Fæ from Wikipedia. It's a damn shame, though. Fæ's initial situation was somewhat reminiscent of User:The_undertow/The Undertow/Law from three years back, as he had also made a clean start under a new name and acquired adminship through actively deceiving the community; most would say that's a serious offence, but I truly believe that there are many others among us who've abandoned their old accounts to edit under a new name despite having been controversial to some degree or another, and their true history remains undiscovered to this day. In my mind, whatever. If you're secretly coming back and have no intention of causing any further trouble (or have otherwise matured to the degree where you can avoid provoking drama), then I honestly don't really care. But Fæ's actions went far beyond just tricking people into giving him a set of tools on some website (one of the most visited sites in the world, yes, but still). He actually attempted to use a real-world position of trust (membership of the WMF board) for the purposes of diluting a case that had been levied against him for deceiving the community. I have absolutely no confidence in Fæ's honour, or his integrity. I suspect he will never regain even a modicum of the trust necessary to be welcomed back here. And like I said, it's a shame — if he hadn't done what he did during the ArbCom case, then all that would have happened was that he'd have been desysopped without prejudice against him filing another RfA for reinstatement at any time. Master&Expert (Talk) 22:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Lord Roem clerk appointment

Original announcement

• Congratulations, Lord Roem! I think you've been doing an excellent job and been very professional. I appreciate the work you're doing here. Kind regards. 64.40.54.48 (talk) 09:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Perhaps, but he strikes me as a bit of a dodgy fellow. Too "WP Perfect" - kind of a hat gatherer. Ever since his trainee clerkship and failed WP:RfA, he turns up at RfA and other project noticeboards to give lofty-sounding endorsements of just the right people. I don't like to impute bad motives, but there are elements about it that seem to reek of flattery and pretentiousness. 174.253.202.230 (talk) 18:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
    • If you find nothing bad to say about someone, criticize him for being too smooth. Only on Wikipedia. --Conti|✉ 19:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Lord Roem was a trainee clerk, clerking one of the more.. strident cases that I can remember. Clerking that case was like throwing a new lion tamer in a cage with 50 angry lions. He did a good job in trying to keep things under control, all things considered, working with other members of the clerking team as needed to review issues and to get a second opinion when necessary. He did everything we expect of full clerks. This is more of a formality, but when you do the job of a full clerk, we unanimously agreed that he deserved to be one. SirFozzie (talk) 20:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)