Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria

Ban Appeal Sub Committee - amending procedure

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine

Appeals to the Ban Appeals Subcommittee: Aarandir & Anonimu

Changes of account name by restricted users

New rules for inactivity on internal resolutions

Procedure for internal resolutions

Original Announcement

Second draft of updated arbitration policy

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse

Arbitration motion regarding User:Coffee

Ban appeal: Betacommand

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand (previous BC discussions)

Providing he has learnt from his previous mistakes, I have no problem with this. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that the ban is one imposed by the community (link to discussions at top of this section), and therefore the ArbCom has no remit to determine that it may be lifted outside of the community wishes? While I would support the lifting of the community ban and unblocking of BC it can only be through the mechanism of a AN debate or RfC. My concern would be that were ArbCom to allow BC to return under restrictions that BC would "game" (in doubtless good faith, like he did with previous restrictions) complaints by the community in that a RfArb/AE would be required to determine if the restrictions have been violated. Should it be decided that it is a decision for the community to make, rather than ArbCom, then BC's talkpage can be opened for him to make a request for unbanning (which could then be discussed in Wikipedia space). LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any comments from you on the other thread, but ArbCom did the same thing (overturning a community ban) just a few weeks ago. Just noting. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The banning policy actually notes that appeals may be sent to ArbCom; "Bans imposed by the community may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee (arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org)". NW (Talk) 14:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough. Therefore I would note that I support the unbanning of Betacommand under the terms that were previously agreed by the community prior to Betacommands actions which lead to the ban. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - We should be perfectly clear what those terms are. In lieu of everyone digging back through the five megabytes of discussion we've had on Betacommand, could someone summarise where we were before the ban? Happy‑melon 14:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I had known of this ban appeal ahead of time and hope that it passes, I am more glad that the Arbitration Committee sought to post a notice that they were considering an unban request, which they haven't done in previous cases. I hope that this decision to announce to the community that the ArbCom or BASC is considering an unban of a certain user continues. NW (Talk) 14:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming ArbCom sets and enforces a certain set of restrictions, I don't see a problem with it. On the other hand, I wonder if it is worth it simply because the "community" has shown to be out to get him in a way. Reading the discussions regarding the last few blocks he received before being banned show just that - many people were apparently watching and waiting for the opportunity to complain. So I wonder if this will happen again as it did so many times before. I'd hope not, but I don't really think I would be surprised. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No way, no how. Beta was given endless warnings his behaviour was inappropriate, was an endless source of drama and repeatedly, wilfully flouted community norms regarding personal attacks, civility, bot policy, and sockpuppettry. The community ban was enacted after endless discussions until all but his most hardcore supporters supported the ban after he repeatedly failed to heed warnings or comply with restrictions. Removal of beta was a huge benefit to wikipedia, as the size of the talk archives related to his various misdemeanours demonstrates. Hell, when banned from wikipedia he then went and edited on simple and didnt follow their bot policy either. What earthly reason would arbcom think there was grounds for overturning that particular community ban? Give him another chance? He was already given about a dozen "one more chance" to prove himself and he failed to do so every single time. He is banned for a reason, keep him that way. Viridae^Talk 14:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Flout, not flaunt. Pzrmd (talk) 20:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thankyou. Viridae ^Talk 23:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I kind of understand what some people meant at the recent WT:BAN decision when they said that publicly posting invitations for comment would lead to drama? May I ask that people send their comments to ArbCom rather than post them here, so that this doesn't denigrate to a big shouting match? NW (Talk) 14:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If he has no civility or personal attack issues, I think it's fine if he can edit again. hmwith τ 15:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And if my aunt had wheels, she'd be a bicycle. Are we to believe that BC has had a radical change of personality in the last few months? rspεεr (talk) 00:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with Beta being unblocked with very 'binary' restrictions that are super-hard to game, and that could give us public access to his knowledge and insights while at the same time limiting down hard all the self-destructive stuff. I just mailed it in detail to the AC, and I'm one of the people that went last year from supporting Beta to being fed up myself the fourth or fifth go-round. I'll post a simple version of what I sent them to my own talk immediately for the curious since it's not helpful here to avoid a big shouting match, for anyone wanting public discussion. rootology (C)(T) 16:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He has done a lot of work on Wikipedia, and it made me quite sick to see him banned. I would love to see him back, whether or not I like him. Pzrmd (talk) 22:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible terms for provisional suspension of community ban

Edits under only one username and will be subject to regular checkuser inspection.
One-year topic-ban from any non-free-content-related work and related talk pages.
One-year 0RR or 1RR restriction on any free-content-image-related work and related talk pages.
Six-month editing throttle of a maximum of four edits every ten minutes (excludes reversion of blatant vandalism).
One-year ban on operating bots or automated scripts of whatever nature (including edit summaries). Thereafter, may only run bots fully approved by BAG and only for pre=-approved tasks.
Inducing or attempting to induce others to run proxy bots, broadly defined, is prohibited.
One-year civility restriction.
Subject to one-year's mentorship by two admin mentors, with monthly progress reports to ArbCom, and an extension review at the end of the first year.
The mentors may block BetaCommand for short periods at any time if they believe the provisions are not being adherred to.
Without prejudice to (9), ArbCom may, at any time, reinstate Betacommand's community ban by simple majority vote in a motion in the event of (i) disruptive behaviour of whatever nature or (ii) any breach of the foregoing provisions.

Thoghts? Roger Davies ^talk 17:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would add the following. They may seem draconian, but BC has a history of a) not giving a flying fuck what anyone else thinks, b) wikilawyering his way out of everything.

Betacommand issues an apology to the entire community for his behaviour
He explains exactly what was wrong with his behaviour before, and undertakes to not repeat it in any way whatsoever. This will need to include a blanket and unambiguous statement that he will no longer attempt to game or wikilawyer the system, and any attempt to evade responsibility or explain why he was right and we are wrong will be unacceptable.
His ban from automated tools needs to includebots, Twinkle, AWB, Huggle, Friendly, etc etc. Anything that is not his actual hands typing the actual information and then clicking 'save' is not allowed.
He discloses all of his socks. I for one do not believe they were all found.
This is his last chance, period. Any violation of any of the above (or any other Wikipedia policy) means that's it, end of the road, goodbye and do not ever come back.
In terms of adherence to site policy and the above restrictions: they are to be intepreted in the broadest possible manner. BC is to have zero opportunity for any wikilawyering or gaming, and is going to have to dot every i and cross every t and in general do what he is told. If he starts with any wikilawyering, that's it, goodbye.

→ ROUX ₪ 17:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roger, what about this, as well? "reverse-civility restriction. Anyone found to be goading or trolling Beta, no matter who they are, will be blocked as if Beta himself had violated his civility restriction." To be honest, in regards to Beta (and Giano) this would be incredibly helpful. rootology (C)(T) 19:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Define "baiting". Betacommand's major problems stemmed from his refusal to enter into civil discussions regarding his edits, especially his bot edits. Since he tended to react inappropriately to good-faith requests for him to modify his bots behavior or to explain his action better, I don't see how he was ever really "baited" in any of these problems. People made honest requests of him, and he acted inappropriately. There was no baiting involved... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting idea but impractical, I think. Itcould easily lead to way more drama than it would solve. No one actually has to respond to goading or trolling and egregious cases can be dealt with through the normal channels. But otherwise, I'm not in favour of gold-plating the proposed restrictions too much; they are already very sweeping. Roger Davies ^talk 19:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as a community member, I would be fine with any unban of Beta, however I would appreciate a strict "one-and-done" parole of some sort for the sorts of behavior that got him banned in the first place. Incivility, running unregisterred bots against policy, refusal to communicate over his edits, and running socks should all be expressly and completely forbidden; if he returns to his behavior he should be banned instantly again. In my opinion, he can come back, but he has certainly used up all of his "get out of jail free" cards at this point... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly the spirit, if not the letter, of the restrictions. Roger Davies ^talk 19:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given BC's history of ignoring the spirit, it would be best to unambiguously state precisely what the restrictions indicate so as to avoid drama. In any case, whatever the restrictions are, it would be a very good idea for him to respond on his talkpage before being unblocked to explain what he thinks they mean. This will allow for any ambiguities to be addressed; for example, I think that it is not outside the realm of possibility that BC would define using NFCC-non-compliant images as 'vandalism' in order to get around the restriction on edit frequency. I reiterate that a clear and unambiguous statement from him that he will not engage in his previous behaviours, including a definition from him of those behaviours, would be a very good idea. → ROUX ₪ 21:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the restrictions should be more specific . Actually, I think they should be strict (and perhaps not even include a vandalism clause), but less specific. Betacommand won't become a useful and trusted community member again unless he starts learning to follow the spirit of the rules instead of trying to interpret the letter of the rules the way he pleases. I'm not sure he can do that, and am not convinced that it is worth the try. Kusma (talk) 16:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly support the idea of Beta being unblocked, and miss his image bots- they did good work. (Also, I do not feel that Beta should be banned from NFC issues- my position is probably extreme, but I don't really mind.) Civility issues are obviously a problem, as are running bots that do not do what they should. But this is a classic example of when the whole issue has been grossly exaggerated- and yes, I feel there's been an awful lot of baiting and "out for blood" behaviour. Anyone who felt wronged, as well as those who generally disagreed with Beta's actions, (as opposed to his methods, which were the issue...) sought a ban. J Milburn (talk) 21:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It really takes ten separate points to lay out the terms under which this user can return, and six others suggested as well? And there's not a single one of them with which I can disagree. If I were to be asked what the magic number would be for "being more trouble than it's worth", I don't know what I'd answer, but I'm almost positive it'd be less than ten. Simply not worth the drama — we all have far more important things to do. Mlaffs (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of reasons that he has been banned is his abusive sockpuppetry, so before "discussing the unban", Checkuser on his account/IPs should be done first. If he still was using socks, then this request would be meaningless.--Caspian blue 22:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Viridae, Betacommand has had plenty of "last chances", and they have proven time and again that they believe that policy does not apply to them, and skirted and even blatantly disregarded restrictions placed upon them. That not even mentioning the sockpuppetry and and chronic incivility. What gives the community any assurances that this time would be any different than before. If Betacommand is unbanned, I can foresee that their conduct will lead to one or two things within six months to one year, either resumption of the community ban or a request for arbitration. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom is showing great willingness to repeatedly punch itself in the head by reinstating multiple banned users - but I see that as a good thing, sooner or later one attempt will be successful. I would like to see a statement by Betacommand as to what areas he would intend to edit, given the restrictions. Clarity on the NFC issue would be important: never remove an image, never comment on a talk page, never edit on policy or policy talk pages? And given Beta's keen interest in automation, will 4 edits every 10 minutes, all day every day, be acceptable? What about when the edits are erroneous? And are run-of-the-mill admins prohibited from taking action over violations? Franamax (talk) 22:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That last is a good point; it is "my" block that currently stops BC from editing, but I am willing for him to return to editing (under restrictions which, if adhered to, will resolve the problems previously associated with the account). However, I will re-instate the indef block if I consider he has violated the terms under which he returns notwithstanding any ArbCom accredited mentor(s) he may have - and I think that any sysop should be so permitted. I had expressed my concern that ArbCom may agree to a form of words that might be used as a device in limiting the use of the admin bits by other sysops other than those approved by ArbCom, so I should prefer that the ability of admins to act independently of any agreed mentorship/review process - per good admin practice, of course - be recognised in any form of words agreed by BC which enables him to return. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To quote Albert Einstein “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”. How many times was he indef blocked, reinstated under strict terms, and then either ignored those terms or sockpuppeted his way around them? Unblock him if you must, but I for one won't be expecting different results.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it would make other editors more comfortable with this, there are at least two users currently willing to serve as mentors for Betacommand should he be unbanned, myself one of them. Myself and the other editor (who I won't name, as they haven't commented here yet) have worked with Betacommand for this appeal and have helped work out the ten conditions Roger put forth above, all of which he is willing to accept. Betacommand has also stated that he is willing to work in relatively low-impact, non-controversial areas that cannot be automated for the first few months of his return.
Betacommand, his conduct issues aside, has proven to be a valuable contributor to the English Wikipedia and other projects. Despite the ban, he has continued to be a useful contributor from back-backstage through development of his toolserver scripts and the bots he operates on the IRC network. I believe that, more than anything, demonstrates to us how much we are lacking with not having Betacommand actually editing here. He clearly has the motivation to be a useful contributor to this site. The main issue that remains is the civility concerns; I believe with a few editors (mentors, and others) helping to support him as he gets started again would largely resolve this issue, both defending Betacommand from attempts to harass him and letting him know when he's getting close to crossing a line. I foresee Betacommand's return to be a net overall positive to the project, and would strongly encourage the community to allow him this chance to help us once more. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Responding to Roger Davies) - I think that 4 edits in 10 minutes is a little bit of an excessive restriction. It should be relaxed, to, say, 4 edits a minute, or so. I could make 10 edits in 10 minutes, without using a bot. With regards to Beta's ban appeal, I'm happy for him to be unbanned, as long as he's learned from his mistakes. The main issue for me was incivility, so if he can at least be civil, then I don't have any problems with it. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 23:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean "I could make 10 edits in 1 minute", considering the context. :-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not really. 10 edits in a minute...I'd have to be using huggle, which would be automated...Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Civility was an issue, but also the defiance in the face of questioning which led into incivility. The issue with any numeric goal for edit counts per unit time is that we (or at least me) can be confident that if Beta so intends, he can trivially set up a script to adhere exactly to those conditions. But that's not the spirit of the conditions, which is that "you, Betacommand the human being, need to personally view the entire page that results from your edit before you confirm the save". Beta has repeatedly skipped that bit, in my mind using the assumption that since the software works, no-one will be able to tell the difference. This has been repeatedly contentious. I understand the comments from quite a few editors on the lines of "I could make that many edits in any single period" and "I could do 40 edits using browser tabs" - but we're talking about Betacommand here, who has a history and is proud of developing automation tools.

Beyond civility, we have the question of how to recognize if Beta is exceeding the limit on scripts, and this has been subject to lawyering in the past. Simple numeric limits may prove to be insufficient.

Thinking about this a little more, I'd rather see a condition #11, that Beta announce his intention to embark on any series of mass edits, no matter how rate-limited, at an appropriate venue. Possibly WP:VPR as proposed in the last kick at this particular cat. Franamax (talk) 00:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your concern about Beta continuing to edit with automated scripts, while it is possible for someone to write a bot/script with an edit throttle set to exactly the restriction level, it would be pretty obvious what was going on if there was a very steadily spaced amount of editing coming from Betacommand. Attempting to modify the script to hide this give-away would be unnecessarily difficult, unreasonably risky and highly error-prone. Betacommand may have had problems before, but he's not stupid. Further, as I said above, Betacommand has already stated he is willing to commit to the restrictions mentioned by Roger above. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hersfold, I have to assume that BC's programming skill is at least equal to my own and likely much greater. From that perspective, I can tell you that it would be quite easy to throttle pre-planned edits to simulate sleep-wake-work cycles or whatever. I could just train the algorithm on my own edit patterns or yours. I'd throw in the odd timing error too, and apologize for it shortly after. He's not a stupid guy by any means. That said, I'm satisfied with your and Matt's assurances on this, with the following caveats:

I'd still prefer to see guidance on exactly what the edit throttle rate exactly conveys: "4 per 10" all day-every day or not? Obviously a technical 5 shouldn't be actionable, but what about sustained patterns?

And I've yet to see guidance for the wider community, specifically other admin concerns as expressed by LHvU. Given Beta's contentious history and the probability of ~~trolling~~ ~~baiting~~ questioning of the editor, this will be important going forward. Franamax (talk) 02:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The occasional breach of the 4 edit/however long restriction probably wouldn't be actionable no, although repeated breaches could result in a temporary block from one of the mentors or another administrator, probably after speaking to Beta about it. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the other admin Hersfold is referring to. Remembering that I have in the past indef blocked Beta, I think it would be fair to say I am not easy on him. But he is dedicated to the WM mission of free culture and can contribute well, the issue is that he does make more errors than are desired and has in the past had issues recognizing this. I believe the community/Arbcom can craft acceptable sanctions and I will be willing to enforce them and hopefully mentor Beta back into the community. Also, I bear in mind that WP's record with unbanning people is speckled. Sometimes it is successful, such as with VintageKits and Rootology, other times it fails miserably such as Guido den Broeder. This means the unban of beta may result in a re-ban, but it is not a certainty that it will. So that is why I have an open mind here. MBisanz ^talk 01:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As a note, some experiments have positive outcomes. Some have negative outcomes, but are still "successful" experiments. If the community bends over backwards to give a banned editor another chance, and the result is a re-ban, is that a failure? Yes, in a way, but also no, it isn't. Just a thought. Put me in the camp that thinks this will most likely fail, but that we as a community should try anyway. ++Lar: t/c 16:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Betacommand has put a lot into the project. His misconduct/s have been mostly (sorry if this is blunt, Beta) impetuousness of the form "I think its right, they don't have a flying clue, so I'm going to do it/say it regardless", and rebellion at being told this isn't okay. I put his socking in the latter case. What i see is attitudes that can easily be outgrown, often in the course of a year or two. What I don't see is long term willful malice or desire to do harm. Regrettably while the good conduct has been excellent, the immature conduct has been highly disruptive and taken a large amount of community attention, caused issues, and so on. My hope and suspicion is that his issues are ones that are readily outgrown, and he has the will long term to do so.

My view:- Give a chance; if it doesn't work wait 9 months then give a chance again. Good contributors who are determined to help the project despite hard times but fail due to matters that time will probably cure, are worth it, and worth giving time the chance to cure :) And no punitive conditions, go forward not backwards. Beta - you've seen what doesn't work, stick to what does. A statement from Beta of what he now thinks about the past cases would help to let us and Arbcom know where he is on it all. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit break

How quickly we forget! Few Wikipedians have been able to cause disruption on the scale that Betacommand did. BC managed to poison the atmosphere around several Wikipedia processes and drive away large numbers of new users with his hostile rules-mongering. Mentoring will not work because, as we have seen, he is content to lie about his actions and intentions if he thinks it will further his goals. He is also, apparently, content to use sockpuppets to evade his ban, and we should not reward him for this just because it's difficult to keep him away. If Beta is ever allowed back, it has to be under severe restrictions (no bots, no rapid editing, no sockpuppets, no insults), and if you take those four pastimes away from him it's unclear what exactly he would do. rspεεr (talk) 22:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you've read the whole discussion above, but Betacommand has essentially agreed to those four conditions, and more, already. He also has a plan for some background areas in which he would like to start working for his return. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw lots of proposals but missed the part where you said that BC had agreed to that one. I still think it's far too early to allow Betacommand back -- after all, after he blew his fifth and sixth chances (I'm estimating) and got blocked, he used up his seventh and eighth by sockpuppeteering. If you must go forward with this plan, I'd consider it an interesting experiment, but I have no optimism for its outcome. rspεεr (talk) 23:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Can we have a statement by Betacommand then, in his own words, on his talk page? Someone will have to unprotect his talk page for this, and obviously keep a firm watch over the actvity there. I would like to see some (but not all) of Roux's points above addressed, a description of what the "some background areas" are, and a discussion of the core 10 restrictions. I certainly don't want any apology, but I would like to see recognition of what went wrong and a plan for going forward. Franamax (talk) 23:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rspeer, just one point that to the best of my knowledge, Beta hasn't been socking for at least 4-5 months now, so it is hardly rewarding sockpuppetry to give him a second chance. And as Hersfold says above, there will be conditions for him. It would be very helpful if you reviewed the proposed restrictions on him to help work out a final version. MBisanz ^talk 01:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rspeer, MBisanz and I have been working with Betacommand to prepare for this appeal, along with some members of ArbCom, via email prior to this announcement being made. I mentioned above on July 4 that we "worked with Betacommand for this appeal and have helped work out the ten conditions Roger put forth above, all of which he is willing to accept." Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to the ten commandments, I'd like to echo Franamax's request above. But I also think that 4-5 sockpuppet-free months is an awfully short statute of limitations, and creates a moral hazard which encourages others to try to evade a ban -- hey look, if you've got enough supporters, you get to come back in five months. Even FT2, who supports unblocking Beta, suggests another chance with a ban of 9 months if he screws up -- so wchy does his previous "really final last chance" become not so final after only five months? FT2 suggests it is because he has grown up since then, but as far as I know, Betacommand is not a teenager, and his personality that simply doesn't work with Wikipedia is the only one we'll see. rspεεr (talk) 03:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"so why does his previous "really final last chance" become not so final after only five months?" - Because we assume good faith and are willing to give him a shot if he says he's changed and is willing to contribute. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"May have grown up". The condition wasn't accidental. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since learning of Betacommand's wish to resume editing, I have extended invitations to him to discuss his editing status and a possible return. Clearly, he brings substantial positives as well as substantial negatives. The challenge is to craft a proposal that curtails the negatives while allowing the positives to flourish. The current proposal is not quite what I would have suggested. Both the strongest positives and the strongest negatives are tied to his bot writing, so it is not clear that the project is best served by a one year moratorium on bot writing. What I would ideally suggest would begin instead with mentorship and a proxy agreement, modeled after ScienceApologist and the Optics article improvement drive. As a first stage Betacommand's ban would remain in place, but with a mentorship/proxy agreement: one or more experienced and trusted coders would be authorized to run bots on Betacommand's behalf, pending acceptance by the bot approvals group. The mentor/proxies would review the code and interact with other editors. Other than simple bug fixes, no changes in approved bots would be permitted without reapproval via the bot approvals group. Possibly this would be tied to a requirement to publish the active code where it would be visible for review. If all goes well, the Committee or the community may review the situation in 4-6 months with an eye toward allowing Betacommand to resume editing directly within structured limits. The bot mentor/screeners would likely remain in a gatekeeper role until the community's trust is restored. Durova²⁷³ 02:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I propose an additional restriction on Beta; namely that involved admins should be specifically permitted to block him if he violates the conditions. (The number of uninvolved admins is small; possibly limited to those who got the mop after he was banned.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are still uninvolved admins. I haven't been involved in the dispute at all and I'd be quite happy to block him if necessary. I can also think of a few other admins who also haven't been involved, so I don't think its necessary to step away from our usual standards. Having involved admins block him would just make things infinitely worse IMHO. Sarah 13:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would support giving Beta a second chance. I've had a bit to do with him since the ban and I do feel his communication skills have improved and he is clearly very committed to the project so hopefully with some restrictions in place he will be okay. I think it's worth a try; if it doesn't work out he can always be reblocked. I will also say that I appreciate the arbitration committee making this announcement. I was shocked and appalled by the Kohser unban, to such an extend that I haven't felt able to make a comment in that discussion out of fear that I wouldn't be able to keep a civil tongue in my head. Sarah 12:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a wise man once said; fool me once, shame on — [pauses] - shame on you. Fool me — You can't get fooled again.. After entire subsections of AN and AN/I devoted solely to this user, his numerous problems and numerous chances, enough is enough. No matter how competent and knowledgeable a person may be, they still have to co-exist cooperatively and collegiality with other editors. This user has shown that he is simply unable to do that. Tarc (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Sarah to unban, basically according to the terms stipulated above, although I would hesitate to place terms on those who might "bait" Betacommand, because such baiting is hard to define and newer editors might not necessarily know about such a term or exactly how it gets applied. Editor seems very committed to the project, and has seemingly done a good deal of work to help the project. Perhaps WikiProject User Rehab could be used as one tool to help him return and be productive. John Carter (talk) 14:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that has been a problem in the past is the difficulty of pinning down the cause of errors in automated edits, or anticipating them. Betacommand is obviously a very competent programmer, but there have been issues in the past with unanticipated errors that were (for various reasons) difficult to resolve. Might it help if he were required to disclose the code to proposed scripts/bots, at least for a defined period after he is allowed to resume automated editing? Otherwise I support the unban. Nathan^T 15:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ROUX #2 seems a minimum request. The community needs to see whether he understands what his restrictions are, and why they needed to be imposed, if the community is to agree to an unban. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Betacommand's whole problem is that he thinks he can do whatever he want, regardless of what anyone else thinks, and refuse to play nicely with others. Now where would he get the idea that he can get away with all that? Oh right. Because he can, in fact, get away with it. He got away with it for a long time before he was finally banned, and now he pinky-swears he'll be good this time so he's going to be allowed back. I agree with the person who posted the Einstein quote above. The only think that will be different this time is lots of people wasting time supervising him to enforce all those conditions. --LP ^talk 06:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would support an unban under reasonable conditions. Thoser proposed by Roger Davies seem fine. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support an unban. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would not support an unban without a demonstrated period of problem-free editing on a sister project. Even then, the inability of Betacommand to categorise criticism (into useful/trolling) and his general huge level of drama makes me think that its just not worth it. I would certainly be for a "cooling-off" period of at least 5 years, when one considers that the last set of discussions took nearly a year. The level of disruption has to be taken into effect. In addition, I don't know what he wants to edit, since previously he used only/mainly automated editing. I assume a banned account can still be used to set user preferences for reading wikipedia? AKAF (talk) 12:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems absolutely baffling to me that unbanning him would even be considered, what with the amount of drama and disruption he caused over the years. I think Rspeer said it best, actually. McJeff (talk) 20:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leave banned You have got to be kidding me. From what I remember, the community bent over backwards multiple times and gave this person chance after chance after chance. What the community received in exchange was blatant disrespect and sockpuppeting. After endless drana on AN/I he was finally banned (after which he evaded his ban with socks). Explain to me how it benefits the project to unban him. The project has been just fine without Betacommand and his supposedly "invaluable" talents. He has been under editing restrictions in the past, which he disregarded multiple times and was totally unrepentant about. One of the signs of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different reaction. There is no reason to believe any editing restrictions will be respected and followed by this editor. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 05:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, let's give Betacommand a nineteenth chance! You say he's agreed to the terms this time? Even better - this can be the seventeenth time he's gone back on his word. I am so excited, kudos to ArbCom for investing their time in such an obviously-rewarding pursuit. Can't wait. Badger Drink (talk) 08:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coda

See below for further discussion re: unbanning Betacommand. Franamax (talk) 12:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Well yes, we shall give him the nineteenth chance, or so it would appear. (Posting this advance of proper clerk notification to this discussion thread) Franamax (talk) 11:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or see this or this :) Roger Davies ^talk 11:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we all check each and every edit to Arb-related pages, no need for the simple courtesy of closing a thread. Franamax (talk) 12:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reading this closely, I generally applaud the terms that AC has crafted. However, I have some concern over the exact text I read just now, "a maximum of four edits every ten minutes" (enphasis mine). Leaving aside the issue of browser tabs and automated editing, I can easily burn off four edits trying to get a ref template right, or position an image properly. The essence should be multiple edits to multiple articles, so hopefully discretion will be applied.
And I'm sure that many members of the community anticipate Beta's "own-words" statement in response, which will hopefully go beyond I-accept, so that we may better judge BC's commitment. Franamax (talk) 11:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ARBMAC2 Conclusion

Per Arbcom's request, the referees in the discussion arising from WP:ARBMAC2 have made a determination of consensus, which we have listed at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Macedonia/consensus‎. There is still a small discussion on ethnic distinctions ongoing that was added last minute, but that can work its way through later, and the bulk of the dispute is hopefully resolved by the consensus reached. We're ready to answer enquiries, and suggest implementation of the consensus take place fairly soon. Best wishes, and apologies if this is the wrong place! Fritzpoll (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outstanding job by the referees here, a big wiki kudos to all three. This outcome does an excellent job of both applying consensus and being in line with wiki policy. Before implementing this, please wait at least 48 hours from my posting here for additional arb and community input. Unless told otherwise, the outcome may then be implemented. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, we'll look to implement tomorrow evening (UTC) unless told otherwise. Not sure if you want this process logged anywhere else, so leaving it in the hands of Arbs and their clerks Fritzpoll (talk) 09:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I put a link on the main case page underneath the decision in question. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advisory Council on Project Development convened

Cool story, bro. —harej (talk) (cool!) 03:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously this Committee was formed with particular issues in mind that need addressing. What are some examples? --MZMcBride (talk) 03:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say that the group was really formed with reference to specific issues, actually. There have been a few vague ideas bounced around recently (e.g. having someone analyze the impact of flagged revisions if or when that actually gets trialled, coming up with an easy-to-understand summary of key rules that could be provided to new editors, and so forth), but these may not necessarily be things we ask the group to look at. A bigger motivator, I think, is just a desire on our part to have a someone readily available that we can turn to when we need advice.

The other aspect of the group, of course, is slightly more experimental; we think that pulling together a pretty diverse set of experienced, insightful editors and asking them to discuss issues relevant to the project is likely to produce something useful (regardless of whether the issues to consider are originally suggested by us, by the members of the group itself, or by other editors). Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 03:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, definitely. Somewhat suprised that no-one who has experience in content disputes was invited, as far as i can see. While arbcom doesn't deal with content, someone who has experience doing so would probably be of benefit. Vassyana and Xavexgoem come to mind. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 03:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that this council will concentrate on project governance issues, not individual content disputes. Cla68 (talk) 06:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it Cla68, that will be the case - individual content disputes are not for the group which will concentrate on more general governance and long term objective (that will certainly be my input). Perhaps the goals and remit of the group need top be clearly defined before it convenes for the first time. Giano (talk) 07:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also hope that this council will not concentrate on content issues. This is an issue of having people from multiple areas of Wikipedia in a "think tank" and I think someone who's had experience in content disputes, whether that's an issue the council will address often, would be of benefit, either way. They may at times give advice or make proposals on to how to solve certain complex situations, or make proposals on new methods. This is why I think it would benefit to have someone from the content DR aspect of things at the table. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 08:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, I've no idea who else has been invited, but the statement currently says that there are some people who've yet to respond, so it could be that someone/s will pop up, and it also seems that ArbCom would welcome more suggestions. --86.170.162.220 (talk) 08:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; and anyone expressing their interest is very much encouraged to mention if they can bring experience that the group currently lacks to the table. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 11:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are these council discussion sessions going to be held in public? MickMacNee (talk) 10:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's definitely the plan at the moment, although we're not quite sure yet how exactly they'll be set up. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 11:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest someone clicks WP:Advisory Council on Project Development and off we go. Kirill, I suggest we start by formulating some kind of agenda. As this is an innovation of Arbcom, are there any wishlists you'd like prioritise? --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested agenda:

Item 1. A nice cup of tea and a sit down

Item 2. Plot the overthrow of arbcom

MickMacNee (talk) 12:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patience, patience. ;-)

ArbCom will probably suggest some items in the next week or so—we don't have anything resembling a coherent list at the moment—but some of them are likely to be low-priority and of limited interest. As a practical matter, I think the easiest way to get something like an agenda going might be to have each member suggest a couple of topics that they'd like to see discussed; at least then we'll have a decent-size pool to choose from. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 12:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MickMacNee, if you can't post sensibly then don't post at all - go play outside. On a serious note, what is the cap on numbers to this commottee going to be - to my mind, there is sufficient already - the more involved with any committee the more difficult it becomes to reach agreement. I am also concerned by the huge ratio of admins and Arbs to non-admins - hardly a cross section. Giano (talk) 12:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the body is likely to grow significantly, at least in the near term; I think we might add another half-dozen members or so, depending on interest. As far as non-admins go, we didn't look at admin status as a factor when putting together the list of invitees; I think it's largely a function of long-term editors who are known to us being more likely to be admins than non-admins. Of course, if you have any suggestions for additional members, please do send them to us. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 12:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

looks very interesting, and certainly most welcome :-) - I'm crossing my fingers that at least most of the group's activity takes place on this wiki - there are any number of ways of achieving this sensibly... hopefully there are enough members cautious enough of private mailing lists, and private wikis to ensure some good old fashioned wiki-transparency :-) Privatemusings (talk) 12:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)plus I get to throw stones at people I like then... always fun![reply]

Congratulations to all of the appointees. I have a couple comments and questions:

Is this group going to be added to Func-L, since they share some of the "community leadership" responsibilities but not necessarily the privacy responsibilities
While I appreciate this group is a series of experienced and dedicated Wikipedians, I am concerned by the appearance of elitism - which I am afraid will dull its effectiveness to address the problems of those less hooked-in.
Related to the previous, I'd like too see some opportunity for a voice for those who don't show up regularly in governance issues, on boards or so on, who can give a more ground level viewpoint. Perhaps someone who is active in particular wikiprojects only?
Is it possible this council is given a less.... whats the word... pretentious title? "Advisory Group" perhaps.
This council doesn't have a clear mission statement or purpose but a series of hopes and caveats ("coming up with ideas that either the Committee or the community as a whole might choose to pursue" and "anything it might recommend will need to achieve consensus normally."
Its entirely unclear what the relationship of this group is to the arbitration/dispute resolution process is. Is this group going to be loosely affiliated, simply given the imprimatur of Wikipedia's formal social mechanisms, or is this group "too involved" to be involved in bringing forward arbitration requests and jump early in attempts to defuse disputes?
It is my hope that this group acts with energy and solicits input from a broad range of Wikipedians

--Tznkai (talk) 14:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few answers. No plan to include members on Funct-l. The group is more or less a think tank that is intended to hold discussions in a way that will help the Community find better ways to develop solution to broad issues that currently remain unresolved. ArbCom is aware of some of these issues because we see them repeatedly in our work. We plan to jump start the discussion with some issues that we would like the new group to discuss. But the topics for discussion will not be limited to an agenda set by ArbCom. FloNight ♥♥♥ 15:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To address some of Tznkai's other points. Those invited have been asked about alternative names for the group, and everyone reading this is more than welcome to come up with a better name, though hopefully not too much time will be spent on that. The name should flow from the objective and purpose of the group, so discussion of that would be better. That covers the following point as well, I think. The final point, about dispute resolution, is easier to answer: my understanding is that this group will have little to nothing to do with dispute resolution (other than proposing general ways to improve it). The fact that it was proposed by what is a dispute resolution body (ArbCom) is essentially an artifact of the way ArbCom is sometimes (incorrectly, in my view) looked to for "leadership" (this emerges from the fact that people are elected to ArbCom and thus are seen to represent the community). In reality, taking the lead on issues should come from within the community, but this doesn't always happen. In this case, ArbCom have stepped forward and said "we think a body like this is needed". Hopefully this body will fulfill a role of moving ideas and proposals forward, but also listening to what is said, and still leaving the ultimate disposition and direction of things in the hands of the community. Carcharoth (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just note, I expanded one of my comments above, I apparently was sleepy when I wrote it all out.--Tznkai (talk) 00:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think the "name" is important. I do not feel comfortable with any of those listed as serving as a "laison" between me and ArbCom, especially since two are already ArbCom members. And the rest of us have no say in who is "selected"? How were they "selected"? —Mattisse (Talk) 00:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This group is not going to act as a liaison between the community and the arbitration committee. It is merely going to make recommendations on large projects, and will sink or swim based on the quality of those recommendations. The arbitration committee has selected the current participants by proposing members and using a majority vote to determine who will be asked to be a founding member. Some candidates have declined, so that has also played a part in the make up of it. We have not decided how the membership will be maintained in the future. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One further question, in the interests of transparency, would Risker, Stephen Bain, or Vassyana like to explain their opposition? (Or Casliber and Carcharoth their ambivalence?)--Tznkai (talk) 14:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a matter of broad project governance, which ArbCom shouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole. The same basic goal could be accomplished by interested, motivated, and experienced Wikipedians starting a "think tank" WikiProject. If ArbCom needs advice, we can email the functionaries list or post to any number of places on-wiki to solicit community input. Despite all intentions to the contrary, this is likely to create a new class of editors and distort governance development. (The two are intimately tied together.) The scope and purpose are also poorly defined, but that's almost a bikeshed color issue in comparison with the other concerns. If I can further clarify my position or if there are further questions, I will do my best to accomodate. --Vassyana (talk) 18:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Significant concerns to me were the lack of clarity in purpose and scope. My "oppose" vote was registered almost two weeks ago, and the Committee consensus has proved to be different than my opinion. My personal practice is to accept the consensus and work toward implementing it. As well, since the time of my vote, I have noticed that several proposals brought forward by individual editors, or in some cases small groups of editors, have failed to gain momentum sufficient to actually result in any decisions, despite the fact that they were serious ideas worthy of consideration. While I remain concerned about "scope" issues here (and hence did not change my vote), I am quite impressed with the calibre of editors who have accepted the opportunity to participate in large-scale, broad-representation teamwork to try to develop comprehensive proposals that address project issues identified both recently and as perennial proposals. If this works, and helps the project to move forward in some areas where we've been spinning our wheels for a while, fantastic. If it doesn't result in any change, at least a group of our excellent contributors have had the chance to get to know others from within the project whose paths they may not have crossed otherwise. Risker (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I and many others cannot accept the term "broad" being associated with the list that has already accepted. There are many, many wikiprojects that are ignored and many that are over represented. There is also a biased among many of the editors that have been selected that would severely harm any neutrality, especially in some of our more delicate subjects. I have already submitted most of this information to an Arbitrator. But the above list is very skewed and not in the best direction. The fact that some of these people are part of Wikipedia Review and lack significant edit contributions to any project or content area is downright troubling. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns were similar to those of Risker and Vassyana and bainer (in particular that it would have been better for a proposal such as this to be worked up from the ground up), but I was also aware that if launched right and given an opportunity to show what it could do, such a body of experienced users helping to generate ideas, consider the ideas of others, and fast-track proposals on crucial issues, while still ultimately bound by community consensus, could improve the workings of the project. Given this, I couldn't bring myself to oppose. So in the end I abstained (essentially reserving judgment), while continuing to support the idea in principle. I do intend to follow the development of this group with interest, and have compiled a list of questions which I will ask when the time feels right (it is a bit early to be coming out with a barrage of questions). At the moment, my feeling is that people should be saying whether they support the concept in principle (as I do) and then further discussion can take place later. Carcharoth (talk) 21:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am personally very concerned with the ill defined scope and grand sweep. What I hope to see out of this is something much less formal than it is titled - a group of dedicated Wikipedians with working relationships that act as informal community leadership. In my view, I hope that future members are promoted by accolade - not appointment or election.--Tznkai (talk) 00:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is/was my view too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would certainly be a good goal to aim for. I think it's fair to say that this body is, in many ways, an experimental one; it's quite likely that it will evolve into something that's constituted differently, or operates differently, depending on how productive it is and how the community views its work. Hopefully, the effort will lead to a better Wikipedia in one way or another—even if the benefit winds up being a lesson in what works and doesn't work in groups of this type. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 00:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I opposed the proposal because, in my view, it was ultra vires for the Committee. Our remit is dispute resolution, and while the definition of that can sometimes be quite broad, it cannot possibly be stretched to encompass project governance. The body is obviously intended to have an impact on project governance, even though it is framed as being an advisory body; indeed it would be a waste of time unless it were intended to have an impact on project governance. Moreover, the necessity of maintaining the pretence that it is an advisory body to the Committee will mean that it will never be independent of or escape association with the Committee, which risks retarding any good ideas that it produces. It is true that many proposals to change the way the project operates never get off the ground, but they are typically proposals to change something directly, whereas this was a 'greenfield' proposal. There are some fine people involved with this already, and had that group been put together at a community level I am sure it would have been successful. --bainer (talk) 03:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The advisory group will also advise the Committee directly, providing us with feedback and ideas from a cross-section of the community that's not otherwise involved in our work." - Since when were Casliber and Kirill not involved with ArbCom? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom members on an advisory committee (Community Advisory Committee?) that reports to the ArbCom is probably not the best way of going about this, especially since ArbCom controls who is allowed to be a member and who is not. It is a lot of power for those people who are on both. They can block ArbCom opinions they don't like by rallying a few like-minded Committee members to prove the prevailing ArbCom opinion is not what the community wants. Likewise, they can block emerging Committee recommendations they don't like by fustrating the Committee talks (or divert the agenda, or a number of other political tactics). Likewise, they can justify their own opinions by influencing Committee agenda/talks. The mere appearance of this kind of conflict or use of insider influence is bad for legitimacy. --maclean 21:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is similar to Carch's - in an ideal world (well, in an ideal world all new proposals and improvements, actions etc. would continue to be community driven) this would have happened 'from the ground up' - and I wished it would have, but the pragmatic side of me pondered whether someone needed to give it a kick-start, and arbcom seemed like a good organ to give it the intiial shove, as it were. I did propose that the committee itself figure whether it wanted 0,1, 2 or whatever number of arbs on it, but I think the feeling was to develop it and have a couple of arbs as liaison-type people anyway. We can also offer input on ease or difficulty of governance thus far. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On wikipedia, anything from the ground up is stamped on and beaten into submission - accept that and we are half way to helping the project. Now, on a more realistic note it appears that Tony's invitation to join this august body has been lost on the post - Kirill, perhaps you would like to redress that, one more confirmed non-admin would help the balance wouldn't it? Giano (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Giano, the one thing that is likely to cause a proposal like this to founder is arguing over who should be on it. After the body has been set up, there will be ample opportunity for the members to co-opt other people to join them or advise them, but at the moment, we are asking for self-nominations. Tony1 should e-mail or contact us if he wants to be considered. Also, remember that anyone will be able to comment on talk pages - that is how I intend to make my opinions known if an issue is discussed that I have a strong opinion on. Actually being on the group (the way I envisage it) is not crucial to contributing ideas or participating in discussions, but such a group guiding discussion should make things a bit more orderly and productive. Carcharoth (talk) 22:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) What is the purpose of having two members of ArbCom on the committee devised to advise ArbCom? Also, from a personal perspective, I am somewhat concerned that out of 18 members (so far), six were indirectly (one) or directly (five members) involved in instigating the recent arbitration against me. Can you reassure me that this is a coincidence? Also, why are certain areas of Wikipedia overrepresented e.g. LGBT contributors, while others (science, religion) are under represented? What was the process in selecting these members? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In my view, the arbitrators are like liaison members, and also contribute their experience of Wikipedia and of arbitration. The council (not committee) is intended to advise the community, not just ArbCom. The proposal has nothing to do with any current or past arbitration cases, so your observation about your recent case is indeed a coincidence. The representation of topics in content contributions was not, admittedly, considered, but that would be extremely difficult to do. To get a proper representation of subject topics, you would need a large body of 100 people or more. On content, my view is that this advisory council would not consider specific matters of content (that would be, as always, down to editors discussing on talk pages and at article reviews), but more general, project-wide concerns. Carcharoth (talk) 22:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - "The representation of topics in content contributions was not, admittedly, considered" This is the reason why myself and many actual, active content editors (which only a handful on that list can honestly claim as a title) cannot respect the committee's proposal nor would want the council "advising" us in any manner. I, for one, would not want a group made up of Wikipedia Review members and those who are in isolated niches with very little experience with content as a whole or much of it in general to pontificate about anything as if they know what is best for us. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - As I've mentioned below, any group of Wikipedians can come together and work on developing ideas for improving the project. If you think that this group's suggestions won't be worth listening to—and you are perfectly entitled to think so, although I would hope that you don't regard us quite so poorly—then why not gather up a group that you think could offer more insight? I would be quite happy if, in six months' time, we have a dozen different think tanks all doing their best to come up with proposals; it's not as though I think the editors we've gathered have a monopoly on good ideas! ;-) Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 00:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Kirill, please take a moment and look at my user page and see how it is not like the others. Also note that I don't put my name on projects, join various groups, or anything like that. I work in many, many fields and I have probably over 20 different WikiProjects attached to the various pages that I work on. However, I don't like WikiProjects or any sort of group. I tend to keep to myself because it allows me to focus. Why? Because groups tend to breed cliques, have people assume power, and try to dominate others. They avoid the purpose and instead follow standard mindsets in such situations. Instead of focusing on how to get the job done, people care more about how they are seen. If someone wants to help me, they can come and edit, add wikilinks, add categories, or a million other tasks I can assign them to. Coming up with some obscure opinion about some governance wont help. We have ArbCom to settle decisions that can't be decided. We don't need a council of people with skewed viewpoints putting out some idea that wont help create content any faster. I don't care for groups, because groups are never around when there are things to be done. We need more workers and not "advisers". Ottava Rima (talk) 01:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, at a stroke, Arbcom's remit is extended from dispute resolution to project governance. To help it in this new role, it has appointed a group of editors to advise it. It wasn't felt worthwhile to ask the community how it feels about Arbcom becoming innvolved in governance, nor to consult the community about which editors should be appointed advisors. It will allow the community to suggest additonal nominees, whom it will appoint or not, as it sees fit. Cool. --MoreThings (talk) 23:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone had to do something, 'cos right now this project is headed for Hell in a handcart. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd certainly have voted for many of the people in the list to be given a say in the way the project is governed, and in the way it moves forward. But trampling on community consensus and presenting the whole thing as a fait accompli like this is not, imo, the way to do it. This is fundamental change in the structure of the project; handing it down as an announcement on a notice board can't be right. --MoreThings (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Community consensus" is a millstone, a dead weight that we continually drag around behind us, an excuse for doing nothing. Nobody can even adequately define what it means, or how it's measured. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess; but a discussion and a !vote would have been a starting point. Perhaps it's true that a proposal to establish this unelected, self-selecting elite would have struggled to find consensus, especially when you consider the outcry that greeted Peter Damian's attempt to establish an elected, self-selecting elite. And as Jimbo often points out, this place is not a democracy, he can put in place whatever structures and processes he likes. He is under no obligation to consult anyone. I have to say that, personally, I find moves like this alienating; but if the consensus is that it's okay to ignore consensus in this particular instance, I'm happy to abide by the consensus :)--MoreThings (talk) 01:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see any fundamental change here, though. You'd be correct if this were an actual governance body; but, as I hope we've made clear—and we did try to make it very explicit—the body is purely an advisory one, and has no authority beyond discussing and making proposals (which is something any group of Wikipedians can do). I would hope that people will find the group's ideas to be useful—certainly, this many experienced editors ought to be able to come up with something worth considering—but the community is perfectly free to agree, or disagree, with anything this group suggests. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 00:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Vassyana, Cla68 and Giano have all said they see the primary concern of this panel to be governance of the project. So we now have a panel of unelected editors whose opinions regarding the governance of the project carry more weight than the opinions of their peers. And I guess that wp:arbcom ought to be updated. At the moment it defines Arbcom's role as dispute resolution. It should reflect its new role in project governance.--MoreThings (talk) 01:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how much weight the group's opinion has in general is entirely up to the community, isn't it? If people find the group's suggestion's worthwhile, then it will presumably be because those suggestions are good ones, and not because the group happened to be convened by ArbCom. (ArbCom's own opinions tend to be ignored more often than not, in my experience.)

The Committee will ask the group for advice, of course; but I would think that we're free to ask whomever we want for advice in any case. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 01:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This just seems such a major change, right out of the blue. The people involved all appear to believe that their job is to advise how the project should be governed. Do you not agree that becoming involved in governing the project is a fundamental change in role for Arbcom? And if Arbcom has now been asked to fulfuil that role, don't you feel that it would better if the people who you turn to for advice are endorsed by the community? --MoreThings (talk) 01:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) What was considered in the selection of these members? From my point of view, it is not neutral. Can you reassure me that efforts were made to cast an wide net? I want to feel good about the development of this committee, but I am finding it difficult to do so. I do not feel this group is in any way representative and would like to know by what criteria they were selected, as well as exactly what task they are assigned. I would also like to know who turned membership down, aside from the one case I know about who would have upped the number involved in the arbitration case against me to seven. I sincerely hope this committee does not impact me personally, because of the large number involved in causing me to undergo arbitration. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There were a variety of factors, but I can assure you that their current or past relationship with you was not one of them. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 00:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a strange coincidence, I had considered the creation of an advisory committee/council for a few weeks, precisely to provide advises on some broad issues affecting the community, and allow the development of consensus in those areas. But I had come up with so many reasons not to do it, that I never proposed it. I think there are other ways to achieve the same goal. The community itself could develop a process to investigate broad issues, a sort of enhanced RFC, with similarities to an ArbCom case, but open, with the goal of achieving consensus. I had also thought of an executive committee, to transfer some executive powers from ArbCom to this committee, with relations with ArbCom to be determined. But I had always thought the community should decide on whether to create this or not, and not ArbCom. The selection of members should be thoroughly discussed. As of now, I can see users who I know have a strong opinion w.r.t. to certain issues, in such a number, that it is not representative of the community view. The initial pool should be enlarged. Questions: (1) Where and by who has it been discussed previously, who made the proposal ? (2) Is this subject to community review, that is, more directly, can the community decide to shut this down at any time ? Cenarium (talk) 03:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of devolving authority from ArbCom is an interesting one, although I'm not sure what we could devolve that would be useful to a group of this nature. Generally speaking, I would suggest that the draft arbitration policy would be the best place to take considerations of that sort; the policy could be modified to include something along those lines before it goes up for ratification.

As far as your specific questions:

This particular group has been under discussion amongst the Committee since late May, but the general idea of an advisory body has been brought up at various times over the past few months. Off the top of my head, I don't recall any discussion outside the Committee along these lines, although perhaps I'm overlooking something.
In principle, I suppose the community has the ability to shut down anything it wants, whenever it wants. Under normal circumstances, though, the Committee can ask anyone for advice without needing the community's approval, so I'm not sure what the practical effect of this would be.

Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 03:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies. Just noting that I didn't mean the executive committee would be related to the advisory council, it would be entirely separate in my mind. An advisory committee in this context shouldn't have any special power. Cenarium (talk) 04:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re (2), the point here is that it's never been clear whether the community has the power to overturn broad decisions or processes introduced by ArbCom (WP:BLPSE for example). I'm not sure, either, that the community could, speaking theoretically, shut down ArbCom. So the question arises. Does the ArbCom explicitly allows the community to review this group and gives it explicit authority to dissolve it, and modify it ? The ArbCom can indeed ask for advises, but there's a stretch in creating a permanent body for that. ArbCom has already called for RFCs, it could call for investigations and advises on a problem to the community in a way to be determined, which could be related to the suggested process I mention earlier. Cenarium (talk) 09:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume that the community shutting down ArbCom would be in the vein of a constitutional crisis of some sort, no? My feeling has always been that the community retains the authority to do so in principle, despite the lack of any actual procedure.

As far as this body is concerned, the community shut down the "think tank" aspects (i.e. by dissolving the body's public gathering); but it can't prevent ArbCom from coming to the people in the group for advice without shutting down ArbCom itself.

Speaking less of principle and more of practical approaches, I would of course encourage the community to constructively modify the group to better serve its needs. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 12:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest that whatever role the proposed group takes, it might be beneficial to set up a page similar to this one? Namely, that group members post to the front page, and debate can continue in an alternate track on talk? I figure that there is some selection here, and while we shouldn't silence those not of "the body", if we're going to be selected for our opinions we should have a similar venue to put them up. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 03:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right. I will propose that below. Carcharoth (talk) 09:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Off the top of my head, I don't recall any discussion outside the Committee along these lines, although perhaps I'm overlooking something." What a sweeping self-indictment! Not only was this a proposal introduced out of the blue as a fait-accompli with no community discussion, but those involved aren't even sure whether they attempted to discuss it outside private channels or not. Geometry guy 06:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is a long history of such ideas, in various forms, going back several years. If you dig around in all the essays and failed proposals, there *are* ideas similar to this one. One of the things I want to do at some point is gather them all together so a realistic assessment of the merits of each idea can be made. It might be said that the failure of previous similar ideas should tell everyone something, but that depends whether you think the ideas were fundamentally flawed, or just needed fixing and improvement. If you think such ideas are fundamentally flawed, and the "wiki-way" must be allowed full reign, then you are unlikely to ever support a proposal such as this, even though, as Kirill said, exactly the same sort of body could have been set up without ArbCom's involvement and endorsement. The key is whether the failure to set up such a body is a sign of community dysfunction (being too divided to ever come to an agreement on whether such a body is needed), or the community correctly rejecting the need for such a body? Carcharoth (talk) 09:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiVoices episode announcement

WikiVoices will be discussing this development at its next episode on 14 July 2009. Council appointees, arbitrators, and interested community members are welcome to join the roundtable discussion. The recording will begin at 10pm UTC (6pm Eastern, 3pm Pacific) via Skype. Signup is being held at Wikipedia:Wikivoices#Our_next_Skypecast. Durova²⁷⁵ 22:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is this Council for?

I find it hard to work out the purpose of this Council. In fact the fundamental problem appears to be the definition of ArbCom's functions. Let's consider the obvious contrast, with national governments. These make policy, i.e. they create new laws and regulations and amend older ones. Hence they need "think tanks" to examine and extrapolate in detail both proposed new /changed legislation and circumstances that might require such changes. However AFAIK ArbCom does not make policy - apart from a few that are mandated by the project office, mainly to keep WP out of the courts, policies and guidelines are supposedly the result of consensus within the community (how far that is true is a different matter). Since ArbCom is largely reactive, functioning as the highest level of the dispute resolution process, I don't see what use it has for a "think tank".

In fact one could level the charge that creation of this Council creates a new level of "inner circle" that may short-circuit or distort the results of existing community mechanisms such as policy RfCs. The over-representation of admins and Arbs in the proposed membership has already aroused comment. --Philcha (talk) 07:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where should discussion go from here?

Obviously there is much to discuss here, but I think it is important to consider where discussion should go from here. One thing I want to avoid is a mixing up of discussion between arbitrators and those opposing this idea, and the ideas and thoughts of those who accepted invitations. That is not fair on those who accepted the invitations. What I propose is that people discuss here the objections they have to the idea of an advisory council in principle, and also state their objections to ArbCom convening this advisory council, and their objections to the way this was announced and set up. But that discussion of what such a council would do, and how it would work in practice, be done elsewhere, and those questions be asked of those who have accepted invitations, and also anyone else who would like to join such a group (they, after all, not ArbCom, will decide what they do and how they do it). In other words, at some point fairly soon, the group should disengage from this announcement, and from ArbCom, and sink or swim on its own merits. This shouldn't happen immediately, as more discussion is needed here (not everyone will have seen this discussion yet, for one), but that is how I think the discussion should fork, when the timing is right. Carcharoth (talk) 09:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Failure to recuse

I'm suprised to see that Kirill Lokshin saw fit to invite himself onto the advisory council, accept his own invitation, then vote support on the proposal to create it, despite this very obvious conflict of interest. He even announced it "on behalf of the Arbitration Committee." Is this just Kirill and an entourage of rubber stamps? Why didn't he recuse?
Also, since we're informed that each proposed candidate was accepted or rejected with an up or down vote, are these votes going to be made public?24.18.142.245 (talk) 10:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except that I was not the person who suggested that I should be a member; I did recuse, obviously, from considering my own membership; and I voted on the general proposal long before I, or anyone else, was actually invited.

(The fact that I happened to be the one to post the announcement about it is neither here nor there; I make most of our announcements, simply because doing so is one of my responsibilities as the coordinating arbitrator.) Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 12:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional suspension of community ban: Betacommand