Initiated by MastCell ^Talk at 18:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• MastCell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Will Beback (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ([1])
• ImperfectlyInformed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ([2])
• IRWolfie- (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ([3])
• SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) ([4])
• Thryduulf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ([5])

(The list of affected users is simply a list of those who commented in the bottom subthread of this discussion. I've also posted a general note in that thread notifying readers of this request).

In the TimidGuy ban appeal case, Will Beback (talk · contribs) was indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. In March 2013, Will stated on his talk page that he had appealed the ban to ArbCom, and that his appeal had been rejected ([6]).

Pursuant to this lengthy but inconclusive discussion, I am requesting the release of the simple vote count by which Will's appeal was declined (that is, a tally of which Arbs supported, opposed, or abstained on the appeal). Failing that, I am requesting a concise explanation of why such a tally cannot be released.

I am not requesting the release of any privacy-sensitive information, although of course individual Arbitrators are free to comment on their reasoning if they choose. MastCell ^Talk 18:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SilkTork, I am not asking for the release of any internal deliberations. A simple "yes", "no", or "no comment" next to each Arb's name would suffice. If such a process didn't take place, then perhaps a one-word summary of each Arb's position is not too much ask. Failing that, perhaps you could explain why this information needs to remain secret. Finally, while I understand that you believe a vote tally "serves no purpose", a number of editors in good standing have requested the information as a matter of accountability, and clearly believe that it serves that purpose. MastCell ^Talk 20:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am unaware of any precedent for such a request having any effect on ArbCom, and suggest that iteration of the same points is unlikely to have different results from the request made a short time back. While I am in favour of following "process" I find multiple requests are unlikely to result in much at all, other than many hours and many thousands of characters of discussion leading nowhere. I see no procedural, policy, or guideline basis for demanding vote tallies. Collect (talk) 19:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will Beback's ban occurred in public (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy_ban_appeal/Proposed_decision#Will_Beback:_remedies for the vote tally) largely as a result of public evidence, presented above the decision. We know the original story. Even if we don't know what Will's emails to Jimbo looked like, ArbCom unanimously affirmed that Will Beback emailed Jimbo with allegations, and so on. It is unclear why the ban appeal needs to have special treatment such that even the vote tally needs to be kept secret. The denied appeal was never revealed to the community and no official statement was made; Will Beback said he also did not receive an explanation in its rejection. Will Beback apologized at length at his talkpage after the appeal denial (we don't know what his communications looked like, but he has said "I would be happy for any of my statements to the ArbCom to be made public"). Regardless of the result of this request, I intend to edit the policy and open a RfC on the change (I'll hold off so we don't have too many pots on the fire). There is, incidentally, precedent for revealing votes when the appeal is successful (such as Russavia's unblock appeal tally currently at WT:BASC).

On a larger issue, the purpose behind this goes back to Churchill's quote (now a cliche) that "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried" (called the Churchill Hypothesis in academic literature). ArbCom members have expressed concern about politicizing, and I understand that there is some purpose to being more deliberative than an angry mob. However, ArbCom is elected, and we need to know the votes to hold them accountable for their positions.

On a further note, this position of not allowing Will to have a second chance, or even a hint of a public hearing, is plain discouraging to other long-term editors as it suggests a basic lack of fairness and respect for those who have dedicated many hours into improving this encyclopedia. I should also note that I proposed a compromise: a revote, in public, with no requirement to repeat the prior vote. II | (t - c) 20:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• Decline. It wasn't a vote tally, it was a discussion held on the understanding that it was held in camera. Also, such a vote tally serves no purpose. Will can appeal again in six months, and hopefully when he does, he will address the concerns that have been shared with him. That is the appropriate way of dealing with this matter. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Decline release of tallies. Tallies in straw polls are informal documents created purely for the purpose of seeing which way the wind is blowing. They help They are part of the process of deliberating. What's more, they are rarely binary and usually express nuanced thoughts and positions. By releasing tallies, the committee would be releasing, in effect, private working papers. The committee handles too much sensitive stuff to establish a precedent that it should disclose deliberations lock, stock and barrel whenever the torches and pitchforks come out. If something is done in private with a reasonable and legitimate expectation of privacy, it's private. On the other hand, there has never been a problem with individual arbitrators stating, should they wish to do, what their position is on a particular issue.  Roger Davies ^talk 20:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @II. The obvious thing to do is for WBB to request a review of his ban here. I have no difficulty with that at all and it mystifies me why this hasn't been done. Instead we've got this request based purely on procedural stuff, which isn't really of that much significance. (I've added "release of tallies" to my Decline above, to make it clearer what I'm declining.)  Roger Davies ^talk 21:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• If MastCell wants to factor this failure to unban Will Beback into his vote come December 2013/4, he should be able to. I am disappointed in Arbitrators who opined that the appeal ought to be dismissed and are choosing not to reveal that fact to the public. NW (Talk) 20:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• MastCell, this is not what clarification/amendment requests are for. In my opinion, if you wish to know how an individual arb voted, you should ask him on his talk page. That said, I believe that a more important question for Will to ask would be "why was my appeal declined?", so that he can take that into account when appealing next. This request should be archived. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by Prioryman (talk) at 07:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be grateful if the Committee could clarify a couple of points regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology.

• Under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Editors instructed, the scope of the ongoing discretionary sanctions is defined as "any Scientology-related articles or discussions on any page". Could the Committee please clarify if that applies to all Scientology-related content in all namespaces (i.e. article space, templates, talk pages etc), including subsections of articles that are not wholly about Scientology?

• The project banner for WikiProject Scientology, Template:WikiProject Scientology, includes a notification, apparently added by uninvolved admins following the case, of the editing requirements linked above. As far as I can tell this was not done on behalf of the Committee but seems to have been done as a way of informing editors of the sanctions. The project banner isn't mentioned in the case. Could the Committee please clarify if the application of the sanctions is conditional on the project banner being posted on the talk page of an article that includes content related to Scientology - i.e. if there's no project banner the sanctions don't apply - or whether they apply independently of the project banner being present?

@Salvio: Thanks for the advice, but I'm simply trying to clarify the situation with the scope of the sanctions and the project banner. Thanks for doing so. Prioryman (talk) 18:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Based on previous statements and clarifications by the ArbCom (not related to Scientology) I would suggest that the discretionary sanctions apply to all Scientology content on Wikipedia, including templates and sections of larger articles.

Regarding the template, the key aspect of discretionary sanctions is that editors must be aware of them before they can be sanctioned under them. A notice on the talk page is a convenient way to alert people that the sanctions exist and that that article is within the scope of them. It is not the only way though, for example if you edit warred about adding significant Scientology-related content to Riverside County, California you could not successfully argue that you were not aware of the existence of DS for the topic area even if there wasn't a template on the article talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 09:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have already (grudgingly) conceded the point that that single passage in the article is under Arbcom's Scientology-related purview. We are discussing ways to move forward on the talk page now, regarding how to make it clear to present and future editors that that is the case, and that the list in its entirety is not under discretionary sanctions. JClemens' comment yesterday regarding granularity and mixed-element articles was insightful. Tarc (talk) 12:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• In my opinion, EdJohnston's comment is reasonable and that is how I would interpret the restriction as well. An article about Scientology, even when not tagged with the appropriate wikiproject banner, is under sanctions. When only a section of an article deals with the topic in question, then the AE admins have to look at the content of the diffs: a user can be sanctioned if his edits are about Scientology and are deemed disruptive. Furthermore, I also think that discretionary sanctions apply to all namespaces: it would be unreasonable not to sanction an editor who is causing serious disruption during a discussion about any topic under sanctions merely because his conduct occurs in project space.

  That said, I also agree with IRWolfie- that, in the case which prompted your question, the use of discretionary sanctions would have been inappropriate: they are a tool to protect Wikipedia, not a club to beat your opponents over the head with.

  Finally, speaking as an editor and not as an Arbitrator, after an AfD, a DRV, an AE thread and a clarification request, will you please remove List of Wikipedia controversies from your watchlist and forget about it for at least a month? If there are serious problems, someone else will certainly notice; no need for you to stay there to hold the fort. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree in general with Salvia guiliano's advice. And like him, I will venture to add a comment in my individual capacity and not as an arbitrator. Mine is that it is undesirable for a mainspace article to become a forum for jousting between wikipolitical factions. List of Wikipedia controversies is not a battleground. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I too agree with the Arbitration advice given. Is there anything more that needs to be done here? NW (Talk) 15:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the page which is the subject of this proceeding: Talk:Jerusalem/2013_RfC_discussion.

Initiated by Steve, Sm8900 (talk) at 02:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• sm8900 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Mr. Stradivarius (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [7]
• Pgallert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [8]
• RegentsPark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [9]
• Keilana (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [10]
• Ravpapa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [11]
• Evanh2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [12]
• Dailycare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [13]
• Nishidani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [14]
• FormerIP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [15]
• The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [16]
• Tariqabjotu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [17]
• Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [18]
• ClaudeReigns (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [19]
• Zero0000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [20]
• Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [21]
• Mor2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [22]
• Sepsis II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [23]
• Hertz1888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [24]
• BritishWatcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [25]
• Dlv999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [26]
• ZScarpia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [27]
• Ezzex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [28]

by the way, one reason I made this a request for clarification is that I left notes on the personal talk pages for several arbitrators. However, I did not receive a reply,. So, based on the fact that I did not receive any reply at all, even when i tried to conduct this discussion on an informal basis with individual members of Arbcomm, I felt that it was advisable to post this. I appreciate your help. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 13:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank Salvio for his note, and would like to reply. Salvio, I will try to be equally frank. In my opinion, I think this process really started out with some good intentions. but I think the results are not what Arbcomm had hoped for, since their goal was to provide a process which would make the design process for an RFC more easier. I know it is not Arbcomm's intent to inflict counter-productive processes on Wikipedia, and they intended to make things more better for our editing community. in my opinion the the resulting process is very much counter to what Arbcomm intended or desired. I don't think the design process for an RFC should take so long that actually launching the RFC itself becomes an afterthought, or is even made to seem relatively unimportant due to the length of this design process. my point is, Arbcomm itself should be notified if a process which it mandated turns out to not have achieved the desired result, and in fact ends up being just as laborious as the conventional process which it was meant to replace.

I do appreciate all the hard work which Arbcomm does, and all the multiple benefits which it provides to the Wikipedia community. I hope it will be possible for Arbcomm to have a full discussion of this item, to discuss both the intent of this process, and the actual course it took, and to also lay out some clear and specific guidelines on how the process should be designed in the future, and what guidelines Arbcomm should define for itself for any similar process which it may mandate in the future. if this came up now, then it could possibly come up again. so I appreciate any progress which we as a community might be able to forge together. I appreciate your help and input. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, one more note in regards to what Arbcomm should do. in my opinion, of course Arbcomm should intervene if possible to do so. the whole point of Arbcomm mandating a process, imo, is so that they will intervene when necessary at various intervals, in order to maintain that process and to keep it viable. I really see no reason for Arbcomm to be hands-off if it mandates a process, and then that process does not show some viable progress. --Sm8900 (talk) 13:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to request a clarification of the RFC process for Jerusalem article, which Arbcomm mandated, in regards to the points raised and queries in the following note on an Arbcomm talk page.

note at: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests#Mandated Jerusalem discussion appears to be a bureaucratic morass

I would also like to suggest a solution and remedy for the problems noted in this note. I have made these suggestions at the following talk page section: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#comment_on_rfc_process_and_arbcomm.

The page which is referred to is located at: Talk:Jerusalem/2013_RfC_discussion.

thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank Arbcomm for its response to this item. please note that my motion on this item is not necessarily a point of contention with any other editor who is part of this, but is rather a suggestion on the nature of this process itself. thanks very much. --Sm8900 (talk) 02:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to reply and say that I do appreciate all the hard work which the moderator has put into helping this process to develop. I don't think it is any fault of the moderator that this has taken so long. I think that the structure of this process was flawed from the beginning. in the future, I feel that Arbcomm should be the one to provide the possible options to be used in a future RFC. then, as part of the design process for the RFC, all participants should simply comment on the possible options which Arbcomm has provided. I feel that this might allow the process to go much more smoothly. --Sm8900 (talk) 11:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what exactly the "clarification" needed is, but, yes, this process is taking forever. I don't know what the problem is. A desire to get every minutae related to this RfC nailed down? Lack of participation (from those commenting or the mediator)? Excessive arguing over minor points?

That being said, while this process has taken a long time already, I feel the RfC discussion is close to its conclusion. On Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests, Looie496 said there are four steps left in the discussion before the RfC commences. However, that's not true; there are only two. One of them has been going on for more than a month now, so hopefully that should be drawing to its final conclusion (provided the moderator doesn't insist on several more questions). The last step is the finalization of implementation, which I imagine is just discussion of how the RfC will be advertised. The last two steps Looie referenced are the launch of the RfC and the analysis and implementation of the results -- i.e. the RfC itself.

I'm not a fan of this current drawn-out process, and I feel a small team of reasonable editors (maybe ArbCom itself?) could have come up with an RfC with a similar format months ago. But now that we've gone down this road, we might as well see it to its end -- although perhaps with a greater understanding from all parties involved that we need to speed this up. Many people, myself included, are becoming fatigued and losing interest in this whole thing. -- tariqabjotu 02:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For those unfamiliar with the background, I'm the moderator of the RfC discussion. I'm a little surprised to see this clarification request, as I think this could have been sorted out on my talk page without involvement from the committee. Sm8900 did leave a note on my talk page a few days ago, but we didn't discuss the issue of the basic structure of the RfC discussion, which seems to be what this request is about.

Having said that, I do agree with him, with Tariqabjotu, and with Looie496, about the fact that this process has been taking too long. This is mostly the result of my decisions on how to structure the process, and I'm sorry for any unnecessary work or discussion that this has caused. It wasn't my intention to make the discussion last as long as this, and I might have been able to avoid this state of affairs with more foresight.

To add to this, there has been discontent among the participants at the latest stage of the proceedings. I made the mistake of posting what turned out to be very contentious questions for the participants to answer, right before I went travelling for a few days (on April 11). I wanted to post the questions before I left, as otherwise the process would have basically been stalled until I got back. However, this backfired, and resulted in a series of acrimonious exchanges which I wasn't able to moderate effectively due to my limited internet access. I think it is the negativity in this latest round of discussions that has led to the fatigue that Tariqabjotu mentions.

However, as Tariqabjotu also mentions above, this process is actually fairly near to completion, and I don't think there would be any benefit to radically changing its format at this stage. There are certainly lessons to be learned from this experience for the next time ArbCom tries something similar, and I myself have many things to reflect upon. What the actual process needs now, though, is for me to summarise the consensus from the latest discussions and to assemble a draft of the RfC text, not for there to be a change of procedure or of personnel. After the participants see an actual draft of the RfC, with any luck the fatigue should disappear. I have set aside today to do this, so you can expect to see some results later on. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Salvio, let me note that this request is here because Carcharoth said it should be -- the issue was originally raised on the ArbCom talk page. In my view, the most important aspect of this is that ArbCom really needs to be conscious of how far off track the process has gone, otherwise similar things are likely to happen again. This is a remedy that did not work properly. Can the concept be modified to make it workable, or should remedies of this sort simply be avoided?

It would also be helpful, for the current case, to have the moderator set a more or less definite target date for when the RfC should go live. Looie496 (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the editors above in that the process, while long, is quite close to completion and in that regard prospects are bright. Mr. Stradivarius has been doing an admirable job in guiding the discussion toward the eventual goal of starting the RFC. I don't see why we shouldn't just finish the planning according to the agreed plan. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• Taking care of the notifications now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've notified the moderator, closers and all users listed as participants. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank-you for the request for clarification. Before this goes any further, we need to make sure that all those who need to be aware of this request have been notified and added to the notification section above. Could you or a clerk please do that. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 00:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Steve, frankly, I don't understand what you expect us to do here. It appears you're trying to provide us with feedback as to how the process we set up can be improved (and what its major flaws were): don't get me wrong, that's always welcome and, as far as I'm concerned, your suggestions will certainly be taken into account, should we do something like this again, but that's not something that requires a clarification or amendment request. If, on the other hand, you're asking the Committee to intervene, then my personal take is that we should not interfere now that the process is nearing completion... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• My views align fairly closely with Salvio's on this one.  Roger Davies ^talk 20:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]