View source for Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee/Proposed decision

{{Casenav|case name=MickMacNee|clerk1=AGK|clerk2=AlexandrDmitri|draft arb=Kirill Lokshin|draft arb2=}}

==Arbitrators active on this case==
'''Active:'''
#Casliber
#Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry
#Cool Hand Luke
#Coren
#David Fuchs
#Elen of the Roads
#Jclemens
#John Vandenberg
#Kirill Lokshin
#Mailer diablo
#Newyorkbrad
#PhilKnight
#Roger Davies
#Xeno

'''Inactive'''
#Risker
#SirFozzie

'''Recused'''
#Iridescent
:<small>''To update this listing, [{{fullurl:Template:ACA|action=edit}} edit this template] and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators.''</small>

== Administrative self-blocks ==

I wonder how widespread this is? I know that other administrators have done this when matters get out of control. {{admin|Maunus}} is an example I am familiar with and I have the highest regard for him as an editor and administrator. Here is his self-block record [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Maunus&page=User%3AMaunus&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=]. I'm not quite sure why Kirill has singled Rd232 out for this and why he has proposed such a stern warning. Perhaps someone can explain how often administrators block themselves and why they do so (e.g. to enforce a wikibreak). [[User:Mathsci|Mathsci]] ([[User talk:Mathsci|talk]]) 00:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
:While it would be nice to know how prevalent self-blocks are, I'm more concerned about the implication that they're a serious offense. [[WP:SELFBLOCK]] states that, while self-requested blocks (which really aren't much different from a self-block) are generally refused, there are admins who will grant them. This seems to say "you can't expect an arbitrary admin to do it for you, but if you want to try go for it". As pertains to self-blocks, I think this policy could reasonably be interpreted as, "they aren't recognized as legitimate, but neither are they prohibited".  Arbcom doesn't have the right to change that policy in a case where the substantive issue has not a damned thing to do with it.  The only time a self-block could be messy is when the admin in question undoes it, which didn't happen here.  If Arbcom wants to discourage self-blocking for wikibreaks, then just say so without "admonishing and warning" for something that policy takes no stand on.  In this specific case, both the finding of fact and the proposed remedy should be left out of the final decision, as they simply aren't appropriate. [[User:Throwaway85|Throwaway85]] ([[User talk:Throwaway85|talk]]) 01:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
:There is even a [[:Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks|category]] of administrators who are willing to perform self-requested blocks. The category [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_June_8#Category:Administrators_willing_to_consider_requests_for_self_blocking|was discussed]] at CfD, and deletion was not even brought up as a possibility. [[User:NuclearWarfare|<b style="color:navy;">NW</b>]] ''([[User talk:NuclearWarfare|<span style="color:green;">Talk</span>]])'' 02:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
::The question is about administrators blocking themselves. [[User:Mathsci|Mathsci]] ([[User talk:Mathsci|talk]]) 02:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
:::There isn't any real distinction between the two, in my mind anyway. [[User:NuclearWarfare|<b style="color:navy;">NW</b>]] ''([[User talk:NuclearWarfare|<span style="color:green;">Talk</span>]])'' 02:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment: If I've somehow missed a policy against self-blocking, well fair enough, I won't do it again. But as far as I can see, [[WP:SELFBLOCK]] in effect endorses self-requested blocks, and that extends very logically to self-blocking, being merely a self-requested block which is also self-executed. Now there might or might not be good reason to require self-requested blocks ''not'' to be self-executed, but that's a policy issue which is beyond Arbcom's remit, methinks. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 15:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

== Response ==

There appear to be massive gaps in the investigation of the facts of this case. Why no mention of how this case actually came about, not of the sock or RD232's role? Why no discussion of who actually placed most of those indef blocks, and how little suppport they actually had? Or of his subsequent involvement. Why no discussion of the actions of editors like DeCausa or The365 or anyone else whose actions I can guarantee, would not stand up to an examination against the 'professional standards' being applied to me in my dealings with them.

Why no accounting at all of how my various "egregious violations" have and have not been dealt with by actual uninvolved admins with no score to settle or no axe to grind, other than the obligatory 'well, his block log is long eh'. Sure it's long, but I've been here 4 years FFS, and have perhaps naively held onto the belief that it wouldn't be used against me so lazily in this manner. I really have to ask, what actual investigation has taken place here? If any such discussions have taken place, it must be on the not-so-secret mailing list. You might think it serves your purpose to keep such deliberations private, assuming they have occured, but in this case at least, I'd think again if I were you.

I seriously cannot think of how anyone can defend themselves in this environment. Forget 500 words, forgtet 5,000, I would have needed 50,000 words to adeqautely defend myself on all counts in this case given what's emerged in the decision. Got any comment for example on how Bearian was roundly condemned for the actions which led to his 03:59, 15 May 2011 post to my talk page which is now cited here as an example of where I erred in giving him both barrels for? While I might not have had a justification for that, I sure as hell had an explanation. Was I really expected to lay this all out for you for you to read at your leisure, in my ridiculous 500 word allocation for my defence.

I had no idea things like my dealings with Bearian was even going to be part of this; oh how I would have relished pointing out his massive failings as an admin, which include enabling a whopping great BLP violation to be placed on the Main Page for fucks sake, and then threatening me for objecting to his attempts to cover it up or otherwise ignore it. Aggressive and hostile in that sort of situation? You bet. And I make no apology for it <-- there's another quote that someone can freely take out of context if they wish, it's a tactic that clearly works at arbitration. I've never claimed to be a saint or tried to justify such things as totally acceptable, but let's not pretend I am some fucking nutter who just acts that way as a matter of routine, as you want to assert with this decision.

If you want to give the likes of DeCausa a 'victory' here, go ahead, if you did read my evidence you should have seen what direction that will take the concepts of NPOV and consensus on core articles like UK. You might think other approaches work with editors like him, but you're living in fantasy land, hypocritically whining about WP:CIV while merely paying lip service to the concepts of basic respect for others, is all they know, while they ardently defend such clueless concepts like consensus is a vote, BRD justifies edit warring and condescension, etc etc. And why should they change? You give them no reason to, none whatsoever. My approach has at least succeeded in getting that particular article right inspite of their flawed beliefs, whatever harm its done to my editting status. Does that sort of thing matter to you? I certainly don't think I really care any more. I doubt I will care any more in a years time either, if you're waiting for a begging letter from the 'recidivist'.

Sure, I can certainly think of countless cases where my approach has failed, the ongoing POV pushing campaign by HighKing being one, but where they exist, I will wear my actual achievements with pride, and could not give a toss about any editor who might have been horrified by seeing how you sometimes need to get shit done in this mental institution, due to the fact that when it comes down to the leg work of actual article work, it's a sad fact that 90% of written policy proves to be ultimately wortheless due to the actions, beliefs and tactics of people like DeCausa or The365, and the general inaction of admins, or worse, the abusive involvement of admins like RD232 or Bearian. Throw in people like Sandstein 'overseeing' things and well, this site will not reverse the current trend any time soon.

You think you're fostering a professional environment by pandering to these sort of people? By reinforcing their failures? As someone who is an actual professional, I say don't make me laugh. This is a site with grand pretentions but is ultimately run like a half assed hobby group most of the time, nothing more, certainly on matters of behavioural standards. And as a last word on that score, Holy Jesus, to accuse me on my record of being a recidivist while Delta is ''still'' free to do whatever he likes here even after all his history, and merely gets an 'observation' for his disgraceful actions (and nobody else involved in enabling and even rewarding his role in that sorry incident is mentioned ''at all'', not least the admins, and while there's no general comment on the principles of it either while we're on the whole professional standards issue), well, you've lost the plot on that score. [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) 15:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
:Mick, do you think you could break that wall of text up into paragraphs? FWIW, I suspect that one condition for any return (if you get banned) would be to be able to ''rewrite'' the above in a more temperate tone. Even when an editor is very angry or upset or feels that an injustice is being done, they need to be able to recognise that, to calm down, rephrase what they would say, and temper their comments (and crucially, do so without comparing their own conduct to bad conduct by others). Do you think you could try and do that here, just to see if it is possible? [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 05:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
::I've added paragraph breaks, but I'm buggered if I'm wasting any more of my life on this site by rewording it for the delicate sensitivities of the precious people who want to set the standards on this site. I'm apparently banned for being nothing but an ignorant asshole, so I might aswell go out as one in my leaving statement. For the record, I'm not comparing my conduct to others, I'm merely asking for the slightest hint that these people have discussed or even read it. I cannot for example quite believe that the only thing RD232 is seen to have done wrong in the matters around this case, is to give himself a block after flipping out at the harsh reality that not a single person saw things his way. 

::Good job for him there was a nutty sock on hand to take up his cause and file this case, how else would the likes of DeCausa managed to get anyone to give a fuck about their complaints, while not examining their role whatsoever. Good job that he has the comfort of having finally got satisfaction after being screwed over at all the prior attempts at DR over his allegations about me, and has now had justice for all the baseless allegations I made about his unwillingess to make a single policy backed argument, or about his failure to appreciate that consensus as anything but a vote, or about his astonishing hypocrisy in crying about civility while not giving others the basic respect of even reading the points made in response to his 'queries', often having to be repeated for his timewasting tendentious self. Oh no, wait.....I must be thinking of someome else, surely. That's the intended message of this decision, no?

::There's no mention for example that it was one of their own number who had to dramatically reduce one of the blocks that appear in my log, placed by one of the admins who tried to paint himself in the case talk pages as a model citizen, one of the self serving pricks who seeks to lecture me about how I need to acknowledge my "failings"! No mention of the fact that when it came to his placing of a block on me, which adds to the length of the log now cited, on someone who he had so recently been in bitter dispute with and, as is the running theme if people cared to look, that nobody was really supporting him over at the time, well, shock horror, it turned out his judgement of what was fair didn't match that of the community's when it came to reviewing that block post effect. That's the sort of critic I have, that's the sort of person I stand accused of having not given enough professional respect according to this decision. That's the sort of admin who I stand accused of ignoring. The sort of person who had no problem with how this case was filed, likening it to the act of an 'anonymous tip off' line doing everybody a favour. Indeed. It's a whole new take on the concept of justice is blind that's for sure.

::If this decision, and more importantly, what it lacks in content about the other parties who seek to be my betters, is really their conclusion after a thorough investigation of the facts, then jesus fucking christ, why would I ever care about what I would have to do to be let back in here? They probably don't see the irony that RD232 was the last admin to stop the last proper community attempt at having Delta held to account quickly and quietly over his latest violations, meaning that it then spread into a total mess across multiple venues, necessitating their motion - RD232's subsequent actions towards me are nothing but the expression of the malice he bears for me criticising him for that, yet I can see no evidence at all that the committee has rejected that theory, let alone even considered it. The committee needs to make up their mind - do they want admins to act on their pronouncements on Delta or not. Because RD232 pissed all over them with his ignorant and arrogant intervention in that situation, and somehow he's come out of this process smelling of roses, a perfect admin with a perfect record, while I'm cast as a complete cunt. Similar failings in investigation are self-evident in all the other issues raised here too.

::There's no shame in being banned from this site for not wanting to pander to this sort of crap. If anything I'm pissed off I spent all that time even bothering to give evidence, let alone thinking there would be any open discussion of it, I had a strong inkling from the start that this was a case of a decision waiting for a request, and I think with this decision I've been proved right. I read the leaks on WR with interest on that score. At least Jimbo was right - he probably knows all too well how pointless the arbitration process is for actual investigation purposes, it's nothing but a glorified popularity contest with teeth, which is after all how most lower level disputes on this funny farm are settled, so it was unsurprising to see him recommend that when you are the subject of gross attacks on this site, enabled by admins who bizarrely protect the attacker and/or further the attack, and when nobody cares to do anything about it or them because they in their warped minds think wiki rules or their own biases do indeed allow them to ignore such things, then the best you can do is just fuck off and not waste your time on it any more, because its unlikely the one body paid not to ignore such abuses will put enough time into putting that shithouse of a situation back on track. [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) 13:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

:::"having Delta held to account quickly and quietly" ...in a massive ANI clusterfuck. Still got a sense of humour on the way out, then. PS I never bore you any malice. I felt bullied by you for a time, but I got over that (mostly by time and distance, which the selfblock helped), and now I just pity you for your evident inability to be sufficiently collaborative to remain a part of a project you've contributed a lot to and evidently don't really want to leave. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 15:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
::"run like a half assed hobby group" - well I hate to break it to you, but it ''is'' a half-assed hobby group (''pace'' your remark about "the one body paid not to ignore such abuses"). (And if it were run like a company you'd have been out on your ear long ago, unless you'd adapted your behaviour to the requirements of a professional environment). [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 15:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

== Is it possible to speed up the implementation of the decision? ==
{{hat|The case will be closed shortly}}
At the moment all MMN is doing is posting walls of verbiage on various user Talk pages which just contain abusive ranting: [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&action=historysubmit&diff=442088546&oldid=442088365],
[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMjroots&action=historysubmit&diff=442207120&oldid=442192843],
[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASnowded&action=historysubmit&diff=442200940&oldid=442161337],
[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMickMacNee&action=historysubmit&diff=441975802&oldid=441961779], [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMjroots&action=historysubmit&diff=442214090&oldid=442210396]. Is it possible to put the ban into immediate effect? [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 14:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

:Yes hurry up please guys. If you bothered to read my evidence and related links you'd already know how it hurts DeCausa's brain to read long discussions, particularly when they touch on things that are uncomfortable for him to read and has for obvious reasons never liked being aired in the open. He's a busy guy, he doesn't want to be wasting time wondering if he's got his win yet, I'm sure there's some other article out there waiting to be fucked up by his basic ignorance of policy and simplistic ideas of what civility & consensus is. If you're dilligent, if you follow him to those places, you might just get a pre-warning of the sort of knowledgable and productive editors you'll be dealing with at arbitration in 2013, 2014, 2015, as the full effect of your naive and unrealistic ideals about how such editors are expected to interact with people like him take hold. [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) 15:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

::Long '''''discussions'''''? Mick, I created [[Legal system of Saudi Arabia|this article]] 10 days ago. Happy to receive your critique of how I fucked it up by a basic ignorance of policy...with or without The Tone. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 15:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
{{hab}}

== Process ==

I've not been involved in an arbcom case before, but it strikes me as having been particularly messy, and really quite unsatisfactory for all concerned, particularly the subject of the case. I know the whole email leak business in the middle took a lot of attention away, but I was really hoping for more engagement from arbcom over what the key issues were that were emerging which they were interested in, and what evidence was required. There was no [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee/Workshop#Analysis_of_evidence|"analysis of evidence"]] at all, which is surely indicative of things not going quite right. I found the evidence length limit restrictive, and I know the subject did, and there was talk of how to deal with that, which then didn't go anywhere. One thing coming out of that, still unresolved, is how linked user subpages fit into the word length limit (eg 500 on the Evidence page, 2000 in a linked subpage).

I feel like it really needs something like an investigative judge type role to look at initial issues and incoming evidence and bash them into some kind of shape that case participants can engage with, in a format not so severely restricted by the evidence length and "Evidence from User X" format. For instance, based both on the RFAR discussion and on "Evidence from User X" evidence, that person might draw out a couple of key questions about the issues of the case (eg "was X an appropriate decision?"; "should Y have been sanctioned for act Z?"), with participants permitted additional wordcount for discussing that (in its own Question section), before the Committee starts to draw its conclusions. Such questions would be a natural prelude to the "findings of fact", which are conclusions. The "investigative judge" role would fall to one or both of the drafting arbitrators. This role would demand a much more active engagement with the parties and evidence as the case develops, which I think is often required, because left to their own devices, the parties can't always make it work well alone. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 16:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
:I completely agree. This could have been over in a week. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] &lt;[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]&gt; 23:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
::Per [[WP:ADMIN]] an administrator is required to reply to legitimate concerns about their actions in good time. On the same principle I expect the arbitration committee to respond to this as well. Especially given the committee has been criticised in various ways by a large number of the editors of good standing involved in this case. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] &lt;[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]&gt; 17:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
:::The word limit was introduced because quite frankly, several past cases had devolved into complete and utter "wall of text" mode that rivaled War and Peace in both length and ease of reading. We're still trying to find a good balance of forcing people to be brief and factual and allowing people to fully articulate our concerns. Generally, linked user subpages should be used when the limit is not quite enough, but it is not a reason to post longish screeds, because again, that's not useful to the Committee. Different arbs have different ideas on what the length should be. As to the length, and as one of the original drafting arbitrators, I do apologize for going inactive during the case, however, issues with my health precluded any significant participation (the good news, if you can call this "good", is I got to review our article on [[Iritis]] :P). [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 19:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Relevant information that goes over the word limit is not a problem.  The problem is that editors have a tendency to
*:Start from the beginning....ten years ago
*:Rehash everything....whether it's relevant or not
*:Descend into personal attacks
*:Attempt to persuade you that you should be endorsing their view of the article content
I think all formal-type proceedings - hearings, tribunals, marriage ceremonies - are largely designed to stop this happening.  I mean, look at what happened when they started allowing couples to write their own marriage vows....  People don't naturally give evidence in a concise, clear way - those who regularly appear as expert witnesses etc have to be trained in how to do it.

I do wonder whether a better structure might help.  People generally don't understand what RfAr is for.  That there is no point trying to persuade me that an article should use this source, or not contain that information. If it is a legitimate content dispute, Arbcom are not going to issue a ruling on whether the album was called ''Hannah Montana:The Empire Strikes Back'' when issued in Argentina.  RfAR is a dispute resolution process for when the dispute has got out of hand - what I need (and I'm making this a personal statement, as not all of the Arbs necessarily agree with me) is to understand why it got out of hand. What went wrong. Why can't you guys reach a compromise.  Who is behaving badly...is everyone behaving badly or just one side? Just a few people? Just one person? [[User:Elen of the Roads|Elen of the Roads]] ([[User talk:Elen of the Roads|talk]]) 22:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
:I think some analysis of the evidence might have been useful as well. Pointing out the stuff Mick did well as well as not so well would have been useful and worthwhile.

:With regards to the word limit setting in a number of word processor pages adds significant flexibility without allowing people to take the piss. Possibly 1 page for non-parties, 2 pages for parties and 4 pages for subjects would be more reasonable. That also gives people acting in good faith something to aim for, and you can see fairly clearly when someone's taking the piss. I got 1200 words of Lorem Ipsum on a page by striking the margins to 1cm and the font size to 9, but at that point it is difficult to read - and that does still lead to a vaguely reasonable limit even if that was allowed. If you need to have a hard number as well you say 500 words or a page. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] &lt;[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]&gt; 23:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

:Two points I would make: (i) yes, acknowledging parties' good contributions would be helpful, particularly when you're thinking about the effect on morale or the willingness of banned editors to sock etc. It's quite easy for judgements to appear humiliating or shaming, and some explicit acknowledgement of good work done would be helpful. (ii) the points Elen makes about poor and over-long evidence are exactly the sort of reason that there needs to be some ''active'' engagement with the evidence submitted, instead of just setting a (pretty low) word limit and leaving it at that. If you have an "investigative judge" who has the responsibility of engaging with evidence as it comes in, and developing findings from it, and engaging in discussion with parties, it would be much easier for the scope of the case to become clarified through discussion, and for unnecessary evidence to be removed. That requires a lot more work from just one person (probably a drafting arbitrator), but all other arbs would face a very similar workload, and much better quality evidence, with factual findings already pre-drafted as they've arisen from the evidence. Such factual findings arising from this process would probably also naturally be more detailed, which I think would be a very good thing. ... anyway, best of luck, I hope some kind of serious discussion of potential changes does happen, but I won't be around for it, which is why I take the opportunity to comment while I'm still waiting for this case to close. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 23:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

::(edit conflict with the above) What's needed, Elen, is an active engagement of the drafting arbitrator in the evidence process. The drafter should actively remove evidence that ''he'' thinks is not helpful for reaching a conclusion, and he should actively ask parties to submit evidence to resolve the specific questions of policy and fact that ''he'' thinks are relevant to the case. If you do this, there's no need for arbitrary length constraints. Right now parties submit evidence into a vacuum with little or no guidance as to whether any of it is useful, and consequently much of it is not. ''That'' is your problem. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</span>]]</span></small> 23:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

== Indef blocked now ==

I don't really like pre-empting arbcom, but as this case now has an inevitability about its outcome, and there's been nothing but the predictable goodbye rage and attacks on Mick's talk page, I've indef blocked him and disabled talk page editing to prevent further pointless drama. I'm posting here simply to inform the committee, and urge a swift closure now before more time is wasted here. Sad, but no one can say we didn't try.--[[User talk:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac]] 00:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

== FoF 3.1 ==

Mick must be laughing his ass off. His final diatribes weren't in vain after all! Well, my bad for responding as I did. Pity the situation arose as it did, though; his response was predictable, and the outcome clear for some time, and the response ongoing... and nobody did anything. PS Is anyone going to respond to my remarks above about Process? [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 01:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
:There is a discussion concerning this at [[WP:ANI#Parties to ArbCom cases blocking each other]]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</span>]]</span></small> 07:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
::I would agree with Sandstein that HJ Mitchell, who confirmed Rd232's block, like Rd232 is listed as a party to this case and is thus involved. Both blocks were fully justified per [[WP:NPA]], but not in these circumstances. Perhaps the proposed decision could contain a general reminder to all administrators about not using their tools against parties in an ArbCom case in which they are themselves listed as a party, regardless of circumstances. [[User:Mathsci|Mathsci]] ([[User talk:Mathsci|talk]]) 08:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
:::For gods sake it was a blindingly obvious block that was clearly totally reasonable and its blindingly obvious how the Arbitration committee is going to close this case and its been obvious for a day or two. The whole point of [[WP:INVOLVED]] doesn't really apply when a block is blindingly obvious and its quite clear the guideline doesn't apply in this case at all.

:::When I pointed out issues with the blocking policy at the start of the case the only committee members who bothered to comment asserted that [[WP:CLUE]] was the key thing and that not having processes was a positive. This is a clear example where Rd232 was exercising [[WP:CLUE]] and you guys are arguing that some process should have been followed that in this case was clearly and blindingly obviously inappropriate. 
:::If you guys ''do'' want to go for a much more process driven approach this is clearly a case where [[WP:CLUE]] would apply in any remotely competent organisation anyway. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] &lt;[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]&gt; 08:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
::::To take another quote from the ANI thread by HJ Mitchell: "This is just another case of the "Arbitration" Committee getting in the way, rather than helping a situation." I completely agree. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] &lt;[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]&gt; 08:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::I have already written that "both blocks were fully justified per [[WP:NPA]]". However, making a block as a named party during an ArbCom case against another named party is something which has caused problems in the past. For example in the Abd-William M. Connolley case. I have not suggested measures against either admin, but it is reasonable to ask ArbCom to include guidance or a reminder to admins on this matter. [[User:Mathsci|Mathsci]] ([[User talk:Mathsci|talk]]) 08:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::If it was remotely borderline or remotely un-obvious how the case was going to be resolved I'd agree with you. Even in this case ideally an outside admin would have made the call - but they didn't. That it isn't remotely an issue in this case makes adding a finding totally unnecessary. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] &lt;[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]&gt; 09:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I commend to the Committee Sandstein's [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=442322788#Parties_to_ArbCom_cases_blocking_each_other ANI comment here, 7.43] on some of the issues around this, in combination with re-reading [[WP:INVOLVED]].  A particular issue is that my involvement with MickMacNee has arisen from disputes over my admin actions, not content. A current (though "inactive" arbitrator, [[User:Risker]]) said in that ANI thread that it was a "bright line offense". If that were true, especially if the implication is that this offense leads to sanction or at least Arbcom admonition rather than community finger-wagging and fixing (the usual response to breaches of WP:INVOLVED), you'd think it would be written down, at least at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration]], but preferably WP:INVOLVED as well (WP:INVOLVED gives leeway for judgement). I would also stress, again, the issue of timing. I wouldn't have done it on 26 July, before voting began. However the outcome was secured within a couple of days, the case effectively over, and for me that changed everything. Technically, the case was still ongoing, but substantially it was over, ''and the behaviour I blocked for was in direct response to the case being substantially over''. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 09:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
:You cannot take it on yourself to judge when a case is "effectively over". The rule of thumb is that it is over when a clerk closes the case and enacts the remedies. Anything else leaves far too much room for individual interpretation. The reason the case is not closed yet is because you (and HJ Mitchell, who I hadn't noticed is also a party to the case) stepped in, rather than report this and leave it to others to deal with. The difference between you and HJ Mitchell is that in the minutes before the block, you were actively posting to this page in response to MickMacNee, and you've presented evidence in this case (HJ Mitchell presented evidence but it was withdrawn). Scott MacDonald was a former party to the case, but was removed at some point. It is clear that the levels of 'involvement' of all three of you varies, but there was absolutely no reason why you couldn't have asked a clerk to look at the matter (or at least ''tried'' to ask a clerk). The clincher to me is that there was only 7 minutes between the edit and the block, and a clerk had [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee/Proposed_decision&diff=442231789&oldid=442231225 already acted] to remove the edit in question (five minutes after the edit). Why did you not go to [[User:AlexandrDmitri]] (the clerk in question) and ask him to take action? [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 10:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
::To answer your question, I didn't see that [[User:AlexandrDmitri]] had hatted that comment until after I blocked MickMacNee. In the interim I was looking at Mick's other recent comments, and I blocked after it was clear that this was a wider pattern of slamming the door on the way out. If I'd seen [[User:AlexandrDmitri]] hatting I'd have suggested to him that he should block. PS ''the class isn't over til I say it's over'', eh? All I can say is, if Arbcom clerking were appropriately active, my attempt to block would have run into "ooh, already blocked". [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 10:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
::::Am I the only one to see irony in AlexandrDmitri's hatting action given this proposal from me [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee/Workshop#Civ-hat]], completely ignored by arbs? Because if something like that existed, Mick might have a more obvious way back, or even not be banned at all; in either case, he'd have been less likely to go around setting bridges on fire.[[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 10:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
:::Why didn't the clerk immediately endorse the block or do it himself? And it was blindingly obvious to the entire world that the case was effectively over. There was no serious judgement call made by Rd232 here.
:::Of course it would have been better if Rd232 had contacted AlexandrDmitri immediately after he noticed he was active, but the arbitration committee having an issue over poor communication really is the pot calling the kettle black. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] &lt;[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]&gt; 10:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
::::What poor communication? No-one appears to have even ''tried'' to contact the clerks. And the case closure thing is because there are cases where it is not obvious, and someone will at that point take actions claiming something is "obvious" and a real dispute will erupt. That's why you need clear lines of demarcation. The other point here is that Rd232 will at most be warned/admonished about this. My advice would be for him to accept that, learn from this, and move on. Mick got all angry about this case and his feeling of injustice about it led him to post what he did. Don't fall into the same trap of thinking that ArbCom cases are about justice and arguing your case until the arbitrators agree with you. Sometimes it is best to put your hands up and acknowledge error. No admin should ever think that they are the only one able to deal with something. It breeds feelings of "defending the wiki". Asking other admins to look at something should always be an option. And this was not an urgent situation. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 10:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::Actually, all of us should be here to defend the Wiki. IMHO, this was a case of [[WP:IAR]] applying and the block was a good one. It's time this case was wrapped up so that we can all move on with one less disruptive editor around. [[User:Mjroots|Mjroots]] ([[User talk:Mjroots|talk]]) 10:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::@Carcharoth, if you want an example of poor communication from the Arbitration committee see this entire case and the complete lack of commentary from the committee. With regards to obviousness I agree that if it isn't completely obvious you are correct - however that doesn't apply here. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] &lt;[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]&gt; 11:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
:Well, I have some voting opinions for the next arbcom election now, at least. <shrug><br/>—&nbsp;[[User:Ohms law|<span style="font-family: Courier New, monospace ;font-style:italic">V = IR</span>]] <span style="font-variant:small-caps">([[User talk:Ohms law|Talk]]&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;[[Special:Contributions/Ohms law|Contribs]])</span> 13:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I hope Mick doesn't stoop to block evasion (via socking). [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 13:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
:Wonder what will happen when Rd232 blocks the socks?  I also think he didn't do anything majorly wrong.  Mick was misbehaving.  It's appropriate for ANY administrator, ''involved or not'', to apply a block under the appropriate guidelines when a user is misbehaving ''at that moment''.  This is a case of a non-issue being turned into an issue, and even now I see votes changing in the opinion on whether Rd232 abused his admin. tools.  I personally think that's ridiculous, and I'm saying that as a third party observer.  Mick's block was warranted and obvious when he chose to misbehave; it's not Rd232's fault ArbCom was slow in enforcing its decision giving Mick the opportunity to misbehave in the first place.  [[User:CycloneGU|CycloneGU]] ([[User talk:CycloneGU|talk]])) 14:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
::No, [[WP:INVOLVED]] is pretty clear on this point. We need to be clear on this and not start rewriting rules. There is nothing in [[WP:INVOLVED]] that justifies the block and it was a misuse of tools. I'm not asking for any action against Rd232, but he has been heavily involved with MickMacNee for months. That just needs to be understood. There are lots and lots of other admins around and it certainly was not an emergency. In the same circumstances with another editor, this would have been a huge firestorm. We're lucky MickMacNee doesn't have many friends here at the moment, but that doesn't excuse misuse of the tools. [[User:RxS|RxS]] ([[User talk:RxS|talk]]) 18:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
:::Fair enough.  But how are we going to ensure a user on the way to being indefinitely banned (as in a clear consensus, even if the procedure is not yet complete) isn't able to take a window of opportunity to harass the wiki just prior to the ban in the future?  Once a majority is in on the rule, it should be possible to enact the ban before the case is complete, which could take a matter of a few more days depending on the case (from my non-ArbCom understanding).  There must be times when [[WP:IAR]] can be invoked, and from my appearance this is one of those times.  I agree Rd232 wasn't the best person to place the block, and don't know the circumstances at the moment, but did he try to exhaust other avenues first?  [[User:CycloneGU|CycloneGU]] ([[User talk:CycloneGU|talk]]) 18:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
::::The answer here is that people are human. The editor banned here may have been offensive on his way out, but he is still human, like you and me, and doesn't magically become unhuman by being banned or 'half-banned'. The indefinite block was if anything a kindness to him (while a 24-hour block was useless). Equally, the pre-emptive talking of possible socking (by [[User:GoodDay]]) is offensive, as it makes unwarranted presumptions and dehumanises the banned editor and is an example of FUD. Better to just leave the case to close (after the Rd232 issue has been resolved), rather than make plans that may never be needed. Also, there is a strong reluctance to block someone at the point when a case is being decided. Sure, they have to stay calm, but you need to let them have their say while voting is in progress (up to a limit). And in this case, when that line was crossed, an ArbCom clerk ''did'' step in and take some action. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 08:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
:GoodDay: Those could well be the quackiest socks we've ever seen on en.wp.  If this case has shown anything, it's that Mick really isn't capable of altering his communication style.  As concerns Rd232's block: it probably wasn't optimal, but it was entirely justified.  If Mick had replaced the featured article with one of his rants, it would have clearly been block-worthy and any admin, even an involved one, would have been right to make that block.  The only counterargument I can think of to both scenarios is that, if Mick's actions were so egregious that nobody could question the block, surely some other admin would have come to the same conclusion and made the block themselves.  Rd232's actions may have brushed up against the edges of policy, but I don't think anyone can doubt their intent.  Years ago, I was indeffed for calling Irvine22 a troll (not in those words).  Rd232 was the administrator trying to mediate the conflict over at [[PIRA]], and so had intimate knowledge of the situation and personalities involved.  This was long before Irvine22 was first blocked, or even known to the community at large.  Had Rd232 ''not'' stepped in and reversed the block (perhaps brushing up against [[WP:INVOLVED]]), I could still be blocked to this day. The point is, he used his judgement and made the right call.  That's all I ask for in admins.  I read INVOLVED as primarily forbidding admins from using the tools to win content disputes, not from acting based on personal knowledge of the situation.  We can argue whether he broke policy in this case, but we can't really dispute that he made the right call.  Given that, why are we discussing censuring him? [[User:Throwaway85|Throwaway85]] ([[User talk:Throwaway85|talk]]) 02:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
::There's nothing in [[WP:INVOLVED]] that limits it's reach to content disputes. In fact, it explicitly talks about disputes without reference to content...(''current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors)'',...(note the comma in the original). I'm not calling for his head, or to have any drastic action taken. But the principle needs to be clear here. [[User:RxS|RxS]] ([[User talk:RxS|talk]]) 02:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
:::Yes, but if its blindingly obvious that the block is required [[WP:INVOLVED]] doesn't apply with its current wording. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] &lt;[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]&gt; 06:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
:::":There's nothing in [[WP:INVOLVED]] that limits it's reach to content disputes." ORLY? I quote from WP:INVOLVED: ''One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, ... is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area.'' Now because my discussions with Mick about my administrative decisions became quite emotive I had already conceded a degree of involvement before the case started. But as I said in the "couple of comments" section, there are degrees of involvement, and the obviousness of a required action (WP:INVOLVED again) interacts with this in judging whether the degree is too high to act. Remember [[WP:INVOLVED]] does ''not'' take an absolute line; it's about best practice. "Not best practice" and "abuse of tools" are not at all the same. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 10:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

=== Articulation ===
It would be nice to see some level of articulation before Arbitrators !voting on finding 3.1 and remedy 2 in particular given a number of people in the community have questioned the need for it. Really this should happen for all positions that might be considered remotely controversial so the community can understand why you have come to certain positions. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] &lt;[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]&gt; 20:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
:Not responding to the substance of Eraserhead1's comments (as I don't think they are directed at me), but for what it's worth&mdash;the arbitration pages are one place where it's safe to type "vote" instead of "!vote." Although ideally we would come to agreement on the various points, when arbitrators are in disagreement the decision is a straight vote-count, rather than a more elusive determination of "consensus" as is sought on other wikipages. (I mention it only because out of force of habit, I've typed the same thing sometimes.) [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 21:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
::I don't have an issue with the decisions being made by a straight vote count - that probably is clearer anyway :). I also think that you have always made a point of articulating your position well so it definitely isn't directed at you. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] &lt;[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]&gt; 21:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
:::I see Elen has made her votes today, I think they gave enough information - but there wasn't so much content there that the rest of the committee can't match that level. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] &lt;[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]&gt; 17:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

== Phrasing of Proposals ==

Question: why are these proposals couched in such sweeping, generic language? 

Examples (and this case isn't unique):
*i) Finding of Fact (FoF) 3: "Rd232 ... has used his administrative tools for questionable purposes." This originally referred to several self-blocks, and could have been written as "Rd232 blocked himself 3 times. Some arbs don't like self-blocking, but there's no policy against it." Had it been specific instead of vague, then some arbs wouldn't be able to roll up other issues into it in a confusing way.
*ii) FoF 3.1: "Rd232... has used his administrative tools while involved." What's wrong with being specific? "Rd232 blocked MickMacNee for 24 hours for clear personal attacks which MickMacNee made in response to Arbcom voting to ban him. However this was not a great idea due to WP:INVOLVED, which Rd232 acknowledged." What is the benefit in making a single block sound like a sweeping, generalised pattern of behaviour?
*iii) FoF 4: "Hammersoft ... engaged in conduct that created a hostile and unwelcoming atmosphere and materially contributed to the escalation of disputes within the scope of this case". This refers to a single post (AFAIK), which was not directed at the user it was about and not obviously intended to be read by him, and which he apologised for. Why not say so?
*iv) Remedy 2: "Rd232 ... admonished for using his administrative tools inappropriately" - could you vague that up some more? Why not be specific? "...admonished for the failings identified in Finding of Fact X, Y...", with properly specific FoFs, would work just as well. You might as well as a have judge declare "convicted of breaking a sex-rated law"... I mean, if it's rape, say so; if it's caught shagging in public, say that. Who benefits from such vagueness?

[[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 23:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
:I prefer FoFs to be detailed and exact.  Being vague can be useful to avoid giving the subject something to wikilawyer about, and sometimes critical in order to avoid libeling the party.
:Regarding the remedies, I think remedies should continue to be less specific, as they implicitly relate to the FoFs which pass.  Often we have many FoFs on the table, and we dont know which ones will pass until the voting is over. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] <sup>'''([[User talk:John Vandenberg|chat]])'''</sup></span> 01:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
::If you don't make it clear you aren't communicating properly, and that's far more of an issue than the risk that someone wiki-lawyers. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] &lt;[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]&gt; 07:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

::*"Being vague can be useful to avoid giving the subject something to wikilawyer about" - that makes no sense to me (not least because there's no-one to care about a party's post-case wikilawyering). Findings of '''Fact''' should be able to stick to things which ''cannot'' be wikilawyered about, being based on material from the Evidence page (or Arbcom list I suppose) which has been sufficiently discussed that it's solid. It would be far better to have a specific FoF and then a secondary layer of evaluation of those facts which can be more general. eg Finding of Fact: "this and this and this happened"; Evaluation: "these were breaches of policy X, and are examples of a wider pattern of behaviour". If you have both, the Committee retains sufficient flexibility to squash whatever it wants into the Evaluation, but it's clearly linked to facts. As for remedies "implicitly" relating to FoFs, "implicitly" isn't worth a bucket of warm spit in a process that has pretensions to being at least ''quasi''-legal. Particularly with admonitions for doing things which are (or should be) established in the Findings of Fact, it's absolute nonsense (and since you brought up the term "libellous", potentially defamatory; [[WP:NLT|don't get excited]]) to state things which sound like a much broader indictment of a party's behaviour than is justified by the Findings. And for someone who's just mentioned wikilawyering, the issue of parties being wikilawyered in future with absurdly over-general statements ("This guy did X! And 3 years ago, Arbcom said...!") doesn't cross your mind? 
::*"being vague can be ... critical in order to avoid libeling the party" - there are not enough question marks on my keyboard to respond to that. I mean really, ''think'' about what you just said. You're willing to make a ''vague'' statement which couldn't defend as being truthful and accurate if you made it specific and clear? Words fail me.
::*does no-one care about the effect of such over-generalised condemnation on the morale of parties? Are we in the business of contributing to editors leaving because we can't be arsed to be specific? [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 08:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

*I [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee/Proposed_decision&diff=442668788&oldid=442653781 agree] that FoF 3.1 is too general. And to the extent that it's an isolated incident, I don't even think it needs a remedy attached to it (but if it were to have one, a [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee/Proposed_decision&diff=442668944&oldid=442668788 reminder] would be enough). In any case, there's already a more wider-facing reminder in principles. –[[user:xeno|<span style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">'''xeno'''</span>]][[user talk:xeno|<span style="color:black;"><sup>talk</sup></span>]] 18:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

== Couple of comments ==

A few brief comments - might add more tonight. The overall impression, from the above, is that some of those commenting are less familiar with arbitration cases than might have been presumed (e.g. not knowing that arbitration cases often drag on, and don't always close exactly on time). This unfamiliarity is rather common, as most people avoid arbitration like the plague. I do think it does show that arbitrators (or clerks) should be prepared to explain more how things work at arbitration. The principal party to this case (now indefinitely blocked) also seems to have misunderstood some things about how arbitration works (e.g. thinking that all their evidence had to be used to rebut what others had said about them, when rebuttal should take place elsewhere on the case pages). This is less poor communication, as talking past each other or poor guidance. I suspect that many administrators are unaware that blocking other parties in an arbitration case you are part of is something of a third rail. While some administrators will be able to figure this out for themselves, there is a large subset of administrators that are quite prepared to take [[WP:BOLD]] actions and use 'blindingly obvious' and [[WP:IAR]] to justify their actions, no matter where they are or what situation they are in at the time. This is a different mindset to admins who are willing to ask other admins to look at a situation instead, and also seems to arise from the attitude: 'if you want something done, do it yourself' (coupled with thinking that something is urgent when it wasn't - rants on arbitration pages rank behind rants on user and user talk pages, which all rank behind rants on public noticeboards, and all rank behind rants put in article space or on the main page - though the latter didn't happen here, so why anyone is using that as an example mystifies me). I think it might be worth asking Rd232 what he sees as being so urgent that it requires him to act and not others, and when he would ask another admin to look at something. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 08:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

:This was discussed above. Also, you tried to open a discussion at ANI on it which was closed. This would be the third place for this discussion. I suggest the arbs should just rule on it rather than trying to re-stoke this particular fire again. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 08:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
:To answer your question (kind of again, as it was plenty discussed at ANI), the urgency was not allowing users to be aggressive and uncivil to a degree which makes long-term contributors want to cease participating (especially when the user is responding to an as-yet unimplemented ban for ... incivility). There was an incident of that type at ANI earlier that day, which I already said figured in my decision to act. The case was over, a problem was to be solved, it was solved in a suboptimal way and lessons have been learned. Just how much post-mortem does this require? It's not the bloody Challenger disaster. PS "rants on arbitration pages" - with all the effort you've put into fingerwagging over this, you've still not bothered to look through Mick's contribs around that time, as I did while a clerk was merely sweeping the dirt in his domain under the carpet? There were rants on 3 different user talk pages, including Jimbo's. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 08:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
::Drop the stick Carcharoth. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] &lt;[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]&gt; 08:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
:::{{ec}}Cacaroth: My example of a hypothetical defacing of a highly public article was just that--a hypothetical. The point I was making (fairly clearly, or so I thought) was that [[WP:INVOLVED]] shouldn't be considered the <s>pen</s>ultimate guideline for using one's tools when the correct remedy is blindingly obvious. Another ''hypothetical'' (I'm aware it didn't happen, just want to reiterate that): had Mick outted Rd232 and posted his full name and address, would Rd232 have been remiss in blocking and revdelling? Are we really claiming that the correct course of action would have been to seek out some other admin (hopefully actively editing at the time) and ask them to do it? Policy is good as a guide, but when we're arguing over actions which nobody questions the correctness of outside of policy, it gets a bit stupid. Does anybody think blocking Mick was the ''wrong'' thing to do? Could blocking Mick, regardless of who did it, be in any way construed as controversial? No? Then why are we still going on about it? [[User:Throwaway85|Throwaway85]] ([[User talk:Throwaway85|talk]]) 09:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
::::"WP:INVOLVED shouldn't be considered the penultimate [presumably "ultimate"] guideline..." WP:INVOLVED notes "In cases which are straightforward, (e.g. blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion. ... [but] it is still best practice in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved to pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards." That sums it up. A much more interesting issue, not really discussed, is where involvement ''ends''. Principle 5 talks about a "pending" case, which I suppose means a case which is formally open. I based my action partly on the view that the case was ''substantively'' over (again, it was Mick's response to that "substantively over" which was the problem), with no censuring of me, and therefore whatever involvement arose from the fact of an ongoing case was lapsed. That left the involvement arising from issues before the case, but these were primarily administrative (again, see [[WP:INVOLVED]] text) and in the ANI thread which sparked the case, centred on Mick's incivility. There are degrees of involvement, and I felt the degree was low enough, and the required action obvious enough, to be acceptable. Well, it's now clear that whatever degree of acceptability it had, it would have been better not to do it. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 10:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
*Might sound weird but I agree with both positions. Carcharoth is right there are a lot of "good form" traditions that are taken for granted (and vary widely depending on one's age, experience and culture) during proceedings like RFAR. These traditions (because they are not 'regulations') should be explained and codified. <br>There is also a tendency towards polarization in the community with some sysops playing the IAR or obvious block card (I've done it) and a vocal section of the rest of the community that are uneasy in the extreme about any appearence of "involvement" (most of the time when there is none). <br>That said as Rd232 and Throwaway85 said when it really is obvious AGF should be applied first. In this case it might have been bad form to block MMN but it wasn't a "bad block" - quite the opposite--[[User:Cailil|<span style="color:#999999; font-size:small;">'''Cailil'''</span>]]  <sup>[[User_talk:Cailil|<span style="color:#999999;">'''talk'''</span>]]</sup> 18:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
** That seems perfectly sensible. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] &lt;[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]&gt; 19:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

== Losing Rd232 ==
{{hat}}
Thanks to the incompetence of the Arbitration committee we've lost a [[User:Rd232|good editor]]. Well done guys!

Seriously you guys owe him a collective apology at the very least. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] &lt;[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]&gt; 17:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

:Any editor that has the nerve to get into a contentious arbitration, and block another party, be that a right or wrong move, needs to have balls and a thick skin or should stay out of the kitchen. You do things that drastic you need to be ready for your actions to be defended and criticised. If you can't do that then don't play with fire. Going on a hissy fit now simply falsifies the notion of being a "good editor". See [[m:goodbye]].--[[User talk:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac]] 18:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
::You're probably right that he should have handled it better and should have expected some stick for doing the block. However the committee hasn't handled it very well either. Additionally I don't think being able to put up with large amounts of stress is really a requirement of being a good editor. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] &lt;[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]&gt; 19:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
:::Agreed, although Scott MacDonald's comment is reflective of reality in Wikipedia. But that's not a ''good thing''. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 19:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
::{{ec}}  ''See [[m:goodbye]].''
::Page deleted. =P
::NEway, is it really worth losing an editor to do things the way they were done?  This had more of a judge and jury sense to it, and Rd232 did what was best for the encyclopedia in the end,.  Now because someone started incproprating that into the case and turning that finding against him, he quit.  This isn't worth losing a good editor and administrator.  I'm just appalled by what I've seen here.  [[User:CycloneGU|CycloneGU]] ([[User talk:CycloneGU|talk]]) 19:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
:It don't take much to discourage Rd232. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 19:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I should probably ask editors interested in this to read my retiring comment on my talkpage. It's not a consequence of this post-block hullabaloo as such... [[post hoc ergo propter hoc]], it's a very minor part of the decision. I don't even care that my exit makes it more likely, I guess, for the motions about me to pass (though I'm interested enough to stick around to know the outcome). Thanks to those who had kind things to say (and nuts to the rest :P ). [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 19:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
:Your retiring comment is just so much bs. "Wikipedia has become more trouble than it's worth" - that can be true, but in this instance Wikipedia became trouble because you decided to poke about in one of the obvious trouble spots. You hung about an arbitration and blocked another party. Now, I've not been very critical of your doing that, but if you want to work at the sharp end and be an enforcer (and, hell, I've done it often enough) then trouble will often be the result. Don't blame "Wikipedia" for that, it was your choice. Wikipedia can indeed often be trouble, and whether it is worth the trouble is a good question. But really, you didn't see this coming? You didn't make a concious choice? Nah.--[[User talk:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac]] 20:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
::So, in essence, you decline to take my words at face value. Your choice. Fortunately, part of the advantage of retiring is no longer having to care... except I still very slightly do. Do I want to spell out the role of RL factors, which obviously interacts with whether WP is worth the trouble? No, I don't. Heck, you probably wouldn't believe me anyway. But anyway, FWIW, whatever small contributory factor this block saga was, a big part of the reason it was any contributory factor at all was people refusing to look at the specific circumstances and background, and instead genericise it until I look like a complete shithead. Much like you do in your comment above. Well, I could let all that pass, possibly with a brief wikibreak; it's the wider issues about Arbcom handling of this case which are more significant. But even that's only a small part of the Wikipedia part of the decision to retire. Now, best of luck, go find someone else to be self-righteous at. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 20:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
:::If you've retired to avoid trouble, and to deal with real life, then, may I ask, what the fuck you are doing here arguing with me? It makes the "retirement" look like just another move in the game. People who really decide wikipedia isn't worth the trouble, stop troubling with Wikipedia, and simply stop editing. --[[User talk:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac]] 20:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

:::@Scott, quite frankly the one group you wouldn't expect to over-react to the wrong person making the right block was the only group who did, so I don't think it was obvious that there was going to be shit for blocking Mick. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] &lt;[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]&gt; 20:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
::::If you start involving yourself in arbitration cases, then there will often be reactions and conflict. If you don't want that, stay the hell away from cases like this and people like Mick. No, it won't always be evident what you get criticised for, and not always predictable in advance, but it will happen. In this case, it is hard to criticise arbcom' reaction - but that's rather beside the people. You walk near volcanoes, you may get burned somewhere. No point in complaining that you didn't quite expect to get burned on this particular part of your anatomy. If you can take it, stay away.--[[User talk:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac]] 20:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
:::::"If you start involving yourself in arbitration cases..." {{facepalm}} why are you here, expressing your so ill-informed opinion? Is it to spread joy? If so, it's not working. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 21:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
{{hab}}

== Response ==

Time is marching on and I see there are further calls to close the case. I do expect the points raised here to be substantially addressed before the end of the case - if that's not convenient I'm perfectly happy to open a separate case on Arbcom's communication difficulties.

I really don't think any of the points raised are particularly difficult to reply to. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] &lt;[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]&gt; 17:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
:Of note if I have been rude in my comments here I apologise - that wasn't my intention. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] &lt;[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]&gt; 18:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
::Commenting purely on the closing of the case, this will happen 24 hours after the fourth net vote to close by the arbitrators. Currently the tally stands at three net votes to close. [[User:AlexandrDmitri|Alexandr Dmitri]] ([[User talk:AlexandrDmitri|talk]]) 18:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
:::If the case is closed then we'll need a new venue for the comments made here to be replied to. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] &lt;[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]&gt; 18:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
*Can you give me a rundown of what you feel still needs addressing? (And perhaps whether the issues need to be addressed before the closure of the case, or if they are more systemic?) –[[user:xeno|<span style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">'''xeno'''</span>]][[user talk:xeno|<span style="color:black;"><sup>talk</sup></span>]] 18:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
** The "process" section needs a substantial reply, as does the "articulation" section and so does "phrasing of proposals".
** Its perfectly probable that the issues raised are more widespread but other than making sure feedback given to the committee is taken on board in future I see no reason to take anything any further or look into the past in more detail. The whole point of giving feedback here is so we can all try and learn from our mistakes and do better next time. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] &lt;[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]&gt; 18:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
***Thanks. Will try to rustle up some further comments. –[[user:xeno|<span style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">'''xeno'''</span>]][[user talk:xeno|<span style="color:black;"><sup>talk</sup></span>]] 19:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

**I've been inactive but I see nothing particularly wrong with formally criticizing an administrator for blocking another party to the same arbitration case. It's happened enough times over the last couple years(with the administrator being criticized, etcetera) that folks should know that this is something that should not be done. As I said to Rd232 on his talk page: '''Yes, it probably needed to be done, but it didn't need to be done by you.''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rd232&diff=prev&oldid=442287501]. I can understand WHY people would do it, per the previous discussions. However, when a case has got to the point where it is in front of the Committee, any such activity generally becomes controversial as it will significantly engender ill will.  Since this has happened several times, perhaps it would be for the best to formally enshrine this in the Arbitration Policy? [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 19:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
*** Thus NewYorkBrad's position is very sensible. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] &lt;[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]&gt; 19:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
****I think the very explicit finding of fact #5 should reduce this going forward (or at least I hope it should). I am sorry Rd232 has decided to retire, and hope he returns. This is not judging his worth as an administrator or an editor, Some of the Committee are just saying that they took an action that they shouldn't have. [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 19:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
*****SirFozzie, you probably underestimate that criticism of an administrator by the Arbitration Committee is perceived as a very big deal indeed by the person concerned, given the authoritative weight and very public nature (reported in the ''Signpost'', etc.) of such criticism. And given that the administrator in most such cases genuinely tried to help rather harm the project, a rebuke by the Committee is all the more hurtful to them. I recommend that the Committee limit its criticism of administrators to cases where an admin action caused or enabled actual damage or disruption, clearly violated an important policy and/or was made in bad faith – and in such cases the criticism should also be accompanied by a sanction. Formal and public disapproval is counterproductive (as we see here) in cases where, as here, an administrator committed a merly procedural error (acting while involved), and a rather debatable error at that (the policy [[WP:INVOLVED]] has a lot of loopholes and exceptions, and does not mention ArbCom cases), and made the right decision on the merits on top of that. If criticism is still needed in such cases, there are other, more private, venues than an arbitral decision in which it can be communicated. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</span>]]</span></small> 23:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
******The Community expects admins to be held accountable for what they do, and frankly, admins are expected take responsibility for their screw ups; admins shouldn't be demanding (or waiting for) AC to tell them to back off from the area where they are causing problems or further escalation. Everyone wants an ''open'' project, so if an administrator is causing problems, a public trail is maintained for various reasons. In one way, it allows an admin to demonstrate that they are both willing and able to adjust their conduct/approach to adhere to the standards imposed by the Community and confirm why the Community elected them. In another way, if there are further problems in the future, it will clarify why the next level of sanction was necessary. There was one problem in all of this which warrants serious consideration, and ironically, Rd232 identified it at 01:13 on this very page. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 11:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

== Knock knock! ==

Are ArbCom planning to do ''anything'', or will that be another six weeks? We're already past the point where they could do anything useful, so can this just be wrapped up? After all, you're going to put a black mark on the record of a retired admin and ban an editor who is already blocked with no hope of being unblocked. Sounds like the epitome of dispute resolution to me. Worthy of a round of applause, in fact. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<span style="color:Teal; font-family:Tahoma;">'''HJ&nbsp;Mitchell'''</span>]] &#124; [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<span style="color:Navy; font-family:Times New Roman;">Penny for your thoughts? </span>]]  18:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
:''"you're going to put a black mark on the record of a retired admin"'' - not with the current tally. –[[user:xeno|<span style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">'''xeno'''</span>]][[user talk:xeno|<span style="color:black;"><sup>talk</sup></span>]] 18:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
::Okaaay, so it's taking you this long to ''not'' trash a good admin? I'm lost, what's being achieved here? {{small|That's a genuine question, I'm not being sarcastic any more.}} [[User:HJ Mitchell|<span style="color:Teal; font-family:Tahoma;">'''HJ&nbsp;Mitchell'''</span>]] &#124; [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<span style="color:Navy; font-family:Times New Roman;">Penny for your thoughts? </span>]]  19:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
:::It should close shortly, barring any further change on the Rd232 issue (which I'm hoping is generally resolved with the passing Finding of Fact to make it clear that kind of action shouldn't be done. [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 19:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
::::With the greatest respect, Fozzie, it should have been closed weeks ago. Everybody has known for a long time that Mick was sadly but inevitably going to be banned, and everything else is just hot air. Of course, once it dawned on Mick that the case was just a formality and that not even a miracle could prevent the hammer being dropped, he went (understandably, but unacceptably) off the rails. It's easy to say that it should have been any admin other than Rd323 who should have blocked him, but how many admins do you know who'd be willing to block an editor in the middle of arbitration proceedings to which the blockee is a party? When I raised the subject of blocking Racepacket, I was told not to by an arbitrator because the case was still ongoing {{small|the "Arbitration" Committee then spent two months sat on its collective arse and only after that was Racepacket blocked, with the only difference being a whole lot dram and distress for others involved}}.<p>This case isn't going to change anything, the rulings are not Earth-shattering and the only one of any consequence has already been ''de facto'' implemented—and FWiW, the only indignity the Committee could inflict upon somebody that's greater than banning them, is to announce a week beforehand that they intend to ban them. That's not dispute resolution, that's humiliation. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<span style="color:Teal; font-family:Tahoma;">'''HJ&nbsp;Mitchell'''</span>]] &#124; [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<span style="color:Navy; font-family:Times New Roman;">Penny for your thoughts? </span>]]  21:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
:::::: That attitude right there is why I will never register an account here.[[Special:Contributions/63.230.167.170|63.230.167.170]] ([[User talk:63.230.167.170|talk]]) 16:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

:::::I should point out that the majority of that frustration is directed at the Committee as a collective, and not at Fozzie personally. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<span style="color:Teal; font-family:Tahoma;">'''HJ&nbsp;Mitchell'''</span>]] &#124; [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<span style="color:Navy; font-family:Times New Roman;">Penny for your thoughts? </span>]]  21:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
::::::I agree that from the outside it seems that the Commitee is not handling this case either very skillfully or expediently, although in view of its haphazard organization - 17 people with no leadership who coordinate everything ad hoc over insecure channels and only attend to their duty once every few weeks - this is sadly neither novel nor unexpected. But I'm surprised that you are the one to bring this up, HJ Mitchell, because this mess is mostly your own fault. Had you not unblocked MickMacNee, without discussion and against consensus, when it was already apparent to almost everybody (as it is now to the Committee) that he is unsuited as a matter of character to working in a collaborative scholarly environment, we could all have avoided wasting a lot of time and stress on this case. <p>I'm not surprised that both you and Scott MacDonald indefinitely re-blocked MickMacNee: you both appear to be so convinced that you are naturally right about everything that if somebody else makes a difficult block that you disagree with, you feel free to offhandedly undo it, but when ''you'' yourself see a problem with that editor's conduct, then an unilateral indefinite block preempting ArbCom action is self-evidently the right thing to do. But what I am surprised about is that the proposed decision singles out Rd232 for blocking MickMacNee for 24 hours while involved, but it does not mention that you, too, blocked MickMacNee while being party to this arbitration case, and even for an indefinite duration. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</span>]]</span></small> 22:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Sansdtein, I've had enough of your bollocks. What you did was blatant admin abuse—and that's not a term I use lightly. You had no good reason whatsoever for extending the original 72-hour block to indefinite—he couldn't possibly have edit-warred during those 72 hours, he was obviously just letting off steam, and by the time you blocked him the post he was edit-warring to remove had been removed by its author. That's not prevention by any definition I'm familiar with, and it is ''you'' who attempted substitute your own judgement for that of this committee. Your block of Mick served only to inflame an already-heated situation. I have, with one outburst earlier in this case excepted, always treated you with respect, and courtesy, and have deliberately avoided dragging your reputation through the mud. Please don't force me to break the habit by attacking my reputation. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<span style="color:Teal; font-family:Tahoma;">'''HJ&nbsp;Mitchell'''</span>]] &#124; [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<span style="color:Navy; font-family:Times New Roman;">Penny for your thoughts? </span>]]  23:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
::::::::Your reputation is your own to make or break. We can disagree about the merits of any block (that's why we have this novel process called a "discussion", remember?) and I'm more than half convinced, in hindsight, that my block was not necessary or a good idea, especially in the arbitration context. But that does not change that you, by undoing it without discussion, enabled continued disruption, forced the continuation of this unnecessary case and wasted a lot of my time and energy. And for that I do hold you responsible, even while I acknowledge and am grateful that you have agreed not to make any more undiscussed potentially controversial unblocks. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</span>]]</span></small> 23:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::I will say only this: for as long my reputation counts for something on this project, you don't get to settle your petty grudges against other admins at the expense of good faith editors. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<span style="color:Teal; font-family:Tahoma;">'''HJ&nbsp;Mitchell'''</span>]] &#124; [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<span style="color:Navy; font-family:Times New Roman;">Penny for your thoughts? </span>]]  00:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Sandstein, please don't jab at HJ Mitchell here.  And if you could be so kind, could you both stop jabbing at us.  It is great that you two reached your own agreement, and the scope of the decision could be reduced.  Would that this would happen more often during arbitration.  How can we encourage this?  Many cases are haphazardly arbitrated, and venting here isnt going to help fix the structural problems which cause this.  If you are going to constructively look at why there were delays, and parties are usually very bad at doing this objectively, you need to also factor in the Betacommand request, as arbitrators were considering rolling that issue into this MMN case.  The inclusion of Rd232 blocking MMN has resulted in what arbitrators consider to be a good principle; whether or not the community agrees is yet to be seen. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] <sup>'''([[User talk:John Vandenberg|chat]])'''</sup></span> 00:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
:With respect, I don't consider reasoned criticism of either a fellow party (and administrator) or the Committee to be out of scope on this page, and I think that allegations of "admin abuse" are more problematic than what I have said. I agree that the reason for delays is structural, and I have made proposals, both here and previously, how to address them. In a nutshell: (a) elect a chairperson who is responsible that things move forward, (b) delegate cases to small panels of arbitrators who are actually active, (c) empower and expect the drafting arbitrator to act as an investigating magistrate, actively interrogating parties, requesting evidence and striking useless evidence or proposals, (d) accept several focused small cases in which you examine the conduct of a few people rather than one huge omnibus case, (e) prioritize case work over policy and governance discussions, which are not your main job (if at all). Regards, <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</span>]]</span></small> 00:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
::Sandstein, iirc, you and HJ Mitchell agreed to take your criticisms of each others actions to a quieter venue.  Re-igniting them here, as the case draws to a close, is not helpful. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] <sup>'''([[User talk:John Vandenberg|chat]])'''</sup></span> 00:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
::::Well, not exactly. What I agreed to was to withdraw my evidence against HJ Mitchell in exchange for his agreement not to make any more unilateral potentially controversial reversals of admin actions. I did not agree not to continue to publicly criticize what I think are, at best, ill-judged and disruptive actions on his part. But you are right that this might not be the best forum for this. As I previously said to HJ Mitchell, I am open to discuss this further privately with him to see whether we can come to a better understanding of each other's motives. That would require, though, a mutual willingness to accept that the other acted, although mistakenly, at least in good faith. I'm open to extend this assumption to HJ Mitchell, but unfortunately it appears from the above allegations against me - which are unbecoming of an administrator - that he is not. I'm ready to continue this discussion should this change. In the meantime, I believe that HJ Mitchell's continued interference in this case, by <s>indefinitely</s> blocking a fellow party to the case, which is now apparently an innately Bad Thing, merits the Committee's attention to at least the same degree as Rd232's actions – i.e., you should either altogether refrain from reinterpreting [[WP:INVOLVED]], which I would prefer, or censor ''both'' HJ Mitchell and Rd232 for violating your new interpretation. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</span>]]</span></small> 07:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
:::::Check [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User%3AMickMacNee&type=block MickMacNee's block log]. HJ Mitchell has never indef-blocked MickMacNee (not counting an October 2010 reblock to restore talkpage access). You're confusing HJ Mitchell reblocking to take ownership of my 24hr block with Scott MacDonald's subsequent indef-block. The people who indef-blocked Mick during this case are you and Scott MacDonald. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 10:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
::::::True; struck "indefinitely" above. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</span>]]</span></small> 10:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
:::This exchange though does point up something which some might consider odd: the Committee apparently found time to worry about an action that wasn't discussed on Evidence or Workshop pages and isn't prohibited by policy (self-blocking), but not to consider indefinite blocking of the case subject during the case, by an editor who was re-added as a case party in response to that indef-block. Not that I want to suggest any further action now, merely that this might be considered in a post-mortem of the case. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 01:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
::::For the sake of clarity, this is the comment I was referring to above. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 11:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
:Jabbing and sarcasm aside: we need a system that doesn't take months to reach a foregone conclusion. If the final decision could be posted piece by piece, so that one controversial point doesn't delay the whole thing, that would be a start. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<span style="color:Teal; font-family:Tahoma;">'''HJ&nbsp;Mitchell'''</span>]] &#124; [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<span style="color:Navy; font-family:Times New Roman;">Penny for your thoughts? </span>]]  00:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
::Guys please can you not bicker with each other. I'd quite like to achieve something useful with this discussion set to improve how arbcom handles cases in future. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] &lt;[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]&gt; 08:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Having just read this thread (and been bored by its tedious bickering) the one thing that's worth highlighting is sandstein's recommendations of how to improve the Arbcom process. He's said he's made them before so presumably they're not news (although first time I've seen them). They are in the category of being blindingly obviously right and hard-to-believe that Arbcom doesn't operate like that already. What's stopped their implementation? [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 10:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
:I don't think that many users agree with that view because those are more like problems waiting to happen than solutions; maybe that has something to do with it. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 11:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
::What's the evidence to suggest that there are not many users that agree? [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 11:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
:::The fact that these ideas were raised more than 2 years ago by people ''other than'' Sandstein, and tried in one form or another by AC after a lot of nagging. Although some parts were carried forward, other parts were lost/ignored, or informally voted off the table. I think it was either Fut Perf or Mastcell who worded it best at the time with support from Deacon, myself, and at least one other arb - all of whom emphatically pushed for a change to the way arbitration was conducted. That resulted in the revival of questions during arbitration (which did follow through in some subsequent cases as John correctly notes below) and a very different format was used in the workshop (which was effective). The case name was "Ryulong". Positive feedback was sent through post-case, yet somehow, much of that structure fell away and substantially, much of the traditional system was kept. I did follow up on it once and asked why nothing had changed, but the response I received from an arb at the time was to the effect of "we are not sure which method to use; we are trying other methods; we'll come up with something beneficial in the near future". Granted, you may not be aware of any of this background if your editing history is anything to go by (you started editing in 2010?), but the fact is none of this is new, and people seem to only (start to) care about the changes when either they (or someone they know or agree with) perceives they have been wronged. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 15:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
::::Well, as the last point doesn't apply to me, that's obviously not always case. I think your post indicates only inertia rather than that people actually disagree with it. And clearly the "it's not new" line confirms there is a problem rather than "more like problems waiting to happen than solutions". The comments below also suggest it should be revived. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 15:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
:::::Well if that's what my post indicates, then it is probably not written very well (which may account for the extensive tweaking): the proposed changes would not have been trialled in the first place if it was a case of "inertia". The "more like problems wiating to happen than solutions" was in reference to the unintended complications in practice, both in implementation (procedurally) and in the ultimate results (for example, the outcome of the case was resolved on the surface, but it only became fully resolved at a much later point in time...this was in some ways was unnecessary), and the complaints in relation to this case might appear petty (seeing, at least, the substantial remedy is being passed by a clear majority here). When people say "things aren't straightforward", that tends to carry a lot of meaning and truth (one would need to write a book to capture all the nuances and issues involved). But in any event, rather than just repeat the cycle and come back to this same point again after x period of time, putting more thought into the what is being proposed may achieve more useful (positive) results, if it is to work in practice as intended in the long-term. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 15:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
::::::There have been some pretty substantial criticisms made about Arbcom most of which revolve around poor communication. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] &lt;[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]&gt; 19:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
:::::::And your point is what? There has not been a single year in which AC has not been criticised about "poor communication", but when something has been tried and has not really addressed that criticism, then there is little purpose in just doing it again because...presumably...the critics or peanut gallery have no other ideas. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 14:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
:Some of Sandstein's ideas are already in use, albeit only some of the time, depending on the circumstances and how much time arbitrators have to dedicate to a case.
:A recent example of arbitrators asking questions is [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree_shaping/Workshop#Questions_to_the_parties]].  Example from 2009 include [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Socionics/Workshop#Questions_to_the_parties]] and [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asmahan/Workshop#Questions_to_the_parties]].  I suspect there are more, but they are the only ones that come to mind quickly.  If you think this is a good idea, you could suggest questions in pending cases. ;-)
:Omnibus cases are often thrown at arbitrators by the community, and the committee accepts one or two of these per year.  I suspect that the vast majority of accepted cases are reasonably well scoped.  Take a look at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases]] to see how often scope was a problem in 2010 or 2011.
:Using a smaller panel has been considered a few times by the community and committee, and it has been part of several arbitrators election "promises".  The ArbCom RFCs and election Q&A's would be a good starting point if you want to look into this idea. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] <sup>'''([[User talk:John Vandenberg|chat]])'''</sup></span> 12:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
::In regard to using a smaller panel, I wrote an essay - [[WP:ArbCom reform]] - about this idea. [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 12:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
:::Splitting off [[WP:BASC]] is an easy win IMO, but not all arbs agree with that. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] <sup>'''([[User talk:John Vandenberg|chat]])'''</sup></span> 12:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
It may or may not be interesting to note that I've been toying with that idea [[User:Coren/Fast track|for a long time]], but changing something this fundamental in our process is more difficult than first appears.  &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Coren|Coren]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]</sup> 13:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Well the votes are now there to close the case, so this is going to wind down. One thing that ought to be resolved is where further discussion of potential reforms ought to take place. I see no obvious venue for this (and perhaps one possible reform is to have a permanent arbcom subpage dedicated to that). Links to previous relevant discussions like [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee]] would help too. Best of luck. cheers, [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 16:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
:Thanks guys for replying.

:To me there seem like there are two issues. 1) Poor communication with the community (and possibly between the Arbitrators as well - as I can't see the email list I don't know - my hunch now is that it probably isn't brilliant) 2) a lack of willingness. On 2) you guys just need some belief. Between you, you clearly look to have significant suggestions for improvement hidden away which I should take a look at. If you set your sights reasonably I see no reason some improvement can't be made. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] &lt;[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]&gt; 19:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
::''Rest of the discussion moved to [[Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee#Arbcom_committee_lack_of_Chairman_and_Secretary]]''
*As interesting as the above discussion is, the last few days have taken place ''after'' the case closed. See the main case page: '''Case Closed on 12:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)'''. Only a very small number of people are likely to have been following the discussion above once the case closed, and if arbitrators have their priorities right they are likely concentrating on working on current cases. Also, there are numerous ArbCom cases and discussion hidden away on a proposed decision talk page of one not very exceptional case will hardly ever get looked at again. The correct place to discuss the workings of ArbCom in general is [[WT:ARBCOM]]. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 23:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
** I've moved the rest of the discussion to that talk page. Thanks.  -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] &lt;[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]&gt; 07:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

== Non-clerks, non-arbs editing the Implementation Notes ==

...wrongly, as far as I can make out, based on the table at the top of the page. [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase%2FMickMacNee%2FProposed_decision&action=historysubmit&diff=442936731&oldid=442934870]. But I didn't think editors who are neither clerks nor arbitrators should be doing this anyway? [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 08:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
:NuclearWarfare?  They are a clerk.  Two inactive and five abstentions means nine arbitrators, and five supporting are a majority. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] <sup>'''([[User talk:John Vandenberg|chat]])'''</sup></span> 09:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
::My bad. I should have checked the clerk list, I was looking at "case clerks" on the page but obviously that's not comprehensive. (!) Anyway, your maths doesn't match the table at the top of the page, which says 6 support votes are needed. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 09:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
:::Also I'm struggling to see how 5 support votes is a majority of the 11 arbitrators who've expressed an opinion on FoF 3.1, unless abstentions don't count (which according to the table they do). [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 09:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
::::[[Abstention]]s dont count.  They are arbitrators who have explicitly chosen to not vote, and by doing so they reduce the total number of voters.  The table at the top only explains the scenarios of between 0 and 4 abstentions; on FoF 3.1 we have 5 abstains.  As I said above, there are currently only nine arbitrators considered active on that FoF, and only six of them have voted so far. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] <sup>'''([[User talk:John Vandenberg|chat]])'''</sup></span> 10:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
:::::I guess I'm slightly confused by the fact that the 5 abstentions sound more like opposes. And I guess I find it slightly odd that supposedly "active" arbitrators don't need to vote on every motion. The result of the two is that on this motion (FoF 3.1) we have 5 arbs saying "yes", 1 saying "no", and 5 saying "not necessary" (but classed under Abstain, so their expressed opinion is irrelevant to the passing of the motion), while 2 "active" arbs didn't even get round to expressing an opinion, but their unexpressed opinion ''does'' matter for the passing of the motion because the number of active arbs is the baseline for the maths. Well, there's some more things for the List of Stuff I Would Think About If I Weren't Leaving. bye then. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 14:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The complete list of clerks is at [[WP:AC/C]]. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] <sup>'''([[User talk:John Vandenberg|chat]])'''</sup></span> 10:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)