Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Audit Subcommittee vacancies: Call for applications (2013)

Original announcement

Something is wrong with our governance. ArbCom is going to appoint the people who are responsible to oversee the use of Checkuser and Oversight tools, including usage by arbitrators. This makes no sense whatsoever. It seems like the users of Checkuser and Oversight tools need to be a different set of people from the members of ArbCom. Separation of powers allows each side to check what the other is doing. When we have ArbCom appointing overseers, we can safely assume that those chosen will have no interest in curtailing any abuse by those doing the appointing. Jehochman ^Talk 18:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

But it's always been thus; the corruption at the heart of Wikipedia's governance effectively stems from how the user rights are bundled, simple as that. Malleus Fatuorum 18:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, there is no reason you couldn't have a totally independent review body with the current bundling. Though it would still be in the position of reviewing its own member's use of the tools. (Even if they only use them to audit, you want to make sure they follow that rule) Monty₈₄₅ 18:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Remind me. How many members of this subcommittee are non-admins? Malleus Fatuorum 18:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

There was one non-admin on AUSC in 2011. I would love to see more applications from non-admins. Risker (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

That would mean giving people who had never been through any form of election access to private data. I thought the Foundation was opposed to that, and my recollection is that the community was also opposed to it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

A prospective Admin who has been on Wikipedia 5 minutes and has 392 gossipy little friends troop out of IRC to vote for him is hardly a reliable 'election process' proving trustworthiness - as we have learnt all too often.  Giano  19:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Those individuals would never get past vetting, let alone community consultation. Risker (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

There is a community consultation period for the community to express concerns about the individual candidate; remember, not everyone who sends in an application gets as far as the community consultation. The community might well identify that they do not feel a non-administrator is qualified for the role. You may wish to check with Philippe (WMF) to verify the WMF's position on non-administrator functionaries; however, there are non-admin oversighters and checkusers on other projects. Risker (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Other projects without an ArbCom elect their CUs and Oversighters following the Meta process that sets minimum number of votes and percentage of support. For small projects these requirements are significantly more demanding than their RFA process. A non-admin CU on one of these projects would have demonstrated greater community support than an admin. QuiteUnusual (talk) 19:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

There has been concern for several years that the ArbCom is seeking to do too much, and it keeps leading to problems. Most of the dispute-resolution that goes on on Wikipedia can be handled by editors, admins, bureaucrats, stewards, checkusers and oversighters. We need the ArbCom to settle disputes that editors bring to the committee because other efforts have failed; it's meant to be a "court" of last resort. Because the committee is handling too much, other groups that would normally deal with things by themselves are being undermined, and don't try so hard to settle issues on their own. And the disputes that the committee was elected to handle take ages to get resolved because it's almost always busy with other things. For example, the committee should never really be involved in a sockpuppet issue, unless for some reason everyone else has tried but failed to resolve it.

So a request to the committee: please allow our various dispute-resolution processes to be handled by others, and wait until people bring a case before you get involved. It would also help a lot if you would make most of your decisions in public. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Amen, sister. Jehochman ^Talk 19:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The bulk of the things Arbcom is doing seem to be outside its jurisdiction, at least as it was established. By now, we may have reached the point where the only recourse left is to dissolve the Committee and rebuild the entire governance system. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

This is within the jurisdiction of the Committee, though, and has always been. Under the global checkuser policy, this is Arbcom's responsibility (it's not even a "remit", it's a responsibility devolved from the WMF Board), until the community as a whole can come up with a process to manage appointments. So far the community has been unsuccessful in coming anywhere near consensus on the issue. Risker (talk) 21:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Or they could just focus on what they are supposed to do--hear cases--and say "no" to all the rest. Just pitch the extraneous stuff back at Jimmy and WMF. I am sure they can figure out how to handle all that craziness. We don't need any more resignations; much better for the remaining arbitrators to learn from recent mistakes and refocus. Jehochman ^Talk 19:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Risker, here (I'm not the biggest fan of ArbCom, but I try to be a pragmatist rather than an idealist). With AUSC in particular, it's important to have competent, reliable, available people, and decision-making processes that rely on numbers of people (be it an election or a consensus-based process) don't always produce such a result. It is within ArbCom's gift to supervise the use of checkuser and oversight without any community input, so appointing community members to the AUSC is already a move towards greater transparency and separation of powers more than they are obliged to make. Addressing some of the other comments on this page, personally, I will believe many things of ArbCom, but that they are corrupt evil-doers who mean Wikipedia harm and who will appoint their cronies to hide their own abuses is not one of them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Yup. Related reading: User:AGK/Purpose of ArbCom and User talk:AGK/Purpose of ArbCom. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Why are we appointing AUSC members for only two month terms? Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

We aren't. If you look closer, you will see that the term ends in June 2014. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry...just tired.... Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I was expecting someone to ask why we had established a 14-month term this time. We have set the term to expire in June 2014 so that next year's committee has sufficient time to have a CheckUser/Oversighter appointment cycle before the AUSC election if it is needed; AUSC members can usually be persuaded to hold steady a bit longer, but significant shortages in CU and OS need to be addressed in a timely way or they can have a domino effect. Risker (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'm curious to see what AUSC ends up looking like this year, with active functionaries being dissuaded by Arbcom motion from volunteering. Hopefully a wonderful group of "background" editors steps up to do the job. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement from the Foundation's legal team

After receiving a note about this from SlimVirgin on my user talk page, I took the question to our legal team, and have communicated this outcome to Risker (for the committee). In summary, the Foundation wishes to reaffirm its previous statements regarding access to deleted revisions, which required an RFA or RFA-identical process. While we certainly think the goal of involving non-admins in the oversight functions is laudable, and we support expanding the role of non-admins, this is one area in which we are forced to constrain that activity. We think that we have been consistent, for some time, in saying that we require an RFA or RFA-identical process for access to deleted revisions.

With that said, I personally erred in not noticing this earlier and in not putting an earlier stop to it. I wish I could explain how that happened, but I'm simply at a loss to understand how I missed such a clear connection between the statements that we (and I, personally) have made around this and the practice that I knew was going on. I want to thank SlimVirgin for pointing it out to me, because it's an opportunity for us to correct that mistake. I apologize to the committee and the community for not doing that earlier, and want to express my apologies to any non-admins who may have applied for this permission this time or in the past, when the Foundation really should have stepped in to prevent that. I hope that they will use their energies for another opportunity to help the project, and that they will understand and accept my apology. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I hope you'll understand that many non-administrators will find your statement to be completely unacceptable. Malleus Fatuorum 22:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I hope you understand that the legal team of the WMF can say and do whatever the fuck it wants and we have to follow it, in terms of the deletion policy. I don't necessarily agree with it either to the fullest, as it is a strain on editors who need to see deleted material, but hey, it's legal considerations involved so the WMF legal team controls it. Either deal with it or don't make that kind of comment here. gwickwire^talk_editing 23:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

You may follow whatever you like, but I'm sick to death of seeing this kind of pseudo-legal bollocks simply designed to reify administrators. Any proper legal opinion would address the issue of under-age administrators. And an "RfA-like process" could easily be implemented just for this one user right, but pretty much every significant user right is assigned only to administrators. Malleus Fatuorum 23:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Designed to turn abstract admins into material things? I think you must mean deify? Although most of us are already in fact gods. Divine Bishonen talk, 00:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC).

I can't read that without thinking of the Divine Miss M... (chuckle) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I can't help but think that all this fuss over the normally completely ho-hum yearly round of AUSC appointments has nothing whatsoever to do with the performance of AUSC and is only a side effect of all the other arb-related drama of late. Does anyone actually have a real problem with the activities of the current subcommittee? Does anyone even know who is on it? (I know I could look it up but off the top of my head I have no idea) Does anyone honestly believe that making a big deal about this before we even know who the candidates will be is a worthwhile endeavor? I mean, yes, Slim virgin uncovered a rather alarming inconsistency, and now the WMF has issued a clarification of their position and a formal apology. That's a problem? Why? Because we didn't notice that we were doing something inconsistent with foundation policy? Granted, they didn't either, but the community, not the foundation, determine who is an AUSC member. We made a mistake. It happens. It will surely happen again. Such is life. This hardly seems like the most pressing arbcom related issue... Beeblebrox (talk) 02:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps not the most pressing, but one of many. And let me remind you that we do now know who the candidates will be, or at least that they will all be administrators, investigating administrators, reporting to administrators, and chosen by administrators. Doesn't sound very healthy to me. Malleus Fatuorum 03:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually it's arbcom and selected admins supervising arbcom appointed functionaries. Yes, they are all admins and will all apparently have to be in the forseeable future. I think it sad that some users cling to the belief that admins are a homogenous hive mind with no ability to criticize one another. When an admin gets blocked, who do you think does the blocking? Here's a clue, it ain't the blocking fairy. Not that I would expect any less from you Mal, right up to the completely superfluous insult in your edit sumarry[1]. Maybe this is why even people who like you have tired of being around you and discussing things with you. Your constant need to insult those you disagree with is off putting and creates a poisonous atmosphere in any discussion you participate in. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

You need to start thinking clearly Beeblebrox. It's actually those like you who are pissing people off here. I on the other hand am one of the most helpful editors that Wikipedia has ever had. You also need to think very carefully about whether your comments above might be considered to be a "personal attack", for which of course you would not be blocked anyway as you're an administrator. Malleus Fatuorum 04:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay folks, everyone please stand down. I don't know how the Arbitration Committee could have made it clearer to the community that it supported non-administrators in the AUSC/CU/OS roles: we appointed a non-administrator to the AUSC in 2011; we spearheaded community discussion that led to the ability of checkusers and oversighters to see deleted content specifically so that non-admins could carry out the tasks, and when we realised there was one gap left in the oversighter toolkit we looked into the technical feasibility of adding that in too. We felt that the vetting/community consultation process, as well as the responsibility to appoint to these roles, would be sufficient to permit appointment; however, it appears this is not the case. As we are already in the middle of this appointment process, we will not be changing the method of selection at this time, as it is unfair to the candidates who have stepped forward with the expectation that we would proceed as posted, and the community consultation will of course still take place. We might want to look at alternative processes for the future. Risker (talk) 04:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

But clearly your hands are now tied, as the ability to view deleted content is restricted to administrators, even if they're 12-year-old kids. (And don't give me any of Newyorkbrad's guff about "maturity", please.) Malleus Fatuorum 04:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh please, Malleus; I've never knowingly supported an RFA of someone that young. Please stop abusing people for trying to respond sensibly to your comments. Maybe you ought to go to bed and return when you are refreshed; you've been editing for almost 13 hours. Our hands may be tied for this round, but there are other options that can be reviewed with the community as a whole in the future. Risker (talk) 05:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad has. And please stop with your personal remarks. Are all admins now required to be abusive? Since when were my sleeping habits any concern of yours anyway? Do you seriously believe that I'm going to come back tomorrow/later today and say "Oh, I realise I've made a mistake, obviously it's OK that only administrators are allowed to see 'deleted' content, even if they're only just out of nappies (diapers to you)". If you do, then you really need to think again. Malleus Fatuorum 05:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Looking at Philippe's statement, it is clear than adminship is not an absolute requirement as the WMF would be equally comfortable with the candidate passing "an RFA-identical process". Various possibilities present themselvs. One way forward would be to hold "an RFA-identical process", perhaps on an ArbCom sub-page, for non-admin candidates, on the specific narrow issue of whether the community trusts them with access to deleted revisions. Another would be direct elections with a bar set at 75%-80% though this didn't work too well last time round. I have long and strongly supported non-admin participation and welcome suggestions about ways forward for the future.  Roger Davies ^talk 05:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Would the combination of ArbCom vetting of candidates and a public comments period not count as RfA-like? Just saying... Sven Manguard Wha? 05:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't look as if the the WMF thinks so ;) Biut perhaps Philippe could clarify this as well,  Roger Davies ^talk 05:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

But there aren't even any RfA criteria, much less any for someone applying for the user right to see deleted content. What would the voters be voting on, except for the usual "I like him", "I don't like him"? Malleus Fatuorum 05:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Your comment removed my comment. I'm going to assume that that was accidental, but please be more careful. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not responsible for the way the Wikimedia software mishandles edit conflicts, so please don't assume that I am. Malleus Fatuorum 05:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I've assumed that RFA-identical criteria means: (1) a week-long public discussion and (2) highish level of consensus. (I've also asked Philippe on his talk page to clarify this a bit so we'll have to see what he says.) If it's acceptable to the WMF, the !voters would be asked to !vote specifically on trusting the candidate, and comments which don't speak to it (eg "User isn't civil enough to be a functionary", "User's talk page is too confused/colourful/original for a functionary" or whatever) would be discounted. By reducing the scope to a narrow aspect of the candidate's activity, stuff that isn't relevant can be filtered out.  Roger Davies ^talk 05:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Roger, I think that would be acceptable. Sven, note that we don't say "RFA-like", we say "RFA-identical", meaning that it should, in form and substance, be as close to an RFA as possible. So yes, I think Roger's comments above are on mark. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 05:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt reply, Philippe. The thing I proposed is not too difficult to set up though it needs a bit of fine tuning. There may even be time to get this in place for the current round. I hope so,  Roger Davies ^talk 06:02, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

So what would the criteria be, other than the "I like him, I don't like him", as they are at RfA? Malleus Fatuorum 06:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Stuff speaking directly to trust and the ability to hold things in confidence, I guess. Actually delivering on/keeping promises might be a relevant one too. Have they a block log for ignoring pertinant policy? Have they a history of pushing the envelope? Do they do things that they say they will? It needs a bit of thinking about but it would certainly be much narrower than the free-ranging search for imperfections that typifies RFA at its worst.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

So basically the same old "I like him, I don't like him" bollocks. How would you be able to judge what the candidate had been told in trust, and had "held in confidence"? My own experience of ArbCom leaks tells me a quite different story. Malleus Fatuorum 06:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Come up with a better set of criteria then.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I can't, as it's a Gordian knot that nobody seems to have the courage to take a sword to. Malleus Fatuorum 07:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the nature of an RFA-identical process would be very different to RFA-type free-for-all if it is moderated and kept on track. I'm happy to do this.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I can't see it working, as it'll be perceived as an unbundling effort, but I'll be interested to see what you come up with. Malleus Fatuorum 07:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The various RFCs that bundled the tools so that non-admins could participate attracted great support. So we'll have o see,  Roger Davies ^talk 08:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'd think it would go over much better if it were moderated by the 'crats, as apposed to one or more Arbs. On ArbCom's best day, you're not the most popular/trusted group, and ArbCom hasn't had a best day in a while. People complain about 'crat supervoting, sure, but they complain less often and less loudly. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I did say "moderate" and not "close". It would be better to get a 'crat to close.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

(←) Also, while I have no interest in applying (I fail to understand how anyone would want to apply now to work that closely with ArbCom) I'd be interested in hearing what the WMF things about someone who's an admin on other projects being given access to enWP deleted contribs? Does trust transfer? Sven Manguard Wha? 07:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

If they happened to be a steward, they already have the right to see deleted material everywhere. But I doubt that non-enwiki stewards want to get involved here. --Rschen7754 08:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• Almost positive that trust doesn't transfer. I can think of at least 1 person that would not be trusted with advanced tools here (at the moment, anyway) who has those tools on another project. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 08:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, and I don't think we would necessarily trust an admin on a project with only 5 active admins and 60 active editors (as 90% of the 700+ WMF projects are nowadays). --Rschen7754 08:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• Best way to pass RfA as it currently works is to stay away from any controversies, and avoid or back off from serious confrontations. So I am unsure if its suitable process for vetting people to position that needs to investigate possible abuse of tools by someone in strong standing as average CU/OS would be.--Staberinde (talk) 09:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

With all the hubbub regarding en.ArbCom's activities and the only ex-officio member not putting a stop to activities that are rightly the providence of the foundation, I would like to suggest that a member of the foundation management team be added as a second ex-officio member to all methods of communication regarding ArbCom so that activities that exceed the remit of ArbCom may be stopped earlier and without causing as much disruption when ArbCom has to retract a position they previously championed. Hasteur (talk) 14:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Noting here that there are three foundation staff members listed at WP:FUNCT as subscribed to the functionaries mailing list (the full listing is at that page). Who do you mean by "the only ex-officio member"? The closest thing to what you are describing that we have on the arbitration committee mailing list is Jimmy Wales, who did describe his role as 'court of final appeal after ArbCom' as he saw it in an e-mail to us back in January. You could ask him for fuller details on what he said there (it is broadly similar to what he has said on-wiki in the past). In other words, he has the ability to review what we have been saying, and step in, but whether he reads discussions closely at the time (I suspect not), and whether he will step in or not if asked, probably depends on the specific situation. My view is that the arbitration committee has long needed someone elected specifically to function purely in a secretarial/organisational/moderator role (and not able to vote in anything), while ignoring everything else. The idea has been suggested before. Possibly the reason this has not been taken up is because it could be too influential a role, and anyone in such a role could get sidelined by the committee if they organised/moderated themselves (the current position). This could be addressed by having the position rotated during a calendar year. The role of co-ordinating arbitrator does exist, but I think co-ordinating while also voting and reviewing cases asks too much. Carcharoth (talk) 06:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Come up with a better set of criteria then - hmm, well, see that's sort of the problem. As far as I understand it there's been like a ... *million" discussions on this very issue over on the talk page of RfA and they all came up with nothing.

Basically, what is being proposed here, as a "solution" (to a very real problem) is that we take a procedure which everyone *knows* is broken, which *has been* broken for a very long time and which has *created* and *contributed* to the dysfunction that is the governance of Wikipedia and apply it to this new problem because... well, because we can't think of anything better.

In other words, if the Request for Adminship is way way way messed up, which I think pretty much everyone from Jimbo on down agrees it is, why exactly do you think it would be a good procedure to implement in this case? SNAFU+SNAFU=Profit! or something? Volunteer Marek 07:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that RFA is a good procedure either and I believe that the previous one - a combination of ArbCom vetting and community consultation - has worked reasonably well so far. It also gave non-admins access. I'm still strongly committed to seeing non-admins in important roles and if the only way to achieve it is by following the WMF requirement for an RFA-identical process, then so be it.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

If you're referring to using RfA to assess a person's trustworthiness to view deleted content, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Carrite was an example of that. A number of people objected to that process on the grounds that we don't grant that permission on its own, and others on the grounds that only wanting the permission for a limited period is somehow illegitimate. But, if you leave aside those objections to the propriety of that request, RfA seems to have been an adequate venue for assessing the trustworthiness of a candidate for this (view deleted) right. Most of those that commented on the candidate's merits (rather than on just the propriety of the process) seemed to clearly understand the limited nature of the permission being sought, and !voted accordingly. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I had already warned arbs a couple of times that opening up functionary positions to non-admins would likely be unwelcome by the foundation, due to their position on deleted material. But this was discarded and they didn't seek clarification before appointing a non-admin, which was an exceptionally rash decision even by ArbCom standards. Whether one likes it or not, the foundation confirmed that it requires RFA or a RFA-like process. This implies a review by the community with public comments and opinions (!votes), and assessment of consensus, and therefore the current process is not adequate and obviously arbcom must submit to the foundation position, even if the community had allowed them to proceed as such in the 2011 RFC. I've linked this declaration from the prior RFCs on this. Cenarium (talk) 01:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Non-admin functionaries

The WMF's recent declarations requiring an RfA or RfA-identical process for AUSC membership makes me wonder if the WMF is prohibiting non-admin arbitrators. Arbitrators are elected through a process that is not RfA-identical, so the WMF may also choose to further marginalise non-admins by preventing their serving on ArbCom. EdChem (talk) 10:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

It looks like it to me, which is a great pity.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

We can cure this easily by having an RFC to decide that anybody elected to ArbCom or AUSC is granted admin access. These votes then would be alternative paths to adminship. Jehochman ^Talk 11:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

That will only work if the WMF agrees to it. A further clarification would be good.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe a person wishing to become an Arbitrator must identify to the Foundation and be ceremonially appointed by Jimbo following the 50%+ election. I wonder if the "Jimbo step" or the "Foundation step" are enough to transform a 50%+ election into a 70%+ RFA-identical? You'll forgive me if I haven't followed all these pages enough to see if Philippe has made a statement directly to the contrary. MBisanz ^talk 12:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

My reading of this is that 50%+anointing wouldn't cut the mustard.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I think 50% saying you are ready to deal with Wikipedia's worst conflicts > 75% saying you are reasonably clueful. There are a lot of editors I'd support at RFA who I wouldn't support as ArbCom candidates. The percents for ArbCom are lower because the passing grade is much higher. Jehochman ^Talk 13:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you entirely but it's not me who wields the veto.  Roger Davies ^talk 13:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Can we ask? We set the 75% standard ourselves through community discussion. Logically, we have the ability to modify our own decisions through another community discussion. It would be really nice to get rid of this long running inconsistency of "What to do if a non-admin gets advanced ops?" Jehochman ^Talk 13:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I've already asked. The WMF may not object to people receiving the admin bit on election to ArbCom but would probably baulk at Oversight. The tension here may well be in the [:m:Oversight|WMF policy on Oversight], which specifies the requirements in the [:m:Oversight#Access|Access section] but I'd really appreciate some clarity on this from Philippe or Geoff.  Roger Davies ^talk 14:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

My reading is that in principle we could have dedicated elections of non-admin AUSC members, and the winner(s) get elected if they get say over 75% votes but they do not get admin flag. Having said this, I believe this is an overcomplication in most cases. Although if there is a strong non-admin candidate who does not want to go for RFA - why not?--Ymblanter (talk) 14:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

But administrators and oversighters are prone to hiding things, so how effective could such a non-admin AUSC member be? Malleus Fatuorum 14:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

As effective as the others. They would have the same viewing/reviewing toolkit. See this "Make userrights self-sufficient" RFC for details: they were implemented with Bugzillas. The principle that non-admins can receive the toolkits was established at this RFC.  Roger Davies ^talk 14:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

How is your statement consistent with the WMF's position on viewing deleted content? Malleus Fatuorum 14:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the roundabout clarification. I hadn't realised (which I now assume is the case) that you were suggesting it would be pointless to appoint a non-admin member if said non-admins didn't have access to the data.  Roger Davies ^talk 16:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

You assume correctly. Malleus Fatuorum 16:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

We'd be in chocolate teapot territory,  Roger Davies ^talk 16:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

We would. Fundamentally, I think this whole area of "trust" needs to be re-examined. What exactly are administrators trusted to do, and why does an RfA that hardly anyone looks at translate into trust to do things that didn't even exist when they were elected? Am I not trusted just because I'm not an administrator, because that's the implication. Does anyone seriously think I'm going to go on a rampage vandalising articles or creating hoax articles just because I can? The WMF's position on this viewing of "deleted" content is so full of holes you could drive a bus through it. For instance, I wonder how many of those BLP subjects who breathe a sigh of relief when some rubbish or other is removed actually know that it's not removed at all, but is still available for 12-year-old admins to read and relay to their friends in the playground? Malleus Fatuorum 16:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't suppose they'd be terribly impressed either by admins who've fought a battle with a few bottles of shiraz - and lost - but I suspect that's a far more common problem. Anyhow, I agree that the whole notion of trust needs reviewing, though that'd probably have to be done at WMF level.  Roger Davies ^talk 17:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Which of course means that it won't be done at all. Malleus Fatuorum 17:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely with Malleus. It has long been argued that the WMF requires the RFA process or something like it for legal reasons because it gives people the ability to delete, undelete content and block editors and its basically absurd. If admins were required to be 18 or if admins were required to divulge their real life identities to the WMF prior to getting the tools, then the legal argument would have some merit. But since its doubtful that a legal case would hold up in court because User:GoGoBoy or whatever was voted to be "trustworthy" by a group of equally anonymous peers isn't very solid. Its equally slippery if said editor was under 18 and thereby a minor. Not even getting into the whole international la arguments. 138.162.0.43 (talk) 19:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The WMF position on giving access to deleted revisions is clear - users need to go through an RFA-type process to demonstrate community trust in the user having that access. If we conclude that such access is needed to be on the committee, then non-admin members are impossible, unless we try and create a loophole. That loophole could be: any non-admin members elected can subsequently go for an RFA-process that is predicated on passive use of the tools only whilst they are on the committee. So they would have access to deleted revisions, but be expected not to do any blocks, page protections etc - and to relinquish the tools or run a "normal" RFA on leaving the committee. Not entirely satisfactory, but if the WMF is OK with that, it squares the circle. Oh, and if the arb fails their "read-only admin" RFA, we'd have to decide whether they resign, or do their best without the tools. Rd232 ^talk 20:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The WMF's position is both clear and ridiculous, about time they woke up Malleus Fatuorum 20:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems highly unlikely that they're going to change their mind to make it easier to access deleted revisions. Any plausible change is really around tightening requirements, most obviously requiring identification to the WMF for adminship, together with a minimum age of 18. So we may as well think about how to allow non-admins to serve effectively as arbs (which we seem to agree means access to deleted revisions), and this sort of "read-only" tool access seems like the answer. What's your alternative? (Make identification a substitute for RFA for arbs wanting read-only access is one option I suppose, if both WMF and community are OK with that.) Rd232 ^talk 22:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I can't help but wonder how it is that the WMF doesn't find it strange that anonymous administrators voted into office by anonymous editors are in some way inherently trustworthy, so I'd certainly be in favour of identification. Malleus Fatuorum 23:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe it is utterly unacceptable that non-admins should be unable to stand as candidates in ArbCom elections. Tony (talk) 11:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I think a lot of us agree with that Tony. I think there are a lot of problems on both sides of the argument for allowing non Admins to be on Arbcom. Here are a few I can think of off hand but this isn't by any means all inclusive:

1. Non admins would be limited in what they could do.
2. They would lack credibility when presiding over cases against admins. I can see a lot of "you aren't even an admin so what do you know" arguments.
3. Most users, right or wrong, view the RFA process and the tools as a badge of trust. Those who don't have the tools aren't viewed as trustworthy as those with the tools. I don't agree with this but right or wrong that is the case.
4. Many users do not wish to go through the RFA process. Some have tried and failed, some won't pass for various reasons (not to say they would pass a vote into Arbcom either)
5. The WMF will likely not allow a non admin to be on the Arbcom. I find it troubling and annoying that the WMF chooses to intervene into areas like this but completely fails to lead in almost every other area that needs it. There are many areas, not the least of which is the RFA process itself, where the community has repeatedly failed and the WMF should/could step in but chooses not too. IMO if they want to start enforcing this rule then they also need to step up and help the community fix the problems that are causing the site to have a reducing amount of admins but an increase in admin work.
6. If we are going to have things like Arbcom that require people to be admins to run, then we need to eliminate the arguments that often appear in RFA's about hat collecting. If we are requiring the tools as a stepping stone to other billets in the community it is no longer a hat collection, its a requirement and should be treated as such.
7. The community showed in the Carrite RFA that they do not want or agree with a limited duration RFA or use of the tools. This pretty much invalidates the ability of giving someone the tools on a temporary basis as mentioned above by RD232. 108.48.100.244 (talk) 13:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Isn't this all a bit speculative anyway? Has a non-admin ever been elected onto ArbCom? I could be mistaken, but as far as I'm aware, all arbitrators so far have been admins at the time they were elected. Plenty of non-admins have run for ArbCom, but the fact that none of them have succeeded strongly suggests that the general community (or at least a significant part of it) considers adminship an effective prerequisite for arbitratorship, and is not willing to vote someone onto ArbCom who hasn't passed an RFA. The community and the WMF seem to be of the same opinion on this one. Robofish (talk) 14:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

If that is the case, which I agree it does seem to be, then we should change the Arbcom requirements to reflect that. We should also eliminate arguments on RFA's of things like Hat collecting and possibly mark it as deprecated. If the requirement is going to be that one must be an admin to run, as I mentioned above, then its no longer hat collecting or boasting. This established that the community has a defacto hierarchy and that an admin has a certain status or rank as you will. I believe this has always been argued against but if the rules are going to be that you must be an admin to run for something then that in itself also establishes the pecking order. 108.48.100.244 (talk) 15:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Most of the few non-admins who have run for ArbCom in recent years were either running on what I would characterise as anti-establishment/anti-admin platforms or would not pass RfA because there was something clearly wrong with them (inexperience, recent blocks, etc). I wouldn't read much into the fact that none of them managed to get elected. Hut 8.5 17:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Hm, I'm not yet sold to the concrete inferences of the foundation's statement drawn here. Given that RfA processes vary across the projects and the legal position - I assume we are justified to assume - holds across all communities the WMF serves, I would suggest reading "identical" as being concerned with the substance of the RfA-process and not the letter of particular (en.wp-)proceeding. Thus, it strikes me that "identitcal" is aiming at a method that ensures suffcient support & trust from the respectively affected editing community (and other key factors) in an open process instead of appointments, etc. Ann ArbCom election process - one might argue - would qualify as not just being "identical" to the substance of a RfA procedure but is going beyond it (100+x%, if you like to put it that way) in ensuring the substancial & full community vetting needed to manage the underlying issue. Therefore, it would be fine to have non-administrative candidates for ArbCom ifself due to the full vetting process of ArbCom-elections but no such candidates for non-ArbCom seats on the audit subcommittee, etc. (in its current form), regards --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 18:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

It is said to limit certain risks to allow only a finite number of trusted editors to access deleted revisions. But as Jan suggests, any community-wide standard for demonstrating trust should work. Being elected to ArbCom should suffice to grant the rights needed to fulfil that position, whether or not the candidate was previously an admin. The accepted process for choosing admins should suffice, even as those standards change with time. And the community might create a new process for granting the deletedtext right, if RFA seems too complex or rarified for that purpose. – SJ + 06:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

WMF insists that going through an "RFA-identical process" is necessary for access to deleted revisions. I'm sure nobody believes that RFA 5 years ago is in any way equivalent to today's RFA, yet there are hundreds who were granted the status back when it only required a few people to vote for them. For example - and meaning no disrespect to this person - Kirill Lokshin became an admin here in 2005; that process is incomparable to present-day RFA. I know, that specific user has been through other processes including arb elections - but it's just an example of the changing RFA process. Lots of admins passed a very long time ago, when RFA was completely different.88.104.27.2 (talk) 17:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Good point: they handed out adminships like toilet paper in those days; then it suddenly tightened up and became a traumatic experience that most worthy candidates don't want to go through. So we have many non-admins with strong admin profiles in terms of experience, knowledge, social skills, and the trustability thing; and some admins who one is glad don't exercise the tools much. This boundary is just a misleading convenience WRT the requirements for standing in ArbCom elections. And it matters nought that hardly any non-admin has ever been elected—that's not the issue. Tony (talk) 03:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I welcome a response from Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation. I'll ask for one on his talk. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 03:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Kirill actually had massive support if you consider how it worked in 2003, for example Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pratyeka.--Staberinde (talk) 20:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

How it worked 10 years ago has nothing to do with how it works now. Pity the WMF is as blind to that fact as it is to so many others. Malleus Fatuorum 20:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I'm naive, but I think the purpose of most mandates from WMLegal is to simply divert legal liability from the Foundation to the Community in the case that something becomes legally actionable. I'm not a lawyer, but I assume the current RFA process, flawed as it is, somehow keeps the Foundation off the hook (or protects them as well as possible under the law) in the case that something goes horribly wrong. Ditch ∝ 02:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Something has already gone horribly wrong; non-administrators are excluded from being functionaries, hence we have the unacceptable situation of administrators investigating themselves. Malleus Fatuorum 13:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Malleus, forgive me for butting in, but I often see you making this argument and I don't precisely understand it. Is there overwhelming evidence that administrators are too lenient with one another? Honestly, from my vantage point, the administrators are generally more than happy to eat their own when there's blood in the water. It doesn't seem like administrators have any real desire to "protect" the institution of the administration, as such; why this concern over the AUSC? Respectfully, Archaeo (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

"Is there overwhelming evidence that administrators are too lenient with one another?" Yes, there is, and lots of it. But even if there weren't, you can surely not be happy with a system that has administrators policing themselves? Malleus Fatuorum 17:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Someone tell me if I'm wrong, but the OS tool does not even work for OSing or viewing of OSed/deleted material technically without the administrator userright, i.e. a functionary with OS but without adminship would be able to view the log, view the log actions, and view summaries of the actions, but not material itself. If this is the case, they would (in the case of an extremely experienced CU, or someone who otherwise is extremely qualified) be a great addition to the AUSC, even if they'd have to contact an admin/other AUSCer for access to deleted revisions they'd need access to them for. gwickwire^talk_editing 04:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• No, I think that is mistaken. A non-admin OSer can view any deleted revision (the deletedtext right is in the OS group), the functionality they would lack is something called delete-suppress, which is used when an entire page needs to be removed, not just parts of the history. For AUSC business, a non-admin would not be disadvantaged at all, like an "active" non-admin oversighter would be. And to those calling this a rather silly development, I'd have to agree wholeheartedly. A non admin auditor -- or even arbitrator -- would be a refreshing change of perspective. Courcelles 06:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

  +1 to this being a refreshing potential change. – SJ + 06:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

  Works for me, last time I remember looking (can't tell you when that was..) I don't remember deletedtext and/or viewdeleted being OS, nor delete, hence it needing 'sysop' to work properly. It could've changed or I may have missed it last time. Thanks for clarifying that. I still would support having a non-admin CU on the committee for the purposes of POV etc. gwickwire^talk_editing 20:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• I notice that Arbs are granted the CU and OS bits temporarily (although that is kind of fuzzy on when it expires) I don't see why a non-admin Arb couldn't be given the Admin bit while they are an Arb, with the understanding that they must run RfA after their term expires if they want to keep it. If anything, the OS bit is more controversial and potentially troublesome than the admin bit, and we already grant it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Re admins who got their SysOp years ago, when the process bore absolutely no resemblance to that of today;

The example above, of Pratyeka - hah, yeah, you're absolutely right. I just looked into that user, and read this arbcom request. How utterly absurd that admins who got their bit through a nod can blatantly disregard the current policies, and arb refuses to even investigate it.

When I asked Philippe to clarify about this, he chose to respond on his talk page - I will paste that here;

We considered the issue that you raise. However, we believe that the fact that those admins retain their bits is a definite sign that the community continues to trust them (including the modified community of today - versus their original community that voted them in) and therefore, that is sufficient. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC) [2]

I think that's absolutely absurd.

The Foundation is insisting that people pass RFA to see deleted revisions, yet is perfectly aware - and apparently content - that there are hundreds of people who got SysOp with nothing remotely resembling RFA.

This community does not trust them at all; but we can't do anything to change it, because the only people who can police admins are admins. 88.104.27.58 (talk) 17:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Philippe Beaudette is the sharpest tool in the box, so it's really no surprise to see this kind of nonsense from him. Who is this "community" that places such trust in administrators anyway? It certainly doesn't include me, for one. Malleus Fatuorum 17:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I hate to be flippant, but I personally could never trust anyone who has a hair style and vapid smile like that. However, before you all scream and shriek, is the system of trust he is recommending any more reliable? On Wikipedia, we all make judgements on people we have never met. Is a man/woman who has been here steadfastly writing articles for five years under a pseudonym, less to be trusted than a man who has been here six months and assures you that his real name is Randy Rustybum or a similar person who has somehow encouraged a posse of friend on IRC that he is fit to be an admin?  Giano  21:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I assume the question is rhetorical, because the answer is very obviously "Yes". Malleus Fatuorum 21:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

That comes back to the role of 'admin', like most things do. In theory, they're "cleaners", doing what the consensus requires them to do. I trust my cleaner to clean my home, and hope she won't go through my private letters or steal things; if she does, there's a fair chance she'd be caught out for it anyway. But I wouldn't trust my cleaner to advise me on a medical issue; I'd consult someone who was actually knowledgeable about that area.

Basic problem at Wikipedia is, the "cleaners" are assumed to also function as rocket scientists, brain surgeons, psychologists, lawyers, etc.

Power corrupts. 88.104.27.58 (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we need to make WP:Admins are a BIG DEAL per WMF decree a blue link? EdChem (talk) 09:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

When I started this section, I asked:

The WMF's recent declarations requiring an RfA or RfA-identical process for AUSC membership makes me wonder if the WMF is prohibiting non-admin arbitrators. Arbitrators are elected through a process that is not RfA-identical, so the WMF may also choose to further marginalise non-admins by preventing their serving on ArbCom.

The question was passed on the WMF, but I don't see a definitive response. Have we got a definite answer that non-admin arbitrators are prohibited by the WMF? Can we now officially declare that adminship as no big deal is officially dead by WMF-decree? EdChem (talk) 09:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SchuminWeb closed

Announcement

• Would it be possible to reword the announcement to make it clearer? By including a description of what would happen if SW voluntarily gave up his bit, I think it is needlessly muddied. You never actually come out and directly say that you've just now desysopped him. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• Seriously, could something simple be made any more convoluted?NE Ent 17:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Last December committee said, "Hey, it's uncool to be trash talking a retired editor, so we're gonna put this on hold for three months to see if the guy comes back and wants to talk. We'll wait three months and if he doesn't show he loses the admin bit." The time has passed so the bit is gone. NE Ent 17:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• Very clear, you need to run for Arbcom :) Mark Arsten (talk) 00:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The message is clear so he wouldn't get elected! Kumioko (talk) 02:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

This is a shame. I don't know what the right answer here is, but image deletions are something where it's very easy to get burnt out and we have a horrific lack of admins who are (1) willing to process them and (2) understand our image rules. (Obviously, I'm not taking issue with the ruling or anything ... just thinking out loud that something needs to be done to expand the pool of admins who work in this area.) --B (talk) 23:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I occasionally pop my head in that way, but I don't tend to stay long because of the atmosphere. What needs to happen (imho) is for (a) the rules regarding images (particularly non-free images) to be simplified and (b) reorganised into objective rules (e.g. is the image used on any articles?) and subjective rules (does it significantly enhance understanding of the article), making as many objective as possible; then (c) these explained as simply as possible; then most importantly (d) these rules need to be consistently applied and be seen to be consistently applied. Too often the impression is given that the closing admin supervotes or ignores discussion because the images are deleted and the discussion closed by a bot with no explanation (even if the discussion was irrelevant to policy it helps nobody when this is not explained). Combined with the apparently pathological resistance to making people aware of discussions about images, the impression given is that admins working in this area are out to delete as many images as they can. Part of this might just be cultural differences from my usual haunt of RfD where the governing philosophy is that redirects are kept unless they're harmful, but image deletion often feels hostile to the non-expert and so interaction with admins in the area is not going to be pleasant. Thryduulf (talk) 03:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I like your point d especially. There are a lot of cases that come up over and over again (e.g. alternate CD covers for music album articles) and the result seems to be more a factor of whoever shows up than anything consistent. --B (talk) 03:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

If you look, by the way, at the most prolific closers of IFDs (off the top of my head), SchuminWeb is desysopped, Fastily is retired, Skier Dude is disappeared, and Explicit is disappeared. If you go back in recent years, those four handled the lion's share of them. (Apologies if I'm leaving anyone else out - I know Diannaa has closed some and has done a great job at PUI ... and I've seen DeltaQuad close some recently ... not trying to make an exhaustive list - my point is that we're missing some of the people who did a whole lot of work.) --B (talk) 04:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The core problem is permitting "fair use". It's an incredibly vague area of the law, open to massive interpretations. Many countries have no such thing as "fair use". It is likely that one day, all such images will be deleted; until then, it's an absolutely monumental waste of editor time dealing with it. Per WP:VEGAN, 'fair use' makes no sense. It directly contradicts the pillar, "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute." 88.104.27.58 (talk) 16:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, when did we last review that policy? I wouldn't want to reopen the debate if we've discussed it in the last year. But perhaps now would be a good time to reconsider. As with BLPprod we could grandfather in all existing fair use files and just have a policy that from x date we no longer accept new files here - all new files should be uploaded to Commons and will have to comply with their policies. ϢereSpielChequers 11:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd support such proposal with the following exception: Covers of studio albums, singles, films, video games and books are allowed. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 18:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Why those? This isn't a fan site. Suppose that there was another photo as iconic as the Kent State shootings photo or The Falling Man or Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. Those are actual encyclopedia topics, whereas having an article (and thus an album cover) about every internet-only album released by garage band that ever made the local news has nothing to do with an encyclopedia - that's more suited for a fan site. I'd rather we remove what amounts to an exemption to WP:NFCC#8 and say no album covers, etc, in infoboxen - you can only use an album cover, etc, if you have actual encyclopedia content about the album cover. The only qualm I have about this is corporate logos where it seems silly to have a disparity between logos that someone thinks is copyrightable vs ones that someone thinks is not copyrightable. We ought to be treating all trademarked logos like fair use images and copyright only comes into play if you're taking a photo of a stack of diet coke cases (allowed) vs a stack of cereal boxes (not allowed). --B (talk) 23:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd actually invert Hahc21's proposal. The bulk of our copyrighted material is covers and screenshots with the image being used under the umbrella of "identification". If we got rid of all of those, we'd have a fair chance of being able to analyze which of the remainder were actually justified.—Kww(talk) 23:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

(clears throat) I don't think this is the right place to discuss overturning the existing consensus on non-free file policy. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I have floated a trial balloon at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Time_for_the_next_step_in_our_evolution.3F per Tryptofish's suggestion. Anyone who would like to can join me there. --B (talk) 01:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Audit Subcommittee appointments (2013): Invitation to comment on candidates

Original announcement

• Is this a !vote, or simply questions that the arbitration committee uses to evaluate candidates? In other words, who makes the actual decisions on who is or is not on the sub-committee? — Ched :  ?  10:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The community can comment, but the Committee makes the final decision. The way I see it, there is a requirement on Meta that all candidates for CU/OS must have 70% or more of the community's support, or must be selected by the Arbitration Committee, in order for stewards to grant the CU/OS rights. As past CU/OS candidates have found it difficult to get 70% support and positions had gone unfilled in the past, the process was shifted to the Arbitration Committee, and I assume that it would be similar for AUSC elections. I suppose elections could be held and then the winners could then be "selected" by the Arbitration Committee, but that seems like an end-run around the policies on Meta and the stewards might not like that. --Rschen7754 11:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Ahhhh ... Thank you for the clarification. Much appreciated. — Ched :  ?  11:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for information

Can arbs or clerks please assist in filling in User:Werieth/sandbox with the related terms for those arbs who are currently sitting? Ive already pulled everything from Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/History#Former_members but I am just missing the current members. Werieth (talk) 16:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

That information can be found using Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/History and {{ArbitrationCommitteeChartRecent}}. NW (Talk) 18:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Cla68 is still blocked

I'm wondering when Cla68's block will be commuted to a length of time shorter than "indefinite." Supposedly the Committee has been discussing this by email but we hanven't seen anything for more than two weeks. Chutznik (talk) 00:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes. An update, please. — Hex (❝?!❞) 13:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

There's not too much to tell at the moment, we're waiting on Cla68, who has said that he will come back with some comprehensive answers to some of our questions. Worm^TT(talk) 13:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

That's funny. I could have sworn NYBrad said on the second of April that a decision would be made "soon". If you are being completely honest, that means that, after an entire month, your "decision" is to ask Charles some more questions. I wonder, at what stage do you imagine that you will need to order more rugs for all your carpet sweeping? Anyone want to take bets on Charles not even being aware of the questions? Oh, wait! Perhaps he should "email Arbcom" to find out more. We all know how that works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.119.18.186 (talk) 00:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think all the arbs are reading from the same songbook. Kevin (talk) 00:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)