Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

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)

Well, it wasn't for lack of trying on our part. The last message we had from Cla68 was that he was not available for a period and would get back to us. The ball is in his court; we've done our bit. Risker (talk) 01:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I think I should mention that he's said elsewhere:

They have asked me to accept that what I did was outing, if I will promise not to do it again, how will I respond if anything I post in the future is oversighted, and how I feel about SilkTork being the one to unblock me since he opposed re-sysopping Kevin. I haven't responded because I've been busy with other things. AGK and Carcharoth also have emailed me some observations of theirs that I haven't fully responded to yet.

Those seem like reasonable questions to ask in the interests of avoiding anything like this happening again. Prioryman (talk) 06:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

To be clearer about what happened: at the time of NYB's comment, we had a draft unblock proposal. The proposal got tentative support and were emailed to Cla68 a few days afterwards. Cla68's response to it caused some vote changes such that the proposal no longer have majority support, and also caused several arbitrators to decide to ask him additional questions; we haven't got any answers to those questions yet. T. Canens (talk) 14:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

He shouldn't have to "accept" that it was outing as there are quite a few people who don't "accept" that, and even more who feel that it is not so indisputable that refusal to "accept" it as outing is a problem. If you otherwise get reasonable assurances that he won't do anything like it again then that should be all that matters.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The policy about outing is pretty easy to understand.--MONGO 18:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

It's the ArbCom he has to convince, not "quite a few people". If you're up before the judge, appealing to the "wisdom of crowds" won't get you very far. Prioryman (talk) 18:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

While "quite a few people" may not accept that it was outing, there are many people (albeit generally less vocal) who agree with that characterisation of cla68's actions. Even if his initial comments were not outing (which by the outing policy they were), when another user acting in good faith considers them to be and removes them as such the correct course of action is emphatically not to repeat the comments. It is absolutely right that the arbitration committee are seeking to be convinced that cla68 understands what he did wrong, why it was wrong and why it must not happen again before he regains his editing privileges. Thryduulf (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

He shouldn't have repeated it after it was oversighted from a practical standpoint, but if they are demanding that nothing short of stating that he outed someone will get him unblocked then I don't believe that is reasonable or consistent with the proclaimed purpose of Wikipedia. Some people may adhere to a "literalist" interpretation of the WP:OUTING policy but WP:IAR exists because we should apply common sense and not let rigid adherence to the written rule override what should be our primary concern of producing quality content. The policy is about harassment and nothing Cla68 did constituted harassment. Cla68 should not be barred from contributing quality content because of some oversight in the letter of the policy that seemingly allows someone to publicly link their real name and Wikipedia username everywhere but Wikipedia, while still being protected from identification.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Come on guys you don't actually think Arbcom is going to do the right thing do you? Surely you have been here long enough to know that Arbcom does what best supports their agenda. Not what is best for the project or the community. You also surely know that they aren't going to admit fault. Of course its someone else's error, they can't be held accountable. There Arbcom where would you take the complaint? The WMF? Their even worse. Kumioko (talk) 00:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I've been around long enough to know that while the arbcom is not perfect (no group of humans can be), the only agenda they have is doing what they think is in the best interests of the project to create a free-content encyclopaedia. Their decisions can be appealed to Jimbo (except when they are hearing an appeal of his actions). No one user is bigger than the project, no matter what their contributions are or how long they have been making them and everybody is subject to the same rules as everybody else. Just because you have made a lot of edits does not give you the right to pick and choose which bits of policy you want to adhere to and which you don't.
@TDA If somebody has chosen not to reveal their real life identity on Wikipedia then posting it here is outing, regardless of whether they have revealed their identity elsewhere, because there may be very good reasons why they have chosen not to identify on Wikipedia. Wikipedia editors have the right to do so pseudonymously if they choose, you do not have a right to make that choice for another user and (attempting) to do so is harassment. IAR is about ignoring a rule if it stops you improving the encyclopaedia. Please explain in what way outing another editor improves the encyclopaedia? Thryduulf (talk) 00:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh come on Thryduulf, you know as well as any of us that Jimbo would never and has never overturned a ruling of Arbcom. In fact Jimmy is trying to reduce his powers and presence on Wiki, not solidify it be overturning rulings. So to say one can appeal to him is just a joke. The Arbcom historically makes decisions that are negative to both sides of the argument, presumably to enforce that going to them is a bad thing and they ought work it out rather than go before the jury. Kumioko (talk) 01:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

That's not true at all: ArbCom are slaves to their reptoid masters and operate as part of the huge conspiracy against Wikipedia. I thought everyone knew that? Nick-D (talk) 02:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Lol, that explains it alright. Kumioko (talk) 02:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

That's a disgraceful suggestion and nothing could be further from the truth.  Reptoid Drone ^talk 03:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Thryduulf, the argument you present is completely misguided and isn't consistent with the actual meaning of the terms you are using. You trivialize harassment by suggesting it has occurred with the mere act of noting one's real name in connection with a pseudonym when the person using it has regularly shared publicly the real name in connection with the username. Outing implies that the information was not already out and is not an issue sensitive to a given community. Consider the term's more common use. A person who has publicly come out to say he or she is gay can not somehow then claim to be outed as gay if some people who don't know about it are later directed to those public statements.

Only in the written word of Wikipedia policy would what occurred be considered "outing" and I say that is only due to a lapse by the editors who wrote it. I should also note that, while everyone has a right to use a pseudonym, no one has a right to a protected pseudonym. Fundamentally, it is on the individual acting pseudonymously to insure that no simple legal means can be used to discern one's identity. If finding one's identity requires intrusions, legal or otherwise, into an individual's personal privacy or necessitates intensive research then it constitutes outing. Directing people to what someone has stated publicly multiple times on other major sites does not.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand, which is very odd because it's very simple:

• The policy says that connecting someone's pseudonymous identity to their real identity on Wikipedia when they have not done so is outing.
• cla68 connected someone's pseudonymous identity to their real identity on Wikipedia when they had not done so.
• Therefore cla68 outed someone.

It doesn't matter whether you agree with the policy or not, whether you think it is stupid or not, why it currently is what it is, or anything else. The policy is what it is. If you want to change the policy then you can propose that, and if your proposal gains consensus then the policy will be changed. Until such time as it is changed, the current wording is what applies.

As for why it is currently written like it is, I repeat that people might have good reasons for not wanting their real identity published on Wikipedia. It doesn't matter what those reasons are, whether you agree with them or not, without you even understand them or not, that's entirely irrelevant. All that matters is that you do not have the right to make the decision for somebody else.

As a Wikipedia editor you have three choices for how to behave:

1. Work within the rules as they currently stand
2. Work within the rules as they currently stand while discussing the rules and proposing changes to them.
3. Leave Wikipedia

I really cannot fathom why any of this is not obvious to you? Thryduulf (talk) 09:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

You forgot one. Get promoted to Admin and you can do whatever you want. Kumioko (talk) 11:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

<cough> except reverse an Oversighter's block QuiteUnusual (talk) 11:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

So it would seem. Kumioko (talk) 12:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, there is an explicit allowance for ignoring the policy when it conflicts with our actual purpose of producing quality content. In this case, indefinitely blocking a devoted content-creator because he apparently violated the letter of a policy that presents a novel definition of a common term that conflicts with common sense and puts it forward as part of a trivialized understanding of a term usually reserved for serious misconduct is a pretty good time to invoke that explicit allowance. The Arbs should only demand that he make a reasonable commitment to not do it again, not demand that he accept an absurd definition of "outing" inserted by some gaggle of editors when all he did was point to public sites where someone has publicly stated their real name in connection with their username.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Cla68 agreeing to "make a reasonable commitment not to do it again" is by definition asking him to accept the definition. They go hand in hand. Resolute 22:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I was just going to say that myself! Cla68 can hardly agree "not to do it again" if he doesn't accept that he did "it" in the first place or that there was anything wrong with what he did. My advice to him would simply be to swallow his pride, say what he has to in order to get himself unblocked and get back to editing (but stay well away from anything to do with editors' off-wiki identities in future). Prioryman (talk) 22:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

They do not go hand in hand. He can easily make a reasonable commitment to not state or link to information that includes someone's identifying information unless said information is explicitly provided by said editor on-wiki. Similarly, he can agree to not repeat information after it has been oversighted. It is perfectly possible for him to make reasonable commitments not to repeat those acts, without accepting the way those acts are characterized.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

My own experience of ArbCom (with regard to appealing arbitration sanctions) is that they tend to look for evidence that you understand why you were blocked / sanctioned in the first place, and not simply for a promise not to act in a particular way in the future. It's perhaps a bit like a court granting some leniency for pleading guilty instead of insisting throughout that you've done nothing wrong. Prioryman (talk) 23:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

One can give more than a simple promise not to repeat an action yet not agree with how an action is characterized. People can legitimately differ on why a certain action should not have occurred.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

At the very least the ArbCom should restore Cla68 talk page access. Then all communications could continue publicly. Aren't arbitrators tired of their secret proceedings and plying games of self-importance? Don't they understand that by blocking content contributors to satisfy trolls they damage the project? 76.126.142.59 (talk) 23:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

One thing I do find rather curious about this business is that Cla68's supporters seem to be far more concerned about the matter than Cla68 himself. As he's already said, he hasn't taken things forward because he's "been busy with other things". This discussion is fairly pointless. In the end, no amount of complaining or discussing is going to resolve this when it's basically a matter for Cla68 and the ArbCom. Let's leave them to get on with it, shall we? Prioryman (talk) 08:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

On wikipediocracy, there do not appear to be similar problems of Cla68 being too busy to comment. Today he complained there that the "Mathsci/FPaS" thing is what is stopping him from returning to editing here. As far as I'm concerned, Cla68's conduct hit rock bottom in October 2012. In his first failed RfAr on 22 October, the day he was banned from interacting with me, he wrote, "Mathsci states repeatedly that the stress from the Race and Intelligence topic area has caused him heart trouble and other kinds of hardship." When he wrote that, Cla68 was aware that I had had a bypass operation on 8 October. He was blocked by FPaS in early December for making similar comments. He shows no recognition that there was a problem with what he wrote. The Russavia incident is somewhat different, but it shows a similar lack of self-awareness. Mathsci (talk) 10:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Adding some thoughts here:

• (i) This sort of protracted back-and-forth by e-mail is very inefficient. It also disadvantages the appellant, as they don't hear the thoughts of arbitrators who should (in my view) communicate their thoughts (by e-mail) and not keep the appellant in the dark. Public discussion and voting is much better, but the worry here is presumably that either Cla68 or various onlookers, or the very presence of a public discussion, would exacerbate the issues. Remember how some people said that there should have been no block or desysop or motion because that drew attention to something that should have been dealt with quietly? The same arguments apply here as a protracted public discussion on this could reignite the issues that started this (and I wish those commenting here would recognise that).
• (ii) If Cla68 wants to be unblocked for a public discussion and vote by ArbCom on his unblock request, I would (despite what I said above) support that if a formal vote was held, but it won't happen unless a majority of arbitrators agree to it (or unless someone makes a formal RFAR request, but please don't do that without asking Cla68). I would hope that those wanting to comment on such a public request would give Cla68 the space and time to respond, and that Cla68 (once unblocked to participate in that) would speak up for himself rather than letting others speak for him. It could end up being a full case if Cla68 insists on being allowed a full and public hearing. The end result could be a ban for several months for this and prior conduct, rather than an unblock.
• (iii) I generally support unblocks with reasonable conditions for those who just want to get on with content production and have a good track record in that respect. As far as I'm concerned, I've supported such an unblock with reasonable conditions here, and it is now up to Cla68 to either reject that unblock (effectively a choice to make a stand on principle rather than returning to his content work), or to accept it. He also needs to present himself to other arbitrators in such a way that they will support his unblocking. I'm familiar with Cla68's editing and am comfortable supporting an unblock. Other arbitrators will be less familiar with his editing and will need more persuasion. It's not my role (or those of other arbitrators that support an unblock) to persuade those other arbitrators to change or soften their stance - the onus for that falls squarely on Cla68.
• (iv) I've been handling the main communications on this. I last wrote to Cla68 on 9 April 2013. The reply arrived on 11 April and we've heard nothing since. I will now be writing to him with an update on this, asking if he has anything further to add, and pointing him to this thread (he is clearly aware of it, but I will mention it anyway). Carcharoth (talk) 14:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding (i), might it be an idea to have some kind of private invitation-only discussion forum where you and the other arbitrators can have a closed discussion with appellants without the peanut gallery getting a look-in? Prioryman (talk) 15:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• That would be an improvement on the current situation. There are many cases where that is not needed (the simple appeals that are generally declined by one or two arbitrators looking at something, and the other arbitrators either not looking or silently agreeing). But situations like this (where privacy-related issues are discussed), yes, it would help. It would in particular help some appellants realise that being argumentative with a panel of 13 arbitrators, only some of whom may actually be listening to you, isn't actually very helpful. If you can imagine a scene where 5 out of 13 arbs respond and the appellant argues at length with all of them, you can imagine how that looks (to be clear, I'm not describing what is happening here, but that could easily happen). It works best when one arbitrator takes the lead in the discussion, and the others just weigh in occasionally. Carcharoth (talk) 15:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• So, if I understood you right, you are saying that usually 11 active arbitrators silently agreeing with the decisions made by one or two arbitrators without even listening to an appellant? This practice is more than dishonest, but I am not surprised. The arbcom is simply a very sick joke. 76.126.142.59 (talk) 01:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Not what Carcharoth said -- operative conjunction is or, not and. NE Ent 01:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Disagree with your interpritation. I would like to ask Carcharoth himself to clarify his statements. 76.126.142.59 (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
• 76.126 is a sock of a banned user. --Guerillero | My Talk 15:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Which banned user? Is there an SPI case? If they are a sock of a benned user, why is the IP not blocked? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
• "76.126 is a sock of a banned user" what a deep thought! It reminds me how another wikipediot blocked 1,000 IPs in Utah because he decided they all were socks of a single banned user. 76.126.142.59 (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2013‎

Bad Behavior by Guerillero

I believe I was confused with the IP editor above. Guerillero blocked me for a few hours, then reversed it without apology or acknowlegement. [1] [2] I looked back through his contributions for an explanation of this outrageous behavior. I believe he intended to block the IP above. I have never interacted with him before, but based on this poor judgement I strongly recommend he not be appointed to AUSC, and his participation as a Clerk be reviewed. 71.236.188.255 (talk) 01:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

He may not have apologised because he forgot to do so, or because he thought you would not notice (and therefore that no harm was done). In any event, I'm not sure a mis-click means he should never again be trusted with a community position on this project. For what it's worth, I'm sorry that you were blocked. AGK [•] 15:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I was displeased by the treatment as I felt it was representative of the systemic lack of kindness toward non-registered editors. However, you are correct that it may have been an innocent mistake, so I retract my comments. Take care, 71.236.188.255 (talk) 05:38, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, who are you anyway? NW (Talk) 15:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

It is abundantly clear that this IP is a returning user of some kind, but when I previously touched on this point with them their response was not particularly illuminating. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

@NW: I am not sure what you are asking - I do not wish to disclose my name, if that is what you want to know. I am just an editor like you (but without the fancy permissions :) @Beeblebrox: I am not sure what you are after, I don't have any issue with you, but you have been following me a bit it seems. 71.236.188.255 (talk) 05:38, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

This IP is obviously not your first identity as a WP user. When a user, registered or no, dives right in to commenting on arbitration proceedings they have no connection to and engages in advocacy on behalf long term blocked users, and shows all the signs of being here in response to offsite canvassing, yeah, that is going to cause you to be subject to some scrutiny. In other words, nobody is fooled by your "innocent new user" charade. We may not know who you were before, but you obviously have been around before this incarnation so you can drop the act. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no "act" here. I have been around WP on and off for a while, that is why I was upset when I thought I was treated poorly in this instance. I don't wish to register, and I realize this may be confusing given that IP addresses don't stay the same forever, but calling editing under IP addresses an "act" is a bit much. In any event, Guerillero apologized and I therefore retracted my earlier comments - nothing more to do here. Take care, 71.236.188.255 (talk) 05:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment It looks to me like Guerillero explained the error and apologised on his own talk page,[3] and notified 71.236.188.255[4] who blanked the notification.[5] 50.0.136.106 (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• You are correct. After he explained that I realized it may have been an innocent error and came here to retract my comments (see above). 71.236.188.255 (talk) 05:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Good grief

Word around the campfire (yeah, that one) is that he's not being unblocked because he doesn't want to bow down you "your authority". Well, I get it... he can be on the ornery side sometimes, just like you folks can be on the officious side sometimes ;-).

A simple suggestion: just impose a simple bright-line rule that he won't link to external pages that link Wikipedian pseudonyms to their real identities if that link isn't clearly spelled out on the person's user page. Don't ask him to agree to it, just unblock him and impose the rule. Navel-gazing about whether or not he should "respect your authority" (on his part, and on yours) is just silly, and feeding needless drama. Unless, of course, drama is the objective, in which case just keep doing what you're doing. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 00:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The thread was dead for eight days. That's not Wiki drama. NE Ent 01:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, the continued participation of all people who choose to contribute to Wikipedia is ultimately subject to the rulings of Arb Com (though of course only a vanishingly small percentage of editors will ever have any contact with the Committee). If Cla doesn't want to accept ArbCom's jurisdiction over his participation here that's OK, but it also means that he can't contribute given that this is, rightly, a universal rule. I'd like to see Cla back and working on articles as he's an outstanding editor, but unblocking him and then reblocking when he violates a condition he didn't agree to (which I fear would be certain to occur given that he appears unhappy with a largish chunk of Wikipedia's governance) is hardly a low drama option. Nick-D (talk) 01:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

This is perhaps too subtle a distinction given the history of the present case, but there is no requirement to accept ArbCom's jurisdiction in order to contribute to Wikipedia. There is a requirement to obey ArbCom's rulings, just as there is a requirement to follow policies and guidelines, but we do not care why someone complies, only that they do comply. I can, if I choose, completely reject ArbCom's authority and jurisdiction, but as long as I comply (perhaps because I would find the consequences of doing otherwise to be unpleasant) I can participate here. I can even express the opinion (in a venue where doing so is not disruptive) that neither policy nor ArbCom has any authority. It is a subtle distinction, but we do not punish thoughtcrime.

Cla68 needs to convince ArbCom that he understands what he did wrong (as opposed to agreeing that what he did was wrong) and can identify his future actions as violations (by ArbCom's definition, not his) before he commits them, and he needs to convince ArbCom that he will not do it again whether or not he agrees with the policy or the definition. If he later gets reblocked, it will be for specific actions, not for his opinions. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

That's a good point Guy; I was being overly broad and the distinction you draw is correct. Nick-D (talk) 05:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Good points by SB Johnny and Guy Macon. FWIW, the last time we (ArbCom) received correspondence on this was on 30 April. As I said above, I'm handling correspondence on this, and I replied on 2 May. Nothing heard since, so a follow-up e-mail sent today (11 May). It is possible that this could have been handled better, but it doesn't help when days go by with no response from the appellant. In the normal course of ArbCom business, such appeals where no responses are received after days of silence are routinely archived and/or declined. This is being handled differently in that it is, so far, being kept open, but that can only be done for so long before it too is archived. Carcharoth (talk) 09:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

May I suggest that ArbCom unblock the account unilaterally with a note to avoid discussing real life identities of editors who prefer to be anonymous (a simple courtesy), lest the block could be reinstated. This block no longer (if ever) benefits Wikipedia at all, and looks a lot like a punishment for irreverence, rather than a necessity to prevent disruption. Jehochman ^Talk 16:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't do that if it were my decision to make. Cla68 needs to show that he understands what is expected of him and will comply even if he disagrees. This is a standard requirement for removing an indefinite block, and I see no reason to make an exception in this case. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Cla isn't being unblocked because of his participation in Wikipediocracy plain and simple. The situation happened so long ago no one in this discussion even remembers what it was that got him blocked. Cla was a positive contributor who suffered the fate of making a bad decision and that gave the folks here the excuse to block him. They say it was outing but the user as commonly known. Its like saying that Jimbo wales is Jimbo Wales. Its not nor was it ever a secret. But they needed a reason to block him due to his association wiht the site that should not be named and that's what they did. Wikicorruption at its finest. Kumioko (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

According to my reading of User talk:Cla68, everyone remembers what got Cla68 blocked just fine. He violated Wikipedia's outing policy. If you don't like that policy, you are free to make your case for changing it at the appropriate venue. As for your claim that Cla68 isn't being unblocked because of his participation in Wikipediocracy, there is zero evidence of that. I am going to drop this now as being unproductive. Feel free to get in the last word; I won't reply. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Well stomping off in a huff is your right just as is my right to see through the crap that Arbcom is shoveling! I think this case is a prime example of one where the only ones who still care are the ones who are trying to get him or keep him banned. Everyone else long since moved on to more important things....like building an encyclopedia! So instead of simply lifting this punitive rather than preventative block and allowing a high output editor to get back to contributing to helping us build the cesspool...I mean, err, encyclopedia...they keep him blocked. Kumioko (talk) 02:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Successful block appeal by Cla68

Original announcement

• To explain the delay, discussion between Cla68 and the committee was basically at deadlock for some weeks. If Cla and the arbitrators had been able to agree earlier on what Cla would need to do in order for us to be able to allow him to return to editing, this would probably have been over quite a lot sooner. As it stands, we have settled on a set of conditions that would prevent Cla from outing an editor in the future while insisting he was allowed by site policy to do so. The responsibility to comply with these conditions while contributing to Wikipedia now lies with Cla – as I hope he realises. AGK [•] 09:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

  I think that's a good summary, AGK. Both sides have dithered, with long periods passing without a response. Worm^TT(talk) 09:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

  WP:DITHER? Is that like Entmoot? Slow, deliberate, thoughtful action? Can't have that on Wikipedia! NE Ent 10:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

  Another conspiracy theory ruined, public explanation (and votes) of privacy discussed ... and with blog, mailing list or forum ya'll didn't even link to the website. NE Ent 10:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

  I see my repeated request for an interaction ban on Cla68 with me was totally ignored. Way to go. Why was this obvious restriction totally ignored by yourselves? Russavia (talk) 13:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

  • If you don't want to interact, don't interact. NE Ent 15:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a warning in there about harassment of other users. If Cla contacts you, make it clear you don't want to talk to them, if they are foolish enough to persist they'll be blocked again. Hopefully it won't be an issue at all and we can put this whole mess behind us. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Just a small clarification: I opposed this motion because I considered (and still do) this restriction too byzantine and was supporting a much simpler one. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

And what "simpler" proposal were you supporting Salvio? Russavia (talk) 22:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

What an utterly ridiculous set of restrictions. Surely complying with WP:OUTING is enough? If it isn't then go fix that policy. Kevin (talk) 22:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC has begun

Dear all, the binding RfC on the lead of the Jerusalem article mandated by this motion has now begun at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem. I will leave it up to the Arbitrators and Clerks as to whether this should also be mentioned at the Arbitration Noticeboard proper. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)