User talk:ArturZ/Archive 1

The Arbitration Committee of the Wikipedia in English and Jimbo Wales
I have been blocked at the English language Wikipedia, by the ArbCom, created by Jimbo Wales and to whose mail list Jimbo Wales has access and whose members Jimbo Wales apparently appoints (aided by a vote held every year). I'm hoping to use this talk page to allow the issue to be discussed. Unfortunately, the Arbitration Committee of the English Wikipedia and Jimbo Wales are censoring the discussions there. I hope that neither Jimbo Wales nor the Arbitration Committee of the Wikipedia in English have any authority whatsoever over Wikiversity, so that the matter can be freely discussed here. Even with all the censorship, I hoped the ArbCom would hear me and give me a fair trial (which was a plainly irrational hope after everything they did). I have sent an e-mail to the Arbitration Committee fifty days ago, and they never replied to me. Yesterday I sent an e-mail to the administrator who protected my talk page explaining that they didn't reply to me, and asking for the unprotection of my talk page, but he denied the request, yet again confirming the censorship. He said that silence meant endorsement and I should make the request to the ArbCom.

The whole story is pretty scary and hard to believe at first. I thought I had understood it, but, even after fifty days, the dictatorial actions still surprise me. I truly thought that the administrator that protected my talk page, upon finding out that the ArbCom hadn't replied anything to me, would immediately unprotect my talk page, even though I knew there was no justifying reason for blocking it in the first place. So I was still, after fifty days, rationalizing the events and trying not to admit the fact that the Wikipedia in English has been hijacked. It was not that unpredictable, and it shouldnn't be so surprising that this happened. You take a normal person, or a small group of regular people, give them a lot of power, and the expected result will be exactly what happened there: that the small group of people will abuse their power, they will oppress other people, they will be arbitrary, etc. And the ArbCom and Jimbo have in their hands a lot of power. They legislate, execute, and judge. They have created secret policies, they have actively prosecuted people, and they have judged whether their actions complied with the rules (including the secret rules). They are the appellate courts as well. You can only appeal their decisions to themselves, and again to themselves if you disagree with the result of the appeal, and so on.

My block, as Wooty said on my talk page, is absolutely ludicrous. It is blatantly unjustifiable and unfair. The minority that supports it gave ridiculous arguments so far, and the questions made to them regarding the block were either simply ignored or replied ridiculously (such as SqueakBox and dmcdevit pointing out two regular and 100% acceptable edits as reasons for the block). All of the above is easily verifiable on Wikipedia. Just visit my talk page and the contributions of the people involved at the time, who posted on my talk page. Also see the contributions of StuRat, who hasn't posted on my talk page, probably because it was protected.

This isn't about me. I just happened to be one who was blocked by the dictatorship. It could have been anyone. There's no reason why I should be the one with the best arguments, the best strategy regarding what we should do now, etc. The people who had the time to post on my talk page before it was protected understood the problem and had better things to say than I did. I hope they come to this talk page to debate this, to think of a way to inform the community about what is happening, and to figure out here how to bring down the censorship there. I think that, once the censorship is brought down and the community becomes able to discuss the issues, I will inevitably be unblocked and the other dictatorial actions of the ArbCom will not be tolerated anymore. a.z. 05:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not familiar with the details of why your account was blocked at Wikipedia. Have you tried just starting a new account there? Wikiversity has Topic:Wikipedia studies and there could be a page for study of the Wikipedia arbitration committee. --JWSchmidt 14:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't try starting a new account there. The ArbCom would block me if I did this. a.z. 01:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Normally if you are banned they stick an ugly template on your user page saying so and list you at List of banned users. I do not see anything saying you have been banned. If your account is just blocked then you might be able to create a new account. --JWSchmidt 02:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sure that the ArbCom will block me again if I create a new account. You may not grasp what is going on: they have secret policies, they have secret trials, they do not reply to people's questions, they reply to requests for information completely evading the questions , they censor . It's a dictatorship, and I am sure that they will block me if I create a new account. If you argue that I wasn't banned, you'll just get a "you could argue about precise wording...", "your formulation isn't great", and the like. If you insist, they will start censoring you. If you insist more, they will block you. If you create another account after being blocked, I don't see why they wouldn't block you again. As I do not recognize the authority of Jimbo Wales and the ArbCom (who, in my view, are one thing), it wouldn't be a moral problem for me to just create another account, and yet another when that one was blocked, and to start using open proxies as a strategy to beat the dictatorship. It just doesn't look like the best of strategies to me. a.z. 22:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the first thing we should do is to have a place where people can discuss the actions of the ArbCom. The authority that the ArbCom has hasn't been given to them by the community. The community would never give so much authority to such a small group of people, and they wouldn't give them so much authority that there would be no way to take the authority from them afterwards. They can do just about whatever they want. If they can censor you when you question their policies and actions, then there is no way that a policy limiting the powers of the ArbCom can ever be created. That's why I think the first thing we should do is to stop the censorship. Maybe, if we gather a large group of editors using Wikiversity in order for us to discuss how far can the ArbCom go at Wikipedia, they won't be so bold as to censor all of them. a.z. 22:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * (crossposting from e-mail) Wow, this whole thing is quite unjustified. The fact that the ArbCom isn't even responding is just as ludicrous as your original block. And you clearly know what's happening/has happened if anyone tries to ask what's going on onwiki - more handwaving "you can't see this, it's a private matter arbcom only hurr hurr" nonsense. Even if that was the case - the fact that a long-standing editor is blocked and that block is secretly enforced - at least the professional thing to do would be to mail you back some sort of reply detailing why your appeal was denied. It's not a very good sign for a community when open process is taken out in the back and shot, but I really don't think there's any way this can be fixed. Jimbo may be a great project creator but seemingly every time he steps in the encyclopedia or it's workings things start breaking.


 * I would suggest that you attempt to get your story out like the "secret mailing list/Durova'" story - shoot it off to Slashdot and so forth. Perhaps yet another story about idiotic decisions done by a WP bureaucracy may change something, perhaps not, but it's certainly worth a shot? Especially because the person in the other story was only blocked for 72 hours, and you..pretty much indefinitely! Chilling effects indeed.


 * I'd also like to note that if you're going to set up an area devoted to discussing ArbCom that you not turn it into a mini-Wikipedia Review. Don't let the trolls undermine your arguments through guilt by association! Wooty 23:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, Wooty. The fact that the ArbCom didn't respond anything to me was completely unexpected. I had seen that there had been people blocked by the ArbCom, and the ArbCom always talked about "private communications". I thought there would be intensive communication between the ArbCom and the people they secretely blocked. At first, when I realized they were taking too long to reply, I thought that was because it was a complex case and they were trying to figure out what to say, or that it would take long for all the members to communicate using e-mail.


 * Jimbo actually predicted that a disaster could happen when he proposed or created (I'm not sure which) the ArbCom. He said that he reserved the right to dissolve it if the whole thing turned out to be a disaster, but he didn't predict that he could become part of the disaster.


 * I don't know the "secret mailing list/Durova" story. I'll try to research it. Could you elaborate on your last sentence? I don't know what you mean by "undermining arguments by guilt by association". a.z. 00:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What I meant was that Wikipedia Review is a haven for fairly blocked trolls and troublemakers, which tend to be drawn to anything critical of WP happenings like flies to honey (I hope I got that simile right), so don't give the ArbCom any ammunition. If you're going to set up a ArbCom discussion, make sure you keep it civil and fair. Wooty 04:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I got it. Thanks for the advice. a.z. 14:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm learning about the secret mailing list/Durova thing, by the way. a.z. 15:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

If you would like any information, please note that I was one of the first editors blocked for their actions on PAW type articles. Jim Burton 15:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I invited Jim Burton. He didn't have a fair trial.


 * My personal opinion regarding self-identifying pedophiles (which seems to be the reason why he was blocked) is that the Wikimedia's Foundation non-discrimination resolution doesn't allow for policies to be created prohibiting people from identifying themselves as pedophiles while they allow people to identify themselves as homosexuals. Furthermore, the ArbCom shouldn't be the one inventing policies, and it shouldn't create non-written policies, and it shouldn't censor people who want to debate those policies, nor block them, nor censor people who say that it's not ArbCom's job to create policies. I think by default everything should be allowed to be debated, even Wikimedia's non-discrimination resolution can be debated, and NPOV too. Regarding the merit of Wikimedia's non-discrimination resolution, I think it's great and I support it. Regarding whether users should be allowed to say what's their color, gender, what they are sexually attracted to, I'm in favor of that. a.z. 15:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * A.z. <-- Wikimedia wiki projects are not the place to crusade against legal norms. You cannot ignore the phrase "legally protected characteristics" in the Foundation's nondiscrimination resolution. I think you understand that the Wikimedia Foundation was not established as a soapbox for people who are trying to advance an agenda, particularly agendas that are against the grain of legal norms. If you are uncomfortable with these limitations, then Wikimedia wiki projects are not for you. --JWSchmidt 16:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't quite understand what you mean regarding the "crusade against legal norms". I don't think I'm trying to advance any agenda. I'm discussing the ArbCom of the Wikipedia in English. I gave my opinion about a topic. If you think I'm wrong, then just explain why, but don't send me away. I am more than willing to learn what you think is wrong with my interpretation. I am very comfortable with the limitations that I understand that Wikimedia has. Considering that you are a highly respected user here, I think you should be more careful when deciding which words to use. "If you are uncomfortable with these limitations, Wikimedia wiki projects are not for you" sounds like an attack and a threat. I hope you elaborate on your three sentences. As I said, I do not understand what you are accusing me of doing. I think I am acting within the scope of Wikiversity. a.z. 16:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You wrote (above), "Regarding whether users should be allowed to say what's their color, gender, what they are sexually attracted to, I'm in favor of that." Some people's sexual attractions are against legal norms and statements by users proclaiming those attractions is not welcome at Wikimedia wiki projects. The Wikipedia Arbitration Committee has ruled that users are subject to social norms in that their edits should not bring the project into disrepute. Some editors have tried to ignore this basic idea and I think it is fair to say that they have tried to "crusade against legal norms" with their editing. I think you understand that this kind of Wikipedia Arbitration Committee ruling includes statements/findings/rulings about fundamental concepts that implicitly apply to all Wikimedia projects. "sounds like an attack and a threat" <-- I made a simple statement about the realities of Wikimedia projects. It is just a fact that attempts to advance an agenda that is against the grain of legal norms is not welcome within Wikimedia projects. If you feel the need to interpret this fact as an attack or a threat then there is nothing I can do about that. That Wikimedia does not provide a soapbox is just a reality that you need to keep in mind when editing. --JWSchmidt 17:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by "some people's sexual attractions are against the legal norms"? Do you just mean that you disagree with my interpretation of the Wikimedia resolution? If that's it, why saying that I'm trying to promote any agenda or soapboxing? Why not just saying "I disagree with you on that"??? I think that I have the right to have, discuss, and change my opinion on the resolution, and express all of that here. I happen not to think that political correctness should be required on Wikiversity, or in any real world University.


 * Responding to your disagreement: proclaiming pedophile attractions may not be welcome, but it certainly isn't illegal where I live nor in the United States. Could those proclamations disrupt the project? One could think so, but, in my opinion, they wouldn't. As I said above, I would accept that the community of some project created a policy saying that sexual attractions cannot be proclaimed, and I probably wouldn't leave the project if the resolution were changed and a project created a policy that discriminates against pedophiles, but it's unacceptable that people be forbidden to debate the policy and to say clearly that they are against that policy. A policy that forbids people to discuss other policies is just unacceptable, and I don't want to participate in a project that has such a policy. I think the majority of people don't. I think you don't.


 * I utterly disagree that the ArbCom's rulings (whether about fundamental concepts or not) apply to Wikiversity or any other project. I do not recognize the authority of the ArbCom on any matter over any project. Did you even follow the links above, with the censorship? Did you read my talk page? I was editing normally, they blocked me with a ludicrous explanation, the community is against my block, they actively censored attempts to discuss the matter publicly, they told us to send e-mail messages to them, but they do not reply to the e-mail messages (even if they replied, that would by no means justify the censorship), the members of the ArbCom ignored StuRat's questions, the members of the ArbCom were arrogant and evasive when responding to StuRat's questions. The ArbCom is wrong. The ArbCom is a dictatorship. It has the power to do anything. I think the ArbCom turned out to be a disaster and I hope Wikiversity never creates anything similar to it. It's frightening to think that suddenly they have jurisdiction over all projects in all languages! a.z. 17:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I came here because I thought Wikiversity would be a free environment to discuss the matter. I am sad with your reaction, JWSchimidt. You may disagree with me, but there was no reason to say that I was soapboxing and trying to advance an agenda. If you have doubts about my intentions, you can just ask me. I think it was irresponsible of you to suggest that Wikimedia may not be the place for me, considering that I am unfairly blocked on Wikipedia. If I got blocked here, this would be terrible, and you know it. I did nothing wrong here nor at Wikipedia. I will ask the opinion of other people at the colloquium to know whether they also think I'm doing something wrong. a.z. 18:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "What do you mean by 'some people's sexual attractions are against the legal norms'?" <-- some people are sexually attracted to young people and they advocate illegal behavior. "Do you just mean that you disagree with my interpretation of the Wikimedia resolution?" <-- If your interpretation involves ignoring part of the resolution then I think your interpretation is flawed. "saying that I'm trying to promote any agenda or soapboxing?" <-- I did not say that you are soapboxing....I was discussing the fact that soapboxing is not welcome at Wikimedia projects. "Why not just saying 'I disagree with you on that?' " <-- I'm not sure what your position is, so I was just raising some issues that seem relevant. "proclaiming pedophile attractions may not be welcome" <-- It not a matter of "may". Declarations made in the user namespace that are counter to the educational mission of Wikiversity or otherwise disrupt the community will be deleted. Advocacy of specific illegal behaviors is disruptive soapboxing and is not allowed. "it's unacceptable that people be forbidden to debate the policy and to say clearly that they are against that policy" <-- In my experience, wiki editors who loose their right to debate about policy have usually failed to find a way to conduct their debate without disrupting the wiki's mission. "I do not recognize the authority of the ArbCom" <-- Of course, it is not required that you do, but I think there are some natural consequences that are likely to follow from that choice. "Did you even follow the links above, with the censorship?" <-- The person who blocked you at Wikipedia stated that he interpreted some of your editing as being disruptive. Edits viewed as disruptive are generally reverted. "Did you read my talk page?" <-- I've been to your Wikipedia talk page, but I have not read all of the old posts in the history of the page. "The ArbCom is wrong" <-- The ArbCom tries to maintain conditions that allow the encyclopedia to be written. I think it is clear that individual editors can often "get away with" some types/patterns of editing but if there is a perception by ArbCom that a group of advocates for a position is acting in concert and disrupting Wikipedia, then there is a need to act....and that might involve blocking editors who would not have been blocked if they had not been percieved (fairly or unfairly) as part of a larger group of disruptive editors. Is that fair? No, but it is the kind of thing that happens both in the real world....and the virtual world. In the wiki world, the easy solution is sometimes to just start a new account and avoid replicating a pattern of editing that looks like the kind of editing your original account was blocked for. "there was no reason to say that I was soapboxing and trying to advance an agenda" <-- I'm not aware of having done so. I have said that soapboxing is not welcome. "it was irresponsible of you to suggest that Wikimedia may not be the place for me" <-- my comment was a general comment about Wikimedia wikis and it was not specifically directed at you....we were dancing around the issue of how to start a constructive Wikiversity learning project and I was making some general comments about what is not welcome at Wikimedia wikis. I'd like to stay centered on making Wikipedia arbitration committee a useful resource for learning about the ArbCom. --JWSchmidt 21:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Some people are sexually attracted to young people and they advocate illegal behavior.
 * Some people are sexually attracted to young people and they don't advocate illegal behavior. Those are two separate things. As I said, saying that someone is a pedophile is not a crime, and saying that you are in favor of reducing the age of consent is not a crime. I believe that advocating illegal behavior is not illegal in the US, but that doesn't mean I would favor it.


 * I did not say that you are soapboxing....I was discussing the fact that soapboxing is not welcome at Wikimedia projects.
 * I'm against abusing the projects to try to advance political positions as well.


 * Declarations made in the user namespace that are counter to the educational mission of Wikiversity or otherwise disrupt the community will be deleted. Advocacy of specific illegal behaviors is disruptive soapboxing and is not allowed.
 * We agree. If the community decides that it is disruptive to make a certain statement, and makes it clear that people that make such a statement could be blocked (for a reasonable period of time), and that the statement could be deleted, that's fine. Such a policy should be open to discussion on its talk page and on user pages, though.


 * In my experience, wiki editors who loose their right to debate about policy have usually failed to find a way to conduct their debate without disrupting the wiki's mission.
 * No editor has the right to debate ArbCom's policies. They will revert it and tell will to send private e-mails to them. They will protect your talk page. I think I was conducting debate reasonably before I was blocked.


 * In the wiki world, the easy solution is sometimes to just start a new account and avoid replicating a pattern of editing that looks like the kind of editing your original account was blocked for.
 * That's not exactly a solution, if your pattern of editing was acceptable.


 * My comment was a general comment about Wikimedia wikis and it was not specifically directed at you....we were dancing around the issue of how to start a constructive Wikiversity learning project and I was making some general comments about what is not welcome at Wikimedia wikis. I'd like to stay centered on making Wikipedia arbitration committee a useful resource for learning about the ArbCom.
 * I liked the idea very much and I will participate in the project with you. I hope this time no one construes my editing as disruptive. a.z. 23:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Study of the Wikipedia arbitration committee
I think it could be useful to have a Wikiversity study project that examines the Wikipedia arbitration committee. However, such a project would need to strive for a scholarly approach, not just a platform complaints about the nature of Wikimedia. While Wikimedia projects allow "anyone to edit" they are never going to allow people to edit in all possible ways.....there are limits. Some of those limits reflect a rather arbitrary boundary between what is acceptable and what is not welcome in contemporary society. The Wikipedia arbitration committee has had to deal with some patterns of editing that are not welcome, and in general the standards of "not welcome" that apply to Wikipedia are also going to apply at Wikiversity. In my view, the existence of such boundaries is an interesting sociological phenomenon that is worthy of scholarly study. However, Wikimedia projects are not a place to advocate behaviors that are not welcome in contemporary society. There are other forums on the internet where you can advocate anything, Wikimedia wiki projects just are not open forums and it does no good to argue that they should be open forums for everything. They just are not. --JWSchmidt 23:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I like this idea. And I think that Wikipedia is not the place to advocate anything. I agree with Rockpocket on that ("WP is not the place for any kind of advocacy" ). a.z. 01:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course I wouldn't ban someone who tried to use Wikipedia to advocated something. There was an editor that complained that the article on Myanmar was neutral. He thought Wikipedia should take a stand. I would just try to explain that taking stands is not the way that Wikipedia chose to help the world, and that verifiable facts are all that Wikipedia could provide to help Myanmar. I would only support blocking the editor for some time if he started changing the articles over and over again to include his stand, and if he were unwilling to discuss these edits with other editors. a.z. 14:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Typically a user is not banned from Wikipedia for a simple error even if it is a large one. It takes persistent insistence on violating the rules after the rules have been explained and pointed to to get a sustainable ban.  Obviously individual admins can overreact and make mistakes.  A.Z. if you truly wish to use Wikiversity to discuss this issue or even set up an advocacy group I suggest you review the local policies.  Advocacy is approaching or may be firmly outside the scope of the project unless the advocacy project is structured in a fair, balanced, manner and also identified as advocacy.  Perhaps advocates should be required to provide links to opposing views .... I shall have to think about this a bit.   The Wikipedia project has always been up front that their primary purpose is writing and delivering a free encyclopedia to the world.  Anything that conflicts with that goal in the minds of the majority of the current community is immediately tossed off the train.  Wikiversity has a much broader mandate and flexibility but our goal is about learning, not propaganda.   If advocacy is structured such that it is viewed as potentially detrimental to the learning environment make no mistake, many of us will quite cheerfully throw you from this train.  I wish parents and guardians to feel as safe as possible (while using good internet security and usage practice as well as personal oversight of their minors activities) when minors wish to frequent Lunar Boom Town.  Advocacy related activities there or even some freedom of speech might be viewed as inappropriate.  There might room for some discussion of future space settlement constitutions leading to specific legalities and moral isssues and practical issues.   Obviously these are tough issues to tackle and would lead inevitably to many other learning zones around Wikiversity.  Never the less, politics is a mission critical technology which must be developed effectively for space settements to prosper.  Interestly enough, at Lunar Boom Town we might be a little leery of people who insisted on identifying themselves as heterosexuals or homosexuals.  It is not intended as a pickup bar.  Such behavior might adversely impact its primary mission to collaborate on space related learning, technology development and venture formation.  So once again it becomes a matter of prevailing community standards.  I hope you take JWSurf's suggestion to take a scholarly study aproach as I think this has the most chance of success with least probability of damaging misteps and confusion within the active and future users of Wikiversity.  Mirwin 21:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I liked your post. Thanks for taking the time. I wasn't really proposing that we use Wikiversity to discuss and study pedophilia-related issues. I have proposed that before, but that wasn't my intention this time. I just wanted this to be a discussion about the ArbCom. I want everyone at Wikipedia to know what the ArbCom is doing and to have a place where they can debate the ArbCom without censorship.


 * But the issues you brought up are interesting. Wikipedia has decided that it isn't censored for minors. I don't see how the Lunar Boom Town could be safe without censorship. The Internet is not a safe place for children, I think. There are people that could try to get their private information, and to meet them, and to abuse them, and to kidnap them, etc. Trying to make the Lunar Boom Town a safe place for young children seems like trying to dry a small portion of the ocean (the ocean is the Internet in this metaphor). a.z. 23:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Obviously young children need to be supervised by responsible guardians when dealing with strangers, the interent, and with dangerous physical processes. Much can be done by volunteers who become aware of problems with a little creativity.  Mirwin 04:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikiversity is for making learning and teaching content
Hi A.z.

I saw your thread on the colloquium and was puzzled by your assertion that JWSchmidt threatened to block you, because JWSchmidt would never make such a threat. I (SB_Johnny), on the other hand would make such a threat if I had reason to. So if your intention was to get the attention of the "authoritarians" at Wikiversity, you've succeeded: Wikiversity doesn't have an arbcom, but I assure you that I (me, SB_Johnny) am just as opaque and probably just as effective.

If you have something you want to learn about or teach about, please join our meaningfully chaotic community and get something going. If you're here to stir the pot, please go find another pot to stir. And if your here to propogandize for pedophiliac rights, rest assured that I will block you and any IP you edit from.

Sorry to be so blunt, but my gentle friends are a bit too gentle sometimes, and I don't see anything in your contribs that lead me to believe that you're anything other than an articulate troll. Prove me wrong, move on, or get blocked. Up to you. --SB_Johnny | talk 22:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I said "He didn't threat to block me." I can't really prove you wrong because you showed no evidence that I did anything wrong. I really hope next time you criticize me you don't do like Jimbo just saying I'm a "troll". That's not a falsifiable assertion. a.z. 22:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The reason why it isn't falsifiable is that it is a loaded term, i.e., it has no precise meaning. a.z. 22:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's like saying something is cute. How could I possibly prove that something isn't cute? a.z. 22:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

After a comment that someone made on another page saying that SB Johnny issued me a "warning", I must make it clear that I by no means consider the post above to be a legitimate warning of any sort. It's just an attack. I usually dislike censoring even attacks, that's why I haven't removed it and I will probably leave it there. a.z. 20:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Whether you consider it an attack or a warning is of course your perogative. However, I consider it a warning, and it is the only one you'll get. You have done nothing on Wikiversity but criticize and gripe about things you don't like about Wikipedia and its governing structures. You then posted a thread on the colloquium presumably to get more people involved in this discussion, and here I am :). I would personally be a lot happier if you would find something better to do than continue your campaign against the Wikipedians here, but if doing so is helpful to you, I'm not going to insist that you stop. However, if you start doing the sort of things here that got you banned there, I'll be on you in no time, and will block you at your IP. You're obviously an intellegent person and I find it hard to believe you couldn't find some other sort of content to create. I also find it hard to believe that you don't understand why some of your actions on Wikipedia were unacceptable, or why you're on thin ice here. Maybe you could at least try to parse some Arbitration cases that you were not a party to in order to get a better feel for how the ArbCom works. --SB_Johnny | talk 07:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Johnny, you could be more welcoming. I don't think AZ would have made ~7k edits on en-wiki if he was greeted like this. We're newbies in town; show us your userspace policy and hand out some candy canes, eh? :-) XDanielx 09:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I doubt he would have been given the chance to make 7k edits if his first edits there were akin to his last edits there (or even his first edits here). We don't have a userspace policy, but common sense has served us well for most things up to now. --SB_Johnny | talk 14:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikiversity has very few written policies, but it would be an error for anyone to adopt the working attitude of a Wikipedia wikilawyer and try to pretend that they can get away with disrupting Wikiversity as long as they do not violate written policies. Wikiversity has a defined mission and like any other Wikimedia wiki project, disruption of that mission is not not welcome. We feel no need to write down every possible form of disruption and say explicitly that it is not allowed. The rule here at Wikiversity is that nobody is free to make use of their user pages for any old purpose that comes into their mind. "Your user talk page is for discussions about you and your participation in Wikiversity". Some people have a habit of reading things in creative ways, so let me stress that the rule is not, "you or your participation in Wikiversity". We tend to give people the chance to use their user pages to write about their learning goals and their intellectual interests. Then we expect to see them edit constructively in the main namespace. Wikiversity is a collaborative work space, so the learning goals and intellectual interests might be yours, but they have to be goals and interests that fit with the Wikiversity mission. If you have other goals and interests, ones that do not fit with what we are doing here, then it is best that you not mention them. Some people have the false idea that they have the right to disrupt Wikimedia Foundation wiki projects....maybe in the interests of advancing their free speech and some personal agenda or crusade. Posting comments such as this at Wikiversity is always going to be viewed as Red flag because its just a fact that many people who disrupt Wikiversity come here after they get in trouble at Wikipedia. We do assume good faith but we also measure the ratio ofuseful main namespace contributionstooff-topic user space edits.If that ratio indicates that you are not here to edit in the main namespace then you are going to get a warning to "put up or shut up". If this state of affairs makes you unhappy then you are free to leave. People who have been warned and yet try to stay and complain about the reality of how wiki projects deal with disruption are not likely to meet with a happy ending. --JWSchmidt 16:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you are overestimating the intuitiveness of these (mostly) unwritten norms. It's not entirely clear how discussion which isn't constructive toward WV's mission is disruptive to the project; it's not as if regular contributors are forced away from their regular duties. (Perhaps A.Z. shouldn't have advertised this user talk page, but that's another issue.) Some Internet communities are tolerant of such discussions; others are less tolerant. If you're looking to attract mainspace contributors, you could really be less hostile. "Thanks for coming, please have this discussion somewhere else" would have worked fine. XDanielx 20:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That was tried above XDanielx with an explicit invitation to discuss general political issues regarding space settlements at Lunar Boom Town. Yet we now have a specific area to study arbcom specifically rather than general issues and to review its case studies, as if this matters.  As an autocratic body arbcom is not likely to be highly impacted by a scholarly study at Wikiversity.  Some Wikipedians will view this intolerantly, yet we have supported it.  Despite this welcome, we see a lot of wikilawyering about who can do what and how welcoming the community should be.  If you cannot accept a welcome when it is offered; it is not terribly civilized to hang around and whine because you were not welcomed as you thought you should have been. Mirwin 23:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's also not as if there have been no attempts to encourage A.z. to create content relating to his interest, either. He has also disrupted Wikiversity as a whole by his part in using this project to attack Wikipedians (specifically w:User:Clio the Muse). --SB_Johnny | talk 14:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Your block
Hello A.Z., thanks for your email. As you are probably aware, I discussed your block from Wikipedia with StuRat a few months back. While I was certainly puzzled by the turn of events, I was not (and still am not) interested in campaigning against something that I know very little about. Its certainly not clear to me the rationale behind your blocking, but there can be many reasons why the details of certain ArbCom decicions are not publically explained. That in itself is not particlarly disturbing to me.

However, ArbCom certainly should have explained to you the rationale of your blocking. Are you suggesting that the reason for it was not explained to you by the committee or the person that blocked on their behalf? If not, and if they declined to reply when you asked them for the reason, they I would be happy to bring it to wider attention. If they did explain the reasoning, then only you can offer an informed opinion on the merits or otherwise of ArbCom's decision, the rest of us remain in the dark. Rockpocket 01:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * They didn't explain the reason to me. They didn't reply to my e-mail. Nor dmcdevit nor any member of the Arbcom or person who has access to the list have sent an e-mail to me. a.z. 01:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So apart the original blocking rationale:
 * Having reviewed your contributions, I have decided to block you. You have made extensive problematic edits to pedophilia-related articles, including this creation and which amount to pedophilia advocacy, and continue to this day. You have also engaged in ruleslawyering and arguing hard against blocks of pro-pedophilia editors, including Dyskolos. You may appeal this block privately to [mailto:arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org arbcom-l]. Dmcdevit·Dmcdevit 03:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You received no further explanation to why you were blocked? When you contacted ArbCom did you ask which member instructed Dmcdevit to block you, and whether they has discussed it with the committee first? Also, did you ask why all on-wiki discussion was reverted, since there does not appear to be any reason that the issue must remain private. Further, did you ask them why they asked Dmcdevit to block you when there is clearly a potential conflict of interest considering your conversation with him just an hour or so before.


 * These are all issues that concern me. It does appear, based on the timing, that Dmcdevit choose to block you, rather than ArbCom choosing to do so. Secondly, it does appear that "direction to ArbCom" is being used as a mechanism to stifle requests for justification, rather than the implication that this is a necessarily private ArbCom directive. If you didn't ask ArbCom these things then I would suggest you do so now, via email. If you did, and they still provided no answer, while stifling every other avenue you have for querying this, then I think there is something here to raise on Wikipedia. Rockpocket 04:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * On my e-mail, I only addressed the two diffs that dmcdevit presented as the rationale. I tried to show that they were good faith edits. I also talked about how edits' intentions can easily be misinterpreted. It was supposed to be an "appeal" to the ArbCom, so I addressed my sentence, which was that paragraph that you quoted above. I imagined that they would ask questions and possibly present other explanations for the block. I thought we would have a conversation. I didn't make any questions.


 * This was my e-mail:


 * Hello.


 * I am user A.Z. I have been editing Wikipedia since the beginning of this year. I have made a few edits before then, but just a few.


 * I have been blocked today for advocacy of pedophilia.


 * The creation of the article on adult-child sex was one of the reasons why I've been blocked. A section that I added to it containing a discussion between the APA and a psychologist was another reason. I think the article and the section are encyclopedic.


 * The first version of the article was pro-pedophilia. It was just a stub. It was a short article that I created. I created the article with a single reference to the third result from Google when you type "adult-child sex". I expected that other editors would add more information. My primary interest in creating the article was that I would like to read such an article. On the talk pages of pedophilia-related topics, there's a lot of discussion concerning the arguments on whether sex between adults and children is inherently harmful or not. People often say that children are unable to consent.


 * Wikipedia didn't say anywhere that children were in fact unable to consent to have sex with adults, nor did it say whether there was any scientific discussion regarding this. I wanted to have my own opinion on the topic. My opinion so far was just that I had never seen enough proof that sex between adults and children is inherently harmful. For some reason, my feeling is that there can be such a thing as non-harmful sex between adults and children.


 * Nevertheless, I wanted to know what the scientists had to say about this, and what Wikipedia had to say about this. I typed adult-child sex on the search box, expecting to go to a page saying that there was no such article, or being redirected to an article with a different name. There was no redirect. I suggested on the talk page of the WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch that there should be such an article, which would refer to scientific studies on the subject and talk about the views of society on the subject. My opinion was that the studies that people would refer to would be necessarily inconclusive, as I explained on that page.


 * I think all those actions were acceptable.


 * I support the addition of criticism of pedophilia, and of all arguments against pedophilia, against pedophiles, and against adult-child sex. I want Wikipedia to have all that information.


 * I dislike the form of the NPOV policy, but I do attempt to be neutral. I added to the article on Rio de Janeiro the fact that drug dealers burn their enemies there inside a pile of tires. I like Rio, and it could seem to you that adding that would imply that I want to make the city look bad. I added it because I thought it was notable for the article. I almost always can and try to figure out a way to find out how simply adding notable and verifiable information to articles can help the world. In this case, the information may cause people to try to change things in Rio. It may cause foreigners to start saying that Rio is too violent, so people there start becoming really ashamed of the violence and do something about it.


 * In the case of adult-child sex, regardless of whether it is in fact inherently immoral or not, I think the way for people to find out the answer and reach a conclusion is for them to read all possible available arguments on the subject. If the criticism is silly, they will realize it, because there will be good arguments advocating adult-child sex. If the advocacy is silly, they will realize it, because there will be good arguments against adult-child sex.


 * I have no intention of hiding the truth, nor of promoting any agenda.


 * I ask you to unblock me.


 * Artur


 * a.z. 05:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess the next thing I'll do now is to send your questions to the ArbCom. a.z. 05:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. a.z. 05:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, give it a another week or so, since it is the Christmas period, to see if they respond. If the committee still do not provide you with further information, I will bring it up on Wikipedia. Rockpocket 05:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In the meantime, you probably could edit Wikipedia under a different account without sanction, since you have not been banned. However, if you returned to the controversial areas you edited in previously, or identified yourself, then you would risk being blocked again for evasion. Its up to you whether that is against your principles, but if you just wanted to edit quietly and non-controversially then there is nothing stopping you. Rockpocket 05:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

StuRat's say on A.Z.'s block at Wikipedia
Here's my say:


 * On the lack of transparency at the ArbComm:


 * This is the worst aspect of this situation. The ArbComm would not respond to even my most basic questions, like "Is A.Z. banned or not ?".  I suspected that the people blocking A.Z. and locking his talk page were acting without authorization from the ArbComm, but since ArbComm won't even tell me what they have or haven't authorized, how am I to know or take appropriate action if they have ?  They frequently say this is all "to protect the privacy of the person in question" (A.Z), which is absurd, as he wants all this discussion out in the open, as would most people.


 * On "avoiding advocacy":


 * This sometimes seems to take the form of calling anyone who is neutral on an unpopular issue as being an "advocate". For example, I believe there was an article called "child sexual abuse", which, if including children who willingly had sex, most definitely advocates the POV that "children are incapable of giving sexual consent".  While this is a very popular POV, it is by no means neutral.  The article A.Z. created called "Adult-child sex" does have a neutral title.  A pro-pedophile title might be something like "Benefits to children of sexual relations with adults".


 * I deleted the link syntax to the example provided above as I do not wny such an article title in the Wikiversity main space by accident. I have left the other link syntax alone because they appear to be links to actual Wikipedia articles relevant to the discussion.  Mirwin 23:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought the red link shows that there is no such article quite clearly. Without the link syntax you don't know if there is such an article or not.  StuRat 18:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You are correct, the red indicates that there is no article .... until a less informed user or novice or vandal follows the link and leaves some information.  Then the title is in the database.  There is a search function to check for specific titles or topics by keyword.  Mirwin 19:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * A.Z. also corrected some articles containing what would have to be called propaganda. At the risk of being accused of Godwinning this discussion, let's use an example of the Nazis.  Let's say an article on Hitler said he enjoyed urinating on Jews.  If I were to remove such a statement as being unsupported by evidence, would I then be accused of being pro-Hitler and secretly banned ?


 * On what I will do about it:


 * During elections for ArbComm, I intend to ask questions about transparency and vote against any member or potential member who wants to preserve the current level of secrecy at the ArbComm.


 * My advice to A.Z.:


 * I also agree that you should create a new Wikipedia account. Hopefully this will not be blocked.  If it is, hopefully you will get more info on why this time.


 * My advice to Rockpocket:


 * If you can't find any evidence that the ArbComm has, in fact, banned A.Z., then I suggest you unblock his account and unprotect his talk page. Perhaps, at the very least, this will get the ArbComm to finally state their decisions regarding A.Z.


 * If, on request, ArbCom are not willing to explain to A.Z. why he was blocked by their decree, and why it may not be reviewed in a public manner, then I will raise the issues publically. If A.Z. would like to contribute to that discussion, I may unprotect his talkpage. Unblocking is not going to happen without evidence that this block has been abusive. Rockpocket 21:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * AFAIK, ArbComm isn't even willing to acknowledge THAT he is blocked by their decree, much less explain why. Without knowing if they requested the block or if the Admin was acting on his own, I don't even know where to go to complain. StuRat 03:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

StuRat 17:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * AFAIK ArbCom hasn't been asked those questions by AZ. If he does, and there is still no response, then I think ArbCom is neglecting their duties (if you are going to block someone for a year, then you have to explain to them why they were blocked and by what authority). Requesting an explanation is the way forward here. If they explanation is justifiable, then there is nothing to complain about. If not, then it can be discussed and perhaps the community will convince ArbCom that they got this wrong. Rockpocket 19:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think there can be any justifiable explanation. The ArbCom is not supposed to make policies, yet they changed the banning policy, which didn't allow them to ban people without a request for arbitration, and now does (I know that the user who actually changed the policy wasn't a member of the ArbCom, but the change was just to reflect what the ArbCom was already doing).  The arbitration policy also established that "Arbitrators take evidence in public, but reserve the right to take some evidence in private in exceptional circumstances." and "Deliberations are often held privately, but the Committee will make detailed rationale for all their decisions related to cases public." It doesn't matter whether I have asked those questions to them or not. Even if no one had asked them, they would still have to make a detailed rationale, though I think each member of the committee should write a rationale for their vote, otherwise people won't have the information needed to know whether to re-elect them or not. The arbitration policy also states that
 * "Participants involved in cases heard by the Arbitration Committee will present their cases and evidence as directed on a sub-page of the case page, itself a sub-page of requests for Arbitration (...) Parties shall be defined as the user or users named in the case or any advocates they identify. Evidence and brief arguments may be added to the case pages by disputants, interested third parties, and the Arbitrators themselves. Such evidence is usually only heard by the Committee if it has come from easily verifiable sources - primarily in the form of Wikipedia edits ('diffs'), log entries for MediaWiki actions or web server access, posts to the official mailing lists, or other Wikimedia sources. The Committee reserves the right to disregard certain items of evidence or certain lines of argument, most notably if they are unverifiable."a.z. 20:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, StuRat. I think elections are just one way to control governments, but they're by no means enough. I think there should be ways to control the ArbCom after they get appointed or elected, and there should be a policy saying what they can and can not do, one that could be changed by the community, unlike the current Arbcom policy, which only the Arbcom itself can change. I think transparency and a detailed explanation of the rationale for each vote should be requirements in every case. When the case involved privacy issues, it could become secret, if the defendant agreed. I just don't know how the community would be able to give their opinions in such secret cases. I also think that the Arbcom should be a court (and that seems to be how it was first imagined), meaning they can only hear cases brought to them, not actively prosecute people nor create policies (which, in my view, they currently do). a.z. 18:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Good points, but how will we get them to change without tossing out those who refuse to change ? Another issue seems to be that ex-ArbComm members remain on the "mailing list", meaning they have access to the decision making process, which the rest of us lack.  This doesn't seem right to me, if they either chose to leave ArbComm or were elected out, then they should no longer have special access to the current members (one exception might be a brief transition period, so outgoing members can pass off current cases to new members). StuRat 20:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There should be a tossing out process. All of us should have access to the rationales of each vote, so we can judge them, criticize them, choose whether to vote or not for the one who issued the vote, etc. Whether there will be secret conversations or not between them isn't really important, as long as the decisions are public. It's like a judge talking to other people (her assistants, family members, other judges, whoever) before making a decision: who she talked to or didn't talk to is irrelevant, as long as she explains the reasons for the sentence or vote, which all people have access to. I don't know how their mail list should be, though. I guess that, if there is going to be a court at all, it's up to each of the judges to decide who they want to talk to. a.z. 20:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Not meaning to be flip, but is the idea to have a learning project on Wikiversity about understanding Wikipedia's ArbCom (or perhaps even some of their other structures)? If not, why is everyone talking here, rather than there?
 * I do, in fact, think that would be a worthwhile endeavor (I'm a bit curious about arbcom as well), but if we're doing that, it might be a good idea to request participation from the arbitrators, since it seems no-one arond these parts has any clue what their process actually is. I'll leave a note on the arbcom talkpage about it if y'all think that would help. --SB_Johnny | talk 22:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Part of the problem is that ArbComm wants to keep everything secret, from their process for making decisions right down to the actual decisions, apparently. Somehow I doubt if they would be willing to answer any questions.  I've run into a brick wall whenever I asked them anything.  They either don't answer at all or give an "answer" that says nothing. StuRat 02:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I am really disturbed that the ArbCom has not responded and A.z. is not allowed to post on his talk page. I do question the validity of his block on wikipedia, but it's extremely disturbing to know that they are essentially censoring A.z. I think this should be brought up at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboardBstone 05:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It was two or three times, but the threads were promptly removed with brief instructions to send concerns to the arbcom e-list. So that's what A.Z. (and others?) did, but unfortunately nothing came of it. XDanielx 08:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've particularly noticed the new trend by some Admins to say "rather than discuss my actions in public, take your complaint to the ArbComm". Many complaints, questions or comments taken to the ArbComm are then promptly ignored.  The result is that Admin actions no longer require any justification, they can act in an arbitrary fashion. StuRat 18:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The thoughts of xDanielx, in no particular order
XDanielx 08:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) It seems uncertain whether something relevant to Wikiversity will arise from this; certainly possible but nothing guaranteed. We could move this to some other wiki or forum if necessary, but I'd ask that this page not be deleted unexpectedly before the contents can be preserved.
 * 2) As a brief introduction, I'm an editor and new admin on the English Wikipedia, and semi-involved with regard to the events surrounding dmcdevit's block of A.Z.
 * 3) I don't think I've played my (semi-involved) role beautifully thus far with regard to this issue. It's probably reasonable to say that the same is true of A.Z., dmcdevit, JzG, and the current arbcom in general (or at least those who were following the course of events).
 * 4) A brief summary of what happened, as I see it.
 * 5) * A few months back, dmcdevit handed A.Z. an indefinite block for what he saw as pro-pedophilia advocacy. One user (SqueakBox) heartily endorsed the block, one user (Will Beback) reviewed it and reported that it seemed sound in his view, and one user (Rockpocket, who is here with us) expressed what I take to be mixed feelings. Quite a numbers of users (myself included) raised concerns, as seen here.
 * 6) * Two or three threads were raised on the administrators' noticeboard; all were closed promptly. wikipedia:en:User:JzG protected A.Z.'s talk page with a summary of Kids, just say "No!" to drama after removing the various comments that were raised regarding the block.
 * 7) * A.Z. send arbcom an email (posted above) requesting that he be unblocked. There was some talk among others of sending additional emails (I was working on one myself but never got around to finishing); I'm not sure what came of it. I think anyone who reads A.Z.'s message would agree that it was of an inquisitive, negotiative nature, not combative or disruptive. Fred Bauder acknowledged that emails were received, but no reply was given, at least none to A.Z.
 * 8) I think the principle of wikipedia:en:WP:AGF is highly important, but in cases like these tends to be carried too far. When one questions the merits of a block, it tends to be taken as an assumption of bad faith, or something like it. Users often try to appeal blocks politely, when when the person issuing the block makes it clear that they won't change their mind, it's hard to keep up the air of "it was all just a little misunderstanding." On top of that, blocked users tend to be judged according to their blocked status; consequently they are sometimes not taken as seriously as they should be. Getting a ban on en-wp reversed tends to be a steep uphill battle, and I think the fact that A.Z. has yet to be unblocked reflects that. I also think that we should stop treating Good Faith and Bad Faith as a strict dichotomy. Our reasons for doing what we do on Wikipedia are varied and complex from a psychological view. I think by and large editors do generally contribute out of benevolence, but we tend to allow other unrelated impulses to affect some of the decisions we make.
 * 9) I do think that this sheds light on some serious issues regarding the role and workings of arbcom:
 * 10) * Frankly, I think two years is just too long as a term limit. I think it's telling that only one (Raul654) of many current and former arbcom members are seeking reelection, and even Raul doesn't look likely to make it through the process. Sometimes arbiters set out with a great deal of community trust, but thereafter loose much of it (not to the point of being labeled a troll or what not, but to the point of being unsuitable for such a position). Other times arbiters loose commitment (understandably) and activity diminishes. Usually it's a mix. Arbiters are some of the most trustworthy, best-standing members of the community, but the contrast between behavior during elections and behavior at end of term suggests that even such a qualified group of editors needs to be rotated out more quickly. That former arbiters retain a very real influence through private mailing lists aggravates the issue.
 * 11) * On a related note, it's incredibly hard for editors with elevated status to be critical of their own power. Excessive cynicism is disruptive and usually unwarranted, but there's a big discrepancy between reasonable levels of reservation from an inside and outside view. Actions like this reflect that.
 * 12) * Another issue is group dynamics getting in the way of accountability. dmcdevit's block was (reportedly) carried out as an action of the arbcom, so if it was a terrible idea, it's not any fault of his. Someone should have stepped up and acknowledged that a poor call was made, then cleaned up the mess, or at the very least responded to A.Z.'s email. But everyone is busy, and no one really cares all that much, except a handful of people outside of the arbcom. I'm convinced that individually the (former and current) arbiters involved are all good people, and they would have acted appropriately, but when responsibility is spread so thin, people tend to neglect their duties except when impulse (which is often idiosyncratic) compels them to act in a certain way.
 * 13) I think it highly unlikely that A.Z. would still be blocked if the whole thing happened after the Durova incident and the whole wikipedia:en:WP:CEV thing. I also think it unlikely that he would still be blocked if it had happened back at beginning of the arbcom terms instead of the end. Likewise, I don't think any of this would have happened if private communications were eliminated and public rationales were forced.


 * Some excellent comments there. I hope the upcoming election cycle will allow us to purge ourselves of the current batch of ArbComm members, and replace them with a new group that won't try to make and enforce policies in secret.  I intend to ask lots of questions and only vote for those who favor transparency and will limit themselves to the role the ArbComm was intended to have.  I also agree that short term limits would be better, and I'm also in favor of term limits for Admins, having witnessed first hand the corrupting influence of power that has acted upon many long-term Admins. StuRat 01:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Alternative forum?
It seems Wikiversity isn't the best place for this. I could set up a temporary Wiki if everyone is okay with it. I'd rather not use my webspace since it's full of personal info, but it shouldn't be hard to find a free host with the necessary capacities. Any other ideas? XDanielx 20:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm okay with that. I thought the people here at Wikiversity wouldn't mind if we used a part of Wikimedia to fix something wrong happening somewhere else in Wikimedia. a.z. 20:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * People here do not mind if Wikiversity is used appropriately to learn about arbcom: what is right with it, what is wrong with, how it could be improved, etc.  Some of us are very interested in governance of small/virtual community projects and have even extended invitations to create a general study of the subject rather than sticking with a specific beef with arbcom specifically.  What some of us dislike intensely is the apparent willingness to stick to mud slinging tactics without any collection of raw data and useful analysis, and the whining and bitching because we have informed individuals that there will be no sheer advocacy of activities, such as pedophilia, that are highly illegal in some areas and considered highly immoral by a large percentage of the internet accessible population of the planet. Stay or go as you please.  If you stay try to be productive, useful members of this community.  Mirwin 23:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This is really just getting slanderous. "[M]ud slinging tactics without any collection of raw data and useful analysis"? Do you think we're here to disparage the arbcom just for fun? We came to discuss serious issues which most of us have no personal attachment with, and your comments suggest that you didn't study them closely before making these remarks.
 * I set up a Wiki here, if everyone is comfortable with the arrangement. I hope we can keep the discussion there productive, but be assured that I won't intervene (except through normal, non-administrative means). If anyone doesn't like the idea, just holler and we'll figure something else out. XDanielx 01:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for setting that up. If we get kicked out of here then that sounds like a good option, but for now I'd prefer to keep the discussion all here, if we are allowed to do so.  One technical issue, though, I don't see an "Edit" button when I go there, do you have to sign up at the site to edit ? StuRat 18:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I showed a lot of diffs to support my claims. I don't have anything personal against any of the Arbcom members, not even Fred Bauder, Dmcdevit or Jimbo Wales. I think they're just victims of the lack of institutions and checks and balances as much as I am. They just happened to be on the oppressing side, it could've been the opposite. a.z. 01:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Or maybe my lack of hate for them is because of some defence mechanism. a.z. 02:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "This is really just getting slanderous" <-- As I understand the situation, a.z. called Jimbo a dictator at Wikipedia, then apologized, then decided to come here and start again throwing around charges of dictatorship at Wikipedia. Maybe we should have a Wikiversity learning project about slander. --JWSchmidt 02:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I was upset because he called me a troll, then I said I was sorry that I called him a dictator. When I called him a dictator the first time, I was implying that he had bad intentions and that he wanted to be a dictator. Now I'm attributing the dictatorial actions that he and the Arbcom perpetrate to the circumstance that they have a lot of power, like in the Stanford prison experiment.  As I just said, I don't hate Jimbo Wales nor the members and former members of the Arbcom. I can not guarantee that, in their place, I would act any differently. What I am thus proposing are mechanisms to make sure that so much power doesn't stay in the hands of a few. I think there should be a policy that the Arbcom should strictly follow, including the requirement for as much transparency as possible, and that they act like a court, not like policy-makers and prosecutors. I also favor the creation of a commission to whom we would be able to complain about the Arbcom, as suggested here. a.z. 04:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * And I reserve the right to change my mind. About anything. a.z. 04:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Such mechanisms for review already exist. Jimbo Wales' opinion is generally accepted as having a lot of weight; historically he has been able to 'advise' the ArbCom to review past decisions, and to refer to new matters to them.  As well, the entire project operates under the auspices of the Wikimedia Foundation.  The Board of the Foundation has final say in how things happen across all Wikimedia projects.  In principle, a final appeal could be lodged with them&mdash;but I suspect that in the absence of compelling arguments, they would be unlikely to overturn the decision of the Wikipedia community.  In any event, this is the holiday season for many members of the entire Wikimedia community, and a slate of new ArbCom members are due to be announced any day now.  I would not be surprised if the present ArbCom were waiting for the new members to be selected before making any significant decisions.  As a matter of timing, it is likely that appeals would most sensibly be lodged in the new year.


 * What we need is some grass-roots control over the ArbComm (and Admins), such as the ability to recall those who abuse their authority or neglect their duties. Those in authority are quite reluctant to punish others in authority, as that sets a precedent which could effect themselves.  Those in authority also often refuse to listen to those who lack authority, unless they are forced to listen by the threat of recall.  I see the purpose of the ArbComm to reign in out of control Admins, and thus protect the Editors, not to add yet another layer of enforcement on the already powerless Editors.  The case of Durova's block of User:!! is one time where the ArbComm did act to protect an Editor blocked by an abusive Admin, but the "punishment" did not seem to fit the crime.  Durova only "voluntarily" gave up Admin status, when a block for the same period of time as User:!!'s block would have been "an eye for an eye" justice. StuRat 18:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As a note of advice to on your particular appeal, A.Z., have you considered that your conduct might be part of the problem here? Your insistence on repeatedly bringing up the Stanford prison experiment – along with various other slurs directed at Wikipedia, its administrators, the ArbCom, and Jimbo – in nearly the same breath as your demands for your appeal to be (re)heard may not be...wise.  Saying, effectively, "All of you have been corrupted and are mad with the power of your positions!  Repent sinners!  (Note slight exaggeration for comic effect.)  Oh, and could all of you people with terrible judgement see it in your kind hearts to lift my ban?" may not be the best approach. TenOfAllTrades 17:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * A.Z. has been blocked for a long time now, on little evidence presented against him, so any misbehavior on his part has had severe consequences. Misbehavior on the part of the ArbComm and blocking Admins, on the other hand, seems likely to go without any consequence.  This is the cause of the problem, in my opinion, that if you get high enough in the Wikipedia structure, you become "above the rules", and, in fact, can make your own rules and impose them on others.  Such power is likely to lead to abuse. StuRat 18:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The basic reality (call it a "rule" if you must) is that a wiki community has goals and a purpose. Some patterns of editing are disruptive to a wiki and any wiki community that wants to have a chance of achieving its goals and purpose must find ways to deal with disruptive editors. A basic strategy is to give trusted members of the community the ability to deal with troublesome editors. The trusted members of the community are called upon to use their judgment to solve problems. One tool that is used to solve problems with disruptive editors is to block them from editing. "make your own rules and impose them on others" <-- trolls and disruptive editors find a seemingly endless number of ways to disrupt wiki communities. When a trusted member of the community uses the block tool to stop disruption, is it fair to say that this is inventing a new rule? I think not. It is more realistic to say that it is using judgment and an available tool to help the community towards its goals. If a particular pattern of disruption becomes common and there is doubt within the community about how to respond to it then it is likely that a wiki community will take the time to formulate a written rule targeted at that specific type of disruptive editing. A good way to be ignored and viewed as a troll in a wiki community is to persistently complain that you should not have been blocked for your disruptive editing because there was not a specific written rule that outlaws your pattern of disruptive editing. Similarly, persistently arguing that your disruptive wiki editing should be allowed for some special reason (free speech, moral superiority of your crusade, etc) in not likely be effective - it often involves soapboxing in support of a goal that is disruptive to the wiki. Removing disruption with minimal comment and no avenue for appeal is fairly routine in wiki communities because nobody in the community wants to waste time on persistent trolls. If you think there are abusive actions taking place at Wikipedia then document that abuse and take it to one of the community forums for discussion. If you think the whole structure of Wikipedia is so corrupt that a documented case of abuse will be ignored then your best option might be to create your own wiki website and show the world how to do things right. If you want to participate here at Wikiversity, please find a way to make useful learning resources in the main namespace. Endless vague chat on talk pages about dictatorship and abuse at Wikipedia does not fit in with the Wikiversity mission. --JWSchmidt 19:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I do contribute to Wikiversity, at the Help Desk (answering questions, archiving, etc.) and in some of the engineering and mathematics areas. A situation where anyone can be blocked "with minimal comment and no avenue for appeal" simply because someone in authority claims it constitutes "disruption", and where anyone objecting to this will also be punished, will lead to a steady downward spiral in the behavior of those in authority. StuRat 20:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * All the more reason to contribute to a large discussion attempting to bfe somewhat neutral in its overall treatment rather than an individualized whinefest on a user's personal disucssion page. Anyone really think that the opinion of a few dissatisfied users in this format is going to impact arbcom's behavior?  Whereas a larger discussion culiminating in a scholarly paper with some hard data, acknowledged methodology, specific conclusions, etc. could be publicised and eventually even be sent to the mailing list and WMF board might influence a few influential people. Mirwin 23:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * FYI, this page was never intended to impact the ArbCom's behavior. The idea is to discuss some current problems and remedial avenues, not to start a "whinefest." XDanielx 05:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Enough!
To continue discussion on arguing A.Z.'s case, please use the wiki which XDanielx has so kindly set up for this purpose. Or use a mailing list. Or set yourselves up a web forum. Just don't do it here.

To continue a discussion about the assets and liabilities of Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee, please use the main namespace to create learning content on Wikipedia arbitration committee.

This is not the appropriate place for this. If the ability to continue this discussion on this page is just too tempting to pass up, I will protect the page and/or block one or more of you. This is not an attack, threat, or invitation to argue wikirules with me or anyone else. This is a warning, and it is the only one I will provide. --SB_Johnny | talk 20:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * XDanielx, why can't I edit there, do I need to create an account ? StuRat 20:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Update: It looks like you do need to have an account to edit there, and they haven't sent me the email required for verification yet, so something seems wrong with that system. Also, this is a better link for the current discussion: .  Unfortunately, Wikidot doesn't seem to recognize any of the wiki formatting for headings or indents, making what was copied from here into quite a mess.  The edit button is at the bottom of the page, not the top, and they don't appear to support section edits. StuRat 21:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Can't we use a Wiki farm that uses MediaWiki? a.z. 22:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * How about http://www.wiki-site.com ? a.z. 00:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for screwing up the site permissions; it should work now. I've no objection to using a different wiki farm or existing wiki if that is preferred. XDanielx 01:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you create a wiki for us that uses MediaWiki? Everyone is used to using that. a.z. 01:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Good point. How's this? XDanielx 03:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you! a.z. 03:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This is my user page. a.z. 03:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

New forum
As per the above section, XDanielx created this site for us to continue the discussion unmolested. I copied this page over, and all the formatting seems to work, although many of the links were broken (anyone who wants to fix the links, please feel free to do so). You can edit without creating an account, but of course people won't know who you are unless you manually write out a signature and state your name in the edit summary. StuRat 05:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, StuRat. XDanielx 07:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia arbitration committee
Hi A.z. I added some content (or at least questions) to this page, and was hoping you (and the other readers of this page) could help develop it further. Part of the groundwork might be to first try to get Wikimedian Demographics in better shape, with the eventual aim of "polling" Wikipedians about their thoughts on ArbCom and other structures used to organize the Wikipedian community. My hope is that this can be a positive, forward looking project aimed at bettering the "self governance" of all Wikimedia's projects.

Enjoy the new year! --SB_Johnny | talk 15:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Rename
Hi A.z., I can't rename you to "User:Artur" since this account is already registered (and evidently not by yourself). I'm afraid there's nothing I can do here - sorry. You could select another username, or change the way your signature displays in your preferences (but if you use "Artur", it would be confusing if User:Artur started editing). Cormaggio talk 12:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest ArturZ. StuRat 20:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, Cormaggio. You could usurp that user name. If that's not possible, then I accept StuRat's suggestion. a.z. 15:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't feel comfortable with usurping usernames - especially in light of single user login (whenever it emerges). With this in mind, I'll proceed with StuRat's suggestion, and leave it to you to make any negotiations with User:Artur. Cormaggio talk 12:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. When I tried to log in using the old user name, A.z., I saw that it wasn't working anymore so I thought you had changed my user name. I tried to log in with the account "Artur" using my password and it worked. I guess I was the one who registered that account after all (on 15 november 2007, after I created an account with the same user name at Wiktionary). So is it possible to change my name to Artur now? I can edit with that account, if you want me to prove that I am myself. Artur 22:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I accidently made an edit with the other user name, as you can see above. I hope that doesn't ruin my intentions to move this account's contributions to that name. Anyway, I haven't made a lot of contributions to Wikiversity yet, so, if you can't usurp the user name Artur, I'll just start editing with that account. a.z. 22:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)