Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bishonen (talk | contribs) at 18:30, 13 July 2009 (→Predeciding the Durova case: The relief sought.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:30, 13 July 2009 by Bishonen (talk | contribs) (→Predeciding the Durova case: The relief sought.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Use this page to discuss information on the page (and subpages) attached to this one. This includes limited discussion of the Arbitration Committee itself, as a body. Some things belong on other pages:

requesting arbitration: WP:A/R
discussing finalised decisions of the committee: WT:ACN
discussing pending decisions: find the proceedings page at Template:Casenav
discussing the process of arbitration: WT:A/R

Shortcuts

This Arbitration Committee has been mentioned by a media organization:

Ramey, Corinne (May 7, 2018). "The 15 People Who Keep Misplaced Pages's Editors From Killing Each Other". Wall Street Journal.

Misplaced Pages Arbitration

About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)

Track related changes
v t e

WT:AC Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Constitutional query re. proposed Editors Association

I have a question for the committee on a constitutional matter. There is currently an embryonic proposal by Peter Damien to setup a sort of editors union, whereby a editors with a certain standing can establish a self-electing self-serving organisation within the project. This would act toward as yet undefined purposes, but it has been mooted this would basically involve content dispute resolution, and member assistance/representation in behavioural dispute matters, as well as acting as a closed policy discussion forum. A number of editors have already unsuccessfully made it known that it should simply not exist at this Mfd which was raised very early on.

I personally think any proposed group like this is fundementally against basic Misplaced Pages policy, and cannot achieve any stated aim without its existence by definition violating the basic principles of Misplaced Pages (equality of editor's opinions (those in good standing), consensus based discussion, not beaurocracy, not democracy, weight of argument not credentials etc etc etc). Other's disagree, so we have a dispute in play.

In my mind, the normal avenues of feedback / dispute resolution would appear to be moot in this case, as the very presence of a self serving collective would interfere with the determining of any consensus in the conventional forums (Rfc, VP, Medcom). So, constituionally, on the basis that disputes that cannot be handled by any of the lower forums are immediately handled by arcbom, would the arbcom accept the basic dispute over the legitimacy of this group's very existence as a legitimate case or not?

MickMacNee (talk) 00:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I think scale is pushing the limits of some of the principles - demonstrate the harm in a talking shop. --Joopercoopers (talk) 01:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not a talking shop, it is a self-electing, self-serving group. If you want a talking shop, use one of the hundred that already exist and are open to all. MickMacNee (talk) 11:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I am personally unconfortable with this group as stated; I see it as a circling of wagons from a self-selected "elite". That being said, ArbCom does not have initial jurisdiction over the formation of such groups, and I don't expect a case bringing it before the committee would be likely to be accepted at this time. Perhaps the best thing to do at this point is to first wait to see if it (a) will take off at all and (b) what it will accomplish for the encyclopedia if it does. — Coren 02:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It already has the required 20 'acceptances' for inaugural elections to begin , and it is already developing a closed shop mentality , so it's not as if we are too far away from having to deal with a real live group. Knowing how long arbcom cases take, this could be a full blown internal civil war between admins/non-members and the elite, by the time any official judgement is made as to its legitimacy. MickMacNee (talk) 11:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I see no threat to Misplaced Pages stability here so far. If this 'Established Editors Assosiation' cause trouble as a group, then they will be treated in the same way as any 'editing bloc' pushing a POV or causing disruption and risk being banned. I do note, that the stated principles of the group already downgrade Neutral Point of View and The code of conduct to be less important to follow than Reliable Sources and No Original Research, and require members of the group to commit to that principle. And the current members of the association should make attempts to clarify what they have signed up for?

I also note, Mick, that you have been goading the organiser of this. I don't think that's productive behaviour. Try to at least be neutral in tone when you say why you think they're wrong. --Barberio (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has no role to play concerning this issue. Whether groups of editors may organize on-wiki in this way is a policy question, not implicated in any case pending before us, and which the committee as an entity has not discussed and to the best of my knowledge has no plans to.

My personal view is that there should ideally be no points of principle separating between the administration of Misplaced Pages and those who write it—groups whose composition would preferably be, if not identical, substantially overlapping. I am not sure that this new Association will fulfill a useful role. It will certainly hurt rather than help if it supports its members in every situation regardless of its merits, or castigates administrators who spend most of their wiki-time administering rather than content-creating because that is their particular skill-set or because of the exigencies of time. But I can imagine nothing that would inflame any tensions or divisions that already exist more greatly, or be more likely to lead to the conjured "full-blown internal civil war," than for this Committee to attempt to squelch this group of editors, and I know of no attempts by us to try. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Newyorkbrad. I'll go further and say that I hope that the people starting the new association will carefully listen to the views expressed by the people that see problems with it's objectives and be responsive to the concerns. And as well, I hope the people expressing concerns will give the association a chance to see if they are going to fill an unmet need. Most of all, I hope that the people involved in the new organization do not spend too much time in organizational work because many of them are good contributors and that would be a loss to Misplaced Pages. FloNight ♥♥♥ 21:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for those wise words. I disagree with you only where you say that those who police the project, (and by implication carry 'weapons') should overlap in any way with those who contribute content (as opposed to those who fight vandalism and generally work on the front line defence). I do not want to bear arms, why should I? - there is certainly much discussion about the way this organisation could be useful. As for content creation itself, I hope this shows it has not been forgotten, and please watch progress on Theology which is long overdue. Peter Damian (talk) 12:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

You don't want to bear arms, yet you want the ability to ignore those that do when their judgement of your members doesn't match your own. That's a self-elected, self-serving group, policing itself, as opposed to administrators, elected by the entire community, policing the community. I quote "Content editors should have the right of 'trial by peer'. Under the current system, admins punish common vandals, who are scum, in my view, and that is OK. They also punish editors who have worked on the project for many years, as though they are common criminals or vandals. That is shameful and disgusting and an affront to dignity. Content creators should have the fundamental right to be tried (and found guilty if necessary) by their peers, not by some thuggish security guard". I'd be interested to hear arbitrator opinion as to how these sorts of views square with common findings of fact. Bear in mind of course, the current arbcom is one of the many things Peter wants this group to work against when they view their decisions as contrary to their own goals. MickMacNee (talk) 13:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. Arbcom has long insisted that it cannot (or at least should not) make judgments in content disputes. But Arbcom could make use of expert judgment in serious content disputes, as ordinary RL courts do, I believe (perhaps Brad could confirm this). But please note, it is an absolute and fundamental principle of expert witnesses that they should be demonstrably independent. That is why I have proposed some form of vetting for prospective members of the group. Peter Damian (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Self electing groups. Arbitrator opinions are solicited on the issue of self electing groups on Misplaced Pages. MickMacNee (talk) 15:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Premature forum shopping of the worst kind. Failing at Mfd, he brings it here to sound out prospects of an RfAR case, and then, having not received the answer he wanted, there's an RfC against something which hasn't even decided what it's objectives are or indeed how it will elect it's members. Mick, you do realise that just because Peter Damian proposes something, we're not necessarily going to agree with him? I'm starting to find this user's activities rather disruptive of free thought amongst individuals - will someone perhaps have a quiet word? --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Date unlinking bot RFC open

Related to remedy 1.3 of the date delinking case, the community RFC about a proposal for a bot to unlink dates is now open. Please see Misplaced Pages:Full-date unlinking bot and comments at the talk page. The committee will be informed again after the discussion is finished in two weeks. --Apoc2400 (talk) 12:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Now closed, with fairly large support. I have also notified the committee by email. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Timeline changes

Just so the Arbitration Committee knows, I have changed the timeline in that since Jayvdb had his username changed to "John Vandenberg", that I have edited the timelines to reflect the username change . Are these edits okay? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks. — Coren 22:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yellow Submarine Committee

Now that I hopefully have your attention with a silly header, I'd like to solicit your serious opinions. Back in late 06 when I ran for a seat on this august body, a major part of my platform was adopting a subcommittee system, to better handle business. I am glad to see it is now, finally, being implemented. So how, in you Arbs' views and experiences, has it worked so far? How may it be improved? I know election time is usually when these issues come up, but let's take advantage of the slow summer and get the drop on this one:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Now no facile references to Beatles songs in section headers here RDH, though I'd make an exception for "Magical Mystery Tour". Lemme think on that one... :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok...thought about it.....pretty good so far, though others'd be more qualified than me to speak on it :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I think there is value to having subcommittees of arbitrators handling discrete issues that don't require input from every arbitrator. I still prefer the system of having the cases themselves handled by the full committee; I think it's the idea of referring cases to panels or subcommittees that's been controversial in the past, and that still is not being done. (I suppose the ban appeals subcommittee could be seen as a limited step in that general direction, but as a practical matter any appeal that's of a reasonably controversial or disputed nature comes before the full committee anyway, with a recommendation from the subcommittee.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, should have clarified for anyone not up to speed - we have a ban appeals subcommittee and audit subcommittee which have been useful thus far. Otherwise, I second Brad - also more tricky ban appeals we discuss among all of us. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Exxxcellent! Thank you, gents, that's just what I'd hoped they would be: Work, advisory and study groups, but not courts in miniature.

Are there any other arbs who have an opinion on this? Anyone...anyone?--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think you can safely assume that the majority of the Committee is broadly satisfied with how the subcommittees are functioning, since we'd probably be replacing them with something else, otherwise. Whether or not there are more improvements that might be made to this framework is a different question, of course. Kirill 02:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

My own two cents is that they are largely successful in the two objectives they were created for: they give faster turnaround to matters they examine because of the reduced communication overhead, and they lighten the general workload of individual arbs thus improving general response time. Given that they also do the job well, I'm pleased with the results. — Coren 10:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the time and the thoughts. As I was telling (potential defendant:) Durova, I approve of the current AC's direction!. Progress is being made...even if, as so often in human affairs, in spurts and baby steps:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 01:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of permission for OTRS activity on enwiki per ArbCom decision

The title says it all, please see here. Cenarium (talk) 01:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Predeciding the Durova case

Taking a bold step and collapsing. Too often, Wikipedians raise issues of principle as if they were bargaining chips--things to remind others of when one finds it convenient for them to act a certain way. Real principle is what guides one's own actions in decisions that are inconvenient but right.

This thread was started in violation of policy: WP:LINKVIO to be exact. That is a policy I've acted upon many times before, and the right thing to do is to act upon it uniformly. If he exposed a greater wrong, I was the only one harmed by it. So surely I cannot be accused of coverup in a situation where exposure would only help me. Ethical decisions where good people disagree belong in the hands of the individuals who live with the consequences.

Over the last few years people have confided in me in situations where they were unsure whether to trust the Committee's confidentiality: these people were deciding whether to blow the whistle on improper action by Wikipedians in high places; a few had been subject to offsite harassment; a small number even feared for their livelihoods. An indispensable part of ArbCom's mission is to be a venue where people in those situations can take legitimate issues.

The current Committee is almost entirely composed of different people from 2007; this is being reviewed in good hands. My request to the community is to exercise discretion and dignity. If broader questions remain after this instance is handled, please raise those questions then. Both the questions and the responses are likely to be wiser that way. Durova 15:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Once again the iron fist inside the velvet glove eh Durova:) But I will agree with you that dredging up this old muck accomplishes nothing. Those highly regretable 2007 events occurred under what I refer to as The Fred Bauder Court. At that time its main goal was to Get Giano, for reasons both political and personal. They needed a causus and leaking classified info (Talking about Fight Club:) provided them with as good a reason as any. You were simply collateral damage- An accptable casualty and an expendable cog. And thus an ill considered, 75 minute block perminately stains your otherwise commendable record of service. It is also a prime example of why Smoke-filled rooms, especially when they are off-wiki, are bad things. Until you learn the lesson that greater transparency is not the disease but the cure, I fear you will not find redemption.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Durova helped me with an issue when I had concerns of harassment. I had approached her in offsite communication; the matter could not have been handled onsite. I respect her decision to risk the outcome of her own appeal, in order to preserve this level of trust with others. Cirt (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The rest of this enlightening discussion can be found here--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 03:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It's difficult to see how Durova blanking a discussion critical of the Committee's coordinator would "risk the outcome of her own appeal." Her specious appeal to WP:LINKVIO has foreclosed a conversation which can only have deeply uncomfortable for Mr. Lokshin; shall she now go unrewarded?70.90.183.122 (talk) 00:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Extended content
I've just been sent (redacted by Durova per WP:LINKVIO) link with what appears to be arbitrators meatpuppeting to get the arbcom case on Durova accepted. Basically, Kirill Lokshin, arbcom co-ordinator is asking for someone to bring the case forward so he can accept it, and ex-arb Dmcdevit is agreeing to with the proviso that the case is accepted quickly so that it will "deflect the inevitable drama coming way". This is a fairly old case, though its effects are still felt. The point here is that every single case brought forward to ArbCom no has no/little integrity, when we have shenanigans like that going on behind our backs. How do we know that arbitrators aren't meatpuppeting each other to accept/decline cases according to their own preference? It is concerning that the "co-ordinator" of Arbcom, Kirill Lokshin is involved with this, and it makes me wonder how frequently this goes on. It is a violation of arbitration policy, point number 6 when arbitrators are being requested to rule. Like any government system, there is always going to be corruption of some sort, it seems. Majorly talk 22:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Use of words like "corruption" is unhelpful. Beyond that, I was not an arbitrator when the Durova case was decided, so I can't comment on what took place internally on the committee at that time, beyond noting that may have been inevitable that this particular dispute would have come before the ArbCom in some form. Instead, I will respond with a general process question. All of us as arbitrators are also editors and administrators and are frequently aware of issues that are percolating within the community. Should there be a mechanism whereby if we see a dispute boiling over, the committee can reach out and request input on whether we should open a case on our own (nostra sponte, as it were), or should we be bound to wait for the happenstance of whether a user unaffiliated with the committee chooses to bring the case to arbitration? This is not, incidentally, a rhetorical question, but one I have been thinking about for some time, and I can see arguments on both sides. (On the one hand, an issue that not even one user feels the need to file a case on can probably be resolved without arbitration and is likely to blow over; on the other hand, it is frustrating as heck to watch a situation bubble for days on a drama-filled noticeboard, while 15 of the most experienced administrators are contrained from commenting on it lest they be accused of bias should the case later come to arbitration after all.) Community input on this issue would be welcome, particularly since we're in the middle of updating the Arbitration Policy in any event. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC) It is interesting to note that of the parties involved in that discussion, only Kirill remains as an active Arb. Plus he was a mere freshman Arb at the time, though now he's a senior. I don't see why he should be singled out for that reason. Especially since he had the least to say in the matter. Of course sunlight is the best disinfectant for these sorts of things. Which seems to be the direction the committee and the community are moving towards. Away from off-wiki sooper sekret mailing lists and the Don't talk about Fight Club mentality:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 02:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC) I would like to note that the Arbitration Committee and their clerks attract users that are interested in dispute resolution, have high dedication to the project, and ideally, the cream of that crop is taken in. Restricting that group from being proactive in addressing issues is not unlike tying both hands behind our collective backs. More over, as much as I appreciate transparency, I appreciate sensible and proactive actions more.--Tznkai (talk) 03:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Nobody's hands are tied behind their backs. It's really very simple: you can be a litigant, or you can be a judge, but you can't be both at the same time. Jehochman 13:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Majorly, other aspects of this case are already under discussion by the Arbitration Committee, following a submission made recently. What you have posted will be taken into consideration in that discussion. Could you please remove the link you have placed above and e-mail it to us, and we can then confirm whether or not what you are linking to is an accurate copy of the discussions that took place at the time, and look at the surrounding context for that discussion. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 00:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Hi Majorly, would you consider reverting your post? Having once objected to the publication of private correspondence, I am ethically bound to request that all such matters be handled upon the same principle. I was already in possession of that log. If it was your wish to be chivalrous, please respect my wish to treat other people with dignity. Durova 00:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Leave the post. The private correspondence is published off-wiki. It will not go away and any futile attempts to suppress the evidence will just foment more drama. If somebody thinks the evidence is fraudulent, let them say so plainly, rather than by innuendo. Jehochman 12:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Kirill's post below renders parts of my post above superfluous, but my main point stands. If people do come into possession of 'leaked' correspondence like this, there should be a better way to handle it, if only because documents can be altered before they are leaked. In this case, the leak had the potential to disrupt and delay an ongoing (June and July 2009) discussion about that case (i.e. the timing was incredibly poor). Another point still stands: there are other participants in that discussion who may still have expected some degree of confidentiality to be observed. They may still request that the link Majorly has provided be removed - in my view, the summmary Majorly gives following the link, in combination with Kirill's answer, is sufficient, and the link should be removed, though if all those who took part are willing to see the correspondence published, in the interests of transparency, then it should be officially published, not leaked out bit by bit. The final point I want to make is that of context. From my past few months experience on the arbitration mailing list, there will have been a lot more discussion both on-wiki and off-wiki that would put the e-mail exchange in question in its full context (who here, for example, remembers all the discussions that took place at the time?). My concern here is that future leaks should not be taken at face value until the accuracy is confirmed, and the context in which e-mails were written can be assessed. Carcharoth (talk) 07:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC) I'm rather surprised that, of all the things which might be questioned, this one has come up. To address, first, the question of policy: the arbitration policy requires only that the Committee be requested to rule; no restrictions are placed on who may make such a request, or why they might be motivated to do so. If the letter of the policy permits sitting arbitrators to bring cases—which precedent says they may, so long as they recuse themselves from the proceeding—then certainly former arbitrators are similarly permitted. The letter of the arbitration policy was, indeed, met by Dominic's request. If you wish to consider the spirit of the policy, on the other hand, I will say that I do not believe it was the intent of those who wrote it to force us to be willfully blind to obvious problems merely because nobody had yet filed the proper paperwork. Yes, we did desire that a case be brought—but we did so because the community was being torn apart by strife caused by an obviously (and admittedly) mistaken block. If the community truly believes that it would be better for us to sit on our hands while the project burns around us, then so be it; but I cannot believe that we would be expected to have so little care for the health of the project, and I do not think we can be blamed for believing that a judgment from the Committee would be the best way to restore peace and resolve the conflict. It is quite easy to scorn a decision in hindsight; but I continue to believe that we made the best decision we could have under the circumstances as they stood at the time, even if our methods were somewhat unorthodox. As for the allegation that we "predecided" the case itself, which you allude to by your choice of header: by the time the case opened, the facts of the situation were not under any reasonable doubt; the entire narrative had been extensively (too extensively, even) aired across a variety of venues over the preceding days, and the only question left to examine was how we should move forward. Were a similar situation to come before us now, we could simply rule on it with a summary motion, as we have done with a number of cases; but, in late 2007, we simply did not have such a method developed, and were thus forced to continue with a full case despite there being no real need for one. I do not think it was unreasonable for us to begin discussing the content of the decision at the time we did, given that the case had been accepted and that there was no argument as to the facts of the matter. We are called upon to be fair, not blind. If there are any other questions or concerns about this matter, or my role in in in particular, I would welcome them, either here or in another forum. Kirill 01:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC) The conduct was improper, and you should do something about it, Kirill. Discussing a case and deciding how it should turn out beforehand is just plain wrong. I was an aggrieved party in that matter, even though I escaped the attempted railroading. At the time I sent a scathing email to the committee about this case, detailing in particular that the prosecuting party was in on the deliberations via the ArbCom mailing list. Now I see that there was communication between the committee and the prosecutor egging him on beforehand. If administrators are held to higher standards, arbitrators need to be held to even higher standards of ethical conduct. That expectation was not met here. Jehochman 12:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC) I have no problem with an arbitrator filing a request for arbitration, as long as they don't discuss it beforehand with the committee members who will be reviewing the case, and they fully recuse from the deliberations, including removing themselves from the mailing list threads that discuss the case. My objection here is to 1/ the predetermination of the result, 2/ there being an agreement to handle the case so swiftly that time was not even allowed for the accused to present their evidence, and 3/ several parties did not recuse when they were in on bringing the case. Jehochman 12:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC) As I've stated above, the facts of the matter had ceased to be in dispute long before the case was filed or accepted. It is unreasonable, I think, to say that we had already decided the outcome when there was, in very real terms, nothing left to decide; the case was, in some sense, merely an exercise in setting obvious truths on paper. Or do you honestly believe that there could conceivably have been some defense presented, or some evidence produced, that would have disproved those facts? Fairness does not require ignoring the obvious, nor maintaining a false pretense of uncertainty long past the point where those at fault have already admitted their actions. I apologize for the unorthodox way this case was brought before the Committee, and for the haste with which it was handled; neither of these aspects were ideal, and we have collectively taken steps to prevent their recurrence. I remain convinced, however, that the path we chose at the time was the best of the bad ones presented to us. There was no good way of resolving the strife and healing the rift within the community at that point; all we could do was to try and end the conflict as quickly as possible, and hope that people would eventually forgive and forget. If the verdict, in hindsight, is that we chose poorly, so be it; but do you believe that, knowing what we did under the circumstances, we could have found a better approach? Kirill 13:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC) I don't think the case resolved anything. Durova was requesting time to present her side of the story. As the end approached I told her that the decision appeared to have already been decided, as you have here confirmed. At that point she resigned. It was her action that ended the drama, not the Committee's. You should thank her. I am glad you now see that the matter was handled poorly by the Committee. It was a show trial. For the future, if you accept a case you need to accept it with an open mind and allow all parties a fair chance to present their evidence and ideas. Your acknowledgment satisfies my concerns. You should ask Durova what steps may be necessary to satisfy hers. Jehochman 14:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Kirill Lokshin wrote, "If the letter of the policy permits sitting arbitrators to bring cases—which precedent says they may, so long as they recuse themselves from the proceeding—then certainly former arbitrators are similarly permitted." No one is saying that Dmcdevit couldn't request a case because he is a former arbitrator - though in light of the collusion on display here, such a rule might be a very good idea! It seems to me that the real issue here is than he pretended on-wiki to request one on his own accord, but actually was just responding to Kirill's solicitation, while Kirill's "accept" didn’t mention the fact that he was accepting his own request, laundered through Dmcdevit. Though here Kirill calls it "unorthodox," in private, he's characterized such solicitations as an ArbCom tradition. Since Kirill maintains that this is a legitimate method of doing business, I wonder if he would be willing to provide a full list of case requests which were proxied by the Arbitrators?70.90.183.122 (talk) 23:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC) I can't recall ever having referred to the events that took place in this case, or anything like them, as a tradition, and I don't think there's any conceivable reason to consider them as such; off the top of my head, I cannot remember any other case that was brought about in a similar way. The Matthew Hoffman case was brought by a sitting arbitrator, and the Orangemarlin fiasco last year happened entirely sua sponte to begin with; but neither of those is really the same. (Not that something being a "tradition" would be any indication that it's a good way of doing things, in any case. Having former arbitrators on arbcom-l was a tradition for years, for example, and yet something we've chosen to do away with.) The scenario that played itself out in the Durova case was extraordinary in a number of ways, and those of us on the Committee at the time agonized considerably over how we could best help resolve the conflict, presented as we were with a number of choices, none of which were truly good ones. We may, indeed, have acted too directly, or too forcefully; but it is easy to condemn when one has the benefit of hindsight. I have apologized for the approach we took in bringing this case about, and for our haste in trying to resolve it; and I regret that we may have inadvertently made worse a situation which we were trying to make better. I can offer no apology for doing my best to carry out my duties as an arbitrator for the benefit of the project, or for trying to resolve a conflict rather than standing idly by. Kirill 01:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Fair enough. Can you look into who's been leaking private correspondence from the ArbCom mailing list? It is going to discourage people from writing to ArbCom about sensistive matters if they feel their correspondence may be published afterwards without their permission. Jehochman 01:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC) The evidence we have points to a leak of old list archives sometime late last year. We have been unable, as yet, to determine who was responsible; in the absence of any substantive evidence, the matter remains firmly in the realm of speculation . We have, however, taken certain steps to tighten security, and we believe that the arbcom-l list is currently secure. Kirill 02:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC) presumably you believed that before as well? ;-) - something that I've been curious about though - do you actually know who each other are? (have you identified to each other, as well as to the foundation?) - finally, (really just to Kirill) - what do you think about some sort of a wiki FoI policy? Privatemusings (talk) 06:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC) There isn't necessarily a formal identification process internal to ArbCom, but, informally, I think everyone's identity is known by some or all of the other arbitrators. As far as FoI and similar things go: I suggested, at one point, that we "de-classify" anything in the arbcom-l archives that doesn't actually contain private information some fixed period (e.g. 3 years) after the discussions in question. Unfortunately, it's not always clear what is or isn't private, and we don't really have the manpower to sort through thousands of old emails carefully. Some sort of FoI-like "release after inquiry" approach might be feasible, at least in theory; but I'm not sure how we could set it up in practice. It's something that should probably be discussed further at some point. Kirill 12:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Could we please publish a direction to users that the ArbCom list, while generally confidential, does occasionally suffer leaks, and that any truly sensistive matter should be directed to WP:OTRS instead? The general rule should be don't write anything to ArbCom that you wouldn't want to see published. Jehochman 12:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Without ignoring your concern about confidentiality, Jehochman, the overwhelming majority of email messages that are directed to Arbcom-L involve something that is uniquely within the scope of the Arbitration Committee, and sending the same material to OTRS will most likely result in OTRS admins referring the matter to Arbcom (I assume with the permission of the sender) or being unable to take action on it. To be honest, if someone is going to leak private mailing list information, there's no reason to think they won't also leak private OTRS information. Risker (talk) 12:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC) A few posts above, Jehochman suggests that Kirill Lokshin contact me to ask what steps may be necessary to satisfy my concerns. Jehochman himself has not contacted me regarding what my concerns are, his representations are unreliable, and the best thing Jehochman could do to satisfy me is to avoid all further involvement in this matter. Durova 05:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC) doesn't he just say that they should ask you? am I missing something? Your post sounds a bit grumbly, but I can't work out why.... /me scratches head and looks confused (no jokes about not being able to tell the difference, thank you very much.......). Privatemusings (talk) 06:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Extended content

I've just been sent (redacted by Durova per WP:LINKVIO) link with what appears to be arbitrators meatpuppeting to get the arbcom case on Durova accepted. Basically, Kirill Lokshin, arbcom co-ordinator is asking for someone to bring the case forward so he can accept it, and ex-arb Dmcdevit is agreeing to with the proviso that the case is accepted quickly so that it will "deflect the inevitable drama coming way".

This is a fairly old case, though its effects are still felt. The point here is that every single case brought forward to ArbCom no has no/little integrity, when we have shenanigans like that going on behind our backs. How do we know that arbitrators aren't meatpuppeting each other to accept/decline cases according to their own preference? It is concerning that the "co-ordinator" of Arbcom, Kirill Lokshin is involved with this, and it makes me wonder how frequently this goes on. It is a violation of arbitration policy, point number 6 when arbitrators are being requested to rule. Like any government system, there is always going to be corruption of some sort, it seems. Majorly talk 22:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Use of words like "corruption" is unhelpful. Beyond that, I was not an arbitrator when the Durova case was decided, so I can't comment on what took place internally on the committee at that time, beyond noting that may have been inevitable that this particular dispute would have come before the ArbCom in some form. Instead, I will respond with a general process question. All of us as arbitrators are also editors and administrators and are frequently aware of issues that are percolating within the community. Should there be a mechanism whereby if we see a dispute boiling over, the committee can reach out and request input on whether we should open a case on our own (nostra sponte, as it were), or should we be bound to wait for the happenstance of whether a user unaffiliated with the committee chooses to bring the case to arbitration? This is not, incidentally, a rhetorical question, but one I have been thinking about for some time, and I can see arguments on both sides. (On the one hand, an issue that not even one user feels the need to file a case on can probably be resolved without arbitration and is likely to blow over; on the other hand, it is frustrating as heck to watch a situation bubble for days on a drama-filled noticeboard, while 15 of the most experienced administrators are contrained from commenting on it lest they be accused of bias should the case later come to arbitration after all.) Community input on this issue would be welcome, particularly since we're in the middle of updating the Arbitration Policy in any event. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It is interesting to note that of the parties involved in that discussion, only Kirill remains as an active Arb. Plus he was a mere freshman Arb at the time, though now he's a senior. I don't see why he should be singled out for that reason. Especially since he had the least to say in the matter. Of course sunlight is the best disinfectant for these sorts of things. Which seems to be the direction the committee and the community are moving towards. Away from off-wiki sooper sekret mailing lists and the Don't talk about Fight Club mentality:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 02:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to note that the Arbitration Committee and their clerks attract users that are interested in dispute resolution, have high dedication to the project, and ideally, the cream of that crop is taken in. Restricting that group from being proactive in addressing issues is not unlike tying both hands behind our collective backs. More over, as much as I appreciate transparency, I appreciate sensible and proactive actions more.--Tznkai (talk) 03:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Nobody's hands are tied behind their backs. It's really very simple: you can be a litigant, or you can be a judge, but you can't be both at the same time. Jehochman 13:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Majorly, other aspects of this case are already under discussion by the Arbitration Committee, following a submission made recently. What you have posted will be taken into consideration in that discussion. Could you please remove the link you have placed above and e-mail it to us, and we can then confirm whether or not what you are linking to is an accurate copy of the discussions that took place at the time, and look at the surrounding context for that discussion. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 00:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Majorly, would you consider reverting your post? Having once objected to the publication of private correspondence, I am ethically bound to request that all such matters be handled upon the same principle. I was already in possession of that log. If it was your wish to be chivalrous, please respect my wish to treat other people with dignity. Durova 00:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Leave the post. The private correspondence is published off-wiki. It will not go away and any futile attempts to suppress the evidence will just foment more drama. If somebody thinks the evidence is fraudulent, let them say so plainly, rather than by innuendo. Jehochman 12:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Kirill's post below renders parts of my post above superfluous, but my main point stands. If people do come into possession of 'leaked' correspondence like this, there should be a better way to handle it, if only because documents can be altered before they are leaked. In this case, the leak had the potential to disrupt and delay an ongoing (June and July 2009) discussion about that case (i.e. the timing was incredibly poor). Another point still stands: there are other participants in that discussion who may still have expected some degree of confidentiality to be observed. They may still request that the link Majorly has provided be removed - in my view, the summmary Majorly gives following the link, in combination with Kirill's answer, is sufficient, and the link should be removed, though if all those who took part are willing to see the correspondence published, in the interests of transparency, then it should be officially published, not leaked out bit by bit. The final point I want to make is that of context. From my past few months experience on the arbitration mailing list, there will have been a lot more discussion both on-wiki and off-wiki that would put the e-mail exchange in question in its full context (who here, for example, remembers all the discussions that took place at the time?). My concern here is that future leaks should not be taken at face value until the accuracy is confirmed, and the context in which e-mails were written can be assessed. Carcharoth (talk) 07:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm rather surprised that, of all the things which might be questioned, this one has come up.

To address, first, the question of policy: the arbitration policy requires only that the Committee be requested to rule; no restrictions are placed on who may make such a request, or why they might be motivated to do so. If the letter of the policy permits sitting arbitrators to bring cases—which precedent says they may, so long as they recuse themselves from the proceeding—then certainly former arbitrators are similarly permitted. The letter of the arbitration policy was, indeed, met by Dominic's request.

If you wish to consider the spirit of the policy, on the other hand, I will say that I do not believe it was the intent of those who wrote it to force us to be willfully blind to obvious problems merely because nobody had yet filed the proper paperwork. Yes, we did desire that a case be brought—but we did so because the community was being torn apart by strife caused by an obviously (and admittedly) mistaken block. If the community truly believes that it would be better for us to sit on our hands while the project burns around us, then so be it; but I cannot believe that we would be expected to have so little care for the health of the project, and I do not think we can be blamed for believing that a judgment from the Committee would be the best way to restore peace and resolve the conflict. It is quite easy to scorn a decision in hindsight; but I continue to believe that we made the best decision we could have under the circumstances as they stood at the time, even if our methods were somewhat unorthodox.

As for the allegation that we "predecided" the case itself, which you allude to by your choice of header: by the time the case opened, the facts of the situation were not under any reasonable doubt; the entire narrative had been extensively (too extensively, even) aired across a variety of venues over the preceding days, and the only question left to examine was how we should move forward. Were a similar situation to come before us now, we could simply rule on it with a summary motion, as we have done with a number of cases; but, in late 2007, we simply did not have such a method developed, and were thus forced to continue with a full case despite there being no real need for one. I do not think it was unreasonable for us to begin discussing the content of the decision at the time we did, given that the case had been accepted and that there was no argument as to the facts of the matter. We are called upon to be fair, not blind.

If there are any other questions or concerns about this matter, or my role in in in particular, I would welcome them, either here or in another forum. Kirill 01:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The conduct was improper, and you should do something about it, Kirill. Discussing a case and deciding how it should turn out beforehand is just plain wrong. I was an aggrieved party in that matter, even though I escaped the attempted railroading. At the time I sent a scathing email to the committee about this case, detailing in particular that the prosecuting party was in on the deliberations via the ArbCom mailing list. Now I see that there was communication between the committee and the prosecutor egging him on beforehand. If administrators are held to higher standards, arbitrators need to be held to even higher standards of ethical conduct. That expectation was not met here. Jehochman 12:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with an arbitrator filing a request for arbitration, as long as they don't discuss it beforehand with the committee members who will be reviewing the case, and they fully recuse from the deliberations, including removing themselves from the mailing list threads that discuss the case. My objection here is to 1/ the predetermination of the result, 2/ there being an agreement to handle the case so swiftly that time was not even allowed for the accused to present their evidence, and 3/ several parties did not recuse when they were in on bringing the case. Jehochman 12:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

As I've stated above, the facts of the matter had ceased to be in dispute long before the case was filed or accepted. It is unreasonable, I think, to say that we had already decided the outcome when there was, in very real terms, nothing left to decide; the case was, in some sense, merely an exercise in setting obvious truths on paper. Or do you honestly believe that there could conceivably have been some defense presented, or some evidence produced, that would have disproved those facts? Fairness does not require ignoring the obvious, nor maintaining a false pretense of uncertainty long past the point where those at fault have already admitted their actions.

I apologize for the unorthodox way this case was brought before the Committee, and for the haste with which it was handled; neither of these aspects were ideal, and we have collectively taken steps to prevent their recurrence. I remain convinced, however, that the path we chose at the time was the best of the bad ones presented to us. There was no good way of resolving the strife and healing the rift within the community at that point; all we could do was to try and end the conflict as quickly as possible, and hope that people would eventually forgive and forget. If the verdict, in hindsight, is that we chose poorly, so be it; but do you believe that, knowing what we did under the circumstances, we could have found a better approach? Kirill 13:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the case resolved anything. Durova was requesting time to present her side of the story. As the end approached I told her that the decision appeared to have already been decided, as you have here confirmed. At that point she resigned. It was her action that ended the drama, not the Committee's. You should thank her. I am glad you now see that the matter was handled poorly by the Committee. It was a show trial. For the future, if you accept a case you need to accept it with an open mind and allow all parties a fair chance to present their evidence and ideas. Your acknowledgment satisfies my concerns. You should ask Durova what steps may be necessary to satisfy hers. Jehochman 14:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin wrote, "If the letter of the policy permits sitting arbitrators to bring cases—which precedent says they may, so long as they recuse themselves from the proceeding—then certainly former arbitrators are similarly permitted."

No one is saying that Dmcdevit couldn't request a case because he is a former arbitrator - though in light of the collusion on display here, such a rule might be a very good idea! It seems to me that the real issue here is than he pretended on-wiki to request one on his own accord, but actually was just responding to Kirill's solicitation, while Kirill's "accept" didn’t mention the fact that he was accepting his own request, laundered through Dmcdevit.

Though here Kirill calls it "unorthodox," in private, he's characterized such solicitations as an ArbCom tradition. Since Kirill maintains that this is a legitimate method of doing business, I wonder if he would be willing to provide a full list of case requests which were proxied by the Arbitrators?70.90.183.122 (talk) 23:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't recall ever having referred to the events that took place in this case, or anything like them, as a tradition, and I don't think there's any conceivable reason to consider them as such; off the top of my head, I cannot remember any other case that was brought about in a similar way. The Matthew Hoffman case was brought by a sitting arbitrator, and the Orangemarlin fiasco last year happened entirely sua sponte to begin with; but neither of those is really the same.

(Not that something being a "tradition" would be any indication that it's a good way of doing things, in any case. Having former arbitrators on arbcom-l was a tradition for years, for example, and yet something we've chosen to do away with.)

The scenario that played itself out in the Durova case was extraordinary in a number of ways, and those of us on the Committee at the time agonized considerably over how we could best help resolve the conflict, presented as we were with a number of choices, none of which were truly good ones. We may, indeed, have acted too directly, or too forcefully; but it is easy to condemn when one has the benefit of hindsight.

I have apologized for the approach we took in bringing this case about, and for our haste in trying to resolve it; and I regret that we may have inadvertently made worse a situation which we were trying to make better. I can offer no apology for doing my best to carry out my duties as an arbitrator for the benefit of the project, or for trying to resolve a conflict rather than standing idly by. Kirill 01:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Can you look into who's been leaking private correspondence from the ArbCom mailing list? It is going to discourage people from writing to ArbCom about sensistive matters if they feel their correspondence may be published afterwards without their permission. Jehochman 01:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The evidence we have points to a leak of old list archives sometime late last year. We have been unable, as yet, to determine who was responsible; in the absence of any substantive evidence, the matter remains firmly in the realm of speculation .

We have, however, taken certain steps to tighten security, and we believe that the arbcom-l list is currently secure. Kirill 02:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

presumably you believed that before as well? ;-) - something that I've been curious about though - do you actually know who each other are? (have you identified to each other, as well as to the foundation?) - finally, (really just to Kirill) - what do you think about some sort of a wiki FoI policy? Privatemusings (talk) 06:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

There isn't necessarily a formal identification process internal to ArbCom, but, informally, I think everyone's identity is known by some or all of the other arbitrators.

As far as FoI and similar things go: I suggested, at one point, that we "de-classify" anything in the arbcom-l archives that doesn't actually contain private information some fixed period (e.g. 3 years) after the discussions in question. Unfortunately, it's not always clear what is or isn't private, and we don't really have the manpower to sort through thousands of old emails carefully. Some sort of FoI-like "release after inquiry" approach might be feasible, at least in theory; but I'm not sure how we could set it up in practice. It's something that should probably be discussed further at some point. Kirill 12:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Could we please publish a direction to users that the ArbCom list, while generally confidential, does occasionally suffer leaks, and that any truly sensistive matter should be directed to WP:OTRS instead? The general rule should be don't write anything to ArbCom that you wouldn't want to see published. Jehochman 12:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Without ignoring your concern about confidentiality, Jehochman, the overwhelming majority of email messages that are directed to Arbcom-L involve something that is uniquely within the scope of the Arbitration Committee, and sending the same material to OTRS will most likely result in OTRS admins referring the matter to Arbcom (I assume with the permission of the sender) or being unable to take action on it. To be honest, if someone is going to leak private mailing list information, there's no reason to think they won't also leak private OTRS information. Risker (talk) 12:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

A few posts above, Jehochman suggests that Kirill Lokshin contact me to ask what steps may be necessary to satisfy my concerns. Jehochman himself has not contacted me regarding what my concerns are, his representations are unreliable, and the best thing Jehochman could do to satisfy me is to avoid all further involvement in this matter. Durova 05:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

doesn't he just say that they should ask you? am I missing something? Your post sounds a bit grumbly, but I can't work out why.... /me scratches head and looks confused (no jokes about not being able to tell the difference, thank you very much.......). Privatemusings (talk) 06:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Above (collapsed) Newyorkbrad writes a question to the community that worries me a little:

Should there be a mechanism whereby if we see a dispute boiling over, the committee can reach out and request input on whether we should open a case on our own (nostra sponte, as it were), or should we be bound to wait for the happenstance of whether a user unaffiliated with the committee chooses to bring the case to arbitration? This is not, incidentally, a rhetorical question, but one I have been thinking about for some time, and I can see arguments on both sides. (On the one hand, an issue that not even one user feels the need to file a case on can probably be resolved without arbitration and is likely to blow over; on the other hand, it is frustrating as heck to watch a situation bubble for days on a drama-filled noticeboard, while 15 of the most experienced administrators are contrained from commenting on it lest they be accused of bias should the case later come to arbitration after all.) Community input on this issue would be welcome, particularly since we're in the middle of updating the Arbitration Policy in any event. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know that the arbcom was so strictly enjoined from opening a case sua sponte. Of course the committee also deals with stuff that doesn't exactly amount to opening cases. I'd like to know if other similar matters must also be addressed by the "happenstance" of an unaffilated user bringing them to the committee, or else be ignored? To exemplify: if I want the arbcom to deal with the issue of Jimbo Wales's "Jimbo block" of myself on May 22 (which I do), would it be an advantage for me to file a case about it? If I don't file one, might I find it dismissed as something that "can probably be resolved without arbitration and is likely to blow over" ? It's a matter which it seems fair to characterize as "boiling over", after recently being subject to mediation. A pretty unique question, I realize—uncharted waters—but can the committee be relied on to deal with it as far as in them lies—somehow—I obviously don't know what, if anything, they might do—or is anything like that up to me? Ought I to bring it to the committee's attention if I want them to take notice of it? Does the involvement of a GodKing make it more, or perhaps less, necessary for me to act for myself? Bishonen | talk 18:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC). Please do not collapse this. It's a (multi-headed) question for the committee, and I want them to see it. Bishonen | talk 18:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC).

In general, yes. If you feel attention should be given to what you feel is admin misbehavior, then it needs to be brought to the committee as we have no generally applicable mechanism to deal with incidents we do see but for which we have not been requested to intervene. In fact, my recent break had to do with the necessity to step back from the frustrating situation of being unable to do something I felt was important because our hands are tied exactly that way.

That being said, in general we pretty much decline to intervene is short blocks (mostly out of practicality, any short block would have long expired before we could render a decision), unless there is a pattern of egregious misbehavior to examine and a case can be made for it. — Coren 12:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a disappointing, kind of stunted and lawyerly, reply, Coren. OK, I did ask a question; I didn't post in order to hold forth on my own opinions. But even so... as I said, it's a pretty unique question, and I request that you address it as such. Surely you're aware that the length of the block doesn't come into it; that Jimbo Wales' use of his tools isn't common or garden "admin misbehaviour", regardless of when it took place; that there is a pattern of egregious misbehaviour (see examples at User talk:Bishonen/block discussion); and that this is a GodKing we're talking about. Could I have a more responsive reply, please? I can't believe that Coren's is the sum of the committee's views on my query. Bishonen | talk 14:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC).

No, it's just my own. At any rate, part of the reason why my answer was vague is that your question was vague: if you told me what you expected the committee to be able to do in that case, I'd be in a much better position to tell you how to go about it. You'll find that (mirroring the community) the arbitrators' positions on the propriety and well-founded of Jimbo's block is varied but that unless you contend this is a valid case for an emergency desysop there is nothing ArbCom can do on its own impetus. In other words, what relief do you seek? — Coren 15:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

What relief do I seek? Let me see... OK, I seek an acknowledgement from either the blocking admin (Jimbo Wales) or the arbitration committee in my log that the block was wrongful. And I further seek an admonishment of Jimbo Wales by the committee. I'll be glad to suggest some suitable phrasing of that admonishment if desired. Now that I've said so, can/will the arbcom act under its own steam? Or not? Bishonen | talk 18:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC).

Shortest. Wikibreak. Ever.

Given the recent attritions to the Committee, I felt it wiser to cut short what I had intended to be a considerably longer break away from the Wiki and am returning to duty. I very much empathize with my colleagues frustrations at having our hands tied most of the time combined with the certainty that no matter what the committee does (or does not do) there will always be a number of editors willing to jump at the opportunity to attack the committee and its volunteers with surprising bile and viciousness.

While none of us signed up under the impression that we would be loved and paraded, it does tend to affect one's morale over time no matter how much we attempt to harden ourselves to this inevitable reality. Nevertheless, I don't believe that a committee that has whittled down to less than a dozen members is healthy.

Thank you to all of you who offered words of support and wishes for my return during my (short) break. — Coren 12:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back! FloNight ♥♥♥ 12:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

In response to Coren's comment above, I profess my love for the Arbitration Committee, and I am totally willing to parade this fact on my user page if ArbCom members can provide a suitable userbox. Wikipedians should be aware that ArbCom is very important for the project, and there really aren't any upsides to being a member of the committee. You guys deserve more credit than you get, and I hope Kirill and Rlevse can be coaxed back in. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I am very glad that you're back, Coren! :) — Aitias // discussion 14:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:

Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press