Wikipedia talk:Arbitrator–administrators

Comment

"This can be read to mean any block for reasons other than emergency situations, or blatant vandalism." - seems to exclude acting even when supported by a strong on-wiki consensus. Might want to modify language to permit that as it shouldn't be controvesial. On the other hand though, if there is a clear consensus then you'd think there'd be another admin around to inmplement it. 217.28.2.130 (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Pros and cons

I've been thinking about this issue a bit myself recently, so let's get the discussion started with a listing of what I see as advantages and disadvantages of this proposal.

Advantages:

1. Eliminates the perception that an administrator action (or statement that action is contemplated) has greater weight coming from a sitting arbitrator than from an "ordinary" admin.
2. Reduces the number of instances in which arbitrators must recuse from arbitration requests or cases because they were involved in the underlying dispute.
3. Arguably reduces the overall potential for "drama" in these situations.
4. Reduces workload for arbitrators by eliminating the temptation to get involved in non-arbitration controversies, allowing them to focus on ArbCom business and related (e.g. checkuser, oversight) responsibilities.

Disadvantages:

1. There is sometimes a fear expressed that administrators, once they pass RfA, become a separate category of users, separated from ordinary editing. This policy would institutionalize a parallel separation between the arbitrators and ordinary administrating that may not be desirable and may cut them off with familiarity with current norms of admin behavior.
2. Arbitrators, of whom there are now 18, are usually chosen from our most active, experienced, clueful administrators who enjoy community support for their good judgment and level-headedness. Disabling 18 such administrators from dealing with contentious issues could be a pretty significant dent in the admin pool.
3. Since only a small fraction of issues wind up in arbitration, disables some of our most experienced admins from addressing issues. Ironically, this in turn increases the chances the issues will wind up in arbitration, which is usually our most complex, protracted, and contentious form of dispute resolution.
4. Line-drawing issues in deciding which actions are "routine" and which are contentious.

Comments appreciated. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment This is a good idea that deserves to be explored. Despite the disadvantages, arbitrators do need to be perceived as "above the fray" in my opinion. It may just be my imagination, but the number of situations in which the impartiality of actions taken by arbitrators is being questioned seems to be increasing. The proposed policy exempts uncontroversial cases, although I suppose at times the "exemptions" could be disputed. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 22:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Basically a sound proposal, though it likely should have a blanket prohibition on routine actions -- with nearly a thousand admins, and a heavy work-load within ArbCom, there is no real need for an arbitrator to do routine stuff. Even if there are only four hundred active admins, this only reduces the "pool" by under 5%. Supreme Court members do not handle parking tickets. This would also prevent even the slightest tinge of impropriety (as Caesar's wife). Collect (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Addressing Brad's concerns

1. While WP:NOBIGDEAL is a good principle, it's wholly impractical when it comes to arbitrators. Like it or not, there is a large difference in Wikiclass between a sitting arbitrator and a regular administrator. Codifying this difference, and proscribing sitting arbitrators from taking controversial administrative actions, would actually ameliorate a lot of the problems that such class differentiation presents.
2. I concur with User:Collect above, and I'll leave it at that.
3. I think that this is equally answered by User:Collect's comment as well. And the drama avoided, and the hands kept clean, by having this policy would more than make up for any small uptick in caseload.
4. This can be hashed out within the policy itself, but sitting arbitrators would need to simply say to themselves, "When in doubt, don't."

Thanks for taking the time to offer your analysis, Brad. I hope something productive can arise from this modest proposal. UA 23:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

For an Illustration of the existing difference between Arbitrators as admins and non-arbitrator admins, see Scott Mac's comment immediately after Coren's block of Giano. Scott is hardly timid and he isn't politically naive either. If he acted differently based on the involvement of an arbitrator then that status has a real impact. 217.28.2.130 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC).

• Contrary to what some may believe, I am not opposed to this in principle (though I do not believe it to be a good idea), but there are downsides which need airing. One of the most important, in my mind, is that there are a class of interventions where "normal" administrators (I scare quote that word because it implies that arbs are somehow no loner admins) are loath to intervene; either because of the complex background, involved personalities, or past history. Those are very much quantifiable as "controversial", but also exactly the cases where intervention by a respected administrator to settle the matter are most likely to solve things decisively.

  To my mind, the greatest danger is conflation of the "respected admin" role with that of "arbitrator"; but this is not insurmountable. — Coren ^(talk) 23:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• This is true, 217.28, and Coren's actions around this situation were certainly an impetus for my writing this policy. But it's something I've been thinking about for quite some time, and I really feel like codifying it, and proscribing arbitrators from taking certain administrator actions is the best plan. Hopefully this policy will take hold, and we can avoid further situations such as the one facing the committee right now.
  As to Coren's assertion that there are situations where regular administrators wouldn't be able to settle the matter, that's what the committee was created to deal with, not an individual arbitrator, acting in a fit of anger. Scott Mac's quote is extremely apropos here, as it completely illustrates the dire need for a policy such as this. That said, I'm not shocked at all that you don't think this policy is a good idea. UA 23:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict, responding to Coren) This is a good point. For example, sometimes when I see an ongoing argument about absolutely nothing that is wasting a lot of time for no good reason, or an emerging BLP fiasco, I feel that I am the perfect person to try to wade in and settle the controversy. In fact, sometimes I'm criticized for not doing enough of that any more. So it's a fine line.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

    I don't see this as in any way keeping an arbitrator from weighing in on a discussion. However, if there are administrative actions to be taken, where's the problem in finding another administrator to deal with it? And if it's a clear BLP problem, it would fall under the "emergency" provision of the policy, I would think. UA 23:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

    All things being equal, UA, I'd agree with you. The reality, however, is that there are situations (the current spat around Giano being just one) where almost all administrators who do not fall in a particular "camp" over a polarizing issue will avoid acting because of fear of either retribution or of being labeled as part of one of those camps (See how every admin to ever wade in the Troubles area immediately got flak and got branded as partisan — often by both sides). The fact of the matter is there are numerous area where early and swift administrator action could solve a problem but that nobody wants to get anywhere near the dispute. Arguably, the Giano issue might now be well past that point, but hard cases make bad law. — Coren ^(talk) 23:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

    All things being equal, you would be up for every bit of the scrutiny that Giano is after the block you made. But, all things are not equal. Not remotely equal. As such, you won't come under near the scrutiny for making a horrendous indef block as Giano will for pissing you off. And, while you're certainly correct that "hard cases make bad law", I don't think that's remotely relevant here. While the Giano case is a glaring example, arbitrators' actions have long been given a status only a short step down from God-King actions. As such -- "law" or "no law" -- arbitrators should already following this policy. It seems like little more than codifying what should be -- but, apparently, isn't -- common sense. This clearly needs to be done. UA 23:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

    You've already made your personal opinion on the propriety of my warning and block to Giano abundantly clear elsewhere. It is, however, exactly that: your personal opinion. It has no relevance here when discussing a policy proposal. — Coren ^(talk) 00:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

    Alas, you don't decide what has relevance or doesn't to this discussion. I find the situation that you have created with your indef and then your RFAR entirely germane to this discussion. And categorizing it as "horrendous" is also a liberty I don't mind taking. You're free to disregard my opinion as you like, but not to tacitly order me to not bring it into a discussion about this policy. UA 00:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

    It's always an error to base policy on a singular event. You are, of course, welcome to make that error; just as I am to point it out. — Coren ^(talk) 00:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

    And I'm also welcome to believe that you're behaving like a pompous, schoolmarm-y, jackass right now. Where have I said that this policy was based on one incident? I've simply said that incident is certainly germane to this discussion, and that it's what got me thinking about it again. UA 00:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

    I'm curious how Sandstein (who hasn't posted to this page at all) just happened to find out I'd called you out on your behavior, Coren? He left me a nice little "warning" for "attacking" you, which I did not do. I "attacked" your behavior. Interesting. Very interesting. UA 15:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to see how the Giano block can be used as a good example because John Vandenberg seems to fit the description of an admin willing to intervene when a "normal" administrator won't, just as much as you do Coren. Whether you were solving problems or creating them seems very much a matter of opinion. On the Troubles, we know that non-arb admins have in fact intervened, and I don't see any reason to suppose that arb admins would be any more effective (or any less likely to be accused of partisanship). They obviously would compromise their ability to act as arbitrators in that area though. 217.28.2.130 (talk) 00:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no, the Giano incident can hardly be used as a good example (which is why I said it wasn't). Like I said, hard cases make bad law — it is likely that we are well past the point where a lone admin (whoever they are) could likely have fixed that decisively. An argument could be made, however, that such an intervention a few years ago might have. — Coren ^(talk) 00:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

An argument could also be made that there was nothing to be "fixed", as insulting an arbitrator is not an indef-able offense. An argument could also be made that your having taken such a drastic administrative action inflamed the situation, and did not cool it. This is why such actions should be proscribed by policy, as an arbitrator making them fans the flames ten times as hot as a normal admin making them. UA 00:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I make the argument that insulting anyone is an offense — from someone who has a block log longer that most editor's contribution list over that very issue — after a warning, is. I also make the argument that while very many, if not most, admins would agree to this, few or none would be willing to make themselves as a target of Giano's ire by doing so; giving him immunity to our behavioral standards that goes entirely counter our foundational principles. You contend that allowing this to continue is "fanning the flames", I say the converse is true. — Coren ^(talk) 00:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Claiming that insulting someone after a warning is an indef-able offense is just patent nonsense. I'll leave it at that. UA 00:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• • • (ec)With as many admins as exist, I can not think that any emergency would be so dire as to require that an arbitrator act. Even a BLP. The case for a bright line prohibition is stronger than that for having a fuzzy one. Collect (talk) 23:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

      I can think of certain circumstances where a bright-line prohibition would be unhelpful. One that springs immediately to mind is in the case of minors posting their personal information to their userpages. Such a case would seem a clear emergency, where waiting for an "available admin" wouldn't be the best course. No, I definitely think some nuance is necessary and appropriate here. UA 00:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

      COPPA is a legal situation -- which requires actions by anyone seeing a violation. That aside, it is better to state that arbitrators should be exceedingly aware that their actions will be viewed in the context of their position, and that they should therefore avoid taking actions which could just as well be done by others. As I noted, Supreme Court members do not issue tickets. Collect (talk) 00:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

      Oh, I wholeheartedly agree with the "don't issue tickets" analogy. I just think that completely prohibiting any taking of action by arbitrators is unworkable. UA 00:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

    NYB, maybe NOT being in a position to apply 'force' (use admin tools) yourself can be helpful itself when wading in to settle controversy, especially an argument over absolutely nothing. Or maybe I'm being overly idealistic. 217.28.2.130 (talk) 23:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Off the rails

I apologize for letting the discussion get off the rails. I wish there were a "mute button" for use during discussions. I'll try to focus more on improving this proposed policy, and less on the distractions I let sidetrack me above. For now, I'm off-line for awhile. UA 00:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Effective & Appropriate

The clarity offered by this proposal would help all editors, including members of the Committee. Clear guidance on this issue is appropriate. Specific issues which have developed recently are not necessarily germane or applicable to this policy. Discussion of their relevance is really not needed. The policy stands on its own merits as a logical part of the goal of arbitration. Arbitrators are elected to hold joint power as part of a deliberative body. It is thus wholly appropriate to disallow them from inadvertently exercising special authority as individuals. However, the best solution would be for these guidelines to become part of the Arbitration Policy itself, rather than a separate policy. The community looks forward to the Committee pressing ahead with the urgently needed update of said policy in the near future... —Amelioration 01:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Who is "we"? Are you using it in the royal sense, is this a shared account, or is there some other explanation for your phrasing? UA 02:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I most certainly do not operate a shared account! I am not certain why that would be germane to the matter at hand... but I will certainly clarify all the same. —Amelioration 06:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Sorry about that. I didn't mean to cast aspersions, I was just a bit confused by the "we" that you used. UA 15:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• The community is nearly incapable of approving new policy. No, if something like this is implemented, ArbCom can and will do it themselves. This is a good source of feedback though. Cool Hand Luke 09:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Routine uncontroversial admin actions should not be excluded

I have added some examples of routine uncontroversial admin actions, which I feel quite strongly arbitrators should not be excluded from taking. It is important that arbitrators actively participate in a range of activities within the site; one of the greatest knocks against arbitrators is that they lose touch with the normal day-to-day editing and administrator activities that are the heart of Wikipedia. Arbitrators are probably not the best people to be carrying out blocks based on discussions at WP:ANI, but there's no good reason to forbid them from occasionally pitching in at WP:AIV or even WP:UAA. There shouldn't be a problem if, on doing new page patrol (to keep in touch with content) they do some speedy deletion, as would be expected of any administrator. Risker (talk) 01:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, I certainly agree. But don't those examples already land under "non-controversial"? UA 02:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The way the original was written, it limited noncontroversial acts to the first three on the list. Risker (talk) 02:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

    Okay, I see what you're saying now. I do think, though, that it's important to clearly define the limits, so there's very little ambiguity involved. UA 02:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Situations?

I'm not sure about this addition:

situations where many arbitrators are already involved, either due to prior arbitration or direct involvement...

Could you expand on this a bit, John? I understand the "prior arbitration" part, but not necessarily the "direct involvement" part. UA 02:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Say for example there is a case in which four or five arbs are already directly involved, and would need to recuse if the matter comes to the committee for dispute resolution. I think it is unhelpful for another arbitrator to then take an action, especially to reinforce the arbs already involved. At best, it puts another arbitrator out of action if the matter is brought to arbitration.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I read that wholly wrong. I (for some reason) read it as an exception to the policy, even though it was placed in the list of times when action is prohibited. My apologies, John. UA 05:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

giving rationale

Edit attempted to make the specific rationale that actions which could remotely end up before ArbCom form basis for the rule, in addition to stressing the fact that aarbs should not be perceived as having greater weight due to their position of trust. Collect (talk) 02:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, you can't have it both ways. Either we should not act as administrators because our actions have greater weight, or our (private) actions should not have greater weight in which case we should be able to act as administrator without problems. — Coren ^(talk) 03:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Both cases, however, do exist. First -- actions taken by arbs acting with an admin hat on can end up before arbcom. Second -- arbs acting as admins may be perceived as having greater weight. One can not reasonably deny these as fact. Simply put - the prudent person will recognize that the only way to avoid even the suspicion of a problem is to avoid acting as an admin while holding the office of arbitrator. Caesar's wife. Collect (talk) 03:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

@Coren: Although it may seem counterintuitive, both situations may indeed have a bearing on this draft policy addition.

• To dissect your dichotomy: (1) Arbitrators should not act as administrators because their individual actions, while not actually having more weight, are frequently percieved as having such; (2) private actions should not have greater weight, however a large number of people wonder if they might in controversial situations.

Thus, alleviation of potential concerns calls for an ethical policy of separation of powers. The enforcers should not be the judges. —Amelioration 06:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Caesar's wife

It has struck me that the committee not only has problems with communication (both internally and to the community), but with the wider matter of presentation. Sometimes they mar good work with lousy presentation. I'll do you all the courtesy of assuming your memories are not so lousy as to require multiple diffs to support the contention.

This is where Pompeia comes in. She must be above suspicion. As soon as she is suspected, no matter how faithful she be, she must go. The committee as a whole, and its members individually, often present themselves in ways which invite suspicion. Carrying out the sort of admin actions which could reasonably be seen as likely to lead to Arbcom cases is one way in which they do this. An Arb making a tough block (and let's not forget that tough decisions aren't always right), then running to the committee when overturned looks dodgy, however pure his heart. Had the blocked editor gone to Arbcom as the initiator of the case, again it looks ill for Arbitrators to sit in judgement on one of their own.

A self-denying ordinance, such as the one proposed here, will protect Arbs from peevish complaints, protect the community from needless drama, and most importantly enable the community to have a committee it can trust. There is an old saying that "rank has its privileges", but it has its duties too, and to act in a way which may prevent one carrying out one's duties is to do a disservice to the rank. DuncanHill (talk) 02:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand the sentiment, but I'd be hard pressed to find a privilege associated with a seat on the committee. For crying out loud, my ArbCom Porshe is a mere Boxter! — Coren ^(talk) 02:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The privilege is that all your actions carry greater weight than those of other editors. Of course, that is also the burden. DuncanHill (talk) 03:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The reason a "tough block" or a "hard choice" is not easy is because all options available, including doing nothing, are somewhat wrong. Arbcom is often call upon to clarify these kind of difficult situations where everyone involved made a somewhat wrong choice. Individual Arbitrators staying clear of such situations so that they will be perceived to have clean hands when asked to examine and clarify these issues at Arbitration is a Good Idea (TM). Whether it is codified or not.--BirgitteSB 03:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Ah, were it that simple! There are seven new arbitrators this year who will learn, firsthand, what few people suspect: being an arbitrator on Wikipedia is one of the least prestigious and powerful position one can attain. When one's hand aren't simply tied, they are used mostly for shoveling manure (with dozens of volunteers to explain to you — rarely with words as civilized as yours — why you're doing it wrong). It's an oft-repeated jest that a getting a seat on ArbCom deserves condolences; though like most really funny things, it's funny because it's true.

This is why, of all things, what amazes me most is people decrying how we are reaching for power and running the Wiki with an iron fist when, when you take a moment to look at the most evident thing this incident has shown, an arb becomes considerably less powerful and independent than any other admin.

That is why I look at policy attempts to "curtail" arb power, I am cynical and wary: out of a fear of power that really isn't there, we risk hobbling what little ability the committee does have to try to help things. It doesn't mean that this policy is a bad idea; it might be workable if made just right, but it's dangerous and risky to sit down to craft something like this — especially on the heels of an atypical incident that is likely to distort perspective to the point where an objective assessment of the proposal is unlikely to be possible. — Coren ^(talk) 03:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Coren - this proposal would actually give the committee more power. Arbcom's power to do anything arises from the trust that editors in general have in it. Structures or policies that serve to remove sources of mistrust help the committee as a whole to do its work without needless disruption. I want an effective Arbcom, not a toothless one, stop sucking on the sugary nectar of admin-action! DuncanHill (talk) 03:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, it might work (though I would venture to guess that such a policy would only reassure the more reasonable people, not the most vociferous). It's still a dangerous game to play, and will need time to make it right. I fear the kneejerk, not deliberate crafting of policy. We shall see. — Coren ^(talk) 03:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is the reasoning in opposition to this measure? Our Committee system effectively selects a small number of administrators each year to oversee a wide variety of matters, including administrator conduct. It seems entirely reasonable to ask the overseers (i.e. the Committee) to avoid acting while they are serving on the oversight panel. In fact, it seems completely without any drawbacks! —Amelioration 06:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC) Also, just out of curiosity, does anyone who is not a functionary oppose this idea? —Amelioration 06:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

terrible name

what a terrible name, ARBADMIN should be a short cut, not the title. What the hell does ARBADMIN mean? Ikip 03:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but I think it is a placeholder for the moment. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• It means "ARB ADMIN." It's the first thing that popped in my head. I'm sure others will move it to a better name, if it's accepted as policy. UA 05:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • This measure should become part of the revised Arbitration Policy. Such centralization is effective for ease of access and comprehension. As a side note, ARBADMIN makes me think of BADMINton... —Amelioration 06:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I rather agree with folding it into current policy. I also agree that my choice of name wasn't the best either. :) UA 15:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Why?!

Why handcuff the people who, for better or for worse, have been demonstrated as the most accepted of wikipedians? As long as the arbitrators act appropriately, then their actions as admins are just that, admins. Furthermore, these are people who have demonstrated that a significant proportion and absolute number of wikipedians trust them and belive them in possession of "clue". Why are we restricting them from using said clue? It is incumbent upon us to educate wikipedians that there is no special "rank" to the admin/crat/cu/os/arb/steward; they are just people who do more maintenance work--and regarding arbs, people whom the project has accepted to render binding arbitration in specific circumstances. Otherwise, their influence is solely dependant on the strength of their arguments and the respect they have amassed over time through exemplary behavior and shown judgment. -- Avi (talk) 05:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Arbitrators need clean hands, it really is as simple as that. You can't have clean hands, if you go around involving yourself in controversial administrative actions, and in making threats to take such actions. UA 05:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

But of course you can. Clean hands are a result of the actions of the owner of those hands, not the (mistaken) impressions of outsiders. One does not demonstrate clean hands by putting on handcuffs, one does so by acting apropriately (and using soap :) ). -- Avi (talk) 05:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Avi. By coding this into policy, we're making the underlying problem (that people perceive arbitrators as "superusers" when they aren't acting in their capacity as an arb) worse. There's also inconsistencies in the proposal. Actions related to BLP issues and committee remedies are not always non-controversial. They're just things that won't easily be overturned. The only part I really agree with is the "situations where many arbitrators are already involved" part, but that would be to avoid a situation where too much of the committee has to recuse in the event of a case. Mr.Z-man 05:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• With regard to the original comment: it is similar to how AUSC members often will choose not to use CU/OS permissions as frequently. It is to the benefit of everyone if the oversight body in any situation does not exercise non-supervisory functions. Overseeing one's self is naturally... difficult. —Amelioration 06:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, but therein lies the rub, ArbCom's role is that of arbitrators, not overseers; it is the admin corps that oversees the proper working of wikipedia, and arbs are also admins, NOT super-admins. The way to solve this is to educate people as to the different roles; not to prevent good people from doing good work. -- Avi (talk) 07:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

A fair comment. However, I meant oversight in the sense of "having sole responsibility to reprimand administrators and remove administrator privileges when necessary". There is no doubt that the Committee is the only body with the power to order the removal of the sysop bit in cases of malfeasance. That could be called oversight or supervision by some... —Amelioration 07:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

And, regardless of what it is called, it is independant of their actions as administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversight/suppression/redaction agents, etc. When arbitrators "sit in judgment" as it were, they should act appropriately, of course. But to then say they should not be allowed to enforce the binding arbitration we elected them to render, or, even worse, to forbid them, the users we accept has having "über-clue", from excercising the judgment we trust they have in the regular running of the project, seems to me to be completly counter-intuitive and counter-productive. -- Avi (talk) 07:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

There's no problem with Arbitrators implementing decisions by the committee, but they should be hesitant to perform controversial acts at their own prerogative. It's hard for observers to tell the difference between these two things, which is why more deference and uncertainty surrounds an arbitrator's acts.

Arbitrators are frequently expected to resolve fallout from controversial blocks, and it seriously complicates things when we must sit in judgment of one of our own; there will be a perception if not reality that arbitrators will have more slack from their fellow arbitrators than a normal admin would. Moreover, almost every single example of such a block has caused drama. I believe it undermines our mission. Cool Hand Luke 09:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It's actually rather simple to do so, if the arbitrators are careful to mention an RfAr ruling in the edit summary/log when they are acting as arbs and not regular admins. If NYB blocks an IP for vandalism, does anyone think that is an "ArbCom ruling"? No. What we need here is for the project to realize that Arbs are people too. When they act as an arb, they say so, otherwise, they are no different than any other maintenance person. Arbitrators having to rule on a sitting or former arb is an issue completely independant of whether or not they help out in WP:UAA or WP:AIV; I fail to see how one relates to the other. Arbitrators, nay all admins need to behave appropriately having nothing to do with the various items in one's haberdashery closet. -- Avi (talk) 16:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no problem with uncontroversial acts like blocking a routine vandal. Those are not the ones that cause problems. There's a line-drawing issue about what "controversial" is, but I would define it as an "admin act likely to need resolution by ArbCom." When an arbitrator does such a thing in order to actually seek an ArbCom case where they are a party, there's no doubt that it will force the issue. My modest position is that arbitrators should avoid this sort of behavior. Cool Hand Luke 22:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

On perceptions

I love the intent behind this, but I just don't think this is especially needed.

I think the crux of the "problem" here (sitting arbs getting involved in less-than-uncontroversial edits) is largely a simple matter of people respecting their opinions more, which isn't really something that can (or, arguably, should) be "undone" as it exists solely in the mind of each individual, and is largely subjective.

The same thing happens with bureaucrats (which I obviously have some experience with, versus having no experience being an Arb); people keep assuming that the 'crats can (or should) handle things outside their normal purview of bots, RfX, and username changes, even though we're barely a step "above" administrators in most regards (primus inter pares).

Is this (the perception, in either example) a problem? Yes and no. The question garners a "yes" answer in that it isn't an accurate assessment of the situation (just because an arbitrator posts {{uw-vandalism4im}} on a user's talk page doesn't mean that the threat has any greater weight). The question garners a "no" answer in that people in various more-than-a-simple-editor positions (admin, bureaucrat, checkuser, oversight, arbitrator) are in those positions because they are (heh, most of the time) respected.

That some people confuse respect for an individual with respect for a title isn't something that I feel is a real enough problem that it needs be counterbalanced with restrictions. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Serious concerns and alternative

The concerns this proposal tries to address are serious ones. But the solution is not to disable Arbitrators from acting as administrators or members of the community. That does far more harm than good.

Immediately obvious issues:

1. Ties for 2 years, the hands of many users with some of the highest endorsed levels of judgment
2. Some matters will never be addressed by non-arb admins ("wiki suicide" is the relevant expression)
3. As much as arbitrators are expected to avoid perception of COI, they are also expected to take action when action is needed.
4. It is an unavoidable fact that arbitrators carry extra weight in users' perception. But we do not see that as a reason to prohibit them !voting at RFA, AFD, policy discussions, or other processes.
5. "Controversial" is often subjective
6. Arbitrators are trusted to act neutrally and to judge others conduct by facts and evidence, not by the posts of "vocal dramatists" or conspiracy theorists.
7. Although the risk exists that an arbitrator's action may be perceived that way, Arbcom should have the nerve to allow the risk, and then affirm in any decision if the action was proper or not and whether the user appropriately complied with expectations, including avoiding COI.

Clear guidance is needed for such situations, and avoidance is desirable in some cases. But "could be controversial" is not the appropriate criterion. We cannot tie the hands of all 18 of our best users for 2 years.

Alternate proposal

Arbitrators who act outside the remit of a collective committee decision, do so with gravitas but without formal Committee mandate or prerogative. Their actions should be of the highest standard, carefully considered, and confident of good justification if asked. They should take exceptional measures to avoid arbitrator involvement in the case afterwards, but only act as a user, party, and/or administrator. Best practice for this will be established by the Committee with community input, and periodically developed as time passes.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 05:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• No. Just no. UA 05:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Naah, this is not a good idea. Arbs would do well to avoid controversy as admins, but to install this as a policy would be to tie their hands in a quite undesirable way. Let us not forget that arbs are the last port of call for dealing with issues that are too controversial for admins to handle. Let them do it. Tony (talk) 06:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• [..arbs are the last port of call for dealing with issues...] - only as a body. The community does not elect them to any privileges as indivduals. Thus, mandating that they act only as a body is entirely in line with the Committee purposes. —Amelioration 06:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Exactly; the committee ought to only have power as a deliberative body. Cool Hand Luke 23:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• About "wiki-suicide"—your point seems to be that arbitrators can get away with things that "normal" admins could not. In essence, you think that Arbitrators are uber-admins, and it's a feature, not a bug. I disagree. However, I do agree that this will be a matter for the committee rather than community policy-making. We should set rules for our own members and adjust them as needed, not have them imposed from without. Cool Hand Luke 09:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Whether arbitrators act with gravitas is a matter of fact or perception. You can't make it so by decree. Such wording in a proposal achieves nothing. 217.28.2.130 (talk) 10:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

  Such wording actually exacerbates the problem, rather than ameliorating it. The "alternative" proposal is just about the polar opposite of the initial proposal. UA 15:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Responding to the original comment:

The only effective and proper solution is indeed to disallow individuals from undertaking "action x" while they are on a panel overseeing the proper use of "action x". Thus, serving as an arbitrator mandates complete removal from potentially controversial situations.

1. Disallowing a relatively small number of administrators from administrator actions while they serve as arbitrators is not a problem. As has often been stated, no person (or group of persons) is essential to the project. Thus, the administrator corps will survive while a few of the most talented members focus solely on arbitration for a time.
2. The most difficult issues should be dealt with by the Committee as a body. If a matter is really that difficult, there is no reason for an arbitrator to go it alone.
3. They are not expected to take action outside of their role on a deliberative oversight panel. We have many hundreds of other administrators to serve on the frontlines.
4. Yes, we do think it is appropriate to minimize arbitrator involvement. Further, RfA is not likely to have any relation to arbitrator duties - blocks are.
5. Then err on the side of caution.
6. Not sure what this logical policy proposal has to do with conspiracy theorists...
7. This is not about the Committee's "nerve". It is about setting reasonable standards to ensure proper interactions.

The proposed alternative sounds lovely. However, it is as vague as current policy is. Something more concrete is needed to clearly communicate the community's will on this vital issue.

—Amelioration 07:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It's like saying...

that an off-duty fire safety inspector isn't allowed to grab a fire extinguisher if the kitchen of a restaurant he is eating at caught fire, while the crew is panicking or fleeing, because he was the guy who checked if the restaurant met fire safety regulations! - Mailer Diablo 10:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Or like asking them not to fan the flames. 217.28.2.130 (talk) 10:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Note the specific exceptions listed on the article page. The bar is not absolute, as some seem to imply. The proper analogy is whether a member of the Supreme Court should issue parking tickets. Collect (talk) 12:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Again and again I see sound policy proposals criticized because a mindless and rigid application of the policy would result in the fire safety inspector recusing from grabbing a fire extinguisher. The same arguments are raised with respect to administrative recusal in general. This kind of approach would prohibit all policy, which is a Very Bad Idea. No policy is rigid, that's the meaning of WP:IAR. Rather, what's the general principle to be applied?

A sitting arbitrator may use tools in the same way as any other administrator, but with two caveats: if the use is controversial, the arbitrator properly recuses, then, from any further consideration by ArbComm of that action and related actions, and the action would properly be subject to review by the community and by ArbComm as with the action of any other administrator. When an arbitrator is already sitting in consideration of an issue, to act is to prejudice the ultimate decision by having made a personal commitment on some position. Further, when an arbitrator becomes personally committed in that way, the arbitrator may be more reluctant to reverse a decision later as it might then be seen as an admission of personal error. There are very good reasons for encouraging arbitrators to rise to as neutral a position as possible.

The executive power on Wikipedia is generally and diffusely vested in the administrative corps. When an arbitrator uses tools directly, and continues to act as an arbitrator in the issue involved, the arbitrator is mixing the judicial and advisory power with the executive power, creating a situation of potentially unrestrained power, or, almost as problematic, of the appearance of this. Absent emergencies, which, as with any setting aside of recusal guidelines, should be followed by immediate referral to the community or to ArbComm, arbitrators should refrain from controversial usage of tools combined with related function as an arbitrator. Wikipedia has no jury, some arbitrators have suggested a Wikipedia Assembly to serve as such (which could cover content disputes qua content rather than as behavioral problems), so combining judge and executioner is a well-known abuse to be avoided.

Perhaps the discussion here would benefit from specific examples, not as criticisms of the arbitrators and others involved, but to explore the actual implications of what is being considered inappropriate. One of the problems with Wikipedia policies and guidelines is that they become abstracted and without clear examples to aid in interpretation, as if there were only statutory law and no case precedents and applications. However, discussion of cases here should be conducted to avoid personal criticisms and accusations, which would not be the point. Rather, did the use of tools by an arbitrator, even if "correct" in some way, cause disruption and foster resistance? I'm just off a three month site ban; had the actual block been performed by an arbitrator, I'd have formed far more focused resentment against that arbitrator, and then by reflection and association, against the Committee, whereas, while I still consider that the ArbComm majority erred, I also must respect the function of ArbComm, hence I made no attempt to defy the block, nor do I plan to test or challenge the decided topic ban other than through due process, if that.

(An occasional ArbComm error is to sanction for offenses that were first clearly defined by the decision, as if the editor should have known that the action would be an offense. Sometimes, perhaps, that's true, but, still, we normally expect disregarded warnings before sanctions, and where some situation is controversial, a simple warning Talk page warning may not be adequate; the editor warned may believe that ArbComm would sustain the editor's position. WP:IAR and WP:BOLD requires that editors take actions that may later be considered errors, and only intransigence and inability to accept community consensus and ArbComm decisions and to act accordingly should be sanctioned as a protection.) --Abd (talk) 16:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Or perhaps it's like saying that the gunslinger should not also be a magistrate, or that the referee should not also be a player.

We're not talking about a body that inspect tools. We're talking about a body that resolves gnarly disputes involving controversial behavior. I think it's intuitively obvious that members of this body should avoid becoming part of gnarly disputes that their colleagues will be forced to resolve. Cool Hand Luke 23:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Another Angle

Possibly muddying the waters here but perhaps the flipside of asking arbitrators not to take controversial actions individually is the question of when they should be willing to intervene as a body without outside prompting. Historically I understand they've been reluctant to act unless a case is brought to them. Maybe they shouldn't act individually in controversial situations but should be more open to one of their membership raising the issues around an existing conflict for decision as a body? I think there's been some movement in that direction already so my understanding may be out of date. 217.28.2.130 (talk) 10:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Now that is important to note. Yes, there has been some movement in that direction, but it meets much resistance. And, there are cases where it would make things even worse as far as perception is concerned. — Coren ^(talk) 12:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I can imagine plenty of situations where the ArbCom wading in as a whole would be worse than a lone arbitrator doing so but I guess the hope would be that the 18 arbitrators between them would make a better appraisal of the situation and a better decision of whether the controversy would be worth it (or if not "better" then at least be deciding the way they were elected to - as a committee) 217.28.2.130 (talk) 13:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a bad idea in theory, but too unrealistic. It would require an entire group of persons to go "seeking" matters for ArbCom, which is so horribly wrong in so many ways I don't want to get into it. What types of things would they pick? I assume they'd approve it the same way? Why should they take it without other forms of dispute resolution attempted? It's supposed to be the last option in all but the most absurd of situations. When it's not, we get incredibly frivolous submissions like an attempt to desysop or ban an admin for one judgment call, and persons are often sent back to try other resolution before coming back. ArbCom is there to pick what users think should be taken up, and not to go hunt down things on their own. It'd be like if any US Federal circuit court read the newspaper every morning and called up people to start cases they thought would be constructive and fun for them, or if they encouraged attorneys to file certain legal cases. There's a reason the resolution system as a whole is as it is, and a very low percentages of cases are ever taken up at length by ArbCom, which is as it should be.

Having any Arbs seek out cases is the same dilemma as them possibly acting in "unusual" normal sysop ways, but reversed situations. Instead of filing and commenting on controversial ANIs, they'd be closing and escalating them subjectively? No thanks. A lone member deciding these things would look even more suspicious, and most "reports" within ArbCom would likely get rejected anyway, which sends things back to where they were only after wasting more of their time. ArbCom does not handle content disputes, and they've made that very clear, even if a lot of those instances are where people think "oh! ArbCom could solve this!" ♪ daTheisen(talk) 07:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Naivete

It's naive in the extreme to simply say, "But it shouldn't be that way." It is. The actions of arbitrators are viewed as carrying more weight than normal admins. As such, common sense dictates that they don't wade into highly flammable situations, wielding their tools, as those type of situations are likely to end up before the committee. We need to deal with this problem in some way. The community makes policy, so this is an attempt to do so. UA 14:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

However, bad policy should never be a substitute for education. -- Avi (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You view this as "bad policy." I, and others, do not. UA 16:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Correct; which is why I am arguing that it will cause more harm than good, and you feel that the reverse is true. So, when you are claiming that this is an example of the community making policy and that arguments against this are indications of naïvte, I feel duty bound to counter that bad policy should never be viewed as a crutch or substitute for solving the underlying problem, which is making people realize that there 1) is no magic to being an arb and 2) taking the tools away from the people the community feels are a) most trusted to use them and b) have the equivalent of wiki "große-über-clueness", is counterintuitive, counterproductive, and a bad idea. -- Avi (talk) 16:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

If all the committee had "the equivalent of wiki 'große-über-clueness'", this wouldn't be necessary, as it's basically common sense. But, alas, in every cycle, there are arbs who lack this cluefulness, and as such, this is a very necessary policy. UA 17:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Avi, of all people, should know this is true. Cool Hand Luke 23:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Why me, of all people? -- Avi (talk) 01:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

As a functionary, I think you realize that the cluefulness of individual arbitrators can be uneven at times, and that it sometimes takes a back seat to the heat of the moment. I think ArbCom only has a special mandate collectively as a deliberative body. Cool Hand Luke 08:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I see a lot of what I can only describe as "head-in-the-sand denial" going on at this talkpage, Luke. UA 23:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

So people that disagree with you are naive and have their head in the sand? Nice. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

So we will agree to continue to disagree, and do our parts to best portray our respective positions, and see what the project-at-large thinks about the benefits and detriments of this proposed policy. -- Avi (talk) 17:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Why this won't work

In my opinion, the greatest tragedy in this situation is that the proposed policy and discussion would be a positive step forward for the project... but the step will not be taken now, and I fear will never be taken. For those who recall the circumstances following Casliber's departure from ArbCom there is a distinct feeling of deja vu. That was also a situation where a specific incident sparked off work on codifying restrictions on Arbitrators - in that case by means of a proposal for a code of ethics - and the progress of this discussion is eerily familiar.

There are many good reasons for restricting arbitrators from acting in their capacity as "ordinary administrators". A non-exhaustive list might include:

• to maintain neutrality for if an issue ultimately comes before ArbCom, thereby minimising recusals;
• to save valuable arbitrator time for more important tasks, such as ArbCom backlogs and cases in progress;
• to avoid the problems flowing from the fact (and it is a fact) that the actions of an arbitrator-administrator will be perceived as having significantly greater weight; and,
• to protect the institution of ArbCom itself from the damage done by conduct seen as unbefitting the status of an arbitrator.

Others on this page have mentioned other reasons, but I find it interesting that the most important one of all is missing, and that is as follows: there is no avenue for appropriate sanction if an arbitrator's "administrator hat" actions are seriously flawed. ArbCom itself will be forced to try to act in such cases, but it is hopelessly compromised. All the arbitrators should ordinarily recuse but can't, as that would leave no ArbCom to make a ruling. Declining a case will be seen as protecting their own, irrespective of the merits. An admonishment is simultaneously potentially too light (symbolic only) and too harsh (dangerously close to a vote of no cofidence from one's colleagues), which will inevitably influence how any case is decided by the arbitrators, even if only sub-consciously. And, ArbCom can't desysop an arbitrator as that would amount to expelling him or her from the committee. What may be needed in such cases is a community-decided arbitrator recall mechanism, allowing testing whether the arbitrator retains the confidence of the community - but such a mechanism (though promised) seems as far away as ever. So, as I said, ArbCom is compromised by having no option available for dealing with "controversial" actions. To be fair, there are reasons for allowing arbitrators to take limited and routine administrative actions (stay "in touch", etc), but the prohibition on controversial actions should be absolute. If arbitrators want to take such actions, they should resign their position and return in fact to holding the status of "ordinary administrator".

Having explained why I see a policy as necessary, let me explain why it isn't going to happen. As with the code of ethics discussion, the original proposal was clear and straight-forward - and quite restrictive. As more functionary-level editors and their supporters arrive, making arguments that flexibility is needed and that only arbitrators or former arbitrators can understand what ArbCom is like (and hence, what is needed), the edits make the proposal broad and vague. This group is effectively an opposition group pursuing an agenda antithetical to the group arguing for clear and restrictive policy. These two groups will never reach a consensus position as their philosophies of wiki-governance are based on fundamentally different assumptions. Either group can ensure that no policy based on the other's assumptions is adopted through a consensus process. Hence, this policy is not going to happen. Unfortunately.

To be absolutely clear, whilst it is likely apparent which philosophy of wiki-governance I favour, I do not mean that the group with the opposing view are either disruptive or necessarily wrong - I simply disagree with them. I have no doubt that if editors favouring the broad range of discretion, rules only in general terms, trust to the ethics and good judgment of arbitrators position were to draft a policy, editors of the opposing view would swoop in and attempt to edit in codified standards, etc, and the same stalemate would be reached. Unfortunately. EdChem (talk) 18:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

This may well be true. Have we reached a point where we, the governed (in the sense that we "elect" our admins and arsb), have no more ability to effect policies limiting those who "govern"? Maybe so. Unfortunately, maybe so. UA 23:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a lot of truth to what you say, Ed; well put. It is not a matter of either position trying to undermine the project; it is a matter of competing philosophies as to what is best for the project. -- Avi (talk) 18:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

To open to wiki lawyering, nice idea, but won't work.68.10.193.21 (talk) 11:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

A way of thinking about this

Think of this policy as simply a codification of what might well be called a doctrine of judicial restraint, as it pertains to the Arbitration Committee. Just as Learned Hand advocated for such a doctrine in real-world jurisprudence, so too do we need this type of restraint from our arbitrators. Our arbitrators should demonstrate restraint both in how they adjudge the cases before them, as well as how they conduct themselves amongst the muck and manure of the everyday Wiki. If John G. Roberts involve himself in lower-court cases, orchestrating the machinations such that cases he wished to adjudicate came before him in ways that were advantageous to his personal circle, perhaps we would have a judicial impeachment on our hands. In many ways, this codification serves as a line, just as long precedent serves a similar function for Roberts and his colleagues. We have no such long precedent to guide us here on the Wiki, so this type of codification is both necessary and prudent. UA 23:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Or went about issuing speeding tickets just because he could. Collect (talk) 00:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Dashes

I wasn't sure if it was a hyphen or an en dash needed here, but it was rather clear that "ARBADMIN" is the shortcut form for a longer title. --MZMcBride (talk) 09:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'd never written policy proposals before, so I wasn't sure about the naming protocol. Thanks for fixing it. UA 18:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Concerns

I find this proposal problematic, because it serves to elevate the position of Arb in a way that doesn't entirely reflect the community's view. Just as admins have no special status when editing, Arbs have no special status when editing or adminning. This proposal is like suggesting that admins should refrain from editing contentious articles, lest someone think they have special influence over content. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 01:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

+1, insightful. — Coren ^(talk) 02:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• This proposal simply acknowledges what is, rather than ignoring it, and pretending users don't give the actions of arbitrators special deference. UA 05:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • And many of us continue to respond that the way to correct the issue is to continue to re-iterate and inform new users that Arbs are not special outside a very defined scope, instead of actually placing arbs on that pedestal through policy. Again, making policy that hinders the running of the project is not a substitute for solving the actual problem--that of ignorance and misperception. -- Avi (talk) 06:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
    • And again, ignoring what is in favor of what should be is no solution at all. All the "education" in the world will not change how arbitrators are perceived by the community. Plugging our ears and closing our eyes to that fact will not change it. As such, arbitrators should -- as a matter of common sense -- be mindful of this, and not take controversial administrative actions. Since this doesn't always happen, it needs to be codified, so that it's clear that such controversial actions aren't acceptable from an arbitrator. UA 14:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

In point of fact, admins well ought to avoid editing contentious articles if they have any desire whatever to act as an admin within them. Thanks for pointing out the well-documented policy. Collect (talk) 16:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

If they are going to be using their sysop bits, yes, admins shouldn't be particularly involved in contentious articles. However, SlimVirgin's comment related to merely editing them ("suggesting that admins should refrain from editing contentious articles", emphasis mine). EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

And if an arb engages in editing a contentious article, he well ought not have anything to do with any admin actions concerning them -- including discussing them as an arb. Correct? Collect (talk) 16:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

And I fail to see why we need to draw the distinction here between an arbitrator, an administrator, and an editor. Arbs are, first and foremost, administrators (well, first and foremost they're editors, but you get what I'm saying). Restrictions on administrators (be they policy-based restrictions or common sense-based restrictions) still apply. (though, obviously, an admin or an editor wouldn't be in a position to discuss "them as an arb", but that's why arbs recuse themselves from cases; my statement and general position still stand) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Supreme Court members are "officers of the court" but I would not expect them to serve arrest warrants. Collect (talk) 20:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Supreme Court justices are also paid. Let's not draw too many unwarranted parallels; this is a volunteer project. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

City appeal officers are frequesntly unpaid. Same concerns apply. Collect (talk) 22:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You missed my point entirely. Supreme Court justices have a job; they don't have to do anything, stuff is presented to them. Wikipedia is run entirely by volunteers, which includes arbitrators. They are welcome to (indeed, I'd say they should be encouraged to) edit pages outside of whatever gets posted to WP:ARBCOM. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

And an unpaid city official is not a volunteer? Sorry -- I see the point you think you are making. But the issue of "Caesar's wife" applies even to volunteers. Collect (talk) 22:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I still think it's merely a matter of misperceptions (as I noted). Restricting volunteers just because some people misunderstand their actions strikes me as a horrible idea, but I also think that neither of us are going to convince the other. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)