Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee: Difference between revisions

This Arbitration Committee has been mentioned by a media organization: Ramey, Corinne (May 7, 2018). "The 15 People Who Keep Wikipedia's Editors From Killing Each Other". Wall Street Journal.

Wikipedia 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

Late 2003 – May 2005 May 2005 – April 2006 April 2006 – April 2008 April–October 2008 October 2008 – April 2009 April 2009 – March 2010 March 2010 – February 2011 February 2011 – July 2011 July 2011 July 2011 – October 2011 October 2011 – late May 2012 late May 2012 – September 2012 September 2012 – February 2013 March 2013 – July 2013 July 2013 – November 2013 November 2013 – October 2014 October 2014 – November 2015 November 2015 – December 2016 January 2017 – January 2019 January 2019 – May 23, 2019 May 21, 2019 – January 2020 February 2020 – March 2021 March 2021 – June 2022 June 2022 – July 2023 August 2023 – present

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Hi, I'm really not sure where to take this question/concern and it's quite possible I'm the one who is misunderstanding things but I need to sort this out. I'm confident this is NOT the page for resolving this issue, but I can not identify what the high level location for such a discussion would be.

Of late I have noticed a trend by editors to defend creation of dedicated pages on tertiary subjects simply because the editor can find the topic they would like to see more coverage of mentioned in a "reliable source". These citeable "reliable source(s)" are then used to justify "notability" implied by the topic's presence in said reliable sources. And poof! we have a dedicated page about something that in all honesty is not truly notable from an encyclopedic stand point, does not provide any depth of understanding to a reader and really would be better addressed on an off wiki resource dealing with that specialized topic.

How and where do I elevate this discussion and is it really worth a discussion? Thanks! BcRIPster (talk) 02:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you take this to one of the village pump forums for further discussion, you are correct that this is not an issue the committee is going to get involved in. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that User:AGK has sent the following email to another editor

This text has been effectively confirmed by the editor AGK on User talk:Jimbo.

Note that the wording makes it clear that the other editor only "occasionally" edits from DoD (and in fact has not done so for some considerable time) - so choosing DoD rather than Verizon makes it clear that this is not standard "we will contact your ISP" note, with an extra warning but a clear threat.

Secondly mentioning "Wikimedia's Terms of Use" implies official sanction, rather than just an editor who has decided to act form his own initiative.

Thirdly the use of the second person "do not force us to contact" implies a group has sent or authorised this email. Given that the most prominent group User:AGK is a member of is the Arbitration Committee, this has been naturally assumed to be the group in question.

Fourthly, as indicated in the various discussions, it has been considered that this may pass beyond merely a Wikipedia issue, into the realms of criminal law.

Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch#Grave real-world harassment and Harassment and threats specifically "communicating with an editor's employer in retaliation for his or her editing on Wikipedia" I am reporting this to the Committee immediately, by the approved email mechanism.

Because the moderators of the email list have previously set it up to reject my emails, and also in the interests of transparency I will also post to Wikipedia Talk:ARB, and link from the existing discussion.

I would expect that as a result of this User:AGK would be asked to leave the committee, resign his admin bit and undertake not to email users in future.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC).

I was the drafter of the Jim62sch decision and am thoroughly familiar with the circumstances underlying that case. I do not consider the current situation as in any way comparable.

As I've indicated in the discussion on Jimbo Wales' talkpage, I would like to see this situation deescalated at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. You didn't. You said you would like to see the Kumioko situation de-escalated. Indeed I made proposals that edit-conflicted with your comment to just that effect. However the AGK situation has gone way past a slap on the wrist - don't do it again. He has lost the trust of the community. His past checkuser actions, edit warring, ridiculous range blocks(which he now denies) could perhaps be forgiven, especially if he had ever admitted fault or apologised. This however cannot. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC).

As NYB said, this is not comparable to the cited case at all. Abuse reports to ISPs, sometimes to academic or corporate networks, have long been a process on Wikipedia (although that specific process has fallen out of use), and the release of data for the forming of an abuse report is explicitly authorised by the Wikimedia terms of use. I assume AGK's reference to the ToU was w.r.t. the section that mandated compliance with the binding decisions of dispute resolution bodies. LFaraone 23:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you say filing abuse reports is no longer done. The dispute resolution body on en: is ArbCom, so that would be representing Arbcom as denied. Laws of agency are quite important here, too. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC).

LFaraone, this is different freom an ISP abuse report. In this case AGK is threatening to contact Kumioko's employer, not his ISP. Also, as noted above, the edits from DOD IPs have been sporadic. It is also very different from contacting, say, a company because you can't just be "fired" from the military, especially if you are an active service member and not a civilian. Also, the Abuse reports page has been deprecated and cannot be used. I note that Kumioko would not fit their requirements anyway. Finally, "As I understand from previous, similar abuse reports filed with the Navy etc., the DOD take an extremely dim view of employees using their networks in this manner. If you are in the armed forces, or a civilian employee of them, you are jeopardising your employment and risking real life disciplinary action. Please do not force us to contact your employer" does not sound at all like a standard abuse report. If it wasn't a standard abuse report, which AGK admits to below, than what was it? A friendly reminder? Because it sure didn't sound friendly to me. KonveyorBelt 00:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. An abuse report would be filed with all the ISPs used, or it would be ineffective. The other ISPs were not mentioned because they were irrelevant to the danger I was trying to draw Kumioko's attention to.
2. The abuse report would have to explain how the subject's actions constitute "abuse".
3. The exchange took place in a private e-mail between Kumioko and I (and a number of other individual editors). The committee mailing list was not connected to the correspondence.
4. As you know, your e-mail has in fact been added to the list of addresses to be automatically accepted.

   Your position does not tally with Wikipedia policy or community practice, nor with ordinary practice in the rest of the internet, because abuse reports is not a legal mechanism. It is a request for a private organisation to assist a private community in stopping abusive behaviour.

Your attention has already been drawn to all of this on other pages. AGK [•] 23:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AGK has already been told that this combative approach is not going to be effective in this case, and has chosen to ignore this advice, attracting more attention to the case he was allegedly trying to obliterate.

Clearly abuse reports are not going to work when an editor has so many hotspots and mobile options. They are a thing of the past if they ever worked.

There is nothing in this defence that advances AGKs case a whit. RF 00:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

You tone and language indicates you have gotten very emotional; when you are less so, perhaps you could consider the points I made. AGK [•] 15:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know you can read my emotional state from my "tone and language" - except that you can't, and, surely by now should have realised that even if that was your particular forte, it is not wise to ascribe emotions to another editor. Right or wrong it does not make you look good, and, right or wrong, it serves no useful purpose.

So to address your points, as you requested:

1. The abuse report was never going to be effective. You either knew this, or should have known it - as blocking huge swathes of IP addresses didn't work.
2. This is not clear from the email. A significant number of people read this the way I indicated. If you write an email that is widely interpreted as a threat, you are not operating in a way concomitant with being an administrator or arbitrator.
3. I did not bring up the committee mailing list. I would like to know who these other editors are.
4. I don't "know" that my email has been added to the auto accept, I have been told that it has. I have to consider the possibility of a rogue or incompetent moderator as happened before.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:07, 16 May 2014 (UTC).

I too urge the ArbCom to take action with regard to this email. We simply cannot allow users to make threats of this nature, and if such threats are made from positions of power then they are even more serious. We don't want to give the impression that the ArbCom as a whole is trying to bully editors by threatening to jeopardize their employment. I hope the ArbCom will confirm for us that this was merely the action of one misguided individual and was not in any way endorsed by the other members of the committee. Everyking (talk) 00:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Salvio said as much on Jimbo's talk page, but that doesn't make it excusable. In fact, forget AGK is a member of ArbCom for a moment and consider his actions as you would any other admin. KonveyorBelt 01:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but I think the ArbCom as a whole should make a statement to clarify it wasn't involved in this. This is a very serious thing, and I don't think the say-so of one other arb is sufficient. We need to clarify, first of all, whether this was misconduct by an individual or by the group. If we can confirm it was just the individual, then consequences for the individual should be considered. Everyking (talk) 01:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• In terms of analyzing AGK's behavior, it is already far serious enough to be considered in isolation from any role he has on ArbCom. It matters little whether he was speaking for ArbCom or not. What matters is the gross misconduct. I don't think we can separate ArbCom members into two persona each; one that is a member of ArbCom and one that is everything else. AGK's behavior casts an extremely poor light on ArbCom, regardless of whether he was acting as part of ArbCom or not. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I do think it matters whether he acted with the endorsement of other arbs, but we can certainly agree that AGK's behavior was unacceptable either way. Everyking (talk) 01:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I mentioned at Jimmy's talk page, I'll say it again here - abuse reports are a tool that is available to anyone. They are regularly filed, previously through a community process detailed here, but more recently just by individuals. It happens that one of the user's ISPs is also his employer - an employer who has in the past sanctioned their employees over such matters. I personally warned the user in question in the middle of March that continuing on his current path might lead to real life consequences. At the beginning of April, he confirmed that he understands the risks that he might get "a letter to my work or my internet provider". That was 6 weeks ago and he had not relented, even gloating that he would not stop.

  In these circumstances abuse reports are the correct course of action. That's not a "wikipedia" rule - it's what the abuse@ address is set up for. So, the question is - should AGK have let the user know that the report was imminent, or just filed it? I prefer the former. I wouldn't have written that email, but if I were in his shoes I would have written a similar one. Worm^TT(talk) 09:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AGK's use of the word "employees" makes it clear that he recognises he will be alerting Kumioko's employer and that he recognises (or imagines - I question whether it is necessarily so) that this will be very vexatious for Kumioko. That's the whole point of the threat. It's all about contacting the employer and not about filing a routine ISP abuse report (which incidentally based on your link doesn't seem to be active policy these days). It's quite plain that Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch#Grave real-world harassment applies. The email contains this "As I understand from previous, similar abuse reports filed with the Navy etc., the DOD take an extremely dim view of employees using their networks in this manner." What were these previous abuse reports he refers to? I'm surprised they haven't been raised at discussion on Mr. Wales' Talk page or at the other place. And if indeed the DOD etc. did take a dim view, what precisely was that view and why and what was the outcome? The sentence frankly strikes me as fantasy, or wishful thinking. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 10:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Coat of Many Colours - I recognise that alerting a DoD ISP to abuse is akin to alerting an employer and could cause more serious ramifications than "loss of internet". That's what makes the situation different - but the abuse report is still appropriate. Were AGK threatening to write a letter to his employer, or phone him, I would agree - but sending an abuse report - which would be a standard action isn't the same. It might be that there are no serious consequences - I have no idea. I also am not aware of any abuse reports filed by Wikipedians with DoD in the past, the situation that's fresh in my mind though is in the UK vandalism has been coming from government computers and the impression I got was that there would be serious consequences for any employees found to be doing so. I expect the situation to be similar in the States, though I cannot be certain. Worm^TT(talk) 11:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi W (I think I would want to know you better before I start calling you your full monniker :)). The UK vandalism you are talking about is about illegal trolling, inciting racial hatred and so on. It's not comparable, and moreover these DOD addresses are also used for residential accounts on base. It's not just "akin" to alerting an employer. It is alerting the employer and that was precisely the nature of the threat. AGK was fully conscious of it. Of course it's not a plea, his whole reputation centres around his zero tolerance towards vandals. From his very earliest days he was threatening "implications". Here's one such, to a respected administrator if you please who had displeased AGK's sensitivities by citing a Grand Jury investigation into Roman Catholic sex abuse (no really - do the research yourself). That's the baggage he carries with him. He can't credibly defend his email as a friendly nod and word of advice from the local copper to the local drunk GP (his distinctly curious analogy) But the sentence I quote really does for him, I'm afraid. I'm pretty sure it's fantasy and if that is so then he has no position at all to defend. Rich is quite right here. He has to go. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse reports are not generally available to anyone. IP addresses of named accounts are only available to CheckUsers. The CheckUser ability is wholly within the gift of ARbCom (which I have pointed out previously is a serious governance issue in itself). At this point the kindest thing for AGK, and the best thing for the project, is a speedy expulsion, not a semi-circling of the wagons. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC).

Not so, the user in question has been editing almost exclusively from IP addresses for months. Worm^TT(talk) 11:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are reaching here. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC).

It appears to me that you are reaching here. I've seen no evidence that AKG has obtained K's IP address via CU, and it is clearly the case that K has been using IP addresses. What's happened here doesn't justify a "speedy expulsion". Or the scare section heading. Dougweller (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• IMHO, AGK's email was unwise, but not evil and not worthy of sanction. I'm convinced, from long headache-inducing discussions on the mailing list, that AGK's intent was not to threaten, but to warn that something that has been done in the past in cases similar to this would have much larger than normal consequences this time. I see it as an attempt to bend over backwards not to get Kumioko in trouble at work.

Now, the practicality of an ISP report is debatable, but IF it's being considered, such an email prior to the report is important. This was premature, not unacceptable. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No - it wasn't "something that has been done in the past in cases similar to this would have much larger than normal consequences this time", rather it was "as I understand from previous, similar abuse reports filed with the Navy etc., the DOD take an extremely dim view of employees using their networks in this manner" i.e. in the past ArbCom have filed abuse reports with the DOD and they have their expressed considerable displeasure over the issue. Face it. He threatened to contact Kumioko's employers, said that ArbCom had acted similarly in the past (i.e. contact employers) and that in the case of the DOD they had responded with extreme disapproval. That's what he did. That's what you have to defend. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 14:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • I think using the word "evil" is unhelpful. AGk's action is not appropriate, clearly does not conform to community norms (the procedure is historical), of dubious legality, appears to represent ArbCom when it does not, displays characteristics of gunning personally for one editor (especially when combined with AGK's other actions, over this, blanking archives, edit warring, apparently creating abuse filters - and then lying about it). This attitude is long standing, and is not conducive to good governance. AGK should leave the committee to protect the project, not because he is "evil". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC).
    

    Could I just clarify a few things here. Just because the page is marked historical doesn't mean it's not happening any more, and requests were still being made to the end of 2013. It was marked historical because they weren't being actioned by the volunteers involved - volunteers which by the way included a significant majority of non-admins. As for appearing to represent ArbCom, AGK's email was responding to one of Kumioko's emails to multiple recipients. I believe Kumioko had BCC'd the recipients, so AGK's reply was just to Kumioko, but given Kumioko had been emailing large groups the context implied that AGK was associating himself with the rest of the group, rather than Arbcom. AGK has made this point elsewhere. Worm^TT(talk) 14:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • So did he speak for the rest of the group? It does not appear so. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC).
      

Claims have been made (by Kumioko and others) that he doesn't edit from Navy IP addresses any more (eg. above, "has not done so for some considerable time"). Note that he used them at least as recently as 28 April 2014, to harass AGK as it turns out. Fram (talk) 13:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The boot is rather on the other foot. AGK appears to have thought that preventing Kumioko from signing his name, by implementing an abuse filter was a good idea. That message, left over a fortnight ago, points out how useless this approach was. Had AGK been successful (which he manifestly was not, nor could he be) he would have been forcing Kumioko to edit anonymously - this would not have been a good thing by community standards. What is worse he specifically denies trying to stop Kumioko from using his name. I will leave it to others to confirm whether such an abuse filter existed and if so what the rules said and who wrote them. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC).

"He would have been forcing Kumioko to edit anonymously"? No, no one forces Kumioko to edit here, on the contrary, he is supposed to not edit here at all, "by community standards". Anyway, why did you claim that Kumioko hadn't been using these IP adresses for some considerable time when that wasn't really true and when the only apparent reason he finally stopped using the ones I checked was because they were blocked, not voluntarily? Fram (talk) 14:14, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Rich, I'm afraid that reply doesn't answer Fram's point. AGK [•] 15:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fram's point is non-existent. If there was no ongoing editing from DoD IP then filing an abuse report there would be at best pointless, at worst malicious. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC).

Nice evasive answer. You (and Kumioko) claimed that these IPs were long abandoned, which they clearly weren't. Which indicates that your opening post (and posts you made elsewhere) was either misinformed or an attempt to poison the well (Kumioko obviously hasn't the excuse of being misinformed about his own use of some IP adresses). Fram (talk) 12:19, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The important point is that the wording makes it clear that the other editor only "occasionally" edits from DoD. The parenthetical "some considerable time" is perfectly in tune with a fortnight - there was no ongoing editing. Of course if you find an actual error, please feel free to point it out. There is, of course, no shortage of material to supplement this report if it is required. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC).

How is this governed?

The AGK and Kumioko business aside, an issue has been starkly highlighted. The project does not appear to have any policy or procedure for how to handle such abuse reports. Ok, Wikipedia:Abuse response has been marked historical (for good reason). But, several templates (examples: {{Shared IP gov}}, {{Shared IP}}) have verbiage stating "abuse reports may be sent to its network administrator for further investigation." Further, Wikipedia:Long-term abuse is active (or at least not marked historical). Am I wrong that there is no policy or procedure for this?

Sure, anyone can make a report about an IP. All it takes is a whois lookup. But, it seems to me the project is opening themselves up for some serious potential harm in allowing abuse reports to come from more 'official' channels on the project (admins, bureaucrats, arbcom members) without having any set procedure for doing so. I can imagine a form letter of sorts to avoid the sort of situation that has evolved in the AGK/Kumioko case.

Thoughts? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect this is a point best clarified by the WMF, as the project has evolved beyond recognition since the abuse reports process was created. AGK [•] 15:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, no good deed goes unpunished. AGK told the user about the possible consequences, rather than just filing the report and creating those consequences. I view the warning as a kindness, not intimidation, under these particular circumstances. To avoid future ructions, I suggest that we should create a page that details what an abuse report is, and what the possible consequences may be. After than, any user can say, "If you continue, I will file an abuse report about you with your internet service provider. Please read about what that means. " Having standard text will avoid the risk of a warning being mis-perceived as harassment or attempted intimidation. Jehochman ^Talk 16:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Standard text is a good idea. A standard process is also a good idea. But both would require community consensus that community members that it is appropriate to us abuse reports. I would doubt that that would get consensus. Even then it is not true to say that "any user" could file a report, that would only be true of IPs. I would say that abuse reports of that type should be left to the Foundation, for the type of egregious actions we have, luckily, seen very rarely. Note depriving someone of Internet access, deprives their entire household, and can have far wider implications than it did years ago - even medical monitoring is done over the Internet these days. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC).

I think you are right Hammersoft. We have no procedure for raising abuse reports. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC).

@Jehochman No, AGK did not tell the user the possible consequences. He misrepresented the consequences. It's not true that ArbCom has contacted DOD in the past and it's not true that they take an extremely dim view of abuse of such reports from ArbCom. All that is fantasy and part of an extremely badly judged attempt to put pressure on Kumuiko. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 19:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About "no good deed goes unpunished", it occurs to me that Kumioko's stated goal has been to troll Wikipedia to the point where editors end up expending an undue amount of time reacting to it. It looks to me like he has been very successful at that. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 1) @Coat of Many Colours: Kumioko emailed me directly, ranting about an administrator. I emailed back and said 'Fair enough, but if you do keep socking and somebody files an abuse report, you could lose your job. Do you understand that?' This did not involve ArbCom and I am not sure why you are talking as though it did. Could you please stop putting words into my mouth? AGK [•] 19:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The email does not say "if" it says an abuse report will shortly be filed with this organisation - note the passive voice, again implying authority rather than just one random Wikipedia editor. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC).

@AGK I'm not putting words in your mouth. On the contrary, I'm reminding your apologists what they actually were. Of course Kumioko knew you were from ArbCom. Of course he would have surmised you were acting for ArbCom. Of course that's the impression you sought to give. You need to take responsibility for what you did. Your judgement was badly flawed and your response is immature. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's time for AGK to take some responsibility for his actions, and it's time for the ArbCom to hold him accountable for his actions. Everyking (talk) 22:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of balance, I am not going to comment further. You ought to do likewise and let other people have their say. One group should not dominate a discussion. AGK [•] 09:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be demure. No one is interested in preventing you from having your say. In fact, a number of people are probably disappointed that the bulk of the discussion appears to be taking place off-line on the arb mailing list and not in public. —Neotarf (talk) 03:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know what volume of discussion is taking place on the arbcom mailing list? Please let us know how ordinary editors like myself can access these statistics. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the discussions werent on the mailing list but on the functionaries and arbs irc channels. It should be noted that agk got read the riot act in private but no one dares speak up publicly because y hey would be proving kumioko right. And believe it or not, i am not kumioko. So feel free to revert this and blame it on them, but youll be proving his point about silencing critics. I was also the one who posted last time that james reverted. I am not banned and am in good standing but i dont dare make myself known and open myself up for retaliation.2607:FB90:1317:8F9C:14C3:9087:17BD:EE34 (talk) 03:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: there is no evidence known to me that this IP is a banned user whose posts should be reverted as such. The fear of "retaliation" is unwarranted, and he or she should really be posting from his or her registered account, but in the context of this discussion I'd say we let that go.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Er, how about "long headache-inducing discussions on the mailing list"? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee&diff=prev&oldid=608830238 although it may be OR to assign a statistical value to what level of hot air is necessary to induce headaches in arbitrators. Apparently AGK has convinced the committee that he is only motivated to help Kumioko and be his friend. —Neotarf (talk) 04:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]