Wikipedia:Village pump/Arbitration Committee Feedback

Community feedback on ArbCom Members
In the interests of continuing evaluation, the community expresses its nonbinding confidence or lack of confidence in the continuing arbiters.

Deskana



 * Discussion (15 / 13 / +2 / 54%)
 * Although less active than he might have liked, Deskana has made valuable contributions. His behind-the-scenes checkuser work has also been extremely helpful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Very wrong on the extension vote, but seems like a decent chap otherwise. SDJ 17:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This discussion isn't really necessary. I have already agreed with Jimbo and the Arbitration Committee that I am resigning at the end of the year, due to inactivity and illness. I simply had not announced it formally yet. I assume that will address everyone's concerns. I'll continue to help out behind-the-scenes with things like checkuser for the Committee. --Deskana (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That clears that up. If I may be so rude why didn't you make the announcement earlier so we could elect 8 rather than 7 new arbs? Or does this mean that there will be an 8th appointed? JoshuaZ (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me be equally as blunt. Tactical voting sucks, and you shouldn't do it. Pretty much all of my fellow Arbitrators (and Jimbo) agreed that it was not necessary to announce it. One even said that "Tactical voting is destructive to the community". I agree with them. Support the people you want, and oppose those that are clearly inappropriate. Do not oppose people simply because you're not supporting them. That's silly. --Deskana (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you explain why you didn't? Saying it was not necessary isn't a terribly good argument. This project values transparency. This is unnecessary non-transparency. And moreover even if many people disagree with tactical voting it is something that many do. There's no good reason to go out of your way to disrupt the selection process. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not announcing my intent to retire when I wasn't even totally certain about it is now "disrupting the selection process"? Part of the reason I decided to retire was because I found myself making rash decisions, and I wasn't about to make another one by prematurely announcing retirement so that I could go and change my mind. It only became a certainty that I wanted to retire today. Nonsense like this is what makes me want to retire. --Deskana (talk) 18:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My apologies. It wasn't clear from the above that you weren't certain that you were going to retire. In that context waiting to make the announcement makes sense. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I did announce it to my fellow Arbitrators when I was reasonably certain, but I could have told Jimbo before he appointed anyone that I'd changed my mind, and I'd have still kept my seat. I apologise for snapping but I am rather narked at the minute. --Deskana (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well thanks for the good work you have done. I would also like to know the same as Joshua. I'd have voted for eight people, not seven if I'd know you were resigning. If someone is appointed instead of the vote, well, there'll be words.  Majorly  talk  17:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That Arbs can "retire/stand down" and still do work for the committee and remain on the lists means we should be telling voters that they are not electing users for terms, but appointing irremovable aldermen GTD 17:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you would prefer to further burden the Arbitrators with doing checkuser work in addition to the already sizable amount of work that they have to do, then it seems clear to me that the community wants a committee of robots that make lots of article contributions, also spend time responding to the extensive mailing list discussion, and do all their own checkuser work. I do not believe such a person exists. People need to get their heads around what they're asking for. --Deskana (talk) 18:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, that's silly. Thank you for your past and future service. I am certain it is appreciated by all reasonable people. Would you prefer that this section remain here or be archived? DepartedUser (talk) 21:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm interested to see if any more constructive criticism comes from this, so I'd like it to remain for now, please. --Deskana (talk) 23:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Confidence
 * #He's a nice guy! Scarian  Call me Pat!  02:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Icewedge (talk) 04:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) SDJ 05:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This, more such is needed. Best wishes for your health. DuncanHill (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You no longer wish me well for my health? Meanie. :-) --Deskana (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I still wish you well for your health, of course. DuncanHill (talk) 17:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) While it's true that Deskana hasn't been very active due to personal reasons, I do actually trust his judgment and I have confidence in him. Acalamari 21:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Confidence in the Arbitrator that Deskana was. When Deskana's health returns I will strongly support Deskana returning to the Committee. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Per the two above mine. And get well soon. :) Orderinchaos 00:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I have confidence in any arb who was elected to the position. Nothing has come to my attention to make me doubt this arb.  --Alecmconroy (talk) 03:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Deskana is a terrific editor, administrator, bureaucrat, and mediator. It should come as no surprise that his performance as an arbitrator is deserving of the same merit, despite inactivity. I have surplus confidence in him, and am surprised the community has lost faith in him due solely to inactivity.  Master&amp;  Expert  ( Talk ) 04:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I could be sorely mistaken, but so far I've not interpreted the criticism of me here to be regarding any decisions that I have made. It most seems to be due to inactivity (both on the Committee, editing, and as an admin/bureaucrat). --Deskana (talk) 04:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Whoops, fixed. :)  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 02:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) PhilKnight (talk) 08:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Steady involvement throughout the year. To have been involved, and made it through the last year without any specific problems being raised below is a testament to Deskana, especially in light of recent news. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Undoubtedly one of Wikipedia's best editors, mediators, administrators, and bureaucrats. I understand quite well that he has been ill for some time and that this has impacted his ability to perform actively in the role of an Arbitrator, but I wish to express my complete confidence in his fitness to serve at any time when he feels he is most able. – Thomas H. Larsen 23:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) I've no problem with the Arbitrators. GoodDay (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) A protest vote of confidence. Since Deskana has now resigned, the discussion is rather futile. Nevertheless, I have in general confidence in the arbs individually and as a unit, and Deskana has not done anything to lose my confidence. The protest element of my vote is due to feeling that some of the rationales for non-confidence are not sound. In particular, while lack of activity is not ideal (whatever the reason), it is not enough to remove confidence in judgement. Martinp (talk) 03:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Per all above comments. His inactivity as an arbcom member makes it difficult to judge his arbitratorship contrary to other members below but nothing made me lost his confidence.  Cenarium  (Talk)  00:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Yep! AdjustShift (talk) 12:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Confidence in ability to be kind, helpful, and hard-working. There's no use having arbs if they're complete and utter arrogant assholes (which to my knowledge none are at this point in time, but Dan is synonymous to me with the aforementioned traits). &mdash; neuro  (talk)  11:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No Confidence
 * DepartedUser (talk) 01:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC) Struck. My lack of confidence was due to what appeared to be a lack of time. Given that this user realizes this, I no longer lack confidence in them. DepartedUser (talk) 21:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) --Cube lurker (talk) 02:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) GTD 02:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Nice but ineffective as an arb.  Majorly  talk  02:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Everyking (talk) 03:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I share Majorly's idea. I understand some of his inactivity was due to illness, but I'm afraid he just hasn't been very involved. &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 05:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm on the fence, having considered it. &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 10:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't believe it's possible to be an effective arbitrator of an encyclopedia when you are no longer engaged with said encyclopedia.  There is direct causation between lack of engagement and out-of-touch decision making.  Editors in governing positions who find themselves unable to average so much as one edit a week should scale back their roles of authority until they are again encyclopedists. --JayHenry (talk) 05:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) I had high hopes when he was elected, but it appears he's been infected with whatever most of the old arbs had. If he were still the same person he was when I voted for him as a 'crat, I'd have confidence in him, but he's changed. Tex (talk) 15:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Past 500 edits stretch all the way back to May 8, 2008 as of today. What happened? I can see if you went more active as an Arb, less an editor, or vice versa, but it's like you vanished. :( rootology  ( C )( T ) 17:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I fully expected my edits to decrease, as I can spend a rather sizable amount of time doing things offwiki (OTRS, mailing lists, IRC etc). As you can see I am slowly ramping up the mainspace edits . This is a pattern I hope to continue, though I admit writing is not my forté. --Deskana (talk) 00:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're looking to start editing article again, this one could use definitely use a polish (and a look from someone who probably doesn't know that much about ice hockey).  Maxim (talk)  00:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) You were a great admin and bcrat. I just wish the key word wasn't "were". Resigning as you're doing is probably best, for your personal health more so then anything you did as an arb. Hopefully I'll see you around in your bcrat role again soon :)  Wizardman  18:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Good luck on your health. I've been there, and still am. Vodello (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC) Sympathy is retracted, as you clearly intend to be a grouch that's a net negative to this site until the very end. Vodello (talk) 02:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I was wondering how long it would take before someone changed a vote based on a single comment. This was no doubt changed because of this, yes? You are aware that he was desysopped for a reason? --Deskana (talk) 02:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Is grouchiness now not allowed by long-term ArbCom members? Pretty soon were going to require Bodhisattvas with Semicha from Moshe. I'd add in being saints but we need ArbCom members who are alive or at least can consistently interact with the physical universe. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Too inactive. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 15:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Bishonen | talk 16:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Wetman (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC) I am sorry to hear that checkuser privilege is being retained, an example of privilege creep.
 * Deskana has had a long history of good checkuser use, before he even became an Arbitrator. It's only fair that he retains it, as his net benefit to the project in the area of combating sockpuppetry is very high. – Thomas H. Larsen 02:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Deskana shared private identifying RL information with another (non-checkuser) administrator about my sister that he obtained from his checkuser access, after he banned her. Gross breach of the privacy policy, yet quite common among checkusers
 * Your comments would carry more weight if you mentioned what user this was, rather than just being vague and non-specific. Given that checkuser cannot normally get private identifying real life information, I would be curious to hear more. --Deskana (talk) 14:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1)  miranda   02:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

FayssalF



 * Discussion (16 / 5 / +11 / 76%)
 * By far not the longest-winded of the arbitrators (that would be FT2 and myself), but his comments are often incisive and go straight to the heart of the matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If brevity is the soul of wit, then Fayssal is very witty. Unfortunately, he was very wrong on his (belated) vote on the block extension. Fortunately, he's not usually as shortsighted as that. SDJ 17:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I feel like I don't see Fayssal in action very often, which leads me to be uncertain of my level of confidence in him. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm with Heimstern. I don't know what he may be doing behind the scenes, but the public activity isn't enough for me to have a strong opinion on.  GRBerry 23:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Confidence
 * 1) Franamax (talk) 02:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Icewedge (talk) 04:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) SDJ 05:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4)  Majorly  talk  15:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Don't regret my support for FayssalF at all. Acalamari 21:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Effective when involved, but not as much as I would wish, and quite independent. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) I approve of his work. ~ the editorofthewiki  ( talk / contribs / editor review ) ~ 01:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Actually opposed this user's candidacy in 2007 for what I felt were solid reasons, however FayssalF has exceeded my expectations in the role and proven effective when involved (per caveats noted in other comments about activity). Orderinchaos 01:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) PhilKnight (talk) 08:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) John Vandenberg (chat) 10:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Good arbitrator. Cla68 (talk) 01:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Everyking (talk) 03:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Black Kite 13:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) I've no problem with Arbitrators. GoodDay (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) I have confidence in most of the arbs. Martinp (talk) 20:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) AdjustShift (talk) 12:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No Confidence
 * 1) DepartedUser (talk) 01:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) GTD 02:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Vodello (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Trusted until the Russavia incident. NVO (talk) 22:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Gets it wrong alarmingly often; I get the feeling he doesn't thoroughly review matters before taking action, voting, or commenting. (Call this a "gut feeling.") Seems willing to serve, which is a redeeming point; but no, I'm not happy here. Nothing personal, AGK 15:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 6)  IronDuke  02:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

FloNight



 * Discussion (29 / 9 / +20 / 76%)
 * Extremely dedicated and diligent, often a voice of experience and good sense, active and timely on every case and motion, part of the backbone of the committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Voting to punish Moreschi is unacceptable, per Majorly, but not enough to remove my confidence in Flo. So she got one wrong -- haven't we all? SDJ 18:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It isn't one thing. My confidence was weak, but was made even weaker.  Majorly  talk  18:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm confident again :-)  Majorly  talk  20:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Confidence
 * 1) Franamax (talk) 02:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Don't agree with everything, but I think on balance Flo is a good arb. JayHenry (talk) 04:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Icewedge (talk) 04:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Does things well. &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 05:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) SDJ 05:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Do not agree with all her decisions but on the balance she is netto-positive Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Clearly a net positive. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Flo's OK. Tex (talk) 15:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 9)  Majorly  talk  15:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC) Generally OK, though there have been disagreements.  Majorly   talk  15:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Keeps up dialogue after the event, and is willing to revisit decisions - therefore the wrongs committed are not set in stone. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC) (addendum) Also active in workshop. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Per LHVU. Would you prefer that Flo voted to demop me, people? Moreschi (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Overall a net positive. rootology  ( C )( T ) 23:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) My personal opinion of Flo at this point would likely get me blocked if I put it here. There have been multiple occasions where Flo has handled matters extremely badly. However, the vast majority of the time Flo has dealt well with matters and even in the ones where she has not there have been (arguable) extenuating circumstances.  JoshuaZ (talk) 23:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Flo's a good person. She's not perfect, but net positive.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 23:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) Crystal whacker (talk) 00:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) Don't always agree with decisions/votes but do trust Flo's judgement and appreciate her willingness to communicate with the community. Orderinchaos 01:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I have confidence in any arb who was elected to the position. Nothing has come to my attention to make me doubt this arb.  --Alecmconroy (talk) 03:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) Sound judgement; one of Wikipedia's best administrators, and consequentially, one of its best arbitrators too.  Master&amp;  Expert  ( Talk ) 04:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 19) Net positive. PhilKnight (talk) 08:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 20) I've had many great experiences with FloNight, in regards to Arbitration and other matters. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 21) Ceoil (talk) 12:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 22) Modernist (talk) 15:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 23) Highly active; appears to be a net plus. I have confidence here. AGK 16:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 24) I've no problem with Arbitrators. GoodDay (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 25) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 26) I have confidence in most of the arbs. Martinp (talk) 20:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 27) Elonka 20:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 28) ok with me
 * 29) AdjustShift (talk) 12:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 30) Carlosguitar (Yes Executor?) 13:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No Confidence
 * 1) GTD 02:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Everyking (talk) 03:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) She gave me too much of a bad taste in the mouth during last year's BADSITES wars. *Dan T.* (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Voting to admonish Moreschi is unacceptable, and place him under some kind of parole is completely unacceptable.  Majorly  talk  16:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Switched back to Happy.  Majorly  talk  20:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) More like 20/80 confidence, but close enough. Vodello (talk) 20:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Voting to punish Moreschi is unacceptable, and that is enough to remove my confidence in Flo, amongst other reasons. ~ the editorofthewiki  ( talk / contribs / editor review ) ~ 21:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Lets users get away with anything if she likes them IMHO. In a lot of recent comments on arb cases, seems to have tried to be 'trendy' and popular.  Seems nice, but her judgment personally and as an arb is weak and motivated by desire for the approval of others, at least nowadays.  In the deepest possible way, does not retain personal integrity and act as an arb should (but hey, we're all human beings). Sticky Parkin 03:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Per sticky Viridae Talk  09:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Has a history of bad judgment  and I feel she is perhaps too self-righteousness to be a good arbitrator, though I will say that for many matters her so-called love of "trendiness" provides a good balance on the committee. However, I definitely share the opinion of some above that she arbitrates based on personal feeling rather than on objective judgment. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 15:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Supported WP:BLPSE, which is bad enough, but also far too lenient with genuine problems as above. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

FT2



 * Discussion (13 / 66 / -53 / 16%)
 * His months of work as the Poetlister-lister, among other contributions, warrant commendation. One of those who took the primary responsibility for picking up the slack during the time I was away. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but then there's a variety of other issues such as his unilateral decision with Orangemarlin. FT2 took up some of the slack but it isn't clear he handled the slack well at all. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Also later thought: The Poetlister matter could have been handled by anyone who  has checkuser. I don't think anyone is claiming that FT2 is not a good checkuser. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "Taking up the slack" simply isn't enough. What one does with the slack is what matters, and FT2 has used it to bind his own hands, at least in the eyes of the community. I don't vote "no confidence" lightly, but I have lost all confidence in FT2's ability to adjudicate with anything resembling fairness or wisdom. I wish it were not so. SDJ 18:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

How can anyone claim that "Arbitration process is important for editors and for content development"? Arbitration is only necessary because of a few exceptionally stubborn and easy-to-anger users and others who just love drama. I never see myself being a party in an arbitration case.-- Patton 123  19:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been a party in a wheel warring Arbitration case because I deleted a page. Being a party is something that can happen to anyone. It's having sanctions that's the problem. --Deskana (talk) 00:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

When he was first on the committee, and a voice among many, he was quite effective - however, it has become clear that he believes that Arbship confers a superiority over other contributors (sysop flagged or not) and that as a leading spokesman is one of its foremost examples, and then acts to completely reverse that assumption. Epic fail. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I cannot bring myself to vote either way. If there was a "neutral", that'd be where I'd stand right now. I feel sad in saying so, as I believe behind NYB he was the best pick of the last ArbCom elections and certainly in his first few months in the role performed very well. The biggest question is about individual judgement - there was an arb case recently in which he was a filing party and yet did not recuse until practically instructed to. I know as an admin that when I am involved in a situation I am suddenly just an editor again as far as that situation is concerned, and I have to hope that the project/admins will sort the problem out. That general concept goes for any level of user. I do not share the view of the strong opposes about the OM situation - it was out of control and something needed to be done, and the end product of the whole tortuous process was in fact an improvement of the situation. But, especially in the last couple of months, actions taken as an arbitrator have reduced the community's faith in the Committee as a whole and the Committee cannot function without people trusting its position - as we've seen recently with the Moreschi/Giano situation where ArbCom struggled not to be seen as simply another biased party acting without justification instead of an arm's-length judge whose decisions stood up to scrutiny and could be respected. In summary, I believe he can once again be an excellent arbitrator but needs to take stock and consider what needs to change in his attitude and approach - maybe it's just a getting too close to the thing and taking it too seriously situation, one I can well relate to myself from past experience. (I'd note to the "what has he done?" group that he had a significant role in developing some of our core policies long before he became an arb.) Orderinchaos 01:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

How anyone can have the confidence of the community when they bring the project into disrepute is beyond me GTD 03:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The Register is hardly the great bastion of accurate journalism. Moreover, nothing in that article in any way directly implicates FT2 in anything. That we might need clearer rules about when to use Oversight is probably true. That's not FT2's fault. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed (probably the first time Joshua and I ever have. :)). And indeed, the language in that article is rather hysterical and difficult to take seriously. As for oversight, I think it's vital that we get to a point where there are clear rules and policies which govern its use and some sort of ombudsman, not unlike the Checkuser Ombudsman, with authority to ensure it's being used correctly. My understanding is that its use is very rare indeed, so it should not be an arduous task to have an oversight ombudsman. Orderinchaos 04:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * A decent Arbitrator, if prolix at times. Judgment is decent a lot of the times; has been poor on a few occasions. Unfortunately, when he has gotten it wrong, it's been a mini-catastrophe. (Note: the Orangemarlin case was not, from the information available, an example of poor judgment in my view.) Could be a great Arbitrator if he wrote tighter comments that rambled less. I hope FT2 sticks it out for one more year (or half a year: we seem to be in line for a mid-200 8 9 election—then again, we were also in line for a mid-2008 one…), and then makes a decision as to whether he wants to stay on for his full term. Coupled with Mackan's opinion (below, in "Confidence"), I am not inclined to vote "No confidence," for now at least. AGK 15:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Mid-2009 I assume you mean?  Majorly  talk  23:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, yes. Date corrected. AGK 20:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Confidence
 * 1) He's a nice guy!  Scarian  Call me Pat!  02:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Icewedge (talk) 04:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Kittybrewster  &#9742;  12:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I have confidence in any arb who was elected to the position.  While I've been on the other side of this arb on some issues, nothing he has done leads me to doubt his good faith attempts to be the best arb he can be.  Confidence.  --Alecmconroy (talk) 03:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) FT2 has tried to do too much for the committee, but I think this is at least as much the rest of committee's fault as it is his.  If the others were active and presented their views on these disputes where FT2 has taken flack, I think it would turn out that his views were very much in line with the rest.  But they don't, and so he takes action, and not only does he get hammered for it but then he gets doubly hammered for trying to be an ArbCom of one.  Everyone has blind spots, and I think FT2 underestimates his own, but until the rest of the committee picks it up I don't see the problem as him. Mackan79 (talk) 07:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Mackan79, while I can't express confidence at this time, I think that is a very perceptive viewpoint. To some extent, FT2 is getting crucified here because he has simply tried to do too much. Franamax (talk) 08:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Again, confidence.  This is obviously a little more controversial than saying I have confidence in the other current members, however the need to say this is actually why I decided to participate in this feedback page.  I strongly believe that FT2 is needed on Arbcom.  Poetgate is a prime example.  We voted him in for a good reason, and he has performed as many of us expected him to; I voted for him like many others did.  I have seen him undertake to fix some very large problems, and while not always succeeding, he tried, tried harder than most give him credit for, and probably even tried too hard.  The solution is not to oust him for his failings (or blind spots as Mackan79 puts it), which are primarily symptoms of systemic problems in the committee and the community; instead we need to address the underlying problems.  The committee is supposed to be a team effort; FT2 will be a valuable member in this team, and I am very confident that the election results this year have ensured that the team will be diverse and functional in this coming year.  If there are ongoing concerns with regards to the role that FT2 plays in the committee in the coming year, the entire committee needs to be taken to task. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) FT2 possesses the mind and has the analytical skills of a good judge, which is what an arb is supposed to be. FT2 as judge policeman enforcer is another thing. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 15:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) I worked a lot with the Poetlister case, and despite doubts, FT2 was always ready to help with it. I also think that FT2 possesses a great degree of willingness to take on tough situations. Is that going to lead to some dislike? Of course it is, see below. Is that going to lead to some mistakes? Of course it is, see OrangeMarlin. Is that ultimately going to lead to a better project? Yes, see the principled and very thoughtful "oppose" to WP:BLPSE, which has indeed turned out to be a fiasco when used and for that reason used very little. If I had to choose one current arbitrator to keep, this would be the one. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) I've no problem with Arbitrators. GoodDay (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Confidence.  Though there are a few recent actions of FT2 that I disagree with (and which I think are some of the reasons for the "no confidence" comments below), overall I have strong confidence that FT2 is a good arbitrator, a hard worker, and a net positive for the encyclopedia and for the Committee. He has been the driving force behind some of the positive changes for the Committee over the last year, such as the Working group for ethnic and cultural edit wars.  He is one of the arbitrators who tries to wade in and deal with some of the most chronic and intractable problems that we have.  Of course there is going to be resistance, and sometimes toes are stepped on, but overall his efforts are made in good faith, and are gaining traction in dealing with some of the more longrunning disputes.  He should be allowed to continue with his efforts. --Elonka 20:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) I respect many, if not all, of the editors who have voted "no confidence" below, but in my opinion FT2 is trying, and often succeeding, at doing a good job as an arbitrator.  He has made some mistakes, such as leaning a little too far forward with the "secret" hearing about OrangeMarlin.  The reasoning, however, behind pursuing that case in the first place was correct.  FT2 is also way too verbose.  He needs to find a way to give his point of view more succintly, but that's not an impeachable offense. Cla68 (talk) 03:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) FT2 has been willing to explain his actions to me. I feel confident in his judgment, though I can understand why others might not feel confident if they had not heard his side of the story. I am hopeful FT2 will be more concise in his comments and pay more attention to how things are perceived.  Appearances affect morale, a real value. Sorting out the Poetlister mess was extremely important.  I regret that the community has not given him much credit for that work, among other things he has done. Jehochman Talk 23:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) I've found him to be approachable and friendly, if unpredictable in what he eventually decides at times.  The length and obscurity of his comments, about which some people have commented, has been much improved in recent months IMHO.  However it could be just that it's infectious, so everyone who hears from him ends up writing like him and doesn't see it as a problem.  I've seen some other people do this too lol:) Sticky Parkin 10:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No Confidence
 * 1) DepartedUser (talk) 01:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) DuncanHill (talk) 02:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) --Cube lurker (talk) 02:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) GTD 02:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Nice, but too many errors for me to be confident in him as an arb.  Majorly  talk  02:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) I'm not convinced after recent events. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Everyking (talk) 03:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 05:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) My confidence has dwindled. Still has merit, but, eah. &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 05:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) SDJ 05:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Per Orangemarlin affair, Peter Damian affair, escalating conflict with Giano, etc. Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) a) The OrangeMarlin affair alone is enough to oppose him. (And I am saying this as someone who is not a fan of OM.) He is the only Arbcom member who doesn't profit from plausible deniability: By doing communicating the "verdict" he made it clear that he, personally, thought that a secret case against an established editor might plausibly be a reasonable Arbcom action. And I still haven't seen his public apology. When I asked OM if there was a private apology, I didn't get a response. b) The "motion" that led to SlimVirgin's temporary de-adminning. He even had to be told that he couldn't possibly be a judge in a case where he was already a party (although because of the "motion" trick his behaviour was not in scope) and the prosecutor, before he recused himself. c) Very bad handling of the entire complex related to his own election and Peter Damian. d) Major role in the escalation of the Giano war. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Per Hans Adler's excellent summary. Discombobulator (talk) 10:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Fully agree with Hans.  Verbal   chat  11:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) Also per Hans Adler comments. -- Crohnie Gal Talk  12:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) As I said in my arbitration comments, this case should result in FT2 being desysopped. You don't retaliate against a fellow admin by blocking them.  If we allow that kind of behavior, it's open season for major disruption.  This is a simple, straightforward flagrant abuse of the admin tools. --B (talk) 14:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) I was actually going to go to FT2's page today and ask him personally how he thought he was performing in his role as an arb. If he had to be reconfirmed, does he think he would have faired as well as JamesF and Charles Matthews in the latest election?  It's hard to believe he would.  He has lost the community's trust, I believe.  He's still got 2 years as an arb to make up for what he has done in his first year, but he really needs to think about what he's done and how he can get the community's trust back and start acting on it. Tex (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) Patton  123  17:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 19) I really am struggling to see the point of FT2 - not 'his' point, 'the' point. A resignation is about the only thing I can think that he might have of value to offer the project. Joopercoopers (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 20) While he's a perfectly good article writer, when it comes to disputes I can't recall a single situation that has been improved by FT2's involvement in it. If we need an Arbcom, FT2 is the opposite of the sort of person who should be on it – he has an amazing ability to make huge drama out of the most trivial issue, to alienate every side in any given dispute, to treat his personal opinions as hard facts and to treat minor breaches of policy as hanging offences. – iride  scent  18:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC) 
 * 21) Sorry. Sceptre (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 22) FT2 has almost single handedly made the arbcom worthless, with the uncanny ability to do just the right action to create a drama shitstorm, the constant baiting, and of course, the borderline harrassment over-psychoanalyzing. Quite a feat for one person, but you've done it. Congratulations. Vodello (talk) 20:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 23) Seems to think arbcom is above the community. ~ the editorofthewiki  ( talk / contribs / editor review ) ~ 20:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 24) Has become a net negative as far as Arbcom are concerned, probably also a net negative as an admin also. RMHED (talk) 21:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 25) Why rely on policy and practice when you are an Arb? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 26) Time to go. NVO (talk) 22:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 27) Not since OM. Moreschi (talk) 23:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 28) Please step down. Aunt Entropy (talk) 23:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 29) My opinion of FT2 is beyond just his incompetence as an Arbcom member, it's that he is an incompetent admin, and really isn't an editor that has any value on the project.  His POV editing of NLP is sufficient to make me laugh hysterically.  It's hard to respect the authority of this individual, when you can't even respect the individual.  In the military there's an old adage that you salute the rank not the person.  Well, in this case, the person is so destructive that he demeans the rank and the value of Arbcom.  User:B is right.  Desysop him, and let's move on.  FT2 is not useful to this project.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 00:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 30) Crystal whacker (talk) 00:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 31) Per Hans Adler. FT2 is pretty much the worst arbitrator there is, especially w.r.t. the oversighting affair, which he claims he's 'too busy' to clarify on at the moment on his talk page. As saying 'no, I wasn't aware' would take only a few seconds I'm forced to conclude that yes, he was aware that his edits were oversighted, and therefore he is a liar, and he is just playing for time and hoping people move on and/or forget about it. I also agree with OrangeMarlin, what has he done at all that's beneficial to the project? He should not be an administrator, let alone an arbitrator. All he has done is cause drama and pursue personal vendettas with little to no benefit for the proejct.   THE GROOVE   01:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 32) LOL, no.  Guettarda (talk) 04:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 33) From what I've seen of him, while he appears to be highly civil, his judgement is sub-optimal. To be an effective arbitrator, you must always ensure you are able to maintain a balance of impartiality and integrity, which FT2 has unfortunately failed to convey. Apologies, as my overall impression of him is positive, but he's proven that he is an ineffective arbitrator.  Master&amp;  Expert  ( Talk ) 04:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 34) Under the circumstances, a resignation would be the best course of action. PhilKnight (talk) 07:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 35) Time to go --Shot info (talk) 07:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 36) Has displayed some horrifically bad judgement, some of which continues to bite him (and the committee as a whole) in the ass. Viridae Talk  09:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 37) Judgement is the number one requirement of an arbitrator - that's where we go when existing policy fails. I don't think FT2 has demonstrated the required degree of judgement. I'm also deeply concerned about the self-conferred primus inter pares status, and particularly the erosion of the pares bit. Orpheus 10:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 38) Sorry. I hope to expand on my reasons soon, but just wanted to register my opinion for now. the wub  "?!"  11:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 39) Has indeed performed as a few members of the community expected him to. Sometimes ok, sometimes disastrously wrong.  The disasters more than counterbalance the positive contributions.  A major problem remains as PMAnderson described in the 2007 vote - "anyone who handles criticism this badly should not be an arbitrator."  GRBerry 23:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 40) Combines the worst possible characteristics for an arb: high concern for civility with no basic understanding of civic procedure. Per Hans Adler. Amerique dialectics 23:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 41) Giano, Peter Damian, ScienceApologist, SlimVirgin, Moreschi, the list goes on… Worfy
 * 42) Sorry. - Mailer Diablo 00:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 43) Per Hans.  II  | (t - c) 00:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 44) To appear fair, an arbitrator must be able to perceive monumental conflicts of interest. A conflict appreciably greater than FT2's in the SlimVirgin case is hard to imagine, but FT2 was "fairly sure" he could judge his own case.  It seems he simply doesn't understand the concept or that he was claiming superhuman abilities. Any arbitrator who has shown such spectacularly bad, even weird, judgment should resign, as it prevents reasonable trust in his ability to do his job.John Z (talk) 05:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 45) Giano (talk) 11:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 46) Uneasy about contributing to a non-profit org with a power broker at one of the highest levels. Ceoil | talk 12:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 47) No judgment, no honour. The consideration that FT2 has two more years to go on the committee was one of the reasons I withdrew my own ArbCom candidacy. I don't have the slightest belief that he will ever stand down voluntarily, either. Bishonen | talk 14:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC).
 * 48) Modernist (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC), I do agree that the Poetlister affair was well done. Modernist (talk) 12:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 49) None whatsoever.   Hi DrNick ! 16:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 50) 'Nuff said already.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 51) Wetman (talk) 20:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC) Posterboy, whether he deserves it or not, for the current disreputable situation.
 * 52) Sorry, but the recent events concern me. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 02:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 53) Many things, over time. – Outriggr  § 04:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 54) No confidence.
 * 55) Sorry, nothing personal, see my comments at Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive140. --Duk 03:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 56) Poor judgement. Mathsci (talk) 06:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 57) You are the poster child for why Arbcom is viewed as a joke. Jtrainor (talk) 11:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 58) Not everything FT2 is blamed for is solely FT2's fault, but a large share of blame is his, and we'd be better off without him on the committee. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 59) The wrong person for this assignment. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 60)  miranda   02:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 61) Terrible judgment, per Hans. &mdash; neuro  (talk)  12:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 62) Poor judgement on occasion, per the OM case. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC).
 * 63) You need to step down, I supported you, (pre ArbCom) and I still think you are the best with dealing with BLP and AFDs. I wasn't fully active over the last year, so I can't support a comment on what he did wrong or didn't do wrong, but it seems like you lost the trust of the community. Step down and go back to the editor you were before ArbCom. It's the best you could do Secret account 22:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 64) I've been cutting him slack for way too long, but after his latest round of complete evasion and non-answering of questions surrounding the issues, I'm willing to throw my hat into the "recall from all positions of trust" ring. FT2 has had ample opportunities to deal with this cloud that he's under simply by being open and honest, yet he keeps delaying with claims that he is "consulting about privacy issues".  Please.  If you cannot resolve this issue over the course of many months, and your credibility remains in ruins, it is time to resign.  -- Cyde Weys  22:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 65) Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 66) 'Gilliamesque' (a term of praise for a black-comedy-director, not an arbitrator). HrafnTalkStalk 13:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 67) Don't trust him, sorry. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 05:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin



 * Discussion (35 / 5 / +30 / 88%)
 * One of the leading arbitrators at actually rolling up his sleeves, reading through all the reams of evidence, and writing up the cases. A key part of every discussion and decision. I don't agree with him about everything, but that's why the committee comprises 15 individuals, not 15 clones. His essay on professionalism should be read and followed by every Wikipedian. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I know him well from MilHist, he respects the community's wishes and is ahard worker.-- Patton 123  17:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * While I've been confused by some positions he's taken, I've never felt that Kirill had anything other than the best of this project at heart. Disagreeing with someone (even strongly so) doesn't mean that I have no confidence in them. SDJ 18:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A key word here is effort. Kirill unquestionably makes more than an effort to keep the committee running. Sometimes he is the driving force (consider the hopefully soon-to-be-closed Piotrus 2 case, where even though some of his remedies didn't pass, he got the ball rolling). I sometimes find his views strange, I'll admit it, but at least he keeps stuff going. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Confidence
 * 1) Franamax (talk) 02:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Icewedge (talk) 04:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) SDJ 05:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Discombobulator (talk) 11:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Patton  123  17:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) I don't always agree with all his decisions, but being willing to stand in the face of a rising tide you disagree with is worth much. Backbone. rootology  ( C )( T ) 17:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Wizardman  17:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) ~ the editorofthewiki  ( talk / contribs / editor review ) ~ 21:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Participates in Proposed Decision pages, and steers own course in votes/comments. Yay! LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Has done a consistently good job on nationalism RFARs. Deserves high praise for actually reading evidence pages. Moreschi (talk) 23:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Per Moreschi. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Crystal whacker (talk) 00:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I have confidence in any arb who was elected to the position. Particularly strong confidence in this one.  --Alecmconroy (talk) 03:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Phenomenal Wikipedian; judgement is sound.  Master&amp;  Expert  ( Talk ) 04:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) Personal opinion only Shot info (talk) 07:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) Net positive. PhilKnight (talk) 08:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) All round bloody good arb. Root and Moreschi said it best. Viridae Talk  09:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) per everyone above. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 19) Good guy. --Folantin (talk) 13:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 20) Colchicum (talk) 13:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 21) Ayuh.  GRBerry 23:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 22) Cla68 (talk) 01:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 23) Works hard and has wikipedia's best interests at heart [I think]. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 15:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 24) Appears to be a clear-headed individual who gets things done.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 16:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 25) Is his own man. Ceoil (talk) 12:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 26) Modernist (talk) 15:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 27) Free-thinking and not a blind yes-man. Puts in solid and impressive work (most especially in evidence evaluation and decision production). Good communication skills and very friendly. Focussed on the mainspace too, which is a rarity in an Arbitrator. One of the best with a seat at the moment (not counting the new Committee members, who have been serving for less than a day). AGK 16:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 28) The Kww fiasco apart, generally a net positive. Black Kite</b> 17:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 29) I've no problem with Arbitrators. GoodDay (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 30) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 31) I have confidence in most of the arbs. Martinp (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 32) Elonka 20:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 33) Wetman (talk) 20:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC) This is a straight arrow.
 * 34) Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 35) Net positive. AdjustShift (talk) 12:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 36) Why not? Carlosguitar (Yes Executor?) 12:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 37) I've seen a few things I'd classify as good-faith errors of judgement, but there's no doubt he's a benefit to the Arbcom overall. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 01:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No Confidence
 * 1) --Cube lurker (talk) 02:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) GTD 02:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Everyking (talk) 03:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Vodello (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Thinks ArbCom can make policy and wants too much BLP, supported WP:BLPSE. Anyone who supported that does not have my confidence. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 6)  IronDuke  02:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad



 * Discussion (54 / 2 / +52 / 96%)
 * Brad has been the most consistently fair arbitrator. His presence on the Arbcom redeems it from nearly all its faults. SDJ 18:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If we were to have some form of Glorious Revolution, I'd welcome Brad's fleet arrive at the port while the King makes a quick escape! GTD 18:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's clear to me that Brad has the confidence of the community. Probably in a way no one else does.  The question is really "What does the community need from Newyorkbrad, and can he give it to us?"  Obviously we're missing something right now.  Brad, is it too much to ask you to save us from ourselves? Wily D  21:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, please ask yourselves this: What does Newyorkbrad need from the community? I ask this for a reason. All this stuff is giving him an exceedingly crappy time, maybe more so than the rest of the arbs, even. It's a sad inequity inherent in our system that the arbs most dedicated to the community deal with the most whatsit. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe that's something we should ask Brad? Wily D 23:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sure some of this is still halo effect from his departing and returning, but it's all good. ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 17:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Confidence
 * 1) DepartedUser (talk) 01:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * -- Cube lurker (talk) 02:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Franamax (talk) 02:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2)  Scarian  Call me Pat!  02:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3)  Majorly  talk  02:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Speedy Keep --B (talk) 03:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Actually, in Brad I trust GTD 03:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Simply awesome. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Everyking (talk) 03:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) JayHenry (talk) 04:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Icewedge (talk) 04:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Appears both decent and human. DuncanHill (talk) 04:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 05:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Absolutely. &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 05:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) SDJ 05:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) One of the best arbitrators Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) Clearly the best member. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) Seems to listen and judge after he hears the facts, not before. -- Crohnie Gal Talk  12:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) At this point, only one of a very few on the committee that I trust. Tex (talk) 15:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) JoshuaZ (talk) 15:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 19) I dont know how you do it. I wish everyone could do it too. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 17:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 20) Yes. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology  ( C )( T ) 17:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 21)  Wizardman  17:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 22) The only decent commitee member. Blow up arbcom and replace everyone else. We just had an election. Fill in the slots where the charred remains used to be and get this thing rebooted now. Vodello (talk) 20:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 23) In my view the outstanding performer on the committee, without a doubt. Orderinchaos 21:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 24) With a poem:
 * The arbcom can make me really mad
 * But I would be really sad
 * If we lost, of all the arb's we've had
 * The one known as Newyorkbrad. ~ the editorofthewiki  ( talk / contribs / editor review ) ~ 21:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Nagging fears re Palpatine currently submerged by Brad's transparency and availability - plus the genuine hurt demonstrated when off Wiki events forced a temporary absence. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Trust. NVO (talk) 23:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Crystal whacker (talk) 00:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Overall, his judgement is exceptional and him being an arbitrator is a net positive.  Master&amp;  Expert  ( Talk ) 04:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I have confidence in any arb who was elected to the position.  NYB in particular!  --Alecmconroy (talk) 04:57, 18 December 2
 * 6) Personal opinion only --Shot info (talk) 07:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) PhilKnight (talk) 08:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Well duh. Kirill and brad are the only two arbs I wholeheartedly back. Viridae Talk  09:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Great deport; poetic support. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Ayuh.  GRBerry 23:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) I think he should take a stronger stand sometimes, but his mediation skills are definitely needed. Cla68 (talk) 01:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Keep doing exactly what you have been doing so far, your judgement on arbcom matters has always been the best for me. Davewild (talk) 07:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Would like reasons to oppose someone so popular, but as with FT2 I have to acknowledge he has the actual skills to be an arb and clearly has either immense diplomatic skills or else this gigantic honeymoon period is being caused by supernatural forces. This and real world skills make him the natural leader of the arbcom. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 15:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Very much. The confidence extended to Newyorkbrad indicates that, if the community wants an effective process of authoritative rules-based dispute resolution, it should consider looking for more people who, like, do this sort of stuff for a living.   Sandstein   19:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 15)  Captain   panda  02:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) Ceoil (talk) 12:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) I trust Brad, and think him highly competent. AGK 15:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) Has a terrific sense of fairness; and a willingness to use judgment, uh - (poetry aside) impossible not to support... Modernist (talk) 15:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 19) <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 17:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 20) I've no problem with Arbitrators. GoodDay (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 21) (Although concerned about an NYC MeetUp video; more awareness of the growing problem of children on Wiki might be in order.)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am sensitive to the issue raised here. However, the father of the younger editor in question was present at the meet-up. I specifically discussed this issue with him before the camera was turned on, and he told me that he had no objection to his son being included. (Please take any further discussion on this to SG's talkpage or mine.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) I have confidence in most of the arbs. Martinp (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Elonka 20:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Wetman (talk) 20:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC) This is another straight arrow.
 * 4) Definitely. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 02:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) The Arbitration Committee's last hope
 * 6) -- Xp54321 ( Hello! •  Contribs ) 03:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Proved to be an excellent committee member, and a voice of calm.  Cenarium  (Talk)  00:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) AdjustShift (talk) 12:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 9)  miranda   02:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) I love brad. :D Carlosguitar (Yes Executor?) 12:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 11)  Enigma <sup style="color:#FFA500;">msg  21:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) NYB's judgement is above dispute. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 01:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) Obvious. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 05:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No Confidence
 * <S> No confidence that he alone can make up for the den of iniquity ArbCom has become GTD 02:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)</S>


 * 1) Changed to oppose per failure to acknowledge the shortcomings of his fellows and the arrogance found in his poem that no matter what the community desires he will get two more years anyways.--Cube lurker (talk) 04:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The poem has changed since my comment, this diff represents the version I commented on.
 * My criticisms of various aspects of the committee's work can be found all over the case pages, and of course I would not wish to remain part of the committee if the community made it clear it did not want me to be. I'm sorry if I offended by a bit of levity after what you can imagine was, for me as an arbitrator, a thoroughly miserable day. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC) Played with the last quatrain a little. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The only thing anyone has complained about here regarding Brad is that he made a rhyme that someone doesn't like. This seems to be praising with faint damnation. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As penance, Brad should be made to write the first 17 syllables of his Arb statements in haiku. :) Franamax (talk) 20:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)008 (UTC)
 * I don't write haiku
 * Double dactyls, frequently
 * But haiku no way
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) This pains me, because I strongly supported NYBrad, but I can't support someone who goes for far too much BLP (keeping "secret" names that aren't?) and supported the WP:BLPSE attempt at ArbCom making policy, nor someone who frequently utilizes Wikipedia Review. I was singularly unimpressed by a discussion I saw there regarding me. I couldn't care less about the "outing" bit (I "outed" myself long ago), but when one of the admins there states they refer to all Wikipedia editors as "Wikipedos" as a matter of course...sorry, but no. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to raise any concerns about these or any other matters on my talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Sam Blacketer



 * Discussion (18 / 6 / +12 / 75%)
 * JayHenry says it well. A valuable, experienced, independent voice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My comments above for Kirill hold true for Sam as well. Sam is sometimes wrong (at least in my view), but never less than thoughtful, and I never doubt his commitment to the betterment of the project. SDJ 18:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Confidence
 * 1) Has been consistently independent, hard working and reasonable.  Was the only arb, even if I disagreed with his approach, who attempted to move along the SV/Cla/JZG omnibus case until Brad came back.  I don't think it's fair or accurate to blame Sam for ArbCom's shortcomings. JayHenry (talk) 04:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Icewedge (talk) 04:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) SDJ 05:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4)  Majorly  talk  15:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC) Happy here.
 * 5) <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology  ( C )( T ) 19:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Franamax (talk) 22:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Plenty of. An uncontroversial editor; that's about as great a compliment as one can receive on Wikipedia, especially when taking into consideration his status as an arbitrator.  Master&amp;  Expert  ( Talk ) 04:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I have confidence in any arb who was elected to the position.  --Alecmconroy (talk) 04:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) PhilKnight (talk) 08:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Capacity for independent thought. Viridae Talk  09:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) per my comments to Deskana, and JayHenry's comment. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Despite having unnecessary worries and being a tad self-righteous, I am still reasonably confident in his arbcom presence. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 15:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) I think fair minded. Ceoil (talk) 12:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Thinks independently—is thankfully not a yes-man. Did good work on Omnibus too, yes. AGK 15:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) I've no problem with Arbitrators. GoodDay (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) I have confidence in most of the arbs. Martinp (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) Elonka 20:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) AdjustShift (talk) 12:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No Confidence
 * 1) --Cube lurker (talk) 02:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) GTD 02:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Everyking (talk) 03:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) No thanks Vodello (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) --Joopercoopers (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Voted for WP:BLPSE. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Bain / Thebainer



 * Discussion (15 / 10 / +5 / 60%)
 * Dedicated, organized, excellent at summarizing complicated bodies of evidence. I look forward to welcoming another lawyer to the committee. That I was the first to propose extending the short term to which he was originally elected (not that it was an obscure idea) reflects my confidence in him. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not nearly as familiar with Stephen, but one ill-conceived motion does not leave me with no confidence in him. And Brad's ringing endorsement helps sway me as well. SDJ 18:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * has always given me pause for thought. Please note that on this page I have not brought in current drama. Moreschi (talk) 23:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes that was disturbing. But I'm not sure it reflects much on Thebainer's ability to function on ArbCom. It was a deletion not an ArbCom decision. And again, not everyone is perfect. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * An error can be forgiven if admitted. Now would be as good a time as any for Stephen Bain to earn trust by admitting that mistake. Jehochman Talk 12:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Confidence
 * 1) Franamax (talk) 02:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Icewedge (talk) 04:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) SDJ 05:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) I disagree with him on some motions, but at least he has the intestinal fortitude to speak his mind. Wizardman  18:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Per my comment about Kirill. Being willing to speak out against opposition, or even perceived party lines is invaluable. The AC shouldn't be a closed off hive mind that emerges to pronounce. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology  ( C )( T ) 19:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) A solid performer who has exceeded expectations in my opinion. Orderinchaos 21:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) He's done alright.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 04:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I have confidence in any arb who was elected to the position.  --Alecmconroy (talk) 04:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) His action in regard to the Elonka RfC demonstrated a lack of judgment, however otherwise ok. PhilKnight (talk) 08:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) An aussie, and per my comments to Deskana.  Doing what needs to be done, including proposing motions which may not be supported by everyone. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) I have confidence here. I was concerned earlier about Thebainer's activity levels, but this issue appears to be steadily resolving itself. AGK 16:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Quite so, I like the principle of the "quit unblocking Giano without discussion" resolution, and haven't seen any other issues. As to activity, this does have its habit of coming up sometimes. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) I've no problem with Arbitrators. GoodDay (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) I have confidence in most of the arbs. His recent motion re Moreschi was not beyond the realm of the sensible, even though the simple admonishment is a better solution. Martinp (talk) 20:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) Elonka 20:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No Confidence
 * 1) GTD 02:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Everyking (talk) 03:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3)  Majorly  talk  16:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Not after this . DuncanHill (talk) 16:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Agree with DuncanHill. Tex (talk) 17:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Done more harm than good. Vodello (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Not exactly the worst arb, but not the best either. ~ the editorofthewiki  ( talk / contribs / editor review ) ~ 01:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Actions at Elonka's RFC pushed me from a normal "neutral - get on with the job" to "No confidence in ability to continue doing the job". Shot info (talk) 07:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 15:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) As Shot info. Bishonen | talk 14:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC).

The Arbcom System
This question is intended to be an expression of confidence or lack thereof about the arbitration system as it exists, without consideration of what individual people inhabit the committee right now.
 * Discussion (11 / 13 / 2 / -1 / 46%)
 * Just getting around to commenting on this. The 2008 version of the committee did not have the greatest track record. That's a given, and is reflected in how soundly Charles and James were rejected. However, as a concept and an ideal, Arbcom is not bankrupt. If it gets back to original purposes, instead of venturing into policy creation and the like, there is yet hope for the institution. This is why I vote "confidence." That, and any institution with Brad as a cornerstone, and Risker coming on board, has hope for it. (No offense intended by omission, Risker is just the only incoming arb I know will be great.) SDJ 17:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Confidence
 * 1) SDJ 05:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) I believe that the concept itself is quite sound. Franamax (talk) 22:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) It has and can work, within its original remit. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) The system can work.  The new arbitrators-elect will make it work better. Crystal whacker (talk) 00:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) The system can and does work but renewal is important. I personally believe terms should be lowered from three years to two at the absolute most so that burnout or changing life circumstances do not become such major problems for the project. These are volunteer roles, after all. Orderinchaos 02:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Needed IMHO and could work if nepotism etc. was excised. <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Sticky</b> <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Parkin</b> 03:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) PhilKnight (talk) 08:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Cautiously optimistic.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 16:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) I've no problem with Arbitrators. GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) The ArbCom does an enormous amount of good for the project, in dealing with the disputes that could not be dealt with through any other means.  That there is controversy around the Committee is completely reasonable, considering the topic areas and editors with whom the ArbCom must deal.  But this doesn't mean the Committee is a bad idea.  If anything, it reinforces how much we need them. --Elonka 20:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) I have confidence in most of the arbs and in the system as a whole. I think they should be sterner enforcers of good behaviour in general, and on occasion (but not always) their deliberations should be more transparent. I have no problem with them being appointed by Jimbo based on community input. I think individual arbs have at times made wrong decisions, but such is life. Since it is coming up below, I am not convinced whether BLPSE is a good idea or not, but I have no problem with Arbcom going this far in creating policy in important situations like this one, where over a period of time the community can't seem to get its act together. Martinp (talk) 20:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) I won't participate in any of the confidence motions on the individual arbitrators (all deserve my confidence as individuals and as a group).  The Committee has become unpopular with disruptive editors and with those who think they have a right to bring private matters into the open (no they don't, that doesn't help us to build an encyclopedia).  The Committee is there to serve as a final step in dispute resolution.  Its successes resound much louder than its failures.  It has my confidence and the confidence of the vast majority of all Wikipedians. --TS 15:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. This is shown by this very page.  Majorly  talk  16:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be this page, which dozens have edited but only 30 have ventured an opinion on the Arbitration system? It looks to me as if the opponents of the arbitration system are just vainly trying to whistle up a storm. --TS 16:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) There are problems, but they can be resolved by discussion. Yes, the ArbCom is political and cliquish, so is any representative decision-making body known to man. The fact is that in all key questions the ArbCom has faced, it has come out with solutions that have made the encyclopedia better, which should be the sole role of the ArbCom. I am not sure more transparency is needed, but certainly more openeness could never hurt. Gradual changes ar emuch better. I am all for Jimbo Rule, as long as he remains a constitutional monarch. For a dictator, he doesn't seem to dictate much. In an aside, I find it ironic that less than forty editors are here while the ArbCom votes are in the multiple hundreds. Something to keep in mind when decrying lack of transparency.--Cerejota (talk) 11:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Mixed
 * 1) I believe we need to remove the appointer of ArbComm from the system - that individual is a net negative for the system.  We need something like ArbComm, I don't have a better system to propose, but do think the committee could be functioning a lot better.  GRBerry 23:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) My thoughts:
 * The basic idea of the Arbcom is wonderful, and the flaws are actually strikingly minor, compared to how big they may, at times, feel. Arbcom has been slow to make the right decisions, slow to learn from its mistakes, and completely opaque to outsiders.  BUT--  despite a stagger here or a misstep there,  I think it does lumber towards the right directions.
 * One way the Arbcom is going to improve is through the infusion of new blood with the regular elections.  Old arbcom -> community learning from mistakes -> altered voting patterns -> New Arbs who reflect new understandings.  Decreasing terms to two years might help accelerate the learning curve.
 * In keeping with that, I think it would be VERY good to allow the community to directly elect the Arbs. Wikipedia is too great for ANY one individual to have too much control, no matter who they are.   In the current system, Jimbo decides who to appoint, how many to appoint, how long to appoint, and who gets re-appointed.  Just too much.  Fix the seats, decide ahead of time how many we're going to elect (and by what metric), and call it good.  If we really need a "emergency veto power" over single candidates, give it to the WMF, since they are themselves elected as well.
 * I don't know HOW the new arbcom will do it, but I think it would be good if we could see into their heads more. As is, I have no clue how decisions come to pass.  Transparency seems to be the buzzword for this, but perhaps "more public deliberations" might be a better term.  Private evidence is inescapable, but public discussion by the arbs would be wonderful in so far as possible.
 * We need a dispute resolution system that doesn't automatically involve arbcom.  For all the talk on RFCs and Mediations,  currently the only system we have that functionally resolves inter-user disputes is Arbcom.   Giving more teeth to RFCs might be a way to do this--  if admins lack confidence, return them to editor status for a time.
 * Lastly, preventing disputes before they even occur. I would like to see somewhere in the WMF family where people can write non-NPOV articles.  We could host "Persuasive articles" where users of a similar point of view can come together to spell out their case. We could have "Signed articles" where a single user, perhaps an expert, takes responsibility for the content on that page and puts their 'stamp of approval' on the 'finished' text.  We could host "Low Quality articles"--  a destination for articles that just aren't up to Wikipedia's standards.  They could be moved to "Wikipedia Commons - Articles", to be used as a resource at some future date.
 * Right now, each topic has one article and one article only. So the effort from partisans or people with specific POVs is wasted as needless friction against NPOV.   I would like to see a text version of Wikimedia Commons where all that energy could be harnessed and put to productive use.  This would increase the amount of GFDL text that gets poured into the internet. Much will be drivel, but much won't be. A pleasant side effect is that I think it might decrease a few of the disputes that crop up here (not many, just a few).
 * These thoughts brought to you by the letter A. --Alecmconroy (talk) 01:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In regards to your last point, you are talking about Wikiversity. ;-) The Wikipedia community should be encouraging more of our problem users (i.e. people having difficulties working within the encyclopedia construct) to head over to Wikisource, Wikibooks or Wikiversity, depending on what the person is trying to achieve. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * To A's (I think) 2nd point, and also to GRB's main point - I disagree, at this stage of community maturity, I think we very much need Jimbo to save us from ourselves. I'm hopeful though that we can get our shit together over the next year, so that Jimbo will feel comfortable saying "you don't need me any more".
 * To A's last point, I can't find it right now, but there was a whole thing around when I joined (so Sep/Oct07 or so) where POV articles were being accomodated at one site or other. As I recall it was getting shot down big time. I'll take the opportunity now to reiterate that I should at least be able to see my own deleted contribs, so as wut I mite be able to be more ifromative on wut I thinx I remember. 'Cause I do remember the internal-forking idea. :) Franamax (talk) 03:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Good idea. Needs some work. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 01:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Okay, yes, we need an ArbCom (dispute resolution has many intractable cases, in which binding decisions are required), but the way this one's working, there needs to be some change (okay, maybe not Barack Obama-style, but you get the idea). At least a discussion is better than no comment at all. ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 05:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * To A's (I think) 2nd point, and also to GRB's main point - I disagree, at this stage of community maturity, I think we very much need Jimbo to save us from ourselves. I'm hopeful though that we can get our shit together over the next year, so that Jimbo will feel comfortable saying "you don't need me any more".
 * To A's last point, I can't find it right now, but there was a whole thing around when I joined (so Sep/Oct07 or so) where POV articles were being accomodated at one site or other. As I recall it was getting shot down big time. I'll take the opportunity now to reiterate that I should at least be able to see my own deleted contribs, so as wut I mite be able to be more ifromative on wut I thinx I remember. 'Cause I do remember the internal-forking idea. :) Franamax (talk) 03:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Good idea. Needs some work. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 01:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Okay, yes, we need an ArbCom (dispute resolution has many intractable cases, in which binding decisions are required), but the way this one's working, there needs to be some change (okay, maybe not Barack Obama-style, but you get the idea). At least a discussion is better than no comment at all. ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 05:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No Confidence
 * 1) --B (talk) 03:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) A productive idea, thanks GTD 03:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Tough to say. None at the moment, since this guy still has some power involved. Get me a committee without passive agressive drama queens, and we'll see what happens. Vodello (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) System's badly broken.  We need something new.  Guettarda (talk) 04:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) TotientDragooned (talk) 05:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) I don't think there's anything wrong with the basic idea of an ArbCom, but there is something badly wrong with having an elite body of decision-makers who have divorced themselves from the community, do not engage with the community, and do not respect the community. A much humbled committee composed of people operating in the full light of day and engaging with the community, with regular elections for all seats and no special relationship with Jimbo, would probably work fine&mdash;but I think that change would be so substantial that it would represent a different "system". Everyking (talk) 09:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) None, zilch, nada. Go do something worthwhile and stop giving justification to people trying to tarnish other's e-reputations. ^demon 06:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Current system assigns de facto unlimited power to a group of popularity contest winners. Its powers need to be limited and clear (in practice as well as theory), and a superior selection algorithm is needed. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 15:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Too much BLP (BLP should restrict unsourced or poorly sourced information about living people, nothing more or less), too little transparency, too much power grab, too little recognition that they are one of many servants, not the masters, of the community and the project. For confidence to be restored, these things must be fixed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Yes, what Deacon says. Everyking also has some good points. The main problem from this year has been too much opacity in decision-making, and resulting confusion. I see that Jimbo has urged a move away from this - props to him. However, the limits beyond which arbcom cannot step need to be more clearly defined. Moreschi (talk) 12:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Who's kidding who? It doesn't work. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Although some people on Arbcom are good, we need something better. AdjustShift (talk) 12:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) The internal politics is a problem. It doesn't matter how much a candidate vows that they will avoid being restrictive - in the end, refusing to hear an appeal regarding a sanction imposed by someone else = imposing the same restrictiveness yourself. As for the reasons for refusing, that goes back to politics. Although the community made a demand for change, we found ourselves unable to communicate the precise extent of change we wanted due to the limited number of worthy candidates. At this rate, I foresee that stronger demands for change will be made in the future. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) No need for me to pile on - it doesn't work. &mdash; neuro  (talk)  12:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) Pseudo-legal body without the benefit of legally binding constaints -- or consistency. Heavily political and cliquey.  IronDuke

Polls are evil, and this one more than most

 * 1) --Scott Mac (Doc) 02:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Cyde Weys  02:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Rjd0060 (talk) 02:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) SirFozzie (talk) 02:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Oh FFS, what is the point of this? One questions the motives. // roux   <span style="border:1px solid #355E3B;-moz-border-radius-topright:10px;-moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px;padding:0px 7px;font-size:30%;">  02:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, to uh, see what people think of our arbitrators? This thread is simply trolling.  Majorly  talk  02:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest you redact your ridiculous accusation posthaste. Clearly I and several others feel that this whole poll is a mindbogglingly bad idea from the get-go. Calling it trolling because it doesn't accord with your views on ArbCom is the silliest insult I've seen around here in a while. //  roux   <span style="border:1px solid #00009C;-moz-border-radius-topright:10px;-moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px;padding:0px 7px;font-size:30%;">  02:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Given the ArbCom elections have just finished, I'd say that this entire page absent this thread qualifies as 'trolling'. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 02:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) A year early, at least. CalendarWatcher (talk) 02:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Amazingly bad idea. Regardless of one's view of ArbCom, no good can come of this poll. When's the MfD? ++Lar: t/c 02:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Go away, Hipocrite. "Departed" is supposed to mean "departed."  krimpet  ✽  02:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed it is. Can we just nip this insanity in the bud, then? // roux   <span style="border:1px solid #00009C;-moz-border-radius-topright:10px;-moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px;padding:0px 7px;font-size:30%;">  02:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So suddenly we're insane now? Nice.  Majorly  talk  02:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh good, we're at the point where words get twisted. This coming from the person who threw around accusations of trolling? Yes, this proposal is insane. No, I did not say people were insane. It's a useful difference. // roux   <span style="border:1px solid #465945;-moz-border-radius-topright:10px;-moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px;padding:0px 7px;font-size:30%;">  02:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I count several people on both "sides" of this page who have declared they are leaving Wikipedia in the past. the wub "?!"  19:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) I like polls more than most, but this one is definitely evil. --Conti|✉ 02:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Waste of time.  Scarian  Call me Pat!  02:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Tell me if the ArbCom screws up in 6 months, and we'll revisit this then. -  NuclearWarfare  <sup style="color:green;">contact me <sub style="color:purple;">My work  04:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Hell yes. Can we all drop the drama and get back to work sometime soon? Tony Fox (arf!) 07:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) We just had a chance to vote for ArbCom. I hope you all took it. --Apoc2400 (talk) 08:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Object to consideration of the question. This is an obscure page and outside of normal procedures concerning ArbCom elections. The views of a handful of people don't trump the views of the community expressed in a well-publicized and thoroughly vetted election. This is a waste of time and appears unlikely to improve the project. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Stifle (talk) 12:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) If we remove the "Confidence / No Confidence" section and use this page to provide feedback to Arbs, this may be useful. As it is presented, it is not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What, like an RfC? Feedback only works if the people being fed back to actually pay any attention. DuncanHill (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added feedback sections. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As a note, the "discussion" sections, which I had placed at the top of each member were for discussion. DepartedUser (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Even those interested in having something to say, probably aren't aware of and/or willing to participate in this pseudo-parliamentary feedback. Feedback by the way, implies suggests, not statements of confidence or non confidence.--Tznkai (talk) 00:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Feedback to Arbcom would be useful, provided it was both constructive and directed at the Arbcom as a whole. What is not useful is a kind of popularity vote mixed with criticisms of everything from article contributions to verbosity. If you don't like an Arbcom member, raise it with them directly. If you don't like Arbcom's collective decisions, raise it with them collectively and/or !vote for someone else next time. Euryalus (talk) 01:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What, like an RfC? Or both re-standing arbs being trounced in the election we just had? Been done. DuncanHill (talk) 01:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Then for those who think Arbcom has done a bad job, the appropriate community action has been taken. This present !vote doesn't seem to be leading to any particular outcome in addition to the above, and has instead become a forum for some fairly random criticisms. If there are criticisms of Arbcom they should be addressed to Arbcom as a whole, not attributed to individuals. To paraphrase slightly, we should comment on the "content" of Arbcom decisions, not "contributors" to those decisions. Euryalus (talk) 04:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So, the community tells Arbcom "get your act together" (I slightly condense the RfC), Arbcom ignores it, and that's that? I'm sorry, it just isn't good enough - Arbcom appears to be free to continue being as incompetent and divisive as it can possibly manage, and all we get when we try to change it is this "polls are evil" nonsense. Personally, I think whatever idiot started out promoting that idea has done more to prevent effective development of Wikipedia's governance than anyone else. DuncanHill (talk) 04:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I note the polls on this page actually show majority support for Arbcom and most of its members. If these polls are considered to validly reflect community opnion, there seems little backing for calling them "incompetent and divisive." Of course I don't believe these polls are a valid reflection of anything except the small number of people who have bothered to comment here, for the reasons I stated above. I'd add though that these particular polls are oddly directionless - what is it they're actually seeking? Resignations? Arbcom abolition and replacement with another structure? If the structure is wrong, why are we being asked to vote on the popularity of individual members? Wouldn't it be better to propose a !vote on a new concept instead? These questions are bit off topic - I'd be interested in your views but I'd also understand if you thought you and I had reached the end of useful discussion on these particular issues. Euryalus (talk) 09:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This poll may indeed be directionless. However it was explicitly designed so, as strictly non-binding and advisory. Hopefully, the benefit will be that the sitting Arbs themselves read the comments, draw appropriate conclusions, and take lessons to heart to steer their ongoing conduct. Not all participation here is in good-faith, but a significant portion is - that's the part we should all care about. On its face, two sitting and one incoming arbitrator are engaging here - surely that's a good thing. Franamax (talk) 11:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose so. The poll format doesn't really lend itself to the provision of comprehensive advice, and I still can't see the point of a popularity vote for/against each Arbcom member as opposed to discussion of improvements to Arbcom outcomes. Also, as you point out, not all the contributions are in especially good faith. But I agree Arbcom engagement with the community is a good thing - its the structure of this page I think is unhelpful. Happy to agree to disagree on that point. Euryalus (talk) 11:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I see this page as an attempt to make arbcom engage with the community. As to it being a matter of either structure or individuals - I think that is the wrong question. The structure is flawed, and some of the individuals within arbcom exacerbate those flaws. I see no prospect of meaningful structural change while elements within arbcom appear to be so resolute in ignoring community concerns - I was hopeful that the RfC would produce some change, but, with one or two exceptions, arbitrators appear to have decided to "carry on as before".. The unfortunate mistakes that have been made in the past in setting up wikipedia's governance make wholesale change almost impossible, so, for me, a gradualist approach seems right. Deal first with the problematic arbitrators (and this year's election has seen a start to that), and as the quality of sitting arbitrators improves, so it will become easier to amend the structure to one more fit for its purpose. DuncanHill (talk) 16:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) That ArbCom allows this page to exist is not shooting themselves in the foot - it's more like trying to swallow a grenade. Миша 13 17:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) This page is a train wreck. Half the activity above is people just signing their name, or maybe giving a few incomplete word fragments.  How that is supposed to advance consensus is beyond me.  Structuring things as a vote is always a bad idea.  Don't ask for "Support".  Don't ask for "Oppose".  Ask: "What do you think, and why?"  Sheesh.  — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 06:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * How is this any different to the elections they became arbitrators in? They're all votes too. Were they a "train wreck"? In any case, consensus is thrown out of the window in the case of arbcom. This is a poll. We can express our feelings further in an RFC if necessary.  Majorly  talk  16:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) This page is more evil than most wikipolls since it creates bad feeling but reamins non-actionable, and is set up in a way that implies (1) that the current arbs don't have sommunity support (2) continuing community support is a prerequisite for an individual sitting arb.  While I have confidence in all the sitting Arbs, I think that evaluating them individually is toxic and it's much better to let the Committee sink of swim as a whole.  If the Committee is the final, binding arbitor of disputes than its decisions must be respected regardless of of a few bad (or rather less than perfect) apples, but if it cannot fulfill that role it should be disbanded and restarted from scratch even though some of its members remain well respected and liked.  Eluchil404 (talk) 23:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Poles are evil

 * 1) Seriously. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Only if they're cold, and you lick them. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes. but how did you know my name was Walter? //  roux   <span style="border:1px solid #465945;-moz-border-radius-topright:10px;-moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px;padding:0px 7px;font-size:30%;">  06:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Let's just not mention my conflict of interest in being half-Czech. Nothing against Poles at all, just thought this one was funnier than answering seriously... Orderinchaos 21:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) As the image demonstrates, all that Poles do is hold things up. How can we ever move forward in a world full of Poles? Franamax (talk) 07:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) So if Orderinchaos is dumped in a postbox, is it appropriate to say the Czech is in the mail? :P Ecoleetage (talk) 04:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Ironic subsections are evil (or funny, maybe)

 * 1) SDJ 02:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) both, or neither, I don't really care either way.--Alf <sup style="color:green;">melmac 17:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Went out with with a Polish girl for a bit, I woundn't say she was evil exactly, but she was a bit on the cranky side. I'm told not all Poles are like that; the other Polish people I know are very nice. Ceoil (talk) 12:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions that polls are automatically evil are evil

 * 1) Everyking (talk) 03:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2)  Majorly  talk  03:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) In for a dime, in for a dollar.--Cube lurker (talk) 03:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) I don't know if it's evil as much as it's tedious.  Since nobody is suggesting that this poll do anything other than gauge opinion I'm not seeing why it's evil.  We're not voting for some outcome so it's not as if asking people's opinion undermines the consensus system.  I also can't see how a pseudo-RFC on Arbitrator confidence can be a bad thing. --JayHenry (talk) 04:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Polls are not evil. DuncanHill (talk) 05:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Polls might be valuable to gauge community sentiments, they are evil only if they are used instead of consensus seeking or as a way to circumvent our policies Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Except that polls never ever advance consensus. They polarize everything into support/oppose, and any hope for real discussion gets lost in the sea of WP:JUSTAVOTEs and me-too's. — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 06:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) This is just a straw poll, isn't it? And since Elonka just claimed that the Arbcom vote expressed confidence in the current Arbcom, it seems to be very necessary. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Why not. Stifle (talk) 12:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Polling is trolling?
 * Or polling's appealing?
 * We won't make our minds up
 * Tonight, I am feeling
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What's up with the poetry today? I hereby commission you to write a triolet on the life of any relatively well-known Wikipedian. Scarian  Call me Pat!  13:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Brad has better things to do that clean toilets. --Deskana (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What a masterful play on words, good sir! Scarian  Call me Pat!  00:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Broken record —  Realist  2  18:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Polls ain't evil in all circumstances. We poll for RFA, for Arb elections, for board elections, a raft of other stuff. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology  ( C )( T ) 19:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course votes are taken in elections. Elections have a static ballot, known rules, and a clear, concise goal.  Most importantly, they're deciding which people other people want, not what the best policy or wording or mechanism is.  Elections are not about consensus.  — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 06:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Kevin Baastalk 19:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) No surprises in the "Suggestions that polls are automatically evil" section. The snipers have come out in the open. Vodello (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Crystal whacker (talk) 00:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Yep --Shot info (talk) 07:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) ... &mdash; neuro  (talk)  12:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Putting "G.W.Bush is evil" ...

 * Putting "G.W.Bush is evil" or some other satirical comment ironically not related at all to polls, though funny in a way, would be inappropriate, and thus, in a way, ironically, "evil", irrespective of whether or not it is a poll.
 * 1) Kevin Baastalk 19:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Clearly all of the above ...

 * Clearly all of the above have a US bias, hence excluding 98% 95.52% of the world's population, and are therefore evil
 * 1) Orderinchaos 21:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Yup, and "gotten" isn't a word anyway.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) True.  Microsoft are evil though, perhaps many people will agree on that point.:) <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Sticky</b> <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Parkin</b> 03:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) *US citizens make up more than 2% of the world's human population. Guest9999 (talk) 05:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) **OK, I fixed it. Orderinchaos 19:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments
This should be moved to a subpage.  Majorly  talk  02:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * In the interest of not clogging the TOC I have removed some headlines from this poll and replaced then with bold text headers. Icewedge (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Where do I express my lack of confidence in the whole arbcom system? -- 87.194.147.203 (talk) 02:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You just did.  Majorly  talk  02:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Inviting individual comments on each member seems guaranteed to engender a lynch mob. Why not just take comments on the system in general? The current situation is a symptom of the way the system is set up, not the people that happen to be within the system at this moment. -- Cyde Weys 02:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed Scott MacDonald's "Polls are evil" section. I wouldn't go so far as calling it trolling, but some people are actually concerned about our arbitrators, and making joke headings, with tired old catchphrases isn't productive. If you think polls are evil, don't vote.  Majorly  talk  02:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't remove it again, as the views expressed in it are as valid (or more so) than those in other sections. ++Lar: t/c 02:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Coming from you who voted under it. How ironic.  Majorly  talk  02:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Speak not of the mote in my eye, but rather address the beam in yours. If this is a valuable page why would YOU propose MfD for it? ++Lar: t/c 02:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Because the same tired arguments from the same old people are showing up. "Lynch mob" "voting is evil" "insanity" have all been used. I should write an essay on the topic. These things go so predictably.  Majorly  talk  03:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't fix idiocy by piling more idiocy on top. You get to vote on arbitrators once every three years, more often if some take early retirement. Thatcher 02:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said on AN when this was announced. No. A thousand times no. We are in the process of changing 1/3'd of the ArbCom, and now we're going to vote on the other 2/3'd? Are we serious??? Let's let the new Arbs get in, and see what changes. This is coming from someone who understands that ArbCom needs to change. New Blood, and New Ideas, let's not let our new idea be "Let's spill as much blood as we feel like" SirFozzie (talk) 02:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, about half the committee will be new as of January 1 (at least 7 new arbitrators out of 15), and only two arbitrators will have more than one year of service. (No other comments on the page.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * ArbCom has engendered the situation by its actions over the last year, and the last few days in particular. This might not be a lot of fun, but there's just too much ill-feeling right now and large parts of the community are questioning its basic purpose. Franamax (talk) 02:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I vote "Boring, find something constructive to do"  Little Red Riding Hood  talk  02:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The peoples voices should be heard. We had the RFC and what happened.  Even recommendations as simple as shorter terms which (if I recall) has had support from former arbcom members are dust in the wind.  Are we really voiceless for two more years on bad members elected last year?--Cube lurker (talk) 02:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, apparently. Someone should delete this, the cabal don't like it.  Majorly  talk  02:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Or maybe it is the people who don't like it. Why do you assume that you speak for the people and your opponents for a "cabal".--Scott Mac (Doc) 02:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What he said, twice. And I'm fairly certain that nobody with a higher IQ than their shoe size could accuse me of being part of any so-called 'cabal'. // roux   <span style="border:1px solid #614051;-moz-border-radius-topright:10px;-moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px;padding:0px 7px;font-size:30%;">  02:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sure not part of any cabal.  Little Red Riding Hood  talk  02:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Majorly here. This is the community's chance to stand up and say "You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately ... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!" GTD 03:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Regardless of any balance of supports and opposes, I'd like to express my appreciation to those willing to serve at an insanely difficult task which delivers absolutely no benefit to the Arbitrators themselves that I can see. Franamax (talk) 03:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Seconded. DepartedUser (talk) 03:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The community gets no chances. Polls are evil, and the Community is always wrong. ArbCom is always right. Nobody wins, Wikipedia loses.  Majorly  talk  03:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So umm... sorry, I'm confused here. You said the community gets no chances... but it looks to me as though the community is what rejected this. Or am I mistaken here? I've only counted two ArbCom members commenting here... // roux   <span style="border:1px solid #355E3B;-moz-border-radius-topright:10px;-moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px;padding:0px 7px;font-size:30%;">  03:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, no. The community has said they don't like polls and that it was badly timed. We still wish to confirm that everyone is still happy with all the arbs. We'll have to do it another way, another time.  Majorly  talk  03:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Eh? The community elected arbcom. Who elected you? It is the device of demagogues and dictators who claim that the "people are with us" to bolster their own little disaffected clique. Please stop speaking for the people or the community, you lack any mandate. If you wanted one, you could have stood just now in the arbcom election. But last time you did that you bombed - which rather tells me that the "community" don't tend to agree with you.--Scott Mac (Doc) 03:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you're mistaking the word "I" with "you". I've never ran in any arbcom election; the person who "bombed" was yourself. The community elected arbcom in 2006/7, but this is a different community now. Different people, different feelings, and the people elected have changed, and we've lost their confidence. I share many people's opinion on that.  Majorly  talk  03:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The community gets as many chances as it has the determination to grab. Our Leader is happy to fiddle while Rome burns, his role needs to go and, as an extension of his role, so does the current system of arbitration GTD 03:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Funny how only 17.5% of those who expressed a preference agreed with you. Stop presuming to speak for the rest.--Scott Mac (Doc) 03:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Seconded, take the obsession with Mister Wales to him, not to us. Scarian  Call me Pat!  03:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And...17.5 per cent of those who voted. The real users of Wikipedia, those who are our raison d'etre, do not even edit as IPs - they are readers, those who come here to quench their thirst for knowledge. They are the people we should be helping, and the current Arbitration and Constitutional Monarchy system does not help at all GTD 03:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Whilst I am eager to have a discussion with you personally (as we have never directly interacted before), I must confess that this is moving slightly off-topic, friend. Scarian  Call me Pat!  03:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not pleased with how the arbcom is currently comporting itself. Still this is too much. Truly, I feel that there's only one of the arbs listed on this page whom I have lost complete confidence in, and even still, this is not the best forum for such a discussion. It creates an "us versus them" mentality that is not very wiki, and is generally unhealthy amongst a community that must find ways to work together. As such, I will be placing "confidence" !votes in nearly all of the arbs' sections. We need to give the current (well, in three weeks it will be "current" iteration of the arbcom a chance before we attempt to "hang 'em high." SDJ
 * It's the ArbCom that has divorced itself from the community and created an "us vs. them" mentality. The ArbCom does not engage with the community or respect the community, and the community should make its feelings known. Everyking (talk) 06:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know any of the arbs well enough to give individual comments, but I am not convinced by the conspiracy theories that some spread about the committee. --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So you really don't know very much about the committee, but you're choosing to comment about those who are critical of it? That's grand--and not surprising at all. SDJ 17:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

An order of progress
Putting aside the question of whether or not certain/all/no Arbs should be kicked out, would it not be wise to create a method of doing so first? The Community certainly has the power to remove the Arbcom, but there needs to be a procedure to do so. Less revolution, more Glorious Revolution, perhaps GTD 03:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Forget it I say. The community is apparently completely happy with all the arbitrators.  Majorly  talk  03:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Your sarcasm is showing. More seriously, we get that you're disaffected.  But your current way of expressing it, and trying to resolve it, is incredibly poorly thought out.  -- Cyde Weys  04:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Whatever Cyde, whatever. Any way I express my thoughts on this topic will be seen as "incredibly poorly thought out" so I can't win.  Majorly  talk  04:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you tried speaking in rhyming verse? It seems to be working well for Newyorkbrad, judging by his number of supports in the poll above.  -- Cyde Weys  06:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Avoid post hoc ergo propter hoc, especially since it seems to hvae turned at least one person off. (I've spent the past hour or so starting my serious "improvements to Wikipedia" page to make up for it.) Cyde, it's good to see you editing again. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I think voting for the new arbitrators we are often voting for black horses. A typical admin job (and especially a typical user job) is quite different from an arbitrator's job. Additionally, the %support system is favorable to people avoiding disputes rather than people trying to resolve disputes. As the result the performance of new arbitrators is unpredictable. Some people elected with high margin made great arbitrators some others made poor arbitrators. I am sure the same will be true for the new bunch. I think three years is just too long to keep poor arbitrators. We need a mechanism to eject people earlier. May be we could have reconfirmation of the sitting arbitrators together with the new ones: every sitting arbitrator should receive at least 50% support of people eligible to vote for the new arbcom members, if a sitting arbitrator fail to gather 50% support he is replaced by a person who stayed for election but did not make it. Alternatively we can just shorten the term (say to 12 or 18 months), so the arbitrators could face reelections more often. I am not sure it is a right system as the %support system is unfair to former arbitrators. There are also possible some variations of the Admin open for Recall procedure to trigger the reconfirmation procedure at the time of need Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, unfortunately, this would result in the good arbitrators (or the ones who enjoy their jobs at least) being way too lenient in most cases for fear of collectively drumming up enough opposes on the next confirmation ballot. In real life, politicians have to be popular.  Judges, not so much, because they can't be.  -- Cyde Weys  14:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not blocking troublemakers make arbitrators much less popular among people whose time is drained by the said troublemakers. Blocking productive users who occasionally are trouble make you less popular. I think it is a reasonable approach in total. Currently we have IMHO a strong pro-blocking bias in the arbcom decision: ban them all and the God would save those who are not guily. Judges could not win beauty contest but should be able to get support of a simple majority of the community. If we abolish requirement of Judges being popular we should abolish the idea of Arbcom elections altogether Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

After they stormed the Bastille, they wound up with the Reign of terror
Want arbcom reform? Sure, lots of us want reform. But we don't want a reign of terror. Somehow things took a left turn at Albuquerque. Let's not try to solve that with dynamite. Let's pick up on last summer's Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee and start a coherent means to put together a reform proposal.

Reform, not the guillotine



 * 1)  Durova Charge! 21:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support this sentiment, although I believe this exercise is worthwhile as a salutary lesson to ArbCom that the community is not possessed of infinite patience. I'll not support anyone who comes here to prove that the Arbitration Comittee itself is bad. I would though encourage as many people as possible to come here and register their confidence in individual Arb performance. The more participants, the more reliable the result. Ongoing review of Arb performance is in fact one component of the reform process we should be considering. Franamax (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes but I'm not seeing cries for general execution here. The impression I get is that there is at least one Arb that most people are happy with and that most of the other arbs people are so-so with. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Absolutely.  We do need reform, and we do need to be cautious.  This process is useful; I look forward to be lambasted this time next year. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) I like the pictures.  Syn  ergy 00:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yay, pretty pictures. - NuclearWarfare  <sup style="color:green;">contact me <sub style="color:purple;">My work  17:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Unelection!!! Every account that votes in the ArbCom election may (not compulsory) nominate a sitting Arb for removal from the Committee; Any Arb receiving over 50% of nominations is required to resign? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Per Franamax. PhilKnight (talk) 00:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

A good start...

 * Q. What do you call eight admins facing motions of confidence or no-confidence?
 * A. A good start!

Which is just broadly to say, Wikipedia could use some process like this, whereby a certain amount of community consensus can lead to someone returning to the simpler job of editor. Right now, there's no functional way to admins or arbs community feedback, and no practical way to re-evaluate their status as admins or arbs.

I have confidence in all the sitting committee members-- but I do think this page is a valuable one. I worry it may have attracted a "biased" sample, in the sense that users who lack confidence are very prone to express it, while users who have confidence may not have bothered. But all the same, flawed though it may be, this is a good start towards a creating some sort of system for the community to give feedback, with teeth, to those entrusted with power. --Alecmconroy (talk) 15:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we're at the point where we can start to draw conclusions and think about next steps. There are 5 arbiters about which the community feels mostly positive (FayssalF, FloNight, Kirill Lokshin, Newyorkbrad, Sam Blacketer).  There are 2 arbiters about which the community has mixed feelings (Deskana, Thebainer).  There is one in whom the community overwhelmingly lacks confidence (FT2).  Nobody should infer that FT2 is the worst, the cause of all problems, or anything dire like that - remember that this poll does not consider outgoing arbiters.  Two of them were rejected by wide margins in their reelection bids so they may not have fared any better here.  That said, the fact remains that the community at this point lacks confidence in FT2 as an arbiter.  Should the next step be an RFC?  Something else?  Ignore any individual problems and concentrate more on reformatting the arbitration committee? --B (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think an RFC would be the best way.  Majorly  talk  16:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Would this discussion be acknowledged as a step in dispute resolution, though, making an RfC redundant? I think the feedback here has been useful (my initial impressions of the usefulness of the page were faulty, I admit), and lets us know that the entire house isn't burning, but issues remain even still. If an RfC is redundant, what then? SDJ 19:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * More widely advertise this page to get larger participation and demonstrate consensus? I agree that the level of discourse here has been remarkably level-headed and productive. The early predictions of dramapocalypse have not proven out. Now we just need more people to pitch in. Franamax (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree with B's analysis, and Majorly's comment, the next stage should be an RfC. Also agree with SDJ, this page has been useful in clarifying we aren't facing a constitutional crisis, but there are issues that need fixing. PhilKnight (talk) 00:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Taking steps to improve ArbCom co-ordination
Please see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee for how we're trying to take steps to improve our efficiency and co-ordination. Please post all comments there. --Deskana (talk) 17:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)