Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Archive 2

Clerks
Hi. I was recently been added to an arbitration case when evidence of purported incivility was presented against me by a clerk, Picaroon, see:. The same clerk then informed me that he had presented evidence against me, but that I was not a party, Thatcher commented elsewhere that essentially anyone who is mentioned in the case could be considered a party as long as they are notified that they are under discussion.

My question/cavil/complaint is that this is improper and unhelpful for a clerk to do, especially one who had already done clerking duties on this arbitration (see and ). Picaroon and I had a discussion about this and initially he indicated that he intended to pursue all occasions of incivility, but later indicated that he would likely do no more on the subject, after I had pointed out that there would be quite a bit to do, then still later said that he would, after all, “present further evidence”. Apologies for the chopped up discussion, but our back and forth can be seen here and here.

There does not seem to be a specific policy about this, although the quote Picaroon pointed me to: "Evidence and brief arguments may be added to the case pages by disputants, interested third parties, and the Arbitrators themselves" would seem to exclude clerks. Whatever the legal nigglings maybe, I’d like to state that I think it’s an extraordinarily bad idea to have clerks act as prosecutors/plaintiffs in these cases. My understanding is that clerks recuse when there is a conflict of interest, not that they somehow try to find a way to create one.

Finally, I specifically avoided this case, though I had wanted to drop a note early on to arbcom letting them know that if they took it, any of the bad feeling they wanted to sanction would be dwarfed by the bad feeling the case itself would generate, but did not do so because I did not wish to be added to this proceeding, nor to have my time wasted with charges that I can’t help but think are pretty farfetched. Yet here I am, in this case for no good reason, and pretty annoyed and frustrated. Thanks for your attention. IronDuke 04:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The issue here is that I'm not clerking the case, I'm presenting evidence just like any other Wikipedia user does. I mentioned that I was a clerk not to imply any authority on my part but because IronDuke seemed confused as to how I was connected to the case at all. I mentioned that sometimes, as an extra way of helping out, clerks who aren't clerking that specific case nevertheless involve themselves to help it proceed, like by providing evidence and proposals. The fact that I made two minor edit while this request was still on the main page should not, in my opinion, affect my ability to present evidence. Nevertheless, I welcome any comments from arbitrators and clerks about improper actions on my part, and will take them to heart. Picaroon (t) 04:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks fine to me; a clerk only acts "as a clerk" for particular cases, and is just an ordinary bystander (i.e. one of the "interested third parties") in all others. Kirill 04:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see Arbitration Committee/Clerks for a more complete discussion of the role that the clerks do (and do not) play in particular cases. I recently copyedited and updated this page, so hopefully it is consistent both with current practice and with what the arbitrators want the practice to be. Newyorkbrad 16:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Brad, thanks very much for that link. A couple of things pop out at me.


 * 1) “Comments made by Clerks on the merits of cases are submitted in their individual capacity, not as Clerks…”


 * And


 * 2) “Clerks should not add evidence to the Evidence page of a case unless they recuse themselves from the case.”


 * I point to this, left on my talk page by Clerk Picaroon. “I'm just trying to speed along the arbitration case, that being a thing some of us clerks who aren't actually clerking a specific case sometimes pitch in with. One way to speed a case along is to provide evidence.”


 * Nowhere do I see him recuse from this case. Indeed, he specifically indicates on my talk page that he is acting in his capacity as clerk, not merely as a concerned Wikipedian. Please understand, I am grateful for the role that you all play—it’s in many ways a thankless task. But is the arbcom so hard up for finger-pointing and back-biting in this case that it needed a clerk to wade in and add more? I’ll also just note, FWIW, that Picaroon indicates on my talk page that he is largely unfamiliar with the background events of this case, and yet presents out of context evidence against me essentially at random. It’s annoying when regular users do this. To have someone who is purportedly acting on behalf of the arbitration committee do it is, I think, counterproductive.


 * Finally, I know it was somewhat in jest, but a while back people started talking about clerks being given fezzes, so we’d know to look out for them. I still think something on that order would be a great idea. IronDuke  16:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that isn't in my capacity as a clerk, as I've told you two or three times now. You seemed unaware why I would bother presenting evidence, so I mentioned that sometimes clerks who were not the clerk assigned to the case tried to help in other ways. Providing concise, neutral evidence is one way to do this, last I checked, but if the arbitrators don't find such a thing useful I'll be glad to stop. Next, who said I was doing it on behalf of the arbcom? You're pulling more and more things out of thin air. As to recusal, obviously I'm recused here, but since the case is already off the main page, I don't think there is any specific place to state this. I wasn't aware that I would present evidence until after the case was accepted, which is why I didn't recuse in the clerk notes section. And finally, since it seems it will make you happy, I've added a fez to my userpage. You can't imagine how proud it makes me feel. Picaroon (t) 17:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the confusion lies in the difference between "a" clerk and "the" clerk. That is to say, is there one main clerk who sifts through all the verbiage and makes sure everything is where it should be on any given case? And is he occasionally aided by other clerks who help him with these duties? And are you one of these clerks, who is aiding the main clerk? You see where I'm going?


 * Everything you do that is "pitching in to help" is, in my understanding, on behalf of the arbcom. Your posts on this page are, to me, on behalf of the arbcom. If I leave a note on your page asking whether I'm allowed to refactor the talk page of an arb case, and you say "Nope," you are speaking on behalf of arbcom, as I understand it.


 * Please know, I'm not trying to torment you, I'm just saying it looked very much to me as though you were "helping" as a "clerk", even if you weren't officially assigned to the case, but that the "help" you were providing was outside your role, and quite unhelpful in any case. I suppose I've made it clear by now that I think this is a recipe for confusion and bad feeling, an I'd love it if other arbs/clerks could weigh in on the matter.


 * Lastly, I enjoyed the fez on your user page quite a bit, and must respectfully disagree with Thatcher that it's a bad idea--I'm curious as to why he thinks so. IronDuke  17:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * PS--I want to make it clear, I'm not objecting to clerks sorting evidence, but I don't think they should be adding parties to the case (and I interpret being notified that there is evidence against me at arbcom as effectively being listed as a party). IronDuke  18:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Let me try and clear up a few misunderstandings. The clerks have a very small number of "official" functions  Clerks should not perform these official functions on cases where they were involved in the dispute or had significant previous negative involvement with the parties.  Recusals are noted when the case request is filed, and sometimes at WP:AC/CN, but there is no place on the case subpages to record recusals because, frankly, we just aren't that important, and a major disagreement has never yet come up.


 * Generally one clerk is "assigned" to a case but any non-recused clerk may offer advice or pick up issues here and there as needed.


 * Beyond that, any editor is free to add evidence or participate in the workshop of any arbitration case. Because the arbitration clerks have an interest in arbitration and have observed a lot of cases, we sometimes feel that we have good ideas about how to present evidence and workshop proposals that are likely to be helpful to the Arbitrators.  A clerk will sometimes take an active interest in a case even if it does not involve them personally, and may present evidence or workshop proposals on one or all sides of a case.  (I have been involved in many cases, most recently RFAR/Jefferey Vernon Merkey, where I presented evidence and wrote workshop proposals that were adopted nearly verbatim by the Arbitrators.)  In this capacity clerks are not invested with any more credibility or authority than any other editor.  However, clerks who take this role should not also act "officially."  The dividing line for "involvement" is not set in stone, but a good rule of thumb is that clerks can offer procedural and even substantive comments on the workshop page like any other editor, but when a clerk begins to add evidence, they should recuse themselves from "official" clerk acts.


 * I think Picaroon's communications with you were less than 100% effective, and your confusion is understandable. However, there is nothing in his actions on the case that is out of the ordinary in any way. He is not speaking here "on behalf of ArbCom", just for himself.  You should ask the clerk of record (indicated by the initials on Template:ArbComOpenTasks if you have any questions, such as refactoring a talk page, and I would expect that a clerk who involved himself in a case would decline to answer and direct you to the right person if you happened to ask him instead.


 * The issue of adding "parties" is, as I noted here, more or less pointless. The Arbitrators will decide who (if anyone) should be named in a finding of fact or remedy, and it is simply common courtesy to tell someone that you have added evidence against them, just as it is an expected courtesy to let someone know when you are discussing them on the Administrators' noticeboard or other such place. Whether you are notified by the person who presented the evidence or one of the clerks has no influence on the Arbitrators' ultimate decision in the case.


 * There will be no fezzes. The fez was the invention of a disgruntled editor who thought the clerks had too much power.  The solution to this perception is not to create a sigil to further differentiate clerks from editors, but to do a better job of explaining and demystifying the role of "clerk." Thatcher131 18:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with everything that Thatcher131 has written here. Newyorkbrad 18:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that Thatcher (and Brad). Aside from my stubborn insistence that fezzes are a good idea, I will agree you with on all points except for the idea that there are no parties as such—or at least, I very much hope you are wrong about that. Here’s why:


 * If there are no “parties,” then that leaves arbcom the option of sanctioning any editor, for any reason, even if they have not been named in the case and even if their conduct has no bearing on the matter they are considering. Thus, any user could be sanctioned without ever having been given an opportunity to defend themselves. If that’s going to be the case, I’d love to see the whole public giving of evidence thing abolished, and arbcom could just become another aspect of AN/I, and make decisions without public regard to evidence or argument.


 * I believe that editors becomes a “party” as soon as evidence is entered against one and notification is given. I believe, and correct me if I’m wrong, that if I initiate an arbcom proceeding against Jimbo, say, and do not notify him, that my request would be malformed. I’m not trying to wikilawyer here: it seems to me to be an essential part of the process for parties to know they are being judged, it can’t be called a mere “courtesy.”


 * So my assumption was that I was not a party until someone decided to officially drag me into it, and a clerk dragged me into it trying to “help.” You’ve said there hasn’t been any major disagreement wit this before. Okay, I am now officially disagreeing with this practice in a major fashion, for reasons already stated, and I would invite you all to have further discussion amongst yourselves as to the wisdom of my counsel. (Perhaps nothing will come of this, and I am merely a statistical outlier in terms of my unhappiness with this practice. Only time will tell, I guess.) Anyway, thanks to all four of you for listening and responding so quickly. IronDuke  23:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * We have had a case or two where the original parties actually edit-warred on the arbitration page over the addition of parties to the official list of parties, as if that was important. You are certainly correct that once someone has entered evidence against you, you should be notified, and you should at least keep an eye on the case, or respond, since the possibility that you will be included in any sanctions is thereby increased.  Where you are mistaken is in thinking that anyone "officially" dragged you into the case, or that Picaroon's edits to the case carry more weight, or officialness, than if they had been made by Cerejota (a named party) or by Jossi (who is not named but considers himself involved) or by GRBerry (who is an outsider but has entered evidence against several users). Thatcher131 00:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Change
Per Requests for comment/Jimbo Wales and the discussion at WP:RfArb, I suggest altering the sentence Remedies and enforcement actions may be appealed to, and are subject to veto by, Jimbo Wales. to cover the possibility of review of Jimbo's own actions. Perhaps, ''Jimbo reserves the right to veto enforcement actions in cases in which he is not a party.

Less controversially, Elections might be moved out of the section on things not yet decided as the current system is generally well received and stable. Eluchil404 20:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Question and Answer Page Proposal
Summary: There should be one page dedicated to questions and answers for all open Arbitration Cases so that all questions for arbitrators can be concentrated and kept on the same page in the same namespace, not spread across arbitrator talk pages.

Longer version: Editors recognize that the Arbitrators do not have time to follow, in real time, all of the diffs on all of the pages of all of the arbitration cases. Editors recognize that questions that they would like to ask the Arbitrators would usually get no response, or a much delayed response, if asked in one of the several talk pages of the arbitration. In response to this, many editors will message Arbitrators directly on their talk pages, which garners a much faster response.

The problem with doing so is that, consequently, discussion relevant to the Arbitration is split from the remainder of the discussion. Those who haven't watchlisted Arbitrators' talk pages might not even be aware of the communication. I think that this is problematic, but I would like to suggest a solution.

I believe that one Question and Answer Page would be a useful addition to Arbitration - not one per arbitration, but one on which all questions that would normally go to Arbitrator user_talkpages could be concentrated. There, users could ask questions, and arbitrators could reply as needed. This resolves the current problems: it provides a clean space that arbitrators can readily keep track without getting lost in tens or hundreds of daily diffs, it allows users a place to ask a question and reasonably expect that an Arbitrator will see it, and it keeps all of the discussion within the Arbitration, instead of allowing it to get scattered across Userspace where some participants might not see it.

Essentially this proposal stems from my two experiences in arbitration. In the first (Paranormal), Fred Bauder's talkpage became the de facto talk page where we could all get an arbitrator response:                   In the second (Science Apologist-Martinphi), editors have begun asking arbitrators questions directly on their talk pages, resulting in modifications to a proposed decision based on that discussion:. Discussion, especially discussion leading to real outcomes, should be kept in-namespace. I, too, have questions that I would like answered, but I don't think that messaging individual arbitrators is in the best interest of the encyclopedia.

I would like to get feedback regarding this suggestion, and I would love to see this, or an improved version, implemented. An example can be seen in my userspace, here. Thank you - Ante  lan  talk  00:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a very good idea. I would like to have this addition, though: that it be formatted so that if someone asks a question, other users do not respond directly, but put their responses in another space, just as when parties, others, and Arbitrators are separate on usual ArbCom pages.


 * Second, email must not be forbidden. I've never used it myself, but I can see instances where you'd need it. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 03:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input. I like your suggestions. Just try clarify: I'm not trying to forbid anything. I'm trying to make this new Q&A page so appealing that people will think "Hey, I can a response just as fast or faster if I ask questions there than if I go around to each Arbitrator's talk page." Ante  lan  talk  05:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I like the idea. Arbitrators should keep an eye on such a page all of the time and quickly answer relevant questions regarding the arbitration.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 14:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with the talk page of the arbitration case? MilesAgain (talk) 17:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrators may impose article probation without taking a case?
Often, requests for arbitration are submitted which involve complex content disputes without clear evidence of behavior problems which can be adequately corrected by arbitration remedies. In many of those cases, it would be beneficial to impose Article probation on the articles involved without the time or effort required by formal arbitration. Therefore I am proposing the following to be inserted as the third paragraph of Arbitration policy and the second paragraph of Requests for arbitration:


 * When arbitrators are voting on whether to accept requests, they each may, at their option, either recommend that any or all of the article(s) involved be placed on article probation, or they may object to it. When the case is declined after 10 days or opened, if at least one arbitrator has so recommended, and none have objected, the article(s) are placed on probation until removed by the passage of a remedy or motion.

I invite discussion on this proposal. I have placed pointers to here on WP:VP/PR, WT:RFARB, WT:SANCTION, and WP:AN.

It occurs to me that people who think this is too strong might prefer replacing "at least one" (arbitrator) with "at least two" etc. MilesAgain (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the ArbCom can only rule on cases which have been appealed to them in the proper manner. Bstone (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Rather, see the discussion on community imposed probation for Homeopathy at WP:AN. Arbitration is for disputes that can't be resolved by the community.  If an article is such a problem that many admin endorse taking action and none seriously dispute it, then we can take action without Arbcom's approval. Thatcher 20:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There's also this, no idea if that section is "archived" or not, though, so this might be the only case recorded here. x42bn6 Talk Mess  00:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on community-enforced Arb recusal
Please see: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Proposed decision/Archive1. Lawrence § t/e 00:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Minor tweak
I've tweaked the policy change ever so slightly to wikilink to the explanation of clerks since they are referenced twice in the text but never defined nor explained. Given that they exist as a willing construct of the arbitration committee, this needs to be pointed out IMO. &mdash; Coren (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee/Summary
There is a is now a Summary of statements from the Arbitration Committee RfC which had significantly more support than opposition. The summary clearly identifies suggested changes to the Arbitration Policy. And where further discussion is needed over the choice between some contradictory suggested changes. --Barberio (talk) 15:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Desperately needed fixes to policy
Here are two simple changes that will fix most of the procedural problems that have been plaging the Committee:

Requests
Change to: For a case to be considered accepted and therefore opened by a Clerk, it must meet the following criteria: If all of these criteria are met, the case can be opened. This procedure is ignored where a case is directly referred to the Committee by Jimbo Wales, or where an expedited open is explicitly requested by a sufficient number of Arbitrators with due cause.
 * It must have reached quorum; at least five arbitrators must have voted to accept or decline the case;
 * it must have strictly more votes to accept than votes to deny;
 * it must have reached quorum and majority more than 24 hours ago; and
 * it must have been filed more than 48 hours ago.

Final decision
Add: Arbitrators are considered to be active for a case if they:
 * Voted to accept or decline the case;
 * explicitely declared themselves active on a case; or
 * have voted on any proposed decision of the case

Rationale
Right now the system presumes that every arb is active on every case *and* that they oppose everything unless they state otherwise. No wonder it's near impossible for the committee to do anything.


 * Pros:
 * It doesn't exclude any arb just because they missed a RFaR while they were away or something; they just have to state they want in.
 * Things do not grind to a halt just because it happens that three of the arbs are busy with finals, one is away on business and another is taking a break.
 * Any arb can just sit a case out without hindering anything. (Which is good for breaks, or if the matter is so delicate that even an explicit recusal is possibly fraught with drama).


 * Cons:
 * I can't think of any!

Discuss. &mdash; Coren (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * My default position on most issues is that more opinions are better when making decisions. That is the reason that I do not want to do anything that makes the participation of arbitrators less likely. By having a default active, we encourage participation by more arbitrators. I want cases to close in a timely manner, but I'm not convinced that as a general rule having quicker closings should be more important than hearing the opinions of more arbitrators. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 17:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's reasonable, but that presumes that all (or almost all) arbs will eventually vote on all proposal. In practice, that turns out to basically almost never be the case.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And doesn't your position then assume that if an Arb doesn't vote that the Arb hasn't read the proposal, close or remedy? As it is, it saves the Arb some time to be able to read it, disagree/oppose, and move on without having to edit in their vote.  (Unless he or she wants to be on record as opposing / has an oppose rationale, etc.)  And given the volume of text that occurs in a given case, time spent not having to edit may be of the essence.  Plus, it may make an inherent bias for an Arb to not act affirmatively, which may actually be a good thing IMVHO.  But this is all just my .02 as an editor.  Good luck to you, Coren!   Laughing Vulcan  00:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's actually a reasonable position; and if the objective of the policy as currently written is to make arbitration naturally resistant to acting affirmatively, it's a decent way of doing it (mind you, a better way to make certain whether an Arb willfully did not vote or was simply absent would need to be found). However, I think that the slow responsiveness of the AC has been often decried (and often by the arbitrators themselves), and that there is an audible grumbling about the committee acting too little if anything.  I'm pretty sure (almost?) nobody has been calling for the committee to be less active. Mind you, I'm not touching the question of the legitimacy of the committee on its face; a point which has already been brought up by a very vocal minority&mdash; this proposition simply presumes that the AC is, and proposes a way to streamline it.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 03:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed updating
See discussion at Arbitration policy proposed updating (talk). Surprised this isn't linked already. FT2 (Talk 01:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * In hopes the new committee members have this page watchlisted, here's a modest poke to highlight this proposal. --InkSplotch (talk) 05:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Reverting enforcement cat
I see the enforcement cat was added without discussion in October. I'd prefer to remove the cat, because the nutshell for this page suggests it's not a typical policy page. Any objections? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom's jurisdiction over content disputes
I was surprised to find the notion that the Arbitration Committee does not rule over content missing from the policy. Is this intentional, or a case of a norm not yet formalised? Comment welcome. Skomorokh 15:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ArbCom isn't actually forbidden from ruling on some content issues (indeed, it has done so a number of times in the past when an interpretation of content rules was the crux of a difficult and otherwise unsolvable dispute). We do, however, avoid ruling on content issues as much as possible as a matter of both tradition and "best practice". If the only issue in a dispute is editorial concerns, then the other methods of dispute resolution to reach a real consensus are better and more effective in the long term.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I realise this; my question was why this is not reflected in the policy itself. Thanks for the reply, Skomorokh  02:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * So would anyone object to adding a line to the effect that the Committe avoids "ruling on content issues as much as possible as a matter of both tradition and "best practice""? Skomorokh  02:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If it's true, then add it, but perhaps it's time for ArbCom to reconsider its position on this. After all, WP is about creating an encyclopedia - content is ultimately the thing that matters the most (or should be). It's the thing that we all want and need to get right above all else, and ArbCom, as the highest-level decision making entity, ought to be helping to get the important decisions right, not turning up its nose and walking away. Of course the community makes these decisions competently 99.99% of the time, but on the occasions where it fails, the project needs an arbitrator to ensure that we get the result that's right, not the result that suits the people most willing to fight to the death.--Kotniski (talk) 12:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Minor policy tweak
I've just made a minor policy tweak following up on some discussion amongst arbitrators. The rules for acceptance has been changed from just "net four votes to accept" to "net four votes to accept or an absolute majority of arbs voting to accept".

As the committee has grown in size this year and that a larger fraction of the active arbitrators have tended to vote for case acceptance, the highly unreasonable result of a case being rejected with 9 accepts to 6 opposes (and other similar margins) has become more likely, and should be avoided.

The net four rule was instituted to avoid a case being accepted by only a very few arbitrators with many abstentions, and in the past, arbitrators would switch their votes to avoid such situations when they (very rarely) occurred. Given the much higher RFAR activity of the current committee, this is no longer adequate. &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've linked absolute majority and noted that discussion is still ongoing about this. Net three was (much earlier) proposed and if someone could draw up a table of the possible votes, including the permutations with abstentions, I'd be grateful. Carcharoth (talk) 12:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I made the tables, and as I was wikiformatting them I noticed that they are not very informative because there are only two or three possible differences in all of the tables:
 * For 15 available arbs:
 * 8-5 and 9-6 pass with both methods
 * 7-4, 6-3, 5-2, 4-1, and 3-0 pass only with "net 3"
 * 8-6 and 8-7 pass only with "absolute"
 * For 14 available arbs:
 * 8-5 passes with both methods
 * 7-4, 6-3, 5-2, 4-1, and 3-0 pass only with "net 3"
 * 8-6 pass only with "absolute"
 * For 13 available arbs:
 * 8-5, 7-4 pass with both methods
 * 6-3, 5-2, 4-1, and 3-0 pass only with "net 3"
 * 7-5 and 7-6 pass only with "absolute"
 * For 12 available arbs:
 * 7-4 passes with both methods
 * 6-3, 5-2, 4-1, and 3-0 pass only with "net 3"
 * 7-5 passes only with "absolute"
 * Recusals only affect the number of "available" arbs. &mdash; Coren (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So, a summary, is that "absolute" is a little more forgiving of marginal cases with lots of votes and "net 3" is more forgiving of cases with few total votes. &mdash; Coren (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The box at the top
I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but where does the idea come from that changes to this policy depend on consensus among the Committee, rather the community? (I see that someone has once claimed that Jimbo has suggested it, but is there anything more concerete than that?) Are there any other policies privileged in this way?--Kotniski (talk) 16:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see this page as saying "You must obey". I see it as saying, "Here's the ArbCom's impression of its operating rules". Is there anything on the page you'd like to see changed, Kotniski? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not particularly, I was just intrigued by the box at the top. If there's no ruling behind it being a policy mandated by Jimbo, perhaps we should change the wording of the box to make it clear that it's not a "policy" in Wikipedia's usual sense, but rather what you say it is.--Kotniski (talk) 11:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I've been bold and done that. Probably someone will revert it - I won't mind too much.--Kotniski (talk) 11:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

No Progress?
I'm rather annoyed to come back and find that there's still been no progress on getting the community requested changes to ArbCom policy enacted. Has this been forgotten about? --Barberio (talk) 10:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Which changes?--Kotniski (talk) 11:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it hasn't been forgotten; we're currently producing a combined draft that incorporates the existing drafts with the various new items from our agenda. Hopefully, there'll be something ready for community feedback in about a week or so. Kirill [pf] 12:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Draft arbitration policy
The Committee has prepared a provisional draft of an updated arbitration policy for initial community review. All editors are invited to examine the text and to provide any comments or suggestions they may have via one of the two methods specified on the draft page.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, [[Sam Korn ]] (smoddy) 11:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)