Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 4

Mailing list
This section of the page lists several editors who are not current members of the arbitration committee (David Gerard, Dmcdevit, Jayjg, Mindspillage, Nohat, Rebecca, Sam Korn, Sannse, The Epopt, Theresa knott). I did notice they are all former members though. The section was updated November 30, 2007 by Jdforrester. Does this mean that former members of the arbitration committee still view and take part in private committee business, or is this section out of date? --Pixelface 13:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * By tradition, former members in good standing may remain on the list to advise the current Arbitrators. Kirill 13:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What if a request for arbitration is made that lists a former member of the arbitration committee as an involved party? Can the former member use the mailing list to influence the other committee members' decisions to accept the case? If the committee accepts the case, does the former member remain a subscriber of the mailing list? --Pixelface 13:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * In theory, perhaps. In practice, that sort of thing doesn't happen; members of the Committee—former or otherwise—are trusted to have the necessary discretion and decorum to avoid unseemly behavior.
 * (Note that this is no different from cases where a present member is a party to a case.) Kirill 13:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Nobody watching the Arbitration enforcement subnoticeboard?
No administrator has replied to my comment posted two days ago at Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement, and I have noted a similar complain about the lack of administrator involvement from the user who posted a question few days before me. So please don't hesitate and read that subnoticeboard. Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for an "Arbitration Committee Public Complaints Commission"
(copied from the RFC Request above); "This proposal is looking for feedback on whether we should or should not discuss the implementation of an independent committee which will take any complaints against the arbitration committee. Should Wikipedia have, as in most Real Life political entities or "enforcement agencies" a non-biased, un-partisan committee to watch over and ensure any discrepancies or complaints are handled in a fair and probative manner which could then be highlighted for public interest!! " (December 12, 21:33) So what do you think about having a Arbitration Committee Public Complaints Commission or Commission for Public Complaints Against the Arbitration Committee ... something which could resemble the Commission for Public Complaints against the RCMP? They could perhap deal with any complaints against our "honorable arbitrator"'s or the committee itself? (note: this comment was reworded) --CyclePat (talk) 21:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think the community has faced difficulty in the past making its displeasure with the committee as a whole or individual members manifest. Mackensen (talk) 21:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't like this idea at all; it would be a painful addition to an already bloated bureaucracy, and the community has made itself abundantly clear when upset (Read: Fred Bauder + Attack sites). Sean William @ 21:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please take note that this is a proposal on whether we should or should not discuss the implementation. A committee could take on many forms. I have struken out my comment which leads to suggest that the commission for public complaints (CPC) would handle discrepencies: I think it would be best to say as per the idea of the RCMP CPC: "The CPC carries out its duties impartially. Throughout the complaints process, the CPC does not act as an advocate either for complainants or wikipedia members.  This results in unbiased findings and recommendations being made, which are aimed at identifying, correcting and preventing recurring problems in policing." --CyclePat (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What, exactly, is this intended to accomplish, beyond the proliferation of bureaucracy? Mackensen (talk) 23:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * CPC is intended to accomplish "unbiased findings and recommendations, which are aimed at identifying, correcting and preventing recurring problems in policing." Wiki's CPC statement could be similar to that of the RCMP CPC. --CyclePat (talk) 23:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Arbcom is neither the police nor the mounties. Mackensen (talk) 01:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed. The police are able to ruin peoples' lives when they screw up.  that is why the public interest needs the oversight that the police have.  The same cannot be said of WP arbitrators, whose sphere of influence is limited to this project, upon whom no-one's life depends.  There's no reasonable comparison.  Skorponok (talk) 02:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * (reduced indent) Hi Mackensen, what you bring up is a fundamental question which asks what the Arbitration committee (ARBCOM) is and does. I think we could talk about that for many hours as well. (ie.: define: arbitration ("...a legal technique for the resolution of disputes outside the courts... equivalent to litigation in the courts"), police ("patrol: maintain the security of by carrying out a control"), committee, etc.) When you look at what the Wikipedia:Arbitration Commitee stands for it is stated "Until the beginning of 2004, Jimbo Wales dealt with all serious disputes and was the only person with the authority to ban users who were not engaging in simple vandalism (straight-forward vandals could be blocked by any administrator). This role has now largely been passed to the Arbitration Committee." I therefore, put it to you, that the ARBCOM is in fact a type of patrol that maintains the security of Wikipedia by "carrying out a control" which has been handed down from Jimbo himself. Currently, even the interest of administrators, who may be blocked by the Arbcom, are looked after by ARBCOM. I believe CPC would insure, whatever the case, that an "unbiased findings and recommendations" could be rendered for everyone.(or whomever the CPC choses according to their standards)(Obviously non-binding and could be ignored if so chosen.) --CyclePat (talk) 04:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Err. This exists. He's called Jimmy.
 * James F. (talk) 02:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi James F., I find it interesting, ironic and perhaps lacking in "arms lenght" to read such an answer from you. Though honorable and understandable, your user page indicates a relationship with "Arbitration (and attendant/related) duties" as being your "primary focus of... work here." Furthermore, you are "Part of the ArbCom panel at m:Wikimania 2006." and may have a direct interest in maintaining the status quo. --CyclePat (talk) 06:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Umm, yeah... he's a member of the Committee. You were aware of that, yes? Kirill 06:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well put. User talk:Jimbo Wales. Prodego  talk 02:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, Jebus. Even the phrase "unbiased findings and recommendations" reeks of bureaucracy. What is the use of additional bureaucracy if it's non-binding and can be ignored?  bibliomaniac 1  5  19:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed. No public oversight is needed, because Wikipedia is not a democracy, not even a Rule of Law, and by far. Ultimate power does reside in Jimmy Wales, who owns this place and all this information, and who delegates this power to his close acquaintances. Of course, this can lead to bias, but who cares? Dpotop (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No he doesn't. Although, FWIW, discussing Jimbo's future role here would probably be far more useful than discussing the creation of yet more bureacracy. --kingboyk (talk) 22:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur with the yawn below. :) So, you want to discuss the future role of the owner of this place. But does he want to discuss it with you? I'm not so sure. Which is not necessarily bad. Various methods of large-scale government exist, each one with its own advantages. Absolutist rule is good as long as the ruler himself is up to the task, or wise enough to delegate power to the approapriate guys. Dpotop (talk) 12:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yawn. I call for the creation of a committee to come up with a proposal to review the committee that oversees the ArbCom. Seriously though, what will this accomplish? This community is more than able to make its grievances known. We have enough bureaucracy, whining and complaining. Grand master  ka  07:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I say, be bold and create it on an experimental basis. If it turns out to be a failure, we'll know not to do that again. Sarsaparilla (talk) 04:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

There are several valid points made here. I think that such a group would be effective for said tasks. However, this assumes that said tasks are currently being inefficiently handled by the ArbCom and/or admins. In otherwords, this committee would be effective if there were evidence that people "sentenced" by the ArbCom are not monitored properly, or that there are a large number of complaints lodged at ArbCom. If there is such evidence in existence, may it be brought forward to show such a need. However, without such a need, this creates petty hierarchy and unnecessary bureaucracy. Many complain that bureaucracy is bad, and wikipedia is headed horribly for it. However, a certain degree of bureaucracy helps efficiency. As such, this committee may be useful in the future, but I believe that it will not get much good use in the present. Good ideas all around.--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 01:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Is a courtesy-blanked Arbcom decision still in effect?
Someone has cited this old version of the courtesy-blanked Arbcom decision Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff in this deletion review discussion. What does courtesy blanking mean with respect to a decision? Does it in effect withdraw the decision so that that the decision then cannot be used as precedent in other cases?


 * Comment: If a decision remains in effect despite its blanked, this would seem to be something of a problem. How can the general community be expected to abide by decisions that have been blanked and which they are presumably not expected to be able to see? On the other hand, if everyone is expected to be able to look through the history etc. to see blanked decisions, why blank them if blanking is expected and intended to be ineffective? If the intention is only to remove a limited amount of material from the case due to e.g. WP:BLP considerations on specific mentioned content, perhaps redaction might be better than complete blanking. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Courtesy blanking does not modify the force of a decision in any fashion. It's meant to hide it from search engines. Mackensen (talk) 21:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The complete text of a courtesy-blanked page is available in the page history, very near the top. It's not at all the same as deleting the page. In this case the courtesy-blanking was done by Jimbo Wales personally, so we can't really reverse it. On the other hand, I wonder if it would be acceptable for at least the principles recognized in the case to be readily visible&mdash;if not on the case page where they would usually be, then moved to another page with a link&mdash;as this is a frequently cited decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As Mackensen notes, the decision is still in force. I generally do not support courtesy blanking of arbcom decisions.  The present situation is an example why.  Perhaps we should discuss the matter with Jimbo and see if the page can be unblanked, perhaps in a partially redacted form.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

For the time being, when courtesy blanking the final decision of arbitration cases, use. This will add the wording "The committee's decision is still in effect, and can be found in the [ page history]." Not ideal, but at least it will prevent confusion. Picaroon (t) 02:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they are most certainly still in effect. Raul654 (talk) 03:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Role of Jimbo Wales
Why, exactly, does Jimbo Wales have this anachronistic and outdated power to appoint arbitrators? Why can't the five candidates receiving the greatest support in the election be elected automatically? All other Wiki communities are trusted to govern themselves, and I can't understand why he thinks we need or want his intervention here. I don't recognise his authority in the slightest - he may have founded Wikipedia, but he doesn't own it, fund it, or contribute any substantial part of its content. The only people who have any moral right to control Wikipedia are a) the donors and b) the community, being the people who actually keep the encyclopedia running. Jimbo should abandon any pretence to any sort of authority around here. WaltonOne 13:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Walton, I think you have indeed a valid point. You can add to it that only en.wikipedia has this kind of construction afaik. However, there is also a good reason for Jimmy having this opportunity. It is for unforseen problems. And one of the characteristics of those problems is that we can't predict them yet, we can't prevent them either. I see this as an emergency fallback apparatus. But I also realize that as soon as Jimmy decides to use this rule when there is no very good reason for it, he would immediately loose this status. I actually think he would at the end be overruled by the community if there would not be a very good reason. Don't worry, if this case could happen once, the community is smart enough to judge Jimmy on it and take action if required. effeietsanders 12:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Question on the matter of succession
This is probably going to come off as a stupid question, but bear with me. Everything I can find says that the newly elected arbitrators take office on 1 January, and (presumably) the terms of the arbitrators they replace would expire at that time. Now, if the outgoing arbitrators are involved in a case, do they remain arbitrators for that case, until it is concluded? Would new arbitrators be added to the case in mid-stream? It's a small matter, but I can't find clarification elsewhere, so I thought I'd ask here. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 15:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Tradition has it that outgoing arbitrators stay active on the cases open prior to Jan 1 unless they opt-out. New arbs are inactive on cases opened prior to Jan. 1 unless they chose to opt-in on the case. Hope that helps. :) FloNight (talk) 16:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It did, and does. Belated thanks, UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 13:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Long-term POV pushing: when does it cross the line?
I've become involved in an extended (like, three years old) content dispute at Satanic ritual abuse. I've come to believe that at least one of the participants, while sincere in his beliefs, is simply not willing to accommodate other POVs, except as token gestures or strawmen. I believe that he uses well-poisoning and guilt by association to get rid of sources he doesn't like, and that he attacks other editors while doing it. Finally, I did notice at one point that he was copy-pasting material off a website, while citing newspaper articles from the late 1980s that I strongly suspect he hasn't read. (Where the website got details of the citations wrong, he did too.)

The MedCom request has been denied because not everyone agreed to mediate, although the timing was unfortunate and it may simply be that people were away for the holidays. Hopefully mediation will resolve this, but I'm skeptical.

So I'm asking: Under what circumstances does ArbCom take such a case? You don't resolve content disputes and I respect that. But what (if any) are the standards for determining that a content dispute has become an issue of user conduct? &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 17:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If talk page discussion, an article RFC, mediation (formal, informal), walking away for awhile and trying again don't work, then an editor conduct RFC is perhaps needed. RFArb might be helpful if those don't work. FloNight (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Question
Would it be OK if I created so people can email the Committee mailing list directly?? This is per something mentioned on Sock puppetry about people contacting the Committee. Thanks, -- Solumeiras talk  11:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The account exists. Looks like I was wrong. -- Solumeiras talk  11:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom mailing list - access issues
While I understand the arbitration committee want to be able to consult past arbitrators on past cases and for advice in general, I think one hugely symbolic act they could make would be to restrict arbcom-l to just the current arbitrators, and have an emeritus mailing list that is for past and current arbitrators, with cross-posting between them as necessary. In effect, this would make little difference, but I think this could help to demarcate certain boundaries more clearly. Does this have any chance of happening? Carcharoth (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No. Raul654 (talk) 04:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's an excellent idea, actually. I wish ArbCom would adopt it. Grand  master  ka  02:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Forgive me for trying to read the body language behind that terse response, Raul, but its that a "No, but I wish it could", or a "No, and I hope it never happens", or a "No, because the arbitration committee don't have the power to do this", or a "No, and I don't want to say anything else", or something else entirely? As a very recent ex-arbitrator (and I supported you in the elections), you may have a unique take on this. It makes sense for you to retain access for a few months or a year afterwards, but what about those who were arbitrators many years ago? Does it make sense for those who were last active arbitrators in 2004 and 2005 to still have access? What will happen in the future as the number of emeritus arbitrators increases? Having 30+ emeritus arbitrators on the mailing list could be unworkable. Might be better to do something now, rather than later. Carcharoth (talk) 04:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The committee is capable of determining the members of its own list (speaking as a two-time ex-arbitrator). Mackensen (talk) 06:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No chance. We like it very much exactly as it is. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 05:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Thanks to all who replied. Carcharoth (talk) 10:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikiversity and Arbcom
Hello all. I corresponded with a few committee members about this, and as mentioned Wikiversity now has some materials related to ArbCom. For those unaware of the history, a few Wikipedians had arrived on Wikiversity a couple months ago who had serious concerns about the committee, including one user who was apparently banned through an ArbCom-related process.

Thus far it is mostly these concerned editors who have been working on the resource, so it may have a particular slant (we really don't know for the most part, because very few Wikiversity contributors have any actual experience with ArbCom). Further contributions -- particularly from those with an understanding of how the committee functions -- would thus be most appreciated at Wikipedia arbitration committee.

In order to get a better understanding of how ArbCom is viewed by the Wikipedia and Wikimedia community, we've also included questions about ArbCom in the Wikimedian Demographics survey on Wikipedia (I plan to "announce" that resource on the Village Pump in the next few days, but in a nutshell it's intended to serve the purposes which were behind the drive for the now-stalled Wikimedia Census). v:Category:Wikimedian Demographics/Wikipedia/Arbcom/Response categories has the opinions thus far gathered (a very small sample, but apparently Wikiversitans are prone to support ArbCom thus far).

Any ideas on how to help people understand ArbCom, and/or requests for other survey questions related to the topic would be most welcome. -- SB_Johnny | talk 14:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting! Keep us updated. FloNight (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Clerks
Can we get a link on this page to Arbitration Committee/Clerks? I came here looking for one. If the uninitiated were to happen by, they might be unaware of the existence of the clerks role. --Joopercoopers (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Good thought, and I've added a short section at the end of the page to address this. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Brad. --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee members and roles
I wonder if any member of the committee could fullfill other functions as well. Like being an administrator, bureaucrat or having checkuser possibilities or being a steward. Or everything together.. ? Happyhousebrr (talk) 12:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * All present Arbitration Committee members are administrators. A couple — Deskana and UninvitedCompany — are bureaucrats. All of the present 15, save Newyorkbrad, Paul August, Sam Blacketer, and Charles Matthews, are checkusers (and these four are probably out of choice not to be checkusers rather than any other reason, from my observation of Committee tradition in assigning checkuser to current members, although without a subscription to the mailing list I can't be sure, obviously). A really easy way to check all this is to go to Listusers and check the names of the arbitrators in the search box ("Display users starting at:"), or choosing one of the groups from the drop-down menu ("Group:") and observing who is and who isn't that role. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 12:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

BLP concerns and ArbCom-banned editors
The trigger for my bringing this here is the recent ArbCom case involving Matt Sanchez (posting as user:Mattsanchez, user:Bluemarine, and user:Matthewsanchez), but I believe it points to a wider policy issue that is worth considering. Matt raised a question about his image on user talk:Jayvdb as a sock. The sock was quickly banned (possibly partly in response to my WP:AE posting). Ignoring the merits of Matt's question for a moment, and echoing a similar comment from Newyorkbrad at AN/I, there is an equity question concerning the ability of the subject of an article to request corrections even when banned. After all, WP:BLP should and must continue to offer Matt (or any editor in a similar position) protection in line with policy.

Now, given Matt's past behaviour, using a sock was a sure way to provoke a response, but the principle here also needs consideration. As I see it, Matt's communication options are limited to mailing ArbCom directly (which is fine, but shouldn't really be a first line of communication in most cases) or going to OTRS. However, neither is these is public. John Vandenberg's instruction to Matt at Commons to contact him on John's Commons talk page is possibly a little better - certainly better than private email - but content comment should be on-wiki and public to the extent that this is practicable. When such comment is not practicable, there is the ArbCom list.

As a consequence, I have a suggestion (assuming it is practicable). Is it possible for a single user talk page for Matt to be editable only by him and by admins? That way, he could post comment without risk of edit warring on that single page. Admins could swiftly remove any inappropriate comment that Matt might make. Anyone who felt that Matt was offering a reasonable suggestion or comment could take it to the talk page for his article for discussion (where admins could sanction anyone whose response was about Matt rather than the content of the article or the content of the suggestion). Any attempt to add personal information (the stated reason for the lock on user talk:Bluemarine) could still be removed by an admin, and Matt could also remove such information. It seems to me that this option would: Of course, this presumes that such an option is technically feasible. I know Matt (or any blocked editor) can edit his user talk page whlist blocked (to make unblock requests, for example). As I understand it, he is prevented from doing so at present by the page protection. If this were lowered, could other editors be prevented from editing by technical means? Alternatively, would a notification that any non-admin making an edit will face immediate blocking - no excuses, no appeals, one strike and you get a block, and your edited will be reverted - be considered acceptable in these extremely narrow circumstances?
 * allow transparency for WP
 * allow legitimate BLP or other concerns from Matt to be recognised and addressed
 * prevent edit warring between Matt and other editors
 * avoid the temptation for Matt to create further socks in the event that provocative edits are made to the Matt Sanchez article
 * relieve ArbCom and OTRS of needing to deal with comments or suggestions that can be reasonably resolved by others
 * provide for minimal disruption of WP by actions / comments by Matt

If this were implementable, it seems to me that it would be equally applicable for any other person who is the subject of a WP article and ends up banned and blocked. Is this a suggestion that ArbCom members would be willing to consider, or have the authority to institute? Alternatively, are there other options which might address such concerns? Or, is Matt in a "you made your bed, now lie in it" situation? Thoughts? Jay*Jay (talk) 03:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There are some good ideas there however this is a BLP issue, with community bans being the more usual and longer lasting. Unless someone points out a major problem with these suggestions, I suggest that they be taken to WT:BLP. John Vandenberg (talk) 04:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to a move if another forum is appropriate. However, in Matt's case, ArbCom action would be necessary.  I also think that ArbCom establishing a precedent would be desirable.  In the short term, I will post on WT:BLP that this discussion has been initiated, and invite participation. Jay*Jay (talk) 04:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's face it, Wikipedia is bound and determined to be Matt Sanchez's promotional tool. The facts remain blocked from the article about him, and within two weeks of "blocking" him you are conniving ways to restore him here. Meanwhile, you've done nothing to discipline the top-level officials who violated every single policy Wikipedia purports to stand for in aiding Sanchez's efforts. You might as well just restore his access straight on rather than being such transparent squirrels about it. 24.18.134.216 (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * (Above IP used by Pwok for personal attack) FT2 (Talk 10:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

A good deal of the OTRS traffic concerns individuals who object to items in their biography. I see no reason why it would not be the proper mechanism in this case. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've had some experience of that on the OTRS end. Unfortunately what happens is that OTRS is there to handle issues, not to edit on (or sit on) an article for its subject, nor to spent the time often needed to identify editorially a content solution (except in obvious cases)..... the almost inevitable view at OTRS is, if its simple we'll edit it, and if it comes up a few montsh later we'll get it edited again. But OTRS isn't an editing body, more an inquiry-resolving one, so the standard OTRS response is to engage with the editorial community. Which is difficult if the user for whatever reason, is banned from there. Also, OTRS has no especial standing to override other editors; though an action marked OTRS will often carry weight, it does not have any formal reason to be treated as "the right view" and may not be if disagreed.


 * So assuming they cannot get it solved by OTRS in a number of of these disputes, and the user has managed to get themselves banned by their conduct, they would seem to have a problem. It would be very helpful if there was a way to give them access somehow to BLP/N only....


 * A bot that one could email, and the email would be posted up in a text box on WT:BLP/N, to be moved to BLP/N by users if it has merit? Minimal functionality - receive email in plain text at wikiEN-BLP@wikimedia.org, check sender against a blacklist, post text as a new section on the BLP/N talk page. Shouldn't be too hard to do. And run it on the toolserver. Allows the access needed for BLP issues by banned subjects and nothing beyond. Thoughts?


 * FT2 (Talk 00:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3
There is current discussion ongoing at the Administrators' Noticeboard, regarding the Everyking 3 Arbitration case, to which the Committee recently passed an open motion. Of particular interest may be the criticism of the remedies in question, which have been expressed by more than one editor. As outlined in my comments there, I feel that input from current Arbitrators, especially those who were active in that motion, would be invaluable in the matter, and it may be that members of the Committee may wish to comment on the discussion. The thread in question is located here. Regards, AGK (contact) 23:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Full history
Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee is rather confusing. I don't understand why Essjay stands out as a standalone person. I also do not understand why FloNight suddenly becomes a non-elected appointee after 2009 till 2010.

I would also recommend redoing of the chart in .png or .svg format. Preferably horizontally.

-- Cat chi? 21:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Essjay stands out not because of anything to do with his particular circumstances, but because Jimbo added an extra seat to the committee at the time he appointed Mackensen and Essjay. There was one vacancy on the 15-member committee (Dmcdevit had recently resigned), and there were two appointments, creating an extra position which was not filled again when Essjay resigned a few weeks later.
 * FloNight was elected and assigned to a two-year term and then this past December, Jimbo extended her term by another year, so that is a somewhat ambiguous situation. No comment on the formatting of the chart, as to which I have zero expertise. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I would note that I was specifically appointed to fill Dmcdevit's seat. Mackensen (talk) 00:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

RfB passing % discussion
If you haven't, please consider participating here and adding your view on whether the passing percentage for RfBs should be changed. I'll post this at WP:AN and AN/I, as well, and it has been raised at WP:VP and is posted on TEMP:CENT. Avruch  T 22:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it would be prudent for the Committee as a whole to intervene in the RfB matter, and hence I'm unsure why this notice is being placed here. Then again, I can understand the reasoning behind it, what with this being a fairly high-traffic page—I simply wanted to make my thoughts clear on the Committee intervening in this matter, in case the above notice was interpreted as a request in that vein. AGK (contact) 22:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think the Committee as a whole has a place in the discussion either, but individually they do and their opinion of course is respected in the community. Plus, more than the Committee come by here, as you mentioned. Avruch  T 23:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't know that this is a high-traffic page. Perhaps you were thinking of Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration (although that's not really suited for general announcements either). Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call it high traffic, but it does rope in the Arbs and a few others and that was the point. Feel free to remove it if its totally inappropriate. Avruch  T 23:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That wasn't my point at all—in fact, I was sculpting my comment in such a way that, hopefully, you wouldn't perceive it as criticism: it was simply an observation that it was a rather unorthodox page on which to place a request for input in an RfB matter :) With regards to Newyorkbrad's point, perhaps high-traffic is not wholly accurate, but at least it does attract some sort of attention, if only from people such as myself, who have no life and hang around Committee talk pages =) AGK (contact) 23:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I did that last year and look what happened to me.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're saying anybody who hangs around on WT:ARBCOM becomes an Arbitrator, I will leave right now ;P AGK (contact) 23:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I Am Sending A Request for the dismissals of administrators, OhNoIt'sJamie and Marskell For Libelling
I was looking through some pages, and I discovered some abuse. This one user, Kevin J, was libelled on the headmaster, JimboWales, on his user page for something I think is ingrateful. My first complaint pertains to Marskell, who claimed this user tends to go to any users page SCREAMING his problems. Frankly, I myself would capitalize letters if I felt nobody was listening to me, and not as an anger issue. The only users who I noticed he did talk to were people who responded to his content; that is not ANY USER and it is not vandalism. Also I noticed the OhNoIt'sJamie also libelled him when he replied to one of his messages as well. The user was only saying that he was intending to edit more messages, and that he was not going to stand for it when somebody calls him a stalker. The user claimed it was disruption, and made notice of it that he would block him even if he was going to make one more replying statement claiming a reasonable defense. I checked his contributions, and I think he is a good editor to Wikipedia. I noticed he was in a edit war with a user known as the Thegingerone, and he appears to me 100% on track. I read a copy of Valentino-The First Superstar myself, and it did have a bibliography in the back. Please, let this be known. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.233.213 (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you Kevin J logged out? Because you sure do sound like him. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia Arbitration Committee

Appeal - please help
It is high time that the abuses against the unjustly banned user "Gibraltarian" were dealt with rationally and fairly. My ban was brought about by a troll user's malicious complaint, and he continually vandalised any words I tried to post in my defence. I appeal to any admin or Arbcom member with a sense of justice to please contact me on a_gibraltarian@hotmail.com to discuss the matter. Many thanks

DO NOT REVERT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.124.68.211 (talk) 22:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for oversightship
I wish to become an oversighter, because there are not enough wikipedians with oversight privileges. I've identified edits that grossly violated wikipedia's policy on living people, and reported them to oversight. But sometimes the response takes too long (for example, the most recent time I asked for oversighting of an edit).

Getting oversight should be no big deal. Some tasks involved with being an admin (which I am not currently), such as closing an AfD or banning a user, may be difficult, but deciding to delete a phone number or an address should be easy. Thanks, Andjam (talk) 09:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your willingness to help out is admirable. However, I direct you to three points: 1/ all Oversighters are administrators, and I do not think that, in practice, the permissions will be issued to non-administrators. Oversight is, after all, a permission that has the potential to cause damage to the project, and for that reason, requires a great deal of trust. 2/ Requests for the oversight permission are generally directed to the AC's private mailing list (index page), and addressed in private. Obviously, I see no reason why the request cannot be addressed here, rather than requested privately, but I would advise that you at least contact the Committee, pointing them towards this thread. 3/ Those that are given access are required to confirm their identities to the Wikimedia Foundation. If you desire access to the oversight flag, you will need to identify, via a medium detailed here. Regards, Anthøny  21:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Request for oversight access can be emailed to ArbCom mailing list as Anthony says. It is necessary for people with oversight access to be admin since they need to be able to see deleted versions of articles since some edits are deleted prior to the request for removal by oversight. Thank you for the offer to help, though. :) FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 21:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for replying Anthony. When I read Oversight, I misinterpreted it as saying that you could put a request on the "Arbitration Committee Talk page". Should the section be clarified a bit? Andjam (talk) 12:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You are indeed correct there, Andjam. I have rewrote the relevant sections. Thank you for drawing attention to that matter. Regards, Anthøny  12:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've sent an email to the arbitration committee mailing list - it seems to be awaiting moderation. Andjam (talk) 08:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Unable to get a reply from ArbComm
Hello, I am posting this message on behalf of User:Iantresman, who I know and have worked with outside of wikipedia. Ian tells me he has tried to contact the ArbComm to see if the the community ban he received can be re-examined in the light of new evidence, as he summarizes here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Iantresman#Indefinite_ban:_unappealing_replies ...but apparently he has not received any reply at all. Could someone let him know where he stands?--feline1 (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought that he recently received a reply from an arbitrator after we reviewed the request. You double check and so will I. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 22:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ian has emailed me privately to reply:

-- "Since my request for appeal was turned down last year, I re-applied on 1st Jan (with a reminder on the 15th) as it was clear that the evidence showed factually incorrect allegations (rather than just misleading ones).


 * I received a reply from Josh Gordon on 16th Jan 2008 saying "Received and under consideration". Since then, I have no record of receiving responses from anyone on the Arbcom list. I sent reminder emails to:


 * The ArbCom mailing list on 1 Feb and 14th Feb, without response.
 * Morven on 20, 26, and 28 Feb without response.
 * Kirill Lokshin on 3 March, without response.
 * NewYorkBrad on 4 April, without response.

I then asked clerk Thatcher131 to see if he could get a response, and he was quite helpful. But my emails on 19, 25, 28 and 31 March, and 4 Apr, have all gone without response. ie. Since Josh's reply on 16th Jan 2008, a dozen of my reminders have gone answered." feline1 (talk) 22:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I got a similar reply to my email. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 22:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

--
 * Soupdragon42 (talk) 10:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, well. I see that ScienceApologist (ScienceAntagonist, more like) is still waging his Holy War against Plasma Cosmology. The suppression of Ian Tresman's valid contributions is nothing short of a witch hunt. Nearly all scientific breakthroughs have resulted from conflict, not consensus, and Wikipedia's irrational devotion to mainstream ideas thus stifles scientific progress


 * Scientific American magazine was still denying that Heavier than Air Flight was possible two years after the Wright brothers had been flying successfully!


 * Furthermore, Ian Tresman has always been polite and reasonable, by stark contrast to the behaviour of certain Wiki people who should know better. His community ban was clearly instigated on false pretences


 * NB. ScienceAntagonist. Please do not accuse me of being a sockpuppet of Ian Tresman again, as I have demonstrated to more reasonble moderators that this is not the case - dvd[at]plasmacosmology.net


 * I've opened an RFAR to appeal this as it appears that the request isn't being taken seriously. Stifle (talk) 11:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

JW's tie breaking vote?
From memory, it seems that Jimbo's role as a tie-breaker, when the Arbitration Committee is in a deadlock, conflicts with with policy on another page (Or, as I have just found Newyorkbrad's comment in the discussion linked below, "oddly enough the actual Arbitration policy does not contain this provision"). Looking at the case just now which originally brought this to my attention, the controversy concerning this role was brought to light by this proposal link. And at least one of the conversations concerning this tie-breaking role took place here. So, should this text:
 * "In this circumstance (a tie vote), the Arbitrators may ask Jimbo Wales to cast a tie-breaking vote, but this has yet to occur."

be removed? It does not seem to have acceptance. And one arbitrator changed their vote just to keep it from being invoked. . . R. Baley (talk) 15:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * R.Baley, the Committee is discussing several internal policy matters. I'll add this to the list for us to discuss. FloNight (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks, R. Baley (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I know the AC is busy, but this still appears to be an unsettled issue. Is there any discussion going on about this?  I ask because it would be a shame to leave it until such time as it would cause the maximum amount of drama to decide.  Thanks,  R. Baley (talk) 02:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Requests for Checkusership
As noted elsewhere, a discussion is ongoing beginning with Wikipedia_talk:RFA. The discussion centers around the idea of an RfA-like process for selecting and/or approving Checkusers. Though I am reasonably certain that some or all of the members of the committee are aware of the discussion, I'm adding a notice here to notify you of the discussion and the proposal. Thanks, UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 14:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments welcome
I've started a discussion here about whether an official clerk system is really needed.  Al Tally  (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet notification
Hi there, an editor who is currently under suspicion of abusing multiple accounts (see Requests for comment/TheNautilus) has stated here that he has notified the "arb bureaucracy" of his account usage. Could somebody please check to see if this is true? Tim Vickers (talk) 18:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Either email the arb mailing list or post on one of their talk pages. Only the arbs will know if this is true. You could also file a report at WP:SSP. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 20:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've contacted Charles Matthews and Jpgordon. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Who is the "arb bureaucracy"? Anyway, I couldn't find any such notifications in the email records going to back to my beginning as an arbitrator in Jan 2006, and there's nothing in the archive either (at least, nothing with the word "TheNautilus" could be found.) However, if I were participating in the RFC in question, I'd point out that in the absence of any suggestion of abuse, it's simply irrelevant whether or not anyone was informed; current sockpuppet policy allows for such multiple accounts (a policy I disagree with, but there you have it.) It does look that opinion is already being voiced adequately on the RFC. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 23:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is tendentious editing and multiple policy violations, not simple sockpuppet abuse. This is why an RfC is needed, rather than a simple RFCU block. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I presume the "arb bureaucracy" is the arbitration committee. I've seen that usage used a few times in emails I have received from editors who do not have much experience with the arbitration process. I don't think it's meant offensively, at least in this case. :) Anthøny  23:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I wasn't offended, just amused at the term. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 23:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no memory of it but I got an email from TheNautilus in March 2007 discussing a case. In it he mentions using a past account and that some admins (he names them) were aware of the reason for him starting with a new user account. At the time, I did not see the email as notification, but he certainly did say so in the email. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 17:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Did he say what this account was called? I ask since I'clast is still an active editor, so if TheNautilus mentioned a "past account" that would seem to imply an account that he had stopped using. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I used the phrase arb bureaucracy because not everyone I've discussed my situation with or WP identity in email, associated with the arbitration process was on the committee itself, I think (little hazy on which functions carry which title recognitions and powers, 2006-7).  I thank FloNight for acknowledging my brief note to her, I have more numerous and meatier correspondence with present and former arb process members that I do not think "sharing" is a good idea, considering the long term expectation of privacy.


 * I consider Tim's actions, especially this past couple of weeks, in bad faith and a sophisticated, concerted personal attack in nature. Although Tim may normally be a good editor, his surprising conduct starting from "orthomoecular medicine" several months ago, suggests to me, a strategic campaign of measured, baiting with escalating coercive conduct & intimidation where most editors are too far removed to understand the underlyng factual science issues and multiple errors. A kind of "will to power behavior", Tim's edits rely on inaccurate historical and scientific statements that are 2nd, 3rd, 4th repetitions of unreliable sites that repeat (project) and spread a known fraud and misrepresentations about a famous scientist & his work.  This disparagement, by close association, his living co-author(s) and by society names, members & professional associates may even have BLP/entity issues.


 * I believe what has happened is that I have tapped Tim's core beliefs. You see, I can *document*, through source text research with WP:V and RS sources, that his favorite epithets are the continued projection & spreading of known, fraudulent misrepresentations by a scientifically unreliable, partisan website that has long history of projecting the *image* of infalliblity (here too) despite being, scientifically and historically on this subject, roadkill.  For such controversial situations, I rely on a pretty sophsiticated integration of *all* policies to maintain an "NPOV-SPOV" for accurate, current NPOV, RS, V, WEIGHT text.  Tim's tactics have been (perhaps subtly) pre-emptory and ad hominem in nature taking aim my lack of time and edit volume as well popular but documentable misconceptions about the subject, that are the fallout of a decades long propaganda campaign (knowably, even reckless) with the misrepresentation.  Now sufficient historical documentation and mainstream scientific authority exists for me to issue this challenge and take it to the line:  Tim's favorite epithets, originating unreliable sources, are a form of professional disparagement (those authors and similarly named societies) that are in actuality (based on "my" WP:V, RS mainstream sources) founded inside a "magic square" of severe bias, scientific incompetence, scientific misconduct, and since it is so popular here, scientific quackery.  All I am hearing from Tim and fellow travellers by "body language" is "STFU" and WP:HUSH.   The bottom line is that Tim is manipulating the system, ignoring WEIGHT & science fact issues and attacking me through WP processes, rather than collaborate like a number of previous MD and PhD editors.


 * I am not a fast writer by any means. The rapid escalation of complaints and the previous tactics that I consider gratitious and unfair, suggest an intent to overwhelm me by funneling in old adversaries, at a time *when I have been scaling back my editing*. My story involves security issues, some in meatspace & undiscussed anywhere, as well as previous, recurrent trolling and real sockpuppetry where I don't appreciate Tim's inflammatory actions stomping around, attracting notice & harrassment, that just might reanimate one of the prior problem editors. One was an extraordinarily powerful writer, a pharmaceutical lawyer that I've seen finish off another lawyer here at WP inside of a week despite lack of technical merit, and the other that I simply consider a gifted predator, now has several indefs but managed to come in under the WP radar for a year+.--TheNautilus (talk) 01:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This isn't the place to discuss this. I'd invite anybody interested to read Requests for comment/TheNautilus and comment on the issues highlighted in this RfC, some of which are probably obvious to anybody reading the comment above. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * By my reading of WP:SOCK, there are 5 legitimate uses of multiple accounts - to my surprise, segregation of contributions is one of them. There is a LOT of gray area between segregation of contributions and avoiding scrutiny (one man's legitemate segregation is another's avoiding scrutiny), rendering the page almost useless.  However, the page does say alternative accounts should be tagged.  At minimum, the two accounts should be tagged as alternative accounts.  WLU (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That page will be startlingly divergent from many Wikipedians' expectations. Heaven forbid you try to remove that though. --bainer (talk) 13:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

JzG RFAR merged with Cla68-FM-SV case
Per the arb vote here the RFAR on User:JzG is now merged with this case and he is a named party. Also see my case disposition notes there. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 21:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

a Prod, for the Committee
Could we get some action on the various stale requests for clarification? RfarOpenTasks lists threads that are stale and/or need arbitrator involvement. In particular, the IRC clarification and Moby Dick clarification are particularly stale, and require action.

Anthøny 18:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I just emailed some of them about this. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 19:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I archived Moby Dick and IRC at the time I mentioned in the email to the arbs. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 10:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to unmerge C68-FM-SV and JzG/Viridae cases

 * Please see the proposal here. (Placed this note here since the arbitrators appear not to be reading the case pages.) dorftrottel (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

G33 case
I asked AGK about this, who suggested asking here. The case looks stalled to me. What are you waiting for? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Bit ironic, given the next-but-one thread. Ah well William M. Connolley (talk) 21:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Request to reconsider Arbcom's communication culture
Apropos of this thread, I would like to request that the Arbitration Committee reconsider the manner in which it communicates with the community. Now, some Arbcom discussions and actions need necessarily be done beyond the view of the Wikipedia community, and it is often necessary for accountability concerns to explain the Committee's actions to the community. This seems to occur ad hoc, either at WP:RFARB, user talkpages or commonly, at WP:AN or its subpages. While it would be best to give editors looking for information on the Committee's actions a central place they could go to find it, it is the common use of WP:AN and subpages for this purpose that concerns me. Arbitrator User:FT2 comments that "Those interested are likely to be either admins themselves, or aware of ANI and rapidly hear about posts on it. They'll see it wherever it's posted. AN/ANI is fairly usual for arbcom actions." This may very well be accurate. I think it also encourages the hierarchical culture of Wikipedia wherein important matters are conflated with administrators matters. This perpetuates the notions that administrators are a class above non-administrators and that the Arbitration Committee is accountable primarily to the administrative community, and is very unhealthy for a free, collaborative project. I propose that the Committee use either this talkpage, or a dedicated venue to explain its actions to the community. Respectfully,  Skomorokh   22:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Generally arbcom announcements are made to directly involved users. We announce case decisions on case pages with a general announcement on AN since admin carry out sanctions. The above is at one level a block discussion, so AN/I was appropriate, I think. We could start an arbcom announcement page, I suppose. But I'm not sure another page is needed. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 22:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note ongoing cases are also in signpost, but the BLP issue in the Footnoted quotes case is of obvious major interest to a lot of people. I also am not sure we need a new page but perhaps announcing things here that are not so obvious would be a good idea. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 22:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * To Rlevse, I am aware and approving of the Signpost system, but what I am talking about is specifically is where Arbcom declare "Here's what we decided and why" and editors are given the opportunity to respond.  Skomorokh   22:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflicted with Rlevse) Announcing decisions on AN is one matter (nothing wrong with soliciting attention from those likely to be interested), using it as a forum for explaining them there is another (see above). In cases where Arbcom discusses their decisions in private (rather than at WP:RFAR), there is a need for the rationale for subsequent actions to be communicated to the community. If it is possible to do so solely through case pages (on whose talk pages users can discuss the matter), then the problem I illustrate does not arise. However in the case above, the explanation seemed to come at ANI instead of a case page. I understand the concern with creating more bureaucracy by having an explanation page, but if the case pages do not suffice for the communication necessary, some central forum is required, and AN is not it. Arbcom has an image problem. Let's try to fix that. Sincerely,  Skomorokh   22:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Firstly, hierachy related, going right back to basics: - I agree that anything that foregrounds a hierachy culture rather than a collaborative one is probably a serious thing not to be done in any area, lightly. We might recognize different roles and such, but users are still expected to act like admins; admins are expected to see themselves as no different from users; arbitrators are still users and admins appointed to a specific and demanding role that happens to have a high profile. Those aren't the important matters, we all contribute as and where we can. The important divisions if any are: "wants to contribute to an encyclopedia and project" or "doesn't"; "has a clue" or "wants to learn" or "is unlikely to/doesn't/won't"; "can collaborate with most others productively" or "can't/won't"; "has a mature approach" or "doesn't"; "escalates problems" or "resolves them"; "cares" or "doesn't care"; and "misjudges and may mis-react/over-react a lot" or "doesn't". Those are the differences between users we care more about, and which any hierachy of trust is intended to be built upon.


 * Although it's a very historic title, thinking about it, I'd be happier to see AN/ANI and so on retitled to WP:Community noticeboards/Administrators/Notices, WP:Community noticeboards/Administrators/Incidents ... which would then allow on the same section of the wiki, WP:Community noticeboards/Editor whatevers and WP:Community noticeboards/Arbitration Committee actions. That way we better organize our many noticeboards under one umbrella which covers administrators, non-administrators, arbcom actions, and so on, to be included alike. FT2 (Talk 22:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Firstly, thanks for responding FT2. I think this is too broad of a response than the issue merits (and ironically, this is not the forum to discuss reform of AN). I think AN (and subpages) are well-defined as places to go to when you need an administrator to take action (i.e. regarding blocks, protects and deletions). The community noticeboards, where administrators have no special weight or status, already exist (e.g. WP:RSN, WP:RFC, WP:3O, WP:VP). In fact, the Village Pump might be the ideal candidate for the forum I am suggesting, if the Committee is unwilling to maintain its own page. Sincerely,  Skomorokh   23:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't considering reform. More, moving them as they stand, to a section that is "community noticeboards" rather than just "admin noticeboards", so that those pages become closer to non-admin users too, and can have additional pages (like the one discussed) asociated with them that arent "admin" something boards. The problem with VP is, far fewer people go there. Why not just one set of noticeboards which will make them much more easy to discover by users, and increase awareness? FT2 (Talk 23:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I take it that this wasn't necessarily arbcom acting as arbcom, but rather that the arbcom mailing list (which includes past arbs) contains users who could be trusted with a very sensitive subject like this? That's what I assumed at first, but I'm not entirely sure after reading this thread. -- Ned Scott 03:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I dont like the idea of arbcom having a special announcement board, or trying to organise where they post. Important policy changes should be noted at the Village Pump. The most practical approach is for arbcom members to continue to post messages wherever they think is best, and continue to expand efforts to "report" where these messages have occurred, like is being done at WikipediaWeekly and others. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jayvdb, and think this is a case of it's not broken so why are we trying to fix it? The methods currently in place are fine. AN/I are central forums where everyone, non-admin and admin alike, congregate and know discussion is taking place. To relegate it to some special page off the beaten path where only a small group are going to monitor it does not make sense. Lets not create more pages to add to already overburdened watchlists. KnightLago (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Does ArbCom deal exclusively with disputes?
Specifically, is it within its ambit to make representations to WikiMedia on behalf of ... say, a large petition of WPians concerning a technical matter? TONY  (talk)  09:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No, that would not be part of the Committee's function. --bainer (talk) 00:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

New arbitrator
First, I recognise that the events that led to Brad's resignation are still raw, and everyone appreciates how sad a situation it was. However, time has passed now, and per Jimbo's statement upon announcing the results of the election in December, he offered a list of of candidates that should be considered should one become inactive or resign. I think it would be a good time to appoint a replacement from that list - we're seeing cases take longer than they usually do and should take and an extra hand would certainly help.

Also - what is classed as an inactive arbitrator? I understand Deskana has been ill, but since February, he's commented on one arbcom matter. He's also stated that he could be away for some time. What are the thoughts about offering a temporary (at least) place onto the committee to another one from the list? I was thinking that they could occupy Deskana's seat up until the December elections, or until Deskana returns to full editing.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  13:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The announcement can be seen here, and the possible replacements are;
 *  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  13:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 *  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  13:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 *  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  13:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 *  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  13:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 *  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  13:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 *  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  13:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 *  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  13:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 *  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  13:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Bringing in a direct quote from the statement, as it seems particularly relevant and also mentions June and July: "'Finally, I want to announce a desire that the ArbCom should institute some informal notions of a required level of activity, and that I will gladly act upon the advice and consent of the ArbCom at mid-term to make replacement appointments (June-ish - July-ish) for any Arbs who unfortunately have found themselves unable to live up to the time commitments of the position.""'I will gladly leave the choice of those mid-term appointments up to the Arbcom (or, at their desire, make the tough decision myself), but will have a strong preference at that time for appointments (based on the election results) from this list...' - User:Jimbo Wales, quoted from Wikipedia Signpost/2007-12-26/Arbitration series" I'm not sure where the original diff from Jimbo is, was it a mailing list post? The Signpost said "in an e-mail sent to us". Anyway, the point is that it might be an idea to ask first whether the ArbCom ever did find the time to "institute some informal notions of a required level of activity"? Carcharoth (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * And note that the above users are not the only editors that could be named, only that Jimmy has a strong preference for them. If the arbitration committee decided they wanted someone else, they in theory could do that. But either way, I would hope the committee would try and get at least a modicum of community input before the final decision is made. (i.e. "It is our strong intention to appoint X as a new arbitrator. Please comment.") That way, if they missed something, it can at least have the chance to be brought to light. Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I personally see no reason against putting this back to the community. Obviously, ArbCom would need to decide if Deskana is inactive enough to warrent replacement, but a one week vote for two places on the committee (the tranches would need to be specified) - questions could be asked in a week prior to the vote - it could all be sorted within 3-4 weeks and we'd have two community elected arbitrators. Whether it's limited to the editors on Jimbo's list, I'm not sure, but at least we'd have what the community wants.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  14:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean a community vote. I meant the committee decides amongst themselves who they want, make an announcement, give the community a couple of days to comment, then appoint. You'll get about a couple of dozen "Good Choice"s, but you might get a "Uhh... we shouldn't have an arbitrator who does X[diff]" that the committee missed. I just think it's wrong to take the community out of it entirely. We should be continuing to try and devolve power. Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, I think I've brought this up on this page about three times. Each time I proposed (and some few others agreed) that it would be better for the Committee to take action on this issue before a seat became vacant through inactivity or other means. At one point NYB mentioned a draft of some sort had been discussed on arb-l, perhaps the discussion from that time period can be revived? The other option is to simply wait until December, and have seats open/long-term inactive at that time be available for re-election. Avruch 14:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I mentioned it somewhere. May not have been this page, because I can't find it in the history! ;-P Avruch 14:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Here it is. NYB and Sam Blacketer mentioned discussing Brad's draft proposal on the mailing list. Avruch 14:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather not see another vote. Newyorkbrad and Deskana only assumed their responsibilities six months ago, meaning that their seats are for 2-1/2 years, nearly a full term. Given the extent of vetting done by the community for candidates for Arbcom during our annual election cycle, it seems unreasonable that such a review should be foregone in this case. I'd like to hear what Arbcom has come up with, if anything; alternately, I'd suggest that Jimbo appoint two of the individuals on the list above to terms that expire in December 2008, and add the one or two seats to the openings available in the next round of elections in December, for 2 year terms (similar to how thebainer was appointed to the remainder of FloNight's term when she was moved up to the next tranche). Either way, I'd suggest that any individuals appointed or elected at this point only be in place until this December, and that they be enjoined from running in the next election, so that nobody gains the perceived advantage of being a sitting Arbcom member - although I suppose Raul654 might challenge the notion that sitting members have any advantage. And Avruch, yes, I remember you saying that somewhere too! Risker (talk) 14:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * i agree with Riskers comments. Let the committee and/or Jimbo appoint someone off the qualified users list off the last election to sit out the rest of the year, then include that position in the next election.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup, agree with that in retrospect - the other users do have community trust already. I'd quite like it to be done quickly though so there's a few more hands on board to do the grafting.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  15:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean drafting? ;-) I have to agree though, we're approaching the time when several arbitrators traditionally will take a bit of a break, and it seems things are stretched fairly thin right now. Risker (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Given the highly unusual and I daresay shitty circumstances of his resignation we might consider contacting Brad and asking him to appoint his own successor (not necessarily one of the runners-up). — CharlotteWebb 15:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it would be fair or right to ask Brad to choose.  Al Tally  talk  15:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Most ideally, Brad can come back but I'm not sure how realistic that is. As for filling Deskana's slot, I urge the committee to give it serious consideration? — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 16:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The delays in recent ArbCom decisions are concerning; I'm wondering if there is a shortage of those willing to do the drafting and writing? I don't know if Raul is still interested, but I also hope Jimbo will consider appointing him, factoring in the following to the !vote tallies: Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Many of the opposes were because Raul was perceived as being too busy, ignoring that he had recently delegated me to help at WP:FAC.
 * 2) Because he was a sitting member of ArbCom, he was likely to receive a higher Oppose count.

I think whatever happens, the appointee(s), for however long, would end up filling expansion seats, or even if appointed to a "vacant" seat, the same caveat as before would apply, namely that Brad and Deskana would be able to take up their seats again as and when/if they return. Filiocht and Flcelloguy are, I think, the previous examples of this, though there may have been others. Not sure if anyone ever got updates on what the situation was with Filiocht and Flcelloguy, but it might be worth someone trying to get an update/confirmation on the situations with Brad and Deskana, or at the least with Deskana, as the wording of Brad's resignation didn't really leave much room for future changes. Carcharoth (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I would agree with this post of SandyGeorgia. Most of the opposes for Raul654 were because it was felt he would be too busy, but they had not realized that the workload was going to be lightened considerably through SandyGeorgia's efforts.


 * Although it would be great if Brad returned, I will point out that this is unlikely if we do not address the reason that Brad left. We have some serious problems in our community that led to this very regrettable event, and if we do not wake up as a community and start dealing with these problems, Brad's departure will only be followed by other similar issues, that might even be more serious. It annoys me that Wikipedians basically shove their heads in the sand and ignore these glaring difficulties, allow them to continue and even encourage them. We should be ashamed.--Filll (talk |  wpc ) 16:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * BTW, Mindspillage and Filiocht's eligibility to claim expansion seats in Tranche Beta ends this year, while Flcelloguy's eligibility to claim an expansion seat ends in 2009. And Brad and Deskana's terms run until 2010. I'm not entirely clear whether Mindspillage (Kat Walsh on the WMF board) went inactive or resigned. WP:ARBCOM says she resigned, but Template:ArbitrationCommitteeChart claims she can still return and claim a seat, which I now think is probably wrong. Also, resignation (Brad, Mindspillage) should be distinguished from inactivity (Deskana, Filiocht, Flcelloguy). Carcharoth (talk) 16:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, Mindspillage's was a resignation, but she can still re-accept a seat until the end of the year. She resigned when she was elected to the board, and Jimbo made the determination that she could come back during her initial term for an expansion seat.  Ral315 (talk) 01:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting discussion, however Jimbo and only Jimbo appoints Arbitrators. He may choose to take the community's advice but he does not have to. The best place to approach this would be Jimbo's talk page, or perhaps the main wikien-L mailing list. If you can find a couple of Arbitrators who think there need to be some replacements and temporary fill-ins appointed, presumably their opinions would also carry weight. Thatcher 17:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I was actually hoping the committee could enter into dialogue, with Jimbo, to choose a new arbitrator or two - or express how they would like proceedings to run or who (if anyone is going to be replaced). That's why I brought it to their talk page :-)  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  17:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Jimbo wrote, "I will gladly leave the choice of those mid-term appointments up to the Arbcom (or, at their desire, make the tough decision myself), but will have a strong preference at that time..." Doesn't that mean the committee would choose the replacements? Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly, which is why I quoted that and left a note on Jimbo's talk page. Presumably arbitrators and others can contact him more quickly if needed. Carcharoth (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Jimbo is aware of this discussion, by-the-by. Personally, I like the idea of a temporary fill-in until December, when the filled-in seats should go up for election for the remainder of the term together with the tranche that is naturally up. This way, there should be fewer concerns about the lack of community input into the process. In that light, while the list of "almost arbitrators" is a good starting point, I do not think that either ArbCom or Jimbo should be restricted to that list, and should be able to choose someone whom they feel will work well with the current ArbCom at this time for these last few months. If the seat comes up for election in December, there should be little fallout if someone not on that list is selected. -- Avi (talk) 23:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * They could always just appoint Thatcher till the end of the year. That'd sure help activity-wise :) Daniel (talk) 23:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be a good choice (as long as someone else kept up with Checkuser). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I third the motion. Shall we bring it to the floor? -- Avi (talk) 23:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this is the floor (but then, I've always resisted the idea that I need to join some off-wiki maillist or figure out IRC in order to communicate with other Wikipedians, so what do I know? :-) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I won't third the motion only because part of my proposal is that the fill-ins would be enjoined not to seek a full term at the next election, and I would not want to disadvantage Thatcher that way. Another possibility would be asking retired arbitrators to fill in; in particular, those who are still on the mailing list would probably be pretty current and could step in fairly quickly. Risker (talk) 00:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sandy, this is not the floor, this is the basement. Risker, you would have had to fourth the motion, as it was already thirded. I see no issue with the fill-in arb running for a full-term seat. As a matter of fact, I think that the highest vote getters in the December election should have the option of the full or partial term seat, have those filled, and then the fill the remaining. But that's just my opinion, for now. I always reserve the right to be successfully impressed by the strength of another's arguments and opinions. :) -- Avi (talk) 00:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

(<--Unindent) Well, Avi, my rationale goes like this. Three years is the maximum for any editor to sit on Arbcom without having to face the community twice. I think this is a good thing, and shouldn't be extended; it's a bright line in my mind, and it seems to be in the mind of the community as well, because they have yet to re-elect someone who has sat on Arbcom for three years already. There are many very good editors who would be well-qualified, in my mind, to sit on the committee, and I genuinely hope they will run in November/December and that the community will share my opinion once they have had the chance to ask questions and see the responses. To select one or two of them from outside either the existing list (as Jimbo promised) or from the cadre of former arbitrators who might be persuaded, Cincinnatus-like, to pitch in for a short while, is a bit of a poke in the eye of the community who voiced its opinion about the various candidates already. It would also be a good example of setting people up to fail. No matter how much non-members like to think it, they aren't fully up to speed on everything the committee does and it will take them a while to get a handle on things. They will draw the ire of those who would interpret their selection as favouritism and cronyism, while drawing the support of those who agree they are excellent Wikipedians. Their presence on the committee has the potential to be divisive within the community and to exacerbate the concerns that the committee is acting without deference to the community, especially at a time when the committee is trying to move in new directions. If the committee wants to be bold in its decisions, it needs to balance it with some conservative actions in other areas. Risker (talk) 00:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "they have yet to re-elect someone who has sat on Arbcom for three years already" - you phrased that with Raul and Fred Bauder in mind, right? Technically, I think Raul and Fred Bauder both regained seats after an election, though not after sitting for three years previously. Raul in July 2004 and December 2004 was "directly elected" (if you think using that term is correct when all are technically appointed), while Fred was one of several appointed with "communnity support" to terms of less than three years, after the elections in January 2006. Carcharoth (talk) 07:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To be quite honest, I'm not sure I see any urgent need to appoint new members to the Committee; we appear to be at what is essentially an all-time low in terms of actual caseload, and the long deliberation times are more a consequence of the complexity of some of the more recent cases than of a lack of raw manpower on our part. A mid-term appointment seems like it'd result in more effort (to actually coordinate a useful appointment, particularly given some of the explicit and implicit expectation that would need to be balanced) than it would save. Kirill (prof) 00:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, you've got 7 truly active members out of a panel of (currently) 14, which itself isn't full strength. Up until very recently a lot had been written about the long delays in decisions and action on appeals and other requests. While the current caseload is low, there is no reason to expect that it will stay low even in the near future. Does it make sense to keep the committee at less than half of a full panel? You seem to be saying it does, I wonder if your colleagues agree. If they do, this discussion is probably moot and perhaps we should focus on whether we really need to elect new members to fill up the open slots if the committee functions well at half strength. Avruch 00:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The motions and clarifications section needs attention. Daniel (talk) 00:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me point out that Raul's outrageously onerous workload has been considerably moderated over the past few months by the appointment of a delegate (SandyGeorgia) to assist in the management of the FAC list. I think this might resolve any issues about time available to provide his expertise to ArbCom. TONY   (talk)  03:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The question seems to be whether (a) a new appointment is needed (and hopefully the 7 currently active members of the arbitration committee will actually say something here at some point - I believe only one has said something so far); (b) whether mid-term appointments should be done on the basis of need or on the basis of setting forth an argument that concerns in oppose votes at the last election have been addressed. With all due respect, the argument that Raul is less busy now is one that should be put to the electorate at the appropriate time, not put forth now as a reason to re-appoint Raul. The other point is that Raul is already on that list put forth by Jimbo. He doesn't need further reasons to be pushed ahead of others on that list, though I now see that Rebecca technically came "ahead" of Raul by the slimmmest of margins, but Jimbo's list swaps Raul and Rebecca in the order. Someone should have noted that at the time and clarified whether that order by Jimbo meant anything. But this is all moot if the arbitration committee as a whole decide they are coping OK with the workload. However, I would point out that now, not later, would be the time to appoint someone mid-term (or rather, "mid-year" as the terms are three years). Waiting to see if the caseload increases might seem sensible, but appointing someone for, say, three months in September would meet resistance for several reasons. Carcharoth (talk) 07:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have strong reservations about some of those currently on the list, but those aside.... Kirill is right (except, I see no value in still dragging the homeopathy case over discretionary sanctions) - there's no need. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Clarifications aren't being worked on at all, and we are on a lul of new requests. When the requests start mounting up again, there will probably be problems - it's best to sort these out now, rather than wait to a problem actually exists.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  16:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not entirely true. For example, the arb responses were reasonably prompt for the Request for clarification in reply to the BLP special remedy, and the Palestine-Israel articles. I share Kirill's concerns - getting a new arb is going to be more problematic, especially if chosen from those on that list. The more routine disputes, appeals etc. are handled by the community now - this leaves the Committee with more of the complex cases, and that's really the problem of why it's taking longer than one would like. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have never (to my knowledge) worked with Raul on anything before, then I got involved this week with Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (permanent link) . Personally, I'd prefer to see someone with a more judicious, less abrupt approach to dealing with established editors. The situation was nowhere near as black and white to an outsider as he made it out to be and his threat to block someone with whom he had an editorial dispute was inappropriate (even if he felt the other side was wrong).


 * I will support Raul654's selection if the community has a chance to choose, but I would be very disappointed if the ArbCom just quietly added him without community approval. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Unclear what you mean by "without community approval", considering vote tallies from last ArbCom elections. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, those votes are recent enough to still be relevant, unless for some individual something regrettable has happened in the meantime. I think the community would probably think it perfectly fair to proceed on that basis. DGG (talk) 23:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see your point. Here are the vote counts and percentages from the last election for the middle of the pack.:
 * Plagiarized from the 00:25, 17 December 2007 version of User:Gurch/Reports/ArbComElections.

-- A. B. (talk • contribs) 06:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * and to put the numbers into context, the candidate with the lowest level of support who was appointed had 67% support. DGG (talk) 15:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well obviously Rebecca can't because of her position with the WMF. I think that there would be considierable opposition to Raul at this time, especially with his involvement in the ID cabal mess. This may be coming out of left field, but given the recent kerfuffle, Appointing Giano for the rest of the year might be the kind of shakeup that ArbCom so desperately needs. --Dragon695 (talk) 00:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh, you skipped right over Manning Bartlett. You are probably right that there'd be considerable opposition to Raul. Nor can I support Giano, given his extensive problematic history. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 10:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I would support someone temporarily taking my seat until the end of the year. Hopefully I'll have everything sorted out by then, and I'll be ready to get back to work. --Deskana (talk) 10:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it was only a temporary thing until you got better, which I hope will be very soon. Take care old chap.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  10:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Policy proposal
A policy proposal which would affect the functions of the Arbitration Committee has been proposed at Devolution. Best, Mackensen (talk) 01:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Inactive arbitrators, and other stuff, again
First, two diffs that are really directed at the Committee as a whole rather than at anyone else:. Of course you have no reason to weigh or even notice my opinion in the deluge of comments that RfC has been receiving, but I imagine that you all can't help but be aware that a significant portion of the community (including many new to the role of publicly criticising the Committee) are upset with the state of things at the moment. I'd suggest that this is the moment for you to enact reforms that will allow you to manage your role and your workload effectively.

The purpose of this section is to, again, ask that you finally and effectively deal with the problem of inactive Arbitrators. Above Kirill wrote that he doesn't believe new and replacement Arbitrators are necessary, and others have opined that the difficulty of orienting new arbitrators makes choosing them pointless ahead of the December election. I disagree. Frankly, there is no excuse for long term inactive or minimally active Arbitrators remaining on the committee. You have my gratitude, and that of most others, for the work you have performed as editors and as arbitrators. But if you are unable to continue to fulfill your duties as arbitrators, or unwilling to get involved other than to occassionally vote or weigh in on issues that have some particular relevance for you, then you do not belong on the committee. There are others (I'd suggest MastCell, for instance) who are willing to perform the spectrum of responsibilities associated with arbitration. They are also able - resolution of new disputes, or problems with which many in the community are familiar, should not require a long period of acclimation.

Some options others have suggested that make sense:


 * I'd suggest you go so far as to appoint even more arbitrators than you have open seats, and then begin hearing cases in panels.


 * Limit the submission of evidence to parties (others can run potential evidence by them). Reduce the opportunity for long, polemical statements in cases that just muddy the issues.


 * Reject and refer back cases that the community hasn't already failed to address (more often than you already do). Use the time this frees to respond to clarification requests and appeals in a timely manner.

You are among the brightest and hardest working people of this community, and I think the challenges before you are not more than you can handle. Avruch 23:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * To answer some of your points:
 * Having metrics for activity
 * We have been looking at this properly in detail for a long while, and recently spurred on by Jimmy's formal suggestion that we adopt a policy; sadly, but understandably, and I think rightly, "constitutional" issues are the first things we set aside when our work-load is high (as it has been since February almost without end, despite the record low level of on-wiki case matters). We've yet to consider how we can reliable gauge work, given that editing Arbitration-related wiki pages is one of the smaller parts of the jobs.
 * Sitting in small groups rather than en banc
 * This gets examined every few months by the Committee; there seems to be absolutely no desire for it amongst members, due both to the exceptional number of issues this generates, most notably fragmentation and loss of consistency in both decision-making and organisational knowledge, and also the lack of a need for it (cases are not in the main slowed down by lack of hands).
 * Limiting evidence sources
 * The line between "parties" and "non-involved editors" does not exist in my mind, so I can't see a way of doing this without either inventing some (even more!) highly bureaucratic method for opening/amending/expanding/closing cases, or having individuals invited personally to give evidence by the Committee, which would be immensely time-consuming and not exactly very open.
 * Limiting evidence length
 * Well, we keep reducing the limits, but people generally ignore them. It's often difficult, in the middle of writing a case to ban someone, for the Committee to write a tart, petty note asking them to write more concisely whilst we do so.
 * Rejecting cases for failing to use the Dispute Resolution process
 * Part of this is a lack of confidence in the non-Arbitration structures that do, or used to, exist. Part of our control-freak nature, as it were. :-) Something we all, not just Arbitrators, need to address.
 * I hope some of this is helpful. Given that I'm in effect taking a lot of words to say "no", I hope you can at least understand, if not agree, with the reasons.
 * James F. (talk) 17:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * One comment on your response, James, to the topic of "sitting in 'panels' rather than in banco": it may well be the case, that there is no consensus for cases to be disposed of by small sub-groups of arbitrators, but perhaps there is a consensus for it amongst the community? I think it is about time that decision-making was made from a point of view of what is necessary for the smooth operation of the encyclopedia, rather than what is most convenient or desirable amongst the Committee? Anthøny  19:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I find Raul654's behaviour objectionable
It seems to me that individuals like Raul654 should not use their position or status within the Wikipedia bureaucracy to override Wikipedia community policy on original research, or community rejection of certain procedures. I would appreciate if someone reminded user Raul654 of this--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 05:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see Raul has not used his position in any way there. I just see him disagreeing with you, which is part of the consensus based editorial process. Not an ArbCom issue. —Giggy 09:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps he thinks Raul is going to change the title based on a/the straw poll as opposed to getting consensus.... Even so, it isn't an ArbCom issue as it's the last resort of dispute resolution at Wikipedia. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Summary of rulings? Sorted by..?
Hey, are there any pages that are a summary of past ArbCom rulings? Hopefully sorted by both editor (the subject of the ruling, that is) and date? Ling.Nut (WP:3IAR) 03:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Is Requests for arbitration/Completed requests what you were after? Daniel (talk) 03:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Using arbitration for constructive purpose
Are there any illustrations of a win-win game in any wiki-arbitration context?

If there were, how would one go about looking for the record of that rare wonder? --Tenmei (talk) 05:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Arbitration is a last-resort forum for resolving disputes. By its very nature, I doubt there will be an example of a case where the decision made has been to the total satisfaction of all. Here's hoping such a utopia is forthcoming, of course! :) Anthøny  15:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There have been, when the case was due to good faith actions by well intentioned users who got the wrong end of the problem. For example:
 * Requests for arbitration/BJAODN contemplated a wheel war that was actually, miscommunication and best resolved by dropping it all round.
 * Other cases include WP:SRNC which was a dispute centering on the genuine problems of reaching consensus on a difficult area, and where the main remedy was "consider how to do proper consensus seeking without argument" (so to speak)
 * ... a few "train wrecks" where sorting out who did what wrong is so messy that it's simpler to say "okay, these were bad things to do, don't repeat", and try for a clean start for all, going forward.
 * ... cases like this also.
 * Look for complete cases that got dropped or dismissed, or had very minimal remedies, "advice", or simply no enforcements, or cases that were resolved at the RFAR page stage, without a case needing to be opened. They happen regularly, although they are a minority. FT2 (Talk 15:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Back
Just a note that minor hiccoughs aside, I have properly working online access again. Some rough edges still to fix, some things still waited for, but the core stuff for my own working use and for wiki involvement is working.

Things needing my attention, please note at user talk:FT2. I suspect there's a lot.

FT2 (Talk 15:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Guess who's coming to dinner
Per comments here:, NYB has returned to Wikipedia and expressed an interest in taking up his place on arbcom. Considering on this page he's not listed as active or inactive, but retired, I wanted to ask here before making any changes. Can someone state in an official capacity that NYB is active on the committee again? I expect they're happy to have him back, but I just want to make sure there's nothing procedural about reinstatement. --InkSplotch (talk) 01:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Already done by flo.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, whilst writing that last post I did have to put the laptop down to greet the wife home from work. Boy, electrons move fast.  --InkSplotch (talk) 02:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone with a good memory needed
(hope it's the right place to ask) Hi, We're currently having a bit of a fuss on fr: over alleged misuse of admin tools. I'll spare you the details (there are 3 simultaneous arbitrations requests going on on the issue, I'm not directly involved in any of these), but I'd be very curious to know whether someone could direct me to some case law you would have on questions such as: user spontaneously banned by collective decision of the administrators (no ArbCom); enforcement of a ban in spite of a sizeable opposing minority; limits to the action of a dissenting minority (/wheel war); any ban or sanction over someone allegedly discouraging contributors through (justified but harsh) criticism of their articles (no vandalism involved, nor mobbing or stalking). I'm sure the answer lies somewhere in there, but honestly I can't bother going through it all. In the (hopefully) unlikely event you have tons of these, the most recent ones (or one per issue quoted) will suffice. Thanks, Popo le Chien throw a bone 13:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, we don't really treat past arbitrations as case law here, but there's an unofficial list of involuntary desysoppings here, including ones done as a result of arbitration cases as well as ones in other situations. --bainer (talk) 13:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Okie dokie, thanks a lot. Popo le Chien throw a bone 10:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Mailing list leak
How am I to have confidence in the sacrosanct nature of this list, if there are recent leaks? Who is it? What is being done to control this? Which individual arbitrator do I mail should I have an OTRS referral? Is it confidential anymore? Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I have a solution. If ever I need to post to the list, I can speak in ticket numbers, some arbs have access to the interface. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There are arbitrators who are also OTRS volunteers as well. -- Avi (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There are indeed, although my understanding is that they get virtually zero time to devote to OTRS contributions in so long as they are active on the Committee. Anthøny   ✉  19:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * True, but they can inform ArbCom of what is in a given ticket, if necessary. -- Avi (talk) 21:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, they can't. Not if the contents are covered by the foundation privacy policy.  If there is an established leak to the list, then I don't know of any OTRS volunteer who would send the information to the arbcom-en-l mailing list if the integrity is compromised.  NonvocalScream (talk) 21:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Few things in this world are guaranteed secret; a well known issue. But the list is not plagued by breaches. That said, if you have a genuine concern or serious matter, rather than emailing it to the list generally, email it to one arbitrator, with a request to forward it to the sitting arbitrators only. Sitting arbitrator emails are tighter circulated, and neither routed via WMF nor archived. But this is not used unless there is genuine need. Much of the day to day arbitrator discussion doesn't need that extra restriction. FT2 (Talk 10:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for professional consultation
There appears to be no other formal mechanism for initiating this type of request, so submitting under the general descriptor of other requests.

Per the following:
 * Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy
 * Requests_for_arbitration/Jim62sch
 * Requests_for_arbitration/Jim62sch
 * The Matthew Hoffman clarification
 * Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed_decision

Wikipedia's arbitration committee has dealt with a number of situations involving serious harassment, threats, and health issues. These concerns fall far outside the normal scope of encyclopedic disputes; these issues have real world ramifications. The qualifications for which arbitrators are chosen--familiarity with site policies, experience in article dispute resolutions, etc.--have virtually nothing to do with the training and experience requisite for handling problems of this nature. Therefore I offer a solution.

Proposed:

By January 1, 2009 the Committee will either retain the consulting services of credentialed professionals in these areas, or else its members will obtain appropriate fundamental training in these areas from qualified professionals. If the consulting option is selected, normal client-professional confidentiality would apply to the relationship. If the training option is selected, training would be mandatory for all new and returning arbitrators and must be completed by February 15, 2009 or the arbitrator will be placed on the inactive list involuntarily and excluded from internal arbitration communications (mailing list, private wiki, etc.) until training is completed.

The Committee will submit interim reports to the Community via public announcement on the Administrators' Noticeboard on November 1 and December 1. No later than January 1, 2009 the Committee will announce its final action, complete with the names and professional qualifications of the consultants or trainers, and name the formal instruction (if any) that Committee members take. If a Committee member is placed on the inactive list due to failure to complete training, a training needed notation will be added next to that arbitrator's name. The community may request an independent audit for compliance in obtaining and retaining training/consultation, according to reasonable means per the Committee's specification.

Durova Charge! 04:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Policy proposals should be made on the talk page or village pump, where there can be proper threaded discussion. You don't get to bypass that and draw attention to your by posing it here. Abcom are not legislators of new policies. I already moved this to the talk page, but Durova reverted me. I invite someone else to move it now.--Troikoalogo (talk) 08:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Replying to the substantive points. (Although I think this debate should be moved elsewhere). Arbcom is not your mother. Durova is correct that it is not qualified to solve issues of criminal harassment, intimidation, mental health issues etc.. But nor should it be, and even if it had "professional advisers" it would still be inappropriate. Arbcom are here to protect the project from user activity which is unhelpful to the aims of the encyclopaedia, and its members are well qualified to do that; it really should not be in the business of doing more than that. If people need professional assistance, or law-enforcement, or psychological help, then point them elsewhere. If arbcom were to "retain consulting services", I'd ask 1) to what end? 2) who would pay (is Durova offering)? 3) and would arbcom wish to be responsible for applying such subjective advice? No, stick to asking "what serves the encyclopaedia?" and "in view of this person's ACTIONS (not their state of mind) is it helpful to this project for them to be allowed to use this website?" Ultimately, and with due respect, the committee are simply glorified (and well-qualified) website moderators, do not pretend that they are, or should be, anything more.--Troikoalogo (talk) 09:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) I'll chime in here to say that I think this proposal is the whole philosophy underlying BADSITES brought to its logical conclusion. If we were going to let emotional impact on community members dictate the contents of the encyclopedia, it follows logically the project should be compelled to hire mental health experts if not full-time psychiatric consultants in order to run the project in a way that minimized emotional harm to our community members.


 * To some, this proposal is, it seems, a serious one, put forward in good faith. To me, it's sort of a reductio ad absurdum. A few years ago, some members of Wikipedia started to assume that "Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia, it's a community".  Practically all of Wikipedia have rejected that assumption by now, but a few still cling to it. Here we see that those people have now reached a conclusion which follows, in perfect logical fashion, from that initial assumption-- but the conclusion that has been reached is, nevertheless, patently absurd. --Alecmconroy (talk) 09:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's it nailed.--Troikoalogo (talk) 09:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought it was my job to find a "BADSITES mentality" in everything? But anyway, this does seem to be a rather extreme case of attempted "mission creep" for ArbCom, and the imposition of silly mandates which remind me of what I've seen happen in other organizations, where "Risk Management" committees have attempted to saddle the members and volunteers of an organization with mandates, restrictions, and mandatory certifications to cover the management's butts for some real or imagined liability issue. *Dan T.* (talk) 13:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I personally would like to see the policy on responding to suicide threats attended to by a professional who is trained in this area. But I don't think this is an arbitration matter. Thatcher 13:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The arbcom should just explain the limits of their scope if people really aren't sure about this:) For instance say at the top of the Arbitration request page that if people think they are the victim of a crime they should consult the police, and if people have health problems (which I've never heard of arbcom actually directly dealing with anyway) they should consult a doctor or psychiatrist.  This is just common sense, the arbcom can't be experts at everything, and it would be wrong of them to try and replace legal or health professionals.  As for WP:SUICIDE, I expect there are editors on wikipedia trained in such things, but we could always link to a page suggesting people call the Samaritans or whatever the equivalent is in their country, or consult their doctor. (I'm not being harsh here, we're just not experts and shouldn't pretend to be and meddle as if we were.  Sticky   Parkin  13:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record, I do think wikipedia is a sort-of community but even family members are not as good at a job as professionals. We can offer friendship but not claim to be experts at things we aren't, to do otherwise is irresponsible.  Sticky   Parkin  13:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sticky, in an arbitration case back in December, when I has having severe health problems, the Arbcom selected me to be iused as a test case for a change in policy, and, by what I think everyone agrees was very poor handling, severely aggravated the health problems, to the point where I had to drop out of University for a semester. These issues are going to come up whether the Arbcom thinks they need to deal with them or not, and I for one would rather the arbcom had at least some basic training so as to not make situations worse. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry to sound harsh, but mental states and subjective dispositions should never be arbcom's concern. We should deal with behaviour and not mindsets. It is the same basic argument against treating minors as special cases. Judge behaviour only and its impact on the community - not subjectivity, mental stress, evil intent or anything else. If people are of a disposition where they can't cope with that, then sympathetically, and humanely we suggest to them that they have the right to vanish. Help, and allowances, are available in many quarters, but unfortunately not here. Wikipedia is not qualified to help, nor is it within the aims and objectives of this project. Treat all the same.--Troikoalogo (talk) 14:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. You're free to edit, regardless of your personal status, if you can abide by policy and edit within community norms. If Wikipedia is detrimental to your health, your career, or your personal safety then you've moved past the point where this project can help you. Speaking as someone who knows more about mental health than he ever cared to, no amount of consultation by the committee with a professional could be a replacement for personal consultation, and would have the potential to cause a real tragedy. I don't want the committee playing cop, psychiatrist, or physician, and I don't think the community does either. Either you can ride the train or you can't. Mackensen (talk) 15:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I started to receive proper treatment for bipolar disorder seven years ago, which I consider to have been mostly a success. An arbcom would still stress me perhaps more than most people, although most people I think get stressed by an arbcom or AN/I about them.  I just have to take extra care of myself.  But if I'd been involved in an arbcom case and the Arbcom had tried to make some special case for me, it would just have been something like putting a stickinng plaster over an arterial bleed :) and perhaps delayed me getting proper help.  And yes I had to spend three years extra on my education over it, before wikipedia even existed, never mind arbcom.:)  Sticky   Parkin  20:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Point of order: This so-called "request" is for policy change and as such is not something that the Arbitration Committee can or should act upon. This is an inappropriate forum for this discussion. It should be moved elsewhere. Paul August &#9742; 15:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC) Discussion has now been moved from WP:RFAR. Paul August &#9742; 16:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll quote:
 * Grave real-world harassment
 * Any incident of a user's engaging in grave acts of real-world harassment of another editor, such as communicating with an editor's employer in retaliation for his or her editing on Wikipedia, should be reported to the Arbitration Committee immediately.
 * I didn't ask the community to take on that case or to write that decision; I ask them to seek the professional assistance necessary to do so responsibly. Now I've done my duty in raising this request formally.  Durova Charge! 18:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And if reported, the committee should consider banning the user involved from this website, because their real-world activity is likely to mean that there presence on this website is not conducive to the project's goals. Once that is done, their responsibility ends as a committee. After that, it is a matter for the user concerned and law-enforcement (Wikipedia should co-operate, but nothing more).--Troikoalogo (talk) 18:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This specifics of this proposal are not reasonable and certainly are not something that could be implemented by the arbitrators as suggested by the initial posting of this request on WP:RfAr. The ArbCom's formal role in dispute resolution does not extend to the broad scope suggested here. However, there have been a few situations (typically dealing with behind-the-scenes emergencies rather than on-wiki arbitration cases) where I would have found the ability to obtain professional input on an emergency situation to be helpful. The specifics of these situations should not be discussed on-wiki. However, I hope that as the Foundation grows, it may be possible to access additional resources in these areas. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to mention, who and how would all this be paid for? — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 10:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I would presume that if  (that's a huge "if") ArbCom felt that it needed professional input, it could ask the Foundation to help it. I would have thought that such circumstances are (thankfully) rare, and also needing a great deal of discretion. The Foundation has a small legal budget – it recently appeared as an amicus curae in a Ninth Circuit appeal case for example – and reserves (never enough!) for unexpected emergencies. Physchim62 (talk) 21:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree that this needs to be taken to the Foundation since they would have to provide the resources to implement the policy. Realistically, I see this as a part of training for new arbitrators, more than ongoing consultation. In any case, the Arbitration Committee has no way of determining the extent that health problems are affecting an user.  Our best action is always to advise an user to stay away from Wikipedia if contributing has the potential to have a negative impact on their life. The Committee in the past has decided to involuntarily enforce this decision if continued contributions does not seem to be in the best interest of Wikipedia. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 21:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, though my counsel to the Foundation would be not to fund such things. The community and the Foundation are separate things, and actions like this would both muddy that distinction and unhelpfully act as a crutch when the community instead needs to formulate its own policies. James F. (talk) 08:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrators are not designated to be significantly more expert at this than any other highly clued-in admins. When there has been a substantiated case that harassment of a kind beyond simple communal handling is happening, the Committee has in every occasion consulted, made sure WMF office or its staff are aware, and at times brought Cary (or Mike if appropriate) into the discussion. Those individuals have on at least one occasion decided to consult with experts where a serious threat was deemed to exist. But as volunteer encyclopedia writers, I don't see it as ultimately for us to try and catch all possible issues and risks that could in rare occasions arise, though we surely will try to help if asked.

In practical terms if (say) a user is receiving harassing telephone calls (or posts/threats on wiki from random IPs, or emails with upsetting contents), then our ability to help is often far superseded by the target and their local state (or national) police. Our help is limited to moral and on-wiki support, technical information about the incident/s, well-known advice, and (as best able) prevention of harassment on-wiki. If someone is upset, stressed, suicidal, depressed, I would gladly advise individually to an extent I feel comfortable with, and surely many others in the community would as well. I would not consider it the role of the Committee to formally offer any kind of professional support. If it were felt appropriate to offer help beyond the basics, I would expect three-way discussion with WMF office staff on a case-by-case basis. FT2 (Talk 10:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * By Wikipedia custom and practice, no administrator is under any requirement or obligation to get involved in any situation or issue. But by accepting the post on the Arbitration Committee, an user is making a commitment to the community to be involved in situations that are brought to their attention as it relates to their Committee work. So there is a difference between levels of accountability for administrators and arbitrators. Not a complete difference since in both case it is still volunteer work. But enough difference so that there are different expectations from the Community for arbs and admins, I think.


 * Sometimes the Committee addresses issues relate to harassment, health problems, or other personal situations. Committee members need to be as well informed about the best practices for website administrators. Getting assistance from the outside sources as part of arbitrators training could be helpful for users working in on the Committee. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 11:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)