Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 6

"Dates" case and temporary injunction: likely timing?
I'm sorry to post an unusual request here, but the circumstances are unusual:
 * the case is one of the largest ever (if not the largest), is prominent in the community, and involves a great number of editors as parties and associates; it comprises more than 150 thousand words (plus more than 50 thousand words of deleted and associated talk-page text) and has cost many thousands of hours of editorial time;
 * the case has lasted for almost three and a half months, and relevant activity on the case pages petered out long ago;
 * the temporary injunction against the unlinking of chronological items has lasted for almost three and a half months;
 * the whole of MOSLINK remains locked;
 * parts of MOSNUM are still locked.

Yet the process solutions (probably the long and the short of the behavioural solutions that concern the ArbCom case) are widely regarded to be at hand: the associated RFC has produced results that enable the community to move forward.
 * In the case of date-fragments (years and month-days), the Clerk has inserted the two texts that gained landslide endorsements.
 * In the case of date autoformatting, it is widely accepted that the next move is to run a bot to remove the remaining old coding (which piggybacks on the wikilinking system).

This way forward is frozen until ArbCom lifts the temporary injunction. Many editors are expressing their frustration that it is still in force more than a week after the extended RFC process, involving more than 500 editors.

I wonder whether the community can be given some kind of idea of when it should expect (1) the injunction to be lifted, and (2) the judgement of the case to come out. We look forward to a return to normal life on WP. Tony  (talk)  08:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Tony, if I may offer a suggestion, you may want to move this post to WT:AC/N. My experience is that not all arbs have this page watchlisted or look at changes on it, while more apparently have the noticeboard watched or are at least more likely to respond there. Just an observation.  MBisanz  talk 09:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

#functionaries-en
I just noticed that Daniel Case, EVula and Mailer Diablo are not listed as having access to the functionaries-en mailing list. Is this accurate?  MBisanz  talk 06:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, good catch. I've added them now. Kirill [talk] [pf] 13:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, it appears that still has access, though no special userrights. Not sure if ex-CUs/OVs still get access or not, but I thought I should note it.  Tiptoety  talk 18:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Urgent request for injunction
Could arbitrators please take a look at Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Workshop, as there is now a threat of serious disruption to this arbitration? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This should be dealt with on the talk page of the case, or an email should be sent to the mailing list. Seeing as it appears that protection is being requested I see nothing wrong with taking it to WP:RFPP. This talk page is to discuss the RFAr process itself. Tiptoety  talk 18:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Unbanning users banned by arbcom: appeal procedure?
Do we have an appeal procedure for considering unbanning users banned by ArbCom? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, simply emailing the committee will start the ball rolling. &mdash; Coren (talk) 19:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Functionaries

 * The following is a comment moved from the West Bank case, which is in reply to my comment there for the discussion about Lar to come to a close. I will reply here shortly. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Jayvdb, you studiously avoid mentioning evidence of far more serious misconduct on Lar’s part which has already been forwarded to your Committee on several occasions, which I can confirm that you have long been personally aware. Your response has been to suppress, blank and oversight the complaints, while doing nothing (so far as we know) to check Lar’s behavor.

Which, in the real world - and in Kirill's words - "[brings] the project into disrepute"?
 * a) supporting Israel
 * b) sexual harassment

If you answered "supporting Israel," there's a bright future for you on Wikipedia’s Arbitration Committee. 24.18.142.69 (talk) 09:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Why is this comment being moved out of its context? Rebecca (talk) 14:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this discussion was initiated by a banned user on the wrong page; I moved it here because these allegations are serious and we might as well ensure everyone knows where to send this type of thing in future. The discussion with this person continued on my talk page, and then to email.  As they are banned and blocked, I've trimmed down my response considerably to avoid them feeling they have any reason to comment publicly.  Users who are banned from Wikipedia can always discuss matters on Wikipedia Review; the mods there are extremely open minded when it comes to criticism of Wikipedia. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the project has not been brought into disrepute by either of these functionaries in reliable sources (see Wikipedia+LarWikipedia+Jayjg), and the alleged misconduct that has been reported to Arbcom, seen by all arbs and ex-arbs, was not sexual harassment and the matter is closed unless someone raises it again, preferably with new evidence. The community dealt with the issue in an appropriate way, which I hope concludes the matter. Oversight has been used in this matter, in accordance with the policy, because the oversight team does protect the privacy of subjects and Wikipedians alike when issues are reported to it. I wish more problems were reported to the Oversight team; I wish the policy was expanded to allow immediate removal of gross BLP violations and invasion of privacy, where suppression doesnt influence the content creation process. Due to a higher profile, Wikipedia has a responsibility to keep the crap off this website. If you believe Oversight has been used inappropriately by anyone, or there is abuse of power by the functionaries, complaints should be sent privately to Arbitration Committee, or the Audit subcommittee which has been making public statements about each query. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Functionary has been created. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Impeachment of Functionaries John Vandenberg (chat) 13:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

CU & OS procedure
The last line of the section currently reads


 * An arbitrator's service on the Audit Subcommittee is part of his or her official service as an arbitrator, and therefore shall not constitute grounds for recusal in a subsequent matter involving an editor whose appeal was considered by the subcommittee.

I don't think this makes sense in the context of the section -- it is clearly taken whole from the above section. It is unclear whether it is cases involving the CU/OS rights-holder that the arbitrator does not need to recuse from or whether it is cases involving the person making the complaint. I think it is probably meant to be both, and it would be useful to clarify this.

[[Sam Korn ]] (smoddy) 11:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, good catch. I've changed it from "an editor whose appeal was considered" to "the complainant or the subject of the complaint" to match the wording used in the rest of the section. Kirill [pf] 15:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems to me this should (in spirit) apply to all committee members. Else you'll some folk saying that the other three are required to "recuse" (meaning not comment at all, or not give evidence), [perhaps] ??? Which would be bad. ++Lar: t/c 11:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We've asked the initial subcommittee to give us some feedback on these procedures; if they think expanding that clause is necessary, they'll doubtless let us know. I don't think we're going to fiddle with the procedure further until we have their recommendations, however. Kirill [talk] [pf] 13:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a real fiddle, so much as a "heading off certain kinds of wikilawyering at the pass" sort of statement. :) ++Lar: t/c 20:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Temporary removal of permissions
With respect, you guys seem to be going on instruction creep. If an admin has gone batshit insane deleting crap, you don't "invoke level 1 access removal procedures", you flag down a steward in IRC and get them desysopped. The level 2 procedure isn't too bad, but again is in need of considerable simplification. Stifle (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Level one procedures don't prevent YOU from flagging down a steward, or in theory an individual who happens to be an arbitrator from flagging down a steward. What it does do, is clarify when the committee is acting as a whole, with the gravitas and authority that implies.--Tznkai (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is done to avoid any confusion as to why the action was taken, and if it was done on the part of a single Arbitrator or by the committee as a whole. Tiptoety  talk 23:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser and Oversight
Over the past few months now I have been discussing and debating Arbitrators role in response to their CheckUser and Oversight rights. A few key things have come to mind and I feel a discussion should take place.

There has yet to be any real procedure surrounding CheckUser and Oversight in relation to ArbCom. Ultimately the reason the tools are granted is so that Arbitrators can adequately do their job and investigate cases of sockpuppetry, and respond to outing and personal attacks in relation to their role as an Arbitrator. So in a sense, the community did not vote for members of the community who they wish to routinely do WP:SPI work, or respond to oversight requests but instead for Arbitrators whom they trust enough to also grant the tools to. I can think of a few current Arbs that I would not have supported had they run for just CU because of their lack of technical ability. Because of this, I feel that Arbitrators should only be using the tools in their official role. One because of my reasoning above and two for the purpose of remaining uninvolved. Routinely there are request for arbitration that somehow involve CheckUser. Because of this it would be best if the person who ran those checks were not Arbitrators, for obvious reasons. The same can be said of Oversight.

Secondly, I recently looked over Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee/Statistics and noted that the majority of the inactive users with CheckUser access are former Arbitrators. Namely, who has done 0 checks in the last six months,  who also has done 0 checks in the last six months,  who has done 66 checks in the last six months,  who has done 28 checks in the last six moths,  who has done 23 checks in the last six months. While I normally do not have an issue with users who do not use their userrights, in this case I do. Mainly because the reasoning for not electing more Checkusers and Oversights is because we already have enough. While it is true that we have enough, the workload is not being distributed equally. has done 2843 checks in the last six months, and has done 9123 in the last six months. Also, if you look at WP:SPI, there are times that cases sit for close to 10 days that require a Checkusers attention. While I do not have statistics for the user of Oversight, I would be fairly certain that it is about the same.

Because of this, I am proposing that Arbitrators CU and OV privileges are removed upon the end of their term. Should they wish to continue to use the tools they, like everyone else can run in the CheckUser and Oversight elections and be granted the tools just like anyone else. I feel that this will ensure that we are only giving the tools to users whom are technically competent, and that we do not have users with the tools that never use them. This will also cut back on the backlogs at WP:SPI and reduce the workload for some of our more overworked CheckUsers and Oversights. Also, I propose that sitting Arbitrators only use their tools in their official role to avoid any situations of conflict of interest and for the purpose of remaining uninvolved. Tiptoety talk 00:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The Audit Subcommittee has been asked to put together recommendations regarding some of these points; at this point, I would suggest contacting them directly with any concrete suggestions you may have, so that they can incorporate those into their recommendations. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, I was unaware that they could change Arbitration Policy. Are you recommending I post to the Audit Subcommittee's talk page, or send them an email? Tiptoety  talk 00:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * They won't be changing anything directly—they'll be recommending that the Committee implement changes; it's largely a semantic difference, but we are still ultimately responsible for CU & OS.
 * As far as how to contact them, I'd suggest asking what they'd prefer; depending on the material, they might want to see it directly, or open up a public discussion on their talk page. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A quick email to notify the subcommittee will help, and I think it is fine that it continues to be discussed here. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Tiptoety, I sent a very similar email to the arbcom via email some weeks ago and was told it was being discussed. I concur with your comments here and do hope arbcom takes into consideration either altering its position on inactive checkusers or measuring it decides there is a shortage of checkusers.  MBisanz  talk 02:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur with both MBisanz and Tiptoety. KnightLago (talk) 00:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If someone sends an e-mail with specific comments, questions, concerns, or suggestions, that would be welcome. We like hearing more voices. As it stands, we are putting together numbers on oversight and will release them (hopefully) soon.--Tznkai (talk) 15:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So, would you like me to send you guys my original statement or leave it here? Jayvdb indicated that it was fine if it was left here. Tiptoety  talk 19:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Use of tools by auditor
After reading over the Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee, I have yet to see anything that states when a Auditer may use CU/OV. While I am of the assumption that they are only to be used during an investigation, I think it would be a good idea to have it in writing that members of the subcommittee should not be routinely using such tools. ie: for SPI or OV email requests. Thoughts? ''Note, a relevant discussion has taken place here. '' Tiptoety  talk 04:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have been contacted by auditors to perform oversight, so I am assuming that they are not allowed to use their oversight tools at all, which is what you would expect. Members of the Audit Subcommittee are using their checkuser rights, however, they are using them to double check the results of other checkusers, either because they feel they need double checking themselves (which I'm almost certain isn't the case) or because they have received an inquiry from a user. I approve of their current methods, personally. If it's not codified into the policy, it probably should be. I'd do it myself to save ArbCom the work but I don't want to go fiddling with their policies, especially since they seem to hold loose votes on the changes. :-) --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 10:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have been avoiding using the tools except for audit work, preferring to hand a matter over to others if possible, but I have used oversight at least once when an issue wasnt actioned within 10 minutes and it was a matter of harm being done to a living person, and I used Checkuser once for a fast moving Arbcom issue. I see that User:Tznkai has said he will inform the audit subcommittee whenever this occurs; I'm quite happy to follow suit. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. While I do not want to have such a strict policy on when auditors can and can not use their tools that we make their job harder, I would still like some form of agreement amongst all of the auditors or some form of formal statement specifying when a adutitor should use their tools. I am thinking that something like Tznkai's personal policy would be good. Tiptoety  talk 19:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Activity of Arbitrators
So, I did an analysis of arbitrators' contributions last night, just to see how active our arbitrators are both in the mainspace and across the entire Wikipedia. I figured I might as well share my findings here. The following is a list of the arbitrator, the date of their 500th most recent edit, and the date of their 500th most recent edit in mainspace.

Dates valid as of approximately 00:00 UTC May 9, 2009

NW ( Talk ) (How am I doing?) 18:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Not good that some go back to 2007. Also not good some arbitrators' edits go back to 2008. Cases are taking forever, but it seems some arbitrators aren't around enough to deal with them.  Majorly  talk  01:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration report
Sorry this is last-minute. Is anyone interested in filling in this week to write the "Arbitration report" for the Wikipedia Signpost? If so, please drop me a line; it'd need to be done within about the next 14 hours.--ragesoss (talk) 03:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Another question from me? AH!
Hey, it's me again.

I was looking at the ADHD case and I was wondering. Isn't there supposed to be a tag on the articles talk page, and the page locked for Arbitration reasons? I was sort of wondering this, because the last few I've seen that is what has happened. Is that required or is it just a tool that ArbCom can use in a dispute? Thanks! Renaissancee (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Usually, article pages that are the subject of arbitration proceedings aren't protected except: (a) as a preventative measure in response to disruption, as provided for by the protection policy; (b) by specific injunction of the Committee. Evidently, a protection of type (a) hasn't been necessary, and the Committee hasn't passed an injunction on the ADHD case so a protection of type (b) has similarly not been necessary. Does that answer your question? AGK 17:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yup, thanks. Renaissancee (talk) 20:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Mythdon's mentorship
See here. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 00:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom and Stare decisis
Just wondering - Are ArbCom decisions (specifically the "Principles" sections of the Final Decisions) considered "settled law" as far as interpretation of Wiki Policies go? In other words, if a policy can be construed/twisted/wikilawyered a couple of ways, but ArbCom has "held" the policy to mean X, does that settle the matter as far as interpretation of said policy is concerned? Or are the Principles in the findings more obiter dicta to frame and contextualize the Findings and Remedies specific to that case? Arakunem Talk 16:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Formally, the Arbitration Policy states that Committee decisions do not constitute precedent in any binding sense. Informally, though, the commonly-used principles can typically be viewed as settled, at least as far as they indicate how the Committee will interpret policy in future cases.
 * (The extent to which anything in Wikipedia can be considered to be "settled" in any real sense is, of course, another matter entirely.) Kirill [talk] [pf] 04:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Principles are simply statements of the Wikipedia community's norms and standards. If we consider final decisions linearly, then, on a very simplistic level, principles are statements of how things should work, findings of fact are rulings that something isn't working in that way, and remedies are actions that aim to make them start working how they should. I would therefore say that the primary use of principles is to give brief context to the findings and remedies, but that they are also reliable sources on matters of policy and site operations. Thus, principles do not prevent the policies or guidelines from subsequently evolving as community consensus changes, but they do outline the consensus on how the project should operate. Being a quite theoretical and somewhat abstract issue, the role of principles is often difficult to answer questions on, and so I apologise if my answer is failing to address the kernel of your query.… AGK 13:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it would be a good idea to formally state this somehow. I think there was action to add something along this lines to ArbCom policy revision process. Stating "Arbitration committee members are not bound to former precedent, but may observe previous decisions when establishing their findings." seems a good idea to me. Allowing use of past decisions as a toolbox is a good thing, requiring former precedent to strictly be followed is a bad thing.
 * In legal terms, ArbCom does operate using a limited principle of ratio decidendi, in that previous decisions are neither obiter dicta nor stare decisis. Judicial comity is not an issue, since ArbCom is a single and final court within Wikipedia, and does not have to observe external ratio decidendi only it's own and can evolve it's decisions.
 * Sorry if that's a little verbose, I'm an amateur student of constitutional law, so this is something I could ramble on for. --Barberio (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * See Arbitration/Policy: "Former decisions will not be binding on the Committee - rather, they intend to learn from experience." Nathan  T 16:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To Nathan: I think Arakunem is asking whether principles held in an arbitration decision are binding on the community's decision-making (rather than the Committee's). AGK 16:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Possibly, although it isn't clear - by referring to stare decisis, he's invoking the concept of judicial precedent which would presumably refer to the relationship between past and future arbitration rulings. In any case, I was more responding to Barberio's recommendation for a formal addition to the policy by pointing out that it was already present. Nathan  T 17:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, Essentially what I was asking is whether a "Principle" as held in a ruling can be used to support or justify a particular position in an unrelated discussion over policy interpretation, or whether that Principle was solely in support of that particular case. (This starts to sound like a fishing expedition for a dispute, but believe it or not, this question was in fact purely hypothetical!). I think the answer has been given though: The Principles as listed are ArbCom's restatement of, and based upon, the policies and standards that the community holds at that time. Thanks to all who responded! Arakunem Talk 18:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a very interesting question. The intent behind the principles is to restate what the committee percieves as the "current" status of interpretation of policy and guidelines.  If you want to make parallels with common law judicial systems they would be doctrine; at least insofar as they inform on what the current interpretation of case law might be at that point in time.  While they are unarguably good guidance outside of the specific case, I wouldn't quote it as law and rely on them to make what could otherwise be controversial.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 02:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The current policy implies they won't recognise precedent, which leads to this confusion since they currently do use precedents but may allow them to evolve and change. Hence why I think explicitly saying they do use precedents but are not bound to them would be better. --Barberio (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed, much of the principles stated in a particular case are restated from previous decisions. In general, the more general the principle the more likely that it will remain fairly static over a long period of time (some fundamentals of Wikipedia doctrine are, by now, pretty much set in stone).  Oftentimes, cases will also create new principles; those can be seen more acurately as a statement of ArbCom's current interpretation of how the guidelines and policies apply to a more specific situation&mdash; those principles will certainly inform future decisions but are much more mutable. I agree that the fact that ArbCom is likely to look to past decisions is worth stating explicitly, however, even if we are not bound by it.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 02:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Noting that you are familiar with legal jargon, this could be simplified to simply state that ArbCom strives for jurisprudence constante and not for stare decisis. &mdash; Coren (talk) 02:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Now how about this scenario (pulling from a recent decision): While I don't see ever needing to assert that AC said "The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia", another principle stated "The three-revert rule does not entitle users to revert a page three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique". Would the latter be considered a "Final Ruling" on the matter, for example, if a blocked user reverts 3 times, is blocked, and states that he did not "technically" violate 3RR, and perhaps a sympathetic admin unblocks, possibly sparking a wheel war? (Again, purely hypothetical). Arakunem Talk 15:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

(undent) This is an interesting example because I think it's very illustrative. I think the best way to look at it would be for its predictive power: it does not make a new bit of law because it has been said by ArbCom, but it does state that "if this goes in front of ArbCom, we are very likely to rule in that direction". In the case where an interpretation of policy by an admin eventually leads to a dispute degenerating into wheel warring, anyone on the "side" that goes counter to previous ArbCom ruling is placing oneself in greater "peril" if the case ends up on ArbCom's lap; so quoting it may be both meaningful and useful. In that sense, decision principles have pragmatical value. &mdash; Coren (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice timing: This is the kind of thing that I was referring to, so now I have an on-WP example! While that section may help the participants' discussion, to what degree would this be considered "law"? Understanding from Coren's comments above, it seems like the current feeling is: "If this ever was arbitrated, you might expect the following to be in the final ruling". As opposed to "this is settled law, so don't contravene any of these principles"? Arakunem Talk 15:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a very good interpretation, in my opinion. The primary function of a decision principle is to state explicitly what reasoning we have used to reach the rest of the decision (in other words, it's a statement of what we looked for).  Formally, it guides the decision alone; but given the likelihood of it being also used in future decisions it would often also guide editors. Note that there have been cases in the past where ArbCom principles were used in editing policy (BLP comes to mind) after the fact, relying on that very guidance&mdash; I suppose that's a better case of principles becoming "settled law".  In theory, the community is always free to tweak policy after a decision so that it aligns closer to its principles (or, sometimes, just reuse wording that was mean to clarify/nuance the common understanding); this is something that's eminently reasonable given the practical expectation that, should the matter return to the committee, the decision would consistent.  Wikipedia policies are meant to reflect current practice, after all, and a final decision tends to influence what is current practice.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 01:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

(I can't believe I've missed this thread up till now. Placeholder for now; I'll respond here tomorrow when I'm more awake.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh. And I was wondering why you hadn't commented.  I look forward to your take on this.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 02:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Was kind of hoping NYB would comment. :) Arakunem Talk  14:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Arbitration Committee
Given the recent (additional) media coverage, I wonder how much longer until someone writes an article. Is anyone taking bets? --MZMcBride (talk) 01:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't the proper title be Arbitration Committee (Wikipedia) since they don't call themselves the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee and I imagine there could be other notable committee in existence.  MBisanz  talk 01:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Between, , , there might actually be an article out there.  MBisanz  talk 01:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually it should be Arbitration Committee (English Wikipedia) *sigh* :P
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 01:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * £5 on there being at least two AfDs on the article in the six months after its creation. AGK 11:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm looking forward to the wheel-war that ends up at WP:RFAR resulting in the news for being stupid, and that news being used as evidence to overturn the deletion at WP:DRV. i.e. just another week at the office. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So if I write the article and get it to DYK, I get $15.94?  MBisanz  talk 01:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * All depends on where you bank, MBisanz. Is it worth the service charges, additional fees, and psychic wear and tear? Risker (talk) 04:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * psychic wear and tear? I just was trying to prime the pump for the new WM-NYC bank account when we get state approval!  MBisanz  talk 08:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You would sell your soul and the meaning of life for a meezly $16 ? John Vandenberg (chat) 11:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It is only a COI if I talk about clerks, which sadly have not been covered in reliable sources :P  MBisanz  talk 12:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh em gee, paid editing! Also, I made the first two proposed titles redirect to Arbitration Committee (English Wikipedia).  hmwith τ   17:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion regarding User:Greg park avenue
The above editor was banned by the ArbCom for a year as per Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes. There is currently some discussion regarding how, if at all, to see how he could return early at Wikipedia:WikiProject User Rehab/User:Greg park avenue. Any comments on the issue by members of the committee are more than welcome. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 15:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * He appealed to the Ban Appeal Subcommittee (via the arbcom-l mailing list) on 12 May 2009. Carcharoth put together a proposal enabling him to edit from 23 June onwards, asubject to various conditions, which was sent to the editor (by me) on 30 May. We haven't heard back from him yet but the offer remains open.  Roger Davies  talk 15:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Staff?
Is there a better word we can use instead of "Staff" for the first heading? Staff is a page at Staff and Special:GlobalUsers/Staff, maybe we could say "Organization" or "Composition"?  MBisanz  talk 14:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Members," perhaps, but I'm fine with "composition," as long as it is 500 words or less [[image:face-wink.svg|25px]] -- Avi (talk) 14:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose the closest synonym is "personnel". AGK 15:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Body elect? Roster? Staff sounds professional, but its a misnomer (as is professional for that matter)--Tznkai (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm, of the suggestions, I think that either composition or personnel would work well.  hmwith τ   17:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Personnel sounds awkward to me. Composition seems more dignified. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Changed to "Committee structure". I'm only staff when there's a paycheque involved. Risker (talk) 18:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I refuse paycheques but I'm entirely in favor of paychecks.--Tznkai (talk) 03:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Constitutional query re. proposed Editors Association
I have a question for the committee on a constitutional matter. There is currently an embryonic proposal by Peter Damien to setup a sort of editors union, whereby a editors with a certain standing can establish a self-electing self-serving organisation within the project. This would act toward as yet undefined purposes, but it has been mooted this would basically involve content dispute resolution, and member assistance/representation in behavioural dispute matters, as well as acting as a closed policy discussion forum. A number of editors have already unsuccessfully made it known that it should simply not exist at this Mfd which was raised very early on.

I personally think any proposed group like this is fundementally against basic Wikipedia policy, and cannot achieve any stated aim without its existence by definition violating the basic principles of Wikipedia (equality of editor's opinions (those in good standing), consensus based discussion, not beaurocracy, not democracy, weight of argument not credentials etc etc etc). Other's disagree, so we have a dispute in play.

In my mind, the normal avenues of feedback / dispute resolution would appear to be moot in this case, as the very presence of a self serving collective would interfere with the determining of any consensus in the conventional forums (Rfc, VP, Medcom). So, constituionally, on the basis that disputes that cannot be handled by any of the lower forums are immediately handled by arcbom, would the arbcom accept the basic dispute over the legitimacy of this group's very existence as a legitimate case or not?

MickMacNee (talk) 00:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I think scale is pushing the limits of some of the principles - demonstrate the harm in a talking shop. --Joopercoopers (talk) 01:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not a talking shop, it is a self-electing, self-serving group. If you want a talking shop, use one of the hundred that already exist and are open to all. MickMacNee (talk) 11:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I am personally unconfortable with this group as stated; I see it as a circling of wagons from a self-selected "elite". That being said, ArbCom does not have initial jurisdiction over the formation of such groups, and I don't expect a case bringing it before the committee would be likely to be accepted at this time.  Perhaps the best thing to do at this point is to first wait to see if it (a) will take off at all and (b) what it will accomplish for the encyclopedia if it does.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 02:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It already has the required 20 'acceptances' for inaugural elections to begin, and it is already developing a closed shop mentality , so it's not as if we are too far away from having to deal with a real live group. Knowing how long arbcom cases take, this could be a full blown internal civil war between admins/non-members and the elite, by the time any official judgement is made as to its legitimacy. MickMacNee (talk) 11:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I see no threat to Wikipedia stability here so far. If this 'Established Editors Assosiation' cause trouble as a group, then they will be treated in the same way as any 'editing bloc' pushing a POV or causing disruption and risk being banned. I do note, that the stated principles of the group already downgrade Neutral Point of View and The code of conduct to be less important to follow than Reliable Sources and No Original Research, and require members of the group to commit to that principle. And the current members of the association should make attempts to clarify what they have signed up for?
 * I also note, Mick, that you have been goading the organiser of this. I don't think that's productive behaviour. Try to at least be neutral in tone when you say why you think they're wrong. --Barberio (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has no role to play concerning this issue. Whether groups of editors may organize on-wiki in this way is a policy question, not implicated in any case pending before us, and which the committee as an entity has not discussed and to the best of my knowledge has no plans to.

My personal view is that there should ideally be no points of principle separating between the administration of Wikipedia and those who write it&mdash;groups whose composition would preferably be, if not identical, substantially overlapping. I am not sure that this new Association will fulfill a useful role. It will certainly hurt rather than help if it supports its members in every situation regardless of its merits, or castigates administrators who spend most of their wiki-time administering rather than content-creating because that is their particular skill-set or because of the exigencies of time. But I can imagine nothing that would inflame any tensions or divisions that already exist more greatly, or be more likely to lead to the conjured "full-blown internal civil war," than for this Committee to attempt to squelch this group of editors, and I know of no attempts by us to try. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Newyorkbrad. I'll go further and say that I hope that the people starting the new association will carefully listen to the views expressed by the people that see problems with it's objectives and be responsive to the concerns. And as well, I hope the people expressing concerns will give the association a chance to see if they are going to fill an unmet need. Most of all, I hope that the people involved in the new organization do not spend too much time in organizational work because many of them are good contributors and that would be a loss to Wikipedia. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 21:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * [To Brad] Thank you for those wise words. I disagree with you only where you say that those who police the project, (and by implication carry 'weapons') should overlap in any way with those who contribute content (as opposed to those who fight vandalism and generally work on the front line defence).  I do not want to bear arms, why should I?  [To Flo] - there is certainly much discussion about the way this organisation could be useful.  As for content creation itself, I hope this shows it has not been forgotten, and please watch progress on Theology which is long overdue. Peter Damian (talk) 12:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You don't want to bear arms, yet you want the ability to ignore those that do when their judgement of your members doesn't match your own. That's a self-elected, self-serving group, policing itself, as opposed to administrators, elected by the entire community, policing the community. I quote "Content editors should have the right of 'trial by peer'. Under the current system, admins punish common vandals, who are scum, in my view, and that is OK. They also punish editors who have worked on the project for many years, as though they are common criminals or vandals. That is shameful and disgusting and an affront to dignity. Content creators should have the fundamental right to be tried (and found guilty if necessary) by their peers, not by some thuggish security guard". I'd be interested to hear arbitrator opinion as to how these sorts of views square with common findings of fact. Bear in mind of course, the current arbcom is one of the many things Peter wants this group to work against when they view their decisions as contrary to their own goals. MickMacNee (talk) 13:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Arbcom has long insisted that it cannot (or at least should not) make judgments in content disputes.  But Arbcom could make use of expert judgment in serious content disputes, as ordinary RL courts do, I believe (perhaps Brad could confirm this).  But please note, it is an absolute and fundamental principle of expert witnesses that they should be demonstrably independent.  That is why I have proposed some form of vetting for prospective members of the group. Peter Damian (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Requests for comment/Self electing groups. Arbitrator opinions are solicited on the issue of self electing groups on Wikipedia. MickMacNee (talk) 15:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Premature forum shopping of the worst kind. Failing at Mfd, he brings it here to sound out prospects of an RfAR case, and then, having not received the answer he wanted, there's an RfC against something which hasn't even decided what it's objectives are or indeed how it will elect it's members. Mick, you do realise that just because Peter Damian proposes something, we're not necessarily going to agree with him? I'm starting to find this user's activities rather disruptive of free thought amongst individuals - will someone perhaps have a quiet word? --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Date unlinking bot RFC open
Related to remedy 1.3 of the date delinking case, the community RFC about a proposal for a bot to unlink dates is now open. Please see Full-date unlinking bot and comments at the talk page. The committee will be informed again after the discussion is finished in two weeks. --Apoc2400 (talk) 12:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Now closed, with fairly large support. I have also notified the committee by email. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Timeline changes
Just so the Arbitration Committee knows, I have changed the timeline in that since Jayvdb had his username changed to "John Vandenberg", that I have edited the timelines to reflect the username change. Are these edits okay? — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 19:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. Thanks.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yellow Submarine Committee
Now that I hopefully have your attention with a silly header, I'd like to solicit your serious opinions. Back in late 06 when I ran for a seat on this august body, a major part of my platform was adopting a subcommittee system, to better handle business. I am glad to see it is now, finally, being implemented. So how, in you Arbs' views and experiences, has it worked so far? How may it be improved? I know election time is usually when these issues come up, but let's take advantage of the slow summer and get the drop on this one:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Now no facile references to Beatles songs in section headers here RDH, though I'd make an exception for "Magical Mystery Tour". Lemme think on that one... :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok...thought about it.....pretty good so far, though others'd be more qualified than me to speak on it :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think there is value to having subcommittees of arbitrators handling discrete issues that don't require input from every arbitrator. I still prefer the system of having the cases themselves handled by the full committee; I think it's the idea of referring cases to panels or subcommittees that's been controversial in the past, and that still is not being done. (I suppose the ban appeals subcommittee could be seen as a limited step in that general direction, but as a practical matter any appeal that's of a reasonably controversial or disputed nature comes before the full committee anyway, with a recommendation from the subcommittee.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, should have clarified for anyone not up to speed - we have a ban appeals subcommittee and audit subcommittee which have been useful thus far. Otherwise, I second Brad - also more tricky ban appeals we discuss among all of us. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Exxxcellent! Thank you, gents, that's just what I'd hoped they would be: Work, advisory and study groups, but not courts in miniature.

Are there any other arbs who have an opinion on this? Anyone...anyone?--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I think you can safely assume that the majority of the Committee is broadly satisfied with how the subcommittees are functioning, since we'd probably be replacing them with something else, otherwise. Whether or not there are more improvements that might be made to this framework is a different question, of course. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * My own two cents is that they are largely successful in the two objectives they were created for: they give faster turnaround to matters they examine because of the reduced communication overhead, and they lighten the general workload of individual arbs thus improving general response time.  Given that they also do the job well, I'm pleased with the results.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 10:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the time and the thoughts. As I was telling (potential defendant:) Durova, I approve of the current AC's direction!. Progress is being made...even if, as so often in human affairs, in spurts and baby steps:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 01:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of permission for OTRS activity on enwiki per ArbCom decision
The title says it all, please see here. Cenarium (talk) 01:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Predeciding the Durova case
Taking a bold step and collapsing. Too often, Wikipedians raise issues of principle as if they were bargaining chips--things to remind others of when one finds it convenient for them to act a certain way. Real principle is what guides one's own actions in decisions that are inconvenient but right.

This thread was started in violation of policy: WP:LINKVIO to be exact. That is a policy I've acted upon many times before, and the right thing to do is to act upon it uniformly. If he exposed a greater wrong, I was the only one harmed by it. So surely I cannot be accused of coverup in a situation where exposure would only help me. Ethical decisions where good people disagree belong in the hands of the individuals who live with the consequences.

Over the last few years people have confided in me in situations where they were unsure whether to trust the Committee's confidentiality: these people were deciding whether to blow the whistle on improper action by Wikipedians in high places; a few had been subject to offsite harassment; a small number even feared for their livelihoods. An indispensable part of ArbCom's mission is to be a venue where people in those situations can take legitimate issues.

The current Committee is almost entirely composed of different people from 2007; this is being reviewed in good hands. My request to the community is to exercise discretion and dignity. If broader questions remain after this instance is handled, please raise those questions then. Both the questions and the responses are likely to be wiser that way. Durova 273 15:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Once again the iron fist inside the velvet glove eh Durova:) But I will agree with you that dredging up this old muck accomplishes nothing. Those highly regretable 2007 events occurred under what I refer to as The Fred Bauder Court. At that time its main goal was to Get Giano, for reasons both political and personal. They needed a causus and leaking classified info (Talking about Fight Club:) provided them with as good a reason as any. You were simply collateral damage- An accptable casualty and an expendable cog. And thus an ill considered, 75 minute block perminately stains your otherwise commendable record of service. It is also a prime example of why Smoke-filled rooms, especially when they are off-wiki, are bad things. Until you learn the lesson that greater transparency is not the disease but the cure, I fear you will not find redemption.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Durova helped me with an issue when I had concerns of harassment. I had approached her in offsite communication; the matter could not have been handled onsite. I respect her decision to risk the outcome of her own appeal, in order to preserve this level of trust with others. Cirt (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The rest of this enlightening discussion can be found here--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 03:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to see how Durova blanking a discussion critical of the Committee's coordinator would "risk the outcome of her own appeal." Her specious appeal to WP:LINKVIO has foreclosed a conversation which can only have deeply uncomfortable for Mr. Lokshin; shall she now go unrewarded?70.90.183.122 (talk) 00:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I've just been sent (redacted by Durova per WP:LINKVIO) link with what appears to be arbitrators meatpuppeting to get the arbcom case on Durova accepted. Basically, Kirill Lokshin, arbcom co-ordinator is asking for someone to bring the case forward so he can accept it, and ex-arb Dmcdevit is agreeing to with the proviso that the case is accepted quickly so that it will "deflect the inevitable drama coming [his] way".

This is a fairly old case, though its effects are still felt. The point here is that every single case brought forward to ArbCom no has no/little integrity, when we have shenanigans like that going on behind our backs. How do we know that arbitrators aren't meatpuppeting each other to accept/decline cases according to their own preference? It is concerning that the "co-ordinator" of Arbcom, Kirill Lokshin is involved with this, and it makes me wonder how frequently this goes on. It is a violation of arbitration policy, point number 6 when arbitrators are being requested to rule. Like any government system, there is always going to be corruption of some sort, it seems.  Majorly  talk  22:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Use of words like "corruption" is unhelpful. Beyond that, I was not an arbitrator when the Durova case was decided, so I can't comment on what took place internally on the committee at that time, beyond noting that may have been inevitable that this particular dispute would have come before the ArbCom in some form. Instead, I will respond with a general process question. All of us as arbitrators are also editors and administrators and are frequently aware of issues that are percolating within the community. Should there be a mechanism whereby if we see a dispute boiling over, the committee can reach out and request input on whether we should open a case on our own (nostra sponte, as it were), or should we be bound to wait for the happenstance of whether a user unaffiliated with the committee chooses to bring the case to arbitration? This is not, incidentally, a rhetorical question, but one I have been thinking about for some time, and I can see arguments on both sides. (On the one hand, an issue that not even one user feels the need to file a case on can probably be resolved without arbitration and is likely to blow over; on the other hand, it is frustrating as heck to watch a situation bubble for days on a drama-filled noticeboard, while 15 of the most experienced administrators are contrained from commenting on it lest they be accused of bias should the case later come to arbitration after all.) Community input on this issue would be welcome, particularly since we're in the middle of updating the Arbitration Policy in any event. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It is interesting to note that of the parties involved in that discussion, only Kirill remains as an active Arb. Plus he was a mere freshman Arb at the time, though now he's a senior. I don't see why he should be singled out for that reason. Especially since he had the least to say in the matter. Of course sunlight is the best disinfectant for these sorts of things. Which seems to be the direction the committee and the community are moving towards. Away from off-wiki sooper sekret mailing lists and the Don't talk about Fight Club mentality:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 02:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like to note that the Arbitration Committee and their clerks attract users that are interested in dispute resolution, have high dedication to the project, and ideally, the cream of that crop is taken in. Restricting that group from being proactive in addressing issues is not unlike tying both hands behind our collective backs. More over, as much as I appreciate transparency, I appreciate sensible and proactive actions more.--Tznkai (talk) 03:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nobody's hands are tied behind their backs. It's really very simple: you can be a litigant, or you can be a judge, but you can't be both at the same time. Jehochman Talk 13:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Majorly, other aspects of this case are already under discussion by the Arbitration Committee, following a submission made recently. What you have posted will be taken into consideration in that discussion. Could you please remove the link you have placed above and e-mail it to us, and we can then confirm whether or not what you are linking to is an accurate copy of the discussions that took place at the time, and look at the surrounding context for that discussion. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 00:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Majorly, would you consider reverting your post? Having once objected to the publication of private correspondence, I am ethically bound to request that all such matters be handled upon the same principle.  I was already in possession of that log.  If it was your wish to be chivalrous, please respect my wish to treat other people with dignity.  Durova 273 00:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Leave the post. The private correspondence is published off-wiki.  It will not go away and any futile attempts to suppress the evidence will just foment more drama. If somebody thinks the evidence is fraudulent, let them say so plainly, rather than by innuendo. Jehochman Talk 12:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Kirill's post below renders parts of my post above superfluous, but my main point stands. If people do come into possession of 'leaked' correspondence like this, there should be a better way to handle it, if only because documents can be altered before they are leaked. In this case, the leak had the potential to disrupt and delay an ongoing (June and July 2009) discussion about that case (i.e. the timing was incredibly poor). Another point still stands: there are other participants in that discussion who may still have expected some degree of confidentiality to be observed. They may still request that the link Majorly has provided be removed - in my view, the summmary Majorly gives following the link, in combination with Kirill's answer, is sufficient, and the link should be removed, though if all those who took part are willing to see the correspondence published, in the interests of transparency, then it should be officially published, not leaked out bit by bit. The final point I want to make is that of context. From my past few months experience on the arbitration mailing list, there will have been a lot more discussion both on-wiki and off-wiki that would put the e-mail exchange in question in its full context (who here, for example, remembers all the discussions that took place at the time?). My concern here is that future leaks should not be taken at face value until the accuracy is confirmed, and the context in which e-mails were written can be assessed. Carcharoth (talk) 07:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm rather surprised that, of all the things which might be questioned, this one has come up.
 * To address, first, the question of policy: the arbitration policy requires only that the Committee be requested to rule; no restrictions are placed on who may make such a request, or why they might be motivated to do so. If the letter of the policy permits sitting arbitrators to bring cases—which precedent says they may, so long as they recuse themselves from the proceeding—then certainly former arbitrators are similarly permitted.  The letter of the arbitration policy was, indeed, met by Dominic's request.
 * If you wish to consider the spirit of the policy, on the other hand, I will say that I do not believe it was the intent of those who wrote it to force us to be willfully blind to obvious problems merely because nobody had yet filed the proper paperwork. Yes, we did desire that a case be brought—but we did so because the community was being torn apart by strife caused by an obviously (and admittedly) mistaken block.  If the community truly believes that it would be better for us to sit on our hands while the project burns around us, then so be it; but I cannot believe that we would be expected to have so little care for the health of the project, and I do not think we can be blamed for believing that a judgment from the Committee would be the best way to restore peace and resolve the conflict.  It is quite easy to scorn a decision in hindsight; but I continue to believe that we made the best decision we could have under the circumstances as they stood at the time, even if our methods were somewhat unorthodox.
 * As for the allegation that we "predecided" the case itself, which you allude to by your choice of header: by the time the case opened, the facts of the situation were not under any reasonable doubt; the entire narrative had been extensively (too extensively, even) aired across a variety of venues over the preceding days, and the only question left to examine was how we should move forward. Were a similar situation to come before us now, we could simply rule on it with a summary motion, as we have done with a number of cases; but, in late 2007, we simply did not have such a method developed, and were thus forced to continue with a full case despite there being no real need for one.  I do not think it was unreasonable for us to begin discussing the content of the decision at the time we did, given that the case had been accepted and that there was no argument as to the facts of the matter.  We are called upon to be fair, not blind.
 * If there are any other questions or concerns about this matter, or my role in in in particular, I would welcome them, either here or in another forum. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The conduct was improper, and you should do something about it, Kirill. Discussing a case and deciding how it should turn out beforehand is just plain wrong.  I was an aggrieved party in that matter, even though I escaped the attempted railroading.  At the time I sent a scathing email to the committee about this case, detailing in particular that the prosecuting party was in on the deliberations via the ArbCom mailing list.  Now I see that there was communication between the committee and the prosecutor egging him on beforehand. If administrators are held to higher standards, arbitrators need to be held to even higher standards of ethical conduct.  That expectation was not met here. Jehochman Talk 12:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with an arbitrator filing a request for arbitration, as long as they don't discuss it beforehand with the committee members who will be reviewing the case, and they fully recuse from the deliberations, including removing themselves from the mailing list threads that discuss the case. My objection here is to 1/ the predetermination of the result, 2/ there being an agreement to handle the case so swiftly that time was not even allowed for the accused to present their evidence, and 3/ several parties did not recuse when they were in on bringing the case. Jehochman Talk 12:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As I've stated above, the facts of the matter had ceased to be in dispute long before the case was filed or accepted. It is unreasonable, I think, to say that we had already decided the outcome when there was, in very real terms, nothing left to decide; the case was, in some sense, merely an exercise in setting obvious truths on paper.  Or do you honestly believe that there could conceivably have been some defense presented, or some evidence produced, that would have disproved those facts?  Fairness does not require ignoring the obvious, nor maintaining a false pretense of uncertainty long past the point where those at fault have already admitted their actions.
 * I apologize for the unorthodox way this case was brought before the Committee, and for the haste with which it was handled; neither of these aspects were ideal, and we have collectively taken steps to prevent their recurrence. I remain convinced, however, that the path we chose at the time was the best of the bad ones presented to us.  There was no good way of resolving the strife and healing the rift within the community at that point; all we could do was to try and end the conflict as quickly as possible, and hope that people would eventually forgive and forget.  If the verdict, in hindsight, is that we chose poorly, so be it; but do you believe that, knowing what we did under the circumstances, we could have found a better approach? Kirill [talk] [pf] 13:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think the case resolved anything. Durova was requesting time to present her side of the story.  As the end approached I told her that the decision appeared to have already been decided, as you have here confirmed.  At that point she resigned.  It was her action that ended the drama, not the Committee's.  You should thank her.  I am glad you now see that the matter was handled poorly by the Committee. It was a show trial. For the future, if you accept a case you need to accept it with an open mind and allow all parties a fair chance to present their evidence and ideas. Your acknowledgment satisfies my concerns.  You should ask Durova what steps may be necessary to satisfy hers. Jehochman Talk 14:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Kirill Lokshin wrote, "If the letter of the policy permits sitting arbitrators to bring cases—which precedent says they may, so long as they recuse themselves from the proceeding—then certainly former arbitrators are similarly permitted."


 * No one is saying that Dmcdevit couldn't request a case because he is a former arbitrator - though in light of the collusion on display here, such a rule might be a very good idea! It seems to me that the real issue here is than he pretended on-wiki to request one on his own accord, but actually was just responding to Kirill's solicitation, while Kirill's "accept" didn’t mention the fact that he was accepting his own request, laundered through Dmcdevit.


 * Though here Kirill calls it "unorthodox," in private, he's characterized such solicitations as an ArbCom tradition. Since Kirill maintains that this is a legitimate method of doing business, I wonder if he would be willing to provide a full list of case requests which were proxied by the Arbitrators?70.90.183.122 (talk) 23:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't recall ever having referred to the events that took place in this case, or anything like them, as a tradition, and I don't think there's any conceivable reason to consider them as such; off the top of my head, I cannot remember any other case that was brought about in a similar way. The Matthew Hoffman case was brought by a sitting arbitrator, and the Orangemarlin fiasco last year happened entirely sua sponte to begin with; but neither of those is really the same.
 * (Not that something being a "tradition" would be any indication that it's a good way of doing things, in any case. Having former arbitrators on arbcom-l was a tradition for years, for example, and yet something we've chosen to do away with.)
 * The scenario that played itself out in the Durova case was extraordinary in a number of ways, and those of us on the Committee at the time agonized considerably over how we could best help resolve the conflict, presented as we were with a number of choices, none of which were truly good ones.  We may, indeed, have acted too directly, or too forcefully; but it is easy to condemn when one has the benefit of hindsight.
 * I have apologized for the approach we took in bringing this case about, and for our haste in trying to resolve it; and I regret that we may have inadvertently made worse a situation which we were trying to make better. I can offer no apology for doing my best to carry out my duties as an arbitrator for the benefit of the project, or for trying to resolve a conflict rather than standing idly by. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Can you look into who's been leaking private correspondence from the ArbCom mailing list?  It is going to discourage people from writing to ArbCom about sensistive matters if they feel their correspondence may be published afterwards without their permission. Jehochman Talk 01:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The evidence we have points to a leak of old list archives sometime late last year. We have been unable, as yet, to determine who was responsible; in the absence of any substantive evidence, the matter remains firmly in the realm of speculation.
 * We have, however, taken certain steps to tighten security, and we believe that the arbcom-l list is currently secure. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * presumably you believed that before as well? ;-) - something that I've been curious about though - do you actually know who each other are? (have you identified to each other, as well as to the foundation?) - finally, (really just to Kirill) - what do you think about some sort of a wiki FoI policy? Privatemusings (talk) 06:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There isn't necessarily a formal identification process internal to ArbCom, but, informally, I think everyone's identity is known by some or all of the other arbitrators.
 * As far as FoI and similar things go: I suggested, at one point, that we "de-classify" anything in the arbcom-l archives that doesn't actually contain private information some fixed period (e.g. 3 years) after the discussions in question. Unfortunately, it's not always clear what is or isn't private, and we don't really have the manpower to sort through thousands of old emails carefully.  Some sort of FoI-like "release after inquiry" approach might be feasible, at least in theory; but I'm not sure how we could set it up in practice.  It's something that should probably be discussed further at some point. Kirill [talk] [pf] 12:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Could we please publish a direction to users that the ArbCom list, while generally confidential, does occasionally suffer leaks, and that any truly sensistive matter should be directed to WP:OTRS instead? The general rule should be don't write anything to ArbCom that you wouldn't want to see published. Jehochman Talk 12:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Without ignoring your concern about confidentiality, Jehochman, the overwhelming majority of email messages that are directed to Arbcom-L involve something that is uniquely within the scope of the Arbitration Committee, and sending the same material to OTRS will most likely result in OTRS admins referring the matter to Arbcom (I assume with the permission of the sender) or being unable to take action on it. To be honest, if someone is going to leak private mailing list information, there's no reason to think they won't also leak private OTRS information. Risker (talk) 12:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

A few posts above, Jehochman suggests that Kirill Lokshin contact me to ask what steps may be necessary to satisfy my concerns. Jehochman himself has not contacted me regarding what my concerns are, his representations are unreliable, and the best thing Jehochman could do to satisfy me is to avoid all further involvement in this matter. Durova 273 05:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * doesn't he just say that they should ask you? am I missing something? Your post sounds a bit grumbly, but I can't work out why.... /me scratches head and looks confused (no jokes about not being able to tell the difference, thank you very much.......). Privatemusings (talk) 06:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Update
Since this is not an official notice, I think this is the best place to put it, but I wanted to point people to this post I made in a section above, which updates things somewhat after recent events. Just to lay out what the response has been so far to the resignations and to indicate that other arbitration business is still proceeding much as normal. Carcharoth (talk) 06:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Question about Jimbo Wales' block of Bishonen
Above (collapsed) Newyorkbrad writes a question to the community that worries me a little:
 * Should there be a mechanism whereby if we see a dispute boiling over, the committee can reach out and request input on whether we should open a case on our own (nostra sponte, as it were), or should we be bound to wait for the happenstance of whether a user unaffiliated with the committee chooses to bring the case to arbitration? This is not, incidentally, a rhetorical question, but one I have been thinking about for some time, and I can see arguments on both sides. (On the one hand, an issue that not even one user feels the need to file a case on can probably be resolved without arbitration and is likely to blow over; on the other hand, it is frustrating as heck to watch a situation bubble for days on a drama-filled noticeboard, while 15 of the most experienced administrators are contrained from commenting on it lest they be accused of bias should the case later come to arbitration after all.) Community input on this issue would be welcome, particularly since we're in the middle of updating the Arbitration Policy in any event. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know that the arbcom was so strictly enjoined from opening a case sua sponte. Of course the committee also deals with stuff that doesn't exactly amount to opening cases. I'd like to know if other similar matters must also be addressed by the "happenstance" of an unaffilated user bringing them to the committee, or else be ignored? To exemplify: if I want the arbcom to deal with the issue of Jimbo Wales's "Jimbo block" of myself on May 22 (which I do), would it be an advantage for me to file a case about it? If I don't file one, might I find it dismissed as something that "can probably be resolved without arbitration and is likely to blow over" ? It's a matter which it seems fair to characterize as "boiling over", after recently being subject to mediation. A pretty unique question, I realize—uncharted waters—but can the committee be relied on to deal with it as far as in them lies—somehow—I obviously don't know what, if anything, they might do—or is anything like that up to me? Ought I to bring it to the committee's attention if I want them to take notice of it? Does the involvement of a GodKing make it more, or perhaps less, necessary for me to act for myself? Bishonen | talk 18:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC). '''Please do not collapse this. It's a (multi-headed) question for the committee, and I want them to see it.''' Bishonen | talk 18:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC).
 * In general, yes. If you feel attention should be given to what you feel is admin misbehavior, then it needs to be brought to the committee as we have no generally applicable mechanism to deal with incidents we do see but for which we have not been requested to intervene.  In fact, my recent break had to do with the necessity to step back from the frustrating situation of being unable to do something I felt was important because our hands are tied exactly that way. That being said, in general we pretty much decline to intervene is short blocks (mostly out of practicality, any short block would have long expired before we could render a decision), unless there is a pattern of egregious misbehavior to examine and a case can be made for it.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 12:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a disappointing, kind of stunted and lawyerly, reply, Coren. OK, I did ask a question; I didn't post in order to hold forth on my own opinions. But even so... as I said, it's a pretty unique question, and I request that you address it as such. Surely you're aware that the length of the block doesn't come into it; that Jimbo Wales' use of his tools isn't common or garden "admin misbehaviour", regardless of when it took place; that there is a pattern of egregious misbehaviour (see examples at User talk:Bishonen/block discussion); and that this is a GodKing we're talking about. Could I have a more responsive reply, please? I can't believe that Coren's is the sum of the committee's views on my query. Bishonen | talk 14:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC).
 * No, it's just my own. At any rate, part of the reason why my answer was vague is that your question was vague: if you told me what you expected the committee to be able to do in that case, I'd be in a much better position to tell you how to go about it.  You'll find that (mirroring the community) the arbitrators' positions on the propriety and well-founded of Jimbo's block is varied but that unless you contend this is a valid case for an emergency desysop there is nothing ArbCom can do on its own impetus.  In other words, what relief do you seek?  &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What relief do I seek? Let me see... OK, I seek an acknowledgement from either the blocking admin (Jimbo Wales) or the arbitration committee in my log that the block was wrongful. And I further seek an admonishment of Jimbo Wales by the committee. I'll be glad to suggest some suitable phrasing of that admonishment if desired. Now that I've said so, can/will the arbcom act under its own steam? Or not? Bishonen | talk 18:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC).
 * Such an admonishment would normally only come out of a full case, which you would have to initiate (as Vasyanna correctly notes below, it is extraordinarily difficult for the committee to do so itself). Obviously, we cannot coerce an apology (and a coerced apology is meaningless in the first place), but block annotations have been made when the findings warrant it.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 02:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you; I will respond to Vassyana later. I suppose I do need to go for a full case, then. No, indeed an apology cannot be coerced--IMO it shouldn't even be requested (though Jimbo has insisted up hill and down dale that I need to apologize to what he bathetically calls my "victim"). I only put in the notion of Jimbo annotating my log as an alternative, in case he prefers that to a log annotation by the committee. (Which would not be strange.) You see, I hope, that neither of my requests require any apolology? A log annotation from the committee would be just fine with me; while an admonishment would of course come from the committee, not the admonishee. If, as you say, the findings warrant it. Bishonen | talk 10:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC).

(Please note that I am currently on break from the Committee as it regards new matters and that this is only an individual statement.) I cannot posit what the overall Committee response to a request from you would be, but I can offer some general observations relevant to your questions. Jimbo Wales has made it clear that ArbCom has the authority to overturn his decisions and that he would respect such a decision. The majority of the Committee is extremely reluctant or unwilling to open a case without a normal request for arbitration. The involvement of Jimbo Wales has little to no bearing on the latter point, which seems to have been embraced as a general principle. It is based on a number of factors, including the abitration policy (particularly point 6) and previous problems/drama with cases initiated (directly or indirectly) by the Committee and/or arbitrators. I hope this helps clarify the matter. If I can be of further assistance, please let me know. --Vassyana (talk) 01:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Doesn't really make the matter completely clear to me, but thanks, Vassyana. You mention Jimbo Wales' yielding authority to the committee to overturn his decisions. What worries me about that is, firstly, this section of WP:JIMBO, according to which Mr Wales has embraced several mutually contradictory principles for such an authority (or embraced several principles "in tension" with each other, as the page more diplomatically puts it). Secondly, there can't be any question here of the arbcom "overturning" any decisions on my account; a block cannot be overturned once it has expired. Why, then, you might ask, don't I simply let it go? That's something I would explain in my request for arbitration, if I ever manage to formulate one. But I'll mention an incident I consider outrageous, that I think deserves an admonishment at the least: the way Mr Wales' referred to me, by obvious implication, as a "toxic personality". See Raul654's statement here, as well as those of many other people. That's no way for a godking to behave, and not something his subjects should be expected to put up with.


 * Since you kindly ask, Vassyana, I do have another question: can I request arbitration of one action (in this case, of Jimbo's block of me and attendant conduct towards me, our mediation, etc, which I feel I know about and understand), or would I have to address the entire body of his admin actions (which I have limited knowledge of)? Recollect that I'm not requesting desysopping. There might indeed be reason to consider desysopping, especially for some bad blocks, but I don't have enough information for an overview of those. Would that be all right? Bishonen | talk 18:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC).
 * I've been pondering about the best way forward to get resolution of the situation between you and Jimbo. The talking it out idea didn't work as well as I hoped that it would. But since talking to each other is the first step in any dispute resolution then it was needed. The next step could be letting it rest for now with both you going on your way. Another option would some type of mediation between the two of you. Another option would be a RFC started where Jimbo and you could get feedback. Since more than you have talked to him about it, then it would be certifiable in my opinion. An arbitration case seems premature. We do take them sooner for admins but not usually for a single short block. I know that there was more to it than the block. As a rule we don't do statements like you suggest for something like this situation. And it really is outside the range of what we would look at for a case. Those are your options as I see them now. I exchanged a few emails with Jimbo in mid June when you alerted me to your concerns. I'll talk to him again informally if you like. I really do care that you and him are having this dispute. I want to fix it if I can. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 23:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * With respect, Flo, I don't think pondering and caring is going to do it. I see that those arbs who have responded to me here insist on speaking of Jimbo as merely "an admin", and his block as a common or garden "short block."


 * If you feel attention should be given to what you feel is admin misbehavior... (Coren)
 * We pretty much decline to intervene in short blocks... (Coren)
 * We do take them sooner for admins but not usually for a single short block. (FloNight)


 * Is that how you speak of Jimbo amongst yourselves? And have you noticed how he speaks of himself? (Hint: like a GodKing.) Are you aware of the substantial section of the community which falls down and kisses the hem of his garment (and spits at me) when he makes a royal pronouncement about my personality? Jimbo should be careful with his pronouncements, his attacks, his casting-out of editors into outer darkness, for it affects their standing in the community beyond what he seems to be aware of. (Unawareness is the charitable interpretation—the AGF version.) Therefore, it seems obvious enough that your proposal for an RfC ("where Jimbo and I could get feedback", forsooth) would amount to the village stocks for me. Or would you yourself fancy the type of "feedback" supplied by the users I give diffs for above? Think about it. And is protesting against "what I feel is admin misbehaviour" all I'm doing by appealing to the arbcom here?


 * As for the talking-to-each-other thing Jimbo and I have done, I found it disappointing. Apparently you did, too, Flo. Mediation sounds only too much like more of the same, so I would have small hopes for that. Very small. But I suppose I'd be (groan) willing to try (weariness), considering that the committee clearly so very much prefers not to touch my problem with a long pole.


 * I'm quite disillusioned with the arbcom's disinclination to deal with this matter. I only seem to get any reaction from them when I make a fuss, as I'm doing now. And then it's a "perish-the-thought" reaction. If there are any arbitrators out there who feel differently, I wish they'd speak up; but it's not looking much like it. (Newyorkbrad? My question was originally addressed to you. See your page.) Bishonen | talk 10:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC).

I have been thinking about this a bit. One aspect which might be worth discussing at an RfC, and hopefully someone having a look at the history of the concept of 'involved', is the concept of 'involved' - in a case where editor A and editor B are clearly friends, and admin C is known to have an issue with editor B, but then blocks editor A in a borderline case. Similarly with points of view etc. For instance, I am an inclusionist, and as such I would not block a deleletion-minded editor on pronciple unless it was a blindingly obvious totally unambiguous reason to do so - however, when I expressed this elsewhere, it appeared my criteria for 'involved' were broader (or stricter or whatever) than other admins. In general, this might be a good thing to nut out, unless done so elsewhere (????). Of course, it is better not to use specific examples in RfCs, as this not only polarises opinion but distorts it as well as editors will subconsciously associate a specific action takne against a specific editor (which they may disagree with), whereas they might have actually been in favour of the principle or vice versa). Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think people will have difficulty discussing anything behind a barricade of such rampant discretion and such a high level of abstraction, Casliber. Would you like me to translate for you? Bishonen | talk 14:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC).
 * I don't know what Casliber is talking about either (sorry, Cas!), but I can translate some of the other bits above for you Bishonen. If you want to request a case, you are on the wrong page. If you want to continue with other means of dispute resolution, you are also on the wrong page. This is advice I would give anyone in dispute with anyone. We can't make that decision for you Bishonen, and we can't say (or shouldn't say) whether we would accept or reject a case unless you ask us officially. This whole thread is turning into a request, and it shouldn't be doing that. Ask where everyone else asks: WP:RFAR. But if you do so, then please be prepared to accept the results (for all named parties). And for the record, there have been numerous examples this year of incidents where ArbCom might have accepted a case, but in the end nothing got done, or things were left half-dealt with by others, because we felt constrained to keep quiet (speaking out would have prejudiced any future action in the eyes of many) or other things came along to occupy our attention. How to deal with such things where we are "aware" but no-one else is acting or seems to be concerned, is something that (as your quote of Brad indicates) needs to be addressed in some fashion. But there are pros and cons to nearly all approaches to such things. Carcharoth (talk) 11:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Do not be concerned, Carcharoth; I know this is not the page to request arbitration. If I ask, I will do it officially. I merely thought it proper to reply to Coren's significant question what relief do you seek,and the rest flowed from there. Bishonen | talk 19:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC).

Shortest. Wikibreak. Ever.
Given the recent attritions to the Committee, I felt it wiser to cut short what I had intended to be a considerably longer break away from the Wiki and am returning to duty. I very much empathize with my colleagues frustrations at having our hands tied most of the time combined with the certainty that no matter what the committee does (or does not do) there will always be a number of editors willing to jump at the opportunity to attack the committee and its volunteers with surprising bile and viciousness. While none of us signed up under the impression that we would be loved and paraded, it does tend to affect one's morale over time no matter how much we attempt to harden ourselves to this inevitable reality. Nevertheless, I don't believe that a committee that has whittled down to less than a dozen members is healthy. Thank you to all of you who offered words of support and wishes for my return during my (short) break. &mdash; Coren (talk) 12:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Welcome back! FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 12:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In response to Coren's comment above, I profess my love for the Arbitration Committee, and I am totally willing to parade this fact on my user page if ArbCom members can provide a suitable userbox. Wikipedians should be aware that ArbCom is very important for the project, and there really aren't any upsides to being a member of the committee. You guys deserve more credit than you get, and I hope Kirill and Rlevse can be coaxed back in. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And I'd like to add that I think this ArbCom as a whole has been doing a better job than any previous ArbCom. You've been taking on tough issues, without letting them just fester for months, and bringing them to conclusions that -- while necessarily falling short of most people's idea of a perfect outcome -- are not too bad. That, I recognize, is tough to do. rspεεr (talk) 00:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am very glad that you're back, Coren! :) — Aitias // discussion  14:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Are any other members of the committee planning to flip their shit in the near term, and have any other members of the committee been undermining the committee's already questionable authority and judgement? Hiberniantears (talk) 21:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Is that helpful? Do you expect an answer to your question? Has any ArbCom member asked you about your shit before? --  FayssalF - Wiki me up® 22:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, they haven't answered any other question I've ever asked them, so what the heck, right? Well, with the notable exception of your response to my last. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Which questions they haven't answered, Hiberniantears? Are you referring to Arbs' resignations or what? --  FayssalF - Wiki me up® 15:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I was. Then you snarkily asked if I expected an answer to my snarky-though-legitimate question. In any event, I didn't ask about your shit, I asked if you were planning to flip your shit. If you aren't, then you have nothing to be frustrated about. As for my question, it strikes me that ArbCom has been a dramatic train wreck over the past few weeks (understatement, I know), and more than a few admins would like to know if we should expect any additional surprises in the near future. A simple "We're sorry things have been a mess over here, but those of us left, and those of us who left and then came back anyway, would like to assure the community that we will start behaving in a more responsible fashion" would do. I'm not convinced this is such a disrespectful request given the fact that we all have to abide by the decisions you make. Yes or no, are there any further shennanigans we should be expecting/aware of? Hiberniantears (talk) 00:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hopefully not. We (those of us left) had considered a statement on the matter, but then realised we had other things that needed attention, and set a short-term priority list that got internal co-ordination re-established (Roger agreed to step up and do the co-ordination, and we are chipping in to help where we can), and focused on getting the one existing case closed and dealing with the backlog at RFAR. The one item left at RFAR (case requests) I've just asked the clerks (at their noticeboard) to archive. The backlogs at requests for clarifications and amendments is nothing new, but also needs dealing with. An arbitrator has volunteered to take on the new case that just opened (we are waiting for a target date to be set). The items on the agenda are slipping a bit again, but the current top item (the review of what we have done this past six months) is nearly ready (I've been working on that). A summary (in prelude to the full report) should be out very soon - I just need to get my colleagues to approve it. It will be announced on the noticeboard along with any other notices needed as we continue to carry on with the normal business of arbitration (several ban appeals are being dealt with in the background as well). Carcharoth (talk) 06:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you want a cookie? Here.  [[Image:Gingy Cookie.jpg|60px]]  I respect all the hard work, not being paid and all that, and being the subject of the slings and arrows.  But as I just commented on the noticeboard, we all get accusations.  It's not unique to Arbcom.  How do you think we regular editors deal with it when someone says mean things?  Without tools or status we have no choice.  We either quit the project or let it pass.  If I give up in exasperation because people say bad things about me, and because there's a real world job, would anyone lament my absence?  I don't think so.  Contribution has to be self-motivated and self-rewarded.  Arbcom members should strive to be more philosophical than the general membership here, not less, when confronted with accusations.  Wikidemon (talk) 08:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with what you say here. You might want to clarify who your comments are directed at, or whether they are general. I was attempting to explain what we are doing in the short-term, in answer to the question about "any further shennanigans", attempting to show that things are continuing as normal. You then seemed to change the subject to talking about responses to accusations and people giving up in exasperation. I think you might be bringing in thoughts from a different thread. Maybe the NoSeptember#Leaving one below is more about what you are saying here? Carcharoth (talk) 11:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Blanking Arb Comm election pages
I former candidate for the Arbitration Committee has asked me to blank (not delete) pages and page sections related to her candidacy. Are there objections to my doing so? As far as I can tell, it's never been done before, but we do semi-routinely blank RFAs at the subject request (whether or not the user is leaving Wikipedia, which this user has), and this seems to me to be comparable. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 01:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I see no problem with a courtesy blank.--Tznkai (talk) 01:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I rarely favor courtesy blanking.  — Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 01:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem with blanking project pages that are primarily about a person who has left. I would be more cautious about blanking individual sections of pages; but if there were parts of the section which were causing harm and were no longer of any use, I might leave the section title in place but remove the content of the section - this allows searches to pick up the section name.  I've not had time to find and review the pages in question. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If courtesy blanking of a candidacy became necessary, I would rather see a page blanked in its entirety than it be redacted (mainly because the former approach is less likely to lead to mislead or confuse a reader). AGK 14:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Declassification of ArbCom documents
We pride ourselves of transparency, yet it is obvious that ArbCom discussions (via its mailing list and possibly other foras) need to be confidential. Still, as time passes, members of the council resign, editors retire, and so on, it seems to me that there are arguments to consider declassification of older mailing list archives. This would go far towards placating the community, improving ArbCom relations with it, lessen the chance of the committee transforming into an unanswerable oligarchy, and not the least, provide Wikipedia researchers with a very valuable tool. Hence, I'd like to propose that mailing list archives older than 5 (3? 7?) years should be declassified. Please note that similar legal documents worldwide are subject to declassification after a time, and Wikipedia, which prides itself on transparency, should not be more secret than US government (for example :D). Thoughts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * US Government declassification is often 10 years, sometimes longer, and some Brit rules call for 100 years ;-)<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 16:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Though I think the norm is the 30 year rule. Relevance? This is a website, not a state engaged in international diplomacy.--Joopercoopers (talk) 17:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Government secrecy laws are mostly the means by which politicians and bureaucrats hide their scams and thefts. They don't have much bearing on the ways of a privately owned website. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * At least in my mind there are three types of records arbcom could have.
 * . Discussions about internal matters and cases (vast majority of records).
 * . Information disclosed from users that falls under the Privacy Policy (users disclosing real life identities, etc).
 * . Information arbcom creates that falls under the privacy policy (mainly checkuser and oversight results).
 * Now under the Data Retention Policy, the third category probably should be deleted after some period of time without ever being released. The second category also probably should not ever be released, but since it is self-disclosed, I don't know if it falls under the data retention policy.  As to the first category, I'm not sure how it should be treated.  Obviously there are some good (and bad analogies) here.  There is the privacy of jury deliberations that is generally not lifted, although many jurors will talk about it afterward.  There is the privacy of judges' internal papers, but that seems to expire at death by custom.  There is the concept of executive privilege, but even in the real world that is ill-defined.  There are the various FOIA/FOIL laws, but even the US law has an exemption for records related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency, so that wouldn't apply here.  Given the massive volume of emails they must receive, I would probably lean towards some ruleset that only allows release in response to inquiries by AuditCom to prevent having to create a body to review every arb email ever while still maintaining a sense of accountability.  Thoughts?  MBisanz  talk 17:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * One of the reasons that AuditCom was designed with arbs on the subcommittee was to assist in finding threaded discussion about privacy related issues that happen now or in the past on ArbCom-l in needed.
 * Recently, I had a private discussion with another arb about whether we should release the old arbcom-l emails. I don't think we should unless we have that understanding reached now and it would applied forward looking. The main arguement against releasing all written documents is that ArbCom is different than most bodies in that the primary form of communication is written. There is almost no spoken communication among arbs. And no committee work is done verbally even the preliminary preparation of a draft. So, there is emails that have speculative remarks made that in the end are not included in the final work of the Committee. In my opinion, most often this type of stuff does not make it into documents that are released by government organizations. So, this needs to be taken into consideration when discussion about releasing the information. And it could have a chilling effect on people bringing issues to ArbCom in good faith, if they think that a genuine misunderstanding could be blown out of proportion by the release of the information. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 18:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

We are not a nation, and we do not have a government, and certainly no authority that has "classified" the documents.--Tznkai (talk) 20:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * But we do have significant privacy concerns re arbcom matters.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 20:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We should have concerns regarding the legalities of private communications, yes. We shouldn't have concerns about sweeping things under the carpet for reasons of political expediency, if that is what you are arguing. I thought the recent Arbcom's mandate was one of glasnost? --Joopercoopers (talk) 20:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What glasnost has to do with anything? Indeed, what mandate the ArbCom has is a very interesting question, one that is not answered in voting (because some editors may abstain from voting for various important reasons). Perhaps an RfC would be in order? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm just saying, any analogy between ArbCom and government/state/civil rights principles doesn't work well. I think ArbCom should release, or not, as they think best, and the rest of us shouldn't care. I doubt its all that interesting reading to the rest of us.--Tznkai (talk) 22:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that a consensus does exist in the community in support of releasing to the public those Arbcom-l threads that are not of a sensitive nature. The main reason for that, I suspect, is that any threads that are appropriate for public release are probably not ones that are useful nor interesting. The effort that would go into vetting such enormous volumes of e-mails as exist in Arbcom-l's archives wouldn't be well-spent, I would venture to say; that probably applies all the more in light of the various legal questions that have been posed above, as well as queries into such practicalities as who do we trust to vet the e-mails for public release (out of the probably small number of people who are willing to take on such a tedious job). AGK 23:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by FT2
I'd often thought about this, but I don't think it is feasible in practice, though very worthwhile in principle.

A number of cases are still likely to be live several years on. For example:
 * An ex-user with a grudge against another past user might hear of it and sift using a search function for mention of them or the like. Turns out once in 2004 they sent an email to arbcom of the form FIRSTNAME.LASTNAME@WORKPLACE.COM (or sent it to oversight-l and it got forwarded to arbcom-l for oversighters to search for other attack socks related to the same case and to watch for further attacks), and our ex-user who had hung the issue up after numerous threats 5 years ago is off on the trail again, this time with identifying info.
 * A user changes to a new account due to concerns their family, friends, religion, country or workplace would be unhappy with their editing. 8 years on they are still editing. Our archives reveal their old and new account details and an acknowledgement.

You have to assume that if archives are released, they will be scraped and search engined and every mention of a username, IP or email address indexed. The effort to sift those out, on 10 - 20 thousand emails a year, is unfeasible, and it's not clear what if any period might be considered a "safe" one. The issues might mostly be dead, but the private information is still going to be private and may well be "live" (still sensitive).

I don't like this conclusion, so anyone who can suggest a way round the impasse is gladly welcomed to propose it. FT2 (Talk 20:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

User:NoSeptember/Leaving
I'd encourage all Arbitrators to read or re-read User:NoSeptember/Leaving. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * ?...oh ok. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey look, I'm already on that list! :-) It doesn't strictly apply to resignations from elected and appointed positions (such as the Arbitration Committee), but John Vandenberg has indicated such, and I agree with that sentiment as well. Carcharoth (talk) 10:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, Rlevse (who was one of those who recently resumed his service on the committee) has already observed that he probably retired too hastily. I suspect that Coren thinks likewise, on the basis that he has now also took up his seat again. In any case, a little sympathy is needed—arbitrating is not a job I would say that any of us think to be an easy one—but I'd nonetheless prefer to see members of the committee who feel a little stressed out to take a fortnight- or month-long wikibreak than to retire and so stir up drama. (I say this whilst fully aware that, until such times as I've put my money where my mouth is and actually served time on the committee, I am in no position to fairly criticise. *shrug*.) AGK 14:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed that a large dose of sympathy is needed. That said, there's a very real concern regarding the community's confidence in the Committee. Simply put, if the Committee has the outward appearance of being unstable, erratic, and on the verge of coming apart, it cannot effectively work. Are a few heat-of-the-moment retirements going to be the end of Wikipedia or even the end of the Arbitration Committee? No, surely not. But as anyone in public relations knows, outward appearances are very important. Diffs to "omg I quit" aren't particularly inspiring. Though, like you, I say this as someone on the outside looking in. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As someone who signed that pledge back in 2006 (#4, not that numbers matter :) ), I think I can say that some latitude should be allowed to ArbCom members, but MzMcBride is right about the need for stability, or at least the appearance thereof. THAT said, I'm glad Rlevse (and Coren) came back to work. ++Lar: t/c 22:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, it's no so much that I feel I left hastily (I still need(ed) the break), but that the timing ended up being atrocious at best. I did agree to a responsibility that I take seriously, and the good of the committee does override my own desires, at least to a point.  That being said, even a short break gives one a better perspective on things that seem overwhelming from within; so I wouldn't leave so abruptly again, favoring instead short periods of lower activity for rest.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 01:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Right. Look at my contributions by month. You'll see periodic spikes in activity and valleys of inactivity corresponding to real world activity levels. Wikipedia is my hobby, it isn't my life. Too many forget that around here, with the heaviest focus of those who forget concentrated in the ranks of admins, crats, and ArbCom members. Text based, volunteer, online encyclopedia. Try to keep that in focus. ArbCom, by virtue of the process that grants you your seats, is a reflection not of the community, but of the most addicted members of the community. So when you have a dramatic break down, in the guise of the most drama prone and addicted members, it undermines the committee in the eyes of the larger community, who are here simply to tinker with or create articles. 99% of the people who come to Wikipedia either do not know what you are, or just don't care that you exist. For most of us, you only matter when we run into some asinine half-baked semi-solution that does little to solve an underlying issue, but does a lot in the effort to create more process. An encyclopedia is about content. You don't deal with content. Every dispute on Wikipedia is ultimately about content. This makes you... what, exactly?
 * Whatever it is you are supposed to be, 99% of us don't care about it. We care about content, and are stuck having to kiss your hind quarters simply because you exist. Not because you serve a purpose. So when you start behaving like imbeciles, dropping off the committee and rejoining it in a dramatic, childish, foot stomping manner, you become an obstacle to creating a better encyclopedia, because any authority you have is entirely undermined by the dramatic display of immaturity. I'm in my 30's. I'm married, and I own a house. I participate in Wikipedia because it is an intellectually stimulating exercise that gives me the opportunity to learn and think. I'm an admin because I feel, after four years contributing, that I have some sense of ownership here. My thoughts, my ideas, my research, and my time are all woven anonymously into the fabric of this project. When people talk about Wikipedia, I don't jump out of my seat and point to it as my own. But I do silently acknowledge with a deep sense of pride that they are discussing something which I build, and protect. So when an institution like ArbCom exists in such a project, I believe that it should be devoid of drama created by the seated members. Drama will always surround your decisions, but when you are the fuel for the fire, it is a profound annoyance for those of us forced to abide by your thinking. What reasonable person would allow themselves to be judged by a group of unknowns who give the outward appearance of spoiled 12 year old children? I can hardly take you seriously, and I'm an administrator who has never been on the wrong end of an ArbCom decision. There are what, 600 active admins? That's your constituency, base of support, and talent pool to fill future opening. A handful out of millions of users who don't know you exist, and don't care that you're stressed. That handful probably breaks pretty evenly into camps that support your effort out of a sense of supporting those who take on a thankless task, and a camp of those who are simply baffled by your thinking and know that we could manage this place whether you existed or not. We tolerate you because we have to. You occupy a position of authority that few can achieve here. That is a privilege. If you drop off the committee, you have lost our trust. You need to recognize this, and take responsibility for your actions since you are the people who make other people take responsibility for their actions. Remain off the committee. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow. I have to say that I disassociate entirely with Hiberniantear's - an admin and editor I have a good deal of respect for - above comment. I know about stress, and I know about the crippling effect it has upon perspective and distance and calmness and the ability and desire to continue engaging upon the issues which gives rise to the internal tensions. I'm even older than Hiberniantears, and I interact on Wikipedia as a volunteer because for me also it is a hobby - one that provides me with intellectual relief from the mundane pressures of family life and employment. Admins, and those few established editors whose orientation is entirely content production or promotion but choose not to seek sysop flags, are the very fortunate ones owing to the elder states(wo)man status that it entails. I am in awe of those volunteers who decide to take on the extra responsibilities and attendant pressures of ArbCom (and 'Crat and Steward) for the negligible, and even negative, "rewards" that accrue.
 * The ArbCom is not the creature that it was created as - for a long time it has not been Jimbo's retinue or camp followers attempting to replicate his likely responses - and it has been forced to grow without any real direction or plan, but according to the influence of those elected to it by the community and, less significantly over time, Jimbo. Those Arbs in the final year of their term likely are sitting in a Committee vastly different to that which they joined and certainly that which they were familiar with prior to their candidature. Such growing pains invariably impinge upon the considerations of the Committee members as they seek to encompass both the vague traditional role with that of satisfying the demands of an ever wider and better informed community in being the place of ultimate conflict resolution, and the potential of even those persons who were elected partly on the basis of their being able to remain above the emotional aspects of resolving issues becoming soured and exasperated by the conflicting expectations and limitations of the role and making decisions and announcements that may be considered by some as inappropriate for persons in that position. Hell, ultimately they are just volunteers like the rest of us and since they are drawn from that pool then once in a while they are going to model the same behaviours as some of that membership; there being plenty of admins who have stomped away with declarations of not returning, with strongly worded messages of perceived failures of the project, who have returned and often quietly continued with their contributing, and quite a few editors too.
 * I, too, should have preferred that no sitting Arb would resign over a perceived single matter, but recognise that that one issue was likely the last one of a series that prompted the decision. My preferences are nothing, however, to the need for any Committee member to manage stress in the manner and moment they feel is best, and if a "Grand Staircase Exit" provides the necessary relief then I would not begrudge them that. I think, in keeping with a couple of proposals I have been recently involved in, that the pressures upon ArbCom members in trying to achieve results in an increasingly frustrating environment needs looking at and procedures introduced to help it be better managed - and owing to those pressures that the community should be largely involved in formulating them, with input and perspective as required.
 * I don't suppose that either Hiberniantears or my singular viewpoints in this matter reflects the admin corp or editorship - those, as H mentions, knows and cares anyhow - one. I simply wanted to place an alternative consideration of there being pressures and stresses in being on the ArbCom, and that sometimes people react in ways that may not be considered optimum by others. It happens. The response should, in my view, to find ways of diminishing it, and not castigating the individual for having human frailties. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Goodness. Two of the longest posts I've ever seen on this page, and among the most insightful as well. Thanks for that. I agree with large parts of what you both say, if that is not too contradictory a stance, and there are issues here that need addressing. Maybe not right now, but at a moment when things are calmer. Actually, things are calm now, but a bit of time will give some of the perspective needed here to decide how to react to events like this in future, I think. Carcharoth (talk) 04:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well said, and I greatly appreciate the thoughtful response. @ LHvU, no offense taken. I even agree with much of what you said as well. This is a talk page. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem with that - I was only commenting upon the comment myself. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Arbitration Committee and User:ArbCom
Over four years ago, Szyslak created User:Arbitration Committee and User:ArbCom to "reserve" their use in case the ArbCom ever wanted to use them for a role account. That use has never materialized, but I recently noticed Category:Wikipedia contact role accounts, where accounts like User:Oversight are used so Special:Emailuser/Oversight sends an email to the oversight mailing list. I'm wondering if you want to do something similar, so people can user Special:Emailuser to send email to the ArbCom mailing list.

When I asked, Szyslak indicated he's quite happy to turn over the reins to you. I'll let you and Szyslak handle the specifics by email (like whether this should be by usurpation or by just giving you the passwords), but I thought I'd play matchmaker and suggest you talk to each other. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this. We had considered this earlier in the year, but never got round to it. I'll bring it up again and we will contact Szyslak, or he can contact us if this slips down the agenda again. Carcharoth (talk) 04:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Publication of half-year summary of arbitration activities
Pursuant to the Arbitration Committee agenda item Review Committee performance, a half-year summary of arbitration activities has been published at January to June 2009 report. Comments and feedback are invited on the talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Carcharoth (talk) 04:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Appeal Committee
It is proposed to create an Appeal Committee to appeal, among other things, ArbCom decisions, please see and discuss here. Cenarium (talk) 02:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Secret ballot for future elections
This issue has been raised before, but I noticed today that the current oversight and checkuser elections are not being done with secret ballot, but with a public "voting" system. I believe the many flaws of public votes for elected offices are well known.

I have abstained from voting in previous arbcom elections until I can cast my votes in secret, and I will continue to do so.

I would like to ask arbcom to consider accepting for discussion my proposal for a motion: "An option to vote by secret ballot will be provided in all future arbcom, oversight, and checkuser elections." &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 01:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Putting aside the philosophical questions for a moment, who or what entity did you imagine monitoring the vote to insure their is no fraud?--Tznkai (talk) 01:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would be content, in this context, to trust the Boardvote software, just as I trust checkusers with personal data. Arbcom might need to nominate some uninvolved users to tally votes, depending on how Boardvote is implemented. But the software to handle secret ballots is already written and tested in WMF elections, and the developers have said often that they will accommodate our needs if we ask. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 01:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Carl, I agree 100 percent, and was about to propose the same thing. The quid pro quos, tactical voting, and grandstanding in the ArbCom elections is well-known, and very much to the detriment of the project. The question is what we have to do to set up a secret ballot. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 01:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I also agree with this without reservation. In fact, the Boardvote software also has the valuable property of implementing a preferential voting system &mdash; which is arguably exactly what we'd want for selection of arbitrators.  Though the last is a desirable property, it's not (in my mind) a requirement &mdash;  I can live with first-past-the-post if it's also a secret ballot.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 02:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Since you're an arbitrator, I want to make sure I am clear I am asking arbcom to take this up as a formal motion (and, I hope, pass it). There would be plenty of time between now and December to get the software in line if the decision to do so were made soon. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 02:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You may need that time too. SecurePoll, the package that replaced Boardvote, only just barely managed to accomplish the licensing update vote.  It should be better during the Trustee election that is about to begin, but it is still definitely a beta version.  It would be nice to have a secure polling infrastructure that can be easily and locally managed, but it is definitely not a finished product at the moment.  Dragons flight (talk) 18:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears that mw:Extension:SecurePoll, mw:Extension:BoardVote, and mw:Extension:Vote are all still supported, could one of the latter two work better?  MBisanz  talk 18:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Brion and Tim consider SecurePoll to be the replacement for BoardVote (though obviously with some significant wrinkles still being worked out). I don't know anything about Vote.  Dragons flight (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think we can, as a committee, determine the voting method; though we can obviously make our own opinion in the matter known. I suppose I can propose that we vote on it, but even if the motion does pass will the community accept the result?  &mdash; Coren (talk) 23:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless arbitration policy has changed since last year, Jimbo decides the winners of the arbcom elections, and since he has also expressed support for a secret ballot option, I doubt he would overrule you there. Arbcom itself controls the checkuser and oversight elections (the only reason there is an election in the first place is because arbcom holds one). So you have complete freedom to set the format for those.


 * The situation that we need to avoid is months of discussion, leading up to a decision on November 2 about the format for the election in December. That would not leave time to implement any changes. That's why I raised this issue now. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 23:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I certainly agree with that. I'll bring the matter up with the committee (this talk page is not frequented a great deal, and this discussion might not be seen for some time); it'll be a nice change to work on something constructive instead of drama for a while.  :-)  &mdash; Coren (talk) 23:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I wonder whether Jimbo will still want to be involved this year, as there was opposition last year to his choosing or vetoing candidates. If we have a secret ballot, there would be no reason not to simply go with the results. I can't see any section of the community opposing this, to be honest, because it's so clearly overdue. We could put up an RfC on the situation, just to be sure.


 * My suggestion would be to open an RfC page, Requests for comment/ArbCom secret ballot, with the proposal that we (a) arrange a secret ballot for this year's election, voting method yet to be decided (first-past-the-post or preferential voting); and (b) that the results of the ballot alone will determine who is elected to the committee. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 23:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Imma go do that shortly, actually. &mdash; Coren (talk) 00:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please note I am talking about an option to vote by secret ballot, in addition to the old system. This would be a compromise to moving everything to a secret ballot. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 23:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, that can't work technically &mdash; there'd be no reasonably efficient way of checking for double votes, it would be impossible to merge the results properly without a very error-prone manual process, and the public voting could still be used as a platform to game the electoral process (which is the point of using a secret ballot in the first place). I doubt you'd get much traction for an hybrid system.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 00:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There is one way, but it is prone to significant confusion - which is to have only the secret ballot count, but a public voting area available for people to make their proclamations. This has significant costs however with potential for confusion and then drama when the exits (public votes) don't match with the results.--Tznkai (talk) 00:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that voting guides and individual pages with an users comments on candidates will still exist. And the same or similar process for Q&A. What I want to eliminate is inflammatory comment on the page. Private voting page will help people vote more freely without people worrying about other people/s reacting to their vote. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 01:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have committed the deed by making SV's link a much prettier blue. &mdash; Coren (talk) 00:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As a note, I always suck at remembering the best places to publicize a discussion; anyone who feels it should be mentioned somewhere is welcome to link to it. &mdash; Coren (talk) 00:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree entirely with the proposal for a secret ballot. However, this neglects the elephant in the living room: since the elections for en.WP's arbcom are still monarchical—that is, they merely advise Mr Wales—at the very least we need him to declare BEFORE the election how many candidates will be appointed. There is no reason this should not be done, AFAICS. Tony   (talk)  05:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Or find a way to decide ourselves how many are needed. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 05:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This would be a most welcome, in fact overdue, reform. If the ballot is to be secret, we need public, open assurance about the relationship between (i) the democratic election results, and (ii) the actual appointments. And I'm not accusing anyone of cherry picking, but establishing the numbers beforehand is the only way to preclude the perception that cherry picking might be a possibility ("I'll appoint five, because I'm uncomfortable with the views of the sixth most popular candidate on X issue"). Tony   (talk)  05:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Calendar
Very, very minor point, but I always liked the look of the big calendar with the "Due" items and the Done ticks, but now it looks like it's been falling behind with the ticking off. Could someone update it? Cool. - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 09:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Appeals Committee (2)
There is now a proposal for an Appeal Committee, empowered to appeal sanctions imposed by administrators or by the community, but not sanctions directly imposed by ArbCom (this is a lower 'court'). Cenarium (talk) 13:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Your input is requested there. Cenarium (talk) 15:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Giano and wtf?
So it's no secret that Giano has some special right to expressing himself that other editors lack, but this is really over the line. I also seem to remember a caution from Arbcomm asking Admins not to take unilateral action when Giano is involved, but I can't find it (last year?). So, I have a couple questions. Does he have special rights when expressing himself like this? It's an ongoing issue obviously, are there any plans at all to rein him in? Telling someone to fuck off is way way beyond acceptable...certainly the reasons for that are too obvious to require elaboration. I considered a warning but that would be ineffective and drama inducing. It's time Arbcom steps in with a more direct approach. Motions have been pretty effective lately, maybe something along those lines? But it's gone beyond a admin issue. Thanks... RxS (talk) 18:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You mean the Arbcom Giano Special Dispensation Act of 2008 ? <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 19:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note his restriction ended 9 Feb, so the Special Act non longer applies.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 20:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Read this please before doing something harmful to the project: User:Jehochman/Rude. User:FT2 appears to have posted at a place where he should have known he was not welcome to post. Giano retaliated.  Please don't set off Acts III, IV and V by retaliating against Giano.  Be smart.  Separate the combatants and let them cool down (and not with a block). Jehochman Talk 19:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, this comment/question was directed at Arbcom but since this is a Wiki anyone can edit anywhere (mostly). That includes you and also includes FT2. What we can't do is tell people to fuck off. RxS (talk)


 * I agree with you completely, but we have to handle the situation in a way that reduces the conflict, rather than to inflame it. Jehochman Talk 20:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes: Restriction on further enforcement. Does Arbcom consider this acceptable conduct? If not, and since this is a ongoing issue, under what circumstances will Arbcom give explicit written agreement to sanction this behavior? Or alternatively, will Arbcom sanction this themselves? RxS (talk) 19:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If the problem is using "fuck" then let's list that as being against WP:CIVIL somewhere. If the problem is saying "fuck off", then let's list that as being against WP:CIVIL somewhere. But (collectively) you won't, because the Arbs and Admins prefer the descretion to pick and chose what "incivility" is on Wiki; thus empowering hundreds of Admins (not all intellectually gifted I must observe) to make it up as they go along. This leads to random abuse of power, random blocks, Admins using their power againsr editors they are in dispute with and, ultimately this causes very many good editors to have zilch respect for Admins in general and some in particular. Time to fix this. It will not go away. Sarah777 (talk) 19:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that telling someone to fuck off is far enough over the line that it doesn't need to specifically disallowed. And I specifically acknowledge that Admins should not be acting unilaterally in this case, both because it's not been effective and because Arbcom has asked them not to. I don't know what to do about admin misconduct (or disrespect) but this isn't about that. RxS (talk) 20:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We can start by correcting some things then: "Arbcom has asked them not to" - this was correct, but is no longer correct. As I said below, that restriction expired earlier this year with the civility parole. Me? I'm disinclined to do anything because I was lobbied via a mailing list to do something. That immediately tells me I should disclose that and step back and let others deal with it. Carcharoth (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would also like to note here that people (no, I'm not going to name them) are lobbying arbitrators via the ArbCom mailing list to do something here. This is a clear use of back-channel communications to try and affect what happens here. This doesn't happen with other editors. Some may feel that Giano gets special treatment in his favour, but he also gets a lot of special treatment the other way as well. Of course what Giano said was not appropriate, but please concentrate on resolving the actual dispute that led to this, not making Giano's comment the focal point of a new dispute. For what it is worth, what Rlevse refers to as the Giano Special Dispensation Act of 2008 is no longer in force. It said: "Until further notice, no enforcement action relating to Giano's civility parole shall be taken without the explicit written agreement of the Committee." - that provision expired at the same time as Giano's civility parole expired, at some point earlier this year. Carcharoth (talk) 20:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like to make clear that any back-channel communication referred to, does not involve me. FT2 (Talk 01:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not interested in resolving this dispute because there will always be the next one where he thinks he can act this way. This is an ongoing issue that rises above this or that dispute. RxS (talk) 20:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ditto, in a way. My point is general re WP:CIVILITY. I might agree that saying "fuck off" is outside the pale - if we had a clearly defined pale - or if we even tried to have one. But we don't. And while we have Admins who shouldn't be entrusted with a baby rattle loose with blocking powers for "civility" I feel that I must object to all  arbitrary definitions of what constitutes "incivility". The past five years of Wiki-experience have demonstrated beyond any doubt that these things cannot simply be left to the vagaries of random Admins.The are causing way more problems that they are solving. Sarah777 (talk) 20:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If you look at WP:CIVIL, it says that we don't block people for being rude, because blocking is these situations is counter-productive. Read the first section carefully.  If rudeness rises to the level of harassment or serious personal attacks, we may block.  Jehochman Talk 20:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Define rude? (Believe me, I'm a expert on WP:CIVIL) Sarah777 (talk) 20:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Rude is the opposite of civil. Rudeness is an action or word that shows a lack of respect for the time, efforts and feelings of others. Jehochman Talk 21:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This is really simple. Anyone other than Giano (or Bishonen, apparently) would be blocked immediately for telling another editor to fuck off. ArbCom needs to make up its mind: do we have special rules for certain people or not? If not, block him--tell him to fuck off, essentially--with both 1) a significantly long enough duration (I suggest 30 days) to drive home that it's not acceptable, and 2) an unequivocal warning from ArbCom that this block stays. Or, ArbCom--and by extension, the community--admits that some people get a free pass on doing whatever they want, and therefore all of our policies against personal attacks are pointless. Should ArbCom choose the second, I'll be happy to MfD the relevant policies as null and void. Seriously, either the policy applies to everyone or it does not. And don't bother with any IAR nonsense; blocking Giano does not interfere with building an encyclopedia; quite the opposite. Equal treatment should be the guiding principle here, and continually allowing Giano to get away with this is completely unfair to everyone else on the project who isn't allowed to get away with this. → ROUX   ₪  21:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Telling someone to fuck off isn't a personal attack. It's rude, no doubt, but that doesn't make it a personal attack. There are plenty of admins who use such language, and worse, without any consequence to them, and unless admins are prepared to apply the same standards to themselves accross the board, it is unfair to selectively apply them to out-of-favour non-admins. Giano has many faults, but he has also contributed more of value than most of the admins I've seen put together. You want equal treatment? Fine, I actually want that too, but it has to start with those in power being treated like the rest of us first, not the other way round. DuncanHill (talk) 21:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Here are some examples of real personal attacks, all from admins and one from one of the sole-co-founders, none of which resulted in any action against the offender "I have been accused of "mindless policy wonkery" for warning an experienced editor about a breach of Wikipedia's policy against personal attacks. It has also been suggested on-wiki that I am shabby, lack compassion and understanding, have a "naturally acidic personality", sounding "seriously uneducated" and (my favourite) "behaving like a spoiled brat". DuncanHill (talk) 21:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone else got away with it isn't a defense. RxS (talk) 21:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Stop the flaming hypocrisy before picking on individuals with less power than you is a valid request. DuncanHill (talk) 21:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You certainly don't see me using language like that, and I have 34 featured items to my credit. Duncan-are you saying producing good content gives someone the right to be rude.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 21:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that as long as Jimbo and many admins can & do get away with direct personal attacks, it stinks that a very good content contributor gets picked on for far less serious offences. DuncanHill (talk) 21:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have always felt everyone should be held to the same standard, but I can't watch every edit on wiki ;-) Admins should be held to a higher standard. Right or wrong and for whatever reasons, whenever Giano is involved in one of these situations, there seems to be extra drama and that is why many people are hesitant to take action, they don't want the extra drama. I'm not saying that's right, but that's reality in many cases. Incivility causes extra problems, ie, debates on what it is and how to handle it. If users would be civil in the first place, we could avoid that. But they often are incivil and we have extra threads, taking more time from content. There are three threads on today's Giano comments, all because he decided to be rude on two different pages. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 21:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A fish rots from the head down. If people are really serious about improving the atmosphere on Wikipedia they should start with the editors with the most power and influence. DuncanHill (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You're saying I'm rotten? Or Jimbo?<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 22:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you know who I mean - but I'll spell it out for those who need it. Jimbo engages in personal attacks on those who criticise his actions. A significant number of admins engage in personal attacks in a like manner. No-one warns them (we have a ridiculous notion of "not templating the regulars". No-one can pull off a block on them, and it takes literally years to get anything done about them. There are clear favourites on Wikipedia who receive special treatment, and clear scapegoats, like Giano, who get regularly picked on for behaviour that would not be commented on if it was engaged in by others. DuncanHill (talk) 22:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a fish. I know fish; I used to be a fishmonger. Jehochman Talk 22:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I personally would block ALL people who participated at the Bishonen's talk page except Xavegogem, Bishonen, Ryan, Jehochman and the arbitrators who intervened. The rest were helping increase the drama. Giano's action was the worst of course but there's little difference between uncivility and participating and increasing the drama. I can't block anyone now since I could be dragged in to an arbcom case accused of punishing violators. Now, can we stop this please? -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"> FayssalF - <font style="background: gold">Wiki me up® 22:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is going nowhere. What we've learned is telling someone to fuck off is within (effective) acceptable conduct. RxS (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ....and don't forget "cocksuckers" - that's OK too. Giano (talk) 22:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * He was blocked for that. RxS (talk) 23:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * By me. There's a difference between saying fuck off, which translates to go away, and calling somebody a cocksucker, which is equivalent to calling them a faggot (especially if directed at a male).  One is diffuse rudeness, the other is more personal and could potentially be a slur against somebody's sexual orientation. I'm  concerned about Giano's use of darling directed at Durova.  I'm not going to make an administrative determination on that one, but I think it is more serious than the fuck off.  Jehochman Talk 01:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you think that, then think about how that comment, which he used towards two different people today in two different threads, has caused all this drama on at least 3 different pages.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 01:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Your colleague FayssalF seems to think that the excessive responses of other editors are equally to fault. I agree that Giano is stirring up drama, but so are the others.  If the problem is drama-mongering, or creating a battle, then you need to address the behavior of all. (If you decide to take action, consider my opinion as that of a concerned editor, rather than an uninvolved administrator.  These people are all my friends or former friends.) Jehochman Talk 01:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's simply ridiculous to claim telling someone to fuck off is the same as telling someone to go away...not anywhere I know of and not anywhere that claims to hold people to a civil standard. It's completely disingenuous as well. It's also disingenuous (and wrong) to equate someone who is persistently uncivil with those that call him on it. RxS (talk) 02:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * RxS, you're entitled to your views, and I hope you will respect that my views might not be the same as yours. People can disagree without being disingenuous or worthy of ridicule. Jehochman Talk 02:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I respect that we may disagree, but I (respectfully speaking) don't respect the arguments themselves. I sincerely apologize if I've personally attacked you or been uncivil. Since that's what this whole debate is about it would be particularly dim witted of me to engage in them myself. I have to admit though that I'm frustrated by that line of argument on several levels. I'll just borrow a phrase Baseball Bugs used tonight on the Peter Damian ban discussion. Too often I hear the "look at what he(they) made me(him) do" defense when talking about Giano's continuing incivility. I’m also frustrated by other lines of argument that say what he really meant by (insert insulting and offensive phrase) was (insert some inane phrase) and anyway it’s not offensive where I live or among my friends. Oh well…I know I’m pissing into the wind here but I’m just afraid that once we start down this road (where telling someone to fuck off is acceptable) we’ll just end up as another forum full of members barking at each other. That’s just as much of a danger to Wikipedia as other “end of Wikipedia” scenarios.
 * Thank you for taking my point. I agree that people can't be telling each other to fuck off.  However, when something like that happens, it is best to let those who are overwrought calm down naturally, and when they are calm again, get them to modify or remove scandalous comments.  In this case, Bishonen wiped that mess off her talk page, thus restoring decorum.  Jehochman Talk 05:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, what we are learning is that everyone is responsible by everyone is blaming the other! Now, would you support me if I block the lot? -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"> FayssalF - <font style="background: gold">Wiki me up® 22:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup, commensurate with their individual block logs. → ROUX   ₪  22:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

A modest proposal
Can we just stop talking about Giano?--Tznkai (talk) 21:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't hold your breath on that one. The very fact that Rlevse states above "whenever Giano is involved in one of these situations" should pretty much tell you all you need to know. A very small handful of editors suck all the air out of the room, and anyone who tries to clean up the mess finds themselves knee deep in manure. Either because the crazies descend upon them, or because that person is rude to one of the and finds themselves subjected to some kind of sanction by this committee or one of the other powers that be. Giano isn't going away, no matter how tiresome he becomes. Wikipedia is structured as a game of endurance. If you want to be a pain in the ass, we can't get rid of you. We can periodically make it more or less difficult to edit freely. But ultimately, this is a castle without any gates, and the captains of the guard don't seem to see any issue with that set-up. Best just to leave him be and save yourselves the angst. Hiberniantears (talk) 22:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That is worth quoting widely for truth. → ROUX   ₪  22:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Brings tears to this Hibernian's eyes....Sarah777 (talk) 23:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm always astounded that editors find plain language and curses to be so extraordinarily outrageous and block worthy when we have other behaviors that are far more disruptive and obnoxious that go on regularly. Examples include blocks without warnings. Template style warnings when a short note would do. Hounding of editors on their talk pages after they've made their desire to end the conversation clear. Posting jokes at an editor's expense when they are requesting help on a noticeboard and are already upset and frustrated. Reverting good faith edits rather than tweaking or fixing them to be difficult. Etc. etc. Yet there is all this outrage over someone saying fuck off? Get over it. Honestly. It's the least of our worries. If someone wants to slam their front door on the Jehova's Witnesses or yell at telemarketers that's their privlege. It's rude. It should be discouraged. But it's not the end of the world. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Clarification and amendment requests
How long should one single editor wait between each clarification and amendment request they make to the Arbitration Committee? What is the suggested time period arbitrators desire? — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 05:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Page merger?
At the moment, WP:CHECK and WP:SIGHT point to CheckUser/Appointments for an explanation of the reasoning related to appointments, and the appointment methods used.

Separately there is WP:AC/CheckUser and Oversight elections which is the current AC policy for the appointment process.

These could probably do with merging, so that the latter page would then contain main sections "General background" "History" and then "Current process". Are the arbs ok with this?

FT2 (Talk 14:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Done, now the election is over and the pages not so high profile. FT2 (Talk 16:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Old page names still intact on old cases
This year, the Arbitration Committee moved its pages to a more organized format.

However, the cases prior to the moves are still with the old names. For example: Those are just a few examples, out of hundreds if not more. What should be done with these names? Should they be moved to the current formatting of names, or should they stay with the historical "requests for arbitration" names? A better look at evidence can be seen at Arbitration/Index/Cases. -- Mythdon  talk •  contribs  00:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Requests for arbitration/Ryulong
 * Requests for arbitration/Durova
 * Requests for arbitration/Date delinking
 * Requests for arbitration/Scientology
 * Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride
 * Requests for arbitration/Locke Cole
 * Requests for arbitration/Aitias
 * Thanks for pointing this out. There are currently no plans to move the old cases. For the new cases, it would be helpful to have redirects from the old page structure created, or to have the templates that still create links using the old page structure changed to use the new page structure. One thing that does need to be guarded against is a new case using the same name as an older case under the old page structure (particularly for "second" or "third" cases). I would suggest asking the clerks if they think moving pages or creating redirects would help avoid name clashes. WT:AC/C is the clerks noticeboard. Carcharoth (talk) 15:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As long as cases are listed at Arbitration/Index, it shouldn't matter what they are called. Thatcher 20:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * One problem with the inconsistency is that it makes it more difficult to maintain Requests for arbitration/Statistics 2009, specifically the section "Clarifications and other requests", since the code which automates the case name linking can't know which page structure to use. Right now it assumes the old structure since so far most requests pertain to "old" cases. But that will be more of a problem as time goes by. Paul August &#9742; 21:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Func-en update
Given the new appointment of CU/OS, could the func-en mailing list membership be updated? Thanks.  MBisanz  talk 03:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I will e-mail functionaries-en and the list admins should get round to it soon. It is also possible to e-mail that mailing list direct with requests like that, though this isn't an urgent or private request, obviously. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 03:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

arb committee scope
A Russian asked a question at the help desk here, which hasn't been answered. I don't feel qualified to answer.-- SPhilbrick  T  20:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting us know. I answered here. More could probably be said, but I think what I said there is correct. Carcharoth (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Noticeboard now on Coordination
Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard is now featured on Coordination's noticeboard listings. @harej 08:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to transform the Audit Subcommittee in an independent committee and grant new responsibilities
Please see here for details on this proposal, and preliminary discussion. Cenarium (talk) 22:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The question of the independence has been reported for later consideration, and there is now a proposal to add new responsibilities to the Audit Subcommittee and regularly organize CU/OS elections. Cenarium (talk) 03:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions
How do users appeal/request amendment to discretionary sanctions to the Arbitration Committee? Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 16:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You, specifically, should find an admin with significant amounts of clue, and ask them first whether you should. → ROUX   ₪  16:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Ban Appeals Subcommittee
The coordinating arbitrator or their deputy shall refer all appeals from banned or long-term blocked users received by the Committee to the Ban Appeals Subcommittee. - found where?!--124.183.146.14 (talk) 03:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ARBCOM. If you want to reach the subcommittee, just email the regular Arbitration Committee email address, found on Arbitration Committee. Risker (talk) 05:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Note to ArbCom
Hi. I hope I'm posting in the right place. If not, I hope someone will refactor this to a more suitable location. I was recently involved, quite superficially, in a case where I volunteered to help with some mentoring work. I'm posting here to let the Committee know that this is one kind of work that interests me, and that you're welcome to ask me in the future if I'm available to mentor an editor who could use some guidance, possibly as an alternative to harsher sanctions. The terms I offered for 194x are basically the terms under which I'd be willing to work in any other case. Naturally, my availability may vary, but I'm always open to being asked whether I've got time. Thanks for your time -GTBacchus(talk) 20:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * GTBacchus, thank you very much for telling us this! One of the greatest challenges in considering mentorship as an arbitration solution is finding suitable mentors. Your range of skills and experience certainly makes you an excellent candidate for just about any situation. We will, no doubt, be in touch.  Risker (talk) 21:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm drawing up a list of cases where mentorship remedies were passed but no mentors found, and I will post a link here when that is done. What is also needed is to get others interested in mentoring as well. Carcharoth (talk) 12:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Who is
User:Scuro is supposed to have a mentor; how do I find out who the mentor is and/or whether such a mentor even exists? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You could ask him. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 00:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Scruo's talk page indicates only failed efforts to find a mentor, so I assume that ArbComm found it necessary to appoint one. As Scruo's ability to acquire, and, more importantly, to retain, a mentor was one of my primary concerns during the case proceedings, I would like to know what the status is -- and, then, assuming that any mentor exists, to suggest that s/he watchlist the ADHD nomination at WP:MCOTW, where certain editors are failing to win friends and influence people.
 * Shouldn't a mentor's appointment be noted in the "enforcement" section of the case? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * And now we have Requests for mediation/ADHD, on exactly the same issues at the ArbCom case. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please remember that Mediations are privileged and may never be cited in other dispute resolution forums.  MBisanz  talk 18:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not strictly true. It is permissible to mention that a request for mediation was made and rejected or accepted. What is not permissible is to refer to behaviour during mediation as a reason for sanctions elsewhere. Carcharoth (talk) 12:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought the relationship between these two was obvious, but let me spell it out for you:
 * On July 14th, Arbcom required Scuro to have a mentor. Scuro, despite trying, was unable to find a mentor.  (This outcome should not have surprised either any participant or any Arbcom member.)  If Scuro was unable to produce a mentor by August 14th, Arbcom promised to appoint one themselves.  It's now September 17th.  Apparently, no mentor has been appointed.  There's not even any evidence that Arbcom remembers this case exists.
 * It is my belief that this request for mediation would not exist if Arbcom had either appointed a mentor a month ago, as promised, or -- if Arbcom had determined that it was impossible to find a mentor willing to work with Scuro -- they had moved to a different solution that could be achieved with the resources at hand (e.g., a topic ban). Arbcom's failure to follow through on its promises appears to be creating work for other groups in dispute resolution:  they need to take some kind of action, even if that action is just to say "Ha ha, we lied about appointing a mentor.  You can ignore that part."  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A mentor should have been appointed, and I apologise that this was not done. See the section above this one, where I state that I'm drawing up a list of cases where mentorship remedies were passed, and highlighting the ones where the remedies were not acted upon. As far as advice about what to do here went, please see here. I advised Hordaland on 23 August 2009 what to do here (file a request for clarification), and notified him of my reply here. Hordaland has since filed a request for amendment, so now something will almost certainly get done. As I said, apologies for this, but now we are dealing with it, please accept the apology and tone down the bit about lies and not being aware of what is happening here. Carcharoth (talk) 12:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It sounds like ArbCom's bureaucratic burden would be reduced by adding two small and straightforward steps to a mentorship resolution:
 * Every mentorship resolution comes with a built-in "And if we can't find a mentor, or the mentor quits..." statement. This should be simple, and it would allow ArbCom to tailor the consequence to the situation instead of defaulting to a one-size-fits-all alternative.
 * The identity and status of mentors are recorded on the case page (perhaps under "Enforcement"). A clerk can add an initial note saying something like "(User) is required to have an active mentor for at least (period of time).  No mentor has been identified yet.  Alternate sanctions begin on (date) if no mentor has been appointed by that time.  Please replace this text with the name(s) of all mentors and the dates of their appointments."  Mentors can remove their names from the case pages, or add a note about no longer serving, when they quit/go inactive/can't continue for any reason during the stated time frame.  New mentors can be added at any time simply by adding their names.
 * ArbCom doesn't appear to have the bandwidth to spare for paperwork problems like this, so moving to an "autopilot" system, wherein a single quick glance can tell you whether a mentor is on record, is likely to be an improvement from the members' perspective. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Offputting jargon
In the section about removal of sysop access, the "Level 1" and "Level 2" headings are offputting and contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Could you please change those headings to make them more transparent and descriptive, such as "Emergency" and "Non-emergency"? Jehochman Talk 12:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I second this; it seems convoluted even by Wikipedian bureaucratic standards.  Skomorokh   14:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Or just RTFM. Thatcher 00:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * How is "read the policy" supposed to address a concern with the nomenclature?  Skomorokh   00:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no Arbitration Committee "emergency" desysop situation. If something is a true emergency (like an admin going nuts and deleting the main page), any Wikipedian need only flag down the nearest steward, point out the problem, and the stewards have authority and procedures to take necessary steps. The temporary desysop that the Arbitration Committee addresses in this process is one that permits removal of advanced permissions during an investigation, or before the full committee can review the results of an investigation, but where there is significant risk of disruption or other harm to the project. Risker (talk) 00:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I am disappointed that you did not address my concern. What follows such as in my comment are example words. Those might not be the best ones. I don't understand what Level 1 and Level 2 mean. Please translate that jargon into plain English. Jehochman Talk 01:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Using descriptive titles, I would call "Level I": "Preventative desysop pending investigation resolution". In the same spirit, I would call "Level II": "Preventative desysop due to lack of response". They are self-explanatory as titles. Vassyana (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Saw this a few days ago and drafted a reply I forgot to post. Sorry. It would help (since the talk page of the page in question is a redirect to here) if those posting about such pages provide a link back to the text being discussed. Anyway, my views are:
 * Level I = rapid desysop without preliminary contact being made and requiring only three arbs and no opposes, while Level II= slower desysop including contact with the account and requiring a full majority. It should be made clearer that Level I is followed by a statement, hopefully within a few days at most (i.e. effectively moving to the process in Level II). Level 2 includes the time to draw up such a statement. I would say "Level I procedures (rapid removal)" and "Level II procedures (removal by full motion)" would be good titles.
 * That might not tally exactly with what Vassyana said, but that's how I see it. Level II is not really removal due to lack of response, as a poor response might still lead to removal by the motion in progress. The real differences are the speed, the different quorum and passing conditions, and the point at which contact is made with the account in question. At some point, a list of Level I and Level II removals should be drawn up. I've stated that Nichalp's access levels were effectively dealt with this way, and that Geogre's access levels were dealt with in a way approximating level II. Pastor Theo was Level I procedure, as was Piotrus. The Piotrus example has led to a full case. The others didn't. Carcharoth (talk) 13:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In a professional capacity I spend a lot of time with webmasters coming up with better titles for pages and sections of pages. I think Level 1 and Level 2 are poor headings because they convey no information.  "Expedited Removal by Subcommittee" and "Removal Upon Full Committee Motion" might be examples of better headings. Sorry for the delay.  I lost track of this thread. Jehochman Talk 01:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Feedback
I could use some feedback on what role Arbcom would like to play in tool-removal at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship. - Dank (push to talk) 16:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Feedback is still welcome if you want to give it, but it doesn't appear to me that we're converging on a solution at this time. I'll give a holler the next time there's a general discussion about interaction between Arbcom and RFA. - Dank (push to talk) 22:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Redirect
I put wp:ac into the search field and was surprised to be directed not to the ArbCom page WP:AC but rather to this (obviously fake) "policy" page in user space. Perhaps ArbCom should usurp the wp:ac redirect? EdChem (talk) 02:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out, EdChem. I shall take your advice.  Risker (talk) 02:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

/History page
The AC/History page (created by Kirill in early July) contains the image that explains the current election tranches. Since that tells us who is elected until what time, and how many seats will in theory be open in this December's election, shouldn't that (and perhaps the "Selection process" section) remain on the main Arbitration Committee page? <strong style="color:#0033CC">Nathan <strong style="color:#0033CC"> T 19:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Adminship and rollback
This is for future reference. It sometimes happens that an admin will be desysopped by order of the Arbitration Committee. When that happens a request goes forth to be performed, traditionally, by an off-wiki steward.

One side-effect of removing adminship is to remove rollback rights. While it's easy enough for a former admin to regain this right (he just asks an admin), the loss of rollback rights obviously isn't usually intentional. We entrust all but the most suspect of users with rollback, and this helps to keep the wiki clear.

Perhaps in future remedies attention could be paid to wording indicating that the admin's rights are to be changed from sysop to rollback, unless there are particular reasons for removing rollback rights too. --TS 13:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Stewards cannot change userrights, they can only remove them, so it would be up to a local admin to still re-add it. Also, iirc, MZMcBride explicitly refused rollback after he was desysopped because he didn't want it.  And if this was done for rollback, it should also be done for autoreviewer which is also liberally granted.  MBisanz  talk 15:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * [Pedantic:] Well, they can change any user right; they are just not normally permitted to. AGK 11:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is really a problem in practice. The community handles this. I've seen several recent cases (including one in which I was, ahem, somehow involved) where the desysopee had rollback and other minor bits back within a matter of hours, without even asking for them. It works almost like a little gesture of solidarity/appreciation/consolation, something like that. Why create another layer of bureaucratic rules and judgments about it? It would spoil all the fun. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Three Audit Subcommittee vacancies: Call for applications
The process to appoint the three non-arbitrator members of the Audit Subcommittee is underway, with the election itself starting on 30 October. If you think you may be suitably qualified, please see the election pages for the job specification and application arrangements. Applications close 22 October 2009.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies  talk 21:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbs' email domain changed?
I've just tried to email two arbs: Roger Davies first, which bounced, and then Vassyana, which bounced too. Are the -at-gmail.com addresses given overleaf still valid? Tony  (talk)  09:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're wanting to email them then you're probably best using the Special:Emailuser link. Or, if it's for the committee as a whole you should consider using arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 10:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ryan. Looks like the problem was between my own neurons. Tony   (talk)  13:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Eloquence
I've been going through the history section... Eloquence (Erik Moeller) was a member of the first Arbcom, but his name seems to be absent from the history for some reason. See notice hereManning (talk) 14:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, Manning, Erik never actually sat on a case, and it is not clear to me that he accepted this role. I'd not be inclined to include someone who didn't fill the role. Risker (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Secure way to contact functionaries
This edit on WT:Sock puppetry points out the need to contact functionaries by a private means more secure than email, where interception is a concern.
 * Does such a means exist for the major functionaries, such as arbcom and checkuser and the various committees pertaining to them?
 * If not, what would it take to get such a thing?

The closest thing I can think of is securely logging into Wikipedia then using the Email-to-user. However, there is still the risk that the recipient's email is monitored or that the path between Wikipedia and the recipient's mail server or the recipient's mail server and the recipient is not secure. If the Wikimedia foundation hosted its own web-based mail in the same building as the Wikipedia server, and it allowed only secure log-ins, that would make the email "secure enough." It would require functionary mailing lists to have an Wikipedia account to email to, but that's already being done for some role accounts.

I guess what I'm asking for is a statement like:
 * If you want to send mail to arbcom-l securely, log into Wikipedial's secure login page then go to User:Arbitration Committee, then click on email this user. This will send mail to arbcom members' email accounts on a Wikipedia-controlled mail server that can only be accessed over secure channels.

Then repeat for other important functionary mailing lists. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  01:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Arbitrators, checkusers, oversighters, Foundation employees, members of the AUSC, and former arbitrators make up the Functionaries mailing list, and all of us are bound by the WMF privacy policy. The process of emailing the Arbitration Committee for non-public disclosure of alternate accounts has been in place for several years, and is nothing new. As to email security, that is more a matter of the sender using a secure email system, not the recipient. Alternatively, one can go to User:Arbitration Committee and use "email this user", which goes directly to the Arbitration Committee's mailing list. (Note, I corrected the username in your comment above.) Risker (talk) 04:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Three Audit Subcommittee vacancies: Urgent call for applications
The process to appoint the three non-arbitrator members of the Audit Subcommittee is underway. If you are suitably qualified, please see the election pages for the job specification and application arrangements. Applications close 22 October 2009.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies  talk 19:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Audit Subcommittee elections: Urgent! Final call for applications
Time is rapidly running out. The closing date for completed applications is 23:59 (UTC) 22 October 2009. If you are interested in becoming one of the three non-arbitrator members of the Audit Subcommittee, see the election pages now for the job specification and application details.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies  talk 17:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Need a definitive statement on privacy policy
Discussion on WP:SOCKS is turning on just who is and who isn't bound by the privacy policy.

The issue is who can editors trust - by policy not just by trusting the people involved - to handle information like "I'm User:A, I am also User:B" in cases of legitimate multi-account editors. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  02:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Notice and Request for Advice/Insight (ACE2009)
In the absence of consensus/discussion/interest in a new and different election system for the 2009 Arbitration Committee Elections, I've begun the process of migrating the 2008 pages to 2009 formats. Since the deadline for suffrage is 1 November, I thought it prudent to seek advice and insight from the committee. Specifically, we need clarification on the following issues:


 * What seats, in which tranches, are vacant? Are there additional arbitrators retiring before the end of their term, for whom we will need to seek replacements? (Please don't take this as an invitation to retire! I just need to know)
 * There has been discussion about a "Non-admin" arbitrator seat, for which only non-admins would be eligible. In theory, the top vote-getting non-admin would win the seat, subject to Jimbo's discretion. Is this something the committee (or Jimbo) would like to implement? If so, how?
 * In my opinion, it is too late in the year to get a Secret Ballot up and going before election time (20 days from now), but are there any changes necessary to how the voting pages are structured? I don't see any rulings that would impact this process, but I was gone for most of the year.
 * I remember some discussion about the Arbcom clerks having a role in the election - is that something that was discussed recently? We usually have a half-dozen or so volunteers to monitor votes, but additional hands are welcome.

Thanks in advance for your assistance and insight. Discussion may be directed to the election talk page at WT:ACE2009. Best, UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 14:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * My understanding was that we intended to use SecurePoll for ACE2009, with the AUSC elections as a dry run. I had noticed a week or two ago that action was sorely lacking on setting things up for ACE2009, but I think they've got approval from Tim Starling to use the secret ballot extension and to make the necessary tweaks.


 * The tranche issue is confusing (the diagram is on the Arbitration Committee/History page now), but not crucial until the election is well underway since candidates don't stand for specific seats. <strong style="color:#0033CC">Nathan <strong style="color:#0033CC"> T 02:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, well - I suppose arbs need to know if its time to run again, but hopefully they've kept track of that anyway! <strong style="color:#0033CC">Nathan <strong style="color:#0033CC"> T 02:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I concur that information is urgently needed. We appreciate that the committee is very busy, however this matter is one of top priority.  — <font color=" #660033">Finn Casey  * * * 20:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Arb maillist
Can an arb please confirm that the issues with e-mail from Yahoo have been resolved? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee Elections 2009 - Invitation for Questions
Preparations are ongoing for the 2009 Arbitration Committee Elections, which will be held in December. The first step in the process is generating a list of General Questions that will be submitted by template to all candidates in this year's election. Questions may be broad and philisophical in nature, or may deal with a specific incident or case from the past year (or prior). General questions may not deal with an individual candidate or candidates - All editors will have a chance to ask specific questions or one or more candidates directly, once we actually have candidates.

The submission of questions is limited to editors eligible to vote in the election (You may use this utility to check your eligibility.), but all editors will be invited to discuss the candidates, once we have candidates to discuss. Questions should be submitted at The General Questions page. If you have additional questions or concerns regarding the question process, please ask here. Thank you for participating. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 12:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Tyciol
Ryan Postlethwaite has contacted you regarding his indefinite blocking of Tyciol. Please be aware of this discussion as well. Thank you. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 14:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

How are Arbitrators elected (chosen)
This page doesn't provide that crucial information on the mandate ArbCom has (which presumably flows from the community...). Neither does Arbitration, Arbitration/Index or the Template:ArbCom navigation. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Confusing template
Please see my comment here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

AUSC October 2009 elections: Vote now!
The election, using SecurePoll, has now started. You may:
 * Visit the election "home page" for an overview;
 * Review the candidate's statements: Dominic &bull; Frank &bull; Jredmond &bull; KillerChihuahua &bull; MBisanz &bull; Tznkai;
 * Or go straight to your personal voting page: here to cast your votes.

The election closes at 23:59 (UTC) on 8 November 2009.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies  talk 07:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Urgent! Last call for votes: AUSC October 2009 elections
There's only one day to go! The Audit Subcommittee election, using SecurePoll, closes at 23:59 (UTC) 8 November. Three community members will be appointed to supervise use of the CheckUser and OverSight tools. If you wish to vote you must do so urgently. Here's how: MBisanz &bull; Tznkai; here. For the Arbitration Committee, <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 17:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Visit the election "home page" for an overview;
 * Review the candidate's statements: Dominic &bull; Frank &bull; Jredmond &bull; KillerChihuahua &bull;
 * Or go straight to your personal voting page:

User:CheckUser
Having got used to emailing oversight through User:Oversight I was rather surprised to find myself looking at sending a checkuser request to a sockpuppet of Ĵιɱβɸ_ωαΙεʃ. Could an Arb take ownership of this account? Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There is also a User:Checkuser (lowercase U). Not sure why we sometimes use camelcase and sometimes normal case when discussing checkuser.  Dragons flight (talk) 23:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
Interested editors are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. SecurePoll was recently used in the Audit Subcommittee election, and has been proposed for use for the upcoming Arbitration Committee election at this current request for comment (RFC). Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome. For the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 09:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 2 is now Closed
I have closed this Request for Comment. My detailed review of the issues and the results of that discussion may be found here. To summarize, I found that consensus exists as follows:


 * The Arbitration Committee shall consist of 18 Members elected to 2 Year Terms.
 * Arbitrators will be elected by Secret Ballot using the Securepoll extension.
 * Ballots will invite editors to Support or Oppose candidates.
 * Voters must have 150 mainspace edits before the election cycle to vote (Status Quo)

Questions or comments may be posted at The RFC's Talk Page. Thank you to all who participated. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 16:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This close has been disputed - see the comments at the RfC's talk page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments sought on community de-adminship
Comments from all interested editors, including arbitrators, are invited and welcome at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC, where a proposal for community de-adminship is being discussed. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent massive use of RevDelete (oversight)
Some may be interested in this discussion: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee (it's a bit off the beaten path, so posting here and some other places). --MZMcBride (talk) 00:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Question about vote calculations
Let's say a case has 10 active arbitrators, 6 is a majority. But is there a difference between abstain and oppose votes? Let's say that there are 2 findings, both with 6 support votes. But one of them has 4 abstains, while the other, 4 opposes. Do they both pass, or only he first one? In other words, are opposes the same as abstains, or do they actively subtract from from the number of supports? PS. What about votes labeled second choice? If the first choice is passing, are they seen as opposes? What if the first choice is not passing? Do they become regular supports? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 05:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Abstains reduce the number of active arbs and therefore the majority required to pass. If a case has 10 active arbs and 4 abstain from a finding, then the number required to pass that finding is 4 (50%+1 of 6).  If 4 oppose and 6 support, it would also pass.   MBisanz  talk 05:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So is motion to close different? I am confused as motion to close section reads: "x net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")"... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 05:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Motions to close are different than votes on cases, correct.  MBisanz  talk 05:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

One more questions: what if out of the above 10 arbitrators, 1 votes support, and 9 completely ignore a given proposal. Is it treated as 9 abstentions and the proposal passes with three votes? What about if that proposal were supported by 3 arbitrators, and had 7 ignores? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If they are an active arbitrator for the case or motion, they are counted as "not voting", which has no effect on the tabulation of votes. Vassyana (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * An oppose vote and not voting is the same on case proposals (principles, Fof, and remedies). The abstain vote lowers the number of arbs needed to pass the proposal or lowers the number of supports needed. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 02:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent changes to a case
This may be of interest for arbs: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration. Cenarium (talk) 00:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for new subcomittee, or maybe semi-independent body, to specifically address ArbCom's recommendations to change policies and guidelines
Hell of a title line, huh? But it is the shortest way I could think of to includfe the information I thought relevant.

Basically, as I am sure everyone knows, ArbCom has I think fairly frequently in the past made rulings which recommended that the community alter exising policies or guidelines to address specific situations which were raised in a given ArbCom case. I don't know how often the community has responded, though. Would it be possible, possibly by ArbCom fiat, possibly through other means, to have a list of such recommendations which the ArbCom thinks have not been addressed created, and maybe have a body developed which would at least create proposals on them? For maximum effectiveness, I think that it might work best if all the proposals were addressed and drafted at the same time, in effect creating what might be an equivalent to a constitutional convention. I would think that the optimum time to do such review and drafting might be at the change over in ArbCom itself, so that departing members can say what they want to say without fear of having someone point to those statements in any decisions they may later take part in. Anyway, just an idea. John Carter (talk) 14:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I dislike any sort of formal, semi-formal, or informal committee selected by ArbCom that assumes power over policy-making. Policy needs to be left to the community.  If there are problems with policy, ArbCom should say so plainly.  "We have a problem ruling in the case because policy is not clear.  We wish that the community would make this clear so we could sort out problems.  Here is a list of questions we have..."  Jehochman Talk 14:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that there would be any real power of any sort over policy-making, just one group who are gathered together to create what would basically be a first draft of a change. Jefferson and others tried to include a ban on the importation of slaves in the US Constitution too. Just because something is included in the first draft proposal doesn't mean the final outcome, if any, will look anything like that. The one real advantage I can see by such a situation though is that, by potentially having all the recommendations reviewed at once, it might be possible to in some way address all of them with the least possible amount of change to policies or guidelines. So, in effect, we might just add one sentence to one guideline for one recommendation, and a subclause to that sentence for another. And, hey, it would give the noob arbitrators something to do to regret seeking the position right off the bat. It gives them a chance to get used to the difficulties of the position. ;) John Carter (talk) 15:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am thinking of the working group on ethnic conflicts. It was off putting to people who weren't invited to participate.  Why not take the bull by the horns and send out an invitation for proposals?  A discussion can be announced at WP:CENT. Everyone is welcome to participate, even arbitrators. Jehochman Make my day 15:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * While I agree that creating subcommittees for making policies would be problematic, it might not be a bad idea to have some body in charge of setting priorities for which policies are in urgent need of update. I can say from experience both on wikibooks and wikiversity that discussions of priority and need can cause serious gridlock. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk 16:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is that friends of insiders get appointed, and then they feel themselves special, important, and more equal. If a proposal is desired, propose it. ArbCom must not designate some people's opinions to be more relevant than others. Jehochman Make my day 16:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Simple solution: Elect people to the "committee on policy reform" or whatever you'd like to call it. Outside of policies governing themselves, arbitrators have no special remit; they do have special expertise in certain areas, however, so a community-grown group to address their recommendations and other known problems is a good idea. <strong style="color:#0033CC">Nathan <strong style="color:#0033CC"> T 17:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If I recall correctly, the last time the Committee tried to put something like this together, the community reaction was, shall we say, less than ecstatic? ;-)
 * I think the better way forward, at least in the short term, would be to create a more visible process by which the Committee could pose such questions or concerns to the community as a whole. Arbitration decisions themselves are a poor venue for this; they are rarely read by anyone not already involved in the matter.  Something like a system of light-weight, Committee-opened RFCs would be more effective in actually getting people to consider the issues being noted, and hopefully come up with solutions to them. Kirill [talk] [prof] 18:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You may well be right. My own interests, such as they were, were basically about getting together the list of recommended changes, first by ArbCom, because they are in a sense recorded somewhere as being somewhat important to some people, and then by whomever else, and then possibly having as many such discussions take place at more or less the same time as possible. I get the impression myself that at least some editors get kind of put off by seeing an almost unending list of proposals, some of which take place when they may not have time for them. Just maybe getting discussion, if not real finalized proposals, on these issues, but probably not just these issues, taking place at more or less the same time might produce better results. John Carter (talk) 19:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the lesson from the advisory committee episode is that the manner in which participants are selected is crucial; without that particular faux pas, its possible the idea itself could have had a considerably different reception. If a sufficiently large group of people got together to agree that these issues should be kicked around by smaller units, task groups if you will, and the selection process was open and democratic... There would still be all kinds of hurdles, not least how and where these groups would do their work, but I think you'd avoid the neck breaking fall right off the block that ended Kirill's advisory committee proposal. <strong style="color:#0033CC">Nathan <strong style="color:#0033CC"> T 19:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, at least just getting together a list of the ArbCom's recommendations over time which haven't seemingly been acted on would be a step in the right direction. Like I said, I don't expect them all to be acted on, or acted on in a way which ArbCom might seem to like, but having all of them presented would in and of itself probably at least help promote some degree of concentrated discussion. John Carter (talk) 14:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * An agenda of items needing attention, open for anybody to work on, would be a useful. Jehochman Make my day 14:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest that a page be created for the purpose of listing such proposals. Anyone who has noticed such proposals in arbcom decisions can add them to the page.  Discussion of the proposals can take place on the talk page, or on subpages if they're expected to be too lengthy.  Probably no specific committee is needed; once the place for discussion is created, people will likely jump in and start discussing.  Such discussions can be announced in the usual places (village pump, WP:CENT, arb noticeboard etc.) ... by whoever wishes to announce them there, I suppose, whether it be arbitrators, clerks or members of the community. (In other words:  What Jehochman said.) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Change to the image
If we must have a logo, I've tweaked it to use something a little more sober and ArbCom-y I found on the commons. (I've asked for someone with SVG-fu to make a vectorized version). I think it's a lot less obtrusive that the colored scales, but revert me if I'm insane. &mdash; Coren (talk) 03:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Can we please pick something that doesn't look quite so much like the three-headed knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail? ;-) Kirill [talk] [prof] 04:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm hoping the SVG version will make the demarcation between the three persons more visible &mdash; right now it's a scaled bitmap. &mdash; Coren (talk) 04:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not very keen on the three-headed knight either, I'm afraid. I've swopped it for a plainer scales.  Roger Davies  talk 08:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh good grief, where did that come from? Last time I looked, there were scales there; I'm really not fond of humanoid figures. Maybe we should just revert to nothing, and perhaps ban the use of the three Weebles as well? Risker (talk) 04:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Plain looks sooo institutional.  Roger Davies  talk 08:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. Daniel hates the three-headed judges image. 2. I'm surprisingly glad I templated the images when I did.  MBisanz  talk 08:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's surprising that you're glad with yourself? Since when? --MZMcBride (talk) 09:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Given the way cases are run and the only outcome ever seems to be topic and site bans, in all due respect and good faith, I think an image of fasces (in its classical meaning as opposed to its more odious 20th Century interpretation) would be a more appropriate image as a symbol of the summary power that you guys wield. I guess I'm biased, but in my view it more honestly reflects the true nature of the "arbitration" process within wikipedia than an image of scales. You guys don't actually "arbitrate" in the classic sense, i.e. actually resolve disputes and make peace between conflicting users, but instead you seem to function as a means to weed out users you see as problematic, as this paper seems to suggest. Would you agree with this view? --Martin (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The odious 20th century interpretation, of course, is the one which happens to be far more prominent these days; so, no, we will not be adopting the insignia of a murderous tyrant as our own. Kirill [talk] [prof] 03:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that association exists in the minds of most Americans, according to Fasces, even Abraham Lincoln, one of America's greatest Presidents, has fasces adorning his memorial, and it is fairly widely used in US judicial institutions too. IMHO scales seems to be a bit misleading, given the independent study of the arbitration process I cited above. Do you think that study is a true reflection of how the committee works in practice, or is it flawed in some way? --Martin (talk) 03:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Fasces-scroll-quill.png or Blue fasces-scroll-quill.png might be compromises that would work.  MBisanz  talk 07:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Great images Matthew, they both succinctly capture the essence of the role of arbitration within Wikipedia. The problem with scales is that it may encourage people into wiki-lawyering, believing they may tip the balance in their favour, which has no doubt led to interminably long cases in the past. Whereas this symbol leaves no doubt that the ArbCom's mission is to protect the encyclopedia through the maintenance of wiki-order. --Martin (talk) 03:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No weapons, please. Risker (talk) 04:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Rods and axes are dual-use technology. The bundle of rods bound together symbolizes the unity of the committee, the axe symbolizes the committee's authority, the binding symbolizes the committee's restraint, while the quill and scroll at the forefront represents the activity of building an encyclopedia. --Martin (talk) 04:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree with Kirill and Risker's concerns, but I wonder whether using this particular image is too U.S.-centric (or even pretentious). Cool Hand Luke 04:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Too pretentious? For ArbCom? I think you all should go for a picture of a bike shed. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Bike shed 15d06 cropped.jpg

But it's clear, so we can't debate the colors!  MBisanz  talk 06:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (Noting the bicycle motif is a perhaps fruitful element of the ultimate design.) Proofreader77 (interact) 07:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Designing a new logo (?)

 * 1) Question: Is there a serious interest in designing a new logo for Arbcom? (Or is this discussion an enjoyably frivolous farting around? :-)
 * 2) Regarding the paper "Wikitruth Through Wikiorder" mentioned by Marting, perhaps a logo based on a weed whacker?Maehkopf_nylon.jpg
 * 3) But (seriously) ponder if a new logo might provide an inspiration for a new (and useful) public perception of Arbcom. See User:Proofreader77#Requisite adversarialicity which, yes, is my idealized (and naive) conception ... inspired by a playful tempest/teapot by Durova ... but which, to me, is something positive, rather than an aspersion &mdash; something small, manageable, pleasantly solvable with a spoon while sipping. Convivial rather than "soul sucking." etc.
 * 4) But I digress &mdash; see Question #1, s'il vous plaît. Proofreader77 (interact)  00:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Logos are dumb. @harej 00:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But what will we put on the t-shirts for the American Idol-Arbcom tie-in? :-) Proofreader77 (interact) 00:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad in a Superman costume. @harej 01:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The short answer to #1, I suppose, would be that the Committee would be likely be interested in a new logo should a suitable one be presented; but we are quite content to retain the old one until we see one that's an improvement. If you'd like to try your hand at designing something, please feel free; the worst that could happen is that we would not adopt it. :-) Kirill [talk] [prof] 03:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, Kirill &mdash; ah, I see 72.9% &mdash; the Arbcom-Idol winner of the recent election ... so, let us say, the most representative responder possible. (Note: while I mention that with my usual lightness, let there be no doubt of the significance I place on such matters. While Wikipedia rarely bends to raw statistics, I have a warm feeling for having participated in this first attempt at a Secure Poll election. A good idea, to me. Congratulations.) Now, as for design attempts in the solitary void of my own druthers LoL ... let's put it this way: Is there any kind of general feeling/notion that "scales" are the wrong symbol? (I think scales are an important element, but if the consensus of the committee is "no scales," well, let me know. P.S. It will be some time before I can get any image in my mind other than Newyorkbrad in a Superman costume. LoL -- Proofreader77 (interact)  04:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any general dissatisfaction with scales as a visual element, at least as far as the arbitrators are concerned; obviously, some people (above) think they aren't a particularly good symbol for what we do. For the most part, I think we're open to new logo ideas of any flavor; if you come up with something we like, we'll use it, regardless of whether it has scales or not. Kirill [talk] [prof] 04:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. I'll leave you for now with the thought of a black pot and kettle on the scales. :-) Cheers. Proofreader77 (interact) 04:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * NOTE: ArbCom logo design challenge (hotter than bacon! :-) ... While my own initial design ideas have shifted in a definite direction, what I learned from this design and inspiration image collection (and democratically playful collaboration) on my talk page ... illustrates how differently the fundamental idea of ArbCom is perceived. Which brings us, of course, to this image of the design process. It would never have crossed my mind that the scales logo was inadequate &mdash; but it now strikes me that a different design ... is inevitable. (smiling but not joking) Proofreader77 (interact) 07:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The indisputably best logo
No need for further discussions... Jehochman Brrr 13:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (Design commentary) No further discussions? Au contraire, unless there's a gunfight looming. :-) PRO: I am in the groove (allusion to an amigo's recent anachronistic phraseology elsewhere) with the Asian theme, and contention-level/ego-size manifestation. The profound iconic stature of muscular buttocks is also not without merit. There is, in fact, no end ;) of good, interesting, and amusing things to say about the sumo wrestler concept, but counterbalancing those positives there is a significant negative (see CON). CON: However(speaking from a position of inexperience &mdash; but conceptual semi-understanding of much vacuity), at ArbCom the disputants are not allowed to touch each other (indent-debate) &mdash; but rather must present their comments/evidence in their own space. To me, in my naive idealistic ignorance, that suggests the idea of a collection of competing Japanese gardens ... and tea ceremony formalism in the resolution ... yada yada yada :-) (See also: Google "Design for debate") -- Proofreader77 (interact) 18:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion
I believe a good image should give an insight into the process, so I present to the jury a suggestion. (/me runs to the nearest exit!). :-D  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * (in the context of current events) @Ryan Postelwaite &mdash; Does the BLP motion (and MZ case or two) fit the category of exception that proves the rule? (A saying which I have never fully grasped. ':-) ... Or, perhaps more precisely (and on-topic), do you have knowledge of many moments in Wikipedia history when the snail image would not be a good representation of a fundamental aspect of the ArbCom process? Proofreader77 (interact) 21:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Dude, it was just a joke :-)  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 21:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Last time I ask Ryan for nuanced historical insight. :-) Proofreader77 (interact) 22:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In all honesty, the Arbitration Committee handle their work in a timely manner - The reason why they have a reputation for taking too long is because of a number of complex cases which have gone on for months. I'm sure the committee will admit themselves that they haven't always completed cases as efficiently as possible, but as I said, that only accounts for a small percentage. Mostly cases are handled extremely quickly - especially over the last couple of years. Unfortunately, people only tend to remember the bad things.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, RP &mdash; I had the impression you would know ... beyond the joke. :-) Proofreader77 (interact) 22:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Possible edit to WP:CUOS
States "150 mainspace edits prior to 15 June 2009 may vote".

Probably needs editing to "prior to the month in which the election is announced" or "prior to the first announcement of the election".

FT2 (Talk 01:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That can be addressed prior to the next election, which will be a few months down the way. As half of the Arbcom members will be new starting next week, they may have other ideas about election of checkusers and oversighters that need to be discussed prior to the next election. It is better to have a single revision of the porocess all at once. Risker (talk) 01:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Functionaries change
Any reason for ? DuncanHill (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * They've unsubscribed from the mailing list. Risker (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Questions regarding list access
Two questions regarding access to functionaries-en: I ask not with any specific functionaries in mind but in light of the history of poor institutional practice in this area, namely the leaks of old Arbitration Committee emails and the recent apparent compromise of the list during l'affair Gerard. Skomorokh  20:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) The page overleaf states that among those who have access are "CheckUser and Oversight operators". Is access to the list dependent on holding those positions or will it be allowed for former Checkusers and Oversighters?
 * 2) Are there any plans to routinely review the access of former arbitrators (and, if applicable, other former functionaries) to the list?


 * To answer your questions:
 * Editors who no longer have CU/OS access have normally been removed from the list unless they satisfy one of the other criteria for membership; there is not, at present, any plan to retain former CU/OS operators in that capacity itself.
 * There has been some discussion regarding this topic, but no decisions have been made at this stage.
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 06:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response Kirill, that is encouraging.  Skomorokh   07:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Implementation of bureaucrat removal of admin/crat flags
Following two discussions on the subject, there is community support for bureaucrats to have the technical ability to remove admin and bureaucrat bits, in the situations where this is currently handled by the Stewards. There are a number of issues which need to be considered in light of this, and all (Committee members especially) are invited to participate in the discussion at Requests for adminship/Bureaucrat Unchecking. Happy ‑ melon 23:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for your comments at Community de-adminship/RfC
Community de-adminship/RfC went live today, and your comments are invited.

For what it's worth, I personally do not see your !vote or expressed opinions as a conflict of interest despite the obvious fact that this is a proposal that impacts ArbCom functions.

In any case, I believe the community needs to know the thoughts of ArbCom members regarding this RfC proposal, and urge a discussion regarding this RfC here, on this page. Thanks, Jusdafax  02:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I would especially like to draw the discussion at Community de-adminship/RfC to the attention of arbitrators and clerks. It may perhaps be of particular interest to you, and of course any comments you may have would be very welcome. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Note about an ongoing accusation against the enwiki arbcom
Please note m:Talk:Stewards/confirm/2010, if you wish to discuss that matter, please do so in private or on enwiki, *not* on the page on Meta. Thank you. --Thogo (Talk) 09:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think there's anything worth discussing there&mdash; but I must admit that I'm a little bit confused by your message. If you didn't want any of us to intervene, is there a reason why you poked us with the news?  :-)  &mdash; Coren (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

A proposal

 * Moved from Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

In cases of serious professional misconduct it is normal for a person to be suspended, without prejudice, during any hearing. I think the community would like to see admins against whom cases are accepted, suspended from using their tools during the period of the case. Whether this is enforced by flipping the bit or not is probably immaterial. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not entirely sure that all cases would require a complete suspension. If a prima facie case is presented that an administrator may have misused his tools in a particular area, I would not object to the ArbCom suspending (by motion, without prejudice) a suitably-scoped portion of that admin's tools.  Actually flipping the bit would only be required if an admin failed to adhere to the terms of such an injunction; the injunction would automatically lapse at the close of the case.  Obviously the ArbCom would retain its powers to carry out an emergency desysopping under the usual, limited set of conditions.  Otherwise, we open ourselves to vexatious litigants being able to hamstring otherwise productive administrators for the weeks or months required to complete a full Arbitration. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Guy. DuncanHill (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think there is a cost here, but it might be worth paying. We can have one of two norms: suspending as a matter of course, or only under some certain parameters. If you suspend as a matter of course, this skips a lot of wrangling, any appearance of prejudice or prejudgment, and theres a lot of room for face saving. It is of course, rather inflexible and prone to abuse. I think I'd rather see the matter of course route.--Tznkai (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Automatic suspension is a widely understood and utilised practice in other areas. Yes, it may have a level of stigma, but the effect is the same for everyone, no-one is encouraged to rush to their support in terms of keeping the tools, and the disastrous effect of appearing to support certain persons by not suspending them then - sods law being what it is - having to permaban them when the sockfarm crawls out of the basket is avoided.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, a suspension of all advanced permissions should be effectuated in any case where abuse or poor judgement has been alleged. Making this routine will prevent acrimonious debate in specific cases.  This is in line with the professional atmosphere, as noted. —  James Kalmar  23:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with this proposal. Automatic suspension of the tools would prevent bad things from happening because someone has the tools who shouldn't, would prevent others from being subject to innuendos just because they used the tools while an Arbcom case was in play, and would actually be the fairest option for those who didn't need to be in front of Arbcom in the first place - there's the least amount of stigma attached to something like this if it's just how we always do things without exception. If it reaches a point where continuing to withhold the tools becomes unjust because it's been ages and someone is still subject to an open case when everyone knows they shouldn't be, then there's an equal problem for everyone else in the case if Arbcom holds it open, so you should take such inclinations as a sign to hurry up and finish the damn case already. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If the ArbCom was accepting 50 cases a year that alleged admin misbehavior then suspending that many admins for months at a time would be a problem (not to mention the problem of getting that many complaints about admins). But only a few cases of this type are accepted every year, so the overall impact on the project should be manageable. However I don't think it should be entirely automatic. In some cases that have involved admins the allegations of administrative misconduct were without merit, perhaps added to make the case look more important. When the ArbCom accepts a case they should make a quick evaluation of whether the case appears to involve serious allegations of tool misuse. If that's the case then an administrative suspension is a logical step.   Will Beback    talk    10:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Support automatic suspension, without prejudice, when a case is accepted, of all administrators who are listed as parties in the open case. This makes complete sense, is fair when its automatic without further conditions nor prejudice, and prevents the kind of drama we regularly see in such cases when an ANI discussion suddenly gets sidetracked by comments along the line of "X is currently at ArbCom for such and such conduct, how dare he take whatever action he took". MLauba (talk) 12:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Considering the number of frivolous complaints that are filed against admins, I would be opposed to any automatic suspension of tools. It would become just one more tactic that disruptive editors might use (especially in ArbCom enforcement areas, where there are some champion wikilawyers). However, ArbCom still has the authority when they accept a case, to issue a temporary motion on such a suspension.  It should really be handled on a case by case basis. --Elonka 16:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No. The vast majority of complaints against admins are without basis, this would allow the gaming of the system to neutralize admins at will. Arbcom already has the power to suspend admin privileges during an arbcom case if they have a good reason and they have done just that in the past, so I see not reason to automatically do this. Leave it up to the discretion of arbcom. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 16:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm only proposing it where the case is accepted and involves administrative conduct. Can you cite a frivolous or vexatious case against an admin which has been accepted? I suspect they would not even need to flip the bit, merely state that admins are not allowed to use tools while active cases of alleged misconduct against them are in process. I'm surprised anyone would see that as especially controversial. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * A good idea. As for the concerns over frivolous complaints: the committee are sensible enough to be able to recognise a vexatious litigant. AGK 17:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Somewhat oppose I am all for telling admins not to use their tools in areas they're in front of ArbCom for (again, that judgement thing), but this need to be refined, etcetera so it doesn't have loopholes. Define "case brought against them". DOes that mean if an admin has been trying to keep the peace in a contentious area, that if an arbcom is brought in that area, and that admin is brought in as an involved party (because they did their job), that they should either have their bits removed temporarily or be forced to the sidelines? No, I don't see that as a particularly good idea. I would just let it remain at what it's commonly known as being right now "You can still use them, but it's a really bad idea to continue to use them in the area you're involved in". If ArbCom needs to suspend/injunct against using the tools, they can. SirFozzie (talk) 19:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that it can't be mechanistic, but you are humans and have decent judgement - step one of a case of admin misconduct being a standard injunction on those who the committee feels have been credibly accused of abuse of tools, that should not really be hard to do should it? It is fairly standard practice in cases of people in positions of trust, I think. Guy (Help!) 22:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Weakly oppose, mostly per SirFozzie. Moreover: I am not convinced the current situation is broken. And I am afraid of new opportunities for gaming if there is a predictable, practically automatic response to mere accusations. Hans Adler 21:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose blanket removal - There are many reasons an admin may be involved in a case, a lot of which aren't due to abuse of the tools. Unless there is reason to believe an admin will continue poor behavior with the tools as alleged in the case or will not voluntarily avoid the locus of the case, tool removal isn't necessary.  If something crops up during the case, a motion can remove the tools. Shell   babelfish 15:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support in those instances proposed by Guy, as it's common practice in many law-enforcement organisations. I would say, however, that an Admin under the Arbcom spotlight is likely to conduct him/herself with due restraint. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 08:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose as this could lead to gaming the system and a possible blot on the record of an Administrator who has done nothing wrong. If necessary, it should be done by ArbCom. Dougweller (talk) 09:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose because people are frequently falsely accused. Jehochman Brrr 19:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - Better off waiting until the ruling by ArbCom as to whether the tools have been abused, and if action is needed is passed. In fact, allowing them to retain the tools opens ArbCom to newer facts about the matter. A desysop would block off those after case opening facts from being found. No need for a temporary desysop. — Mythdon (talk)  (contribs) 03:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)