Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-03-18/Arbitration report

Based on what I read in this Signpost (and earlier ones) my opinion is that the Arbitration Committee is in a severe crisis. Under these circumstances, does the ArbCom still has the confidence of the community? Two Arbitrators gone, one acting extremely strange. Not good, not good. The Banner talk 11:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest that the AUSC section be modified to include that the WMF have stepped in to prevent non-admins being appointed, despite a non-admin having previously been appointed to AUSC and despite the declared preference of several arbitrators to include non-admins on AUSC if a qualified candidate is available. EdChem (talk) 11:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I doubt whether all the participants in that discussion, which at this point is still ongoing, would agree with that characterization, but anyone who wants minute-by-minute updates can always check the noticeboard talk page. —Neotarf (talk) 06:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Amendment Request: Monty Hall problem: I think the clarification request regarding editing the "log of blocks, bans, and sanctions" page is unrelated to the Monty Hall amendment. Was something inadvertently pasted under the wrong bullet?
 * I have amended the description. The request is somewhat puzzling however, as it lists "Remedy 3" as the clause "to which an amendment is requested".  Remedy 3 provides for a named editor to be "restricted to 1RR (one revert per day, unless reverting vandalism) on the Monty Hall article for a period of one year".  Since the restriction was passed on March 25, 2011, it seems this restriction has long expired.  However, the only remedy under discussion seems to be the discretionary sanctions. —Neotarf (talk) 05:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I had noticed the inconsistency in the request as well. I assume it was a simple clerical error, and that the requester meant to cite Remedy 5. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I am puzzled why certain people who seem to object to virtually every established process and authority level from the WMF on down remain with the project. It seems that either they must be deeply, passionately committed to the project while despising virtually the entire community, or else they are just addicted to stirring up trouble and can't abide not being noticed.  Powers T 14:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There are members of this project who have no desire to help produce, improve, and curate our content, and are only here for the perpetual and relentless drama. For them, process, decisions, and political power within Wikipedia are the primary purpose for the existence of Wikipedia. The fact that two Arbitrators have resigned within a week over the pandering that ArbCom has to do to this group means that a real change in Wikipedia administration must be made. Wer900 • talk 19:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oddly enough, the people I described and the people you described seem to overlap significantly. Powers T 14:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)