Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Archive 23

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Arbitration talk page archives
WT:RFAR archives (2004–2009)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Various archives (2004–2011)
1 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3 4 ARM1 ARM2
Ongoing WT:A/R archives (2009–)
1 2 3 3A 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
WT:RFAR subpages
Archive of prior proceedings
Cases Motions Declined case requests Clarification and amendment requests
v t e

I feel like launching the CSI case. I'd like arbcom to toss in a case for me to gather evidence. I was thinking of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology. If there is another case arbcom would like me to collect evidence on they should state here in the next 24 hours. -- Cat ^chi? 02:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something obvious, but what exactly are you talking about? What's "the CSI case"? Kirill ^(prof) 02:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe he is referring to the idea he put forward at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_56#A_wiki_equavalent_of_CSI_.28developing_idea.29. MBisanz ^talk 02:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not sure what you are asking. If you are offering to volunteer to help the committee by collecting or evaluating evidence in a case, you may present evidence in any case you wish. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thats exactly what I am asking. I wish arbcom to throw a case at me though. No one can argue at the randomness of the assignment then. :) -- Cat ^chi? 03:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Competent evidence gathering, analysis and presentation is welcome on any case; many times the parties are incapable of doing so themselves or are too caught up in the personal battles to do a good job. If you want to help by gathering evidence on any case, just jump in and do it. For various reasons, I do not believe the committee will (or should) invite specific people or endorse any particular scheme for doing so. Thatcher 15:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay then. I'll collect evidence on Scientology. I have picked that one because it is one of the most recently accepted case giving me enough time to compile evidence. -- Cat ^chi? 17:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Sadly you have now lost all my respect. I shall be ignoring this restriction safe in the knowledge that Haines will never report me since bullies never seek help from others. Provided he does not report me, there can be no infraction. Having said that, why the hell did you do it? You let him off scot free and restrict the one editor who stands up to his bullying consistently. Thank goodness I am gainfully employed elsewhere. Abtract (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Good for you. I hope all/any editors who are abused by the ArbCom ignore any retaliation from them, such as the ongoing vote to admonish Moreschi for daring to undo a poor block of a highly valued content editor. Majorly ^talk 16:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

For the record (not that I expect it will change much), I object to the claim implicit in Stephen's comments [1] and motion, that Moreschi unblocked "without discussion". The usual provisions about discussing and gauging consensus before overturning other admins' decisions do not require that the overturning admin necessarily needs to participate in discussion personally before acting. An admin can come to a situation, review a discussion that has been ongoing between others, determine that consensus has been reached, and act on that basis. That's what Moreschi did, validly. If you want to take the line that Arbcom-imposed bad sanctions are more sacrosanct than other admins' bad sanctions, and that they shouldn't be undone under any circumstances, that's okay. But don't claim the fault was a lack of discussion; that's factually untrue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Where was this consensus? User talk pages are not for establishing consensus, for various reasons. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikilawyer, wikilawyer. Consensus can form anywhere.

Oh, and FPAS is right. The block had been extensively discussed before I intervened. Your wording makes no sense, people. Moreschi (talk) 20:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You are supposed to discuss with the blocking administrator. Can you confirm whether you did so, and if so, what the content of the discussion was? Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

No, obviously not. My point is that extensive community and admin commentary on a block rather makes discussion with a blocking admin pointless if the community has reached clear consensus and there is no private info known only to the blocking admin. Moreschi (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that. Also consider that some people just aren't worth spending time trying to reason with. What if the blocking admin is known to write huge blocks of nonsensical text, rather than engaging in reasonable discussion, for example? No one single editor should hold up the process. Friday (talk) 20:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes. And when blocks like this are made by admins with well-known poor judgment...Moreschi (talk) 20:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

A bunch of people running around and shouting on various user talk pages is not a consensus. You make is sounds like you did it because you don't like FT2. Friday: Why don't you want to read more than a few lines of text? --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, for heaven's sake. Stop trolling. You spent all of last night doing so on my user talk and now here. You both wikilawyer and make persistent tendentious comments divorced from reason. Now you clearly didn't even read the RFC I linked to above. Moreschi (talk) 20:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Do I even have to answer that? --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Please don't. Moreschi (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not my problem if you can't handle a rational discussion without insulting me or FT2. --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Amusing. You still don't realise I said nothing about FT2 in this thread. Moreschi (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) I am one of many members of the community that was not even aware - let alone asked for my opinion on the matter until after the fact. How sure can you be that you have consensus now, when there are clearly those who disagree with you, and do so strongly - and not all of them are arbiters. This was a issue of one person executing their own discretion - not repeating genuine community consensus - if there was genuine consensus, we wouldn't be arguing it. You can defend yourself on the ground you did what you are empowered to do for good reasons - fine, but don't claim a consensus or community mandate. There was none, most of the times, most of the community is busy with their own lives! Consensus takes time to discover - more time for more controversial issues. That is why discussion is so important.--Tznkai (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I think consensus after the fact is quite arguable too. The sheer quantity of "props for doing the right thing" messages on my talk page and in my inbox rather point to that. Consensus does not equal unanimity, but unlike the arbcom vote in this case there's a pretty clear majority. Moreschi (talk) 20:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Consensus isn't a majority - or even a super majority, though that is much closer - and I'm certain you're familiar with selection bias and the need for random sampling if you want an accurate gauge of how the community feels. You did this on your own, for your own reasoning - that is fine, tools imply discretion - but please don't pretend it was anything else. Everyone can point to supporters for their position - that gets us absolutely nowhere.--Tznkai (talk) 20:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

That's the problem with "consensus" - we have absolutely no method whatsoever of measuring it. Any claimed instance of consensus can be derailed by someone claiming selection bias, or poor sampling, or pretty much anything they like. The only definition of "consensus" that works at the moment is "we've got more power than you, so what we say is consensus is consensus". DuncanHill (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

People can and do say a lot of things - and yes, power has a lot to do with who "wins", which is the basic problem with any sort of governance seeking legitimacy really. In this case however, I am trying to say that this is a case of a vocal divided community - and a silent disinterested community that both sides are trying to claim support from.--Tznkai (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't discuss my proposed unblock of Moreschi either, I did post my reasons why I intended to unblock and gave a tight timeframe for any response - but I see no reason why I need wait for a blocking admin to return to the wiki (nor to go chasing after them by email or other means - they blocked, they have a responsibility to respond to the consequences). Discuss with the blocking admin by all means, but they both need to be available and open to discussion.

Furhter, sysops generally are the agents of the community (ArbCom and AE may be understood to be the will of the community, in that they are devolved specific matters for consideration) and if a consensus forms that a sysop action was improper then there is no need to discuss it with that admin because the community is saying "no, that is not what we require from you". It may be debated whether there is a consensus, or what the consensus says, but once consensus is clear then an admin should act according to it and need do no more than note the blocking admin to that effect. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

There are 12 active arbs, 2 have recused, and 5 declined. Does that not mean that it is impossible for the case to be accepted? DuncanHill (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Votes may change if various motions do not pass. As things stand, yes, even if the five remaining ArbCommers vote to accept, it will not pass (7-5 under a net +4 requirement). But there's discussion and a cornucopia of motions to work on, so a little patience is necessary. SirFozzie (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I still say that tabling any motion before the case is accepted is wrong. As in: Yeah, I'll change my vote and accept to take the case if my motion doesn't pass. Can't anyone see this is absolutely unethical?--Ramdrake (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm missing something here, Ramdrake. They're saying that the facts on the ground are pretty well known, and we do not need to go to the effort, and drama of a mandatory week-long case. If it comes out that the ArbCom can agree that SOMETHING needs to be done, but might not agree on what that something is, they may then request a formal case. SirFozzie (talk) 21:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Then, it should be made clearer that the arbitrators are willing to entertain (I'd call that "accept") motions but declining a full case. Right now, this reads like 5 arbitrators are declining the case entirely, but some find it relevant to vote on the motions presented by those who didn't decline the case. Your explanation makes sense; the presentation of the arbitrators' positions is confusing; as they don't make a difference between declining to act on the situation, and just declining to take this on as a full case rather than a quick set of motions. This confusion makes the situation look less than ethical if you're not aware of the distinction. Hope this clarifies where I come from.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Cool, no problem. In general, Accepts and Declines are generally aimed at accepting a full case. So folks may decline a full case, but propose motions. I do understand what you're coming from though. SirFozzie (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes a 'decline' means that nothing seriously bad has gone on; sometimes it means that the bad thing that happened, and what to do about it, is obvious. I wanted a case wider than the immediate Moreschi unblocking; however if that issue is considered on its own, then it becomes much simpler. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• Why does it say (above the motions) that there are 11 active arbitrators? FT2 is inactive (and would have to recuse anyway) and Charles and JPG have recused. I make that ten active. Who am I missing? DuncanHill (talk) 14:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Where is the warning about "motions"? Please everyone remember that the arbcom can do whatever they can get away with and the theoretical definitions of their power are irrelevant beyond the effect such definitions have on their willingness to use their actual powers [e.g. persuading a steward they are compelled to desyssop someone] and the community's willingness to accept this. So where is this motion stuff coming from? I seriously can't believe the arbcom are just launching "motions" like that and people are sitting back as if it is normal [well, I do believe it I suppose] and acceptable. Do concerned wikipedians not realise that if the arbcom does this, this is but a step from proactively ruling on everything at their whim? What happened to "If you don't accept the case, you don't have a say". Wikipedia is not a kritocracy! That's not what Arbcom is for!!! At the very least, could the arbcom go through the charade of explicitly stating/pretending the motions against Moreschi comes for the IRC case or something that makes out the authority from the motion comes from something other than arb whim. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

What motion has been proposed that does not arise out of either a pending request for arbitration, or as follow-up to a prior case that was accepted and decided? The Moreschi motion is made in the context of a pending RfAr that was filed by an editor who is not and never was an arbitrator. The committee would clearly have authority to accept this case for a full hearing if we wanted to. In lieu of doing that, we can take action by motion which is in effect a substitute for hearing a full case. We should only do that where the basic facts of the situation are clear (so that an evidence phase would not be helpful) and where there has been full opportunity for everyone concerned to provide input (with 50 user comments and rising, that criterion has been satisfied), but we do have authority to do it. Would a discussion of this series of incidents lasting one or more weeks be a preferable alternative? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

How about just letting it slide? Arbcom hasn't handled this at all well so far, and now seems to be casting about for some kind of "well, we were right all along, but we don't need to have a proper case to decide that, so let's just fudge this a bit" solution. DuncanHill (talk) 23:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

That's certainly an option, but your point then goes to the merits of the proposed motions, not whether the committee has authority to consider them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, technically, there was this, where, instead of putting policy where people would see it, the arbcom buried it in a year-old case where noone would. Frankly, if they ever tried to use that clarification on anyone, I think everyone would have the right to cry foul. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

In motion 1.3, "By reason of the events..." part C, it might be better to say "refrain from making disparaging comments about others in log entries of his administrator actions," instead of other administrators. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Incoherent. Moreschi (talk) 23:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Moreschi. My point was administrators have no greater expectation of courtesy than editors. I didn't mean to imply you inappropriately disparaged people, or even that rebuking you was appropriate. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not what I meant either. My point is made by Brad below: you will have to disparage people when blocking them, that's just life. Frankly I think the admonishment still silly, though. "Petty and wrongheaded" described the block: all I said about Matthews was that his authority is bankrupt, something obviously factual. I can understand that he's cross that a slight has been made that cannot be oversighted, but, well, tough titties. Maybe think before you make such bad blocks next time. This all seems to come from the same root - wounded vanity - as did the Slr II RFC. Moreschi (talk) 23:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I carefully considered that, but when an administrator blocks someone, it will usually be necessary to make some sort of disparaging reference, at least impliedly, to the editor being blocked. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

@ NYB Arbcom has only the authority that happens to be accepted by various editors, admins, crats and stewards. I don't know about others, but I'd have real problems with launching motions (opportunities to make decisions the community think to be binding) based on pending cases. What on earth is the point of the pending case then or any decision about whether the case should be accepted? In this case, the arbcom request was only filed as an attempt by Scott Mcdonald to have Moreschi desyssoped. It's not looking like being accepted, but despite this any arb can nevertheless launch a "motion" proposal to the same effect? A motion that all the arbs are compelled to vote on? This is a contradiction of process! If pending cases are an opportunity, then any arb could informally email Ryan Postlewaite or someone such like to file such a case on any topic so that the opportunity could arise. In lieu such an email, arbcom would on that basis have the authority to do anything it likes (nothing to stop informal chats after all). I accept that an evidence phase would not be helpful likely in this situation, but that reason has been given by yourself here and was not part of the process on the main page. It's fine if the community or another de facto authority decides it approves of this kind of thing, but at the very least editors should be aware of what is happening here and what it means. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I will remind everyone that the Matthew Hoffman case, which was just vacated, was opened by an arbitrator, as was the Tobias Conradi motion I linked above. I do think there's a need for Arbcom reform, but the recent RfC, despite widespread community support, was removed from the arbcom voting procedure that would have ratified its findings into binding rules for the Arbcom. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The case wasn't 'vacated', the findings were withdrawn. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Same thing, just different wording, surely. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

NYB, if the remedy makes it necessary to say it just that way, it might be better not to say it at all. I'd hate to see a finding about 'disparaging an administrator' in the future. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

@Shoemaker, that point really reinforces my concerns. @Kirill, this constitution suggestion is a well-timed one. Morality and law in every society is to an extent an exercise in collective functional self-delusion, the idea that unchangeable rules of behaviour actually exist and that one must follow them [thus making them become followed]. Obviously, a wiki constitution would only perpetuate this highly practical delusion, but a review in relation to the arbitration committee is needed at some point as the way it is going it can simply do as it likes. The link Kirill pointed to, m:Foundation_issues, is an open access page that anyone can edit, and is not the source of power on wikipedia; it is merely an attempt to describe it (accurately or not). Historically, the arbcom derives its power entirely from the discretion of Jimbo Wales, who also set-up an election process to legitimise such a committee in the eyes of the editing community. Perhaps someone can correct me, but Jimbo Wales' power is real-world based, in the law of Florida and the USA? Or am I wrong here?

Anyway, if this is still the case, maybe Jimbo Wales could be persuaded to approve of some constitutional convention (separately elected or chosen), to which all arbs later promise on their honour to obey. Although people go around saying arbcom can do one thing but not another (e.g. rule on content), they are confusing can with has, as it can do anything really it likes as long as it doesn't face opposition that makes such an actuality literally impossible, e.g. Stewards don't co-operate, admins revert its actions (it enforces now!) en masse, etc. As it can do almost what it likes at the moment, precedent can hardly be sufficient source of the rules. If it is, then you are essentially saying that other editors ought to try to oppose arbcom, as successfully doing so would be the only way of curtailing expansion of power by them. If that's alright, then the page should explicitly state arbcom can do anything.

The Arbitration committee is entitled to do anything it likes saving veto from Jimbo Wales or practical intervention from outside authorities. Every editor, including stewards, is bound to follow its decisions.

This, which is probably the de facto constitution, would certainly simplify things. But of course this probably isn't what the community desires, and I suspect most think we will need theoretical restrictions and perhaps another instutionally established balance at some point (besides of course the ad hoc clique gatherings on AN/I). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Re Blacketer: "X is well-known for having bad admin judgment" is not a personal attack: it is an honest statement of my opinion. "X's mother smells of elderberry" is a personal attack. The difference is obvious. Moreschi (talk) 23:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Nothing like that ever needs to go into a log entry. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

No, Brad, I'm referring to the diff cited in this. Moreschi (talk) 23:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just because it's an honest statement of your opinion, doesn't mean it's not a personal attack. If someone was to say "The world would be a better place if X was run down by the number 25 bus", they might be expressing their honest opinion but it is still a personal attack. If you had written "X showed poor judgment on this issue" I would have let it pass, but to make it a general criticism is to attack someone's character. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

That's really lame and nitpicky. It's quite clear I was trying to say "has poor judgment as an admin", which is no personal attack. Obviously I meant no reference to Mr Matthew's character or personal life. Moreschi (talk) 23:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Sam, that makes no sense at all. Criticising people in general, as opposed to over specific incidents, is not an attack on their character; it's a criticism of the pattern of their actions over a long period of time. The way your argument reads now, it seems like you feel no criticism is allowed except of specific incidents, which is just silly (we would have no RfCs and very few RFARs if criticism could only be directed at specific actions). I'm not sure you meant it to be taken this way, but still, that's how it comes off. Moreschi's comment was harsh, and probably generated a lot more heat than light, but still, I can't see how "personal attack" is a justified description of it. Of course, some honest opinions are indeed personal attacks, such as the one you cite about the bus, but it's so far removed from Moreschi's comments as to be a red herring. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I see that the arbcom, just after vacating the Matthew Hoffman case, are set to create another, where a single statement that's vaguely impolitic is now a personal attack worthy of losing adminship over. I will point out that one of the reasons that the Matthew Hoffman case was problematic was because the committee ignored the actual descriptions of content dispute and turned the policy that said that blocks should not be only for the purpose of a cool-down block into "if there's any cool-down aspect to a block, however else it is justified, it is outside policy.". In this case, they are ignoring WP:NPA: "Derogatory comments about another contributor must be supported by evidence, otherwise they constitute personal attacks and may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks." Moreschi, in the supposed personal attack, linked to a discussion of controversial actions by Charles Matthews, hence providing evidence - we can argue about the strength, but it dos appear that once again, the Arbcom, who exist to support policy, does not know what the policy actually says, and seem highly prone to defend their own at the expense of policy.

May I remind the arbcom of the following: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Matthew_Hoffman/Proposed_decision#Test_case (Uninvited Comany's comment, December 20, and Paul August's response to criticism of UC's comment, same day.) The behaviour being defended has been apologised for, so ignore who it's about. However, it does appear that there is a strong divide: if an arbitrator makes egregious personal attacks on several admins - not a problem. If an admin points to a controversial action by an arbiter as evidence of lack of judgement - he deserves to be desysoped for the personal attack. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

No, the reason I proposed a three month rest from admin powers for Moreschi was because he unilaterally undid a block decided on by the Arbitration committee. His inappropriate remarks are why I consider an admonition would not be enough to prevent a repeat and therefore rule that as too weak a response. (Also, I can't help but wonder why, given your keenness to scratch the Matthew Hoffman case out of the historical record, you are so keen to refer to it? Surely you want it to go away and never bother you again?) Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, he shouldn't have undid the block, but get the evidence right, and make sure you give the appearance of a fair trial. Noone, including myself has ever said that my judgement in the incidents mentioned in Hoffman were always correct, and I had volunteered to give up adminship early in the Hoffman case. However, if you sidestep process, chance to defend themselves, treat very weak evidence as valid, and the like, you're creating a situation where, regardless of the merits of the actions, the decision is going to be highly problematic, because it misrepresents aspects and fails to give opportunity for defense. Do the case right: You could make a temporary injunction desysopping Moreschi if you think there's evidence to support that he'd make controversial admin actions during the case. But to say the desysop is for a much less defensible reason than the highly defensible one that you could have: Show that it was clear that it was a block by Arbcom. Show that Moreschi supports Giano, and thus had a COI in undoing the block. Given evidence of those, the desysop will be uncontroversial. Why throw in something that just makes the Arbcom look petty? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The point here about ad hominem is that it is a fallacy. Here it is quite obviously fallacious, to attack ad hominem whoever implements an ArbCom decision. Moreschi is not talking sense. This in fact adds to his breaking numerous policies and protocols, rather than being any sort of defence of his actions.

Anyone can disagree with an ArbCom decision, and argue for it to be modified. That requires reasoning to be brought forward, relating to the matter itself and not to individuals acting on behalf of the Committee. Simply disregarding unblocking policy, with its requirement to consult, and asserting that he has better judgement than the Committee, and proceeding as if admins can do as they like and attack people as if we didn't have policies about that too, constitutes a display of contempt. Dragging all sorts of red herrings across the path of the discussion, and lawyering about very clear matters such as voting, is also not impressive. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom: No articles were harmed in the making of this drama. Please, take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology. It needs your attention more than this navel gazing. Jehochman ^Talk 11:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no. Moreschi both violated WP:NPA, and responded inadequately to the normal request to an admin to answer reasonably in defence of his actions, by spouting fallacious nonsense. He doesn't get away with that by giving a confused account of the meaning of "personal attack", where there are problems in both of two different senses. It is quite in order for me to point out and contest all that.

I am taking under advisement any further participation in new cases, given what various people are being allowed to make in the way of free and unfair comment on me. It would seem to open me to yet more adverse comment, and the onus on me is unclear when the case is unlikely to close in 2008. It may seem beyond the call of duty. I, anyway, don't appreciate your own comment at all. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant my comment to be general, not specific to you. Jehochman ^Talk 12:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

"No articles were harmed in the making of this drama". What Jehochman said (and this is a general comment on the whole of the "Giano Wars" rather than any particular user). AFAIK nothing in the whole series of the Giano Wars has had any bearing on encyclopaedic content (beyond the issue of blocks stopping Giano from contributing thereto). It's simply about internal Wiki-politics and, as such, is a complete distraction from the business of building a reference work and preventing those who would harm the actual content of Wikipedia mainspace from doing so. We really need to impose a complete moratorium on Giano-related drama for 2009.--Folantin (talk) 12:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm at work, don't know about anyone else. To Jehochman: no, really, the "lame duck" argument put forward by Moreschi is really extremely damaging. This is not Bush bailing out General Motors, but it simply must be said that the mandate of the ArbCom is 12 months, not 11 and a bit. I cannot imagine why anyone responsible would support clouding the issue in the Scientology case by saying "look, some of those Arbitrators voting were about to turn into pumpkins, so their votes don't really count". This is exactly what Moreschi has argued. He did so because he didn't like a decision voted on properly by the Committee, under a procedure designed to protect Giano, who now has had random blockings of him defined as vigilante actions. Arguing this way is just horrible, because of the doors it opens to black-hat people of all kinds. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It's clearly tempting to people taking a partisan view in an arbitration case to attempt to wrongfoot the arbitration committee in the hope of achieving some concession. It's also tempting to those who have lost faith in the arbitration committee to make every attempt to undermine the committee's authority. This combination of factors emerged as a problem in early 2006 and represents a problem for dispute resolution for which no solution has yet been found.

The problem isn't so much bad actors as actors who have lost trust in the community processes. At first some scapegoat "cabal" was the focus of the attacks, then they moved on to Jimbo, and in the past year the focus has fallen squarely on the Arbitration Committee because of the dynamic I describe above.

Yes, there are black hats, but nowadays the white hats are as likely to be acting in a manner that undermines the community consensus. It is because of that merger of interests that the arbitration commmittee-related pages seethe with political point-scoring of a kind that used to be very rare anywhere on Wikipedia.

Most destructive has been the trend to attempt to deny the Committee the ability to create innovative new forms of dispute resolution. That move effectively sold the pass. Quite frankly I think we'd benefit greatly from mass bans and a fork. Let those who won't recognise the need for a final dispute resolution process set up their own clone and arrange an update procedure. I have a usable mechanism for this.

A fork is long, long overdue. Wikipedia's community was already rather too large for comfort by 2005. --TS 21:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

"Let those who won't recognise the need for a final dispute resolution process set up their own clone and arrange an update procedure" - I don't think anyone is actually suggesting that we don't need a final dispute resolution process. DuncanHill (talk) 21:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Such finality is unavailable to those who deny the authority of the committee. As I said earlier, arguing with the ref is destructive. --TS 21:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You will respect mah authoriteh!. DuncanHill (talk) 21:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You forget that it is not a member of the arbitration committee, or an aspiring member saying this. It is a requirement of a final dispute resolution process that it be final. It cannot be final if we feel free to ignore it or attempt to game it. You can't have it both ways. --TS 21:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

No Tony, I don't forget that, I was just trying to gently point out how ridiculous you sound. DuncanHill (talk) 21:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

As I suggested on your talk page, use of derision isn't helpful. Make your point if you have one. If you agree that we should treat the arbitrators' decisions in a case as the final step in dispute resolution, then fine. If you don't, explain why not. --TS 21:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I shall no longer respond to your comments Tony, it is not productive. I ask that you stop responding to mine, for the same reason. DuncanHill (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

An interesting idea was floated by someone at an off-wiki location: seated arbs having no +sysop bit, surrendering them for the duration of their tenure. They'd keep the Checkuser/Oversight, of course. It was a curious thought--if their decisions then had validity and standing, they would be enforced by the admins, allowing for a very neat check and balance on power. If an admin ever went totally off the walls, the Arbs could still direct the Stewards to desysop. Is this a bad idea? rootology (C)(T) 14:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I do sort of like it, but maybe we could have it be a bit more nuanced. How about they keep their sysop bit and can use it for routine admin actions (protecting pages, blocking vandals, non-controversial deletions, etc.), but can't take any actions on established users, i.e. the kinds of people that might actually come up for arbitration. I think removing the sysop bit entirely might dissuade a lot of people from considering ArbCom, while limiting actions just on established users gets to the crux of the issue. --Cyde Weys 14:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

As long as it had teeth and was not a paper tiger, your tweak, Cyde, would be spot on, in theory. rootology (C)(T) 14:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

As the sysop bit is no big deal, I am sure that no current admin would have any problem at all with giving it up for a seat on arbcom. DuncanHill (talk) 14:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

On a purely practical level, isn't the ability to look at deleted contributions pretty much a necessity for Arbcom members?—Kww(talk) 14:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is. Most arbitrators steer clear of serious enforcement actions that are likely to come to Arbcom, in order to not have to recuse on them. The clerks will normally perform the block if required at the end of a case. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

This is very much something I suggested two days back on my user page, although I would go one step further than Sam seems to assume. I wrote: Rethinking WMC's comment on the separation of powers: It might be a good idea if sitting Arbs would perform no non-trivial admin actions themselves (nor via dedicated clerks). If ArbCom cannot find an uninvolved admin willing to enforce its decisions, then clearly there is a strong consensus against it. And it would eliminate that troublesome "I'm arbiter X, and my blocks may or may not be on behalf of the committee and may or may not be subject to normal community review, depending on the phases of Charon as seen from Sedna" nonsense. Having thought this over, I still think its a good idea. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think arbs should surrender them, but they should never perform blocks on the basis of arbitration enforcement. Majorly ^talk 15:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The Committee can inspire trust by posting motions and voting on them publicly, and then asking the clerks, stewards, or admins corps, as the case may be, to implement the decisions. Exceptions can be made for privacy concerns but those should be rare. I think removing +sysop is not necessary if the arbitrators show discretion about not using tools in situations that they might need to review. I am sure it would be very uncomfortably for the Committee to have to review the behavior of or sanction one of their own; each member should do everything possible to avoid that situation by not using tools in controversial situations. If anyone wants examples, I can provide them, but I prefer not to embarrass sitting arbs. A word to the wise is sufficient. Jehochman ^Talk 15:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Past precedent is that Committee members have generally avoided taking administrative action regarding open or decided cases. Requiring them not to do so is likely to be a bad idea, especially since the idea appears to be in response to a single incident which is in every other way unprecedented. Such an idea certainly should not be implemented so soon after the incident; think about 6 months from now. Taking away the sysop entirely would stop them from seeing deleted edits and would also stop them from routine actions not related to cases, like CSD or blocking the latest Grawp sockfarm. (Checkuser without admin is like giving a telescope to a blind man.) Thatcher 15:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm moving to the position where Arbcom members should have no 'special powers' whatsoever - see thatcher's discussion regarding supervision of oversight and checkuser. Separation of powers confers many benefits - not least clarifying and simplifying roles and establishing institutions that can oversee each other. The current situation is rather messy. I recognise the need for arbcom to have access to checkuser information, but there's no reason this shouldn't be something they can request from another body - they'd have to justify the requirement too, and it means there's less not more sensitive information being passed around. To an extent, some of the investigation in arb cases should be handled by separate agencies, and Arbs would then be left to simply weigh the evidence and opine. --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, arbitrators as arbitrators, nice idea. DuncanHill (talk) 15:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I should add - I think sysop status is about as far as it should go, for deleted pages etc. but they shouldn't be using the block button to enforce decisions - enforcement should be a separate agency (and not necessarily rank and file administration) --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

alleged examples

<-(ec) Without naming names, here are a couple things that arbitrators have done with their sysop tools, which they should not have done:

• Blocked a user to enforce an arbcom decision. Instead, there should have been a report at WP:AE and if that failed to achieve a consensus, a motion should have been posted at WP:RFAR.
• Deleted an requests for comment page, an action which the community unanimously (except the subject) reversed at deletion review. Instead, try miscellany for deletion next time.

The answer is for arbitrators to use more clue. Sure, if they are checkusering a sockfarm, they can issue blocks. That activity is unlikely to be controversial, and the community at large cannot review the checkuser results in any case (see this essay for thoughts on solving that problem). A few mistakes are forgivable, but those who are determined to keep making mistakes should be pressured to resign. Jehochman ^Talk 15:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• If you look through the logs of some arbitrators, you will see that some of them do an extensive amount of administrative work, including blocking socks after a cu is done. Some of these are likely part of arbcom enforcement. I'm not arguing in favor or against a change. I'm proving more information so we are all aware of the full aspect of change. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
  • There needs to be an exemption for checkuser actions; however, I'd really rather that Arbs were not active checkusers. They should appoint a sufficient number of checkusers to do that work. It's not like Arbs have so much free time. Also, if Arbs weren't active as checkusers (though they might have access for the purpose of review), they'd be much more effective at overseeing proper use of the checkuser tool. People should not be entrusted to watch themselves, even if they appear to be honest. If you want to be seen as a trusted reviewer of admins, don't act as an admin; if you want to be seen as a trusted reviewer of checkusers, don't act as a checkuser. Jehochman ^Talk 15:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree and would not be opposed to a change along those lines. But it is a change that some of the new arbs or their supporters did not anticipate since some of the new arbitrators said that they want the tool. I primarily have the tool to review arbcom related evidence for myself, and to do oversight of the people with access. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
    • (ec) That is correct use of the tool by an Arbitrator, in my opinion. I think that asking arbitrators not to perform routine sysop actions, and not perform routine checkuser actions would help increase trust. They should retain access to facilitate supervision. I think this is something that the community can write into policy. If somebody would prefer to be an active admin or checkuser, then they can resign their seat on the committee. We have a reserve of candidates with more than 50% support who Jimbo Wales can appoint. Jehochman ^Talk 15:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
      • I know that one of the (less significant) reasons I put myself forward as a candidate for Arbcom was the paucity of female checkusers/oversighters. Many female editors feel more comfortable dealing with another woman when it comes to personal security issues (I've not discussed it with FloNight, but IIRC Alison expressed concern that no women were appointed in the last round of CU appointments), a point I raised in response to questions along the way. Someone else has suggested a separate account for arbitrators to carry out arbitration-related administrative actions; the idea has merit, but I would wonder if I am carrying out an oversight or CU based on information that came in on the Arbcom-L mailing list, would that be an admin action by Risker-the-admin, or by Risker-the-arbitrator? Risker (talk) 17:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
        • You're a girl??? (Straightens tie, checks for twinkie crumbs on shirt). Thatcher 17:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm reminded of back when Danny worked for the Foundation, and occasionally performed official functions here on Wikipedia. Controversy often arose when people couldn't tell if Danny was acting as Danny-the-Admin or Danny-the-Foundation-Employee, and given the sensitive nature of Office actions, he usually didn't want to advertise. Ultimately, I believe he created a second account for Office actions, and when he stuck to it it worked pretty well.

I don't think our problem is Arbitrator's having Admin powers, it's the difficulty in telling which "hat" they're wearing. So, I'll suggest two options:

• Arbitrators should keep their Admin powers, but only use them when acting as part of the ArbCom. Which is not to say they need a vote on every action, simply that if Arb-A blocks Editor-B, it's an ArbCom action and not normal adminning. If an Arb notices a situation needing a regular admin, there's plenty at AN/I.
• On joining ArbCom, they create a second user account for Arbitration duties. So, FloNight and FloNight-Arb let's say. Then, if FloNight deletes a page, she's being an Admin. But if FloNight-Arb deletes a page, it's an ArbCom action.

These are just suggestions, but I think if it's clearer when an Arb is and Admin and when an Arb is an Arb, it will allow the community to discuss Admin actions more freely, and let the ArbCom deal with individual Arbs when necessary. --InkSplotch (talk) 15:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oh good grief. Let's not turn the whole place upside down in response to one or two unusual cases, shall we? Thatcher 17:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Thatcher. Earlier proposals had merit but this is just getting more and more far fetched. --Deskana (talk) 17:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised by this, because my primary suggestion is, in effect, to ask Arbitrator's not to use their admin rights unless acting for the committee, whereas the earlier suggestion is to take those rights completely away. I will admit the second account idea is far fetched, I'd even call it silly, but I threw it out there because, well, it's been done (and worked, to an extent). My two ideas were, by the way, exclusive of each other, not in combination. --InkSplotch (talk) 20:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• Let's stop beating about the proverbial bush. We are only talking about this because FT2 blocks those who upset or oppose him, and then becomes erratic when others overturn his blocks. Arbs blocking is not really a problem, the problem has arisen because the wrong Arb is on the Arbcom. Address the problem at source rather than find a blanket cure for an illness which does not exist. Giano (talk) 19:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Just as a note (and without taking any position of my own on the proposal above) WMF wikis now have the technical ability to have the permissions and roles sliced and diced in any way desired. So it's possible to create a role that allows, for example viewing deleted content but not deleting, or editing protected pages but not moving them over redirects, or whatever, and then assign it to whoever desired... see the Steward handbook One could thus, if one wanted to restrict sitting arbs from blocking or deleting but still allow viewing deleted pages, create such a role and give it the desired permissions. (This has bearing for the proposal being mooted to create a "CU/Oversight monitor" functionality as well. ) ++Lar: t/c 18:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Curious idea, and silly as well. Arbs are editors first, admins second, and Arbitrators third. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It might not be a bad idea if a few of them were not admins at all. But if someone is approved as an admin and then elected/appointed an arbitrator, then they get to do both, within the bounds of what they themselves consider appropriate. I am not expressing any opinion on any current case that may or may not require an exception to the general rule, since I know nothing about any current disputes. 6SJ7 (talk) 21:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Effective immediately and until 1 January 2009, Requests for Arbitration will be placed "on hold" and will not be opened into full cases or removed as rejected even if they enjoy full support of the Committee. New requests will still be accepted and the Arbitrators may vote to accept or to decline the case as normal, but no final action will be taken until or after 1 January 2009.

This "freeze" of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration is intended to allow the new Arbitrators time to "settle in" to their new positions, and was imposed per an agreement between the new additions to the Committee and the outgoing Arbitrators.

For the Arbitration Committee,

AGK 21:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe put this on the top of the main page in case people don't look here? rootology (C)(T) 21:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I've already posted a notice on WP:RFAR, if that's what you're suggesting? AGK 14:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this should be a clarification or just for general discussion so I'm posting it here. In the recently closed Piotrus case, there was a proposed finding of fact regarding edit warring by Lokyz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that failed to pass, yet in the remedies section, this admonishment passed. I recognise that sometimes remedies pass without findings of fact, but this seems strange that a finding about Loyyz edit warring failed to pass, yet there was still a remedy enacted. I'll happily post this as a clarification, but it might just need a simple dicussion here. --Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 15:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll flag this up for further discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 15:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I brought this up earlier to the attention of some arbitrators, but it was ignored along with some other remarks of mine :( I find it curious that a remedy passed so smoothly, yet the findings were problematic... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I suspect this situation arose due to the wavering attention—as a result of the sheer quantity of proposals—of some of the Arbitrators. AGK 16:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

While I don't consider it very important, see my comment at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus_2#Post-arbitration_statement_by_Piotrus. I don't want to waste time tracing my questions in archives (I did so recently here), but my impression of trying to talk to arbitrators, after this case, is don't bother - and that, unfortunately, includes questions like 'how there can be a remedy if the finding is not passing'? PS. I support the remedies is question. PPS. The above statement is not a post-case rant, particularly as I more happy than not as far as findings/remedies are concerned, it is a sad statement of accompanying experience :( PPPS. I should also add that on the other hand, replies from clerks have always been prompt and very helpful :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, I spent many hours reviewing the statements and evidence in this case, commenting on the workshop, commenting and voting on the proposed decision, and in some cases offering my own alternatives to the original proposals made by another arbitrator. In some instances, of course, I was in disagreement with a suggestion that was made; in other cases, I agreed with a suggestion but was outvoted; and frankly, in one or two instances, I was still thinking about something when the case is about to be closed. But I do my best to be responsive to the input we receive, and I believe so do most of the other arbitrators. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely Brad. This was in no way supposed to be a complaint, merely an opportunity to discuss whether or not this was the intended outcome. This case had a lot going on, and it's not surprising that there's some conflict between the findings of fact and remedies. Perhaps a way forward would be to have the arbitrators revote on the remedy, in light of knowing the finding of fact didn't pass? --Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Or revote on the finding. If this remedy is revoked, my estimate of likelihood of Piotrus 3 will significantly increase, as Lokyz'd disruption (by which I mean incivility, not revert warring) was both a major reason for tension in EE conflicts and for launching the Piotrus 2 case (as it was preceded by AE reports on Lokyz).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The remedy is far more likely to increase the chances of Piotrus 3 through the resentment stirred up by Piotrus goading Lokyz into easy civility blocks [in order to remove him as a POV opponent in Lithuanian/Polish articles]. Piotrus, please give these guys a break. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I find it difficult to see how Piotrus 2 in any way makes Piotrus 3 unlikely. All it has done is slegdehammer the relatively confined problems of Gregparkavenue and Boodlesthecat, drive Irpen away (as the ridiculous findings of Piotrus 1 drove Ghirlandajo away) and give almost the entire Lithuanian community at wikipedia, or in point of fact every group with extensive hostile exprience of Piotrus, a sense of arb incompetence and injustice (this is at least what the emails I get indicate). I do hope though it makes the issues some people have clearer to everyone so that everyone can get along better, and the chances are a fresh arbcom hearing will make everyone behave a wee bit better for a while. Here's hoping! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we are making some progress. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Personally I’ll be awaiting the designated reforms to ArbCom rules, for example, prohibiting Lithuanian editors (among others) from regurgitating carefully selected bits and pieces of predisposed info from other cases long closed and resolved, as per double jeopardy which forbids any defendant (like myself) from being tried twice for the same drummed up offences. --Poeticbent talk 21:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

This thread was removed by User:Tznkai and is being manually archived.

I have to express my utter disappointment that asking for a timetable or agenda with a date for some action, that everyone agrees needs to be taken, is somehow viewed as threatening the ArbCom because it reminds them that they serve at the consent of the community and constantly delaying is going to get them in trouble. --Barberio (talk) 15:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if it's time somebody took it on themselves to tell you that unlike the arbitration committee you speak only for yourself, and your grasp of the facts seems, on this evidence, to be rather shaky. --TS 19:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

"that everyone agrees needs to be taken"...then why are you the only one posting in support? Your actions in this leave a lot to be desired, you threaten arbcom by demanding they act on your timetable, to your solo wishes, give them a deadline of your sole choosing, and give them an ultimatum. Go over their heads as you claim, I'm sure you'll get shot down in flames. Thank God you didn't run to be part of this overworked group. I don't blame them one bit for the reaction they've given you.Sumoeagle179 (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Odd.

See, here I was, thinking I've bent over backwards to give ArbCom all the time they've needed to sort out this mess. I mean, Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee was last June. And I even deferred to he Arbitration Committee when they asked not to put policy changes into the recent vote, because I assumed they were going to act on the RfC's recomendations. And despite the assumption that I'll be 'shot down in flames', there were an awful lot of people wanting clear change then, and during the recent elections too. Yet nothing has been done, because the Committee keep delaying action on it.

And Sumoeagle, if you read what the committee members say, they all say it *should* be looked into, but won't start looking into it now, or give a time when they will look into it, if at all.

I'll also note that during the RfC, Tony Sidaway's attempts to derail it, and shut it down, were all roundly dismissed with overwhelming opposition. Yet he claims I am representing only myself.

Frankly, if you really think I'll be shot down in flames, why are you so eager to shut me up? I mean, if change really isn't wanted, that'll be shown when we put the new Arbitration Policy up for a ratification vote won't it? So let's sort out a new policy, and have a ratification vote, and then it'll be settled.

Now, I'm going to work on making a draft, and ignore the minority of people who've put up roadblocks to change since last year, since you're not helping and only throwing insults and aggression. --Barberio (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Minority? You're the only one waving this flag right now. Your grasp of what ArbCom is, how its policy gets changed, and your single minded drive to lead the revolution for "the Community" have me scared. I want to see change, I even discussed it with some folks at the time the RFC was going on, but to you it seems like a crusade and I fear your efforts are only going to lead to more drama, more anguish, and more hurt feelings. So as a minority of the community, I'd like to ask you to just back off and let the new ArbCom settle in and do their jobs. --InkSplotch (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You're *scared*? Of me asking for something that a whole lot of other people, including some arbitrators past and present, have worked on to be taken to a ratification vote?

Allowing the community to make a decision scares you?

Why?

I seriously can't understand why this is being framed as 'threats' and 'scary', and in the same breath as saying you want to prevent drama? Look, as I said before, there is no drama here not being caused by those trying to indefinitely postpone, or flat out put a stop to, the process to change the arbitration policy. What I want now is to get a final draft of the new policy, put it up for rattification, and have a yay or nay vote from the community. Considering that the bulk of this revised policy comes from one of the currently sitting arbitrators, it seems odd that you make this into my 'crusade' alone? --Barberio (talk) 03:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm scared because you think that one RFC represents a true consensus of the whole community regarding ArbCom.

I'm scared because you honestly think that RFC was a consensus for you to come charging through here upsetting all the apple carts.

I'm scared because you're here, "ticked off", delivering ultimatums and demands, and threatening to rewrite policy because you're unhappy with what over a dozen new arbitrator's haven't done in 4 whole days. And you show up on my talk page to ask me if I think my actions are in the best interests of civil editing? If an arbitrator was making comments like yours before or during a case, we'd all be here calling for them to recuse. I really don't think the way you're demanding change is in the best interests of this project.

Allowing the community to make a decision? Sure, when there's a need, and calm discussion. Changing BLP doesn't require rewriting ArbCom, they've even been making suggestions on the main page here. And changing ArbCom doesn't require threats. Four days into a new committee, I'm not convinced it needs change at all, yet. If you'd like to discuss BLP, then go, discuss BLP. There's places to do it, and ways to do it civilly. This isn't it. --InkSplotch (talk) 03:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, and read below, I'm not going to respond to arguments based on attacking me rather than the substence of the issue.

I'd like to note, that I commented on your talk page, because you had made the following quick succession reversions - [2] [3] - on a page, and edit warring is harmful to the wiki. --Barberio (talk) 03:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

These are not attacks, they're a response to your behavior on the main page. The fact that you don't see your behavior as threatening or harmful, like I don't see my comments as personal attacks isn't a potential irony that's lost on me. However, the fact is that it's not the issue of BLP Special Enforcement - like many, I feel it's a dead issue due to lack of enforcement, and that ArbCom is the wrong place to discuss BLP. It's not the RfC, which I feel was a legitimate discussion and clear quite a bit of air - I also think it will have a dramatic impact on the new committee, but we'll have to wait and see. It's not any "justification for ignoring past community consensus" because I don't follow your idea of consensus here. And it's not about denying anyone the ability to discuss changing arbcom policy. It is very specifically the way in which you came here to try and do things. The manner in which you addressed the committee, the demands and ultimatums you've issued, and what I feel is a slightly naieve perception that "consensus triumphs all" and a perceived arrogance that you have the consensus all figured out.

I feel you're entirely too close to this, too agressive about it, and I'd ask you to recuse yourself from leading any further RfC's, Arbitration cases or community dicussions about it. I'm not forcing, or demanding, I'm just asking. You needn't listen to me any more or less than anyone else. --InkSplotch (talk) 04:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration is the place to talk about it, because BLP Special Enforcement has made it so that a minority of admins revert all changes on the grounds that it's now "Arbitration Committee Owned Policy". So I was attempting to get the Arbitration Committee to at least give a date of when they'll look into deciding if they want to let the community have control of it back or not.

And frankly, you might be a bit 'pushy' about getting some kind commitment to look into it, if you'd been trying to get action on it since last june. At this point, I feel being assertive, 'arrogant and pushy' if you want to call it that, is the only thing that's going to see any action after the delay and inertia that getting this fixed has seen. Is it really that much to ask someone to look into it within three months? --Barberio (talk) 05:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Just noticed a common theme in the above thread... Rather than discuss the issues, or the things raised in the RfC, or make justification for ignoring past community consensus, or justify denying the community the ability to even establish a consensus on if they want a new policy, a handful of people seem fixated on this being 'My Crusade'.

Heck, I didn't even start the RfC, that was someone else. In fact, I only got a few bits supported in the RFC, and a few of my ideas were strongly opposed. The Draft I'm pushing to be put up for community ratification was mostly User:newyorkbrad's work.

So enough. Further attempts to focus this on me will be ignored. Discuss the issues not the people. Attacks directed at people instead of the arguments and proposals they make is how drama starts. --Barberio (talk) 03:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

With the expansion of the committee, has any thought been given to whether fixed standards (such as requiring 4 net votes to accept a case) ought to be adjusted? Avruch ^T 01:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It's been discussed, but so far no change has been decided. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be interesting to get the arbcom members' opinion on this question on RS noticeboard. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 05:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

So the Arbcom knows, I will be asking for Arbitration Enforcement on this issue, as it is clearly disruptive and there is a massive point being made with this rubbish. However, I am off overseas tomorrow for a week, so I will be doing this when I return. --Russavia ^Dialogue 06:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I've gathered that I'm expected to be pleased and grateful at being spared an RFAR about my block of FT2. Sorry, that's not happening. When a friend of mine ended up "admonished" a while back, he had to first to endure an elaborate "trial"—an RFAR case—which wasted an incredible amount of time for many people. So I certainly have sympathy for the attempt to institute an arbitration procedure "light," for the simple cases. We all have an interest in keeping down the arbcom's workload, as well as an interest in not wasting our own time on jumping through bureaucratic hoops. But to have our actions and deeply felt convictions simply voted on, in a "motion", by a body that allows nothing in the way of opportunity or space for the putative criminal to account for their own motives, or to defend themselves—that's ridiculous. It turns out that the committee has no wish to hear from me on the subject in any form (or were those "statements" the opportunity and the space? Why wasn't I told?). And yet the committee presumes to opine about my motives. This system already needs reform, because the procedure of holding up a silenced—or talkpage-banished—and supposedly abashed criminal to the loose-cannon commentary of individual arbiters is a bad one. Look at how it panned out here. I'm thinking particularly of the comments of Coren, who tells me, cavalierly, why I blocked FT2. (I was "furthering a political dispute", I "knew the block was improper.") Needless to say, his "why" doesn't look much like my own account, necessarily brief, on ANI.[4] For me, Coren's version brings up a ludicrous picture of recalcitrant pupil being hauled before stern headmaster. Or, wait, am I merely seeing a presumptuous young guy lecturing me about the contents of my head?

I have no respect for the procedure as it works at present. On the other hand, speaking more personally, I do appreciate the tact and good sense of those arbitrators who merely signed the motion by way of support, rather than taking the opportunity of spreading themselves on the subject of my motives. Bishonen | talk 20:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC).

I am largely sympathetic to the view that arbitration should not ever be about motives. It should be about actions only. Arbcom should be saying "blocking a user in these circumstances is unacceptable" and leave motives out of it. We can look at logs and see what people have done, we can't read minds. However, I think the orbita dicta of individual arbs is less important than the unanimously agreed motion. The motion (whether one agrees with it or not) seems clear.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Although I was admonished just now for using it, the term "theory of mind" comes to mind (it's a good term despite being used here a lot by a rather less than helpful individual). We can never know what motivates, what someone was thinking... at least not for certain. Judge outcomes, not intents. The closest we can come is to suggest that a reasonable person should have known how something was going to turn out, or that an action was ill advised, rash, whatever. To ascribe motive is to go too far, and leads us into not assuming good faith. ++Lar: t/c 20:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Everywhere one goes these days there is Scott Mac (Doc) with a ready opinion, and advice on how to amend all or faults, how I would love to be so perfect. Before this case closes, however, let us not forget that same committee, now admonishing Bishonen, had been dithering for weeks and weeks and weeks, and were it not for Bishonen courageously and wisely bringing this whole sorry matter to head would still be dithering and the project, and all those involved, suffering as a result. Which I suppose means admonishing is only to be expected. A thank you would probably stick in the throat. SO I will say it - Thank you Bishonen for getting the job sorted and concluded. Giano (talk) 20:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The "same" committee has not "been dithering for weeks and weeks and weeks", this incarnation of the committee was 13 days old when Bishonen blocked and posted on ANI, with 10 of 17 then members brand new to the committee. The committee has been doing plenty, I compiled a list somewhere of just the things I've seen - a list curiously similar to fulfilling a community-wide mandate for reform. Bishonen did in fact force the issue, but barring an unfortunate repeat in history, we'll never know for sure if it would've been resolved better without her impatient intervention two weeks into the new year (as I believe it would have been) worse, or not at all (as you seem to believe.) --Tznkai (talk) 20:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Tznkai, I am getting rather tired of this "new commitee" talk they are not composed of newbies, they have all been (hopefully) at least twice round the block. The situation could be pro-longed no further, it was sorted and it was dealt with - give thanks! Giano (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Which may be true - but doesn't get close to addressing my points, nor make up for the inaccuracies in what you said. There is reasonable disagreement of opinion on whether Bishonen's intervention helped or hurt the situation - but the facts remain that at least ten of the people you accuse of "dithering" for "weeks and weeks and weeks" weren't in the position to do anything about it.--Tznkai (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't have gone on much longer as User:Thatcher was being very persistent, and SlimVirgin who eventually filed an RfC, after a couple of days of which FT resigned. That's why RfC, not bullying, is part of the dispute resolution process.:) Sticky Parkin 23:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• While an admonishment may be the correct, rational action, it is politically unwise. Prosecutors do not prosecute every violation they witness. The admonishment will go down in history as a political action designed to scold Bishonen for opposing the power of ArbCom. How dare you block one of our members. As such, the admonishment will reduce trust in ArbCom, and thus harm Wikipedia. A smarter move would be to remain silent. If Bishonen needs scolding, it would be far better to come from the community. Jehochman ^Talk 20:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Look at the admonishment this way.. it means arbcom is saying "We're officially supposed to say this is bad, but we're not actually doing anything about it." Friday (talk) 20:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Really, Jehochman? If that theory held any water wouldn't they have done something to me too? I took the entire Committee to RFC last summer, chewed out five of them at my blog a couple weeks ago, and called them out on Jimbo's user talk the other day. And if they're looking for ways to be subtler there are two other open cases where I'm a named party. AGF is policy, but if that isn't good enough go ahead and watchlist the proposed decisions to see what happens. No need for more tension than we already have. Durova^Charge! 21:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hang on, I'm going to get it - Durova, the name us ringing bells, Durova , Durova Durova, Oh hell no, surely not, it can't be - not Durova who was once in the forces. I don't beleieve it, you were the girl who walked a million miles in moccasins. Well you have grown. Giano (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Giano, this comment right here is outright taunting and it needs to stop. Your comment displaying your personal distaste with Durova doesn't even have the facade of relevance here.--Tznkai (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

No, but it is funny. And Durova's "look at me" post rather asks for it.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

If everyone who has ever written a "look at me and all I have done" post was insulted, admonished, or otherwise publicly castigated, there are quite a few names here who deserve it as much - if not more. Wouldn't you agree?--Tznkai (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

True. Perhaps we need a policy to insist on a certain threshold number of said posts before we take action?--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

No. "We" do not need to take action. You, Giano, and Durova need to, in that order.--Tznkai (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a note Bishonen

I fail to understand your reasoning behind using the account Bishonen (talk · contribs) to discuss a case dealing with administrative actions done by Bishzilla (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Since it is known both are the same user, how does it matter? "The reasoning behind" could simply be that she happened to be logged in as Bishonen at the time. I can't see the issue.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Focusing on the use of the Bishonen account versus the Bishzilla accounts strikes me as a digression. I think I actually do understand the reasoning, but IMHO it doesn't matter much. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

"how does it matter?" It is rather a procedural issue and got nothing to do with digression. We deal with accounts and not people. Not because I believe it is true but imagine Bishonen actions resulting in a blockable violation while arguing for the case of Bishzilla (i.e. personal atacks, legal threats). What would you do? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

If you block either account, the other must respect the block. It really makes no difference. Jehochman ^Talk 21:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, FaysalF, I think you'll find that we address conduct issues towards people, not accounts--for obvious reasons. --TS 22:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see my comments here. In summary, if there is extensive discussion on this page that arbitrators need to be aware of, please let them know. Some arbitrators check this talk page, but not all do so. Carcharoth (talk) 12:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has opened a Request for Comment regarding arbitration enforcement, including a review of general and discretionary sanctions. All editors are encouraged to comment and contribute. The Committee will close the RfC one month from its opening. After the closing, the Committee intends to formalize reform proposals within one month.

For the Committee,
Vassyana (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

In connection with the pending creation of a Review Board to monitor Checkuser and rule on complaints of inappropriate checking, I thought it would be useful to open an RFC to gather the community's views on exactly what constitutes appropriate and inappropriate checking. Feel free to post notices of this RFC at any appropriate location I may have missed. Thatcher 04:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I have never taken part in a RfA before, so I am not sure what its scope is. Is it strictly to deal with punitive / behavioural matters, and strictly not to deal with matters of how to interpret basic questions of "neutrality"? It seems that when a group of several editors is collectively denying that a widespread, referenced POV has any right to be represented, this is a misapplication of WP:NPOV that begs clarification. I saw a very similar decision made here once, I believe it was with respect to using terms to describe Jean Dixon that were considered pejorative by some, factual by others. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I wonder that, too. Given the list of past judgements by the committee, especially Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions #Neutral point of view (and associated principles) I would have thought that the case I have opened is fully justified on that basis. However, given the admonition that the committee does not rule on content, I decided to concentrate on behaviour.--FimusTauri (talk) 14:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Not all actions involving content are content issues. Soapboxing and source misrepresentation are good examples. Both lead to violations of NPOV and other basic content polcies, but they are still conduct issues. Arbitration can examine and address these issues, but will not impose solutions on good faith content disagreements. --Vassyana (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

what I'm trying to figure out here is how this problem can ever be resolved as a content dispute (even on the questionable assumption that's what it is...). I can't even get a content dispute discussion started, because every attempt I've made has gotten reverted, archived, or drowned in a flood of illogical tripe. I mean, I suppose someone could start edit-warring - maybe if enough of a ruckus got made someone would start paying attention, and if it actually got arbcom to review the matter that might be worth the inevitable block - but that seems like a stupid approach. the fact of the matter is, this problem is never going to go away without some kind of intervention, because the other side isn't interested in listening to reason or common sense.

eh, whatever. I just don't have enough interest in this topic to battle bloody POV-warriors over it. when (or maybe 'if') this gets to the point of reasoned discussion, let me know, and I'll come back at it. --Ludwigs2 23:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

"every attempt I've made has gotten reverted, archived, or drowned in a flood of illogical tripe". "I think my opponents' arguments are illogical" is not a matter for Arbcom. Ilkali (talk) 02:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Recently, an user had filed an arbitration request which involved me as one of its subjects. However, the Arb request was removed by an arbitrator who specified that the request was being dealt with off-wiki based on an earlier request by the same user. I am unaware of the proceedings of the arbitration case and would like to know where the process is being carried out. Thanks. -The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 06:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The matter has been dealt with, and your name didn't come up. — Coren ^(talk) 13:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The pace of ArbCom's outward work may still be slow but in my opinion, the Committee has been accomplishing loads of work this year. Much of it early on this year has been organizational for the Committee. Since Wikipedia does not close, the Committee's organizational work happened at the cost of some casework being delayed. But as Paul August's stats show, we have been accomplishing our workload in different ways such as by motion this year. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, a great deal of work has come to fruition, and yet more improvements are in the works. My proposal above should not be taken as a sign of dissatisfaction, or as an indication that the needed changes are not progressing. — Coren ^(talk) 17:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you could find time amidst reshuffling the bureaucratic deckchairs to, y'know, actually vote on cases that have been open, at worst, since January. This committee has been far more obsessed with gazing at its own navel than any other in the project's history, and has achieved bugger all, even by the dismal example set by past committees. Rebecca (talk) 18:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

As I've berated before, at least one case I'm familiar with has produced nearly a novel's worth of evidence, haranguing, proposals, and brickabrack. Multiply that by what, seven? Eight open cases at a time? Now ask a Committee of 16 to read it all, decide what to do amongst themselves, handle ban reviews, oversee checkusers, find a translator for one case, establish standards of admin behavior, (by no means of conclusive list) and do it all with the seriousness we require them to have. That is of course, ignoring that they have real lives, with their consequent problems and issues. I believe all of the arbitrators are gainfully employed volunteers consistently asked to handle nearly impossible problems and elected on a mandate of fixing the structural problems with arbitration - and now you're berating them for doing that?--Tznkai (talk) 19:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

In accepting that many cases, they invited it upon themselves. Nearly impossible problems? That's certainly not always the case; I wonder how often, if at all. In fact, I think some of the worst decisions emerged from disputes that were contrary to "nearly impossible problems". I respect Rebecca's perspective as one of the most honest opinions I've seen on-wiki, and it reflects the opinion of many people - more than the number who care to admit. My own opinion differs...but I digress. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me put it another way - I'd be rather surprised if any Arbitrator would be upset if the parties in an arbitration suddenly collectively grew up, made nice, and started writing. That doesn't happen - and while we would be foolish to expect it, I think its also somewhat foolish to act as if the Arbs are the sole responsible party for it.--Tznkai (talk) 20:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure of anyone asserting that arbs are solely to blame, orsolely deserve the credit. But they certainly would be accountable for a large enough share...so to speak. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The point I'm trying to make is that it's really a structural problem. It's the process itself that causes this kind of misbehaviour of the participants. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest to you the problem is not just structural, but human. But yes, I don't doubt the structure could be improved - but there is a big gap between identifying problems and actually fixing them, a gap not filled just by having a good idea.--Tznkai (talk) 20:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's good that the Judea-Samaria case has been slow. As a result, progress has been made: guidelines are being developed to cover the basic content dispute, and it looks to me as if a strong consensus is forming in support of them. I believe that having an open Arbitration case provided the impetus to develop these guidelines. I hope the case will still continue for a period of time, as I hope to achieve progress in some other ongoing discussions in the case, to help resolve issues, hopefully making any sanctions against individual users unnecessary. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

That's "slow"? Chum, the date delinking arbitration was in the "evidence phase" two months before your case even started, and it's still there. It's the least constructive "process" I've ever seen in over six years with this project. — Hex (❝?!❞) 01:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Some friendly (really) if unsolicited advice to Arbcom: Your well-meaning desire to help is causing you to take on far too many cases. With so many cases it's harder to resolve them in a timely way and you're going to drive yourself nuts with the workload. Maybe you could be firmer about telling people to work it or there will be blocks all around, something like that. Just an opinion from someone who wants to see you succeed. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd love to do exactly that but, unfortunately, the other arbitrators and other editors insist on diffs clearly demonstrating blockable (or topic-bannable) behaviour and it takes a month of Sunday to put the, um, FoFs together. To give you an example, in most longterm disputes, little of the behaviour blatantly breaches policy; the editors know the ropes and usually acting in what they think is good faith. It's difficult to show how they are misbehaving and you have to show trends to do this. It's mindnumbling tedious work and I can only do a an hour or two at a time without losing focus. I wish we could just topic-ban the ringleaders but it's a whole load more complex than that, and things aren't always as they seem.  Roger Davies ^talk 09:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

We do reject some cases. If anyone is interested, there are stats somewhere by Paul August on how we've voted on requests (plus other stats). I consider myself quite conservative in terms of rejecting cases. Summary motions have their own disadvantages, as people facing summary justice like that suddenly become awfully interested in having a full case instead. Hopefully once we clear a few of the big cases, things will ease up a bit. Carcharoth (talk) 02:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It isn't just a matter of rejecting cases; I'd imagine most if not all of these actually do need arbitrating. Structural reform is clearly needed. Beyond that, though, I think this batch of arbitrators are far too concerned with meta nonsense and policy-setting (the fiasco over the roundly-shot down emergency desysop proposal being one example that comes to mind, but hardly the only one; rather, it's symptomatic of what it seems is their attitude to their role) than actually serving their primary purpose - delving through cases. When there were four-month old cases that I couldn't commit the time to actually resolving when I was an arbitrator, I at least had the decency to resign. Rebecca (talk) 04:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The arbs have been given about a half dozen different "primary purposes" and buck stops here positions: democratic representative, desyop committee, block review committee, sanction development, dispute resolution, case arbiters (which is sadly not always dispute resolution), checkuser appoint and oversight, Oversight appointment and oversight. Now, I could certainly end all of these cases with a wave of my hand too, everyone here could: block everyone and move on. Tempting - and easy to say from the sidelines, where we have no stake and no ability. Regardless of whether we think this meta-arbitration policy business is nonsense or not, these arbs were chosen for their commitment to it. We may not always get the committee we need ( whatever that is, I imagine hive mind of computers with the ability to reach out and actually throttle people) but we are certainly getting the committee we deserve - one of the costs of democratic process. At the end of the day Arbitration involvement represents the failure of the community to get there first and actually solve it.--Tznkai (talk) 05:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

This is bollocks. The primary function of the committee is dispute resolution, and this committee is too busy with meta discussions bringing little-to-no-benefit for the actual project to actually focus on solving the cases people are bringing to them. It's crappy work to sort through pages of debate and work out a decent solution, and it's not surprising that they find months of jerking around about how best to answer their mail a more interesting topic, but it doesn't make it any more helpful. I don't care what commitment they professed when they were campaigning, but if you've got four month old cases sitting there while you're jerking around on procedural policy, you're just not doing your job, and should have the courtesy to resign. Rebecca (talk) 06:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagree, though you're entitled to your opinion no matter how injudiciously expressed. The longest lasting cases are of ferocious complexity, both involving hundreds of articles and dozens of editors. This is for instance the fourth time Scientology has been to ArbCom in four years and the quick fix solution (in this case, lynching the pro-Scientologists) will not solve the underlying problems and it will return next year and the year after. So what if it takes time to sort it all out? The evidence is that battleground editing tends to calm down while stuff is at ArbCom (editors on their best behaviour and so forth) so even that is beneficial.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

REs structural reform, I'm not surprised that people put so much weight on that...WP:MILHIST has the most number of FA/As etc, and it also has the most structures etc, with about 50+ taskforces. Because of that a lot of people think that there is a correlation between the structure etc and productivity. MILHIST has about 88k articles, and a relatively high proportion of developed articles, and about 50 taskforces, but some other small wikiprojects with 2000 articles and even 60% stubs, 7 FAs etc, decided to create 4-5 taskforces even though they only have about 10 people who make more than 200 edits per month etc. Some Prjects who have only made about 6 FAs in the last year are now saying that they should get 5 coords, and starte their own PR process, which would result in a ghost town. Secondly the fact that MILHIST has so many FAs etc might be because of its massive scope, after all, killing and slaughtering has been an integral part of all civilisations since the dawn of time; some "small wikiprojects" actual have a greater density of coverage given their scope. All of my cricket FAs have had errors and subtle inaccuracies spotted in them, and I've spotted a few errors and odd/missing content in other people's cricket FAs, some of whom have 300+ cricket books in their personal collection. Whereas with my Vietnamese military history articles, basically nobody ever spots any content errors, because nobody else follows the topic at all. Just because a project is bigger than another in total size doesn't mean it is more complete/developed/less POV articles/has less holes in the net %wise, it could just have a bigger umbrella (MILHIST has about 360 FAs, cricket about 30 FAs); India is one of the ten biggest economies in the world (because of 1 bn people) but few would say it is one of the most developed or efficient countries and then go and copy its bureaucracy and corruption in order to get a higher standard of living. But in general, because a lot of big projects have a lot of organisation, people think that to be successful, you need to create more bureaucracy and that the processes created teh success (not necessarily true). YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

From what I've seen of this commitee, I am very cynical that the too-hard-basket cases (date delinking being the obvious candidate at this point) are actually being dealt with in an ongoing basis ("taking time to sort it all out"). There's no evidence of workshop proposals or workshop decisions; from this point, it looks like a committee that's taken their eye right off the ball and shifted their focus away from dispute resolution. I've said it a couple of times now, but when your primary focus is on how best to answer your mail when you've got cases that are still in the evidence page after four months - well, fail. Rebecca (talk) 08:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

As you know from your own experience, there is often a huge gulf between the public perception of activity and the behind-the-scenes reality. I know that the drafting arb is working hard on gathering diffs for FoFs and gathering other arbs to assist.

Otherwise, the difficulty here is that we do get about a hundred emails a day requiring attention, and various processes are systemically dysfunctional needing urgent reform, so whatever we can do to fix those – while trying to keep all the other balls in the air – will improve things dramatically in the long term. All part of the fun of being an arbitrator, I suppose :)  Roger Davies ^talk 09:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

From my past experience and historical reading of the mailing list, a lot of arbcom members are under the impression that the general community has a great approval of them etc, judging by their comments. Personally, I disagree, because in my opinion, if people think they get good service, they will come back for more service, and RFARB would be swamped with requests, in the same way that the likes of Tony1 and Awadewit etc are always being swamped with copyediting advice and request etc. Same thing goes for CU, people know where they will get fast service and will directly to the page of the CUs that they know will do something for them, or just to some admin's page when they need a troll stopped. That tells you where the demand for service is. Most arbs' talk pages get relatively few requests for day-to-day help with disruption etc, because people think that they won't do anything. To be frank, it's also the community's problem with who they vote for. Most arbitrators have little in their block log apart from a few vandals, and basically nothing against POV-pushers etc... even though they will usually campaign on repelling nationalist POV pushers etc etc.... Anyone who would block a lot of these people will get a lot of opposition from their comrades, so in the end, it's pretty hard to get in unless a small-target policy is taken. Rebecca reverts a lot of article stuff because she thinks the content is POV etc, but a lot of high-ranking people talk about NPOV, upholding policy etc etc but never seem to revert any biased junk on WP or block those promulgating it, which is everywhere. If they can't find examples of rubbish content or refuse to get rid of it, then either they do not know anything about article propaganda, know but don't care, or are playing small target politics to keep their approving rating up. They might say something like I can't intervene because I have to arbitrate it if it gets big, but is it a good idea to let a problem blow up for three months? Did they adopt an interventionist stance before they became an arbitrator???? People say they want proactive arbs but if they always vote for people who refuse to engage in content disputes for fear of looking ugly (I think ultimately people want an arb that isn't going to do anything to them, so it's their fault if they don't do anything to people they don't like either), then they are naive to think that the person will suddenly be really worried about POVpushing/content disputes and check things to see who is faking sources, citing extremists, etc. If they were passionate about stopping such things (like Rebecca) they wouldn't be able to suppress their urge to clean up rubbish over the urge to look neat and they would stop such junk. Other people base their AC campaigns on applying for all these assistant jobs etc, like AC/CU/Mediation clerks etc, because people will vote for them just on having positions and not what they actually did....I know one arb who got 99%+ and he mediated one case in his whole career....and another guy who said he wanted to be a clerk so he could "work with important people". A lot of people also like to be "involved" in solving disputes but a lot just hang around high-traffic political places and make lots of comments that seem to exude wisdom, but mostly these are circular and tautological long speeches that don't mean anything and are usually a run-of-the-mill hopeful conciliatory type of speech so that they don't offend one of the dispute parties and cop an oppose down the track. To be frank, the AC really doesn't have a lot of influence anyway (In most disputes only <= 1-2 admins care, an admin can seize influence and take over the domain just by just taking the initiative and doing their thing, whereas an arbitrator is nominally only 1/12 or so of the decision, and in most cases the arb cases are between two obscure users that nobody cares about, and if it is between a few weighty parties, they will usually want someone else to start the remedy to ban/desysop some famous person; I know of a few cases where some arbs swore about some of the parties but just sat there waiting for another arb to proposed the beheading for them and in one case no sanction was attempted; in any case, most things involving a lot of big names usaully end up in a no result, and if anyone really cares about the fate of obscure user, then they would have butted in unilaterally and had the final decision all to themselves... In the end, most people who file for RFARB seem to either have no idea about politics and think it will/is the best way to solve their solutions, in the end, if it goes to RFARB, it is either going to be a stalemate or if not, then it would have been easier to simply get someone to give their opponent a whack in quick time .... the other type of people who file for arb tend to be very politically informed and battle hardened. I presume they file because they are confident they will able to demoralise their opponents if things descned into a quagmire with everyone staring at the arbitration case...as those types of cases basically always get stalemated; the top political strategists on WP obviously did not file RFARB for a 3 month riot for no [overt] result) ....sure a few admins get desysopped etc every now and then but most of those ones have no political support beyond the veneer of their status or all their fair-weather "mates" just run away when they hit rocky waters ... many non-admins have dozens of admins backing them up and/or have friends who are willing to jump up and down and fight to the death .... I'll probably get hit by lightning and get behjeadede now that I've said it though.... YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 03:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Problem is, certain types of issues can't get resolved on the community level. Privacy or copyright issues may prevent open onsite discussion, and if a dispute has reached critical mass then entrenched participants swamp every other dispute resolution venue and noticeboard thread. The Committee we have today doesn't perform as well as it did two years ago. I have hunches why (especially sadness that Fred Bauder didn't seek reelection). Lack of other viable alternatives and a penchant for being the brave/foolish mouse who ties the bell onto cats' necks keeps bringing me back. Not many people want to bother. It's one matter to sit on an aloof panel of give-or-take fifteen; different thing entirely to file case requests. Politics? It's politically foolish to repaint the bullseye on one's shirt with any regularity. Most Wikipedians wisely stay away. Durova^Charge! 04:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I went to a public school, and almost all the teachers there said that public schools are so good etc, better than private, that our school was the best etc.... but almost all sent their kids to private schools.....Obviously that shows that they think that their co-teachers were hopeless, despite what they claim about the school being great. How many arbitrators will/have file an arbitration case? Basically none. Does this mean that the arbitrators think there is nothing wrong with Wikipedia? Or every problem they have encountered has been or will be solved quickly at grassroots level or isn't worth caring about or intervening in? Or that they think the AC, or at least the AC without themselves, aren't capable of solving the problem effectively? I think the latter [I'll probably get RFARBed by an arbitrator now...] . I don't think anything is resolvable unless it is trivial (or apparently non-trivial, but not) anyway, at least with what the community votes for, which is for people that given their previous history of not biting, are unlikely to bite. Obviously, I didn't bite enough troublemakers before I ran for AC. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

You can't seriously be suggesting that one of the arbitrators is both petty and stupid enough to file a retaliatory request for arbitration? Look, I take the role of being a clerk as someone who is supposed to protect, maintain, and improve the arbitration process, and I do so because I believe that the system serves an important function. That doesn't change the fact that I view an issue reaching Arbitration as indicative of collective failure. Administrators, individual editors, community norms, and process have failed to produce resolution, and now we have to rely on a rather un-wiki process to sort it out. So no, I don't go to arbitration to deal with my problems, and I don't think anyone else should either. Please, everyone, make me redundant. I will surely regret my loss of hat and titanic power, but I assure you I will get over it really fast.--Tznkai (talk) 04:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Too many Wikipedians fail to recognize the difference between dispute resolution and dispute enhancement, except within very narrowly defined boundaries. All involvement gets denigrated in the blanket term "drama". So RFA, 'Cratship, etc. tends to promote people who ignore the website's problem areas--it's as if they live in a comfortable suburb and avoid the slums. Meanwhile the slums descend to the equivalent of gang warfare, sometimes with disturbing offsite dimensions that make the analogy less hyperbolic than one would wish. Durova^Charge!

While YellowMonkey's comment possibly beats my record in terms of length, he covers some major but real truths about Wikipedia arbitration - as ironic as it may sound (given the first part of my sentence), I'm not sure that I could've summarised these issues as succinctly as he did! Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yellowmonkey's post (and Paul's tables below) have inspired my latest blog entry.[5] Durova^Charge! 18:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

This is very interesting, but note that Newyorkbrad himself states that he is the "..." of the Committee, where ... represents a word that describes someone who usually prefers less restrictive remedies. I think he stated something to that effect during the Prodego(?) motion a while back. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Activity tables

Re Carcharoth's remarks above here's some data on individual arb case request acceptance percentages:

2009 arbs accept %

Arb	Accept %
Carcharoth	20%
Casliber	31%
Cool Hand Luke	46%
Coren	54%
FayssalF	41%
FloNight	41%
Jayvdb	28%
Kirill Lokshin	33%
Newyorkbrad	18%
Risker	26%
Rlevse	38%
Roger Davies	35%
Sam Blacketer	26%
Stephen Bain	33%
Vassyana	26%
Wizardman	36%
Average	33%

2008 arbs accept %

Arb	Accept %
Charles Matthews	30%
Deskana	19%
FayssalF	34%
FloNight	29%
FT2	31%
Jdforrester	24%
Jpgordon	16%
Kirill Lokshin	33%
Morven	38%
Newyorkbrad	20%
Paul August	7%
Sam Blacketer	26%
Stephen Bain	43%
UninvitedCompany	36%
YellowMonkey	22%
Average	27%

Paul August ☎ 03:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

(The above taken from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Statistics 2009 and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Statistics 2008)

Paul can you do stats on the number of requests made versus the number rejected for this period in 2008 and 2009. Remember that this year's committee is larger than last year's, which fewer inactive members, which might skew things. MBisanz ^talk 07:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is the current data for case requests so far this year, followed by the data for the corresponding time period in 2008:

• 2009: Case requests: 36; average duration: 4.5 days; accepted: 11 (31%); declined: 22 (61%); disposed by motion: 3 (8%).
• 2008: Case requests: 68; average duration: 4.9 days; accepted: 19 (28%); declined: 44 (65%); disposed by motion: 0 (0% ); withdrawn: 5 (7%).

Paul August ☎ 12:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that data, Paul. Quite astonishing that, only a quarter of the way into the year, we've already had more than half as many requests as was seen in 2008 for a full year. Risker (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the 68 requests are for the corresponding period of 2008, not the whole of 2008. For the whole of 2008, the stats are: Requests: 152; average duration: 4.6 days; accepted: 35 (23%); declined: 102 (67%); disposed by motion: 2 (1% ); withdrawn: 13 (9%). So it seems that relatively speaking more requests came in during the first three months (or so) of 2008 than for the rest of 2008. And for the first three months (or so) of 2008, there were 68 requests, as opposed to 36 this year. Carcharoth (talk) 21:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yup, Carcaroth is correct. Sorry for not making that more clear. Paul August ☎ 22:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No reply to my question for a month

Arb John Vandenberg has not answered my question at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking/Evidence#dynamic_dates_implementation for a month now.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Y Done John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Two arbitrators initiated a temporary injunction the other day about disallowing new editors introducing themselves to the current WP:ARBMAC2 case. Is this proposal still active? Because if you guys want to pursue it further, you'd better be quick – the swamping of the case pages by these new accounts is in full swing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

By my math, there are 16 arbs active on the case, so 9 would need to approve any injunction for it to be effective. MBisanz ^talk 21:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Another injunction issue: there once was the idea of a temporary injunction against edits in the disputed domain, which didn't get much traction. But could we have something like that more narrowly, just for the Greece article? It's still protected and scheduled to remain so until well into May (or beyond), because of the edit-war in March. Having it blocked from all regular editing for so long is not good. Can we open it up under an injunction that the disputed bits (just two references to the unnameable country) be left untouched? There's a proposal at the Workshop page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)