![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
I'm sorry to post an unusual request here, but the circumstances are unusual:
Yet the process solutions (probably the long and the short of the behavioural solutions that concern the ArbCom case) are widely regarded to be at hand: the associated RFC has produced results that enable the community to move forward.
This way forward is frozen until ArbCom lifts the temporary injunction. Many editors are expressing their frustration that it is still in force more than a week after the extended RFC process, involving more than 500 editors.
I wonder whether the community can be given some kind of idea of when it should expect (1) the injunction to be lifted, and (2) the judgement of the case to come out. We look forward to a return to normal life on WP. Tony (talk) 08:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed that Daniel Case, EVula and Mailer Diablo are not listed as having access to the functionaries-en mailing list. Is this accurate? MBisanz talk 06:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Could arbitrators please take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Workshop#Participation by newly registered editors, as there is now a threat of serious disruption to this arbitration? -- ChrisO ( talk) 19:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Do we have an appeal procedure for considering unbanning users banned by ArbCom? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Jayvdb, you studiously avoid mentioning evidence of far more serious misconduct on Lar’s part which has already been forwarded to your Committee on several occasions, which I can confirm that you have long been personally aware. Your response has been to suppress, blank and oversight the complaints, while doing nothing (so far as we know) to check Lar’s behavor.
Which, in the real world - and in Kirill's words - "[brings] the project into disrepute"?
If you answered "supporting Israel," there's a bright future for you on Wikipedia’s Arbitration Committee. 24.18.142.69 ( talk) 09:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
As far as I can see, the project has not been brought into disrepute by either of these functionaries in reliable sources (see Wikipedia+Lar Wikipedia+Jayjg), and the alleged misconduct that has been reported to Arbcom, seen by all arbs and ex-arbs, was not sexual harassment and the matter is closed unless someone raises it again, preferably with new evidence. The community dealt with the issue in an appropriate way, which I hope concludes the matter. Wikipedia:Oversight has been used in this matter, in accordance with the policy, because the oversight team does protect the privacy of subjects and Wikipedians alike when issues are reported to it. I wish more problems were reported to the Oversight team; I wish the policy was expanded to allow immediate removal of gross BLP violations and invasion of privacy, where suppression doesnt influence the content creation process. Due to a higher profile, Wikipedia has a responsibility to keep the crap off this website. If you believe Oversight has been used inappropriately by anyone, or there is abuse of power by the functionaries, complaints should be sent privately to Arbitration Committee, or the Audit subcommittee which has been making public statements about each query. John Vandenberg ( chat) 10:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Functionary has been created. John Vandenberg ( chat) 12:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Impeachment of Functionaries John Vandenberg ( chat) 13:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
The last line of the section currently reads
I don't think this makes sense in the context of the section -- it is clearly taken whole from the above section. It is unclear whether it is cases involving the CU/OS rights-holder that the arbitrator does not need to recuse from or whether it is cases involving the person making the complaint. I think it is probably meant to be both, and it would be useful to clarify this.
[[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 11:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
With respect, you guys seem to be going on instruction creep. If an admin has gone batshit insane deleting crap, you don't "invoke level 1 access removal procedures", you flag down a steward in IRC and get them desysopped. The level 2 procedure isn't too bad, but again is in need of considerable simplification. Stifle ( talk) 15:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Over the past few months now I have been discussing and debating Arbitrators role in response to their CheckUser and Oversight rights. A few key things have come to mind and I feel a discussion should take place.
There has yet to be any real procedure surrounding CheckUser and Oversight in relation to ArbCom. Ultimately the reason the tools are granted is so that Arbitrators can adequately do their job and investigate cases of sockpuppetry, and respond to outing and personal attacks in relation to their role as an Arbitrator. So in a sense, the community did not vote for members of the community who they wish to routinely do WP:SPI work, or respond to oversight requests but instead for Arbitrators whom they trust enough to also grant the tools to. I can think of a few current Arbs that I would not have supported had they run for just CU because of their lack of technical ability. Because of this, I feel that Arbitrators should only be using the tools in their official role. One because of my reasoning above and two for the purpose of remaining uninvolved. Routinely there are request for arbitration that somehow involve CheckUser. Because of this it would be best if the person who ran those checks were not Arbitrators, for obvious reasons. The same can be said of Oversight.
Secondly, I recently looked over Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee/Statistics and noted that the majority of the inactive users with CheckUser access are former Arbitrators. Namely, UninvitedCompany ( talk · contribs) who has done 0 checks in the last six months, The Epopt ( talk · contribs) who also has done 0 checks in the last six months, Morven ( talk · contribs) who has done 66 checks in the last six months, Fred Bauder ( talk · contribs) who has done 28 checks in the last six moths, David Gerard ( talk · contribs) who has done 23 checks in the last six months. While I normally do not have an issue with users who do not use their userrights, in this case I do. Mainly because the reasoning for not electing more Checkusers and Oversights is because we already have enough. While it is true that we have enough, the workload is not being distributed equally. Avraham ( talk · contribs) has done 2843 checks in the last six months, and Nishkid64 ( talk · contribs) has done 9123 in the last six months. Also, if you look at WP:SPI, there are times that cases sit for close to 10 days that require a Checkusers attention. While I do not have statistics for the user of Oversight, I would be fairly certain that it is about the same.
Because of this, I am proposing that Arbitrators CU and OV privileges are removed upon the end of their term. Should they wish to continue to use the tools they, like everyone else can run in the CheckUser and Oversight elections and be granted the tools just like anyone else. I feel that this will ensure that we are only giving the tools to users whom are technically competent, and that we do not have users with the tools that never use them. This will also cut back on the backlogs at WP:SPI and reduce the workload for some of our more overworked CheckUsers and Oversights. Also, I propose that sitting Arbitrators only use their tools in their official role to avoid any situations of conflict of interest and for the purpose of remaining uninvolved. Tiptoety talk 00:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
After reading over the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee, I have yet to see anything that states when a Auditer may use CU/OV. While I am of the assumption that they are only to be used during an investigation, I think it would be a good idea to have it in writing that members of the subcommittee should not be routinely using such tools. ie: for SPI or OV email requests. Thoughts? Note, a relevant discussion has taken place here. Tiptoety talk 04:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
So, I did an analysis of arbitrators' contributions last night, just to see how active our arbitrators are both in the mainspace and across the entire Wikipedia. I figured I might as well share my findings here. The following is a list of the arbitrator, the date of their 500th most recent edit, and the date of their 500th most recent edit in mainspace.
Arbitrator | 500 edits ago | 500 article edits ago |
---|---|---|
Carcharoth | 2009-04-08 | 2008-10-26 |
Casliber | 2009-04-25 | 2009-04-04 |
Cool Hand Luke | 2009-02-27 | 2008-04-04 |
Coren | 2009-02-23 | 2007-11-19 |
FaysallF | 2009-03-30 | 2009-03-20 |
FloNight | 2009-03-17 | 2008-07-17 |
Jayvdb | 2009-04-24 | 2009-03-19 |
Kirill Lokshin | 2009-04-25 | 2008-01-12 |
Newyorkbrad | 2009-03-06 | 2007-11-18 |
Risker | 2009-03-10 | 2008-10-05 |
Rlevse | 2009-04-26 | 2009-04-18 |
Roger Davies | 2009-03-31 | 2008-09-25 |
Sam Blacketer | 2008-12-14 | 2008-08-13 |
Stephen Bain | 2008-09-25 | 2007-10-19 |
Vassyana | 2009-03-02 | 2008-07-03 |
Wizardman | 2009-05-01 | 2009-04-30 |
Dates valid as of approximately 00:00 UTC May 9, 2009
NW ( Talk) ( How am I doing?) 18:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry this is last-minute. Is anyone interested in filling in this week to write the "Arbitration report" for the Wikipedia Signpost? If so, please drop me a line; it'd need to be done within about the next 14 hours.-- ragesoss ( talk) 03:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey, it's me again.
I was looking at the ADHD case and I was wondering. Isn't there supposed to be a tag on the articles talk page, and the page locked for Arbitration reasons? I was sort of wondering this, because the last few I've seen that is what has happened. Is that required or is it just a tool that ArbCom can use in a dispute? Thanks! Renaissancee (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
See here. — Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 00:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Just wondering - Are ArbCom decisions (specifically the "Principles" sections of the Final Decisions) considered "settled law" as far as interpretation of Wiki Policies go? In other words, if a policy can be construed/twisted/wikilawyered a couple of ways, but ArbCom has "held" the policy to mean X, does that settle the matter as far as interpretation of said policy is concerned? Or are the Principles in the findings more obiter dicta to frame and contextualize the Findings and Remedies specific to that case? Arakunem Talk 16:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the fact that ArbCom is likely to look to past decisions is worth stating explicitly, however, even if we are not bound by it. — Coren (talk) 02:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
(undent) This is an interesting example because I think it's very illustrative. I think the best way to look at it would be for its predictive power: it does not make a new bit of law because it has been said by ArbCom, but it does state that "if this goes in front of ArbCom, we are very likely to rule in that direction". In the case where an interpretation of policy by an admin eventually leads to a dispute degenerating into wheel warring, anyone on the "side" that goes counter to previous ArbCom ruling is placing oneself in greater "peril" if the case ends up on ArbCom's lap; so quoting it may be both meaningful and useful. In that sense, decision principles have pragmatical value. — Coren (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Note that there have been cases in the past where ArbCom principles were used in editing policy (BLP comes to mind) after the fact, relying on that very guidance— I suppose that's a better case of principles becoming "settled law". In theory, the community is always free to tweak policy after a decision so that it aligns closer to its principles (or, sometimes, just reuse wording that was mean to clarify/nuance the common understanding); this is something that's eminently reasonable given the practical expectation that, should the matter return to the committee, the decision would consistent. Wikipedia policies are meant to reflect current practice, after all, and a final decision tends to influence what is current practice. — Coren (talk) 01:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
(I can't believe I've missed this thread up till now. Placeholder for now; I'll respond here tomorrow when I'm more awake.) Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Given the recent (additional) media coverage, I wonder how much longer until someone writes an article. Is anyone taking bets? -- MZMcBride ( talk) 01:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
The above editor was banned by the ArbCom for a year as per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes. There is currently some discussion regarding how, if at all, to see how he could return early at Wikipedia:WikiProject User Rehab/User:Greg park avenue. Any comments on the issue by members of the committee are more than welcome. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 15:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Is there a better word we can use instead of "Staff" for the first heading? Staff is a page at wmf:Staff and Special:GlobalUsers/Staff, maybe we could say "Organization" or "Composition"? MBisanz talk 14:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I have a question for the committee on a constitutional matter. There is currently an embryonic proposal by Peter Damien to setup a sort of editors union, whereby a editors with a certain standing can establish a self-electing self-serving organisation within the project. This would act toward as yet undefined purposes, but it has been mooted this would basically involve content dispute resolution, and member assistance/representation in behavioural dispute matters, as well as acting as a closed policy discussion forum. A number of editors have already unsuccessfully made it known that it should simply not exist at this Mfd which was raised very early on.
I personally think any proposed group like this is fundementally against basic Wikipedia policy, and cannot achieve any stated aim without its existence by definition violating the basic principles of Wikipedia (equality of editor's opinions (those in good standing), consensus based discussion, not beaurocracy, not democracy, weight of argument not credentials etc etc etc). Other's disagree, so we have a dispute in play.
In my mind, the normal avenues of feedback / dispute resolution would appear to be moot in this case, as the very presence of a self serving collective would interfere with the determining of any consensus in the conventional forums (Rfc, VP, Medcom). So, constituionally, on the basis that disputes that cannot be handled by any of the lower forums are immediately handled by arcbom, would the arbcom accept the basic dispute over the legitimacy of this group's very existence as a legitimate case or not?
MickMacNee ( talk) 00:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I think scale is pushing the limits of some of the principles - demonstrate the harm in a talking shop. -- Joopercoopers ( talk) 01:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has no role to play concerning this issue. Whether groups of editors may organize on-wiki in this way is a policy question, not implicated in any case pending before us, and which the committee as an entity has not discussed and to the best of my knowledge has no plans to.
My personal view is that there should ideally be no points of principle separating between the administration of Wikipedia and those who write it—groups whose composition would preferably be, if not identical, substantially overlapping. I am not sure that this new Association will fulfill a useful role. It will certainly hurt rather than help if it supports its members in every situation regardless of its merits, or castigates administrators who spend most of their wiki-time administering rather than content-creating because that is their particular skill-set or because of the exigencies of time. But I can imagine nothing that would inflame any tensions or divisions that already exist more greatly, or be more likely to lead to the conjured "full-blown internal civil war," than for this Committee to attempt to squelch this group of editors, and I know of no attempts by us to try. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 21:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Related to remedy 1.3 of the date delinking case, the community RFC about a proposal for a bot to unlink dates is now open. Please see Wikipedia:Full-date unlinking bot and comments at the talk page. The committee will be informed again after the discussion is finished in two weeks. -- Apoc2400 ( talk) 12:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Just so the Arbitration Committee knows, I have changed the timeline in that since Jayvdb had his username changed to "John Vandenberg", that I have edited the timelines to reflect the username change [7] [8]. Are these edits okay? — Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 19:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Now that I hopefully have your attention with a silly header, I'd like to solicit your serious opinions. Back in late 06 when I ran for a seat on this august body, a major part of my platform was adopting a subcommittee system, to better handle business. I am glad to see it is now, finally, being implemented. So how, in you Arbs' views and experiences, has it worked so far? How may it be improved? I know election time is usually when these issues come up, but let's take advantage of the slow summer and get the drop on this one:)-- R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) ( talk) 16:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Are there any other arbs who have an opinion on this? Anyone...anyone?-- R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) ( talk) 21:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
The title says it all, please see here. Cenarium ( talk) 01:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Taking a bold step and collapsing. Too often, Wikipedians raise issues of principle as if they were bargaining chips--things to remind others of when one finds it convenient for them to act a certain way. Real principle is what guides one's own actions in decisions that are inconvenient but right.
This thread was started in violation of policy: WP:LINKVIO to be exact. That is a policy I've acted upon many times before, and the right thing to do is to act upon it uniformly. If he exposed a greater wrong, I was the only one harmed by it. So surely I cannot be accused of coverup in a situation where exposure would only help me. Ethical decisions where good people disagree belong in the hands of the individuals who live with the consequences.
Over the last few years people have confided in me in situations where they were unsure whether to trust the Committee's confidentiality: these people were deciding whether to blow the whistle on improper action by Wikipedians in high places; a few had been subject to offsite harassment; a small number even feared for their livelihoods. An indispensable part of ArbCom's mission is to be a venue where people in those situations can take legitimate issues.
The current Committee is almost entirely composed of different people from 2007; this is being reviewed in good hands. My request to the community is to exercise discretion and dignity. If broader questions remain after this instance is handled, please raise those questions then. Both the questions and the responses are likely to be wiser that way. Durova 273 15:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
I've just been sent (redacted by Durova per WP:LINKVIO) link with what appears to be arbitrators meatpuppeting to get the arbcom case on Durova accepted. Basically, Kirill Lokshin, arbcom co-ordinator is asking for someone to bring the case forward so he can accept it, and ex-arb Dmcdevit is agreeing to with the proviso that the case is accepted quickly so that it will "deflect the inevitable drama coming [his] way". This is a fairly old case, though its effects are still felt. The point here is that every single case brought forward to ArbCom no has no/little integrity, when we have shenanigans like that going on behind our backs. How do we know that arbitrators aren't meatpuppeting each other to accept/decline cases according to their own preference? It is concerning that the "co-ordinator" of Arbcom, Kirill Lokshin is involved with this, and it makes me wonder how frequently this goes on. It is a violation of arbitration policy, point number 6 when arbitrators are being requested to rule. Like any government system, there is always going to be corruption of some sort, it seems. Majorly talk 22:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
|
Since this is not an official notice, I think this is the best place to put it, but I wanted to point people to this post I made in a section above, which updates things somewhat after recent events. Just to lay out what the response has been so far to the resignations and to indicate that other arbitration business is still proceeding much as normal. Carcharoth ( talk) 06:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Above (collapsed) Newyorkbrad writes a question to the community that worries me a little:
I didn't know that the arbcom was so strictly enjoined from opening a case sua sponte. Of course the committee also deals with stuff that doesn't exactly amount to opening cases. I'd like to know if other similar matters must also be addressed by the "happenstance" of an unaffilated user bringing them to the committee, or else be ignored? To exemplify: if I want the arbcom to deal with the issue of Jimbo Wales's "Jimbo block" of myself on May 22 (which I do), would it be an advantage for me to file a case about it? If I don't file one, might I find it dismissed as something that "can probably be resolved without arbitration and is likely to blow over" ? It's a matter which it seems fair to characterize as "boiling over", after recently being subject to mediation. A pretty unique question, I realize—uncharted waters—but can the committee be relied on to deal with it as far as in them lies—somehow—I obviously don't know what, if anything, they might do—or is anything like that up to me? Ought I to bring it to the committee's attention if I want them to take notice of it? Does the involvement of a GodKing make it more, or perhaps less, necessary for me to act for myself? Bishonen | talk 18:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC). Please do not collapse this. It's a (multi-headed) question for the committee, and I want them to see it. Bishonen | talk 18:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC).
That being said, in general we pretty much decline to intervene is short blocks (mostly out of practicality, any short block would have long expired before we could render a decision), unless there is a pattern of egregious misbehavior to examine and a case can be made for it. — Coren (talk) 12:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
(Please note that I am currently on break from the Committee as it regards new matters and that this is only an individual statement.) I cannot posit what the overall Committee response to a request from you would be, but I can offer some general observations relevant to your questions. Jimbo Wales has made it clear that ArbCom has the authority to overturn his decisions and that he would respect such a decision. The majority of the Committee is extremely reluctant or unwilling to open a case without a normal request for arbitration. The involvement of Jimbo Wales has little to no bearing on the latter point, which seems to have been embraced as a general principle. It is based on a number of factors, including the abitration policy (particularly point 6) and previous problems/drama with cases initiated (directly or indirectly) by the Committee and/or arbitrators. I hope this helps clarify the matter. If I can be of further assistance, please let me know. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I have been thinking about this a bit. One aspect which might be worth discussing at an RfC, and hopefully someone having a look at the history of the concept of 'involved', is the concept of 'involved' - in a case where editor A and editor B are clearly friends, and admin C is known to have an issue with editor B, but then blocks editor A in a borderline case. Similarly with points of view etc. For instance, I am an inclusionist, and as such I would not block a deleletion-minded editor on pronciple unless it was a blindingly obvious totally unambiguous reason to do so - however, when I expressed this elsewhere, it appeared my criteria for 'involved' were broader (or stricter or whatever) than other admins. In general, this might be a good thing to nut out, unless done so elsewhere (????). Of course, it is better not to use specific examples in RfCs, as this not only polarises opinion but distorts it as well as editors will subconsciously associate a specific action takne against a specific editor (which they may disagree with), whereas they might have actually been in favour of the principle or vice versa). Casliber ( talk · contribs) 01:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Given the recent attritions to the Committee, I felt it wiser to cut short what I had intended to be a considerably longer break away from the Wiki and am returning to duty. I very much empathize with my colleagues frustrations at having our hands tied most of the time combined with the certainty that no matter what the committee does (or does not do) there will always be a number of editors willing to jump at the opportunity to attack the committee and its volunteers with surprising bile and viciousness.
While none of us signed up under the impression that we would be loved and paraded, it does tend to affect one's morale over time no matter how much we attempt to harden ourselves to this inevitable reality. Nevertheless, I don't believe that a committee that has whittled down to less than a dozen members is healthy.
Thank you to all of you who offered words of support and wishes for my return during my (short) break. — Coren (talk) 12:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Are any other members of the committee planning to flip their shit in the near term, and have any other members of the committee been undermining the committee's already questionable authority and judgement? Hiberniantears ( talk) 21:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I former candidate for the Arbitration Committee has asked me to blank (not delete) pages and page sections related to her candidacy. Are there objections to my doing so? As far as I can tell, it's never been done before, but we do semi-routinely blank RFAs at the subject request (whether or not the user is leaving Wikipedia, which this user has), and this seems to me to be comparable. Steve Smith ( talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 01:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
We pride ourselves of transparency, yet it is obvious that ArbCom discussions (via its mailing list and possibly other foras) need to be confidential. Still, as time passes, members of the council resign, editors retire, and so on, it seems to me that there are arguments to consider declassification of older mailing list archives. This would go far towards placating the community, improving ArbCom relations with it, lessen the chance of the committee transforming into an unanswerable oligarchy, and not the least, provide Wikipedia researchers with a very valuable tool. Hence, I'd like to propose that mailing list archives older than 5 (3? 7?) years should be declassified. Please note that similar legal documents worldwide are subject to declassification after a time, and Wikipedia, which prides itself on transparency, should not be more secret than US government (for example :D). Thoughts? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
We are not a nation, and we do not have a government, and certainly no authority that has "classified" the documents.-- Tznkai ( talk) 20:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd often thought about this, but I don't think it is feasible in practice, though very worthwhile in principle.
A number of cases are still likely to be live several years on. For example:
You have to assume that if archives are released, they will be scraped and search engined and every mention of a username, IP or email address indexed. The effort to sift those out, on 10 - 20 thousand emails a year, is unfeasible, and it's not clear what if any period might be considered a "safe" one. The issues might mostly be dead, but the private information is still going to be private and may well be "live" (still sensitive).
I don't like this conclusion, so anyone who can suggest a way round the impasse is gladly welcomed to propose it.
FT2 ( Talk | email) 20:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd encourage all Arbitrators to read or re-read User:NoSeptember/Leaving. Cheers. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 22:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Over four years ago, Szyslak created User:Arbitration Committee and User:ArbCom to "reserve" their use in case the ArbCom ever wanted to use them for a role account. That use has never materialized, but I recently noticed Category:Wikipedia contact role accounts, where accounts like User:Oversight are used so Special:Emailuser/Oversight sends an email to the oversight mailing list. I'm wondering if you want to do something similar, so people can user Special:Emailuser to send email to the ArbCom mailing list.
When I asked, Szyslak indicated he's quite happy to turn over the reins to you. I'll let you and Szyslak handle the specifics by email (like whether this should be by usurpation or by just giving you the passwords), but I thought I'd play matchmaker and suggest you talk to each other. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 14:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Pursuant to the Arbitration Committee agenda item Review Committee performance, a half-year summary of arbitration activities has been published at January to June 2009 report. Comments and feedback are invited on the talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Carcharoth ( talk) 04:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
It is proposed to create an Appeal Committee to appeal, among other things, ArbCom decisions, please see and discuss here. Cenarium ( talk) 02:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
This issue has been raised before, but I noticed today that the current oversight and checkuser elections are not being done with secret ballot, but with a public "voting" system. I believe the many flaws of public votes for elected offices are well known.
I have abstained from voting in previous arbcom elections until I can cast my votes in secret, and I will continue to do so.
I would like to ask arbcom to consider accepting for discussion my proposal for a motion: "An option to vote by secret ballot will be provided in all future arbcom, oversight, and checkuser elections." — Carl ( CBM · talk) 01:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Very, very minor point, but I always liked the look of the big calendar with the "Due" items and the Done ticks, but now it looks like it's been falling behind with the ticking off. Could someone update it? Cool. - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 09:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
There is now a proposal for an Appeal Committee, empowered to appeal sanctions imposed by administrators or by the community, but not sanctions directly imposed by ArbCom (this is a lower 'court'). Cenarium ( talk) 13:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
So it's no secret that Giano has some special right to expressing himself that other editors lack, but this is really over the line. [13] I also seem to remember a caution from Arbcomm asking Admins not to take unilateral action when Giano is involved, but I can't find it (last year?).
So, I have a couple questions. Does he have special rights when expressing himself like this? It's an ongoing issue obviously, are there any plans at all to rein him in? Telling someone to fuck off is way way beyond acceptable...certainly the reasons for that are too obvious to require elaboration. I considered a warning but that would be ineffective and drama inducing. It's time Arbcom steps in with a more direct approach. Motions have been pretty effective lately, maybe something along those lines? But it's gone beyond a admin issue. Thanks... RxS ( talk) 18:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I personally would block ALL people who participated at the Bishonen's talk page except Xavegogem, Bishonen, Ryan, Jehochman and the arbitrators who intervened. The rest were helping increase the drama. Giano's action was the worst of course but there's little difference between uncivility and participating and increasing the drama. I can't block anyone now since I could be dragged in to an arbcom case accused of punishing violators. Now, can we stop this please? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 22:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Can we just stop talking about Giano?-- Tznkai ( talk) 21:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
How long should one single editor wait between each clarification and amendment request they make to the Arbitration Committee? What is the suggested time period arbitrators desire? — Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 05:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
At the moment, WP:CHECK and WP:SIGHT point to Wikipedia:CheckUser/Appointments for an explanation of the reasoning related to appointments, and the appointment methods used.
Separately there is WP:AC/CheckUser and Oversight elections which is the current AC policy for the appointment process.
These could probably do with merging, so that the latter page would then contain main sections "General background" "History" and then "Current process". Are the arbs ok with this?
FT2 ( Talk | email) 14:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
This year, the Arbitration Committee moved its pages to a more organized format.
However, the cases prior to the moves are still with the old names. For example:
Those are just a few examples, out of hundreds if not more. What should be done with these names? Should they be moved to the current formatting of names, or should they stay with the historical "requests for arbitration" names? A better look at evidence can be seen at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases. -- Mythdon talk • contribs 00:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Given the new appointment of CU/OS, could the func-en mailing list membership be updated? Thanks. MBisanz talk 03:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
A Russian asked a question at the help desk here, which hasn't been answered. I don't feel qualified to answer.-- SPhilbrick T 20:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard is now featured on Wikipedia:Coordination's noticeboard listings. @ harej 08:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Please see here for details on this proposal, and preliminary discussion. Cenarium ( talk) 22:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
How do users appeal/request amendment to discretionary sanctions to the Arbitration Committee? Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 16:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
The coordinating arbitrator or their deputy shall refer all appeals from banned or long-term blocked users received by the Committee to the Ban Appeals Subcommittee. - found where?!-- 124.183.146.14 ( talk) 03:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I hope I'm posting in the right place. If not, I hope someone will refactor this to a more suitable location.
I was recently involved, quite superficially, in a case where I volunteered to help with some mentoring work. I'm posting here to let the Committee know that this is one kind of work that interests me, and that you're welcome to ask me in the future if I'm available to mentor an editor who could use some guidance, possibly as an alternative to harsher sanctions. The terms I offered for 194x are basically the terms under which I'd be willing to work in any other case. Naturally, my availability may vary, but I'm always open to being asked whether I've got time.
Thanks for your time - GTBacchus( talk) 20:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
User:Scuro is supposed to have a mentor; how do I find out who the mentor is and/or whether such a mentor even exists? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
In the section about removal of sysop access, the "Level 1" and "Level 2" headings are offputting and contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Could you please change those headings to make them more transparent and descriptive, such as "Emergency" and "Non-emergency"? Jehochman Talk 12:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I could use some feedback on what role Arbcom would like to play in tool-removal at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#A_fork_in_the_road. - Dank ( push to talk) 16:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I put wp:ac into the search field and was surprised to be directed not to the ArbCom page WP:AC but rather to this (obviously fake) "policy" page in user space. Perhaps ArbCom should usurp the wp:ac redirect? EdChem ( talk) 02:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
The AC/History page (created by Kirill in early July) contains the image that explains the current election tranches. Since that tells us who is elected until what time, and how many seats will in theory be open in this December's election, shouldn't that (and perhaps the "Selection process" section) remain on the main Arbitration Committee page? Nathan T 19:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
This is for future reference. It sometimes happens that an admin will be desysopped by order of the Arbitration Committee. When that happens a request goes forth to be performed, traditionally, by an off-wiki steward.
One side-effect of removing adminship is to remove rollback rights. While it's easy enough for a former admin to regain this right (he just asks an admin), the loss of rollback rights obviously isn't usually intentional. We entrust all but the most suspect of users with rollback, and this helps to keep the wiki clear.
Perhaps in future remedies attention could be paid to wording indicating that the admin's rights are to be changed from sysop to rollback, unless there are particular reasons for removing rollback rights too. -- TS 13:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
The process to appoint the three non-arbitrator members of the Audit Subcommittee is underway, with the election itself starting on 30 October. If you think you may be suitably qualified, please see the election pages for the job specification and application arrangements. Applications close 22 October 2009.
For the Arbitration Committee, Roger Davies talk 21:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I've just tried to email two arbs: Roger Davies first, which bounced, and then Vassyana, which bounced too. Are the -at-gmail.com addresses given overleaf still valid? Tony (talk) 09:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I've been going through the history section... Eloquence (Erik Moeller) was a member of the first Arbcom, but his name seems to be absent from the history for some reason. See notice here Manning ( talk) 14:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
This edit on WT:Sock puppetry points out the need to contact functionaries by a private means more secure than email, where interception is a concern.
The closest thing I can think of is securely logging into Wikipedia then using the Email-to-user. However, there is still the risk that the recipient's email is monitored or that the path between Wikipedia and the recipient's mail server or the recipient's mail server and the recipient is not secure. If the Wikimedia foundation hosted its own web-based mail in the same building as the Wikipedia server, and it allowed only secure log-ins, that would make the email "secure enough." It would require functionary mailing lists to have an Wikipedia account to email to, but that's already being done for some role accounts.
I guess what I'm asking for is a statement like:
Then repeat for other important functionary mailing lists. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 01:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
The process to appoint the three non-arbitrator members of the Audit Subcommittee is underway. If you are suitably qualified, please see the election pages for the job specification and application arrangements. Applications close 22 October 2009.
For the Arbitration Committee, Roger Davies talk 19:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Time is rapidly running out. The closing date for completed applications is 23:59 (UTC) 22 October 2009. If you are interested in becoming one of the three non-arbitrator members of the Audit Subcommittee, see the election pages now for the job specification and application details.
For the Arbitration Committee, Roger Davies talk 17:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Discussion on WP:SOCKS is turning on just who is and who isn't bound by the privacy policy.
The issue is who can editors trust - by policy not just by trusting the people involved - to handle information like "I'm User:A, I am also User:B" in cases of legitimate multi-account editors. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 02:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
In the absence of consensus/discussion/interest in a new and different election system for the 2009 Arbitration Committee Elections, I've begun the process of migrating the 2008 pages to 2009 formats. Since the deadline for suffrage is 1 November, I thought it prudent to seek advice and insight from the committee. Specifically, we need clarification on the following issues:
Thanks in advance for your assistance and insight. Discussion may be directed to the election talk page at WT:ACE2009. Best, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Can an arb please confirm that the issues with e-mail from Yahoo have been resolved? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Preparations are ongoing for the 2009 Arbitration Committee Elections, which will be held in December. The first step in the process is generating a list of General Questions that will be submitted by template to all candidates in this year's election. Questions may be broad and philisophical in nature, or may deal with a specific incident or case from the past year (or prior). General questions may not deal with an individual candidate or candidates - All editors will have a chance to ask specific questions or one or more candidates directly, once we actually have candidates.
The submission of questions is limited to editors eligible to vote in the election (You may use this utility to check your eligibility.), but all editors will be invited to discuss the candidates, once we have candidates to discuss. Questions should be submitted at The General Questions page. If you have additional questions or concerns regarding the question process, please ask here. Thank you for participating. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Ryan Postlethwaite has contacted you regarding his indefinite blocking of Tyciol. Please be aware of this discussion as well. Thank you. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 14:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
This page doesn't provide that crucial information on the mandate ArbCom has (which presumably flows from the community...). Neither does Wikipedia:Arbitration, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index or the Template:ArbCom navigation. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Please see my comment here. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
The election, using SecurePoll, has now started. You may:
The election closes at 23:59 (UTC) on 8 November 2009.
For the Arbitration Committee, Roger Davies talk 07:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
There's only one day to go! The Audit Subcommittee election, using SecurePoll, closes at 23:59 (UTC) 8 November. Three community members will be appointed to supervise use of the CheckUser and OverSight tools. If you wish to vote you must do so urgently. Here's how:
here.
For the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 17:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Having got used to emailing oversight through User:Oversight I was rather surprised to find myself looking at sending a checkuser request to a sockpuppet of Ĵιɱβɸ_ωαΙεʃ. Could an Arb take ownership of this account? Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Interested editors are invited to participate in the
SecurePoll feedback and workshop.
SecurePoll was recently used in the
Audit Subcommittee election, and has been proposed for use for the
upcoming Arbitration Committee election at this current
request for comment (RFC). Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Dougweller (
talk)
09:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I have closed this Request for Comment. My detailed review of the issues and the results of that discussion may be found here. To summarize, I found that consensus exists as follows:
Questions or comments may be posted at The RFC's Talk Page. Thank you to all who participated. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Comments from all interested editors, including arbitrators, are invited and welcome at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC, where a proposal for community de-adminship is being discussed. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Some may be interested in this discussion: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee#Recent use of RevisionDelete related to David Gerard (it's a bit off the beaten path, so posting here and some other places). -- MZMcBride ( talk) 00:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Let's say a case has 10 active arbitrators, 6 is a majority. But is there a difference between abstain and oppose votes? Let's say that there are 2 findings, both with 6 support votes. But one of them has 4 abstains, while the other, 4 opposes. Do they both pass, or only he first one? In other words, are opposes the same as abstains, or do they actively subtract from from the number of supports? PS. What about votes labeled second choice? If the first choice is passing, are they seen as opposes? What if the first choice is not passing? Do they become regular supports? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
One more questions: what if out of the above 10 arbitrators, 1 votes support, and 9 completely ignore a given proposal. Is it treated as 9 abstentions and the proposal passes with three votes? What about if that proposal were supported by 3 arbitrators, and had 7 ignores? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
This may be of interest for arbs: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration#Recent changes to a case. Cenarium ( talk) 00:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Hell of a title line, huh? But it is the shortest way I could think of to includfe the information I thought relevant.
Basically, as I am sure everyone knows, ArbCom has I think fairly frequently in the past made rulings which recommended that the community alter exising policies or guidelines to address specific situations which were raised in a given ArbCom case. I don't know how often the community has responded, though. Would it be possible, possibly by ArbCom fiat, possibly through other means, to have a list of such recommendations which the ArbCom thinks have not been addressed created, and maybe have a body developed which would at least create proposals on them? For maximum effectiveness, I think that it might work best if all the proposals were addressed and drafted at the same time, in effect creating what might be an equivalent to a constitutional convention. I would think that the optimum time to do such review and drafting might be at the change over in ArbCom itself, so that departing members can say what they want to say without fear of having someone point to those statements in any decisions they may later take part in. Anyway, just an idea. John Carter ( talk) 14:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
If we must have a logo, I've tweaked it to use something a little more sober and ArbCom-y I found on the commons. (I've asked for someone with SVG-fu to make a vectorized version). I think it's a lot less obtrusive that the colored scales, but revert me if I'm insane. — Coren (talk) 03:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Given the way cases are run and the only outcome ever seems to be topic and site bans, in all due respect and good faith, I think an image of fasces (in its classical meaning as opposed to its more odious 20th Century interpretation) would be a more appropriate image as a symbol of the summary power that you guys wield. I guess I'm biased, but in my view it more honestly reflects the true nature of the "arbitration" process within wikipedia than an image of scales. You guys don't actually "arbitrate" in the classic sense, i.e. actually resolve disputes and make peace between conflicting users, but instead you seem to function as a means to weed out users you see as problematic, as this paper seems to suggest. Would you agree with this view? -- Martin ( talk) 01:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
See User:Proofreader77#Requisite adversarialicity which, yes, is my idealized (and naive) conception ... inspired by a playful tempest/teapot by Durova ... but which, to me, is something positive, rather than an aspersion — something small, manageable, pleasantly solvable with a spoon while sipping. Convivial rather than "soul sucking." etc.
(Note: while I mention that with my usual lightness, let there be no doubt of the significance I place on such matters. While Wikipedia rarely bends to raw statistics, I have a warm feeling for having participated in this first attempt at a Secure Poll election. A good idea, to me. Congratulations.)
Now, as for design attempts in the solitary void of my own druthers LoL ... let's put it this way: Is there any kind of general feeling/notion that "scales" are the wrong symbol? (I think scales are an important element, but if the consensus of the committee is "no scales," well, let me know.
P.S. It will be some time before I can get any image in my mind other than Newyorkbrad in a Superman costume. LoL
--
Proofreader77 (
interact)
04:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
It would never have crossed my mind that the scales logo was inadequate — but it now strikes me that a different design ... is inevitable. (smiling but not joking) Proofreader77 ( interact) 07:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
No need for further discussions... Jehochman Brrr 13:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
PRO: I am in the groove (allusion to an amigo's recent anachronistic phraseology elsewhere) with the Asian theme, and contention-level/ego-size manifestation. The profound iconic stature of muscular buttocks is also not without merit. There is, in fact, no end ;) of good, interesting, and amusing things to say about the sumo wrestler concept, but counterbalancing those positives there is a significant negative (see CON).
CON: However(speaking from a position of inexperience — but conceptual semi-understanding of much vacuity), at ArbCom the disputants are not allowed to touch each other (indent-debate) — but rather must present their comments/evidence in their own space. To me, in my naive idealistic ignorance, that suggests the idea of a collection of competing
Japanese gardens ... and
tea ceremony formalism in the resolution ... yada yada yada :-) (See also:
Google "Design for debate")
--
Proofreader77 (
interact)
18:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I believe a good image should give an insight into the process, so I present to the jury a suggestion. (/me runs to the nearest exit!). :-D Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
... Or, perhaps more precisely (and on-topic), do you have knowledge of many moments in Wikipedia history when the snail image would not be a good representation of a fundamental aspect of the ArbCom process? Proofreader77 ( interact) 21:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
States "150 mainspace edits prior to 15 June 2009 may vote".
Probably needs editing to "prior to the month in which the election is announced" or "prior to the first announcement of the election".
FT2 ( Talk | email) 01:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Any reason for [14]? DuncanHill ( talk) 21:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Two questions regarding access to functionaries-en:
I ask not with any specific functionaries in mind but in light of the history of poor institutional practice in this area, namely the leaks of old Arbitration Committee emails and the recent apparent compromise of the list during l'affair Gerard. Skomorokh 20:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Following two discussions on the subject, there is community support for bureaucrats to have the technical ability to remove admin and bureaucrat bits, in the situations where this is currently handled by the Stewards. There are a number of issues which need to be considered in light of this, and all (Committee members especially) are invited to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bureaucrat Unchecking. Happy‑ melon 23:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC went live today, and your comments are invited.
For what it's worth, I personally do not see your !vote or expressed opinions as a conflict of interest despite the obvious fact that this is a proposal that impacts ArbCom functions.
In any case, I believe the community needs to know the thoughts of ArbCom members regarding this RfC proposal, and urge a discussion regarding this RfC here, on this page. Thanks, Jusdafax 02:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Please note m:Talk:Stewards/confirm/2010#Lar's ombudsman position compromises arbcom, if you wish to discuss that matter, please do so in private or on enwiki, *not* on the page on Meta. Thank you. -- Thogo (Talk) 09:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
In cases of serious professional misconduct it is normal for a person to be suspended, without prejudice, during any hearing. I think the community would like to see admins against whom cases are accepted, suspended from using their tools during the period of the case. Whether this is enforced by flipping the bit or not is probably immaterial. Guy ( Help!) 22:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Automatic suspension is a widely understood and utilised practice in other areas. Yes, it may have a level of stigma, but the effect is the same for everyone, no-one is encouraged to rush to their support in terms of keeping the tools, and the disastrous effect of appearing to support certain persons by not suspending them then - sods law being what it is - having to permaban them when the sockfarm crawls out of the basket is avoided. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 23:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I also agree with this proposal. Automatic suspension of the tools would prevent bad things from happening because someone has the tools who shouldn't, would prevent others from being subject to innuendos just because they used the tools while an Arbcom case was in play, and would actually be the fairest option for those who didn't need to be in front of Arbcom in the first place - there's the least amount of stigma attached to something like this if it's just how we always do things without exception. If it reaches a point where continuing to withhold the tools becomes unjust because it's been ages and someone is still subject to an open case when everyone knows they shouldn't be, then there's an equal problem for everyone else in the case if Arbcom holds it open, so you should take such inclinations as a sign to hurry up and finish the damn case already. — Gavia immer ( talk) 00:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
I'm sorry to post an unusual request here, but the circumstances are unusual:
Yet the process solutions (probably the long and the short of the behavioural solutions that concern the ArbCom case) are widely regarded to be at hand: the associated RFC has produced results that enable the community to move forward.
This way forward is frozen until ArbCom lifts the temporary injunction. Many editors are expressing their frustration that it is still in force more than a week after the extended RFC process, involving more than 500 editors.
I wonder whether the community can be given some kind of idea of when it should expect (1) the injunction to be lifted, and (2) the judgement of the case to come out. We look forward to a return to normal life on WP. Tony (talk) 08:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed that Daniel Case, EVula and Mailer Diablo are not listed as having access to the functionaries-en mailing list. Is this accurate? MBisanz talk 06:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Could arbitrators please take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Workshop#Participation by newly registered editors, as there is now a threat of serious disruption to this arbitration? -- ChrisO ( talk) 19:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Do we have an appeal procedure for considering unbanning users banned by ArbCom? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Jayvdb, you studiously avoid mentioning evidence of far more serious misconduct on Lar’s part which has already been forwarded to your Committee on several occasions, which I can confirm that you have long been personally aware. Your response has been to suppress, blank and oversight the complaints, while doing nothing (so far as we know) to check Lar’s behavor.
Which, in the real world - and in Kirill's words - "[brings] the project into disrepute"?
If you answered "supporting Israel," there's a bright future for you on Wikipedia’s Arbitration Committee. 24.18.142.69 ( talk) 09:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
As far as I can see, the project has not been brought into disrepute by either of these functionaries in reliable sources (see Wikipedia+Lar Wikipedia+Jayjg), and the alleged misconduct that has been reported to Arbcom, seen by all arbs and ex-arbs, was not sexual harassment and the matter is closed unless someone raises it again, preferably with new evidence. The community dealt with the issue in an appropriate way, which I hope concludes the matter. Wikipedia:Oversight has been used in this matter, in accordance with the policy, because the oversight team does protect the privacy of subjects and Wikipedians alike when issues are reported to it. I wish more problems were reported to the Oversight team; I wish the policy was expanded to allow immediate removal of gross BLP violations and invasion of privacy, where suppression doesnt influence the content creation process. Due to a higher profile, Wikipedia has a responsibility to keep the crap off this website. If you believe Oversight has been used inappropriately by anyone, or there is abuse of power by the functionaries, complaints should be sent privately to Arbitration Committee, or the Audit subcommittee which has been making public statements about each query. John Vandenberg ( chat) 10:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Functionary has been created. John Vandenberg ( chat) 12:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Impeachment of Functionaries John Vandenberg ( chat) 13:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
The last line of the section currently reads
I don't think this makes sense in the context of the section -- it is clearly taken whole from the above section. It is unclear whether it is cases involving the CU/OS rights-holder that the arbitrator does not need to recuse from or whether it is cases involving the person making the complaint. I think it is probably meant to be both, and it would be useful to clarify this.
[[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 11:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
With respect, you guys seem to be going on instruction creep. If an admin has gone batshit insane deleting crap, you don't "invoke level 1 access removal procedures", you flag down a steward in IRC and get them desysopped. The level 2 procedure isn't too bad, but again is in need of considerable simplification. Stifle ( talk) 15:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Over the past few months now I have been discussing and debating Arbitrators role in response to their CheckUser and Oversight rights. A few key things have come to mind and I feel a discussion should take place.
There has yet to be any real procedure surrounding CheckUser and Oversight in relation to ArbCom. Ultimately the reason the tools are granted is so that Arbitrators can adequately do their job and investigate cases of sockpuppetry, and respond to outing and personal attacks in relation to their role as an Arbitrator. So in a sense, the community did not vote for members of the community who they wish to routinely do WP:SPI work, or respond to oversight requests but instead for Arbitrators whom they trust enough to also grant the tools to. I can think of a few current Arbs that I would not have supported had they run for just CU because of their lack of technical ability. Because of this, I feel that Arbitrators should only be using the tools in their official role. One because of my reasoning above and two for the purpose of remaining uninvolved. Routinely there are request for arbitration that somehow involve CheckUser. Because of this it would be best if the person who ran those checks were not Arbitrators, for obvious reasons. The same can be said of Oversight.
Secondly, I recently looked over Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee/Statistics and noted that the majority of the inactive users with CheckUser access are former Arbitrators. Namely, UninvitedCompany ( talk · contribs) who has done 0 checks in the last six months, The Epopt ( talk · contribs) who also has done 0 checks in the last six months, Morven ( talk · contribs) who has done 66 checks in the last six months, Fred Bauder ( talk · contribs) who has done 28 checks in the last six moths, David Gerard ( talk · contribs) who has done 23 checks in the last six months. While I normally do not have an issue with users who do not use their userrights, in this case I do. Mainly because the reasoning for not electing more Checkusers and Oversights is because we already have enough. While it is true that we have enough, the workload is not being distributed equally. Avraham ( talk · contribs) has done 2843 checks in the last six months, and Nishkid64 ( talk · contribs) has done 9123 in the last six months. Also, if you look at WP:SPI, there are times that cases sit for close to 10 days that require a Checkusers attention. While I do not have statistics for the user of Oversight, I would be fairly certain that it is about the same.
Because of this, I am proposing that Arbitrators CU and OV privileges are removed upon the end of their term. Should they wish to continue to use the tools they, like everyone else can run in the CheckUser and Oversight elections and be granted the tools just like anyone else. I feel that this will ensure that we are only giving the tools to users whom are technically competent, and that we do not have users with the tools that never use them. This will also cut back on the backlogs at WP:SPI and reduce the workload for some of our more overworked CheckUsers and Oversights. Also, I propose that sitting Arbitrators only use their tools in their official role to avoid any situations of conflict of interest and for the purpose of remaining uninvolved. Tiptoety talk 00:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
After reading over the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee, I have yet to see anything that states when a Auditer may use CU/OV. While I am of the assumption that they are only to be used during an investigation, I think it would be a good idea to have it in writing that members of the subcommittee should not be routinely using such tools. ie: for SPI or OV email requests. Thoughts? Note, a relevant discussion has taken place here. Tiptoety talk 04:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
So, I did an analysis of arbitrators' contributions last night, just to see how active our arbitrators are both in the mainspace and across the entire Wikipedia. I figured I might as well share my findings here. The following is a list of the arbitrator, the date of their 500th most recent edit, and the date of their 500th most recent edit in mainspace.
Arbitrator | 500 edits ago | 500 article edits ago |
---|---|---|
Carcharoth | 2009-04-08 | 2008-10-26 |
Casliber | 2009-04-25 | 2009-04-04 |
Cool Hand Luke | 2009-02-27 | 2008-04-04 |
Coren | 2009-02-23 | 2007-11-19 |
FaysallF | 2009-03-30 | 2009-03-20 |
FloNight | 2009-03-17 | 2008-07-17 |
Jayvdb | 2009-04-24 | 2009-03-19 |
Kirill Lokshin | 2009-04-25 | 2008-01-12 |
Newyorkbrad | 2009-03-06 | 2007-11-18 |
Risker | 2009-03-10 | 2008-10-05 |
Rlevse | 2009-04-26 | 2009-04-18 |
Roger Davies | 2009-03-31 | 2008-09-25 |
Sam Blacketer | 2008-12-14 | 2008-08-13 |
Stephen Bain | 2008-09-25 | 2007-10-19 |
Vassyana | 2009-03-02 | 2008-07-03 |
Wizardman | 2009-05-01 | 2009-04-30 |
Dates valid as of approximately 00:00 UTC May 9, 2009
NW ( Talk) ( How am I doing?) 18:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry this is last-minute. Is anyone interested in filling in this week to write the "Arbitration report" for the Wikipedia Signpost? If so, please drop me a line; it'd need to be done within about the next 14 hours.-- ragesoss ( talk) 03:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey, it's me again.
I was looking at the ADHD case and I was wondering. Isn't there supposed to be a tag on the articles talk page, and the page locked for Arbitration reasons? I was sort of wondering this, because the last few I've seen that is what has happened. Is that required or is it just a tool that ArbCom can use in a dispute? Thanks! Renaissancee (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
See here. — Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 00:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Just wondering - Are ArbCom decisions (specifically the "Principles" sections of the Final Decisions) considered "settled law" as far as interpretation of Wiki Policies go? In other words, if a policy can be construed/twisted/wikilawyered a couple of ways, but ArbCom has "held" the policy to mean X, does that settle the matter as far as interpretation of said policy is concerned? Or are the Principles in the findings more obiter dicta to frame and contextualize the Findings and Remedies specific to that case? Arakunem Talk 16:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the fact that ArbCom is likely to look to past decisions is worth stating explicitly, however, even if we are not bound by it. — Coren (talk) 02:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
(undent) This is an interesting example because I think it's very illustrative. I think the best way to look at it would be for its predictive power: it does not make a new bit of law because it has been said by ArbCom, but it does state that "if this goes in front of ArbCom, we are very likely to rule in that direction". In the case where an interpretation of policy by an admin eventually leads to a dispute degenerating into wheel warring, anyone on the "side" that goes counter to previous ArbCom ruling is placing oneself in greater "peril" if the case ends up on ArbCom's lap; so quoting it may be both meaningful and useful. In that sense, decision principles have pragmatical value. — Coren (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Note that there have been cases in the past where ArbCom principles were used in editing policy (BLP comes to mind) after the fact, relying on that very guidance— I suppose that's a better case of principles becoming "settled law". In theory, the community is always free to tweak policy after a decision so that it aligns closer to its principles (or, sometimes, just reuse wording that was mean to clarify/nuance the common understanding); this is something that's eminently reasonable given the practical expectation that, should the matter return to the committee, the decision would consistent. Wikipedia policies are meant to reflect current practice, after all, and a final decision tends to influence what is current practice. — Coren (talk) 01:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
(I can't believe I've missed this thread up till now. Placeholder for now; I'll respond here tomorrow when I'm more awake.) Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Given the recent (additional) media coverage, I wonder how much longer until someone writes an article. Is anyone taking bets? -- MZMcBride ( talk) 01:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
The above editor was banned by the ArbCom for a year as per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes. There is currently some discussion regarding how, if at all, to see how he could return early at Wikipedia:WikiProject User Rehab/User:Greg park avenue. Any comments on the issue by members of the committee are more than welcome. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 15:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Is there a better word we can use instead of "Staff" for the first heading? Staff is a page at wmf:Staff and Special:GlobalUsers/Staff, maybe we could say "Organization" or "Composition"? MBisanz talk 14:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I have a question for the committee on a constitutional matter. There is currently an embryonic proposal by Peter Damien to setup a sort of editors union, whereby a editors with a certain standing can establish a self-electing self-serving organisation within the project. This would act toward as yet undefined purposes, but it has been mooted this would basically involve content dispute resolution, and member assistance/representation in behavioural dispute matters, as well as acting as a closed policy discussion forum. A number of editors have already unsuccessfully made it known that it should simply not exist at this Mfd which was raised very early on.
I personally think any proposed group like this is fundementally against basic Wikipedia policy, and cannot achieve any stated aim without its existence by definition violating the basic principles of Wikipedia (equality of editor's opinions (those in good standing), consensus based discussion, not beaurocracy, not democracy, weight of argument not credentials etc etc etc). Other's disagree, so we have a dispute in play.
In my mind, the normal avenues of feedback / dispute resolution would appear to be moot in this case, as the very presence of a self serving collective would interfere with the determining of any consensus in the conventional forums (Rfc, VP, Medcom). So, constituionally, on the basis that disputes that cannot be handled by any of the lower forums are immediately handled by arcbom, would the arbcom accept the basic dispute over the legitimacy of this group's very existence as a legitimate case or not?
MickMacNee ( talk) 00:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I think scale is pushing the limits of some of the principles - demonstrate the harm in a talking shop. -- Joopercoopers ( talk) 01:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has no role to play concerning this issue. Whether groups of editors may organize on-wiki in this way is a policy question, not implicated in any case pending before us, and which the committee as an entity has not discussed and to the best of my knowledge has no plans to.
My personal view is that there should ideally be no points of principle separating between the administration of Wikipedia and those who write it—groups whose composition would preferably be, if not identical, substantially overlapping. I am not sure that this new Association will fulfill a useful role. It will certainly hurt rather than help if it supports its members in every situation regardless of its merits, or castigates administrators who spend most of their wiki-time administering rather than content-creating because that is their particular skill-set or because of the exigencies of time. But I can imagine nothing that would inflame any tensions or divisions that already exist more greatly, or be more likely to lead to the conjured "full-blown internal civil war," than for this Committee to attempt to squelch this group of editors, and I know of no attempts by us to try. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 21:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Related to remedy 1.3 of the date delinking case, the community RFC about a proposal for a bot to unlink dates is now open. Please see Wikipedia:Full-date unlinking bot and comments at the talk page. The committee will be informed again after the discussion is finished in two weeks. -- Apoc2400 ( talk) 12:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Just so the Arbitration Committee knows, I have changed the timeline in that since Jayvdb had his username changed to "John Vandenberg", that I have edited the timelines to reflect the username change [7] [8]. Are these edits okay? — Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 19:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Now that I hopefully have your attention with a silly header, I'd like to solicit your serious opinions. Back in late 06 when I ran for a seat on this august body, a major part of my platform was adopting a subcommittee system, to better handle business. I am glad to see it is now, finally, being implemented. So how, in you Arbs' views and experiences, has it worked so far? How may it be improved? I know election time is usually when these issues come up, but let's take advantage of the slow summer and get the drop on this one:)-- R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) ( talk) 16:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Are there any other arbs who have an opinion on this? Anyone...anyone?-- R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) ( talk) 21:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
The title says it all, please see here. Cenarium ( talk) 01:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Taking a bold step and collapsing. Too often, Wikipedians raise issues of principle as if they were bargaining chips--things to remind others of when one finds it convenient for them to act a certain way. Real principle is what guides one's own actions in decisions that are inconvenient but right.
This thread was started in violation of policy: WP:LINKVIO to be exact. That is a policy I've acted upon many times before, and the right thing to do is to act upon it uniformly. If he exposed a greater wrong, I was the only one harmed by it. So surely I cannot be accused of coverup in a situation where exposure would only help me. Ethical decisions where good people disagree belong in the hands of the individuals who live with the consequences.
Over the last few years people have confided in me in situations where they were unsure whether to trust the Committee's confidentiality: these people were deciding whether to blow the whistle on improper action by Wikipedians in high places; a few had been subject to offsite harassment; a small number even feared for their livelihoods. An indispensable part of ArbCom's mission is to be a venue where people in those situations can take legitimate issues.
The current Committee is almost entirely composed of different people from 2007; this is being reviewed in good hands. My request to the community is to exercise discretion and dignity. If broader questions remain after this instance is handled, please raise those questions then. Both the questions and the responses are likely to be wiser that way. Durova 273 15:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
I've just been sent (redacted by Durova per WP:LINKVIO) link with what appears to be arbitrators meatpuppeting to get the arbcom case on Durova accepted. Basically, Kirill Lokshin, arbcom co-ordinator is asking for someone to bring the case forward so he can accept it, and ex-arb Dmcdevit is agreeing to with the proviso that the case is accepted quickly so that it will "deflect the inevitable drama coming [his] way". This is a fairly old case, though its effects are still felt. The point here is that every single case brought forward to ArbCom no has no/little integrity, when we have shenanigans like that going on behind our backs. How do we know that arbitrators aren't meatpuppeting each other to accept/decline cases according to their own preference? It is concerning that the "co-ordinator" of Arbcom, Kirill Lokshin is involved with this, and it makes me wonder how frequently this goes on. It is a violation of arbitration policy, point number 6 when arbitrators are being requested to rule. Like any government system, there is always going to be corruption of some sort, it seems. Majorly talk 22:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
|
Since this is not an official notice, I think this is the best place to put it, but I wanted to point people to this post I made in a section above, which updates things somewhat after recent events. Just to lay out what the response has been so far to the resignations and to indicate that other arbitration business is still proceeding much as normal. Carcharoth ( talk) 06:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Above (collapsed) Newyorkbrad writes a question to the community that worries me a little:
I didn't know that the arbcom was so strictly enjoined from opening a case sua sponte. Of course the committee also deals with stuff that doesn't exactly amount to opening cases. I'd like to know if other similar matters must also be addressed by the "happenstance" of an unaffilated user bringing them to the committee, or else be ignored? To exemplify: if I want the arbcom to deal with the issue of Jimbo Wales's "Jimbo block" of myself on May 22 (which I do), would it be an advantage for me to file a case about it? If I don't file one, might I find it dismissed as something that "can probably be resolved without arbitration and is likely to blow over" ? It's a matter which it seems fair to characterize as "boiling over", after recently being subject to mediation. A pretty unique question, I realize—uncharted waters—but can the committee be relied on to deal with it as far as in them lies—somehow—I obviously don't know what, if anything, they might do—or is anything like that up to me? Ought I to bring it to the committee's attention if I want them to take notice of it? Does the involvement of a GodKing make it more, or perhaps less, necessary for me to act for myself? Bishonen | talk 18:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC). Please do not collapse this. It's a (multi-headed) question for the committee, and I want them to see it. Bishonen | talk 18:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC).
That being said, in general we pretty much decline to intervene is short blocks (mostly out of practicality, any short block would have long expired before we could render a decision), unless there is a pattern of egregious misbehavior to examine and a case can be made for it. — Coren (talk) 12:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
(Please note that I am currently on break from the Committee as it regards new matters and that this is only an individual statement.) I cannot posit what the overall Committee response to a request from you would be, but I can offer some general observations relevant to your questions. Jimbo Wales has made it clear that ArbCom has the authority to overturn his decisions and that he would respect such a decision. The majority of the Committee is extremely reluctant or unwilling to open a case without a normal request for arbitration. The involvement of Jimbo Wales has little to no bearing on the latter point, which seems to have been embraced as a general principle. It is based on a number of factors, including the abitration policy (particularly point 6) and previous problems/drama with cases initiated (directly or indirectly) by the Committee and/or arbitrators. I hope this helps clarify the matter. If I can be of further assistance, please let me know. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I have been thinking about this a bit. One aspect which might be worth discussing at an RfC, and hopefully someone having a look at the history of the concept of 'involved', is the concept of 'involved' - in a case where editor A and editor B are clearly friends, and admin C is known to have an issue with editor B, but then blocks editor A in a borderline case. Similarly with points of view etc. For instance, I am an inclusionist, and as such I would not block a deleletion-minded editor on pronciple unless it was a blindingly obvious totally unambiguous reason to do so - however, when I expressed this elsewhere, it appeared my criteria for 'involved' were broader (or stricter or whatever) than other admins. In general, this might be a good thing to nut out, unless done so elsewhere (????). Of course, it is better not to use specific examples in RfCs, as this not only polarises opinion but distorts it as well as editors will subconsciously associate a specific action takne against a specific editor (which they may disagree with), whereas they might have actually been in favour of the principle or vice versa). Casliber ( talk · contribs) 01:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Given the recent attritions to the Committee, I felt it wiser to cut short what I had intended to be a considerably longer break away from the Wiki and am returning to duty. I very much empathize with my colleagues frustrations at having our hands tied most of the time combined with the certainty that no matter what the committee does (or does not do) there will always be a number of editors willing to jump at the opportunity to attack the committee and its volunteers with surprising bile and viciousness.
While none of us signed up under the impression that we would be loved and paraded, it does tend to affect one's morale over time no matter how much we attempt to harden ourselves to this inevitable reality. Nevertheless, I don't believe that a committee that has whittled down to less than a dozen members is healthy.
Thank you to all of you who offered words of support and wishes for my return during my (short) break. — Coren (talk) 12:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Are any other members of the committee planning to flip their shit in the near term, and have any other members of the committee been undermining the committee's already questionable authority and judgement? Hiberniantears ( talk) 21:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I former candidate for the Arbitration Committee has asked me to blank (not delete) pages and page sections related to her candidacy. Are there objections to my doing so? As far as I can tell, it's never been done before, but we do semi-routinely blank RFAs at the subject request (whether or not the user is leaving Wikipedia, which this user has), and this seems to me to be comparable. Steve Smith ( talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 01:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
We pride ourselves of transparency, yet it is obvious that ArbCom discussions (via its mailing list and possibly other foras) need to be confidential. Still, as time passes, members of the council resign, editors retire, and so on, it seems to me that there are arguments to consider declassification of older mailing list archives. This would go far towards placating the community, improving ArbCom relations with it, lessen the chance of the committee transforming into an unanswerable oligarchy, and not the least, provide Wikipedia researchers with a very valuable tool. Hence, I'd like to propose that mailing list archives older than 5 (3? 7?) years should be declassified. Please note that similar legal documents worldwide are subject to declassification after a time, and Wikipedia, which prides itself on transparency, should not be more secret than US government (for example :D). Thoughts? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
We are not a nation, and we do not have a government, and certainly no authority that has "classified" the documents.-- Tznkai ( talk) 20:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd often thought about this, but I don't think it is feasible in practice, though very worthwhile in principle.
A number of cases are still likely to be live several years on. For example:
You have to assume that if archives are released, they will be scraped and search engined and every mention of a username, IP or email address indexed. The effort to sift those out, on 10 - 20 thousand emails a year, is unfeasible, and it's not clear what if any period might be considered a "safe" one. The issues might mostly be dead, but the private information is still going to be private and may well be "live" (still sensitive).
I don't like this conclusion, so anyone who can suggest a way round the impasse is gladly welcomed to propose it.
FT2 ( Talk | email) 20:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd encourage all Arbitrators to read or re-read User:NoSeptember/Leaving. Cheers. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 22:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Over four years ago, Szyslak created User:Arbitration Committee and User:ArbCom to "reserve" their use in case the ArbCom ever wanted to use them for a role account. That use has never materialized, but I recently noticed Category:Wikipedia contact role accounts, where accounts like User:Oversight are used so Special:Emailuser/Oversight sends an email to the oversight mailing list. I'm wondering if you want to do something similar, so people can user Special:Emailuser to send email to the ArbCom mailing list.
When I asked, Szyslak indicated he's quite happy to turn over the reins to you. I'll let you and Szyslak handle the specifics by email (like whether this should be by usurpation or by just giving you the passwords), but I thought I'd play matchmaker and suggest you talk to each other. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 14:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Pursuant to the Arbitration Committee agenda item Review Committee performance, a half-year summary of arbitration activities has been published at January to June 2009 report. Comments and feedback are invited on the talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Carcharoth ( talk) 04:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
It is proposed to create an Appeal Committee to appeal, among other things, ArbCom decisions, please see and discuss here. Cenarium ( talk) 02:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
This issue has been raised before, but I noticed today that the current oversight and checkuser elections are not being done with secret ballot, but with a public "voting" system. I believe the many flaws of public votes for elected offices are well known.
I have abstained from voting in previous arbcom elections until I can cast my votes in secret, and I will continue to do so.
I would like to ask arbcom to consider accepting for discussion my proposal for a motion: "An option to vote by secret ballot will be provided in all future arbcom, oversight, and checkuser elections." — Carl ( CBM · talk) 01:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Very, very minor point, but I always liked the look of the big calendar with the "Due" items and the Done ticks, but now it looks like it's been falling behind with the ticking off. Could someone update it? Cool. - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 09:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
There is now a proposal for an Appeal Committee, empowered to appeal sanctions imposed by administrators or by the community, but not sanctions directly imposed by ArbCom (this is a lower 'court'). Cenarium ( talk) 13:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
So it's no secret that Giano has some special right to expressing himself that other editors lack, but this is really over the line. [13] I also seem to remember a caution from Arbcomm asking Admins not to take unilateral action when Giano is involved, but I can't find it (last year?).
So, I have a couple questions. Does he have special rights when expressing himself like this? It's an ongoing issue obviously, are there any plans at all to rein him in? Telling someone to fuck off is way way beyond acceptable...certainly the reasons for that are too obvious to require elaboration. I considered a warning but that would be ineffective and drama inducing. It's time Arbcom steps in with a more direct approach. Motions have been pretty effective lately, maybe something along those lines? But it's gone beyond a admin issue. Thanks... RxS ( talk) 18:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I personally would block ALL people who participated at the Bishonen's talk page except Xavegogem, Bishonen, Ryan, Jehochman and the arbitrators who intervened. The rest were helping increase the drama. Giano's action was the worst of course but there's little difference between uncivility and participating and increasing the drama. I can't block anyone now since I could be dragged in to an arbcom case accused of punishing violators. Now, can we stop this please? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 22:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Can we just stop talking about Giano?-- Tznkai ( talk) 21:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
How long should one single editor wait between each clarification and amendment request they make to the Arbitration Committee? What is the suggested time period arbitrators desire? — Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 05:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
At the moment, WP:CHECK and WP:SIGHT point to Wikipedia:CheckUser/Appointments for an explanation of the reasoning related to appointments, and the appointment methods used.
Separately there is WP:AC/CheckUser and Oversight elections which is the current AC policy for the appointment process.
These could probably do with merging, so that the latter page would then contain main sections "General background" "History" and then "Current process". Are the arbs ok with this?
FT2 ( Talk | email) 14:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
This year, the Arbitration Committee moved its pages to a more organized format.
However, the cases prior to the moves are still with the old names. For example:
Those are just a few examples, out of hundreds if not more. What should be done with these names? Should they be moved to the current formatting of names, or should they stay with the historical "requests for arbitration" names? A better look at evidence can be seen at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases. -- Mythdon talk • contribs 00:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Given the new appointment of CU/OS, could the func-en mailing list membership be updated? Thanks. MBisanz talk 03:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
A Russian asked a question at the help desk here, which hasn't been answered. I don't feel qualified to answer.-- SPhilbrick T 20:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard is now featured on Wikipedia:Coordination's noticeboard listings. @ harej 08:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Please see here for details on this proposal, and preliminary discussion. Cenarium ( talk) 22:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
How do users appeal/request amendment to discretionary sanctions to the Arbitration Committee? Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 16:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
The coordinating arbitrator or their deputy shall refer all appeals from banned or long-term blocked users received by the Committee to the Ban Appeals Subcommittee. - found where?!-- 124.183.146.14 ( talk) 03:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I hope I'm posting in the right place. If not, I hope someone will refactor this to a more suitable location.
I was recently involved, quite superficially, in a case where I volunteered to help with some mentoring work. I'm posting here to let the Committee know that this is one kind of work that interests me, and that you're welcome to ask me in the future if I'm available to mentor an editor who could use some guidance, possibly as an alternative to harsher sanctions. The terms I offered for 194x are basically the terms under which I'd be willing to work in any other case. Naturally, my availability may vary, but I'm always open to being asked whether I've got time.
Thanks for your time - GTBacchus( talk) 20:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
User:Scuro is supposed to have a mentor; how do I find out who the mentor is and/or whether such a mentor even exists? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
In the section about removal of sysop access, the "Level 1" and "Level 2" headings are offputting and contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Could you please change those headings to make them more transparent and descriptive, such as "Emergency" and "Non-emergency"? Jehochman Talk 12:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I could use some feedback on what role Arbcom would like to play in tool-removal at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#A_fork_in_the_road. - Dank ( push to talk) 16:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I put wp:ac into the search field and was surprised to be directed not to the ArbCom page WP:AC but rather to this (obviously fake) "policy" page in user space. Perhaps ArbCom should usurp the wp:ac redirect? EdChem ( talk) 02:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
The AC/History page (created by Kirill in early July) contains the image that explains the current election tranches. Since that tells us who is elected until what time, and how many seats will in theory be open in this December's election, shouldn't that (and perhaps the "Selection process" section) remain on the main Arbitration Committee page? Nathan T 19:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
This is for future reference. It sometimes happens that an admin will be desysopped by order of the Arbitration Committee. When that happens a request goes forth to be performed, traditionally, by an off-wiki steward.
One side-effect of removing adminship is to remove rollback rights. While it's easy enough for a former admin to regain this right (he just asks an admin), the loss of rollback rights obviously isn't usually intentional. We entrust all but the most suspect of users with rollback, and this helps to keep the wiki clear.
Perhaps in future remedies attention could be paid to wording indicating that the admin's rights are to be changed from sysop to rollback, unless there are particular reasons for removing rollback rights too. -- TS 13:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
The process to appoint the three non-arbitrator members of the Audit Subcommittee is underway, with the election itself starting on 30 October. If you think you may be suitably qualified, please see the election pages for the job specification and application arrangements. Applications close 22 October 2009.
For the Arbitration Committee, Roger Davies talk 21:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I've just tried to email two arbs: Roger Davies first, which bounced, and then Vassyana, which bounced too. Are the -at-gmail.com addresses given overleaf still valid? Tony (talk) 09:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I've been going through the history section... Eloquence (Erik Moeller) was a member of the first Arbcom, but his name seems to be absent from the history for some reason. See notice here Manning ( talk) 14:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
This edit on WT:Sock puppetry points out the need to contact functionaries by a private means more secure than email, where interception is a concern.
The closest thing I can think of is securely logging into Wikipedia then using the Email-to-user. However, there is still the risk that the recipient's email is monitored or that the path between Wikipedia and the recipient's mail server or the recipient's mail server and the recipient is not secure. If the Wikimedia foundation hosted its own web-based mail in the same building as the Wikipedia server, and it allowed only secure log-ins, that would make the email "secure enough." It would require functionary mailing lists to have an Wikipedia account to email to, but that's already being done for some role accounts.
I guess what I'm asking for is a statement like:
Then repeat for other important functionary mailing lists. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 01:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
The process to appoint the three non-arbitrator members of the Audit Subcommittee is underway. If you are suitably qualified, please see the election pages for the job specification and application arrangements. Applications close 22 October 2009.
For the Arbitration Committee, Roger Davies talk 19:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Time is rapidly running out. The closing date for completed applications is 23:59 (UTC) 22 October 2009. If you are interested in becoming one of the three non-arbitrator members of the Audit Subcommittee, see the election pages now for the job specification and application details.
For the Arbitration Committee, Roger Davies talk 17:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Discussion on WP:SOCKS is turning on just who is and who isn't bound by the privacy policy.
The issue is who can editors trust - by policy not just by trusting the people involved - to handle information like "I'm User:A, I am also User:B" in cases of legitimate multi-account editors. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 02:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
In the absence of consensus/discussion/interest in a new and different election system for the 2009 Arbitration Committee Elections, I've begun the process of migrating the 2008 pages to 2009 formats. Since the deadline for suffrage is 1 November, I thought it prudent to seek advice and insight from the committee. Specifically, we need clarification on the following issues:
Thanks in advance for your assistance and insight. Discussion may be directed to the election talk page at WT:ACE2009. Best, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Can an arb please confirm that the issues with e-mail from Yahoo have been resolved? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Preparations are ongoing for the 2009 Arbitration Committee Elections, which will be held in December. The first step in the process is generating a list of General Questions that will be submitted by template to all candidates in this year's election. Questions may be broad and philisophical in nature, or may deal with a specific incident or case from the past year (or prior). General questions may not deal with an individual candidate or candidates - All editors will have a chance to ask specific questions or one or more candidates directly, once we actually have candidates.
The submission of questions is limited to editors eligible to vote in the election (You may use this utility to check your eligibility.), but all editors will be invited to discuss the candidates, once we have candidates to discuss. Questions should be submitted at The General Questions page. If you have additional questions or concerns regarding the question process, please ask here. Thank you for participating. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Ryan Postlethwaite has contacted you regarding his indefinite blocking of Tyciol. Please be aware of this discussion as well. Thank you. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 14:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
This page doesn't provide that crucial information on the mandate ArbCom has (which presumably flows from the community...). Neither does Wikipedia:Arbitration, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index or the Template:ArbCom navigation. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Please see my comment here. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
The election, using SecurePoll, has now started. You may:
The election closes at 23:59 (UTC) on 8 November 2009.
For the Arbitration Committee, Roger Davies talk 07:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
There's only one day to go! The Audit Subcommittee election, using SecurePoll, closes at 23:59 (UTC) 8 November. Three community members will be appointed to supervise use of the CheckUser and OverSight tools. If you wish to vote you must do so urgently. Here's how:
here.
For the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 17:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Having got used to emailing oversight through User:Oversight I was rather surprised to find myself looking at sending a checkuser request to a sockpuppet of Ĵιɱβɸ_ωαΙεʃ. Could an Arb take ownership of this account? Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Interested editors are invited to participate in the
SecurePoll feedback and workshop.
SecurePoll was recently used in the
Audit Subcommittee election, and has been proposed for use for the
upcoming Arbitration Committee election at this current
request for comment (RFC). Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Dougweller (
talk)
09:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I have closed this Request for Comment. My detailed review of the issues and the results of that discussion may be found here. To summarize, I found that consensus exists as follows:
Questions or comments may be posted at The RFC's Talk Page. Thank you to all who participated. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Comments from all interested editors, including arbitrators, are invited and welcome at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC, where a proposal for community de-adminship is being discussed. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Some may be interested in this discussion: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee#Recent use of RevisionDelete related to David Gerard (it's a bit off the beaten path, so posting here and some other places). -- MZMcBride ( talk) 00:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Let's say a case has 10 active arbitrators, 6 is a majority. But is there a difference between abstain and oppose votes? Let's say that there are 2 findings, both with 6 support votes. But one of them has 4 abstains, while the other, 4 opposes. Do they both pass, or only he first one? In other words, are opposes the same as abstains, or do they actively subtract from from the number of supports? PS. What about votes labeled second choice? If the first choice is passing, are they seen as opposes? What if the first choice is not passing? Do they become regular supports? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
One more questions: what if out of the above 10 arbitrators, 1 votes support, and 9 completely ignore a given proposal. Is it treated as 9 abstentions and the proposal passes with three votes? What about if that proposal were supported by 3 arbitrators, and had 7 ignores? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
This may be of interest for arbs: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration#Recent changes to a case. Cenarium ( talk) 00:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Hell of a title line, huh? But it is the shortest way I could think of to includfe the information I thought relevant.
Basically, as I am sure everyone knows, ArbCom has I think fairly frequently in the past made rulings which recommended that the community alter exising policies or guidelines to address specific situations which were raised in a given ArbCom case. I don't know how often the community has responded, though. Would it be possible, possibly by ArbCom fiat, possibly through other means, to have a list of such recommendations which the ArbCom thinks have not been addressed created, and maybe have a body developed which would at least create proposals on them? For maximum effectiveness, I think that it might work best if all the proposals were addressed and drafted at the same time, in effect creating what might be an equivalent to a constitutional convention. I would think that the optimum time to do such review and drafting might be at the change over in ArbCom itself, so that departing members can say what they want to say without fear of having someone point to those statements in any decisions they may later take part in. Anyway, just an idea. John Carter ( talk) 14:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
If we must have a logo, I've tweaked it to use something a little more sober and ArbCom-y I found on the commons. (I've asked for someone with SVG-fu to make a vectorized version). I think it's a lot less obtrusive that the colored scales, but revert me if I'm insane. — Coren (talk) 03:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Given the way cases are run and the only outcome ever seems to be topic and site bans, in all due respect and good faith, I think an image of fasces (in its classical meaning as opposed to its more odious 20th Century interpretation) would be a more appropriate image as a symbol of the summary power that you guys wield. I guess I'm biased, but in my view it more honestly reflects the true nature of the "arbitration" process within wikipedia than an image of scales. You guys don't actually "arbitrate" in the classic sense, i.e. actually resolve disputes and make peace between conflicting users, but instead you seem to function as a means to weed out users you see as problematic, as this paper seems to suggest. Would you agree with this view? -- Martin ( talk) 01:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
See User:Proofreader77#Requisite adversarialicity which, yes, is my idealized (and naive) conception ... inspired by a playful tempest/teapot by Durova ... but which, to me, is something positive, rather than an aspersion — something small, manageable, pleasantly solvable with a spoon while sipping. Convivial rather than "soul sucking." etc.
(Note: while I mention that with my usual lightness, let there be no doubt of the significance I place on such matters. While Wikipedia rarely bends to raw statistics, I have a warm feeling for having participated in this first attempt at a Secure Poll election. A good idea, to me. Congratulations.)
Now, as for design attempts in the solitary void of my own druthers LoL ... let's put it this way: Is there any kind of general feeling/notion that "scales" are the wrong symbol? (I think scales are an important element, but if the consensus of the committee is "no scales," well, let me know.
P.S. It will be some time before I can get any image in my mind other than Newyorkbrad in a Superman costume. LoL
--
Proofreader77 (
interact)
04:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
It would never have crossed my mind that the scales logo was inadequate — but it now strikes me that a different design ... is inevitable. (smiling but not joking) Proofreader77 ( interact) 07:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
No need for further discussions... Jehochman Brrr 13:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
PRO: I am in the groove (allusion to an amigo's recent anachronistic phraseology elsewhere) with the Asian theme, and contention-level/ego-size manifestation. The profound iconic stature of muscular buttocks is also not without merit. There is, in fact, no end ;) of good, interesting, and amusing things to say about the sumo wrestler concept, but counterbalancing those positives there is a significant negative (see CON).
CON: However(speaking from a position of inexperience — but conceptual semi-understanding of much vacuity), at ArbCom the disputants are not allowed to touch each other (indent-debate) — but rather must present their comments/evidence in their own space. To me, in my naive idealistic ignorance, that suggests the idea of a collection of competing
Japanese gardens ... and
tea ceremony formalism in the resolution ... yada yada yada :-) (See also:
Google "Design for debate")
--
Proofreader77 (
interact)
18:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I believe a good image should give an insight into the process, so I present to the jury a suggestion. (/me runs to the nearest exit!). :-D Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
... Or, perhaps more precisely (and on-topic), do you have knowledge of many moments in Wikipedia history when the snail image would not be a good representation of a fundamental aspect of the ArbCom process? Proofreader77 ( interact) 21:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
States "150 mainspace edits prior to 15 June 2009 may vote".
Probably needs editing to "prior to the month in which the election is announced" or "prior to the first announcement of the election".
FT2 ( Talk | email) 01:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Any reason for [14]? DuncanHill ( talk) 21:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Two questions regarding access to functionaries-en:
I ask not with any specific functionaries in mind but in light of the history of poor institutional practice in this area, namely the leaks of old Arbitration Committee emails and the recent apparent compromise of the list during l'affair Gerard. Skomorokh 20:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Following two discussions on the subject, there is community support for bureaucrats to have the technical ability to remove admin and bureaucrat bits, in the situations where this is currently handled by the Stewards. There are a number of issues which need to be considered in light of this, and all (Committee members especially) are invited to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bureaucrat Unchecking. Happy‑ melon 23:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC went live today, and your comments are invited.
For what it's worth, I personally do not see your !vote or expressed opinions as a conflict of interest despite the obvious fact that this is a proposal that impacts ArbCom functions.
In any case, I believe the community needs to know the thoughts of ArbCom members regarding this RfC proposal, and urge a discussion regarding this RfC here, on this page. Thanks, Jusdafax 02:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Please note m:Talk:Stewards/confirm/2010#Lar's ombudsman position compromises arbcom, if you wish to discuss that matter, please do so in private or on enwiki, *not* on the page on Meta. Thank you. -- Thogo (Talk) 09:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
In cases of serious professional misconduct it is normal for a person to be suspended, without prejudice, during any hearing. I think the community would like to see admins against whom cases are accepted, suspended from using their tools during the period of the case. Whether this is enforced by flipping the bit or not is probably immaterial. Guy ( Help!) 22:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Automatic suspension is a widely understood and utilised practice in other areas. Yes, it may have a level of stigma, but the effect is the same for everyone, no-one is encouraged to rush to their support in terms of keeping the tools, and the disastrous effect of appearing to support certain persons by not suspending them then - sods law being what it is - having to permaban them when the sockfarm crawls out of the basket is avoided. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 23:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I also agree with this proposal. Automatic suspension of the tools would prevent bad things from happening because someone has the tools who shouldn't, would prevent others from being subject to innuendos just because they used the tools while an Arbcom case was in play, and would actually be the fairest option for those who didn't need to be in front of Arbcom in the first place - there's the least amount of stigma attached to something like this if it's just how we always do things without exception. If it reaches a point where continuing to withhold the tools becomes unjust because it's been ages and someone is still subject to an open case when everyone knows they shouldn't be, then there's an equal problem for everyone else in the case if Arbcom holds it open, so you should take such inclinations as a sign to hurry up and finish the damn case already. — Gavia immer ( talk) 00:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)