This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Arbitration talk page archives |
---|
WT:RFAR archives (2004–2009) |
Various archives (2004–2011) |
Ongoing WT:A/R archives (2009–) |
WT:RFAR subpages |
Archive of prior proceedings |
I have a question with regard to the revert parole I and a number of other editors were placed on 11 April 2007, please see: [1] According to the ruling of the arbcom the original duration of the parole was 1 year, which has now expired. The Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 ruled that all the editors placed on revert limitation in the first AA arbcom case were subject to supervised editing, however no time limits were specified. So I would appreciate if someone could advise whether the restrictions of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan are still effective or not. Thank you. Grandmaster ( talk) 07:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Let's put it this way: I think it would be best if you all stuck to 1RR, Armenians and Azeris alike from the AA1 case. Moreschi ( talk) ( debate) 17:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey. If you chaps from AA1 start edit-warring, I'll simply use AA2 to put you formally all on 1RR again. If people informally stick to 1RR (per week) that won't be needed. Moreschi ( talk) ( debate) 14:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
This wisely broken-out page will prove very useful. However it is apparent that in one or more clarification requests, the process difference between opening and reopening cases, as described at Wikipedia:Arbitration guide, may be leading to confusion. Unlike a new case, there appears no provision for extending (500-word) summaries of reopened requests into evidence subpages, as I alluded on this page. Perhaps this is deliberate and/or there is a standard methodology already in place of which I am unaware.
In the Franco-Mongol case, perhaps due to this omission, several users have exceeded 500 words, possibly relying on an inference I observed somewhere that responses to other users may not necessarily be counted within the limit; and, incredibly, one user has already been refactored by three clerks, limiting the amount of summary material available for presenting a case. Also the clarification case has become a harbor for several violently opposed amendment proposals.
I recognize that discussing lacunae in a policy may be questionable when offered from a party simultaneously in a process covered by the policy, but it appears that in this heavily attended case an ad hoc standard may be better than leaving the question open. The process as-is seems to suggest that clarifications of rulings should be straightforward enough that ArbCom input can be safely predicated solely upon summaries and not upon extended evidence. The current case may not be that easily handled.
I note that four arbiters have already considered this ripe for reopening, which in an ordinary case would be grounds for creating an evidence subpage subject to the wider restrictions of generally 1000 words or 100 diffs, with some leeway. I would appreciate some clerk or arbiter statement as to whether the several involved editors should feel free to use some fresh page (such as this talk page) for expansion of their summary comments at this time, as it appears several of the involved editors by their actions express a silent consensus that the summary limit is exceedible in this case and that the floodgates may be opened. Thank you. John J. Bulten ( talk) 00:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
My understanding is that the new requests are supposed to be listed first, and the oldest requests are supposed to be listed last. Is that correct? The instructions say, "Click the [Edit] link to the right of this section, and paste the template immediately below this box and above any other outstanding requests."
Since the request about me seems to be the oldest, shouldn't it be at the bottom? Ferrylodge ( talk) 01:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Should it really be "and/or" between the two sections? I'm not sure what it means. I also wonder if 'articles' would be better than 'his articles'.-- Slp1 ( talk) 21:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Good quesiton, we need an answer to that. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC) It seems to me the arbs are voting for BOTH remedies. I say this because if they only supported one, they'd say so. Unless instructed otherwise, I'll implement both when there are 7 votes (currently there are 12 active arbs, so a majority is 7). For the record, the topic ban should remain in place. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The breakoff to this page may have made things clearer, but I fear that it is increasing arbitrator overload. They are likely to spend more time over on the main request page, instead of here. Not to be too pointy, but how long will it take for an arbitrator to respond to this? Carcharoth ( talk) 15:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I would like to make few comments about Sam Blacketer's kind reply to my request, I hope this is the right place to do it.
First of all we all know that the main goal is "to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia" i.e. "high-quality encyclopaedia which is neutral point of view and based on reliable sources". We all know also that consensus does not always achieve this result. But there is absolutely no reason to think that one or few admins acting unilaterally and "discretionarily" would do better than consensus of several people on the talk pages. Admins are just more powerful users, not more wise ones. It is misleading to focus on the fact that consensus does not necessarily produce the good of the encyclopedia without addressing the fact that the decision of few uninvolved admins could be even *less likely* to realize the good of the encyclopedia.
Second and most important point: I cited people being banned for editing supported by consensus but It was not a criticism to the admins. It was a criticism to the situation that this action creates: if I must be afraid of being banned even for editing what is supported by the consensus then I can't definitely feel free to make any kind of edit at all! To be able to edit without being afraid I would need to consult the admins who could sanction the ban but this would make them "involved".
Third: we should always keep in mind that admins are just users with more tools. The punishments are not being delivered by an impartial jury after having listened the accusations and the defenses. The punishments do not even reflect a consensus inside the wikipedia community. The punishments are "discretionary", they just reflect the opinion of a single or few "users with more tools". It's like if a group of policemen both accuses you of a crime and sentence you to jail without any defense being allowed. Defenses are indeed completely ignored and discouraged with threats (as I have shown). Also the statement "editors unhappy with restrictions should look at the aspects of their own behaviour which have provoked them, and see if they can change it" seem to be a way to discourage people to defending themselves.-- Pokipsy76 ( talk) 10:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
As someone completely uninvolved in any 911 dispute(due to the fact that I have a strong personal bias I have chosen to avoid the topic) I can say that no amount of consensus can override the requirement for a neutral point of view. This is not up to the community, NPOV is imposed on us by the people that own Wikipedia. (1 == 2)Until 17:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh good, that is wonderful. (1 == 2)Until 18:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
JungleCat has added another characteristic statement to my request for appeal. It's worth looking at the whole exchange [3] and the article talk page discussion it was about [4]. Notice that the noble sentiment JungleCat quotes himself for was originally expressed to support an editor who had exclaimed his wonderment that someone might "believe such crap" when the editor it was directed at had politely suggested he withdraw it. While calling someone's (alleged) beliefs "crap" may not directly violate the purpose of Wikipedia, it is surely a bit off the mark to quote the founding idea of Wikipedia to justify such insults?
The moon hoax analogy is instructive. While I was getting my doctoral training in science studies I looked empirically at fringe theories, including parapsychology (mainly mind reading and telekinesis) and the "we never went to the moon" idea. The most interesting thing about examining such views is that it forces you to understand the received view (psychology, the Apollo project, and, of course, progressive collapse) in some detail. I have never suggested that fringe views be presented as "legitimate theories" (i.e., as a accepted scientific positions). I have suggested that the articles can often be improved simply by providing the answers to the questions that proponents of fringe views claim are somehow open ("How can they explain...?") That does not mean representing fringe critiques of the mainstream. Those critiques need not even be mentioned. And that is why it is so frustrating to have people like MONGO interpreting every one of my edits in terms of a belief I have never expressed. (Not only was Morton insulting to call them "crap", he was being presumptuous to talk about my "beliefs" ... and he was even wrong about the relevant belief in this case, which had very litte to do with controlled demolition).
Aside from my interest in the controlled demolition hypothesis (as a popular belief not a scientific proposition), then, I have also been getting increasingly interested in what we know about how and why the WTC collapsed. (Just as I had a chance to learn a great deal about how we actually got to the moon when I studied the hoax accusations). I think my work on the article has made it more informative, and this includes the information it has provided on the limits of what we know and the nature of the investigations that led to that knowledge. I don't claim to have perfect knowledge of the subject, but I do claim to have been editing in good faith. I have not been trying to refute NIST or to defend the controlled demolition hypothesis (I have not been "pushing"). I have been working with the moderate assumption that NIST's is not the gospel truth and that proponents of the controlled demolition are not just talking nonsense; that is, I have been trying to make sense of both positions.
But regardless of who is right about the content issues, the incivility here is clearly on one side. ArbCom can choose to say that people who are interested in a particular set of problems cannot expect to be treated civily; or AC can demand that even the "right" side defend its views civily.-- Thomas Basboll ( talk) 07:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
A banned user wishes to appeal but there has been no reply from mail sent to the arbitrators. May that user ask another user to support his appeal by posting it here? Under what conditions would such a request be considered meatpuppetry, and under which would it not? 75.61.105.103 ( talk) 17:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Without any particular motivation, I'd like to offer my thoughts on the current structure and operations of the Requests for Arbitration (RfAr). As we all seem to veer naturally towards pessimism, I will observe that the process works reasonably well. That is to say, RfAr serves its function to acceptable standards: as a page where editors can present disputes to the Committee, and request that they arbitrate them, it seems to fill that role well. However, it is prone to a lot of backwards-and-forwards discussions. For example, it's not uncommon to see a statement from a party followed by several sections titled "Reply to X... Reply to Y..."; that really is nothing but extended bickering. Perhaps we need to look at cutting that out.
What concerns me, however, is the lack of clarify and cutting-to-the-point in requests for arbitration. At present, the parties involved (and, increasingly often, uninvolved by-standers) offer statements, which are supposed to be short, to-the-point, and descriptive of the issues the Committee are requested to consider. This is, however, is not working. What we're getting is several rants from each side of the fence, which really does make it somewhat difficult (for me, at least, as a neutral observer of the arbitration process) to identify the issues in hand.
For example, would the addition of a "core issue" section, perhaps under the current "previous attempts at dispute resolution" area, not make that easier? I for one would find the first read-over of a rfar much simpler if the filing party had noted that it was over, for example, "Users α, β and γ have been grouping together to push through POV Θ".
Thoughts? Anthøny 21:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
At this moment, there is none. Not really.
One case is in its 7th week, but was about to close before getting stalled by unforeseen events, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Proposed decision. In fact, it looks like one arbitrator going inactive, or one more voting would be enough to allow it to close.
There are two more, one in its 3rd week (needs another week?) and one in its second week (voting, but not close to closing yet).
Getting to May without a substantial backlog is an accomplishment. Credit to arbitrators for participating, for writing, for discussing, for voting, and in general for moving things along. And to the clerks, for, well, clerking. But also for prodding the arbitrators as needed.
But I see that 3 new arbitrations just opened, and that you recently lost one of your decision writers. I think the community will understand if you can't keep up quite as well as you have for the last few months. But I'd also like to encourage you to maintain the pace that allowed these last few months to pass (relatively) smoothly.
Again, thank you. Jd2718 ( talk) 22:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
It is high time that the abuses against the unjustly banned user "Gibraltarian" were dealt with rationally and fairly. My ban was brought about by a troll user's malicious complaint, and he continually vandalised any words I tried to post in my defence. I appeal to any admin or Arbcom member with a sense of justice to please contact me on a_gibraltarian@hotmail.com to discuss the matter. Many thanks
DO NOT REVERT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.124.68.211 ( talk) 22:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I can't figure out what format I am supposed to use to list the involved parties (in the anti-americanism case). Life.temp ( talk) 08:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Tango/Proposed_decision#Remedies - his desysopping appears to have not passed, but it's being reported all over that it did. Lawrence Cohen § t/ e 02:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Pleae excuse my unfamiliarity with these page, I have tried to look for the archives of the past request for clarifications/appeal but I can't find them, do there exist such archives?-- Pokipsy76 ( talk) 13:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
(Edit conflict)
Folks, I've finished developing the new template, Template:RfarOpenTasks ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs), with a little assistance from Ncmvocalist along the way. The template currently only documents requests for clarifications, and requests for amendments to prior cases; I imagine standard requests for arbitration could be easily integrated.
The template is currently stand-alone; it may be more efficient to integrate it with {{ ArbComOpenTasks}}, either as a full merger, or just having it transcluded (displayed) there. Please feel free to suggest amendments to the template, and keep an eye out for any changes to WP:RFAC, in case they warrant an update to the template.
Regards, Anthøny 22:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi guys. There's a current request for arbitration open for the above case regarding whether or not the Encyclopedia Dramatica article can link to the site. The page is currently protected because of edit warring over the link, and the thing that's stopping things moving forward is the fact that linking to ED is banned per the MONGO case. There's even talk now of simply ignoring the arbitration committee. Can I make a real plea to you guys to take the request for clarification to a vote on allowing linking in the article? Whatever the result, whether it ends in net support or not, it will give the whole issue some clarity - the edit warring isn't going to stop without this vote. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
The decision in the MONGO case reads, and I quote:
"Links to ED
1) Links to Encyclopædia Dramatica may be removed wherever found on Wikipedia as may material imported from it."
It does not say links must be removed, it says may be removed. The community has now developed a guideline, at the behest of the Arbitration Committee, to identify best practices in situations such as this. Two and a half years have passed, and during that time there have been several requests for clarification and arbcom cases all related directly or indirectly to the MONGO decision. The Arbitration Committee's ruling of long ago has been superseded by the guideline developed by the community. Risker ( talk) 22:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
(emphasis mine). There is currently no special prohibition imposed by the Committee on any material to be placed within an article regarding ED. Kirill ( prof) 03:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)The Arbitration Committee's decisions in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites shall not be interpreted to prohibit (or to encourage) the creation of an article on Encyclopædia Dramatica. The existence and contents of any such article may be determined through the ordinary editorial and deletion processes.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
To date I am the only person prohibited from mediating. In addition I am sure the enforcement of this remedy itself could be quite controversial. It would be rather amusing to get blocked for successfully mediating a dispute.
The abolishment of the remedy requires me to be officially appointed by the Mediation Committee. That has a snowball's chance in hell in happening as visible in this discussion. The arbitration committee almost completely ignored my past appeal. Although Arbitrators went out of their way to discuss the appeal by Jack Merridew who has stalked me for the past three years and engaged in abusive sockpupetry among other things, I believe it is very unlikely that the arbitration committee is considering my current appeal. Arbitrators have a tendency to ignore me and likewise I am not willing to listen to them (or anyone else) anymore. If you ignore me, don't be surprised if I ignore you in return.
So the only option left for me is to illustrate the point one way or another. I am just unsure the most effective way.
Do not get the wrong idea. I am not asking for advice. We are way past that. Consider this more of an FYI.
-- Cat chi? 21:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Now a good question is why would a Portland IP with only two edits notice my edit within two minutes of it and make the above remark? -- Cat chi? 21:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
White Cat above says this:
Now, a reasonable person would interpret that as "so no arbitrators commented on your appeal and just let it fade away as stale?" I agree that, if this was the case, White Cat may have cause for complaint.
However, this is clearly not the case. In fact, four arbitrators did comment on the previous appeal he alluded to, so it was hardly "ignored". You can see for yourself at this section (scroll up for the entire request for amendment).
Daniel ( talk) 01:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I think someone tried to "helpfully" fix the chaos but I think it makes it less clear. Some of those comments should remain indented as responses or moved back to their author's section. As it stands now, we have editors with multiple sections. Would a clerk mind looking into this? -- Dragon695 ( talk) 01:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
It is important to understand that the Arbitration committee does not do a good job of handling large, sprawling unfocused cases. Remember that they know next to nothing about the dispute, while you have been involved in it for months. A request for comment against a group of editors is somewhat non-traditional, but where the usual goal is to persuade someone by force of argument to change their behavior, here the goal is to develop a focused presentation of alleged harms and desired outcomes. For example, if you have a diff of User:Smith telling another editor, "Your contributions are not welcome and will always be reverted, go away!" you don't want to dilute the impact by including ten diffs of Smith calling editors "poopyheads." Likewise you want to focus on good editors with proven track records on other topics being driven away, and not so much on SPAs who really aren't here to learn the system and follow the rules. I would suggest opening a RFC on group conduct. Build it collaboratively in user space for a few days. Organize it logically, "Biography problems", "Hostility toward other editors", etc. Present the best evidence, filtered and focused. Don't use the process for revenge, but aim toward improvement of the encyclopedia. Try to present some remedies and desired outcomes that flow logically and proportionally from the evidence. (Arbcom will not indef ban for calling another editor a "poopyhead" for example.) Then move it to project space and ask for comments, opposing views, and so forth. Be respectful of all opposing views, and mindful of conditional or partial endorsements. You may find that the community considers some of your allegations to be weightier than others, and editors to be more or less culpable, in which case refocus the case on issues the community considers most serious. And remember that your conduct in bringing the case will be looked at just as closely as the conduct of those you name in the case, so using the RFC as an opportunity for flamewars and personal attacks is going to be self-defeating. Thatcher 15:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
H2O RFA is over now, with so many dram, backlashes and s*** throwing that I feel ashamed only by reading it. So, the arbs that said they were going to hold this until the RFA was over. What do you say now? Samuel Sol ( talk) 02:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I've just filed a request - but have singularly failed to correctly fill in the templates, and copy them to the correct places etc. - sincere apologies for any hassle this causes - I just found it very challenging technically to work out which bits to cut, paste, copy, etc. etc. - any assistance from the wonderful clerks (or anyone else!) is hugely appreciated! cheers, Privatemusings ( talk) 03:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Moved this material here, from the main page. Altho I do agree with Celarnor's points, it's best to keep outside discussion here, and focus on getting clarification and response from the arbitration committee on the project page. -- Barberio ( talk) 17:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
During deliberations, the Committee will construct a consensus opinion made out of Principles (general statements about policy), Findings of Fact (findings specific to the case), Remedies (binding Decrees on what should be done), and Enforcements (conditional Decrees on what can further be done if the terms are met). |
Perhaps you're reading into things that don't exist. Unwritten rules exist because reasonable people find it somewhat obvious or common-sense - moreso than the codified rules. Asking for clarification is not going to be frowned upon, but demanding codification, specific boundaries, accountability etc. is not always possible, if at all - it's often unique to each case's circumstances, and codified rules always find themselves not having enough 'exception' provisions or clauses anyway.
In essence, all rules (no matter what form - be it laws or policies or the like) are merely a means of resolving disputes - they are not fool proof, and there is a long history/tradition of both humans and non-humans having trouble following them, even where codified.
No new policy has been introduced as far as I am aware by the Committee. Of course, extra requirements and the like are sometimes imposed on existing policy for a variety of reasons. Sometimes, it is to avoid the need for future cases in relation to certain matters that are more novel and can be more easily resolved if delegated to certain groups of users, or the community in general - in "Arbitrators' view and discussion", Kirill has further elaborated this to more specific examples. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 07:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
In Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Privatemusings#Privatemusings_restricted, Privatemusings ( talk · contribs) was restricted from editing any BLPs due to apparent past issues, but now in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Statement_by_Privatemusings he has stated that
'm now going to edit BLPs in what I consider an uncontroversial manner - removing unsourced material, adding pic.s etc. - I started doing this shortly after this application, actually, and am glad that it's all working out ok thus far. After a month from today, should all go well, I will post freely to BLP talk pages, and after a further month I will consider myself unrestricted. I hope this works out ok for all.
is an individual really able to overturn an arbcom restriction merely because they think they have changed their own behavior? I'll note that 3 arbitrators seem to agree with continuing the restriction, can someone clue me in as to what is going on here? MBisanz talk 00:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
<- I'm a bit bummed at the way my request for the sanction to be lifted has worked out :-( - I get the impression (for example from Lar above) that some people who might have wanted to comment hadn't noticed it - although I was very grateful for the comments it did receive. I think it was pretty active up until today - maybe it could be restored, allowing the 3 arb.s who've commented to date to respond further, and the other arb.s to comment if they wish...? thoughts and advice most welcome. cheers, Privatemusings ( talk) 02:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
What's the last figure? I think it goes accept/reject/recuse/what? DuncanHill ( talk) 22:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
To see this within an hour after the case is submitted is a true disgrace. We have two very respected admins here (not without fault like all of us) and certainly stepping back and reflecting on this is useful. Instead, ArbCom members rush to accept the case and produce another drama-grande with no (at this point) sign that this can bring any useful solution for which the price of this drama is going to be paid. While at it, the much bigger drama which puts the very legitimacy of this arbcom caused by one Arbitrator and the sloppiness (in the very least) of the large part of the rest in allowing such thing to happen is still raging and ArbCom members who are under a very urgent moral obligation to clear this up are "too busy" to do that allowing this mess to protract. And instead, they rush to accept another Giano-related matter right when the steam is mostly gone. Call me naive but seeing everything I've seen here, I did not expect this. -- Irpen 00:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Dragon, please note that I never condemned the ArbCom in strong terms prior to the events that unfolded recently despite I was greatly displeased by some of its previous actions. I refrained from strong public condemnation of this ArbCom earlier because I thought that despite all its faults, we are better to preserve some degree of respect to the ArbCom as an institution and an all out attack on this arbcom by the long-standing editors may undermine its capability to address the Wikipedia problems in any way at all. However, the ArbCom itself has done just that by allowing this disgraceful incident of a Wikipedian in good standing been tried in some sort of a Gitmo trial with the arbcom acting as an activisti agent, the arbcom member serving a plaintiff, a detective, a prosecutor and a judge all in one (he did not recuse), the accused editor being not even informed, let alone allowed to face the accusation and present his side of the story.
This cannot be a fault of a single arbitrator who organized it as the ArbCom allowed this all to proceed. I asked the arbitrators some very pointed questions to understand how much of this mess is the fault of the ArbCom as a whole body and utter evasiveness of the answers I received convinced me that the matter is not just one arbitrator going rogue but the whole committee being responsible for this shame (even if through incompetence entirely, while this is unlikely to be the only reason.) Arbitrators were begged to provide a straightforward and forthcoming explanation by many editors including those who very rarely agreed with each other. Such an explanation might have helped us to get out from this pity state of affairs with minimal damage and the arbcom that can still function. None of that came out but such excuses as busyness, intensity of discussions they are carrying were involved.
So, we have a grave emergency that endangers the entire dispute resolution at Wikipedia and instead of trying to reduce the damage of this catastrophic fall of its prestige and ability to function, arbcom within an hour accepts another case on Giano-matters. I have reservations about WMC for a long time but none of this warrants an immediate action. Even if he has to be desysopped (I am yet not convinced) Wikipedia will not suffer if this is carried out even a month later.
Even finally acting upon its promise to address the IRC matters at "some later point", made by this ArbCom half a year ago, is more urgent. With so many truly crucial and pressing matters and arbs being "too busy" to address them, arbcom accepts this case on the incident when the situation already cooled down by itself. This is incomprehensibly irresponsible. -- Irpen 04:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Greg, I am delighted that you look at my contributions with such interest that you have even followed me to this page. However, I don't see how your bringing our content dispute here is relevant. This is a very small matter at the obscure article's talk and while I welcome more eyes there, let's not clutter this page with off-topic stuff.
Tony, now I recognize you as your last post is more in line with your style. Your analogy with the garbage collector is very apt but it should be put differently. Let's consider the job of Arbcom, which is to help this community deal with Wikipedia problems, as being somewhat similar to the job of a garbage man who helps us deal with refuse. As long as the garbage man does his job properly, it would be pretty stupid to interfere with him. We should be nice to him and even show some small appreciation at the Christmas time.
Suppose, though, he is somewhat sloppy; for example, my garbage man, when he empties the bin, often does it sloppily and while most of the garbage still is taken away, some junk falls on the ground and I have to pick it up and put it back so that he will take it away next time. He also sometimes leaves the garbage can overturned and, especially annoying, on the street where it may get hit by passing cars. Well, I do my cost-benefit analysis and find that even if he screws up a small thing or two once in a while, I am still better off to allow him to do his job. If the Arbcom did a reasonable job overall but slipped up sometimes, we would also accept it as nobody's perfect.
But suppose the garbage man leaves the situation messier than it was before he came. If he regularly came and emptied my bin on my own property and left me to deal with that, I would stop using his service. I would take my refuse to the landfill myself, inconvenient but less than having to pick my own garbage scattered all over my property after his visit. This is what we had lately. When Arbcom was asked to deal with truly difficult Wikipedia problems, it left them worse than they were before its intervention. All the truly complex cases it had that I followed are a worse mess after the Arbcom's intervention (I can elaborate on the big screwups within the last year but this would be a separate discussion.) So, what do I do? I've stopped asking the Arbcom to interfere. However inconvenient it is for the community alone to have to deal with things without an effective judicial body, we avoid the bigger damage of Arbcom intervention this way.
But if the garbage man not only scatters my own garbage on my property but also brings his own garbage and throws it on top of that, I will make an active effort trying to correct the situation. I will try to have him fined, fired and replaced and insist that the city contracts someone else. This is what happened here. Not only did Arbcom fail to help us deal with Wikipedia problems (violations of the letter and the spirit of our policies) but it committed a huge violation on its own by this extra-judicial hearing that blatantly flouts the arbitration policy in so many ways, that we have to take a corrective action as the community.
It is utterly clear that FT2 is responsible for this more than anyone. But it is still not clear whether this happened because the rest of the committee were just sloppy or they were actively involved. FT2 needs to go but the truthful answer to the second question is needed to for us understand how serious things really are. That to this day the arbitrators are actively evasive and contradictory, claiming busyness and other stuff, but still being not too busy to deal with other matters, including this case, suggests that it's not just FT2's fault and they don't intend to be forthcoming. And this is an outrageous state of affairs. -- Irpen 21:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Sceptre, OM is not my friend. To the contrary, read my original request for clarification. Same can be said about WMC. Please check facts first and don't try to change the subject. This is not me being displeased by ArbCom's sanctioning anyone.
Tony, very pleased to hear that. This so different from Tony I knew! But answering your post, until this incident I refrained from demanding heads and condemning the ArbCom despite I saw its huge shortcomings for a very long time. I did that for these precise reasons you give. I assumed good faith, accounted for a human error, was patient, listened and drank tea. I avoided the broad statements out of considerations for the institutional legitimacy of the Wikipedia arbcom as a body.
However, this incident crossed every possible line. At some point, the malaise cannot be tolerated. I am eager to listen to people's explanations. I even went out of my way to ask for them? So did others. That only evasive statements and no clear explanations came out is an answer of sorts. I would not be surprised that all that would come would also be blurred and evasive. I would love to be wrong about that but I don't have much hope given the past history. -- Irpen 22:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Following you as any seasoned Wikieditor should just to find out what our Wikiwarrior is busying himself with during lunchtime. Found you at this cozy corner of ArbCom Cafe having a cup of tea with other regulars complaining about the proprietors. No wonder they took their busyness somwhere else. Hope you guys tip at least the waitresses well? greg park avenue ( talk) 00:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Given that jpgordon is going to be mentoring OrangeMarlin, the votes of the other arbitrators to reject the case seem reasonable and sensible and as Morven says a new case can always be opened if that doesn't work out. However, in the interest of setting (and then hopefully maintaining) high standards, it does seem that jpgordon's "personal arrangement" with OrangeMarlin should lead to him recusing rather than to voting to reject the case himself. Arbitrators seem eager to urge admins to only act in cases where they're uninvolved and can be seen to be uninvolved. I feel this should apply to arbitrators too for all the same reasons. 87.254.73.129 ( talk) 12:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
The above shows a clear preference for the 48 time period, so I've implemented the changes.
Howevever, there's been some rumblings about using four total rather than four net. This change is far more substantial, and as the discussion above didn't focus on the issue and hence there isn't a clear consensus, I propose that it be discussed separate from the 48 hour discussion (now archived, above), in this section.
Cheers, Daniel ( talk) 15:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I have a different proposal. Awhile back (probably more than a year ago) I proposed changing the four net votes to two net votes. As I recall, I laid out a whole rationale showing the different percentages that would result with different numbers of arbitrators voting. Presumably this is in the archives somewhere. But the bottom line is that it would be a middle ground between potential acceptance of a case by a minority (four votes period) or bare-majority acceptance (one net vote), on one hand, and the overwhelming majority (four net votes) which is required now. At the time, I believe someone reported that arbitrators felt that the "four net" rule was still relatively young and that they would continue to observe its results. I think that at this point, sufficient time has passed for the arbitrators (or the community, if appropriate) to determine whether a change is desirable. 6SJ7 ( talk) 16:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to appeal this ban.
Lapsed Pacifist ( talk) 12:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I've been gone for a while. I just returned yesterday and lo and behold, the Eastern European wiki-world is still as much of a dogfighting ring as ever. Plus ça change, plus c'est la meme chose. From this vantage point, until recently far removed from the conflicts, it is quite clear to me that the main problem at the heart of the issue is not tendentious editing, personal political preferences, national differences or any of the usual suspects blamed, but it is rather the personal feuds that erupt as a result of the political and national disagreements. Look at the comments from the most-involved combatants. There they all are again, the usual suspects calling each other out. "As Piotrus knows very well....", "Petri Krohn is even now continuing his battle...", "...particularly when Irpen wades in and ratchets up the drama...", "For a start I'd be for putting Piotrus under editing restrictions..." etc. etc. etc.
We've all made these wiki-identities for ourselves, defined by a nom de plume and some colorful userpages and also by the sum of our notable contributions. As a good friend of mine and fellow Wikipedian once commented, "Here, you are what you write." On such a project as this, when editors tend to focus on a certain topic or field, identities inevitably narrow into small niches, which then polarize and fly to extremes far beyond what you find in the real world. Piotr Konieczny and Andrey from Yaroslavl would probably have the same disagreements about history and politics in real life as they do on the Wiki, but in real life they could change the topic to a movie they had both recently seen and go get a beer. Prokonsol Piotrus and Ghirla, on the other hand, have no such option, as their identities are but the avatars of their specialized contributions. But even here, in the cold world of facts and cyberspace, human nature still asserts itself and we lose sight of the fact that these characters, these creations of ours, are only avatars, and it is then that they spring to life. We set them up against each other to size each other up like real people in real life, we make them bait each other, we watch them fight each other all the while concealed behind the screen of anonymity. The bravado engendered by this caricatured anonymity is what leads to the utter lawlessness of discourse--if we were all sitting around a table in someone's living room, so much of these vicious arguments would never even take place. We would disagree, we would argue, but we would not hate and feud like this, not when we could look each other in the eye. It's so much easier to blood-feud with an idea than a person--and these avatars of ours are all ideas, concepts--in other words, Ghirla temporarily ceases to exist as soon as Andrey logs out and goes to get lunch.
So, here is my modest proposal, which I mean only half-satirically. The way to end these storied conflicts without harming the encyclopedia is simply this: imprison the combating avatars. Take no action against the contributors' IP addresses, but freeze the IDENTITY they use. The human being controlling the puppet, then, is still free to post anonymously or under a new name, perhaps after a few-day IP block to defuse the pressure. Some sort of procedure and admin work will determine the sentence meted out to the offending avatar, be it imprisonment, exile or execution. K. Lásztocska talk 20:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I think i've probably done something wrong again in asking for my restriction to be lifted - it's just so bloomin' complicated! Sorry for making a mess (if I have - I can't even work that out!) - and any assistance in correctly formatting things is much appreciated.... cheers, Privatemusings ( talk) 02:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Would you mind shutting down Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed decision? The Committee is obviously incapable of rendering a decision, or else one would have been posted already. While I think action is needed on this case, leaving the case open forever sort of makes a mockery of the Committee. As my second choice, you should say that you are hopelessly deadlocked, and dismiss the case. Jehochman Talk 13:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Totally shutting down is not a good idea. They need to resolve the issues in the case. Granted some are old, but there are also some very current issues that need to be dealt with. Preferable sooner than later. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey, arbs, what's going on with this case? I hadn't looked back here for a long time, and I was basically gobsmacked that, not only is it still open, the Committee seems to have done jack with it in a month or two. Update, please? Kelly hi! 01:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Any tumbleweed that rolls without approval from the tumbleweed rollers' guild shall be blocked.
I think we can all agree on this...? -- NE2 12:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
It looks pretty easy to find. [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.62.4.102 ( talk) 13:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
As suggested by Paul August, and others, I have moved a thread from the project page to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee#Request for professional consultation. Jehochman Talk 16:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
There is a deletion discussion here as to whether HEADSMUSTROLL is an appropriate shortcut/redirect for Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Suntag ( talk) 15:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I thought that per some of our systems all the arb pages and related talk pages were supposed to be NOINDEX for some time now? I just came across all this. Can we fix this somehow to make sure none of these are on search engines? Theres some pretty nasty stuff on living people in some of these. rootology ( C)( T) 08:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
This (reasonably straight-forward) case has been open for too long, and has had no responses for nearly a week now when all it needs is a couple more votes before it's ready to close. Votes are required from at least one more arbitrator - either FayssalF, FT2, Thebainer or YellowMonkey. Thanks - Ncmvocalist ( talk) 13:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Hopefully now that the investigation of Poetlister/etc, which I can only assume was taking up so much of their time, has more or less concluded, the arbitrators can get back to handling cases. -- Random832 ( contribs) 20:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't remember where this was discussed previously, but I want to bring it up again. A ways back, the Workshop pages were changed so that instead of being grouped just like the proposed decision page -- Principles, Facts, Remedies -- the workshop pages were split up by contributor (proposals from X, proposals from Y, proposals from Z). This seemed poorly thought out to me from the start, and I'd like to see if we can get some discussion toward changing it back. I'd far prefer to dwell on the proposals, not the people putting the proposals forward; it would make it easier to compare and contrast competing proposals if they were all together. It really shouldn't matter at all who it is making the proposals. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 21:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
In several cases, first as a bystander and more recently as an arbitrator, I've placed a complete draft decision on the workshop for review and comment by the parties and community. Sometimes I don't write all of it at once, and sometimes there is a ton of other material elsewhere on the page. I think it is easier for those looking over my draft, including my fellow arbitrators, to have the whole thing in one place; and the same would go for anyone else's draft. An alternative would be to have proposals on the same general topic grouped together, which would at least organize things in that fashion; but the original method, everything from any user just in the chronological order it was proposed in, helped contribute to making the workshops less useful in the higher-profile, more controversial cases. At least that's my take on the subject. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Kirill (and NYB). The problems the previous format used to have are a real issue (Kirill has identified the bulk of them), and uch problems have the propensity to grow over time. I don't doubt the issues will be bigger now, if we reverted back. I therefore prefer the current format. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 00:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Old | New | Proposed |
---|---|---|
Principles Findings of Fact Remedies |
Editor A Principles Findings of Fact Remedies Editor B Principles Findings of Fact Remedies |
Principles Editor A Editor B Findings of Fact Editor A Editor B Remedies Editor A Editor B |
Yes, we briefly discussed this a week or two back in the clerks' IRC channel, and I proposed a system identical to that InkSplotch has suggested. I'm willing to run with it.
With regards to why the change was made, Ryan is correct: the matter was discussed privately by the Committee on ArbCom-l, and further to what I presume was a solid consensus on-List, Kirill directed the clerks to adjust the Workshop page's layout. The full thread is viewable here, for the intensely curious. I implemented that consensus as directed.
The only benefit I see, of segregating editors' proposals to "personal sections" is to permit a browsing Arbitrator to immediately 'spot' who is making what proposal—and proceed to adjust their attention according to the clue (or insanity :) levels of that editor. Workshop page proposals are not made with the improvement of the encyclopedia in mind.
A reiteration: I support implementing InkSplotch's proposal. The decision, however, firmly remains the Committee's.
Due to its unique nature, being both a rejected RFAR and a passed (alternate) motion, I've archived this as both an RFAR and passed motion. The RFAR archive is here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rejected_requests#July_to_September, the closed motion is here on the page for motions without an accepted RFAR case: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Closed_motions#2008. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
By popular demand (I don't think), a proposed revision and updating of the Wikipedia:Arbitration Policy can be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration policy proposed updating. Comments on all aspects of the policy and related issues are welcome on the talkpage. Thank you. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
The community expects and prefers if disputes are dealt with as quickly and effectively as possible. Every member of the community has the right to push disputes towards achieving that objective, particularly if any stage of dispute resolution is falling short of that objective, even on this project page. The clerking body do not have the authority to deprive any editor of that legitimate right, or to prevent them from exercising it (whether it is on the odd occasion, or whether it is on a more regular basis), but insist otherwise. This power trip needs to stop, and is not reflecting well on the clerking body, which in turn, reflects on the Committee.
I feel that one or more of the clerks are out of line following some recent matters that were brought up on my talk page. Targeting my edits is not appreciated, nor is regularly bringing up me edits in a venue which I cannot respond (namely, the clerking mailing list), nor are at least one of the comments that were expressed there in bad faith. I've complied with the reasonable part of the request made by the clerks when I asked for their input, but it will not go beyond that. Whether it's the edits on user talk pages, or on those templates (cited as diffs on my talk page), they are going to continue, unless the Committee makes a public vote to topic ban me accordingly, which will translate into something else. In any case, if any member of the community or the Committee wishes to discuss this matter with me, they are welcome to do so, whether it's on-wiki or privately.
Ncmvocalist ( talk) 09:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Ncm, the clerks made a polite request for you to refrain from editing things like arbitration templates and other official things that clerks should be doing. The reason for this is because we want the every day user having confidence in the system. If someone who has nothing to do with arbitration starts making edits to templates which basically change the status of a case (e.g. from live to stale in the clarifications section), it undermines the system. Arbitration is basically the last chance saloon, and things should be done properly, with due process and it's the clerks job to manage that. I've actually been fighting your corner Ncm, but it's becoming increasingly difficult when you keep doing things you've been asked not to do. Nobody has any problems with you editing the workshop pages to makes proposals or pinging arbs when they haven't voted, it's just the more official things that the clerks do have a problem with. If I'm being honest with you, my advice would be to get out of Wikipedia space and dispute resolution for a while, mainspace is much more fun (as I've recently been finding out! (shock horror!!!)) and there's plenty of people to take over the area that you leave behind. You seem to be getting more and more frustrated in this area, and that's not a good thing - we're attempting to calm and solve disputes, not raise them up a notch. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 10:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
The rationale for this isn't one of exclusion, but of due care: the clerks act on behalf, and under the imprimatur, of the Committee who has delegated a number of "maintenance" tasks in order to be able to concentrate on the decisions themselves; because this is the last place for unsolvabed disputes it is paramount that some organization is kept but the act of making things organized does, in itself, have the potential to cause controversy. Originally, only the Arbitrators themselves were allowed to make such edits at all; and even this tiny delegation caused worries and much drama at first.
Some arbitrators have indicated that they appreciate your "nagging" about the state of cases, and you are of course always welcome to keep doing what you feel is useful in helping cases plod along— but please leave the "more official" things to clerks. — Coren (talk) 17:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps now would be a good time to ask the arbitrators (again) what it is specifically that they want clerks to be empowered to do that is different from regular editors. I wrote the current version of WP:AC/C with the intent of removing as many restrictions to helpful editors as I could. At the time, there was a somewhat justifiable backlash special roles for checkuser and WP:CHU clerks. I asked Arbcom if there were any specific tasks or roles for clerks only, and got very little specific direction, so I rewrote the description allowing as much openness as I thought I could. Certainly any policy page that has not been updated significantly in 18 months is overdue for a review. It is important to recognize that Arbcom clerks do have a specific voice in some matters, and require the trust of arbcom, and are appointed and dismissed by Arbcom, but there is presently no clear instruction as to what those matters are. Can a user make so many trivial clerk edits that they are perceived as a formal clerk when they are not? I suppose so. Should minor helpful clerk edits be completely discouraged? Probably not. This might be a good time to revisit the clerk function and seek renewed guidance from Arbcom. Thatcher 17:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
In brief, clerks have two or three areas of involvement. At least some of those require considerable judgement.
Significant aspects of judgement - this is a difficult one. On the one hand RFAR is a controlled environment, and ideal for showing whether users really can manage themselves or really do act up, and traditionally the pages are left for Arbitrators and their clerks to manage rather than usual communal or administrator actions. So an unusual leeway exists on the pages. But that (in principle) only takes one "so far". Often behaviors go too far precisely because there is that perception it's a separate environment and the envelope can therefore be pushed, or that it's a forum to act up in. It can be pushed, but this should be allowed only to a limited extent and valid purpose, not just to create an open house on personal attacks, random allegations and pointless dramatization. The same Arbitration management that allows more leeway to misbehave, also allows more leeway to direct the conduct of participants in relation to the cases as well. So there is a balance there - more leeway, but also, tighter control and limits than usual when the envelope is pushed too far. (I would say the latter aspect could and should be directed to be much tighter at times of disruption; and clerks given more autonomy, better guidelines, and explicit backing to judge usefulness vs. disruption and act thereon.)
That's one traditional view. A different viewpoint is that RFAR should expect best behavior, not a circus, and very tight standards should be enforced on inappropriate user conduct related to a requested or open RFAR case.
Both views have their advocates; ideally the Committee should decide. For now it's enough to say both views exist. Clerks therefore act as enforcers of behavior, and have the delegated authority and backing of the Committee for their actions that are reasonably intended to manage behaviors of participants or enforce significant directions. This means they may have a slightly stronger than average voice in some posts and blocks, where this is an issue. But with this comes more responsibility, and such actions are not undertaken lightly.
Collectively, the clerks are users trusted by Arbitrators to act capably given the often-contentious nature of RFAR user discussions, and to broadly exercize judgement the Committee can endorse. (Perfection isn't expected but regular problems are not okay.) The interpretation of when to act, when to show self restraint, when to not worry about something, is a very sensitive and significant area of judgement. If Arbitrators are delegating this aspect of page and case management, they would probably wish to be confident in a few users that they delegate to, rather than give the entire community (that has failed to resolve the case) the role.
Significant aspects of judgement - as Arbitrators may be asked to act in a wide range of matters, the clerks do a variety of sundry roles and actions to help them. For example, notifying them of anything needing attention, and using their knowledge and close relationship with the Committee to form fairly accurate assessments of the Arbitrators' views on matters and thus what action may be appropriate as clerks, if any.
Broadly, from the arbitrators' viewpoint, clerks are users that can be trusted to be given a case-related job (other than case investigation and voting), understand it, judge it well, handle any unexpected matters, and generally deal with it autonomously, roughly as the arbitrators would, with little superfluous explanation. This requires clue, experience, and a certain approach/personality style, and experience of working with Arbitrators and having gained their confidence.
I wouldn't say this is a formal statement, but this does encompass roughly my informal perception of the Arbitration Clerks' role and responsibilities on the wiki at present. FT2 ( Talk | email) 14:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
One kind of edit that Ncmvocalist has been criticized for namely leaving requests on arb talk pages like this, while perhaps annoying at times, are wholly appropriate. For my past views on this see this. Paul August ☎ 19:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Agree with PA. Nothing illegal or contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Nobody got conscripted for AC after all. YellowMonkey ( click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 01:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
is this a record?! - no cases requested, and no clarifications (and very little on this page too!) - must be the calm before the election storm, I guess :-)
I thought I'd take advantage of this quiet moment to indicate that I've posted a request to the arbcom list to try and clarify whether or not User:Steve Crossin is under an official 6 month ban or not (I think he'd like to edit again, and would like a full arb case if poss.)
The request for clarification I posted didn't take, and it's possible I haven't expressed myself clearly at all, so I thought I'd drop a note in here to see if anyone else felt that there was an opportunity, at this quiet time, to try and sort this out :-)
Happy to chat about any aspect of this - and I'd also suggest that anyone minded to ask a question of the arbs, or make a(nother!) request for clarification, touch base with User:Daniel first as a courtesy - he's clued in and generally smart about the situation :-) cheers, Privatemusings ( talk) 20:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Next time ArbCom intends to appoint a CheckUser/Oversight, I suggest they don't bother informing the community, since it is clear to me they do not care what the community thinks. Every single appointment since they have started "listening" to the community has been done anyway, regardless of any kind of feedback given. So, to save time, and end this pretence that they give a damn what the community thinks, I suggest they continue to appoint whoever the hell they like, regardless of suitability, and don't request feedback, since they obviously don't really care about it. Al Tally talk 03:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
The performance of the committee in the past few months may be subject to some legitimate criticisms, but I don't think this is one of them. In response to suggestions that we should seek greater community input regarding appointments to checkuser positions, we asked interested users to identify themselves and then, after we identified the people we were considering appointing, requested confidential community input on any issues with the candidates. No issues that we regarded as serious were raised regarding the candidates' qualification for checkusership, so we went ahead with the appointments. We then asked for input on a potential receipient of oversight privileges as well (even though I don't recall anyone asking for input regarding that position). Again, no concerns the commitee considered serious were raised, so we made the appointment.
Obviously, by the time we post a name as being under consideration for an appointment, we will already have discussed the person's qualifications and a clear majority of the arbitrators will have concluded that the person appears to be well qualified, subject to any further input we might receive. While we are fully open to revising our opinion if issues then come to light, in most instances it is to be expected that no concerns will arise at the last minute, because we have already done a fair amount of research before that stage. It would speak worse of the process if last-minute obstacles frequently arose, than it does that thus far they have not.
If in the course of a year the ArbCom suggests 10 people for appointment for various positions, and if it turns out that all 10 are fully qualified and we appoint them all, that does not mean that we are not paying attention to input from the community. It means that based on the candidates' contributions, history with the project, and reputations, which themselves are largely a function of the community's view of the candidates, they are qualified for the positions. Any suggestion that this reflects that the committee doesn't care what the community thinks or that the input process is a sham is unwarranted. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 18:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
This is merely a suggestion for ArbCom, not sour grapes over who was chosen - I'm happy with everyone that was cherrypicked (though of course, doing it entirely in public, and letting the community decide community issues would be so much better, but it's not going to happen). ArbCom have made up their minds when they post suggestions - not a single time have they ever been wrong. ArbCom can be doing so much more productive work than wasting their time listening to the community, because it is quite clear that they have made up their minds, and even if the community did have an issue, ArbCom would be most likely to dismiss it. Now I wish to have no more part of this, Al Tally talk 15:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I think there's value in asking the community for input. I think this process, in which ArbCom vets candidates and then asks for a final check, is a better one than what we had before. I'm not sure why that's even being debated. ArbCom are far from perfect, they're slow to act, slow to change their ways, and so forth, but they are who we selected. If they are not doing what we want, whose fault is that? Al Tally: Railing against this when it's a move in the direction that many desire seems odd to me. ++ Lar: t/ c 01:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
The cold fusion case has been accepted without a statement from ScienceApologist. I'm not familiar with ArbComm procedures. I would welcome any comment on the possible impact of ScienceApologist's silence on this case. Pcarbonn ( talk) 21:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I had set aside some time tonight to vote on the various pending items on WP:RfAr, but Wikipedia is running slowly for me tonight so I may have to wait until later or tomorrow. If so, my apologies to those who have been patiently waiting for my input. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
The request is to vacate the case completely. But not all findings relate to the aggrieved administrator. Part of the case was a ruling that Matthew Hoffman was unjustly blocked. This is partly a rebuke to the blocking administrator, but it also served to clear Matthew Hoffman's name. This was accompanied by a annotation of matthew Hoffman's block log. How can those parts of the case be vacated? with regard to these rulings, it would have the effect that the arbcom rules that Matthew Hoffman should have been banned after all. The block log annotation can't be erased, for one thing. Will the arbcom insert a second annotation that says "never mind"? Matthew Hoffman ceased editing before the case even began, but the case might have importance considering that intelligent design pages have continued to be a source of conflict. 140.247.242.233 ( talk) 22:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I've been going through some of the evidence and final decisions in some old cases, and I noticed some of the links are broken. There seems to be two reasons: (1) the way links work changed at some point this year; (2) subsequents edits to a page (for various reasons) break the links.
Anyone have opinions on how to handle these two sorts of cases of evidence links breaking? Carcharoth ( talk) 13:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I posted a case that the clerks received anonymously regarding the conduct of ScienceApologist. Per the comments of some of the arbitrators, I've taken the case down now and I'm going to tell the anonymous user to either submit the evidence via their account on the cold fusion case, or email it to the arbitrators directly. Just to keep everyone in the loop. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
The SlimVirgin case has been closed quite quickly, and it has been moved to a subpage, so, but there are very important questions left unanswered, so, in the hope that they won't be missed, I want to draw attention to this section of the talk page of the subpage. Thank you. ElinorD (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I wonder how common are findings along the lines "editor X is a valuable member of this project, edits in good faiths, etc.", and in what cases are they made? I am pretty sure I saw some in some past cases, but they are certainly not seen in all of them. What factors determine whether they are seen in a given case? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I am pleased to see progress being made on the Jack Merridew motions. There appears to be division in the opinions of the Arbitrators on the importance of on-Wiki clarifications about the terms of the unbanning. On one hand—the most heavily supported hand, it seems—there is assent for amending official Committee documentation on Jack's ban to clarify the terms the Committee are lifting it under: specifically, that Jack is to maintain a safe distance from White_Cat in editing and in comment. The rationale there is to maintain full clarity on the terms of the unbanning and to prevent gaming. On the other, there is dissent against those amendments, with a preference to relying on strong communications between the Committee and Jack to ensure the unban does not open the door to JM returning to his old habits. The rationale there is that excessive terms and conditions simply add unnecessary layers of information to an unban—a process that benefits from as little drama as possible, to avoid repercussions and "revenge attacks" on the ex-banee; and, that excessive terms increase the potential for wikilawyering.
For what it's worth, I agree with the Arbitrators who are striving for documenting what's happening on-Wiki. Unbanning is already, as it stands, a very secretive process; on some levels, necessarily-and ergo rightfully—so. The Community must at least know the terms on which Jack is being unbanned: the Committee cannot be everywhere at once—it knows this well—and the Community ought therefore to be blessed with as much information as possible to ensure the unban goes smoothly. Furthermore, secretive, off-Wiki communications are precisely what has been going wrong with the ArbCom of late. In this case there is no need for confidentiality; I would therefore discourage the refusal to be transparent in all matters. Why must we rely on ArbCom-l to set the terms of the unban? Why not update ArbCom pages to keep full transparency in this matter...? On the argument of potential wikilawyering: I view that as an argument we don't need to worry excessively about. Gaming is more of a problem, I'd say, than wikilaywering; we've plenty of incisive administrators to whack the sanity hammer around if Jack or any other party to this matter attempts to wikilaywer.
Proposals 2) and 3) are important in this unban, and are most strongly substantiated. Please allow them to pass.
AGK 22:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
|
This question is directed specifically at sitting and former arbs.
So, ARE actions by individual arbs supposed to carry some +1 authority? If so, it needs to be approved by everyone, or else we'll see more people desysopped for this sort of thing, or have motions brought against them? See here. This is a serious question I'm asking--if they (Arbs) don't say they're acting for the Committee, are they one of the thousands of admins or are they admin+1 with a protected class of admin actions? rootology ( C)( T) 00:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Speaking only for myself, if I take an administrator action and I don't say that the action is being taken as an arbitrator, I expect that it should carry the same weight as any other administrator's action. (I mean, it's okay to think that the action might come with a presumption of Clue given that I managed to do enough things right once upon a time so that I got elected to the ArbCom, but that's all— it doesn't mean it's exempt from being criticized or if necessary overturned.) That goes for both routine types of actions (if I see a repeat vandal or a bad username I'll block the account just like anyone else would) as well as any higher-profile ones. In fact, although there are times I choose to stay out of contentious noticeboard discussions to minimize potential recusal situations if issues come to ArbCom (this is referred to by me as the "Miltopia effect", after the user who predicted it would happen), there have been at least two occasions when I've made a comment on ANI and been upset that this triggered argument about whether this meant the ArbCom had ruled on the issue under discussion. If in any discussion I meant that I would say so. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
There are two types of blocks that can be confused:
— Carl ( CBM · talk) 02:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Nemo sanctus singule. If the community wanted to have a user group which does all the same things as "regular admins"—but which is immune to being reverted by "regular admins"—we would be asking Brion to program this feature into the software, would we not? As of right now unless said action matches a specific arbcom decision there's nothing special about it (regardless of who's doing it).
Of course, to avoid any confusion we should prohibit sitting arbitrators from enforcing their own decisions. Ideally this would also provide a minimal safety net in the worst-case scenario where arbcom makes a decision so bad nobody is willing to enforce it, but right now it's a pipe dream to expect the average admin to critically evaluate anything arbcom says to do. —
CharlotteWebb 15:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't it seem a bit odd that we're discussing what policy should be at RFAR talk? Policymaking is the community's responsibility, not ArbCom's. The question that started this thread is whether arbitrators should notate their administrative actions when they act on the Committee's behalf. I agree that they should, and if there's a need to formalize that then we--the community--can add a few words to policy. We don't need to be over here tugging on anyone's sleeve for permission to write policy. Suggest closing this thread and moving discussion where it belongs: the policy talk pages. Durova Charge! 18:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
For the public record, the final decision in SlimVirgin-Lar has been amended with the deletion of the "SlimVirgin's conduct" finding that was mistakenly passed by the case Clerk. (Background reading: the finding being deleted can be reviewed here.) My earlier comment seems to be prudent reading at this point:
There has been a clear metric miscalculation on the finding in question. With my thinking being that particular aspect of the SlimVirgin-Lar decision was at no point assented to by the Committee (as per this tally), I have deleted the finding from the SlimVirgin-Lar final decision.
Further to a number of Arbitrator abstentions on that particular proposal, the majority on that single proposal was adjusted downwards twice; evidently the clerk (understandably, I wish to note: I myself have came close to mistakenly including this proposal or that in a convoluted case) miscalculated as a result and included the proposal in the final decision.
This adjustment should be presumed to be in immediate effect. Apologies for the inconvenience to all.
For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK 21:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment(s) taken from main RfAr page
Q: I have encountered User:Jossi as somebody, who does not take the crap from the usual anti-cult crowd, which -- just like pro-Scientology editors -- draws mainly on non-scientific sources to make their point ( New York Times articles are almost the best either side can muster, Penthouse and Operation Clambake and similar crap are more frequently used, scientific articles, while not being argued away totally, are put en par w/ Scientology nonsense). Does that make Jossi an unsuitable Admin in this matter? Fossa ?! 20:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
[Please note I am apparently not allowed to edit the main page of this article. Why is this please?]
First, I apologise for contributing to the confusion over what were the terms of my unblock. There were originally two versions of this: one was the 'enough rope to hang with' version originally proposed by Thatcher. This was the one I had thought had prevailed until tonight. I honestly did not notice the new 'terms' proposed on my very busy talk page when I came home last night. Why would I return to Wikipedia otherwise than to edit articles?
I am happy to return to editing on the condition that FT2 and I are able to tread entirely divergent paths. That was what I thought I had agreed with Thatcher earlier, anyway. That includes FT2 not leaving sanctimonious and patronising and self-praising messages on my talk page. It is my view that he is an unmitigated disaster for Wikipedia, but many other people are now beginning to see that, let them carry the torch, I shall step aside from the madness of Wikipedia politics.
I am not interested in a public debate with FT2, as I have already stated on my talk page. I just want him to avoid me entirely. That includes not banning good editors such as Headley (I am happy if Thatcher or some other disinterested admin can look after that matter). It also includes him not interfering with my work on articles related tangentially to linguistics such as Neurolinguistic programming. Can I simply point out my PhD is in a linguistics related area? Peter Damian II ( talk) 10:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous. Having had his "excess length" statement removed, FT2 has now set about creating his own version of War and Peace in his user space. ArbCom need to either open a proper case for detailed evidence or ask the parties to restrain themselves - spreading the fight further afield is not going to help. In fact even if a full case had been opened, I doubt that FT2's screed would be considered acceptable for an evidence page - there are length limits there too. 92.39.200.36 ( talk) 18:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Fairly obviously, the page concerned will be NOINDEXed and courtesy blanked on the close of this case, and the matter dropped. That should be obvious. But for the short duration of the case, it's in use to prepare evidence, as any user might. Asked to draft a shorter statement, I'm using userspace for the re-drafting on a present case -- which is correct use. The page did not exist before, and it will not be left there unblanked after. It was also not removed from the RFAR page because of any improper act in writing it, or anything wrong with the stated evidence, but merely because it was just too wordy.
I hope this reassures. FT2 ( Talk | email) 23:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Just pointing out that the 'linguistics' in 'Neurolinguistic programming' is the same as the 'linguistics' in 'I [Peter Damian] have a linguistics-related degree'. If anyone is making content-related claims like this in an RFAR can they either back it up with a citation or state their own area of expertise? Peter Damian ( talk) 10:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
What some people are saying here, then, is that someone like me who has academic qualifications in a certain area and is concerned about claims of a pseudoscientific nature, cannot edit in that area because it would offend a powerful member of the Wikipedia administration? What happened to the basic ideals of this project, which I have been working on since the middle of 2003? Can I remind everyone I have never had a block for mainspace-related issues. All blocks have been 'political', including the current one. I will NEVER accept a content-related editing restriction. Happy never to mention FT2 on or off-site, happy that if he wants to include his pseudoscientific views on the project, then we handle it through a mediator. Not happy with a restriction. That is not negotiable. Peter Damian ( talk) 10:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't really understand why people are arguing so vehemently over something that no member of the Committee has actually chosen to propose or otherwise support. Rootology's ideas are Rootology's ideas, nothing more. Kirill ( prof) 16:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Reasons
Both these claims should be addressed by a new RFAR specifically designed for that purpose, i.e. to investigate whether I did renege on any agreement and whether I did in fact edit war over the NLP articles. Peter Damian ( talk) 07:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
all wiki editors are, of course,
empowered to at least
try to
pull on our arbitrator's
skirts for attention. I'd encourage all those who'd like the 4 3 remaining active arb.s to comment on this matter to drop a quick 'please act' note on their talk page. It's been my observation that this actually works pretty well :-) cheers,
Privatemusings (
talk) 23:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I have supported motion 1.1 offered by Kirill as written. I do not read it as any sort of a topic-ban on either editor, although it does suggest that they must do their best to avoid unnecessary interactions. Reading the thread above, I suppose that it would be possible to present a slightly more clear wording of the motion, but this would require the voting to start over again, compounding the inordinate delay in voting on this motion that has already occurred. If in the future someone thought topic bans were needed on one or the other or both of the editors involved, this request could be presented through the usual dispute resolution procedures or, in light of the circumstances, directly to an RfAr. My hope is that such procedures would not become necessary. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I have an essay on the topic of Checkuser and Oversight accountability and transparency posted at User:Thatcher/Quis custodiet ipsos custodes. Thatcher 04:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Taking this wheel war to arbitration won't work. Every arbitrator is involved and would have to recuse. 140.247.42.142 ( talk) 22:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
The "mess"? Compare a one hour time-limited block that completely killed an incipient and historically likely wheel war and multi-way battling, with the example of the RFAR/IRC case of last January that shows how it can easily get.
This block worked exactly as it should have. It protected the project from a high risk of serious disruption by seasoned users (I don't count the few posts of today as "serious" or "disruptive"), other users who might have been dragged in and then ended up parties in a 2 month case were not dragged, the damage to arbitration process was averted (and this meant other wars have probably been prevented), and everyone went right back and decided that talk page dialog and dispute resolution was exactly what they had meant to do all the time. The block was reversed as soon as there was no risk, about an hour and a half later. FT2 ( Talk | email) 06:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
There is something I don't get here: so far, only one arbitrator has accepted the case, with seven either recusing or declining, but an Arb went ahead and nevertheless posted a motion. Furthermore, an Arb who previously declined to take the case has voted on the motion. This to me lacks any kind of logic or proper process.-- Ramdrake ( talk) 16:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Let me explain. The RFArb was to open a full case which all of us but one person declined. As an alternative, we are making a motion to address the issue, promptly. As well, Giano has been unblocked now. FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to commend Bainer and the committee for commuting Giano's term, but why are the committee now discussing entirely in secret and only emerging to act? Open process confers many advantages, one of which is public voting record - I can appreciate there are cases which must be deliberated in private, but I can see no good reason why voting can't be on wiki. Please reform this bad practice or at least explain its necessity. -- Joopercoopers ( talk) 16:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Ok, well if we're going to have more of these adhoc votes, may we put them somewhere central to refer to rather than on various user's talk pages? Thanks. -- Joopercoopers ( talk) 17:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
A review of Rex v. Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy may be in order. LeadSongDog ( talk) 20:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
The new arbitrators have now been appointed; Jimbo has said it's up to the ArbCom itself to decide when those appointments should take effect. I would like to see the new arbitrators start immediately; given the present call for change from the community (and even Jimbo himself!), it seems as though that would be more appropriate than unnecessarily waiting another 11 days. Everyking ( talk) 03:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
In this context, I'm not exactly sure what it means to get broken in or settled in. Does that mean reading the mailing list, being informed of things in private? Does it mean reading up on old cases? I think anyone who stood in the election should already be adequately informed to do the job and I see no basis for a delay. There are things that need to be dealt with and a leisurely pace just isn't suitable. Everyking ( talk) 04:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
All right, I can see that there are some valid reasons for waiting, and the holiday issue was something I failed to appreciate. The notice below stating that RfAr will be "frozen" in the meantime eases my concerns. Everyking ( talk) 10:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Jehochman is including threaded discussion in my comment. This is expressly prhoibited in the rules of this page Wikipedia:Arbitration_guide#Responding_to_others.27_statements -
You should respond to others' points by adding brief notes in your own statement: "In response to the statement by User X, <your comment here>".
This is as an alternative to replying directly to that user in the section of the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration thread in which he or she made the comment. If you comment in another user's section, the committee clerks will more than likely move your comment and refactor it as necessary."
Insertion: [10] Removal: [11] Reinsertion: [12] With added edit-comment threat: [13]
I appreciate your prompt attention. DepartedUser ( talk) 14:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm disturbed by the following comment, by a new arbitrator:
" As a matter of fact, the Arbitration committee does WP:OWN the RFAr, Arbitration and case pages. Editors at large are not allowed to edit them except in the manner prescribed by the Committee. Coren
Is it therefore true that ArbCom are allowed to violate an important Wikipedia policy? I did not realise the ArbCom were above, and different from the rest of the community. ArbCom should be following all policies, not picking and choosing what suits them. Majorly talk 18:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Majorly, I don't understand the implications of the point you are making. Are you suggesting that if (for example) I post a workshop proposal or a proposed decision, that anyone should be allowed to edit it? Newyorkbrad ( talk) 19:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
This arbitration case is linked to from the sockpuppet policy page, but the former has been blanked by the committee. An (admittedly very cursory) glance at the history seems to show Vanished user's name as having already been redacted in the last non-blanked revision of the page; are you sure blanking the case is necessary? If so, would it be possible to unblank just the Principles, since they are referred to on the policy page and do not mention the Vanished user? Or should mention of the case be removed from the policy page? TotientDragooned ( talk) 03:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I have to say, removal by a clerk of an entire discussion thread here because they felt some of it could go to user talk was inappropriate. It's really a bit worrying that what we can and can't discuss about arbitration is going to be controlled by clerks in a more heavy handed way than it used to. -- Barberio ( talk) 06:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I would like to give a personal note that I think the use of consultation processes like this is a very good measure by the arbitration committee, and goes a long way towards improving the wiki. This is a very good addition to the ArbCom tool box, and I hope to see it's use in future policy related disputes. -- Barberio ( talk) 04:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Please create a sub-page for each request. That will make it easier to monitor the progress of a request via watchlist and 'history'. Lightmouse ( talk) 14:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of the current problems with the article, I think we can all agree that Ayn Rand was an eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 01:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Currently tallies are a slash separated list inside the section heading. I assume that they are in the section header so that they appear in the TOC, however they change often, which means the automatic section links in the history usually dont work.
In order to make it easier for everyone to understand what the tally refers to, maybe we could use a template instead. e.g.
{{rfar tally | accept = 3 | decline = 1 | recuse = 2 | comment = 1 }}
I also think it would be better to place this tally underneath the section header, but I can see the value of having it in the TOC. John Vandenberg ( chat) 06:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
In the recent comments, the arbs have said the wording of this should be clearer/stronger to remind users to be civil.
I suggest:-
Any help to make it more concise and any other suggestions would be great.:) Sticky Parkin 22:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Reading the whole mess above...
This was why I implored the ArbCom to lay out a schedule or an agenda publicly saying they were going to address issues, and giving a time scale of when we can expect reports back.
ArbCom of last year acted opaque and insular, and we had no idea what steps were being taken to solve problems, and found out to our dismay that such steps were being blocked by certain members of the committee. So now, we don't care about 'we have new members' or 'we need more time to look into this'. We want to know you're really looking into this, and assurances that you will do so at some undefined future point are not good enough. Right now, we're all going to work on the assumption that you'll act in the poor manner of the previous committee until you demonstrate otherwise.
I strongly suggest you provide us with an agenda of the reform issues you will be investigating, including dates by which we can expect reports.
Again, I will remind you that I'm going to go ahead and push forward ratification of a new ArbCom policy in May. -- Barberio ( talk) 15:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure someone will roll their eyes at me saying this, but leave them be for a little bit. They're 20 days into this, they're volunteers, and they have to hash this stuff out. Hand off support from old arbs? This isn't a transition of power from Bush to Obama, this is a volunteer website and a hobby for probably 99% of us. Not one of these things is life and death or even vaguely, barely close, no matter how stupid or retarded we collectively get at times. If we're at March 1st, 2009--three months into a three year session--then I'd be grumpy too, after all the promised changes, if nothing has come about by hook or by enforced crook.
And like they said above, they have to sort out these decisions amongst themselves--hopefully they aren't taking into account any consensus or need for consensus from anyone but current elected arbs (in other words, Jimmy and the ex-arbs don't get to decide, stop, or hinder reform, as they have no authority on that now), and I'd politely ask them to just clear that up, since I'm picking up in Barbeiro's angst a little bit of hostility toward that sort of notion, implied or otherwise. rootology ( C)( T) 18:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Executives and directors, even unpaid and part-time, have legal authority and responsibility and also (presumably) control over money and/or products. Perhaps you were looking for the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Directors? Although, neither the Board nor the Arbitration Committee preside over the core product (articles). In that sense, there is no analog here to the executive committee you describe. They're volunteers, in a non-executive capacity, and what's more the Committee operates on consensus - so I doubt any arbitrator will unilaterally post something until its been agreed upon by all. Back on the topic of content, though... Barberio, still only 4 content edits since November 1. Avruch T 20:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I would like to thank the Committee for publishing their agenda, and offer my apologies for any stress caused by being strident in asking for one to be published. I encourage this practice to be continued, and for maintaining a published agenda to be part of the normal housekeeping duties associated with the Arbitration Committee. It is an important step forward in better communications with the community at large. -- Barberio ( talk) 02:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Listed below are the items which currently comprise the agenda of the Arbitration Committee.
Two points that should be kept in mind:
The agenda is as follows:
For the Committee, Kirill 01:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Is it recommended that I get into an edit wars before I file one of these? Dipotassitrimanganate ( talk) 17:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC) 17:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
In posting here, I am not looking for an opinion regarding this dispute. I am looking for an opinion as how best to proceed.
On 10 December 2008, a discussion began regarding the use of non-free sports team logos on rivalry, season, and specific game articles. On 22 December 2008, an RfC was started regarding the issue. The RfC appears to have run its course, with the only change over the last six days that of removing Template:RFCpolicy from the RfC's header [15]. No consensus has been achieved by the RfC. A form of mediation was attempted by one of the contributors to the discussion. Though he had a particular bias in the debate, his efforts at mediation were largely in keeping with best practices.
On 7 January 2008, I noted the impasse we were at, and requested input on backing to implement removal of the images or advice on how to proceed if backing was not readily present. Results were equivocal.
We remain at an impasse.
Opponents of the image use maintain that a lack of consensus that the use is allowable under our policy and guideline requires removing the use. Proponents state the opposite.
It is believed by a number of people that if an attempt is made to begin removing the images from the season, rivalry and specific game articles that reversions will happen in rapid fashion.
I am approaching ArbCom here as to how best to proceed. My belief is that ArbCom does not generally rule on issues of policy, but only on conduct. At present, there is no conduct issue worthy of ArbCom's attention. However, if action is taken there certainly will be an edit war. I certainly would not want to see an overt edit war erupt just to raise this issue to the level necessary for scrutiny by ArbCom.
The crux of this is that there's nobody empowered to make the decision. The RfC did not achieve consensus. Mediation did not aid achieving consensus. If one administrator closes out the RfC ruling one way or another, it is highly unlikely that the ruling would be enforceable for either side. The weight of this decision is realistically too much for any one administrator to make. Mediation parties are not empowered to make rulings. Yet, a clear decision is most emphatically needed.
I would like input from ArbCom members on how best to proceed. Thank you, -- Hammersoft ( talk) 19:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Go here--> MediaWiki talk:Editnotice-4-Requests for arbitration#Edit notice updating-- Tznkai ( talk) 23:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
The injunction prohibits using a script to delink, but presumably delinking in the course of ordinary editing is allowed. Is it allowed to delink in the course of making other improvements to many articles, such as updating infoboxes or adding categories? -- NE2 01:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I've just posted some arbitration data I've been collecting at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Statistics. They cover arbitration activity from January 1, 2009 onward. Perhaps someone will find this useful. Comments, suggestions, corrections, etc. welcomed. Lots of hand work here so plenty of opportunity for error, other eyes appreciated. Paul August ☎ 20:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
The Request for Comment regarding arbitration enforcement, including a review of general and discretionary sanctions, will be closing at 0200 UTC on 21 February, 2009. All editors are encouraged to review the RfC and participate before its close. After the closing, the Arbitration Committee intends to formalize reform proposals within one month.
For the Committee, -- Vassyana ( talk) 07:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
On the Requests for arbitration page, the box for the "current cases task list" is covering up the page index. Is this happening for others, and can it be fixed? Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
It is not entirely unprecedented for an arbitration case to go into full review within a month of case closure. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education, which closed on 30 December 2006, went into Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review on 29 January 2007.
The Fringe Science decision is not working. Since it closed on February 25, eight separate arbitration enforcement threads have opened. [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] In addition, as the people who read RFAR are aware, a lengthy request for clarification is ongoing. [24]
As mentor to ScienceApologist, I have endeavored to regularize the situation. Unfortunately, as I feared would happen, the Committee's decision to enact a phantom position under the same name as an existing mentorship has further confused matters. To quote from a well-meaning Wikipedian who has been trying to improve (or even make sense of) the deteriorating situation:
The full thread is here. Under these confusing circumstances the finite resource of constructive volunteer time is wasted, and my ability to improve matters is seriously hampered.
When I brought Prem Rawat 2 to RFAR, the situation was less chaotic than the fringe science aftermath currently is. Less than two weeks after closure, the dispute appears less stable than it was before the case opened. In the past few days SA and I have actually been making contingency plans speculating how to arrange permission for him to write a featured article by proxy in case he gets sitebanned.
It would certainly be unusual to request a new case this rapidly, but a new case may be needed. Floating the possibility here; welcoming feedback from arbitrators and from participants on both sides. Durova Charge! 00:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Jehochman's faith is flattering, but his characterization doesn't apply very well to this mentorship. It isn't a substitute for sanctions; it seeks to regularize the situation so that sanctions aren't needed. Although I wish very much that it were possible to guarantee that ScienceApologist would be a model Wikipedian if the topic ban were lifted, I can't make that promise for him. A big part of the goal here is to calm things down enough that people can hold regular editorial discussions about how to apply NPOV to specific fringe science articles. Right now I see very little of that happening, and most of the dialog is meta-discussion about whether this or that person should be sanctioned. The area looks more like a game of musical chairs where people are attempting to make sure that 'their' side gets to keep the seats. That isn't viable in the long run. Durova Charge! 17:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
(undent) allow me to ask a very pertinent question: If certain editors (like ScienceApologist, Short Brigade Harvester Boris (as above) and a few other I could mention) were not frequently and loudly spouting off about 'fringe advocates', would there even be an issue here? In the time I've been on WP, I've run across maybe 3 editors who were actively trying to promote some fringe position, and each of those cases was handled (easily) using original research and verifiability arguments. as far as I can see, this is an entirely imaginary conflict, which only continues because these certain editors refuse to let it go. there may have been a reason for all this in the past, but there really isn't now, and the 'counter-insurgency' attitude that's taken up against these mythical opponents is disruptive and destructive.
heck, I'd go so far as to defy anyone here to show me a real example of fringe advocacy that I can't resolve, quickly, civilly, and effectively, so long as the anti-fringe people leave their drama-trauma out of it.
So look: if SA wants to be a martyr for his defunct cause, let him. if he wants to find a better and more civil way of doing things, let him. he's an adult, so forget about mentoring him, forget about finding excuses or loopholes for him. cut him loose, let him make his own choices, and let him reap the rewards and punishments of his choices just like the rest of us. -- Ludwigs2 22:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
The WP navigation system can sometimes be very confusing. Om March 12th, the post Arbcom thread on this page was archived [26] The decisions are moved here [27], but I can't find the discussion leading up to the decision. The only trace of it is the pre-archive page version [28] Where is it archived? MaxPont ( talk) 08:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
FYI: I've made some changes to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Statistics:
Paul August ☎ 19:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
When a case is accepted maybe the bot can post a link to the case in the edit summary. I received a notice so I'm good on finding it. But people who are watching might not know where to look? ChildofMidnight ( talk) 18:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
One of the Arbitration Committee's responsibilities is to address appeals received via e-mail from banned or long-term blocked users. To improve the level of attention and response time for these requests, the Committee has formed a Ban Appeals Subcommittee, which will consist of three arbitrators. This subcommittee will consider ban appeals and recommend actions regarding them to the Committee as a whole, as outlined in the newly adopted procedure for handling ban appeals.
The subcommittee was created by a 15/0 vote, with no abstentions:
The procedure was adopted by a 10/0 vote, with 2 abstentions:
The subcommittee will begin work on April 1, and will initially consist of Carcharoth, FayssalF, and Roger Davies. It is likely that the membership of the subcommittee will be rotated approximately quarterly; further appointments will be announced at the appropriate time.
For the Committee, Kirill [pf] 00:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
The date linking and formatting poll is now open. All users are invited to participate. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I removed the link to WP:RREV at the top of the requests for arbitration page because RFA review is dead. Someone restored it with no explanation. Can we get a consensus to remove it? How many people type in WP:RFAR expecting to find RFA review?? Soberknight ( talk) 01:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
To assist with managing case workflow, and to provide a default point of contact for case matters, the initials of the designated drafting arbitrator(s) for each case will now be displayed on {{ ArbComOpenTasks}} next to those of the designated clerk(s) for that case.
This proposal was approved by a 10/0 vote, with no abstentions:
Cross-posted on behalf of the Arbitration Committee, hmwith τ 02:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Please stop delinking the header. Thanks, NonvocalScream ( talk) 02:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The principle behind delinking headers is as follows:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Section_headings
"Section names should not normally contain links, especially ones that link only part of the heading; they will cause accessibility problems."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ACCESS#Links
"Avoid putting links in section headings, unless the link text is the only text in the title. Some screen readers, such as earlier versions of JAWS, will stop reading the heading title when they encounter a link, and if the link is the first part of the heading title, they will only read the link text. For example, a heading title of "The chimpanzees invade the sewer system" may be read as "The", and a heading title of " Boxes in popular culture" may be read as "Boxes"."
Risker
I have been very much enlightened. And thank you for taking the time to explain. I absolutely had no clue that he links in headers also caused accessibility issues with screen readers. I'll will do my best in the future to remember not to be linking anything in the section header again. Thank you again. Cheers,
NonvocalScream (
talk) 03:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
One of the things that's "killing" us is the fact that the community has gotten much better at handling much of the "easy" stuff. We're getting better at handling things faster but the cases that reach ArbCom in 2009 are monsters compared to the simple cases of, say, 2006.
One suggestion I would offer the community is to move to a system similar to the French Wikipedia's: All accepted cases are handed out to a (small) set of arbs (say, 3) according to who is available and not recused in rotation. The duration of cases is mostly a factor of how hard it is to get 15 or so arbs all voting and agreeing— this system would trade off the stability of en banc voting on every case against a much faster resolution time. Not unlike real-life appellate courts where you get n judges to decide, and you don't get to pick which.
The underlying principle behind this is that all arbitrators are equal; I would expect the community to trust that any three arbs can reach a good solution just as well as all of the committee. The whole committee would be allowed to vote to take the case the "traditional way" with all arbs voting.
To be honest, I've been planning towards something like this since before the elections (that was one of my "suggested reforms" I alluded to) but the context has not yet been right to put it forward— perhaps there would never be a "right" time, and more initiative is needed after all. I will offer the next case to voluntarily accept this as an experiment with the caveat that the result will be exactly as binding as the traditional method (voluntarily because I would not impose an experiment on editors caught in a dispute that's already a difficult strain).
I'm not going to write down exact procedure right now (even though I have a pretty precise idea) since, as an experiment, it's likely that things will need tweaking during the experiment. The objective would be to handle one case this way, document how it worked, and offer the "fast" arbitration voluntarily for a number of other cases until (a) kinks are worked out and (b) the community is satisfied this is an improvement (or (c) the whole thing is scrapped because it's a disaster after all).
I'll post a rough outline on how I see cases proceeding with this method to my userspace shortly, and post a link to it. In the meantime, what do people think about the general idea? — Coren (talk) 14:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me, and a welcome reform towards making individual arbitrators more accountable for individual cases. — Werdna • talk 15:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
This is worth trying, provided the parties agree to participate as Tznkai recommends. It has often been assumed that all arbs dont read all of the evidence. Maybe allocating only three arbs to a case will resulting in more focus and a better decision. OTOH, if the MZMcBride case is an example of what happens when a case is fast tracked, I dont like it. I suspect that many fast tracked cases will be appealed. John Vandenberg ( chat) 15:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
(ec) It's a pretty interesting idea. I am a bit concerned, tho, because, as Coren said above, a lot of the ArbCom cases nowadays are "monsters", and that's not much of an overstatement. The community is often deeply divided in what they should do about a particular issue (which is why it ends up at arbitration), and sometimes the arbitrators themselves are, too. Having just three arbitrators decide on such an issue might make the decision.. a bit random. The decision could be entirely different, depending on which three arbitrators get to decide. Then again, having a decision in cases like these is probably better than having none at all. -- Conti| ✉ 15:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't feel the need to inject my point of view in every decision taken in every case; and I don't think that decisions would be any less good or legitimate for having had "only" three arbitrators take them. There is a very good reason why real life courts do not take all decision by taking together all the judges: it doesn't work right, and even if it did it would be a waste of valuable resources. All arbs are equal, and all our decisions are just as good as every other arb's. If we can get past this obsession with voting and counting heads and trust each other to work for the collective good, we'd be able to do a much better job, much faster. — Coren (talk) 16:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
(undent) At any rate, at this point, the ones whose opinion actually count at the community who placed their trust in us to help solve the unsolvable (yes, this does include ourselves, but we are but a tiny slice of the community). The offer to trial this new method of arbitrating disputes is open, and I would expect that — should the community take me/us up on it — we would do our best collectively to make it work. It's not perfect, and will have to get a lot of tweaking before anyone can call it satisfactory, but this is a wiki; trying new ways of doing things is the fundamental principle of change. We gain nothing by refusing the experiment because it might not work. — Coren (talk) 17:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
As for the internal discussion over changes, they are very good at altering current policy and we have made some great strides in that direction, but I feel it is an inappropriate method for tentative and experimental changes in depth. I don't think it is possible, or desirable, to attempt to come up with a new method ex nihilo by commitee— this is the kind of thing you go out and try, then learn from the attempt. — Coren (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
So, I said I would post my views on how arbitration should work. I haven't yet looked at Coren's draft, so this is just what I had in mind.
Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
A quick note. Any comparison we make to a real life judiciary should be taken carefully. We don't have prosecutors (a vital part of the modern inquisitorial system) around here for example, we don't have police who gather facts and evidence, and no one here has the power to compel testimony. I don't mean to say that looking towards a different model is a bad idea, just that we should be cautious in our considerations.-- Tznkai ( talk) 23:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to say 'No'. Let's put this on the Agenda for next Year.
My reasoning is that we already have a huge process reform agenda, it's being worked on now, and the workload from that, plus the transition from ad-hoc to more established procedures is going to need time to settle in. I'm more than willing to give a one-time 'pass' for Arbcom's case processing times this year while they cope with all that.
Timely case management is an issue, but it's not an issue we can safely address this year since we don't know how the current reforms are going to settle out. Putting in a fast-track system could, and probably will trigger unintended consequences, until we can plan it around how the new Arbcom will end up working.
Let's return to this in a year. -- Barberio ( talk) 13:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee's agenda as of April 8 has now been published, and may be viewed at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Agenda.
In order to provide the community with a more up-to-date understanding of the Committee's plans, the published agenda will now be updated on a regular schedule (nominally once a week). Future updates will not be formally announced; editors interested in following the agenda may wish to watchlist it. The agenda will also remain displayed at the top of the Committee's noticeboard.
In the near future, we anticipate adding cases in progress and the associated milestone dates to the agenda.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety talk 22:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Could someone remind me what the order is in the tallies (e.g. "tally now 7/0/0/1")? I ask because I can see 7 accepts in the Macedonia issue, but no other votes, so have no idea who or what the 1 is. DuncanHill ( talk) 16:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
The current layout is as follows:
This layout is unlogical. What bothers me most is that the titles of the proposed cases are level 3 headers, and the titles of the comments are level 4 headers. Because the fonts of the level 3 and level 4 headers look a like, it is difficult to see where one proposed case ends and where the next one begins. I say we get rid of the "Current requests" header (what's the point of that header anyway?), so that we can turn the titles of the cases into level 2 headers, providing them with nice horizontal lines.
My proposal:
Agreed? -
theFace 19:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
While this may be under discussion "somewhere" (especially considering that the policies/guidelines/etc. are under overhaul), I'm not sure where, so bringing this comment here.
In looking over the "abstain" section, there are quite a few that seem to be "comments" or "notes", rather than true "abstentions".
While this may not seem to be a big deal, NYB mentioned in the past that by placing a comment under "abstain", the number needed for a majority changes, and so by abstaining, makes it easier for a motion to pass.
This seems to me to be a really bad idea.
I realise that it's been this way awhile, but that doesn't mean that it can't or shouldn't be changed/fixed.
And yes, I realise that the arbitrators likely know/understand that this is the situation, but I also wonder if perhaps they may at times feel limited by the format in this, or further, if they should be allowed to "vote" by not voting. (An abstention can act as more than a single "vote" due to the numbers changing.)
So I'd like to propose that the "proposed decision" page add an additional "Comment" section to each proposal. (Making each proposal have 4 sections: Support/Oppose/Abstain/Comment.)
As an aside, in a place (Wikipedia) where discussion resolution is consensus-driven, this "voting" process concerns me quite a bit. - jc37 03:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Arbitration talk page archives |
---|
WT:RFAR archives (2004–2009) |
Various archives (2004–2011) |
Ongoing WT:A/R archives (2009–) |
WT:RFAR subpages |
Archive of prior proceedings |
I have a question with regard to the revert parole I and a number of other editors were placed on 11 April 2007, please see: [1] According to the ruling of the arbcom the original duration of the parole was 1 year, which has now expired. The Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 ruled that all the editors placed on revert limitation in the first AA arbcom case were subject to supervised editing, however no time limits were specified. So I would appreciate if someone could advise whether the restrictions of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan are still effective or not. Thank you. Grandmaster ( talk) 07:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Let's put it this way: I think it would be best if you all stuck to 1RR, Armenians and Azeris alike from the AA1 case. Moreschi ( talk) ( debate) 17:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey. If you chaps from AA1 start edit-warring, I'll simply use AA2 to put you formally all on 1RR again. If people informally stick to 1RR (per week) that won't be needed. Moreschi ( talk) ( debate) 14:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
This wisely broken-out page will prove very useful. However it is apparent that in one or more clarification requests, the process difference between opening and reopening cases, as described at Wikipedia:Arbitration guide, may be leading to confusion. Unlike a new case, there appears no provision for extending (500-word) summaries of reopened requests into evidence subpages, as I alluded on this page. Perhaps this is deliberate and/or there is a standard methodology already in place of which I am unaware.
In the Franco-Mongol case, perhaps due to this omission, several users have exceeded 500 words, possibly relying on an inference I observed somewhere that responses to other users may not necessarily be counted within the limit; and, incredibly, one user has already been refactored by three clerks, limiting the amount of summary material available for presenting a case. Also the clarification case has become a harbor for several violently opposed amendment proposals.
I recognize that discussing lacunae in a policy may be questionable when offered from a party simultaneously in a process covered by the policy, but it appears that in this heavily attended case an ad hoc standard may be better than leaving the question open. The process as-is seems to suggest that clarifications of rulings should be straightforward enough that ArbCom input can be safely predicated solely upon summaries and not upon extended evidence. The current case may not be that easily handled.
I note that four arbiters have already considered this ripe for reopening, which in an ordinary case would be grounds for creating an evidence subpage subject to the wider restrictions of generally 1000 words or 100 diffs, with some leeway. I would appreciate some clerk or arbiter statement as to whether the several involved editors should feel free to use some fresh page (such as this talk page) for expansion of their summary comments at this time, as it appears several of the involved editors by their actions express a silent consensus that the summary limit is exceedible in this case and that the floodgates may be opened. Thank you. John J. Bulten ( talk) 00:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
My understanding is that the new requests are supposed to be listed first, and the oldest requests are supposed to be listed last. Is that correct? The instructions say, "Click the [Edit] link to the right of this section, and paste the template immediately below this box and above any other outstanding requests."
Since the request about me seems to be the oldest, shouldn't it be at the bottom? Ferrylodge ( talk) 01:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Should it really be "and/or" between the two sections? I'm not sure what it means. I also wonder if 'articles' would be better than 'his articles'.-- Slp1 ( talk) 21:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Good quesiton, we need an answer to that. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC) It seems to me the arbs are voting for BOTH remedies. I say this because if they only supported one, they'd say so. Unless instructed otherwise, I'll implement both when there are 7 votes (currently there are 12 active arbs, so a majority is 7). For the record, the topic ban should remain in place. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The breakoff to this page may have made things clearer, but I fear that it is increasing arbitrator overload. They are likely to spend more time over on the main request page, instead of here. Not to be too pointy, but how long will it take for an arbitrator to respond to this? Carcharoth ( talk) 15:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I would like to make few comments about Sam Blacketer's kind reply to my request, I hope this is the right place to do it.
First of all we all know that the main goal is "to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia" i.e. "high-quality encyclopaedia which is neutral point of view and based on reliable sources". We all know also that consensus does not always achieve this result. But there is absolutely no reason to think that one or few admins acting unilaterally and "discretionarily" would do better than consensus of several people on the talk pages. Admins are just more powerful users, not more wise ones. It is misleading to focus on the fact that consensus does not necessarily produce the good of the encyclopedia without addressing the fact that the decision of few uninvolved admins could be even *less likely* to realize the good of the encyclopedia.
Second and most important point: I cited people being banned for editing supported by consensus but It was not a criticism to the admins. It was a criticism to the situation that this action creates: if I must be afraid of being banned even for editing what is supported by the consensus then I can't definitely feel free to make any kind of edit at all! To be able to edit without being afraid I would need to consult the admins who could sanction the ban but this would make them "involved".
Third: we should always keep in mind that admins are just users with more tools. The punishments are not being delivered by an impartial jury after having listened the accusations and the defenses. The punishments do not even reflect a consensus inside the wikipedia community. The punishments are "discretionary", they just reflect the opinion of a single or few "users with more tools". It's like if a group of policemen both accuses you of a crime and sentence you to jail without any defense being allowed. Defenses are indeed completely ignored and discouraged with threats (as I have shown). Also the statement "editors unhappy with restrictions should look at the aspects of their own behaviour which have provoked them, and see if they can change it" seem to be a way to discourage people to defending themselves.-- Pokipsy76 ( talk) 10:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
As someone completely uninvolved in any 911 dispute(due to the fact that I have a strong personal bias I have chosen to avoid the topic) I can say that no amount of consensus can override the requirement for a neutral point of view. This is not up to the community, NPOV is imposed on us by the people that own Wikipedia. (1 == 2)Until 17:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh good, that is wonderful. (1 == 2)Until 18:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
JungleCat has added another characteristic statement to my request for appeal. It's worth looking at the whole exchange [3] and the article talk page discussion it was about [4]. Notice that the noble sentiment JungleCat quotes himself for was originally expressed to support an editor who had exclaimed his wonderment that someone might "believe such crap" when the editor it was directed at had politely suggested he withdraw it. While calling someone's (alleged) beliefs "crap" may not directly violate the purpose of Wikipedia, it is surely a bit off the mark to quote the founding idea of Wikipedia to justify such insults?
The moon hoax analogy is instructive. While I was getting my doctoral training in science studies I looked empirically at fringe theories, including parapsychology (mainly mind reading and telekinesis) and the "we never went to the moon" idea. The most interesting thing about examining such views is that it forces you to understand the received view (psychology, the Apollo project, and, of course, progressive collapse) in some detail. I have never suggested that fringe views be presented as "legitimate theories" (i.e., as a accepted scientific positions). I have suggested that the articles can often be improved simply by providing the answers to the questions that proponents of fringe views claim are somehow open ("How can they explain...?") That does not mean representing fringe critiques of the mainstream. Those critiques need not even be mentioned. And that is why it is so frustrating to have people like MONGO interpreting every one of my edits in terms of a belief I have never expressed. (Not only was Morton insulting to call them "crap", he was being presumptuous to talk about my "beliefs" ... and he was even wrong about the relevant belief in this case, which had very litte to do with controlled demolition).
Aside from my interest in the controlled demolition hypothesis (as a popular belief not a scientific proposition), then, I have also been getting increasingly interested in what we know about how and why the WTC collapsed. (Just as I had a chance to learn a great deal about how we actually got to the moon when I studied the hoax accusations). I think my work on the article has made it more informative, and this includes the information it has provided on the limits of what we know and the nature of the investigations that led to that knowledge. I don't claim to have perfect knowledge of the subject, but I do claim to have been editing in good faith. I have not been trying to refute NIST or to defend the controlled demolition hypothesis (I have not been "pushing"). I have been working with the moderate assumption that NIST's is not the gospel truth and that proponents of the controlled demolition are not just talking nonsense; that is, I have been trying to make sense of both positions.
But regardless of who is right about the content issues, the incivility here is clearly on one side. ArbCom can choose to say that people who are interested in a particular set of problems cannot expect to be treated civily; or AC can demand that even the "right" side defend its views civily.-- Thomas Basboll ( talk) 07:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
A banned user wishes to appeal but there has been no reply from mail sent to the arbitrators. May that user ask another user to support his appeal by posting it here? Under what conditions would such a request be considered meatpuppetry, and under which would it not? 75.61.105.103 ( talk) 17:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Without any particular motivation, I'd like to offer my thoughts on the current structure and operations of the Requests for Arbitration (RfAr). As we all seem to veer naturally towards pessimism, I will observe that the process works reasonably well. That is to say, RfAr serves its function to acceptable standards: as a page where editors can present disputes to the Committee, and request that they arbitrate them, it seems to fill that role well. However, it is prone to a lot of backwards-and-forwards discussions. For example, it's not uncommon to see a statement from a party followed by several sections titled "Reply to X... Reply to Y..."; that really is nothing but extended bickering. Perhaps we need to look at cutting that out.
What concerns me, however, is the lack of clarify and cutting-to-the-point in requests for arbitration. At present, the parties involved (and, increasingly often, uninvolved by-standers) offer statements, which are supposed to be short, to-the-point, and descriptive of the issues the Committee are requested to consider. This is, however, is not working. What we're getting is several rants from each side of the fence, which really does make it somewhat difficult (for me, at least, as a neutral observer of the arbitration process) to identify the issues in hand.
For example, would the addition of a "core issue" section, perhaps under the current "previous attempts at dispute resolution" area, not make that easier? I for one would find the first read-over of a rfar much simpler if the filing party had noted that it was over, for example, "Users α, β and γ have been grouping together to push through POV Θ".
Thoughts? Anthøny 21:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
At this moment, there is none. Not really.
One case is in its 7th week, but was about to close before getting stalled by unforeseen events, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Proposed decision. In fact, it looks like one arbitrator going inactive, or one more voting would be enough to allow it to close.
There are two more, one in its 3rd week (needs another week?) and one in its second week (voting, but not close to closing yet).
Getting to May without a substantial backlog is an accomplishment. Credit to arbitrators for participating, for writing, for discussing, for voting, and in general for moving things along. And to the clerks, for, well, clerking. But also for prodding the arbitrators as needed.
But I see that 3 new arbitrations just opened, and that you recently lost one of your decision writers. I think the community will understand if you can't keep up quite as well as you have for the last few months. But I'd also like to encourage you to maintain the pace that allowed these last few months to pass (relatively) smoothly.
Again, thank you. Jd2718 ( talk) 22:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
It is high time that the abuses against the unjustly banned user "Gibraltarian" were dealt with rationally and fairly. My ban was brought about by a troll user's malicious complaint, and he continually vandalised any words I tried to post in my defence. I appeal to any admin or Arbcom member with a sense of justice to please contact me on a_gibraltarian@hotmail.com to discuss the matter. Many thanks
DO NOT REVERT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.124.68.211 ( talk) 22:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I can't figure out what format I am supposed to use to list the involved parties (in the anti-americanism case). Life.temp ( talk) 08:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Tango/Proposed_decision#Remedies - his desysopping appears to have not passed, but it's being reported all over that it did. Lawrence Cohen § t/ e 02:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Pleae excuse my unfamiliarity with these page, I have tried to look for the archives of the past request for clarifications/appeal but I can't find them, do there exist such archives?-- Pokipsy76 ( talk) 13:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
(Edit conflict)
Folks, I've finished developing the new template, Template:RfarOpenTasks ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs), with a little assistance from Ncmvocalist along the way. The template currently only documents requests for clarifications, and requests for amendments to prior cases; I imagine standard requests for arbitration could be easily integrated.
The template is currently stand-alone; it may be more efficient to integrate it with {{ ArbComOpenTasks}}, either as a full merger, or just having it transcluded (displayed) there. Please feel free to suggest amendments to the template, and keep an eye out for any changes to WP:RFAC, in case they warrant an update to the template.
Regards, Anthøny 22:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi guys. There's a current request for arbitration open for the above case regarding whether or not the Encyclopedia Dramatica article can link to the site. The page is currently protected because of edit warring over the link, and the thing that's stopping things moving forward is the fact that linking to ED is banned per the MONGO case. There's even talk now of simply ignoring the arbitration committee. Can I make a real plea to you guys to take the request for clarification to a vote on allowing linking in the article? Whatever the result, whether it ends in net support or not, it will give the whole issue some clarity - the edit warring isn't going to stop without this vote. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
The decision in the MONGO case reads, and I quote:
"Links to ED
1) Links to Encyclopædia Dramatica may be removed wherever found on Wikipedia as may material imported from it."
It does not say links must be removed, it says may be removed. The community has now developed a guideline, at the behest of the Arbitration Committee, to identify best practices in situations such as this. Two and a half years have passed, and during that time there have been several requests for clarification and arbcom cases all related directly or indirectly to the MONGO decision. The Arbitration Committee's ruling of long ago has been superseded by the guideline developed by the community. Risker ( talk) 22:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
(emphasis mine). There is currently no special prohibition imposed by the Committee on any material to be placed within an article regarding ED. Kirill ( prof) 03:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)The Arbitration Committee's decisions in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites shall not be interpreted to prohibit (or to encourage) the creation of an article on Encyclopædia Dramatica. The existence and contents of any such article may be determined through the ordinary editorial and deletion processes.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
To date I am the only person prohibited from mediating. In addition I am sure the enforcement of this remedy itself could be quite controversial. It would be rather amusing to get blocked for successfully mediating a dispute.
The abolishment of the remedy requires me to be officially appointed by the Mediation Committee. That has a snowball's chance in hell in happening as visible in this discussion. The arbitration committee almost completely ignored my past appeal. Although Arbitrators went out of their way to discuss the appeal by Jack Merridew who has stalked me for the past three years and engaged in abusive sockpupetry among other things, I believe it is very unlikely that the arbitration committee is considering my current appeal. Arbitrators have a tendency to ignore me and likewise I am not willing to listen to them (or anyone else) anymore. If you ignore me, don't be surprised if I ignore you in return.
So the only option left for me is to illustrate the point one way or another. I am just unsure the most effective way.
Do not get the wrong idea. I am not asking for advice. We are way past that. Consider this more of an FYI.
-- Cat chi? 21:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Now a good question is why would a Portland IP with only two edits notice my edit within two minutes of it and make the above remark? -- Cat chi? 21:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
White Cat above says this:
Now, a reasonable person would interpret that as "so no arbitrators commented on your appeal and just let it fade away as stale?" I agree that, if this was the case, White Cat may have cause for complaint.
However, this is clearly not the case. In fact, four arbitrators did comment on the previous appeal he alluded to, so it was hardly "ignored". You can see for yourself at this section (scroll up for the entire request for amendment).
Daniel ( talk) 01:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I think someone tried to "helpfully" fix the chaos but I think it makes it less clear. Some of those comments should remain indented as responses or moved back to their author's section. As it stands now, we have editors with multiple sections. Would a clerk mind looking into this? -- Dragon695 ( talk) 01:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
It is important to understand that the Arbitration committee does not do a good job of handling large, sprawling unfocused cases. Remember that they know next to nothing about the dispute, while you have been involved in it for months. A request for comment against a group of editors is somewhat non-traditional, but where the usual goal is to persuade someone by force of argument to change their behavior, here the goal is to develop a focused presentation of alleged harms and desired outcomes. For example, if you have a diff of User:Smith telling another editor, "Your contributions are not welcome and will always be reverted, go away!" you don't want to dilute the impact by including ten diffs of Smith calling editors "poopyheads." Likewise you want to focus on good editors with proven track records on other topics being driven away, and not so much on SPAs who really aren't here to learn the system and follow the rules. I would suggest opening a RFC on group conduct. Build it collaboratively in user space for a few days. Organize it logically, "Biography problems", "Hostility toward other editors", etc. Present the best evidence, filtered and focused. Don't use the process for revenge, but aim toward improvement of the encyclopedia. Try to present some remedies and desired outcomes that flow logically and proportionally from the evidence. (Arbcom will not indef ban for calling another editor a "poopyhead" for example.) Then move it to project space and ask for comments, opposing views, and so forth. Be respectful of all opposing views, and mindful of conditional or partial endorsements. You may find that the community considers some of your allegations to be weightier than others, and editors to be more or less culpable, in which case refocus the case on issues the community considers most serious. And remember that your conduct in bringing the case will be looked at just as closely as the conduct of those you name in the case, so using the RFC as an opportunity for flamewars and personal attacks is going to be self-defeating. Thatcher 15:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
H2O RFA is over now, with so many dram, backlashes and s*** throwing that I feel ashamed only by reading it. So, the arbs that said they were going to hold this until the RFA was over. What do you say now? Samuel Sol ( talk) 02:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I've just filed a request - but have singularly failed to correctly fill in the templates, and copy them to the correct places etc. - sincere apologies for any hassle this causes - I just found it very challenging technically to work out which bits to cut, paste, copy, etc. etc. - any assistance from the wonderful clerks (or anyone else!) is hugely appreciated! cheers, Privatemusings ( talk) 03:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Moved this material here, from the main page. Altho I do agree with Celarnor's points, it's best to keep outside discussion here, and focus on getting clarification and response from the arbitration committee on the project page. -- Barberio ( talk) 17:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
During deliberations, the Committee will construct a consensus opinion made out of Principles (general statements about policy), Findings of Fact (findings specific to the case), Remedies (binding Decrees on what should be done), and Enforcements (conditional Decrees on what can further be done if the terms are met). |
Perhaps you're reading into things that don't exist. Unwritten rules exist because reasonable people find it somewhat obvious or common-sense - moreso than the codified rules. Asking for clarification is not going to be frowned upon, but demanding codification, specific boundaries, accountability etc. is not always possible, if at all - it's often unique to each case's circumstances, and codified rules always find themselves not having enough 'exception' provisions or clauses anyway.
In essence, all rules (no matter what form - be it laws or policies or the like) are merely a means of resolving disputes - they are not fool proof, and there is a long history/tradition of both humans and non-humans having trouble following them, even where codified.
No new policy has been introduced as far as I am aware by the Committee. Of course, extra requirements and the like are sometimes imposed on existing policy for a variety of reasons. Sometimes, it is to avoid the need for future cases in relation to certain matters that are more novel and can be more easily resolved if delegated to certain groups of users, or the community in general - in "Arbitrators' view and discussion", Kirill has further elaborated this to more specific examples. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 07:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
In Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Privatemusings#Privatemusings_restricted, Privatemusings ( talk · contribs) was restricted from editing any BLPs due to apparent past issues, but now in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Statement_by_Privatemusings he has stated that
'm now going to edit BLPs in what I consider an uncontroversial manner - removing unsourced material, adding pic.s etc. - I started doing this shortly after this application, actually, and am glad that it's all working out ok thus far. After a month from today, should all go well, I will post freely to BLP talk pages, and after a further month I will consider myself unrestricted. I hope this works out ok for all.
is an individual really able to overturn an arbcom restriction merely because they think they have changed their own behavior? I'll note that 3 arbitrators seem to agree with continuing the restriction, can someone clue me in as to what is going on here? MBisanz talk 00:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
<- I'm a bit bummed at the way my request for the sanction to be lifted has worked out :-( - I get the impression (for example from Lar above) that some people who might have wanted to comment hadn't noticed it - although I was very grateful for the comments it did receive. I think it was pretty active up until today - maybe it could be restored, allowing the 3 arb.s who've commented to date to respond further, and the other arb.s to comment if they wish...? thoughts and advice most welcome. cheers, Privatemusings ( talk) 02:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
What's the last figure? I think it goes accept/reject/recuse/what? DuncanHill ( talk) 22:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
To see this within an hour after the case is submitted is a true disgrace. We have two very respected admins here (not without fault like all of us) and certainly stepping back and reflecting on this is useful. Instead, ArbCom members rush to accept the case and produce another drama-grande with no (at this point) sign that this can bring any useful solution for which the price of this drama is going to be paid. While at it, the much bigger drama which puts the very legitimacy of this arbcom caused by one Arbitrator and the sloppiness (in the very least) of the large part of the rest in allowing such thing to happen is still raging and ArbCom members who are under a very urgent moral obligation to clear this up are "too busy" to do that allowing this mess to protract. And instead, they rush to accept another Giano-related matter right when the steam is mostly gone. Call me naive but seeing everything I've seen here, I did not expect this. -- Irpen 00:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Dragon, please note that I never condemned the ArbCom in strong terms prior to the events that unfolded recently despite I was greatly displeased by some of its previous actions. I refrained from strong public condemnation of this ArbCom earlier because I thought that despite all its faults, we are better to preserve some degree of respect to the ArbCom as an institution and an all out attack on this arbcom by the long-standing editors may undermine its capability to address the Wikipedia problems in any way at all. However, the ArbCom itself has done just that by allowing this disgraceful incident of a Wikipedian in good standing been tried in some sort of a Gitmo trial with the arbcom acting as an activisti agent, the arbcom member serving a plaintiff, a detective, a prosecutor and a judge all in one (he did not recuse), the accused editor being not even informed, let alone allowed to face the accusation and present his side of the story.
This cannot be a fault of a single arbitrator who organized it as the ArbCom allowed this all to proceed. I asked the arbitrators some very pointed questions to understand how much of this mess is the fault of the ArbCom as a whole body and utter evasiveness of the answers I received convinced me that the matter is not just one arbitrator going rogue but the whole committee being responsible for this shame (even if through incompetence entirely, while this is unlikely to be the only reason.) Arbitrators were begged to provide a straightforward and forthcoming explanation by many editors including those who very rarely agreed with each other. Such an explanation might have helped us to get out from this pity state of affairs with minimal damage and the arbcom that can still function. None of that came out but such excuses as busyness, intensity of discussions they are carrying were involved.
So, we have a grave emergency that endangers the entire dispute resolution at Wikipedia and instead of trying to reduce the damage of this catastrophic fall of its prestige and ability to function, arbcom within an hour accepts another case on Giano-matters. I have reservations about WMC for a long time but none of this warrants an immediate action. Even if he has to be desysopped (I am yet not convinced) Wikipedia will not suffer if this is carried out even a month later.
Even finally acting upon its promise to address the IRC matters at "some later point", made by this ArbCom half a year ago, is more urgent. With so many truly crucial and pressing matters and arbs being "too busy" to address them, arbcom accepts this case on the incident when the situation already cooled down by itself. This is incomprehensibly irresponsible. -- Irpen 04:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Greg, I am delighted that you look at my contributions with such interest that you have even followed me to this page. However, I don't see how your bringing our content dispute here is relevant. This is a very small matter at the obscure article's talk and while I welcome more eyes there, let's not clutter this page with off-topic stuff.
Tony, now I recognize you as your last post is more in line with your style. Your analogy with the garbage collector is very apt but it should be put differently. Let's consider the job of Arbcom, which is to help this community deal with Wikipedia problems, as being somewhat similar to the job of a garbage man who helps us deal with refuse. As long as the garbage man does his job properly, it would be pretty stupid to interfere with him. We should be nice to him and even show some small appreciation at the Christmas time.
Suppose, though, he is somewhat sloppy; for example, my garbage man, when he empties the bin, often does it sloppily and while most of the garbage still is taken away, some junk falls on the ground and I have to pick it up and put it back so that he will take it away next time. He also sometimes leaves the garbage can overturned and, especially annoying, on the street where it may get hit by passing cars. Well, I do my cost-benefit analysis and find that even if he screws up a small thing or two once in a while, I am still better off to allow him to do his job. If the Arbcom did a reasonable job overall but slipped up sometimes, we would also accept it as nobody's perfect.
But suppose the garbage man leaves the situation messier than it was before he came. If he regularly came and emptied my bin on my own property and left me to deal with that, I would stop using his service. I would take my refuse to the landfill myself, inconvenient but less than having to pick my own garbage scattered all over my property after his visit. This is what we had lately. When Arbcom was asked to deal with truly difficult Wikipedia problems, it left them worse than they were before its intervention. All the truly complex cases it had that I followed are a worse mess after the Arbcom's intervention (I can elaborate on the big screwups within the last year but this would be a separate discussion.) So, what do I do? I've stopped asking the Arbcom to interfere. However inconvenient it is for the community alone to have to deal with things without an effective judicial body, we avoid the bigger damage of Arbcom intervention this way.
But if the garbage man not only scatters my own garbage on my property but also brings his own garbage and throws it on top of that, I will make an active effort trying to correct the situation. I will try to have him fined, fired and replaced and insist that the city contracts someone else. This is what happened here. Not only did Arbcom fail to help us deal with Wikipedia problems (violations of the letter and the spirit of our policies) but it committed a huge violation on its own by this extra-judicial hearing that blatantly flouts the arbitration policy in so many ways, that we have to take a corrective action as the community.
It is utterly clear that FT2 is responsible for this more than anyone. But it is still not clear whether this happened because the rest of the committee were just sloppy or they were actively involved. FT2 needs to go but the truthful answer to the second question is needed to for us understand how serious things really are. That to this day the arbitrators are actively evasive and contradictory, claiming busyness and other stuff, but still being not too busy to deal with other matters, including this case, suggests that it's not just FT2's fault and they don't intend to be forthcoming. And this is an outrageous state of affairs. -- Irpen 21:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Sceptre, OM is not my friend. To the contrary, read my original request for clarification. Same can be said about WMC. Please check facts first and don't try to change the subject. This is not me being displeased by ArbCom's sanctioning anyone.
Tony, very pleased to hear that. This so different from Tony I knew! But answering your post, until this incident I refrained from demanding heads and condemning the ArbCom despite I saw its huge shortcomings for a very long time. I did that for these precise reasons you give. I assumed good faith, accounted for a human error, was patient, listened and drank tea. I avoided the broad statements out of considerations for the institutional legitimacy of the Wikipedia arbcom as a body.
However, this incident crossed every possible line. At some point, the malaise cannot be tolerated. I am eager to listen to people's explanations. I even went out of my way to ask for them? So did others. That only evasive statements and no clear explanations came out is an answer of sorts. I would not be surprised that all that would come would also be blurred and evasive. I would love to be wrong about that but I don't have much hope given the past history. -- Irpen 22:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Following you as any seasoned Wikieditor should just to find out what our Wikiwarrior is busying himself with during lunchtime. Found you at this cozy corner of ArbCom Cafe having a cup of tea with other regulars complaining about the proprietors. No wonder they took their busyness somwhere else. Hope you guys tip at least the waitresses well? greg park avenue ( talk) 00:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Given that jpgordon is going to be mentoring OrangeMarlin, the votes of the other arbitrators to reject the case seem reasonable and sensible and as Morven says a new case can always be opened if that doesn't work out. However, in the interest of setting (and then hopefully maintaining) high standards, it does seem that jpgordon's "personal arrangement" with OrangeMarlin should lead to him recusing rather than to voting to reject the case himself. Arbitrators seem eager to urge admins to only act in cases where they're uninvolved and can be seen to be uninvolved. I feel this should apply to arbitrators too for all the same reasons. 87.254.73.129 ( talk) 12:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
The above shows a clear preference for the 48 time period, so I've implemented the changes.
Howevever, there's been some rumblings about using four total rather than four net. This change is far more substantial, and as the discussion above didn't focus on the issue and hence there isn't a clear consensus, I propose that it be discussed separate from the 48 hour discussion (now archived, above), in this section.
Cheers, Daniel ( talk) 15:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I have a different proposal. Awhile back (probably more than a year ago) I proposed changing the four net votes to two net votes. As I recall, I laid out a whole rationale showing the different percentages that would result with different numbers of arbitrators voting. Presumably this is in the archives somewhere. But the bottom line is that it would be a middle ground between potential acceptance of a case by a minority (four votes period) or bare-majority acceptance (one net vote), on one hand, and the overwhelming majority (four net votes) which is required now. At the time, I believe someone reported that arbitrators felt that the "four net" rule was still relatively young and that they would continue to observe its results. I think that at this point, sufficient time has passed for the arbitrators (or the community, if appropriate) to determine whether a change is desirable. 6SJ7 ( talk) 16:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to appeal this ban.
Lapsed Pacifist ( talk) 12:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I've been gone for a while. I just returned yesterday and lo and behold, the Eastern European wiki-world is still as much of a dogfighting ring as ever. Plus ça change, plus c'est la meme chose. From this vantage point, until recently far removed from the conflicts, it is quite clear to me that the main problem at the heart of the issue is not tendentious editing, personal political preferences, national differences or any of the usual suspects blamed, but it is rather the personal feuds that erupt as a result of the political and national disagreements. Look at the comments from the most-involved combatants. There they all are again, the usual suspects calling each other out. "As Piotrus knows very well....", "Petri Krohn is even now continuing his battle...", "...particularly when Irpen wades in and ratchets up the drama...", "For a start I'd be for putting Piotrus under editing restrictions..." etc. etc. etc.
We've all made these wiki-identities for ourselves, defined by a nom de plume and some colorful userpages and also by the sum of our notable contributions. As a good friend of mine and fellow Wikipedian once commented, "Here, you are what you write." On such a project as this, when editors tend to focus on a certain topic or field, identities inevitably narrow into small niches, which then polarize and fly to extremes far beyond what you find in the real world. Piotr Konieczny and Andrey from Yaroslavl would probably have the same disagreements about history and politics in real life as they do on the Wiki, but in real life they could change the topic to a movie they had both recently seen and go get a beer. Prokonsol Piotrus and Ghirla, on the other hand, have no such option, as their identities are but the avatars of their specialized contributions. But even here, in the cold world of facts and cyberspace, human nature still asserts itself and we lose sight of the fact that these characters, these creations of ours, are only avatars, and it is then that they spring to life. We set them up against each other to size each other up like real people in real life, we make them bait each other, we watch them fight each other all the while concealed behind the screen of anonymity. The bravado engendered by this caricatured anonymity is what leads to the utter lawlessness of discourse--if we were all sitting around a table in someone's living room, so much of these vicious arguments would never even take place. We would disagree, we would argue, but we would not hate and feud like this, not when we could look each other in the eye. It's so much easier to blood-feud with an idea than a person--and these avatars of ours are all ideas, concepts--in other words, Ghirla temporarily ceases to exist as soon as Andrey logs out and goes to get lunch.
So, here is my modest proposal, which I mean only half-satirically. The way to end these storied conflicts without harming the encyclopedia is simply this: imprison the combating avatars. Take no action against the contributors' IP addresses, but freeze the IDENTITY they use. The human being controlling the puppet, then, is still free to post anonymously or under a new name, perhaps after a few-day IP block to defuse the pressure. Some sort of procedure and admin work will determine the sentence meted out to the offending avatar, be it imprisonment, exile or execution. K. Lásztocska talk 20:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I think i've probably done something wrong again in asking for my restriction to be lifted - it's just so bloomin' complicated! Sorry for making a mess (if I have - I can't even work that out!) - and any assistance in correctly formatting things is much appreciated.... cheers, Privatemusings ( talk) 02:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Would you mind shutting down Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed decision? The Committee is obviously incapable of rendering a decision, or else one would have been posted already. While I think action is needed on this case, leaving the case open forever sort of makes a mockery of the Committee. As my second choice, you should say that you are hopelessly deadlocked, and dismiss the case. Jehochman Talk 13:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Totally shutting down is not a good idea. They need to resolve the issues in the case. Granted some are old, but there are also some very current issues that need to be dealt with. Preferable sooner than later. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey, arbs, what's going on with this case? I hadn't looked back here for a long time, and I was basically gobsmacked that, not only is it still open, the Committee seems to have done jack with it in a month or two. Update, please? Kelly hi! 01:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Any tumbleweed that rolls without approval from the tumbleweed rollers' guild shall be blocked.
I think we can all agree on this...? -- NE2 12:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
It looks pretty easy to find. [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.62.4.102 ( talk) 13:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
As suggested by Paul August, and others, I have moved a thread from the project page to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee#Request for professional consultation. Jehochman Talk 16:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
There is a deletion discussion here as to whether HEADSMUSTROLL is an appropriate shortcut/redirect for Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Suntag ( talk) 15:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I thought that per some of our systems all the arb pages and related talk pages were supposed to be NOINDEX for some time now? I just came across all this. Can we fix this somehow to make sure none of these are on search engines? Theres some pretty nasty stuff on living people in some of these. rootology ( C)( T) 08:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
This (reasonably straight-forward) case has been open for too long, and has had no responses for nearly a week now when all it needs is a couple more votes before it's ready to close. Votes are required from at least one more arbitrator - either FayssalF, FT2, Thebainer or YellowMonkey. Thanks - Ncmvocalist ( talk) 13:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Hopefully now that the investigation of Poetlister/etc, which I can only assume was taking up so much of their time, has more or less concluded, the arbitrators can get back to handling cases. -- Random832 ( contribs) 20:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't remember where this was discussed previously, but I want to bring it up again. A ways back, the Workshop pages were changed so that instead of being grouped just like the proposed decision page -- Principles, Facts, Remedies -- the workshop pages were split up by contributor (proposals from X, proposals from Y, proposals from Z). This seemed poorly thought out to me from the start, and I'd like to see if we can get some discussion toward changing it back. I'd far prefer to dwell on the proposals, not the people putting the proposals forward; it would make it easier to compare and contrast competing proposals if they were all together. It really shouldn't matter at all who it is making the proposals. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 21:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
In several cases, first as a bystander and more recently as an arbitrator, I've placed a complete draft decision on the workshop for review and comment by the parties and community. Sometimes I don't write all of it at once, and sometimes there is a ton of other material elsewhere on the page. I think it is easier for those looking over my draft, including my fellow arbitrators, to have the whole thing in one place; and the same would go for anyone else's draft. An alternative would be to have proposals on the same general topic grouped together, which would at least organize things in that fashion; but the original method, everything from any user just in the chronological order it was proposed in, helped contribute to making the workshops less useful in the higher-profile, more controversial cases. At least that's my take on the subject. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Kirill (and NYB). The problems the previous format used to have are a real issue (Kirill has identified the bulk of them), and uch problems have the propensity to grow over time. I don't doubt the issues will be bigger now, if we reverted back. I therefore prefer the current format. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 00:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Old | New | Proposed |
---|---|---|
Principles Findings of Fact Remedies |
Editor A Principles Findings of Fact Remedies Editor B Principles Findings of Fact Remedies |
Principles Editor A Editor B Findings of Fact Editor A Editor B Remedies Editor A Editor B |
Yes, we briefly discussed this a week or two back in the clerks' IRC channel, and I proposed a system identical to that InkSplotch has suggested. I'm willing to run with it.
With regards to why the change was made, Ryan is correct: the matter was discussed privately by the Committee on ArbCom-l, and further to what I presume was a solid consensus on-List, Kirill directed the clerks to adjust the Workshop page's layout. The full thread is viewable here, for the intensely curious. I implemented that consensus as directed.
The only benefit I see, of segregating editors' proposals to "personal sections" is to permit a browsing Arbitrator to immediately 'spot' who is making what proposal—and proceed to adjust their attention according to the clue (or insanity :) levels of that editor. Workshop page proposals are not made with the improvement of the encyclopedia in mind.
A reiteration: I support implementing InkSplotch's proposal. The decision, however, firmly remains the Committee's.
Due to its unique nature, being both a rejected RFAR and a passed (alternate) motion, I've archived this as both an RFAR and passed motion. The RFAR archive is here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rejected_requests#July_to_September, the closed motion is here on the page for motions without an accepted RFAR case: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Closed_motions#2008. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
By popular demand (I don't think), a proposed revision and updating of the Wikipedia:Arbitration Policy can be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration policy proposed updating. Comments on all aspects of the policy and related issues are welcome on the talkpage. Thank you. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
The community expects and prefers if disputes are dealt with as quickly and effectively as possible. Every member of the community has the right to push disputes towards achieving that objective, particularly if any stage of dispute resolution is falling short of that objective, even on this project page. The clerking body do not have the authority to deprive any editor of that legitimate right, or to prevent them from exercising it (whether it is on the odd occasion, or whether it is on a more regular basis), but insist otherwise. This power trip needs to stop, and is not reflecting well on the clerking body, which in turn, reflects on the Committee.
I feel that one or more of the clerks are out of line following some recent matters that were brought up on my talk page. Targeting my edits is not appreciated, nor is regularly bringing up me edits in a venue which I cannot respond (namely, the clerking mailing list), nor are at least one of the comments that were expressed there in bad faith. I've complied with the reasonable part of the request made by the clerks when I asked for their input, but it will not go beyond that. Whether it's the edits on user talk pages, or on those templates (cited as diffs on my talk page), they are going to continue, unless the Committee makes a public vote to topic ban me accordingly, which will translate into something else. In any case, if any member of the community or the Committee wishes to discuss this matter with me, they are welcome to do so, whether it's on-wiki or privately.
Ncmvocalist ( talk) 09:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Ncm, the clerks made a polite request for you to refrain from editing things like arbitration templates and other official things that clerks should be doing. The reason for this is because we want the every day user having confidence in the system. If someone who has nothing to do with arbitration starts making edits to templates which basically change the status of a case (e.g. from live to stale in the clarifications section), it undermines the system. Arbitration is basically the last chance saloon, and things should be done properly, with due process and it's the clerks job to manage that. I've actually been fighting your corner Ncm, but it's becoming increasingly difficult when you keep doing things you've been asked not to do. Nobody has any problems with you editing the workshop pages to makes proposals or pinging arbs when they haven't voted, it's just the more official things that the clerks do have a problem with. If I'm being honest with you, my advice would be to get out of Wikipedia space and dispute resolution for a while, mainspace is much more fun (as I've recently been finding out! (shock horror!!!)) and there's plenty of people to take over the area that you leave behind. You seem to be getting more and more frustrated in this area, and that's not a good thing - we're attempting to calm and solve disputes, not raise them up a notch. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 10:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
The rationale for this isn't one of exclusion, but of due care: the clerks act on behalf, and under the imprimatur, of the Committee who has delegated a number of "maintenance" tasks in order to be able to concentrate on the decisions themselves; because this is the last place for unsolvabed disputes it is paramount that some organization is kept but the act of making things organized does, in itself, have the potential to cause controversy. Originally, only the Arbitrators themselves were allowed to make such edits at all; and even this tiny delegation caused worries and much drama at first.
Some arbitrators have indicated that they appreciate your "nagging" about the state of cases, and you are of course always welcome to keep doing what you feel is useful in helping cases plod along— but please leave the "more official" things to clerks. — Coren (talk) 17:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps now would be a good time to ask the arbitrators (again) what it is specifically that they want clerks to be empowered to do that is different from regular editors. I wrote the current version of WP:AC/C with the intent of removing as many restrictions to helpful editors as I could. At the time, there was a somewhat justifiable backlash special roles for checkuser and WP:CHU clerks. I asked Arbcom if there were any specific tasks or roles for clerks only, and got very little specific direction, so I rewrote the description allowing as much openness as I thought I could. Certainly any policy page that has not been updated significantly in 18 months is overdue for a review. It is important to recognize that Arbcom clerks do have a specific voice in some matters, and require the trust of arbcom, and are appointed and dismissed by Arbcom, but there is presently no clear instruction as to what those matters are. Can a user make so many trivial clerk edits that they are perceived as a formal clerk when they are not? I suppose so. Should minor helpful clerk edits be completely discouraged? Probably not. This might be a good time to revisit the clerk function and seek renewed guidance from Arbcom. Thatcher 17:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
In brief, clerks have two or three areas of involvement. At least some of those require considerable judgement.
Significant aspects of judgement - this is a difficult one. On the one hand RFAR is a controlled environment, and ideal for showing whether users really can manage themselves or really do act up, and traditionally the pages are left for Arbitrators and their clerks to manage rather than usual communal or administrator actions. So an unusual leeway exists on the pages. But that (in principle) only takes one "so far". Often behaviors go too far precisely because there is that perception it's a separate environment and the envelope can therefore be pushed, or that it's a forum to act up in. It can be pushed, but this should be allowed only to a limited extent and valid purpose, not just to create an open house on personal attacks, random allegations and pointless dramatization. The same Arbitration management that allows more leeway to misbehave, also allows more leeway to direct the conduct of participants in relation to the cases as well. So there is a balance there - more leeway, but also, tighter control and limits than usual when the envelope is pushed too far. (I would say the latter aspect could and should be directed to be much tighter at times of disruption; and clerks given more autonomy, better guidelines, and explicit backing to judge usefulness vs. disruption and act thereon.)
That's one traditional view. A different viewpoint is that RFAR should expect best behavior, not a circus, and very tight standards should be enforced on inappropriate user conduct related to a requested or open RFAR case.
Both views have their advocates; ideally the Committee should decide. For now it's enough to say both views exist. Clerks therefore act as enforcers of behavior, and have the delegated authority and backing of the Committee for their actions that are reasonably intended to manage behaviors of participants or enforce significant directions. This means they may have a slightly stronger than average voice in some posts and blocks, where this is an issue. But with this comes more responsibility, and such actions are not undertaken lightly.
Collectively, the clerks are users trusted by Arbitrators to act capably given the often-contentious nature of RFAR user discussions, and to broadly exercize judgement the Committee can endorse. (Perfection isn't expected but regular problems are not okay.) The interpretation of when to act, when to show self restraint, when to not worry about something, is a very sensitive and significant area of judgement. If Arbitrators are delegating this aspect of page and case management, they would probably wish to be confident in a few users that they delegate to, rather than give the entire community (that has failed to resolve the case) the role.
Significant aspects of judgement - as Arbitrators may be asked to act in a wide range of matters, the clerks do a variety of sundry roles and actions to help them. For example, notifying them of anything needing attention, and using their knowledge and close relationship with the Committee to form fairly accurate assessments of the Arbitrators' views on matters and thus what action may be appropriate as clerks, if any.
Broadly, from the arbitrators' viewpoint, clerks are users that can be trusted to be given a case-related job (other than case investigation and voting), understand it, judge it well, handle any unexpected matters, and generally deal with it autonomously, roughly as the arbitrators would, with little superfluous explanation. This requires clue, experience, and a certain approach/personality style, and experience of working with Arbitrators and having gained their confidence.
I wouldn't say this is a formal statement, but this does encompass roughly my informal perception of the Arbitration Clerks' role and responsibilities on the wiki at present. FT2 ( Talk | email) 14:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
One kind of edit that Ncmvocalist has been criticized for namely leaving requests on arb talk pages like this, while perhaps annoying at times, are wholly appropriate. For my past views on this see this. Paul August ☎ 19:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Agree with PA. Nothing illegal or contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Nobody got conscripted for AC after all. YellowMonkey ( click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 01:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
is this a record?! - no cases requested, and no clarifications (and very little on this page too!) - must be the calm before the election storm, I guess :-)
I thought I'd take advantage of this quiet moment to indicate that I've posted a request to the arbcom list to try and clarify whether or not User:Steve Crossin is under an official 6 month ban or not (I think he'd like to edit again, and would like a full arb case if poss.)
The request for clarification I posted didn't take, and it's possible I haven't expressed myself clearly at all, so I thought I'd drop a note in here to see if anyone else felt that there was an opportunity, at this quiet time, to try and sort this out :-)
Happy to chat about any aspect of this - and I'd also suggest that anyone minded to ask a question of the arbs, or make a(nother!) request for clarification, touch base with User:Daniel first as a courtesy - he's clued in and generally smart about the situation :-) cheers, Privatemusings ( talk) 20:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Next time ArbCom intends to appoint a CheckUser/Oversight, I suggest they don't bother informing the community, since it is clear to me they do not care what the community thinks. Every single appointment since they have started "listening" to the community has been done anyway, regardless of any kind of feedback given. So, to save time, and end this pretence that they give a damn what the community thinks, I suggest they continue to appoint whoever the hell they like, regardless of suitability, and don't request feedback, since they obviously don't really care about it. Al Tally talk 03:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
The performance of the committee in the past few months may be subject to some legitimate criticisms, but I don't think this is one of them. In response to suggestions that we should seek greater community input regarding appointments to checkuser positions, we asked interested users to identify themselves and then, after we identified the people we were considering appointing, requested confidential community input on any issues with the candidates. No issues that we regarded as serious were raised regarding the candidates' qualification for checkusership, so we went ahead with the appointments. We then asked for input on a potential receipient of oversight privileges as well (even though I don't recall anyone asking for input regarding that position). Again, no concerns the commitee considered serious were raised, so we made the appointment.
Obviously, by the time we post a name as being under consideration for an appointment, we will already have discussed the person's qualifications and a clear majority of the arbitrators will have concluded that the person appears to be well qualified, subject to any further input we might receive. While we are fully open to revising our opinion if issues then come to light, in most instances it is to be expected that no concerns will arise at the last minute, because we have already done a fair amount of research before that stage. It would speak worse of the process if last-minute obstacles frequently arose, than it does that thus far they have not.
If in the course of a year the ArbCom suggests 10 people for appointment for various positions, and if it turns out that all 10 are fully qualified and we appoint them all, that does not mean that we are not paying attention to input from the community. It means that based on the candidates' contributions, history with the project, and reputations, which themselves are largely a function of the community's view of the candidates, they are qualified for the positions. Any suggestion that this reflects that the committee doesn't care what the community thinks or that the input process is a sham is unwarranted. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 18:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
This is merely a suggestion for ArbCom, not sour grapes over who was chosen - I'm happy with everyone that was cherrypicked (though of course, doing it entirely in public, and letting the community decide community issues would be so much better, but it's not going to happen). ArbCom have made up their minds when they post suggestions - not a single time have they ever been wrong. ArbCom can be doing so much more productive work than wasting their time listening to the community, because it is quite clear that they have made up their minds, and even if the community did have an issue, ArbCom would be most likely to dismiss it. Now I wish to have no more part of this, Al Tally talk 15:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I think there's value in asking the community for input. I think this process, in which ArbCom vets candidates and then asks for a final check, is a better one than what we had before. I'm not sure why that's even being debated. ArbCom are far from perfect, they're slow to act, slow to change their ways, and so forth, but they are who we selected. If they are not doing what we want, whose fault is that? Al Tally: Railing against this when it's a move in the direction that many desire seems odd to me. ++ Lar: t/ c 01:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
The cold fusion case has been accepted without a statement from ScienceApologist. I'm not familiar with ArbComm procedures. I would welcome any comment on the possible impact of ScienceApologist's silence on this case. Pcarbonn ( talk) 21:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I had set aside some time tonight to vote on the various pending items on WP:RfAr, but Wikipedia is running slowly for me tonight so I may have to wait until later or tomorrow. If so, my apologies to those who have been patiently waiting for my input. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
The request is to vacate the case completely. But not all findings relate to the aggrieved administrator. Part of the case was a ruling that Matthew Hoffman was unjustly blocked. This is partly a rebuke to the blocking administrator, but it also served to clear Matthew Hoffman's name. This was accompanied by a annotation of matthew Hoffman's block log. How can those parts of the case be vacated? with regard to these rulings, it would have the effect that the arbcom rules that Matthew Hoffman should have been banned after all. The block log annotation can't be erased, for one thing. Will the arbcom insert a second annotation that says "never mind"? Matthew Hoffman ceased editing before the case even began, but the case might have importance considering that intelligent design pages have continued to be a source of conflict. 140.247.242.233 ( talk) 22:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I've been going through some of the evidence and final decisions in some old cases, and I noticed some of the links are broken. There seems to be two reasons: (1) the way links work changed at some point this year; (2) subsequents edits to a page (for various reasons) break the links.
Anyone have opinions on how to handle these two sorts of cases of evidence links breaking? Carcharoth ( talk) 13:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I posted a case that the clerks received anonymously regarding the conduct of ScienceApologist. Per the comments of some of the arbitrators, I've taken the case down now and I'm going to tell the anonymous user to either submit the evidence via their account on the cold fusion case, or email it to the arbitrators directly. Just to keep everyone in the loop. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
The SlimVirgin case has been closed quite quickly, and it has been moved to a subpage, so, but there are very important questions left unanswered, so, in the hope that they won't be missed, I want to draw attention to this section of the talk page of the subpage. Thank you. ElinorD (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I wonder how common are findings along the lines "editor X is a valuable member of this project, edits in good faiths, etc.", and in what cases are they made? I am pretty sure I saw some in some past cases, but they are certainly not seen in all of them. What factors determine whether they are seen in a given case? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I am pleased to see progress being made on the Jack Merridew motions. There appears to be division in the opinions of the Arbitrators on the importance of on-Wiki clarifications about the terms of the unbanning. On one hand—the most heavily supported hand, it seems—there is assent for amending official Committee documentation on Jack's ban to clarify the terms the Committee are lifting it under: specifically, that Jack is to maintain a safe distance from White_Cat in editing and in comment. The rationale there is to maintain full clarity on the terms of the unbanning and to prevent gaming. On the other, there is dissent against those amendments, with a preference to relying on strong communications between the Committee and Jack to ensure the unban does not open the door to JM returning to his old habits. The rationale there is that excessive terms and conditions simply add unnecessary layers of information to an unban—a process that benefits from as little drama as possible, to avoid repercussions and "revenge attacks" on the ex-banee; and, that excessive terms increase the potential for wikilawyering.
For what it's worth, I agree with the Arbitrators who are striving for documenting what's happening on-Wiki. Unbanning is already, as it stands, a very secretive process; on some levels, necessarily-and ergo rightfully—so. The Community must at least know the terms on which Jack is being unbanned: the Committee cannot be everywhere at once—it knows this well—and the Community ought therefore to be blessed with as much information as possible to ensure the unban goes smoothly. Furthermore, secretive, off-Wiki communications are precisely what has been going wrong with the ArbCom of late. In this case there is no need for confidentiality; I would therefore discourage the refusal to be transparent in all matters. Why must we rely on ArbCom-l to set the terms of the unban? Why not update ArbCom pages to keep full transparency in this matter...? On the argument of potential wikilawyering: I view that as an argument we don't need to worry excessively about. Gaming is more of a problem, I'd say, than wikilaywering; we've plenty of incisive administrators to whack the sanity hammer around if Jack or any other party to this matter attempts to wikilaywer.
Proposals 2) and 3) are important in this unban, and are most strongly substantiated. Please allow them to pass.
AGK 22:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
|
This question is directed specifically at sitting and former arbs.
So, ARE actions by individual arbs supposed to carry some +1 authority? If so, it needs to be approved by everyone, or else we'll see more people desysopped for this sort of thing, or have motions brought against them? See here. This is a serious question I'm asking--if they (Arbs) don't say they're acting for the Committee, are they one of the thousands of admins or are they admin+1 with a protected class of admin actions? rootology ( C)( T) 00:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Speaking only for myself, if I take an administrator action and I don't say that the action is being taken as an arbitrator, I expect that it should carry the same weight as any other administrator's action. (I mean, it's okay to think that the action might come with a presumption of Clue given that I managed to do enough things right once upon a time so that I got elected to the ArbCom, but that's all— it doesn't mean it's exempt from being criticized or if necessary overturned.) That goes for both routine types of actions (if I see a repeat vandal or a bad username I'll block the account just like anyone else would) as well as any higher-profile ones. In fact, although there are times I choose to stay out of contentious noticeboard discussions to minimize potential recusal situations if issues come to ArbCom (this is referred to by me as the "Miltopia effect", after the user who predicted it would happen), there have been at least two occasions when I've made a comment on ANI and been upset that this triggered argument about whether this meant the ArbCom had ruled on the issue under discussion. If in any discussion I meant that I would say so. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
There are two types of blocks that can be confused:
— Carl ( CBM · talk) 02:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Nemo sanctus singule. If the community wanted to have a user group which does all the same things as "regular admins"—but which is immune to being reverted by "regular admins"—we would be asking Brion to program this feature into the software, would we not? As of right now unless said action matches a specific arbcom decision there's nothing special about it (regardless of who's doing it).
Of course, to avoid any confusion we should prohibit sitting arbitrators from enforcing their own decisions. Ideally this would also provide a minimal safety net in the worst-case scenario where arbcom makes a decision so bad nobody is willing to enforce it, but right now it's a pipe dream to expect the average admin to critically evaluate anything arbcom says to do. —
CharlotteWebb 15:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't it seem a bit odd that we're discussing what policy should be at RFAR talk? Policymaking is the community's responsibility, not ArbCom's. The question that started this thread is whether arbitrators should notate their administrative actions when they act on the Committee's behalf. I agree that they should, and if there's a need to formalize that then we--the community--can add a few words to policy. We don't need to be over here tugging on anyone's sleeve for permission to write policy. Suggest closing this thread and moving discussion where it belongs: the policy talk pages. Durova Charge! 18:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
For the public record, the final decision in SlimVirgin-Lar has been amended with the deletion of the "SlimVirgin's conduct" finding that was mistakenly passed by the case Clerk. (Background reading: the finding being deleted can be reviewed here.) My earlier comment seems to be prudent reading at this point:
There has been a clear metric miscalculation on the finding in question. With my thinking being that particular aspect of the SlimVirgin-Lar decision was at no point assented to by the Committee (as per this tally), I have deleted the finding from the SlimVirgin-Lar final decision.
Further to a number of Arbitrator abstentions on that particular proposal, the majority on that single proposal was adjusted downwards twice; evidently the clerk (understandably, I wish to note: I myself have came close to mistakenly including this proposal or that in a convoluted case) miscalculated as a result and included the proposal in the final decision.
This adjustment should be presumed to be in immediate effect. Apologies for the inconvenience to all.
For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK 21:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment(s) taken from main RfAr page
Q: I have encountered User:Jossi as somebody, who does not take the crap from the usual anti-cult crowd, which -- just like pro-Scientology editors -- draws mainly on non-scientific sources to make their point ( New York Times articles are almost the best either side can muster, Penthouse and Operation Clambake and similar crap are more frequently used, scientific articles, while not being argued away totally, are put en par w/ Scientology nonsense). Does that make Jossi an unsuitable Admin in this matter? Fossa ?! 20:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
[Please note I am apparently not allowed to edit the main page of this article. Why is this please?]
First, I apologise for contributing to the confusion over what were the terms of my unblock. There were originally two versions of this: one was the 'enough rope to hang with' version originally proposed by Thatcher. This was the one I had thought had prevailed until tonight. I honestly did not notice the new 'terms' proposed on my very busy talk page when I came home last night. Why would I return to Wikipedia otherwise than to edit articles?
I am happy to return to editing on the condition that FT2 and I are able to tread entirely divergent paths. That was what I thought I had agreed with Thatcher earlier, anyway. That includes FT2 not leaving sanctimonious and patronising and self-praising messages on my talk page. It is my view that he is an unmitigated disaster for Wikipedia, but many other people are now beginning to see that, let them carry the torch, I shall step aside from the madness of Wikipedia politics.
I am not interested in a public debate with FT2, as I have already stated on my talk page. I just want him to avoid me entirely. That includes not banning good editors such as Headley (I am happy if Thatcher or some other disinterested admin can look after that matter). It also includes him not interfering with my work on articles related tangentially to linguistics such as Neurolinguistic programming. Can I simply point out my PhD is in a linguistics related area? Peter Damian II ( talk) 10:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous. Having had his "excess length" statement removed, FT2 has now set about creating his own version of War and Peace in his user space. ArbCom need to either open a proper case for detailed evidence or ask the parties to restrain themselves - spreading the fight further afield is not going to help. In fact even if a full case had been opened, I doubt that FT2's screed would be considered acceptable for an evidence page - there are length limits there too. 92.39.200.36 ( talk) 18:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Fairly obviously, the page concerned will be NOINDEXed and courtesy blanked on the close of this case, and the matter dropped. That should be obvious. But for the short duration of the case, it's in use to prepare evidence, as any user might. Asked to draft a shorter statement, I'm using userspace for the re-drafting on a present case -- which is correct use. The page did not exist before, and it will not be left there unblanked after. It was also not removed from the RFAR page because of any improper act in writing it, or anything wrong with the stated evidence, but merely because it was just too wordy.
I hope this reassures. FT2 ( Talk | email) 23:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Just pointing out that the 'linguistics' in 'Neurolinguistic programming' is the same as the 'linguistics' in 'I [Peter Damian] have a linguistics-related degree'. If anyone is making content-related claims like this in an RFAR can they either back it up with a citation or state their own area of expertise? Peter Damian ( talk) 10:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
What some people are saying here, then, is that someone like me who has academic qualifications in a certain area and is concerned about claims of a pseudoscientific nature, cannot edit in that area because it would offend a powerful member of the Wikipedia administration? What happened to the basic ideals of this project, which I have been working on since the middle of 2003? Can I remind everyone I have never had a block for mainspace-related issues. All blocks have been 'political', including the current one. I will NEVER accept a content-related editing restriction. Happy never to mention FT2 on or off-site, happy that if he wants to include his pseudoscientific views on the project, then we handle it through a mediator. Not happy with a restriction. That is not negotiable. Peter Damian ( talk) 10:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't really understand why people are arguing so vehemently over something that no member of the Committee has actually chosen to propose or otherwise support. Rootology's ideas are Rootology's ideas, nothing more. Kirill ( prof) 16:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Reasons
Both these claims should be addressed by a new RFAR specifically designed for that purpose, i.e. to investigate whether I did renege on any agreement and whether I did in fact edit war over the NLP articles. Peter Damian ( talk) 07:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
all wiki editors are, of course,
empowered to at least
try to
pull on our arbitrator's
skirts for attention. I'd encourage all those who'd like the 4 3 remaining active arb.s to comment on this matter to drop a quick 'please act' note on their talk page. It's been my observation that this actually works pretty well :-) cheers,
Privatemusings (
talk) 23:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I have supported motion 1.1 offered by Kirill as written. I do not read it as any sort of a topic-ban on either editor, although it does suggest that they must do their best to avoid unnecessary interactions. Reading the thread above, I suppose that it would be possible to present a slightly more clear wording of the motion, but this would require the voting to start over again, compounding the inordinate delay in voting on this motion that has already occurred. If in the future someone thought topic bans were needed on one or the other or both of the editors involved, this request could be presented through the usual dispute resolution procedures or, in light of the circumstances, directly to an RfAr. My hope is that such procedures would not become necessary. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I have an essay on the topic of Checkuser and Oversight accountability and transparency posted at User:Thatcher/Quis custodiet ipsos custodes. Thatcher 04:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Taking this wheel war to arbitration won't work. Every arbitrator is involved and would have to recuse. 140.247.42.142 ( talk) 22:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
The "mess"? Compare a one hour time-limited block that completely killed an incipient and historically likely wheel war and multi-way battling, with the example of the RFAR/IRC case of last January that shows how it can easily get.
This block worked exactly as it should have. It protected the project from a high risk of serious disruption by seasoned users (I don't count the few posts of today as "serious" or "disruptive"), other users who might have been dragged in and then ended up parties in a 2 month case were not dragged, the damage to arbitration process was averted (and this meant other wars have probably been prevented), and everyone went right back and decided that talk page dialog and dispute resolution was exactly what they had meant to do all the time. The block was reversed as soon as there was no risk, about an hour and a half later. FT2 ( Talk | email) 06:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
There is something I don't get here: so far, only one arbitrator has accepted the case, with seven either recusing or declining, but an Arb went ahead and nevertheless posted a motion. Furthermore, an Arb who previously declined to take the case has voted on the motion. This to me lacks any kind of logic or proper process.-- Ramdrake ( talk) 16:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Let me explain. The RFArb was to open a full case which all of us but one person declined. As an alternative, we are making a motion to address the issue, promptly. As well, Giano has been unblocked now. FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to commend Bainer and the committee for commuting Giano's term, but why are the committee now discussing entirely in secret and only emerging to act? Open process confers many advantages, one of which is public voting record - I can appreciate there are cases which must be deliberated in private, but I can see no good reason why voting can't be on wiki. Please reform this bad practice or at least explain its necessity. -- Joopercoopers ( talk) 16:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Ok, well if we're going to have more of these adhoc votes, may we put them somewhere central to refer to rather than on various user's talk pages? Thanks. -- Joopercoopers ( talk) 17:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
A review of Rex v. Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy may be in order. LeadSongDog ( talk) 20:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
The new arbitrators have now been appointed; Jimbo has said it's up to the ArbCom itself to decide when those appointments should take effect. I would like to see the new arbitrators start immediately; given the present call for change from the community (and even Jimbo himself!), it seems as though that would be more appropriate than unnecessarily waiting another 11 days. Everyking ( talk) 03:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
In this context, I'm not exactly sure what it means to get broken in or settled in. Does that mean reading the mailing list, being informed of things in private? Does it mean reading up on old cases? I think anyone who stood in the election should already be adequately informed to do the job and I see no basis for a delay. There are things that need to be dealt with and a leisurely pace just isn't suitable. Everyking ( talk) 04:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
All right, I can see that there are some valid reasons for waiting, and the holiday issue was something I failed to appreciate. The notice below stating that RfAr will be "frozen" in the meantime eases my concerns. Everyking ( talk) 10:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Jehochman is including threaded discussion in my comment. This is expressly prhoibited in the rules of this page Wikipedia:Arbitration_guide#Responding_to_others.27_statements -
You should respond to others' points by adding brief notes in your own statement: "In response to the statement by User X, <your comment here>".
This is as an alternative to replying directly to that user in the section of the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration thread in which he or she made the comment. If you comment in another user's section, the committee clerks will more than likely move your comment and refactor it as necessary."
Insertion: [10] Removal: [11] Reinsertion: [12] With added edit-comment threat: [13]
I appreciate your prompt attention. DepartedUser ( talk) 14:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm disturbed by the following comment, by a new arbitrator:
" As a matter of fact, the Arbitration committee does WP:OWN the RFAr, Arbitration and case pages. Editors at large are not allowed to edit them except in the manner prescribed by the Committee. Coren
Is it therefore true that ArbCom are allowed to violate an important Wikipedia policy? I did not realise the ArbCom were above, and different from the rest of the community. ArbCom should be following all policies, not picking and choosing what suits them. Majorly talk 18:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Majorly, I don't understand the implications of the point you are making. Are you suggesting that if (for example) I post a workshop proposal or a proposed decision, that anyone should be allowed to edit it? Newyorkbrad ( talk) 19:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
This arbitration case is linked to from the sockpuppet policy page, but the former has been blanked by the committee. An (admittedly very cursory) glance at the history seems to show Vanished user's name as having already been redacted in the last non-blanked revision of the page; are you sure blanking the case is necessary? If so, would it be possible to unblank just the Principles, since they are referred to on the policy page and do not mention the Vanished user? Or should mention of the case be removed from the policy page? TotientDragooned ( talk) 03:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I have to say, removal by a clerk of an entire discussion thread here because they felt some of it could go to user talk was inappropriate. It's really a bit worrying that what we can and can't discuss about arbitration is going to be controlled by clerks in a more heavy handed way than it used to. -- Barberio ( talk) 06:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I would like to give a personal note that I think the use of consultation processes like this is a very good measure by the arbitration committee, and goes a long way towards improving the wiki. This is a very good addition to the ArbCom tool box, and I hope to see it's use in future policy related disputes. -- Barberio ( talk) 04:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Please create a sub-page for each request. That will make it easier to monitor the progress of a request via watchlist and 'history'. Lightmouse ( talk) 14:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of the current problems with the article, I think we can all agree that Ayn Rand was an eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 01:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Currently tallies are a slash separated list inside the section heading. I assume that they are in the section header so that they appear in the TOC, however they change often, which means the automatic section links in the history usually dont work.
In order to make it easier for everyone to understand what the tally refers to, maybe we could use a template instead. e.g.
{{rfar tally | accept = 3 | decline = 1 | recuse = 2 | comment = 1 }}
I also think it would be better to place this tally underneath the section header, but I can see the value of having it in the TOC. John Vandenberg ( chat) 06:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
In the recent comments, the arbs have said the wording of this should be clearer/stronger to remind users to be civil.
I suggest:-
Any help to make it more concise and any other suggestions would be great.:) Sticky Parkin 22:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Reading the whole mess above...
This was why I implored the ArbCom to lay out a schedule or an agenda publicly saying they were going to address issues, and giving a time scale of when we can expect reports back.
ArbCom of last year acted opaque and insular, and we had no idea what steps were being taken to solve problems, and found out to our dismay that such steps were being blocked by certain members of the committee. So now, we don't care about 'we have new members' or 'we need more time to look into this'. We want to know you're really looking into this, and assurances that you will do so at some undefined future point are not good enough. Right now, we're all going to work on the assumption that you'll act in the poor manner of the previous committee until you demonstrate otherwise.
I strongly suggest you provide us with an agenda of the reform issues you will be investigating, including dates by which we can expect reports.
Again, I will remind you that I'm going to go ahead and push forward ratification of a new ArbCom policy in May. -- Barberio ( talk) 15:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure someone will roll their eyes at me saying this, but leave them be for a little bit. They're 20 days into this, they're volunteers, and they have to hash this stuff out. Hand off support from old arbs? This isn't a transition of power from Bush to Obama, this is a volunteer website and a hobby for probably 99% of us. Not one of these things is life and death or even vaguely, barely close, no matter how stupid or retarded we collectively get at times. If we're at March 1st, 2009--three months into a three year session--then I'd be grumpy too, after all the promised changes, if nothing has come about by hook or by enforced crook.
And like they said above, they have to sort out these decisions amongst themselves--hopefully they aren't taking into account any consensus or need for consensus from anyone but current elected arbs (in other words, Jimmy and the ex-arbs don't get to decide, stop, or hinder reform, as they have no authority on that now), and I'd politely ask them to just clear that up, since I'm picking up in Barbeiro's angst a little bit of hostility toward that sort of notion, implied or otherwise. rootology ( C)( T) 18:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Executives and directors, even unpaid and part-time, have legal authority and responsibility and also (presumably) control over money and/or products. Perhaps you were looking for the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Directors? Although, neither the Board nor the Arbitration Committee preside over the core product (articles). In that sense, there is no analog here to the executive committee you describe. They're volunteers, in a non-executive capacity, and what's more the Committee operates on consensus - so I doubt any arbitrator will unilaterally post something until its been agreed upon by all. Back on the topic of content, though... Barberio, still only 4 content edits since November 1. Avruch T 20:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I would like to thank the Committee for publishing their agenda, and offer my apologies for any stress caused by being strident in asking for one to be published. I encourage this practice to be continued, and for maintaining a published agenda to be part of the normal housekeeping duties associated with the Arbitration Committee. It is an important step forward in better communications with the community at large. -- Barberio ( talk) 02:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Listed below are the items which currently comprise the agenda of the Arbitration Committee.
Two points that should be kept in mind:
The agenda is as follows:
For the Committee, Kirill 01:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Is it recommended that I get into an edit wars before I file one of these? Dipotassitrimanganate ( talk) 17:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC) 17:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
In posting here, I am not looking for an opinion regarding this dispute. I am looking for an opinion as how best to proceed.
On 10 December 2008, a discussion began regarding the use of non-free sports team logos on rivalry, season, and specific game articles. On 22 December 2008, an RfC was started regarding the issue. The RfC appears to have run its course, with the only change over the last six days that of removing Template:RFCpolicy from the RfC's header [15]. No consensus has been achieved by the RfC. A form of mediation was attempted by one of the contributors to the discussion. Though he had a particular bias in the debate, his efforts at mediation were largely in keeping with best practices.
On 7 January 2008, I noted the impasse we were at, and requested input on backing to implement removal of the images or advice on how to proceed if backing was not readily present. Results were equivocal.
We remain at an impasse.
Opponents of the image use maintain that a lack of consensus that the use is allowable under our policy and guideline requires removing the use. Proponents state the opposite.
It is believed by a number of people that if an attempt is made to begin removing the images from the season, rivalry and specific game articles that reversions will happen in rapid fashion.
I am approaching ArbCom here as to how best to proceed. My belief is that ArbCom does not generally rule on issues of policy, but only on conduct. At present, there is no conduct issue worthy of ArbCom's attention. However, if action is taken there certainly will be an edit war. I certainly would not want to see an overt edit war erupt just to raise this issue to the level necessary for scrutiny by ArbCom.
The crux of this is that there's nobody empowered to make the decision. The RfC did not achieve consensus. Mediation did not aid achieving consensus. If one administrator closes out the RfC ruling one way or another, it is highly unlikely that the ruling would be enforceable for either side. The weight of this decision is realistically too much for any one administrator to make. Mediation parties are not empowered to make rulings. Yet, a clear decision is most emphatically needed.
I would like input from ArbCom members on how best to proceed. Thank you, -- Hammersoft ( talk) 19:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Go here--> MediaWiki talk:Editnotice-4-Requests for arbitration#Edit notice updating-- Tznkai ( talk) 23:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
The injunction prohibits using a script to delink, but presumably delinking in the course of ordinary editing is allowed. Is it allowed to delink in the course of making other improvements to many articles, such as updating infoboxes or adding categories? -- NE2 01:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I've just posted some arbitration data I've been collecting at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Statistics. They cover arbitration activity from January 1, 2009 onward. Perhaps someone will find this useful. Comments, suggestions, corrections, etc. welcomed. Lots of hand work here so plenty of opportunity for error, other eyes appreciated. Paul August ☎ 20:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
The Request for Comment regarding arbitration enforcement, including a review of general and discretionary sanctions, will be closing at 0200 UTC on 21 February, 2009. All editors are encouraged to review the RfC and participate before its close. After the closing, the Arbitration Committee intends to formalize reform proposals within one month.
For the Committee, -- Vassyana ( talk) 07:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
On the Requests for arbitration page, the box for the "current cases task list" is covering up the page index. Is this happening for others, and can it be fixed? Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
It is not entirely unprecedented for an arbitration case to go into full review within a month of case closure. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education, which closed on 30 December 2006, went into Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review on 29 January 2007.
The Fringe Science decision is not working. Since it closed on February 25, eight separate arbitration enforcement threads have opened. [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] In addition, as the people who read RFAR are aware, a lengthy request for clarification is ongoing. [24]
As mentor to ScienceApologist, I have endeavored to regularize the situation. Unfortunately, as I feared would happen, the Committee's decision to enact a phantom position under the same name as an existing mentorship has further confused matters. To quote from a well-meaning Wikipedian who has been trying to improve (or even make sense of) the deteriorating situation:
The full thread is here. Under these confusing circumstances the finite resource of constructive volunteer time is wasted, and my ability to improve matters is seriously hampered.
When I brought Prem Rawat 2 to RFAR, the situation was less chaotic than the fringe science aftermath currently is. Less than two weeks after closure, the dispute appears less stable than it was before the case opened. In the past few days SA and I have actually been making contingency plans speculating how to arrange permission for him to write a featured article by proxy in case he gets sitebanned.
It would certainly be unusual to request a new case this rapidly, but a new case may be needed. Floating the possibility here; welcoming feedback from arbitrators and from participants on both sides. Durova Charge! 00:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Jehochman's faith is flattering, but his characterization doesn't apply very well to this mentorship. It isn't a substitute for sanctions; it seeks to regularize the situation so that sanctions aren't needed. Although I wish very much that it were possible to guarantee that ScienceApologist would be a model Wikipedian if the topic ban were lifted, I can't make that promise for him. A big part of the goal here is to calm things down enough that people can hold regular editorial discussions about how to apply NPOV to specific fringe science articles. Right now I see very little of that happening, and most of the dialog is meta-discussion about whether this or that person should be sanctioned. The area looks more like a game of musical chairs where people are attempting to make sure that 'their' side gets to keep the seats. That isn't viable in the long run. Durova Charge! 17:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
(undent) allow me to ask a very pertinent question: If certain editors (like ScienceApologist, Short Brigade Harvester Boris (as above) and a few other I could mention) were not frequently and loudly spouting off about 'fringe advocates', would there even be an issue here? In the time I've been on WP, I've run across maybe 3 editors who were actively trying to promote some fringe position, and each of those cases was handled (easily) using original research and verifiability arguments. as far as I can see, this is an entirely imaginary conflict, which only continues because these certain editors refuse to let it go. there may have been a reason for all this in the past, but there really isn't now, and the 'counter-insurgency' attitude that's taken up against these mythical opponents is disruptive and destructive.
heck, I'd go so far as to defy anyone here to show me a real example of fringe advocacy that I can't resolve, quickly, civilly, and effectively, so long as the anti-fringe people leave their drama-trauma out of it.
So look: if SA wants to be a martyr for his defunct cause, let him. if he wants to find a better and more civil way of doing things, let him. he's an adult, so forget about mentoring him, forget about finding excuses or loopholes for him. cut him loose, let him make his own choices, and let him reap the rewards and punishments of his choices just like the rest of us. -- Ludwigs2 22:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
The WP navigation system can sometimes be very confusing. Om March 12th, the post Arbcom thread on this page was archived [26] The decisions are moved here [27], but I can't find the discussion leading up to the decision. The only trace of it is the pre-archive page version [28] Where is it archived? MaxPont ( talk) 08:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
FYI: I've made some changes to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Statistics:
Paul August ☎ 19:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
When a case is accepted maybe the bot can post a link to the case in the edit summary. I received a notice so I'm good on finding it. But people who are watching might not know where to look? ChildofMidnight ( talk) 18:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
One of the Arbitration Committee's responsibilities is to address appeals received via e-mail from banned or long-term blocked users. To improve the level of attention and response time for these requests, the Committee has formed a Ban Appeals Subcommittee, which will consist of three arbitrators. This subcommittee will consider ban appeals and recommend actions regarding them to the Committee as a whole, as outlined in the newly adopted procedure for handling ban appeals.
The subcommittee was created by a 15/0 vote, with no abstentions:
The procedure was adopted by a 10/0 vote, with 2 abstentions:
The subcommittee will begin work on April 1, and will initially consist of Carcharoth, FayssalF, and Roger Davies. It is likely that the membership of the subcommittee will be rotated approximately quarterly; further appointments will be announced at the appropriate time.
For the Committee, Kirill [pf] 00:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
The date linking and formatting poll is now open. All users are invited to participate. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I removed the link to WP:RREV at the top of the requests for arbitration page because RFA review is dead. Someone restored it with no explanation. Can we get a consensus to remove it? How many people type in WP:RFAR expecting to find RFA review?? Soberknight ( talk) 01:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
To assist with managing case workflow, and to provide a default point of contact for case matters, the initials of the designated drafting arbitrator(s) for each case will now be displayed on {{ ArbComOpenTasks}} next to those of the designated clerk(s) for that case.
This proposal was approved by a 10/0 vote, with no abstentions:
Cross-posted on behalf of the Arbitration Committee, hmwith τ 02:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Please stop delinking the header. Thanks, NonvocalScream ( talk) 02:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The principle behind delinking headers is as follows:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Section_headings
"Section names should not normally contain links, especially ones that link only part of the heading; they will cause accessibility problems."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ACCESS#Links
"Avoid putting links in section headings, unless the link text is the only text in the title. Some screen readers, such as earlier versions of JAWS, will stop reading the heading title when they encounter a link, and if the link is the first part of the heading title, they will only read the link text. For example, a heading title of "The chimpanzees invade the sewer system" may be read as "The", and a heading title of " Boxes in popular culture" may be read as "Boxes"."
Risker
I have been very much enlightened. And thank you for taking the time to explain. I absolutely had no clue that he links in headers also caused accessibility issues with screen readers. I'll will do my best in the future to remember not to be linking anything in the section header again. Thank you again. Cheers,
NonvocalScream (
talk) 03:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
One of the things that's "killing" us is the fact that the community has gotten much better at handling much of the "easy" stuff. We're getting better at handling things faster but the cases that reach ArbCom in 2009 are monsters compared to the simple cases of, say, 2006.
One suggestion I would offer the community is to move to a system similar to the French Wikipedia's: All accepted cases are handed out to a (small) set of arbs (say, 3) according to who is available and not recused in rotation. The duration of cases is mostly a factor of how hard it is to get 15 or so arbs all voting and agreeing— this system would trade off the stability of en banc voting on every case against a much faster resolution time. Not unlike real-life appellate courts where you get n judges to decide, and you don't get to pick which.
The underlying principle behind this is that all arbitrators are equal; I would expect the community to trust that any three arbs can reach a good solution just as well as all of the committee. The whole committee would be allowed to vote to take the case the "traditional way" with all arbs voting.
To be honest, I've been planning towards something like this since before the elections (that was one of my "suggested reforms" I alluded to) but the context has not yet been right to put it forward— perhaps there would never be a "right" time, and more initiative is needed after all. I will offer the next case to voluntarily accept this as an experiment with the caveat that the result will be exactly as binding as the traditional method (voluntarily because I would not impose an experiment on editors caught in a dispute that's already a difficult strain).
I'm not going to write down exact procedure right now (even though I have a pretty precise idea) since, as an experiment, it's likely that things will need tweaking during the experiment. The objective would be to handle one case this way, document how it worked, and offer the "fast" arbitration voluntarily for a number of other cases until (a) kinks are worked out and (b) the community is satisfied this is an improvement (or (c) the whole thing is scrapped because it's a disaster after all).
I'll post a rough outline on how I see cases proceeding with this method to my userspace shortly, and post a link to it. In the meantime, what do people think about the general idea? — Coren (talk) 14:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me, and a welcome reform towards making individual arbitrators more accountable for individual cases. — Werdna • talk 15:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
This is worth trying, provided the parties agree to participate as Tznkai recommends. It has often been assumed that all arbs dont read all of the evidence. Maybe allocating only three arbs to a case will resulting in more focus and a better decision. OTOH, if the MZMcBride case is an example of what happens when a case is fast tracked, I dont like it. I suspect that many fast tracked cases will be appealed. John Vandenberg ( chat) 15:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
(ec) It's a pretty interesting idea. I am a bit concerned, tho, because, as Coren said above, a lot of the ArbCom cases nowadays are "monsters", and that's not much of an overstatement. The community is often deeply divided in what they should do about a particular issue (which is why it ends up at arbitration), and sometimes the arbitrators themselves are, too. Having just three arbitrators decide on such an issue might make the decision.. a bit random. The decision could be entirely different, depending on which three arbitrators get to decide. Then again, having a decision in cases like these is probably better than having none at all. -- Conti| ✉ 15:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't feel the need to inject my point of view in every decision taken in every case; and I don't think that decisions would be any less good or legitimate for having had "only" three arbitrators take them. There is a very good reason why real life courts do not take all decision by taking together all the judges: it doesn't work right, and even if it did it would be a waste of valuable resources. All arbs are equal, and all our decisions are just as good as every other arb's. If we can get past this obsession with voting and counting heads and trust each other to work for the collective good, we'd be able to do a much better job, much faster. — Coren (talk) 16:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
(undent) At any rate, at this point, the ones whose opinion actually count at the community who placed their trust in us to help solve the unsolvable (yes, this does include ourselves, but we are but a tiny slice of the community). The offer to trial this new method of arbitrating disputes is open, and I would expect that — should the community take me/us up on it — we would do our best collectively to make it work. It's not perfect, and will have to get a lot of tweaking before anyone can call it satisfactory, but this is a wiki; trying new ways of doing things is the fundamental principle of change. We gain nothing by refusing the experiment because it might not work. — Coren (talk) 17:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
As for the internal discussion over changes, they are very good at altering current policy and we have made some great strides in that direction, but I feel it is an inappropriate method for tentative and experimental changes in depth. I don't think it is possible, or desirable, to attempt to come up with a new method ex nihilo by commitee— this is the kind of thing you go out and try, then learn from the attempt. — Coren (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
So, I said I would post my views on how arbitration should work. I haven't yet looked at Coren's draft, so this is just what I had in mind.
Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
A quick note. Any comparison we make to a real life judiciary should be taken carefully. We don't have prosecutors (a vital part of the modern inquisitorial system) around here for example, we don't have police who gather facts and evidence, and no one here has the power to compel testimony. I don't mean to say that looking towards a different model is a bad idea, just that we should be cautious in our considerations.-- Tznkai ( talk) 23:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to say 'No'. Let's put this on the Agenda for next Year.
My reasoning is that we already have a huge process reform agenda, it's being worked on now, and the workload from that, plus the transition from ad-hoc to more established procedures is going to need time to settle in. I'm more than willing to give a one-time 'pass' for Arbcom's case processing times this year while they cope with all that.
Timely case management is an issue, but it's not an issue we can safely address this year since we don't know how the current reforms are going to settle out. Putting in a fast-track system could, and probably will trigger unintended consequences, until we can plan it around how the new Arbcom will end up working.
Let's return to this in a year. -- Barberio ( talk) 13:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee's agenda as of April 8 has now been published, and may be viewed at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Agenda.
In order to provide the community with a more up-to-date understanding of the Committee's plans, the published agenda will now be updated on a regular schedule (nominally once a week). Future updates will not be formally announced; editors interested in following the agenda may wish to watchlist it. The agenda will also remain displayed at the top of the Committee's noticeboard.
In the near future, we anticipate adding cases in progress and the associated milestone dates to the agenda.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety talk 22:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Could someone remind me what the order is in the tallies (e.g. "tally now 7/0/0/1")? I ask because I can see 7 accepts in the Macedonia issue, but no other votes, so have no idea who or what the 1 is. DuncanHill ( talk) 16:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
The current layout is as follows:
This layout is unlogical. What bothers me most is that the titles of the proposed cases are level 3 headers, and the titles of the comments are level 4 headers. Because the fonts of the level 3 and level 4 headers look a like, it is difficult to see where one proposed case ends and where the next one begins. I say we get rid of the "Current requests" header (what's the point of that header anyway?), so that we can turn the titles of the cases into level 2 headers, providing them with nice horizontal lines.
My proposal:
Agreed? -
theFace 19:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
While this may be under discussion "somewhere" (especially considering that the policies/guidelines/etc. are under overhaul), I'm not sure where, so bringing this comment here.
In looking over the "abstain" section, there are quite a few that seem to be "comments" or "notes", rather than true "abstentions".
While this may not seem to be a big deal, NYB mentioned in the past that by placing a comment under "abstain", the number needed for a majority changes, and so by abstaining, makes it easier for a motion to pass.
This seems to me to be a really bad idea.
I realise that it's been this way awhile, but that doesn't mean that it can't or shouldn't be changed/fixed.
And yes, I realise that the arbitrators likely know/understand that this is the situation, but I also wonder if perhaps they may at times feel limited by the format in this, or further, if they should be allowed to "vote" by not voting. (An abstention can act as more than a single "vote" due to the numbers changing.)
So I'd like to propose that the "proposed decision" page add an additional "Comment" section to each proposal. (Making each proposal have 4 sections: Support/Oppose/Abstain/Comment.)
As an aside, in a place (Wikipedia) where discussion resolution is consensus-driven, this "voting" process concerns me quite a bit. - jc37 03:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC