Wikipedia:Arbs are people too

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

In the light of unpleasant recent events, Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee has once again come under fire from editors who are displeased with some aspect of its performance. While it is understood that the arbitrators are not perfect and have made mistakes, some of which have had very regrettable consequences, Wikipedians in general would do well to remember that each and every arbitrator is also a human being, one that has devoted a sizable amount of his or her time to do Wikipedia's dirty work. Sadly, this difficult task is often compounded by the unnecessarily vitriolic criticism that the ArbCom is regularly subjected to, criticism that may derive from valid complaints, but that is expressed in nonconstructive ways. The editors who have signed below indicate their understanding and acceptance of the reality that Arbs are people too and should be afforded the same level of courtesy as anyone else.


  1. AutomaticStrikeout (TC) 23:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
  2. ZappaOMati 23:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
  3. cyberpower ChatOnline 00:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  4. TBrandley (review) 01:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  5. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  6. ΛΧΣ21 03:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  7. Lettik (talk) 17:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  8. --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 18:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  9. Go Phightins! 20:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  10.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 22:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  11. I have been critical of ArbCom and of individual arbitrators in the past but I try to also offer positive comments and to be fair and reasoned in my comments. Please, if I ever am failing to treat arbitrators with the humanity that we all deserve, tell me. EdChem (talk) 01:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
  12. Also, even if they are wrong, in many cases abiding by a wrong decision for a few months is much better than both sides battling forever. Johnuniq (talk) 04:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
  13. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
  14. If anything, they should be treated with exceptional respect when taking into consideration the arduous task and non-negligible burden they graciously accept to take responsibility for. :) ·Salvidrim!·  02:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
  15. I've not been happy with some aspects of arbcom's handling of certain recent events, but the nature and content of some of the attacks on them (both as a committee and as individuals) have been completely beyond the pale. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
  16. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
  17. It's ridiculous to call arbitrators gestapo and so forth. People need to get a sense of proportion here. Herostratus (talk) 02:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
  18. While we may sometimes disagree with their decisions, let's try to always remember that WP:CIV and WP:NPA apply to Arbitrators as much as every other user. For my part, while I've criticised ArbCom at times, I do also have considerable respect for the work they do and important role they play on Wikipedia, particularly considering the neverending stream of abuse they get for doing their jobs. Robofish (talk) 01:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  19. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 15:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  20.  Ryan Vesey 20:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  21. This is a volunteer community, let's not forget that they give up a significant chunk of freetime to deal with bullshit on a daily basis (imo) that frankly I wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole, even if someone offered to pay me. And for that... I thank them for their service.— -dainomite   03:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  22. Quite. I also agree with Salvidrim, Demiurge1000 and Robofish in particular.  Sandstein  15:02, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  23. Rich Farmbrough, 02:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC).
  24. Tom Morris 14:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
  25. Agree. Wielding a bigger mop simply means having to deal with the bigger piles of mess. Never a glorious task, but always to be appreciated. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 14:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
  26. Rschen7754 18:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
  27. Theopolisme (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
  28. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
  29. This has been dead for a little while, but I have to sign this. TCN7JM 00:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
  30. Yea, as much as I complain about "teh committee" - they really are good people doing a very tough job. Thanks folks. — Ched :  ?  02:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
  31. -- KeithbobTalk 13:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  32. Yes. There seems to be some unwritten, recent law that its just fine to trash and abuse the arbs if you don't agree with them. I think its wrong for everybody involved, and wrong for Wikipedia. arbs are people of course, but they are also volunteers just like the rest of us who have volunteered for a much tougher job than any single editor is responsible for. Attacks on people doing the arbcom job are not acceptable and have to stop.[1](olive (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC))
  33. Sole Soul (talk) 09:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  34. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 01:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  35. My76Strat (talk) 22:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  36. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
  37. Cameron11598 (Converse) 00:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
  38. LlamaAl (talk) 01:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
  39. TheOneSean [ U | T | C ] 18:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
  40. Rtucker913 (What do you want?) 11:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  41. And we certainly do need an Arbitration Committee, or something to that effect. How else are we going to impose some sort of binding resolution on sensitive issues that will actually stick? Just imagine what articles pertaining to Eastern Europe or South Slavic countries would be like if they weren't placed under discretionary sanctions. And don't even get me started on scientology! Some of these articles are still dealing with extensive POV-pushing, but ArbCom at the very least mitigates this problem somewhat. To my satisfaction? Overall, not quite, but your mileage may vary. Kurtis (talk) 12:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

See also[edit]