Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Discussion of agenda

Agenda (please use a header for each new discussion section here)

Discussion of announcements

Arbitration Committee motion regarding Date delinking

Original announcement

Timestamp for archive bot. Thatcher 14:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Richard Relucio appeal

Announcement

Timestamp for archive bot. Thatcher 14:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

AUSC October 2009 elections: candidate list

Announcement Bot timestamp:  Roger Davies ^talk 02:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Do the scrutineers have a central scrutinizer ??? :) ++Lar: t/c 03:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The white zone is for loading and unloading only. (Sorry, just couldn't help myself). Manning (talk) 04:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

No more of that, bozo. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Listen Boris, don't start up with your white zone shit again. ++Lar: t/c 05:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

What does "AUSC" stand for? IMWTK, HYCH. TTFN. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Audit SubCommittee.--Tznkai (talk) 04:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Requests for Comment - Arbitration Committee 2

A new Request for Comment has been opened at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee_2. This RFC focuses on the composition and selection of the committee; specifically, how many members should be on the Arbitration Committee, how long should their terms be, and how should they be selected? The issue of a Public vs Secret ballot is also under discussion, as is the issue of Support/Oppose voting vs Preferential or Cumulative Selection. Your comments are welcome. Thank you. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Personnel changes

Announcement Timestamp:  Roger Davies ^talk 06:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Motion to amend ADHD: Scuro topic banned

Original announcement Timestamp Manning (talk) 01:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Nominations now open for the Arbitration Committee elections, December 2009

Nominations are now open for candidates to run in the Arbitration Committee elections of December 2009 (WP:ACE2009). In order to be eligible to run, editors must have 1,000 mainspace edits, be at least 18 years of age, and be of legal age in their place of residence; note also that successful candidates must identify to the Wikimedia Foundation before taking their seats. Nominations will be accepted from today, November 10, through November 24, with voting scheduled to begin on December 1. To submit your candidacy, proceed to the candidate statements page. The conditions of the election are currently under discussion; all editors are encouraged to participate. For the coordination cabal,  Skomorokh, barbarian  01:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Notice added by clerk Manning (talk) 02:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

AUSC election: results and appointments

Announcement Timestamp for bot,  Roger Davies ^talk 21:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Question: Do alternate members (i.e. MBisanz) gain checkuser and oversight permission immediately, or only upon the retirement or inactivity of one of the other 3 elected members? You seem to be giving the audit subcommittee the freedom to chose how to treat MBisanz -- a full member of the mailing list, or only invited to the mailing list if another auditor becomes inactive; voting or not voting, etc -- in fact, you seem to be giving the audit committee the authority to consider him as a full seventh member. So the issue of CU and OS access is necessarily critical. Thatcher 21:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Granted the tools from the start so MBisanz can step in and substitute as needed for members away for long announced breaks, recusals, and such. As well, he would have full access to the mailing lists so he is knowledgeable about the discussions and standards. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 22:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Someone needs to post this to m:RFP; Jredmond, Dominic and possibly MBisanz need to identify and be granted the bits, flags and/or fezes. Thatcher 22:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I will be reviewing and verifying and making the necessary posts. Thanks for the reminder. Risker (talk) 22:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Very sad. There is a lot of evidence that one of the winners has flagrantly abused their position as both a checkuser and arbitrator. I won't name names, but I think that this will be a terrible mistake. Majorly talk 23:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Majorly, you have just had an entire 10-day election period in which to raise concerns publicly or privately with the Arbitration Committee. You have not done so. If you have evidence of that which you allege, please send it to the Arbitration Committee forthwith. If you do not, please reconsider your words. Risker (talk) 23:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention 8 months to file a formal complaint or request for investigation with the Audit subcommittee itself. Thatcher 23:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I do have to agree: when you have had literally limitless opportunity to raise any issues you may have in either a public or private forum at a stage when they could have been acted upon, this comment is entirely pointless. What, exactly, are you trying to achieve? Happy‑melon 23:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Just a note that I intend to abide by my prior promise to not use the tools other than in an oversight-related emergency when other oversighters or stewards are not available. MBisanz ^talk 23:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

@Majorly...you are totally out of line here, provide the evidence or withdraw and apologize. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Entirely unethical

This election was for three seats. Not three seats plus an alternate member. Not four seats. Three. It is wholly unethical to change the rules of the election while tallying the votes. MBisanz should not be given any rights until (and iff) there is a vacancy. To do anything else would make a complete mockery of this election. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The election is already a complete mockery. Majorly talk 23:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

On the one hand, you're right. On the other hand, it does make sense to have someone in case someone else retires (it does happen all the time, after all). On the other other hand, with 6 candidates, and 4 being elected (one way or another), this gives the impression that we're not having much of a choice in the first place. --Conti|✉ 23:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• No disrespect to MBisanz intended here, but I have to agree. While I didn't oppose anyone, I only supported "3" candidates because of my understanding of the "rules". I'm not interested in "playing any games" where the rules can be changed mid-way through the "game". Consistency is paramount to being a respectable process and website folks. — Ched :  ?  23:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

If someone retires, another can be elected. We don't have or need spare functionaries just in case. Majorly talk 23:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Ched Davis on this. I saw a vote that was supposed to appoint three people; to maximize the effects of my vote, I supported the three I most approved of and opposed the others (with no offense meant to them; if I voted against you, it's because you were on the bad side of electoral mathematics). Had the proposed result been different, I would have voted in a different way. I understand the closeness of the vote between Tznkai and MBisanz, and I realize that the arbitrators have a precedent in their own election process (wherein Jimbo feels free to finesse things this way), but this is a procedural problem. It happens that we already have a partial solution (MBisanz has said that he will not use his bits at present), but this really does break the parliamentary aspects of the committee quite badly. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The honorable solution would be for MBisanz to decline the appointment. —Finn Casey * * * 01:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Just as a note, MBisanz and I are separated by less than a full vote in percentages. MBisanz also has higher net and total support. It is difficult to a closer result than this.--Tznkai (talk) 23:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• I strongly agree that this decision was highly inappropriate and showed disrespect for the electorate. I understand the likely reasoning of the Committee, however I hope they realize how seriously this decision taints the election. There is no serious election in the world that changes the number of appointees after voting according to the whims of the appointing body. If this process was desired, it should have been publicly discussed before the election. While I am sure it was done in good faith, the precedent could easily be twisted to allow the appointing of preferred candidates. Nothing against MBisanz, but he was not elected by the community, notwithstanding the Committee's decision to pretend that he was. Three members were elected by the community in an election - any additional members are unelected Committee apppointees. —Finn Casey * * * 23:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Disclaimer: I consider the arbitrators to be very experienced, to perform very well in general; and I am not a disgruntled sanctionee.

A question then. Lets disregard the alternate member provision entirely. Six months from now, I resign because my parakeet (I do not own a parakeet, this is purely hypothetical) dies in a horrible tragic way and I am so distraught I cannot continue. Is it preferable to: appoint MBisanz, who has analogous support; to run another special election; have audit appoint someone; have arbcom appoint someone; or continue without a member until the regular election cycle?--Tznkai (talk) 00:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The last choice of course. I'm unconvinced this committee is even needed that badly anyway. Majorly talk 00:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That seems to be an entirely separate argument from the propriety of the election, but lets go with that anyway. What if a second member resigns, so we have 3 arbitrators and 1 at large? What if all three resign or go inactive? Presuming for a moment, that the subcommittee has some purpose, at what point, and how, do you feel seats that were vacated early?--Tznkai (talk) 00:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

@Tznkai - You present a germane question, however it does not cut to the heart of this disappointing appointment. The Committee indicated before and during the election that there would be three elected members of the Subcommittee. Following the election there was a surprise appointment of four editors to the Subcommittee. (The announcement indicates that the fourth appointee will be a de facto full member of the Subcommittee.) The problem is that the Committee then disingenuously claimed that now "the subcommittee will have a majority of directly elected members." That is false! The Committee is claiming that the seventh member was directly elected when voters did not know they were electing a seventh member! The problem is not in the appointment of a seventh Subcommittee member itself - it is that the Committee is claiming the seventh member was elected when he was not! —Finn Casey * * * 00:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I interpreted that motion as giving the 6 members of the subcommittee the option to give MBisanz full access to email and votes, and indicating the broad justifications for doing such a thing. If your objection is to the fourth member being a full member, than that is one thing - if your objection is to him being an alternate actually serving as an alternate, that is another. I'd like to address the second issue first.--Tznkai (talk) 00:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the serious reply. The two moderately-concerning issues are the decision to appoint an alternate without community input and the decision to make the alternate a full member. The very-concerning issue is the claim that the alternate was "directly elected" when in reality it is impossible to elect someone if you don't know you are electing them. To claim otherwise seems nonsensical. Hopefully that summarizes the concerns effectively. —Finn Casey * * * 00:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the "directly elected" comment was a failure of good writing, but I see your point. I think more accurately, there would be a majority of at-large members to ArbCom members. I agree that a better practice, would to be to announce ahead of time that there will be an alternate selected - but I think establishing an alternate in general is a reasonable exercise of discretion. For the vast majority of elected positions I am aware of, both in actual government and bodies such as a board of trustees, there is some sort of mechanism or person(s) so empowered to appoint replacement members on a permanent or temporary basis. It is, I believe, more transparent and practical to indicate the future alternate ahead of time. Again, I stress the incredibly close results: I can think of a number of excellent arguments that suggest that MBisanz should be in my position, and I in his. If the alternate were to be given full votes, the reasoning is pretty clearly out of practicality and recognizing the closeness, but I would imagine the arguments there are weaker than they are for the pure alternate position to begin with.--Tznkai (talk) 00:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

If the announcement had said MBisanz was an additional appointed "at-large" member rather than an "elected" member my concern would be greatly lessened. However, semantics aside, there are still concerns regarding the appointment of a seventh member without community input (see my comments below) —Finn Casey * * * 01:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• "There is no serious election in the world that changes the number of appointees after voting according to the whims of the appointing body..." There's your problem - it wasn't a serious election. Majorly talk 00:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• I am very interested in knowing which Arbitrator's idea this extra seat was. ÷seresin 00:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
• While I would not have an issue with the Committee using a well-supported fourth-place candidate to replace a sitting AUSC member should that become necessary, I agree with the above concerns about the impropriety of effectively changing the number of candidates appointed. I also query the notion that AUSC should determine itself who should vote in its own decisions. The immediate aftermath of an election is an especially poor time to alter organisational architecture.  Skomorokh, barbarian  00:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be easy to view this matter as a tempest in a teapot. However, many editors believe that it is important for the Committee to seek community input before surprise announcements. Instead of just reactively responding to these sort of behaviors, it would be preferable to express disappointment with this decision in two ways:

1. Add a question regarding this sort of behavior to the general questions list for the upcoming Committee elections
2. More explicitly require community comment periods on such actions before their enactment (this could be mandated in the new arbitration policy)... Unfortunately that policy does not seem to be forthcoming... (I suggest that working with the community on the new policy might be a better use of the Committee's limited time than arranging new and unexpected Subcommittee size changes)

—Finn Casey * * * 01:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful that the ArbCom elections are being held now.  Question added; see Template:ACEQuestions#Specific past examples of ArbCom's decision-making for more. NW (Talk) 01:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with much of what has been said here. I don't have an issue in principle with an alternate or new seat in the case of an exceptionally close election, but it would have been preferable if that possibility was known beforehand, since voters ought to have full information to be able to reach their decisions. For this reason, if we are to have an alternate, it should be a role with no real special access or responsibility other than to fill in the next vacancy if such becomes necessary. But I am also uncomfortable deciding the fate of someone I was just competing with in an election. That is the job of either ArbCom, which has the real authority over AuSc, or the voters. Dominic·t 01:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Per Tznkai's posts above, I do have to say that in looking at the actual numbers (rather than a top-down reading), I do have to admit that it's a tough situation; and not one with an easy solution. I'd have to imagine that future "elections" will have a contingency for such things. Congratulations to all. — Ched :  ?  03:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

If you really care, the place to voice your concern is the Arbcom election RFC. This was the first election to use a secret ballot, and no one got over 75% approval. Kind of surprising compared to the last CU and OS election, and a possible indication of things to come in the Arbcom election. How should arbitrators be selected? Net votes, percent, something else? Remember that the audit subcommittee is merely advisory to the full Arbcom, it investigates and makes reports so the whole Arbcom doesn't have to bother unless there is a significant issue, but in the end Arbcom makes the final decisions. Folks can piss and moan over the selection of an alternate if they want, but the big show is warming up in the wings. Thatcher 03:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this failed election has clearly demonstrated why the community has wisely indicated (at the Committee RfC) that there is no consensus to have secret balloting in the election of substance. —Finn Casey * * * 06:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

There are a lot of weird agendas apparently at work here. The election was run smoothly, with no fraud or controversy, the results are mathematically unambiguous, and does not meet any rationale definition of "failed", for all your disagreement with how Arbcom decided to act on the results. Thatcher 21:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Just to clear up some of the timelines here, as it is not clear from what has been published. Motion 1 was voted on internally between 12 and 15 October 2009, along with a package of other internal votes to help set up the AUSC election (such as non-admin candidates, election administration, the need for election scrutineers, and the election franchise levels to be programmed into SecurePoll). I had thought Motion 1 would have been published before the election started (so the electorate were aware of it), and it was a mistake not to, in my opinion, but it was proposed and voted on before the elections even started. It was in no way adjusting things after the results came in. There were caveats expressed, including one that it would only make sense to appoint the fourth-placed candidate as an alternate if they had the required level of support. That is indeed what happened (the fourth candidate did have a sufficient level of support), hence Motions 2 and 3 were proposed, voted on and passed, between 9 and 10 November 2009. Carcharoth (talk) 03:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
  • It is no small thing to omit to post a change in the rules for an election before that election happens. Voting behaviour might have been quite different had it been known that there were effectively 4 positions up for grabs (and 6 candidates would have seemed an even more inadequate number). The result of not making this clear in advance was predictable - a feeling that the goal posts have been changed to favour a particular candidate, which now undermines that candidate's position. In any event motion 1 (simply providing for a sub in case someone resigns) is miles away from granting tools and list access to the person. I am amazed with the amount of extra rules and bureaucracy that is being introduced into these processes that there remains room for these "unexpected twists". WJBscribe (talk) 12:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
• Not "unethical" or other hyperbole. But not smart. Changing the terms of an election after the fact is a guaranteed drama-generator. I've no problems with having an alternate (and certainly no problems with MB himself) but this reinforces my observation that arbcom doesn't really think about the implications of their actions. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
• Here's a greaaaat idea folks; how about everyone looking for blood here get back to writing some (bleeping) articles? I think you'll find that once you've hammered out some high quality, sourced prose you'll look back on this and wonder why the hell you cared so flippin' much. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 04:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• As you say, it is always imperative to remember that the primary work is encyclopedia-building. Still, the Committee has indicated that they need community feedback to act in a responsive manner. It appears that "looking for blood" may be a mischaracterization. Instead, we are trying to give constructive feedback on matters of great importance to the encyclopedia (if the Subcommittee wasn't important to the encyclopedia, we wouldn't have it). —Finn Casey * * * 06:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• No, I'm going to add my voice to this too. I argued at the inception of this committee that it should have a majority of lay-members (am I alone in thinking that 'at-large' sounds like they're on the run?) and I voted for MB, so I'm pragmatically pleased with the result but.....as it seems we are finally getting round to the idea for the Arb elections that Jimbo cherrypicking candidates after the vote might not be so great, why on earth would you start doing it here - we elect Arbs to be better than Jimbo don't we? --Joopercoopers (talk) 04:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
• somehow my earlier comment didn't send.. so this is a bit of an updated editconflict; Carcharoth: Thank you for that, If thats the case then I feel a bit better but it definitely should have been made clear from the get go, I know I wouldn't have had a problem with it and I doubt many would have. It's the lack of communication thats most frustrating and it still isn't totally clear what position the 4th person is supposed to take. If they are truly going to be alternate members and not act at all unless/until someone drops down that's fine but do they really need the full CU/OS rights (I would say they should have mailing list access so they can keep in the loop). Not only is it HIGHLY unlikely that there will be an emergency where he would need to step into action within minutes but it also does not take long to get stewards to give rights when we already have the decision to do so. I trust MBisanz fully with the tools and voted for him here so thats not a concern of mine but if he gets them he should get them either by winning an election under the rules the voters understood, or being appointed given them separately by arbcom (which they are perfectly able to do and I would have no problems with). Jamesofur (talk) 04:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
• The committee members are hereby admonished for drama mongering. Don't do it again!!! [Jehochman glares sternly at the committee.] Otherwise, this is a much ado about nothing. Jehochman ^Talk 14:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• You misspelled The committee members are hereby admonished for taking action that benefits the project while failing to slavishly follow written procedures. Thatcher 14:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure there is a more offensive and demoralizing section header that could have been used to insult the volunteers who serve on the Arbitration Committee, but I can't quickly think of what it might be. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Indeed. As a brief digression, last year within 24 hours of the opening of the nomination period for Arbitration Committee candidacies, there were 13 candidates signed up, five of whom went on to be appointed to the Committee. This year we have three candidates at the same point. The manner in which arbitrators, supposedly selected for their good judgment and wise counsel, are treated with suspicion, condescension and distrust from the moment of their appointment, has been pointed out to me by several highly respected editors as the reason that they are not interested in participating. Nobody could reasonably have anticipated a result that had the third and fourth place candidates for this subcommittee receiving a voting result that works out to roughly a quarter of one vote difference. The subcommittee members are now brainstorming the best way to handle this extraordinary situation; there is no analogy in the real world, where absolute number of supportive votes determines winners and percentage of support is irrelevant. Risker (talk) 16:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
  
  • No. It is specifically things like this (backchannel discussions that change established guidelines and rules for the election) that ruin the credibility that the Arbitration Committee so desperately seeks. Sometimes races are close, as any athlete knows. The right thing to do here is to appoint the three people who were elected under the rules agreed to by all sides. You have the opportunity to take the moral high ground here and do the ethical thing. Why squander it? --MZMcBride (talk) 21:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I am confused on how this is a case of moral and ethical failing. 1) The audit subcommittee was established with 3 at-large members by Arbcom fiat, it could as easily have been 2, 5 or 50. 2) Experience has shown that the committee rarely had 6 active members during it's initial period. 3) There certainly are rational arguments to be made that having 6 or 7 active members of audit subcommittee is better than having 5 or 4, and that having an alternate in case of burnout is better than running short-handed or calling a special interim election. 4) Wikipedia has this thing called "Ignore all rules when it is for the good of the project." 5) The differences in vote totals between the third, fourth and fifth place finishers are such that I do not find any compelling reason to think that different people would have been in the top four had the possibility of an alternate or fourth seat been announced in advance. Disagree if you wish, but calling it an ethical failing, and now a moral failing, is bizarre and unsupportable. Thatcher 21:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Elections are predicated on trust that the process will be fair. That each person gets one vote, that all votes are counted equally, and that the rules for who wins and who loses are established prior to the start of the election and, barring some type of emergency, remain unchanged. If someone from the Arbitration Committee had announced the possibility of an alternate prior to the start of the election, there wouldn't be an issue here. But they didn't. And you can't change the fact that nobody voting was told of this possibility. In a case like this, there is no other choice than to appoint the three people who properly won and only appoint an "alternate" in the case of an actual vacancy. To state it a different way: the unethical part wasn't changing the rules of the election. The Committee is free to do so. The unethical part is taking what happened (people not being told of the change and there being a very close vote) and acting the way that they did (appointing an alternate). Nobody told the voters about the possibility of an alternate? Okay, shit happens and I'm sure it wasn't done intentionally. But appointing someone when nobody knew that was a possibility was done intentionally and unnecessarily. That's the issue. There are a lot of things you can't fix easily on this site: BLP problems, unsourced statements, drama, etc. But this is an easy fix. Appoint the three elected members and only fill a vacancy should it become necessary to do so. Weigh cost versus benefit for this scenario versus the present one and tell me how the Committee's choice is the right thing to do. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Ultimately, you will get the arbitration committee you deserve. Thatcher 16:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Hopefully, no one will be elected and arbcom will cease to continue. Surely the community deserve to handle their own issues without a bunch of higher-power users doing it for them. Majorly talk 17:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The worst part, of course, is that this was anticipated and handled long in advance by the committee: the possibility that it would be wiser to resolve a close result by naming a fourth, alternate, member was voted upon and passed before voting even started (in an internal motion I would have expected to be published along with the others voted on at the same time). In other words, a minor oversight (not making that motion public) is overshadowing the fact that we didn't overlook this or pull it out of a hat.

    But of course, we are corrupt by virtue of having planned ahead! — Coren ^(talk) 16:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

    • To be fair, most people here complain (I think) about changing the rules of the election after the election. That the motion passed before the election started is a fact that couldn't have possibly been known by most of us, hence the complaints. That the motion wasn't published was an oversight, but mistakes are made, so it's no biggie in the end. But the initial complaints should be understandable, IMHO. --Conti|✉ 17:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
      • I think the point is that complaints are understandable. Impugning the integrity of other volunteers as a knee-jerk reaction, without bothering to take the time to figure out what one is actually talking about, is less understandable. What is the matter with people around here? Is it too much to demand that we ask questions first and shoot later? As a side issue, if we could muster 1/100,000th of this outrage and passion to deal with biased and agenda-driven editing that actually harms the encyclopedia, then we might actually get somewhere close to being a serious and respectable reference work. Instead, the only thing people seem to care enough to get fired up about is a matter than could charitably be described as picayune bureaucracy. The encyclopedia will be fine if MBisanz is an alternate on the AUSC. It will be fine if he's not. But someone could corrupt dozens of high-profile articles with the equivalent of Flat-Earthery, and no one would lift a finger or break a sweat. Priorities? MastCell ^Talk 18:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
        • I definitely agree with you there. There seems to be a general, sad trend on Wikipedia to state one's own opinion as aggressively and rudely as possible, while mocking and ridiculing every dissenting opinion. That's really no fun anymore. :/ --Conti|✉ 20:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the assumptions of bad faith here, and the rules-mongering because the arbcom didn't do everything perfectly is as Brad has said "offensive and demoralizing". I've heavily criticised arbcom in the past, but I really think people need to remember these are volunteers doing their best for everyone. Criticise by all means, but do it graciously and constructively and keep criticisms in proportion to the hard unrewarded work done. That having been said, can I offer one piece of constructive criticism. Arbcom might do themselves a lot of favours if motions on non-private matters were not conducted privately. Why didn't arbcom conduct the discussion about alternates in a publicly viewable place? I've suggested before that arbcom's default place for discussion ought to be on "arbcom edit only" wikipages, where mortals may comment on the talk page. That gives a high sound to noise ratio, and a more transparent feel. It certainly would have avoided this mis-communication and the resulting drama fuckwittery by the disaffected. Keep secret wikis and mailing lists for necessary confidential business.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. That particular motion was part of a set we were voting on, not all of which would have been wise to hold in public; it would have been impractical to split them around more than one venue (as well as error prone). There is no reason, however, why this (and some other) motions should not have been published here once passed — it was mostly a matter of nobody noticing nobody else had done it, combined with the relatively low urgency of the matter in the first place.

One thing that is probably best explained: some of the discussion the arbs are holding in private aren't because the matter is intrinsically confidential but because this allows the arbs to be more candid than would be advisable in public. Because hypotheticals about specific users are discussed, for instance, or because some of the valid and important arguments could be either misconstrued or unpolitical to discuss publicly, much of the day to day deliberations of the committee could raise a very great deal of drama even though the final resolution is unremarkable or uncontroversial. Most of those deliberation either end up published here, in a reply to an email, or result in no action.

While it may seem attractive in theory to hold all of those discussions on wiki unless they are directly confidential, in practice the total amount of drama and heat they would generate vastly outweighs any benefit of publishing the minutes of the (mostly boring) day to day affairs of the committee. What is important is that any act deriving from those be explained and done transparently — something we do scrupulously (but imperfectly). — Coren ^(talk) 18:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I have the solution: ArbCom, by extrajudicial Fiat of One, I hereby reduce your pay by 95%, retroactive to the beginning of your terms. Hopefully this will satisfy the community as they look for ways to properly admonish the Committee members for all slights, actual and perceived. All repayments can be made, via cash or money-order, to Gladys J Cortez, Wikipedian-at-Large.GJC 18:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Further, from here on in, one day's pay shall be deducted any member of arbcom found to have made a procedural error on spelling mistake. We must make sure these evil people have an incentive to behave.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

So, since we're discussing the results, let me throw this out there - what would you all have had arbcom do if the vote totals for the 3rd and 4th place candidates had been dead even, I mean precisely the same support, oppose total votes, percentage, everything. Hold a runoff? Appoint both? It might be relevant if we hold elections such as this in the future to know where sentiment lies. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 22:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That's how I approached the results, actually. I considered Tznkai and MBisanz to be substantially equal in the end. One was marginally ahead on percentage, the other marginally ahead on both absolute and net support (metrics worth considering in an approval ballot). I proposed a motion (which didn't pass) appointing all four top finishers to AUSC, on the view that to try to split them would be to do a disservice to the community's wishes (the community having indicated that they like them both more or less the same amount) and that adding another community member (giving them a majority) would not be a downside for the community. How wrong I was! I apologise for being so evil. --bainer (talk) 22:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You get what you elect. If you're not happy with that, then run for arbcom yourself(ves) so you can fix it yourself. We had to make a decision and we made; which is what we were elected to do. If any wants, I for one am ready to be tarred, feather, and hung upside down over a fire til my brain fries. (that's an old Apache torture). — Rlevse • Talk • 23:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Rlevse, two issues here. You say "run for arbcom yourself". That is an extremely insulting thing to say when you know full well the likes of me don't have a chance of passing RfA, let alone an arbcom election. The second point is, you say "We had to make a decision and we made; which is what we were elected to do". I don't recall voting for you, nor some of the other prominent people in this discussion. Nor do I recall it being the arbitrators' job to fiddle with election rules (or even have elections). Arbitrators are supposed to arbitrate onwiki disputes, and elections and pointless subcommittees don't fall under that. Majorly talk 23:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Think about why you yourself admit you have no chance of being an arb. Your commments in the above thread are and here are insulting. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, way to deflate your own argument, Majorly. Part of the mandate of Arbcom is indeed to decide who has access to checkuser and oversight permissions and information; it's mandated by the WMF. How we decide to do that is up to Arbcom. Now you are suggesting that we should not bother consulting with the community (not just you, the whole community) on who should be granted such access, or that we shouldn't be incorporating community input in evaluating concerns about the use of these permissions. As to Rlevse, I think it unfair of him to take the easy way out. ;-) Risker (talk) 23:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Why would "the likes of you" not be able to be elected? You obviously believe your own arguments and position have value; it's not unreasonable to believe that some will agree with them. You're certainly not barred from running, nor under any sort of restriction that would scuttle your attempt. — Coren ^(talk) 23:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Rlevse, your own argument makes no sense if all you can say is "You do it then if you don't think we're good enough!" Er, you were voted in to do the job right. If you're unable to do that, resign, don't blame your failings on everyone else not running. I am obviously not trying to say I am suitable for arbcom. I am trying to point out your illogical argument.

Risker, as I say, I don't recall voting for you or Rlevse. It is not my fault in the slightest that I am not happy, and I shouldn't have to run if I am not - you should be doing your job satisfactorily. Majorly talk 23:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Coren, I assume you lost all memory of me just before posting that comment. There are far too many people who dislike me, what I have to say, and my approach. An election is basically an opportunity for the bullies on this project to come out of their holes and dish their dirt. Hell no, and anyway, I'm much too busy doing important things that take priority over internet games. Majorly talk 23:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Can we all just stop complaining (and/or endlessly debating) for once? I have been following this discussion for a while, and it seems like the Energizer Bunny. It never stops. Might I suggest a 6 hour break for content writing (Personally I would suggest John Williams, mesocyclone, or creating an article about mesovortices (see wiktionary entry)), and then if everyone truly feels like there is more to discuss on this, go right ahead...but a 6 hour content writing break will do the encyclopedia more good in that 6 hours than this endless debate will. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 23:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with debating this issue. The encyclopedia will still be there tomorrow. Majorly talk 23:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)