Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee

Inactive for a while

I'll be inactive on RFAR for November and possibly part of December, to spend a month or so on mainspace, project work and admin work generally. I'll also be completely leaving all CU work (except quick or serious cases) to other checkusers now we have them, as well as working in the background on some long term matters relevant to ongoing problems we're familiar with. If a seriously problematic RFAR case wanders by I might be active on that one, but we'll see - that's a possibility any time of the year. For the record, this is much more in the nature of a well deserved vacation following a year's arb-ing, than any kind of tiredness. Unless said otherwise, I'm inactive on RFAR cases probably till around the end of November or Arbcom elections. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

With the new committee now in place, it looks like I'm active again. The time was appreciated though I didn't get to do all I hoped. Thanks :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back. I've handled all the paperwork. AGK 22:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Committee chart update

Would someone please update the membership chart to reflect the one-year term extension for Thebainer? I'm afraid I don't know how to edit this type of chart. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The chart does not seem to be working...

Is this problem only in my browser, or are other users seeing no chart upon expanding the box on WP:AC?

AGK 18:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, the recent chart isn't loading at all for some reason. I had similar trouble when expanding the old/full chart - since I made a change to it, I just see a lot of coloured boxes now and no text. :S Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The look fine to me both with IE6 at work and Google Chrome at home. UC's resignation also needs to be added to the Recent changes chart. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Now they look fine, yes. (Firefox on Linux.) I have no idea what changed, but back in November it was for me as Newyorkbrad and Ncmvocalist described it. — the Sidhekin (talk) 08:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Matthew Hoffman motion

Newyorkbrad's proposal has the support of 5 arbitrators. There are 12 active arbitrators, one (Charles) is recused, another (bainer) abstains, so that's a majority, right? Can this be closed and implemented, if that's not a problem? I'd prefer this didn't drag out any longer. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think so. There are 10 active arbitrators (excluding Deskana, Charles and Stephen/bainer). This still leaves the majority requirement of 6 supports by arbs. It would've been 9 active arbs with a majority of 5 if FT2 didn't vote. In any event, I've nudged another arb today in the hope that something can be implemented without further delay. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, 6 is a majority. There are 13 Arbitrators active on this case (see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee#Current members, but count FT2 as active in light of his participation in the Committee discussion section and his casting of a vote on each motion). After deducting 1 active member per Charles' recusal and (for Newyorkbrad's proposal only—there are different circumstances on this next point on the other motions) another per Bainer's abstention, the number of active Arbitrators is 11.

I've written a guide for calculating the majority at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Procedures#Calculating the majority. Looking up "11," the majority is 6. Et voilà: we need 6 arbitrators to cast a "support" vote (presuming no more abstain)—one more than has already—for this motion to carry.

Point of note: This comment is an alternative explanation of the circumstances we are dealing with here to Ncmvocalist's, above, which is equally as correct as mine!

Hope this helps. AGK 22:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe at this point another abstention would also pass the motion.--Tznkai (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

That is correct. (Support votes seem to be more common than abstentions, however.) AGK 18:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Links

Should there be a link to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration at the top of this page? It seems like a lot of people might be coming to this article looking for that one. If there is a bright and shiny link I didn't see it, and I looked for it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

There is in fact a link to Requests for Arbitration ("RfAr") on this page. See the green "Please click here to file an Arbitration case" text in the grey header at the page-top? That's our link to RfAr (which I agree should be linked on this page, for usability purposes).

Would you still suggest that link may not be conspicuous enough? If so, we could look at adjusting the page layout.

AGK 22:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see it. I see links to Arbcom elections and Admin coaching at the top. Maybe my monitor is cutting it off? Is it on the far right? Further down there's a green and red "active" and "inactive". Do I need glasses?

And then there's some other page for Arbitration enforcement too? Is that linked? So much to keep track of. I think there should be clear links, but if you say they are there I'll have to take your word for it.

I always find these pages and I can never figure out how to get to the actual action. Is it part of a conspiracy to make sure I don't make any complaints, or am I a bit slow?ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh now I see it. Way down in that box with some deceptively innocent title about "requests for". Yeah, I think it needs a clear link. FOR ARBITRATION CLICK HERE. FOR ARBRATION ENFORCEMENT CLICK HERE. :) Seriously it's hard to find when you're hunting around and you don't know what things are called. Maybe buttons would be good. A big red button I could find. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and did you mean at the top of this page? I see now there's a link up there too, but who looks for links on a talk page? I'm thinking this is definitely some kind of conspiracy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

If you are looking to have a link on Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee (you referred in your initial comment to this page, but I would deduce from your searching the attached project page—rather than this talk page—that you meant the other page), there are in fact two. :) AGK 18:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed by "this page" I meant this article page not this talk page. Should we keep the noobs guessing? Now that I'm in the know I say screw em! Let them wander around like idiots in a never ending circuit of policy pages that don'thave obvious links to the pages they're looking for. :) What do you think? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that before requesting arbitration, one would be well-served by making oneself familiar with the entire process. From that perspective, maybe a little wiki-hunting is a good thing. However, it takes me exactly one click to navigate from this project page to the instructions for filing a case ("Requests for arbitration" in the navbox). Pretty difficult to simplify a single-click process. Franamax (talk) 02:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed when you know where to look it's easy to find! I don't have any desire to request arbitration. My suggestion was related to making the arbitration pages easier to navigate. But if you think having the only clear links at the top of the talk page (are talk pages the logical place to look for links?) or buried in the the third topic 14 or so items down in the infobox is the best place to put links, then so be it. I now know how to find it, despite this article page's poor design, but someone unfamiliar with the organizational system and methods (madness?) of Wikipedia might not. I always find it amusing that there is so much reluctance to make Wikipedia friendlier, easier to navigate, and more welcoming to newcomers. When it comes to warning someone who doesn't know any better about a "bad" edit a giant warning sign and template is necessary, but for navigating policy pages perhaps subtlety is the best approach? Maybe we could have the links be hidden and show up only when you scroll over them? Or make it into an acronym. I love acronyms! LMIHTF :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbs Elect

I think this information is useful on a number of levels, and I believe it should be included immediately. I trust the regular consensus process here (of course!) and I think this is exactly as it should be! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Please remove it, Privatemusings. The positions are not confirmed; for example, many of us have not yet complied with the requirements for identification, nor have we confirmed acceptance of any offer of appointment. Until the official announcements are made, please do not include names. Thanks. Risker (talk) 01:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

compromise wording? - I'm not sure there's actually any 'official' announcement beyond Jimbo's rights as our constitutional monarch - similar to the taking of tea at Buck Palace. Election winners are widely reported as 'xxx elect' and I think it's a good idea? whaddya reckon? Privatemusings (talk) 01:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the list for now. Please wait until the official announcement, out of respect for all of the candidates if nothing else. Risker (talk) 01:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

oh I'm not going to edit again, Risk - that'd be foolish - but I think it'd be better up there (kinda like calling Obama the 'President Elect' - I'll check now to see if we do that.....). Congrat.s by the way, and I'll not edit the project page at all again this year. best, Privatemusings (talk) 02:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)yup - we do say 'president elect', even before the official announcement.... but I learnt something today - the electoral college met yesterday! who knew!

PM, that was premature, please wait til it's official. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

PM, as far as I'm concerned, it's like sending out birth announcements before the baby is born. Everyone knows who's pregnant, but strange things can happen. I do understand where you are trying to go, but let's take things one step at a time, okay? Risker (talk) 02:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Risker; this page should reflect the current status; the 2008 election has no outcome yet, for reasons best handled elsewhere. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• The 'Arbitrators Elect' list has been removed by Risker; the correct move, IMO. It was quite inappropriate. PM., I don't think it's wise to push the "Jimbo shouldn't be in charge of appointments any longer" argument in such a trivial way. Let's be professional here. AGK 19:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Per the above. This page should list users who are arbitrators or users who have been arbitrators. This is not the page for statistical results of an election. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm shocked, shocked to find that PM would make an edit that did not have universal consensus! I'm sure it won't happen again. ++Lar: t/c 20:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

/me offers Lar a nice cup of chamomile tea to calm his frayed nerves - and goes off to unblock / reblock Giano in a bid to help with the really pressing matters before the arbcom..... ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Separate mailing lists

I have a concern about Arbcom maintaining a separate mailing list for active arbitrators only. This is an issue that perhaps the new arbitrators should think about tackling. Already the existence of separate lists has led to one significant communication failure that I am aware of, where a question was asked of the active arbitrators' list and no one knew the answer, but a former arbitrator did know the answer but didn't know the question had been asked.

I know the list was set up in response to community concerns about the participation of former arbitrators. However I think the committee should re-evaluate this matter. If the committee also recognizes trust or access issues with respect to former arbitrators, it should purge the list (en masse or selectively, despite the drama that some would try to drum up as a result). If the committee does not see trust or access issues it should do away with the sub-list and just tell the community "We respect your concerns but disagree." In short, I think all arbcom business (including discussion of all sensitive matters and including whatever advice-giving Jimbo feels he needs) should be handled on a single list. Either purge arbcom-L, or endorse the participation of everyone on Arbcom-L, but don't try to have it both ways. I don't think that is working. Thatcher 16:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

If none of the active arbitrators knew how to answer a question, and thus the question fell through the cracks, that's an indictment of the arbs, not an argument to put former arbs onto a single list. I support either 1) two lists, with active only being the one for main business, and the other being for when advice is needed or 2) one list for active arbs only. But I do not support former arbs being on the main list. That's my view. ArbCom is free of course to do as they see fit, it's their decision, but it's my view. ++Lar: t/c 17:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

This may be a moot point. I had thought there were two lists. But Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee#Mailing_list suggests not. Either I'm misremembering or there is some confusion somewhere. ++Lar: t/c 17:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge there is a separate, secret* mailing list that is only for current Arbitrators. (*It has, in fact, been discussed on-wiki a few times, but don't ask me for diffs.) And, there certainly was a second list at the time of the message to which I referred above. In this specific case, an Arbitrator asked whether anyone knew if edits by FT2 to zoophilia had been oversighted, as claimed by Peter Damian. At the time, the oversight log was broken. The two people who knew of the oversight matter without relying on the log (Jimbo and David Gerard) did not see the question since it was sent to the active arb list, not Arbcom-L. But I want to focus this discussion on the question of arbitrator mailing lists and community trust, not on the particulars of the Damian case. Certainly I have seen on numerous occasions various members of the community argue for separate mailing lists or to exclude certain or all former arbs from Arbcom-L. (Again, no diffs, sorry.) I wanted to raise the question of whether this is a good thing or not. Thatcher 18:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher, Jimbo and FT2 would be on the arbs-only list, and both of them would have known about the oversighting. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I just found out that Jimbo is on the arbs-only list, but that is a matter for a different page, I think. Here I would like to focus on whether or not there should be a separate list at all. Thatcher 19:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to focus on which case the situation arose either. But I have heard via rumor/hearsay/(not always reliable sources :) ) that this has happened more than once. The new AC would be well served to maybe look into some sort of troubleticket/tracking system if there is more to that than rumor so that mails don't get lost, and that every mail gets a response (unless its from a repeat pesterer). That seems different to me than whether there should be one or two lists. I'll repeat what I said, personally I think having all former arbs on the main (and only) list is not necessarily goodness.... presumably at least for some, the community has indicated less trust than for others. I do favour two lists though, as I have in the past found that sort of thing useful in other organizations (an ex officer's list so the current officers can ask for advice, memory, etc., has stood me well in more than one organization I was in)... All THAT said, it's ArbCom's call. But it should be clearly stated whatever it is. ++Lar: t/c 19:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

SlimVirgin: Why would Thatcher be subscribed to an ArbComm mailing list? He's is a clerk, not an arbitrator or ex-arbitrator. (FT2 and Jimbo both would, though, yes.)
FWIW, I can endorse Thatcher's statement above, which suggests this sub-list has been discussed on-Wiki on a few occasions. (I also have noticed it being referred to in passing, and also on another private mailing list by an arbitrator.) It seems to be an "open secret," or at least a fact the Committee don't wish to make a big deal out of (and understandably so). Like Thatcher, however, I can offer no diffs; I am positive I have seen it referred to on-Wiki, but, after a quick leaf around, I cannot pinpoint where. I'm sure somebody will be able to offer evidence, if they are dubious as to how trustworthy Thatcher or I am. :-)
AGK 19:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

AGK, I think you are seeing something that is not there. Slim and I have no significant disagreement. The question I wish to raise (being separate from the other matter) is whether or not there should be multiple lists. I tend to think that people either are trusted or they are not, and that the second list was created because there was a recognition that some members of the list are not trusted but an unwillingness to deal with it in a more decisive manner. Lar raises an interesting alternative, that there should be two lists but there should be some method of incident tracking.Thatcher 19:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

AGK, that was a misunderstanding, and my fault. I was addressing Thatcher, not including him in the list. :-) Sorry for not writing clearly. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• As an alternative suggestion, let Jimbo create a new mailing list to get advice from trusted ex-officers, call it Jimbo-L or kitchencabinet-L. If there is to be a list called Arbcom-L, that is officially promoted as the place to send Arbitration Committee business, then the only subscribers should be members of Arbcom or former arbitrators whom the present Committee vouch for and are willing to entrust and delegate all their sensitive communications to. Thatcher 00:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Interesting. Who are these "trusted ex-officers" then? I disagree with who should be on the official list. Only arbitrators should have access. People who resign have no need for access to the list. Either they want to do the work, or they don't. There should not be an in-between. If a case desperately needs their attention, they can be cc'd the mails, or be temporarily added. I couldn't possibly trust ArbCom to choose ex-arbitrators who can have access to the list, because the current committee appears to be at odds with the community at large, so cannot be trusted to do such a thing. Majorly ^talk 00:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• I'm torn on this point. Instinctively, I don't support having ex-arbs on the mailing list, for all the reasons others have listed. On the other hand, I feel this committee has become detached from the community, in part because they set up a separate list. It has meant they've been cocooned from advice that more experienced arbs might have given them, about what will and won't wash with the community. I think it has contributed to a seige mentality and a political blindness, and also an arrogance on the part of some of them that they can do whatever they want. The wider list provides an anchor and an institutional memory. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

In regards to the original problem of the oversighted edit, the appropriate way to have reached the oversighters, if the log was down, would have been to email oversight-l. There is not enough discussion or questions being asked on that list, if you ask me; I have said as much to the arbs over a month ago. Regarding arbcom-l, I strongly believe that only the current arbs should be on the main arbcom-l list for a lot of reasons. I agree that an additional list for ex-arbs could be useful, and that would give the arbs a clear direction in which to send requests that need the attention of ex-arbs. Currently the ex-arbs need to follow all discussions in order to know when they are needed. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Time for me to point out, yet again, that in my view oversight-l is confusingly named. It applies to en:wp only... requests for oversight on other wikis get sent there and apparently at least sometimes, get lost, rather than brought to the attention of oversighters on other wikis. The list should be moved to oversight-en-l to free up the name for global use (in parallel to how there is a checkuser-l which is global in remit). Some clarification has happened on meta but not enough. A new ArbCom ought to tackle enabling the list admins to make this change. ++Lar: t/c 14:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• In response to some comments above that this was previously discussed but people can't remember where, there was at least one discussion back in February 2008. See here. There were other references to this separate mailing list at various points before and after that discussion, but that is the only discussion I've found so far. Still, that should help to trace things back further if needed. Carcharoth (talk) 22:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the second list - Jimmy was voted for access onto it during October 10 - 12. He wasn't on it beforehand. The separate list was a common point raised by the community in the 2007 elections, due to concerns that a case might be prejudiced or the committee compromised in some instances, if an involved ex-arb had access to see the private discussions. It also exists in recognition that the main list is insufficiently certain of privacy, for some of the serious real-world harassment or privacy issues that can arise. A third reason is that it provides a recourse if something warrants just discussion by the arbitrators alone, for any reason. The main list is used routinely for other matters. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

No secret scheming

Except for matters that require privacy, all ArbCom discussions should be in public where they can be observed. Recent events show the caustic effects on trust of secretive scheming. Jehochman ^Talk 00:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I would hope this is what happens already. Oh right, I forgot, checkuser appointments, which do not require any privacy. Majorly ^talk 00:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Your comments might carry more credibility if you didn't shout "CHECKUSER APPOINTMENT" every time Arbcom did something you didn't like. (Much like Everyking and Proabivuoac and any number of other editors afflicted with monomania. By the way, if you didn't hear, I've resigned.) Thatcher 00:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

That's great news! Though you didn't address the point I made. Arbcom discusses things in secret unnecessarily. This of course has nothing to do with your appointment; I supported Alison, Lar, Deskana, Nishkid64, Luna Santin, Avraham and Rlevse all getting CU, all who were discussed in über secrecy on the list. I didn't complain about them. Has it not occurred to you I complained for reasons other than what you believe? Like the fact you barely edit the encyclopedia, you're cold, unfriendly, impersonal, often nasty, and of course let's not forget the fact you posted parts of a private conversation onto my RFA. I didn't want to make this personal; just a fact that arbcom does CU appointments in secret. It's true whether I say it, or whether someone else says it. But since you appear to hold a grudge from well over a year ago, there's not much I can say for you. Majorly ^talk 00:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't hold a grudge, as such, but your opposition was personally hurtful to me and yes, I remember it. And obviously so do you. ("That's great news!"). I do support more transparency from Arbcom. In the specific Giano/Moreschi case for example, having the names is a big improvement over a tally or simple assertion. The question is whether having the text of the discussion itself would shed even more light on the subject or just add heat and smoke. Thatcher 01:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Well I truly am sorry if my opposition was hurtful. It's unfortunate though, because I used to highly respect you, but I lost respect for you that day when you did what you did to me, on my RFA. My "It's great news" was supposed to be sarcastic, I heard you resigned ages ago, and that was only in response to your comment telling me you resigned (as if I really care? I got over your appointment some time ago, and learned to live with it after I heard how hard you worked as one.) Back on topic, this particular case, which does not require privacy, does not need ArbCom intervention. We could just forget this, and get on with more productive things, but knowing ArbCom, I doubt they'd want to let it rest. Majorly ^talk 01:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Community_feedback_on_ArbCom_Members

Readers may wish to be aware of Wikipedia:Village pump/ACFeedback. DepartedUser (talk) 01:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser and Oversight accountability

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)

Deskana's resignation

Hello everyone.

I am resigning from the Arbitration Committee, mainly due to inactivity. I feel that my seat would be better taken up by someone who is capable of being more active. I am suffering from long term illness which is affecting my activity on Wikipedia. Although I do not wish to disclose exactly what this illness is, it is serious enough that I have had to take a year out of university in the middle of my third year, due to missing a lot of lectures.

I will continue to offer my support to the Committee as a checkuser and oversighter. A Committee that does not have to do the majority of its own checkuser work is a Committee that can spend more time voting on cases and doing other more important things. A substantial amount of delegation already takes place in this regard, but now I will be the one who it is delegated to, rather than one of the ones who delegates it. This also means I will be able to take longer breaks, if necessary due to my illness, and not disrupt the business of the Committee quite as much.

I would also like to make it clear that I was not certain of my resignation until a few hours ago. I could still have, at any point, e-mailed Jimbo and told him that I was not resigning anymore.

I will continue to be an active Arbitrator until the appointment of the new Arbitrators.

Deskana (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Deskana, for your work with the Committee over the past year. It is unfortunate that your illness has kept you away from your pleasures and responsibilities, both in real life and on Wikipedia. I wish you good health in the months and years to come. Risker (talk) 20:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to hear of your resignation Deskana, hope you can contribute when you can. As we've discussed your illness at length, I understand why, and I'm kept my word not to say anything to anyone and will continue to keep that promise. I wish you well in all endeavors and hope to see you back. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Your "real" life > Wikipedia. Good luck, and thanks for all the hard work. Godspeed in your endeavors.--Tznkai (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm in the same situation as Rlevse, and make the same promise.

I'm impressed by your stepping down—it was a mature move—and thank you for your service to date. It's a shame you only had a little while you were able to arbitrate.

Best, AGK 17:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Deskana, I can't say much more than what Risker and Tznkai have said already - although your contribution history cannot tell us a true story of how much work you've actually done on the Committee (as with the other arbitrators leaving this year), I'd like to emphasize the fact that your efforts are appreciated. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Improving ArbCom co-ordination

Hi everyone,

The ArbCom is currently undergoing a streamlining process to improve our efficiency, and address the general concerns raised. This involves more heavy use of a private wiki, and having a co-ordinator who will help the mailing list function better by making sure that matters aren't lost, and by maintaining a list of matters that need to be addressed, both matters relating directly to cases and more general mailing list matters.

This idea was previously thrown around, however none of the Arbitrators of the time (myself included) were inclined to take up the job. This is understandable, given that it would likely include a large amount of work (though certainly not as much as being an active Arbitrator!).

Now that I have resigned, I volunteered to take up the position. There were several reasons for this. The first is because the work will not be as stressful as being an Arbitrator, partially because there will be zero decision making in the role. Secondly, because I resigned after only one year of service, I still feel as if I have two years where I should be serving the community. Co-ordinating ArbCom matters serves both the Committee and the community, as a more efficient Committee makes a happy community.

The two outward facing roles that I would be taking on as a co-ordinator are...

1. Tracking incoming e-mails. This includes sending acknowledgement of receipt and trying to be sure matters aren't lost or passed over by accident, which has regrettably happened from time to time.
2. Being a first point of call for users wishing to track the progress of their e-mails

Funnily, the co-ordinator idea is an old one that I decided to bring up again, and wasn't actually initiated by the new users who were elected. I state this because I find it a funny co-incidence that all the new users who were elected with the general mandate to reform the ArbCom were actually not the ones that spearheaded the idea. :-)

I am informing you all so that you know that we're taking your concerns regarding our general performance onboard and trying to come up with ways to fix the problem.

General comments are welcome below.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Deskana (talk) 17:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Further clarification based on a few private questions I've been asked: I am still resigning. Former Arbitrators still retain access to the private wiki and to the mailing list. I will essentially be a clerk for the mailing list, making sure that things don't get forgotten and helping the Arbitrators organise themselves. --Deskana (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You might consider help ticket software. When somebody writes, open a ticket that can be tracked by ticket number. There should be a report listing open tickets. When an issue is resolved, a message should be logged, and a response sent to the user for each and every ticket. Jehochman ^Talk 17:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

This was something that was considered, but I personally do not feel the throughput of e-mails that need external response justifies setting up such a system, when having one person looking over the e-mails would suffice. Most of the chatter on the list is of an internal nature. --Deskana (talk) 18:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you should separate the internal chatter from the inbound requests. I feel very strongly that a well run organization will respond to each and every customer inquiry. Best practice is to send one email, even an automated one, saying that the request has been received and logged #(drop in number). When the request is closed, another email is sent with the resolution (e.g. "The Arbcom thanks you for your inquiry, but has decided that no further action is required."). This is infinitely better than no response at all. Many people have complained about getting no response whatsoever to their inquiries. Jehochman ^Talk 18:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you forsee any expansion of your role should the new arbs, generally elected on an undertaking to improve the service ArbCom provides, instigate new procedures or methodology in handling cases that are not within the remit of the clerks to shepherd through? An arbcom for change, as this one may be, may require someone with the recent knowledge, present non participation and remaining trust that you have to ensure that any transitions in process are handled smoothly. In that last point, I certainly hope that your health and time available to the project would enable you to perform such tasks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm basically around to help co-ordinate however is best. So if there are structural changes that the clerks can't help with, then I would be happy to help. I view this role as being somewhat flexible and the purpose of it being "general co-ordination" so I'd be adapting it to help out wherever possible. --Deskana (talk) 18:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Proactively taking up this initiative on behalf of both the community and the Committee is something else that everyone will appreciate - I don't think anyone would have good cause to oppose this idea either. Good on you. ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

On the subject of email tracking, have you considered setting up an OTRS queue? Stifle (talk) 10:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It's been discussed many times over the years, but in general we don't want people to get confused between Arbitration (community) work, and OTRS (Foundation) work. Perhaps a second installation of OTRS, but then you've got all the over-heads without much of the benefit.

James F. (talk) 11:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The ticket queue is just a tool. You merely put a different skin on it for ArbCom. Jehochman ^Talk 11:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

On a separate note from the above discussion - I really, really hope that when you say "more heavy use of a private wiki", you are talking strictly about coordination, task-organization and to-do lists. Discussion of actual (public) cases should be done on-wiki wherever it's possible. This has been a huge theme in the past year: where the hell did this decision come from?

I'd even be thinking that a to-do list should be maintained on-wiki for cases, motions, clarifications, etc., such that people could check in one place to see "arbitrator X hasn't voted on issues W, Y and Z". For public cases at least, timeliness is important, the more transparency the better. Franamax (talk) 13:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Most of what I'm doing on the private wiki right now concerns only the e-mails received by the Arbitration Committee, which obviously can only take place on a private wiki. --Deskana (talk) 13:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Franamax: I think was Deskana meant by that comment is that a number of matters that would otherwise be handled on the mailing list due to their sensitive nature will now be handled on the private ArbComm wiki. Based on my usage of the Mediation Committee's private Wiki, I would argue that private sites facilitate easier tracking of pending matters and co-ordination of discussions; think of this as a change of environment to one which will result in less matters being forgotten about in the mess that is mailman. Make sense? AGK 22:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• I am exceptionally glad to see this appointment being made (and, as an aside, think Deskana is a very good chap to fill the role). I was considering running for the Committee this year with the intention of overhauling the mailing list; this, however, is a step in the right direction. I think OTRS software would reduce workload, yes; I don't buy into the argument that it would cause confusion with m:OTRS; just call it something different and, per Jehochman, give it a different skin. If Deskana is willing to put in the grunt work to make sure everything is tracked and resolved in due course, then a mailing list could work too. AGK 15:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
• This is a great move for ArbCom. Deskana is just the kind of guy they need to act as gateway to the committee. However, I suggest that he should still be allowed to vote in Arbitration cases, and that his vote be given special weight since he is the co-ordinator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.168.12.141 (talk) 09:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

  Actually, a good argument can be made (and, indeed, Deskana makes that argument himself) that his retirement is the reason why he will have the time and concentration necessary to do that job right. Being an active arbitrator is an extraordinarily demanding job (in time and emotional investment) that leaves little time for much else. — Coren ^(talk) 18:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee work

A brief community update on some Arbitration Committee matters since the announcement of the new arbitrators.

The 2009 committee (7 continuing arbitrators, 10 new appointees) has been busy, despite the time of year. Some of the activity is worth mentioning publicly, so the community has a bit of a heads-up on some areas of improvement and change that are being worked on. For example:

1) In the past, over-reliance on email has led to huge problems - especially, matters that became left uncompleted or buried under new email due to pressure of new emails.

• The last week has seen considerable improvement over 2008 regarding internal co-ordination, including the tracking of emails, proposals, key information, and other matters needing attention.
• As a byproduct this has already allowed a number of users to target specific areas of work, possibly leading to better co-ordination of time and energy. For example, Deskana as co-ordinator, myself handling a large part of maintenance and the proposals section, Roger Davies taking a lead on checkuser appointment handling, and so on.

2) A range of proposals are under discussion, and will probably be rolled out into Arbitration use or broached publicly over the coming weeks or couple of months. So there is likely to be considerable change and reform. Examples of the areas under review include:

• Review of checkuser and oversight appointment process
• Reviewing how situations known to have a high risk of disruption or problems are handled by the Committee
• In depth review of the so-called "civility issue", and the divisions and issues which surround it within the community, especially in the context of disputes and RFAR cases of the kind where arbitration may be sought.
• Selecting a more robust decision process for the committee so that questions whether something is "a committee decision" or not are no longer a source of confusion.
• Review of the workshop, and beyond that, of Requests for Arbitration case pages, and of the Arbitration pages within the wiki generally.
• Communications generally (probably in tandem with the above)
• Better communal guidance, and considering our approach in advance internally, when significant disputes involving well known "problem scenarios" arise
• Handling of bans, and "admin abuse" appeals
• Handling of emails and other administration requests
• Transparency to the community in decision-making

I should emphasize this is a snapshot of some matters being worked on, as well as case discussions and other emails. It may give an idea of a few things that might see the light of day. Some are difficult and sensitive and may take time. A program of reform like this might be rolled out over a period of months. It cannot be known how these will go this early on, so for now no further detail, just a brief snapshot. But they may give some idea of the activity going on behind the scenes.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the insight, and please do continue reporting such developments. Skomorokh 15:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

With the new ArbCom I'd suggest a regular 'status report', perhaps even monthly. Even if it is general, we'd still like to know that the committee is doing something. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Second the idea of some sort of regular report so that we at least know the committee is doing some or is deadlocked and not doing anything. :) MBisanz ^talk 16:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, from my interpretation of the new Committee's thoughts, we will move most of these discussions on site soon, so you can see them live. ;-) We want to provide as much transparency as possible. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like good news if your interpretation is correct. Davewild (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'd rather not have someone who is a brand new arbitrator and checkuser be in charge of CU appointments. John Reaves 20:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

We haven't changed our manner of working. No one person is in charge of anything that the Committee does. FT2 is giving a his opinion of the past few days work, that's all. :-) FloNight♥♥♥ 20:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Not "in charge of checkuser appointments", but "taking a lead on their handling". In this case, that arbitrator has been taking a lead in making sure the discussions and consensus-seeking about how we handle checkuser are progressing, and keeping that general area of discussion on track and moving as it develops. A Good Thing - although a bit ambiguous :) Checkuser appointments themselves command one of the highest levels of consensus of any matter we deal with, and no one person "takes a lead" on it. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Policy Update

As a reminder, a proposed update to the Arbitration Policy resulting from last fall's RfC and drafted largely by NewYorkBrad is still posted here. I believe discussion stalled during the elections, but it might be something the new committee wishes to review. --InkSplotch (talk) 05:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: CheckUser and Oversight appointments

Your opinion is sought on a proposal from ArbCom for handling future CheckUser and Oversight appointments. The proposal in full is here and all comments are welcomed. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should also leave a note at WP:VP and/or WP:AN. Tiptoety ^talk 18:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Roger did AN. I'm going to do VP now (after working out which one) and then try and work out how {{cent}} works. Carcharoth (talk) 00:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• I also remembered Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies. Is that intended for advertising proposals such as this? Carcharoth (talk) 00:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is. Tiptoety ^talk 01:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee Coordinator announcement

As part of a comprehensive updating of its systems and processes, the Arbitration Committee has decided to appoint one of its sitting arbitrators to act as coordinator. This role carries no additional substantive authority but will primarily involve scheduling work flow and setting target dates for completion of tasks.

Arbitrator Kirill Lokshin (talk · contribs) has been offered and has accepted this assignment, effective immediately, with the title of Coordinating Arbitrator. Arbitrator Roger Davies (talk · contribs) will serve as his Deputy.

Additionally, as previously announced, former arbitrator Deskana (talk · contribs) will continue to coordinate the ArbCom mailing list.

For the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to thank my fellow arbitrators for giving me this opportunity to help improve the efficiency and responsiveness of the Committee over the coming year.

We're currently compiling an agenda with milestone dates for the next few months. Current priorities include:

• Improved mailing list structure and usage
• Improved transparency of decision-making
• Case acceptance thresholds
• Improved CheckUser and Oversight assignment and review
• Improvements to arbitration enforcement
• A new layout and structure for case workshop pages
• Improved procedures for handling appeals
• An update of the Arbitration Policy

This list is still a work in progress, but I hope to publish the agenda with target dates by the end of the month.

We're also working on many logistical improvements; expect, among other things, a new central location for Committee announcements, perhaps followed by more extensive cleanup and rationalization of the many existing arbitration-related pages, as well as updates to the various arbitration guides to make them more useful and to better reflect current norms (as promised in the Eastern European disputes case).

Any comments or questions are very welcome, either here or on my talk page. Kirill 18:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you cross-post the above to AN. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the announcements. Are setting case acceptance thresholds and altering the Arbitration policy within the remit of the Committee? Skomorokh 18:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

They have been in the past, and nothing has changed that would have changed the rules that I'm aware of. Even the RfC didn't seriously challenge the committee's control over its own policy, that I recall. Avruch ^T 19:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

How peculiar. Thanks for the info. Skomorokh 19:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

ClerkBot

I'm working on a replacement bot for automatically opening ArbCom cases (more info). One part of opening a case is leaving the messages for the involved parties and those two who commented, {{ArbComOpenedParty}} and {{ArbComOpenedComment}}. Both templates are signed "On behalf of the Arbitration Committee", is a bot leaving the message on behalf of the ArbCom acceptable? Would it need some form of "bot clerkship" or just an endorsement from the ArbCom? BJ^Talk 19:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure about the answer to your question, though FWIW I support the idea. Wizardman 20:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hm, maybe just have it sign on behalf of whatever clerk closed the case? The real purpose of having clerks do it is so that parties know who to contact if they have issues with the closure, or general questions. Tiptoety ^talk 04:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Bjweeks and I are working on a way which will allow the opening/closing clerks' signature to be included, as I don't think it's desirable to have ArbComBot signing it. Users will use the person who signs it to ask questions about the case, and obviously ArbComBot isn't that smart :) Daniel (talk) 04:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I guess this is {{resolved|Stupid question}}. BJ^Talk 04:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Is ArbCom a reliable source?

See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_ArbCom_a_reliable_source.3F.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom & FT2

Would Arbitrators like to comment on FT2's claim in User_talk:FT2#Promised clarifications that they are the reason for his delay in answering certain questions? DuncanHill (talk) 20:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Please note that the Arbitration Committee have announced that they have established a new central noticeboard, which will serve as a forum for arbitration-related announcements, notices, and other discussion. Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard for more details.

For the Arbitration Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Update list

Could someone update the list of current Arbitrators to reflect the recent resignation? DuncanHill (talk) 13:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Now I have re-read the open letter and accompanying clarifications, I see that it is not entirely clear whether or not anyone has resigned, so the delay is understandable. DuncanHill (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

co-ordinator

I'm sort of assuming that Desk is continuing to organise things on the mailing list, despite his break? I'm not sure it's a great look (particularly externally) to have the named, and wiki-linked co-ordinator of the list saying he's sick of some users, so is on a break :-) I'm sure someone in the know can clear this up :-) Privatemusings (talk) 22:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

When Deskana is away or unavailable, members of the Arbitration Committee step up to the plate and ensure that emails are responded to and logged. Risker (talk) 06:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

coolio - now I would edit the page to reflect that, but I don't think I'm allowed? ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 06:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)I'll do so anyways in 24 hours or so if someone clever doesn't fix it first :-)

No, there is no need to do so. Even in his absence, he remains the coordinator. The rest of us are just covering the desk and do not become the coordinator. Compare it to a workplace: when the president of a company is on holiday, nobody else becomes the "temporary" president. Risker (talk) 07:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

ah - well I'd suggest de-linking Deskana's username, and contact info (if indeed it's not accurate - otherwise just delink the username) - something like this;

The current coordinator is Deskana. or; The current coordinator, Deskana, is on a 'wiki break' however the list is continually monitored, so please feel free to send all enquiries to the address above.

this is like the smallest deal in the whole world ever, but on balance I reckon it might help - I'll leave it there, so it's your call :-) Privatemusings (talk) 07:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration Commitee announcement: new mailing list structure

The Committee has decided to implement several changes to its existing mailing list structure:

• The Committee's main mailing list, arbcom-l, will be restricted to sitting arbitrators, the designated mailing list coordinator, and Jimbo Wales.
• The Committee's private wiki will be identically restricted.
• The current "sitting arbitrators only" list will be retained as a backup to arbcom-l, but will not be normally used.
• A new mailing list, functionaries-l, will be created, with membership open to all arbitrators, former arbitrators in good standing, and CheckUser and Oversight operators.

The resolution authorizing this was passed 12/0, with votes in favor by Carcharoth, Casliber, Cool Hand Luke, Coren, FayssalF, FloNight, John Vandenberg, Kirill Lokshin, Rlevse, Roger Davies, Vassyana, and Wizardman, and no votes against or abstentions.

For the Committee, Kirill 23:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Cross-posted by Tznkai (talk), On behalf of the committee 23:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Committee agenda as of January 20

Listed below are the items which currently comprise the agenda of the Arbitration Committee.

Two points that should be kept in mind:

• Several of the measures being considered may require some form of community ratification prior to being fully adopted. The target date for this is not explicitly listed, but can be assumed to occur after the final date for internal Committee deliberations.
• The target dates are not set in stone; while we will make our best effort to meet them, there are any number of unforeseen circumstances which may cause them to change, and they are subject to revision as other issues arise.

The agenda is as follows:

1. Decide on updates to arbitration enforcement procedures
   • Initiate RFC by January 21
   • Compile RFC results by February 21
   • Draft reform proposals by March 7
   • Finalize reform proposals by March 21
2. Determine procedure for publishing proposals
   • Decision by January 31
3. Appoint CU & OS operators
   • Finalize election setup by January 31
   • Finalize appointments by February 28
4. Determine case acceptance criteria
   • Decision by January 31
5. Determine procedure for emergency rights removal
   • Draft proposal by January 31
   • Decision by February 14
6. Decide on designating an IRC liaison
   • Compile chanop comments by January 31
   • Decision by February 14
7. Decide on appointing CU & OS auditors
   • Finalize proposal by February 7
   • Finalize appointments by February 28
8. Determine recusal standards
   • Draft proposal by February 7
   • Decision by February 21
9. Determine workshop page structure
   • Decision by February 14
10. Determine how to deal with users leaving during cases
    • Draft proposal by February 14
    • Decision by February 28
11. Decide on acceptance of private evidence
    • Draft proposal by February 14
    • Decision by February 28
12. Prepare updated guide to arbitration
    • Draft by February 21
    • Finalized by March 7
13. Determine how to deal with users returning from bans
    • Draft proposal by February 21
    • Decision by March 7
14. Decide on locations of arbitration pages
    • Draft structure by February 21
    • Decision by March 7
    • Implementation by March 14
15. Move forward on handling civility
    • Detailed agenda by February 28
16. Determine procedure for handling banned user appeals
    • Draft proposal by February 28
    • Decision by March 14
17. Determine approach to considering off-wiki actions
    • Draft proposal by February 28
    • Decision by March 14
18. Determine standards of conduct in requests for arbitration
    • Draft proposal by March 7
    • Decision by March 21
19. Develop an arbitrator recall process
    • Draft proposal by March 7
    • Final proposal by March 21
20. Prepare updated Arbitration Policy
    • Draft by March 7
    • Finalized by March 21
21. Move forward on content dispute resolution
    • Detailed agenda by March 14
22. Decide on using summary motions in rejected cases
    • Draft proposal due March 14
    • Decision due March 21
23. Prepare updated transition document
    • Draft by October 31
    • Finalized by November 30
24. Prepare updated induction document
    • Draft by October 31
    • Finalized by November 30

For the Committee, Kirill 01:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Cross-posted by Tznkai (talk), On behalf of the committee 17:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Declaring Alternate Account

I didn't know i had to declare my Public account here, it is User:Hereford Public, its use is for being used on public networks which is allowed by WP:Sockpuppet.

Main Account Hereford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Alternate Account Hereford Public (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

---HereFord 21:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

You do not have to, it is just a good practice. Also, the mailing list is generally a better place to do it. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 05:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Apology re:Date-delinking injunction

I apologise for my violation of the temporary injunction placed on mass delinking of dates. Working primarily to ensure that date formats in articles were consistent, I carried out the task with a tool that simultaneously delinks dates. In making the dates consistent, I unwittingly allowed some dates to be delinked; I should have been more aware. I also manually delinked dates from a handful of articles while browsing, and had not read the injuction carefully enough to realise that even manual delinking was covered. Again, I sincerely apologise. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Your apology is greatly appreciated. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 05:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

email address

Is there a publicly reachable email address that goes only to current committee members? I see the page now says that arbcom-l is limited to current committee members - is this correct? --Random832 (contribs) 14:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yup, have you seen the new arbitration committee noticeboard? Don't have the link handy. Avruch ^T 15:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:AC/N. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 15:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser and Oversight election policy amended

In light of the concerns expressed by numerous members of the community regarding the voting method selected for the CheckUser and Oversight elections, the Committee has amended the election policy to allow votes both for and against a candidate, and to specify appointments based on percentage of support rather than raw support.

The measure authorizing this amendment was passed 10/0:

• Supporting: Carcharoth, Casliber, Cool Hand Luke, Coren, FloNight, Kirill Lokshin, Risker, Roger Davies, Sam Blacketer, Wizardman
• Opposing: None
• Abstaining: None
• Not voting: FayssalF, Jayvdb, Newyorkbrad, Rlevse, Stephen Bain, Vassyana

It should additionally be noted that this matter was dealt with on a quite urgent basis, and a number of arbitrators have not yet had the opportunity to enter formal votes on the measure; we expect that the tally above will be updated once this has occurred.

For the Committee, Kirill ^[pf] 04:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Cross posted by Tznkai (talk)on behalf of the Arbitration Committee 04:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

CU/OS election has started!

Your participation is needed! The historic first-ever CheckUser and OverSight election run by the Arbitration Committee has just started. It's taking place here. Editors are needed urgently to scrutinise the candidates so that those appointed are the best possible people for the job. Your participation here is important to make the election a success. Thanks in advance, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 00:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Seeking a timeline on the "date" case

We ask that ArbCom treat the "dates" hearing as a high priority, for the following reasons:

1. Duration: The case has dragged on for more than a month.
2. Abundant text already. The Workshop page continues to blow out with diffs and other claims that we believe are of no further assistance to arbitrators in their task. It now contains 790 Kb, 105 thousand words, 3/4 of a million characters, and 3,200 "paragraphs", covering 221 pages in Word (Ariel, single-spaced); this is in addition to extremely large Evidence and Application pages.
3. Style guide locked: It appears that one of our most important style guides, MOSNUM, has been entirely locked down in relation to this case for a considerable period.
4. Personnel: It involves many well-established and prominent editors whose time and energy continues to be diverted in monitoring the case, since it is an official process and involves significant personal exposure.
5. Proposals: Two proposals aimed at moving the issues forward in practical terms have recently been made, here and here; we believe these may assist the ArbCom process.

Tony (talk) 04:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly endorse Greg L (talk) 04:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• Yes. There can be no possible benefit to WP in allowing this process to drag on longer. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• Agree. Ohconfucius (talk) 12:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• Please do. There will be no progress on the actual content issue (date linking/autoformatting) until this ends. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW: I count the "dates" hearing as being 198 “page downs” in a 1022-pixel-wide window. That is the equivalent of 40 meters of scrolling—a thirteen-story-tall building. If the workshop doesn’t get some attention soon, we can add a new unit of length to accompany the Smoot. Rather than saying “The Harvard Bridge is 364.4 smoots long”, we can say, “the moon is 28.2 date delinking workshops away.”

Since it is clearly an exceedingly onerous task for any human to wade through all that, I propose that we create a new subpage to the workshop, where the two warring camps here each post a 2000-word proposed solution that cuts to the heart of the matter and omits tangential sniping and proposed *solutions* like “tie so‑n‑so to a post and execute him at dawn.” Greg L (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support It would help analysis if two classes of subpages were created: 'primarily about people'; and 'primarily about date linking policy'. Lightmouse (talk) 12:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support The denigrating of conscientious people who had consensus (and worked in good faith) to improve WP has gone on long enough. The process should now end in order to clear the way for bots (perhaps modified to meet emerging community consensus) to continue the necessary work of the removal of the unwanted date-links found throughout WP (something for which the various RfCs have shown overwhelming support). The current "evidence" page has long since devolved into an "airing of grievances" page, and is being diluted further away from the crucial point of deciding matters to do with date-delinking. I urge the arbitrators to ignore the so-called "behavioural" issues, simply because the only way to move forward is to specify policy that meets community consensus—hence obviating behavioural problems resulting from future edits. I believe that everyone supporting the delinking of dates is willing to move forward in just such a way, and have promoted proposals to obtain that outcome for the entire WP community.  HWV258  22:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
• Comment There has been much bad behaviour over this arbitration and I think we would all like to see a light at the end of the tunnel, however the case is not urgent. I would draw the Arbcom's attention to the fact that the proposals linked by Tony above do not address the root problem of the arbitration case: The bot-enforcement of a disputed guideline. In my opinion, the fact that multiple changes to MOSNUM have been proposed on the Arbitration page, and on Jimbo's talk page (rather than on talk:MOSNUM) is a display of poor judgment on the part of experienced editors who should know better. As I have submitted in my evidence, this case has similar ramifications to that of Betacommand, in particular as regards the bot-enforcement of rather arbitrary and poorly agreed rules over the whole encyclopaedia by a very small group of experienced editors who are extremely resistant to comments about the value of the edits. With that said though, one of the primary problems with Betacommand was the extreme urgency of the task, which meant that considerable latitude in poor behaviour was tolerated in order that the task should be completed on-time. In this case I do not see any such urgency, and I cannot honestly see the problem for wikipedia if the MOSNUM locking and injunctions were to remain in place for a couple of years. I would urge the Arbcom to allow sufficient time for the dust to settle, and I would submit to the Arbcom that haste in this case is both unnecessary and possibly counterproductive.

The sole exception to this lack of urgency is perhaps the content-dispute as indicated above. I would notify the Arbcom that several parties have brought a content dispute (over the wording of MOSNUM) to the Arbitration. Perhaps it would be constructive for the Arbcom to indicate whether it considers rulings on content disputes to be within its remit in this particular case. Perhaps it is unclear to the parties since the article is in wikipedia space rather than in conventional article space. This might save some time. Regards, AKAF (talk) 10:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Mini RFC opened on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight elections

Please see here. I've opened a mini-RFC for sitting Arbs and current CU/OS operators to give feedback to the community on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight elections in regards to the elections and sitting CU/OS operators from before the elections. rootology (C)(T) 18:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

CU/OS Elections are ending tonight!

The historic first-ever checkuser and OverSight election run by the Arbitration Committee is due to close at 23:59 (UTC) today! If you wish to vote, you need to do so soon. Your participation here is important to make the election a success! Thanks in advance, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)