Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee

Request for oversightship

I wish to become an oversighter, because there are not enough wikipedians with oversight privileges. I've identified edits that grossly violated wikipedia's policy on living people, and reported them to oversight. But sometimes the response takes too long (for example, the most recent time I asked for oversighting of an edit).

Getting oversight should be no big deal. Some tasks involved with being an admin (which I am not currently), such as closing an AfD or banning a user, may be difficult, but deciding to delete a phone number or an address should be easy. Thanks, Andjam (talk) 09:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Your willingness to help out is admirable. However, I direct you to three points: 1/ all Oversighters are administrators, and I do not think that, in practice, the permissions will be issued to non-administrators. Oversight is, after all, a permission that has the potential to cause damage to the project, and for that reason, requires a great deal of trust. 2/ Requests for the oversight permission are generally directed to the AC's private mailing list (index page), and addressed in private. Obviously, I see no reason why the request cannot be addressed here, rather than requested privately, but I would advise that you at least contact the Committee, pointing them towards this thread. 3/ Those that are given access are required to confirm their identities to the Wikimedia Foundation. If you desire access to the oversight flag, you will need to identify, via a medium detailed here. Regards, Anthøny 21:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for oversight access can be emailed to ArbCom mailing list as Anthony says. It is necessary for people with oversight access to be admin since they need to be able to see deleted versions of articles since some edits are deleted prior to the request for removal by oversight. Thank you for the offer to help, though. :) FloNight♥♥♥ 21:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for replying Anthony. When I read Wikipedia:Oversight#Assignment_and_revocation, I misinterpreted it as saying that you could put a request on the "Arbitration Committee Talk page". Should the section be clarified a bit? Andjam (talk) 12:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You are indeed correct there, Andjam. I have rewrote the relevant sections. Thank you for drawing attention to that matter. Regards, Anthøny 12:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I've sent an email to the arbitration committee mailing list - it seems to be awaiting moderation. Andjam (talk) 08:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Unable to get a reply from ArbComm

Hello, I am posting this message on behalf of User:Iantresman, who I know and have worked with outside of wikipedia. Ian tells me he has tried to contact the ArbComm to see if the the community ban he received can be re-examined in the light of new evidence, as he summarizes here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Iantresman#Indefinite_ban:_unappealing_replies ...but apparently he has not received any reply at all. Could someone let him know where he stands?--feline1 (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought that he recently received a reply from an arbitrator after we reviewed the request. You double check and so will I. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Ian has emailed me privately to reply:

---

"Since my request for appeal was turned down last year, I re-applied on 1st Jan (with a reminder on the 15th) as it was clear that the evidence showed factually incorrect allegations (rather than just misleading ones).

• I received a reply from Josh Gordon on 16th Jan 2008 saying "Received and under consideration". Since then, I have no record of receiving responses from anyone on the Arbcom list. I sent reminder emails to:

• The ArbCom mailing list on 1 Feb and 14th Feb, without response.
• Morven on 20, 26, and 28 Feb without response.
• Kirill Lokshin on 3 March, without response.
• NewYorkBrad on 4 April, without response.

I then asked clerk Thatcher131 to see if he could get a response, and he was quite helpful. But my emails on 19, 25, 28 and 31 March, and 4 Apr, have all gone without response. ie. Since Josh's reply on 16th Jan 2008, a dozen of my reminders have gone answered."

---

feline1 (talk) 22:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I got a similar reply to my email. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Soupdragon42 (talk) 10:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, well. I see that ScienceApologist (ScienceAntagonist, more like) is still waging his Holy War against Plasma Cosmology. The suppression of Ian Tresman's valid contributions is nothing short of a witch hunt. Nearly all scientific breakthroughs have resulted from conflict, not consensus, and Wikipedia's irrational devotion to mainstream ideas thus stifles scientific progress

Scientific American magazine was still denying that Heavier than Air Flight was possible two years after the Wright brothers had been flying successfully!

Furthermore, Ian Tresman has always been polite and reasonable, by stark contrast to the behaviour of certain Wiki people who should know better. His community ban was clearly instigated on false pretences

NB. ScienceAntagonist. Please do not accuse me of being a sockpuppet of Ian Tresman again, as I have demonstrated to more reasonble moderators that this is not the case - dvd[at]plasmacosmology.net [1]

• I've opened an RFAR to appeal this as it appears that the request isn't being taken seriously. Stifle (talk) 11:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

JW's tie breaking vote?

From memory, it seems that Jimbo's role as a tie-breaker, when the Arbitration Committee is in a deadlock, conflicts with with policy on another page (Or, as I have just found Newyorkbrad's comment in the discussion linked below, "oddly enough the actual Wikipedia:Arbitration policy does not contain this provision"). Looking at the case just now which originally brought this to my attention, the controversy concerning this role was brought to light by this proposal link. And at least one of the conversations concerning this tie-breaking role took place here. So, should this text:

"In this circumstance (a tie vote), the Arbitrators may ask Jimbo Wales to cast a tie-breaking vote, but this has yet to occur."

be removed? It does not seem to have acceptance. And one arbitrator changed their vote just to keep it from being invoked. . . R. Baley (talk) 15:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

R.Baley, the Committee is discussing several internal policy matters. I'll add this to the list for us to discuss. FloNight (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks, R. Baley (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• I know the AC is busy, but this still appears to be an unsettled issue. Is there any discussion going on about this? I ask because it would be a shame to leave it until such time as it would cause the maximum amount of drama to decide. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 02:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Requests for Checkusership

As noted elsewhere, a discussion is ongoing beginning with Wikipedia_talk:RFA#Requests for checkusership. The discussion centers around the idea of an RfA-like process for selecting and/or approving Checkusers. Though I am reasonably certain that some or all of the members of the committee are aware of the discussion, I'm adding a notice here to notify you of the discussion and the proposal. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments welcome

I've started a discussion here about whether an official clerk system is really needed. Al Tally (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet notification

Hi there, an editor who is currently under suspicion of abusing multiple accounts (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TheNautilus) has stated here that he has notified the "arb bureaucracy" of his account usage. Could somebody please check to see if this is true? Tim Vickers (talk) 18:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Either email the arb mailing list or post on one of their talk pages. Only the arbs will know if this is true. You could also file a report at WP:SSP. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've contacted Charles Matthews and Jpgordon. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Who is the "arb bureaucracy"? Anyway, I couldn't find any such notifications in the email records going to back to my beginning as an arbitrator in Jan 2006, and there's nothing in the archive either (at least, nothing with the word "TheNautilus" could be found.) However, if I were participating in the RFC in question, I'd point out that in the absence of any suggestion of abuse, it's simply irrelevant whether or not anyone was informed; current sockpuppet policy allows for such multiple accounts (a policy I disagree with, but there you have it.) It does look that opinion is already being voiced adequately on the RFC. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is tendentious editing and multiple policy violations, not simple sockpuppet abuse. This is why an RfC is needed, rather than a simple RFCU block. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I presume the "arb bureaucracy" is the arbitration committee. I've seen that usage used a few times in emails I have received from editors who do not have much experience with the arbitration process. I don't think it's meant offensively, at least in this case. :) Anthøny 23:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't offended, just amused at the term. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no memory of it but I got an email from TheNautilus in March 2007 discussing a case. In it he mentions using a past account and that some admins (he names them) were aware of the reason for him starting with a new user account. At the time, I did not see the email as notification, but he certainly did say so in the email. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Did he say what this account was called? I ask since I'clast is still an active editor, so if TheNautilus mentioned a "past account" that would seem to imply an account that he had stopped using. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I used the phrase arb bureaucracy because not everyone I've discussed my situation with or WP identity in email, associated with the arbitration process was on the committee itself, I think (little hazy on which functions carry which title recognitions and powers, 2006-7). I thank FloNight for acknowledging my brief note to her, I have more numerous and meatier correspondence with present and former arb process members that I do not think "sharing" is a good idea, considering the long term expectation of privacy.

I consider Tim's actions, especially this past couple of weeks, in bad faith and a sophisticated, concerted personal attack in nature. Although Tim may normally be a good editor, his surprising conduct starting from "orthomoecular medicine" several months ago, suggests to me, a strategic campaign of measured, baiting with escalating coercive conduct & intimidation where most editors are too far removed to understand the underlyng factual science issues and multiple errors. A kind of "will to power behavior", Tim's edits rely on inaccurate historical and scientific statements that are 2nd, 3rd, 4th repetitions of unreliable sites that repeat (project) and spread a known fraud and misrepresentations about a famous scientist & his work. This disparagement, by close association, his living co-author(s) and by society names, members & professional associates may even have BLP/entity issues.

I believe what has happened is that I have tapped Tim's core beliefs. You see, I can *document*, through source text research with WP:V and RS sources, that his favorite epithets are the continued projection & spreading of known, fraudulent misrepresentations by a scientifically unreliable, partisan website that has long history of projecting the *image* of infalliblity (here too) despite being, scientifically and historically on this subject, roadkill. For such controversial situations, I rely on a pretty sophsiticated integration of *all* policies to maintain an "NPOV-SPOV" for accurate, current NPOV, RS, V, WEIGHT text. Tim's tactics have been (perhaps subtly) pre-emptory and ad hominem in nature taking aim my lack of time and edit volume as well popular but documentable misconceptions about the subject, that are the fallout of a decades long propaganda campaign (knowably, even reckless) with the misrepresentation. Now sufficient historical documentation and mainstream scientific authority exists for me to issue this challenge and take it to the line: Tim's favorite epithets, originating unreliable sources, are a form of professional disparagement (those authors and similarly named societies) that are in actuality (based on "my" WP:V, RS mainstream sources) founded inside a "magic square" of severe bias, scientific incompetence, scientific misconduct, and since it is so popular here, scientific quackery. All I am hearing from Tim and fellow travellers by "body language" is "STFU" and WP:HUSH. The bottom line is that Tim is manipulating the system, ignoring WEIGHT & science fact issues and attacking me through WP processes, rather than collaborate like a number of previous MD and PhD editors.

I am not a fast writer by any means. The rapid escalation of complaints and the previous tactics that I consider gratitious and unfair, suggest an intent to overwhelm me by funneling in old adversaries, at a time *when I have been scaling back my editing*. My story involves security issues, some in meatspace & undiscussed anywhere, as well as previous, recurrent trolling and real sockpuppetry where I don't appreciate Tim's inflammatory actions stomping around, attracting notice & harrassment, that just might reanimate one of the prior problem editors. One was an extraordinarily powerful writer, a pharmaceutical lawyer that I've seen finish off another lawyer here at WP inside of a week despite lack of technical merit, and the other that I simply consider a gifted predator, now has several indefs but managed to come in under the WP radar for a year+.--TheNautilus (talk) 01:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the place to discuss this. I'd invite anybody interested to read Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TheNautilus and comment on the issues highlighted in this RfC, some of which are probably obvious to anybody reading the comment above. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

By my reading of WP:SOCK, there are 5 legitimate uses of multiple accounts - to my surprise, segregation of contributions is one of them. There is a LOT of gray area between segregation of contributions and avoiding scrutiny (one man's legitemate segregation is another's avoiding scrutiny), rendering the page almost useless. However, the page does say alternative accounts should be tagged. At minimum, the two accounts should be tagged as alternative accounts. WLU (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

That page will be startlingly divergent from many Wikipedians' expectations. Heaven forbid you try to remove that though. --bainer (talk) 13:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

JzG RFAR merged with Cla68-FM-SV case

Per the arb vote here the RFAR on User:JzG is now merged with this case and he is a named party. Also see my case disposition notes there. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

a Prod, for the Committee

Could we get some action on the various stale requests for clarification? {{RfarOpenTasks}} lists threads that are stale and/or need arbitrator involvement. In particular, the IRC clarification and Moby Dick clarification are particularly stale, and require action.

Anthøny 18:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I just emailed some of them about this. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I archived Moby Dick and IRC at the time I mentioned in the email to the arbs. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to unmerge C68-FM-SV and JzG/Viridae cases

• Please see the proposal here. (Placed this note here since the arbitrators appear not to be reading the case pages.) dorftrottel (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

G33 case

I asked AGK about this, who suggested asking here [2]. The case looks stalled to me. What are you waiting for? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Bit ironic, given the next-but-one thread. Ah well William M. Connolley (talk) 21:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Request to reconsider Arbcom's communication culture

Apropos of this thread, I would like to request that the Arbitration Committee reconsider the manner in which it communicates with the community. Now, some Arbcom discussions and actions need necessarily be done beyond the view of the Wikipedia community, and it is often necessary for accountability concerns to explain the Committee's actions to the community. This seems to occur ad hoc, either at WP:RFARB, user talkpages or commonly, at WP:AN or its subpages. While it would be best to give editors looking for information on the Committee's actions a central place they could go to find it, it is the common use of WP:AN and subpages for this purpose that concerns me. Arbitrator User:FT2 comments that "Those interested are likely to be either admins themselves, or aware of ANI and rapidly hear about posts on it. They'll see it wherever it's posted. AN/ANI is fairly usual for arbcom actions." This may very well be accurate. I think it also encourages the hierarchical culture of Wikipedia wherein important matters are conflated with administrators matters. This perpetuates the notions that administrators are a class above non-administrators and that the Arbitration Committee is accountable primarily to the administrative community, and is very unhealthy for a free, collaborative project. I propose that the Committee use either this talkpage, or a dedicated venue to explain its actions to the community. Respectfully, Skomorokh 22:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Generally arbcom announcements are made to directly involved users. We announce case decisions on case pages with a general announcement on AN since admin carry out sanctions. The above is at one level a block discussion, so AN/I was appropriate, I think. We could start an arbcom announcement page, I suppose. But I'm not sure another page is needed. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Note ongoing cases are also in signpost, but the BLP issue in the Footnoted quotes case is of obvious major interest to a lot of people. I also am not sure we need a new page but perhaps announcing things here that are not so obvious would be a good idea. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

To Rlevse, I am aware and approving of the Signpost system, but what I am talking about is specifically is where Arbcom declare "Here's what we decided and why" and editors are given the opportunity to respond. Skomorokh 22:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflicted with Rlevse) Announcing decisions on AN is one matter (nothing wrong with soliciting attention from those likely to be interested), using it as a forum for explaining them there is another (see above). In cases where Arbcom discusses their decisions in private (rather than at WP:RFAR), there is a need for the rationale for subsequent actions to be communicated to the community. If it is possible to do so solely through case pages (on whose talk pages users can discuss the matter), then the problem I illustrate does not arise. However in the case above, the explanation seemed to come at ANI instead of a case page. I understand the concern with creating more bureaucracy by having an explanation page, but if the case pages do not suffice for the communication necessary, some central forum is required, and AN is not it. Arbcom has an image problem. Let's try to fix that. Sincerely, Skomorokh 22:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, hierachy related, going right back to basics: - I agree that anything that foregrounds a hierachy culture rather than a collaborative one is probably a serious thing not to be done in any area, lightly. We might recognize different roles and such, but users are still expected to act like admins; admins are expected to see themselves as no different from users; arbitrators are still users and admins appointed to a specific and demanding role that happens to have a high profile. Those aren't the important matters, we all contribute as and where we can. The important divisions if any are: "wants to contribute to an encyclopedia and project" or "doesn't"; "has a clue" or "wants to learn" or "is unlikely to/doesn't/won't"; "can collaborate with most others productively" or "can't/won't"; "has a mature approach" or "doesn't"; "escalates problems" or "resolves them"; "cares" or "doesn't care"; and "misjudges and may mis-react/over-react a lot" or "doesn't". Those are the differences between users we care more about, and which any hierachy of trust is intended to be built upon.

Although it's a very historic title, thinking about it, I'd be happier to see AN/ANI and so on retitled to WP:Community noticeboards/Administrators/Notices, WP:Community noticeboards/Administrators/Incidents ... which would then allow on the same section of the wiki, WP:Community noticeboards/Editor whatevers and WP:Community noticeboards/Arbitration Committee actions. That way we better organize our many noticeboards under one umbrella which covers administrators, non-administrators, arbcom actions, and so on, to be included alike. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, thanks for responding FT2. I think this is too broad of a response than the issue merits (and ironically, this is not the forum to discuss reform of AN). I think AN (and subpages) are well-defined as places to go to when you need an administrator to take action (i.e. regarding blocks, protects and deletions). The community noticeboards, where administrators have no special weight or status, already exist (e.g. WP:RSN, WP:RFC, WP:3O, WP:VP). In fact, the Village Pump might be the ideal candidate for the forum I am suggesting, if the Committee is unwilling to maintain its own page. Sincerely, Skomorokh 23:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't considering reform. More, moving them as they stand, to a section that is "community noticeboards" rather than just "admin noticeboards", so that those pages become closer to non-admin users too, and can have additional pages (like the one discussed) asociated with them that arent "admin" something boards. The problem with VP is, far fewer people go there. Why not just one set of noticeboards which will make them much more easy to discover by users, and increase awareness? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I take it that this wasn't necessarily arbcom acting as arbcom, but rather that the arbcom mailing list (which includes past arbs) contains users who could be trusted with a very sensitive subject like this? That's what I assumed at first, but I'm not entirely sure after reading this thread. -- Ned Scott 03:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I dont like the idea of arbcom having a special announcement board, or trying to organise where they post. Important policy changes should be noted at the Village Pump. The most practical approach is for arbcom members to continue to post messages wherever they think is best, and continue to expand efforts to "report" where these messages have occurred, like is being done at Wikipedia:WikipediaWeekly and others. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jayvdb, and think this is a case of it's not broken so why are we trying to fix it? The methods currently in place are fine. AN/I are central forums where everyone, non-admin and admin alike, congregate and know discussion is taking place. To relegate it to some special page off the beaten path where only a small group are going to monitor it does not make sense. Lets not create more pages to add to already overburdened watchlists. KnightLago (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Does ArbCom deal exclusively with disputes?

Specifically, is it within its ambit to make representations to WikiMedia on behalf of ... say, a large petition of WPians concerning a technical matter? TONY (talk) 09:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

No, that would not be part of the Committee's function. --bainer (talk) 00:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

New arbitrator

First, I recognise that the events that led to Brad's resignation are still raw, and everyone appreciates how sad a situation it was. However, time has passed now, and per Jimbo's statement upon announcing the results of the election in December, he offered a list of of candidates that should be considered should one become inactive or resign. I think it would be a good time to appoint a replacement from that list - we're seeing cases take longer than they usually do and should take and an extra hand would certainly help.

Also - what is classed as an inactive arbitrator? I understand Deskana has been ill, but since February, he's commented on one arbcom matter. He's also stated that he could be away for some time [3]. What are the thoughts about offering a temporary (at least) place onto the committee to another one from the list? I was thinking that they could occupy Deskana's seat up until the December elections, or until Deskana returns to full editing. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The announcement can be seen here, and the possible replacements are;

• Raul654 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rebecca (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Manning Bartlett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• David Fuchs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Shell Kinney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MastCell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ryan Postlethwaite 13:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Bringing in a direct quote from the statement, as it seems particularly relevant and also mentions June and July:

"Finally, I want to announce a desire that the ArbCom should institute some informal notions of a required level of activity, and that I will gladly act upon the advice and consent of the ArbCom at mid-term to make replacement appointments (June-ish - July-ish) for any Arbs who unfortunately have found themselves unable to live up to the time commitments of the position.

"I will gladly leave the choice of those mid-term appointments up to the Arbcom (or, at their desire, make the tough decision myself), but will have a strong preference at that time for appointments (based on the election results) from this list..." - User:Jimbo Wales, quoted from Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-12-26/Arbitration series

I'm not sure where the original diff from Jimbo is, was it a mailing list post? The Signpost said "in an e-mail sent to us". Anyway, the point is that it might be an idea to ask first whether the ArbCom ever did find the time to "institute some informal notions of a required level of activity"? Carcharoth (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

And note that the above users are not the only editors that could be named, only that Jimmy has a strong preference for them. If the arbitration committee decided they wanted someone else, they in theory could do that. But either way, I would hope the committee would try and get at least a modicum of community input before the final decision is made. (i.e. "It is our strong intention to appoint X as a new arbitrator. Please comment.") That way, if they missed something, it can at least have the chance to be brought to light. Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I personally see no reason against putting this back to the community. Obviously, ArbCom would need to decide if Deskana is inactive enough to warrent replacement, but a one week vote for two places on the committee (the tranches would need to be specified) - questions could be asked in a week prior to the vote - it could all be sorted within 3-4 weeks and we'd have two community elected arbitrators. Whether it's limited to the editors on Jimbo's list, I'm not sure, but at least we'd have what the community wants. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean a community vote. I meant the committee decides amongst themselves who they want, make an announcement, give the community a couple of days to comment, then appoint. You'll get about a couple of dozen "Good Choice"s, but you might get a "Uhh... we shouldn't have an arbitrator who does X[diff]" that the committee missed. I just think it's wrong to take the community out of it entirely. We should be continuing to try and devolve power. Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, I think I've brought this up on this page about three times. Each time I proposed (and some few others agreed) that it would be better for the Committee to take action on this issue before a seat became vacant through inactivity or other means. At one point NYB mentioned a draft of some sort had been discussed on arb-l, perhaps the discussion from that time period can be revived? The other option is to simply wait until December, and have seats open/long-term inactive at that time be available for re-election. Avruch 14:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I mentioned it somewhere. May not have been this page, because I can't find it in the history! ;-P Avruch 14:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Here it is. NYB and Sam Blacketer mentioned discussing Brad's draft proposal on the mailing list. Avruch 14:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather not see another vote. Newyorkbrad and Deskana only assumed their responsibilities six months ago, meaning that their seats are for 2-1/2 years, nearly a full term. Given the extent of vetting done by the community for candidates for Arbcom during our annual election cycle, it seems unreasonable that such a review should be foregone in this case. I'd like to hear what Arbcom has come up with, if anything; alternately, I'd suggest that Jimbo appoint two of the individuals on the list above to terms that expire in December 2008, and add the one or two seats to the openings available in the next round of elections in December, for 2 year terms (similar to how thebainer was appointed to the remainder of FloNight's term when she was moved up to the next tranche). Either way, I'd suggest that any individuals appointed or elected at this point only be in place until this December, and that they be enjoined from running in the next election, so that nobody gains the perceived advantage of being a sitting Arbcom member - although I suppose Raul654 might challenge the notion that sitting members have any advantage. And Avruch, yes, I remember you saying that somewhere too! Risker (talk) 14:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

i agree with Riskers comments. Let the committee and/or Jimbo appoint someone off the qualified users list off the last election to sit out the rest of the year, then include that position in the next election. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yup, agree with that in retrospect - the other users do have community trust already. I'd quite like it to be done quickly though so there's a few more hands on board to do the grafting. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I assume you mean drafting? ;-) I have to agree though, we're approaching the time when several arbitrators traditionally will take a bit of a break, and it seems things are stretched fairly thin right now. Risker (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Given the highly unusual and I daresay shitty circumstances of his resignation we might consider contacting Brad and asking him to appoint his own successor (not necessarily one of the runners-up). — CharlotteWebb 15:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it would be fair or right to ask Brad to choose. Al Tally ^talk 15:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Most ideally, Brad can come back but I'm not sure how realistic that is. As for filling Deskana's slot, I urge the committee to give it serious consideration? — Rlevse • Talk • 16:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The delays in recent ArbCom decisions are concerning; I'm wondering if there is a shortage of those willing to do the drafting and writing? I don't know if Raul is still interested, but I also hope Jimbo will consider appointing him, factoring in the following to the !vote tallies:

1. Many of the opposes were because Raul was perceived as being too busy, ignoring that he had recently delegated me to help at WP:FAC.
2. Because he was a sitting member of ArbCom, he was likely to receive a higher Oppose count.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I think whatever happens, the appointee(s), for however long, would end up filling expansion seats, or even if appointed to a "vacant" seat, the same caveat as before would apply, namely that Brad and Deskana would be able to take up their seats again as and when/if they return. Filiocht and Flcelloguy are, I think, the previous examples of this, though there may have been others. Not sure if anyone ever got updates on what the situation was with Filiocht and Flcelloguy, but it might be worth someone trying to get an update/confirmation on the situations with Brad and Deskana, or at the least with Deskana, as the wording of Brad's resignation didn't really leave much room for future changes. Carcharoth (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with this post of SandyGeorgia. Most of the opposes for Raul654 were because it was felt he would be too busy, but they had not realized that the workload was going to be lightened considerably through SandyGeorgia's efforts.

Although it would be great if Brad returned, I will point out that this is unlikely if we do not address the reason that Brad left. We have some serious problems in our community that led to this very regrettable event, and if we do not wake up as a community and start dealing with these problems, Brad's departure will only be followed by other similar issues, that might even be more serious. It annoys me that Wikipedians basically shove their heads in the sand and ignore these glaring difficulties, allow them to continue and even encourage them. We should be ashamed.--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

BTW, Mindspillage and Filiocht's eligibility to claim expansion seats in Tranche Beta ends this year, while Flcelloguy's eligibility to claim an expansion seat ends in 2009. And Brad and Deskana's terms run until 2010. I'm not entirely clear whether Mindspillage (Kat Walsh on the WMF board) went inactive or resigned. WP:ARBCOM says she resigned, but Template:ArbitrationCommitteeChart claims she can still return and claim a seat, which I now think is probably wrong. Also, resignation (Brad, Mindspillage) should be distinguished from inactivity (Deskana, Filiocht, Flcelloguy). Carcharoth (talk) 16:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Mindspillage's was a resignation, but she can still re-accept a seat until the end of the year. She resigned when she was elected to the board, and Jimbo made the determination that she could come back during her initial term for an expansion seat. Ral315 (talk) 01:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting discussion, however Jimbo and only Jimbo appoints Arbitrators. He may choose to take the community's advice but he does not have to. The best place to approach this would be Jimbo's talk page, or perhaps the main wikien-L mailing list. If you can find a couple of Arbitrators who think there need to be some replacements and temporary fill-ins appointed, presumably their opinions would also carry weight. Thatcher 17:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I was actually hoping the committee could enter into dialogue, with Jimbo, to choose a new arbitrator or two - or express how they would like proceedings to run or who (if anyone is going to be replaced). That's why I brought it to their talk page :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 17:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo wrote, "I will gladly leave the choice of those mid-term appointments up to the Arbcom (or, at their desire, make the tough decision myself), but will have a strong preference at that time..." Doesn't that mean the committee would choose the replacements? Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, which is why I quoted that and left a note on Jimbo's talk page. Presumably arbitrators and others can contact him more quickly if needed. Carcharoth (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo is aware of this discussion, by-the-by. Personally, I like the idea of a temporary fill-in until December, when the filled-in seats should go up for election for the remainder of the term together with the tranche that is naturally up. This way, there should be fewer concerns about the lack of community input into the process. In that light, while the list of "almost arbitrators" is a good starting point, I do not think that either ArbCom or Jimbo should be restricted to that list, and should be able to choose someone whom they feel will work well with the current ArbCom at this time for these last few months. If the seat comes up for election in December, there should be little fallout if someone not on that list is selected. -- Avi (talk) 23:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

They could always just appoint Thatcher till the end of the year. That'd sure help activity-wise :) Daniel (talk) 23:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

That would be a good choice (as long as someone else kept up with Checkuser). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I third the motion. Shall we bring it to the floor? -- Avi (talk) 23:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this is the floor (but then, I've always resisted the idea that I need to join some off-wiki maillist or figure out IRC in order to communicate with other Wikipedians, so what do I know? :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I won't third the motion only because part of my proposal is that the fill-ins would be enjoined not to seek a full term at the next election, and I would not want to disadvantage Thatcher that way. Another possibility would be asking retired arbitrators to fill in; in particular, those who are still on the mailing list would probably be pretty current and could step in fairly quickly. Risker (talk) 00:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, this is not the floor, this is the basement. Risker, you would have had to fourth the motion, as it was already thirded. I see no issue with the fill-in arb running for a full-term seat. As a matter of fact, I think that the highest vote getters in the December election should have the option of the full or partial term seat, have those filled, and then the fill the remaining. But that's just my opinion, for now. I always reserve the right to be successfully impressed by the strength of another's arguments and opinions. :) -- Avi (talk) 00:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

(<--Unindent) Well, Avi, my rationale goes like this. Three years is the maximum for any editor to sit on Arbcom without having to face the community twice. I think this is a good thing, and shouldn't be extended; it's a bright line in my mind, and it seems to be in the mind of the community as well, because they have yet to re-elect someone who has sat on Arbcom for three years already. There are many very good editors who would be well-qualified, in my mind, to sit on the committee, and I genuinely hope they will run in November/December and that the community will share my opinion once they have had the chance to ask questions and see the responses. To select one or two of them from outside either the existing list (as Jimbo promised) or from the cadre of former arbitrators who might be persuaded, Cincinnatus-like, to pitch in for a short while, is a bit of a poke in the eye of the community who voiced its opinion about the various candidates already. It would also be a good example of setting people up to fail. No matter how much non-members like to think it, they aren't fully up to speed on everything the committee does and it will take them a while to get a handle on things. They will draw the ire of those who would interpret their selection as favouritism and cronyism, while drawing the support of those who agree they are excellent Wikipedians. Their presence on the committee has the potential to be divisive within the community and to exacerbate the concerns that the committee is acting without deference to the community, especially at a time when the committee is trying to move in new directions. If the committee wants to be bold in its decisions, it needs to balance it with some conservative actions in other areas. Risker (talk) 00:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

"they have yet to re-elect someone who has sat on Arbcom for three years already" - you phrased that with Raul and Fred Bauder in mind, right? Technically, I think Raul and Fred Bauder both regained seats after an election, though not after sitting for three years previously. Raul in July 2004 and December 2004 was "directly elected" (if you think using that term is correct when all are technically appointed), while Fred was one of several appointed with "communnity support" to terms of less than three years, after the elections in January 2006. Carcharoth (talk) 07:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To be quite honest, I'm not sure I see any urgent need to appoint new members to the Committee; we appear to be at what is essentially an all-time low in terms of actual caseload, and the long deliberation times are more a consequence of the complexity of some of the more recent cases than of a lack of raw manpower on our part. A mid-term appointment seems like it'd result in more effort (to actually coordinate a useful appointment, particularly given some of the explicit and implicit expectation that would need to be balanced) than it would save. Kirill ^(prof) 00:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, you've got 7 truly active members out of a panel of (currently) 14, which itself isn't full strength. Up until very recently a lot had been written about the long delays in decisions and action on appeals and other requests. While the current caseload is low, there is no reason to expect that it will stay low even in the near future. Does it make sense to keep the committee at less than half of a full panel? You seem to be saying it does, I wonder if your colleagues agree. If they do, this discussion is probably moot and perhaps we should focus on whether we really need to elect new members to fill up the open slots if the committee functions well at half strength. Avruch 00:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The motions and clarifications section needs attention. Daniel (talk) 00:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Let me point out that Raul's outrageously onerous workload has been considerably moderated over the past few months by the appointment of a delegate (SandyGeorgia) to assist in the management of the FAC list. I think this might resolve any issues about time available to provide his expertise to ArbCom. TONY (talk) 03:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The question seems to be whether (a) a new appointment is needed (and hopefully the 7 currently active members of the arbitration committee will actually say something here at some point - I believe only one has said something so far); (b) whether mid-term appointments should be done on the basis of need or on the basis of setting forth an argument that concerns in oppose votes at the last election have been addressed. With all due respect, the argument that Raul is less busy now is one that should be put to the electorate at the appropriate time, not put forth now as a reason to re-appoint Raul. The other point is that Raul is already on that list put forth by Jimbo. He doesn't need further reasons to be pushed ahead of others on that list, though I now see that Rebecca technically came "ahead" of Raul by the slimmmest of margins, but Jimbo's list swaps Raul and Rebecca in the order. Someone should have noted that at the time and clarified whether that order by Jimbo meant anything. But this is all moot if the arbitration committee as a whole decide they are coping OK with the workload. However, I would point out that now, not later, would be the time to appoint someone mid-term (or rather, "mid-year" as the terms are three years). Waiting to see if the caseload increases might seem sensible, but appointing someone for, say, three months in September would meet resistance for several reasons. Carcharoth (talk) 07:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• I have strong reservations about some of those currently on the list, but those aside.... Kirill is right (except, I see no value in still dragging the homeopathy case over discretionary sanctions) - there's no need. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Clarifications aren't being worked on at all, and we are on a lul of new requests. When the requests start mounting up again, there will probably be problems - it's best to sort these out now, rather than wait to a problem actually exists. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    • That's not entirely true. For example, the arb responses were reasonably prompt for the Request for clarification in reply to the BLP special remedy, and the Palestine-Israel articles. I share Kirill's concerns - getting a new arb is going to be more problematic, especially if chosen from those on that list. The more routine disputes, appeals etc. are handled by the community now - this leaves the Committee with more of the complex cases, and that's really the problem of why it's taking longer than one would like. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I have never (to my knowledge) worked with Raul on anything before, then I got involved this week with Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruption by GoRight (permanent link). Personally, I'd prefer to see someone with a more judicious, less abrupt approach to dealing with established editors. The situation was nowhere near as black and white to an outsider as he made it out to be and his threat to block someone with whom he had an editorial dispute was inappropriate (even if he felt the other side was wrong).

I will support Raul654's selection if the community has a chance to choose, but I would be very disappointed if the ArbCom just quietly added him without community approval. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Unclear what you mean by "without community approval", considering vote tallies from last ArbCom elections. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, those votes are recent enough to still be relevant, unless for some individual something regrettable has happened in the meantime. I think the community would probably think it perfectly fair to proceed on that basis. DGG (talk) 23:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see your point. Here are the vote counts and percentages from the last election for the middle of the pack.:

Arbitration Committee Elections 2007

Candidate	Support	Oppose	Other	Net	Total	%
Rebecca (userpage)	233	125	0	Ᏼ 108	358	65.1
Raul654 (userpage)	317	171	0	ᐚ 146	488	65.0
Manning Bartlett (userpage)	129	84	0	Ꮅ 45	213	60.6
Giano II (userpage)	312	229	3	Ꮫ 83	541	57.7
David Fuchs (userpage)	104	81	0	᎟ 23	185	56.2
Shell Kinney (userpage)	91	73	0	᎚ 18	164	55.2
MastCell (userpage)	104	91	0	᎕ 13	195	53.3

Plagiarized from the 00:25, 17 December 2007 version of User:Gurch/Reports/ArbComElections.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

and to put the numbers into context, the candidate with the lowest level of support who was appointed had 67% support. DGG (talk) 15:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Well obviously Rebecca can't because of her position with the WMF. I think that there would be considierable opposition to Raul at this time, especially with his involvement in the ID cabal mess. This may be coming out of left field, but given the recent kerfuffle, Appointing Giano for the rest of the year might be the kind of shakeup that ArbCom so desperately needs. --Dragon695 (talk) 00:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh, you skipped right over Manning Bartlett. You are probably right that there'd be considerable opposition to Raul. Nor can I support Giano, given his extensive problematic history. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I would support someone temporarily taking my seat until the end of the year. Hopefully I'll have everything sorted out by then, and I'll be ready to get back to work. --Deskana (talk) 10:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it was only a temporary thing until you got better, which I hope will be very soon. Take care old chap. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Policy proposal

A policy proposal which would affect the functions of the Arbitration Committee has been proposed at Wikipedia:Devolution. Best, Mackensen (talk) 01:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Inactive arbitrators, and other stuff, again

First, two diffs that are really directed at the Committee as a whole rather than at anyone else: [4] [5]. Of course you have no reason to weigh or even notice my opinion in the deluge of comments that RfC has been receiving, but I imagine that you all can't help but be aware that a significant portion of the community (including many new to the role of publicly criticising the Committee) are upset with the state of things at the moment. I'd suggest that this is the moment for you to enact reforms that will allow you to manage your role and your workload effectively.

The purpose of this section is to, again, ask that you finally and effectively deal with the problem of inactive Arbitrators. Above Kirill wrote that he doesn't believe new and replacement Arbitrators are necessary, and others have opined that the difficulty of orienting new arbitrators makes choosing them pointless ahead of the December election. I disagree. Frankly, there is no excuse for long term inactive or minimally active Arbitrators remaining on the committee. You have my gratitude, and that of most others, for the work you have performed as editors and as arbitrators. But if you are unable to continue to fulfill your duties as arbitrators, or unwilling to get involved other than to occassionally vote or weigh in on issues that have some particular relevance for you, then you do not belong on the committee. There are others (I'd suggest MastCell, for instance) who are willing to perform the spectrum of responsibilities associated with arbitration. They are also able - resolution of new disputes, or problems with which many in the community are familiar, should not require a long period of acclimation.

Some options others have suggested that make sense:

• I'd suggest you go so far as to appoint even more arbitrators than you have open seats, and then begin hearing cases in panels.

• Limit the submission of evidence to parties (others can run potential evidence by them). Reduce the opportunity for long, polemical statements in cases that just muddy the issues.

• Reject and refer back cases that the community hasn't already failed to address (more often than you already do). Use the time this frees to respond to clarification requests and appeals in a timely manner.

You are among the brightest and hardest working people of this community, and I think the challenges before you are not more than you can handle. Avruch 23:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

To answer some of your points:

Having metrics for activity

We have been looking at this properly in detail for a long while, and recently spurred on by Jimmy's formal suggestion that we adopt a policy; sadly, but understandably, and I think rightly, "constitutional" issues are the first things we set aside when our work-load is high (as it has been since February almost without end, despite the record low level of on-wiki case matters). We've yet to consider how we can reliable gauge work, given that editing Arbitration-related wiki pages is one of the smaller parts of the jobs.

Sitting in small groups rather than en banc

This gets examined every few months by the Committee; there seems to be absolutely no desire for it amongst members, due both to the exceptional number of issues this generates, most notably fragmentation and loss of consistency in both decision-making and organisational knowledge, and also the lack of a need for it (cases are not in the main slowed down by lack of hands).

Limiting evidence sources

The line between "parties" and "non-involved editors" does not exist in my mind, so I can't see a way of doing this without either inventing some (even more!) highly bureaucratic method for opening/amending/expanding/closing cases, or having individuals invited personally to give evidence by the Committee, which would be immensely time-consuming and not exactly very open.

Limiting evidence length

Well, we keep reducing the limits, but people generally ignore them. It's often difficult, in the middle of writing a case to ban someone, for the Committee to write a tart, petty note asking them to write more concisely whilst we do so.

Rejecting cases for failing to use the Dispute Resolution process

Part of this is a lack of confidence in the non-Arbitration structures that do, or used to, exist. Part of our control-freak nature, as it were. :-) Something we all, not just Arbitrators, need to address.

I hope some of this is helpful. Given that I'm in effect taking a lot of words to say "no", I hope you can at least understand, if not agree, with the reasons.

James F. (talk) 17:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I find Raul654's behaviour objectionable

It seems to me that individuals like Raul654 should not use their position or status within the Wikipedia bureaucracy to override Wikipedia community policy on original research [6], or community rejection of certain procedures. I would appreciate if someone reminded user Raul654 of this--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)