Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests

cs interwiki request

Please remove cs interwiki cs:Wikipedie:Arbitrážní výbor from the header for WP:RFARB subpage to not connect Wikipedie:Arbitrážní výbor with WP:RFARB here.

There is mess in interwikis in between languages - they are not matching procedural steps in arbitration. Not just english wikipedia has different pages and subpages for individual procedural steps.

This particular header Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Header implements interwikis for request subpage. There is request subpage counterpart in czech Wikipedia (see), but this header (and so the WP:Arbitration/Requests page display it) is now containing interwiki for the main arbitration site (czech counterpart of WP:Arbitration). The interwiki for czech request arbitration page would be suitable here (cs:Wikipedie:Žádost o arbitráž) , however that interwiki is already present at the end of page body of WP:RFARB. It results in two different cs: interwikis being generated in the interwikis list in WP:Arbitration/Requests. From those two iws, the one in header (here) is the wrong one.

Sumed: I ask to remove cs:Wikipedie:Arbitrážní výbor interwiki from here. Or optionally to replace it here with cs:Wikipedie:Žádost o arbitráž (and clean then the ":cs:Wikipedie:Žádost o arbitráž" from WP:RFARB)

Note: It seems to me that the another interwikis here have the same problem, for they all go to the main arbitration sites of respective wikis, but I am not familiar with their overall procedural structure there (they may or may not discriminate between WP:RFARB and WP:ARB like cs and en wikis do). --Reo ⁺ 10:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done, your latter option. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank You Martin. So I did follow You and did remove the remaining cs:Wikipedie:Žádost o arbitráž interwiki from WP:RFARB body.

Now I am sure that the :es: interwikis are in the same situation like the cs interwikis were. Here in the header is interwiki pointing to WP:ARB, at the same time the correct one for WP:RFARB is simultaneously at the bottom of the WP:RFARB.

Moreover there are two more iws, the azerbaijany and Russian iw's. They should be here in the header as well. Sorry for bothering again. And thank You. (I just came to solve the cs, but, seeing this, it's better fix all)

So the es: should be replaced here, and other two moved from WP:RFARB to WP:RFARB/Header --Reo ⁺ 14:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You're confusing me. There is already an ru interwiki in the header. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Ha, ha, ha, yes, it is confusing ;) But now it is still much better then before, thank you. Basically the confusion is why we are here. There was quite a mess. The only remaining part, where I can navigate are those two :ru: interwikis. Of those two - the [[ru:Википедия:Арбитражный комитет]] does not belong here, it belongs to WP:ARB.

After some time, it will need some update, becouse we will see what the interwiki robots will do with it on the other sites (as it was this way, there was bot confusion cross-languages, confusion between wp:ARB and wp:RFARB in all languages) Reo ⁺ 18:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I've lowered the protection so you should be able to maintain these interwikis yourself now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I will do just few languages per day. It is quite difficult. Going through googletranslate (with and without translations) and I need to follow rather more links coming fromthose pages to verify that I interpreted the meaning of those pages pretty well.

• One note to slowenian case. It seems that they had one before, but due to their internal processes they modified it to mediation process - they renamed the page and deleted the link. Google translation of the deletion log. Reo ⁺ 11:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Archives of rejected requests

I've just been compiling a list of the arbitration requests I've commented on in the past (as one does), and I discovered a few that weren't listed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests (though that page does warn that "many rejected/declined requests are not listed"). Two seemed fairly uncontroversial, so I added them to that page with this edit. One seemed a bit more problematic, so I didn't add it. What do people think? Should this be added to the list or not? If not then, this wording at the top of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests might need tweaking: "Any editor is encouraged to add appropriate diffs to the listing." Carcharoth (talk) 01:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

We are (woefully, or happily) short on procedures for rejected requests, perhaps in the hope that people would stop filing requests doomed to rejection. I'd say that case falls within something worth ignoring even for institutional memory purposes.

What really really needs some TLC is WP:AER, Tiptoety and I cleaned out part of it earlier this year, but there are still a good number of current cases missing from it. MBisanz ^talk 19:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

If you find rejected cases that aren't listed, list them. I feel all rejected cases should be listed. The procedures for clerk do say list them on rejected cases, BTW, and clarifications that don't have an associated case now have a page, which I started. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Evidence links in old cases are broken

I've been going through some of the evidence and final decisions in some old cases, and I noticed some of the links are broken. There seems to be two reasons: (1) the way links work changed at some point this year; (2) subsequents edits to a page (for various reasons) break the links.

• (1) See here for an example of the first sort. Since FT2 fixed the outdated links there (more to do with the way something changed during the last year in the way links work, rather than the links being broken by subsequent editing), I presume it is OK to do the same in other old cases?
• (2) For the second sort, my evidence section in that case is a bit of a mess due to subsequent edits to remove the name of a vanished user. Even when linking to past versions in the page history, links are broken (unless you go further back, but that would not be a good idea). Is there a way I can present past evidence sections for this case in such a way that it accurately shows how I presented the evidence at the time? The way I've done it so far is at User:Carcharoth/Contributions/Arbitration pages. Please also note the statement I made here. On my userspace subpage, I've said "Note that the case pages have been courtesy blanked, so the links below are to versions in the page history, though even there, some links are still broken" and "note that subsequent edits to remove a name broke some of the evidence links"). I am happy to leave things as they are, with only those statements on my subpage to explain to readers of that subpage what happened there, but wanted to go on the record here so that this kind of subsequent editing of case pages can be handled better in the future.

Anyone have opinions on how to handle these two sorts of cases of evidence links breaking? Carcharoth (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

(1) should be clear sailing. (2) on the otherhand, I'm not so sure about. Courtesy blanking is a way of deterring search engines, the lazy and the idly curious to protect another user, so generally, try to make people do a little work.--Tznkai (talk) 19:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy that the way I handled this does still require people to do a little work, so unless anyone else objects I'll keep things the way they are. Incidentally, I believe case pages are NOINDEXED, so I don't think search engines are a problem here. And the blanking notice does specifically say that the case can still be viewed in the history if needed, and in my opinion this is a valid use of the page history. Carcharoth (talk) 21:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Disclosure

This disclosure is related to the SlimVirgin case.

Cases dealing with serious misuse of admin tools, especially at arbitration, may well be met by a very quick response, up to and including summary desysopping in egregious cases. Even at RFAR these have historically tended to be treated with above average urgency.

In such cases, arbitrators may have to balance two roles - as members of the community who may well have commented, discussed and the like, and as arbitrators deciding whether a line has been crossed and if so what remedy is appropriate.

In this case any prior interaction with SlimVirgin is tenuous. We have spoken amicably, not enough to be close, and she has reversed a block of mine enacted to enforce a prior arbitration ruling. That is roughly, the sum total of all involvement. It's truly trivial.

The view that "there is a case needed" is not due to bias, involvement, or past history. Indeed there were a number of complaints of the action, there is history of poor judgement, and at least one other user had drafted a Request for Arbitration beforehand that I was unaware of. Arbitrators are not expected to be free of all history - that would be impractical. They are expected to be free of history that would affect their neutrality. The question I am considering is, would I be able to hear SlimVirgin's statement and that of others, and decide fairly.

I am fairly sure I would, if the evidence is there. I have considered my neutrality in multiple cases - indeed more than any other arbitrator I have been mindful of disclosure even when not strictly needed. This included the original IRC case, and Mantanmoreland. In the latter I was the only arbitrator to express a view in the prior RFC, and yet at RFAR I discounted that and took note only of the evidence presented. I am therefore considering whether I would be neutral here, and my initial view is I would be.

However it is also extremely important to consider other users' perceptions. That also goes without saying. Hence my comment that I would like to consider this, and will do so. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• "Perceptions" or no, you would not be neutral here, as the very fact that you brought this strange motion demonstrates. You had a block overturned. That's not reason to request removal of the overturning admin's tools. If you are going to press forward with the motion, the least you could do is recuse. The best course of action would be swift withdrawal of the motion. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 20:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The motion isn't at all strange. SlimVirgin is very familiar with Arbitration Enforcement, and knows what exactly the criteria are. Ultimately ArbCom enforces its own rulings. Arbitration Enforcement is a venue where that happens, and as its header says, it is not part of dispute resolution. It is there to answer just one question in a matter. The block isn't personal. Every admin and arbitrator has probably had blocks overturned when others disagree with the block. This block enforces arbitration ruling. The requirements to overturn in such a case are stricter, and very clearly stated. Several times it says the same point. Most administrators involved in this incident probably know it already or read it at the time. Nothing strange about it at all. Oddly enough my initial view was to recuse. The reason for hesitation is to avoid assuming without a moments thought - I have proposed or considered recusing in other cases "for safety", in which the community stated it was not necessary. You may have assumed differently. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• FT2, this is simply ridiculous. You took an admin action (and yes, it was yours, personally, not the committee's, as Brad has reminded us all); a fellow admin overturned your action; you are taking the fellow admin before the committee. Of course you are a party here. Of course you must recuse. That you can doubt even for a minute makes me very seriously doubt the soundness of your judgment. (And mind you, I'm not expressing an opinion on the justification of either your initial action or SV's.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

See above edit conflict - you may have misassumed a bit, here, though understandably. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I cannot follow you at all. This is an absolutely clear-cut case. You are a party, period. It makes absolutely no difference whether your action was Arbcom enforcement or a "normal" block. (That may well make a difference for how to judge SV's action, but it changes not one iota of your role as a party.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I've argued in more than one previous case, that recusal was needed, and been told I was probably taking it too strictly (communal consensus agreed with those views at the times). This was a brief "I'm considering and will come back on this" post (exact wording: "On principle, I will be considering the level to which I am involved or otherwise... and whether recusal is appropriate"). As with many issues, when I make a definite stance, then I'm fine if anyone criticizes it, and I will explain or discuss. You've seen that, I'm sure. I'm not averse to speaking my mind. I'm probably one of the most "open" users out there, in terms of willingness to give explanations and discuss if asked. Today I decided to wait briefly, check others' views (as I usually do if there may be a question of what's best) and come back to it as I've done. That's carefulness; credit it as such. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

This is not something on which consideration was needed. The right course was completely obvious. I'm sorry, but if you don't see this, it casts serious doubt on your suitability as an arbiter. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• FT2, this is simply ridiculous. You took an admin action (and yes, it was yours, personally, not the committee's, as Brad has reminded us all); a fellow admin overturned your action; you are taking the fellow admin before the committee. Of course you are a party here. Of course you must recuse. That you can doubt even for a minute makes me very seriously doubt the soundness of your judgment. (And mind you, I'm not expressing an opinion on the justification of either your initial action or SV's.) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)(borrowed from above to reinforce the point)

Thanks for clearing that up. This being Wikipedia, its best not to get into copying the comments of others without attribution, even if you believe you are making a rhetorical point of some sort. Avruch ^T 15:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

This entire conversation is moot, as FT2 is recused. Further commentary should be taken to relevant user talk.--Tznkai (talk) 21:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Ryūlóng and Haines

How is this not a ridiculous, petty, thuggish action by Ryūlóng in preventing Haines from editing his own page and extending block because he "removed comments left by adminstrators" (quoting Ryūlóng's stated rationale, note Vandenberg's view of this in this thread)? The later claim that this was because Haines was attempting to "skew" discussion is entirely spurious. John Vandenberg drew Ryūlóng's attention to his response to this action: Ryūlóng's response in full: "Okay". This is simply waving status and tools in the face of the blocked user.

Coupled with the involved status of the original blocker, our first reaction to a block log should be that it is probably evidence of nothing so much as the capriciousness of sections of the admin corps. And of course it is made extremely difficult for any administrator to undo another's action, so these things stick. And administrators practically have tenure. Is this healthy? I think, no. 86.44.25.191 (talk) 02:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Alastair, are you pretending that this isn't you? Ilkali (talk) 13:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Ilkali, this shows once again that you let your actions moved by all your past records with Alastair and you are doing nothing but blaming him for anything. A simple IP trace on this post shows that it comes from Eircom.net: an Irish internet provider. Unless Alastair is taking his Wiki-holiday all the way from Australia to Ireland in 24 hours or so, what proof do you have? Miguel.mateo (talk) 13:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

As you know, a comment from an Irish IP does not have to originate from someone in Ireland. The writing style, the attitude expressed and the tone (one of seething indignation) all closely match Alastair's. And, of course, who else would be posting anonymously here? Let's see if anyone claims responsibility. Ilkali (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

"Alastair is bad reputation for Wikipedia, he is always fighting and entroverting himself in any article I contribute. He should be blocked from Wikipedia for life." ... does that sound like you from Japan now? Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it sounds nothing like me. Ilkali (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly! Miguel.mateo (talk) 15:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

[unindent]No one asked me my opinion, but I don't think that's Alastair. For one thing, he's back from block- I would think if he was going to go anon and post stuff like this, it would not be a few hours before his block expired. Secondly, socking has never, that we know of, been part of his MO. And thirdly, if he was Alastair, an experienced user familiar with the community- he would know that "Ryūlóng"s username is actually Ryulong, the diacritical marks are merely part of his signature. L'Aquatique[talk] 22:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see you think that way: wannabe a cheerleader? We're hiring ... ;) Miguel.mateo (talk) 22:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating how people love to play these stupid games instead of commenting on the substance of the post (or not commenting at all). 86.44.28.122 (talk) 00:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

There's not much point responding to the "substance" here, since we'll shortly see all the same material appearing in your statement on the main page. Ilkali (talk) 00:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

IP user, I encourage you to create an account and give your opinion in the main article, not here in the talk page. IT is just an advice though, it is up to you at the very end ... regards, Miguel.mateo (talk) 03:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I should mention that, should that IP create an account and comment on the main page, it is almost certain that his/her comments would be disregarded. The assumption would be- not without merit I should mention- that (s)he is a sock of either Alastair or one of his so-called cheerleaders. L'Aquatique[talk] 22:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

In Heavens name, tell me why you should mention your assumption and phrase it to imply it would be everyones assumption. Granted their comments may be disregarded but to assume deceit is your determination. Alastair and his "cheerleaders" have ALL proven themselves trustworthy. To "feel" otherwise and then state fiction as fact does harm to the Community...especially in your role as an administrator. --Buster7 (talk) 23:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm telling you how it works. Most newcomers start working in article space, then move to userspace and talk pages... it usually takes a month or two for a truly new user to find out about administrative projects, no less arbcom. A brand new account commenting in administrative areas indicates, 99% of the time- that they're really not a new user at all. Now, I am not assuming deceit- I said above that I didn't think the IP was Alastair. I'm just being realistic here. L'Aquatique[talk] 00:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I know how it works, thank you. I know you (above) claimed that Alastair and his minions would create sock-puppets to falsify testimony. AGF. I also know that new administrators are admonished to start slowly and build experience. Also, that administrative tools are to be used with good judgement. And, that misusing the tools of an administrator is considered a serious issue. More serious that an inadvertant revert by a long standing quality editor.--Buster7 (talk) 00:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

"I know you (above) claimed that Alastair and his minions would create sock-puppets to falsify testimony". Wow. Alastair must be really regretting involving you in this. Ilkali (talk) 00:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a good opportunity to note that although I'm going to spare ArbCom members the TIME and embarassment of having to defend unsupportable process and conclusions in our case, due to my respect for the difficulties of their situation, this does not extend to allowing administrators, who are only users like everyone else, to get away with personal attacks, bullying, edit-warring and deceiving ArbCom.

There is clear evidence, obvious to the community, that certain admins are gaming the system by taking advantage of the courtesy other administrators will show by not reversing blocks and so on. There are important Wiki ideals at stake here: the equality of all users, admins and others, yet a wisdom in admin solidarity that can occasionally lead to a "them-and-us" situation.

Administrators are not licensed to make rules, they are entrusted with the task of exemplifying them. Past good behaviour is never an excuse for present bad behaviour. Edit warring is edit warring even when administrators collude to do it. There is much more that can be said. What source does an administrator have to warrant enforcing removal of cited material from an article? What consensus does said administrator demonstrate having obtained or observed to do so? Administrators are not above the rules and bring fear, uncertainty and doubt when they "buck the system" to pursue personal crusades. However big their cheer-squad, it is the difference to the text of the encyclopedia—improving and maintaining it—that is the ultimate key performance indicator.

It is simply demonstrable childishness for administrators to abuse their tools to "have the last word". It is scandalous personal attack to twist user's words to appear to be bad faith, in order to make Wiki legal threats and try to silence fair criticism.

Wikipedia is an unbelievably good place because of overworked ArbCom members and thousands of generous administrators and editors. It is sad that this perspective can easily be lost, if in the narrow world of an individual editor or article one administrator, perhaps with a friend or two distorts the basic principles that encourage improvement and maintenance.

Others will have noticed how there is a tendency for admins to be held up as superior to sources, and ArbCom as superior to Wikipedia policy. I'm naive enough to believe that ArbCom and admins will lead the charge to remedy this situation. For Wiki's sake I hope I'm not wrong.

I've said enough. Others can see these things. I'll let them work it out. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I would love to see a diff where I accuse anyone involved in this case of socking. L'Aquatique[talk] 00:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. If your intent isn't to have ArbCom members investigate L'Aquatique, why did you post this here? And if it is, why did you post this here instead of on the main page? Ilkali (talk) 00:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

As requested by L'Aquatique...[[1]] or you could just refer to your recent pejorative comment just above.--Buster7 (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Ilkali, unlike other people (apparently), I want to invest my time in making edits that improve and maintain Wikipedia. In fact, I have made so many of these that people have noticed and want me to continue. Indeed I shall. But what I will not do is actually initiate any action that can lead to enforcement on other users. That is not how I understand Wikipedia, enforcement undermines reliability, because it can be used to silence sources, it also undermines good faith, which is essential for co-operative effort. I did not initiate the ArbCom, and I condemn the restrictions on you and others. I also do not want to see enforcement taken on L'Aquatique or Ruylong, the latter having an edit history I am simply in awe of. I have said many times that I am as easy to satisfy as an apologies as public as false accusations made against me. Any other injuries I simply overlook, but I am concerned that people who have been deceived are freed from false notions they should never have been asked to entertain. I am no longer going to comment in this thread. Best wishes all. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I see no answer to my question. Your actions contradict your stated intentions. Ilkali (talk) 02:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Buster- where in that diff do I say that I believed Alastair was socking? I said people uninvolved in this case would assume that he was if a new account showed up in his favor with a similar style of speech. Ask any administrator what their first assumption in that case would be and I guarantee they would say "sock" because we see it happen all the time. If you read the comment before and all the ones afterward, I said I didn't believe Alastair was socking. If you stopped trying to treat me as the enemy and look at the situation neutrally you might see that what I'm saying actually makes sense. L'Aquatique[talk] 01:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Bonkers! Similar Style of Speech??? Not even close.......

people uninvolved in the case???...where did you say that before?....

in that case....is not the case we are talking about.

If you stop treating Mr Haines as if HE is the enemy...I'll do the same for you!--Buster7 (talk) 02:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

All right, as much fun as this is, you are obviously not getting it. I've got better things to do than waste my time going in circles with you. If you really want to believe I'm the bad guy here- which you obviously do- then fine. It's your loss. L'Aquatique[talk] 02:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

L'Aquatique: we are sorry to tell you that after a lot of discussions we have decided to revoke your application for cheerleading. Respectfully, the cheerleading committee. Miguel.mateo (talk) 02:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Bugger! They told me the same thing in high school. L'Aquatique[talk] 03:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom math

There are twelve active arbitrators (excluding one who is recused), so seven votes are a majority.

I do disagree with three of the four proposals in question and do not want to help them pass more easily than they should, but I couldn't help noticing this: Twelve minus one is eleven, and six of eleven are a clear majority as no more than five could oppose. Could somebody (clerks perhaps) please clarify this now rather than after it becomes obvious which proposals would be affected? Thanks. — CharlotteWebb 14:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the recused arbitrator in this case is inactive in general, so there are twelve non-recused active arbitrators on the motion, not eleven. FlyingPenguin1 (talk) 14:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Flyingpenguin1 is right. There are 12 arbitrators currently active, excluding FT2 who is recused on these motions (and has put himself on the "inactive" list for a few weeks to focus on some other stuff, although I see little evidence of actual inactivity :) ). For anyone ever wishing to verify numbers, a list of the currently active arbitrators can be found at WP:AC. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I remember looking at the sentence and thinking "huh?" at first; then realised what had happened after checking that very list. Was confused for a moment myself. :) The edit summary in the history [2] was also helpful. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Well crap, maybe I was stuck in a jury-trial mindset (I guess you can have the Henry Fonda role, Brad), plus thirteen is unlucky and I totally forgot YellowMonkey was still a member. Maybe the standard wording should be changed to:

"There are currently [X] arbitrators, of which [Y] is/are inactive and/or recused, leaving [X minus Y]. Thus [(X - Y) / 2, rounded down, + 1] votes are a majority.

Would this be less confusing or more so? You could set up a template for it if that helps . — CharlotteWebb 17:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

That was more-or-less the standard wording until about a year ago, when it was changed to be less confusing. The view at the time was "if they are recused or inactive, why are we talking about them?", plus it sounded silly to have to write "of whom none are recused." You can't win.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

No, but I can lose with the best of them (see the main RFAR page if you doubt). A template could of course omit the number of inactive/recused arbcommies if they are zero. Of course if there is a reluctance to mention them at all we could say something like "There are twelve arbitrators participating in this case, so seven votes are a majority.", but this could become confusing for who are inactive and/or recused as arbitrator but still participating in some other capacity. As a last resort we say "There are twelve arbitrators arbitrating this case" but that is tautological, sounds like part of a christmas carol, and still doesn't address those unrecused and listed as "active" but still unexpected to participate. — CharlotteWebb 19:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

How about "There are X eligible arbitrators (excluding Y that are inactive and X that are recused), so ceiling(X/2) votes are a majority."? (Yes, there is still an issue when a supposedly inactive arb recuses, but it's not a serious problem - just pick a category and put them in it, hopefully it won't be too confusing.) --Tango (talk) 19:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You want floor-plus-one otherwise it's a stalemate with an even number. Plus "recused" supersedes "inactive" in theory because (for better or worse) one must actively say "I recuse" to be considered so. — CharlotteWebb 19:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

True, floor+1 is a better definition of majority. It depends on your definition of "inactive". If "inactive" means "not active" then you are absolutely right. If "inactive" means "on the inactive list" then it's a little more confusing. --Tango (talk) 18:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed motions in Motion: re SlimVirgin

I've added the following two motions to the SlimVirgin/Giano/FT2 motion. They have been removed by User: Thatcher with a remark "only arbitrators may propose motions, this is not a workshop". I don't agree with this comment at all - at least I found no such statement on the page, and I see no compelling reason for this restriction. However, I'll put them up for discussion here. I'll also add at least one other motion below. Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

He's right this is not a workshop sub-page. Summary arbcom motions decided on the main page generally take the shape of remedies which issued without citing principles or findings of fact, which is what your proposals appear to be (however I do agree with them). Wikipedia:Arbitration policy has some salient information about the process, but a bit of noise too. It would be nice if the useful parts could probably be cooked down to companion glossary of arbcom jargon (plus the obscure Latin which surfaces periodically), as a more effective crash course for newcomers and as an alternative to studying actual cases. — CharlotteWebb 20:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Clarification on arbitration procedures and norms, especially for those not hooked into the constant day to day would be a good idea. I think after the new appointments go through, I'll see if the Clerk's can put something together in our role as communication facilitators--Tznkai (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration guide does that job already, doesn't it? Admittedly, it could always be improved, and it has largely been written by sitting arbitrators (which is both good and bad), but I've always found it helpful. Carcharoth (talk) 20:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but who actually reads that? Oh sure, we'd hope everyone would, but something shorter and to the point might be a good idea.--Tznkai (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Arb Guide Lite? The five pillars of arbitration? Arbitration for Dummies? Carcharoth (talk) 21:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The Complete Idiot's Guide to Arbitration perhaps? ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 21:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Way to obvious. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• I for one concur that a mechanism needs to be built in to the structure used for Requests for Amendments on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration that allows non-Committee members to suggest proposals (much in the spirit of the /Workshop page of full Arbitration cases). I suspect it would have little practical effect on the outcome of a thread but it may satisfy those who wish for their views to be given broadcasting space. "Free speech," and all that. AGK 21:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Equal respect

• ) All Wikipedia editors should be treated respectfully. However, no special deference should be expected just because an editor is an administrator or a member of ArbCom. Being either is no big deal.

There are twelve active arbitrators (excluding one who is recused), so seven votes are a majority. As at 09:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC).

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comment: As long as we're going to re-iterate the point that all editors deserve equal respect and do not deserve any special deference, it seems reasonable to extend this equality to the whole concept of vested contributors. I would love to see policy equally applied to all Wikipedians-- but if you are going to asking Arbs to give up an expectation of deference, surely we also must also expect "vested contributors" to relinquish any expectation of special treatment as well. --Alecmconroy (talk) 02:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration is not proclamation

• ) The purpose of the Arbitration committee is to actively work with Wikipedia users to help them to find mutually acceptable solutions. Sanctions are only the last possibility and should be backed by consensus not only of the committee, but also the community at large. ArbCom deliberation should, as far as possible, happen in the open, on Wikipedia, and interacting with the community. Proclamations of decisions reached without active community involvement and using back channels undermine the trust and respect users place in the committee.

There are twelve active arbitrators (excluding one who is recused), so seven votes are a majority. As at 09:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC).

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Further motions

Proper community involvement and discussion

• ) The length and intensity of the discussion in this case, with multiple back-and-forth comments between the proponent and several members of the community, shows that this issue cannot be adequately solved without proper community input, e.g. via a full ArbCom case with a proper Workshop page.

There are twelve active arbitrators (excluding one who is recused), so seven votes are a majority. As at 09:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC).

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comment:

1. Agree with this last one, at least. If that many people have something to say, it's probably not a topic for summary judgment or simple clarification. Coming after the last miserable arbcom fiasco, this looks like a short-cut way for disgruntled arbs to get SlimVirgin, without even pretending to look at evidence or crafting objective findings of fact. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Removal of case

I posted a case that the clerks received anonymously regarding the conduct of ScienceApologist. Per the comments of some of the arbitrators, I've taken the case down now and I'm going to tell the anonymous user to either submit the evidence via their account on the cold fusion case, or email it to the arbitrators directly. Just to keep everyone in the loop. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Subpage

Clerks, the lengthy motion and discussion have pushed the associated project page over 500k. This tends to disenfranchise reduce access by, discourage commenting by, and decrease transparency for members of the community on slower connections. Can a subpage be created? Jehochman ^Talk 13:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks good idea, but better speaking of a "denial of access" rather than disenfranchisement? Not a vote, and all that.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 13:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I just nudged the arbs to see if we can get more voting on this so we can close it. Three motions are passing and one is close. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I subpaged the SlimVirgin motion. Whatever rationale you use, it's a good idea.--chaser - t 17:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't a clerk have done this, if at all? --Conti|✉ 17:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I was adding a statement at the very moment the page was being subpaged, and got an edit conflict. I have now added my statement to the subpage instead. ElinorD (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The issue of a clerk doing it asisde, you also should have left a note at RFAR that is was subpaged, with a link. But it's rather moot as I've received a note from the arbs to close it. Since 3A passes, whether 2/2A pass is rather moot. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Can we revert the subpaging before archiving, then? Having a subpage without any edit history doesn't seem to be useful to me. Not to mention the confusion with an actual arbitration case. --Conti|✉ 18:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Meh, I removed my comments from the thread, and would invite others to do the same. There's far too much noise there, most of it predictable and partisan - and I doubt anyone is listening. It seems to me arbcom is doing just fine without all our squealing. Indeed they'd be advised to ignore all the score settling and axe grinding that's been posted on every side. We chose them to handle this stuff, and although they are not doing it quite the way I'd like them too, they've managed to be decisive for once. They were going to take stick whatever they did - so kudos for their willingness to face it down. Well done folks.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 18:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The SlimVirgin case

The SlimVirgin case has been closed quite quickly, and it has been moved to a subpage, so, but there are very important questions left unanswered, so, in the hope that they won't be missed, I want to draw attention to this section of the talk page of the subpage. Thank you. ElinorD (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)