Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee

Advice?

If this is the wrong page to raise this, would someone please paste it into the right one?

Any guidance or advice any of you cares to offer at Talk:Muhammad/images#Query would be very much appreciated. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Could an arbitrator please tell me if it is forbidden to discuss the curation of images at Talk:Muhammad/images? I attempted to initiate such a conversation but had no takers, and so I dropped it. But the mere attempt to initiate a discussion on that topic triggered an extremely uncivil response from seven editors telling me to shut up. Now it's been brought up on my talk page in the context of possible AE action. I would very much appreciate clarification of this point. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. If you want clarification of a specific finding or remedy in the Muhammad images case, feel free to ask/file such a request for clarification over here. It will likely garner more attention from arbs. Best, Lord Roem (talk) 03:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Off With His Head?

Some months ago, iridescent was booted from the Committee, ostensibly for "inactivity." Now I notice that Xeno has been on vacation for many months... Is he next to go? If not, what is the threshold? 174.233.132.252 (talk) 04:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Mailing list response time

When someone requests arbitration on the mailing list, how long does it take for ArbCom to decide if they're going to accept the request? Is it unusual for them to have not gotten back to the person yet after a week?-SightWatcher (talk) 00:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Why is this unspecified person making private "requests for arbitration" to the arbcom mailing list? Mathsci (talk) 06:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

SightWatcher, if you wish to file a request for arbitration, that should be directed here. Lord Roem (talk) 15:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if SightWatcher is the initiator. If he were to make an on-wiki request making any reference to me, however, SightWatcher would almost certainly find their editing privileges restricted. SightWatcher is subject to a very specific arbcom topic ban, which specifically prohibits him from initiating any litigation against me. This has been already clarified in an unambiguous way by an arbitrator.[1] Mathsci (talk) 21:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I asked here because I wanted ArbCom's opinion [redacted]. Can the committee give an opinion? I'd like to hear the opinion of the whole committee and not just one arbitrator, since I know individual arbitrators don't have more authority than regular admins.

The person who tried to request arbitration on the mailing list is TrevelyanL85A2, because he was advised to do so at AE. After not getting an answer for a week about whether ArbCom would accept his request, he's been emailing other people about it. The admin who blocked him (MastCell) also fully protected his user talk, so it seems the only way for him to have an answer might be if one of the people he emailed asks in public. That is why I raised the question here.

Trevelyan said at AE that his main beef was with MastCell, because he doesn't think MastCell is uninvolved. But from Trevelyan's explanation at AE, I think if I make the request Mathsci also would need to be included as a party. It seems unusual that Trevelyan's and my topic bans would be intended to cut off access to arbitration about a possible misuse of admin tools. But if that is ArbCom's intention, and that's the reason they never got back to Trevelyan about his request, I'd like the committee to please clarify that so there can be no further confusion. -SightWatcher (talk) 23:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Ummm .. .I'm not an arb or anything Sightwatcher .. but really all you're going to get here (at most) is an individual comment. Arbcom is a collection of individuals that often have very different views; as such, it's unlikely that you'll get an informal "we think this" type of reply on a talk page. At "BEST", a formal "case" might reveal some sort of "official" mandate; but even there it's possible that there will be differing views. — Ched :  ?  02:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Then how can I find out if the committee intended my topic ban to cut off my access to arbitration, or the committee's view about anything else? this principle says, "While individual arbitrators sometimes provide informal advice based on their general impressions, such advice is not binding and following the advice is not mandatory as only the consensus of the committee has any effect." That means I couldn't even get a definite answer in a request for clarification, because individual opinions are the only thing arbitrators offer there. If the only place to get a clear answer is in a formal case, that's no help when I want to find out whether I'm allowed to request one. -SightWatcher (talk) 03:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to recycle an old meme, but you must remember that ArbCom isn't a court of law, nor a government. Definitive decisions (reached by binding vote) make up only a portion of our work, and in a clarification request you are usually only given general advice and opinions—as opposed to a unanimous response. If a number of arbitrators opine in broadly the same way, then you can take that as your answer to whatever question or issue you required to be clarified. Only rarely is an actual decision required, and if you find you do require one then you probably ought to lower your expectations :-). If you have e-mailed the committee mailing list and do not receive a response, then I advise you to follow-up the e-mail (preferably in the same thread, so that nothing is fragmented on our end); this usually results in a reply to the original enquiry. Naturally, most questions not of a sensitive nature) should be put to us on this page, and not by e-mail. Hope this helps, AGK [•] 20:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I [redacted] one particular part of your first sentence, above. I'm not sure if such was your intention, but your remark seemed rather dismissive of the contributor who was its subject. AGK [•] 20:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

As I said, the arbitration request on the mailing list was made by TrevelyanL85A2, not me. He was advised at AE to make the request by email since he's blocked with his user talk protected. He emailed you again recently after you suggested a follow-up message, but he's still waiting for a response.

This would be easier for everyone if ArbCom could be more communicative. The committee hasn't clarified whether their lack of response to his emails is because they object to his request, or because the request just can't be resolved by email. If it's too complex to resolve by email, they also haven't said whether it would help them reach a decision if I made a public request on Trevelyan's behalf. I know you can't speak for the whole committee, but could you please give your opinion about these questions? -SightWatcher (talk) 03:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know Trevelyan hasn't sent a request for arbitration to the ArbCom mailing list. PhilKnight (talk) 16:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Well I guess you found his request eventually, since he just showed me SilkTork's new response suggesting he raise his complaint in public after his block is over.

I have one more question. Would it be okay if I request arbitration for him before the end of his block? I know that issues can be considered stale if people wait too long to raise them. This matters to me for its own sake, because I'm worried about the same thing possibly happening to me that happened to him. So it wouldn't be only for his sake that I make the request. -SightWatcher (talk) 23:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

It would probably help to be a little bit more specific. Is this a proposal to open a full case (eg Wikipedia:Requests/Case/MastCell) in the first week of July or just to make a request for clarification/amendment? Mathsci (talk) 06:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Can someone please explain to me why I shouldn't block SightWatcher for violating Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence/Review#SightWatcher_topic-banned? He's discussing TrevelyanL85A2, an editor who edits in the prohibited area, and discussing TrevelyanL85A2 in connection with TrevelyanL85A2's conduct on the project, namely, the TrevelyanL85A2's being blocked for violating an arbitration decision. MBisanz ^talk 02:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Responding to MBisanz, I think that SightWatcher ought to cease his participation here at WT:AC about the topic of TrevelyanL85A2, and the question on whether SightWatch deserves a block is legitimate. In the history of enforcement of WP:ARBR&I, the purpose of restrictions such as the one imposed on SightWatcher was to *prevent* third-party intervention on disputes involving others who were felt to have pushed a certain POV regarding race and intelligence. So, to answer SightWatcher's polite question as to whether he may launch a third-party intervention on behalf of TrevelyanL85A2, the right answer would be 'No', in my opinion. The escape clause provided by Arbcom that allows participation 'when your own conduct is mentioned' is so that one party whose article or talk page edits are being challenged on a noticeboard is not restrained from making any noticeboard response. SightWatcher does not have standing to complain about the Committee's slow response to email from TrevelyanL85A2. He should wait till his ban expires. EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Trevelyan's topic ban is identical to mine, and I'm trying to understand things about my own sanction. The questions he raised about it matter to me because they apply to me as well. Don't editing restrictions usually allow for discussion to clarify the restrictions themselves?

If ArbCom's view is that I should not make an arbitration request for Trevelyan, then I'll just let him do it himself after his block expires, and I'll stop asking about this here. But I would like ArbCom to give a clear answer about their view, so nobody has to guess at it. I don't think that's a lot to ask. -SightWatcher (talk) 23:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

If you ask about or reference Trevelyan's block or potential arbitration request again, here or on any other page on the project, I will block you for a month. MBisanz ^talk 01:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)