This page was started in September 2009, and was intended to be a summary of the arbitration activities and statements I made while an arbitrator. It never fulfilled that purpose, because I failed to add to it. It did partly fulfil it's intended role as a place for questions to be asked, and was initially a section of this page, and was later spun off from there to here. The page was repurposed in November 2012 to summarise my arbitration activities during my two years as an arbitrator and provide some links to the relevant pages.
The main starting points for an overview of my on-wiki activities while an arbitrator (from late December 2008 to the end of 2010) are the Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard and its archives, and the arbitration index. To aid this, links are provided to the pages that cover the period in question. Note that I did not participate in all requests, votes and cases, but did participate in many of them. Browsing through the links below should make things clearer.
I drafted one full case (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Socionics) and aided in drafting some parts of other cases. There was also one case I was scheduled to draft, but ended up proposing that it be dismissed by motion (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noloop). The number of cases closed in 2009 and 2010 (30 and 12 respectively) can be compared to the number of cases closed in 2011 and 2012 (16 in 2011 and as of November 2012 11 cases closed so far in 2012).
I also prepared what turned out to be a one-off report on arbitration activities over a half year, published here. Those interested in statistics relating to arbitration cases in 2009 and 2010 should look here (2009) and here (2010).
It can be difficult to sum up two years of arbitration work in just a few words, but the essence of my approach to arbitration over that period can be seen in the comments made by Newyorkbrad at the time I and two other arbitrators departed. Those comments can be seen here.
This section is intended to summarise some of my contributions on and around the arbitration pages after I ceased being an arbitrator, i.e. from January 2011 onwards. I continued to follow arbitration matters, though to a lesser extent than before. The links below are to archives of the arbitration noticeboard, with the number of comments that can be found in each archive by searching by my user name.
This section is intended for feedback and for people to post any questions they may have about any of my actions or statements. I can't promise to discuss in detail, or for long, but I will endeavour to answer any questions people have. Please leave a note on my talk page if you leave a question here.
RFAR Bishonen/Jimbo Wales, July 20—August 2. Thank you for setting up this "pledge" page, Carcharoth. I would like to ask about what happened after you urged me to stop making noise at the Bishonen/Jimbo Wales case, and to instead trust the ArbCom to deal with the problem. I quote a small part of what you wrote on August 2:
"...To be perfectly frank, there are issues that need to be sorted out between ArbCom and Jimbo (and the community), and much as you (=Bishonen) (and some others) might want this case (i.e. your block and subsequent upset) to be the vehicle by which such matters get resolved, that is not, in my view, the right way to do this. Trust us to sort out what needs doing vis-a-vis Jimbo (it may take a while, but we have the resolve to see it through and get a fair solution sorted out), and trust us to then communicate that to the community, so they (and Jimbo) can sort out the role Jimbo has within the community. If this sounds like we are close to a constitutional crisis, then yes, we are. So please, accept the motion put forward here, put aside your case, and let us (ArbCom) concentrate on sorting out things with Jimbo when he is available again. Carcharoth (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Why has the ArbCom never mentioned the matter of Jimbo or the constitutional crisis since then? Does "we have the resolve to see it through and get a fair solution sorted out" actually mean that you have the resolve to stall until everybody has lost interest and groans when/if that Bishonen tries to bore them about it again. ? As for Jimbo being available: It's true he still has a vacation template on his talkpage. However, he is editing, and is clearly available. So, may I ask what the ArbCom has done since you admonished me to shut up and slink off? And what does it intend doing? Do you still stand for what you said at that time? Would the trust you invoke not be misplaced—even though I willingly extended it at the time!—as nothing has apparently been "sorted out"? .. What happened to your resolve to see it through and get a fair solution sorted out?
I'm speaking to and of the committee as a body, by no means to you personally, Carcharoth. Still, you said those things, a month ago. I suppose you're willing to take responsibility for how you articulated them at that time. We now have August 28. Those "pledges" you articulated, and the way they silently dropped out of sight/into a black hole after August 2, are very disappointing. Not so much to me (please do not reduce the case to "my upset!") as to all users who took the trouble to weigh in on the case and attempt to discuss the constitutional crisis of Wikipedia. Bishonen | talk 14:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC).
Thanks for the questions Bishonen. You are right that an update is needed. I have written at some length here, but full consideration of this should really wait until the whole committee is active, and that is not likely to happen until after Jimbo and various arbs resume full activity after travels or after Wikimania (being held this weekend). I hope the following will help though:
(1) There were internal discussions (varying in length and participation) that took place even after the motion passed and was archived. I initiated some of these discussions precisely because I had said what you quote above, and felt it incumbent on me to push the matter forward further. Some of the discussions were initiated by others because they too felt certain matters need addressing. Part of those discussions mentioned looking at the wider issues of Jimbo's relationship with the Arbitration Committee, his role on the arbitration mailing list, Jimbo's role with respect to the Arbitration Committee elections, and Jimbo's role on en-Wikipedia (though the latter is strictly something the community deals with, not ArbCom, unless it relates to Jimbo's use of admin and other tools). For on-wiki pages on this, see Wikipedia:Role of Jimmy Wales and Wikipedia:Arbitration Role of Jimmy Wales in the English Wikipedia.
(2) Nothing concrete came of those internal discussions (which is why no-one heard anything about them, well, that, and the daily churn of ArbCom business is difficult to break out of to deal with longer term matters). One conclusion did seem to be that this should be dealt with on a longer timescale, not as a reaction to recent events.
(3) Following on from that last point, sorting this out will take much longer than a month. The more realistic timescale is one leading up to the ArbCom elections. There is an arbitration policy draft that should be updated soon to incorporate changes from the latest round of community discussions. Presumably, there will then be some sort of ratification vote at or around the time of the ArbCom elections for the community to approve or reject the new policy and its wording. Any changes to the ArbCom elections process would logically be dealt with as part of discussions about the upcoming election.
(4) These issues are a matter for ArbCom and Jimbo and the community, not individuals (this is why the dispute between you and Jimbo was dealt with by motion, to allow the general issues to be dealt with later), however individuals can and should ask what progress is being made, and should start community discussions as needed. It would also help if links to relevant pages and discussions were gathered together in one place. If you (Bishonen) or others want regular updates on this, and public statements of progress, I suggest asking for the aspects that relate to ArbCom to be put on the public agenda (Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Agenda), discussion of which is here. Note also my comments here, particularly about starting community discussions and/or asking for an item to be put on ArbCom's agenda. If you or others want to start public discussions about this, I suggest a good starting point is looking at what has been said previously and linking to it or summarising it.
I hope this answers some of your questions. Carcharoth (talk) 11:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Well... thank you for trying. (Do you realize you're sounding a bit like FT2 in late 2008?) I believe I already knew why my complaint was dealt with by motion; there may I suppose have been several reasons, and I don't take all of them to be creditable. After all, my own personal request for arbitration did relate to "Jimbo's use of admin and other tools."
I assume the ArbCom, rather than exclusively the community, is, as you suggest, involved in things like Jimbo's role on the arbitration mailing list? It's not easy for the community to discuss something that operates in secret and that so few have any acquaintance with. Anyway. Since "full consideration" will apparently require an interminable waiting game, I do not personally have the time or energy to immerse myself in it. Fortunately there are some members of the community that have. Bishonen | talk 20:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC).
Well, you have asked me questions and I've answered them as best I can. My point about "full consideration" is that I can't force other arbs to pay attention to matters they may not want to get involved in, or while they are inactive or travelling, or on holiday. Sometimes people's inactivity or lack of interest is just because they (just like you) don't have the time and energy to deal with something (especially if they then get compared to other people). It's not always "a waiting game". As for Jimmy's use of his blocking tools, the motion did deal with that (by acknowledging his permanent abdication of the blocking tool). If you want issues with the mailing list discussed, you will need to ask direct questions of the whole committee - I've tried getting those issues addressed internally, but got nowhere. At the end of the day, I'm only one person and only one arbitrator. If you want to convince ArbCom to make changes, you need to convince ArbCom as a whole. If you want the community to support changes, you need to get the support of the community. One final point: if it makes things simpler, what I've said here now over-rides what I said earlier (the bit you quoted at the start of this thread). Carcharoth (talk) 01:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Covers the blanking of the case pages, and differing interpretations of what happened there. Response to this thread. Relevant diffs (will expand on this later): , , , , , , , . Carcharoth (talk) 09:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)