Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee

A statement from Jimbo Wales about recent events:

I have encouraged the ArbCom to move slowly and thoughtfully. Gather all the facts. Don't have a public argument with each other that confuses people or gives trolls the opportunity to turn more people against each other. Figure out what went wrong, correct it, apologize where beneficial to do so, and build a better framework going forward. You don't get all that done in a weekend, and you don't further that kind of thoughtful and mature process with a hasty statement. I think the important statement has been made: no secret trials, and no convictions without giving the opportunity to present a defense. That's just basic justice, and I will overturn any ArbCom decision to the contrary. (Although, I should point out, there is ZERO chance of the ArbCom doing this in the first place.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Organization

Due to size, some of the topics have been split out into their own sub-RfCs and a summary transcluded into here. A current list of sub-RfCs can be found here.

Introductory statement

Statement by Lawrence Cohen

What is the Arbitration Committee?

The Arbitration Committee was created in 2004 by Jimbo Wales to help deal with the growing number of serious disputes on Wikipedia that he could not moderate alone. Wales wrote in January 2004:

The Arbitration Committee [...] can impose a solution that I'll consider to be binding, with of course the exception that I reserve the right of executive clemency and indeed even to dissolve the whole thing if it turns out to be a disaster. But I regard that as unlikely, and I plan to do it about as often as the Queen of England dissolves Parliament against their wishes, i.e., basically never, but it is one last safety valve for our values.

In April 2007, Wales confirmed that the committee could overturn any decision he makes in his traditional capacity within Wikipedia. This effectively promoted the Arbitration Committee to the control of the community. Arbiters are directly voted on by the community in a yearly election process. Wales traditionally appoints all the top "winners" by percentage to the open Committee seats, and has not failed to do so; there is no precedent for what may or may not happen if he attempted to overrule the Community on the Election Process and was challenged on such an action. Some may say he has authority to override the community; however, some may say that per Wikipedia's Foundational principles that all matters not interfering with Foundation matters are settled by consensus (the election process) his "appointing" members to the AC may be just a formality of announcing them and no more. In practice, by our traditions, and by our community norms of all matters being settled by consensus, combined with Wales's statement that the Committee has authority over him, it is reasonable to assume that the Committee is now in practice autonomous and answerable only to itself, the Community that selects it, and the Wikimedia Foundation and board itself.

Traditionally, arbitration is the last step in the dispute resolution process — it is a last resort, only to be employed when all else has failed.

Reason for the RFC.

There has never been a Requests for comment (RFC) on the Arbitration Committee itself and its processes. Initially drafted and made by Jimbo Wales, and then modified over time by the Committee itself, it is historically isolated with all major Committee discussion "behind the scenes" over IRC, private e-mail lists, or other means. In recent times, across several cases, and historically, the role, purpose, workload, and function of the Committee has come under growing scrutiny. A major factor for the December 2007 elections was whether or not Arbiter prospects would have the time to perform the duties they were volunteering for. This RFC will provide an opportunity for the Community to interact in a central discussion, to help shape the future of the Committee, and for how it would and could best serve the Wikipedia community.

Signed: Lawrence Cohen | Talk 19:33, 14 March 2008

---

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

View by Durova

Per request from retiring Lawrence Cohen, I have moved this draft proposal from user space to Wikipedia space. This is a serious step, one which (partly at my request) Lawrence had delayed for several months. I ask all members of the community to proceed with decorum and dignity.

Various matters must come under discussion. I ask all community members to focus on systemic and procedural issues, rather than reopening particular grievances.

Matters worthy of consideration include:

• Scope of the Arbitration Committee mandate
• Appropriate circumstances for conducting arbitration cases privately
• For editors under scrutiny, appropriate means of rebuttal and response
• Appropriate circumstances for conducting arbitraton case reviews and clarifications privately
• Appropriate timing for announcement of closed arbitration decisions
• Decorum and conduct of arbitrators
• Security and leaks of arbitration committee discussions
• Scope of the Committee mandate for actions not directly related to sanctions on individual editors

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Durova^Charge! 00:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
2. --Barberio (talk) 01:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Geoff Plourde (talk) 03:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
4. — _Maggot^Syn 06:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
5. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 15:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia's Arbcomm should be striving for "transparency" not secrecy, fairness not "a pox on both your houses", objectivity in the finding of facts not a subjective "close enough, probably" type attitude, and so on.
6. Yes to all concerns. Amerique^dialectics 15:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
7. DGG (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
8. We do need to look at this. Davewild (talk) 16:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
9. Worth looking at. Kelly ^hi! 17:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
10. Guettarda (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
11. Open discussion cannot hurt. It's like the marketplace of ideas, First Am. and what not. JeanLatore (talk) 17:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
12. It is long overdue for the community to take a serious look at this issue, especially in some of its recent decisions/proposed decisions ArbCom has moved towards policy-making. I would say that the question of how and by whom the arbitration policy WP:AP can be modified should be considered as well. Nsk92 (talk) 17:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
13. Time is right for a wide ranging discussion on all the elements listed above RMHED (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
14. Endorse looking at the 8 listed matters worthy of consideration, but there may be other items which should be considered. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
15. Naturally. However, this isn't an exhaustive list. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
16. Chetblong (talk) 03:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
17. Yep, some re-tweaking definitely needed. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
18. Review is good. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
19. Doc Tropics 15:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
20. Clear guidelines can only help. Fainites ^barley 18:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
21. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC) - I agree with Fainities.
22. Neıl 龱 10:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
23. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 12:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
24. Miss Ann Thropie (talk) 19:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
25. No process ever improves by neglect. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
26. Sensible Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
27. Noroton (talk) 02:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
28. John Smith's (talk) 10:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
29. I strongly endorse looking at all these things. Unless it absolutely can't be, the processes here should be built from the bottom up. Since ArbCom wasn't created in a bottom up way, the community should approve of aspects that are good, and change the aspects that are bad.--SJP _Chat 21:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
30.  RGTraynor  02:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
31. Wizardman 02:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
32. Agreed, regular check-ups are always good idea. --^LaPianista! 03:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
33. --Fahrenheit451 (talk) 04:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
34. Endorse. — Athaenara ✉ 05:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
35. --Michael X the White (talk) 15:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
36. StuffOfInterest (talk) 15:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
37. --Regents Park (sink with the skaters) 15:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC). Commonsensical.
38. -- Perfect Proposal ^{Speak Out!} 19:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
39. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
40. Paul August ☎ 18:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
41. --TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 01:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Statements about what works well in the current Arbitration Committee process

Views specifically about what you feel works well, and/or to the benefit and service of the community, under the current setup that we have.

To see, respond to, or add to the statements and responses in this section: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee/Statements about what works well in the current Arbitration Committee process.

Statements about what does not work well in the current Arbitration Committee process

Views specifically about what you feel does not work well in the current Arbitration Committee process, and/or to the detriment and dissservice of the community, under the current setup that we have. This is not a forum to air grievances about specific past or present Arbiters, but perceived 'bad' actions may be cited as examples.

Views by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk)

First view by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk)

From the moment they are written down, there is a marked unwillingness to change wording of findings of fact and so on, even if part of it is demonstratably in error. For instance, in the "Franco-Mongol Alliance" case, a statement that good faith was presumed persisted, even in light of a statement by the user in question on the talk page that, in order to get around a technical copyvio problem on commons, he would avoid giving the source in future. The arbitrators tend to vote on whether it seems about right, and almost never change votes, leading to flawed and ill-phrased findings, once written down, to not be changed.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
2. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 15:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC) Even the Supremes manage to reverse themselves or modify their decisions.
3. JeanLatore (talk) 17:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC). Clarity and diction of arb cum rulings could improve. JeanLatore (talk) 17:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
4. The fact that they rarely if ever reverse themselves as new material is presented is prima facie evidence that the current system is broken, or at least not functioning optimally. Any reasonable person would be expected to be judging these cases based on the evidence presented, and the evidence is not presented all at once or even before the voting is commenced many times. Because Arbcomm does not seem to be open to reconsideration of their positions, the procedure does not look to be functioning well.--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Users who do not endorse this summary:

1. I would have to disagree with that. Arbitrators do sometimes change their views, but just because they don't more than 50% of the time doesn't mean it's a problem. When giving sentence in the courts, judges don't change their minds halfway through reading judgment. They, like the arbitrators I'm sure, make their minds up beforehand. John Smith's (talk) 10:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Do not endorse because I believe a statement in the Franco-Mongol case was mischaracterized above and that good-faith interpretation was possible there. Endorsing same user's second view below. JJB 13:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
3. Arbitrators frequently disagree with statements of fact on case pages, or agree with them but amend them in their approval. Besides, I get the feeling that we don't always get to see the debate that goes on. Grandmasterka 04:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
4. In light of JJB's comments and the lack of evidence presented by Shoemaker's Holiday, I can't endorse this summary. "Presumptions of good faith" are particularly prone to being mischaracterized. I do think that ArbCom should always be open to revising its views in light of the facts -- there has just been no evidence presented that they don't already. II | (t - c) 04:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

• I've seen dozens of rewordings and changed votes. Whether such numbers constitute too many times or too few, or "a marked unwillingness" or "almost never", I don't know. Paul August ☎ 18:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Second view by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk)

When mistakes are made, the arbitration committee handles dealing with them poorly. They often insist they were right after all, and refuse to make the simple apologies that would largely solve the problems. Their main alternative, silence as an official response, also does not help matters.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
2. "Ignore the trouble and maybe it'll go away". Or maybe refusing to validate certain worries with even a prefunctory response will just piss the worriers off even more. Who knows! --Badger Drink (talk) 23:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Endorse because I think the flaw in the Franco-Mongol case was ArbCom's failure to state which evidence it considered probative, rather than the failure alleged by this user; I stated this failure formally during the review of this case and would ask folks like John Smith's to review the review. JJB 13:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Arbcom's non-responsive response to this whole rigmarole (took week(s) of silence to get it, and to me, it reads like a lot of legalese basically saying "We handled OM the way we handled OM. What do you mean, that sentence is meaningless?" ) has only made this whole thing worse. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
5. TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 01:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who do not endorse this summary:

1. I would certainly want to see evidence of this for such a serious allegation - I would have to oppose it in the meantime. John Smith's (talk) 10:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Third view by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk)

The arbitration committee has several times this year acted in ways that prevented or highly prejudiced a user who was not yet able to give evidence. The OrangeMarlin case came with a statement by FT2 that they did not feel like going through the effort to read the user's evidence: [1]. In the Durova and MatthewHoffman cases, highly prejudicial voting began against the accused before the accused - then administrators in good standing - were able to provide evidence.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
2. I've seen this myself. They've even done some shoot-first-maybe-ask-questions-later proposals that have me concerned. -- Ned Scott 07:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Barberio (talk) 10:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Filll (talk | wpc) 14:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC) This is atrocious behavior. And editors are called "dogs" and worse, with no apologies, by sitting Arbcomm members.
5. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 15:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC) Yep.
6. Chetblong (talk) 03:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
7. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

   # (will strike if/when ArbCom confirms the FT2 ruling was bogus) Are we to believe ArbCom had so little trust in their own impartiality and investigative prowess, that they thought Orangemarlin would successfully "smoke" them if he had a chance to defend himself?!? --Jaysweet (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC) Struck as promised. According to this official statement, the Committee had agreed that secret action against OM was unwarranted. This is now an FT2 problem, not an ArbCom problem. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

8. Doc Tropics 15:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
9. The MHoffman case was also out of process (there are other similarities, but I'll refrain from pointing that out here), one of the main differences being that it mostly took place out in the open. R. Baley (talk) 16:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
10. DGG (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC) This applies generally to all proceedings as well as the one that immediately gave rise to this RfC. It is not moot.
11. Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC) - it seems to be simptomatic of a broader problem of not closely reviewing the workshop and talk page discussions of evidence. Where much of the real argumentation and explaination occurs.
12. --Cube lurker (talk) 16:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
13. Kww (talk) 02:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
14. Very strongly endorse. — Athaenara ✉ 05:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
15. SashaNein (talk) 12:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
16. Endorse re the OrangeMarlin case. --Regents Park (sink with the skaters) 15:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
17. Strongly endorse. It is surely a basic requirement of any fair legal process that defendants must, without exception, be given a chance to defend themselves. --Merlinme (talk) 15:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
18. This view actually has hard facts to back it up. Grandmasterka 04:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
19. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 13:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
20. Nsk92 (talk) 13:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutral view:

1. I lack the knowledge of these cases, but certainly the process must be seen to be applied unless there are exceptional circumstances. John Smith's (talk) 10:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Don't know about this. JJB 13:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
3. No idea of what this is. TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 01:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

1. That's not how I see the Durova case. The facts in the case were very clear, and the direction we had to go was also pretty clear (though adding Giano issues to the mix muddled things up some). Though some people wanted to extend the case to issues involving the OMG sekrit list, the Committee from the start did not consider the nature of the list germane to the case. We knew what had occurred, and we knew what had to be done, and we did it. I was quite saddened that Durova desysopped herself; we certainly weren't going to do anything of the sort -- we sure don't desysop people for one bad block. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Seeing as you have decided to mention my name, let me join the party. "we certainly weren't going to do anything of the sort -- we sure don't desysop people for one bad block" are you sure that is the truth, jpgordon? So what exactly were you going to do? please don't answer unless you are going to tel the truth. Giano (talk) 22:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

   We were going to exactly what we did: recommend strongly she be more careful in the future. Why would we do otherwise? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

   You went far beyond recommend strongly, JP. You censured me: the strongest action possible short of restrictive sanctions. And the Committee wrote up and voted upon that while a litany of other accusations against me were in formal evidence--many of which were frivolous--before it was physically possible for me to rebut them. You also allowed the situation to move from the start of RFC to voting over Thanksgiving weekend. Was arbitration even necessary? I had already undone the block with repeated apologies and done my best to make amends; I was demonstrating every sign of having learned from the mistake. Arbitration is supposed to be the final step in dispute resolution when other means fail: you denied those other means the chance of success, then denied me the opportunity to defend myself. Durova^Charge! 00:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

   Hm. Clearly I need to re-evaluate what transpired there. Thanks for the correction. (Though it does seem to me the specific language was "admonished"; I guess that might be vague enough that I saw it as a strong suggestion, but you saw it as a censure. I think I'll try to avoid "admonitions" in the future.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

View by Guettarda

Twenty-seven hours after the Orangemarlin "decision" was posted, members of the arbcomm are apparently waiting for FT2 to explain his position. Only Kirill has chosen to speak up. And that's the problem with the arbcomm. I understand how that sort of a culture can develop - after all, everybody criticises their decisions at some time. Shared suffering builds bonds.

While I have disagreed with Jimbo on several occasions, he truly understands the value of keeping the community at large (and the content producers specifically) happy enough that they won't walk away. Too many people miss the fact that the community could evapourate overnight. In the end, it's held together by nothing but goodwill. The arbcomm (among others) seems to have developed a sense of entitlement, a civil service mentality in a volunteer project. And that, I think, poses a problem.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. I too am baffled by the silence of the arbs. Either they agree with FT2 that the postings were made in their name, or they agree with KL that they weren't. There is no need to wait for FT2, they should speak William M. Connolley (talk) 21:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Still waiting for lifesigns from the committee... Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Maybe they're all just too busy working on drafting those IRC policies and procedures! --Badger Drink (talk) 23:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Endorse it is taking far too long for the Arbcom members to respond. There have been a few gnomic comments, and pleas for patience, but no visible attempt (that I have seen) to respond to the community's concerns. DuncanHill (talk) 13:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
6. To the extent the Arbs remain silent and keep this so-called "decision" up, I cannot see how it is possible to maintain confidence in the institution. However, it apparently was their decision, and so it remains their option to rescind. In fact, the only hope for the institution to maintain any credibility in the eyes of many in the community is if they rescind. Otherwise, this RFC will naturally become less a project aimed at reform and more of a project aimed at the ArbCom's abolishment. Amerique^dialectics 15:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
7. Endorse to a limited extent. I can understand why ArbCom would want to wait to make a full statement, and I'm okay with that. However, either the Committee or FT2 need to make a statement confirming the Orangemarlin ArbCom is bogus -- posthaste! --Jaysweet (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
8. Endorse - I am hugely relieved by Jimbo's recent comments (below), and I agree fundamentally with the points he raised. However, Guettarda's original staement remains a source of significant concern, both short-term and long. Doc Tropics 15:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
9. Partially Endorse - there was certainly a miscommunication between members of Arbcom and the general community. 27 h is much to long to give reports from individual members of Arbcom to their "electorates". Community then could have better understanding what was going on. I think the information blockade was a wrong step. Obviously 27 h is to little to give an official statement of the arbcom signed by a majority of members Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
10. Endorse. Specifically: "sense of entitlement" / "civil service mentality" may be gratifying for those who experience it but, when the arbitration which the encyclopedia needs is careless or convoluted and delayed, rather than expeditious and thorough, the encyclopedia is indirectly sabotaged. — Athaenara ✉ 06:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
11. SashaNein (talk) 12:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
12. --Michael X the White (talk) 15:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
13. True. I almost never see them on the case except for accepting/rejecting the findings.support

Neutral view:

1. I would agree that just because it is a weekend doesn't mean arbitrators cannot comment. If they are active on wikipedia they should be able to address a matter. That does not mean they need to drop everything else, but if it is important they should state that they are aware of it. Silence is worrying, but even just saying "hello - yes I see the issue and I will get back on it after some thought" is helpful. John Smith's (talk) 10:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Per my comments below. I don;t think thios is as yet indicative of issues, but it is certainly an area where improvement is needed. Hiding T 09:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who do not endorse this summary

comment while a quicker response would have been preferable, the members of ArbCom ARE volunteers, it IS a weekend, and it IS summer in the northern hemisphere - a time when many people take vacations to get away from things- demands for immediate response are childish. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Response This issue arose on Friday evening, it is now Sunday afternoon. Several arbitrators, including FT2, have been active on wikipedia during that time. We have had no indication of when an explanation will be forthcoming. There is nothing to prevent individual arbitrators commenting on their understanding of or participation in the OM case. DuncanHill (talk) 13:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

If the response by Kirill is any example of how individual statements by ArbCom members will 'help' the situation, it further strenghtens my belief that taking time is appropriate. (reformatting, my response ws not intended to be a direst reponse to DuncanHill.) -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Users who oppose this summary:

1. I have encouraged the ArbCom to move slowly and thoughtfully. Gather all the facts. Don't have a public argument with each other that confuses people or gives trolls the opportunity to turn more people against each other. Figure out what went wrong, correct it, apologize where beneficial to do so, and build a better framework going forward. You don't get all that done in a weekend, and you don't further that kind of thoughtful and mature process with a hasty statement. I think the important statement has been made: no secret trials, and no convictions without giving the opportunity to present a defense. That's just basic justice, and I will overturn any ArbCom decision to the contrary. (Although, I should point out, there is ZERO chance of the ArbCom doing this in the first place.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

   I agree that a thoughtful response is better than a quick one, but if it wasn't for you speaking up we still wouldn't know whether to take FT2 at face value or Kirill. But my main point (which got lost in there) is that the first response from the committee seemed to be "I don't want to say anything until FT2 gets his chance to answer this". Considering the distress that the uncertainty was causing the community, that was the wrong approach. If just one other arb had come out and said something that supported Kirill's version of events, I think a lot of the drama could have been averted. At some point, responsibility to the community should trump everything else. It's great that you are here to reassure the community, but it suggests to me that the arbcomm's culture has become too inward-looking. Guettarda (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

   Comment – thanks, Jimbo, that important statement resolves the immediate issue, and we can look forward to a properly considered and measured explanation in due course. . dave souza, talk 14:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

   I would be interested in clarification on how Jimbo concludes there is "ZERO chance" of the arbcom producing miscarriage of justice. I can easily think of half a dozen cases where the arbcom has failed spectacularly in "gathering all the facts" (or, since the facts were gathered for them, to grok them). The arbcom has turned into an apparatchik institution that can be routed around by community action in the best case, and that breeds wikilawyering and trolling in the worst. dab (𒁳) 07:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

   Circumstances do not always allow one the luxury of time. Let us not forget Howard Macmillan's famous "Events dear boy, events" comment regarding what blew governments off course. Yes the arbitration committee should have the luxury of time to consider how to move forwards, but in the immediate aftermath there should be more than stonewalling or a lack of communication. If the arbitration committee or anyone is afraid of uttering even a bland apology and commitment to rectify whatever issues are at hand in a timely manner because they are afraid of trolls, then the trolls have already won. Nobody is asking for a public argument. Honesty, decency and a commitment to doing the right thing are values that should be expected though. Hiding T 09:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

2. Jimbo has summarised it above. Also, some of the comments I've seen regarding this matter seem to be passing judgement without gathering the facts in the exact same way. If the Committee (as a whole) were to adopt a style of making comments without careful thought, not only would it fail to be be effective in its purpose, but this project would also become a greater failure. Casting aspersions does not help. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
3. I'm baffled by the suggestion that failure to issue immediate comments (and at a weekend, at that!) is in any way a failing of the committee. It was obviously intentional and equally obviously the correct thing to do. This RFC is full of accusations against arbcom that seem to reflect, rather, failings of perception on the part of the accuser. Where there isn't any urgency, quickfire responses are not to be encouraged. --Jenny (recently changed username) 20:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Agree with Jimbo. ArbCom should discuss its statements and get the facts straight before speaking out all disorganized, and starting more drama. Keep things clean and concise so we can read more interesting things. II | (t - c) 05:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who think brand-new incidents should not receive undue weight:

1. If this incident happened a month ago and it took 4 days for ARBCOM to acknowledge the problem but it was resolved within a week, it wouldn't be a major issue. Let's focus on problems that are old enough that they clearly indicate a problem. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

1. Its size and the constraint of making decisions via email make it extremely difficult for the committee, as a body, to act quickly. Paul August ☎ 17:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Addendum to View by Guettarda

My main point was that there's something wrong with the culture of the arbcomm, a problem that was illustrated by the fact that they decided to give FT2 opportunity to respond, leaving it to Jimbo to try to calm the community. The committee is an arm of the community, not a body that's separate from the community. The "solution" that they have come up with shows this even more starkly. Rather than dealing with their own problems (an arb who posts fake "decisions", a major fuck up that allowed it to happen) they just vacate the decision and fast-track the issue. And, to add insult to injury, they don't even bother to abide by the rules they came up with for this case; after posting a statement that says that the arbs will wait 48 hours to decide whether to accept the case or not, Charles votes to accept.

Let's get this straight: giving FT2 a chance to respond was a failing of arbcom in your opinion? On "calming the community", well I think the passage of time, a bit of sleep, and a lot of people waking up feeling a little sheepish about what they wrote last night, has the necessary calming effect. --Jenny (recently changed username) 20:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

FT2 posted a fake "decision". Kirill said as much. But we were left with two conflicting accounts by arbs - all we knew was that one of them wasn't telling the truth. We were left with this pervasive uncertainty while the arbcomm circled the wagons. It would have been pretty simple for any arb to say what Jimbo said - we don't do secret trials. That would have cleared the air while they sorted things out. Instead, they said nothing, forcing Jimbo to intervene. This was a failing on their part - that they prioritised one of their members at the expense of the whole community. Guettarda (talk) 20:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll take this discussion to the talk page. --Jenny (recently changed username) 21:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

View by Tony Sidaway (2)

The Committee is slow to deliberate and slow to act, which can lead to complacency and misunderstandings about policy. While this is balanced by the quality of the decisions, sometimes it doesn't work and sometimes people mistake inaction over time for lack of concern.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
2. I agree though quality of decisions is also sometimes lacking. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
3. They take WAY to long, ans sometimes, even the quality of the decisions isn't even that good. TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 01:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who oppose this summary:

1. I do not believe that the "quality of the decisions" is sufficient - little care is spent in getting the phrasing of finding of facts right, often times only a few small parts of the evidence is looked at, and the rest ignored, and so on. The situation now, in my opinion, has editors waiting a very long time for a decision far worse and more slapdash than those that seemed to be the norm a few years ago. I don't want to name cases. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
2. I agree with the above. While the writer implies that there isn't a lack of concern, merely an implied one, quotes by ArbCom members saying they "don't want to take the time" to look through the evidence seems to point in another direction. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 08:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Arbcom is intended to be slow and give all the people involved a chance to show their versions of the disputes. There are other avenues for dispute resolution that designed to be fast but with higher possibility of error. Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Agreed that speed is not the arbitration committee's priority. They should aim to get cases progressing whenever they can, but no one likes things to be rushed unless there is a key reason. John Smith's (talk) 10:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose: we really don't need knee-jerk instadecisions from the presiding authority on Wikipedia. Like a number of others, I've gnashed my teeth waiting for ArbCom to make a ruling. However, however much the Internet has fostered the cult of immediacy, what's the rush? Let's get it right, not "right now."  RGTraynor  02:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
6. Oppose: Sidaway's statement is baseless and history demonstrates otherwise; Fact finding requires adequate time to discover and verify relevant facts. Thoughtful decisions require adequate time to discuss facts, propose remedies, and reach a consensus. I add that I have observed some knee-jerk decisions from Tony Sidaway that were definitely not constructive.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 04:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
7. what Fahrenheit451 said. dab (𒁳) 07:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

1. Some of the responses seem to miss what I interpret as Tony's point. For me, he's not saying we should act hastily or in a knee-jerk fashion; rather, he's saying that our deliberate slowness is sometimes too slow; and regardless, some people get the impression that we don't care. I do think we should be at least somewhat more engaged during the workshop process, to avoid that misconception and the resulting bad feelings. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

View by Kelly

The current view that ArbCom decisions do not set precedent for future decisions is a major problem. I'm not arguing for a full-on application of stare decisis, but the current application lends itself to accusations of arbitrariness and a feeling of unpredictability when bringing questions to WP:RFAR. ArbCom decisions and findings should be able to be relied upon in regards to similar situations. I think this would reduce workload overall - in cases where applications of ArbCom precedent were unclear or controversial, they could be brought back "on appeal" - but admins and others should be able to rely on these decisions as policy wherever necessary.

• Expansion - it may help if I give an example of my position - if, for example, ArbCom desysops someone for unjustified, unexplained page protections while involved in a dispute, then henceforth, a steward should be able to desysop another admin who commits an identical offense, simply citing Wikipedia:Request for Arbitration/Protection-crazy Admin. If the situation is different or more complex, of course it should go back to ArbCom. But why they should they re-hear cases over and over that involve identical offenses? Kelly ^hi! 19:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Kelly ^hi! 17:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Very sensible. Durova^Charge! 18:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
3. --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Agree - if we find things work (like the national dispute decisions) there should be no need to hold a case for each one of these disputes unless there's a significant difference. Shell ^babelfish 20:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
5. With the caveat that they may choose to take a case to clarify, amend or deprecate a previous precedent (which in itself would be a signal to admins/stewards to suspend applying precedent). LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
6. R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
7. Totally support. I brought this point up on WP:VPP recently and was just verbally chastised by various editors for it. JeanLatore (talk) 01:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
8. Indeed. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 01:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
9. —Giggy 04:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
10. A big step toward smooth running and impartial treatment. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
11. I think precedent should not bind (what I think stare decisis means, there's that pesky latin!). This is not a court or system of justice. But it should offer guidance and should be ignored only with some considerable thought and explanation. Hence I endorse Kelly's statement. However to Kelly's addendum, I do NOT agree that a Steward should ever desysop an admin (except in extreme emergency) on their own say-so on a wiki that has an arbcom or an active community. Regardless of precedent. ++Lar: t/c 14:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
12. Certainly. LaraLove|Talk 16:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
13. Cla68 (talk) 01:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
14. Definitely --Chetblong (talk) 03:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
15. a bit of restraint on what constitutes a precedent, but yes. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
16. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 12:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
17. Works in real life (see common law), can work here. 5:15 00:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
18. Partially Endorsed - agree that precedents are important. Maybe Arbcom could list for a case all "precedents". Still every case is different one sysdamin locked a page he made a major rewrite a day go, another only fixed a few typos a year ago, the third may lock the page in the version opposite to his own during an article RFC, the fourth only did semiprotection, the fifth locked an article due to BLP issues, etc. Every case is different. Thus, mechanical application of remedies from a precedent is impossible. Still there should be similar punishments for similar crimes Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
19. Even before reading this statement I've believed that ArbCom rulings should set a precedent. We should look at cases for guidance, but we shouldn't blindly follow precedent. We should give this a try, but if people start to blindly follow it, we should strike it down.--SJP _Chat 22:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
20. Partially Endorsed: I agree with the concept, but think there should be an associated noticeboard for all such actions to be reviewed by the community.
    Kww (talk) 02:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
21. Endorse in the main. — Athaenara ✉ 06:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
22. Largely Endorse. There should be some clear process where precedents are recorded for use in future cases. A couple of caveats: 1) The ArbCom is not infallible, so these may need to be over-ridden by community action on some occasions. 2) A future ArbComm might disagree with the previous ruling, which is fine as long as it gives its reasons. But in general, it should be reasonable to expect broadly similar circumstances to lead to broadly similar results. --Merlinme (talk) 15:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who oppose this summary:

1. A certain way to make things even worse. The commission is chosen because of their presumed ability to take account of the specific circumstances, and goes into great detail for each particular case. They do in general try to follow previous decisions by first declaring the principles at stake. No great art is actually necessary here, for the rules of behavior are well understand--though certainly not equally well followed. The difficulty is to apply this to individual cases. The ones where mechanical or obvious action is needed do not usually come to arb com. For the example Kelly mentions "desysopping someone for unjustified, unexplained page protections while involved in a dispute," a good deal depends on the circumstances. We rightly do not desysop for a single mistake unless it is clear that the person intends to set the rules at defiance--as has indeed sometimes happened. What we do in a case like this is unprotect the page and everyone at ANB/I slaps with a tout, and the person normally has learned better. If someone persists in it, then it is another matter--but still the question is to desysop altogether or suspend. This should not be mechanically applied. I think the quarrel here is over specific applications to individuals, where some of us may feel that arb com was too harsh or not harsh enough. (I think so too--the problem is we won't agree on just which one were wrong and in which direction.) That's why discretion is needed. If the present group is interpreting against the wishes of the community ,others will be chosen. To have a subsidiary officer do it following what he conceives as precedent is fairly sure to make things worse. There are no identical offenses here. DGG (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
2. I think more use of things like "precedent" is a step backward in adapting arbcom to a changing community (we want it to change and then hold as still as possible?). While I have no problem with ArbCom making policy as part of their decisions, I don't think it should be a requirement. Cases should be decided on their own circumstances. Mr.Z-man 20:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
3. The problem with the idea of formalizing the "precedents" approach is that it squarely moves ArbCom into the realm of making new policy, and what is worse, creates two independent venues for policymaking (regular WP policy/guideline change and approval process on one hand and ArbCom decisions on the other hand). If we had a stable system of laws, where policies are changed very rarely, going by formal precendent might concievably work. But WP policies are very fluid and change quickly. How is one supposed to resolve differences between ArbCom precedents and decisions and between subsequent WP policy changes? Which ones have priority and who and how is going to decide this and reconcile these differences? Sounds rather like a recipe for a disaster to me. Nsk92 (talk) 14:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
4. No. In a nutshell: we throw too many bones to wikilawyering already. --Jenny 23:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
5. Absolutely not. The Arbitration Committee is supposed to be an ugly and undesirable last-resort method to force a resolution to even uglier problems when conventional dispute resolution is failed. Previous decisions by the arbitration committee are not a short-circuit to dispute resolution in future cases, and we don't need admins citing previous ArbCom decisions as if they were SCOTUS rulings. Common sense is the only law on Wikipedia. We don't need a court system to systematize common sense for us; the lawyering that results only gets in the way of building an encyclopedia. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 03:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
6. Surely the committee is free to make decisions as they feel are necessary? In the real world courts are only bound by those of the higher courts - those on the same level disagree all the time. Also arbitrators get replaced - it would be unfair to have the earliest ones bind all future ones. I see where the proponents of this are going but it's a bit too problematic for my view. John Smith's (talk) 10:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
7. Sorry Kelly, I usually agree with most of the comments you make, but not this. Since I have been editing on Wikipedia, I have seen nothing come from the Arbitration Committee that is inspiring or profound. In fact, I have seen nothing that makes me believe anyone of them, or the group as a whole, is even qualified to mediate, let alone set precedent. - Epousesquecido (talk) 01:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
8. I appreciate the thought in theory, but in practice, this is a horrible idea. The best way to perpetuate and multiply the damage done by a sloppy arbcom decision. dab (𒁳) 07:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
9. Precedent should never over-ride the merits of an individual case. We have always taken each case on its own merits, from article deletion through to editor behaviour. Basing decisions on past precedent has its own minefields, as can be seen in legal systems around the world. Our system is no less flawed, but it is ours and works better than the alternatives. Hiding T 09:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
10. An extraordinarily bad idea. ugen64 (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
11. I'm not against precedent setting but these should only be used by arbcom as a rationale for its own decisions. One of the problems with using precedents is that no two situations are ever exactly alike. Giving admins the additional authority to judge how 'alike' one situation (the new event) is with another (the precedent) is a bad idea because it not only expands admin powers but it also could, and will, lead to more endless discussions on the validity of particular admin actions. --Regents Park (sink with the skaters) 17:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
12. Precedent setting makes decision making to tedious and pressured. The particulars of case are important, and AC can change it's mind as well. I don't see it as some sort of "supreme court". Aaron Schulz 18:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
13. As others have said, this is a horrible idea. I don't want to have to hire "Wikipedia lawyers" who have been thoroughly trained in "Wikipedia case law". Next we'd have "Wikipedia judges", who are formally certified in their knowledge of ArbCom case law. No way. I have enough of a load on my back trying to be an active, informed citizen of my community. If ArbCom does want to make policy, they can do it the way that anyone else does: through the Village Pump, and through the editing of our existing policy pages. II | (t - c) 05:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment

1. I don't think it's a particularly good idea, for many of the reasons cited above. We do use precedent; we're not bound by precedent, and without a full-blown Wikipedia legal system with full checks and balances, it's hard to see any good results coming from this idea. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

View by User:Filll on delays and early findings

Sometimes Arbcomm can act extremely precipitously, even violating their own rules, as they did in the Durova and MatthewHoffman cases when they started voting before there was any evidence. In other cases, Arbcomm is unreasonably dilatory and slow, and it creates mega cases that drag on for months. A lot of drama could be saved if Arbcomm made some clear announcements at the start of a case, like "We take the policy on coercion seriously", as a preliminary Finding of Fact (drawing an example from a current Arbcomm case that is languishing). The difficulty arises when there is clear evidence of policy violations, or that potential policy violations are involved, if Arbcomm does not signal to the participants that they consider policy X or Y important, they embolden editors to engage in improper behavior. Things can become worse during an Arbcomm proceeding because tensions are higher, and people want to "get even" with their perceived adversaries. And Arbcomm can act quickly if they want to, obviously. So why the long delays, even to produce some sort of innocuous general statements?

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Filll (talk | wpc) 22:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
2. C68-FM-SV (t) 16 May 2008 --Badger Drink (talk) 23:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Endorse. Justice delayed is justice denied. DuncanHill (talk) 23:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC) - I think a number of cases would benifit from prelim findings or prelim priciples.
5. Your example is incorrect, since the evidence you presented is viewed by many as counterfactual. However the principles you advance here of the desirability of giving guidance before a lot of time is invested in evidence that may not be relevant, of reasserting principles, and of trying to neither move too fast nor too slow, are all sound, and those I endorse, without giving any credence to your example or your evidence. ++Lar: t/c 14:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

   In the example I presented, you will notice I did not suggest that a verdict should be rendered swiftly, particularly if there is some controversy involved. However, by creating confusion about whether a given principle is important, whether or not it is eventually determined that this principle was involved or even violated, Arbcomm helps to create a negative atmosphere. We should be encouraging respect for CIVILity and WP:NPA. The current system where Arbcomm is completely silent on some proceeding for weeks and even months is not helpful, and encourages bad behavior and further attacks and counterattacks by involved editors.--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

6. Lar puts it perfectly. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 12:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
7. Conditional support. If it is true that voting started before any evidence had been provided. John Smith's (talk) 10:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
8. Per Lar. Hiding T 09:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
9. Agree (assuming I understood this correctly!). Arbcom should be quick in boundary setting but deliberate in judgement. --Regents Park (sink with the skaters) 18:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
10. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
11. --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 03:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC).
12. Support, especially the last sentence. TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 01:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

User who oppose this summary

1. As Lar has commented on the factual problems in the above, I'll leave those to one side here in favor of a simple statement that the community can act where clearly disruptive ongoing behavior is evident during a case, and such behavior or the possibility of such behavior arising, unless it clearly threatens the encyclopedia or the best interests of the community, should never be a reason to rush a case. An ongoing arbitration case is no reason for the community to sit paralysed. --Jenny 22:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

1. Regarding being quick or slow to act, recognize that individual arbs can and sometimes do act quickly, the committee as a body, is inherently slow to act. Any actions requiring agreement by a majority of the active members of the committee, generally takes considerable time and effort on the part of the committee. Paul August ☎ 18:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

View by davidwr regarding private actions

Disclaimer: I am not a disinterested third party. I have a clear POV on this. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The process for private arbcom action is broken. While there is a place for private arbcom action, the secrecy is easily abused. In 2007 I was caught up in an arbcom action that was correctly kept partially secret from the general public for the good of some of those involved. While this protected some or all of the individuals including me from harm, it caused some harm of its own to myself and others as well as to the project as a whole. This is a delicate issue and requires some finesse, but at a minimum, the process for doing private or semi-private arbcom action requires:

• The opportunity to be heard in public if everyone who would benefit from privacy agrees. In practice, this will only apply to actions against a single editor, as all affected editors will have veto to keep things private.
• The opportunity to participate in meaningful discussion and invite others into the discussion. This discussion does not have to be open to those who are not involved.
• An extended group of editors, at least twice the size of ARBCOM, who have visibility to all private arbcom actions. This does not necessarily include the arbcom mailing lists, and it does not need to be the same group for each private action. The purpose of this group is to substitute for the general oversight that ARBCOM has for public discussions. It will be their job to raise a red flag in the unlikely event that ARBCOM ever abuses its authority in a private sanction. Their only "right of actions" will be to 1) grant clemency/reduce the sanctions, and 2) ask those involved if they want to make the case public after the fact. As a matter of practicality, Jimbo should sit on this panel either as a full member or ex-officio, without a vote. Existing and past arbcom members should also sit on it ex-officio, without a vote. Also, as a matter of practicality, only those otherwise eligible for ARBCOM membership and who could run a serious campaign to be on ARBCOM should run for or be appointed to this highly-trusted position.

Had such a procedure been in place in 2007, I would have elected to keep the case private, but having a discussion forum available would have greatly reduced stress on me and would likely have reduced the duration of my block and possibly that of others, which in turn would have helped the project.

To summarize: Private ARBCOM action should not be eliminated, but it must be improved.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC) Disclaimer: I am not a disinterested third party. I have a clear POV on this.
2. Private ARBCOM certainly has its place; however, the accused must be included in the process. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 08:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
3. partial endorsement. I am not sure how the broader group could be convened or what it would mean to do so. It is hard enough to keep things private, even when privacy is clearly beneficial to all the parties, without including a broader group. But absolutely, privacy of actions exists to serve the interests of the parties involved and the wider community, and whenever those conditions don't hold, there is no reason for things to be private. However, I should point out, I am unaware of any cases where privacy of action has caused a serious problem per se. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
4. cautious endorsement. See my views about creating WP:BROWNACT under Section 6 below Low Sea (talk) 18:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
5. At first blush, oversight of private cases by trusted, non-voting parties seems like a good idea, particularly if they are required to certify due process after the case. Gnixon (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
6. I think if all parties agree to private hearings their wish should be granted (e.g. an admin caught socking might want to handle the case privately). If any party wants to have a public case their wish usually should be granted. Some evidence might be examined privately (e.g. personal communication) with an arbitrator or clerk briefly announcing the results of the private investigation for all participants Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

   There are cases where real-world harm can occur if a person's involvement isn't kept completely confidential. If an editor makes such a claim, this claim should be taken seriously and every effort made to avoid harm. One example: Editor X edits a controversial issue under the account Y. His employer knows or could easily find out that he is X, and would retaliate if he found out that he edits under account Y. If the proceedings of the arbcom revealed or even hinted that X and Y were the same person, the person could suffer real-world consequences. This is a case where near-complete secrecy of X/Y's involvement is required even if other editors involved desire a public case. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

7. Partial support The principle is worthy, but the details are important. I can agree with the former but not the latter so far. John Smith's (talk) 10:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
8. I believe wikipedias should be as open as possible. Currently ArbCom isn't as open as it could be, and these suggestions would make the process more open, so of course I endorse it.--SJP _Chat 23:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
9. Endorse if the group is a group of admins. TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 01:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

View by davidwr regarding blocked users

Editors who are involved in a public arbcom discussion who are currently blocked have a very difficult time participating in the proceedings. There needs to be a way for otherwise-blocked editors to edit the discussion pages that involve their case.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Endorse I have long felt that this is a significant weakness in the current system. DuncanHill (talk) 01:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
3. This has been a long-standing problem, and should be solved. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 11:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
4. The process commented upon by Durova below seems to be a workable solution. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Yes. Durova's suggestion would be facilitated by assigning advocates for blocked users. Gnixon (talk) 23:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
6. Yes. There should be a way to allow a problem user to participate on his or her case without risking that he disrupts other areas of wiki Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
7. Agreed. Almost a minimal requirement of due process. --Regents Park (sink with the skaters) 21:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who comment upon this summary:

1. Actually there's already a way to do this, although it's never been implemented at arbitration. While the community sanctions noticeboard was active it used a template to transclude posts from a blocked editor's talk page into the sanctions discussion. Generally this was useful. If the editor had useful evidence or a workable proposal for a milder remedy than was under consideration, the consensus often changed. If the blocked editor's post was uncollaborative it made the decision to sanction simpler and the template got removed if the privilege was actually abused. Theoretically that solution could be applied at any venue where a blocked editor is under consideration for further sanctions. Durova^Charge! 07:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
2. I agree with Durova, ways exist to maximize participation of involved editors, and most editors (in my observation) are 'unblocked to participate in arbcom hearing.' Some then go back to the behavior, articles, or other pages that were the problem and get re-blocked. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 14:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
3. We have always been willing to unblock a user to participate in a case. This is of course conditional on an agreement not to continue the disputed behavior, or in some cases to not edit at all except for the arbitration case. If we have been lax in doing so, I apologize. I will not make a blanket guarantee that we will unblock anyone who wants to participate in an arbitration case, but certainly under normal circumstances any editor up for sanction who is currently blocked can be unblocked for that purpose. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Agree with Durova and Matt. John Smith's (talk) 10:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
5. Has any blocked editor in an active case before Arbcom ever been denied permission to participate in the appropriate discussions, if he or she asked?  RGTraynor  02:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments about this summary:

• Have there ever even been such a case? TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 01:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

View by Celarnor

Invulnerability

For the most part, ArbCom handles its responsibilities well and doesn't overstep its boundaries. However, when/if they do, and when/if there is community consensus against such actions, there is no recourse for their actions other than to appeal to the Jimmy/the Foundation itself, both of which would and should only be used in the most egregious of abuses. Other than not electing them again--which doesn't help to deal with whatever issue they created--there's nothing that can be done for the more "ordinary" abuses.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 08:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
3. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Endorse TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 01:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who comment upon this summary:

1. I agree that this is frustrating especially if you believe Arbcom's decision was incorrect but we cannot allow litigations to continue forever. So unless the due process was badly broken the Arbcom decisions should be final. As a brainstorming idea maybe recommend to reassess usefulness of remedies in a few months to see if they are working as expected Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
2. In (thankfully rare) cases of abuse of power by arbitrators, the community should be able to call for a vote of confidence through a petition for recall. Concordant with Jimbo's principle of refusing appointment to ArbCom candidates with less than 50% of the community's support, any arbitrator who can't garner at least 50% support in a vote of confidence should be recalled from the committee. Details can be worked out elsewhere, but I think the principle of being able to recall elected officials for abuses is important, especially in such a time-sensitive environment as Wikipedia. -- The_socialist ^talk? 13:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who oppose this summary:

1. A key principle of any process like this is that the decision makers have protection - otherwise they would vote against every FoF and remedy for fear of what would happen if they agreed and it went wrong. Or good-hearted people would stay away from elections and we'd only have people who want to push a POV around. That's not good. John Smith's (talk) 10:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Pretty much, yep. I'm all for our own version of sovereign immunity. Of course the ultimate arbiters have, well, the ultimate decision making authority. Any checks-and-balances measure put in would involve the power to overturn Arbcom, as I see your gist going ... so wouldn't they then become the ultimate authority, and who'd have say-so over their abuses? And so on. Welcome to a representative democracy.  RGTraynor  02:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
3. Democracy has evolved a way of dealing with this, as mentioned above. Do not elect them next time. If there is strong enough feeling in the community they will be replaced. You really do need people that have trust until they betray it. BananaFiend (talk) 09:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
4. The buck has to stop somewhere and if throwing the bums out is the only recourse available then so be it. (I don't oppose the summary but rather think it unactionable)--Regents Park (sink with the skaters) 21:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment

1. We're kinda like judges in that regard; unless we commit downright egregious acts, we're immune from day-to-day community consensus; when dealing with some issues, our view has to be long-term rather than short-term, and if we feel we have to do something that pisses off the current vocal majority, I think we should feel free to do it. I'd certainly feel a chilling effect if, for example, an editor who I'd voted to sanction could turn around and demand some sort of action against me. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Checks

I see this as a problem, and I think there needs to be some kind of community-evolved check of ArbCom. While mob rule and raw consensus is the ideal solution from the wiki standpoint, for practical reasons and to prevent knee-jerk reactions due to controversial decisions and remedies, I don't think that a raw straw poll of "What should be done about x/x,y, and z?" is a good idea. However, I think that the election of some kind of oversight committee imbued with the power to take some kind of action on a case by ArbCom, either by forcing them to review the case and develop a different decision with recommendations on what decisions might be taken or overturning the decision entirely and issuing their own, with as much binding strength as ArbCom possesses. Both of these options are radically different, each with their own advantages and disadvantages, and I'm sure that there are others that could be developed, but whatever method of oversights can be thought up by the community, its clear that something is needed. No body so powerful and composed of so few individuals.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 08:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Users who oppose this summary:

1. Again, the pool from which any overseeing committee would need be drawn would be the same as ArbCom itself, or will have less gravitas, experience and community trust than the ArbCom itself, which again leads to a very similar animal. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

   Why is that a problem? It just means that there's a safeguard in place intended to stop madness. Drawing from the same pool of experienced users doesn't seem like a negative here to me. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

2. ArbCom has been appointed to be our supreme court - there not being any regular higher authority is kind of the whole point... we have Jimbo and the board to maintain a final check-and-balance against a military coup, and the knowledge that common sense will prevail if they're clearly going mad. Why do we need another level of bureaucracy? Happy‑melon 12:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
3. WP does not need another level of red-tape and civil-servants. Since ArbCom members are elected we have a process of removal but I think Niel's suggestions below about quantity and term length of arbiters is worth considering. Low Sea (talk) 18:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Polling does not work well in open communities. An ombudsman or some supervising committee might be helpful Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
5. Per Lessheard. John Smith's (talk) 10:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
6. In the statement you said "I think there needs to be some kind of community-evolved check of ArbCom." I agree there should be a community involved check in this system, but we do have a community involved check. We elect the members of ArbCom, so if a member doesn't act in an appropriate manner, we don't have to re-elect them. That's a community involved check.--SJP _Chat 23:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
7. Arbcom is the oversight committee. Any group set to oversee Arbcom would just be the new authority ... and no doubt then someone would complain that it was too powerful and didn't have enough checks and balances. Folks, the nature of the beast is that sometimes Arbcom is going to make a decision you don't like. That's the way of things.  RGTraynor  02:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
8. Adding another level of bureaucracy is probably counter-productive (this is a voluntary effort after all). Setting clear guidelines for openness and procedure for arbcom seems like a more productive way to go. --Regents Park (sink with the skaters) 21:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Appeals

In the current model, appeals are made to the same group that originally handled the case. This completely defeats the purpose of the appeal, rooted in the idea of having separate higher and lower courts. While one might argue that the elevation from MedCab and RFC is an appeal, I would disagree. ArbCom is the only form of dispute resolution that is actually binding, and that is what needs the safeguard of an appellate system other than "Uh, guys who banned me, please think about this again" more than anything else because of that. While it may be slightly less improper for ArbCom to hear appeals resulting from their delegation of power a la BLPSE, the idea of having only one binding judicial body where appeals are issued to itself undermines the most basic principles of the appeal.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 08:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Although I understand the reluctance to have a proliferation of bureaucracy and assorted administrative bodies, there might be some value to having some other body review extremely controversial decisions in extraordinary circumstances. I am not sure how this would be structured and it would have to be done carefully, but I think it is worth considering.--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutral comment about this summary

1. I suppose that there are two ways around this. One could either establish a new body below the Arbitration Committee which will be a second-to-last step in the dispute resolution process for cases either when Mediation is rejected or when a binding decision is needed, or one could allow anybody who is aggrieved by an ArbCom decision to appeal to the Foundation board. (Needless to say, any decision of the Board can be presumed to set a precedent.) Bwrs (talk) 04:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who oppose this summary:

1. Well meaning, but with two areas of contention; Firstly ArbCom decide upon interpretation of policy, both in decisions and appeal and better arguments can prevail, so on what basis should appeals be judged? Secondly, the pool from which any Appeals Committee would be drawn would be the same as ArbCom itself, and will thus likely not deviate overmuch from ArbCom derived decisions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Oppose. There has to be a "court of last resort." While Jimbo nominally can override an ARBCOM decision, he hasn't in ages if ever and his recent statements indicate he won't in the future. Other proposals on this page involve creating "lesser courts" which should lighten ARBCOM's load considerably, allowing them to devote the right amount of energy to cases they do take while settling them within a week or so of getting them if they look at existing evidence, longer if they collect more. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

   Update: At the top of this page, there is a quote from Jimbo that he would override an arbcom decision in the interests of basic justice. Hopefully, this will never need to happen. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

3. Oppose - we cannot drag a litigation forever. Maybe scheduling a review of remedies in a few months might help Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Per LessHeard. John Smith's (talk) 10:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
5. A body for appeals won't be of great help because there will be an inherent tendency to support arbcom decisions. And, adding overhead in a voluntary body is never a great idea. Far better to enforce openness in the arbcom process and let that openness serve as a self-correcting mechanism. --Regents Park (sink with the skaters) 21:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

View by User:Filll regarding holidays and other time concerns

Arbcomm seems to show a bad tendency to ignore holidays and other temporal constraints. In the case of the Durova situation, they held the case over Thanksgiving Weekend. In the MatthewHoffman case, Arbcomm did not want to allow time off for University exams or for a Christmas or New Year's break. In this current Orangemarlin case, they want to have an expedited RfAr (48 hours) and Arbcomm case (7 days) over a holiday week. In all three cases, voting commenced before there was any evidence available or a defense had even been mounted. Given that Arbcomm is so slow in many situations (in the C68-SV-FM case, reportedly none of them had even bothered to look at the accumulated evidence weeks after it was presented to them), why are they in such a frantic rush in other situations? And why do they have no respect for assorted temporal constraints of the accused, or of other interested parties?

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Filll (talk | wpc) 19:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Yes. --Badger Drink (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC
3. It blows my mind the Committee cannot see that pursuing the reopened Orangemarlin case in such a rapid fashion will further damage trust rather than restore it. --Jaysweet (talk) 11:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
5. yes, especially the bizarre way some cases are "expedited" and others are dragged on over the course of several months seemingly at random. --Random832 (contribs) 15:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
6. The original OM faux-case is another example - while there's no way to determine when FT2 (and others?) launched this case, it almost certainly came after FT2's comment on the Sceptre-initiated RFAR. This latest example was especially bad though. And, of course, as Jaysweet says, immediately reinstating this case is incredibly tone deaf. Guettarda (talk) 16:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
7. --Cube lurker (talk) 16:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
8. Agree. Examples aside, the point is sensible. --Regents Park (sink with the skaters) 21:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
9. The point makes sense, and it might make sense for members of the committee to specifically ask in some cases (like maybe finals weeks?) if the matter should be delayed because of outside concerns. In some cases, people might not think to ask for such an extension, or might feel that it would be presumptuous to ask for it on their own. John Carter (talk) 00:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
10. Partially endorse, in relation to major holidays at least. However, I think that a better practice would be to avoid rushing through and precipitously closing cases of any kind, at any point in the calendar year. Nsk92 (talk) 04:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
11. Endorse Stop rushing things and take a break. The Arb Committee needs to understand this is a global committee, we're not in a world where everyone is thier faith. TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 01:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who have some other opinion

1. This is not a holiday week outside North America and Hong Kong. Please remember Wikipedia is global. Stifle (talk) 09:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

   Of course Wikipedia is global. So suppose the accused is in India, and required to respond over a short period which is during a holiday or festival in India, and the accused likely has other commitments and /or limited access to the internet? It does not matter what the temporal constraints are; it only matters that Arbcomm seems to have a bad habit of ignoring them, whatever they are.--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

2. If there is a problem, then the examples given are not helpful. The Matthew Hoffman arbitration went on for well over two months, and he had ample time to respond to any evidence presented. The Durova case has a special urgency for not one but a number of reasons. It was called in response to extensive community concern on a matter of abuse of administrator powers which was complicated by abusive posting of private correspondence by a third party. Administrators who perform bad blocks and fail to justify them, then plead that they can't hang around and defend or remeedy this failure, are not living up to the minimum standards required. Moreover Durova had misrepresented her actions as having the authority of the Committee. --Jenny 23:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

   No, Tony. You are the one who misrepresents. I never claimed to have had that authority, and when questioned I immediately and consistently disavowed such a notion. Durova^Charge! 04:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

   I stand corrected. The Arbitration committee found that you blocked a certain user "!!" indefinitely "stating that the grounds for the block could not be discussed on-wiki and that any appeal must be routed to the Arbitration Committee." They further found that "The Arbitration Committee gave no prior approval to Durova to block !!. Durova did not have the consent of the Committee to direct discussion of the block to the Committee."(Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova#Findings_of_fact) So the reasonable impression was given that you believed you had the authority to refer the unblock to the Committee, but in fact you had no such authority. The arbitration committee's need to expedite what was a very straightforward but potentially damaging case seems obvious. --Jenny 04:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

3. Depends on what the situation is. If the case is active and awaiting a decision then it shouldn't be a problem. If a key matter needs to be raised then chances are people would only become aware of it if they had access to a PC. However, if we're talking about holding the evidence session over a holiday that the main parties will be under then that's a mistake. Again, if the holiday happens to be around during the session that's not a problem if there's plenty of time afterwards/before. But people shouldn't be forced to use their holidays to put evidence together. John Smith's (talk) 10:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

View by User:Kww

The Request for Clarification process is hopelessly broken. My experience with it lies here, and it quickly went from bad to surreal. In a nutshell, Rvelse and Vassyana issued blocks against TTN referring to the E&C2 arbitration case that I believed (and still believe) were for actions not prohibited by the language of the sanctions, and, in a case of plain arithmetic, exceeded the blocks available under the sanction (blocks up to one week were authorized for repeated misbehaviour, and a block of two weeks was issued).

I asked for clarification, explaining why I thought the language did not prohibit the behaviour, and asking for a clarification of intent. While this was being ignored for weeks, another bad block was issued, so I opened a second request for clarification on that issue.

My requests for clarification was never answered with a clarification. Instead, Kirill responded with a proposal to topic ban me from editing, commenting on, or otherwise having any involvement whatsoever with any article substantially related to a work of art or fiction (including, but not limited to, video games, movies, TV shows, novels, comic books, and so forth) or any element of such a work. My bottle of good faith elixir isn't big enough for me to view the proposed sanction as anything but retaliatory, for annoying Arbcom with the Episodes and Characters issues again. It touched off a flurry of comments from other editors, none of whom could see any justification.

Ultimately, both clarifications were simply aged off the page: no answer, no block, no action ... just ignored long enough that they went away. But not until I had spent over a month watching 4 Arbcom members endorse a topic ban motivated by spite.

I think two things need to happen, but I am placing them in two different sections so people can endorse or reject them separately. My first one:

• Requests for clarifications need to be answered promptly, and with clarifications. Additional sanctions need to be proposed under a separate process, as they do not serve to clarify the existing language.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Kww (talk) 03:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
2. I remember this, and it frustrated me too. Hiding T 09:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
3. --Michael X the White (talk) 10:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
4. --TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 01:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment

1. We need more structure to help us with that. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Umm, I didn't block TTN in that conflict. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment Rechecked logs, and corrected statement. You're right, you didn't. I should have used the database, and not my memory.—Kww(talk) 11:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

View by User:Kww (2)

Based on the facts in my previous statement, there needs to be a commitment to reading the language of Arbcom sanctions reasonably literally, even when they include the deadly phrase "to be interpreted broadly". Editors have the right to know exactly what behaviour has been proscribed, and administrators should not feel free to expand on them without seeking some further level of consensus for their actions.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Kww (talk) 03:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

View by User:Hiding

Arb-Com does not engage with the community enough during cases. There is little input to case pages, and little chance for the community to understand the basis for each decision, principle and remedy. This leads to confusion within the community and creates a barrier between the community and the committee. Hiding T 10:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. JJB 14:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Agree. Whether it is or not, the community should be involved in the process. --Regents Park (sink with the skaters) 21:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
3. --Michael X the White (talk) 10:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Agree. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
5. Yes. This is one of the many things we should ideally do a better job of. Of course this all takes time and energy, things which are often in short supply. Paul August ☎ 18:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
6. Enorse, especially the first sentence. TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 20:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
7. Agree. On many cases the participants have explicitly tried to receive more feedback and updates from ArbCom, but failed to receive much response. Vassyana (talk) 01:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

View by User:KeithTyler

1. The Arbitration Committee works best as a chute through which administrators can shunt through users who have been acting uppity in articles they care about, when the actions in the grey areas not covered by the constant increase in no-discuss powers and actions.
2. If you are brought into an arbitration by an administrator, expect to be punished, most likely barred from involvement in the article you have been working on. Expect that nothing the administrator has done in the course of his/her dispute with you will be addressed. If you are also an administrator, make sure you have more, longer-lasting administrators on your side.
3. There is a tremendous gap between Mediation and Arbitration. Arbitration has a steep severity bar, while Mediation has a steep ... well, I'm not sure what the bar is, as the last mediation involving me simply got dropped without discussion before it started. When mediation abandons a dispute, the dispute falls into this gap. Unless you are an administrator, of course, then you can simply haul your opponent before the ArbCom.
4. No member can expect to have help defending themselves. (Not that any defense one could present or could have help presenting has ever mattered anyway.) A heavily entrenched member (such as an administrator) will always have the strong upper hand.
5. The time and effort it takes to present and participate in an ArbCom case requires full-time effort by the average person, beyond the expectation of a moderately involved editor. This involves poring over the hundreds of edits in a multi-layered dispute to find the individual edits that represent what you are trying to point out. Without this effort, however, there is little hope for your viewpoint to be considered.
6. Arguing the merit of a viewpoint only ever seems to annoy arbitrators. Particulary when it comes to your own perfectly reasonable understanding of guidlines and policies. If you attempt to show the arbitrators that a given interpretation of guidelines and policies or other guiding materials -- that they don't share -- is valid, you are branded with the peculiarly derogatory term "wikilawyering" and lose by default.
7. There are clearly too many disputes for a single 9-person committee to handle, particularly given the high amount of material that a disputant needs to provide to have any hope of their "side" being considered. Perhaps more arbitrators are needed, in which a case only needs some smaller subset of such group of arbitrators to commence, and in which a second-chance review is allowed.
8. There are areas in which Arbitration could expand.
9. Arbitration should be made more accessible instead of being the realm of adminsitrators and career "prosecutors" (for lack of a better term) who by their nature can devote the time necessary to secure a successful outcome.
10. Getting help, even organized help, in one's efforts in an arbitration should not be discouraged. Moreover, wanting to help others in these efforts should neither be discouraged.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Keith D. Tyler ¶ 21:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
2. --TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 20:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

View by Rschen7754

So suffice it to say that ArbCom dragged its feet with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2. That case should not have taken half as long as it did.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Endorse TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 02:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

View by a user

This is a summary written by any active user. In the interests of conciseness, and to get a clear and hopefully uncluttered feel of the community, please leave shorter individual statements in the appropriate topic section, rather than one long condensed statement. This will allow users to endorse specific aspects more easily.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Clarifications on limits of what the Arbitration Committee can do

Lately, ranging from the IRC case to the Mantanmoreland case, questions have arisen in a variety of forms of what the scope and limitations of the Arbitration Committee are. In theory, the Committee can "do" anything, but if they were to overstep their community approved mandate the community could simply rein them in. As this is a constant question, please post your thoughts, if any, of what would be considered by the community to be outside the realm of the Arbitration Committee as a body.

View by User:Barberio

No New Policy

The Arbitration Committee are not entitled to create binding rulings that institute new Wikipedia processes or policy, or substantial alter current Wikipedia processes or policy except by striking sections incompatible with Wikipedia Foundation requirements. They are not a legislature.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --Barberio (talk) 01:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
2. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 15:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC) Nor should they be judge, jury and prosecution.
3. Absolutely. The proper role of the ArbCom is to enforce existing policies, not to create new ones by an administrative fiat. If ArbCom members have a policy proposal, they could and should make it through the regular WP policy and guideline approval process. Nsk92 (talk) 17:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
4. A number of people have been trying to make this point for some time. The ArbCom itself did at one point agree with this. I don't know if that has changed or the notion of what constitutes makin g policy has changed but yeah. ArbCom is not in the business of making policy. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Endorse, it is for the community to make policy. DuncanHill (talk) 20:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
6. R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 21:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
7. I would go further to say that Arbs must base their decisions on what would seem the most reasonable interpretation of stable policy, entirely and impartially in all cases of community conflict, and not on who seems to be anyone's friend. Arbs acting to protect certain interests from further public shame, that was painfully and obviously brought upon by their own misuse of the encyclopedia, seems to have entirely derailed the outcomes of some cases against both the letter and spirit of fundamental policies all must subscribe to for the community to be able to function smoothly. Amerique^dialectics 21:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
8. Endorse - speaks for itself. --Dragon695 (talk) 22:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
9. -- Ned Scott 07:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
10. Doc Tropics 16:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
11. rootology (T) 16:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
12. Yes, but this does leave the problem of how to resolve deadlocks. DGG (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

    and also subject to Durova's comments below. DGG (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

    Vote? rootology (T) 06:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

13. Obvious. Neıl 龱 10:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
14. Absolutely. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 11:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
15. Separation of powers - eminent common sense. We make the policy, thankyou very much :D Happy‑melon 12:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
16. Endorse: Community decisions, not elected representatives. — _Maggot^Syn 15:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
17. On reflection I think this strong a statement is needed. Davewild (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
18. Of course. It's best to let the community to decide a consensus rather than letting a few people decide. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
19. Strong Endorse. It may be a USA-centric model but if the ArbCom is our "Supreme Court" then they should be interpreting law (policy,etc) not creating it. Continuing the analogy: the ArbCom is the Judiciary, the Foundation is the Executive, and the whole Community is the Legislature (we don't have "representative government" at Wikipedia and that is a good thing). If ArbCom wants new law then they should suggest new laws to the Community for consensus or in the case of a "must have" rule ask the Foundation to implement it. Low Sea (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
20. Endorse. I trust the community in respecting our fundamental principles. It's the other way around that has been caused for concerns recently (secret trials, "desysop-ment" on command, etc). It doesn't mean that we don't trust the committee within its scope, though. Virtually speaking, coercion may happen to arbitrators likewise, but the community is big enough to prevent massive coercion. Jimbo and the foundation can take ultimate decisions, for example when they restricted non-talk page creation to registered users only. Cenarium ^Talk 21:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
21. --Cube lurker (talk) 16:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
22. This shouldn't need saying. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
23. Absolutely correct, and this is easy to forget. We need to keep this clearly in mind whenever we discuss the scope of the Arbitration Committee. ArbCom are not a "Supreme Court of Wikipedia." They are a last resort in the process of dispute resolution -- a process that is endorsed by community consensus, and nothing else. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 03:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Only if people can ignore Arbcom decisions they don't like, and which have not been proven to have achieved Wikipedia-wide consensus. Has that heretofore been the case? Otherwise, it's sophistry. Arbcom can make binding rulings and issue binding sanctions. That's what a court does.  RGTraynor  02:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
24. Like a High Court Arbcom should not create new policies. It can help in setting precednts in interpreting the existing policies though Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
25. As above. It should be ACs job to interpret existing policies to help solutions and remedies for particular cases. I don't feel that ArbCom are necessarily "bad" at doing their role, in some cases, they work well and it is necessary to have some form of committee which checks the community in exceptional circumstances. However, creating new policies and 'substantially altering current Wikipedia processes or policy except by striking sections incompatible with Wikipedia Foundation requirements' isn't in the job description as far as I'm concerned. Rudget (logs) 09:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
26. Arbcomm should be deciding based on policy, not creating new policies. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
27. Endorse. I have a hard time envisioning Arbcom being the only people in Wikipedia whose grandparents aren't being held hostage.Kww (talk) 02:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
28. The policies we have are more than enough for every circumstance. Anything that is liable to see Wikipedia in court is a matter for the foundation to rule on, everything else is the community's decision, and if the community cannot decide, no decision should be forced upon it. That is the model of consensus. For arbitration to enforce a policy is to breach a core policy on Wikipedia. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Hiding T 10:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
29. --Michael X the White (talk) 15:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
30. Yep, this is how it should be. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 16:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
31. Arbcom should not be creating policies. -Royalguard11(T) 17:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
32. Courts enforce laws which are enacted by legislators. The ArbCom enforces policies and guidelines which have been decided by the consensus of Wikipedians. The ArbCom cannot make policy, but they must enforce existing policy.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
33. -- Vision Thing -- 18:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
34. Paul August ☎ 19:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
35. Support IF not only the Arb Committee and the changing admin agrees to this, but also, 2 other admins agree with the change. TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 02:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I misunderstood the proposal. I just endorse. ArbCom shouldn't be given that much power. TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 02:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
36. nagle (talk · contribs) Recall the Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes/Proposed decision, in which ArbCom went well beyond the issues brought to arbitration to effectively make policy on biography of living persons. Serious questions were raised as to whether ArbCom had exceeded their authority. --John Nagle (talk) 05:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
37. ArbComm is supposed to interpret policies made by the community, not to create policy. There will be some tension here, but a valid interpretation will always be comprehensible by examining the history of the policy being interpreted, including the ways in which it stands in dynamic tension with other policies. There are too many problems with the same group making the rules and ruling on cases; that system of government was long ago discarded in the civilized world. See separation of powers. This is not an appropriate venue for a good discussion of wiki-political philosophy, but it needs to be noted that ArbComm is intended to be the judicial body of Wikipedia, not the legislative body. GRBerry 14:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Users who oppose this summary:

1. Tough oppose, because I come very close to agreeing with this. In theory, though, I'd still reserve a power for the rare situations where open community consensus is impossible. Parallel to ArbCom's ability to take cases offsite in extraordinary circumstances, it makes sense to have a body that may intervene under special conditions. By special conditions I mean something like forty administrators receiving photographs of their grandparents along with granny's home address from an anonymous source, and being told that to vote in a particular way in a Wikipedia discussion. Attempts at coercion do happen; it is necessary to have some check upon attempted exploitation in order to counter and discourage it and prevent its expansion. An arbitration committee that holds this power but uses it sparingly under readily defined and comprehensible circumstances is better than one that lacks it altogether. Durova^Charge! 17:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
2. I agree with Durova. I'll write up a new proposal below. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Until we somehow achieve WP:Governance reform I would hate to see the only democratically mandated authority on English Wikipedia prevented from making policy from time to time. I would prefer to see a separation of powers in the long run, though. PaddyLeahy (talk) 19:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Can't fully agree. Durova makes a good point. John Smith's (talk) 11:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
5. Disagree with this and agree with Durova's point. Arbcom is useless without power. If they lose credibility, that is a different problem. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
6. ugen64 (talk) 16:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
7. This goes just too far. No, the Arbitration Committee is not a legislature, but it is, like it or not, a supreme court. I think we should respect the principle of stare decisis in ArbCom rulings and see them as a kind of common law that informs parties in future disputes. -- The_socialist ^talk? 04:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
8. Some of the committee's best moments have come when it has cemented consensus as policy. All policy is subject to change, under consensus. --Jenny 23:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

   Your statement makes the fallacious assumption that ArbCom only acts on consensus; as you've said elsewhere, ArbCom is immune to the consequences of consensus when it so chooses to be, and have freely gone against it more than once, sometimes more egregiously than others; the question is whether their status as ArbCom entitles them to create policy against consensus. If there was consensus for it, there would be no necessity for the Committee to do such things anyway. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

9. Oppose proposal, on a number of grounds (although I support aspects of what's said here, mostly in a theoretical sense, and on the basis of the project's / my principles). I had a very long rationale authored here, but I lost it in a freak browser slip-up (I'm not on my usual system here, so I've not yet tweaked things to guard against slip-ups like this). If anybody is interested, please let me know and I'll author you something close to what I had before. But I doubt anybody is: there's quite enough to be getting on with on this page! Anthøny ✉ 21:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No New Policy (modified by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk))

The Arbitration Committee are not normally entitled to create binding rulings that institute new Wikipedia processes or policy, or substantially alter current Wikipedia processes or policy except by striking sections incompatible with Wikipedia Foundation or legal requirements. They are not a legislature, and should instead, as respected members of the community, direct said community to look into an issue and create policy on it. As members of the community, they may also help write it.

They may, however, be able to create or modify policy in exceptional circumstances, particularly where the community cannot act. These include dealing with situations where coercion, harassment campaigns, and other things make those in the community best knowledgeable about the issue unable to present public evidence. This is all in line with the arbitration committee's responsibility to protect members of the community.

This last responsibility may be spun off the arbcom's responsibilities to a new committee if desired, but it is absolutely necessary that some body is in place to protect the community where the community is being held hostage.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Yes, much better than above. Resolves the concerns. Durova^Charge! 21:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Seems to strike the type of balance that is necessary in order to have something workable. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
4. TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 02:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who oppose this summary:

1. The original statement got it right: no new policy from ArbCom, period. I can forsee no kind of exceptional curcumstances where policy-making by ArbCom may be required and the hypothetical examples cited above are unpersuasive. In cases of coercion, harassment campaigns, etc, what is necessary and what will surely occur, is regular administrative action (bans, blocks, etc), rather than changes in policy. Moreover, there is simply no way to reconcile potential conflicts and discrepancies between policies adopted by the community through the regular policy change/approval process and between those adopted by ArbCom. Nsk92 (talk) 09:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
2. While on the face of it this seems reasonable, the past 7 years show us how "exceptional circumstances" can be stretched into tyranny.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
3. I don't disagree with durova above but the problem with exceptions is that they can (and, if history is any guide, will) be misused because it is impossible to list them in a specific enough manner. I don't see why we can't create a mechanism where arbcom (or any user for that matter) can outline the costs and benefits of a policy change and seek community support for that policy change. --Regents Park (sink with the skaters) 21:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Wikipedia has no deadline. In the real world, with constant deadlines, it is necessary to have someone with the power to respond instantly in order to stave off threats to physical security. In Wikipedia, we need no such person. We have the luxury of taking our time in making our decisions, so I see no situation which could entail such emergencies that the ArbCom would suddenly need to assume executive power.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment:Could you give an example of a situation where the community would be "held hostage" and the ArbCom would have the unique ability to act?

1. I can't think of any reason where the community would be "held hostage", being such a big group of people. It is much easier for the Committee to be held hostage; it doesn't make sense to grant them extra power under those circumstances; if anything, it means that the community should have more power over ArbCom for when it gets "held hostage", not the other way around. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

No Secret Trials

The Arbitration Policy clearly outlines the form that an Arbitration Case takes. It does not allow for the Arbitration Commity to convene in secret to determine a case based on proceedings conducted entirely in private. While they may accept confidential evidence, proceedings must be as open as they can be.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --Barberio (talk) 01:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Guettarda (talk) 03:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
3. This is a most basic requirement for any community I want to participate in. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Except in exceptional cases where there is a strong, compelling reason, such as to protect a young child faced with sexual harassment on-wiki. (A case I believe happened a few years back) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

   I think such cases would be better handled by the foundation. --Barberio (talk) 12:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

   I think the foundation tends not to directly handle anything at all that is content related. It puts processes in place, yes, but never signs "by the foundation". The closest it comes would be WP:OFFICE I would say. I like the intent here though. ++Lar: t/c 17:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

5. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 15:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC) Yes. One caveat: exceptional must be explicitly defined to avoid subjective usage of theconcept.
6. The basic test of special circumstances for a summary proceeding is that the reason for it can be explained, and gets essentially universal concurrence by the community. DGG (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

   #At the very least, a behind-closed-doors trial should still involve the accused (DERP! How obvious is this?), and probably anyone who is even tangentially related to the case should be given a chance to comment, even if they aren't involved beyond a quick one- or two-paragraph statement. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC) (Still basically an endorse, but see my view "Limitations on secret trials" below --Jaysweet (talk) 02:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

7. There should be a clear and compelling reason for any secret deliberation. "Don't want to deal with the ZOMGDRAMMAZ" is not one. And no one should ever be tried without notice. Aunt Entropy (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
8. Exactly as Aunt Entropy says. Secret trials should be an extremely rare exception used only for the most exceptional and serious circumstances. As we've seen, it just doesn't work any other way. delldot talk 20:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
9. Endorse wholly. DuncanHill (talk) 20:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
10. I agree. There may be exceptional cases where certain bits of evidence (possibly involving real life identities etc.) may be sent to the mailing list directly, but even then, I believe the fact that this evidence has been presented should be noted on the case pages. In no case should the community, much less the accused, be excluded entirely from the process. Shell ^babelfish 20:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
11. Endorse, although I can't help but wonder if it has been successfully used in the past; how would we know? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
12. Yes, it shouldn't operate as a star chamber. *Dan T.* (talk) 20:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
13. R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
14. Appearances of this can be prevented if Arbs become required to explain their individual reasoning on the cases they decide on, rather than allow one Arb speak for an consensus determined off-site. Amerique^dialectics 21:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
15. I understand the exhaustion of patience that the ID editors can cause with their megabytes of comments over ever minute detail, but now that I've had time to reflect, I can not turn my back on a fundamental principle. No secrets, especially trials. --Dragon695 (talk) 22:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
16. Secret hearings and their subsequent sanctions only create more drama and paranoia. This ultimately will lead to an ever greater sense of detatchment between the community and Arbcom. RMHED (talk) 22:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
17. Secrecy is an ever-increasing element in ArbCom's operations, originally introduced with a view to protecting privacy but now totally divorced from all reasonable considerations. Secrecy implies impunity, and that's the crux of it. --Ghirla^-трёп- 22:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
18. Occasionally, under special circumstances, it has been necessary to conduct cases via e-mail. Although I do not object in principle to that practice, as DGG says the reasons must be compelling. And I must emphasize: this applies to reviews and clarifications as well as new cases. Reasons for offsite cases may include children's safety, the Foundation privacy policy, and other unavoidable obstacles. It is not enough to assert the putative likelihood that enough evidence is already available, or potential inconvenience to Committee members from running a regular case. If an editor violates policy while a case is ongoing, that editor may be blocked. At a time when ArbCom has the fewest number of open cases in its four year history, the convenience argument is particularly unconvincing. Durova^Charge! 22:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
19. Whether it's to protect the accused, or to damn them without interference from those pesky subversives, secret trials are not what I expect from a project of this magnitude. I also agree with Shoemaker (#4 above), but let's not confuse "protecting a twelve year old from violation" with "protecting our buddy from other people's anger", and let's try and not confuse either one with "protecting ourselves from drama". --Badger Drink (talk) 00:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
20. Endorse with particular reference to Durova's comment. If editors engage in block-worthy behavior while defending themselves before ArbCom, in camera or otherwise (legal threats, threats of violence, etc.), then I think it's reasonable to say they've forfeited the right to continue defending themselves. Pre-emptively disengaging them because committee members think they might do so, or might be annoying, is out of the question. (And is clearly not effective at reducing drama.) Choess (talk) 02:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
21. KillerChihuahua^?!? 04:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
22. Chetblong (talk) 05:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
23. The above summary and supporting comments sum this up better than I can. -- Ned Scott 07:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
24. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
25. No secret trials at all, period. Everything need to be where we can see it. If there is an issue with privacy, that part of the case can be sent in via e-mail to an arb. — _Maggot^Syn 10:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
26. No secret trials. No not involving the accused. If there's something that can't be shared with the community, it can be sent in email. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 12:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
27. Captain panda 13:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
28. Agree --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
29. While there are circumstances in which private discussions might be in the best interests of individual editors and even the community as a whole, but a trial so secret that even the defendant didn't know about it until after the sentencing is not an acceptable process. Doc Tropics 16:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
30. Endorse, though I'm pretty sure the arbcom agrees with this already (the latest confusion nonwithstanding). Still it never hurts to make this clear (the extremely occasional and rare situation excepted -kinda like reverting 'obvious' vandalism, if the reason is not obvious to virtually everyone, it's not "obvious"). R. Baley (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
31. rootology (T) 16:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
32. No secret trials. This does not prevent occasional swift action to prevent possible harm, the continuation of which can then be discussed in proper form. Nor does it prevent occasional taking of private evidence for good reason. The accused must know what the case is against him so he can answer it. There are plenty of people on Wiki more than capable of making plausible sounding but entirely false allegations. Fainites ^barley 18:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
33. Neıl 龱 10:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
34. Unless there is a very strong reason not to hold it in public, I see no reason why the ArbCom should convene in secret. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 11:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
35. I'll hold to the letter of this: "as open as they can be". The committee should have the option to hear cases in private where this is genuinely best for the community and the parties, but never in absentia. Happy‑melon 12:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
36. Only in very restricted, well-defined and necessary circumstances with plenty of checks and balances.--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
37. Please don't turn Wikipedia into a secret court hearing in a communist country. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
38. Cautious support. See my views about creating WP:BROWNACT under Section 6 below. Low Sea (talk) 18:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
39. Endorse, keeping in mind that privacy must be respected in any case. No need to rehash drama for the sake of transparency either. Secret discussions are acceptable, but a trial must give the chance for a party to defend one's cause, possibly privately on certain issues. Cenarium ^Talk 21:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
40. --Cube lurker (talk) 16:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
41. Support. There is no excuse for conducting secret trials where the accused are not allowed to defend themselves. Nsk92 (talk) 01:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
42. Well, duh. There is no need for secrecy in these parts. If something is so sensitive that it requires immediate action, then stewards should be the ones doing it; otherwise, public deliberation is the way to go. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
43. Agree, maybe modify to something like Except all the parties agree to private hearings If an admin is caught on abusive socking he might want to be deadminned quickly and privately rather than slowly with a lot of drama Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
44. Rudget (logs) 09:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
45. Amen.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
46. This gives us all the chance to see if the process is fair. It's a no-brainier. futurebird (talk) 02:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
47. Endorsing the idea that there should be no secret trials to which the accused is not able to muster a defence and call his own witnesses, as such things apply on Wikipedia. Hiding T 10:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
48. I agree. Axl (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
49. Sure! Everything open, everything public.--Michael X the White (talk) 15:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
50. Cautious agreement. Aaron Schulz 19:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
51. Agree. Secret trials have no place in an open system. --Regents Park (sink with the skaters) 21:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
52. Support, per Durova's comments above. John Carter (talk) 23:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
53. Secret trials never, ever lead to good things. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 13:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
54. This is the basic justice Jimmy was talking about, no more and no less. -- The_socialist ^talk? 04:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
55. Support, Wikipedia is free lets keep the content and the politics the same. Jeepday (talk) 09:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
56. Support TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 02:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
57. Mainly support, while there are certain circumstances which may require a greater or lesser degree of private discussion or deliberation, the following requirements should apply: Anyone accused of wrongdoing or facing possible sanction should be notified and given a chance to defend him/herself, including viewing all evidence presented against him/her, and except in extraordinary circumstances, being notified who presented it, the community should be notified of as much information as possible (at the VERY LEAST, that a private case is being considered, and if at all possible, a general explanation as to what justifies the privacy), and the community should at the very least be notified when the case is over. If sanctions are brought against an editor, we should, except in the rarest cases, know why. Requiring at absolute minimum a notification to the community when a private case is being considered will let us know, at the very least, how often this happens, and even that could give some idea if abuse may be occurring. And certainly the ArbCom cannot present to us that adding a tally mark to "How many secret cases we've handled" would violate anyone's privacy. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who oppose this summary:

1. I think Jimmy puts it better than this. [2]. His caveats and qualifications come from experience of what works and what doesn't. --Jenny 22:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

   That quote doesn't seem to support an oppose to this point: "It is ok for the ArbCom to work quietly with people to resolve conflict in a way which preserves dignity and minimizes drama. We have done that a lot, both formally and informally, and it works well. It is not ok for us to have secret trials in which the people to be punished have not even been notified or offered the opportunity to defend themselves.". There's a pretty big difference between "quiet discussions", which may be required from time to time, and trying someone in absentia. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

   I probably cannot put it clearer than "Jimmy puts it better", but I'll try. The Committee may convene to determine a case entirely in private, exactly as Jimmy puts it, to wit: "to work quietly with people to resolve conflict in a way which preserves dignity and minimizes drama." The Committee should not conduct secret trials on secret evidence which I think is what is upsetting a lot of people. --Jenny 00:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

   Perhaps this should be "No trials in absentia", as you seem to be a bit confused about what people are talking about here. The goal is to keep it "as transparent as possible", not "completely transparent a hundred percent of the time." While I think it is completely appropriate to conduct a case in private from time to time in extenuating circumstances, it is grossly inappropriate not to offer the accused a chance to defend themselves, provide explanations and rationales to help him. Having quiet discussions via email is one thing; not including the accused at all in the process of his case is gross misconduct on the part of a judicial body. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 08:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

   I'm not confused, I'm just not going to agree with an imprecise statement when a more precise and accurate statement is available. --Jenny (recently changed username) 19:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

2. See View by davidwr regarding private actions above, and the Jimbo citation in Jenny's endorsement. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Bstone (talk) 16:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Hmm, again can't agree. Courts and juries make their decisions in private - same should happen here. John Smith's (talk) 11:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose, unenforcable. The same law has been applied to local governments who simply have a private 'discussion' meeting and then come out to publically take the vote. There is no way to prevent this and I'm sure this whole vote is rather amusing to the ArbCom members who prefer to do it.Yeago (talk) 02:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No Individual Or Plurality Acts To Be Labelled As 'Arbitration Committee Action'

No individual, or plurality of Arbitrators should make announcements or declarations on behalf of the entire committee, they are to only be made by the plurality or the individual making them. Dissenting Arbitrators should be given an opportunity to voice their dissents to this action in public if they wish.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --Barberio (talk) 01:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Per Kirill's comment. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
3. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 15:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Unfortunately necessary. Davewild (talk) 16:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Absolutely. that's how it works in the real world (courts of appeal). JeanLatore (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
6. R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 21:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
7. Most definitely. This goes to the heart of a lot of problems. Amerique^dialectics 21:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
8. Endorse the community deserves to be able to scrutinize the actions of those it elects to perform such duties. DuncanHill (talk) 21:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
9. Stating what should be the stupefyingly obvious, but perhaps certain members of ArbCom, or ArbCom as a whole, could do with a reminder. --Badger Drink (talk) 01:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
10. Trivially endorse. This should go without saying. Why is this even an issue? Jenny asked for an example below, I concur. Absent an example or an objection, strike this entire section as "common sense, why bother discussing it." IMHO in the event of concurring or somewhat-concurring opinions, any portion which has a majority of votes counts as a majority rather than a plurality opinion and it counts as an official arbcom opinion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
11. -- Ned Scott 08:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
12. agree, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
13. Limited endorse. Didn't the Committee used to do this, i.e. they showed a tally of which members supported and which opposed each point? That's all that's needed. This "nem.con." crap should be done away with immediately. There is no need to put excessive qualifiers on non-unanimous decisions -- we just need to go back to the old way where each member's vote is transparent. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
14. Was reading through this page and decided to support this, but didn't read the comments above . . .now that I've read at least the one above mine, ditto what Jaysweet said. R. Baley (talk) 16:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
15. rootology (T) 16:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
16. As Jaysweet says - get rid of the nem con. rubbish, and show the entire list of supportees. If an Arbitrator is not happy with their decisions and "votes" being publicised, they should not be an Arbitrator. Neıl 龱 10:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
17. I think the OM case shows very clearly why we need clear accounting of who supports what. MBisanz's essay has more examples of how this can lead to problems. Guettarda (talk) 16:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
18. Naturally. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
19. partial support. I support at least part of the above, namely the idea that clearly written minority/disenting opinions (of Arbiters) ought to be made a valid part of the process so that future references to "cases" can be crystal clear on how ArbCom arrived at its decision. Low Sea (talk) 19:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
20. Agreed. Noroton (talk) 03:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
21. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 06:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
22. --Cube lurker (talk) 16:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
23. "Nem con" was a mistake, even if done in good faith to expedite the process. At least a list of assenting arbs is needed; signatures are better. Gnixon (talk) 23:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
24. Duh Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
25. Endorse and would go further. While some discussions may need to occur in private, the ArbCom votes themselves must always be made in public, with the signatures of the arbitrators attached and available for verification through the history log. This way we will know exactly who voted and how, and there will be no room for speculation, error, rumor, misunderstanding, etc. If this principle had been followed, the entire unfortunate FT2 saga would not have occurred. I can see no plausible scenario under which an exception to this principle might concievably be warranted. Nsk92 (talk) 09:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
26. Endorse - unless a decision is made by a majority voting among active arbitrators it is not a decision of arbcom, it is a decision of an arbitrator or a plurality of ones Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
27. Endorse - Arbcom decisions should be public, even if some of the evidence isn't.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
28. Endorse.Kww (talk) 02:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
29. Absolutely. What this means is that we have none of this, "well, on the mailing list we've sort of agreed", or "speaking as a member of arb-com" or any of that. If an arbitrator wants to speak for the arbitration committee, put it on an arbitration page and let the other arbitrators endorse or reject. Any other comment is the comment of "just another user". No arbitrator speaks for the committee alone. Hiding T 10:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
30. The Committee must act as a committee at all aspects.--Michael X the White (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
31. - keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 13:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
32. Absolutely. This is common sense; it is sad that this isn't already in place. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who don't know what the above means

1. An example would help. Read one way, this only means that arbitrators shouldn't go off half-cocked as FT2 apparently did the other day. Read another way, it implies that unanimity is required for all arbitration committee decisions. Jenny 22:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
   • I think it's talking about less than a majority. For example, if the committee split 4-3-3 with 4 in favor, 3 against, and 3 abstentions by non-recused members, or 4-3-3 with different, non-overlapping remedies, then there is no majority report. If it splits 6-4 then there is a majority and no problem. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
     • If the meaning of this resolution is as you state, it's superfluous. It's like expressing support for the excellent weather we've been having lately. FT2's recent gaffe notwithstanding, the Committee does not permit factions or individuals to represent their opinions as the opinion of the whole. --Jenny (recently changed username) 19:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Too prone to wikilawyering. —Giggy 04:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Yes, what does this mean? John Smith's (talk) 11:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
4. I think that a dissenting ArbCom member is going to vent in public whether anyone likes it or not, if they feel strongly about something. Also, does this mean that an Arbitrator can no longer factually announce a final decision on WP:AN, as is customary? This statement makes no sense to me at all and doesn't seem well thought-out. Grandmasterka 04:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who oppose this summary:

1. First, I agree with the general sentiment. Second, I note that many people do not know what the word "plurality" means, and it might be helpful simply to talk about a "number less than a majority". Mainly, however, I must oppose this on grounds of practicality. If a majority cannot be obtained, what is to happen? When an appellate court (in the US) deadlocks in this way, the usual answer is the lower court decision stands. When a jury deadlocks (again, in the US), the case is tried with a different jury. However, for the Arbitration Committee there is often no "lower court" decision, and no fresh jury able to convene to which to appeal. If the ArbCom splits 4-4-1 with four recommending a permanent ban on someone, four recommending a 2-year ban, and 1 recommending a 1-month ban, should the result really be no ban at all? If you are to have such a rule, it needs to state what the result is in the event of a deadlock -- and be sure that it's something we can live with. Thesmothete (talk) 16:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

No Kafka

No Arbitrator is to act like a character from a Kafka novel. Especially not Gregor Samsa.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --Barberio (talk) 01:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
2. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 15:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC) Even though a recent case reminds me more of Darkness at Noon

Users who oppose this summary:

1. JeanLatore (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC). If an arbitrator wants to internalise a character from great literature, that is his business.
2. Samsa? That wouldn't be too bad. What we don't want is the judge from The Trial, or, for that matter, the Jury in Gilbert and Sullivan's Trial by Jury. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

   Say what you like but remember that everyone went home happy after the verdict of the G&S Trial. So we didn't do too bad a job. -- Foreman of the Jury (talk) 02:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

3. per JeanLatore --Badger Drink (talk) 00:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Oppose as writtten/rewrite required. Not every editor knows who Kafka is. However, a standard of ethics for arbitrators wold be handy. This should be written in language understandable by all English-speakers, without unexplained cultural references. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Try to take this seriously, not everyone is going to get that, even if it is pretty hilarious. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
6. This RfC shouldn't be a joke. John Smith's (talk) 11:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
7. Not a constructive way forward; using such a comparison that is not clear to everyone, and maybe open to multiple interpretations. Arnoutf (talk) 16:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who have no idea whats a Kafka novel and therefore neutral:

1. TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 02:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

View by Celarnor (2)

I see the need for ArbCom as a binding form of dispute resolution, especially for problems involving admins that can't be handled by a community of editors without the tools to enforce their collective judgement. They have been useful in providing sanctions on editors and admins alike who have gone astray of the rules. However, I do not believe that ArbCom is within its powers to create "remedies" that aren't in the form of direct sanctions on editors and admins listed as being involved in a given case. What they have been doing of late goes well beyond that (The 'Sourcing Adjudication Board' and the 'BLP Special Enforcement' measures come to mind prominently); changing existing policy and creating new procedures is not part of the dispute resolution process; that is part of the governing process, and that is a responsibility that belongs with the community, decided by consensus. Not the consensus of a few elite editors, but the consensus of the project as a whole.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
2. --Barberio (talk) 02:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Guettarda (talk) 03:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Although the sourcing adjudication board might be a sensible idea in itself, I see no pressing need for the arbitration committee to institute it by fiat. Very possibly the community would have approved the idea if it had been proposed by individual arbitrators in the normal manner. What I find troubling is the readiness with which the present board redefines its own scope and mandate without consultation or approval from the community. Durova^Charge! 04:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Indeed. While steps may be necessary to reduce the workload of ArbCom, introducing a new system by fiat is not the solution. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
6. Agreed completely. They're a dispute resoluton commitee and nothing else.--Serviam (talk) 12:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
7. — _Maggot^Syn 12:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
8. Many of their proposals would probably get fairly general agreement; the way to determine this is to propose them to the community. There would be nothing wrong with arb com as a body making such proposals--they are in a good position to formulate them. They are not, however, in an appropriate position to decide on them. DGG (talk) 16:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
9. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 16:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
10. ArbCom has gone too far here recently, let the community decide and do not create new procedures without prior community consensus. No problem with ArbCom making proposals as long as it is explicit that it is the community that gets to decide by consensus. Davewild (talk) 16:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
11. ArbCom currently acts like a combined Supreme Court/Legislature, and it needs to stop. Until something better comes along, the community is the legislature. JeanLatore (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
12. Certainly. No more legislating from the bench, please. Nsk92 (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
13. Yes, the decision making power should rest with the community. delldot talk 20:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
14. Endorse, policy should be made by the community, and Arbcom does not (or should not) have the power to arrogate new powers to itself. DuncanHill (talk) 20:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
15. Endorse - I'm sure the community would welcome new ideas like the sourcing board, but lets run it through the regular community consensus processes instead of creating it by dictate. Shell ^babelfish 20:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
16. R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
17. Endorse - policy is the remit of the community, not ArbCom. --Dragon695 (talk) 22:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
18. No problem agreeing with this, but I don't think it implies what the writer thinks it does. --Jenny 22:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    I don't really understand what you're saying; what do you think I think it implies? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    I think it's intended to imply that the passing of the special provisions in the recent "Footnoted queries" case was ultra vires. That obviously isn't the case. --Jenny 00:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

    Like I said; I believe that's so far beyond the purview of a dispute resolution group that I'm somewhat shocked that people are supporting it. If they really are within their granted powers to do so, then it looks like rather than searching for a way to deal with their overstepping of power, then we should be rethinking what powers are necessary for a dispute resolution group to operate, and whether or not changing existing policy without the consensus of the rest of the community should be one of them. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

    Well that's the problem, you see. The BLP is already policy. All the Committee did was to outline its view on how it may be enforced. That's very much in the purview of dispute resolution (in which arbcom has ultimate power) and policy enforcement (which is an arbcom power traditionally delegated to administrators). --Jenny 00:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

    If that were true, I wouldn't have a problem with it. If they had posted to VP/P and said "Hey, we came up with his idea for BLP, maybe the community should consider it," sure. If BLPSE had a disclaimer saying "This isn't actually policy yet, it's just an idea for community discussion", sure. But that's not the case. It's pretty clear that they're modifying an existing policy. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

    You've misunderstood what I said. The arbitration committee doesn't (often) make suggestions of how a policy may be enforced, it specifies how this may be done. On that subject, it is the ultimate authority. --Jenny (recently changed username) 19:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

    That is precisely the problem that this comment was written to address. :) Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 10:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

19. Per Ms. Durova (#4) and Mr. Davewild (#10). --Badger Drink (talk) 00:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
20. Chetblong (talk) 05:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
21. I completely support this statement, and would also like to echo the comments made by Durova and Davewild. Arbcom is made up by experienced and trusted users, and we welcome their proposals. -- Ned Scott 08:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
22. Agree,--CrohnieGal^Talk 15:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
23. R. Baley (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
24. Individually, ArbCom members are respected and trusted members of the community; as Ned Scott says, their proposals will always be welcome and most certainly given all due consideration. ArbCom itself however, is part of the DR process and not a legislature...that power rests only with the community. Doc Tropics 16:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
25. rootology (T) 16:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
26. They've definitely been exceeding their authority of late. RMHED (talk) 21:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
27. The "sourcing board" really scares me. Let the ArbCom rule on cases, not "legislate from the bench". J.delanoy^gabs_adds 11:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
28. Strong support. Low Sea (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
29. --Cube lurker (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
30. We are not that unreasonable, so the ArbCom can propose things to the community, just like others do all the time. In fact, a proposal from the ArbCom is pretty much guaranteed quasi-universal scrutiny due to the body's high profile, so the "nobody cares problem" doesn't occur. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
31. Endorse - arbitrators can propose a new policy but it is up to community (or WMF) to adopt or reject the proposal Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
32. Endorse. There was no real need for a sourcing board to be proposed, just a hard line stance on WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:CIV, WP:EW and WP:C. That covers all the issues that were being sought to be determined with the adjudication board. Likewise with the BLP issue, WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:BLP and WP:CSD should be enough to cover the issues. Arbitration needs to reflect the spirit of the policy as much as the letter. The BLP special provision seems to be to empower admins to do what they already have the power to do. It isn't needed. What is needed is the arbitration committee to say these are the policies. These editors are upholding them. These editors are not. What confuses the issue is where some editors uphold the content policies and not the behavioural ones. Arbitration should treat each even handedly. Content policy breaches should face stricter punishments, but behavioural ones should not be ignored. Hiding T 10:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
33. Agree. Arbcom is an arbitration panel, not a legislative body. --Regents Park (sink with the skaters) 21:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
34. New bureaucracy should be proposed to the community, and I wish ArbCom would do that sometimes. By the way, I still don't get the "BLP enforcement" fiasco; it changed NOTHING. ArbCom probably shouldn't have written it, but the community also didn't need to spazz out over it. Grandmasterka 05:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
35. - keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 13:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
36. Endorse, if the community does not come to a consensus that something should be policy, it is not. ArbCom exists to enforce policy, the community at large and the Foundation are the only bodies with the authority to create policy. That does not mean, of course, that ArbCom may not propose policy, and indeed I would like to see them take an active role in doing so. However, such policies would be required to gain consensus just as any other proposal from any other source would be required to do, and in the absence of such, would not be policy. I, for one, will happily support the RfA of anyone running to re-sysop if they are desysopped solely on grounds of reversing a questionable decision made under BLPSE, and will not assist in enforcing any other ArbCom created policies unless those truly do gain community consensus. I think the community has spoken clearly here—we want enforcement, not legislation, from the ArbCom. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
37. Endorse ArbCom should interpert policy in their decisions, not create it. Amerique^dialectics 19:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who oppose this summary:

1. Actually, I endorse the spirit of it but not the letter. I look to elected bodies for leadership in things like suggesting new policies. In that sense, arbcom members, both individually and as a group, are "greatest among equals" of all editors. As a matter of practice, I would favor them replacing "written by the arbcom" with "written by these arbcom members and endorsed by the following editors..." to avoid the appearance of a power play. We elected these people. At the time of their election, they had the respect of the community. Barring a fall from grace, that should count for something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by davidwr (talk • contribs) 01:27, 29 June 2008

   But the community's respect for them was framed in the context of the responsibilities of the ArbCom as defined at the time of the election. To put it another way - I'd vote for Michael Jordan to play on my basketball team, but once he joins the White Sox, my vote of confidence would vanish. --Badger Drink (talk) 01:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

   Or if after I vote for Michael Jordan to play on my basketball team, at the beginning of the game a couple seasons later he says "I'm going to play by these rules" without consulting the league for his rule changes. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

   There is nothing that prevents arbcom members from proposing a policy change and then seeking community support for that policy change. --Regents Park (sink with the skaters) 21:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

2. Arbcom enforces policy; it does not create it. Nor does it create new policies to enforce the old ones. This never happened until recently, which suggests the root cause for this is one or more of the latest recent Arbitrator appointees. Neıl 龱 10:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

   And the fact that the community's objections to those provisions have gone unnoticed by our regular check on ArbCom's power suggests that the existing checks are not enough; even if the problematic element is removed this time, that isn't going to help the next time it happens; it would be best to acknolwedge that ArbCom's unchecked power is a problem now and work to fix that rather than skirting the issue. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 15:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

3. As the introduction to this page shows, Arbcom was clearly intended originally to deal with more general problems that dispute resolution between individual editors. Until we have some other method of dealing with systemic problems, I support Arbcom's recent attempts to re-assert its rights in these areas (although I'm not convinced by some specific remedies). PaddyLeahy (talk) 19:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Surely the arbitrators do need to be able to come up with whatever remedies they can. If the community is divided there's no one else around... John Smith's (talk) 11:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
5. Thinking this through, I have to wonder about discretionary sanctions. They work very well in most venues to which they have been applied, but they appear to run counter to this. To the extent they function as telling admins that in certain areas disruptive editing is such a long standing problem that the existing rules should be more stringently enforced, discretionary sanctions don't create policy. To the extent they authorize admins to impose creative sanctions, I think they are encouraging the use of IAR to deal with a problem - with the usual corollary that if there is not a consensus to support the non-standard action then something else needs to be done instead. The sourcing board, however, would have been whole cloth policy creation, and the special BLP thing has been entirely unused (even admins who are regular arbitration enforcers aren't willing to test using it), so can be read as rejected by the community. GRBerry 14:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Somewhere inbetween.

1. Policy - like law - is always carefully drafted with a view to covering every eventuality - but never does. Adjudicators therefore have to interpret and clarify it. This may appear to extend it. As for new ideas like Sources Adjudication - no, ArbCom should not impose it, but yes, these generally highly thought of members should certainly feel free to propose it and other new ideas or policies. Proposals from ArbCom should always be worthy of serious consideration by the community - otherwise we're electing the wrong people. Fainites ^barley 19:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

No it isn't. Wikipedia policy is descriptive, the law is prescirptive, tehre's a massive difference...--Serviam (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

1. While in general I would agree with the support !votes above, I can and do see how, in some extreme circumstances, it might be the case that some step which is apparently required is one which the community as a whole cannot agree on a single remedy to. Under such circumstances, I can and do see that it might be reasonable to allow for the creation of a new entity, while still allowing for changes to the specific definition of that entity to take place thereafter, to address the situation. John Carter (talk) 23:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

View by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) (1)

The arbcom's behaviour over the last few months has included behavour easily interpreted as repeated attempts to extend their authority, and isolate themselves from community input. These include trying to rewrite policy (the BLP addition to the Footnoted quotes case), and setting up major new extentions to their remit (the Sourcing Adjucation Board, Homeopathy case). Both of these have accepted, community-based ways for their creation that were rejected in favour of a by-fiat decision.. The secret trial of Orangemarlin, which asserted the right of the arbcom not to request evidence from the accused if they felt it would be inconvenient,[3] so badly overstepped the bounds, that Jimbo himself has sanctioned the Arbcom over it:

“ ...It is not ok for us to have secret trials in which the people to be punished have not even been notified or offered the opportunity to defend themselves. I have no opinion at all about the editor(s) in question, because I have not studied the facts of the underlying case at all. However, it is part of our longstanding governance traditions that there is a right of appeal, and I can overturn ArbCom decisions, and I would consider that a lack of opportunity for defense would be in the category of reasons I would consider valid. The main thing is, there is no reason for drama right now, drama is not necessary, what is necessary is a thoughtful look at everything, and assumption of good faith. If errors have been made, things can be set right quickly enough." ”

This last bit of evidence, of course, presumes that FT2's statements on the Orangemarlin case have any weight. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
2. The fact that at least one ArbCom member, Mr. FT2, busied himself with this ridiculous OM matter while the Homeopathy case lingered without an evidence page (for thirty-two fucking days - oversighting personal info does not take an entire month. Copy and paste a "sanitized" version without edit history as a temporary stopgap measure if you absolutely must) speaks volumes for the current Arbcom's terribly misplaced priorities. --Badger Drink (talk) 00:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Nsk92 (talk) 13:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who oppose this summary:

1. Events have proven this representation of the facts to be far wide of the mark. --Jenny (recently changed username) 19:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

View by User:Jaysweet

Conditions on secret trials

Enough people objected to the "No Secret Trials" that was proposed above, that I decided to strike my endorsement (even though I still endorse the core sentiment) and provide this alternate. Under very particular circumstances, it may be desirable (or even necessary, if a lot of BLP issues are involved) for the ArbCom to hold a hearing entirely in secret from the community. However, the following conditions should apply:

• Under no circumstances should the hearing be kept a secret from the accused and/or anyone who has a possibility of being sanctioned as a result of the hearing. If the person's behavior is so destructive that the Committee is afraid to involve them in their own hearing, probably the user should have already been banned.
• The committee should make an effort to contact relevant parties in private to gather their thoughts. We should not see an ArbCom ruling that doesn't include statements from the community.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Me indaursez s3rf. --Jaysweet (talk) 02:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Yes, there's a difference between involving nobody and involving everybody. The current issue is with people who think their opinion is vital to every arbitration case - eliminate them and work with those who are actually relevant. —Giggy 04:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

   I would like to imagine that the ArbCom could distinguish between signal and noise on their own, without the need for gated communities. --Badger Drink (talk) 04:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

3. Support, discourage secret trials generally but if really necessary let those who may be sanctioned defend themselves before making a judgement. Davewild (talk) 07:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Yes, this provision is required although it is preferred it is never exercised. We must not limit the ArbCom from acting in the best interests of the community no matter how good faith the intent. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Endorse. Especially 1st point. --TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 20:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who oppose this summary:

1. Prefer the older version (with Shoemaker addition, endorsement #4). A case that immediately springs to mind is Tango, where a relative bystander (i.e., someone who wasn't very active on the AN/I thread leading up to the RfAR) disclosed a list of tool-abuses that resulted in, as I recall, two or three ArbCom members changing their opinion on hearing the matter. I'm sure there's an even better example somewhere out there, where "drive-by" participation brought new perspective to the actual proposed decision - but, bottom line, as a general matter of principle, it's unwise to legitimize "secret meetings" any more than absolutely need be, as the possibility for salient, perspective-bringing points to go un-heard is far too great. Private evidence should be enough for nearly all dodgy circumstances (and even then, it would be nice to have some mention made on the public /Evidence page, perhaps along the lines of "Evidence presented by anonymous user: An anonymous user has emailed evidence to the committee on MM/DD/YY"). --Badger Drink (talk) 04:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Per Badger Drink. Nsk92 (talk) 13:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

View by Durova (2)

Arbitration is the final step in dispute resolution. Except for emergency situations such as wheel wars, or appeals of community sanctions and other circumstances where dispute resolution is impractical, there needs to be prior formal dispute resolution. These options are:

• Wikipedia:Third opinion
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment
• Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts
• Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal
• Wikipedia:Mediation Committee

These parameters have not been observed consistently. Formal dispute resolution should remain open long enough to have a reasonable chance of success before a request for arbitration is attempted. WP:AN and WP:ANI are not formal dispute resolution; informal mediation is not formal dispute resolution; block warnings are not formal dispute resolution; an e-mail exchange with an arbitrator is not formal dispute resolution. All of these informal methods have been offered and accepted at various times during RFAR. They should not be acceptable and, if proposed, should be removed by the clerks.

The reasons for going by the book are twofold. The exploitation of non-formal dispute resolution as a pretext for arbitration drags unwilling bystanders into cases and fosters drama. Arbitration is slow, time-consuming, and stressful. Editors deserve to interact with each other with reasonable expectations about when an arbitration case may be in the offing and when it is not.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Durova^Charge! 07:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Kirill attempted to ban User:Kww from editing or discussing articles and matters related to fiction based primarily on a single comment [4]. I pointed out many times to Kirill that no steps in dispute resolution had even been taken with Kww. If it wasn't for us pleading with other arbs to reconsider the situation and to listen to evidence, the motion would have likely passed. -- Ned Scott 08:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Agree though I thought this was a natural common way to behave with any dispute. --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
4. If the community decides that the dispute resolution protocol is no longer needed, the community should express that deliberately. Until then, let's continue to use these time-tested processes. Antelan^talk 14:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
5. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
6. In addition, the formal resolution also makes sure the arbitration committee gets good evidence from nearly the start. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
7. While informal steps can always be taken in addition to formal steps, they should never be accepted as an outright substitute within the process itself. Doc Tropics 16:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
8. Formal dispute resolution first is critical.--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
9. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
10. · AndonicO ^Engage. 20:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
11. Chetblong (talk) 03:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
12. Absolutely; while some users aren't particularly open to the wiki way of collaboration and working together to solve problems and would rather have a powerful group of people say "yes" or "no" to something, that simply isn't practical; a binding form of dispute resolution should only ever be used in clear emergencies and when the community hasn't been able to come to a solution on its own. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 15:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
13. Guettarda (talk) 16:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
14. Mostly agree, but note that at least 3O, RfC, and WQA are useless where extensive investigation is needed. Gnixon (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
15. Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
16. Partial agree. Provided it doesn't limit the comm's ability to consider cases, I think it is important to try at least a couple of dispute resolution stages first. John Smith's (talk) 11:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
17. With the caveat that the Third opinion project is not designed to address complex disagreements between several editors and will therefore not be suitable for all disputes, I endorse the fundamental point here: don't take squabbles straight to ArbCom. — Athaenara ✉ 06:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
18. Agreed with central point, although I might expand the number of "emergency" situations delineated above. John Carter (talk) 23:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
19. Nsk92 (talk) 13:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
20. --Barberio (talk) 14:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
21. --TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 20:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
22. Having a DR chain weeds out cases that can be solved with community input. If the community can't solve the issues, use of DR at least clarifies whatever is to be arbitrated. Amerique^dialectics 20:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
23. Mostly agree. My sole reservation lies in wording. While MedCab is something of a formal step in the dispute resolution process, it is explicitly an informal group of volunteers providing informal mediation. Historically, article RfCs and third opinion requests have also been considered informal means of dispute resolution (for example, see the instructions at MedCom's request for mediation page.) Vassyana (talk) 01:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Users who oppose this summary:

1. This is far too parsimonious. Community processes often break down and cause long-term, festering problems that need to be addressed sooner rather than later. I do agree on one point--insomuch as the administrators' noticeboards are used by certain parties as a substitute for dispute resolution, those parties abuse Wikipedia and the noticeboard. --Jenny (recently changed username) 19:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

View by Anonymous Dissident

What can't ArbCom do? Anything that exceeds the powers pertaining to the position they were given by communal election, in my view. Well, that power is the ability to "impose binding solutions to Wikipedia disputes that neither communal discussion, administrators, nor mediation have been able to resolve" (see: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee; opening statement.). Not to bend or create new policy, not to allow bias and personal prejudice to influence decisions, but to act as a functional and purposeful judging and arbitrating body that works based on good sense and for the common good. I advise that if ArbCom and its constituent arbitrators were to simply act within the lines of the position they hold, to remember what powers they have, the importance of the seat of arbitrator, under what conditions they hold this seat, and the parameters in which they operate in regards to this position, then RFAR would be much more fluid in its process and bettered in its decision-making. But, most of all, they need to remember why they hold it. It is their job to bring closure to the very worst disputes. The trials and the conflicts that no other medium of dispute resolution have been able to bring solution to. They need to remember how crucial a functional panel of final arbitration in a project such as Wikipedia is, and why it is important that every single member of that panel ensures that they operate in a way that is expressly inline with the boundaries of the powers they have in order that the functionality of this body can never again be questioned in a forum such as this. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC) Edited due to a purely technical problem by davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) at 20:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

---

People who agree with what was said above:

1. Antelan^talk 14:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Well said. The Arbitration Committee's role is to solve disputes, not to create new policies or to augment existing ones. Adding to existing policy in order to resolve a dispute between a few people seems silly to me. —Animum (talk) 15:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Completely agree with this, don't think it is so limiting as the author thinks it is. --Jenny (recently changed username) 19:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
4. · AndonicO ^Engage. 20:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Not much else to add to this. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 12:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
6. Endorse. — _Maggot^Syn 15:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
7. Guettarda (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
8. Yes with emphasis on the 'Not to bend'. Davewild (talk) 17:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
9. Endorse as per Animum: ArbCom's job is to resolve disputes, not to create policy. — Athaenara ✉ 06:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who oppose this summary:

1. Disputes that can't or haven't been resolved by communal discussion, administrators, or mediation include disputes over content and disputes over policy. Therefore the conclusion of this comment does not follow from its premises. Arbcom has traditionally gone out of its way to avoid issuing rulings in these areas, but current members seem to feel that content or policy disputes are the root cause of many of the most persistent disputes brought before them, and I agree. I also agree that this requires remedies that go well beyond sanctions on individual editors, and that ideally a different body than Arbcom would be responsible for resolving policy disputes where there is no consensus either way. PaddyLeahy (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
2. I agree with everything said, but am unsure about how this translates into action.--Regents Park (sink with the skaters) 00:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

View by Antelan

No content decisions

The Arbitration Committee is not empowered to make content decisions.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Proposed. Antelan^talk 14:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Agree, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

   Have they ever? Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

   They have decided content decisions previously. Whether they ever had the authority to do so is somewhat unclear. Antelan^talk 04:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

3. Agree that they are not empowered to do so now, but uncertain if that is feasible for the future. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Certainly not. They already have enough established powers. They need less, not more. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 15:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Whenever possible. However I will add that in some cases this is unavoidable. futurebird (talk) 02:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who disagree with this summary:

1. The arbitration committee is understandably reluctant to make content decisions, but is not barred in any way from doing so. --Jenny (recently changed username) 19:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
2. The arbitration committee is not empowered to "make content decision" but it is empowered to authoritatively interpret ambiguous policies. One hopes that in the event of ambiguity it would do so in the most permissive manner and invite the community to tighten down, but this is not a requirement. As it happens, administrators have the power to make content decisions. They do so every time they permanently-protect an article due to an ongoing content dispute: Without "endorsing" the frozen version, they make a decision that no content will be changed without discussion and consensus. For contentious material without consensus, the administrators effectively "decide" that the version that happened to be there at the time of the protect is the one Wikipedia will show to the world. That may not be an intentional content decision, but it is a de facto one. Likewise, when ARBCOM sanctions individual editors and as a result, an article which previously had no consensus now has a consensus because certain editors have been barred from editing that article, it is a de facto content decision. While I hope it hasn't happened and I hope it never happens, it is theoretically possible for a future ARBCOM member to sanction or not sanction a user knowing good and well that this decision will influence an article in a way that the particular ARBCOM member prefers. Political games like these are possible in any court, and the only thing that can be done is to continue to elect people who have the moral backbone not to engage in such behavior. A better way of phrasing it: ARBCOM is not empowered to make decisions based on content except as necessary to enforce policy. ARBCOM should be cognizant that decisions to sanction particular editors may create a de facto content decision, and they should explicitly acknowledge this in their decisions and make it clear that non-disruptive editors posting similar content in accordance with the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia are not subject to sanctions. One would hope that policy-based content issues such as BLP or COPYVIO would never reach ARBCOM, they should be handled by the first available editor and repeated actions handled by blocks from the first available administrator. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Agree with Tony "Jenny" Sidaway. PaddyLeahy (talk) 19:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Agree with David and Tony Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
5. Agreed with the above. John Carter (talk) 23:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

View by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) - on content decisions

Sometimes, it would be useful to have content decisions - having someone step in and say "this is how it is going to be, for, say, one month, based on Wikipedia principles and academic rigour of sources" would be extremely useful at solving the perennial disputes at, say, Homeopathy. However, it would need to be hosted with academics, with access to a research library, and with a willingness to say "We don't know". None of this description applies to the arbcom.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
2. This is a good explanation of why the arbitration committee doesn't (often) make content rulings. --Jenny (recently changed username) 19:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Guettarda (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Agree some sort of field-specific expert committees are much better suited for content decisions than arbcom Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who wish to comment:

• In general this is an interesting point, and at least tangentially related to the oft-suggested idea that we find some way to "lock" articles that have achieved a certain level of quality (usually FA status). It's a topic that certainly merits more discussion, but this probably isn't the best place for it (since the focus here should be on ArbCom). I'd suggest Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) or Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Doc Tropics 16:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• Probably we do need to have a binding way of making content decisions; the current way is for one side to outmaneuver the other into a behavior violation. And then that's where arb com gets into the act. In practice, it can't and doesn't really consider the behavior violations in isolation--this is especially true when both sides of an issue have acted badly, as is usually the case in the really controversial and emotional topics. It would be more straightforward to have a direct way of doing this. Having some experience with academic disputes, I don't necessarily think that they are usually the answer--the problems here are as apt to be common sense as technicalities, and in those I've worked with, the solution is usually a simple compromise to express both views as opposed to the two sides each trying to suppress each other. (Sure, there are exceptions, but situations of a single person with a completely far fringe view are dealt with fairly well already.) I have some ideas about proper mechanics, but that's for later, when the community opens the discussion. I hope present and past arb com members will join in on that, for their experience in resolving disputes in general will be valuable. DGG (talk) 23:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• I can and do think that it would be a good idea to have a body to deal with content decisions, but don't necessarily think ArbCom is necessarily that body. I tend to agree with Alex above that we would be better served by some other body handling such matters. John Carter (talk) 23:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who disagree with this summary:

1. I see no reason why content needs a decision making body. There are sufficient controls at various levels and enough editors with restraint. And, of course, there is no reason at all to believe that arbcom members are particularly well qualified to decide what is the 'right' content. --Regents Park (sink with the skaters) 00:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

View by Carcharoth

Changes to Arbitration policy

Wikipedia:Arbitration policy is not clear on how the policy should be changed. To quote from the messagebox:

"This page documents an official policy on the English Wikipedia. More so than other policies it should not be edited without considerable forethought and consensus among Committee members."

In the lead section we have:

"These policies are now fully adopted, but subject to amendment. [...] It has been indicated elsewhere (see e.g. the Arbitration policy ratification vote) that the "Arbitration Policy may be tweaked as the Committee gains experience and learns better ways of doing things". Jimbo Wales has also suggested that the policy is not subject to amendment by the community ^{[citation needed]} ."

The 'citation needed' tag has been on that page since November 2007. There have also been (very rare) edit wars on this policy page, where the arbitration committee have made clear that they are the ones that decide what the page says (see this one from September 2006: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]). The policy has also been edited by Wikimedia Foundation officials and board members, such as here, and by arbitration committee members and clerks, as here and here and here and here. At the end of the arbitration policy page, we have the following, under the header of "Unresolved issues":

"Deliberately left unspecified at this time. See the sub-pages for discussion: Election of Arbitrators [and] Procedure for changing this policy"

The subpage Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Procedure for changing this policy says:

"Arbitration policy is the jurisdiction of Jimbo Wales and the Arbitration Committee..."

The sub-subpage Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Procedure for changing this policy/Old proposal also exists.

Given the above, in the context of this request for comment (RfC), more interaction between the community and the arbitration committee should take place, such as at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration policy (see also the archives of that talk page), and that any conclusions from this RfC should be presented at that talk page and a response requested from the arbitration committee and Jimbo Wales. The policy should also be updated to facilitate any future proposals to changes in the arbitration policy, and both the community and the arbitration committee should follow that page and its talk page more closely. It may also be beneficial to retain a core policy that is unchanging, but to allow more room for reform outside of that core policy.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Carcharoth (talk) 16:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Agree. This is quite an important point. I feel that the status of WP:AP needs to be clarified and some procedures for changing this policy by community consensus need to be adopted. It may perhaps be necessary to set some higher bars and a more restrictive process for changing WP:AP than we do for regular policies, e.g. actually requiring some sort of a vote and perhaps allowing only the bureaucrats to actually edit the page or something of the sort. However, I see no compelling reason for continuing the current practice where the community at large cannot affect changes in WP:AP. Unlike the privacy policy or, say, WP:NLT, arbitration is not a Foundation issue but an internal WP issue and Wikipedia community should be able to change WP:AP through a regular policy-changing process; in fact the recent events demonstrate the need for the community to have such ability. (And, incidentally, WP:NLT, which arguably may need to be more directly controlled by WMF, is actually subject to the regular community approval/change process). So the situation where only the arbitrators and Jimbo are apparently allowed to change WP:AP is both illogical and unacceptable. Nsk92 (talk) 02:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
3. My principal reason for proposing the suspension or closure of this RFC was that it's putting the cart before the horse. Get consensus on a method of changing the arbitration policy first, then we'll be in a position to propose changes in the policy. --Jenny 08:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Aye. Hiding T 10:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
5. Excellent point. John Carter (talk) 23:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
6. Concur. --Regents Park (sink with the skaters) 13:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
7. --TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 20:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

View by Nsk92

No secret votes

While it may be necessary for a portion of ArbCom discussions to occur in private (e.g. where privacy considerations and rela-life identities of some parties are concerned), the actual votes on all the ArbCom decisions by the ArbCom members must always be made in public, with the signatures of the arbitrators attached and available for verification through the history log. This way we will know exactly who voted and how, and there will be no room for speculation, error, rumor, misunderstanding, etc. I can see no plausible scenario under which an exception to this principle might concievably be warranted.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Nsk92 (talk) 10:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
2. DuncanHill (talk) 10:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
3. Agree, all people signing a decision should be known Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Endorse.Kww (talk) 02:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
5. Absolutely. — Athaenara ✉ 06:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
6. Aye. Part of the accountability process. Hiding T 10:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
7. --Michael X the White (talk) 16:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
8. rootology (T) 16:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
9. If we don't know who's doing what, there's no way we can evaluate a given arbitrator's performance keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 13:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
10. A no-brainer! --Regents Park (sink with the skaters) 13:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
11. --TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 20:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
12. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 20:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
13. If I haven't already endorsed some version of this elsewhere, again for emphasis. Amerique^dialectics 20:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
14. Even in a secret case, the proposed decision should be voted on publicly. Arbitrators must be free in that public vote to propose alternatives that they believe from the private conversation will fail to garner majority support. GRBerry 14:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
15. Agree without qualification. Vassyana (talk) 01:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
16. -- Ned Scott 05:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

No new policy from ArbCom

While this point has already be made above, a number of issues require further elaboration. The proper role of the ArbCom is to settle disputes and to enforce the existing policy, not to create new one. Apart from anything else, they are too small of a group with too much workload on their hands to go through the necessary nitty-gritty of policymaking, where prolonged and in-depth discussions, with wide community participation, are necessary. Moreover, and crucially, there is no mechanism for reconciling potential conflicts and differences between the policies adopted/changed by the community through the regular policy making process and between policies adopted by ArbCom. Which ones are going to take precedence, who is going to decide on this, and how, etc? Suppose an ArbCom makes some kind of a policy decision (say regarding WP:V) and subsequently WP:V is modified by the community in a way that contradicts the ArbCom's decision. What are we to do then? Creating two independent and co-equal policy-making authorities (the community and the ArbCom) is a sure recipe for disaster.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Nsk92 (talk) 10:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who partially endorse this summary:

1. I'd rather say that any changes to policy implemented by arbcom should be counted as just that - changes to policy. These may then be edited or modified just like any other change to policy. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Except in exceptional circumstances, no taking the case to voting before a week has passed (Shoemaker's Holiday (talk))

In MatthewHoffman, Durova, the new Giano case, and too many to count, the arbcom have engaged in an unseemly rush to voting on proposed decisions before named parties could provide their evidence. This prejudices the case, and circumvents due process for the users concerned.

This is inappropriate: The Arbcom must give due time for all parties to provide evidence, and not presume they can judge things in absentia of one party's input. As such, except where the Arbcom can provide a clear, convincing reason why the case must be settled more quickly, a moratorium on creating proposed decisions in the first week the case is open MUST be maintained.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
2. support the committee also holds the option of temporary injunctions if they see a matter as immediately troublesome. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
3. New evidence can be presented in that time. TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 02:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment on above:

1. The voting noted above is for the (non)acceptance of a case, and I do not think that it is prejudicial to vote for (non)acceptance at an early stage - and I have seen cases where Arbs have changed their vote as more evidence comes to light. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

   Sorry, I wasn't clear: I meant the voting and preparation of Proposed decisions after the case is opened. Edited for clarity.Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

View by User:Hiding

The Arbitration Committee can get away with what the community let's them. The community holds the power which the Arbitration Committee wields. Moreover, arbitration should provide a binding solution. If cases are being revisited shortly after closing, arbitration is failing to provide binding decisions. The community has to decide whether it will respect the Arbitration Committee's decisions, accept them as binding and act accordingly, else the committee is a dead duck. Likewise, the committee needs to frame its decisions based on the core principles Wikipedia has, that we decide things through consensus, we don't like people who are dicking around, and we don't want people who are attempting to push a point of view. If we accept that compact between the community and the committee, we won;t go far wrong. If the committee or the community disrespects that power sharing basis, it's a dead duck. Arb-Com has no power to create policy. It has every power to enforce the eminently sensible policies that we already have. Hiding T 08:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 20:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

View by User:KeithTyler 2

1. Arbitration Committee may not change any of its own rules. That should be done by the community. The arbitrations committee's interpretation of its own rules is not binding; clarifications based on those interpretations do not reflect consensus.
2. There needs to be clear guidelines on recusals that are adhered to. An arbitrator can not simply treat a preexisting involvement or CoE or preconceived POV as an opportunity to recuse; but as an obligation to recuse. "I choose not to recuse myself" is not an acceptable decision; "I see no reason to recuse myself" is the only defensible position -- and one which should be open to dispute.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Keith D. Tyler ¶ 21:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Unsure about 1., since WP rules, policies etc are generally descriptive rather than prescriptive, and thus should be a codification of an evolving process - although the engine should be the communities requirements of ArbCom than the Committees determination of its own function. Absolutely agree on 2., though. A recusal request to an Arb needs to be succesfully challenged for it not to be effected. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

View by User:Dlabtot

One of the five pillars of Wikipedia is: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. This certainly should apply to the Arbitration Committee.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Dlabtot (talk) 05:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
2. --TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 20:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

View by John Carter

There are regular, reasonable, statements that we should try to avoid bureaucracy. In a sense, however, we already have a degree of bureaucracy, simply informal bureaucracy. Almost all of the various administrator noticeboards could be called, in effect, a form of bureaucracy. Perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea to perhaps add sections to the various noticeboards where the "regulars" could, as it were, rate each others' performance, maybe by something like informal "senior partner", "junior partner", or "associate" rankings. Also, as a citizen of the US, and thus used to bureaucracy, I wouldn't mind potentially changing the names of the noticeboards to something including "Committee", even if they are only informal committees. I do think the more "official" sound of that term might be one of the reasons people so quickly seek the more formal-sounding ArbCom.
We also, in effect, have four aspects of arbitration, including the noticeboards and similar, the Mediation Committee, the ArbCom itself, and Arbitration Enforcement. It might be reasonable to arrange a form of informal hierarchy among these entities. Thus, in effect, the noticeboards would be effectively the lowest level of scrutiny, the Mediation Committee and some other group, possibly ArbCom, possibly not, the "appeals" level for the noticeboards and the like, and some entity, possibly ArbCom possibly not, the "final" appeal, the equivalent of the Supreme Court, and AE what it basically already is, probation/parole. It might even be possible to arrange some sort of "preloaded" form to be filled out and then transcluded into the various noticeboards and whatever as appropriate. This would allow for easier tracking of such matters. Such a more formal setup might also make it easier for editors to choose individuals for the appeals entities, as the more clearly defined lower levels would allow for a bit more responsibility there. The "senior partners", or more respected contributors to a noticeboard, would be among the best and most likely to be confirmed candidates for the appeals committees, thus ensuring that there wouldn't be some rather unlikely selection of poorly qualified arbs. It would also make it easier to fill vacant positions on the appeals entities if and when such vacancies occurred.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. John Carter (talk) 19:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

View by SirFozzie

Ok, one thing I see that needs to change is that when a case hits the ArbCom, the socks come out and play, For many of our more active administrators/users, if a case that even peripherally involves them, then everyone who has a grudge to repay comes out of the woodwork, making accussations against that administrators,and attempting to drag the case off-topic, or worse yet, into the mud. (case in point, the WMC ArbCom case, where multiple socks of users who have clashed with WMC over past articles relating to Global Warming have shown up accusing WMC of all kinds of misdeeds, but will not let us know who they really are, so we can judge for ourselves the past issues). So how do we handle these socks with a grudge? (grudgesocks?)

Solutions for this can be varied:

A) Making ArbCom pages by default be semi-protected (locks out the newly-formed grudgesocks). The talk page would not be semi-protected normally. If a Grudgesock absolutely has to submit evidence or workshops, they can do so by emailing the Arbitrators mailing list, or working through an ArbCom clerk.

B) If in the eyes of the clerk of a case (or ArbCom), one of the users is making accusations based on past interactions, but refuses to declare the name under which past interactions took place, the ArbCom clerk/member can strike the section of workshop/proposals, or remove it entirely.

C) Anyone who participates in an ArbCom case should be ready to provide their bona fides (a list of past accounts, etcetera), on request of ArbCom. Anyone who is unwilling/unable to do so will have their sections removed from the ArbCom case until such time as they comply with the ArbCom request.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. SirFozzie (talk) 21:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
2. See related decision by ArbCom, plus there is discussion at WP:SOCK here on whether to update that policy. Merzbow (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
3. I note that the ArbCom has already acknowledged (further down this page) that they will accept submissions by email from parties who wish to avoid fomenting drama by posting on-wiki. There's no need whatsoever for any editor to create a sockpuppet to contribute to an Arbitration 'invisibly', unless their goal is to take cheap, cowardly shots from the gallery and generate additional conflict and suspicion. Far better for them to present their concerns - honestly and in their own name - by email. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
4. I view this as a real problem, but one we, ourselves, can fix. We're admins (many of us) - just handle these socks as you would any other obvious, disruptive sock. Block, revert, ignore. There's clear precedent to support this in projectspace. It's not that simple, but it could be. MastCell ^Talk 21:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who oppose this summary:

1. First, this isn't even really relevant to this discussion at hand, which is about the entity, not about the community parts of the process that it involves itself in. Even that aside; there's a big risk here in trusting someone else to post your evidence for you; you have no assurances that the Arbitration Committee is going to look at it, and you have no assurances that the clerk is going to post it for you. Since you can't post it yourself, you're in a very precarious position in an environment of systematic bias. If you have evidence to share, you should be able to share it; above all else, that is one of the most important elements of a trial, and throwing it away for any reason is an absolutely terrible idea that opens the door considerably for corruption to take in; that door is already wide enough, I don't think we need it to open any more. If there are problems with socks, continue the normal practices. They seem to have worked so far. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

View by a user

This is a summary written by any active user. In the interests of conciseness, and to get a clear and hopefully uncluttered feel of the community, please leave shorter individual statements in the appropriate topic section, rather than one long condensed statement. This will allow users to endorse specific aspects more easily.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

The Arbitration Committee and scaling

When the AC was first created, Wikipedia was a much smaller place. Today, Wikipedia is a Top 10 website, and continues to grow all the time. There will soon be 2,000 administrators, and ever more users. This section will be for statements, ideas, and suggestions specifically for how the AC can deal with problems of scaling to the ever-growing size, ever-growing requests for cases, and ever-growing case load.

View by a User:Barberio

The arbitration committee currently lacks the manpower and time to address all issues brought to it in a timely manner. Many arbitration cases may have been concluded without voting arbitrators investigating all the evidence presented. Paradoxically, recent attempts have been made to merge cases together, providing large omnibus cases with too much evidence to present and too wide a scope. This has resulted in a large drift between what a case presents to the arbitration committee, and what they finally rule on. This is likely a symptom of the lack of manpower and time to address all cases in full.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --Barberio (talk) 14:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
2. --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Users who oppose this summary:

1. It has nothing to do with manpower - this question has been responded to on multiple occasions by members of the Committee. My reasoning can be found at the page where someone made a proposal for a new arbitrator. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Agreed. The rate of new Arbcom cases shows no obvious trend for growth: as noted elsewhere, despite "no precedent" clauses the admin community is learning from Arbcom case history issuing (usually) appropriate blocks without involving Arbcom. Moreover, the editing community is no longer growing exponentially. Will we really soon have 2000 admins? That would be 20% of those on EN:WP eligible to vote for the WMF board, and the standard at WP:RFA is much tougher than that. PaddyLeahy (talk) 19:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
3. There have been chronic complaints that arbitration takes too long. It can be protracted, true, but it can also move very fast when it needs to. Most cases for arbitration aren't at all urgent, and getting the right decision is more important than beating the clock. Manpower doesn't seem to be a problem since the quotas were topped up and the clerks were introduced in early 2006. From what I've seen, evidence is considered but unrealistic expectations often arise--that is, a number of observers may get an inaccurate view of what the case is about. In highly contentious cases, of which there are an increasing proportion as time passes and the community gets better at resolving piddling small disputes, there will always be a substantial faction that feels arbcom didn't give appropriate weight to the evidence. Editors must train themselves to be realistic in their expectations. Arbitrators aren't psychic, they don't like rambling sheaves of evidence they are not obliged to take the community's opinion of a case into account. A case only reaches arbcom because the community has failed in its task of avoiding or resolving disputes, so it's hardly surprising if the problem occasionally relates to inappropriate framing of the dispute. --Jenny 08:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

View by User:JeanLatore

Timeliness of the rulings is subjective. If the Arb com takes several months to over a year to decide a case, what's the big deal? Except in cases where emergency action is needed, we should let them take as long as they need, as long as their final rulings are logical and well-supported by research and deliberation.

Furthermore, as Wikipedia has grown over the last few years, I don't think it has fundamentally gotten more complex. Therefore, our administration processes need not grow more complex just because Wikipedia is getting larger. JeanLatore (talk) 17:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: User:JeanLatore has been blocked indefinitely for persistent disruptions and for admitting to being a sock for the previously banned User:Wiki_brah. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive443#Persistent disruptions by User:JeanLatore. Nsk92 (talk) 13:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who support this summary:

1. I agree with the sentiment but I don't want arbitration cases to last "up to a year". We're a long, long way from that scenario. I agree with the statement about the problems being solvable by the existign machinery. Given a bit of ingenuity, that is. --Jenny 08:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who oppose this summary:

1. hbdragon88 (talk) 22:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC) If the ArbCom waits too long to act on a case, the dispute may get worse or editors may leave, etc. making the case worthless. What constitutes an "emergency"? There have only been two: Pedophilia userbox wheel war and Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war. Some are very long-term simmering disputes that need timely intervention before the dispute gets too bad.
2. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Cases that reach ArbCom are by definition those too involved and rancorous to be sorted out by the action of individual admins. Letting them stew in Chancery for long periods is likely to lead to extensive collateral damage as affected parties burn out. Choess (talk) 02:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Due to the very nature of the disputes that ArbCom handles, it's very common that there will be little forward progress in a given area (usually an article) until a resolution is provided. Having articles and editors in a state of disarray and confusion for up to a year is clearly undesireable if there is any reasonable way for matters to be resolved more quickly. Doc Tropics 17:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Counter-view by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk)

In the recent Homeopathy case, Dana Ullman continued to be disruptive throughout the case, which dragged on for months, presumably because of the Sourcing Adjucation Committee proposal tied to it. Indeed, it appears that his ban (and a welcome step-back from the strange "had been active on the page one year before" definition of "involved administrator" set up in MatthewHoffman) will be the only substantive results from that case. When you get a highly disruptive editor up before arbcom, he may well continue trolling until such time as stopped, in such cases, delays only cause more people to be driven off - I for one stopped editing Homeopathy over the stress caused. If this was towards some good end, that would be one thing, but in the last year, attempts by arbcom to get wording right have almost completely disappeared, and the version that passes is almost always that which was drawn up by the first admin to write it up, and there is no real attempt to correct early misunderstandings in phrasing, so long as the gist is about right. This most often manifests in motives being assigned to the user being discussed that the Arbcom have no way of knowing, instead of factual statements, or in a statement overstepping the bounds of what the evidence states.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
2. With the probably-necessary "disclaimer" that, naturally, it's best to establish a golden mean between haste and diligence, making sure to give all evidence a thorough and educated examination, while making sure that cases such as Homeopathy and C68-FM-SV don't linger for months with seemingly no activity. --Badger Drink (talk) 04:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
3. The problem with very slow adjudication is that behaviors can be quite bad while the case goes on, and in fact even worse than normal because of the heightened tensions associated with an active open case. For example, in the Homeopathy case, large numbers of editors just walked away from the very unpleasant environment associated with homeopathy articles. This includes both pro-homeopathy editors and pro-mainstream science and pro-mainstream medicine editors; it just became nightmarish. Editors who have never edited controversial articles really have no basis on which to judge how unpleasant things can become. And for a website dependent on volunteer labor, actively driving away contributors is not what Wikipedia should be doing, and it cannot afford to do so ad infinitum.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Guettarda (talk) 16:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Users who at one point were slightly confused:

1. In the spirit of getting wordings right, could you verify that the above text, "Indeed, it appears that his ban (and welcome a step-back from the strange . . ." should in fact read as "Indeed, it appears that his ban (and a welcome step-back from the strange . . .)"? --Badger Drink (talk) 02:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

   Fixed. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

   Endorsed. --Badger Drink (talk) 04:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Users who can't make sense of this summary:

1. I see that Dana was blocked for nearly three weeks a community topic ban in late May, about a month after the case opened, and unblocked in June after being warned about the terms of the ban. Didn't that resolve the disruption? As far as I can tell User:DanaUllman made only one edit in the whole of June, and that was to User talk:DanaUllman. Was sock puppetry involved? --Jenny 08:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

   That had nothing whatsoever to do with Arbcom, and much more with him going so far over the top (Insisting to another person that that person agreed with him, and using selective quoting to change the meaning of said person's statement) that an admin finally stepped in. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

View by Tony Sidaway (3)

The problems, such as they are, lie primarily within the community and the way it has failed to handle the problems facing the encyclopedia. The most important issue facing the encyclopedia dwarfs any community problems we might have: the reliability of our articles. The articles will exist long after this community has dissolved; they are the sole purpose for the existence of the community, and the community must always be secondary to the quality of the encyclopedia.

We have a policy stating that our articles, particularly on living people, must be written to the highest standards, but many editors still haven't woken up to this, and they treat the biographies of living persons policy (BLP) as an imposition or an optional extra, or something to be overturned. This has led to misperceptions within the community, which the arbitration committee has sought to remedy in the past (see for instance the Badlydrawnjeff case)). But the problems remain, and the Committee now grants the broadest possible remit to uninvolved administrators enforcing that policy anywhere on Wikipedia.

There has been a backlash, and as ever, misinformation and ignorance prevail. The problem is seen as a community issue when it is one of encyclopedic quality. But the new provision is largely simply a statement of intent: all members of the community now know, and cannot pretend that they don't, how seriously the Committee takes breaches of the BLP. Behind all the complaints that "new policy" is being made, there is an air of bewilderment: the bewilderment that the Wikipedia some people thought they'd signed up for is not the one they find themselves in. It isn't a free-for-all, and we don't get to set our own editing standards. We are being held to the highest standards because of a policy that demands it and an arbitration committee that means to use all of its powers to see it enforced.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Jenny 23:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Yes for BLP, but doesn't address scaling of the committee in any way? The community can't be broken, since they chose the committee. rootology (T) 23:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
3. I broadly agree with the statement above but I think that Tony is being far too polite in his characterization. CIreland (talk) 01:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Well said. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who oppose this summary:

1. If, as the writer asserts, the community has failed with regards to BLP, then the appropriate change of policy would come from the OFFICE, not from a group of editors elected to handle singles cases of dispute resolution. While BLPSE may help the encyclopedia in the long run once common sense and the realization that unlimited power is never a good thing prevail and it becomes clear that it should only be used in emergencies, it sets an extremely dangerous precedent; i.e, that a few editors elected to a binding form of medcab who deal with problems between other editors can sidestep community consensus and make broad, sweeping changes to policy. Power is a dangerous thing, and the fewer people that have it, the more dangerous it becomes. While it may pass under the radar now as a community issue, encyclopedic quality depends on the contributions of editors to the project. While it may come as somewhat of a shock to those who spend all their time in the mainspace, stuff doesn't just magically appear here out of nowhere. Someone has to write it. Usually, those someones collectively have a pretty good idea of how stuff should turn out. When they don't, the Foundation is always there, which I trust immensely more than I trust any subset of editors. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

   No, policy enforcement, including enforcement of the BLP, is not the remit of Wikipedia:Office actions, which, coming directly from the Foundation have nothing to do with local Wikipedia policy at all. Whenever there is a dispute over interpretation or enforcement of policy, that's always been an arbcom matter. --Jenny 00:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

   True, but this isn't policy enforcement. This is at most creating new administrative policy and the very least policy modification, specifically BLOCK, moving the regular avenue of appeal out of AN and into AE. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 08:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

2. Strenously oppose Tony Sidaway's alarmist rhetoric. JeanLatore (talk) 01:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
3. See below. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Absolutely not. Tony is missing the point. BLP is always trumped by NPOV. The problem is not that people aren't aware of it, the problem is that some want to use it as a backdoor to slip SPOV into our policies. NPOV is not negotiable, period. --Dragon695 (talk) 23:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose, particularly per Dragon695. Nsk92 (talk) 03:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
6. Oppose, not the role of Arbcom Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
7. Oppose, Tony Sidaway is assigning a situation to the Wikipedia community that does not exist.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 04:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
8. appalling. While Tony Sidaway correctly states the purpose of Wikipedia, his perception of the relationship of the community vs. the arbcom is disconcerting. If this is the view prevalent within the arbcom, it is not surprising it is failing. The arbcom is here to serve the community, not vice versa. The community is learning to route around the arbcom, because of its failure to produce satisfactory results. As long as the community retains a basic sanity, the damage done by a broken arbcom is limited. If the community were to lose its sanity, even a working arbcom couldn't save the project. --dab (𒁳) 07:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
9. One cannot expect arbcom to become experts on any subject, blp or anything else. If BLP is such a problem, an advisory committee would do a far better job of advising on issues without arbitrating content. --Regents Park (paddle with the ducks) 22:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
10. Our founding, core principle is actually located behind door number one, NOT door number two. If BLP and NPOV come into conflict, it is always, in every case, NPOV which should win the day. Sometimes that means articles may contain material we personally find distasteful. Sometimes that means articles will contain material their subjects don't like. We write neutral articles based on the sources available, not puff pieces. Not ever and not for any reason. And on the slight, vanishing chance that this were ever to be changed, it is up to the community, not the Arbitration Committee, to discuss and make such a change (if even such were allowable, NPOV is a non-negotiable Foundation issue, BLP is not.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
11. -- Ned Scott 05:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Counter-view by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) (2)

There are standard methods for creating a new policy, that are well-defined and not particularly difficult. It is entirely within the Arbcom's rights for them to use these methods, but strongly suggest the community pass the proposal - and, indeed, the community would have been likely to listen to them. However, instead, they created policy, and worse, created policy that cannot be modified by anyone but themselves - the exact opposite of the wiki way.

Users who endorse this summary

1. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
2. --Badger Drink (talk) 04:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Sensible Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
4. --TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 20:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who oppose this summary

1. A couple of points here:
   • First, claims that the arbitration committee cannot make policy are not strictly correct--by adopting interpretations of policies the Committee has often substantially changed those policies. The effect is an overwhelmingly benign one, but it doesn't do to pretend that it doesn't exist.
   • Second, no evidence that "they created policy" is presented. Assertion is not proof. The objection here seems to be to the passing of enforcement measures for existing policy, which is in fact one of the Committee's principal tools for resolving disputes that involve user conduct. --Jenny (recently changed username) 19:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Addendum to view above (Shoemaker's Holiday (talk))

The problems caused by delays could be solved by a more sensitive, open arbcom who was willing, and made the effort to take note of problematic behaviour that persists during arbitration, and provided temporary injunctions to stop the most problematic individuals.

Alternatively, the admin community could be more pro-active with dealing with disruption caused by people up at arbcom for the same type of disruption. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Yes, temporary injunctions should be used more widely Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal by User:JeanLatore

ArbCom was last "ratified" in a straw poll taken during one week in April 2004. Wikipedia was much smaller back then. I propose that the ArbCom system undergo re-ratification, as of now, July 2008. If the ratification vote fails, then the community will call the wikipedian equivalent of a Constitutional Convention, to re-write our governance and dispute resolution procedures from scratch. The former abriters and Jimbo's views will be welcome, but will not be binding per se. JeanLatore (talk) 01:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Users who support this view:

Users who oppose this view:

1. The policies and procedures of Wikipedia, including ARBCOM, should be under continual fine-tuning. However, even if the entirety of Wikipedia said "enough" to ARBCOM, and the administrators and others with advanced rights stood by the populace, it's not necessarily grounds to start over from scratch. It would be grounds to sift through and see what could be kept and what should be tossed. In such a case, which by the way won't happen, the solution may be just to ask every ARBCOM member to resign and hold new elections, then work on changing the structure. Also, every year, those voting in ARBCOM elections implicitly endorse the current system. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
2. The idea that the community may have to "re-write our governance" is not currently feasible. The community may have the power to write policy but it long ago lost the ability. (Ironically, the reverse is true of ArbCom.) CIreland (talk) 01:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
3. As FT2 observed in his series of announcements, our community routinely struggles to achieve consensus on any large-scale policy changes. Trying to start over and re-write our governance from scratch is not likely to achieve a generally satisfactory result while this problem remains unresolved. Choess (talk) 02:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Unnecessary and, frankly, ridiculous. --Jenny (recently changed username) 19:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Wikipedia is not a democracy, WMF and Jimbo if they disagree trump the community consensus Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who partially support this view:

1. While it is certainly an admirable thing, and could, if it happened in a fantasy world where there exists objective measurement of subjective arguments and strength of logic, solve a lot of problems, the size of Wikipedia makes this essentially impossible. However, I think ArbCom itself needs a makeover pretty badly. Modifying a few things here and there may be just what we need. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 11:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
2. While I agree with some comments in davidwr's oppose, I think that it would be highly useful to re-analyse a four-year old policy from back when the site was much smaller. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment:

1. We seem to be doing just this, in our responses to Neil's proposals. DGG (talk) 21:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

View by RxS (talk)

As has been pointed out before Wikipedia is a high profile web site. A top ten destination and an influential presence on the Internet. It may be the most accessed encyclopedia in history. As the last stop in dispute resolution, Arbcom wields a lot of power here. When it's nut cutting time, the members of Arbcom are the ones making decisions that affect who edits here, how information is presented and how different points of view are expressed.

The root cause of the latest issue seems to be a disorganized group of people not focusing on the job at hand and at least one member misreading the groups intent. It's time to insist that members of Arbcom stay engaged in the issues before them, act on them in a timely basis and are replaced when they can't fulfill time commitments. They need to act as a organized and professional group that understands that communication is critical both within the group and among Wikipedia in general. No more disappearing acts, no more cases idling for weeks/months...no more dropping bombs like the one over the weekend and leaving. I know they are volunteers, I get that. But even unpaid volunteers in the groups I've been a part of have obligations and requirements, job descriptions that they need to fulfill. There is no reason this should be any different. If the workload is too high then find a replacement, increase the size of the group or restructure. But at this point, Wikipedia is way past the "hey guys let's write an encyclopedia!" stage. Arbcom needs to start acting like that understand that.

Users who endorse this summary:

Users who oppose this summary:

Users who wish to comment on this summary:

1. The first paragraph is well-spoken, and everyone with the power to block or ban a user should keep that in mind at all times. I abstain from comments on the second paragraph, which is the substance of this view. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Well written, for the most part. However, if only hypothetically, Wikipedia should still be at the "hey guys let's write an encyclopedia!" stage. At the end of the day, this is what the project is all about. Most editors, however, have adopted that idea by now, but that is far from unanimous. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 20:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

   I think 90% of Wikipedia editors should still be at that stage, in fact it's probably necessary for them to have that attitude. But at the place Wikipedia finds itself at these days, Arbcom needs to ratchet up the commitment and the professionalism they apply to the role. I'm making a distinction between editing and governance. All editors here need is enthusiasm and a little common sense. Arbcom members need a different kind of commitment. RxS (talk) 04:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

View by a User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom

Before 'opening' a case, the ArbCom (as the final step in the dispute reslution process) should clearly identify in one (or perhaps two) sentances the nature of the dispute that they are attempting to resolve by accepting the case. (i.e. The ArbCom will be addressing the dispute between/among IDENTIFY THE DISPUTANTS regarding NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE DISPUTE.) (The scope can obviously be changed due to new evidence; however, being the final step most evidence should have been surfaced previously.) -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. 'endorse - a clear statement of the purpose of opening the case will help to limit the work of the ArbCom as irrelevant materials will not be brought into the workshop/proposed remedies etc etc. (and if they are, they can be removed by the clerks). It will also give notice to the broader community if the ArbCom is going to be considering remedies that will have far wider scope than would be guessed from the initial filing. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

View by a user

This is a summary written by any active user. In the interests of conciseness, and to get a clear and hopefully uncluttered feel of the community, please leave shorter individual statements in the appropriate topic section, rather than one long condensed statement. This will allow users to endorse specific aspects more easily.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Arbitration Committee change and reform

Views specifically about what you feel should change about the current Arbitration Committee process, and why. Please don't list long winding new processes--be concise, and give summaries. Avoid unique formatting as much as possible. For issues specific to the questions of scaling and case volume, please post your views in the Scaling section above this one.

Views by User:Barberio (2)

Community-Arbitrator

To reduce load to the arbitration committee, the community should appoint 'lower' community-arbitrators, who will hear cases. The make up and operation of these community-arbitrators should be decided by the community. No policy currently bars this, and it does not need the arbitration committee's consent to do so.

As a suggestion, these community-arbitrator committees could hear cases as a panel of three members, chosen on the 'taxi rank' or 'first come first served' principle from a pool of community-arbitrators who are currently accepting cases. Their decisions would be binding, but limited solely to individual user conduct, and appeal would be to the arbitration committee.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --Barberio (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
2. I proposed something similar during my quixotic bid for Arb back in 06. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 21:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Having a "lower court" might help matters, at the moment if the arbcom buggers things over, there is no real appeal. There is also no graceful way for the arbcom to admit they are wrong. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
4. A lower court, or at least a small panel of investigators with the power to collect evidence in a case and encourage mediation prior to bringing it to the full ARBCOM or recommending they refuse the case would help a lot. There is a downside risk that disputes which do reach ARBCOM will be open a longer time overall. Still, I endorse. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
5. I was going to propose something almost identical, but decided I would make sure nobody else beat me to it. I envision rotating membership as well, to combat burnout. --Jaysweet (talk) 02:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
6. Agree with the basic idea, which I first heard about a year ago from a Wikipedian who has my highest respect. Durova^Charge! 06:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
7. As an appellate body only, the ArbCom could take their time to review cases that had already been decided by lower "circuit ArbComs" and select only the cases that were decided wrongly. There is a reason or two that many judicial systems work in this way. Antelan^talk 15:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
8. Agree, except this lower Arbcoms should be a selection of well established editors, not chosen by titles (ie: administrator, arbiter etc.) I think this way all editors can have the opportunity to help with only needing to be established, in good standing and I would also add a verified account (vs. just an IP log in.)--CrohnieGal^Talk 15:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
9. Agree, this seems to be worth more discussion. Doc Tropics 17:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
10. If we continue to grow we would need to have lower courts at some stage. If there would be ten times more cases we cannot expect all arbitrators to read all the cases. We can start it now if we have to start anyway Alex Bakharev (talk)
11. Very soon, the need for several committees and several low courts will be great.Perhaps there should be a "specialisation" of lower courts ( historical, fictional, etc.)--Michael X the White (talk) 17:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
12. Support with the provisos that these individuals would themselves be elected/selected, possibly in the same way as Admins and Arbitrators are currently selected, that failure to recuse in a case where the individual is seen by others as clearly biased or other similar problems might be cause for loss of such status in an expeditious way, and that there be similar regulations on how this group would act as there are to ArbCom and others. John Carter (talk) 23:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
13. Support, but then what would be then differences between the two courts in power? TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 20:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who oppose this summary:

1. JeanLatore (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC). Panel decisions are inherently subject to speculation and second-guessing. If something is important enough to make it to Arb Com, it should be heard by the full Arb com. JeanLatore (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC) I like rotating arbcoms, but not heirarchical ones - agree with preceding. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
3. The argument that existing methods of dispute resolution are being bypassed and being too quickly promoted to RfARB will become more apparent if there was a "lower house" for hearing such matters i.e. other resolution systems will be deprecated by such a process. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Per LHvU, I don't think adding more process is the way to go. Mr.Z-man 03:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Ugh, no. You are either capable of doing the job or you are not. No half-measures. Neıl 龱 10:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
6. Based on mistaken premise that Arbcom is overwhelmed by its workload. PaddyLeahy (talk) 19:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
7. The more committees, the worse, not the better. We have enough problems with one arb com--and I can predict that essentially very issue tried in a subordinate body will lead to an appeal to the full committee. DGG (talk) 23:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
8. No way. No more committees. John Smith's (talk) 11:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
9. Per John Smith. Hiding T 10:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
10. Addition of "pannels" and more organs would just make the procedure even more complex. No, I disagree.--Yannismarou (talk) 11:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
11. Per LessHeard vanU. -- Vision Thing -- 19:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
12. Arbitration should remain an extraordinary step that occurs after the failure of mediation and RfC. -- The_socialist ^talk? 06:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Reduce number of Arbitrators, Shorten Terms

The Arbitration Committee will be made up of nine members, elected in three staggered tranches of three, to serve 18 month terms.

Explanatory text

The current arbitration committee apparently contains members who are not confident in drafting proposals of their own, and this task seems delegated to a minority of arbitrators. In light of this, it seems that the number of seats on the Arbitration Committee exceeds the capability of the community to fill them with people qualified for the role. Those who are qualified seem to burn out very quickly, and become inactive and remain so until the next elections.

To rectify this, the membership should be reduced, so that fewer members are returned in elections. To rectify the problem of burn out, the terms should be reduced, to ensure new replacements for seats that have been essentially vacated.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --Barberio (talk) 22:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Dissent:

1. As you just said not too far above, The arbitration committee currently lacks the manpower and time to address all issues brought to it in a timely manner. Reducing the number of arbitrators would only aggravate this. — CharlotteWebb 13:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Candidates are required to demonstrate their capacity

Candidates for election to the Arbitration Committee are required to demonstrate their capacity to draft opinions and their competency in working with others on Wikipedia.

Explanatory text

Semi-Alternative to the reduction proposal. Let's only elect people who can draft proposals and not alienate the community.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Barberio (talk) 22:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Dissent:

1. This is excellent advice to voters in arbcom elections, but far too subjective to enforce as a policy of "who qualifies for an arbcom seat". — CharlotteWebb 13:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

View by Kelly in regards to ArbCom service

Arbitration Committee members who are unable, for whatever reasons, to devote sufficient time to ArbCom matters should resign their position. In those cases, special elections should be held to select their replacements.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Kelly ^hi! 19:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
2. R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 21:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
3. The quicker the process occurs, the better it will be. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 02:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
4. —Giggy 04:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

   It would be prudent to develop a better system of alternates than "well, these are the guys and gals that Jimbo's lookin' at if any of yew maggots gets kicked off the boat". A better-organized system of alternates (or "understudies") would better accomodate temporary absences (in the range of months), while making the decision to take a leave of absence less drastic for the member making said decision. It's the difference between taking maternity leave and quitting one's job altogether. What's important is that leaves of absence not result in an understaffed ArbCom. --Badger Drink (talk) 05:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC) Branching this off into its own statement, see below. --Badger Drink (talk) 05:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

5. Yes, see my comments just above. But members need to be fully engaged and fulfill the time commitment needed for this role. RxS (talk) 04:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
6. SashaNein (talk) 04:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
7. Agree having to many inactive arbitrators is harmful for the process Alex Bakharev (talk) 15:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
8. --Michael X the White (talk) 09:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
9. Support. Why should we not simply pick the "next-in-line" from the list of runners-up of the last election? Things change fast on the wiki, and I for one wouldn't be comfortable slotting a new arbitrator into the Committee based on election results that have been out-dated as much as half a year or more. It has been done in the past, and worse (ie., unelected appointments), but I just don't think that the current situation of our community can afford such a course of action. No, best to hold another election and do things the proper way -- that way, we know we can be 100% confident in each of our arbitrators... The more backdated the support, the father advanced its value has depreciated, in my mind at least. Anthøny 20:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Users who comment on this summary:

1. Why not just the next highest in the original arbcom election? If they decline, then the next highest etc. More time-effective. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
2. There are a number of situations (mostly revolving around home, family, or work) in which an ArbCom member might reasonably need to take an extended wiki-break, without necessarily giving up their seat. It's a good idea to have mechanisms in place for this kind of situation, but the above suggestion seems both drastic and cumbersome except in extremes. That being said, I agree very strongly with Kelly's central concept that ArbCom should always remain staffed at functional levels in order to ensure that cases can proceed at an appropriate pace and with due consideration. Doc Tropics 17:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Partial - Provided people aren't harrassed into giving up positions because they're not bouncing around all the time, yes. If someone honestly doesn't have the time for it there's nothing wrong with saying so. But don't hand down warnings too fast, otherwise some people may start taking hasty decisions. There needs to be an "official" process for dealing with this that is reasonably private. John Smith's (talk) 11:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

View by Kelly in regards to Jimbo Wales

Jimbo Wales' service in establishing both the Wikipedia community and the Arbitration Committee is recognized and appreciated. However, Wikipedia has moved beyond the point in which one man should have control over the community's actions. Jimbo Wales' role in appointing members of the ArbCom should be revoked, and the authority placed solely with the community.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Kelly ^hi! 20:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
2. I refused to vote for anyone but Giano at the last election on this basis. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
3. R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 20:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Endorse on the basis that time and the community have moved on. DuncanHill (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Naerii 21:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
6. Dragon695 (talk) 21:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
7. Jimbo's personal friends in ArbCom have been part of the problem rather than part of the solution. It's time to move on. --Ghirla^-трёп- 22:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
8. If an Arbcom is to be truly of and for the community, then the community should be the ones who decide its membership. One individual should not have the power to overrule them. RMHED (talk) 22:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
9. Its just more fair. rootology (T) 00:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
10. Tentative support. Has Jimbo ever done anything more drastic than select the top five, though? From my memory of the 2007 elections, the resulting appointments would have been exactly the same if we had gone with a simple vote. --Badger Drink (talk) 00:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

    Note: I have since recalled the Essjay incident, and stand somewhat corrected. --Badger Drink (talk) 06:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

11. Support. Jimbo should have no say in Wikipedia policy anymore. His role as the leading booster of wikipedia to the press raises some real conflict of interest issues with any "admin"-like actions he might make. JeanLatore (talk) 01:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
12. Shoemaker's Holiday: Jimbo pretty much always goes by vote anyway, so it's already a popularity contest. Durova: We can always do what the Italians did... —Giggy 03:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
13. This is also a key issue, in that the Arbs have on occasion completely countermanded community policies to support obvious COIs that Jimbo has, for whatever reason, stuck up for.[10] The outcome of the Mantanmoreland case is one example of how the Arb's fealty to the expressed wishes of "the God-King" allowed a notorious sockpuppeter to walk away from the most prodigious mass of empirical evidence ever assembled against any POV troll in Wikipedia history. Amerique^dialectics 15:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
14. Cla68 (talk) 23:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
15. Obviously Jimbo hasn't used this authority in any questionable way, but there's no real benefit to him keeping it. Jimbo's knowledge of each candidate is probably about equal to that of the typical editor who voted for or against the candidate. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 06:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
16. SashaNein (talk) 04:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
17. Jimbo is no longer involved, and should not make decisions without full awareness of the day-to-day affairs on wiki. Yechiel (Shalom) Editor review 20:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
18. Definitely. Nsk92 (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
19. I agree. It is no more "one-man-show". Appointing members Jimbo wants, may give the impression that he tries to control the ArbCom and "form" the majority, which is suitable for him. "Popularity contest" is flawed, but "one man's rule| is even more flawed. And, Durova, the best check balancing for ArbCom's power are the rules that now per consensus we'll adpot, and the policies that the community will monitor. The unilateral right to dissolve the Committtee without the consent of the Community is also arbitrary IMO at the stage this project has evolved.--Yannismarou (talk) 11:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
20. Support 100%. Much love for Jimbo, nobody would be here if it weren't for him, but we should always progress towards more consensus-building and less absolutism. The only absolute, unquestionable power here should be OFFICE. Arbcom should run in elections (or whatever you'd like to call them) just like admins do. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 08:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
21. Support. No one person should exert too much control over a resource as important as Wikipedia. --Alecmconroy (talk) 12:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
22. Support Jimbo's activity level is not sufficient to maintain his understanding of our community practices, policies, and other norms. He is too far detatched from the process by which the encyclopedia is built to continue functioning. (All this, of course, would be untrue if he had a cleverly disguised sockpuppet that he uses extensively without being detected - but his visible actions in the past couple years make it pretty clear that he actually does lack the necessary understanding.) GRBerry 14:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Users who oppose this summary

1. On the one hand, yes - but on the other hand, that means that Arbcom is determined by popularity contest, which can't be the ideal way. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Bear in mind that under the current structure, Jimbo's ability to dissolve ArbCom is the main check balancing Arbcom's power. Durova^Charge! 00:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

   Perhaps a better check is needed, then? --Badger Drink (talk) 00:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

   The community should and arguably already does have the ability to dissolve Arbcom should it so wish. RMHED (talk) 00:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

   But there is no other mechanism to achieve it. Remember: even the construction of this RFC required considerable innovation. ArbCom was not constructed with provisions for performance review and community-based reform. Durova^Charge! 01:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

   Which is why we should all just ignore it, and the community can create its own replacement (if it deems it necessary) that is actually subject to the community, and a creation of the community. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

   A wonderful idea. However, you would need the support of most of the active administrators, but especially the bureaucrats, who hold the tools to change other people's tool privileges and as such are the people you really have to worry about if we're going to go to war with ArbCom. :P Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 11:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

   So um how do we design this new process for removing arbcoms members? And what happens, when we can't as we almost definitely won't be able to, agree on a way to actually approve this new process? Do we take it to the arbcom or Jimbo? Or do we ask the community to resolve the inability of the community to reach a decision? If you don't get it, we can't create a power vacuum and then work out a way to fill that vacuum when there is a almost 100% chance we won't be able to agree on a way to fill that power vacuum without having to turn to what is now a vacuum to resolve the disputes that arise. Nil Einne (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

3. Agree with Durova. We need to have a clearly defined check on the committee, someone who can act decisively. And the idea that we can get rid of what we have and "work out" something later makes no sense, especially given the current mess. Think about it - the arbcomm is silent. Granted, from what I've heard it's because they are trying to craft a good decision answer rather than a quick one. Not to mention, the committee really isn't set up to rule on itself. Jimbo, on the other hand, has made a pretty clear, direct statement. We're a project to write an encyclopaedia. All the administrative structures exist to further that goal. And the best way to further that goal is to keep the content generators happy and comfortable enough that they continue to generate high-quality content. Once we have the sum total of all knowledge down, then we can move on to phase II: creating the perfect community. Guettarda (talk) 03:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Jimbo is currently our only authoritative form of checks and balances for arbcom. I also believe that Jimbo could easily obtain formal community support, if needed, for the kinds of actions he has/would take. He still remains one of the most trusted and well respected editors of the site, and that's not just because he helped to start it. -- Ned Scott 08:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Agree with preceding. Also Jimbo has an intimate and longitudinal knowledge of the whole shebang which is of great value. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
6. If Jimbo was in touch with the community, he'd be brilliant, he'd stop crap like this happeing, unfortunatly he's spending much of his time at wikia, and doesn't seem to know much of what's going on here.--Serviam (talk) 12:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

   To the contrary, Serviam. I am on the ArbCom mailing list and participate there actively. I am quite aware of what is going on. In the current case, there is this rumor floating around that the ArbCom conducted a secret trial. That is not what happened. There are no secret trials. The ArbCom does often, and quite properly, discuss matters with discretion, as a courtesy to involved parties, and in general this has worked very well all around.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

   Jimbo, are you saying that the Arbitration case on Orangemarlin was not conducted secretly and that Orangemarlin was informed of it and able to offer a defence? DuncanHill (talk) 14:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

   The irony is that we actually, truly don't know if a secret closed ArbCom was held in regards to Orangemarlin -- because the Committee and Jimbo are being so secretive they won't even explain WTF happened on Friday! heh... I for one will continue to AGF to my maximum ability, and hope that all of this will be explained in a way that satisfies (most of) the community's concerns. Maybe they'll explain it all on Monday (please?). Until then, though, we are faced with the reality that the Committee is being secretive about whether they had a secret trial. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

   Agree Durova. I might add that its obvious that Jimbo is in touch with the community, and has shown no move towards unbridled totalitarian decisions/actions.(olive (talk) 16:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC))

7. Put simply, I trust Jimbo more than I trust an indeterminate group of unknown editors when it comes to having oversight and taking appropriate action. This view may change if he ever really screws the pooch, but for now I prefer a benevolent dictatorship : ) Doc Tropics 18:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
8. I agree with Doc Tropics. Better a benign dictator than the tyranny of the mob. --Jenny (recently changed username) 19:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
9. Can't support this. It would appear that the only real check on ArbCom at this time (aside from disgruntlement) is JW. It is doubtful that there can be a Jimbo replacement. R. Baley (talk) 11:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
10. Like it or not, Wikipedia is NOT of the community, it is Jimbo's project. I agree that we need better cehcks on the arbcom, but jimbo's check should be the ultimate. Samuel Sol (talk) 17:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
11. The balance-of-checking power has to rest with someone and Jimbo hasn't done a bad job at it. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 01:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
12. Not without reforming the election process first. Mr.Z-man 20:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
13. Oppose with the open communities polling is dangerous and subject to manipulations, we have to have somebody for the manual control in the cases of emergency Alex Bakharev (talk) 15:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
14. Oppose Let's see how often Jimbo quotes show up anywhere after he no longer holds the stick. I would consider a reformed proposition where Jimbo's destroy functions were still entact.Yeago (talk) 02:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
15. Oppose Jimbo's quasi-sovereign powers are needed as a means of checks and balances against injustice.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 04:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
16. Wikipedia is not yet at the point that it can stand on its own, or only by the users' will. And the ArbCom is an internal force that should still be controllable by Jimbo.--Michael X the White (talk) 09:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
17. Strong oppose per Ned Scott. -- Vision Thing -- 19:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
18. Oppose, Jimbo has already stated on the mailing list that he will be subject to ArbCom judgments if ArbCom should choose to take a case involving him. I believe this is enough. Jimbo has (as one would expect) an intimate knowledge of the project from its very conception to its present day, and that does put him in a very unique position to take the lead when it is required. In practice, he very rarely does so, and mainly does leave things to the community. I think we also occasionally do need someone who can come in and put an end to a deadlock in a critical situation. I would not be willing to support this absent evidence of Jimbo abusing his authority, and none has been presented. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
19. Oppose Ned Scott put it very well. Chillum 20:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who abstain or withhold:

1. I agree with Kelly on every level except for the fact that I don't like any of the alternatives. At this point I do not wish to endorse Jimmy's position, but nor do I want it removed. The checks and balances which hold Jimmy in check still seem to be holding, as Jimmy has yet to bring about his own downfall by opposing the community. Constitutional Monarchy is a flawed piece of poetry, but poetic none the less. We have a pretty witty king, Whose word no man relies on; He never said a foolish thing, Nor ever did a wise one. Hiding T 10:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment
When Wikback.com was functioning I recall we had some discussion on the possible alternatives to Arbcom. I think Kelly Martin may have contributed to the discussion of a jury type system, and there was some debate as to whether jurors should be chosen at random from those suitably experienced in the whole user base (say e.g. those with over 600 edits), or chosen from a panel of self-selected volunteers. IIRC the notion of self-selection was anathema to Kelly. .... Getting back to the notion of an appeal from an egregious decision, whether of Arbcom or of such a jury, it will be relatively simple to institute (as a 'for instance') an administrators appeals committee, say comprising those admins with over 3 years experience (either self-selected, or chosen at random say every 3 months). Perhaps appeals should only to be heard by decision of the committee, etc. Natural justice should always be paramount; transparency helps legitimacy and credibility -- luke (talk) 02:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Unhappy with this. He is one man, but I think he does a good job. I'm concerned that if he were "replaced" with something that didn't work out that change would be irreversable. John Smith's (talk) 11:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

View by Choess regarding evidence

As currently constituted, the ArbCom process offers a structural advantage to the side most willing to compile extensive diffs of others' supposed misbehavior. Attaching investigators to the ArbCom staff to compile all relevant evidence, positive or negative, regarding the actions of parties to the case, could help remedy this. Such evidence would complement that provided by the parties to the case.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Trial balloon for a non-adversarial system — I think the system is sufficiently adversarial as it is. Choess (talk) 03:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

   This is interesting, but I don't know how feasible it would be. Not that the current system really is either. Guettarda (talk) 14:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Users who oppose this summary:

1. First off, if you go digging deep enough, you can find something on anyone. The arbcom has shown no signs that they can demonstrate perspective, looking over contributions as a whole. Also, frankly, the few times the arbcom have created evidence themselves, they have abused this. Have a read-up on the controversy regarding Finding of Fact #9 in the MatthewHoffman case. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Arbcom isn't an adversarial system, although quite often the participants mistake it for one and are disappointed when it doesn't act like one. On the substantive suggestion, as one of the first intake of arbcom clerks I recall that the idea that the clerks would be involved in compiling evidence was vigorously opposed. Any Wikipedian is entitled to submit relevant evidence to a case, so there's no need to give the impression that some evidence compilers are more privileged than others. --Jenny (recently changed username) 19:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Giving too much power to a few individuals - they shouldn't be allowed to shape the arbs' views. John Smith's (talk) 11:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who Mu:

1. If volunteers exist who want to do this, they can compile such evidence today. GRBerry 15:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

View by Badger Drink in regards to ArbCom service

Within the current system of ArbCom appointment, arbitrators faced with lengthy, but temporary, incidents or crises outside of Wikipedia are met with an "all-or-nothing" decision: 1) place their name under "inactive arbitrators", leaving the committee short-handed for a rather palpable length of time, or 2) resign from a position they may be very skilled at (perhaps even enjoy), having to re-gain said position entirely from scratch. While we may acknowledge and even whole-heartedly support the notion that one should be discouraged from seeing such positions as adminship, stewardom, ArbCom, et al as "status symbols", we also realize that arbitrators are, in fact, human beings, and as such are subject to all the foibles foisted upon humanity - namely, the nature of sentimental attachments to their roles and jobs. The current "all-or-nothing" system clashes with this sentimental capacity, resulting in arbitrators staying inactive for months on end so as not to lose their positions (!!), or resulting in profound regrets, heartache, and other troublesome bothers. The current state of affairs with regards to alternates (summed up as, "welp, these here are the guys and gals that Jimbo's lookin' at as replacements for any of yew maggots who gets yerselves kicked off the boat") is severely lacking. A better-organized system of alternates (or "understudies") committed to short-term, case-by-case substitution roles, would better accomodate temporary absences (in the range of months), while making the decision to take a leave of absence less drastically-affecting for all concerned. While the exact mechanics of such a system would, naturally, need to be worked out in more detail, what's most crucial is that leaves of absence need not result in an understaffed ArbCom.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --Badger Drink (talk) 05:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Strong support for this idea! While the details and exact mechanisms would require extensive discussion, there's no real question that this would be a significant benefit to the process overall. Doc Tropics 18:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Why not do it like all Stewards are required to? Here: meta:Steward_policies#Inactivity. You have to participate (in public, voting, discussing) in so many cases per year, and so many in the past six months, or you're removed. Stewards (a more important gig than Arbcom) have to do so many tasks per year and six months I believe or they are stripped of the title. Since the Arbcom day to day may be more urgent, make it that Arbiters have to participate in public (voting) in so many cases per year, and so many per quarter, or 3 months. There are enough people that run each year. If someone is ever removed for inactivity, just "activate" if they're still interested the next person in line with the most votes from the last election to fill out the remainder of the demoted person's post. If that next person is unwilling to do it, move down the line. There will always be enough active arbiters then. If someone is too busy to participate in public by voting and deciding they don't need to be arbiters. rootology (T) 18:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

   The one element that I would like to establish that I'm not sure the Steward process has is making re-appointment after a leave of absence a painless, casual process. This would hopefully discourage "silent disappearances" and arbitrators trying to juggle a caseload when they're really too busy to devote their full attention to pecularities. For example, ArbX mentions in November that he has exams and a vacation coming up, leaving him gone from December until February. He can finish up on the already-opened cases he's committed to while UnderstudyX steps into his slot, taking cases from December until February. Once ArbX returns, UnderstudyX cedes the position, though UnderstudyX continues to remain active on any lingering cases accepted during ArbX's vacation. If another ArbY then needs maternity leave after the return of ArbX, the next Understudy in line can slip in, thus ensuring that the load on understudies is relatively equally-spread. Depending on the exact form, of course, this could also double as a "trial run" for candidates the community isn't quite so sure about (the 55-70% voting range, for instance). --Badger Drink (talk) 19:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

   I whole-heartedly agree with this idea. Not only would it make the arbcom processes more regular and efficient, allowing for holidays and the inevitable RL emergencies, it would also allow for a training of sorts. This would be a great help in elections as potential arbcommers would be able to cite their actions as understudies. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 14:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

4. It's worth thinking about. Not only for smoother, more regular proceedings, and a lighter load on currently active arbitrators, but also in order to lighten their individual weight a bit (which is a burden in itself). Regarding Jenny's opposing comment, perhaps the Committee is well staffed, but there have been signs indicating that the quality of judgement may be suffering because arbitrators can't (or won't) always dedicate the time, scrutiny, and reflection the job requires. Again, something that could be improved by distributing the task among a greater and varying number of trusted individuals. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
5. I think this is an excellent idea. There is a reason why juries in the United States convene with 14 members even though only 12 make the decision. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 12:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
6. I think a system of "understudy" or "alternate" ArbCom members is an excellent idea. I would like to add that perhaps these "junior" members could assist with more participation from ArbCom members on Workshop pages while they may not be actively involved in substituting for an Arbitrator, a task which is understandably onerous for full Arbs who are also trying to sift and review evidence and work on a fair decision, but which would be immensely helpful for better engagement between community and Committee. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who oppose this summary:

1. There is already a system of alternates and I don't think it's necessary to change the current state of affairs. In latter years, indeed, the Committee seems to be well staffed. --Jenny (recently changed username) 19:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Per Jenny. John Smith's (talk) 11:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

View by SirFozzie

I (LaraLove) am posting this on behalf of SirFozzie by e-mail request (sent via Wikipedia interface and confirmed on IRC). This is a straight copy/paste from e-mail, as he wishes to remain on a break.

Reducing Burnout of ArbCom Members:

Right now, an ArbCom term is 3 years.

I dare you to find ANYONE in this world, who can immerse themselves in every single high drama, night mare conflict for that long and NOT burn out.

And to properly do your job as an ArbCom member, you do have to be hip deep in crap, if you'll forgive the saying.

So, what tends to happen and has been happening, is, the newer folks on the ArbCom do all the public facing work and indepth analysis (Kirill is rather recent, NewYorkBrad before he resigned and now FT2) The rest are generally seen by the community as a rubber stamp. They may discuss in the background, but nothing really happens publicly untill one or two people (usually the same one or two people) write a proposed decision, and 95% of the time, the rest of them come in and sign off on the decision.

This also leads to issues like the Episodes and Characters ArbCom case aftermath, where ANY arbitrator speaking up and clarifying terms of a remedy would have avoided weeks of drama later. No Arbitrator spoke up, and the issue at hand devolved, weeks later.

Or the Cla68/SV/FM/JzG monster case, where there was an admission from a sitting arbitrator that no one had really taken a look at the case, weeks into the case, because everyone was doing their own thing with the end of the school year, vacations, etcetera. At any one time, a quarter to a half of the Arbitration Committee is "inactive", and not doing the job they were elected for.

Perhaps reducing ArbCom terms would allow Arbitrators to devote more "energy"/Research into each case, with less risk of burnout.

I would suggest keeping the three staggered arbitrator groups, but reducing an ArbCom term to 12 months (that means elections every 4 months, which is frequent, but not an everyday situation) or 18 months (elections twice a year)

Once you finish a term as an ArbCom member, you have to sit out one election. (To recharge the batteries, reduce chance of burnout)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. I think 18-month terms with bi-annual elections would be good. I'm not sure on sitting out an election. If an Arb remains active throughout their term and wishes to continue, I'm not sure it's best to prevent that. LaraLove|Talk 07:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Viridae^Talk 07:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
3. What Lara said. —Giggy 07:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
4. With the caveats made by Lara. Davewild (talk) 07:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
5. I believe this would greatly benefit both arbcom and the community. -- Ned Scott 08:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
6. Yes, with Lara's proviso. longitudinal experience is extremely valuable. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
7. Agree, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
8. One of arbs said exactly the same about burnout on IRC. While Russian Wikipedia's custom of re-electing arbs twice a year is really extreme, most of them at least remain at least relatively active during their terms. One thing: there should not be more than one election per year, otherwise the distraction due to it will also increase. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 15:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
9. It may also have the side effect of making a couple of Arbs less imperious in their dealings with the hoi polloi (but may also mean that elections are even more of a popularity contest thus discouraging Arbs to make tough but potentially self damaging decisions... hmmm.. on this basis I am going neutral...) LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC) After consideration, I support the principle of reviewing the length of tenure with a view to shortening the period and how to ensure a fluent turnover of qualified arbitrators. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
10. Absolutely. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
11. Very sensible. rootology (T) 16:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
12. Some sort of burnout reduction strategy seems an excellent idea. ++Lar: t/c 18:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
13. While I don't agree with all the details of this suggestion, I do support the idea in general and strongly support further discussion of the topic. Doc Tropics 18:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
14. I'm not endorsing 12- or 18-month appointments, but I wholeheartedly agree with not serving more than 2 years without a break. A 24-month with mandatory break or 12-month with a 2-year term limit would be okay with me. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
15. The exact term is a matter for further discussion, but that it should be shorter than three years is pretty obvious. I have no objection, though, for someone to continue in successive terms if he can, and the community continues to support. The simplest change would simply be to 2 years, with half retiring each time unless reelected, and with people expected to resign if they become inactive,and replace from the previous runners-up if reasonable.DGG (talk) 23:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
16. Good idea. Cla68 (talk) 23:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
17. I think this is smart. I have noticed that once someone becomes an arbitrator, that is usually the last step before permanent burnout. There are exceptions, but it happens far too often: it's the red giant phase before becoming a brown dwarf and dwindling away forever (see No. 59). This proposal is a sensible way to take care of some of our best people; this job has got to be hell. Antandrus (talk) 03:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
18. Works too. Third endorse. Again, anything that helps improve the quality of decisions by reducing the burden. Burnout does seem to be a factor too. I really think a lot of these suggestions here would not only help the encyclopedia, but also improve the peace and tranquility of the individual fellow editors in the ArbCom who might enjoy doing some other work here, from time to time, without neglecting their duties. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
19. With caveats. I don't recognise the arbcom I know in the above description. The likes of James F, Morven, jpgordon and FloNight a rubber stamp? Yikes! That's just ridiculous. The three year term is daunting but those who are going to flake out do so in the first six months or so. Even relatively inactive arbitrators such as Raul654 tend to contribute a necessary balance (I still remember Raul's dissenting comments in the Badlydrawnjeff case, which showed that he was out of sync with the majority of the arbitrators, and I regard that as a good thing, precisely because he's obviously no rubber stamp). Having said that, reducing the term to two years or even one wouldn't do any harm (in practice very few arbitrators have made it through three whole years and I believe the majority haven't even made two). SirFozzie's claim about the Cla68 case is accurate as far as it goes, but the case is hardly an urgent one and all of the parties involved are good, well respected Wikipedians. This isn't like the days of the "Robert the Bruce" case where it was just a matter of bannng a POV pusher. Elections every four months? Impractical. Elections once per year are enough of a pain. Let's compromise at six-to-eight months with two tranches. No "sit out one term" rule--we need all the willing people we can get. --Jenny 03:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

    Umm, Tony/Jenny, please note that Raul654 is not an arbitrator any longer, so your reference to him being an inactive arbitrator seems a bit out of place. Risker (talk) 04:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

    Raul654 still contributes on the Arbcom mailing list; as long as cases are discussed off-Wiki, all former Arbitrators still on the mailing list may as well be considered inactive Arbitrators. Neıl 龱 11:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

    The Badlydrawnjeff case was quite a while ago, and during that case Raul654 was an arbitrator, though not a very active one in most cases. He did however take part in that one, and his comments were very useful. Sorry if my wording confused anybody. --Jenny 11:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

20. As long as the election process is shortened as well. Increasing the size of arbcom may also help. Mr.Z-man 04:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
21. Yes, there are plenty of you out there whom I would trust as Arbitrators; I don't think we'll have a shortage of good hands if we cycle through every 2, 1, or 0.5 years. Antelan^talk 04:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
22. Some variation on the term of office is called for; this is not to criticise but to recognise that there is a world outside of Wikipedia, and that three years of daily exposure to the most drama-infested corners of the encyclopedia is not necessarily healthy. Risker (talk) 04:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
23. I would support anything that reduces burnout. I made an aalternative proposal further down this page. Neıl 龱 11:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
24. I think that reducing the terms is a good idea. I have no opinion on the length or on such things as not being allowed to serve two consecutive terms. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 12:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
25. I agree that the terms should be shorter; burnout is an obvious issue for arbcommers and we need to ensure that our law-lords are fresh-minded enough to be compentent judges. However, the elections should not be frequent enough to make them a popularity contest: if you're only going to serve one 12-month term, rather than a 36-month term with possibilty of re-election, you may be inclined to style over substance in election and self service in term. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 14:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
26. Endorse. Appears to be a productive idea. — _Maggot^Syn 15:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
27. --Cube lurker (talk) 16:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
28. I think 18 months would be a good compromise. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 01:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
29. I prefer the ru.wiki option mentioned above, but this works as well. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
30. Makes sense. If an admin burns out and takes a break from using the tools, it's no big deal. But the Arbs need to maintain a reasonbly high level of activity, because there isn't anyone who can step up and fill their shoes. Shorter terms and more turnover might help. MastCell ^Talk 18:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
31. Endorse, but agree with DGG's comments that so long that it's shorter, the details are less important. I think the intervals between elections should be longer, and electing half of them each year for a two-year term would be fine, or perhaps every six months for an 18 month term, split the tranches in whatever way works best. I think this would work well together with an expansion of the number of arbitrators and division of the committee into smaller numbers of 3-9 arbs considering each case. Noroton (talk) 02:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
32. support - three years are to long Alex Bakharev (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
33. Agree that a three-year term is too long. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
34. Also agree that a three-year term is way too long and any reduction in its length would be an improvement. I am not sure, but a one-year term may be too short, and two years may be better. Nsk92 (talk) 16:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
35. Two years. John Smith's (talk) 11:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
36. I think one year is a good term size. I don't see the point in having elections every four months, though -- why not have them every year as usual but have all sitting arbs who wish to keep their positions stand for reelection? It would mean a few more candidates in each election, but it's not like votes are spread too thin in the status quo -- a couple hundred per candidate is more than enough. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 04:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Struck part o comment per [11] — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 06:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
37. Endorse per Lara: 18-month terms, biannual elections. — Athaenara ✉ 07:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
38. There are the makings of a good idea here. Certainly there should be a break from office, and terms could well be shortened. Hiding T 10:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
39. Basic idea is sound, although the details down the line may well be problematic. John Carter (talk) 23:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
40. Support. I'm just wonderin,g is SirFozzie`s on break, how did he know about this --TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 20:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
41. Sounds good to me. Amerique^dialectics 20:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
42. Endorse view. We need to learn from experience, that the three year term is too long: we've generated a situation where (paradoxically) the harder an arbitrator works, the more likely they are to burn out due to the excessive terms we impose. The proposals by SirFozzie are but two of a number of possibilities, although the 18 month terms seem particularly apt; conversely, the 12 month term seems a little too short. Hopefully adjusting the length of terms of service will drive the arbitrators to act as less of a "rubber stamp" (although, as it happens, such a term is a little harsh; but, the general sentiment is understood) and encourage them to go that 'extra mile' (similar to Newyorkbrad, and the others Fozzie mentions)... Or, perhaps that's analysing a little too much. :) Either way, I agree with the majority of what's said here: it's simply a common sense remedy to the problems facing the current ArbCom set-up. Anthøny 14:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
43. Strongly support with a tweak; I'd suggest a mandatory break for two tranches, whether there are two or three. People often recharge their batteries faster than they drain them. So my preference would be 18 month terms, three tranches every 6 months, and then a 12 month mandatory minimum break. Burnout and lack of new blood appears to be one of the major problems with the committee. Continuity can be provided as needed by former arbitrators commenting publicly. GRBerry 15:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

View by Moreschi

There are some things that work fairly well with ArbCom: many that don't. I'll expand on this in a series of pointers.

• The terms are too long. It's very, very rare to find someone who can consistently handle the stress of being a arbitrator continually arbitrating, and not go slightly mad ("redirect to Clown"). SirFozzie talks well about this.
  • Solution: cut the terms down to one year, or perhaps a year and a half. This would also mean greater accountability.
• ArbCom have too many responsibilities. Ban appeals, checkuser/oversight permissions, emergency desysops, "general sanctions" appeals, clarifications of their cases, requests to alter their cases - it's too much. All this in addition to their regular job of being the final stage of dispute resolution!
  • Solutions: either drastically expand the size of the Committee, or start hiving off some of these responsibilites. Checkuser and oversight, for example - there's no good reason for ArbCom to have the say over who gets these buttons. As on commons, it should be a community vote (not that you'll see me hunting after checkuser - I don't understand IPs well enough). Ban appeals could also be dealt with by a separate body, as I see FT2 has suggested. Again, you won't catch me on this body - what a boring job it sounds - but at least it's a step in the right direction.
• ArbCom take too many cases. This is usually due to the failure of the community to properly solve problems on ANI and such places. See the kerfuffle surrounding User:Dzonatas for a classic example. In that instance, Durova felt compelled to go to ArbCom because nobody had even commented at ANI, because Dzonatas had posted heaps of confusing rubbish. It was only at RFAR that, because everyone's posts where in nicely segregated sections, that I was able to see that Durova was quite correct and Dzonatas had no case and needed to be kicked out.
  • Solutions: I suggest altering the format of ANI and AN to make posting there something a good deal more formal, a cross between the format of RFCs and RFAR, with a distinct "no posting in my section" rule. Admins need to be far more enterprising in using their tools and trying to save ArbCom cases.
• And, finally, pretty much everything Dbachmann says here, but in particular these points:

“

• arbitration can only have the purpose to resolve such disputes to the benefit of the project, that is, towards encyclopedicity.
• in general, this will mean that the arbcom will need to judge which user has presented a better case in terms of representation of academic mainstream. This does not mean the arbcom needs to research a topic on their own, but it does mean they need to familiarize themselves with the topic sufficiently to be able to make such a judgement. From this it follows that arbitrators should have some minimal academic background.
• resolving a dispute for the benefit of the project has two aspects: (a) Wikipedia:Expert retention and (b) maintenance of a sane and friendly editing atmosphere. These aims will often, but not always co-incide. An expert who does not respect basic Wikipedia procedures may need have sanctions imposed on them. Conversely, sanctions will need to be taken against a pusher of a minority pov or ideology who makes semblance of adhering to policy but is in fact found to misuse policy to draw out a dispute ad infinitum long after it has been shown that they have no substantial case, even if they are not in blatant violation of policy (if they were, admins would have tackled the case before arbitration, see above).
• Experts throwing temper tantrums will mostly be handled at admin level. The arbcom needs to recognize that most cases that land on their desk require an effort to recognize wikilawyering and filibustering, viz., dishonest editors or bona fide ideologists who abuse Wikipedia procedures as a substitute for their not having a case. In this sense, the arbcom does need to review content. It is in fact their main task.
• Arbitrators just lazily reviewing "evidence" presented by filibustering partisans without bothering to establish the actual context are not fulfilling their function, and may in some cases have a counter-productive effect, viz. (a) driving away experts and (b) enabling trolls and forum-shoppers.
• many arbitration cases are not brought to a satisfactory conclusion because the arbcom restricts itself to point out the obvious (things that could very well be handled by the community on WP:AN without arbcom involvement) but shuns away from uncovering the actual background of a case. This is understandable, because it would increase the workload on each arbitrator per case.
• an amelioration could be achieved by the arbcom accepting fewer cases (rejecting those that can be handled on admin / community level), and instead investing more time in each case they do accept.

”

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC) sanity has to prevail rather than mob rule. I can see real problems with fringe material if it is very popular. (and suggestion below is good,let's not have a scary AN/I...)
2. Endorse all but the part about formalizing AN and AN/I. Noticeboards shouldn't be intimidating or complex. If complex cases arise where such a format is necessary, it should either be directed to RFC or perhaps a similar format produced on a subpage of AN/I. LaraLove|Talk 15:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Endorse as per LaraLove. One obvious solution is to double the size of ArbCom and enable arbitrators to divvy up the work in a less stressful way allowing each one more time to consider things in depth.Fainites ^barley 19:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Endorse. Such as the Supreme Court not taking every case they can, just the ones that would illustrate important points. JeanLatore (talk) 01:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Endorse. Basically everything that will reduce the load and fatigue on individual arbitrators promises improvement, more depth and focused competence on arbitrating where a dispute couldn't be resolved otherwise. Less side tasks. And less carelessness. Not sure about the AN/ANI thingy, or admins being more enterprising in general (not even sure I understand it), but I'm endorsing the other 88% of this statement. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
6. Endorse, although I think AN and ANI are fine as they are (yes, they're a pain, but they're a easy go-to place, which we need, and I'm not convinced they need to be formalised -- yet.) Antandrus (talk) 03:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
7. Endorse, though I think a restructure of RFC would be better than a restructure of ANI. Mr.Z-man 04:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
8. Partial endorse -- I think making AN more structured is a bad idea (more distracting junk text to skip through), but I agree with the rest. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 07:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
9. These "solutions" can be improved upon as others have suggested here but they are definitely a step in the right direction. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 01:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
10. Mostly endorse some points need commenting I would do it tomorrow Alex Bakharev (talk)
11. Endorse: terms too long, too many disparate responsibilities, too many cases, endemic laziness / indifference / burnout ... — Athaenara ✉ 07:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Endorse.--TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 20:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who wish to comment on this summary:

1. Moreschi makes some great points, the problem is there are just too many of them. In a variation of "too long; didn't read", this is too long to reasonably reply to on a point-by-point basis and still keep the discussion coherent. While I agree with and support several of these ideas, there are a couple (including that pointed out by LaraLove, above), that I don't agree with. I'd really like to see the original post broken up into seperate sections (on this page or elsewhere) so that they could be dealth with individually, which they deserve. Note that at least a couple of these are already being handled individually elsewhere on this page, like the suggestion to shorten term lengths in order to minimize burn-out. Doc Tropics 19:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
2. I'm with Doc here, from my review of the summary it appears some matters are already considered in part or in whole in other peoples summaries - where an endorsement may be used to clarify any minor difference - while there are still too many original points for me to want to endorse (or oppose) in totality. I am too aware of my own verbosity to wish to inflict a detailed response in any circumstance. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Totally wrong at oat least one major point, that "arbcom will need to judge which user has presented a better case in terms of representation of academic mainstream." That is none of arb coms business, and, in fact, not the business of wikipedia in the first pace. We are NPOV, not SPOV or APOV. there is nothing sacred about the academic mainstream, as I well know, having devoted a career to it. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, is the sort of site that represents and ought to represent the academic mainstream. We represent the full range of responsible views, in proportion to their importance in the overall framework of the subject. We are furthermore totally and incapable of judging either academic consensus, or who presents it better. The academic world has enough blatant and obvious difficulties with it, even though the entire complex publication and rewards system there is devoted to doing just that. Why do we think we can do it better? People wanting the academic consensus should seek academic sources--where on disputed subjects they are very likely to find there is not quite as much consensus as they imagine. Anyway, most of what we talk about has very little to do with the academic world altogether. You're not going to find an academic consensus on nationalist conflicts. The academic consensus on homeopathy is pretty solid--the question is how much weight to give the small but vocal number of convinced proponents, and that's a question of proportion for the encyclopedia which no academic investigations are going to help with. Andthe entire idea is philosophically and ethically rather retrograde--it amounts to an appeal to authority. 23:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Agree with Doc and LessHeard vanU. Moreschi: Please look over what you propose, and re-submit those which are not already being discussed elsewhere so we can comment on them individually. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
5. Per Doc. Some I agree. Some not. I cannot endorse as a whole.--Yannismarou (talk) 11:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

View by LessHeard vanU

The Proposed Final Decisions, Findings of Fact and Solutions that gain a sizeable majority of support in the Workshop must be adopted in the Proposed Decision page and voted upon by the Arbs, if there is to be any apparent use for the Workshop. It is extremely frustrating to find the good faith efforts of participants being disregarded by Committee members whose own wordings might not cover the breadth of concerns conveyed by the community, and the solutions considered. This is not to say Arbs cannot vote down these proposals, but they will be shown as having been considered.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Makes sense for the arbs to do what the community wants if there is wide support. rootology (T) 16:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Agree in general, but would put more positive emphasis in the last sentence, ie: "Arbs can always vote down any proposal, provided they have given it due consideration." ....just for the sake of clarity. Doc Tropics 19:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Endorse surely this is what should always have been done? DuncanHill (talk) 19:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 13:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
6. Strongly, strongly support this. Neıl 龱 13:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
7. —Giggy 13:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
8. Workshop is broken as it stands. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
9. Excellent idea; helps to cement the mediation powers of the community, prevent the power of ArbCom from falling where it doesn't need to fall... I like it. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who oppose this summary:

1. Arbcom resolves the cases the community has been unable to resolve. If there were consensus on the workshop, the Committee could close the case without action and berate the participants for wasting their time when an RFC would have done the job. Workshop pages are useful for generating ideas and encouraging community involvement in the resolution of the case, but that's all they're for. The Community doesn't go around telling arbcom what motions to table or how to resolve a case. If the Community could do that it wouldn't need arbcom at all. --Jenny 23:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
2. When it comes down to it, that would just encourage people to shout louder. Workshop pages devolve into useless messes anyway. This would just make them worse. Guettarda (talk) 08:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

   Then I would question the need for community participation in the Workshop, in which case... Close it down!? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

3. I saw cases there a group of editors were proposing massive amounts of absurd points on the workshop. There is no way Arbcom should vote it all Alex Bakharev (talk) 15:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

   Which is why I noted that only proposals with a good majority of support might be included. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

4. Great idea, but I think too potentially problematic. Sounds a bit like a popularity contest. Again, don't put pressure on the arbitrators. No one has to like a "judge"'s decision - they do what they think is proper in regards to Wikipedia rules. John Smith's (talk) 11:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

View by xDanielx

I think the shortcomings of the arbitration system can mostly be attributed to a couple easily-remedied problems:

• three-year terms are far too long, and
• keeping former arbitrators on the mailing list is problematic.

Essentially, the current practice is that unless an arbitrator does something outrageous, he or she serves for three years and retains a privileged position of influence indefinitely. Unfortunately, while elected arbitrators are highly trusted and respected community members, their behavior tends to follow a downward trend.

The results of the last election make this rather evident -- only one of five incumbent and twenty three former arbitrators sought reelection, and even Raul wasn't successful with his bid. Though we'll never know for sure, I'm fairly certain that none of the other twenty six would have been successful had they sought reelection.

Perhaps it's the systematic lack of accountability, or perhaps the disconnectedness that results from devoting so much time to a narrow, isolated area of the wiki. In any case, the remedy is a simple one. We should have all incumbent arbitrators stand for annual reelection (if they wish to continue serving), not just a third of them. It would mean about five additional candidates per election, but since candidates typically receive hundreds of votes, spreading out the vote distribution would not be a problem -- the sample size would still be more than adequate. We should also abrogate the traditional policy of keeping former arbitrators on the committee mailing list, or at least create a new list for current arbitrators only. (The latter was suggested some time ago at met with a rough consensus, but the proposal has yet to be enacted.)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 07:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Neıl 龱 14:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
3. — _Maggot^Syn 14:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Make sense though some sort of continuity is preferential. Maybe 18 month terms in three transhes would work Alex Bakharev (talk) 15:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Various suggestions by Neil

Moreschi, above, has identified one of the root problems. Arbcom has been unable to scale itself to the community, I believe due to the increase in size of the community, but also due to its maturation; it's not "the same as it was three years ago but twice as big". Things have changed, a lot, and Arbcom hasn't.

Arbcom is becoming increasingly more incompatible with the community it is supposed to serve. We need some form of higher dispute resolution beyond RFC, so let's operate on the assumption we need some form of Arbitration Committee, and there's plenty of evidence that the current one is not fit for purpose in the present day.

So, how can Arbcom change? I have borrowed an idea or two from above and fiddled with them, and added my own. I have split them into subheadings, as of course some ideas may be good, some may be bad. For clarity, and because some follow on from one another, I have put my suggestions together, rather than spatter them throughout this RFC.

I. Expansion

The three current Tranches are expanded from 5 members to 7. An additional Tranche Delta is created.

My thinking: The Arbcom is too small. More members are needed - presently we have just eleven active arbitrators. We need more. I suggest the simplest and most efficient way to address this is to expand the arbitrator Tranches, and add a further one.

I suggest an election be held as soon as is realistically possible, with each Tranche expanded from five Arbitrators to seven, and a further Tranche appointed (Tranche Delta). This would require 14 new arb appointeeships; 2 each for Tranches Gamma and Beta, 3 for Tranche Alpha (the extra one to replace Newyorkbrad) and 7 for the new Tranche Delta. The simplest way would be to appoint the 14 candidates with the highest percentage of votes.

This will give us a maximum of 28 Arbitrators rather than 15. This would still not be too unwieldy. If this still proves insufficient, we can always add a further Tranche.

I am aware the Arbcom has stated on numerous occasions that they do not need more Arbitrators; this ought not to be their decision to make, and the preponderance of evidence is that despite their protests, too many cases take too long to resolve, and receive insufficient Arbitrator scrutiny.

Users who endorse this suggestion:

1. Neıl 龱 10:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 11:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC) I think this is the simplest and most time-effective ways of improving the running of the whole she-bang. (as long as there are smaller teams looking at cases, so longer can be spent on each case and more can be done concurrently. see below)
4. I dunno if we have 28 truly capable people but the idea is a good one. —Giggy 11:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
5. I think expanding the ArbCom is a good idea, but should we have an odd number of people? Otherwise what will happen in case of a tie? Will Jimbo cast the deciding vote like the U.S. Vice-President does in the Senate? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 12:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

   On the day that all 28 arbitrators make a vote, Satan will iceskate to work. As we never have every arbitrator active and acting on a case, roughly fifty percent of current Arbcom decisions are made by an even number of people; this is an unavoidable issue. Neıl 龱 12:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

6. Yes, more arbitrators are needed as various of the sitting ones are too irregular in their public contributions but continue to delay cases by implicitly preventing majorities, even though they never actually participate. This would really need to be worked in with something related to VIII below, though, or you'd soon have arbitrator disinterest and/or burnout even of the new appointees. Splash - tk 12:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
7. As long as the number of arbs on each case is limited. shoy 13:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
8. Endorse a greater number of active arbitrators would not only make speedier action possible, but also expand the experience-base of the committee, which would have a beneficial effect on decision making. DuncanHill (talk) 13:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
9. Endorse per my comments under II, below. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
10. To almost double the number of Arbitrators at once may be a bit much, but certainly there is a need for more, as cases are sitting for months and half our current Arbs are inactive. LaraLove|Talk 14:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
11. I agree with the concept entirely. As Wikipedia gets bigger, the ArbCom needs to expand to handle the growing number of cases. However, I disagree with the idea of a snap election with the top fourteen becoming Arbcommers. It would mean half of the ArbCom were new. I would recommend the immediate election of Tranche Delta. Then after whatever length of time we agree on between elections has passed (see above sections for discussion), the next Tranche for election simply votes in seven instead of the usual five. This staggered approach would delay the sudden influx of inexperienced arbitrators and prevent what would almost certainly be a massively complex election. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 14:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

    If and when the principle (expanding Arbcom to four tranches of seven Arbitrators) is agreed, then exactly how to appoint them is a seperate decision that can be addressed later, but the staggered approach you suggest is an excellent idea. Neıl 龱 15:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

12. Bstone (talk) 15:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
13. No number is set in stone, but more arbs would only be beneficial. — _Maggot^Syn 16:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
14. Support some expansion of the ArbCom, inactivity is a problem sometimes. Davewild (talk) 17:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
15. Agree. I'd combine it with assigning a smaller number of arbitrators, each handling one or, at most, two cases at a time to concentrate their minds. It may be that you get a "too many cooks" syndrome going on behind the scenes, with more discussion than may be warranted. Noroton (talk) 17:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
16. Miss Ann Thropie (talk) 19:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
17. Support, but only if done in combination with your proposal for shorter terms. Low Sea (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
18. Mr.Z-man 20:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
19. I believe that an expansion is appropriate, but not in the way it is presented. I agree with DGG and PaddyLeahy who oppose this suggestion below; one cannot have a larger team all still trying to consider each case. This will just slow things down even more. What is needed are smaller more agile teams of fewer arbitrators examining each case. So suppose that there were a total of 20 arbitrators, organized into 3 teams of 5 each, with 5 alternates. A given case would be looked at by a team of 5, chosen by lot, and ruled on. The other 15 arbitrators would not look at this case at all. An arbitrator who was busy could be replaced by an alternate. Fewer arbitrators would be required to look at each case, making cases go more quickly. Each arbitrator would have to look at fewer cases, reducing caseload and workload for any given arbitrator. So if one implemented the expansion in this way, combined with a division of Arbcomm into smaller teams, then things might work better in several respects. And we would effectively increase substantially the number of cases Arbcomm could handle. This is also a scalable solution, of course.--Filll (talk | wpc) 23:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
20. Yes, in combination with II below. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
21. Yes. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 20:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
22. Maybe, but only if something along the lines of Filll's suggestion is implemented. I have been on quite a few committees in my life and in my experience no committee above the size of 12, maybe 14 tops, can operate and discuss things effectively on any single case without a very substantial amount of logistical support available (which we won't have). Nsk92 (talk) 04:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
23. Makes sense Alex Bakharev (talk) 15:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
24. Some change along these lines is needed although more thought needs to go into exactly what the best solution would be. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
25. We could even go above 28 later on.--Michael X the White (talk) 11:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
26. Endorse. I like the tranche`idea, but just for aesthetics, call them something else? --TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 20:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who oppose this suggestion:

1. I don't think we're going to solve any of the current problems by throwing more arbitrators at them. --Conti|✉ 15:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

   There is no one quick fix - more arbitrators will not resolve issues such as accountability or when and how closed judgements will take place, but it will reduce the delay - take, for example, the Cla68-Felonious Monk-SlimVirgin RFArb, which has been open for over six weeks and has yet to recieve any significant input from a single Arbitrator. Neıl 龱 15:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

   I'm not sure if inactivity is a reason for that, tho. In similar contentious cases, the arbs simply didn't agree with each other on what to do, causing long delays. Adding more arbitrators would not fix this problem. On the contrary, finding a consensus amongst 28 people would take much longer than finding one amongst 15 people. A short "We're working on it"-message by an arbitrator in such cases would be nice, tho. --Conti|✉ 15:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

2. This can only work if we allow Arbcom to split itself into subcommittees rather than expecting all active members to consider all cases as now. Otherwise adding more members will slow it down as Conti explains. I'm not convinced allowing Arbcom to split itself would be a good idea. PaddyLeahy (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
3. This at first glance rational proposal does not take into account the way arbcom operates. Its present method of requiring a majority of sitting arbitrators will be made worse, not better, by increasing the number of arbitrators--the more we have, the harder it will be to reach a decision. We need about the same number of people, but more active. Thus the idea of shortening the terms makes a great deal of sense, as Paddy just above me indicates, and is discussed further below. A three year term is for almost everyone more than can be undertaken successfully, DGG (talk) 23:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

   Consider it in conjunction with the suggestions about reducing terms from 3 years to 2 and assigning a team of arbitrators to a case. Neıl 龱 01:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

4. Oppose expansion as written, mainly because those who should know best - current and past arbitrators - say they don't need it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

   They would say that - saying more arbitrators are needed could be seen as an implicit suggestion they are not doing their job properly. Neıl 龱 10:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

5. Consensus between 28 people is harder to gather than consensus between 12. As the recent mishaps have been caused by poor communication, I don't think that expanding the number of people that have to be communicated to will improve anything much. Naerii 09:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

   ArbCom does not really operate by consensus but rather by a majority vote. Nsk92 (talk) 03:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

   And how will increasing the number of people required to gain a majority improve the speed of the committee? Naerii 00:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

6. Opose, for reasons stated in my proposal above. I think we need less arbitrators, not more. "Too Many Cooks". --Barberio (talk) 22:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

II. Timescales

Arbitration Committee terms are reduced from three years to two years. Elections will be held every six months on a rotating basis.

My thinking: Three years is too long. Shorter terms are needed. Why is three years too long? I believe there are two main reasons. Firstly, fatigue of Arbitrators - easily observed by noting that the newest arbitrators are usually the most active. This would be addressed by both reducing the time served, and by increasing the numbers as detailed above.

Secondly, Arbitrators must have the faith of the community. While it is necessary for Arbitrators to make on occasion unpopular decisions (as what the community wants is not necessarily the sole concern in making decisions), the faith of the community to make those decisions must be maintained.

I suggest an Arbcom term be brought down from three years to two years. This would dovetail neatly with the expansion from 3 Tranches to 4. We should not presume an Arbitrator is incapable of serving longer than this; however, they will have to convince the community they are capable of serving a further two years.

This will necessitate an Arbitration Committee election every 6 months, rather than every 12 months. This is a bearable burden on the community. It would also enable an Arbitrator to, if they wished, to take six months off (a reasonable break) and return to arbitration six months later.

Users who endorse this suggestion:

1. Neıl 龱 10:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 11:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
4. To clarify, would every arbitrator be up for election every six months, or only some of them (and some of the seats)? —Giggy 11:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

   In this proposal, each of the four Tranches would be up for election once every two years (so it would be a two year term). Sorry if that wasn't clear. Neıl 龱 11:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

5. I think 18 months is long enough, and longer than most arbs have remained productive for (with a few notable exceptions). But yes, shorten the terms and roll more frequent elections. Splash - tk 12:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
6. shoy 13:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
7. Endorse for freshness and to demonstrate the continuing trust that is essential for the Arbcom to function effectively. DuncanHill (talk) 13:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
8. Endorse. Elections every six months should not cause problems, particularly if only 1/4 of the committee was up at a time. I'll comment more on this later, maybe - but I see no procedural objection. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
9. I endorse this fully if a Tranche Delta is added. If it should remain at three Tranches, I think it should be 18 month terms. LaraLove|Talk 14:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

   Agree with LauraLove's logistics. A sensible comment. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 15:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

10. Endorse. Very sensible, especially with Lara's addition. — _Maggot^Syn 16:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
11. As with my support on SirFozzie's view shorter terms are necessary. Davewild (talk) 17:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
12. endorse shorter terms but the problem is that each election offers us two months of activity, and having this twice a year might be too much. The only alternative would be two tranches, at year intervals. The need for renewal in the middle could be met by have alternates for replacing inactive arbitrators--there are always a few who become inactive midway in a year. DGG (talk) 18:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
13. Miss Ann Thropie (talk) 19:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
14. Support, and also like the idea of "alternates" per DGG above. Low Sea (talk) 19:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
15. Mr.Z-man 20:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
16. Yes, in combination with I above. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
17. Yes, two years is sufficient for a new Arb to become infused with the ethos of ArbCom (whatever that may turn out to be following this) and yet having new(ish) blood every six months should not disrupt the work of the committee - on the basis that departing Arbs will continue on cases they were involved in while on the committee. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
18. Agree, and I agree with DGG's two-tranch idea. Once-a-year elections are better than every six months. And agree with DGG's alternates-at-the-ready idea. Shorter terms and ready alternates would help with the (apparent) burnout problem. Noroton (talk) 01:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
19. Support, and also support DGG's two-tranch and use of alternates suggestions. Nsk92 (talk) 03:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
20. Support, maybe shorten the terms even stronger Alex Bakharev (talk) 15:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
21. I think that this will help. Captain panda 03:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
22. Cla68 (talk) 06:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
23. Yes, three years is too long, burnout is a factor, reducing to two years may help. ArbCom has recently taken RfCs away from the community, and then been unable to rule on the cases. We should have more active turnover in ArbCom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
24. --Michael X the White (talk) 11:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
25. --TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 20:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who wish to comment on this suggestion:

1. This is substantially similar to other suggestions in this RfC. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

   Yes, it is. As I said, I borrowed some ideas from other suggestions. Neıl 龱 11:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who oppose this suggestion:

1. The 'every six months' doesn't work if you're opposed to expanding the committe; however I could support reducing the term to two years (or even one). Naerii 09:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

III. Scope

Requests for Checkuser access and Requests for Oversight will be decided by means other than by the Arbitration Committee.

My thinking: This will devolve some of the activities in which Arbcom don't really need to be involved. Their role is final-level dispute resolution. The details of how these rights could be assigned do not necessarily need to be discussed here.

If you think I haven't thought about it, though, here's a couple of ideas:

1. Community decision. In a similar manner to a request for Bureaucratship, the passing mark will be higher than that of a request for adminship. I would hope to see an "RFCA" or an "RFOA" require at least 90% support to pass, and with no major objections from members of the community in good standing.
2. Current holders. As the recognised current experts (similar to the Bot Approvals Group), requests for Checkuser access will be discussed and determined by all those who currently hold checkuser access. A similar process for Oversight.

However, that can be discussed elsewhere. The first step is to decide on the principle - the "how we achieve this" can be decided later.

Users who endorse this suggestion:

1. Neıl 龱 10:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Agree. There's no logical reason this should be ArbCom's business. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 11:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Yep. Increases transparency and devolves power and workload in a pragmatic way. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Point two is a necessity, though. —Giggy 11:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
5. No reason why the ArbCom should have to decide this. Agree with Giggy, but I think that conversation should take place if/when the new policy is drawn up. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 12:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
6. I think having bit holders decide would be a bad way of implementing this since we rely on them to scrutinize one another, but I think it's a good idea in principle. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 13:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
7. I agree with those above that point 2 is key. LaraLove|Talk 14:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
8. I agree with a community election, not appointing by the current holders. This method of appointment could lead to bias on the part of the current holders and make it difficult for compentant people who do not have friendly relations with the current holders to get elected. A community election with a high pass mark would hopefully avoid bias of this kind. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 15:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
9. Bstone (talk) 15:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
10. I fully agree with the above sentiments. — _Maggot^Syn 16:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
11. Agreed, it's not what they are elected for. Cenarium ^Talk 17:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
12. Though I have doubts that either of the above suggested systems will work all that well. Mr.Z-man 20:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
13. Support the decoupling. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
14. Don't see why not. Naerii 09:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
15. Absolutely no reason for a dispute resolution group to be in charge of doling out these powers. Too much potential for problems and no rationale for them having it. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 10:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
16. CU's and Oversighters to process their own applications procedures is good sense, as those already with those rights are among the most trusted members of the community. LessHeard vanU (talk)
17. Agree. Sounds sensible. This function seems to be more easily separable from other Arbcom powers, so perhaps it will help them concentrate on cases more, although I'm not sure how much time this takes up for arbitrators. Noroton (talk) 01:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
18. Support. ArbCom has more than enought work on its hands and this particular task is more easily separated from their functions than others. Nsk92 (talk) 04:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
19. Support. WMF can have a right to veto some appointments Alex Bakharev (talk) 15:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
20. Cla68 (talk) 06:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
21. Agree, per Moreschi. There's no reason a committee charged with arbitration should be doing these in the first place. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
22. How did they get that job anyways?--TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 20:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
23. I've thought this for a long time. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
24. There seems to be no system for achieving transparancy or accountability here. Amerique^dialectics 20:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
25. Endorse suggestion, per Neil. Anthøny 02:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
26. These are the tasks most readily separated from the current ArbComm workload, and they are having too much difficulty handling their workload. Since this is the easiest stuff to take off their plate, let's do it. GRBerry 15:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Users who oppose this suggestion:

1. Arbcom can delegate these powers if it wants, but these powers are both only for people who are over 18 and willing to prove their identity to the Foundation. Additionally the method of granting access has to be agreed between the wiki and the Foundation (the agreed method for enwiki is via arbcom). --Jenny 23:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

   The method of granting access is not set in stone. As long as the identity criteria are met, the way these permissions are assigned can be changed. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who wish to comment on this suggestion:

1. Some body of very trusted users who have access to "hidden knowledge" should have veto over access to these two groups. I see nothing wrong with giving ARBCOM or perhaps the existing checkusers or oversighters such a veto. However, the access should be approved by the community and vetoed only for good cause, i.e. something that amounts to a breach of trust or which would generate an OFFICE-initiated veto. Such a veto should be very rare. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

IIIa. Reducing roles

Checkuser and Oversight access will not be given to Arbitrators by default.

My thinking: An offshoot of III, as without that happening, there's no point (as Arbitrators will probably decide to give themselves the right if the decision lies with them). This will reduce the burden on sitting Arbitrators. Arbitrators do not require Checkuser or Oversight access in order to provide final-level dispute resolution effectively. Checkuser, in particular, requires a wholly different skill set from Arbitration. This does not preclude Arbitrators having these rights, merely that they would have to go through the same determination process as any other user (whatever that determination process may be).

Users who endorse this suggestion:

1. Neıl 龱 10:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Knowledge of how IPs function has nothing to do with being a good arbitrator. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 11:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
4. That said, I imagine they'd easily pass the vote if they wanted the tools. —Giggy 11:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Also agree with Giggy, which is why we should have someone other than the ArbCom decide who gets these tools. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 12:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
6. Err. Half support? I think Checkuser is probably useful for determining the nature of evidence and claims in cases. Oversight, not so much, but unfortunately I am not able to support the proposal above re that. Splash - tk 12:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
7. No reason for them to have it for the purposes of dispute resolution. It is unlikely that they would ever do it themselves anyway. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 15:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
8. Bstone (talk) 15:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
9. Neither is needed. Reports can be made, evidence presented. Decisions are what is needed from arbs. This is not to say that they cannot request or obtain either. — _Maggot^Syn 16:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
10. Endorse, if arbitrators need to access oversighted information for a specific RFAR, they can ask an oversighter, same if they need a checkuser. But no need for a direct access, it's nothing more than a privilege. Cenarium ^Talk 17:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
11. Checkuser and oversight should be performed by an independent third party in any arbitration case to insure transparency. Miss Ann Thropie (talk) 19:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
12. Most definitely concur. Amerique^dialectics 20:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse part of this suggestion:

1. For checkuser, sure, but for oversight this is likely to more frequently arise and need interpretation of the entire record, not just a report. But of course it should be only active arbitrators, unless they have oversight granted independently. DGG (talk) 18:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
2. I concur with DGG. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who oppose this suggestion.

1. Doesn't make sense. At least in principle, arbitrators need access to confidential information in order to perform the investigative aspect of their function fully, and oversighting is part of the enforcement aspect. --Jenny 00:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Oppose the tools are necessary to investigate accusations (eg. of sockpuppetry). We should not make the job harder. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 20:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
3. I prefer IIIa v2. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Um, no. Naerii 09:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
5. Why not? Permissions to use them does not equal a necessity to use them, and using them the once when there is nobody else to do the job will not impinge to any effect upon the individual Arbs workload. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
6. I think arbitrators need access to checkuser to verify checkuser evidence. They may need an access to the oversight log (that currently need oversight flag). Alex Bakharev (talk) 15:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
7. Not to give the tools to our top judges?! Doesn't make sense. In order to make a correct decision, they need all the equipment we can provide them, in order to search even the slightest detail.--Yannismarou (talk) 11:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
8. I think active arbitrators will need these permissions, if nothing else to review checkuser logs in the event that a case of possible checkuser misuse comes before them or to review oversighted material, as well as the use of checkuser in cases of possible sockpuppet abuse. Arbs who choose to routinely and actively engage in checkuser are generally a great asset to that function, and of course those without the technical skill or desire to do so are in no way required to. However, I do support the above community process for granting checkuser and oversight, and Arbs who leave ArbCom on a permanent or semipermanent basis (resignation, failure to seek or gain reelection) should have those permissions removed upon departure unless they have also passed the corresponding community process for the specific tool. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment -- Oversight is given automatically to arbcom members; I was surprised when I discovered I'd gotten it. Checkuser, however, isn't, and not all arbitrators are checkusers. If an arbitrator wants it, he or she will usually get it, certainly. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

IIIa v2. Reducing roles

Checkuser access will not be given to Arbitrators by default.

My thinking: Same as the above, but Kirill has made a good point here that Arbitrators may frequently need access to oversighted material, and at present access to this material is packaged with the ability to oversight material. Unless those are disaggregated, I can see a good argument for arbitrators having Oversight access. Not checkuser access, though - the above thinking is still applicable for that.

Users who endorse this suggestion:

1. Neıl 龱 12:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 12:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Better than 3a. shoy 13:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Endorse I can see a strong need for Arbitrators to have access to oversighted material, but for checkuser I do not see such a need. DuncanHill (talk) 14:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Nothing by default. — _Maggot^Syn 16:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
6. endorse this is better--oversight might more often be needed, but checkuser is a technical matter where a report will serve just as well. some of the arbs will normally always happen to be checkusers as well. DGG (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
7. What could also happen is any arb that wants to continue having OS should have to get approved after his/her term expires, just a thought. Kwsn (Ni!) 01:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
8. Due to Kirill's comment on why removing oversight would be problematic, but agree in principle with IIIa above. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who oppose this suggestion:

1. Arbitrators might need to reexamine checkuser evidence Alex Bakharev (talk) 15:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Per my above comment.--Yannismarou (talk) 11:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

IV. Redress

Should a significant portion of the community hold concerns over the activity, conduct or capability of a sitting Arbitrator, a Request for Comment may be opened. Their fellow Arbitrators are encouraged to participate. If the Arbitrator in discussion fails to engage in the process, the RFC continues, regardless. The arbitrator under discussion may simply be required to amend their behaviour, however, should the community conclude categorically that an Arbitrator is unsuitable to continue in the position, the Arbitrator is expected and encouraged to step down amicably.

My thinking: Based on recent events, it is clear that there is no current way for the community to redress the behaviour of an Arbitrator other than voting them out up to three years later. This is not sufficient.

Users who endorse this suggestion:

1. Neıl 龱 10:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
2. The details will need tightening up but the principle is good. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 11:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
4. —Giggy 11:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Absolutely. Even it never happens, the U.S. Senate is endowed with the authority to impeach Supreme Court justices. I see no reason why the ArbCom should have absolute immunity. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 12:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
6. I do not support the detail of the proposal, as it is largely absent. However, I do think that sharper redress is needed, but in the scheme of Neil's proposals, the shorter terms and more frequent elections would suffice. Splash - tk 12:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
7. Something like this is sorely needed, as long as it doesn't turn into a lynch mob. shoy 13:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
8. Endorse an individual arbitrator who has demonstrably lost the trust of the community undermines the functioning of the whole Arbcom. DuncanHill (talk) 13:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
9. Endorse - checks and balances. However, this should only happen in rare cases of abuse or neglect of duty; a lynch mob every time would be more destructive than anything and destroy the ArbCommers' trust in their electorate. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 15:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
10. A small step in the right direction. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 15:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
11. Bstone (talk) 15:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
12. This should be obvious, yet there is nothing currently that allows for it. On the other hand, this might be one of those solutions in search of a problem as I've yet to notice behavior so drastic as to file an RfC yet. But it never hurts to draw up— _Maggot^Syn 16:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
13. As long as it has to be a very clear consensus for the Arbitrator to stand down and there is a way to make sure this only happens in extreme situations. Davewild (talk) 17:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
14. Endorse, but with the understanding that if it merely because of inactivity, it carries no derogatory implications of any sort, and in such cases might will be better none less formally than a RfC. A separate provision for this part might be warranted. DGG (talk) 18:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
15. For any elected position, there should be an impeachment provision. Miss Ann Thropie (talk) 19:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
16. Yes, but with David WR's caveat (below). Guettarda (talk) 07:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
17. Make it explicit, I guess. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
18. This is important, since the ArbCom is a creature of Jimbo Wales creation and - like the Founder himself - does not have the apparent same restrictions as do editors (including Arbs in their position as editors.) Previously, the case has been that dissatisfaction with an Arb has been addressed to Jimmy - the process needs to be seen to be able to be addressed by the community. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC) I also concur with Davidwr's caveat.
19. A good idea in general, although it does not go far enough. A more formal and binding impeachment-type process is necessary in case of serious misconduct by arbitrators. Nsk92 (talk) 04:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
20. Endorse we need to have a way to recall an arbitrator Alex Bakharev (talk) 15:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
21. Endorse An RFC would seem the right way to go about gathering consensus for recalling an individual Arb. On second thought, I was looking around at several formal procedures for recalling state officials, and I'm thinking some sort of similar system could be adopted on WP, with well-defined parameters and procedures for all proceedings. An RFC could be looked at as a petition for initiating a recall process, but it shouldn't be looked at as the whole process. Amerique^dialectics 21:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
22. Some sort of formal recall process does seem indicated. I'm not convinced that an RfC is the best way to go here, but I can't think of a better alternative off the top of my head. John Carter (talk) 23:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
23. --TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 20:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who oppose this suggestion:

1. Superfluous. You don't need a proposal like this to tell you that an RFC can be opened on any Wikipedian. --Jenny 19:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Weak tea. RfCs already exist. No one would start such an RfC without being accused of obstruction or waste, no one would support a call for resignation within such an RfC without being accused of vindictiveness, no RfC would ever come to a consensus to remove an arb without some part of the community expressing doubts about the cogency or validity of their process, and, in short, no arb at odds with the community would resign without an explicit, binding process. I enthusiastically support measures to see to it that there are methods for redress of grievances, but I would prefer binding arbitrator recall. -- The_socialist ^talk? 02:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who wish to comment on this suggestion:

1. Notwithstanding Jenny's comment, it's a good idea to make this explicit. However, if the RfC is carried out "in abstentia" and it turns out the arbitrator was unable to contribute to the RfC during that time period, it should be reopened when the arbitrator returns. Real life happens. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Yes it does. 5:15 04:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

V. Mailing list access

Arbitrators who choose to stand down at the end of their term rather than seek re-election are considered to remain in good standing, and may retain access to the mailing lists. Arbitrators who fail to gain re-election - or those asked to step down via RFC - are not considered to be in good standing and are removed from the mailing lists.

My thinking: At present, only one former Arbitrator would fit these criteria (Raul654), but should the size of Arbcom increase, this will become more relevant. If the community has indicated it no longer wishes you to be involved in the decision-making process of Arbcom (and retaining access to Arbcom-en does just that), then access should be removed. I don't expect this to go down well with certain users.

Users who endorse this suggestion:

1. Neıl 龱 10:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 11:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Endorse to a point. If current Arbs want to consult former Arbs, or believe they should retain access to Arb-l, that's one thing. But for former Arbs who failed to be re-elected to perform actions for and on behalf of the committee completely disregards the community's wishes for them to no longer serve as an Arbitrator. LaraLove|Talk 14:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
4. If you fail an election for a second term, that means that you no longer have the same level of support from the community that you did before. There's absolutely no reason they should continue to keep the tools of the position the community specifically chose not to give to them a second time. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 15:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Endorse. I was working up something like this for my own view but Neil beat me to it. I'm glad he did because he said it far better than I could have. Lara and Celarnor's comments seal it for me. To the opposition: this proposal only suggests the removal of access to the mailing list given the communities removal of trust. This should and would go hand in hand no? No recollection of problematic situations in the past, denies the possibility of future events. And this is not something I'd like to see. — _Maggot^Syn 09:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
6. Support. When arbitrators leave office (for whatever reason), they should "return the keys". Nsk92 (talk) 04:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who oppose this suggestion:

1. What about someone who just knows he very probably wouldn't be re-elected and therefore doesn't seek re-election? Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 13:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
2. I think it should remain within the remit of the ArbCom to determine Arb Emeritus status. I am unaware of any problems with the current system.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
3. (Jimbo EC!) I don't know of former arbitrators having access to the list causing any problems, and any former arbs who do cause problems due to their access can easily have their access removed by the committee, yes? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
4. We have never seen a successful reelection bid except for Raul's (who served for 6 months previously). The incumbents who at least seek reelection tend to be in better standing than those who don't. I support tightening arbcom-l access, but I don't think this is a good standard. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 13:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Doesn't make any sense to have this artificial distinction. --Jenny 15:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
6. Yeah, I don't think this is the most useful distinction. Anyone who loses access "under a cloud" (like Essjay or Kelly Martin) should be removed from the mailing list. But there's value in continuity of access, at least for a while after your term. I do think it's an issue that deserves further consideration, but the truth is that anyone who isn't on the list lacks enough information to make an informed decision, and anyone who is on the list is likely to have a bit of a conflict of interest. It's a tough call. Guettarda (talk) 07:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
7. SashaNein (talk) 04:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
8. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Va. alternative proposal

I would propose that, barring a specific request to the community, all former arbitrators resign their list access. They can request list access in a similar fashion to the proposed request for checkuser access (etc.). This is to ensure they still have the trust of the community, even if the community never got around to an RfC (for whatever reason).

Users who endorse this suggestion:

1. —Giggy 11:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Would support this as well. This could take place as well as the above proposal, it doesn't necessarily have to be an alternative. Neıl 龱 12:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
3. I think this works better than simply removing them from the list if they are not re-elected. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 12:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Endorse DuncanHill (talk) 13:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Per my comments in the oppose section below. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 15:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
6. I also have no problem with arbitrators conversing with non-arbitrators via email, but arbcom-l has a narrow purpose. Users who need to contact the ArbCom for one reason or another should not have to write to, and (more importantly) be scrutinized by, a diverse panel including users that the community does not authorize to handle arbitration matters. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 08:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
7. I prefer this option to the above. There are allegations of leaks on the ArbCom mailing list which prevented me from presenting full evidence in one case. I would never divulge confidential information to the current ArbCom mailing list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
8. --TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 20:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who wish to comment on this suggestion

1. Prefer Neil's original suggestion. I'm dubious about the idea of the community voting on who gets access to arbcom-l, when it doesn't know what sort of material arbcom-l really contains. Voting from a position of ignorance is never good. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 12:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
2. I think it works just fine to have current ArbCom members make this decision. There are many valid reasons why they might want to have a smaller... or larger... mailing list. Some part Arbs are quite active in an advisory capacity, some are not. In 10 years, do we want to have someone lurking on the mailing list who has not spoken up in 5 years? Likely not.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

   (Comment to Jimbo) Do we really want anyone on the list who doesn't explicitly have the consent and trust of the community?I have no problem with Arbcom removing inactive or disruptive people from the list, I just don't want them also deciding who gets added without the community having a say. DuncanHill (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

   We elect ArbCom to handle disputes as a group. That group is the 10 or so people that are elected. The mailing list is (or should be, at any rate) a last resort tool to contain material that can't be on the wiki for whatever reason. If current ArbCom members want to consult former members, fine; leave a message on their talkpage, ask them to comment on a case. If the material is sensitive enough that it would have to be on a private mailing list, then it shouldn't be sent to them; whatever their status in the community is, they're no longer members of the Committee, and certainly shouldn't be privy to that kind of information without any official capacity unless the community decides its a good idea for them to be able to do that. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 15:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

3. I have no problem with former arbitrators (who often tend to be quite useful people) having list access. I would urge the arbitrators to consider using a properly secured mailing list, however. --Jenny 15:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
4. There should be 2 active lists plus ad-hoc lists as needed: The current-arbitrator mailing list, the current- plus in-good-standing-emeritus list, and specific lists for specific cases where non-current members are invited to participate due to their expertise or other qualifications. The current arbcom should have the authority to use or not use ad-hoc lists as it sees fit, and/or use or not use the emeritus list for arbcom cases as it sees fit. Of course it should have the authority to set the membership for these lists, subject to the limit that everyone on the emeritus list is in fact a former arbitrator. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
5. Would believe that emeritus-in-good-standing members, with specific definition of that term laid out somehow, could reasonably stay on the general mailing list. Would like to see provision of how to remove names without melodramatics from that list, and possibly allowing mailing to some not on the general list in specific cases. No idea how to implement, though. John Carter (talk) 23:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

VI. Transparency

An independent jury of volunteers in good standing within the community is to be appointed in an audit capacity. The purpose of this team is to review the recent events concerning FT2 and OrangeMarlin. This will be facilitated by temporary read-only access to the relevant Arbcom mailing list(s).

My thinking: Many users consider some form of investigation into the recent goings on vital in order to restore faith in the capability of Arbcom to act as the final level of dispute resolution on the English Wikipedia. This cannot be done by the current Arbitration Committee - doubts would always remain. Einstein said, "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them".

Users who endorse this suggestion:

1. Neıl 龱 10:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 11:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
4. —Giggy 11:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Endorse, beautifully explained by Neil. DuncanHill (talk) 13:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
6. Bstone (talk) 15:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
7. Agree. I think this would be a good confidence-building move, although I also think Arbcom might do it just as well if they come out with some admissions of what they've done wrong, so I disagree with the "My thinking:" paragraph. Splash dreads a mere admonishment for FT2, but I don't know -- that might be just the right move or even something less. I guess I'm less concerned about this than some others. Noroton (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC) amended to remove optimistic part of statement concerning Arbcom self-explanation: As more time goes by, I'm less inclined to give Arbcom members the benefit of the doubt on this. We should have had an explanation by today. I don't see it. Further delay indicates it's more likely we won't get a full, honest explanation, although I hope I'm proven wrong. -- Noroton (talk) 01:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
8. Agree' We should try this before a more institutionalized proceedure. The experience will probably give some insight as to whether a formal standing procedure is necessary, and what it should be like. It would be over-reaction to add complicated structure if needed only in this one case. I specifically want to deprecate the suggestions that it should deal with FT2 alone or even primarily; that is the same sort of rush to judgment that got us into this situation. DGG (talk) 19:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
9. Miss Ann Thropie (talk) 19:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
10. I think this is a crucial step. I also think that Splash's comment below should be essential reading. Guettarda (talk) 07:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
11. Agree, provided that this is a rare last-resort method used in exceptional circumstances. Reviewing every contraversial case would make the arbitration process farcical. I'll only support if it is used for exceptional events regarding the ArbCom's intergrity. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 15:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
12. Agree. But some long-term solution might also be a good idea. Hobit (talk) 01:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
13. Support, as a temporary ad-hoc measure in this case. Some sort of comission to investigate what happened is certainly required. But, as Hobit says, a longer term and more permanent solution is necessary for these kinds of cases. Nsk92 (talk) 04:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
14. Support Alex Bakharev (talk) 15:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
15. This suggestion is not without its problems, but it's becoming clear that Arbcom is never going to open its archives or its arbitrators' mouths so the community can understand what went wrong. If we can't go through them, we'll have to go around them. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 13:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
16. Support. Everyone needs oversight and a post-mortem of errors, from time to time. --Alecmconroy (talk) 12:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
17. Concur. Some sort of Blue-Ribbon Panel is definitely called for. Amerique^dialectics 20:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who wish to comment on this suggestion:

1. I don't like the sound of an inquisition without teeth (I dread that they will issue a Remedy: "FT2 is admonished to be a good arbitrator in future"), but I would observe to the committee that if you do not demonstrate a degree of catharsis on this present matter that your credibility will be materially dented. Silent denial, lovey-duvey all-friends, and weaselling to be right-after-all won't cut it. It doesn't for questionable governments the world over, and it doesn't here, either. Splash - tk 12:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Some sort of oversight committee seems indicated. Possibly former arbitrators in good standing, possibly others as well. Such a body should be elected in the same way as admins and arbs, with recall options, recusal, etc. Getting people to agree on details might well be problematic. John Carter (talk) 23:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who oppose this suggestion:

1. Good idea, but too weak. This is a one-time solution to a systematic problem, namely the unchecked power of the Committee. Perhaps if one of these were formed comprised of editors with so many edits selected at random and different for every case with the capability of forcing ArbCom to come to a different decision ... Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 15:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
2. On this issue, there are no independent jurors within the community. --Jenny 16:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
3. The whole mailing list? They should get, at most, an edited version copy of the relevant threads only, with sensitive information removed, else this would have to be restricted to people who have CU/OS access, most of whom already have access to the list. Mr.Z-man 20:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

VII. Communication

Users are to be informed if the Arbitration Committee is discussing their behaviour via closed methods (such as the mailing list). Ideally, they will be informed via email. No Arbitration Committee decision - secret or otherwise - will be made without users directly named in the decision being given the chance to state their case.

My thinking: An obvious suggestion, based on recent events, Jimbo's commentary, and common sense. A committee that acts wholly in secret is, by definition, a cabal.

Users who endorse this suggestion:

1. Neıl 龱 10:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Agree. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 11:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
3. obvious. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
4. —Giggy 11:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
5. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 12:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
6. Splash - tk 12:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
7. shoy 13:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
8. Endorse no comment required. DuncanHill (talk) 13:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
9. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 14:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
10. Indeed. LaraLove|Talk 14:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
11. It's a shame we have to propose this in the first place. --Conti|✉ 15:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
12. Bstone (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
13. Absolutely. As others have sad, it is incredibly sad that this even has to be proposed. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 15:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
14. Agree. It's the Spanish Inquisition that no one ever expects, not ArbCom decisions. I can't think of a good reason not to do this; it's a matter of basic fairness and by not doing it, ArbCom shoots itself in the foot, lowering its reputation. Noroton (talk) 17:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
15. Anyone who ArbCom consider making a remedy on should have the oppurtunity to present a defense/mitigating evidence. Davewild (talk) 18:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
16. Sensible. There are some issues that need to be discussed in private to prevent too much drama, but it should not be kept secret from those being discussed. Miss Ann Thropie (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
17. If something needs to be kept private, such as sensitive personal info or IP addresses, then yes, keep it private, but not secret. In other words, say WHY it can't be shown publicly, or, censor it so such info is removed if possible. Kwsn (Ni!) 01:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
18. Endorse, with the caveat that a good faith effort to contact the parties should be all that is required to move a case forward. Cases tried in abstentia due to editor unavailability should be reopened at the editor's request when he becomes available. The Special:Preferences should be updated to allow users to register a mail address that only the system itself and users with certain user-selectable rights can use to send them mail, and new users should be strongly encouraged to provide an email address for such administrative purposes. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
19. Guettarda (talk) 07:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
20. Agree completely -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 15:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
21. This is a must if there are punitive remedies involved. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
22. Obvious and necessary. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
23. Certainly. Nsk92 (talk) 04:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
24. Sensible Alex Bakharev (talk) 15:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
25. Duh. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 13:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
26. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
27. Concur, no secret trials or investigations. Amerique^dialectics 20:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who oppose this suggestion

1. I'm completely opposed to this. My ego is big enough without being told that a dozen people are discussing me on a mailing list. --Jenny 15:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

   That's faintly facetious, Tony. I think you're saying that being discussed by Arbcom is primarily an ego boost, not a very real reason for concern? If that's the case, it certainly does explain your attitude. Ego-boosting is not the reason that such discussions require the subject to be notified. Neıl 龱 17:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

   My point, which I could have stated better, is that I don't need to know. Conduct issues are what the Committee is supposed to deal with. Like everybody else, I'm egotistic enough to believe that my every edit is watched with baited breath by every Wikipedian and that anything significant I do must surely be monitored by the Committee. Actually being told that this is true would spoil the magic, somehow. My Labor is its own reward.--Jenny 17:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

   The committee is not Big Brother. Cenarium ^Talk 01:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

   Not in the sense of 1984, no, but it is certainly involved in legitimate discussions about damaging on-wiki user conduct observed by its members or by others on-wiki or communicated in private email or on public mailing lists or (occasionally) other offsite sources. --Jenny 16:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

2. I'm opposed to fully secret cases, but if there is a public case going on, I think its to be expected that there will be some discussion regarding it in private. Mr.Z-man 20:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

   The proposal does not preclude discussion taking place in private. Neıl 龱 01:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

   What it is likely to do is to spook people for no good reason. Moreover, how would we enforce this? I don't think anybody has thought this through at all. It's just a "Wouldn't It Be Nice If We Knew When They Were Thinking Of Us" motion. --Jenny 01:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

   Aha! I think I have finally understood your reasons for opposition, Tony. Most people interpret "discussing their behaviour" in this context to mean something more than just "having a chat". You have taken it to mean the latter. Perhaps the proposal should have stated "formally discussing their behaviour", or "considering action relating to their behaviour". Would that have made any kind of difference? Neıl 龱 10:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

   I'm sorry, I don't seem to have made myself understood at all if you think I mean "having a chat". I'll try again. Everybody holds discussions about issues that concern us, it's the principal reason for the development of language, and when it comes to a body whose very job is handling on-wiki conduct issues it's actually their primary function. Arbitrarily requiring the Committee to tell someone that they're doing their job is redundant and useless, conveying little useful information to the subject because he isn't and can't really involved in the private discussions. An on-wiki or email approach describing the concern would often be appropriate, but that need not be explicitly tied to private arbcom discussions. --Jenny 16:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

   I know it doesn't preclude private discussion, but for most cases (where there is a public case going on) it will require arbitrators to spend time telling users what they should already know and if there isn't any public discussion we have no way of knowing if they're actually following this. Mr.Z-man 20:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

3. Oppose: unfortunately, this is impossible to enforce, especially if you include the secret IRC channels. I agree with the sentiment, but this law is dead on arrival.Yeago (talk) 02:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Oppose per Yeago above. John Carter (talk) 23:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

VIII. Assigning roles

Not every case requires the participation of every Arbitrator. "Teams" of presently active Arbitrators may be assigned cases if an accelerated resolution is viewed necessary, or if the present caseload is particularly high.

My thinking: This would only really work if we expand the field of sitting Arbitrators (see I), but is worth discussing, I believe; by delineating tasks in this way, and by focussing scope, swifter resolutions tend to be achieved. It wouldn't preclude other interested, active Arbitrators from commenting on other cases.

Users who endorse this suggestion:

1. Neıl 龱 10:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 11:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
3. vital - smaller teams can examine cases in greater detail for longer if required, with more 'spare' arbitrators moving onto and determining other cases. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
4. This should have been done, and was proposed, years ago. A lighter-weight approach might be to require arbs to 'sign up' to a case in N days from opening, and base majorities on that. Then the lazy arbs just stop mattering and the active ones can get on with it. Splash - tk 12:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
5. This occurred to me earlier. Perhaps assign cases to Tranches. They are essentially teams, so this would avoid the need for extra process in determining who's on what team. LaraLove|Talk 14:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
6. Agree. One way of making them more accountable. Noroton (talk) 17:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
7. Agree its an unrealistic expectation, as proven by the fact that it almost never happens. But not assign cases to tranches, because that obviates the benefit from a variety of opinions from people appointed at different times. But there has to be some way to get the groups representative, and to get full participation when it's really needed, such as for anything that might be considered to amount to a change in the way arb com is going to handle things. I would like to leave it up to their common sense, but....
8. Pretty much per Splash, just replacing "lazy" with "busy". Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutral comment:

1. Per my object to your item I, this is actually essential if you don't want an enlarged committee to slow down the process rather than speed it up. But dividing Arbcom into teams may allow gaming by picking a perceived sympathetic tranch, and greatly increases the risk of inconsistent or even contradictory rulings. That's why most supreme courts have essentially just one panel of judges. PaddyLeahy (talk) 20:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Arbitrators are already free to pick and choose which cases they involve themselves in, and to what extent. They may even declare themselves completely unavailable. --Jenny 01:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

IX. Communication

Legalese, Latin terms (legal or otherwise), abbreviations, and other such unclear English are to be avoided wherever possible in future. Clear and concise communication that all can understand should be a priority of the Committee.

My thinking: Arbcom must recognise that not all Wikipedia editors are familiar or comfortable with jargon such as tu quoque, nem. con, sine qua non or ab initio, particularly when clear English alternatives exist. Arbcom decisions should not have to be read with a dictionary to hand. Recognise that many Wikipedians on en-Wiki may be younger editors, may have poor comprehension skills, or may have a first language other than English. Abbreviations should similarly not be used (and if they must be, wikilink them). Using jargon is unnecessary; it may save the writer a few seconds, but wastes the reader's time far more (and I would trust all writers hope more than one person reads what they have written).

Renamed from "No jargon" to "Communication". Neıl 龱> 12:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this suggestion:

1. Neıl 龱 10:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Or, in other words, "FT2, please simplify your tortuous prose style". And yes, many ArbCom decisions do suffer from lack of clarity caused by poor grammar. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 11:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Extremely important given the diversity of editors, from children to those from a non-english speaking background etc. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
4. per Moreschi. —Giggy 11:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Per Giggy J.delanoy^gabs_adds 12:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
6. Well, this says "write in clear English". Arbs: you do not have to prove your level of education to us. Whilst "tl;dr" is the curse of all prose, certain arbitrators should remember that they are dealing with time-limited humans. Splash - tk 12:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
7. shoy 13:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
8. Endorse could we give all arbitrators a copy of Plain Words to help them? DuncanHill (talk) 13:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
9. As much as I love pedantry myself, Arbcomm communications are not the place for it.--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
10. Yes, please respect that not all of us are academics and hitting up Wiktionary all the time for Latin is a waste of time. Also pointless waste of time and kb to have long, legal sounding resolutions and sanctions. Too often the community is left confused by vague prose and poor grammar. Be direct, clear and to the point. Saves everyone time. LaraLove|Talk 15:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
11. Bstone (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
12. Agree, although an exception might be in order for arbs who want to type in mea culpa. Noroton (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
13. Certainly, perhaps Arbitrators should have to spend a day on the Simple English Wikipedia. Davewild (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
14. Absolutely. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
15. Yes. Miss Ann Thropie (talk) 19:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
16. Mr.Z-man 20:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
17. Agree. Its not as if these people are lawyers anyway. JeanLatore (talk) 03:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
18. Guettarda (talk) 07:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
19. Oh, please, please. There's no reason to use Latin words when the same number of much-more-easily accessible English words will do, and there's absolutely no excuse for not explaining/linking the Latin words if you must use them. Arbcom should strive for clarity, not to sound like smart people at the possible expense of others. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
20. Endorse. If the Arbs want to talk in latin, go to a latin wikipedia. --TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 20:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Indubite, nolo contendere, quod vides. --Jenny 15:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

1. The best arb we had ever had for the few months we had him had a remarkably long winded style himself, but was quite clear. Clarity and precision is what matters. A few common latin legal or logical phrases should be able to be learned easily enough. We do have a free encyclopedia and a dictionary right at hand. DGG (talk) 20:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

   If people are having to parse Arbitration statements with the aid of an encyclopedia or dictionary, they are certainly not clear. Newyorkbrad was a decent arbitrator despite his prolixity, not because of it. Neıl 龱 10:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

2. I enjoy when the committee employs Latin expressions. As soon as they are wikilinked, this doesn't cause any harm. Clicking a blue link is not that difficult or long, and it expands one's knowledge. However, clarity, precision and concision matters. But it can be achieved even with some Latin words. Ave, Cenarium ^Talk 02:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

   Actually, FT2's "nem con" was confusing despite the fact that it included a wiktionary link, since more than one meaning was provided. And in the difference between those meanings lay a lot fo trouble. Guettarda (talk) 07:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

3. I think this is a purely stylistic matter, ergo, it doesn't belong in this RfC. If you don't like an arbitrator's style, talk to him about it by email or user_talk page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

   Requiring Arbitration Committee to communicate in a clear, simple, readable manner is not merely a "stylistic issue". Neıl 龱 10:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

   Use of legalese and Latin can be clear, and their absence doesn't guarentee clarity. If this were reworded to say "Arbitrators should communicate in a clear, simple, readable manner" then I'd endorse it. When appropriately wikilinked, legalize, Latin, and other usually-obscure terms can turn 10 words into 1 or otherwise make something crystal clear that would otherwise be a tad fuzzy. I do not want to take this tool away from arbitrators. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

4. If clarity requires use of technical legal jargon, so be it. I can't myself endorse "Arbitrators should communicate in a clear, simple, readable manner", because there may well be cases when "simple" is not possible. John Carter (talk) 00:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Users opposed to a certain part of this summary while agreeing with the gist:

1. Clear communication is a must. Latin phrases such as "quid pro quo" and "et al" make for much more clear prose than "a 'you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours' agreement" and "and all the rest of them who are too numerous to mention". Clear communication does not mean decisions should be written in 5th grade English, the way so many FA's are. If an editor is at that particular reading level, then perhaps Simple Wikipedia is where they belong. A wikilink for the especially uncommon phrases should be enough - what's most conducive to readable text is an author who is writing from within his comfort zone. If his comfort zone includes Latin phrases, then so be it. To be blunt, I think the communication issue is with FT2 himself, not with his or anyone's use or non-use of Latin phrases. --Badger Drink (talk) 19:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
2. I agree with the above. These are not particularly difficult terms anyway, and anyone with rudimentary English skills should really already know them. I don't want to see the prose gutted and lengthened for the purposes of "simplicity"; if you're still at a reading level where you still need to sacrifice conciseness, then maybe you should be at Simple ... Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion by Stephan Schulz

A major motivation for the RfC is the miscommunication/misunderstanding of the Committee's opinion in the Orangemarlin case. The private and unstructured manner of the discussion not only lead to a very undesirable result, it also makes any community participation in the post-mortem analysis impossible without opening up private archives, and apparently very hard even for the committee. To ensure that such a thing will not happen again, I make the following suggestion.

Clear and transparent chain of responsibility

All substantial statements by the Arbitration Committee should be made on-wiki. They should be individually signed by supporting, opposing, abstaining and recused Arbiters. Preferably, Arbiters should give a short rationale for their vote, although that is not required. To be considered binding, a statement must be supported by a majority of Arbiters and have at least X votes (X to be decided, but approximately 4). No individual shall make statements "on behalf" of the Arbitration Committee without a clear and openly available record of supporting opinion. No rulings shall be made nem.con. or by an anonymous plurality/majority. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this suggestion:

1. All bar the "on behalf" - whenever Arbcom wishes to make a statement, some named individual has to post it, and these are typically and correctly signed "on behalf of the Arbitration Committee". Rather, no individual shall make statements "on behalf" of Arbcom if they are not making statements explicitly supported by a majority of active arbitrators. Neıl 龱 14:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

   Would you be happy with "No individual shall make statements "on behalf" of the Arbitration Committee without a clear and openly available record of supporting opinion. No rulings shall..."? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

   Updated accordingly. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

   Much better - endorse this fully, now. Thanks Stephan. Neıl 龱 15:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

2. Endorse with Stephan's suggested amendment. DuncanHill (talk) 14:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
3. I would be very interested to see the reasoning employed by individual arbitrators in some votes. In an environment where even voting "oppose" on an RfA without an explanation is viewed highly negatively, it is amazing to me that for these vastly more important "votes" we do not demand that arbitrators describe their reasoning. Even if the reasoning behind decisions is not required, we should at least strongly encourage it. It would be valuable feedback to the community for many reasons, too numerous to list here.--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Clearly. LaraLove|Talk 15:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
5. I strongly endorse this. It was one of the complaints many had about the Mantanmoreland case. Noroton (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
6. A basic point of responsible procedure. In fact, I thought it was part of the procedure already. DGG (talk) 21:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
7. shoy 02:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
8. Endorse. I am willing to put my name to anything decided by the Arbitration Committee which I support. In emergency cases action may be made first and confirmed later, but in all cases everyone should know who supported what. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
9. --Cube lurker (talk) 23:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
10. Support Alex Bakharev (talk) 15:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who oppose this suggestion:

1. I think the Mantanmoreland case is a classic counter-example for the proposal. While there were some ruffled feathers because some people felt that we should see who voted for what, it enabled the arbitrators to make a potentially unpopular decision without the risk of being targetted by a "divide and rule" strategem. An exceptional case requiring exceptional treatment, but a valid counter-example nontheless. --Jenny 17:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

   If you can't stand up to public pressure, you don't belong on the ArbCom. Wilting lilies need not apply. Noroton (talk) 03:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

   Oh they can take the pressure. However, when they can help one another to withstand it by cooperation, they will do so. Strong people do that, it's what makes them strong. --Jenny 04:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

2. As written, this would seem to bar completely- or substantially-private actions. As I've said elsewhere on this page, privacy can sometimes benefit the very editors that are the subject of the arbcom actions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, as written it only covers statements by ArbCom. Deliberations, interviews, discussions and so on are not affected (although I think they would profit from more openness as well). But if ArbCom makes a statement, I want to know how many and which Arbiters actually concur. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Endorse as a vital change. _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 19:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

In the Mantanmoreland case, I think the justification given for this kind of non-voting voting was that it tamped down drama. It did no such thing, and that isn't a good enough reason to allow committee members to evade their responsibility to take a stand and let everyone know what they think. It is also a way of helping to mke sure that Arbcom members actually pay attention to the cases before them. If they have to vote in public they may well be asked to explain why, giving them an incentive to stay awake during proceedings. I see no gains for the community or anyone else to have an ArbCom decision presented as unanimous if it isn't. And as we've seen, we certainly have problems with informality creating confusion. It boils down to one word: accountability. Noroton (talk) 17:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and especially in the Mantanmoreland case, there was a strongly voiced opinion that one of the reasons why individual tallies were not made was so that it was not possible to see which of the Arbs were unable to comprehend (for whatever reason) the compelling evidence of MM's sockpuppetry. The end result, and especially when MM was quickly subsequently proven to be the incorrigible violator of the communities trust that he was, was that the whole ArbCom with a couple of exceptions was made to look pretty ineffectual. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything special about the Mantanmoreland case hat would justify anonymous voting for the arbiters. I also see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Proposed decision where all proposed decisions are voted on. WP:WEASEL has a field day with "A majority of the Committee concludes that the weight of the credible evidence taken as a whole is suggestive of or consistent with a relationship between the two accounts", of course. But I don't see how Wikipedia is better off now than with a clear vote. As far as I'm concerned, standing up for your opinion is part of the job of an arbiter. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the committee was very inventive in stating its opinion of the facts of the case as a body, without running the risk of skewing the vote by arbitrators feeling pressured to vote a certain way by public expectations. When consensus processes break down, the arbitration commmittee is our final defence against the mob, and from time to time it must take on the mob face-to-face, shoulder to shoulder in order to retain the integrity of its own processes. Solidarity at such times is a very powerful tool. Rather like now, really. --Jenny 02:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Bear in mind something about that case: after it closed when sockpuppetry was conclusively proven via checkuser the review was held behind closed doors although there was no compelling reason for secrecy. Then ArbCom made a summary announcement of its conclusion at AN and the community quickly demonstrated how dissatisfied it was. Durova^Charge! 02:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

  I'm not sure you've remembered it right. The ban discussion was held in public on 28-29 May, started by FT2, and Mantanmoreland was banned on clear evidence of socking contrary to his arbitration remedies, acquired from checkuser. It was a classic case of arbitration working hand in hand with open community procedures and proven sock puppet detection methods. --Jenny 02:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

  Hm, well I've gone back to check and...yes...memory serves. His first onsite post announces the decision for a two week block as a fait accompli.[12] and the second logs the decision.[13] The community rebelled against it and sitebanned. Durova^Charge! 02:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

  No, you've misremembered. The edits you cite show no review "held behind closed doors", and no "summary announcement" by arbcom (arbcom was not involved), and no rebellion. FT2 found a sock, blocked it, announced the block and the evidence and his personal reasoning, as an administrator, for the block duration, then somebody proposed a site ban, which was carried. It's tempting to remember things in a way that serves one's prejudice, but then there are the facts in the edit history. --Jenny 02:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

  I suppose so. Next time I'll look for those magical words for the arbitration committee. That'll clear up everything. ;) Durova^Charge! 03:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• If the point of this is that "proposed findings of fact (being voted on by members of the arbitration committee, on the 'proposed decision' page) should directly state particulars of the case, rather than stating a summary of opinions expressed elsewhere regarding particulars of the case" then I can certainly agree to it. — CharlotteWebb 14:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLPSE

To briefly deal with a pre-existing issue, the status of WP:BLPSE cannot be set up as unchangable stone forever. It must be reworked into a policy, guideline, or how to page that the community can tweak and edit in response to any problems. This is basic five pillars stuff.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
2. It should be able to be reworked like any other policy on WP. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 15:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
3. I don't think we should consider it as anything more than a proposal at this point, but regardless of what it is, the community should have some input. -- Ned Scott 04:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
4. --TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 20:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
5. Almost two months later, no admin has made use of BLPSE, and admins that are regular arbitration enforcers have declined to "be the test case" for it. (See MastCell's original WP:ANI post regarding John Edwards when the July round of news stories broke. We haven't seen any case where it was both necessary to use it and a good idea to use it. GRBerry 15:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

   Yeah. The Edwards thing was a case where WP:BLP pretty clearly mandated a certain approach despite the large number of folks insisting that we should take lessons in media ethics from Gawker.com. I appreciate that WP:BLPSE was an attempt by ArbCom to support admins who stand up for BLP, but in the end, I actually felt like it would be more controversial and ultimately counterproductive to invoke it (especially as the inaugural case). I think this is a case where the admins whose judgement is good enough to be entrusted with this much power are by definition too wise to actually employ it. MastCell ^Talk 21:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Users who oppose this summary:

1. Arbcom may make binding determinations on what is and is not acceptable enforcement of an existing policy. They've been doing that forever, it's their job and they're bloody good at it. --Jenny 16:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
2. So people can take away its teeth and fill it with loopholes? Mr.Z-man 20:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
3. No way Jose. BLPSE is one of the best things the arbcom has ever handed down. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

View by Cenarium

A judicial instance subject to the separation of powers

The role of the arbitration committee is judicial, in the sense that it is aimed to resolve disputes. The committee should respect the separation of powers and thus resign to any executive power or legislative authority.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Cenarium ^Talk 16:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
2. I partly agree. Yes, it would be great if Arbcomm worked as a "judicial" body. Unfortunately, there are no laws in WP. Hence, there is no separation of powers. I will comment on that below.Biophys (talk) 16:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who oppose this summary:

1. No. They're just there as a backstop for when the community processes break down. --Jenny 19:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

   This position is too easily abused. Cenarium ^Talk 20:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

   Let's wait until your dire prediction is fulfilled. --Jenny 20:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Corollaries

Several corollaries follow:

• First of all, as a judicial body, the arbitration committee should honor high levels of transparency and respect the right for a defense.
• The types of acceptable remedies and enforcement for a request for arbitration should be explicitly listed (as attempted here) and discussed by the community.
• Enacting new processes or policies is a legislative matter and so not within the scope of the committee. Thus, any arbcom proposal should follow the classic community-based ratification process.
• Since it would be an executive power, the committee has no right to take or request any kind of action that is not part of the final decision of a request for arbitration.
• As a consequence of the previous point, requesting a modification of userrights is not within the scope of the committee, except as a ruling of a specific arbitration request on a user. This means that, for example, the committee cannot choose checkusers or oversighters, or ask a steward to desysop a user as specified in the blp special enforcement. Processes to choose checkusers and oversighters have been proposed above.

In a nutshell, the scope and authority of the committee is limited to issue a judgment on a request for arbitration, in the format defined by the experience and the community (second point above).

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Cenarium ^Talk 16:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Users who are mightily confused by this summary:

1. Where do the US Grand Jury system, and the general confidentiality of the jury room, fit into the concept of judicial transparency? The proposal doesn't make sense even if we accept the proposal that arbcom's function is judicial? --Jenny 19:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

   Transparency means that we should know who !votes for what, have the timestamps and a couple of other things described in various comments. Confidentiality is important and should be respected when needed. I am not familiar with the US Grand Jury system. Cenarium ^Talk 20:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

   Just pointing out the absurdity of reasoning from the premise that arbcom is a judicial system. --Jenny 21:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

   Another thing to point out is that for the arbcom, votes are votes; there's none of this !votes nonsense. The arbcom functions on a majority system and if something has the support of a majority of active arbitrators at the time of the vote, it passes. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Consequences

Actions of the arbitration committee taken outside their scope as defined above have no authority. It pertains to the community to decide whether such existing actions (like the blp special enforcement) are binding.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Cenarium ^Talk 16:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
2. with our current system, yes. -- Ned Scott 04:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who oppose this summary:

1. Part of the arbitration committee's function is to make binding enforcement provisions. --Jenny 19:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

   When they are specific to a request for arbitration. Cenarium ^Talk 19:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

   The Committee decides what is specific to an arbitration. --Jenny 21:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

   This is a remarkably dangerous and stupid point of view. See Committee of Public Safety or Camp X-Ray. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

   It isn't a judiciary or an executive, or a legislature. It's just a group of people who look at a problem we can't solve and come up with a solution. It wouldn't work if they weren't free to investigate and define the problem. --Jenny 22:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

   Investigating and solving problems requires some leeway, not unlimited power to extend a case, create sweeping new policies, and institute a reign of terror. Of course such wide freedom offers many easy "solutions", but it does not promote good solutions that lead to a stable long-term improvement, and certainly does not contribute towards a community I want to be a part of. If ArbCom needs unlimited powers to solve our problems, we need a different structure. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

   I agree with you that arbcom doesn't need (nor does it have) unlimited powers. Let's lay to rest this canard that by passing an enforcement provision the Committee has created policy. It has only delegated its very considerable dispute resolution powers, namely by enforcement, to the administrators under certain circumstances and under very tight Committee supervision. Of course we want the Biographies of living persons policy enforced fully, and the Committee has simply given the administrators the powers, and the encouragement, they need to enforce that policy, which already exists. --Jenny 23:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

2. Smells like Nullification. 5:15 00:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
3. Great idea in principle, but the community itself shouldn't be able to say "no". Like Five Fifteen said, that's essentially a people's nullification, and is a bad idea; what we need is another group whose function is to overthrow remedies that dont't pertain to a single editor involved in a dispute, or a binding policy that says ArbCom can't do that, and any such passed remedies are null and void. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

View by User:Low Sea

WP:BROWNACT -- Closed Meetings Policy

I know it has been repeatedly said above that there are to be no secret trials and I whole-heartedly agree. I have also noted above that some folks say there may be "extreme" circumstances that warrant a secret discussion and on that I am not fully opposed but I am very cautious. I come to this discussion with a helpful idea on this matter...

Over 50 years ago in California the citizens found their elected leaders doing far too many "back room deals" and this resulted in what is now known as the Ralph M. Brown Act or just "Brown Act" for short. This "sunshine law" has been highly effective in both preventing problems and (when bypassed) in exposing them. The act prohibits any secret meetings but does allow "Closed Session Meetings" for a very few specific exceptions, and even those exceptions require prior announcement that a Closed Meeting to discuss subject XYZ (example "to discuss pending lawsuits") is taking place and any decisions made in such sessions must be announced immediately afterwards. Any hint of collusion that a decision was made outside the allowed process is grounds for investigation, sanctions and watchdogging.

I propose that a Wikipedia-workable version of the Brown Act (in concept) be developed so that should "extreme" situations require secret deliberations the ArbCom would be required to indicate that they are working on a sensitive matter before discussion begins and announce the [redacted] results. Example: "The ArbCom is initiating WP:RFAR/BrownAct_Discussions/Item_2008.001 on a matter involving minors." followed later by "The ArbCom's decision in WP:RFAR/BrownAct_Discussions/Item_2008.001 is as follows: blah-blah-blah".

Details of what types of subject matter would justify a BrownAct_Discussion as well as enforcement protocols would need to be developed but I think this is a good way to restore confidence in the ArbCom's transparency to the community that elected them. Low Sea (talk) 17:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Agree - when privacy and discretion are needed, this method would be much clearer than what (I think) goes on at the moment. I would add that each arbitrator's votes for each finding-of-fact, etc are published so if there are contentious decisions made, we can match decision to name in the next election. Like in the current case involving FT2 and OM, I'd like to know who were the arbitrators who permitted a "secret" case. That's not the issue at the moment; it is merely the best example I can think of to illustrate my point. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 18:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Agree in principle, provided that it may be generally understood that some actions which are not likely to set precedent may result in nothing more than "A user was editing in a manner that came to the attention of ARBCOM. Circumstances indicated there might be a request for privacy. ARBCOM investigated and has made a ruling on the issue. The editor has requested continued privacy. In this case, ARBCOM believes honoring the request for privacy is in the best interest of both the editor and Wikipedia." or "A user was editing in a manner that came to the attention of ARBCOM. Circumstances indicated there might be a request for privacy. ARBCOM investigated and has made a ruling on the issue. The editor has not responded to requests to waive privacy. In this case, ARBCOM believes continuing to honor the editor's privacy is in the best interest of both the editor and Wikipedia." In other words, the public will no nothing more than the total number of such "very private" actions in a given year and when they occurred. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Strong Support. I guess based on what I see that one is supposed to support one's own ideas. :) Low Sea (talk) 20:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Something like this would I think be helpful. At least the notification of ongoing discussion part. I disagree with tony below, the project is now to big, entrenched, and public to be 'just the wiki' anylonger. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Yes. --Badger Drink (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
6. Yes. If ArbCom is going to retain their ludicrously high level of power which really belongs in multiple departments, it should be as transparent as possible. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 10:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
7. Agree. But I think we need even more formal arrangements to resolve the problems.Biophys (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
8. Enthusiastically agree. This is a good way to manage any private proceedings that may need to occur. It needs to be implemented along with some clear standards for what, exactly, exceptional circumstances are. -- The_socialist ^talk? 02:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Provisionally oppose

1. Sounds ridiculously bureaucratic. It's just a wiki, you know. --Jenny 21:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The ArbCom has had its chance to operate in an easy-going, ad hoc manner. The ArbCom has failed miserably. It's just the 7th most-visited website in the world, you know. --Badger Drink (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

1. To improve ArbCom we need to reduce the bureaucracy, not multiply it. What's the point of lessening the caseload on arbs (other proposals) if we make up for it in paperwork? Mr.Z-man 21:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

How exactly would having to write a brief, one or two line statement before taking a secret case "multiply" the "paperwork"? --Badger Drink (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Does this only apply to secret cases? The description made it sound like any non-public discussion had to be disclosed. As far as I know every case has at least some discussion in private. Mr.Z-man 20:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

comment: The California Brown Act is basically a set of enforcible guidelines that says the public (here, the Community) always has the right to observe the decision making process of their elected officials and provides a few very specific exceptions along with requirements to inform the public as much as practical on whatever did happen behind closed doors. I do not want this to be a nightmare set of laws, but rather as I said in my original suggestion; "a Wikipedia-workable version of the Brown Act" which naturally would have to be developed as a consensus agreed policy. We already require documenting all RFAR's ... this essentially would add the requirement to minimally document all "secret" RFARs too (as much as practical without violating privacy). In fact the RFAR page itself could be used for this side-by-side with normal RFAR's by using a modified RFAR template with minimal information. If further discussion is needed I have created WT:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee#WP:BROWNACT, let's move any deeper conversations there. Low Sea (talk) 21:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Rootology's ideas

A grab bag of ideas. Take them in whole or in part, came up from a few conversations with people over email--taken together they're a possible end to end plan, or steal and endorse just bits. If Jimbo is seperated from the Committee, using a fixed pool of Emeritus arbiters as a "Deletion Review" for Arbcom might work? rootology (T) 06:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Slap author or endorse at your leisure

1. Arbcom structure: 16 arbiters, two tranches, 8 per tranche, two year terms.

   Shorter terms, hopefully less burnout. rootology (T) 06:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

   no prob, maybe go for three traches of 8 to increase potential participation? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

   Agree on any reducing of terms. 3 years onwiki are like 100 years in real life. I would prefer 18 months, 3 thanches, 6 months between elections Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

2. Two-term limit. Lets keep fresh viewpoints and ideas on the Arbcom.

   It doesn't need to be a lifetime appointment; keeps burnout down, activity up hopefully. rootology (T) 06:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

   Don't see the point if an arbitrator is supported by community why don't him the third terms. Highly theoretical anyway: how many arbitrators saw reelections anyway Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

3. The Top 8 vote-winners in the election become Arbiters each year. If one resigns or steps down, the next in order takes their place to fill out their term. Jimmy can ratify the election but Jimmy does not have veto powers over what the populace wants in an arbiter.

   Easy to automatically replace inactive, departed, or inactive arbs. rootology (T) 06:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

   I like automatic filling, not sure about this without more thought. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

   Seems sensible. I would limit automatic appointment to those who got more than 50% from community voting Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

4. Like Stewards, Arbiters must remain active to retain their position. They need to participate in public voting on at least 4 cases every 6 months (very lenient). If they do not, at the end of the following July or December they are removed as Arbiters and the next person from their election takes their place.

   Inactive arbiters actively hurt the Wikipedia users by pointlessly tying up their posts. If you can't serve, you're not an arbiter. rootology (T) 06:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

   yes. though we need to define a reasonable level of activity/inactiviy. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

   Agree (how about at least 4 cases every month - it is still lenient but more realistic) Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

5. Arbiters that complete their full or fill-in replacement term are Arbiters Emeritus for a period as long as their term of service, either 2 years or 4 years.

   Arbiters and Arbiters Emeritus are the only members of the Arbitration system, and this keeps the ranks always fresh and current. rootology (T) 06:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

   eh, rather they stay as active as emeritus as they want, since likely a solid percentage won't be very active. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

   Don't see the pressing need IMHO Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

6. Once the 2 or 4 years of Arbiter Emeritus expires, we give those guys a gold watch and send them off to go write more articles--they're done. You can never run for Arbcom again.

   Nothing like this should be a lifetime seat. Keep fresh ideas in; old ones retire. Limits the number of people who have access to proceedings over time. rootology (T) 06:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

   rather a gap, than strict term limits. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

   IMHO it is instruction creep Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

7. Only active elected Arbiters and Arbiters Emeritus get access to the arbcom-l mail list. Sorry, no Jimbo. Keep it strictly to the people the community has chosen.

   It should be an independent body. The Committee, belonging to Jimbo, can't arbitrate on potentially "anything" (how would the current Arbcom here a case with Jimbo as a party fairly?), and should be able to do so. Any sitting Wikimedia Foundation Board member likely shouldn't be a part of the Arbcom. They ought to be seperate to isolate the WMF from any local liability. rootology (T) 06:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

8. Jimbo Wales is no longer the final avenue of appeal for Arbitration. He's just what he is, an admin, steward, and board member at the present time. He is fully subject to the Arbcom's decisions as is anyone else.

   If Jimmy wasn't on the WMF board, that's one thing. If WP was still even the size it was when I joined in 2005, that's one thing. It's bigger, now. Needs to be totally community-dependent. rootology (T) 06:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

   I would prefer to keep Jimbo's role as is. I do not completely trust voting in Open Communities, would prefer some sort of Constitutional Monarchy Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

9. If any meta-Arbcom conflict comes up (see the FT2 situation) or someone is totally unsatisified with an Arbcom decision, and is not satisfied with the Arbcom appeal(s) they've gotten, they can file a case to be heard by the Emeritus Arbcom--final court of appeal. Exactly the same, same template, same formats as a regular RFAR, except no workshop, and except that appeal would be heard by/voted on only the Emeritus group. State case, then evidence, then proposed decision, then done. Or as a clarification if easier. Sort of like Deletion Review for the Arbcom. The Emeritus guys examine the decision of the seated Arbcom, and clarify if the decision was good. If they decide it's not, the Emeritus arbcom can order the case reopened for new evidence/revoting (likely to be super-rare). The Emiritus groups has NO other actual authority beyond this "DRV" type function.

   There's your oversight for the active Arbs -- DRV for Arbitration, or the equivalent of a Wikipedia Supreme Court. Same automatic turnover for fresh views, as the regular Arbcom. rootology (T) 06:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

   not sure how I feel about this. would rather insert an arbitration/review layer below and keep the arbcomm the final word. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

   Seems reasonable - we need a sort of commission supervising Arbcom. Do not particularly like giving to Arbcom-emerituses not to independent from the incumbent Arbcom. Still better than nothing Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

10. Since there is enforced turnover by time on both the Arbcom and the Emeritus corps and access to private deliberations (the mail list) the Arbcom would be more dynamic and able to adapt to a changing Wikipedia over time.

    Again, keeps things fresh. rootology (T) 06:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

11. The new structure (retirement, etc) would apply to all current and former arbiters based on when they joined and became Arbiters. No one gets any Grandfather Clauses and the structure change is retroactive. Your potential maximum of 8 years of service began from the time you got seated. So, for example, User:The Cunctator and User:Camembert served from 2004-2005 only. Their Emeritus status would have expired in 2006, so their service is done as of now. However, they could both run for one additional term since they have not served the maximum of 4 years on Arbcom. On the other end, User:Jdforrester has been an arbiter from mid 2005, through 2009. He could not run again, and if he stays on till December 31 2009 would be an Arbiter Emeritus for four years after his term. Alternately, just turn over each Tranche to the new system as they expire. The first 2 years the AC will be a bit bigger, as each Tranche grows, and then it will seamlessly self-regulate it's size back down as Arbiter and Emiritus positions expire. rootology (T) 06:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

View by dave souza

Arbitration should aim to settle disputes rather than punish

Arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution on Wikipedia, dealing with cases related to editors' conduct (including improper editing) where all other routes to agreement have failed. Arbcom makes rulings to address problems in the editorial community. Such rulings include sanctions restricting or removing editing privileges, but to me the aim should always be to settle disputes rather to than punish offenders.

The MatthewHoffman case has already been mentioned in discussions, and while I agree that the concern was about an admin involved in what could reasonably be seen as a transparent denial of natural justice, the manner in which it was dealt with created another denial of natural justice.[14] The case was brought by an arbiter as a "test case",[15] about a week before the admin's exams started,[16] and was about changing community ideas about indefinite blocks rather than about the individual admin.[17] Extended problems with the handling of the case included voting started before the accused had presented evidence, and left left him feeling that he had been tormented for several months.[18]

Like the Orangemarlin case, that earlier case was centred around editing on intelligent design related articles. There has been extensive campaigning off-wiki for at least a year alleging bullying and incivility by ID Wikiproject members.[19] The "evidence" presented by FT2 is similar to the smears pushed in that campaigning. Once again, arbiters appear to be trying to make an example of an editor to clamp down on previously acceptable debate. The proposed sanctions were punitive, leaving Orangemarlin open to blocking by any admin who interpreted a remark as uncivil. In this context, I myself have been accused of incivility to the extent of gamesmanship and "dishonest carpet-bombing of policy links" for drawing the attention of a tendentious editor to policies and guidance for talk pages.[20] It may be noted that the forum campaigning against ID editors is frequented by several admins. The case was apparently held in secret because of fear of "smoke and mirrors". That appears to be an uncivil way of describing presentation of a detailed defence.

These problems seem to me to arise from an aim of exemplary punishment of offenders, particularly for alleged incivility to problematic new editors who promote fringe ideas. The result has been drama, and discreditable actions by arbcom. It would be much better if the aim had been to settle disputes, treating those accused as valued editors and focussing on improving behaviour while doing no harm. . . dave souza, talk 08:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Guettarda (talk) 14:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Filll (talk | wpc) 16:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
3. Endorse as far as disputes go. If a user is blatantly playing up - for fun, not becuase of any content issue - then punishment is needed. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 21:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

As much as possible, do no harm

In brief, Arbcom should have as its goal amicable dispute resolution rather than trying to change Wikipedia culture by exemplary punishment, and this could be summarised as an Arbcom policy of "as much as possible, do no harm". . . . dave souza, talk 11:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Endorse a good principle for everyone on Wikipedia (and elsewhere) and conducive to a positive, constructive and productive environment for editors. DuncanHill (talk) 11:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Guettarda (talk) 14:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
3. Absolutely. Although Wikipedia in theory subscribes to the commendable goal of avoiding punitive actions, in practice many actions are taken to punish others, or in retaliation for some perceived misdeed.--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Agree. Often Arbcom decisions are just blocking of equal number of editors from both sides and it achieves nothing but arresting the development of the Encyclopedia Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
5. Good idea to be motivated by, even if it may well be practically useless in some specific situations. John Carter (talk) 00:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Another view by LessHeard vanU

Regarding the polling of Arbiters/counting votes in proceedings, it is a useful indication of how the individual Arb is participating and what their views are when it comes to seeking re-appointment to the committee. General dissatisfaction for a current ArbCom may prejudice the prospects of a member seeking re-election and, perhaps most importantly, we are supposed to vote on the basis of both trust and suitability of a candidate - which evidence is absented without any record of how they conducted themselves in the final decisions on matters.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Agree wholeheartedly. Not only should this be a requirement of arbitrators, we should be asking candidates if they will pledge to vote publicly, individually and explicitly every time Arbcom votes in a case. This is one of the most important ways Arbcom members become accountable to the rest of us. Noroton (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
3. Agree (as always). This seems somewhat related to FT2's statement below, where he seems to indicate below that the "secret" cases are in part due to the arbitrators seeking to obscure themselves from criticism. This is exactly the opposite of how things should be. Naerii 11:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Endorse DuncanHill (talk) 11:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
5. Endorse and would go further. The requirement for all ArbCom votes to be public and recorded should really be a part of WP:AP. Nsk92 (talk) 11:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
6. Absolutely Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
7. Agree with the above endorse statements. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
8. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

View by User:Biophys

We need rule of law as any other society

There are too many arbitrary decisions by individual administrators and even by Arbcomm. Administrators themselves do not really know what is allowed, which leads to cases like Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley. This results in Abcomm overload and the crisis.

We need a set of simple administrative rules that would be discussed and voted by the entire WP community. Such "laws" would be above the Arbcomm and individual administrators. So far, I know only WP:3RR rule of that kind. As an internet society, we need the rule of law.

The "Administrative law" of WP would define the following questions, for example.

1. Can a user be blocked for an obviously incivil comment?

2. Can an administrator unblock a user who has been briefly blocked by another administrator without a consensus at the ANI? If the answer was "no" and such rule was formalized, a user Gorge would receive an official warning, and this is it. But since we have no such "law", one can not blame George or William of any wrongdoing.

3. Can a user be blocked indefinitely for a misbehavior by a single administrator? One possible answer: "yes, but only if one of the following conditions was satisfied: (a) this "bad" user had less than 1000 edits; or (b) he/she had more than 10 previous blocks; or (c) there is a consensus about that on the ANI noticeboard.

That is not so simple. For example, can a user be blocked for a content editing? One possible answer: "yes, but only if he/she repeatedly inserts poorly sourced defamatory materials in a BLP of a person". But then one would have to define what is a reliable source for the purpose of such rule. "A published book, or a publication in a major newspaper or peer-reviewed journal" perhaps would work fine.

4. An administrator who violated one of the rules should be warned and desysopped after third offense. And so on.

I think we have no other choice but to discuss and adopt such rules by the entire community. Otherwise, we are moving in a wrong direction. For example, in Digwuren case Arbomm is currently voting to allow a single and actually involved administrator to block a user for a period of one year for content editing on the "Eastern European topics, broadly defined". At the same time, Arbocomm considers sanctions against an administrator who simply blocked a user for 48 hours for an obviously incivil comment. That looks like a total chaos to me. I am sorry for the criticism.Biophys (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Users tho endorse this suggestion

1. Endorse. I left Wikipedia because I was hammered by an admin who used an extension of a rule that the language of the rule didn't support. Wikipedia must stick to the written language of the rules, and if they need to be extended, extend the language. WP:IAR MUST GO. Anything else makes it impossible for an editor to know what to expect from any given action. Jay Maynard (talk) 13:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who oppose this suggestion

1. Some of these sound too arbitary. The committee should be able to make decisions on a case-by-case basis. For instance, having above/below a certain number of edits doesn't show as much as one would expect. They could all be typo corrections. They could all be vandalism. They could be a few exemplery edits to a fine article. The question should be: Is this user an established editor? not Has this user got X number of edits? The arbitrator who got emself into rule violations three times: is that three well-spaced unfortunate run-ins or is it three incidents of blantant abuse-of-power?

Cases must be handled on a case-by-case basis. One size does not fit all. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 21:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not propose any exact wording of the rules. This is just an idea: we need a bigger set of simple rules, like WP:3RR rule, to regulate various typical situations. That would help everyone including Arbcomm. What is not covered by the rules, would be handled on the case to case basis.Biophys (talk) 02:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Disagree - too much rules (and ignoring WP:IAR) would lead to gaming of the rules and wikilawyering. Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

How is a user to know what to expect if the rules as written aren't the rules as enforced? Jay Maynard (talk) 13:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Case study by Carcharoth

Wasn't intended as such, but I got involved in a discussion at WT:RFARB, and it seems that small incremental changes and improvements can be made to the arbitration process (in this case the way cases are accepted), if not exactly the policy. Please see Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration#Suggested acceptance method and Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration#Proposing change to arbitration policy. Carcharoth (talk) 04:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Don't be silly! Go and vote over there! Carcharoth (talk) 04:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

View by Dbachmann: radically reduce arbcom's jurisdiction

My view of the problem is extensively quoted above by Moreschi (cheers). My suggestion of how to resolve it is the following:

Radically reduce the scope of the arbcom's juristiction. The arbcom should only accept cases which could not be resolved by the admin community. The admin community is excellent (well, compared to the arbcom) at swift resolution of complex issues. Most cases drawn out in bureaucratic arbitration could be handled at WP:AN, disruptive editors warned or blocked, everyone reminded of the project goals. This means that I suggest that the arbcom should be reduced to handle cases of wheel wars. We can't have admins going at one another's throats, and in the rare cases where this happens, and threatens to escalate as those admins joining the fray do not succeed in clamping down on the problem but making it worse. In such rare cases (what, twice a year?), the arbcom may be a necessity. For anything else, it has repeatedly shown that it has outlived its purpose and is best routed around by the community. dab (𒁳) 07:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Partially endorse: agree with reducing of arbcom's jurisdiction; disagree with limiting of the functions to only wheel warring. I think any case of a productive active user should be handled by arbcom if there is no consensus in the administrative community. Maybe we should setup lesser courts as e.g. my old proposal of Wikipedia:Request for solutions Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 18:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
3. An excellent idea; ArbCom itself is a powerful entity, and by their very nature, powerful entities are not to be trusted; they should only act in cases where the community has been unable to come to a solution (lower courts would help a lot in this). Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who oppose this summary:

1. User:Goodone121Bettering the Wiki (talk) 22:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

View by User:Hiding on a transparent scale of remedies

What I'm asking for here is more transparency in deciding remedies. I think there needs to be some sort of minimum blocking for breaches of policies, so that we get better even handedness. If WP:CIV is to remain a core policy, then when arbitration finds a user has breached it there should be a minimum of a 48 hr block. POV pushing should probably see a minimum of 1 week, with sock puppetry at least a month. I think the time has come to move away from probation. If the dispute has reached arbitration, there's already been a lengthy period of probation whilst other avenues have been exhausted. Nobody who has breached a policy should be walking away from arbitration simply admonished. If they were going to accept an admonishment, they would not be at arbitration. If we have this transparent scale, it will allow far better openness and outcomes, and avoid accusations of vendettas. Obviously we need to treat productive editors and admins who have temper issues separately from editors who are abusive and unproductive, but we need to treat them in some manner regardless. If there was a standard minimum 48 hour block for incivility where found through arbitration, it may solve a few issues. I admit it needs finetuning to prevent a large number of editors repeatedly appearing before arb-com, but to not do so leaves the committee open to justified accusations of bias. Hiding T 11:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

Users who oppose this summary:

1. Questionable: In some cases, an arbitrator (usually Kirril Lokshin) has created/researched evidence himself to back a finding. As well, Arbcom often extends the case to whatever anyone cares to bring up. Combined with this, at the present time, Arbcom often accepts cases without prior dispute resolution. Between all of these, if someone pulls someone up before Arbcom - and it's accepted - then something is going to be found out about them. To then say that arbcom MUST block over whatever comes out is just asking for Arbcom to be used to harass. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

View by Yannismarou in regards to Jimbo Wales (influenced by Kelly's proposal above)

This project has gone forward, and has achieved great things. It is no more a "one-man show". Jimbo is the creator, and the project's soul. But the "Community" has become its driving force. Without these thousands and thousands of editors this encyclopedia would have been dead. Therefore, we must re-form our procedures, putting this "Community" (again a Jimbo's creation) in the center. That is why I make these two proposals, admitting however my limited knoweledge on ArbCom's history. So, if I write nonsense, don't hesitate to tell me! The rationale of my proposal is a "balance of powers", so:

• Jimbo considers himself bound by the results of the ArbCom elections, and appoints as Arbitrators the candidates with the highest percentage of positive votes. Jimbo keeps the right to propose with his own initiative members for the ArbCom (separate procedure from the aforementioned elections), but his proposals should acquire the consensus of the Community (e.g. 65 of positive votes, as it happens with RfA).
• As a check to the ArbCom's power, Jimbo and the Community can together dissolve the ArbCom. Jimbo is entitled to initiate this "vote of non-confidence" explaining the reasons for doing so, but he cannot dissolve the ArbCom, without having the consent of the Community (again with a 65% or 70% of the votes - the percentage of the Community's consensus is to be discussed).--Yannismarou (talk) 12:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. I partially endorse only the 2nd.And partially, because 65-70 % is for me too much. I think that we don't need the vast majority to dissolve the ArbCom, only a large proportion to desire the dissolution. I think 40-42% is enough to dissolve the ArbCom.--Michael X the White (talk) 10:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

View by anonymous user

My own experiences with ArbCom have found the following issues (in no particular order):

• ArbCom remedies are inconsistent. "Probation" is defined, but ArbCom often hands out "Cautions" and "Counselling", both of which are undefined and amount to lip-service. All remedies should be defined.
• ArbCom requests often allow satements to contain inappropriate comments, including comments that are clearly incivil, or even mis-posted (even after requests to move them).
• ArbCom tools "Oversight" and "Checkuser" should have publicly available logs showing who used them and why, with all relevent sensitive information excluded. Currently there is no transparency.
• The Arbitration guide says that statements should include diffs. Too often, these are omitted, or (apprently) ignored. --59.139.29.98 (talk) 14:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Only capable people should be arbitrators and arbitrations should work like real court cases

The best arbitrator we ever had was User:Newyorkbrad. This is because he was a capable and competent lawyer. Many of the worst arbcom members we have had were far from having the credentials I would want in an "arbitration committee" member. Think of it as the Supreme Court of Wikipedia. We have too many Harriet Miers and not enough Learned Hands. It would be nice if testimony was taken more systematically, and, like the Supreme Court, procedures of evidence consideration or witness statements complete with direct and cross examinations be remanded to lower courts (like WP:ANI for example). A real judicial system would be a breath of fresh air.

Users who endorse this summary

1. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Wikipedia would greatly benefit from a formally structured system. It might involve creation of other bodies to handle matters not directly related to ArbCom's central focus, but if it does it does. It would I think also help quite a bit if we could guarantee involved individuals directly respond to comments/questions made. It would also help if the parties were given some sort of formal advice. The downside is we may have a lot of Perry Mason-wannabes who think of an ArbCom as their "big scene", but I don't know if that would be avoidable. John Carter (talk) 00:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
3. I have noticed that some of our sitting arbitrators do not even understand the principles of WP, including WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. I have noticed that many of our sitting arbitrators have no experience at editing controversial articles, which are far far different than normal articles. I would like to see all arbitrators demonstrating extensive knowledge of WP principles, and to have substantial experience in editing controversial articles. Just choosing a nice lad or lass because they are nice people is not really enough, I am sorry to say.--Filll (talk | wpc) 00:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 01:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom Lite

• ArbCom should have an "ArbCom Lite" option, whereby a proposer can select any three members of the Arbcom committee, for a fasttrack assessment of their case, using a single "talk page". Rather than everyone making contributions, the ArbCom lite panel would invite evidence from those people they consider relevent. A 2:1 majority would decide the case. --59.139.29.98 (talk) 14:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this suggestion:

Users who comment on this summary:

1. In what set of circumstances would this help? The Arbitration Committee has already decided to establish sub-committees to deal with summary or perennial matters like admin abuse and Checkuser appointments. -- The_socialist ^talk? 04:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thesocialistesq's Suggestions

Guarantees for the parties

We need a list of basic guaranties afforded to parties in any Arbitration Committee dispute, something like a bill of rights that asks arbitrators not to do X until guaranty Y is fulfilled. By uniformly limiting what the ArbCom can do, we ensure that it functions fairly. The community should draft the guarantees together, of course, but below I've suggested some basic principles that should probably be included.

Users who endorse this suggestion:

1. -- The_socialist ^talk? 06:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Great idea. Mr. IP (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Parties may confront & present evidence

All parties to a dispute and any user who might be subjected to remedies by the Arbitration Committee are entitled to confront and present evidence to be used by the Committee in forming a decision before the Committee renders that decision.

Users who endorse this suggestion:

1. -- The_socialist ^talk? 06:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Double Jeopardy

No Arbitration Committee case dealing with the same dispute as another ArbCom case may be accepted by the Committee. The same case may be re-opened, however, if there is new evidence.

Users who endorse this suggestion:

1. -- The_socialist ^talk? 06:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Public and Due Process

All parties are entitled to a due and equal process from the Arbitration Committee conducted, as far as reasonably possible, on-wiki and in public. Proceedings in camera must include all parties, excepting the deliberations of ArbCom members.

Users who endorse this suggestion:

1. -- The_socialist ^talk? 06:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Absolutely. I advocate a more radical form of this requirement below, but I like the phrasing here. Mr. IP (talk) 16:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Recall and Shorter terms

To ensure accountability, the terms of arbiters of all tranches should be shortened to two years and, on the petition of at least 100 established members citing a specific abuse or set of abuses, an arbiter should be subjected to a vote of confidence by the community. If the arbiter fails to earn the confidence of at least half of users voting, the arbiter should be recalled and the most popular unelected candidate in the last arbcom election should be assigned to complete his or her term. Votes of confidence should occur no more than once in an arbiter's term.

Users who endorse this suggestion:

1. -- The_socialist ^talk? 06:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Sm8900: Arbcom should be able to resolve content-related disputes

Arbcom should be allowed to make rulings on and to resolve content-related disputes. Right now, they do not, and only handle issues on user conduct. that is one reason that Arbcom cases frequently become so convoluted, and so full of allegations and counter-allegations. with no recourse open to them except accusations, most users heap more and more accusations into the processes and cases. the lack of resolution of content disputes is making things worse, not better. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this suggestion:

1. User:Sm8900 (added by Keith D. Tyler ¶ 16:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC))
2. Keith D. Tyler ¶ 16:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC) - Yes, particularly as the lower forms of DR (e.g. RFM) deal with content disputes; AC not dealing with content disputes short-circuits that purpose of DR, and leaves pernicious content disputes open indefinitely. Then again, perhaps there should be a separate last-recourse for CDs than AC, but until there is one, AC should fill the hole.

Users who oppose this suggestion:

1. Not a good idea. It may be OK, in my opinion, for ArbCom to make very limited, non-precedent-setting and straightforward content-related decisions in some cases, e.g. if some-one used a source that does not support a particular statement for which the source was cited or if there is a particularly clear case of some topic being notable while somebody keeps insisting that it is not. However, in fairly clear cases like these the matter will almost never get to the ArbCom level anyway. For more serious and entrenched controversial matters ArbCom should stay out of making content decisions, which in the end would do much more harm than good. Imposing a content decision by ArbCom in such matters would damage the credibility of the entire project, open it to accusations of censorship and drive away lots of editors from it. For the worst cases that reach the ArbCom level the problem usually lies in relentless POV pushing, often from both sides in a dispute. A content ruling is not going to solve problems like these but make only make them worse. Nsk92 (talk) 17:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Should be a good idea, but it isn't. Recently, it's been demonstrated that being an arbcom member doesn't render a person immune to con-games like intelligent design. It's even possible that one or more of them believes in nonsense like homeopathy or electronic voice phenomena. It's too dangerous to allow people to gain sweeping control over content without being able to screen for such things in advance.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kww (talk • contribs)
3. This would have the effect of making the ArbCom an elected board of editors, which is contrary to Wikipedia's first principles. Not only would it compromise our principle that anyone can be a true editor of this encyclopedia, it would also shift the content standard on Wikipedia from things like verifiability to things like majoritarianism: it really would make truth a matter of politics. -- The_socialist ^talk? 23:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Hell, no. They already have more authority than they need; they certainly don't need any more, especially over content. Content is one of the few things that the community still has; giving that up, as others have said, makes truth a matter of politics. Content should be handled by consensus, as it always has. There's simply too much risk to the project to have a binding content decision board. If a content dispute can't be handled by the community, then a stable version should be decided on and left that way until consensus can be achieved otherwise. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

View by Mr. IP, a radical approach: PERMANENT ABOLITION

A radical approach

I am perhaps outside the mainstream on this and some other Wikipedia issues, but I think the Arbitration Committee as an institution is deeply sick. Even our best and brightest are corrupted by it, and we are seeing its poisoned fruits fall faster and larger around us. The ArbCom should be abolished entirely and replaced with Wikipedia's most successful institution, administratorship. The new "Advanced cases committee" would be composed of any and all administrators who wished to participate, and divided into fluid-but-specialized panels. Recusals for involved parties would be automatic. There would be no need for the acquisition of separate and special "arb" status.

Further, absolutely all process would be open and 100% transparent, with the obvious exceptions for matters dealing in highly private information. All backchannel communication would be strongly discouraged for those involved in an active case. Community input from uninvolved parties and non-administrators would be more strongly emphasized.

Wikipedia's fear of "bureaucracy" - and how successful have we been in combating that, anyway? look where we are now! - has led to a culture of secrecy, entitlement, arrogance, and oligarchy. Unless we make a firm commitment to shift our values back toward openness and community, we will continue to see an ever-escalating series of problems such as this one. Mr. IP (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. This is the way to go. If we walk away from this RFC without a commitment to abolish ArbCom in its current form, nothing will change at all. Mr. IP (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who oppose this summary:

1. I appreciate the sense of this suggestion, and I don't think it should be dismissed out of hand. The community needs to make a firm and conscious commitment sooner rather than later to break the iron law of oligarchy before centralization of authority and hyper-emphasis on process consume the project. The recent problems with the ArbCom should remind us urgently that even bright, experienced people of good will can and will be subject to the occasional insanity of group psychology, and that we must consciously try to counter centralization and secrecy in our community the same way we try to counter systematic bias in the encyclopedia itself. That said, the elected, very public Arbitration Committee does good work right now and is subject to more scrutiny on account of its special status than a panel of admins ever could be. It's appropriate now to clarify and restrict the mission of the ArbCom, but abolition would probably just make things murkier. -- The_socialist ^talk? 23:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

View by John Carter

Appeals process

ArbCom was designed to be primarily a place where matters which had been sent through the earlier steps of the dispute resolution process would be finally decided and where administrator misconduct could be addressed. This part of the process, particularly the idea of going through other options first, seems to have been lost in some recent matters the ArbCom has taken, and certainly in matters it has chosen not to take. Propose that the arbitration process be more strongly stressed and followed.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. John Carter (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who oppose this summary:

More clearly define when and how a case can be taken to a higher level

One of the problems with matters which are sent to the noticeboards is that in effect a "vote" takes place on what to do before anything is done, until and unless someone boldly acts on their own. This discussion, depending on circumstances, can drag on for days or weeks with no action being taken. Such delays probably are not in the interests of the community, except perhaps for early evidence-gathering. Propose that guidelines for how and when to "kick upstairs" matters which are apparently not going to be resolved at these levels be written, reducing the amount of time spent waiting for action.

Users who endorse this summary

1. John Carter (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who oppose this summary

1. User:goodone121Bettering the Wiki (talk) 21:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Transferable subpages on matters

Propose that matters brought before any of the dispute resolution process be made as separate preloaded subpages. Doing so would increase ease of appeals and ensure more ready access to information regarding earlier steps of the process.

Users who endorse this summary

1. John Carter (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who oppose this summary

Semi-formal "lower courts"

I have to think that many/most matters which ultimately reach ArbCom are matters which don't necessarily require our best and brightest arbitrators, but could be handled often as well, and possibly quicker, by one or more "lower level" entities. Doing so might particularly speed the process in those cases where one of the primary factors in lengthening the deliberation phase is the number of cases currently before the entity. Propose that such bodies be created, and the members of them selected through a two-stage process, involving both the general community of editors and the members of ArbCom and MedCom in some order, to ensure that individuals who clearly are of dubious qualification for such positions not be given duties with which they would be unlikely to be able to successfully deal. These bodies would effectively have the same function as ArbCom but also allow for a greater degree of participation of editors with specialized knowledge of subject matters. Thus, for instance, a BLP committee might be established for serious concerns regarding BLP issues, an RS committee for reliable source issues, etc. These bodies would function in much the same way as ArbCom. Setting up such bodies would both potentially lighten the load of the committee's requests, and also allow individuals who would be interested in potentially becoming Arbitrators to have some direct experience of the duties involved. Appeals of questioned decisions of these entities could of course be filed to ArbCom, which would have the right to either accept or reject them. ArbCom would also presumably have the power to remove any individuals from such groups with or without cause. Also, such bodies could "fast-track" decisions which they think themselves either ill-equiped to handle and/or which involve matters which extend beyond their individual remit.

Users who ensorse this summary

1. John Carter (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
2. User: goodone121 Bettering the Wiki (talk) 21:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Users who oppose this summary

1. I like the idea, but not the way you've proposed it. I don't like the idea of having separate BLP and RS boards; it promotes elitism. Those who frequent BLP, especially those who are solely involved in BLP, could benefit a lot from seeing how the rest of the project operates. Otherwise we'll end up with a binding dispute resolution board with power on BLP issues filled with people like Doc Glasgow, and that's the last thing I want to see in the project. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Points acknowledged. Those were a few examples, and may not have been the best ones. But it should be noted that these groups would be entirely subordinate to ArbCom, have their decisions appealable to ArbCom, and in fact have their members chosen by ArbCom, among others. I think with such precautions in place it would be unlikely that any such subordinate entities would be likely to acquire too much independent power or presumption of power. And, of course, it would be possible to remove any individuals who seek to usurp too much power rather easily. The abilities of the "members" of such a board would probably be officially limited, perhaps to closing discussions as per some yet-to-be-written guideline, and they may well be appointed to serve at the discretion of ArbCom or MedCom, meaning they could be removed at any time by either group. John Carter (talk) 13:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, of course they'd be subordinate; but to be useful, they'd have to binding unless the decision was appealed to ArbCom; i.e, ArbCom should not simply be able to step in on any situation they want and make a decision; that would mean that they were able to exercise their power a bene placito whenever they want to, which is basically a fascism; while ArbCom would certainly be a higher court, it should only have jurisdiction when cases are sent to it by the lower courts beneath it.

Also, I'm also not particularly happy with the idea of the Committee being able to fill those lower courts with people who are in line with their own agenda; that removes a significant amount of power from the community. Rather than choosing our own lower courts, we would be trusting a group elected for case-by-case dispute resolution to choose other people to manage case-by-case dispute resolution; the idea of such indirect means doesn't seem to really be in line with the community-controlled ideals of the project to me.

I think it would be better to have a group that anyone could join (MedCab, for example) hold elections within itself for these position; that would eliminate all of the potential for abuse for ArbCom to stack the benches of the lower courts. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 14:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Also valid points. However, to ensure that the lower court is not itself corrupt, there should be the option for a party to the matter under discussion, not just the committee itself, to be able to request a review, possibly on the basis of perceived bias. Maybe a best case scenario might be:

• Nominees nominated by the community
• List of nominees reviewed by MedCom, to ensure that no people with serious POV, civility or other such issues get on the group
• That list reviewed by ArbCom, to ensure that people with a history of relevant misconduct don't get included
• I know in some areas of the US which elect judges, the bar association and similar groups rate them as "highly qualified," "well qualified," "dubiously qualified", and whatever. Maybe the MedCom and ArbCom would be allowed to rate candidates in a similar way. These opinions wouldn't necessarily be binding on anyone involved in a real "vote", but would probably be given some attention by most people involved and help ensure that questionable people don't get included. Maybe the best way to go would be to create membership lists for the various noticeboards or whatever, something along the lines of a WikiProject, and have the members of those group choose their "coordinators", like WP:MILHIST, WP:FILM, and some other groups do. In all honesty, that basically was the model I was thinking of here, even if the phrasing didn't convey that. There probably would have to be certain requisite minimal standards for involvement to qualify for an individual as a voter, to prevent "vote stacking" by outsiders or other such problems, but I think they could relatively easily be dealt with. John Carter (talk) 14:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a lot more appropriate; sorry I didn't get what you were trying to convey before; I thought you were advocating that ArbCom actually be the deciding factor in who gets to sit on the lower courts; while I don't have any problems with the Committee giving their opinion of a candidate, and think that is actually a pretty good idea; there aren't very many people more capable of reviewing a user's history than ArbCom, I didn't think that having them stack the bench as they chose to was a particularly good idea. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 18:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration guideline group

Probably the most likely to be questioned idea here. Right now, in certain instances, the ArbCom in effect has to write or create policies or guidelines which did not previously exist to be able to deal with matters presented to them. This has been criticized by several parties, with some justification. Unfortunately, recent attempts to create some sort of independent "legislature", like at Wikipedia:Governance reform, have ultimately failed due to lack of attention. Propose that ArbCom be allowed to set up a semi-formal group of trusted individuals, either selected by themselves or the community or some combination of both, who would be specifically encouraged to contribute to a group of pages which would have the purpose of advising the ArbCom regarding specific matters which policy and guidelines do not currently directly address. The statements of these individuals would not in any way be binding on ArbCom, unless their proposals are independently made policies or guidelines, but would give the ArbCom an idea regarding what the opinion of a comparatively well-trusted, well-informed, segment of the community think would be relevant guidelines for dealing with these unforseen matters. These pages would not of course be limited to only those editors, but could be used by any other editors as well.

Users who endorse this summary

1. John Carter (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
2. User: goodone121 Bettering the Wiki (talk) 22:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Users who oppose this summary

(maybe more to come, still thinking about that)

The Arbitration Committee's Responsibility to Others

How is the Arbitration Committee responsible to the community, and vice versa? MessedRocker (talk) 03:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

View by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) (3)

If the Arbcom has a responsibility to others, they are not handling it all well. Issues such as:

• Beginning voting without waiting for/seeking evidence from the people in question, without good cause.
• Low rate of reply to mails; general lack of communication with the community/stonewalling.
• Sloppiness in writing Findings of facts, no apparent attempts to get the wording "right".
• Treatment of established, respected users, e.g. the statement by FT2 that the evidence against Orangemarlin was indefensible. [Likewise Durova, Jim62sch, etc. - we can argue about the merits of individual cases, but that there is a pattern is clear].
• Various other evidence; listing of which seems inappropriate at this time, as it involves specific, small parts of specific, individual cases.
• Occasional anti-community statements and actions, for instance, trying to set up boards and new policy by fiat, without consulting the community, or really without any substantial planning phase: the BLP policy went into immediate effect, and the Sourcing Adjucation Board was to be set up in a month as a fully-operational board. Other evidence known, but not included, as it is too specific.

...all seem to be evidence that the committee do not seem to think they have any responsibility to the community, or to the users they judge.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Never attribute to malice that which can be just as easily attributed to general stupidity, or whatever, but I agree inasmuch as it can be seen this way, and regardless of intent, it certainly sends a certain "vibe" to the community, and said vibe is not an altogether satisfying one. --Badger Drink (talk) 00:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Sad but seems to be true Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Very unfortunate. This is what needs to be addressed first and foremost. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 11:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
5. I think Arbcom has taken on a bunker mentality, especially in light of the OrangeMarlin case. They consider Arbcom's functionality their own purview, rather than something they need to be accountable to the community about, and I think that at this point the only thing that's going to break through to the bunker is some sort of mandatory-accountability-to-the-community bomb. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 13:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC) (and that's enough of that analogy...)
6. I agree with the above. It worked well for a while, but in the recent months it has become clear that ArbCom no longer sees itself as accountable to the community, rather seeing themselves as some sort of self-functioning...thing...that isn't part of a bigger picture; this explains the fiat, new policy, and ignoring the pleas of affected users for explanation of actions. At this point, forced transparency may be the best thing for them to realize that they're part of a bigger mechanism. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse in part and abstain in part:

1. Agree with beginning without waiting and lack of communication. Abstain for rest. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Endorse in part first three points and last point (precipitous voting, lack of communication, sloppy writing and occasional anti-community behaviour). Abstain on the rest, and note that such behaviour may well be the result of good-faith incompetence, staleness, or incorrect assumptions, and that malice or bad-faith is not in any way assumed by my endorsement of these points. DuncanHill (talk) 13:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse in part and oppose in part:

Users who oppose in part and abstain in part:

Users who oppose this summary:

Views and statements about this RFC

Please place any statements about this RFC itself specifically in this section.

View by Tony Sidaway (4)

This RFC is premature and unfocussed. It is unlikely to serve any useful purpose.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 01:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

   but have a look at Neil's proposal

2. I agree. bibliomaniac15 01:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Possibly the most focussed statement I've ever seen from Tony Sidaway. And correct. It might be ripe, however, if the base of ArbCom's authority is obscured by inter-arbitrator squabbles. Should revisit if this kind of problem persists. Cool Hand Luke 01:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Concur with Cool Hand Luke. A cock-up (which this appears to be) is a terrible foundation for a discussion of reform. Hard cases make bad law. Mackensen (talk) 01:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

   My understanding of history indicates otherwise... Exceptional cases make for bad laws in the general case... But it's long been evident that exceptional cases in regard to people in positions of authority make for some very good laws indeed. Many of the fundamental laws of modern society were born in such cases. Ask William of Orange. --Barberio (talk) 01:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

   However, it is by no means clear what the authority is. Until and when the committee clarifies what's going on this is premature. Mackensen (talk) 01:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

   With all due respect to the committee, clarification was asked for, the result was not compelling. Even assuming that the committee is too slow and over burdened to explain themselves, I think it's not appropriate to expect the community to let the arbitrators 'wait out the clock' till the next round of elections. As has tended to happen when issues of Arbitration Policy have been raised. --Barberio (talk) 02:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

5. Concur with Mackensen and Cool Hand Luke. We can wait and let the dust settle, then figure out whether this is needed. Risker (talk) 01:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
6. While I agree some change is needed, I think starting this hours after an issue that still hasn't fully been resolved (as of this comment) was poor planning and is likely to have undue influence on this discussion. Mr.Z-man 02:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
7. I have a relatively minor but specific beef regarding this section of the Orangemarlin RfArb, and moreover I wait with baited breath to hear how the Committee intends to explain todays events. However, it's too soon to start this RfC. Monday at the earliest. --Jaysweet (talk) 03:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
8. I'm amazed to find myself agreeing with Tony, but I am. Nousernamesleft (talk) 03:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
9. Sounds accurate, not the clear, reason-focused atmosphere Lawrence would've wanted I suspect. MBisanz ^talk 03:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
10. Concur. Soliciting comment now is going to result in a lot of emoting, with little reasoning. Wait until people's knees stop jerking before trying to assemble this. Choess (talk) 03:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
11. unless "useful" == "increase drama level" Tony is exactly right. (hint... != ) ++Lar: t/c 05:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
12. I concur with Lar. BrownHornet21 (talk) 05:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
13. Endorse the first sentence, although I suggest the second part is already moot - the relationship between the Committee and the Community is already being examined within the responses here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 07:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
14. Concur - this seems an invitation for a direction less gabfest that will just create noise - Peripitus (Talk) 12:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
15. Agreed. This should be suspended and subsequently revisited when we've all moved past the recent events. —Animum (talk) 16:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
16. Most definitely premature, and as of 17:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC), unneccessary. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
17. The ArbCom is pretty busted but we need something better than this to address it. I would suggest starting a process in earnest, not anchored (a Wikilink worth reading; I'm not talking about anything nautical) to a particular fault, but taking a holistic look at how 14 smart and (at least upon election) respected Wikipedians somehow operate the ArbCom with such thorough incompetence. --JayHenry (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    There have been too many problems, too many oversteppings of normal dispute resolution powers; the OM thing is just another set of problems to add to the pile. Don't consider it as being based on one incident; many people who have problems with ArbCom have problems that date back at least a few months. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    Well, what if we decided to reboot with a fresh RFC in a week? As I read through it the problem was obvious. The views above us were hastily-typed and little-considered. What if we set a date, say an RFC will start that date, encourage people to draft their statements and seek input before the RFC starts, and then start an RFC that is focused and well-considered? --JayHenry (talk) 20:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    Why not let it just evolve naturally? The thing says it'll be open three months. rootology (T) 20:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    Because when people start reading something they start at the top of a page and move down. The top of the page will be filled with the views that were the least-considered. The fully-fleshed out views that come later will require a half-hour of reading to even find. Natural evolution is what helped us get a completely incompetent arbitration in the first place. Don't mistake me for someone trying to preserve the status quo here. --JayHenry (talk) 20:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

18. It is premature, in my opinion, but this discussion needs to happen at somepoint. Wikipedia governance needs reform. --Dragon695 (talk) 22:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
19. Agreed that this is unfocused and premature, and also agreed with Mackensen's contention. If knee jerk reactions to crises is how we intend to deal with very real problems that require sober consideration, then God help us all. Orderinchaos 08:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
20. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
21. TimidGuy (talk) 16:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who oppose this summary:

1. Waiting until the entire house is aflame before calling the fire department solves utterly nothing. --Badger Drink (talk) 00:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Not premature. Arguably overdue. Needs work. Give it a chance. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
4. No, if either SirFozzie's or Moreschi's proposals are given support and enacted by arbcom or jimbo now rather than a years' time it will have been a success. This is the best thing to a community driven change. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
5. "unlikely to serve any useful purpose" - only if it becomes filled with self-referential subsections such as this. Antelan^talk 14:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
6. What Casliber said. LaraLove|Talk 16:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
7. When isn't some fire happening that will make it a "bad time"? rootology (T) 16:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
8. I know the popular analogy involves fire, but I was thinking more of a camel. Specifically, recent action against OrangeMarlin was the straw that broke the camel's back. Even many of those who had complaints about OM were appalled by the secretive and improper nature of recent events and the lack of any immediate response from ArbCom members. While it would certainly be better to consider the various points raised on this page with reason rather than emotion, there is no reason that these issues should be avoided or delayed. Doc Tropics 19:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
9. Let us expedite the healing process by giving everyone a chance to vent forthwith. I think that the focus is and should be on obtaining a timely and honest explanation from the involved parties : Albion moonlight (talk)
10. When is a good time? This RfC has been in discussion and preparation for many months. The list of problems that stimulated it is quite long. For example, consider the Durova case, the MatthewHoffman case and now the Orangemarlin situation; all of these were judged to be sufficient on their own to warrant this RfC. Add to these the many many small scale irritations, and we have a compelling reason to begin to examine Arbcomm.--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
11. There is no "good" time to do this. It has to be done at some point. Neıl 龱 15:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
12. Based on what I have read above it seems that people are doing exactly what an RFC asks for... commenting! I do not see the recent OM case dominating these comments although it certainly is among them. An RFC is a tool to get feedback and input for an issue that is in need of them and delaying the collection of feedback only delays the correction of issues. Low Sea (talk) 20:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
13. I guess you could say things might not be ideal, but this RFC certainly is useful. -- Ned Scott 04:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
14. If anything, the ArbCom needs to know that there are some serious concerns about its operation methods. Besides, there are several viable reform proposals already produced, so the RFC has not been just a pointless exercise in futility. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
15. At first I tended to agree with Tony but after reading the text I completely disagree - a lot of useful ideas. It will be sorry if we would through it away Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
16. I'd say let it run its course. Even an opportunity to air views can do good. John Smith's (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
17. This RFC will serve a bloody useful purpose, as all RFC's do. It will allow the community to speak, to be heard, and to decide. Hiding T 11:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
18. SashaNein (talk) 12:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
19. Not only is the RfC not premature, it is actually rather overdue. It is also better to have it now while the community is paying attention, than later, when many people will have sitched their attention to other matters. Nsk92 (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

View by User:Barberio (3)

This RfC is a long overdue examination of the Arbitration Committee and Arbitration Policy, and a chance to refine, correct and improve on it.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --Barberio (talk) 01:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Filll (talk | wpc) 14:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Amerique^dialectics 14:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
6. What better time than now when we clearly see the need for it. DGG (talk) 16:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
7. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 16:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
8. R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 21:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
9. Or at least the "first serious step towards" reformation and etc. --Badger Drink (talk) 00:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
10. Endorse, an opportunity for learning and improvement. DuncanHill (talk) 01:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
11. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
12. —Giggy 04:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
13. Chetblong (talk) 05:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
14. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
15. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 07:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
16. Absolutely. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 12:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
17. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 13:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
18. Neıl 龱 15:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
19. A chance to see where we stand on several arbcom issues. -- Ned Scott 04:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
20. Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
21. John Smith's (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
22. This is very long overdue.--SJP _Chat 01:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
23. Endorse as per Various suggestions by Neil: ArbCom is increasingly incompatible with the community it is meant to serve, some form of higher dispute resolution beyond RfC is needed, and there is much evidence that the current ArbCom is simply not fit for the purpose. — Athaenara ✉ 07:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
24. It was as if everybody was afraid to speak out against the Arbitration Committee in day gone by (not specific people, just its structure, how it works, etc.). Gizza^{Discuss ©} 11:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
25. John Carter (talk) 00:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

View by Cenarium

In view of repeated controversial actions by the arbitration committee, including the BLP special enforcement, the OrangeMarlin case, considered too authoritative, too secretive by many, and the internal dissensions on various subjects, culminating in the recent announcements, the community has the right to ask long-expected clarifications to the entire committee. This is not only a series of isolated incidents, but a pattern that may compromise the relations between the arbitration committee and the community. It's high time to address the issue, and a RFC is the firmest way to request those clarifications and act upon.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Cenarium ^Talk 02:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

   Maybe it would have been better to wait a few days, to obtain the clarifications by the committee on the most recent events, etc. But now that the RFC is up and running, it's unlikely to be closed or delayed. Agreed that it would be fine to reduce the drama level, but is it realistic to expect this RFC to be suspended ? I don't think so, and I guess we'll just have to live with it now. The community needs to discuss the matter, let's take the opportunity. Cenarium ^Talk 16:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

2. --Barberio (talk) 02:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
3. True... but right now? Perhaps it is premature. LessHeard vanU (talk) 07:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Once this current situation is resolved then an RFC is definitely needed, is premature however at moment. Davewild (talk) 08:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Strike while the iron is hot Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
6. This is a long time coming. Amerique^dialectics 15:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
7. This Arbcom is a major disappointment. --Ghirla^-трёп- 15:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
8. If RFC is understood to mean "public notice of a policy discussion" and the discussion eventually devolves into policy discussions on the talk pages of the relevant policies or on the talk pages of proposed new policies, this makes sense. The current format is too unfocussed but if actual policy proposals or proposals to change policy emerge this will be a good outcome. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
9. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 16:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
10. Yes, there are many issues that together paint a generally disturbing picture. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
11. I'll also note that a good deal of the problem appears to be that a small handful of Arbs are attempting to address many of the systemic problems, and the rest of the ArbCom appears to be napping, or taking juggling lessons, or generally anything other than doing the job for which they were elected. With that much of a burden on a small handful of Arbs, they are bound to make public cock-ups. They're not supposed to act as executives, but when only two or three are really making any effort it's bound to end up as de facto executive action. --JayHenry (talk) 20:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
12. Of course the community has the right to ask questions. Today, tomorrow, and yesterday as well. Moreover, the community has the right to have their questions answered by the ArbCom, rather than be met with no answer and archived as "rejected". --Badger Drink (talk) 00:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
13. Chetblong (talk) 05:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
14. It would certainly be best to proceed with calm and rational discussions of the many issues raised here. Doc Tropics 19:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
15. · AndonicO ^Engage. 20:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
16. We seem to have started fairly well the last 24 hours, and we should keep going. DGG (talk) 23:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
17. If something good would come from the OM case it is this discussion Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Other view:

1. Can't help but feel this is a soapbox statement - with all due respect. John Smith's (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

View by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) (4)

There is no way the timing of this RfC could ever please anyone: If it was opened when there wasn't a scandal, everyone would be complaining there was no cause to open it then. If it's opened during a scandal, everyone will claim, as they are, that it's premature, and it should wait until the scandal blows over, at which point, see the first statement. In the end, this has been necessary for a long time, so I think we should run with it.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Of course. Amerique^dialectics 15:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
3. --Barberio (talk) 15:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
4. DGG (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
5. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 16:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
6. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
7. Guettarda (talk) 17:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
8. llywrch (talk) 19:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC) We should never be reluctant to discuss the ability or efficiency of the ArbCom. A possible conclusion is that no major changes may need to be made at this time -- am I right?
9. Oh, yeah. The timing is irrelevant, the ArbCom has been broke for a while. I can't help thinking that Jimbo and the ArbCom are the equivalent of the flawed Articles of Confederation; what we now need is a real Constitution. Kelly ^hi! 20:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
10. Endorse no further comment necessary. DuncanHill (talk) 22:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
11. Absolutely. --Badger Drink (talk) 00:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
12. KillerChihuahua^?!? 04:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
13. Chetblong (talk) 05:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
14. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC) (forgot this one first time round).
15. Doc Tropics 19:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
16. Support this. Two things - firstly, if it hasn't already, this RFC needs to be advertised on the appropriate venues (Arbcom talk page, Village Pump, AN, etc). Second, as I would imagine there will be a great, great deal of interest, this page may end up being massive. I would not like to see it split up, but this may eventually become necessary. Neıl 龱 13:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
17. A good way to put it. -- Ned Scott 04:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
18. Powers ^T 20:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
19. Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
20. Not sure when there would be a "good time" to do this. John Smith's (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
21. If there's a problem, it should be discussed by the community. The timing of the discussion doesn't matter, and no matter when you have the discussion the timing of it won't be perfect for everyone.--SJP _Chat 01:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
22. Endorse: this is long overdue. — Athaenara ✉ 07:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
23. Nicely observed. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 11:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
24. There's never a "good time" for this sort of thing in some eyes. John Carter (talk) 00:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

View by User:JeanLatore (2)

I had to speed read through this page, fearing that even before I got to the end of it, the discussion would have been "suspended" per a motion by a few authoritarian editors. We all know an RFC has no binding authority -- so what's the problem? Seems like anytime we try to have an open discussion about the power structure around here, agents of the power structure try to shut it down. So much for the "anyone can edit" slogan.... JeanLatore (talk) 17:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

Users who oppose this summary:

1. I cannot conceive of me being regarded as either authoritarian nor an agent of any power structure - it was a good faith attempt at a calming break under the circumstances. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

   I've been regarded as both; perhaps opening the page was a Machiavellian subterfuge? Durova^Charge! 01:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

   I don't know much about classical music composers, so I am afraid the last point is lost on me. LessHeard vanU (talk)

   Political philosophy (not actually my belief though). Durova^Charge! 22:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

   The clue was in the bands name; Republica. Plato, I wiki'd... ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

   Dangit, I need to broaden my musical horizons. :) Durova^Charge! 23:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Users who think it would be easiest at this point to just blame Durova and take the rest of the day off:

1. I know we shouldn't be quite so flippant about serious matters, but really, it was time for some comic relief. Doc Tropics 19:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Absolutely. I apologize for everything. ;) Durova^Charge! 22:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
3. This is too much! John Smith's (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

View by MONGO

The arbitration committee members have the most thankless jobs on this website. If they move too quick, then they MUST be doing so for some ulterior motives. If they move too slow, then they MUST be doing so for ulterior motives. If the last two sentences sound like sarcasm, then that was my intention. It should be no surprise that some cases are discussed more behind the scenes than others...there is a reason for this ya know. However, I would like to say that I would like to see more of the following...

• More openness in arbcom proceedings and decision making...so long as people's right to privacy aren't violated.
• More time to allow "defendents" to prepare their cases.
• No unilateral declarations by individual arbitrators...all "rulings" should only be presented by a concensus of arbitrators with their usernames and timestamps showing concurrence.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. I endorse me....--MONGO 14:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
2. I can agree with MONGO, too! Amerique^dialectics 15:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
3. A move in the right direction. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Guettarda (talk) 17:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Secrecy = politics. And politics do not lessen drama. I also don't see any compelling reason why the names of the arbiters who deliberated a case must remain secret. This gives the impression of ARBCOM being some hulking monolith as opposed to a panel of individuals. Aunt Entropy (talk) 17:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
6. I'd like to see a few other things as well, but Mongo's point is more or less correct. The ArbCom is not composed of superheroes and people should remember that (and by the same token the ArbCom may wish to remember that as well) JoshuaZ (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
7. This appears to address many concerns related to the current and previous dramas. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
8. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
9. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC) Yes, but I think the committee needs to be expanded to reduce workload.
10. All good points, especially the "most thankless job". Important to remember that as we discuss these issues. Doc Tropics 19:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
11. Support. I would go further in requiring openness, but this is a step in the right direction. Also endorse the "thankless job" remark.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
12. Support. --DHeyward (talk) 03:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
13. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 13:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
14. I mostly agree. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
15. Support. I take it "unilateral declarations" refers to one arbitrator claiming to speak for the rest. And by consensus I take it "majority vote" is meant. Noroton (talk) 02:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
16. Thankless, yes. Damned-if-they-do-things-too-quickly-and-damned-if-they-don't, yes. Certainly there's a line between complete openess, which would be impracticable, and a situation where fully-formed "cases" ascribed to the Committee are sprung on unsuspecting editors. Re: more time, I've personally not seen a case where an editor was afforded insufficient time to compile a defense, so I don't think that's a major issue. MastCell ^Talk 18:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
17. Emdorse, being pedantic there is a difference between the consensus and majority voting. Arbcom decisions might lack the former but not the later Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
18. Agree with the first part about the thankless job. Reservations about opening up decision-making. John Smith's (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
19. To disagree with Kelly below, God himself (if there is one) wouldn't meet the requirements of some members of the community in these matters, and the members often get more heat than they deserve. Agree with the sentiments of subsequent points as cases require, although it might be hard to formalize them. John Carter (talk) 00:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who oppose this summary:

1. Offering excuses here. If someone can't live up the community's requirements for ArbCom service, they need to answer the community's concerns about their performance, or resign. The ArbCom is the proxy for the community. Kelly ^hi! 20:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Users who are confused:

1. Granted, Arbitration Committee isn't a court ruling, but even supreme court of the United States doesn't have to make all decisions unanimous... - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 22:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

   I don't think he specified "unanimous", especially not in decision making; just a more participatory and transparent process, with individual arbs needing to publicly "sign-off" on the decisions and state their individual position (or something along those lines). Doc Tropics 19:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Users who comment on this summary:

1. I agree that major decisions of the arbitration committee should be publicly voted upon by the arbitrators for the record, and have previously suggested this. It is likely to be the case going forward. In non-urgent cases, the arbcom should be giving people ample time to present their case, but I'd add that sometimes a decision is needed and people drag things out; suddenly, after the arbcom case opens, people who were constantly on Wikipedia for years are too busy to participate. Perhaps in some circumstances the case should be shelved with some temporary injunctions left in place (so that the shelving doesn't leave justice hanging) and revisited at a later date - we've done that a couple of times. More openness is always good, but we will NOT be doing everything in public either. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

   To clarify, I never expect the arbcom to always be in concurrance with each other nor do I think that it is routine that participants don't have adequate time to mount a "defense". So if I came across purely black and white on these matters, I apologize. I also want to reiterate that I definitely think that arbcom has the most thankless job on this website.--MONGO 23:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

View by Bstone

I would like to suggest the community take another look at my older proposal for an Ombudsmen Committee, WP:OmbCom. Such a committee would be official and able to investigate and issue findings of fact. While there would be no "teeth" to the Committee, by its very nature of being official it has significant influence.

{OmbCom would not have any teeth, per say, but still be able to investigate and issue formal findings of fact. They would be able to investigate ArbCom based on these recent issues and do so in a formal and official capacity.}

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Bstone (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Endorse, but wish it were not necessary. The reality is, anyone with checkusers + oversight effectively has the tools to investigate anything done on-wiki. Add in access to the various mailing lists, and you probably have enough to do a complete investigation. This means any past- or present arbcom member who still has access to those tools can appoint himself a "committee of one," issue findings of fact, and hope people listen. The only things he can't do are 1) post private information in public and 2) be assured anyone takes his findings seriously. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
3. {{db-ad}} :) Definitely worth a look. --Jenny 09:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
4. I support people discussing it, although I reserve judgement on whether or not it should be implemented pending further definition (and don't support a "rush job" to put it into place just to handle the recent escapade — let's think this through carefully). --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 13:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
5. Endorse. DuncanHill (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
6. Endorse. Internally on the ArbCom mailing list, I've raised the issue of the need to do an evaluation of the work of Checkusers and Oversighters. While I don't think that there is routine abuse of the tools,and the work is usually of good to excellent quality, I think that these user groups could do better work at times. So could ArbCom. I think OmbCom could help move these user groups and ArbCom toward consistently maintaining best practices. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
7. Cautiously endorse. Done right it would be a good thing. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
8. Partial endorse As long as the Arbcom has no access or influence to private deliberations/reviews of the Ombud people, and any findings the Ombud people post are not required in any way to be vetted by the Arbcom. The Ombuds have to answer to the community, not the Arbcom. Arbcom would have to be enforced hands-off going back the other way for official Ombud business, no exemptions. If so, it could work. rootology (T) 01:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
9. Weak Endorse. I don't think this is enough. But I do think that putting in place something to review ArbCom and issue findings of fact would be a small step in the right direction of a proper system of checks and balances. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 19:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
10. Endorse in most cases the community is such a committee (assuming its opinion is not ignored). We need a formal committee if private communications are involved (like FT2 case) Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

    Update I have made some significant proposals at OmbCom, here. I am working on this with MBisanz. Please, please, please give lots of feedback. Thanks! Bstone (talk) 23:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

    Another Update The formal proposal is available for comment and community consensus here! Love to hear your opinions! Bstone (talk) 23:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who oppose this summary:

1. Strong Oppose Bad idea. -- Avi (talk) 03:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Oppose - No need for a toothless committee. This is reminiscent of the AMA. Risker (talk) 03:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
3. So what is the point of a toothless committee? To put pressure on the arbs? Again, I feel they need to be able to come to decisions without the possibility of being second-guessed. If new evidence comes to light there are ways to have cases re-opened or appealed to Jimmy. John Smith's (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Oppose - a powerless committee? No thanks. - Merzbow (talk) 16:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
5. Per my comments on WP:VPP. Mr.Z-man 18:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
6. Oppose - Formal, official, and powerless means, in practice, that the Ombudsman Committee will, at best, be ignored. The capability for advisory opinions already exists in the form of comments or essays, and the weight and strength of the arguments won't be significantly increased by tacking "From the Ombudsman Committee" at the end. What is needed is clarification and codification of the necessary duties and responsibilities that we'd like Arbcom or something like Arbcom to do, analysis of how much is needed to do and what Arbcom has the capability and internal structure to accomplish, and then we can decide if Arbcom needs to be expanded, reorganized, or have some of the responsibilities split off to other organizations. What we don't need is another organization that won't shoulder any of the burden, but intead will likely add to the burden and prolong the inevitable drama. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 13:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
7. Oppose - per above Oppose comments. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

View by LtPowers

This RFC is far too long to be of any use, nor can any casual contributor to Wikipedia reasonably be expected to read and understand the myriad arguments and discussion threads present here. Technical issues of page length aside, I can't see how anyone can possibly read and understand enough of this RFC for it to be at all useful. This is getting to be an epidemic problem on Wikipedia, where policy and consensus are increasingly only able to be decided by the subset of users with enough time and patience to wade through page after page of text.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Powers ^T 20:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
2. I'd agree that it is getting too long. Not sure what can be done about it, though. John Smith's (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments by FT2

This is separate from any current matters, and not to be confused with them.

Conduct of Arbitrators on their own list

(Information for this discussion)

The conduct of arbitrators "behind the scenes" is a matter of speculation for most. Some information (speaking as an editor and administrator who joined that committee in 2007) may be helpful to this discussion.

Before I joined the committee, I (like many users) had concepts what to expect. I was concerned that ex-arbitrators would dominate, using their historic sway to overwhelm sitting arbitrator views. I also knew some users judged what to expect by public perceptions of its members. I was of course aware of the difficulties and frustrations, and need for some sort of update or improvement, in its visible actions (notably workflow and case cohesion), which I had spoken of as serious problems at arb election.

I have been highly surprised, in a good way, at what I found. The ex-arbitrators play an active role, but it is in most ways a support/backup/advisory role. Their view is respected, but arb's are a fairly independent set of users. There is discussion but no real "cliques" or factions. More a set of users working together with mutual respect. Jimbo himself in all my time on the list, has never once as best I can think directed the Committee to do something, far less the Foundation (which virtually never has emailed the list at all). Jimbo's main role has been to express interest on an equal footing with others in certain matters, to ask advice and insight on matters he is considering, and to engage in the ensuing dialog. (Example: during the Rachel Marsden incidents, Jimbo inquired whether a committee investigation would help or hinder the project, but did not himself suggest whether this should be done, or who by and how operated if so.)

As a result, Arbitration Committee members are very much community oriented rather than speakers for any other persons.

A number of arbitrators and ex-arbitrators have reputations for brusqueness and sometimes, harsh words, on the wikien mailing list or in public. Whilst styles of speech remain similar, the manner "behind the scenes" is generally of good qualty cordiality and balance. It is not always in agreement (as with the wider community the views can be disparate now and then), but we are each there as volunteers doing a job, and all know it.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

User comments:

And if ordinary editors had a peek behind the scenes, they too might be similarly reassured. However, everything is hidden from us, so of course suspicion will fester. If you want sympathy, open up everything that can possibly be opened up. Otherwise, suck up the paranoia, as it will be the harvest you deserve to reap. 65.190.92.233 (talk) 01:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Ease of comment

The Arbitrators and some parts of the community, have developed an unhelpful dynamic. It is difficult to comment when anything said will be sifted only for fault, blame, or reasons why it might/must be wrong.

Some users have that outlook, and some Arbitrators have over time (unsurprisingly) become reluctant to be as open as they might, as a result. This combination has benefited no users, nor the project as a whole. The Arbitrators are some of our most experienced users, and routinely must balance issues which they may see more of, and -- unlike some strident voices -- have more insight into. This includes reasons why a matter may not always be helpful to the project to place fully in the public purview. Against this background, criticism of the target presented is easy. Whilst the Committee should be highly accountable and responsible, it is human, its users are project members doing a tough job.

Unhelpful and often sub-standard (un)informed criticism and the propensity for some to manifest thrive on and further "drama", is a communal matter that plays a significant part in its members' decisions to sometimes self-censor its public words.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. (I don't know if this is technically an endorse, but it isn't an oppose, which is where I placed it initially - hence the now incorrect reference to the position of my comment relative to MastCell's) Whatever else, its clear that a significant portion of the community (including very well respected members, such as MastCell above me) are upset and unhappy with the state of the Arbitration Committee. Whoever owns the blame for this state of affairs, some element of change is clearly warranted. Hearing cases via panels, expanding the Committee to make this easier to manage, hearing only appeals en banc, referring cases to dispute resolution or administrators if the issue has not proven intractable through those methods already, etc. I'd like to see management of evidence and statements become more aggresive, perhaps limiting the submission of evidence to named parties and applying a "Just the facts, ma'am" approach to long winded complaints. Obviously the approach in the OM case failed and cannot be used again. The community has rejected the in camera hearing of cases. So start with a smaller approach, without dramatically changing the nature of the Committee. Add some respected administrators and assign them to case panels. Reject cases more easily, and using defined criteria. Manage your workload, and not the community. Extremely intelligent and experienced people are on this Committee, so knock your heads together and fix the problems you've been facing for years. There is no excuse for any other outcome. Avruch 22:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Hits the nail on the head. I hope this is not finally our Eternal September. We can only hope to work together to stop that from coming true. --Jenny 09:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

   Possibly I'm missing the reference here, but blaming this on newcomers seems to miss the mark entirely. From my perspective, it's entrenched members who are causing the problems. ArbCom isn't flooded by new users that it can't deal with (it handles those cases quite well, in fact) -- and it's not new users turning up the heat by dissecting every comment -- ArbCom is crippled by its inability to resolve issues with people who have been feuding for awhile. --JayHenry (talk) 17:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who oppose this summary:

1. OK, I'll throw the first stone. Openness and transparency in government is a good and necessary thing. While some sort of consultations in private may be necessary and useful, untimately full and complete arguments for the decisions need to be presented in public. Yes, arbitrators do and will get a lot of flack, hurtful and ill-informed comments etc. Tough, but it is a part of the job. Openness and transparency of the proceedings prevent rumors, conspiracy theories and speculations running amok, lend legitimacy and moral authority to the process and ultimately prevent much more drama than they create. This is Wikipedia, not the Bush administration, and not a place where various claims of Executive Privilege can carry the day. Nsk92 (talk) 12:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

   The people doing this job are volunteers. There is a curcial difference. If their job is made more excessively difficult than need be then they don't get to collect their pay. The job doesn't get done, or gets done in whatever way it can, or some other ultimately unhelpful result to the community. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

   True, the people doing the job on Wikipedia are volunteers as is every other member of the community: ordinary editors, admins, bureaucrats, etc. And yes, it is necessary for the ArbCom members to have particularly thick skin and to be able to put up with a lot. I don't think any of this implies that we suddenly have to compromise openness of the arbitration process, shield the arbcom members from criticism or allow them to make decisions without explaining their reasons. True, there are not that many people who are willing and able to do a good job serving on ArbCom, but, I believe, there are enough. If it turns out to be otherwise, it is better not to have an ArbCom at all rather than to have one that operates under the cover of secrecy. Nsk92 (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

2. If by "self-censor" you mean exercise restraint, caution, and circumspection and adopt a less-is-more approach to public commentary, then I think this is a good thing, not a bad thing. There's a difference between responding to criticism firmly but politely (and sometimes saying "I can't answer that right now" or "ArbCom is in possession of evidence which must remain private"), and simply being uncommunicative and stonewally. As phrased, this sounds like an excuse, especially from a Committee that routinely admonishes admins that no matter the provocation they must remain communicative, pleasant, and civil. Is it a surprise that people closely track the pronouncements of Arbs? It seems like a rational part of the association between power and responsibility. I hear a fair amount of "unhelpful, uninformed, and substandard" criticism, and I know that a handful of folks are tracking my response and waiting for me to slip up so they can catalog it. That comes with the territory of being an admin, much less an Arb. MastCell ^Talk 18:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
3. The arbs themselves are not the people to decide on what is "Unhelpful and often sub-standard (un)informed criticism;" as MastCell says, they are expected to tolerate comments by fools even more than anyone else. The right to criticism is basic, and those who cannot accept that it will happen have no business being an official, either in the RW or here.DGG (talk) 22:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

   The right to fair criticism, not just "anything going however unreasoned". Nobody in this community or any part of it is expected to be a sitting duck and Arbitrators, who must frequeently guard privacy of discussion and information, have less complete freedom to say all they might wish in some cases, than others who don't care or check if it is fair, true, or otherwise. The main point I make though, is that there is a dynamic - it needs change from both sides, not just one, for best effect. This would help all around. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

   No one is suggesting that Arbs should accept personal attacks or harassment. If you find yourself subject to serious personal attacks or harassment, I will happily do what I can to help you deal with it. Most unfair criticism doesn't rise to the levels you've suggestively wikilinked. None of us can realistically demand that we receive only "fair" criticism - if we have that right, then please let me know, because it would make my life much easier. The Committee has (rightly) produced decision after decision finding that admins must responsibly exercise good judgement, rather than retreating into defensiveness and stonewalling, even in the face of unfair criticism. Set us an example. I agree about the dynamic, but the best way to change a dynamic is by looking at your side of it, and the Orangemarlin case was a giant step backward in terms of community relations. To take that unilateral leap backwards and then ask the community to be equal partners in moving forward seems odd timing. MastCell ^Talk 17:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

4. Arbitrators seem to me, lately, to have been the creators of significant wikidrama, as a result of their lack of honesty with the community they are supposed to serve. Openness does not make a volunteer's job harder - it actually (in my extensive experience in the voluntary sector) makes it considerably easier. Blaming the community for the uncommunicative behaviour of arbitrators is unhelpful, counterproductive and frankly as patronising as it gets. When you screw up - as you did massively by holding a secret hearing with no possibility of defence (what were you thinking? That we are all idiots with no ethical sense whatsoever?) you must accept that it people will find it hard to trust you. To then attack the people who are finding it hard to trust you is disgusting. DuncanHill (talk) 09:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
5. Your view that criticism is uninformed does not make it so, and in either case the response to uninformed criticism should not be to behave in an even more appalling manner. Furthermore, if the job of volunteering gets too much for you please feel free to step down. As I recall there were several other people standing in the 2007 ArbCom elections, any of whom I assume would be glad to 'volunteer' for this role. Naerii 11:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
6. Even if the criticism is uninformed, it is exponentially better to have uninformed criticism that can be properly refuted and informed criticism that should be reviewed and considered then to have nothing, which is what we have now. That same nothing has brought us a festering gross abuse of the trust of the community. I'd rather have uninformed criticism than no criticism at all. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 19:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
7. MastCell and DGG are correct. If you're worried about uninformed criticism, don't be. If it's obviously moronic criticism, ignore it: someone else will deal with it. If said you're worried about unfair criticism that's not obviously moronic, you can deal with that by giving full reasoning, evidence, rationale, context, etc. Explain your decision-making. You will get less flak. Do the right thing, in accordance with good principles of justice, and the majority of sensible people will back. Besides, ArbCom should not be cringing in fear of criticism, which is itself illogical. After all, you do have 3-year terms and are accountable to...no one. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 23:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
8. Deal with the problems, don't complain about us pointing them out. —Giggy 01:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
9. The Arbcom's lack of openness is not acceptable under the circumstances you describe, for the same reason uncommunicative behavior can lead to blocks on AN/I: refusal to communicate shows a lack of good faith. Arbcom has shown disrespect to the community at large in this as yet continuing matter. As a newcomer to this site, I'm disappointed that such distinguished members of this wiki would fail to assume good faith of their fellow editors in such a blatant way and then not even realize it, much less regret or remedy the situation. Aunt Entropy (talk) 01:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
10. IMHO, it is a bad faith of the "few experienced editors" and a few arbitrators towards the community that is the root of the problems not the other way around. Bad faith towards community leads to over-secretive IRC/mail list approach ruther than open onwiki discussions. The result is mistrust from community, rumors and bad decisions. Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
11. "Actions that . . . deny [editors] effective recourse to dispute resolution . . . are completely unacceptable". This is one of those actions. --Badger Drink (talk) 19:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
12. Insults my intelligence. SashaNein (talk) 12:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
13. The summary seems very one-sided (arbitrators retreating under fire from uninformed and recalcitrant users). Given the reality (the uneven locus of power), If an arbitrator develops a siege mentality, it is probably time to quit (apologies if this sounds harsh). --Regents Park (sink with the skaters) 14:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
14. I'll say this again: If ordinary editors had a peek behind the scenes, they too might be similarly reassured. However, everything is hidden from us, so of course suspicion will fester. If you want sympathy, open up everything that can possibly be opened up. Otherwise, suck up the paranoia, as it will be the harvest you deserve to reap. Open up the whole system or quit complaining about mistrust. Secrecy at Wikipedia is out of control, and members of the Wikipedia elite should be smoked out of their warrens by any means necessary. 65.190.92.233 (talk) 01:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
15. I have a hard time opposing this because I understand exactly the points you are trying to make. But on reflection, I have decided the response to the perceived issue by an arb-com member is the wrong one. I myself am guilty of doing exactly the same, indeed, we have co-opted the idea into Wikipedia guidance in the form of WP:BEANS; don't mention something if you don't want someone doing it. Don't talk about things we don;t want discussed. But that's the wrong way forward. The right way has to be to put as much information into the open as possible, to allow the wheat to be sorted from the chaff. We have to trust that we will eventually arrive at the right conclusion, because that's the very principle Wikipedia was founded upon. To act otherwise is to betray our very purpose, and is to allow those we seek to protect against to win. We have to stand up for what we believe in, and we have to be very careful not to betray that in the very act of defending it, otherwise we will lose exactly what we seek to protect. Kim Bruning has often said that the hardest task facing us is one of dealing with disruptive people. Going into hiding (irony noted) is not the best solution. There are two ways of looking at the position here. FT2 has defined one. The other is that the more open we are, the more people we have engaging with the issue. That does mean we cede an advantage to those who seek to disrupt; it also means we have less to lose if we are right, and we have more opportunities to find the right solution. The Arbitration Committee should not believe it is the only group of people who can implement or discover a solution to any give problem. Acting as they do denotes they feel that burden. Teh burden is the community's. The community should share in it. I appreciate I've rambled on too long. There is more could be said, but that may be best left for an extended discussion. I do, however, urge more openness on the part of the committee. It will better help us prepare our defences. Hiding T 12:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee difficulties

This is my own perspective only:

Over time, a reluctance by some (a few) to experiment and innovate has become to an extent, entrenched. This is not un-remediable, but is it held in place by fears it will be exploited for ultimately project-damaging approaches and agendas, a resultant slight "safety culture", and a gordian knot that holds it back on having free space, less pressure, and appropriate working methods, to allow time for reflection and consensus on longer term change. As a result the committee is very good at serious, immediate, or straightforward decisions. It has around a 92.5% success rate for its main Arbitration cases as rendering these handle-able by the community thereafter (these return readily if still unresolved, yet only 7.5% or so out of 400 have done this.) It is still grappling at workload management, and novel or extended suggestions that require consensus building over time. The current workload and working methods then mitigate against this goal, and encourage a narrowing of focus and gradual burn-out. This is the initial, or main issue, in my view. Freeing up Committee time, a more congenial mutual dialog with some parts of the community, and working methods that help forward-looking discussions to reach conclusions, are the key here. (Caution: views in this area may differ.)

Secondly, decisions may be difficult with no one clear solution. Some users may have a more fixed view, or want simplicity and "black and white" answers, but in a community and work of this size, those hopes may be simplistic, naive, and not appropriate to the task, and 1/ the subtleties of judgement and 2/ the process of "try a change, see if it helps", may be lost on many who see only that it was not what they expected and did not solve everything at once.

Third, a culture of safety has crept in, where sometimes (in my view) the negative impact of reactions to decisions has outweighed the question of simply "are these the right decisions as our experienced users see it", backed by trust that most of the community will accept and understand. (Note that since the community is not monolithic, a course guided by offending none would be unsuccessful anyhow.)

A number of Arbitrators seek change, but strong cohesive mutual drive for it is a problem. Not least the issue of what to do with silent or absent members on an issue has until now been a perennial problem (now under discussion) - lacking a system to build consensus over time, issues often get lost before any formal agreement on points of difference can be worked out. A number of users have sought to use an internal wiki for this, but others feel email alone should be enough. My personal view is that strategic discussion on the more significant matters needing significant consensus building (as opposed to quick dialog and action or very serious matters) are inherently going to fall by the wayside on a mailing list of this activity level. Others may feel that need not be so. Factually though, it seems to be.

Three major areas of committee time seem to me, to be capable of being split out to a significant extent:

1. Appeals
2. CheckUser (the sitting arbs often do a lot of this)
3. Assessment of evidence on RFAR cases (could be made more collaborative, without compromising quality, leading to less duplication of work and more building on each others' input towards a consensus of the case)

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

User comments:

• It seems to me that having smaller panels of arbitrators (3 or 5 members only) assigned to handle individual arbitration cases could help with problems of establishing consensus, managing abitrator (in)activity, and encouraging innovative remedies. I think the practice of having all active arbitrators hear each case has gotten unwieldy. Appeals could be heard by the entire committee if a panel's decision meets significant opposition in the community.
  Regarding assessment of evidence, my opinion is that the arbitrators should more actively inquire into areas of evidence, not just passively allow the parties to gather diffs that might not be useful. The arbitrators should be much more active on the workshop page, working with the community to define the scope of the case, vet the evidence, and provide feedback on the various proposals.
  It would also be nice if arbitrators and clerks were quicker to shut down and remove/archive/userify unproductive discussions, and to usher out those contributors to the arbitration pages who seem not to be interested in helping resolve the problem. alanyst ^/talk/ 16:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• I agree. More arbitrators divided into rotating panels for RFA's. It is unrealistic to expect too many to look in the same detail into too many cases. A few should get fully involved in each case. Fainites ^barley 17:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with using panels to hear cases. Additionally, I and others have over and over again asked the Committee to deal with the problem of inactive Arbitrators. There is simply no excuse, whatsoever, for long term inactive Arbitrators. It isn't an award you were given for good service, and dropping by to place a few votes every few weeks just does not cut it. Now that a controversy of this magnitude has occurred almost directly as a result of the inability of the Committee to manage its workload I hope they take seriously the need to address the issue of inactivity. Only days ago Kirill said that the Committee was fine and needed no further assistance, but I find that assertion dubious under the circumstances. If mailing list proposals and attempts to move towards a consensus or discuss issues are ignored even by the Arbitrators we consider "active" then its clear that there is a workload management problem. Avruch 22:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Communal concerns and community ability to remedy them

Most communal concerns stem in part or whole from various matters above. It is questionable whether all these would be handled fairly if purely operated by the community, though. Although communal consensus is the watchword of the wiki, it is prone to mis-reaction and improper action in a big way too. If the community's decisions at bans, policy enforcement and neutral encyclopedic editing was weighed on the same scale some would wish to weigh Arbcom, it is extremely likely the result would not be flattering. Arbcom picks up deitrus of this daily - bad blocks, bad bans, discussion that is incendiary rather than helpful, and so on.

That dynamic will exist for any restricted group of users charged with making project-supporting decisions in difficult cases, and any group which does make those final reviews and assessments will very likely be restricted in some manner to certain individuals. Although it may be undesirable, it is unlikely that any other representative body of the community (however constructed) would fare any better in reality. To take one example, whoever blocked, unblocked, warned, or sanctioned certain users for breach of communal norms, would probably get escalating intense hostility and bitterness over time from them and their close supporters. It is probably unavoidable.

Whatever system was innovated would also require our best editors (as with Arbcom) and would also be "flamed" at times. It too would have to consider checkuser and privacy matters (eg personal information) that also likewise would not be able to be said on-wiki giving rise to speculation and allegation. An alternative would be to avoid all such actions and let such editors run riot (or not have a final review), which in my view is likely to lead to too much "community" or abuse, and not enough focus on "to write a neutral encyclopedia".

For the time being, it seems to me that the kinds of solutions that might work in practice, all include (one way or another) a focus on splitting out certain functions, and then letting arbitrators act as a supervisory body, responsible for watching, quality control of, and certain checks on abuse (or abusive appeal) related to "last resort" and "final check and balance" processes we may have.

The proposed "Ban Appeals List/Committee" where seasoned trusted users discuss and check bans and whether they can be reversed, whilst Arbitrators watch the discussion, can contribute, and make the final choice... but do not do the core work of it all in most cases (merely limiting themselves to useful input, supervision of process, and endorsement of result), is an example of how that supervisory role might work.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. I agree that ArbCom is a necessary check and balance for the community. It would be nice if the community could also serve as a check and balance for ArbCom when necessary, and perhaps that's what's happening here. The proposals to devolve some authority are a reasonable approach to the workload issue, and deserve a chance. MastCell ^Talk 18:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
2. I agree with the principles, as clarified by FT2, and for his view of the practicality of solutions. The difficulties he mentions iare exactly why the community should be the one to decide on any modifications of the present structure and policy. Arb com is welcome to improve its own internal working arrangements, but when they involve new permanent groups, there should be committee review--for example, just whom that review committee should be responsible to remains a question for discussion. --

Users who comment on this summary:

1. In a question for FT2, do you think the situation would be ameliorated by arbcom expanding by a number of members, allowing a larger number of cases to be heard simultaneously? (Say 4 groups of 5 arbitrators each, or whatever) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

   I had considered whether an expansion to (say) allow two "circuits" would help, round December/January. That would involve expanding to the point there were a minimum of 14-16 active arbitrators, organized in two circuits for case purposes and each circuit independently managing its cases. Not only it would double the capacity (useful with more complex cases), but it would also mean cases involving an arbitrator in any significant way could be heard by a circuit that was pretty much completely independent of that person, and out of their 'hearing'. I also remember when I asked round what people thought amongst some admins and experienced users, some of the feedback was roughly "not really"... I don't remember why, but I know that was a common response. Perhaps it was a question of "all arbs should handle all cases" (we could amend that if needed) or maybe it was some other issue. I don't remember right now. I still think it has potential enough to ask "how could we make it work", and see what happens. Allocation of cases neutrally could be easy. Maybe the issue of how many suitable editors exist to choose from, is at issue - remember how the arb election produces very few comparatively - do we actually have enough who would get the roughly 80% needed, to add say 12-15 new members? How would that size influence it in other ways? I think those were some kind of consideration. Maybe a better way would be delegation, where even RFAR cases are part delegated to other users, with Arbcom's role being to supervize and accept or decline their decisions. That might be a better, more scalable way. A community of interlocking specialized panels, groups and the like/ It's possible we might be moving that way. But that's speculative. I'd have to think... FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Summary by Tony Sidaway

I think it's time we reaffirmed the purpose of the project with some statements:

Purpose

• Wikipedia is solely a project to create a free encyclopedia

Users who endorse this statement:

1. Basically correct, with the provisors given by davidwr below. Nsk92 (talk) 05:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
2. The world needs reliable information, and it's wonderful to minimize the cost to the reader. The quibble below is trivial; integration with other projects is not problematic. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who disagree with this statement:

1. Near-endorsement but not quite: The English Wikipedia's PRIMARY PURPOSE is to create a set of free encyclopedia. It's secondary purposes include integrating itself with other Wikimedia projects such as WikiNews, etc. The presence of WikiNews on the front page attests to this. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Per above. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
3. Per davidwr. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 01:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Community

• The community of volunteers that has grown around Wikipedia exists solely for the purpose of fulfilling the mission of creating an encyclopedia.

Users who endorse this statement:

1. Tony's completely right (again). The community exists to serve the purpose. Now, it's okay to have fun; successful organizations know that keeping up morale aids the mission. But we're not trying to create a new world government here; let's focus on building an encyclopedia. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who disagree with this statement:

1. Near-endorsement but not quite: There is not one community of volunteers, but many sub-communities. All of them should have fulfilling the mission of Wikipedia as their primary purpose, whatever that mission may be. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Too imprecise of a statement. There are a lot of things that go into the creation of a community-edited encyclopedia, and article writing is only a part of that; a properly checked and balanced judiciary (if a judiciary is needed) is another part; this statement doesn't embrace the multifaceted roles that many users play here. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
3. Nope. You think that vandals want to create an encyclopedia? Its the main reason the Wikipedians hangs around, but even though we don't like it, vandals are part of the (criminal) community. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 01:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Conduct and handling disputes

• Volunteers are expected to cooperate in the interests of the project, and resolve disputes amicably and fairly using discussion with the purpose of achieving consensus.

Users who endorse this statement:

1. Naturally. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
2. This is crucial, but often abused. There are too many unfair, anti-consensus tactics - too many effective ways of gaming the system. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
3. Well, obviously. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 01:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Users who disagree with this statement:

1. Near-endorsement but not quite: ... with the purpose of achieving the mission of Wikipedia. Achieving a consensus is the recommended means to this end for resolving disputes. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Volunteers are expected to conduct all other interactions and editing in a manner that advances the interests of the project.

Users who endorse this statement:

1. Aboslutely! davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Naturally; however, this doesn't exclude the possibility of someone not doing so, or believing that they are doing so, but going against what the community collective believes is advancing the interests of the project. This is especially problematic when you have a small group with unbalanced power going against what the collective believes is advancing the project. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
3. While at this website, of course. Even recreational activities such as using templates to play chess should advance the interests of the project (like, you'll gain skill with templates). --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Whoever opposes should get a trout. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 01:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Users who disagree with this statement:

• Policies describing acceptable levels of conduct, in the broadest sense, have been and are being evolved by the community. All volunteers are expected to abide by these policies.

Users who endorse this statement:

1. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Absolutely. Policy management is the major exclusive perogative of the community collective. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
3. Naturally. Visitors abide by the rules; if uncomfortable with the rules, let them be elsewhere. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Yep. Especially IAR. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 01:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Users who disagree with this statement:

• Policies elaborating on the methods to be used for constructing the encyclopedia have been and are being evolved by the community. All volunteers are expected to abide by these policies.

Users who endorse this statement:

1. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Policies should support goals. We obey them, even while reserving the right to debate them. This RFC is an example. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who disagree with this statement:

Final dispute resolution

• There is a single body on Wikipedia designated and empowered to resolve disputes and deal with damaging conduct that may occur, if it cannot be resolved by the community. This is the arbitration committee.

Users who endorse this statement:

1. This is clearly the case now, but we are about to discuss whether it's the best state of affairs. Too many abuses occur which the arbcom overlooks or even endorses. Is an elected judiciary the best means of resolving what the community can't resolve? --Uncle Ed (talk)
2. Even though its insanely long, we made it that, so BAM! here we are. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 01:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Users who disagree with this statement:

1. Near-endorsement but not quite: The "a single body" part is still in flux. In particular, in certain as-yet-never-happened circumstances, Jimbo may override the ARBCOM. Likewise, there are proposals to grant "arbcom override" power to an as-yet-undesignated group. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
2. While I endorse that this is true now, it doesn't follow that is the best possible method of dispute resolution. A monolithic judiciary without any substantive checks directly from the people is not the way to approach the issue IMO. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• The arbitration committee makes binding decisions on how to resolve these matters. These decisions usually include delegation of extensive enforcement powers to administrators.

Users who endorse this statement:

1. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
2. This precisely the "sheriff and his deputies" approach which I originally proposed in 2002, and which was rejected then. The problems of neglect and abuse still remain. We need more of a constitutional approach perhaps. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who disagree with this statement:

1. No. For ArbCom to be able to give away its powers to other administrators would be to say that the community trusts any administrator as much as the trust the Committee, which simply doesn't seem to be true; the process for becoming an ArbCom member is much more stringent than an RFA, and has some safeguards that themselves imply there is more power to be head in the Committee than as an administrator. The committee has it's powers to deal with especially problematic cases where other administrators have failed at remedying the issue; those powers are given to the committee's members upon election by the community as an investment of trust; the community gives them to ArbCom so that they can perform their function of dispute resolution, not so that they can pass their considerable weight down to the line to other users not under the same scrutiny as themselves. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Celarnor gets it exactly right. Nsk92 (talk) 04:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

   If Celarnor were right, then the arbitration committee would not have the authority to create editing restrictions, or bans, or to enforce many other remedies, which are enforced by powers delegated to the administrators. --Jenny 04:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

   The enforcement by individual admins is rather erratic, and has often produced sharp disagreement between different admins. Perhaps it would be better if there were some more regular or organized way of handling enforcement. "Any uninvolved admin may..." may have worked when thre were 100, but not 1000. DGG (talk) 01:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

3. Yep. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 01:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• The conduct of all editors on Wikipedia at all times is the legitimate concern of all other editors, and is the specific domain of the arbitration committee.

Users who endorse this statement:

1. Yes, we should all help each other conform to the norms. When this breaks down, our elected servants should step in. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who disagree with this statement:

1. It is only the specific domain of the arbitration committee only if they have been asked to act on an issue. Otherwise, the committee members should give it the same attention as others with their other responsiblilities, e.g. steward/bureaucrat/administrator/editor. In a similar manner, the conduct of editors becomes the specific domain of all administrators when administrator action is requested via WP:AN/I or another menthod. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Per above. It is only the domain of ArbCom if it is brought to ArbCom. Otherwise they would have the ability to exercise their power whenever they choose a bene placito, which is an extremely distressing line of thought. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
3. "Test cases" brought forward by arbcom members have been disasterous. MatthewHoffman, Orangemarlin, etc. The arbcom have not shown themselves able to create their own cases very well. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Strongly disagree. ArbCom only hears the cases specifically brought before it, as the last stage of the dispute resolution process. ArbCom, does not, nor should it, intervene in disputes or act in relation to conduct of individual editors, on its own initiative. Nsk92 (talk) 04:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
5. Yeah. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 01:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Some discussions by the arbitration committee are necessarily private to the committee.

Users who endorse this statement:

1. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
2. In clearly defined circumstances and with the maximum possible level of transparency while still hiding that which must be hidden, yes. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
3. Yes, but this can arouse suspicion. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who disagree with this statement:

• The arbitration committee will hold discussions in public where privacy is not an issue, and will use its discretion in deciding where the balance lies.

Users who endorse this statement:

1. Naturally. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who disagree with this statement:

1. Near-endorsement but not quite: Change to "where privacy or WP:OFFICE action is not an issue" and I wholeheartedly agree. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Their discretion has been positively woeful in the past. On paper, this sounds really lovely and whatnot, but in reality, the JoshuaZ, MatthewHoffman, and OrangeMarlin have shown that this "discretion" is somewhat lacking. Give the community as clear a definition as possible on what encompasses "privacy concerns", and stick to that definition - don't ask the community to simply trust a group which has shown itself, time and time again, as incapable of upholding a basic level of competency deserving of said level of trust. --Badger Drink (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
3. While that is the way that it should be, it's pretty clear that is no longer the case. More problematic than the issue itself is because there is only ArbCom, there's nothing around that can sink its teeth into ArbCom and make it that way when it isn't. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Too wishy-washy and ignores the problems demonstrated by the recent cases. As experience shows, a more well-defined policy regarding the circumstances under which cases may be heard in private is needed. Also, a much stronger statement in favor of openness of the proceedings as the basic norm is required, including notification of the affected parties, the opportunity for the accused to see and to rebut evidence against them, the need for recorded votes, etc. Nsk92 (talk) 04:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Jimmy Wales is privy to the arbitration committee's discussions, in which he actively participates. Its powers to resolve disputes are delegated by him, and he has the power to reverse or modify its decisions (which he has pledged not to use where he is the subject of the decision) or to dissolve the committee.

Users who endorse this statement:

Users who disagree with this statement:

1. While I endorse this as the way things are now, based on discussion in this RfC I do not endorse that this is the way things should be. Other options for granting a body "clemency powers" should be looked at. The statement "its powers ... are delegated by him" should IMHO be changed to "its powers are ... delegated by the community" or, in a strictly legal sense, "its powers are ... delegated by the Wikimedia Foundation." However, the delegation issue hasn't been raised in this RfC. How about striking "Its powers to resolve disputes are delegated by him, and" completely? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Yes, but he doesn't; he remains an inactive and indirect balance, which is a useless one, both philosophically and practically. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Normally, the arbitration committee does not make decisions without attempting to contact those about whose conduct it is concerned, though this has sometimes been necessary in an emergency.

Users who endorse this statement:

1. In an emergency, yes. However, the "in an emergency" bit should be tweaked to prevent further potential for abuse. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who disagree with this statement:

1. Endorse statement going forward but factually incorrect for the past: Speaking from experience, in the past this may have been the "normal" practice but it was not the universal practice. Blocks without meaningful communication before or immediately after the block went into place have happened on more than one occasion, and in at least one case, it wasn't even an emergency. I sincerely hope your statement is true today and will be true in the future. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Emergencies

• Stewards whose powers are delegated directly from the Foundation may sometimes take emergency action in the absence of instructions from the arbitration committee, as a temporary measure when the integrity of the encyclopedia is endangered.

Users who endorse this statement:

1. Any editor may and should take emergency actions when the integrity of the encyclopedia is endangered. For example, editors are expected to revert blatant vandalism/COPYVIO/BLP issues, administrators are expected to immediately block robots gone wild, etc. This is no different. Such actions should always be followed up with notification to the parties involved and an opportunity for discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
2. We have IAR for this; there's no point in codifying it... Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who disagree with this statement:

Users who endorse all of the above

1. Jenny (Tony Sidaway) 01:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who disagree this is a good summary of the RfC

1. It covers a lot of points, but not precisely enough, and ignores key problems and ideas brought forward in this RfC. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Per above. Really, it just restates the status quo, with policy creation, secret meetings, and a continued unchecked system; it neither defends that nor addresses the problems inherent to it. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 10:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
3. Agree with Celarnor Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
4. this is just a re-statement of the status quo, in defense of the arbcom, and completely fails to recognize the issues which motivate this rfc in the first place. Can we get a summary by somebody who is not a sworn arbcom apparatchik? dab (𒁳) 07:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
5. I have to agree with Dbachmann here. The "arbcom apparatchik" characterization is regrettably apt. I think we're all susceptible to confirmation bias/selective memory when it comes to hearing only the arguments one wants to hear, but rarely have I seen selective interpretation of discussions pursued with quite such sycophantic gusto. Significant, good faith, and justifiable concerns abound — it's becoming increasingly ludicrous to pretend otherwise. --JayHenry (talk) 04:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
   • To dismiss an editor with well over 20,000 manual edits in article space as an apparatchik seems inappropriate; not to mention that it's a rather naked ad hominem argument. My summary is an attempt to create consensus by listing what I hope we can all agree is the status quo. It is my observation that many of the problems that are perceived to exis are due to a misapprehension of the nature of Wikipedia, the relationship of the community to Wikipedia, and the role of the Arbitration Committee in dispute resolution. --Jenny 08:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
     • Subtract the spoiler warning removals, Tony, and how many mainspace edits have you got left? Durova^Charge! 08:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
       • Still well over 20,000. I'm really rather surprised that you didn't know that I've long been amongst the more prolific article editors on Wikipedia. A glance at my recent article edits will show that I'm engaged, as I have long been with rare breaks, in day-to-day editing on a variety of articles. [21]. Yep, that's over 300 article edits in the past two weeks, about 24 of which were spoiler removals, 16 or so fixing various permutations of The Times, and some 30 trivial grammar fixes ("based off" -> "based on"). --Jenny 10:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
         • Interesting. At the moment I've got two DYK candidates, two featured sound candidates, five featured picture candidates, and one of my images ran on the main page yesterday. What articles have you built lately that you're proud of? Durova^Charge! 12:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
           • I am supremely uninterested in willy-waving. I've established that I'm not merely somebody who sits around and chats in talk and project space, but a serious article editor. That is enough. --Jenny 12:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
             • I'm sorry jenny, I don't really know how I'm supposed to keep track of your edit count, or even how my comments could be interpreted as denigrating your article space work. You're possibly a terrific torch-juggler or camel trainer as well. With no denigration intended of your other hobbies and activities in life and on Wiki, I just mean that in the context of this discussion, your posturing has not been helpful. Nobody agrees that everything is all happy bunny rabbits once we get past the "misapprehension", and it's not helping this discussion, the community at large, or the ArbCom to pretend otherwise. I appreciate that you seem to be less avidly pursuing the tactic of knocking conversations off course by the sheer volume of your comments, but it's time to make an effort to read what other people are saying too. --JayHenry (talk) 13:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
               • I would try to filter out whatever parts of the above comment did not constitute a personal slur, but I wouldn't know where to begin. Please don't engage in personal attacks. --Jenny 16:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
6. Per all above. The summary almost completely misses the key issues in this RfC, to a rather astonishing degree. Nsk92 (talk) 04:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
7. Given that the author of this summary probably holds the distinction of having sided with the minority more than any other editor at this RfC's proposals, this summary may be useful if we take it to a darkroom, dunk it in chemical vats, and develop its inverse. Durova^Charge! 04:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
8. Although I agree with this author on some issues, in this instance I have found his input to be singularly and uniquely unhelpful, and at odds with almost every other editor. I am not quite sure what he is up to, but he appears to be frantic to derail this procedure by any means necessary, including massive obfuscation and tendentious argumentation. I get the impression he believes that if he just throws tantrums and screams at the top of his lungs that nothing is wrong with Arbcomm, and threatens to hold his breath and turn blue, that this effort will just dissolve. However, I think the evidence is that it might be possible to improve Arbcomm in a few ways.--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
9. Can we move it t the talk page? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrators prepared to answer a few questions

Please consider signing up below if, as an arbitrator, you are prepared to engage 'on-wiki' in offering a few thoughts, or answering a few questions. I'm sure many questions will no doubt be submitted - and there may be no way for any of you to be able to answer all of them - but I sincerely believe offering a few answers, as individuals, to a few focused questions would represent a significant way forward....

We can figure out how best to format and structure this page / subpages, but I entreat you to sign up as available in some small way to the community. Please!

Arbs prepared to answer a few questions

• Kirill ^(prof) 12:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Paul August ☎ 00:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC) but I'll ignore all hostile and/or baiting questions.
• bainer (talk) 01:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• FloNight♥♥♥ 16:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• James F. (talk) 17:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC) (When back properly and able to attend fully to replies)

See also

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee#Comments by FT2
• Charles Matthews on interpretation of what happened in the Orangemarlin affair

Questions from User:Privatemusings

demonstrating what I would suggest is an easy format to follow - also genuine questions

• "Some sort of discussion / process occurred, examining Orangemarlin's behaviour" - does this vague statement ring true?
• Could you say a few short comments about the strengths and weaknesses of that discussion / process?
• Do you edit on the private arbcom wiki?

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

1. Neıl 龱 11:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
3. —Giggy 01:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Responses from arbitrators:

1. I'm not prepared yet to characterize the events in the Orangemarlin case, other than that they revealed dramatic weaknesses and few strengths (other than the ability to correct error) of the current process. We need help. And, yeah, sometimes I edit on the private arbcom wiki, but only trivially. If were drafting cases, I'd use it more. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
2. In order: yes; that the main fault was in communication failure, but as per Josh I think it's premature to go further right now; and yes, but there's not much about which to talk, as per Josh. James F. (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
3. Orangemarlin merits discussion; I'll come back to it as soon as I'm fully sorted out here since it needs a lot of reading of what's gone on. Skipping some questions until then. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
4. a- Yes.

b- As in any other Wiki process there are always positive and negative sides. In theory, ArbCom acts in good faith and sometimes makes mistakes. It is not different in practice. The ability to talk about mistakes freely is the biggest asset of this project.

c- Yes. Same as Josh. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Questions from User:Neil

• A couple of suggestions on the RFC are concerned with expanding the pool of arbitrators and/or reducing term length. How do you feel about these ideas? Would either of them be helpful, in your view? Thanks. Neıl 龱 11:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• (edit conflict, but I will place here as it is linking in more or less with Neil's proposal) - Do you agree the workload has increased to a point where increasing the numbers on arbcom by somewhere between 33-100% would be prudent to allow cases to be shared around between a larger number of groups - reducing the workload on any particular arbcom member and/or allowing more time and energy for a longer examination of a particular case?

If yes, what would be the optimum number of arbcom members (using current workload and free time to extrapolate)?

Other users wanting answers to this question:

1. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
3. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Fainites ^barley 22:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
5. —Giggy 01:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Responses from arbitrators:

1. I suggested dramatically increasing the number of arbitrators when I first ran for arbcom. (My idea involved randomly selecting a subset of the large arbitration team for each case. It's probably unworkable, but still an interesting idea.) It would need to be part of a larger scale reshaping of ArbCom. Shortening the term would be a good idea; three years is a hugely long time, and burnout can be dramatic. No idea what number or shape would be optimum. I don't think the workload has increased, but the nature of the problems being dealt with is different from a few years ago; the community is more empowered now to issue blocks and bans, and does so. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
2. If the Committee were to be enlarged, I think it would need to involve some reform to allow cases to be heard by smaller groups of arbitrators, rather than by the whole Committee; a simple increase of numbers (I've seen even a doubling of numbers suggested somewhere) would tend to compound problems rather than alleviate them, I fear, by simply making the process that much more unwieldy and complicated. I tend to agree with jpgordon on this point. --bainer (talk) 02:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
3. Having served on the Committee in all its incarnations, I've found that the increase in bodies creates a large increase in communications overhead, which is not entirely offset by having more people around to do stuff; if anything, a slight reduction in head-count would probably work better. This is not to say that I don't have confidence in all other members of the Committee, and I'm certainly not saying that there are those I would have removed! See also my comments on WT:AC just now. James F. (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Agree with the above comments that simply increasing the number of arbs is not the solution. Reorganization is needed first. I'm mid way through my term and I feel that I can complete my term with out suffering burn out. But my situation is different than most other arbitrators since I'm not balancing employment or school with my committee work. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
5. As per FloNight, there should be some reorganization done first. Some are underway and the opinion of the community is highly needed (see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Open matters/Devolution). James also mentions a valid point which is communications overhead. If we were to have no more than 15 arbitrators then reducing the term to 24 months at least would be reasonable to give an opportunity to some fresh blood. There's no way to calculate an optimum because you cannot expect cases to be brought to the ArbCom in advance, let alone their degree of complexity. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Alex Bakharev (talk)

1. The visible part of the Arbcom work are the publicly heard cases and amendments. Can you outline the less visible parts of the work like private investigations, appointment of checkusers, oversighters? What percentage of the workload is caused by those invisible duties?
2. What processes are used for those invisible cases: private wiki? maillists? IRC?
3. Some decisions of Arbcom are "proper" that is voted for by the majority of active arbitrators, some decisions seems to be never voted but a result of some sort of consensus (meaning nobody oppose energetically enough)? How Arbcom makes distinction from one set to another? How Arbcom safeguards itself from abusing the consensus process (a proponent of a decision rushes to announce it on behalf of Arbcom expecting that opponents would not create excessive drama by denying the decision)?
4. In the public cases arbirators with a conflict of interests usually recuse. Do they still have access to private discussions and privileged information?
5. What are the safeguards against possible COIs in private investigations?
6. Did the decision to hear the Ornagemarlin case without informing the accused have any precedents? Who made the decision to use such an unusual method for this case? What were rationales for this?
7. Did the decision to make the decision in Orangemarlin case by consensus rather than voting have any precedents? Who made the decision to use such an unusual method for this case? What were rationales for this?
8. It appears that FT2 being a participant in the ID conflict and so having a COI not only did not recuse from the case, but also was the main collector of evidence, most probably the sole author of the text, evaluated consensus and announced the case. Why no safeguards against COI worked? Do you plan to modify the processes to prevent such COI in the future?
9. Would you agree to review the processes of Arbcom and the events of the Orangemarlin case by an independent commission (e.g. m:Cross-wiki arbitration committee)?

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

1. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
2. —Giggy 01:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
3. -Privatemusings (talk) 01:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Responses from arbitrators:

1. This format doesn't lend itself well to answering numbered lists; perhaps someone might refactor. Anyway:
   1. Most of the work is the public case-related stuff. I can't really quantify the amount of work done on other aspects, but I'd guess ten percent or less. It probably should be more -- we should be spending more time on things like unblock requests, but we need some structural changes to use our time more effectively.
   2. Mostly maillists. IRC gets some action, but I haven't hung out there for a while. The private wiki mostly gets used for drafting stuff and for keeping track of things like checkuser requests.
   3. It's pretty nebulous and poorly defined. We safeguard against abuses by observing that if such abuses occur, the ensuing drama is far more unpleasant than whatever the action was meant to correct.
   4. Yes. Recusal means an arbitrator may not participate in a case. No comments, no votes, no nothing. However, they still have access to the mail list, the wiki, etc.
   5. None in particular.
   6. For the rest, I'm not prepared yet to characterize the Orangemarlin case. I will in time.

   jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

2. Alex, good questions. I will need some time to answer them. Get back to you soon. FloNight♥♥♥ 01:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
   1. Varies from arbitrator to arbitrator, and not tracked. For example, some arbitrators do most of the leg work for the on site cases and give replies to most requests for clarification, while other arbs spend more time doing follow up for previous cases such as doing checkusers for suspected banned user socks, and other arbitrators do more ban reviews or answer emails. We have no formal system for assigning these tasks or tracking them.
   2. Most off site discussion happens on either the arbcom mailing list or the newer sitting arbs mailing list. The arb wiki is mostly used for recording information sent to arbcom mailing list in a more organized way than emails threads allows. IRC and Skype are used by some arbs but not for formal meetings or discussions.
   3. No safeguards currently other than arbitrators being willing to speak up internally if some acts prematurely.
   4. Recuse means no participating in the case in anyway as an arbitrator, on site or off site. But arbitrators do have access to mailing list discussions.
   5. Nothing specific other than arbitrators and former arbitrators observations.
   6. 7, 8, 9. Internal discussion of our methods of handling private cases and summary cases has happened and more to come.

   FloNight♥♥♥ 18:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

3. I will be notable in my disagreement with Josh here on the first part, who I hope will forgive me; I find the off-wiki workload to be very significant (having expanded in particular in 2006 and early part of 2007 from previous levels), and takes up something like 50% of my time (5-10 hours a week), along with another 40% (3-8 hours) of actually wading through evidence and so on for cases. Note that the disagreement will stem mostly from our different styles, where Josh is much more active on writing cases up whereas I check against cases already written, which could well be argued is a much smaller workload. Other than this, I agree with Josh's points. James F. (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Following the same formatting...
   1. I'd say that the size and the scope of the visible part of the process (ArbCom case pages plus RfC and AN/I in some cases) can reflect precisely that of the off-line one (discussions, evidences, deliberations, etc..) As for the second part of the question, I'd say that appointments takes the form of an informal voting system based on consensus. In most times, every arbitrator would give their reason why they would support someone or not. On an indivudual level, I find myself near James's position.
   2. Wiki mailing lists plus one for the sitting arbs. The private wiki, as explained above, is dedicated to drafting and organization. I personally don't recognize the legitimacy of anything related to IRC due to my beliefs in that Wikipedia decisions should be taken from inside the Wikipedia system.
   3. As in any other Wikipedia process; if there is a disagreement over consensus someone will speak up.
   4. Yes and we have already brought up this subject in the mailing list but with no resolution... The least that can be done is to exempt a recused arb from action and a solution to that...
   5. ... would be simply sending priveleged and private material to unrecused individual arbitrators' emails instead of the list.
   6. For the rest, I was mostly inactive during the abovementioned case but I can be ready to read the case in depth and verify evidences if it is necessary. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Rootology

Thanks! rootology (T) 05:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC) (edited to lose the numbered format per Jpgordon)

1. Recusal & mail lists?

Just a follow-up to the recusal question above. If an Arb is recused, are they allowed to participate in discussions of the issue on the mail list?

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

Responses from arbitrators:

1. No. They can watch; that's all. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
2. No, they're not. Kirill ^(prof) 15:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
3. No discussion. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
4. There has been trouble in the past with this, but it seems the current arbitrators have taken a firm stand regarding this problem. It is not appropriate to recuse and then vigorously argue on the mailing list for whatever resolution you favor. Fred Talk 12:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
5. Per above. This of course means that recused Arbitrators are in a very difficult position (they shouldn't talk about a case, from which they are recused or not, on- or off-wiki in case they prejudice the process or the appearance thereof), which is why most of us strive to avoid being in positions from which we will need to recuse. James F. (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

6. Arbitrators as a group seem to be extremely careful of their neutrality, behind the scenes. There isn't much treading over the lines, and people are quite able to tell what is a helpful comment and what isn't. I don't know if "allowed" is the right word or not, but recused arbvitrators just don't take part in the discussion on a decision, or use their access to present a matter favorably. Most cases where an arbitrator is recused they say absolutely nothing on the matter, for the entire duration of the case.

   Example of an exception - during the unban appeal of Peter Damian (where I was a party), I posted to the list my concerns that he needed to be seen to have a fair hearing, given there was a member of the committee involved. However had I not been on the committee, and had that concern for any reason, I would have likewise submitted it by email to the list; it was sent as a party and not as a committee member, and understood as such. I also asked in the same email that all discussion of his appeal be held off-list out of my hearing, so that it could not be said I had any access to the discussion which he did not have. That is an example of arbitrators mailing the list to discuss a case where they are recused. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

7. Per my answers to Alex (4 & 5) and Fred. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

2. Opposition voting on Proposed Decision?

It seems like the drafted cases that are put on Proposed Decision pages are very focused. Are Arbs free if they disagree with the internal or private consensus on the case during drafting to put forward an opposition or contrary finding/remedy/etc. on the Proposed Decision to force a vote on a contentious point?

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

Responses from arbitrators:

1. Sure. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Most initial drafting is actually done with minimal (if any) private discussion; what people first see on the proposed decision page is, in the majority of cases, simply what the drafting arbitrator came up with, not the result of prior discussion by the Committee as a whole. Kirill ^(prof) 15:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
3. Usually full cases are not discussed on the mailing list or the arb wiki prior to being placed on site. There are rare exceptions. Usually one arbitrator write the whole case. All arbitrators are free to discuss their views on a case and offer any proposal on site. It is not unusual to see alternative proposals added to cases that are already drafted. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Per above, though it does happen that a case's outline and salient points to address are considered privately before the case is written up, and even then, we sometimes will subsequently disagree publicly with the PD as initially written. James F. (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
5. Any arbitrator is free to make such posts and decisions as they choose, during a hearing. Especially, any arbitrator is free to amend, comment, disagree, or post alternatives on the Proposed Decision page. Usually one committee member leads on drafting, and others then concur or differ when they post a view. Over time that is more how consensus builds. Private discussion tends to be on making sure we understand the import of the case, its actual thrust or subtle issues, and matters needing taking care of (or not pivotal enough to need mention). But anyone who disagrees and feels others may concur, is always free to post their own approach. Usually this is done judiciously, since a view which would not get significantly more support than an existing proposal is not going anywhere. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
6. An example. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

   Well... I think my question was slightly different than that example. I meant, say we have a case where consensus on the private arb discussions doesn't line up. Just to pick a recent contentious case... Mantanmoreland. If an arb had put up a proposal to force a vote that said, say, "Mantanmoreland as demonstrated by evidence on the evidence page is a repeated sockpuppeteer that used the socks to manipulate wikipedia content, etc.", which there wasn't I don't believe a consensus to post as a motion since it may not have passed. Something like that--where an arb just puts it up, to bring attention to/force a public call on some point. rootology (T) 03:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

   Any arbitrator is free to do so but I am not sure if bringing attention is the right way to describe it. In fact, it is supposed that proposed decisions result from some initial discussions. One or some arbs would disagree but our basis is consensus. In the Mantanmoreland case, a majority of the Committee concluded that the weight of the credible evidence taken as a whole is suggestive of or consistent with a relationship between the two accounts, but various factors prevent a definitive conclusion from being reached. That means that there was a minority somewhere there. It doesn't matter how large it is that but it would be useless to bring this to the attention of the public since it is implicit and that would be redundant. Some would take it as making a point. As a member of the Committee, I would try to avoid making points. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

3. Is the Workshop worth it?

Is it worth it for people to put so much energy and work into the Workshop? How much does this actually affect the Proposed Decision?

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

Responses from arbitrators:

1. It depends on the case. On relatively simple cases, workshops do most of the work for us (as it should be.) On highly contentious cases, though, I've not found them helpful, except inasmuch as they bring problematic behavior to one place. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Speaking for myself, I've tried to use the workshop more for my own drafting in the recent past; so, yes, I'd say that the workshop can affect the final decision quite a bit. Kirill ^(prof) 15:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
3. Depends on the case. In high profile cases I think the workshop pages and the other talk pages are not as helpful because they are too cluttered with extraneous comments. In other cases, I find the workshop pages and talk pages extremely helpful. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Agree with Josh. I do find the Workshop a very good read into the case just before I'm going to the PD, so as to see what different parties think are the main points. James F. (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
5. A lot of the time, the case evidence, and our own checking, will be enough to give a very good idea what's up and what's needed. But in complex or contentious cases, often the workshop shows up what's actually going on, and who is actually acting in what ways -- the dynamics of it, or the main themes within the dispute (as opposed to the evidence backing those themes). That can be extremely helpful. It also gives the community a place to express thoughts or concerns which may not have a voiice elsewhere. This happens helpfully, and also unhelpfully. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
6. I think they can be and are very worthwhile. Paul August ☎ 19:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
7. I think the workshop actually does make a lot of difference in the thinking of some arbitrators because I can think of a few instances where the early mood on the mailing list appeared to be leaning towards a particularly outcome (usually a heavy remedy) and then a lot of protest on the workshop has appeared to cause this to be averted. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
8. Take a soccer eliminatory game and the field as the workshop... Sometimes some teams would prefer gaining time waiting for the penalties shootouts because they have no more to offer except making fouls and arguing minutes with the referee and keeping the ball in their camp. Other critisize it for other reasons. Of course, not all games end with a tie-break and not all games are boring. The difference here is that soccer referees can still use their yellow and red cards during the shootouts. It is not the case in Wikipedia workshops where some users can still edit war there with immunity. That should be considered a place for listening and not a place to create further tensions. Whatever is the case, my view is to keep them as they can be very helpful for certain cases and apply strict measures to keep them free of time wasting and disruption. Other alternatives cannot work here. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

4. Why not port stuff from Workshop to Proposed Decision more often?

If a given item on the Workshop gets significant support or becomes a major point of contention (as in something that is obviously key in the minds of the community) is there any reason why it may not get onto the Proposed Decision?

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

Responses from arbitrators:

1. No reason one way or another. Decisions sometimes (often? I haven't really counted) take language directly from the workshop. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
2. There's more to putting together a focused decision, in my view, than merely lumping everything that might pass into a single document. In most cases, items from the workshop aren't carried over—at least when I'm drafting—because I think they're (a) redundant, (b) irrelevant, or (c) undesirable. Other arbitrators may later add an item if they feel it useful; but, generally speaking, if no arbitrator puts something up for voting, it's because no arbitrator feels such a finding would be of value to the final decision. Kirill ^(prof) 15:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
3. Often the wording of the Rulings come from prior cases. The ideas from the workshop page my be included on the PD page in different wording. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Our job is to do what we think is right for the project, and sometimes that means not doing something that is popular, doing something despite objections, or failing to address something in terms of black and white when a spectrum exists and "solving" the issue might seem like a good fix in the short term. This extends to porting Workshop issues over to the Proposed Decision as much as other places. James F. (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

5. James, Kirill, FloNight, have said it. One area that I do often port, is suggestions how to approach the rssolving of the dispute, if I think they might be good ideas. This applies especially to temporary injunctions. If the parties and community feel a temporary injunction may help hold back dispute whilst allowing productive editing of content, then I'll usually be inclined to strongly support that, although I'll often tighten up the wording or post a proposed version for discussion first. My role there is to make sure if it is ported, then it's ported in a way that stands a good chance of actually working, ie preventing gaming or dispute explosion if so.

   As regards wider remedies, a lot of the time, remedies proposed at workshop are too light, too extreme, or misdirected. The idea of a good arbitration remedy/enforcement is that it does what is needed to allow things to move forward. Mantanmoreland #1 was a classic example of workshop misjudgement - many people called stridently for a ban without calmly considering whether a lesser measure would do the job. The job in that case was to prevent manipulation of an exceptionally well defined set of articles, and prevent socking (especially with proxies)... and beyond that to allow a user who had contributed productively in other areas, the chance to show if they would change or not. The measures needed to fix that case were not a site ban (initially unless repeated) however much emotion there was, but 1/ a topic ban and strong protection for the disputed articles, 2/ restrictions on proxies and multiple accounts, and 3/ close monitoring if necessary indefinitely, after the case, to ensure compliance and to make repeat socking (if applicable) easier to detect. Without going into the politics of Mantanmoreland/Overstock, purely as an example, this is a constant issue with heated /Workshop cases - the workshop becomes polarized and what is posted is often battleground mindset, not resolution mindset. It's easier as an arbitrator, to skim it for ideas and views, and then draft for oneself. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

6. No particular reason. Desicions are not disassociated from workshops' discussions especially the ones dealing with difficult issues. You'll find all workshop relevant elements comprised in FoFs, or resulting in a temporary injuction or a motion later on. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

5. Notification of evidence?

If one party submits evidence by direct email that isn't restricted by the Privacy Policy, is there any method in place for the other parties to know about this, so they can fairly respond?

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

Responses from arbitrators:

1. Nope. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

   I didn't know that... is there any reason why? It seems like that can cause problems such as people getting caught blindsided. rootology (T) 14:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

   We don't have a lot of processes for exceptional situations; see the next answer. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

   Isn't ArbCom's entire role to handle exceptional situations? --Barberio (talk) 11:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

   Sure, in one sense. On the other hand, even within that role, there are exceptional situations that we don't have process for. We can't plan for all exigencies. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

2. Not in the general case, although we have at times notified people of evidence regarding them. Kirill ^(prof) 15:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
3. The idea is dispute resolution. Usually not telling the involved parties the angry stuff that the other fellow says about them behind their back is for the best. But if there are serious allegations that need to be addressed by one party then the party will be notified by one or more arbs to hear the other side of the story. We usually forward these inquiry email discussions to the full mailing list. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
4. No, though we will often ask for evidence submitted by e-mail where it isn't necessary to keep it private to be made public. James F. (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

5. No, and often no need. We aren't naive, and any of us would check things out or consider their validity and completeness before basing any further thoughts on them. If we need to check something out that came in by email, or if it raises a genuine concern, we tend to discuss thoughtfully and make inquiries, not assume. A surprising amount of time there will be checkable corroberation -- things don't often happen with no context. A pinch of salt may be needed as well, since some things by their nature are not checkable, and are capable of fabrication, and do get fabricated, and we know this.

   Ultimately though this isn't actually the real answer. This question in a way, is largely a misunderstanding. The real answer is, we aim for dispute resolution, we aren't a court. The fact A said this, or B said that, or A alleges whatever, is in a way, almost secondary. What matters is the general behaviors shown, and identifying what might help resolve the issue going forward. That is often a focus that gives a very clear direction, and all the evidence received on or off wiki, is merely a kind of indication what approach might help the community to do that. When you look at it that way, you aren't taking evidence as "OMG LOOK WHAT HE SAY! MUST ACT!". You're looking to the evidence as a guide, to help make a ruling in a divisive issue, how the dispute is best to be resolved for all parties and the community, going forward... which can be a different question entirely. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

6. To develop FloNight's point... A few days ago I received a complaint, related to a recently closed ArbCom case, which was supported by some evidence (diffs in general). I then informed the subject of the evidence and asked him to comment on that and tell me his side of the story. I made sure not to divulge the source of the complaint since that would be naive per FT2. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

6. Frequency of email evidence?

How often does submitted evidence come by email that isn't restricted by the Privacy Policy?

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

Responses from arbitrators:

1. Rarely; such evidence properly belongs on the evidence page. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Indeed. Sometimes we do see evidence come from people that can't, or don't want, to post it publicly. In theory, we could probably come up with some formal process to get such stuff onto the evidence page (perhaps anonymously); but, as Josh points out above, we don't have much process set up for dealing with unusual situations. Kirill ^(prof) 15:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
3. As I allude to in my above comment. The emails that we get are often opinions rather than evidence. These do not influence us any more than the opinion comment on the evidence page. Unique evidence by email is much less common. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Infrequently, but it can be problematic when it does and my suggested action above is not followed. James F. (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

5. Rarely; people don't usually email the Arbitration Committee without good cause. (Exception, a few hardened banned users who repeatedly seek unbanning, typically every few weeks even whilst still being caught socking.) Sometimes private evidence might be people with suspicions or concerns that they feel we ought to know of, but who don't want to be drawn into the morass of a heated open war zone. Another circumstance might be "I think there is a problem here, but not 100% sure and would not like to inflame the issue". I would support the right of a user to say "I have some insight that may help, but I would like not to be set upon for saying it or post without advice, since my role here is mostly to quietly edit content."

   I would also respect a user who wished to avoid stirring "drama": unlike some, my view on drama is that we have no need for other than calm dispassionate productive collaborative discussion; anything else is a complete distraction and unhelpful to the project, and damages it. So I would not feel it necessary to force a naturally low profile person into drama, against their will. Usually the reply will be a polite "thank you for your comment", and we'll note it was said, but no special weight is given to it. That said as a rule, this is rare, though; people tend not to email us that way unless there really is a privacy issue or genuine need. If it's a blatant /Evidence page matter they'll be directed to post it there. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

6. Not something usual. I also agree with James. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

6a. Dealing with evidence or allegations whose nature does not warrant privacy when it is received by email

This additional question is added by Irpen. I planned to start my own section but figure it is best to ask this question right next to a related question.

If an arbitrator receives an email from a complaining editor with evidence or allegations against the other editor but such allegations do not fall under the category where the off-line submission is uncontroversially justified (such as privacy, sockpuppetry, RL identity and other sensitive issue) is it customary for an arbitrator to still forward this evidence to other arbitrators? Or is the editor told to use the evidence section of the current case or, if there is no case, use the normal channels of DR, invluding submitting a case? --Irpen 06:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

Responses from arbitrators:

1. There is nothing unusual about having two matters being looked into at the same time. Thus a user may have an RFAR case (or a mediation, or a matter at ANI) and also be looked into by a CheckUser for bad-faith socking concerns. The fact a user is at RFAR doesn't mean that all issues about that user are arbitration issues; if they act up elsewhere (eg legal threats) then it may happen the new concern is dealt with not by the committee, but by an individual arbitrator or administrator (by email, talk page, or admin tools). But it is customary that correspondence received by an arbitrator that seems to be for general information of arbitrators, is made known to the rest of the committee (even if dealt with personally), so that we are on the same page on such matters. So for example, if I get an unban appeal, or FloNight gets a "is this evidence of socking by the other party" email, we'll deal with it but it will usually be forwarded or summarized to others (along with the response and handling if any), so that nobody is left out of the full picture, whether it's valid or not. One very good reason for this - they will often approach others too (for valid reasons, or sometimes forum shopping). Whether it is forwarded to others is separate from what response the user gets.

   A separate point is to do with approach more than action. There is a lot of mutual trust between arbitrators. The list is busy, and we see each others actions and views in very frank discussion, every day. A lot of mutual trust and knowledge builds up even if sometimes one arbitrator does not agree or even get on with another (different approach, etc). So a huge part of our work is on the basis of letting each other make judgements as needed, including the judgement when to forward or anonymize information, when to handle it personally off list, and so on. (The flip side is, were that standard and ethic found not to be upheld behind the scenes, the judgement of the others on the Committee would probably be forceful, strict, and unaccepting.) It works very well in almost all cases. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

2. Difficult to know what emails other arbs choose not to forward to the list. Most emails forwarded to the list seem appropriate to me. Paul August ☎ 20:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Shoemaker's Holiday (talk)

Question 1 from Shoemaker's Holiday (talk)

Would the arbcom be willing to use the Workshop more, putting decisions on the Workshop first for a few days, instead of the current practice of skipping the workshop and going to proposed decisions? This would allow more input, and might help improve phrasing of decisions, which are not particularly well-crafted at times.

For the record, I was thinking more "feedback" than voting - the arbcom has every right to ignore the feedback, but I think it would help avoid some of the poorer phrasing that ends up in the decisions at times. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

Responses from arbitrators:

1. I wouldn't. That defeats the whole purpose of the proposed decision page. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
2. I've been making an effort to do that more in the past few months, actually. With the slower rate of cases coming in, there's not much reason for rushing past the workshop, in my view. Kirill ^(prof) 15:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
3. There are pros and cons to this approach. The interaction between the arbs, parties, and the community can be good in as much the arbs can explain why some proposals work for them and others don't. But the workshop page can not become a pre-vote vote page in my opinion. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Well, there is the Proposed Decision's talk page; we often react to feedback there (as well as the inevitable user talk, IRC, and e-mail messages). James F. (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
5. I would rather look at how cases and workshop work first. As much as I'd like to, and in a way feel it's appropriate, I'm not sure the workshop and talk pages as presently structured are the best vehicle for multi-way discussion of the case. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Question 2 from Shoemaker's Holiday (talk)

Does the arbcom, with reasonable diligence, read the workshop and case talk pages? I ask because there have been numerous incidents of very pertinent questions being asked on talk pages, and getting no comments for weeks, and I don't think I've ever seen a user-created Workshop proposal used.

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

Responses from arbitrators:

1. Speaking to your second point, I've personally used a number of outside proposals in the decisions I've drafted. More generally, yes, we make an effort to read all the discussion; but keep in mind the ease with which an unruly group of editors can flood a page to the point of unreadability. Perhaps we need to have some sort of dedicated area for actual questions to the Committee, where they wouldn't be lost in the general back-and-forth arguments quite so easily. Kirill ^(prof) 16:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
2. I read all the pages before I vote. Prior to voting to close, I do a recheck to look at the new comments and respond to the important stuff. It is extremely difficult to reply to every comment and question in the highly contentious cases that draw loads of comments, especially if the cases stay open for a prolonged period of time. If an user feels that an important question is being missed, then they should contact the clerk or an arb directly. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
3. I can't speak for others, though it's clear to me from their actions that they generally do; for myself, yes, though some threads quickly become pointless from the POV of Arbitration (namely, fixing the problem), instead descending into posturing from the trenches of an embattled dispute. Workshop issues are frequently used in real cases (though often re-worded into more normal language for Arbitration cases, which can mean just using a previous case's proposed item and so look like ignoring input to the Workshop). James F. (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Workshop proposals have been used, sometime verbatim, though perhaps less so now than in the past. I try very hard to read and ponder all the case pages, including all linked material, before I vote, and again before I vote to close, but it can be very time and energy draining to do so. Paul August ☎ 20:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Question 3 from Shoemaker's Holiday (talk)

This is case-specific, I fear, but somewhat pertinent: Does the arbcom intend to restore the (deleted) evidence page to the Homeopathy case? If not, why? If yes, why did the arbitration committee wait so long that the case was left to run for its entire last month open without the ability of anyone to add more evidence? What steps are being taken to prevent this in future?

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

1. --Badger Drink (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Gnixon (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Responses from arbitrators:

1. I was away when that happened (I think) and not clear what was going on. I meant to check on that when I became active again because I was curious myself. Been sidetracked by other events. I'll look into it and reply here or else where if more appropriate. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

   Asked arbcom mailing list for information. I agree that it is extremely unusual for a case to have no evidence page and we need to sort this out. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Question 4 from Shoemaker's Holiday (talk)

The arbcom has, in the new Giano case, once again moved to voting before either party being sanctioned has provided any evidence. In the middle of a scandal bout a violation of due process, to circumvent due process by not giving the parties a chance to respond is frankly, appalling. While I accept Thebainer acted in good faith, and I by no means want to condemn him, this repeats controversial actions from the MatthewHoffman, Durova, and echoes the main objections to the Orangemarlin case: that the parties are not being given the chance to defend themselves.

I accept that there may be emergency situations where such a rush is appropriate. This case is not one of them. I therefore am going to have to ask the arbcom whether they are willing to put a hard-and-fast restriction on themselves, because this kind of thing really must stop.

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

1. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
2. It looks more like a statement than a question. Still I will be interested to read the arbitrators comments Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
3. According to the Arbs and the official case title the "New Giano Case" is not actually about me. This is in spite of my name appearing 20 times on the list of contents on the workshop page and the Arbs gleefully deciding to make it about me. In fact, such was their glee in voting within minutes (it seemed) to accept the case, I decided that to post evidence would be a waste of time. So therefore it can never be a fair trial of any of the named parties. I doubt they will put any restriction on themselves, as suggested above, when the opportunity presents itself this present arbcom like to seize the moment, regardless of the cost to the encyclopedia and their own reputations. However, I would like to see some answers. Giano (talk) 22:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Responses from arbitrators:

Questions from User:davidwr/(talk)

About how much of your word deals with privately submitted evidence? About how much of your work deals with cases which are not public? Of these cases, about what percentage would be good candidates for having a public summary of some sort or other? Addendum by davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) at 13:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC): I should have explicitly included ban appeals and other items that are not "regular arbitrations" that are the proper domain of ARBCOM in your workload.

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

Responses from arbitrators:

1. I sense that there has been an up tick in the percentage of our work that has private evidence. This is because the community deals with more and more of the less complex stuff. There are few fully private cases. The few that are private are done for a reason and usually are not good candidates for public summary. FloNight♥♥♥ 01:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
2. I can only speak to the last six months, of course, but relatively little. There is rarely any private evidence submitted with respect to regular arbitrations. Obviously things such as ban appeals which are conducted by email consist entirely of "private" evidence submitted directly to us, but even then it consists of "normal" evidence fodder (lists of diffs and so forth). --bainer (talk) 05:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

   I should have explicitly included ban appeals and other items that are not "regular arbitrations" that are the proper domain of ARBCOM in your workload. Given that clearer definition, how much of your workload is either done in private and how much of your workload consists of items that the public never knows about? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Questions from LessHeard vanU

More regarding community participation in the Workshop pages

Are Committee Members aware that the Workshop editing is the reflection of the concerns of the community, or portions of it, in the particular matter, and that it may be useful to address those concerns even if - or perhaps especially if - they are not specifically referred to in the Proposed Decision page?

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

Responses from arbitrators:

1. Yes, aware. Not sure of the best method to address them though. Often the Community will be split on the best course of action, and the Committee will be split as well. We actually have diverse opinions on most these topics. If the community is split and so is ArbCom, not much can happen to address a concern as a body. FloNight♥♥♥ 01:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Flo says it well. We really do seem to reflect the community, so contentious cases can be contentious with the Committee as well. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Irpen

Dealing_with_evidence_or_allegations_whose_nature_does_not_warrant_privacy_when_it_is_received_by_email

Please see #6a. Dealing with evidence or allegations whose nature does not warrant privacy when it is received by email

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

Responses from arbitrators:

Questions from User:Hiding

I've presented evidence and analysed that evidence at a couple of arbitration cases, and proposed principles and remedies based on the evidence and analysis. I have never once seen an arbitrator engage with anything I have presented. Why is that? How am I supposed to know the evidence has been reviewed? How am I supposed to know on what the arbitration committee bases its decisions? Why does the arbitration committee fail to engage?

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

1. I'd really like to see more interaction with the community on the Workshop page in particular. - jc37 09:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Mike R (talk) 17:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Responses from arbitrators:

1. For the last -- why the committee fails to engage -- in my case, I think it's more fatigue than anything else, though a dislike of getting yelled at is also high on the list. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

   I understand it, of course, but from the viewpoint of the community it is somewhat lacking. However, I have just seen one admin walk from the project over an issue that escalated out of control beyond belief, so I can see where it is coming from. I can think of no way around this bear trap except to start enforcing WP:AGF far more heavily, and to begin to exert peer pressure by simply ignoring anyone refusing to engage in a mature and responsible manner. I would still like answers on the issue of evidence analysis. Where is this undertaken, and how. Is all evidence reviewed? Where is it commented upon? Hiding T 12:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

   Well, most of isn't explicitly commented upon. That is, we don't as a group go through evidence and share our feelings about it; we will discuss particular items privately sometimes, but mostly we each analyze the evidence for ourselves and come to independent conclusions. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

   So how do you expect the community to understand your decisions, and how they relate to the evidence? If you're not at some point writing in public view, based on this this and this, we propose this resolution, then to me it seems obvious there will appear to be a disconnect between decision and evidence, and that this in turn feeds the drama which greets each proposed decision. To a certain degree, that then puts the committee on the back foot of having to defend a decision rather than having up front explained it. Hiding T 09:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Questions from User:Alanyst

The ideal arbitration contributor

How would you describe the "ideal" contributor to an arbitration proceeding? This would be a normal editor (not necessarily a party) who contributes in order to assist you in resolving the dispute efficiently; what sort of behavior would the ideal such editor display? What behavior would they avoid (assume that all obvious WP policy violations are already covered).

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

1. Mike R (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Responses from arbitrators:

1. I favor terseness in all cases. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Focused and concise. Paul August ☎ 20:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Diffs and interpretation of diffs

Is commentary accompanying diffs more useful than diffs alone, or do you prefer to let the diffs speak for themselves? If the former, what style of commentary is most useful? (Links or quotes of examples would be nice but not essential.)

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

1. Mike R (talk) 17:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Responses from arbitrators:

1. I'd prefer no commentary whatsoever on the evidence pages, other than "Here's so-and-so doing so-and-so." I don't like opinions on evidence pages -- I tend to ignore them completely. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
2. A neutral summary can be helpful. There can be benefit to the presentation of an argument, not sure where the best place for this should be. Paul August ☎ 20:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Feedback to contributing editors

What would be the pros and cons of giving more (and more immediate) feedback to editors who contribute to arbitration proceedings, regarding the usefulness (or lack thereof) of their evidence and commentary?

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

1. Mike R (talk) 17:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Responses from arbitrators:

1. From arbiters you mean? It depends on the editor and the feedback. Some editors might welcome and profit from well crafted feedback, others wouldn't. And the demands on arbiters time is great. But yes more feedback would probably be helpful. Paul August ☎ 20:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I know this guy

When considering evidence and commentary, do you factor in who contributed it, or do you try to ignore the source and attend only to what they are saying? If you do take into account who the contributor is, what measures do you take to ascertain that your perception of the editor is accurate and not out-of-date?

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

1. Mike R (talk) 17:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Responses from arbitrators:

1. That's a tough one. For evidence -- pure evidence -- we don't have to consider the source; diffs are diffs. For commentary, we can't ignore the source, and it wouldn't make sense to. The commentary of a well-established editor is naturally going to be taken more seriously than a random anonymous IP; the commentary of someone who always gets along well with the community will be taken more seriously than someone who has been blocked for disruption a dozen times. We're human; we can't help but be prejudiced by interactions we've had in the past. (I'm not thinking here of actual parties to a case; that's more delicate and requires more discretion on our part. I'm only considering "other parties" and their commentaries on workshops and such.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Well speaking for myself, I can think of some cases where some parties were much more "highly decorated" than their opponents in all aspects and did all sorts of nonsense during the case. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Questions from User:jc37

Recusal

I note in some of the comments above that the arbitrators as a group seem to feel that recused arbitratos shouldn't join in on the discussion. Are you only referring to "private" arbitration discussion, or the "open" pages (and sub-pages and talk pages) of the request, or both? I ask, because I would think that an arbcomm member is "just another editor" and so when recused, should be able to edit in the "open" pages as such (though not commenting in the arbcom-specific section, etc.) - jc37 09:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

Responses from arbitrators:

1. On a case where an Arbitrator is recused, the arbitrator is "just another editor". This means that they can make comments on open pages but not in the arbitrator section. If the arbitrator is directly involved, then they participate the same as any other involved party. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
2. I'd suggest that in a case where an arbitrator is not directly involved, but recuses for other reasons, that arbitrator should pretty much stay away from every aspect of the case, including as a regular editor; even when we're recused, arbitrators can't help but be seen as tending to favor the opinions of other arbitrators. At the very least, it's an appearance thing. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
3. As Flo said, recused arbs may participate, just as any other editors on the case pages or elsewhere on-wiki. Whether they should is another matter. Unless they are a party to the case, then like Josh, I think they generally shouldn't. Paul August ☎ 21:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Question from Neil916

Arbitrator workload

Understanding that caseloads vary; at some times there is a lot of work to be done, at others there is relatively little work to be done, can you estimate, over the course of one year, the average number of hours per week that you as an arbitrator spend exclusively on Arbcom issues, communication, and workload, both on-wiki and off-wiki? Neil916 (Talk) 05:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

Responses from arbitrators:

1. Very difficult to do. Sometimes it feels like I do nothing but work on ArbCom related matters. When I'm not traveling, I spend most of my day at the computer, much of that time devoted to wiki-related activities. I used to try to continue doing some editing — before I was an arb that was several hours each day — but to my great disappointment that has now fallen off considerably. I hardly do any substantive editorial work any more. Just reading all of the arb email is for me a daunting task. Other arbs, with younger and more facile minds, find things a bit easier I'm sure. Paul August ☎ 21:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

A mind more nimble than a pure mathematician???Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

1. One comparison I was making to someone a while ago was in terms of mailing list volume; it was a rough guess then, but I've added up the numbers now: so far this year the archives of wikien-l comprise 2331kb of gzipped text, whereas the archives of arbcom-l this year so far are 3121kb of similarly compressed text. --bainer (talk) 12:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Questions from a user

This is a question written by any active user. In the interests of conciseness, and to get a clear and hopefully uncluttered feel of the community, please leave shorter individual statements in the appropriate topic section, rather than one long condensed statement. This will allow users to endorse specific aspects more easily.

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

Responses from arbitrators:

Motions to close or extend this RFC

Unless closed by a consensus supported motion, the RFC will be open at least 3 months from when it goes live, and may be extended beyond that by continued activity or a motion to extend.

Oppose endorsements are encouraged, to accurately judge whether consensus exists for these actions.

Summary of statements so far:

• Motion to close this RFC (closed, no consensus to close)
• Motion to suspend this RFC (closed, strong consensus against suspension)

To see, respond to, or add to the statements and responses in this section: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee/Motions to close or extend this RFC.

See also

• Wikipedia:Devolution
• Wikipedia:Arbcom electoral reform

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

Arbitrary comment to keep RFCbot from closing this too early. --Barberio (talk) 12:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Notice

Following this RfC, I have attempted to forward on the recommendations for a vote by the general community during the Arbitration Committee elections.

It would also probably help if people who still have this on their watchlist dropped by to assert that this RfC was legitimate, and it's recommendations should be forwarded to the community for a vote. --Barberio (talk) 01:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)