Template:RFCpolicy

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 (could whoever wrote the above opinions please sign them?)

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

Introductory statement

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)[reply]
2. --Barberio (talk) 01:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Geoff Plourde (talk) 03:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. — _Maggot^Syn 06:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.[reply]
6. Yes to all concerns. Amerique^dialectics 15:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. DGG (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. We do need to look at this. Davewild (talk) 16:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Worth looking at. Kelly ^hi! 17:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Guettarda (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
13. Time is right for a wide ranging discussion on all the elements listed above RMHED (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
15. Naturally. However, this isn't an exhaustive list. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. Chetblong (talk) 03:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17. Yep, some re-tweaking definitely needed. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

View by User:Jaysweet

Well gol-dang it, let's not make this a total pile-on. I am stunned by the events of the last couple of days, and I think there is a lot of 'splaining to do. But is the lack of "views" here really saying that nobody thinks the ArbCom does anything well? I beg to differ.

In my (admittedly very limited) experience, where I have seen ArbCom do their best work is in regards to nationalism-related controversies. Nationalism is one of those areas where otherwise rational and intelligent people tend to experience such strong emotions and allegiances that it makes compromise impossible (heh, it's what we fight most of our wars over these days, inun't it?). The community has a particular problem dealing with this, because in many cases your typical unbiased editor doesn't know nearly enough about the issue in order to intervene (anyone who fully understands Estonia's Bronze Soldier controversy, raise your hand!), and a sizeable fraction of editors who are knowledgeable are inherently biased.

This is where I think it is very valuable to have a small group of people who can study a case and make binding decisions. We'll never get enough non-Estonian non-Russian Wikipedians to understand the Bronze Soldier brouhaha to manage it via the normal consensus process. But if we can get a committee to educate themselves, and then issue binding rulings that the community helps to uphold, then we might actually get somewhere.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Me, duh. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. We all appreciate what sanitation engineers do, but very few are keen to shake them by the hand - let alone kiss them... LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. This is an area where ArbCom does quite well. Davewild (talk) 16:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 16:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC) I agree with Dave •Jim62sch•^dissera! 16:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Guettarda (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. At least. I think they do other things well too. I'll try to get those down in this section. ++Lar: t/c 17:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. --Barberio (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Indeed this applies to any area in which normal consensus-based processes break down, especially the BLP-related cases where the Committee has persistently championed the enforcement of policies using the strongest measures (some of them deriving from its experience in nationalism-based arbitrations). --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Completely agree, there have been a lot of new and unique ideas brought out of these cases that have significantly improved nationalist dispute handling. I also agree with Tony, that other consensus-based problems are generally handled well. Shell ^babelfish 20:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Hats off to Kirill, who IMO is largely responsible for ArbCom's success in this area. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 10:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

View by Tony Sidaway

The strength that the Committee brings to Wikipedia, which is devolved from that of Jimmy Wales and (latterly) the Foundation, is as the final arbiter on interpretation of policy in the light of Wikipedia's primary purpose of producing a free high quality encyclopedia, the resolution of disputes, and providing enforceable strategies for the enforcement of policy. It is an elected body and may be replaced by election.

Endorsed by

1. Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Factual issues

• The Arbitration Committee is not elected. It is appointed by the Wikimedia Foundation, who take into account results from an election when they make the appointments. They are not bound by the results of the election. --Barberio (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Point taken. Jimmy Wales appoints the committee and usually follows the result of the election. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 18:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Is it actually appointed by the WMF? I thought the WMF couldn't take any control over local projects for Section 230 reasons. rootology (T) 23:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Don't think the Foundation has any part in it. Could be wrong. On English Wikipedia, it's always been something Jimmy Wales does as the powers of the Committee originally came from him. The ultimate job of interpreting and guiding the enforcement of policy is arbcom's. It has been so for years as far as I can tell. --Jenny 00:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

View by a user

Views specifically about what you feel works 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.

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:

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.

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)[reply]
2. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 15:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC) Even the Supremes manage to reverse themselves or modify their decisions.[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
3. Barberio (talk) 10:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.[reply]
5. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 15:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC) Yep.[reply]
6. Chetblong (talk) 03:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
2. Still waiting for lifesigns from the committee... Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

View by Tony Sidaway

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Kelly ^hi! 17:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Very sensible. Durova^Charge! 18:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
6. R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
8. Indeed. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 01:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. —Giggy 04:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. A big step toward smooth running and impartial treatment. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

View by User:Filll

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)[reply]
2. C68-FM-SV (t) 16 May 2008 --Badger Drink (talk) 23:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Endorse. Justice delayed is justice denied. DuncanHill (talk) 23:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
2. Endorse I have long felt that this is a significant weakness in the current system. DuncanHill (talk) 01:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. This has been a long-standing problem, and should be solved. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 11:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

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)[reply]
2. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 15:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC) Nor should they be judge, jury and prosecution.[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
5. Endorse, it is for the community to make policy. DuncanHill (talk) 20:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 21:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
8. Endorse - speaks for itself. --Dragon695 (talk) 22:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. -- Ned Scott 07:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
2. Guettarda (talk) 03:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. This is a most basic requirement for any community I want to participate in. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

   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)[reply]

5. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 15:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC) Yes. One caveat: exceptional must be explicitly defined to avoid subjective usage of theconcept.[reply]
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)[reply]

   #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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
9. Endorse wholly. DuncanHill (talk) 20:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
12. Yes, it shouldn't operate as a star chamber. *Dan T.* (talk) 20:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
21. KillerChihuahua^?!? 04:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
22. Chetblong (talk) 05:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
23. The above summary and supporting comments sum this up better than I can. -- Ned Scott 07:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
24. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
27. Captain panda 13:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
2. Per Kirill's comment. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 15:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Unfortunately necessary. Davewild (talk) 16:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Absolutely. that's how it works in the real world (courts of appeal). JeanLatore (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 21:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Most definitely. This goes to the heart of a lot of problems. Amerique^dialectics 21:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
11. -- Ned Scott 08:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
   • 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)[reply]
2. Too prone to wikilawyering. —Giggy 04:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
2. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 15:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC) Even though a recent case reminds me more of Darkness at Noon[reply]

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.[reply]
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)[reply]
3. per JeanLatore --Badger Drink (talk) 00:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

View by Celarnor

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)[reply]
2. --Barberio (talk) 02:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Guettarda (talk) 03:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
6. Agreed completely. They're a dispute resoluton commitee and nothing else.--Serviam (talk) 12:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. — _Maggot^Syn 12:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
9. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 16:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
12. Certainly. No more legislating from the bench, please. Nsk92 (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. Yes, the decision making power should rest with the community. delldot talk 20:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
16. R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17. Endorse - policy is the remit of the community, not ArbCom. --Dragon695 (talk) 22:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

19. Per Ms. Durova (#4) and Mr. Davewild (#10). --Badger Drink (talk) 00:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20. Chetblong (talk) 05:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

View by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk)

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:

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

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

View by a 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

View by Durova

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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".^[1] 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)[reply]

People who agree with what was said above:

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:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[reply]
2. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

View by Tony Sidaway

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

2. Strenously oppose Tony Sidaway's alarmist rhetoric. JeanLatore (talk) 01:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. See below. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-view by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk)

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)[reply]
2. --Badger Drink (talk) 04:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Users who support this view:

1. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

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.

View by User:Barberio

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

   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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
3. R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 20:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Endorse on the basis that time and the community have moved on. DuncanHill (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Naerii 21:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Dragon695 (talk) 21:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
9. Its just more fair. rootology (T) 00:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
12. Subjected to harassment (talk) 01:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC) I lost all hope for the authority of the ArbCom as appointed by Jimmy Wales when he knowingly appointed a Wikia employee (Essjay) to the Committee, yet still maintained that Wikipedia and Wikia were "completely separate" orgs.[reply]
13. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

   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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

View by User: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)[reply]

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)[reply]
2. Viridae^Talk 07:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. What Lara said. —Giggy 07:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. With the caveats made by Lara. Davewild (talk) 07:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. I believe this would greatly benefit both arbcom and the community. -- Ned Scott 08:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Yes, with Lara's proviso. longitudinal experience is extremely valuable. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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:

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.[reply]

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

View by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk)

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

View by Tony Sidaway

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)[reply]
2. I agree. bibliomaniac15 01:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
8. I'm amazed to find myself agreeing with Tony, but I am. Nousernamesleft (talk) 03:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Sounds accurate, not the clear, reason-focused atmosphere Lawrence would've wanted I suspect. MBisanz ^talk 03:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
11. unless "useful" == "increase drama level" Tony is exactly right. (hint... != ) ++Lar: t/c 05:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. I concur with Lar. BrownHornet21 (talk) 05:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
14. Concur - this seems an invitation for a direction less gabfest that will just create noise - Peripitus (Talk) 12:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
16. Most definitely premature, and as of 17:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC), unneccessary. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
2. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Not premature. Arguably overdue. Needs work. Give it a chance. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

View by User:Barberio

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)[reply]
2. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Filll (talk | wpc) 14:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Amerique^dialectics 14:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. What better time than now when we clearly see the need for it. DGG (talk) 16:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 16:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 21:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Or at least the "first serious step towards" reformation and etc. --Badger Drink (talk) 00:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Endorse, an opportunity for learning and improvement. DuncanHill (talk) 01:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. —Giggy 04:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. Chetblong (talk) 05:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

2. --Barberio (talk) 02:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. True... but right now? Perhaps it is premature. LessHeard vanU (talk) 07:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
5. Strike while the iron is hot Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. This is a long time coming. Amerique^dialectics 15:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. This Arbcom is a major disappointment. --Ghirla^-трёп- 15:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
9. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 16:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Yes, there are many issues that together paint a generally disturbing picture. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
13. Chetblong (talk) 05:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

View by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk)

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)[reply]
2. Of course. Amerique^dialectics 15:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. --Barberio (talk) 15:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. DGG (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 16:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Guettarda (talk) 17:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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?[reply]
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)[reply]
10. Endorse no further comment necessary. DuncanHill (talk) 22:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Absolutely. --Badger Drink (talk) 00:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. KillerChihuahua^?!? 04:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. Chetblong (talk) 05:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC) (forgot this one first time round).[reply]

View by User:JeanLatore

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
2. I can agree with MONGO, too! Amerique^dialectics 15:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. A move in the right direction. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Guettarda (talk) 17:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
8. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC) Yes, but I think the committee needs to be expanded to reduce workload.[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

Unless closed by a consensus supporte 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.

Unlike other sections of this RFC, Oppose endorsements are allowed.

Motion to close this RFC

Self-explanatory.

Users who endorse closing this RFC:

Motion to extend this RFC

For example, "Let's extend the RFC for x weeks/months."

Users who endorse this extension:

Motion to close this RFC

Self-explanatory, RFC will be closed with immediate effect.

Users who endorse closing this RFC:

1. The first motion to close is confusing. If we close the RFC, it won't be open at all, whether 1, 2 or 3 months from when it goes live. Closing or suspending this RFC seems the best thing to do (see my rationale in the comments on the suspension proposal). --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to suspend this RFC

Self-explanatory, RFC need not be closed but remain inactive until after an appropriate period of contemplation of recent events when it can then be revisited with clearer heads and purposes. (Extended discussion on this motion can be found at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee.)

Users who endorse the suspension of this RFC

LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. This wasn't opened at the most opportune of times. Viridae^Talk 08:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Agreed Davewild (talk) 08:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. For reasons detailed in the comment below I propose that this RFC be suspended indefinitely and replaced by policy discussions. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Things done in haste often produce undesirable outcomes. —Animum (talk) 16:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Let's give the arbcom a chance to explain themselves first. --Duk 20:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• To the best of my knowledge, there's nothing stopping them from adding views and statements to this RfC. --Badger Drink (talk) 00:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• It's been a day now, and the collective arbcom has not managed to extract its collective head from its collective anus and answer for themselves, so I'm striking my support for the motion to suspend. --Duk 04:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who oppose the suspension of this RFC

1. I think that a proposal to suspend, particularly given this one's complete lack of timescale, is a bad idea, and would simply bury issues under the rug. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Delaying discussion on this because "there's too much drama about ArbCom right now" is pointless, there is no sign that the drama about ArbCom is going to die down any time soon, and every sign they will continue to act in drama generating ways. ArbCom have been given every opportunity to self correct in it's past, and shows no sign of doing so. "Postpone until after the drama has died down" seems to me to be burying our heads in the sand in hopes it'll go away.--Barberio (talk) 12:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. And Arbcomm needs some sunlight right now. --Filll (talk | wpc) 14:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Now that its started, best to let it run its course. Lawrence already made a great start on it before this current drama happened. Better to get it over with sooner rather than later, and well ahead of the next arb committee elections in the fall. Amerique^dialectics 15:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. We need to discuss this sometime. It will be a complicated discussion--there is more than one issue. We might usefully start now, when there is a good deal of public attention, so we will have the benefits of a wide range of opinion. DGG (talk) 16:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. I think this should continue despite all the drama it is causing. If using a secret debate through back doors without the knowledge of anyone involved should be addressed now while there are many editors aware of what is going on, well sort of. I believe things can now be started to address items and more can be added when and/or if more information becomes available. A lot of editors are concerned about all of this and like me not knowledgable about what the history of all this may have to do with it. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Transparency folks endorsing, transparency is what we seek. If we suspend or close it means that we accept secret tribunals. I never will, and if secret tribunals become SOP, I'm outta here. (Yeah, yeah, I'm just another damned liberal :) •Jim62sch•^dissera! 16:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose, strenously. JeanLatore (talk) 17:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Is there any well Tony Sidaway won't poison? Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 17:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Strongly oppose. The discussion has not even began in earnest. Nsk92 (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Oppose. Other Wikipedias (the Italian one) have outright removed/deleted their local Arbcoms, so the community can certainly impose any binding anything if there is consensus for it on any facet of the local project as long as it doesn't conflict with Office. rootology (T) 18:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose, it is clear that there is concern about certain actions of the Arbcom (or elements thereof) & confusion about the rôle and responsibilities of the Arbcom, and this RfC provides an appropriate environment for such concerns to be aired, and for the community to work towards a consensus. DuncanHill (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. Fiercely oppose Speaking as an observer of his behavior over a few years, I find it hard not to see this as part of a pattern in Tony's actions: he quickly terminates any discussion someone tries to start over an issue that (1) is critical about how thigns are done at Wikipedia, & (2) has a lot of angry people eager to add their opinions to it. Even if nothing comes of this discussion, this discussion is vital because it is allowing people to express their frustration. And, again speaking as an observer of Wikipedia in general for almost 6 years, Wikipedia is often a frustrating place to get useful work done in -- either in fixing policy, or simply trying to improve articles. For that reason, maybe the best act to take is not only to keep this RfC open indefinitely, but to grant to Bishzilla the extraordinary powers to incinerate anyone who proposes closing it. -- llywrch (talk) 19:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. This issue needs to be resolved. Kelly ^hi! 20:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. This needs to be discussed before it gets any worse. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. There are significant issues that ought to be openly discussed and not shoved under the rug. I see the "yeas" and "nays" on this particular !vote are not along the "normal" partisan lines around here, which is probably a good thing; too much on Wikipedia these days has come down to people rallying with their friends and allies and against their enemies regardless of the merits of the particular position on the particular issue. *Dan T.* (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17. This is the best and most needed discussion I've seen on Wiki in a long time. And it's only just begun!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 21:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
18. Now is as good a time as any for this. RMHED (talk) 22:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
19. See my above comment in re: waiting until the entire house is aflame before calling the fire department. --Badger Drink (talk) 00:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20. Discussion is overdue. Insufficient grounds to suspend. Keep going. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
21. This discussion is seriously needed. --Chetblong (talk) 05:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
22. No. There are some good proposals on the table, and if they gain support, incorporating them will be a huge plus. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
23. No way. We're just getting started. — _Maggot^Syn 10:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
24. I oppose any kind of indefinite suspension, but more strongly advocate caution of action and procedure when it comes to the matters relating to this RfC. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Devolution

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.