Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Contents

Mailing list

This section of the page lists several editors who are not current members of the arbitration committee (David Gerard, Dmcdevit, Jayjg, Mindspillage, Nohat, Rebecca, Sam Korn, Sannse, The Epopt, Theresa knott). I did notice they are all former members though. The section was updated November 30, 2007 by Jdforrester. Does this mean that former members of the arbitration committee still view and take part in private committee business, or is this section out of date? --Pixelface 13:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

By tradition, former members in good standing may remain on the list to advise the current Arbitrators. Kirill 13:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
What if a request for arbitration is made that lists a former member of the arbitration committee as an involved party? Can the former member use the mailing list to influence the other committee members' decisions to accept the case? If the committee accepts the case, does the former member remain a subscriber of the mailing list? --Pixelface 13:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
In theory, perhaps. In practice, that sort of thing doesn't happen; members of the Committee—former or otherwise—are trusted to have the necessary discretion and decorum to avoid unseemly behavior.
(Note that this is no different from cases where a present member is a party to a case.) Kirill 13:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Nobody watching the Arbitration enforcement subnoticeboard?

No administrator has replied to my comment posted two days ago at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement, and I have noted a similar complain about the lack of administrator involvement from the user who posted a question few days before me. So please don't hesitate and read that subnoticeboard. Thanks, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for an "Arbitration Committee Public Complaints Commission"

(copied from the RFC Request above); "This proposal is looking for feedback on whether we should or should not discuss the implementation of an independent committee which will take any complaints against the arbitration committee. Should Wikipedia have, as in most Real Life political entities or "enforcement agencies" a non-biased, un-partisan committee to watch over and ensure any discrepancies or complaints are handled in a fair and probative manner which could then be highlighted for public interest!!" (December 12, 21:33) So what do you think about having a [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Public Complaints Commission]] or [[Wikipedia:Commission for Public Complaints Against the Arbitration Committee]]... something which could resemble the Commission for Public Complaints against the RCMP? They could perhap deal with any complaints against our "honorable arbitrator"'s or the committee itself? (note: this comment was reworded) --CyclePat (talk) 21:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the community has faced difficulty in the past making its displeasure with the committee as a whole or individual members manifest. Mackensen (talk) 21:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't like this idea at all; it would be a painful addition to an already bloated bureaucracy, and the community has made itself abundantly clear when upset (Read: Fred Bauder + Attack sites). Sean William @ 21:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Please take note that this is a proposal on whether we should or should not discuss the implementation. A committee could take on many forms. I have struken out my comment which leads to suggest that the commission for public complaints (CPC) would handle discrepencies: I think it would be best to say as per the idea of the RCMP CPC: "The CPC carries out its duties impartially. Throughout the complaints process, the CPC does not act as an advocate either for complainants or wikipedia members. This results in unbiased findings and recommendations being made, which are aimed at identifying, correcting and preventing recurring problems in policing." --CyclePat (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
What, exactly, is this intended to accomplish, beyond the proliferation of bureaucracy? Mackensen (talk) 23:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
CPC is intended to accomplish "unbiased findings and recommendations, which are aimed at identifying, correcting and preventing recurring problems in policing." Wiki's CPC statement could be similar to that of the RCMP CPC. --CyclePat (talk) 23:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Arbcom is neither the police nor the mounties. Mackensen (talk) 01:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. The police are able to ruin peoples' lives when they screw up. that is why the public interest needs the oversight that the police have. The same cannot be said of WP arbitrators, whose sphere of influence is limited to this project, upon whom no-one's life depends. There's no reasonable comparison. Skorponok (talk) 02:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
(reduced indent) Hi Mackensen, what you bring up is a fundamental question which asks what the Arbitration committee (ARBCOM) is and does. I think we could talk about that for many hours as well. (ie.: define: arbitration ("...a legal technique for the resolution of disputes outside the courts... equivalent to litigation in the courts"), police ("patrol: maintain the security of by carrying out a control"), committee, etc.) When you look at what the Wikipedia:Arbitration Commitee stands for it is stated "Until the beginning of 2004, Jimbo Wales dealt with all serious disputes and was the only person with the authority to ban users who were not engaging in simple vandalism (straight-forward vandals could be blocked by any administrator). This role has now largely been passed to the Arbitration Committee." I therefore, put it to you, that the ARBCOM is in fact a type of patrol that maintains the security of Wikipedia by "carrying out a control" which has been handed down from Jimbo himself. Currently, even the interest of administrators, who may be blocked by the Arbcom, are looked after by ARBCOM. I believe CPC would insure, whatever the case, that an "unbiased findings and recommendations" could be rendered for everyone.(or whomever the CPC choses according to their standards)(Obviously non-binding and could be ignored if so chosen.) --CyclePat (talk) 04:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Err. This exists. He's called Jimmy.
James F. (talk) 02:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi James F., I find it interesting, ironic and perhaps lacking in "arms lenght" to read such an answer from you. Though honorable and understandable, your user page indicates a relationship with "Arbitration (and attendant/related) duties" as being your "primary focus of... work here." Furthermore, you are "Part of the ArbCom panel at m:Wikimania 2006." and may have a direct interest in maintaining the status quo. --CyclePat (talk) 06:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Umm, yeah... he's a member of the Committee. You were aware of that, yes? Kirill 06:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Well put. User talk:Jimbo Wales. Prodego talk 02:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, Jebus. Even the phrase "unbiased findings and recommendations" reeks of bureaucracy. What is the use of additional bureaucracy if it's non-binding and can be ignored? bibliomaniac15 19:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


Indeed. No public oversight is needed, because Wikipedia is not a democracy, not even a Rule of Law, and by far. Ultimate power does reside in Jimmy Wales, who owns this place and all this information, and who delegates this power to his close acquaintances. Of course, this can lead to bias, but who cares? Dpotop (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
No he doesn't. Although, FWIW, discussing Jimbo's future role here would probably be far more useful than discussing the creation of yet more bureacracy. --kingboyk (talk) 22:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I concur with the yawn below. :) So, you want to discuss the future role of the owner of this place. But does he want to discuss it with you? I'm not so sure. Which is not necessarily bad. Various methods of large-scale government exist, each one with its own advantages. Absolutist rule is good as long as the ruler himself is up to the task, or wise enough to delegate power to the approapriate guys. Dpotop (talk) 12:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yawn. I call for the creation of a committee to come up with a proposal to review the committee that oversees the ArbCom. Seriously though, what will this accomplish? This community is more than able to make its grievances known. We have enough bureaucracy, whining and complaining. Grandmasterka 07:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I say, be bold and create it on an experimental basis. If it turns out to be a failure, we'll know not to do that again. Sarsaparilla (talk) 04:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

There are several valid points made here. I think that such a group would be effective for said tasks. However, this assumes that said tasks are currently being inefficiently handled by the ArbCom and/or admins. In otherwords, this committee would be effective if there were evidence that people "sentenced" by the ArbCom are not monitored properly, or that there are a large number of complaints lodged at ArbCom. If there is such evidence in existence, may it be brought forward to show such a need. However, without such a need, this creates petty hierarchy and unnecessary bureaucracy. Many complain that bureaucracy is bad, and wikipedia is headed horribly for it. However, a certain degree of bureaucracy helps efficiency. As such, this committee may be useful in the future, but I believe that it will not get much good use in the present. Good ideas all around.--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 01:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Is a courtesy-blanked Arbcom decision still in effect?

Someone has cited this old version of the courtesy-blanked Arbcom decision Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff in this deletion review discussion. What does courtesy blanking mean with respect to a decision? Does it in effect withdraw the decision so that that the decision then cannot be used as precedent in other cases?

  • Comment: If a decision remains in effect despite its blanked, this would seem to be something of a problem. How can the general community be expected to abide by decisions that have been blanked and which they are presumably not expected to be able to see? On the other hand, if everyone is expected to be able to look through the history etc. to see blanked decisions, why blank them if blanking is expected and intended to be ineffective? If the intention is only to remove a limited amount of material from the case due to e.g. WP:BLP considerations on specific mentioned content, perhaps redaction might be better than complete blanking. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Courtesy blanking does not modify the force of a decision in any fashion. It's meant to hide it from search engines. Mackensen (talk) 21:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
    • The complete text of a courtesy-blanked page is available in the page history, very near the top. It's not at all the same as deleting the page. In this case the courtesy-blanking was done by Jimbo Wales personally, so we can't really reverse it. On the other hand, I wonder if it would be acceptable for at least the principles recognized in the case to be readily visible—if not on the case page where they would usually be, then moved to another page with a link—as this is a frequently cited decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • As Mackensen notes, the decision is still in force. I generally do not support courtesy blanking of arbcom decisions. The present situation is an example why. Perhaps we should discuss the matter with Jimbo and see if the page can be unblanked, perhaps in a partially redacted form. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

For the time being, when courtesy blanking the final decision of arbitration cases, use {{subst:courtesy blanked|arb=yes}}. This will add the wording "The committee's decision is still in effect, and can be found in the page history." Not ideal, but at least it will prevent confusion. Picaroon (t) 02:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they are most certainly still in effect. Raul654 (talk) 03:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Role of Jimbo Wales

Why, exactly, does Jimbo Wales have this anachronistic and outdated power to appoint arbitrators? Why can't the five candidates receiving the greatest support in the election be elected automatically? All other Wiki communities are trusted to govern themselves, and I can't understand why he thinks we need or want his intervention here. I don't recognise his authority in the slightest - he may have founded Wikipedia, but he doesn't own it, fund it, or contribute any substantial part of its content. The only people who have any moral right to control Wikipedia are a) the donors and b) the community, being the people who actually keep the encyclopedia running. Jimbo should abandon any pretence to any sort of authority around here. WaltonOne 13:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Walton, I think you have indeed a valid point. You can add to it that only en.wikipedia has this kind of construction afaik. However, there is also a good reason for Jimmy having this opportunity. It is for unforseen problems. And one of the characteristics of those problems is that we can't predict them yet, we can't prevent them either. I see this as an emergency fallback apparatus. But I also realize that as soon as Jimmy decides to use this rule when there is no very good reason for it, he would immediately loose this status. I actually think he would at the end be overruled by the community if there would not be a very good reason. Don't worry, if this case could happen once, the community is smart enough to judge Jimmy on it and take action if required. effeietsanders 12:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Question on the matter of succession

This is probably going to come off as a stupid question, but bear with me. Everything I can find says that the newly elected arbitrators take office on 1 January, and (presumably) the terms of the arbitrators they replace would expire at that time. Now, if the outgoing arbitrators are involved in a case, do they remain arbitrators for that case, until it is concluded? Would new arbitrators be added to the case in mid-stream? It's a small matter, but I can't find clarification elsewhere, so I thought I'd ask here. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Tradition has it that outgoing arbitrators stay active on the cases open prior to Jan 1 unless they opt-out. New arbs are inactive on cases opened prior to Jan. 1 unless they chose to opt-in on the case. Hope that helps. :) FloNight (talk) 16:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
It did, and does. Belated thanks, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Long-term POV pushing: when does it cross the line?

I've become involved in an extended (like, three years old) content dispute at Satanic ritual abuse. I've come to believe that at least one of the participants, while sincere in his beliefs, is simply not willing to accommodate other POVs, except as token gestures or strawmen. I believe that he uses well-poisoning and guilt by association to get rid of sources he doesn't like, and that he attacks other editors while doing it. Finally, I did notice at one point that he was copy-pasting material off a website, while citing newspaper articles from the late 1980s that I strongly suspect he hasn't read. (Where the website got details of the citations wrong, he did too.)

The MedCom request has been denied because not everyone agreed to mediate, although the timing was unfortunate and it may simply be that people were away for the holidays. Hopefully mediation will resolve this, but I'm skeptical.

So I'm asking: Under what circumstances does ArbCom take such a case? You don't resolve content disputes and I respect that. But what (if any) are the standards for determining that a content dispute has become an issue of user conduct? <eleland/talkedits> 17:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

If talk page discussion, an article RFC, mediation (formal, informal), walking away for awhile and trying again don't work, then an editor conduct RFC is perhaps needed. RFArb might be helpful if those don't work. FloNight (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Question

Would it be OK if I created Arbitration Committee (talk · contribs) so people can email the Committee mailing list directly?? This is per something mentioned on Wikipedia:Sock puppetry about people contacting the Committee. Thanks, --Solumeiras talk 11:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

  • The account exists. Looks like I was wrong. --Solumeiras talk 11:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom mailing list - access issues

While I understand the arbitration committee want to be able to consult past arbitrators on past cases and for advice in general, I think one hugely symbolic act they could make would be to restrict arbcom-l to just the current arbitrators, and have an emeritus mailing list that is for past and current arbitrators, with cross-posting between them as necessary. In effect, this would make little difference, but I think this could help to demarcate certain boundaries more clearly. Does this have any chance of happening? Carcharoth (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

No. Raul654 (talk) 04:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
That's an excellent idea, actually. I wish ArbCom would adopt it. Grandmasterka 02:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Forgive me for trying to read the body language behind that terse response, Raul, but its that a "No, but I wish it could", or a "No, and I hope it never happens", or a "No, because the arbitration committee don't have the power to do this", or a "No, and I don't want to say anything else", or something else entirely? As a very recent ex-arbitrator (and I supported you in the elections), you may have a unique take on this. It makes sense for you to retain access for a few months or a year afterwards, but what about those who were arbitrators many years ago? Does it make sense for those who were last active arbitrators in 2004 and 2005 to still have access? What will happen in the future as the number of emeritus arbitrators increases? Having 30+ emeritus arbitrators on the mailing list could be unworkable. Might be better to do something now, rather than later. Carcharoth (talk) 04:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The committee is capable of determining the members of its own list (speaking as a two-time ex-arbitrator). Mackensen (talk) 06:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • No chance. We like it very much exactly as it is. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. Thanks to all who replied. Carcharoth (talk) 10:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikiversity and Arbcom

Hello all. I corresponded with a few committee members about this, and as mentioned Wikiversity now has some materials related to ArbCom. For those unaware of the history, a few Wikipedians had arrived on Wikiversity a couple months ago who had serious concerns about the committee, including one user who was apparently banned through an ArbCom-related process.

Thus far it is mostly these concerned editors who have been working on the resource, so it may have a particular slant (we really don't know for the most part, because very few Wikiversity contributors have any actual experience with ArbCom). Further contributions -- particularly from those with an understanding of how the committee functions -- would thus be most appreciated at Wikipedia arbitration committee.

In order to get a better understanding of how ArbCom is viewed by the Wikipedia and Wikimedia community, we've also included questions about ArbCom in the Wikimedian Demographics survey on Wikipedia (I plan to "announce" that resource on the Village Pump in the next few days, but in a nutshell it's intended to serve the purposes which were behind the drive for the now-stalled Wikimedia Census). v:Category:Wikimedian Demographics/Wikipedia/Arbcom/Response categories has the opinions thus far gathered (a very small sample, but apparently Wikiversitans are prone to support ArbCom thus far).

Any ideas on how to help people understand ArbCom, and/or requests for other survey questions related to the topic would be most welcome. --SB_Johnny | talk 14:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting! Keep us updated. FloNight (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Clerks

Can we get a link on this page to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks? I came here looking for one. If the uninitiated were to happen by, they might be unaware of the existence of the clerks role. --Joopercoopers (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Good thought, and I've added a short section at the end of the page to address this. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Brad. --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee members and roles

I wonder if any member of the committee could fullfill other functions as well. Like being an administrator, bureaucrat or having checkuser possibilities or being a steward. Or everything together.. ? Happyhousebrr (talk) 12:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

All present[1] Arbitration Committee members are administrators. A couple — Deskana and UninvitedCompany — are bureaucrats. All of the present 15, save Newyorkbrad, Paul August, Sam Blacketer, and Charles Matthews, are checkusers (and these four are probably out of choice not to be checkusers rather than any other reason, from my observation of Committee tradition in assigning checkuser to current members, although without a subscription to the mailing list I can't be sure, obviously). A really easy way to check all this is to go to Listusers and check the names of the arbitrators in the search box ("Display users starting at:"), or choosing one of the groups from the drop-down menu ("Group:") and observing who is and who isn't that role. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 12:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

BLP concerns and ArbCom-banned editors

The trigger for my bringing this here is the recent ArbCom case involving Matt Sanchez (posting as user:Mattsanchez, user:Bluemarine, and user:Matthewsanchez), but I believe it points to a wider policy issue that is worth considering. Matt raised a question about his image on user talk:Jayvdb as a sock. The sock was quickly banned (possibly partly in response to my WP:AE posting). Ignoring the merits of Matt's question for a moment, and echoing a similar comment from Newyorkbrad at AN/I [2], there is an equity question concerning the ability of the subject of an article to request corrections even when banned. After all, WP:BLP should and must continue to offer Matt (or any editor in a similar position) protection in line with policy.

Now, given Matt's past behaviour, using a sock was a sure way to provoke a response, but the principle here also needs consideration. As I see it, Matt's communication options are limited to mailing ArbCom directly (which is fine, but shouldn't really be a first line of communication in most cases) or going to OTRS. However, neither is these is public. John Vandenberg's instruction to Matt at Commons to contact him on John's Commons talk page is possibly a little better - certainly better than private email - but content comment should be on-wiki and public to the extent that this is practicable. When such comment is not practicable, there is the ArbCom list.

As a consequence, I have a suggestion (assuming it is practicable). Is it possible for a single user talk page for Matt to be editable only by him and by admins? That way, he could post comment without risk of edit warring on that single page. Admins could swiftly remove any inappropriate comment that Matt might make. Anyone who felt that Matt was offering a reasonable suggestion or comment could take it to the talk page for his article for discussion (where admins could sanction anyone whose response was about Matt rather than the content of the article or the content of the suggestion). Any attempt to add personal information (the stated reason for the lock on user talk:Bluemarine) could still be removed by an admin, and Matt could also remove such information. It seems to me that this option would:

  • allow transparency for WP
  • allow legitimate BLP or other concerns from Matt to be recognised and addressed
  • prevent edit warring between Matt and other editors
  • avoid the temptation for Matt to create further socks in the event that provocative edits are made to the Matt Sanchez article
  • relieve ArbCom and OTRS of needing to deal with comments or suggestions that can be reasonably resolved by others
  • provide for minimal disruption of WP by actions / comments by Matt

Of course, this presumes that such an option is technically feasible. I know Matt (or any blocked editor) can edit his user talk page whlist blocked (to make unblock requests, for example). As I understand it, he is prevented from doing so at present by the page protection. If this were lowered, could other editors be prevented from editing by technical means? Alternatively, would a notification that any non-admin making an edit will face immediate blocking - no excuses, no appeals, one strike and you get a block, and your edited will be reverted - be considered acceptable in these extremely narrow circumstances?

If this were implementable, it seems to me that it would be equally applicable for any other person who is the subject of a WP article and ends up banned and blocked. Is this a suggestion that ArbCom members would be willing to consider, or have the authority to institute? Alternatively, are there other options which might address such concerns? Or, is Matt in a "you made your bed, now lie in it" situation? Thoughts? Jay*Jay (talk) 03:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

There are some good ideas there however this is a BLP issue, with community bans being the more usual and longer lasting. Unless someone points out a major problem with these suggestions, I suggest that they be taken to WT:BLP. John Vandenberg (talk) 04:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I have no objection to a move if another forum is appropriate. However, in Matt's case, ArbCom action would be necessary. I also think that ArbCom establishing a precedent would be desirable. In the short term, I will post on WT:BLP that this discussion has been initiated, and invite participation. Jay*Jay (talk) 04:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Let's face it, Wikipedia is bound and determined to be Matt Sanchez's promotional tool. The facts remain blocked from the article about him, and within two weeks of "blocking" him you are conniving ways to restore him here. Meanwhile, you've done nothing to discipline the top-level officials who violated every single policy Wikipedia purports to stand for in aiding Sanchez's efforts. You might as well just restore his access straight on rather than being such transparent squirrels about it. 24.18.134.216 (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
(Above IP used by Pwok for personal attack) FT2 (Talk | email) 10:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

A good deal of the OTRS traffic concerns individuals who object to items in their biography. I see no reason why it would not be the proper mechanism in this case. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I've had some experience of that on the OTRS end. Unfortunately what happens is that OTRS is there to handle issues, not to edit on (or sit on) an article for its subject, nor to spent the time often needed to identify editorially a content solution (except in obvious cases)..... the almost inevitable view at OTRS is, if its simple we'll edit it, and if it comes up a few montsh later we'll get it edited again. But OTRS isn't an editing body, more an inquiry-resolving one, so the standard OTRS response is to engage with the editorial community. Which is difficult if the user for whatever reason, is banned from there. Also, OTRS has no especial standing to override other editors; though an action marked OTRS will often carry weight, it does not have any formal reason to be treated as "the right view" and may not be if disagreed.
So assuming they cannot get it solved by OTRS in a number of of these disputes, and the user has managed to get themselves banned by their conduct, they would seem to have a problem. It would be very helpful if there was a way to give them access somehow to BLP/N only....
A bot that one could email, and the email would be posted up in a text box on WT:BLP/N, to be moved to BLP/N by users if it has merit? Minimal functionality - receive email in plain text at wikiEN-BLP@wikimedia.org, check sender against a blacklist, post text as a new section on the BLP/N talk page. Shouldn't be too hard to do. And run it on the toolserver. Allows the access needed for BLP issues by banned subjects and nothing beyond. Thoughts?
FT2 (Talk | email) 00:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3

There is current discussion ongoing at the Administrators' Noticeboard, regarding the Everyking 3 Arbitration case, to which the Committee recently passed an open motion. Of particular interest may be the criticism of the remedies in question, which have been expressed by more than one editor. As outlined in my comments there, I feel that input from current Arbitrators, especially those who were active in that motion, would be invaluable in the matter, and it may be that members of the Committee may wish to comment on the discussion. The thread in question is located here. Regards, AGK (contact) 23:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Full history

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee#Full history is rather confusing. I don't understand why Essjay stands out as a standalone person. I also do not understand why FloNight suddenly becomes a non-elected appointee after 2009 till 2010.

I would also recommend redoing of the chart in .png or .svg format. Preferably horizontally.

-- Cat chi? 21:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Essjay stands out not because of anything to do with his particular circumstances, but because Jimbo added an extra seat to the committee at the time he appointed Mackensen and Essjay. There was one vacancy on the 15-member committee (Dmcdevit had recently resigned), and there were two appointments, creating an extra position which was not filled again when Essjay resigned a few weeks later.
FloNight was elected and assigned to a two-year term and then this past December, Jimbo extended her term by another year, so that is a somewhat ambiguous situation. No comment on the formatting of the chart, as to which I have zero expertise. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I would note that I was specifically appointed to fill Dmcdevit's seat. Mackensen (talk) 00:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

RfB passing % discussion

If you haven't, please consider participating here and adding your view on whether the passing percentage for RfBs should be changed. I'll post this at WP:AN and AN/I, as well, and it has been raised at WP:VP and is posted on TEMP:CENT. Avruch T 22:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it would be prudent for the Committee as a whole to intervene in the RfB matter, and hence I'm unsure why this notice is being placed here. Then again, I can understand the reasoning behind it, what with this being a fairly high-traffic page—I simply wanted to make my thoughts clear on the Committee intervening in this matter, in case the above notice was interpreted as a request in that vein. AGK (contact) 22:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the Committee as a whole has a place in the discussion either, but individually they do and their opinion of course is respected in the community. Plus, more than the Committee come by here, as you mentioned. Avruch T 23:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I don't know that this is a high-traffic page. Perhaps you were thinking of Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration (although that's not really suited for general announcements either). Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it high traffic, but it does rope in the Arbs and a few others and that was the point. Feel free to remove it if its totally inappropriate. Avruch T 23:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
That wasn't my point at all—in fact, I was sculpting my comment in such a way that, hopefully, you wouldn't perceive it as criticism: it was simply an observation that it was a rather unorthodox page on which to place a request for input in an RfB matter :) With regards to Newyorkbrad's point, perhaps high-traffic is not wholly accurate, but at least it does attract some sort of attention, if only from people such as myself, who have no life and hang around Committee talk pages =) AGK (contact) 23:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I did that last year and look what happened to me.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
If you're saying anybody who hangs around on WT:ARBCOM becomes an Arbitrator, I will leave right now ;P AGK (contact) 23:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I Am Sending A Request for the dismissals of administrators, OhNoIt'sJamie and Marskell For Libelling

I was looking through some pages, and I discovered some abuse. This one user, Kevin J, was libelled on the headmaster, JimboWales, on his user page for something I think is ingrateful. My first complaint pertains to Marskell, who claimed this user tends to go to any users page SCREAMING his problems. Frankly, I myself would capitalize letters if I felt nobody was listening to me, and not as an anger issue. The only users who I noticed he did talk to were people who responded to his content; that is not ANY USER and it is not vandalism. Also I noticed the OhNoIt'sJamie also libelled him when he replied to one of his messages as well. The user was only saying that he was intending to edit more messages, and that he was not going to stand for it when somebody calls him a stalker. The user claimed it was disruption, and made notice of it that he would block him even if he was going to make one more replying statement claiming a reasonable defense. I checked his contributions, and I think he is a good editor to Wikipedia. I noticed he was in a edit war with a user known as the Thegingerone, and he appears to me 100% on track. I read a copy of Valentino-The First Superstar myself, and it did have a bibliography in the back. Please, let this be known. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.233.213 (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


Are you Kevin J logged out? Because you sure do sound like him. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Appeal - please help

It is high time that the abuses against the unjustly banned user "Gibraltarian" were dealt with rationally and fairly. My ban was brought about by a troll user's malicious complaint, and he continually vandalised any words I tried to post in my defence. I appeal to any admin or Arbcom member with a sense of justice to please contact me on a_gibraltarian@hotmail.com to discuss the matter. Many thanks

DO NOT REVERT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.124.68.211 (talk) 22:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)