Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Quick question

Just so everyones clear, can I ask how this board is going to be run? Is it only editable by Arbitrators, or can anyone comment on it if they have questions/concerns/comments? It seems like a good idea to me regardless. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

We're not sure yet; there's been some discussion of a more general revamping of the various pages to create a single, centralized discussion area (which this board may wind up being), but I don't think we're going to make any decision on that matter for some weeks yet.

For the time being, I think it's fair to say that anyone can comment on it; we'll make an announcement if that stops being the case for whatever reason. Kirill 12:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Might be clearer how this will work if there was another announcement up there, a header and an archive? 77.96.119.162 (talk) 01:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I would expect non arbs/clerks would have permission to respond to announcements. It might be, in the for seeable future, too difficult or too much of a hassle to constantly reference this noticeboard in conversation on AN, ANI, and ARBCOM talk. On the other hand, if this purely for for announcements (understandable), then I'd suggest it be moved to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Announcements. Synergy 01:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Right now it looks more like an argument board. If you want a talkback noticeboard for arbitration matters, what's wrong with Talk:RFAR or Talk:AC? Probably should either redirect those pages here or make this page a restricted announcement board (and then pull the premature IRC announcement). Thatcher 16:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, we are working on an overall structure for arbitration pages that will probably redirect a lot of discussion here, but the full scheme isn't ready yet. We're a bit swamped at the moment, so logistical matters like that aren't really the top priority.

As far as IRC is concerned: community feedback is good, and community feedback that points out problems with something we're doing doubly so. :-) Kirill 21:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• I fear long discussions like the IRC one may overwhelm the noticeboard. Shouldn't this noticeboard, like the village pumps, be used to announce things and point to the place for things to be discussed if needed? Well, I know Village Pump threads get long as well, but this board should be for people to come to for news, unless I've misunderstood the purpose. I thought it would be more like the Clerks Noticeboard, rather than ANI or WT:RFAR. There does need to be a place for announcements, and a place for general discussion, and places for specific discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

  Use the noticeboard for announcements, this page for discussion of them, and provide links from the noticeboard to the thread here. DuncanHill (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

  Can it be that simple? :-) I agree. Carcharoth (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

  Yes, that sounds good. Kirill 20:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

New noticeboard open

Sorry I missed the roll-call on this one; belated support. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I was going to make one of these myself before I read the e-mail. Great minds think alike... --Deskana (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. Paul August ☎ 00:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

New IRC patroller

I believe this is still actively under discussion and no final decisions have been made. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The last status update I have is that everything is going forward, but maybe you know something I don't. Kirill 17:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

What is an "IRC patroller", and what is its remit? Martinp23 17:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It's an informal thing; basically, the role involves keeping an eye on conduct in some of the IRC channels. Kirill 17:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you be more vague? Specifically, which channels? What are the conduct rules? Is this done with agreement of the existing channel management? Martinp23 18:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the ArbCom. ArbCom has no authority on IRC, the only authority is held by User:Sean Whitton and User:Jdforrester, and beyond that the WMF board. The idea that ArbCom could create some sort of 'IRC patroller' is ridiculous. Any such position would have to be created by the channels themselves, or, alternatively Sean and James. Prodego ^talk 18:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge,this is formally under the chanops' authority rather than ours. Kirill 18:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

And if they find "bad" conduct, they do what? Kick the user from the channel? Remove their access if applicable? Block them on-wiki? Report them to ANI? Create a secret evidence file on the arbcom wiki? Mr.Z-man 18:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I suspect it's in the event there's a case filed on-wiki, so proof of off-wiki behavior is logged with someone reliable (a sitting member of ArbCom). —Locke Cole • t • c 18:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

FT2 can probably speak to the day-to-day work far better than I can, but I'm fairly certain the activity stays entirely on IRC (since I don't recall ever seeing by in another venue). Kirill 18:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Was FT2 the previously appointed person then? Martinp23 18:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

When this was discussed, the channel ops were generally against Wizardman taking on this role. FT2 was there and it should have been obvious to anyone that we weren't happy about the proposed appointment. I'm not sure why this has now been announced. Fair enough, if ArbCom want to overrule the chanops then so be it, but what were the arbitrators told about the discussion with the channel ops? It's also been stated that FT2 has held this role for the past year - well as far as any of us were aware he was just another op taking an interest in the channel. If he did have some role it was self appointed and it didn't have consent of the channel operators. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the first I've heard of any such discussion; do you recall the date on which it took place, and whether any arbitrators other than FT2 were present? Kirill 19:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It happened on Sunday night if I recall correctly, and happened because of the discovery of this edit by FT2. FT2 was obviously there and Flo was present for a short period, but I'm not sure that she was there for the discussion about Wizardman. Many of the ops disagreed with Wizardman simply because of a lack of knowledge about IRC and the inner working of it, along with no experience in running or operating IRC channels. We were planning to discuss again at a later date to come to an agreement about who could take a leading role in the channels. The next thing we hear is that Wizardman has been appointed, yet he wasn't even on the ops list of people to consider. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, the edit Ryan linked came the day after the discussion on IRC; that discussion where FT2 was the only arbitrator present. FT2 had told us (channel ops and a few others that were around at the time) that he wanted us to take a look at something before he posted it on the wiki. This was discussed for a couple of hours where most people expressed their (extreme, for some) objection to it. FT2 posted it the next day, and said he misunderstood the outcome of the discussion. Quite a bit has happened since then, however and I personally would have thought that FT2 was keeping the relevant people in the loop - apparently that isn't the case. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it does seem that there has been some bad communication here. I will take this up with the rest of the Committee; for the time being, though, I think it's fairly safe to say that this particular measure is not in effect. Kirill 20:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

A note: ArbCom can't overrule the chanops. Only the people with +F in the channel can do that. Prodego ^talk 19:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry folks for not following up myself. I don't frequent IRC much anymore but I logged several days during the past week. One of the days I briefly joined a chat about selecting chan ops for #admins. I knew there were ongoing issues related to selection of #admin chan ops, and more discussion was to happen later, but assumed from the comment FT2 made to ArbCom that the issue had been resolved. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

After reading through all this, I can safely say that I'm lost. If there was other discussion going on that said i shouldn't be IRC monitor, than i won't take the job, that's fine. I was unaware of any chanop discussion about me going on until a few hours ago. Wizardman 22:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

[To Ryan Postlethwaite] You say that "the ops disagreed with Wizardman simply because of a lack of knowledge about IRC and the inner working of it, along with no experience in running or operating IRC channels." That is exactly the reason why Wizardman should be a monitor. The IRC's needs an independent, neutral monitor who hasn't been influenced by its history to monitor the behavior in there. Cla68 (talk) 05:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You wouldn't hire a financial auditor with no accounting knowledge, why would we want to appoint someone with insufficient technical knowledge of IRC as arbcom's official IRC liaison? There's more to IRC than #wikipedia-en-admins. Its perfectly possible for someone to have knowledge of IRC and channel operating and not be a part of the evil IRC cabal. Mr.Z-man 05:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I've been a chanop before for other pretty big websites (i.e. GameFAQs during a short-lived group of chat rooms in 2001). Granted, I haven't done that in years, so while i have the experience, i'd be very out of practice. Just throwing it out there. Wizardman 07:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Z-man, everybody who has technical skills and knowledge of the way IRC works is part of the evil IRC cabal. The qualifying criteria for being part of the evil IRC cabal are: uses IRC; does something that Wikipedia Review does not like (e.g. kicking a banned user for trolling). Guy (Help!) 17:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I must be missing 50% of this, because it doesn't make too much sense at the moment. If FT2 was a "liaison", that's fine. He didn't have to use ops, or even understand how it worked (just know how to log relevant conversation pertaining to Arb Com matters and or report back this information to the committee for appropriate action). I don't see why Wizardman cannot "take over", serving in this function. From whats been stated, its an informal role and as such, would have no overlapping effect and no bearing on how channel ops function and operate on IRC. To put it simply, its an arb idling in a channel observing conversation like some already do. Any offwiki action needed, would (I'm assuming) be done through the coordination of said liaison and an op from whichever channel this irc patroller is currently idling in (whether it be #wikipedia, -en, -accounts, -help, etc). And I'm assuming if and when Wizardman was given the oppurtunity to be granted ops in any one of these channels it would not be based on this informal role, and would probably do just fine. Synergy 22:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that what the function of this person is doesn't seem to be defined anywhere. Mr.Z-man 23:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, then this is the perfect time to ask (while this is still fresh) but then again, Kirill did say It's an informal thing; basically, the role involves keeping an eye on conduct in some of the IRC channels. It doesn't sound like much of a job to me, and as the previous one stepped down, another steps up. This seems less of the matter of "zOMG Arb Com is trying to dictate IRC" and more of a "changing of the hands" if you will (point being: you may of only heard of this role now, which can only mean its nothing to cause drama over and as such, now that you know, lets get on with constructive conversment). I don't know that I would need any more definition here, since it seems so simple of a role, that others are not taking it as face value. Synergy 00:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Do the existing IRC channel "no public logging" rules apply to this position? Best regards. --Chasingsol^(talk) 23:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I would presume if any conversation was released, all parties would have to agree (in keeping with existing guideline of course), prior to its release. But lets let an arb handle that more in depth. :) Kind regards. Synergy 00:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if my question is out of order, it is mere curiosity and certainly not a concern. Since IRC is an extremely free flowing format of communication, I was interested in knowing whether channel logging is a function of this position, and if so, under what conditions can those logs be used. Thanks again. --Chasingsol^(talk) 01:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No worries. An arb would know better (for obtaining and using information found on irc), but irc conversation cannot be used on wiki unless there is consent between all parties (last I checked). Synergy 02:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Suggest this thread is archived and discussion continued elsewhere? (See also comments on the talk page). Carcharoth (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

FT2 steps down from ArbCom

Sorry to hear. Synergy 21:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

He did do a great job in the Poetlister scandal..Modernist (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Does it mean the Committee has decided not to pursue the matter further? -- lucasbfr ^talk 08:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

This is being discussed in a few places, but the clearest statement so far seems to be this View by Jimbo Wales at the talk page of the request for comments. In case that is moved or archived, diff here. I'm not speaking for the committee here, but I personally agree with what Jimbo said there. Carcharoth (talk) 11:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

New mailing list structure

Original announcement

No objection to this. But I do have a question. Where was this discussed, and where was the vote taken? Was it on-wiki, or in a private place? And if in a private place, what is the reason that secrecy was required?--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The actual vote took place on the Committee's private wiki; given that it's purely a routine internal matter, we didn't feel there was any need to go through a pre-adoption public phase. (Compare the CU/OS election proposal, which was moved to an on-wiki venue still in proposal form, since it was not purely an internal matter.)

We are, incidentally, working on a more standard approach to what gets moved on-wiki, and when; in fact, that's the next item on the agenda after the mailing list reorganization. Kirill 23:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that there was a need for a "pre-adoption" phase. But I really dislike the fact that arbcom discussion is by default on a provate wiki. That's a real transparency problem. The default should be that you discuss things, and certainly vote for things, on this wiki (on special arb edit only pages if you like) and only take things into closed session where these is a real need (and I accept there often will be).--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Tend to agree with Scott Mac here - transparency is always critical; I've never seen the need for ArbCom to discuss things privately except in rare occasions, in which the mailing list was perfectly fine. Private wiki seems to be encouraging keeping things closed, and also makes Arbitrators having two places to post... 140.247.14.141 (talk) 23:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Good. DuncanHill (talk) 23:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Not to be pedantic, but functionaries? Certainly there is a better term that can be used here.. (Overall, I do think the decision is a good one.. ) --Versageek 23:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia functionaries? We're open to suggestions, though. Kirill 23:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Emeritus-l and Alumni-l?--Tznkai (talk) 23:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

functionaries is fine. "Special rights users" is the best alternative that I can think of.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, given that the category exists (wasn't aware of it), I probably am being pedantic.. I'm thinking some variant of "advisory-l".. or even just "functions-l". --Versageek 00:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Another pedantic question, but if nobody abstained, how were there only thirteen votes? There are sixteen sitting arbitrators. seresin ( ¡? )  00:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Not everyone votes on every issue. Even if the remaining 3 opposed, it would still have had a clear majority. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

If a person declines to vote, he is abstaining. seresin ( ¡? )  00:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I had trouble with that as well. On wikipedia and some parlimentary systems, abstaining is different from not voting - and other systems, they are the same thing.--Tznkai (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

In arb land, it's different, if they not vote, it doesn't change the required majority, they have to formally abstain for it to change the required majority. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not concerned with the majority. (I never mentioned it, actually) I wanted to know how three people did not cast a vote, but there were no abstentions. In the mind of the committee, when an Arbitrator "abstains", what is he doing? seresin ( ¡? )  00:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

To me, it's like they are recusing, which also reduces the majority, or saying "I can't support this but I also can't oppose it", ie, neutral. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's a formal statement that one will not vote, rather than a mere failure to cast a vote.

Formally, the Committee does not have the concept of voting deadlines; there's no rule that states arbitrators must vote within a certain window of time. As a consequence, until a vote is actually closed and the results enacted, an arbitrator may vote at any time. Because abstentions are considered to reduce majority, we've adopted the convention of only counting formal abstentions in this way; otherwise, we'd have to use a fluid scale where votes coming in would change the required majority, making counting much more difficult, and requiring a separate quorum rule.

(This is all, admittedly, extremely legalistic.) Kirill 01:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Would the Arbitration Committee consider rephrasing such announcements in the future? I understand the distinction between abstain and merely did not cast a vote, but how the announcements read is odd. Perhaps retaining the line about abstentions, but adding that three arbitrators didn't vote? seresin ( ¡? )  01:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Kirill 01:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It would also be helpful to list those who didn't vote. Not all of us can remember at all times just who is on the Committee, and it is annoying to have to flick back and forth between two pages ticking names off on a list to work it out. DuncanHill (talk) 02:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

We could always saddle ArbCom with Roberts Rules of Order or something similar - but that would probably be just for my own amusements. How about something like:

Motion passed 14 to 0
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Voting in favor were: Adam, Betty, Cameron, Dilan, Edgar, Frances, Gerald, Heather, Ian, Jacob, Kyle, Liana, Mike, Nancy, Voting against: none Abstentions: none Did not vote: Octavian, Perry

either before or after the substance of the announcement.--Tznkai (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

↔Yes, that sort of thing would be very good. DuncanHill (talk) 02:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Please can we add "en" to the new list names. e.g. functionaries-en-l. There are other languages in the Wikimedia universe. Sorry that I forgot to mention this previously. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Please! Note that (conceptually similarly) I've been stumping for oversight-l to become a global mailing list and a new oversight-en-l be constituted for just en oversight. ++Lar: t/c 21:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

How is ArbCom going to restrict access to the private wiki? There is currently no way to do this short of having a sysadmin scramble the users password. Of course you can disable write access by blocking the account, but not read access. bugzilla:13177 could solve the issue, but who knows when that will be enabled. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

We're going to have a sysadmin scramble their passwords. ;-) Kirill 01:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Great idea! ;-) Thanks. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It is also possible to disable accounts on that wiki. There is a test account right there now in the user list that has "(disabled)" next to it. Dunno if this is an option that has only been enabled on the private wiki, and dunno if it disables read access. Carcharoth (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm rather sceptical that the "functionaries" list will have any worthwhile use. We shall see. I'm also rather disgruntled to find myself labelled a "functionary". I suggest mandarins-en-l as a more colourful and interesting name. Finally, I note that the coincidence in the timing of my removing myself from the AC mailing list on Friday and this announcement was indeed a coincidence (I mention this only because I have already been approached in confusion about this). [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 02:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Or, indeed, cabal-en-l. It would at least be refreshingly honest ;-). [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 02:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

How about Crotchety-ex-arbs-en-l? (Then again, there be the CU/OSers to consider). I assume the list is used to discuss larger matters that require a certain amount of trusted access (problems involving privacy) while the Arb-L and Arb-Wiki will be focused on case and arbpolicy matters.--Tznkai (talk) 02:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that name would work too! I'm not opposed to the removal of former members of the committee (my self-removal the other day should bear witness to that). I'm just far from convinced that the extra list is necessary. I would not, for instance, be mad on discussing CU matters on a list with dozens of members; matters for wider attention should go to the existing, cross-wiki checkuser-l. I am not convinced that the level of traffic will make it worthwhile. And the name is so unsexy... [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 02:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

[sexy-beasts-en-l]? More of a ring to it? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 22:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Now you're talking ;-). [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 22:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

One other thought that occurred to me -- what about the AC's two IRC channels? [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 22:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Taking my normal view of the need for long-winded on-wiki discussion in order to result in the right result - neatly summed up in two words beginning with "F" and ending with "uck process", this is clearly a sound idea; nobody really knew which ex-arbs were on the list, and some of them are viewed with suspicion by some users. Now, if you email arbcom-l, you know who gets to see it and that can only be good. Guy (Help!) 23:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Huh? The list members have long been noted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee#Mailing list (which someone with the requisite knowledge should update, preferably with members of the new list too). But I still think this is a good idea, it makes things clearer. the wub "?!" 09:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Guy, I'm confused. What does "Firetruck process" mean? JoshuaZ (talk) 19:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Long overdue. Thankyou. Viridae^Talk 09:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Some quick comments - 1/ as said, not every arbitrator votes on every matter. If theres a good turnout, that's been the norm, nobody much thinks twice of the few absences. It gets a serious problem when you have 15 arbs, 5 - 9 stay silent, and it needs 8 minimum to pass a decision (since silence isn't the same as abstention). That's where a lot of arb work has been caught in the past. One item on the discussion list was to amend internal-facing decision-making to make that less likely, and more clear. 2/ I had asked Brion a short while ago to add a "disable account" function. 3/ Functionaries-en-l was chosen to make sure nobody got it in their heads to think of such users as other than mere functionaries :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we have an update on whether the functionaries e-mail has been set up and whether EN ml's are getting the -en designator?--Tznkai (talk) 15:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. It's all up and running. The address is: functionaries-en at lists.wikimedia.org. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Given the large number of functionaries, could we get a list of the subscribership somewhere? Maybe Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee#Mailing_list or Wikipedia:Mailing lists? MBisanz ^talk 15:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I've taken a cut at the membership at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee#functionaries-l. There are typos I need to fix but I wanted to get it out there. ++Lar: t/c 16:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Typos fixed I think but check me! I love it when other people find my errors :) ++Lar: t/c 16:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Are we going to transfer Arbcom-L and Clerk-L (and other -Ls) to Arbcom-EN-L and so forth?--Tznkai (talk) 15:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Strongly think we should. ++Lar: t/c 16:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Only if their archives move with them, and emails sent to the "old" address are automatically forwarded to the "new" one. Of course, that will mean double the load of spam to sort out, which is not something I look forward to. Changing a widely-known and widely-linked email address without good cause is counterproductive; Clerks-L isn't so heavily used that it should be a big problem, but Arbcom-L might be more of a challenge. For the record, in the past month or so of moderating the list, I have yet to see an email intended for any of the other WMF arbitration committees, which presumably have their own lists or email structures. Risker (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Some of the people on the functionaries list seem strange - retired arbs from years ago who have left the project, for instance, or with very little project-space work in a long period of time. Are people sort of grandfathered into the list with no review, or was an attempt made to determine which people actually needed to be on it? Avruch ^T 18:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Committee agenda as of January 20

Original announcement

Are the following dates accurate? :

• Draft by October 31
• Finalized by November 30
• Draft by October 31
• Finalized by November 30

They seem offplace with all the Jan/Feb/Mar dates. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 01:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they're accurate; those two are things that just need to get done before the end of the year. Kirill 02:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Very ambitious agenda Committee and very commendable that these are being addressed. Cla68 (talk) 02:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your taking this step to publish an agenda. I hope you will keep it updated as time goes on, and that keeping a formal published agenda is something that will be an accepted part of the Arbitration Committee housekeeping --Barberio (talk) 02:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I support the publishing of an agenda, I believe that it will enhance understanding of the committee's work, and better enable the community and the committee to work together productively. Of course, I reserve the right to grouse about things not being on it that should, or being on it that shouldn't, or timescales, or anything else that pops into my head from time to time, but on the whole a very welcome and constructive step. Thanks, :) DuncanHill (talk) 02:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

All your rights reserved —of course. Timely input from the community is highly recommended. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It is, of course, excellent that the Committee has chosen to publish this now, and the plan is admirable and detailed. I note that points 3 and 7 appear to be the same thing. (I believe both are unnecessary -- though I know members of the Committee disagree -- but I'm sure that whichever way we have it, we only one!) [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 16:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Not the same. Generally speaking, point 3 is the process for the appointment of people with CU and OS access, while Point 7 is the method to audit people with CU or OS access. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

My mistake -- I can't read. Well, in that case I still think both are unnecessary, but that's an issue for another day, I think... [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 17:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you, Kirill. This can only be a positive step in the professionalization of Wikipedia arbitration. Moreschi (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This seems an excellent proposal, covering all or most of the perceived problems with Arbcom. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Workshop pages

Kirill's agenda is a much needed improvement. Number 9 on his list is "Determine workshop page structure". I haven't followed past conversations on the topic, so I apologize if this is old business, but process reform is badly needed. I have been meaning to catch up on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking for days; looking this morning, I find 650KB between just the Evidence and Workshop pages, and a particularly unhelpful and unwieldy Workshop page. Because of the way the ArbCom process is structured, it appears that one has to set aside several days to sort through the basics of a case; the Workshop page in particular doesn't seem to be a helpful format, and badly needs reform. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll confess that I don't follow ArbCom enough to know for sure, but I have been following the date delinking case. I suspect you may find once you slog through that Workshop page that the problem is less about the format of the page than it is about some of the parties to that case. Mlaffs (talk) 16:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, not specific to that particular case. :-( FloNight♥♥♥ 16:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That is unfortunate. Mlaffs (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of many of the long-standing behaviors, which is why I hoped that the ArbCom process would permit some "cutting through the crap" to get to the issues; instead, the format seems to allow for "more of same" as we've seen all along. I will try to slog through it on Sunday. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

If you (or any reasonable editor for that matter) have any suggestions about how the pages might be structured or organized in a better fashion, we're always open to productive suggestions. Vassyana (talk) 14:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Is this the right place to offer suggestions? If not, please point me to the right place to move the following:

1. I think that arbitration cases (or at least the new ones if not requests for clarification) ought to open with a clear statement of scope from the committee—not just the individual arbitrators' "accept to look at all behavior" statements, but a post-acceptance official statement more along the lines of "The scope of this case is the dispute on Subject M between users X, Y, and Z. We will investigate allegations by User:X that User:Y is POV-pushing on the articles on Subject M, and allegations by User:Y that User:X and User:Z have been uncivil. We will also decide whether User:A's intervention in the dispute has been helpful or disruptive." Then encourage the clerks to keep the workshop and evidence pages strictly limited to the pronounced scope. If someone (whether arbitrator, clerk, party, or onlooker) feels the scope is too narrow or broad, they may present a motion for the committee to change it. But defining the scope up front should reduce the clamor on the case pages, especially if the clerks are empowered to nuke off-topic stuff. alanyst ^/talk/ 18:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Another suggestion: The evidence page should be structured with a "Requests for evidence" section, reserved for arbitrators to ask the community for diffs or other public evidence regarding particular points of the dispute. These requests should be numbered/labeled so that responding editors can reference them in their own evidence sections. This might make it easier for clerks or clerk-ish onlookers to collate evidence from the various responding editors and present a more coherent picture of the evidence to the arbitrators. alanyst ^/talk/ 18:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
3. As far as the workshop page is concerned: To reduce the amount of drive-by opining and wiki-politics that occur on these pages, require that the chain of reasoning be explicit. By this I mean that proposed remedies must specifically reference proposed findings of fact and principles, and explain why the remedy fits them. Likewise, proposed findings of fact must cite to evidence brought forth in arbitration, and not just be unsupported allegations. Any submission to the workshop that fails these criteria may (should) be removed by a clerk or arbitrator. An onlooker should be able to trace a proposed remedy back through to the evidence and principles that motivated it. If this is enforced, then there should be a lot less noise on the page, and I don't see it harming the parties' ability to make their case, good-faith onlookers' ability to assist, or the committee's ability to resolve the case. alanyst ^/talk/ 18:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This is how I always approached arbitration cases. Trying to make a continuous link from the evidence to the findings of fact to the remedies. Referring back to the evidence at each stage. Sadly, not everyone does this. I didn't always do this, but it should be what people aim at. They don't even have to assemble the evidence - they can propose FoFs and rememdies based on the evidence provided by others. But "out of thin air" FoFs and remedies on the workshop pages are particularly unhelpful. Carcharoth (talk) 01:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• All of these are good ideas; all of them would save us and the community time and effort. #1 would prevent users from gathering evidence that won't interest the committee. #2 would improve evidence for any potential findings, and further focus the efforts of those presenting a case. #3 would increase the signal-to-noise ratio on the workshop page. Some arbitrators aren't fond of the workshop, but I am. A major problem with the status quo is conclusory proposals by both sides. Each side, for example, proposes a suite of findings commending their side, while submitting a symphony of sanctions against the other side. These are never helpful, especially when they degenerate into votes. Good ideas all around. Cool Hand Luke 06:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

In support of #3, what if the Workshop pages was posted in two parts? When the case opens the clerks start the Workshop page with just the "Principles" & "Facts" sections. After a set time, perhaps 1-2 weeks, then the "Remedies" section would be opened. This could further encourage grounding proposals in evidence. --InkSplotch (talk) 15:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

#1 requires in effect a mini-trial to determine the scope. This formalises RfAR requests (which is good), but requires the voting arbitrators to change their examination of case requests in the accepting case: rather than a simple statement to "accept" or "accept to examine behavioural issues" or "accept because the community is unable to resolve this issue", a reductionist approach is mandated to accept X/Y/Z/M/A/POV/CIV/OMG. Where exactly does the exact scope get defined? Surely not in the original case statement - when has that ever been presented with all faulting parties condemned equally? Therefore by either the accepting Arbs in their detailed statements, by the clerks (most unlikely), or by the disputants/Arbs/clerks somehow during the request, or by a series of motions which implicitly convey first-mover advantage to the filing party. And motions by parties during the RfAR itself is a mini-trial - QED. :)

Implied then is that the initial RfAR request is rejected, or accepted to first determine scope. This should be a good thing, since it will make later steps simpler. But in some way there has to be a preliminary hearing - right? So then, taking an example from Canadian common law-civil branch - the initial examination of evidence by the court in the mini-trial decides first on the preliminary evidence and the potential damages (for en:wiki, Remedies). The full trial ensues, if everyone has still got the guts for it. So we end up with a three-step process: 1) RfAR like it is now; 2) accept for mini-trial to determine scope and damages(/remedies); 3) settle or go for the big show, where alanyst's #2 (with reservations) and definitely #3 apply.

Alanyst et al are correct that the ArbCase should be streamlined and it starts with strict attention to the issues at hand - but those issues have to be defined first - hence a mini-trial. Franamax (talk) 11:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

[Outdent; re Franamax:] Great feedback. I envision something less rigid than a mini-trial. After the case is accepted, an arbitrator proposes a statement of scope on the arbcom mailing list (or whatever medium they decide works best for them). The arbitrators confer and eventually come to agreement, and post the statement on the arbitration case page. Thereafter, up until the case is closed, anyone (non-recused clerk(s) excepted) can present a motion to change the scope, and the committee publicly votes on the motion—and of course motions that are simply vexatious or otherwise not made in good faith can be ignored. Allowing the scope to be changed by motion should give the process the flexibility it needs so that there doesn't need to be a big rush up front to throw everything plus the kitchen sink into the original filing, and so the first-to-file advantage isn't really that great. I think from the type of case filings and accompanying statements that are made these days, the committee shouldn't have too much trouble getting a good first cut at what the original points of the dispute are, or the general boundaries of the investigation, and probably won't need anything so formal or process-intensive as a mini-trial. alanyst ^/talk/ 03:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you add links to these as they are done? For example, where is the RfC scheduled for January 21? (If the answer is "nowhere yet", that happens, but we should have some way to tell.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Added link. It opened as scheduled. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)````

WT:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Noticeboard has a thread concerning workshop pages as well.--Tznkai (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Motion Re : Bishzilla

Original Announcement

Note that the "Bishzilla" account is no longer a sysop, as user:Bishonen transferred the tools back to the primary account. [1][2] John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Community expectation of Checkuser

In connection with the pending creation of a Review Board to monitor Checkuser and rule on complaints of inappropriate checking, I thought it would be useful to open an RFC to gather the community's views on exactly what constitutes appropriate and inappropriate checking. If the arbitrators consent perhaps this could be posted on the official noticeboard, since it is directly connected to the review board proposal. Could a clerk or someone add it to any other place (centralized discussions, etc) where it should be listed? Thatcher 04:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If arbs desire, we can put the AE RfC and this RfC both on RfarOpenTasks or another arb related template.--Tznkai (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions for arbitration page reorganization

On WT:RFAR, I've made some suggestions for reorganization of the Requests for arbitration page. I know not all arbitrators read that page much, so I'm posting a notice here. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration#Arbitration comments are getting out of hand (permanent link here). --TS 04:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Clarification by motion relating to arbitration enforcement restriction

Original announcement

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PHG

Original announcement

CU and OS elections

Original Announcement

That's not how policy is made. See here. >Radiant< 17:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sade desysopped

Original Announcement

• Good. Daniel (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• After reviewing the sockpuppet accounts contributions, and especially in light of his unresponsiveness to the ArbCom, I endorse this decision. Master&Expert (Talk) 03:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• Right decision. Congratulations to those who made it. I wish it hadn't taken so long.Bali ultimate (talk) 04:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• Glad to see this. MBisanz ^talk 04:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, he's no longer an admin but not indef blocked/banned. Hmmm... If I understand what happened, an admin used a sock account to push a pro-pedophilia POV for years, eventually got caught (apparently after earlier complaints were ignored), used his "legit" sock status (claimed on his user page) to intimidate editors opposed to pro-pedophilia POV pushers into leaving him alone and the result of all this is (drum roll please) he's a normal editor in good standing on wikipedia? I recognize this is an academic point -- "sade" will not likely be rearing his head again -- but I don't like the principle of the thing. People get banned for calling other people mean names; this guy was involved in something much uglier, much more reprehensible(morally) and much more disruptive. It would be best for arbitration to be more open about how its decisions are reached (i'm just some guy who's trying to do less here, but this troubles me).Bali ultimate (talk) 04:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Without going into detail, I can set your mind swiftly at rest. Despite lengthy inquiries, ArbCom found no hard evidence to support the scenario you suggest. Sade was desysopped for associating with sockpuppeting editors and for failing to provide any explanation of how and why this had come about. If the evidence had been there to support a ban, believe me, it would have happened. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

What does "associating with sockpuppeting editors" mean in this case? --Conti|✉ 16:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• This is probably a sensible decision. Could I ask for clarification, though? What are the terms of the desysopping? Is it intended to be permanent? Would an RFA be satisfactory? Or is it "Sade is desysopped pending an explanation of apparent associations with abusive sockpuppetry"? [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 13:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If and when an explanation is received, we can take stock. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, one would hope so :-) It would be nice, however, if the motion was presented a little less in terms of "this is final" and more in terms of "this is a temporary solution until our concerns are satisfied". Unless there is a lot more evidence than I am aware of, the findings are shaky; the finality of the remedy, on the other hand, does not reflect this uncertainty. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 14:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There's considerable truth in that ... The actual motion is long, nuanced and contains detail that's unsuitable for publication. What we have posted is a probably too skeletal summary. Next time, we can make sure that the motion is better drafted so it can be published in its entirety without being too mysterious. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

All ArbCom decisions are open to being reversed either by the Committee or by Jimbo, right? Obviously, the Committee does not desysop someone on a whim. There were serious concerns. We tried for over a month (close to 2 months?) to discuss the concerns with Sade with no reply. Desysop seemed like a logical next step since leaving this situation open ended did not seem like a good approach because the Committee is moving away from having a massive amount of open unfinished work that falls through the cracks. As Roger says, the Committee discussed the situation and took a vote on the arbwiki and also prior to posting here opened a discussion on the new functionaries-l. I think that there was plenty of due diligence into this desysop. If there is a change in the situation, then ArbCom will review the matter further. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I am in no way questioning the Committee's diligence or decision-making. Quite the opposite! I agree with the approach and admire the persistence of the Committee in attempting to contact Sade -- I am obviously already aware of that. I am merely attempting to point out a certain inconsistency in the presentation of the desysopping. It is foolish, I think, to present things as being closed when that is inaccurate; an explicit statement of "until things change" is an acknowledgement of reality, not leaving things unfinished. I am very grateful to Roger for his contribution here in elaborating on the decision. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 15:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, the bald support/oppose lists do not capture anything like the nuance of the individual positions taken. Suffice it to say that there was virtually unanimous support for temporarily suspending Sade's sysop bit pending explanations and further enquiries, which is the essence of the motion. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Bit moot surely? He's just been associated with "abuse" "sockpuppetry" and "paedophilia". Whatever the links are, I think we can rest assured that neither arbcom nor RfA will be flipping the switch back on anytime soon.--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Moot, possibly. As it is, the motion is exceedingly vague. Sade is desysopped ... for failing to respond to enquiries from ArbCom could be read as a desysopping for lèse majesté, though obviously that is not intended. I would just like to see the wording be a little tighter and more focused on the crux of the problem. The "why" part of the motion (what are "associations with abusive sockpuppetry?" We, including the AC, don't know!) is too vague to support the apparent finality of the "what" part of it. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 13:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I think, Sam, that this is better described as "there were concerns that needed to be addressed and clarified; and that Sade was unable or unwilling to contact ArbCom to make those needed clarifications." The suspension of the bit isn't because there was no communication, but because the concerns could not be clarified. The difference is subtle, and might have been made clearer in the announcement, but important. — Coren ^(talk) 16:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
        • No, I realise all that -- "though obviously that is not intended". I'm just looking for clarity, which has, I think, been provided. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 16:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• The wording "Sade is desysopped for associations with abusive sockpuppetry and for failing to respond to enquiries from ArbCom." seems less than ideal. Was he really desysoped because he did not respond to requests for explanation? Something like this might be more reasonable: "Sade is desysoped due to associations with abusive sockpuppetry for which no convincing explanation has been provided to the committee." — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)