Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Deskana (talk | contribs) at 18:53, 17 December 2008 (→Deskana's resignation: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This Arbitration Committee has been mentioned by a media organization: Ramey, Corinne (May 7, 2018). "The 15 People Who Keep Misplaced Pages's Editors From Killing Each Other". Wall Street Journal.

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

WT:AC Archives

Late 2003 – May 2005 May 2005 – April 2006 April 2006 – April 2008 April–October 2008 October 2008 – April 2009 April 2009 – March 2010 March 2010 – February 2011 February 2011 – July 2011 July 2011 July 2011 – October 2011 October 2011 – late May 2012 late May 2012 – September 2012 September 2012 – February 2013 March 2013 – July 2013 July 2013 – November 2013 November 2013 – October 2014 October 2014 – November 2015 November 2015 – December 2016 January 2017 – January 2019 January 2019 – May 23, 2019 May 21, 2019 – January 2020 February 2020 – March 2021 March 2021 – June 2022 June 2022 – July 2023 August 2023 – present

Inactive for a while

I'll be inactive on RFAR for November and possibly part of December, to spend a month or so on mainspace, project work and admin work generally. I'll also be completely leaving all CU work (except quick or serious cases) to other checkusers now we have them, as well as working in the background on some long term matters relevant to ongoing problems we're familiar with. If a seriously problematic RFAR case wanders by I might be active on that one, but we'll see - that's a possibility any time of the year. For the record, this is much more in the nature of a well deserved vacation following a year's arb-ing, than any kind of tiredness. Unless said otherwise, I'm inactive on RFAR cases probably till around the end of November or Arbcom elections. FT2  08:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Committee chart update

Would someone please update the membership chart to reflect the one-year term extension for Thebainer? I'm afraid I don't know how to edit this type of chart. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The chart does not seem to be working...

Is this problem only in my browser, or are other users seeing no chart upon expanding the box on WP:AC?

AGK 18:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, the recent chart isn't loading at all for some reason. I had similar trouble when expanding the old/full chart - since I made a change to it, I just see a lot of coloured boxes now and no text. :S Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The look fine to me both with IE6 at work and Google Chrome at home. UC's resignation also needs to be added to the Recent changes chart. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Now they look fine, yes. (Firefox on Linux.) I have no idea what changed, but back in November it was for me as Newyorkbrad and Ncmvocalist described it. — the Sidhekin (talk) 08:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Matthew Hoffman motion

Newyorkbrad's proposal has the support of 5 arbitrators. There are 12 active arbitrators, one (Charles) is recused, another (bainer) abstains, so that's a majority, right? Can this be closed and implemented, if that's not a problem? I'd prefer this didn't drag out any longer. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think so. There are 10 active arbitrators (excluding Deskana, Charles and Stephen/bainer). This still leaves the majority requirement of 6 supports by arbs. It would've been 9 active arbs with a majority of 5 if FT2 didn't vote. In any event, I've nudged another arb today in the hope that something can be implemented without further delay. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, 6 is a majority. There are 13 Arbitrators active on this case (see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee#Current members, but count FT2 as active in light of his participation in the Committee discussion section and his casting of a vote on each motion). After deducting 1 active member per Charles' recusal and (for Newyorkbrad's proposal only—there are different circumstances on this next point on the other motions) another per Bainer's abstention, the number of active Arbitrators is 11.

I've written a guide for calculating the majority at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Procedures#Calculating the majority. Looking up "11," the majority is 6. Et voilà: we need 6 arbitrators to cast a "support" vote (presuming no more abstain)—one more than has already—for this motion to carry.

Point of note: This comment is an alternative explanation of the circumstances we are dealing with here to Ncmvocalist's, above, which is equally as correct as mine!

Hope this helps. AGK 22:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe at this point another abstention would also pass the motion.--Tznkai (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

That is correct. (Support votes seem to be more common than abstentions, however.) AGK 18:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Links

Should there be a link to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration at the top of this page? It seems like a lot of people might be coming to this article looking for that one. If there is a bright and shiny link I didn't see it, and I looked for it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

There is in fact a link to Requests for Arbitration ("RfAr") on this page. See the green "Please click here to file an Arbitration case" text in the grey header at the page-top? That's our link to RfAr (which I agree should be linked on this page, for usability purposes).

Would you still suggest that link may not be conspicuous enough? If so, we could look at adjusting the page layout.

AGK 22:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see it. I see links to Arbcom elections and Admin coaching at the top. Maybe my monitor is cutting it off? Is it on the far right? Further down there's a green and red "active" and "inactive". Do I need glasses?

And then there's some other page for Arbitration enforcement too? Is that linked? So much to keep track of. I think there should be clear links, but if you say they are there I'll have to take your word for it.

I always find these pages and I can never figure out how to get to the actual action. Is it part of a conspiracy to make sure I don't make any complaints, or am I a bit slow?ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh now I see it. Way down in that box with some deceptively innocent title about "requests for". Yeah, I think it needs a clear link. FOR ARBITRATION CLICK HERE. FOR ARBRATION ENFORCEMENT CLICK HERE. :) Seriously it's hard to find when you're hunting around and you don't know what things are called. Maybe buttons would be good. A big red button I could find. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and did you mean at the top of this page? I see now there's a link up there too, but who looks for links on a talk page? I'm thinking this is definitely some kind of conspiracy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

If you are looking to have a link on Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee (you referred in your initial comment to this page, but I would deduce from your searching the attached project page—rather than this talk page—that you meant the other page), there are in fact two. :) AGK 18:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed by "this page" I meant this article page not this talk page. Should we keep the noobs guessing? Now that I'm in the know I say screw em! Let them wander around like idiots in a never ending circuit of policy pages that don'thave obvious links to the pages they're looking for. :) What do you think? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that before requesting arbitration, one would be well-served by making oneself familiar with the entire process. From that perspective, maybe a little wiki-hunting is a good thing. However, it takes me exactly one click to navigate from this project page to the instructions for filing a case ("Requests for arbitration" in the navbox). Pretty difficult to simplify a single-click process. Franamax (talk) 02:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed when you know where to look it's easy to find! I don't have any desire to request arbitration. My suggestion was related to making the arbitration pages easier to navigate. But if you think having the only clear links at the top of the talk page (are talk pages the logical place to look for links?) or buried in the the third topic 14 or so items down in the infobox is the best place to put links, then so be it. I now know how to find it, despite this article page's poor design, but someone unfamiliar with the organizational system and methods (madness?) of Misplaced Pages might not. I always find it amusing that there is so much reluctance to make Misplaced Pages friendlier, easier to navigate, and more welcoming to newcomers. When it comes to warning someone who doesn't know any better about a "bad" edit a giant warning sign and template is necessary, but for navigating policy pages perhaps subtlety is the best approach? Maybe we could have the links be hidden and show up only when you scroll over them? Or make it into an acronym. I love acronyms! LMIHTF :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbs Elect

I think this information is useful on a number of levels, and I believe it should be included immediately. I trust the regular consensus process here (of course!) and I think this is exactly as it should be! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Please remove it, Privatemusings. The positions are not confirmed; for example, many of us have not yet complied with the requirements for identification, nor have we confirmed acceptance of any offer of appointment. Until the official announcements are made, please do not include names. Thanks. Risker (talk) 01:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

compromise wording? - I'm not sure there's actually any 'official' announcement beyond Jimbo's rights as our constitutional monarch - similar to the taking of tea at Buck Palace. Election winners are widely reported as 'xxx elect' and I think it's a good idea? whaddya reckon? Privatemusings (talk) 01:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the list for now. Please wait until the official announcement, out of respect for all of the candidates if nothing else. Risker (talk) 01:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

oh I'm not going to edit again, Risk - that'd be foolish - but I think it'd be better up there (kinda like calling Obama the 'President Elect' - I'll check now to see if we do that.....). Congrat.s by the way, and I'll not edit the project page at all again this year. best, Privatemusings (talk) 02:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)yup - we do say 'president elect', even before the official announcement.... but I learnt something today - the electoral college met yesterday! who knew!

PM, that was premature, please wait til it's official. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

PM, as far as I'm concerned, it's like sending out birth announcements before the baby is born. Everyone knows who's pregnant, but strange things can happen. I do understand where you are trying to go, but let's take things one step at a time, okay? Risker (talk) 02:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Risker; this page should reflect the current status; the 2008 election has no outcome yet, for reasons best handled elsewhere. John Vandenberg 02:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• The 'Arbitrators Elect' list has been removed by Risker; the correct move, IMO. It was quite inappropriate. PM., I don't think it's wise to push the "Jimbo shouldn't be in charge of appointments any longer" argument in such a trivial way. Let's be professional here. AGK 19:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Per the above. This page should list users who are arbitrators or users who have been arbitrators. This is not the page for statistical results of an election. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm shocked, shocked to find that PM would make an edit that did not have universal consensus! I'm sure it won't happen again. ++Lar: t/c 20:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

/me offers Lar a nice cup of chamomile tea to calm his frayed nerves - and goes off to unblock / reblock Giano in a bid to help with the really pressing matters before the arbcom..... ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Separate mailing lists

I have a concern about Arbcom maintaining a separate mailing list for active arbitrators only. This is an issue that perhaps the new arbitrators should think about tackling. Already the existence of separate lists has led to one significant communication failure that I am aware of, where a question was asked of the active arbitrators' list and no one knew the answer, but a former arbitrator did know the answer but didn't know the question had been asked.

I know the list was set up in response to community concerns about the participation of former arbitrators. However I think the committee should re-evaluate this matter. If the committee also recognizes trust or access issues with respect to former arbitrators, it should purge the list (en masse or selectively, despite the drama that some would try to drum up as a result). If the committee does not see trust or access issues it should do away with the sub-list and just tell the community "We respect your concerns but disagree." In short, I think all arbcom business (including discussion of all sensitive matters and including whatever advice-giving Jimbo feels he needs) should be handled on a single list. Either purge arbcom-L, or endorse the participation of everyone on Arbcom-L, but don't try to have it both ways. I don't think that is working. Thatcher 16:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

If none of the active arbitrators knew how to answer a question, and thus the question fell through the cracks, that's an indictment of the arbs, not an argument to put former arbs onto a single list. I support either 1) two lists, with active only being the one for main business, and the other being for when advice is needed or 2) one list for active arbs only. But I do not support former arbs being on the main list. That's my view. ArbCom is free of course to do as they see fit, it's their decision, but it's my view. ++Lar: t/c 17:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

This may be a moot point. I had thought there were two lists. But Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee#Mailing_list suggests not. Either I'm misremembering or there is some confusion somewhere. ++Lar: t/c 17:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge there is a separate, secret* mailing list that is only for current Arbitrators. (*It has, in fact, been discussed on-wiki a few times, but don't ask me for diffs.) And, there certainly was a second list at the time of the message to which I referred above. In this specific case, an Arbitrator asked whether anyone knew if edits by FT2 to zoophilia had been oversighted, as claimed by Peter Damian. At the time, the oversight log was broken. The two people who knew of the oversight matter without relying on the log (Jimbo and David Gerard) did not see the question since it was sent to the active arb list, not Arbcom-L. But I want to focus this discussion on the question of arbitrator mailing lists and community trust, not on the particulars of the Damian case. Certainly I have seen on numerous occasions various members of the community argue for separate mailing lists or to exclude certain or all former arbs from Arbcom-L. (Again, no diffs, sorry.) I wanted to raise the question of whether this is a good thing or not. Thatcher 18:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher, Jimbo and FT2 would be on the arbs-only list, and both of them would have known about the oversighting. SlimVirgin 19:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I just found out that Jimbo is on the arbs-only list, but that is a matter for a different page, I think. Here I would like to focus on whether or not there should be a separate list at all. Thatcher 19:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to focus on which case the situation arose either. But I have heard via rumor/hearsay/(not always reliable sources :) ) that this has happened more than once. The new AC would be well served to maybe look into some sort of troubleticket/tracking system if there is more to that than rumor so that mails don't get lost, and that every mail gets a response (unless its from a repeat pesterer). That seems different to me than whether there should be one or two lists. I'll repeat what I said, personally I think having all former arbs on the main (and only) list is not necessarily goodness.... presumably at least for some, the community has indicated less trust than for others. I do favour two lists though, as I have in the past found that sort of thing useful in other organizations (an ex officer's list so the current officers can ask for advice, memory, etc., has stood me well in more than one organization I was in)... All THAT said, it's ArbCom's call. But it should be clearly stated whatever it is. ++Lar: t/c 19:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

SlimVirgin: Why would Thatcher be subscribed to an ArbComm mailing list? He's is a clerk, not an arbitrator or ex-arbitrator. (FT2 and Jimbo both would, though, yes.)
FWIW, I can endorse Thatcher's statement above, which suggests this sub-list has been discussed on-Wiki on a few occasions. (I also have noticed it being referred to in passing, and also on another private mailing list by an arbitrator.) It seems to be an "open secret," or at least a fact the Committee don't wish to make a big deal out of (and understandably so). Like Thatcher, however, I can offer no diffs; I am positive I have seen it referred to on-Wiki, but, after a quick leaf around, I cannot pinpoint where. I'm sure somebody will be able to offer evidence, if they are dubious as to how trustworthy Thatcher or I am. :-)
AGK 19:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

AGK, I think you are seeing something that is not there. Slim and I have no significant disagreement. The question I wish to raise (being separate from the other matter) is whether or not there should be multiple lists. I tend to think that people either are trusted or they are not, and that the second list was created because there was a recognition that some members of the list are not trusted but an unwillingness to deal with it in a more decisive manner. Lar raises an interesting alternative, that there should be two lists but there should be some method of incident tracking.Thatcher 19:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

AGK, that was a misunderstanding, and my fault. I was addressing Thatcher, not including him in the list. :-) Sorry for not writing clearly. SlimVirgin 05:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• As an alternative suggestion, let Jimbo create a new mailing list to get advice from trusted ex-officers, call it Jimbo-L or kitchencabinet-L. If there is to be a list called Arbcom-L, that is officially promoted as the place to send Arbitration Committee business, then the only subscribers should be members of Arbcom or former arbitrators whom the present Committee vouch for and are willing to entrust and delegate all their sensitive communications to. Thatcher 00:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Interesting. Who are these "trusted ex-officers" then? I disagree with who should be on the official list. Only arbitrators should have access. People who resign have no need for access to the list. Either they want to do the work, or they don't. There should not be an in-between. If a case desperately needs their attention, they can be cc'd the mails, or be temporarily added. I couldn't possibly trust ArbCom to choose ex-arbitrators who can have access to the list, because the current committee appears to be at odds with the community at large, so cannot be trusted to do such a thing. Majorly 00:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• I'm torn on this point. Instinctively, I don't support having ex-arbs on the mailing list, for all the reasons others have listed. On the other hand, I feel this committee has become detached from the community, in part because they set up a separate list. It has meant they've been cocooned from advice that more experienced arbs might have given them, about what will and won't wash with the community. I think it has contributed to a seige mentality and a political blindness, and also an arrogance on the part of some of them that they can do whatever they want. The wider list provides an anchor and an institutional memory. SlimVirgin 05:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

In regards to the original problem of the oversighted edit, the appropriate way to have reached the oversighters, if the log was down, would have been to email oversight-l. There is not enough discussion or questions being asked on that list, if you ask me; I have said as much to the arbs over a month ago. Regarding arbcom-l, I strongly believe that only the current arbs should be on the main arbcom-l list for a lot of reasons. I agree that an additional list for ex-arbs could be useful, and that would give the arbs a clear direction in which to send requests that need the attention of ex-arbs. Currently the ex-arbs need to follow all discussions in order to know when they are needed. John Vandenberg 06:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Time for me to point out, yet again, that in my view oversight-l is confusingly named. It applies to en:wp only... requests for oversight on other wikis get sent there and apparently at least sometimes, get lost, rather than brought to the attention of oversighters on other wikis. The list should be moved to oversight-en-l to free up the name for global use (in parallel to how there is a checkuser-l which is global in remit). Some clarification has happened on meta but not enough. A new ArbCom ought to tackle enabling the list admins to make this change. ++Lar: t/c 14:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

No secret scheming

Except for matters that require privacy, all ArbCom discussions should be in public where they can be observed. Recent events show the caustic effects on trust of secretive scheming. Jehochman 00:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I would hope this is what happens already. Oh right, I forgot, checkuser appointments, which do not require any privacy. Majorly 00:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Your comments might carry more credibility if you didn't shout "CHECKUSER APPOINTMENT" every time Arbcom did something you didn't like. (Much like Everyking and Proabivuoac and any number of other editors afflicted with monomania. By the way, if you didn't hear, I've resigned.) Thatcher 00:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

That's great news! Though you didn't address the point I made. Arbcom discusses things in secret unnecessarily. This of course has nothing to do with your appointment; I supported Alison, Lar, Deskana, Nishkid64, Luna Santin, Avraham and Rlevse all getting CU, all who were discussed in über secrecy on the list. I didn't complain about them. Has it not occurred to you I complained for reasons other than what you believe? Like the fact you barely edit the encyclopedia, you're cold, unfriendly, impersonal, often nasty, and of course let's not forget the fact you posted parts of a private conversation onto my RFA. I didn't want to make this personal; just a fact that arbcom does CU appointments in secret. It's true whether I say it, or whether someone else says it. But since you appear to hold a grudge from well over a year ago, there's not much I can say for you. Majorly 00:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't hold a grudge, as such, but your opposition was personally hurtful to me and yes, I remember it. And obviously so do you. ("That's great news!"). I do support more transparency from Arbcom. In the specific Giano/Moreschi case for example, having the names is a big improvement over a tally or simple assertion. The question is whether having the text of the discussion itself would shed even more light on the subject or just add heat and smoke. Thatcher 01:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Well I truly am sorry if my opposition was hurtful. It's unfortunate though, because I used to highly respect you, but I lost respect for you that day when you did what you did to me, on my RFA. My "It's great news" was supposed to be sarcastic, I heard you resigned ages ago, and that was only in response to your comment telling me you resigned (as if I really care? I got over your appointment some time ago, and learned to live with it after I heard how hard you worked as one.) Back on topic, this particular case, which does not require privacy, does not need ArbCom intervention. We could just forget this, and get on with more productive things, but knowing ArbCom, I doubt they'd want to let it rest. Majorly 01:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(proposals)#Community_feedback_on_ArbCom_Members

Readers may wish to be aware of Misplaced Pages:Village pump/ACFeedback. DepartedUser (talk) 01:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser and Oversight accountability

I have an essay on the topic of Checkuser and Oversight accountability and transparency posted at User:Thatcher/Quis custodiet ipsos custodes. Thatcher 04:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Deskana's resignation

Hello everyone.

I am resigning from the Arbitration Committee, mainly due to inactivity. I feel that my seat would be better taken up by someone who is capable of being more active. I am suffering from long term illness which is affecting my activity on Misplaced Pages. Although I do not wish to disclose exactly what this illness is, it is serious enough that I have had to take a year out of university in the middle of my third year, due to missing a lot of lectures.

I will continue to offer my support to the Committee as a checkuser and oversighter. A Committee that does not have to do the majority of its own checkuser work is a Committee that can spend more time voting on cases and doing other more important things. A substantial amount of delegation already takes place in this regard, but now I will be the one who it is delegated to, rather than one of the ones who delegates it. This also means I will be able to take longer breaks, if necessary due to my illness, and not disrupt the business of the Committee quite as much.

I would also like to make it clear that I was not certain of my resignation until a few hours ago. I could still have, at any point, e-mailed Jimbo and told him that I was not resigning anymore.

I will continue to be an active Arbitrator until the appointment of the new Arbitrators.

Deskana (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press