Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 4

I asked AGK about this, who suggested asking here [4]. The case looks stalled to me. What are you waiting for? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Bit ironic, given the next-but-one thread. Ah well William M. Connolley (talk) 21:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Generally arbcom announcements are made to directly involved users. We announce case decisions on case pages with a general announcement on AN since admin carry out sanctions. The above is at one level a block discussion, so AN/I was appropriate, I think. We could start an arbcom announcement page, I suppose. But I'm not sure another page is needed. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Note ongoing cases are also in signpost, but the BLP issue in the Footnoted quotes case is of obvious major interest to a lot of people. I also am not sure we need a new page but perhaps announcing things here that are not so obvious would be a good idea. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

To Rlevse, I am aware and approving of the Signpost system, but what I am talking about is specifically is where Arbcom declare "Here's what we decided and why" and editors are given the opportunity to respond. Skomorokh 22:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflicted with Rlevse) Announcing decisions on AN is one matter (nothing wrong with soliciting attention from those likely to be interested), using it as a forum for explaining them there is another (see above). In cases where Arbcom discusses their decisions in private (rather than at

WP:RFAR), there is a need for the rationale for subsequent actions to be communicated to the community. If it is possible to do so solely through case pages (on whose talk pages users can discuss the matter), then the problem I illustrate does not arise. However in the case above, the explanation seemed to come at ANI instead of a case page. I understand the concern with creating more bureaucracy by having an explanation page, but if the case pages do not suffice for the communication necessary, some central forum is required, and AN is not it. Arbcom has an image problem. Let's try to fix that. Sincerely, Skomorokh

22:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Although it's a very historic title, thinking about it, I'd be happier to see AN/ANI and so on retitled to WP:Community noticeboards/Administrators/Notices, WP:Community noticeboards/Administrators/Incidents ... which would then allow on the same section of the wiki, WP:Community noticeboards/Editor whatevers and WP:Community noticeboards/Arbitration Committee actions. That way we better organize our many noticeboards under one umbrella which covers administrators, non-administrators, arbcom actions, and so on, to be included alike. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, thanks for responding FT2. I think this is too broad of a response than the issue merits (and ironically, this is not the forum to discuss reform of AN). I think AN (and subpages) are well-defined as places to go to when you need an administrator to take action (i.e. regarding blocks, protects and deletions). The community noticeboards, where administrators have no special weight or status, already exist (e.g.

the Village Pump might be the ideal candidate for the forum I am suggesting, if the Committee is unwilling to maintain its own page. Sincerely, Skomorokh

23:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't considering reform. More, moving them as they stand, to a section that is "community noticeboards" rather than just "admin noticeboards", so that those pages become closer to non-admin users too, and can have additional pages (like the one discussed) asociated with them that arent "admin" something boards. The problem with VP is, far fewer people go there. Why not just one set of noticeboards which will make them much more easy to discover by users, and increase awareness? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I take it that this wasn't necessarily arbcom acting as arbcom, but rather that the arbcom mailing list (which includes past arbs) contains users who could be trusted with a very sensitive subject like this? That's what I assumed at first, but I'm not entirely sure after reading this thread. -- Ned Scott 03:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I dont like the idea of arbcom having a special announcement board, or trying to organise where they post. Important policy changes should be noted at the

Most ideally, Brad can come back but I'm not sure how realistic that is. As for filling Deskana's slot, I urge the committee to give it serious consideration? — Rlevse • Talk • 16:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The delays in recent ArbCom decisions are concerning; I'm wondering if there is a shortage of those willing to do the drafting and writing? I don't know if Raul is still interested, but I also hope Jimbo will consider appointing him, factoring in the following to the !vote tallies:

1. Many of the opposes were because Raul was perceived as being too busy, ignoring that he had recently delegated me to help at
   WP:FAC
   .
2. Because he was a sitting member of ArbCom, he was likely to receive a higher Oppose count.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I think whatever happens, the appointee(s), for however long, would end up filling expansion seats, or even if appointed to a "vacant" seat, the same caveat as before would apply, namely that Brad and Deskana would be able to take up their seats again as and when/if they return. Filiocht and Flcelloguy are, I think, the previous examples of this, though there may have been others. Not sure if anyone ever got updates on what the situation was with Filiocht and Flcelloguy, but it might be worth someone trying to get an update/confirmation on the situations with Brad and Deskana, or at the least with Deskana, as the wording of Brad's resignation didn't really leave much room for future changes. Carcharoth (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with this post of SandyGeorgia. Most of the opposes for Raul654 were because it was felt he would be too busy, but they had not realized that the workload was going to be lightened considerably through SandyGeorgia's efforts.

Although it would be great if Brad returned, I will point out that this is unlikely if we do not address the reason that Brad left. We have some serious problems in our community that led to this very regrettable event, and if we do not wake up as a community and start dealing with these problems, Brad's departure will only be followed by other similar issues, that might even be more serious. It annoys me that Wikipedians basically shove their heads in the sand and ignore these glaring difficulties, allow them to continue and even encourage them. We should be ashamed.--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

BTW, Mindspillage and Filiocht's eligibility to claim expansion seats in Tranche Beta ends this year, while Flcelloguy's eligibility to claim an expansion seat ends in 2009. And Brad and Deskana's terms run until 2010. I'm not entirely clear whether Mindspillage (Kat Walsh on the WMF board) went inactive or resigned.

Template:ArbitrationCommitteeChart claims she can still return and claim a seat, which I now think is probably wrong. Also, resignation (Brad, Mindspillage) should be distinguished from inactivity (Deskana, Filiocht, Flcelloguy). Carcharoth (talk

) 16:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Mindspillage's was a resignation, but she can still re-accept a seat until the end of the year. She resigned when she was elected to the board, and Jimbo made the determination that she could come back during her initial term for an expansion seat. Ral315 (talk) 01:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting discussion, however Jimbo and only Jimbo appoints Arbitrators. He may choose to take the community's advice but he does not have to. The best place to approach this would be Jimbo's talk page, or perhaps the main wikien-L mailing list. If you can find a couple of Arbitrators who think there need to be some replacements and temporary fill-ins appointed, presumably their opinions would also carry weight. Thatcher 17:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I was actually hoping the committee could enter into dialogue, with Jimbo, to choose a new arbitrator or two - or express how they would like proceedings to run or who (if anyone is going to be replaced). That's why I brought it to their talk page :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 17:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo wrote, "I will gladly leave the choice of those mid-term appointments up to the Arbcom (or, at their desire, make the tough decision myself), but will have a strong preference at that time..." Doesn't that mean the committee would choose the replacements? Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, which is why I quoted that and left a note on Jimbo's talk page. Presumably arbitrators and others can contact him more quickly if needed. Carcharoth (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo is aware of this discussion, by-the-by. Personally, I like the idea of a temporary fill-in until December, when the filled-in seats should go up for election for the remainder of the term together with the tranche that is naturally up. This way, there should be fewer concerns about the lack of community input into the process. In that light, while the list of "almost arbitrators" is a good starting point, I do not think that either ArbCom or Jimbo should be restricted to that list, and should be able to choose someone whom they feel will work well with the current ArbCom at this time for these last few months. If the seat comes up for election in December, there should be little fallout if someone not on that list is selected. -- Avi (talk) 23:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

They could always just appoint Thatcher till the end of the year. That'd sure help activity-wise :) Daniel (talk) 23:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

That would be a good choice (as long as someone else kept up with Checkuser). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I third the motion. Shall we bring it to the floor? -- Avi (talk) 23:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this is the floor (but then, I've always resisted the idea that I need to join some off-wiki maillist or figure out IRC in order to communicate with other Wikipedians, so what do I know? :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I won't third the motion only because part of my proposal is that the fill-ins would be enjoined not to seek a full term at the next election, and I would not want to disadvantage Thatcher that way. Another possibility would be asking retired arbitrators to fill in; in particular, those who are still on the mailing list would probably be pretty current and could step in fairly quickly. Risker (talk) 00:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, this is not the floor, this is the basement. Risker, you would have had to fourth the motion, as it was already thirded. I see no issue with the fill-in arb running for a full-term seat. As a matter of fact, I think that the highest vote getters in the December election should have the option of the full or partial term seat, have those filled, and then the fill the remaining. But that's just my opinion, for now. I always reserve the right to be successfully impressed by the strength of another's arguments and opinions. :) -- Avi (talk) 00:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

(<--Unindent) Well, Avi, my rationale goes like this. Three years is the maximum for any editor to sit on Arbcom without having to face the community twice. I think this is a good thing, and shouldn't be extended; it's a bright line in my mind, and it seems to be in the mind of the community as well, because they have yet to re-elect someone who has sat on Arbcom for three years already. There are many very good editors who would be well-qualified, in my mind, to sit on the committee, and I genuinely hope they will run in November/December and that the community will share my opinion once they have had the chance to ask questions and see the responses. To select one or two of them from outside either the existing list (as Jimbo promised) or from the cadre of former arbitrators who might be persuaded, Cincinnatus-like, to pitch in for a short while, is a bit of a poke in the eye of the community who voiced its opinion about the various candidates already. It would also be a good example of setting people up to fail. No matter how much non-members like to think it, they aren't fully up to speed on everything the committee does and it will take them a while to get a handle on things. They will draw the ire of those who would interpret their selection as favouritism and cronyism, while drawing the support of those who agree they are excellent Wikipedians. Their presence on the committee has the potential to be divisive within the community and to exacerbate the concerns that the committee is acting without deference to the community, especially at a time when the committee is trying to move in new directions. If the committee wants to be bold in its decisions, it needs to balance it with some conservative actions in other areas. Risker (talk) 00:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

"they have yet to re-elect someone who has sat on Arbcom for three years already" - you phrased that with Raul and Fred Bauder in mind, right? Technically, I think Raul and Fred Bauder both regained seats after an election, though not after sitting for three years previously. Raul in July 2004 and December 2004 was "directly elected" (if you think using that term is correct when all are technically appointed), while Fred was one of several appointed with "communnity support" to terms of less than three years, after the elections in January 2006. Carcharoth (talk) 07:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To be quite honest, I'm not sure I see any urgent need to appoint new members to the Committee; we appear to be at what is essentially an all-time low in terms of actual caseload, and the long deliberation times are more a consequence of the complexity of some of the more recent cases than of a lack of raw manpower on our part. A mid-term appointment seems like it'd result in more effort (to actually coordinate a useful appointment, particularly given some of the explicit and implicit expectation that would need to be balanced) than it would save. Kirill ^(prof) 00:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, you've got 7 truly active members out of a panel of (currently) 14, which itself isn't full strength. Up until very recently a lot had been written about the long delays in decisions and action on appeals and other requests. While the current caseload is low, there is no reason to expect that it will stay low even in the near future. Does it make sense to keep the committee at less than half of a full panel? You seem to be saying it does, I wonder if your colleagues agree. If they do, this discussion is probably moot and perhaps we should focus on whether we really need to elect new members to fill up the open slots if the committee functions well at half strength.

Avruch

00:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The motions and clarifications section needs attention. Daniel (talk) 00:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Let me point out that Raul's outrageously onerous workload has been considerably moderated over the past few months by the appointment of a delegate (SandyGeorgia) to assist in the management of the FAC list. I think this might resolve any issues about time available to provide his expertise to ArbCom. TONY (talk) 03:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The question seems to be whether (a) a new appointment is needed (and hopefully the 7 currently active members of the arbitration committee will actually say something here at some point - I believe only one has said something so far); (b) whether mid-term appointments should be done on the basis of need or on the basis of setting forth an argument that concerns in oppose votes at the last election have been addressed. With all due respect, the argument that Raul is less busy now is one that should be put to the electorate at the appropriate time, not put forth now as a reason to re-appoint Raul. The other point is that Raul is already on that list put forth by Jimbo. He doesn't need further reasons to be pushed ahead of others on that list, though I now see that Rebecca technically came "ahead" of Raul by the slimmmest of margins, but Jimbo's list swaps Raul and Rebecca in the order. Someone should have noted that at the time and clarified whether that order by Jimbo meant anything. But this is all moot if the arbitration committee as a whole decide they are coping OK with the workload. However, I would point out that now, not later, would be the time to appoint someone mid-term (or rather, "mid-year" as the terms are three years). Waiting to see if the caseload increases might seem sensible, but appointing someone for, say, three months in September would meet resistance for several reasons. Carcharoth (talk) 07:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• I have strong reservations about some of those currently on the list, but those aside.... Kirill is right (except, I see no value in still dragging the homeopathy case over discretionary sanctions) - there's no need. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Clarifications aren't being worked on at all, and we are on a lul of new requests. When the requests start mounting up again, there will probably be problems - it's best to sort these out now, rather than wait to a problem actually exists. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    • That's not entirely true. For example, the arb responses were reasonably prompt for the Request for clarification in reply to the BLP special remedy, and the Palestine-Israel articles. I share Kirill's concerns - getting a new arb is going to be more problematic, especially if chosen from those on that list. The more routine disputes, appeals etc. are handled by the community now - this leaves the Committee with more of the complex cases, and that's really the problem of why it's taking longer than one would like. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I have never (to my knowledge) worked with Raul on anything before, then I got involved this week with Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruption by GoRight (permanent link). Personally, I'd prefer to see someone with a more judicious, less abrupt approach to dealing with established editors. The situation was nowhere near as black and white to an outsider as he made it out to be and his threat to block someone with whom he had an editorial dispute was inappropriate (even if he felt the other side was wrong).

I will support Raul654's selection if the community has a chance to choose, but I would be very disappointed if the ArbCom just quietly added him without community approval. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Unclear what you mean by "without community approval", considering vote tallies from last ArbCom elections. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, those votes are recent enough to still be relevant, unless for some individual something regrettable has happened in the meantime. I think the community would probably think it perfectly fair to proceed on that basis. DGG (talk) 23:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see your point. Here are the vote counts and percentages from the last election for the middle of the pack.:

Plagiarized from the 00:25, 17 December 2007 version of User:Gurch/Reports/ArbComElections.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

and to put the numbers into context, the candidate with the lowest level of support who was appointed had 67% support. DGG (talk) 15:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Well obviously Rebecca can't because of her position with the WMF. I think that there would be considierable opposition to Raul at this time, especially with his involvement in the ID cabal mess. This may be coming out of left field, but given the recent kerfuffle, Appointing Giano for the rest of the year might be the kind of shakeup that ArbCom so desperately needs. --Dragon695 (talk) 00:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh, you skipped right over Manning Bartlett. You are probably right that there'd be considerable opposition to Raul. Nor can I support Giano, given his extensive problematic history. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I would support someone temporarily taking my seat until the end of the year. Hopefully I'll have everything sorted out by then, and I'll be ready to get back to work. --Deskana (talk) 10:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it was only a temporary thing until you got better, which I hope will be very soon. Take care old chap. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

A policy proposal which would affect the functions of the Arbitration Committee has been proposed at Wikipedia:Devolution. Best, Mackensen (talk) 01:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

First, two diffs that are really directed at the Committee as a whole rather than at anyone else: [6] [7]. Of course you have no reason to weigh or even notice my opinion in the deluge of comments that RfC has been receiving, but I imagine that you all can't help but be aware that a significant portion of the community (including many new to the role of publicly criticising the Committee) are upset with the state of things at the moment. I'd suggest that this is the moment for you to enact reforms that will allow you to manage your role and your workload effectively.

The purpose of this section is to, again, ask that you finally and effectively deal with the problem of inactive Arbitrators. Above Kirill wrote that he doesn't believe new and replacement Arbitrators are necessary, and others have opined that the difficulty of orienting new arbitrators makes choosing them pointless ahead of the December election. I disagree. Frankly, there is no excuse for long term inactive or minimally active Arbitrators remaining on the committee. You have my gratitude, and that of most others, for the work you have performed as editors and as arbitrators. But if you are unable to continue to fulfill your duties as arbitrators, or unwilling to get involved other than to occassionally vote or weigh in on issues that have some particular relevance for you, then you do not belong on the committee. There are others (I'd suggest MastCell, for instance) who are willing to perform the spectrum of responsibilities associated with arbitration. They are also able - resolution of new disputes, or problems with which many in the community are familiar, should not require a long period of acclimation.

Some options others have suggested that make sense:

• I'd suggest you go so far as to appoint even more arbitrators than you have open seats, and then begin hearing cases in panels.

• Limit the submission of evidence to parties (others can run potential evidence by them). Reduce the opportunity for long, polemical statements in cases that just muddy the issues.

• Reject and refer back cases that the community hasn't already failed to address (more often than you already do). Use the time this frees to respond to clarification requests and appeals in a timely manner.

You are among the brightest and hardest working people of this community, and I think the challenges before you are not more than you can handle.

To answer some of your points:

Having metrics for activity

We have been looking at this properly in detail for a long while, and recently spurred on by Jimmy's formal suggestion that we adopt a policy; sadly, but understandably, and I think rightly, "constitutional" issues are the first things we set aside when our work-load is high (as it has been since February almost without end, despite the record low level of on-wiki case matters). We've yet to consider how we can reliable gauge work, given that editing Arbitration-related wiki pages is one of the smaller parts of the jobs.

Sitting in small groups rather than en banc

This gets examined every few months by the Committee; there seems to be absolutely no desire for it amongst members, due both to the exceptional number of issues this generates, most notably fragmentation and loss of consistency in both decision-making and organisational knowledge, and also the lack of a need for it (cases are not in the main slowed down by lack of hands).

Limiting evidence sources

The line between "parties" and "non-involved editors" does not exist in my mind, so I can't see a way of doing this without either inventing some (even more!) highly bureaucratic method for opening/amending/expanding/closing cases, or having individuals invited personally to give evidence by the Committee, which would be immensely time-consuming and not exactly very open.

Limiting evidence length

Well, we keep reducing the limits, but people generally ignore them. It's often difficult, in the middle of writing a case to ban someone, for the Committee to write a tart, petty note asking them to write more concisely whilst we do so.

Rejecting cases for failing to use the Dispute Resolution process

Part of this is a lack of confidence in the non-Arbitration structures that do, or used to, exist. Part of our control-freak nature, as it were. :-) Something we all, not just Arbitrators, need to address.

I hope some of this is helpful. Given that I'm in effect taking a lot of words to say "no", I hope you can at least understand, if not agree, with the reasons.

James F. (talk) 17:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

One comment on your response, James, to the topic of "sitting in 'panels' rather than in banco": it may well be the case, that there is no consensus for cases to be disposed of by small sub-groups of arbitrators, but perhaps there is a consensus for it amongst the community? I think it is about time that decision-making was made from a point of view of what is necessary for the smooth operation of the encyclopedia, rather than what is most convenient or desirable amongst the Committee?

Anthøny

19:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that individuals like Raul654 should not use their position or status within the Wikipedia bureaucracy to override Wikipedia community policy on original research [8]

As far as I can see Raul has not used his position in any way there. I just see him disagreeing with you, which is part of the consensus based editorial process. Not an ArbCom issue. —Giggy 09:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps he thinks Raul is going to change the title based on a/the straw poll as opposed to getting consensus.... Even so, it isn't an ArbCom issue as it's the last resort of

dispute resolution at Wikipedia. Ncmvocalist (talk

) 09:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Is

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests what you were after? Daniel (talk

) 03:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

There have been, when the case was due to good faith actions by well intentioned users who got the wrong end of the problem. For example:

1. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN contemplated a wheel war that was actually, miscommunication and best resolved by dropping it all round.
2. Other cases include
   WP:SRNC
   which was a dispute centering on the genuine problems of reaching consensus on a difficult area, and where the main remedy was "consider how to do proper consensus seeking without argument" (so to speak)
3. ... a few "train wrecks" where sorting out who did what wrong is so messy that it's simpler to say "okay, these were bad things to do, don't repeat", and try for a clean start for all, going forward.
4. ... cases like this also.

Look for

complete cases that got dropped or dismissed, or had very minimal remedies, "advice", or simply no enforcements, or cases that were resolved at the RFAR page stage, without a case needing to be opened. They happen regularly, although they are a minority. FT2 ^{(Talk | email}

) 15:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Things needing my attention, please note at user talk:FT2#Prospective catch-up list. I suspect there's a lot.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Per comments here: [9], NYB has returned to Wikipedia and expressed an interest in taking up his place on arbcom. Considering on this page he's not listed as active or inactive, but retired, I wanted to ask here before making any changes. Can someone state in an official capacity that NYB is active on the committee again? I expect they're happy to have him back, but I just want to make sure there's nothing procedural about reinstatement. --InkSplotch (talk) 01:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Already done by flo.[10] Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, whilst writing that last post I did have to put the laptop down to greet the wife home from work. Boy, electrons move fast. --InkSplotch (talk) 02:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

(hope it's the right place to ask)
Hi,
We're currently having a bit of a fuss on

Well, we don't really treat past arbitrations as case law here, but there's an unofficial list of involuntary desysoppings

talk

) 13:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Okie dokie, thanks a lot. Popo le Chien ^{throw a bone} 10:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

How am I to have confidence in the sacrosanct nature of this list, if there are recent leaks? Who is it? What is being done to control this? Which individual arbitrator do I mail should I have an OTRS referral? Is it confidential anymore? Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, I have a solution. If ever I need to post to the list, I can speak in ticket numbers, some arbs have access to the interface. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

There are arbitrators who are also OTRS volunteers as well. -- Avi (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

There are indeed, although my understanding is that they get virtually zero time to devote to OTRS contributions in so long as they are active on the Committee.

✉

19:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

True, but they can inform ArbCom of what is in a given ticket, if necessary. -- Avi (talk) 21:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

No, they can't. Not if the contents are covered by the foundation privacy policy. If there is an established leak to the list, then I don't know of any OTRS volunteer who would send the information to the arbcom-en-l mailing list if the integrity is compromised. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Few things in this world are guaranteed secret; a well known issue. But the list is not plagued by breaches. That said, if you have a genuine concern or serious matter, rather than emailing it to the list generally, email it to one arbitrator, with a request to forward it to the sitting arbitrators only. Sitting arbitrator emails are tighter circulated, and neither routed via WMF nor archived. But this is not used unless there is genuine need. Much of the day to day arbitrator discussion doesn't need that extra restriction. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be no other formal mechanism for initiating this type of request, so submitting under the general descriptor of other requests.

Per the following:

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jim62sch#Harassment_and_threats
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jim62sch#Grave_real-world_harassment
• The Matthew Hoffman clarification
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed_decision#Harassment_and_threats

Wikipedia's arbitration committee has dealt with a number of situations involving serious harassment, threats, and health issues. These concerns fall far outside the normal scope of encyclopedic disputes; these issues have real world ramifications. The qualifications for which arbitrators are chosen--familiarity with site policies, experience in article dispute resolutions, etc.--have virtually nothing to do with the training and experience requisite for handling problems of this nature. Therefore I offer a solution.

Proposed:

By January 1, 2009 the Committee will either retain the consulting services of credentialed professionals in these areas, or else its members will obtain appropriate fundamental training in these areas from qualified professionals. If the consulting option is selected, normal client-professional confidentiality would apply to the relationship. If the training option is selected, training would be mandatory for all new and returning arbitrators and must be completed by February 15, 2009 or the arbitrator will be placed on the inactive list involuntarily and excluded from internal arbitration communications (mailing list, private wiki, etc.) until training is completed.

The Committee will submit interim reports to the Community via public announcement on the Administrators' Noticeboard on November 1 and December 1. No later than January 1, 2009 the Committee will announce its final action, complete with the names and professional qualifications of the consultants or trainers, and name the formal instruction (if any) that Committee members take. If a Committee member is placed on the inactive list due to failure to complete training, a training needed notation will be added next to that arbitrator's name. The community may request an independent audit for compliance in obtaining and retaining training/consultation, according to reasonable means per the Committee's specification.

Durova^Charge! 04:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Policy proposals should be made on the talk page or village pump, where there can be proper threaded discussion. You don't get to bypass that and draw attention to your by posing it here. Abcom are not legislators of new policies. I already moved this to the talk page, but Durova reverted me. I invite someone else to move it now.--

talk

) 08:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Replying to the substantive points. (Although I think this debate should be moved elsewhere). Arbcom is not your mother. Durova is correct that it is not qualified to solve issues of criminal harassment, intimidation, mental health issues etc.. But nor should it be, and even if it had "professional advisers" it would still be inappropriate. Arbcom are here to protect the project from user activity which is unhelpful to the aims of the encyclopaedia, and its members are well qualified to do that; it really should not be in the business of doing more than that. If people need professional assistance, or law-enforcement, or psychological help, then point them elsewhere. If arbcom were to "retain consulting services", I'd ask 1) to what end? 2) who would pay (is Durova offering)? 3) and would arbcom wish to be responsible for applying such subjective advice? No, stick to asking "what serves the encyclopaedia?" and "in view of this person's ACTIONS (not their state of mind) is it helpful to this project for them to be allowed to use this website?" Ultimately, and with due respect, the committee are simply glorified (and well-qualified) website moderators, do not pretend that they are, or should be, anything more.--
  talk
  ) 09:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I'll chime in here to say that I think this proposal is the whole philosophy underlying BADSITES brought to its logical conclusion. If we were going to let emotional impact on community members dictate the contents of the encyclopedia, it follows logically the project should be compelled to hire mental health experts if not full-time psychiatric consultants in order to run the project in a way that minimized emotional harm to our community members.

To some, this proposal is, it seems, a serious one, put forward in good faith. To me, it's sort of a reductio ad absurdum. A few years ago, some members of Wikipedia started to assume that "Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia, it's a community". Practically all of Wikipedia have rejected that assumption by now, but a few still cling to it. Here we see that those people have now reached a conclusion which follows, in perfect logical fashion, from that initial assumption-- but the conclusion that has been reached is, nevertheless, patently absurd. --Alecmconroy (talk) 09:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That's it nailed.--

talk

) 09:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was my job to find a "BADSITES mentality" in everything? But anyway, this does seem to be a rather extreme case of attempted "mission creep" for ArbCom, and the imposition of silly mandates which remind me of what I've seen happen in other organizations, where "Risk Management" committees have attempted to saddle the members and volunteers of an organization with mandates, restrictions, and mandatory certifications to cover the management's butts for some real or imagined liability issue. *Dan T.* (talk) 13:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• I personally would like to see the policy on responding to
  suicide threats attended to by a professional who is trained in this area. But I don't think this is an arbitration matter. Thatcher
  13:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• The arbcom should just explain the limits of their scope if people really aren't sure about this:) For instance say at the top of the Arbitration request page that if people think they are the victim of a crime they should consult the police, and if people have health problems (which I've never heard of arbcom actually directly dealing with anyway) they should consult a doctor or psychiatrist. This is just common sense, the arbcom can't be experts at everything, and it would be wrong of them to try and replace legal or health professionals. As for
  WP:SUICIDE, I expect there are editors on wikipedia trained in such things, but we could always link to a page suggesting people call the Samaritans or whatever the equivalent is in their country, or consult their doctor. (I'm not being harsh here, we're just not experts and shouldn't pretend to be and meddle as if we were. Sticky Parkin
  13:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I do think wikipedia is a sort-of community but even family members are not as good at a job as professionals. We can offer friendship but not claim to be experts at things we aren't, to do otherwise is irresponsible. Sticky Parkin 13:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Sticky, in an arbitration case back in December, when I has having severe health problems, the Arbcom selected me to be iused as a test case for a change in policy, and, by what I think everyone agrees was very poor handling, severely aggravated the health problems, to the point where I had to drop out of University for a semester. These issues are going to come up whether the Arbcom thinks they need to deal with them or not, and I for one would rather the arbcom had at least some basic training so as to not make situations worse. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry to sound harsh, but mental states and subjective dispositions should never be arbcom's concern. We should deal with behaviour and not mindsets. It is the same basic argument against treating minors as special cases. Judge behaviour only and its impact on the community - not subjectivity, mental stress, evil intent or anything else. If people are of a disposition where they can't cope with that, then sympathetically, and humanely we suggest to them that they have the right to vanish. Help, and allowances, are available in many quarters, but unfortunately not here. Wikipedia is not qualified to help, nor is it within the aims and objectives of this project. Treat all the same.--
    talk
    ) 14:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. You're free to edit, regardless of your personal status, if you can abide by policy and edit within community norms. If Wikipedia is detrimental to your health, your career, or your personal safety then you've moved past the point where this project can help you. Speaking as someone who knows more about mental health than he ever cared to, no amount of consultation by the committee with a professional could be a replacement for personal consultation, and would have the potential to cause a real tragedy. I don't want the committee playing cop, psychiatrist, or physician, and I don't think the community does either. Either you can ride the train or you can't. Mackensen (talk) 15:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I started to receive proper treatment for bipolar disorder seven years ago, which I consider to have been mostly a success. An arbcom would still stress me perhaps more than most people, although most people I think get stressed by an arbcom or AN/I about them. I just have to take extra care of myself. But if I'd been involved in an arbcom case and the Arbcom had tried to make some special case for me, it would just have been something like putting a stickinng plaster over an arterial bleed :) and perhaps delayed me getting proper help. And yes I had to spend three years extra on my education over it, before wikipedia even existed, never mind arbcom.:) Sticky Parkin 20:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Point of order: This so-called "request" is for policy change and as such is not something that the Arbitration Committee can or should act upon. This is an inappropriate forum for this discussion. It should be moved elsewhere.
  WP:RFAR. Paul August ☎
  16:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)