RFC on Arbitration Committee Options

[Dzonatas]

Of course. More community democracy is the answer to everything. Because it's about....me, me, me, me, me...ten thousand little mes, with Mr. Wales as the biggest "me" of all. That must be the source of the phrase "internet meme."

On a note of the democracy, I was surprised to see those that were in favor to bring the RFC to the table were also against democratic proposals and suggestions that could replace the anarchic appointment style binds. It appears as if some want to bring a circus to town at the feet of ArbCom and use the audience to single-out a few issues; when those issues are dealt with under the pressure of the audience's expectation of circus fun, the performers will quickly leave stage (as some have before) and put up sign saying "nothing more to see -- move along now."

Innovative Drama (ID)?... favoring the indef-block to avoid ID while at the same time promoting ID.

How many premeditated RFCs does Durova have hidden, written with only the evidence she wants everybody to see, and ready to pull out at a moments notice (upon raised ID moments)?

[Pumpkin Muffins]

... I am on the ArbCom mailing list and participate there actively. I am quite aware of what is going on. In the current case, there is this rumor floating around that the ArbCom conducted a secret trial. That is not what happened. There are no secret trials. The ArbCom does often, and quite properly, discuss matters with discretion, as a courtesy to involved parties, and in general this has worked very well all around.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo, are you saying that the Arbitration case on Orangemarlin was not conducted secretly and that Orangemarlin was informed of it and able to offer a defence? DuncanHill (talk) 14:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

[1]

Can't wait to see how this plays out.

Jimbo squandered any assumption of good faith I had for him long ago. But it no longer angers me; I've just learned to expect spin and drivel from a moron who doesn't attach meaning to his words.

In this case however, I truly hope that his words end up to be true.

[Piperdown]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=222479020

This is also a key issue, in that the Arbs have on occasion completely countermanded community policies to support obvious COIs that Jimbo has, for whatever reason, stuck up for.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Mantanmoreland&&title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_comment%2FMantanmoreland&diff=190896597&oldid=190863074] The outcome of the Mantanmoreland case is one example of how the Arb's fealty to the expressed wishes of "the God-King" allowed a notorious sockpuppeter to walk away from the most prodigious mass of empirical evidence ever assembled against any POV troll in Wikipedia history. Amerique 15:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

hell yeah.

This post has been edited by Piperdown: Sun 29th June 2008, 5:46pm

[cyofee]

As for the outcome of the Mantanmoreland RFAR, I believe that Jimbo's opinion didn't have much influence on the decision.

Everyone intelligent and mentally stable was perfectly aware Mantanmoreland is Garry Weiss and that he had abused Wikipedia in the worst way. The Arbs (mostly Newyorkbrad, I think) decided to try and please everyone as much as possible, and to minimize the drama.

They didn't ban Weiss outright because of the possibility of a lawsuit, and because they feared the Cabal's reaction.

Likewise, they didn't absolve him because everyone outside the Cabal would leave WP in disgust.

The compromise that made it into the final decision only displeased each side a little (relatively speaking). It also banned Weiss in every way except the actual wording. When they caught him socking again (which they knew they would, soon enough), they banned him in the letter, too. And that time, there was not space for the Cabalists to complain and cause drama.

[Piperdown]

apologist bullshit.

to say they let him walk so they could put surveillance on for more definitive evidence is laughable.

fraud baudy, flonight, thatcher, slimvirgin, jayjg, and jimbo himself were all made fools of after the first Gary-Mantan-Tomstoner-Lastexit fiasco, and it took the community to step up and do what the Arbclowns wouldn't.

to a man, woman, and unfortunately in WP's case, child, the folks who stepped forward and had the anonymous guts to take action were all incredbily "new" to the scandal, lol. why was that? rhetorical question.

the part about wanting to avoid a lawsuit, lol. About what? gary wouldn't dare try and drag anyone into court that could easily show what a liar he is. WP should have been worried about having their Bono donations taken in court by misters bagley especially, and byrne.

gary was on their secret mailing lists under two of his accounts, lol.

Those 1841 emails are still coming, looks like Mitchell's still adding more chapters to deepcapture.com...

This post has been edited by Piperdown: Sun 29th June 2008, 7:53pm

[Dzonatas]

I agree, particularly with point 3. Former Arbs can always be consulted, but as Raul654's recent edits have shown, remaining in the loop apparently gives one the impression that they still have the authority to act on behalf of the Committee, and that doesn't sit well with some of us. If we felt Raul should be acting for and on behalf of the Committee, he would have been voted back into it, no?

Sounds like that can be equally applied to admin status and the use of admin tools, also.

You did to endorse Moreschi statement, where somehow I was 'conveniently' used as an example.

Moreschi must be a fan not letting people be able to defend themselves, as he or she indef-blocked me before I even can get my statement on the ArbCom page.

Take a look back at the AN/I thread (he refers too) right before Durova even stepped in on it.

My main mistake is that some of what I said could have been simplified if I pointed directly to WP:BRD misuses about the other editor's tactics, and that the report probably should have started on incivility noticeboard instead of the main AN/I.

The community doesn't get to see that evidence now that the Astrology article is deleted.

Durova jumped in and changed the discussion of a thread and complained when I tried to turn the thread back to Astrology where it originally started. Somehow she made it appear as if the whole thread was started against me, and thus she tried to make me defend myself against her nonsense issues that she brought up before and were shot down. The image of Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement illustrates this pretty clearly. Did her comments stay in rationale to within the top three sections, of the Graham's image, in her comments in the Astrology thread on AN/I?

She even calls for a block on me because I missed to type the "WP:" in WP:HEC. I could have just used bold power of a wiki to just edit my comment and fix it, but she even complains further about me even trying to correct my comment. Correcting one's own comment is "disruption" that needs indef-block?

Should I make public the e-mail(s) that was/were sent that confirms the whole ordeal wasn't directly about me, but that there are other issues happening that have made admins unwilling to take any action (based on what maybe foundation "suggestions").

How do these suggestions get spread and how do people confirm it is actually from the foundation? I'm not a conspiracy theorist against the foundation, but I'm somebody who can think of the possibility that these so-called "suggestion" never did begin with the foundation. This whole RFC is about taking Wales and ArbCom friends out of the loop, and that would make it seem easy for anybody to accuse any statement from ArbCom as a "suggestion" from the foundation. What is worse, is that the suggestion can be spread around as official and... well, that has [url=http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-Fwd%3A--WL-News--Wikimedia-Foundation-in-danger-of%09losing-immunity-under-the-Communications-Decency-Act-to17303406.html#a17307731]scenario was discussed on foundation-l[/url, as well].

This begs the question: who is spreading these so-called suggestions?

Shoemaker's Holiday's tries to magic-logic sense out of his or her 'defend yourself or we'll assume it's 100% true' threat. If that kind of logic makes sense, that make SirFozzie look pretty bad for not replying here on Wikipedia Review to evidence of how he evens takes things out of context and makes things up. Where do these so-called "suggestions" start?

This post has been edited by Dzonatas: Sun 29th June 2008, 8:42pm

[prospero]

I don't think that the arbitrators should have a special wiki. That seems to be contrary to providing openness and disclosure in their deliberations. I mean why do things in public when you can do it on there and then transwiki the final result?

[Rootology]

Note that the RFC begins with a "Statement by (somebody or other)"... so just who is that User:Somebody or other who's bringing this RFC?

Durova?

That text was already there when she moved it. Looks like Lawrence or someone had it there before when it was a draft.

I don't think that the arbitrators should have a special wiki. That seems to be contrary to providing openness and disclosure in their deliberations. I mean why do things in public when you can do it on there and then transwiki the final result?

Well, better that they name IPs and private information about people that may have done nothing wrong in public? There is stuff they can't do because Mike Godwin and outside attorneys would step on their throats over because of the privacy policy. A wiki is probably easier to restrict than a mail list, assuming the wiki is limited to "just" current arbs.

The idea on the RFC of two years terms and two year permanent term limits seems like a good idea. It would keep the arbs fresh and eventually all the old people would cycle off.

That would keep approaches fresh, I guess, and get rid of traction. If they're crazy for "institutional memory" thats what the mail list is for.

[LaraLove]

I agree, particularly with point 3. Former Arbs can always be consulted, but as Raul654's recent edits have shown, remaining in the loop apparently gives one the impression that they still have the authority to act on behalf of the Committee, and that doesn't sit well with some of us. If we felt Raul should be acting for and on behalf of the Committee, he would have been voted back into it, no?

Sounds like that can be equally applied to admin status and the use of admin tools, also.

You did to endorse Moreschi statement, where somehow I was 'conveniently' used as an example.

[snip]

I don't know anything about your case, but I specifically endorsed all but the point which includes it. He used your case as an example of why AN/I should be reformatted to be like RFC. I don't think that is either necessary or of possible benefit.

[The Joy]

My understanding of former Arbitrators or Arbitrator Emerita is that they are technically in reserve and can be appointed by Jimbo at any time if he deems it necessary. I notice now though that statement is no longer on the ArbCom page. Did it change?

My question is can the WP Community at its current size and diversity of opinion come to any form of consensus on something as radical as abolishing or modifying the role of the ArbCom?

[everyking]

I really only have three problems with the current ArbCom situation and I think I'll comment on it here instead of in that RfC.

1. Arbs should have one year terms instead of three years so that they'll be more accountable to the community. Good performing arbs will be reelected, poorly performing or absent arbs won't be (hopefully) and will be replaced more quickly this way.

2. Jimbo shouldn't have final say in actually selecting the arbs. It should strictly be by vote tally. A selection process separate from Jimbo shold be used in case of ties.

3. I know some current arbs that I greatly respect don't agree with me on this one, but I don't think that former arbs should still have access to the arbs mailing list, arb wiki, or any other arb forums that the rest of us don't have access to.

Other than that, I think the current arb structure and method of operation is fine.

I agree with these three. The arbitrators elected in the last election are generally fine; it's the old ones who are so awful, and the former arbs commenting behind the scenes are probably just as bad. Either the community is getting better at choosing these people, or arbitrators get worse at their job with experience, perhaps due to cynicism or apathy. Removing Jimbo from the process would also be good; it would be to a large extent symbolic, but it would also prevent any future cases of outrageous appointments like those of Jayjg or Essjay. I think, however, that even more important than any of these factors is the secrecy of ArbCom deliberation. Imagine if the ArbCom had to argue everything out in the open--everybody could see who favored what position, what evidence and reasoning they used, and everybody could react accordingly. I was completely handicapped in my ArbCom cases by not knowing how to defend myself; up against Phil Sandifer, a deft master of ArbCom prosecution who had an excellent relationship with the ArbCom, I was left swinging at shadows, not knowing what exactly I needed to refute or what kind of evidence would have any chance of swaying them, and all I could do was deliberately play for time. I cannot imagine what sort of reasoning went into the ArbCom's decisions against me, but I have no doubt that it would have shriveled and disintegrated when exposed publicly; indeed, the ArbCom probably would never have considered such absurd decisions if they knew that anyone could see what they were thinking.

[Dzonatas]

I don't know anything about your case, but I specifically endorsed all but the point which includes it. He used your case as an example of why AN/I should be reformatted to be like RFC. I don't think that is either necessary or of possible benefit.

I appreciate your response and clarification.

The rest of my message was more in reply to my case being tied in the RFC, but I tacked it also onto where I addressed your quote.

The non-linear threads on AN/I do make situations worse.

[Neil]

I made a bunch of proposals to the RFC, summarised here:

1) Four tranches of seven arbitrators, instead of three of five.
2) Two year terms, not three
3) Take Checkuser and Oversight off the Arbcom
4) Empower RFC to remove Arbitrators who are inactive or bad at the job
5) Remove mailing list access from former Arbitrators
6) Appoint an independent audit team to review this latest mess
7) No making and closing cases without the named parties being given an opportunity to state their case
8) Assign cases to defined teams of arbs rather than the whole committee
9) Stop using jargon, legalese and latin terms

[Moulton]

I would add a Tenth Commandment.

If a blocked editor is named in an RfC or RfAr case, they have a right to submit a response to any remarks which impugn their long-stolen good name.

[Giggy]

Um... I think that's already the case. (Unless you're a dick on it) you can edit your talk page and have it copied over.

[Neil]

Um... I think that's already the case. (Unless you're a dick on it) you can edit your talk page and have it copied over.

Giggy is correct. Or you can email your comment to any administrator or user in good standing (you would, I imagine, have an idea which people would be worth emailing).

[Moulton]

Not every admin believes that a blocked editor has a right to answer questions put to him on an RfC.

Perhaps it would be helpful if that right were expressly guaranteed.

[Kelly Martin]

Giggy is correct. Or you can email your comment to any administrator or user in good standing (you would, I imagine, have an idea which people would be worth emailing).

People have been threatened with sanctions for "editing on behalf of banned users" for offering to post statements from said banned users to administrative or arbitration-related pages on Wikipedia. And there are reports of people attempting to submit statements by email to the Arbitration Committee, only to have the Committee pretend that they never got the email.

I've seen the former occur; I can't be certain of the latter as some of the people making these reports are themselves somewhat unreliable.

[Neil]

Giggy is correct. Or you can email your comment to any administrator or user in good standing (you would, I imagine, have an idea which people would be worth emailing).

People have been threatened with sanctions for "editing on behalf of banned users" for offering to post statements from said banned users to administrative or arbitration-related pages on Wikipedia. And there are reports of people attempting to submit statements by email to the Arbitration Committee, only to have the Committee pretend that they never got the email.

I've seen the former occur; I can't be certain of the latter as some of the people making these reports are themselves somewhat unreliable.

I have done so in the past, I've also made edits previously made by banned users which had been reverted under the stupid "EDITS MADE BY BANNED USERS MUST ALL BE REVERTED" rule.

If they make a good case, and there's a real concern, then it does not hurt to readdress the issue.

A bit of carefully wording this when posting their statement never hurts (something like "I appreciate X is a banned user, but they emailed me this and I have to say I have a real concern they were hard done by and I feel it is worth revisiting this issue")

Never heard of an email disappearing when the Arbitration Committee received it, I have a feeling your instincts are correct and this is a bit of flim flam.

[Giggy]

There's always the excuse that the ArbCom were very busy at the time. That's what I got a few months the last time I bothered trying to contact them.