Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee

Thoughts

Please feel free to leave any thoughts you have on this. Obviously, still a draft. Lawrence § t/e 17:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you add a section on scale problems? I believe arbcom have had internal discussions on this in the sense of what happens as arbcom gets bigger, and as wikipedia gets bigger. In fact, it might be an idea to ask if arbitrators would be willing to tell us what they have discussed themselves in terms of arbcom reform, so that we avoid re-inventing the wheel. Also, the role of Jimmy Wales might be relevant. Finally, that new committee that arbcom set up to report back to them on nationalist editing (I think). That should be mentioned. Plus any other new stuff that I've forgotten. Hey, why not discuss the recent change for format on the arbitration pages (asking people to submit full proposed principles, findings of fact and remedies, rather than separate PP/FF/R). Um. The clerking system as well, though there doesn't seem much wrong with that. Maybe the request system as well. Oh, and the voting rules, some of which may seem arcane or need better explanation to some. But maybe this is going to far. Start at the top and work down, picking out the major issues. Carcharoth (talk) 17:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Asking the AC directly is a good idea to weigh in on the draft, I'll post it on that page. I was tempted to get down and dirty into the minute details, but then the format alone would be massive. My idea for wider, sweeping topic sections would be to allow people to fit in those bits. I might think something in the AC is wonky, but another 100 users may not... Lawrence § t/e 17:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the kind of thing people do when all else fails. I've been disappointed with several recent decisions also, yet the immediate cause for today's misery is something that's much easier to fix than getting an undertaking like this one off the ground. Namely, community sanctions need to be better defined and standardized.

A community ban is a block that no admin is willing to undo is a concept that went into policy in summer 2005--when this site had a tenth of its present registered accounts and just a few hundred admins. It isn't scalable. Particularly, that weakness in the banning policy dovetails with vagenuess in the definition of wheel war in a way that made today's debacle inevitable. This is a dynamic that crops up whenever we have a high profile controversial community banning proposal. The difference this time is that we're used to kicking the situation over to ArbCom, and now we're stuck because it's already been there.

As a community, we've been stuck in the dark ages about community sanctions. Wouldn't it be better in general to have some standardized way to intervene earlier with milder sanctions? Suppose we did 1-3 month topic bans before things reached this point? Although I haven't followed all the details on the early history of the Mantanmoreland case, imagine how things might have gone if a brief topic parole had been applied in first half of 2006?

Suggest you put this on hold for now and see what we can do about those areas. It's easier to revise a policy than to haul all of ArbCom into RFC. Durova^Charge! 17:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This isn't really a specific reaction to the Mantanmoreland situation. You got railroaded quickly through your RFAR. The IRC RFAR was basically the RMS Titanic. The Waterboarding RFAR and the Mantanmoreland one both basically went out of their way to not address major concerns of the community. Out of the recent ones I've stuck my eyes on, only Bluemarine has worked out completely well. 1/5 is not so good, and that's just me. My other reasoning for this was that an open-ending RFC will show what the community expects of the AC, and the consensus(s) if any will be the mandated changes the AC must take on in it's service to us. It seemed like a simple elegant solution for any possible problems like that. If 1-2 months after the RFC opens someone goes to them, and says: "200-300 users here have instructed that the AC is doing this, this, and this this way from now on," thats it, and some problems fixed. That is the hope. Lawrence § t/e 17:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, then put the 2-3 months and numbers of votes you hope to get, in the document. And make it a specific timescale and forbid people to moan about currently open cases. If this is going to be open for 2-3 months, it certainly does need to be rock-solid. Carcharoth (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say 3 months, actually. Though I wouldn't be unhappy about 2 months. Carcharoth (talk) 17:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I tagged it for 3. Lawrence § t/e 20:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. If you haven't looked at it already, try Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman. Durova^Charge! 02:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Who to ask for feedback

I see that the current list of what links here shows who has been asked about this. Any more? Noticebaords? Or do you just want individual feedback at this stage? (I came here from FT2's page). Carcharoth (talk) 17:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Since it's still a draft, I was figuring on starting small, then working out by "word of mouth". This is the sort of RFC that needs to leave the gate rock-solid when I hit the move button and kick it over to Wikipedia space. Lawrence § t/e 17:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Omnibus

I've seen a bunch of ways that ArbCom has failed. The most recent IRC case was a disaster... a spectacular case of private interests prevailing over the public good. However, when a person does an RFC like this, the effect will be to catch all sorts of voices. The unfrozen cavemen of the ethnic struggles will talk about how they hate it, the long time content people will talk about how they hate it, the people who think the only problem is people using bad words will talk about how they hate it, etc., and yet all of these people will be hating different, and sometimes diametrically opposed, things. Therefore, we can all agree that the mess is a mess, it's in the clean up that we fail.

I would point, however, to one thing above all others for its reason: it is not elected. Because it is selected, not elected, and selected by someone without a day-to-day experience of the project and the mechanics of the place, the selection basis gets highly suspect, even if it isn't necessarily corrupt. I.e. the persons.

A second thing is the lack of any appeal structure and the lack of accountability for bad decisions. These are both horrible given the size of the project and the necessary narrowness of any one user's point of view. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

In regards to selected vs. elected, that as anything on any local Wikimedia project can be changed by the local community so long as whatever is changed does not interfere with the core Foundational principles. The community can easily convert it to a straight election if enough support the change. Lawrence § t/e 17:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the selected/elected issue is largely a semantic one; in the past couple elections the top vote-getters (by percentage) have gotten seats. If there's a problem with the committee being out of touch, then the community really only has itself to blame. Mackensen (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This seems really ambitious. It needs a lot of preface to make it very clear what is going on, and since it's a deviation from normal RFC process, it needs explanatory info on why following the deviation is appropriate and what the deviation is achieving. It's going to be hard to maintain an orderly process, and moreover, hard to justify. None of that is to say it's a bad idea, just that I'm dubious without a lot of preliminary work. I do wish it well. ++Lar: t/c 18:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I still agree with what I wrote here back in March. Further, I'm not sure now is the time for this. Some reexamination of ArbCom and their remit might be in order but perhaps not this very second. ++Lar: t/c 05:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Why? What's wrong about this specific moment? If they're going to continue things alone the lines of BLPSE and the sourcing adjudication board, then the best time to do this is now rather than wait for things to get worse ... Celarnor ^{Talk to me}

Unlike Lar, my position has moved considerably since March. If it had been entirely my choice I wouldn't have taken this live today. But Lawrence Cohen's parting wish was going to be honored, and quickly. And really it's been looking increasingly likely that the RFC would occur. I ask experienced Wikipedians to join me in setting the right tone for it. Durova^Charge! 06:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

my statement

The statement I just made could conceivably be put under "Statements about what does not work well in the current Arbitration Committee process". I'll leave it up to Lawrence. daveh4h 18:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I rv'd your statement and put a "RFC not open yet!" note on the page. Sorry! We're still trying to figure out the RFC format. Lawrence § t/e 18:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Mackensen's ramblings

Broadly, this RfC will fail for the same reasons that it has been brought forth--our current processes don't scale and we lack mechanisms to manage "interests." I've thought for some time the community in its present form was at least ungoverned and perhaps ungovernable. In this RfC, as has been noted above already, you'll hear from every interest who believes ArbCom got it wrong at some point in the past--content editors, administrators, BLP folks, nationalists, deletionists, etc. Heaven knows Arbcom makes non-optimal decisions all the time, but speaking as a party to these deliberations it comes in no small part from an inability to grasp complex situations and determine the best outcome for the project. I'm not convinced any body of 12-15 men and women, no matter how gifted or how well chosen, could accomplish this in a satisfactory manner.

I think solution, sadly, lies in an expansion of the existing hierarchy beyond strictly technical rights. At the moment, the structure is, vaguely, Administrators-->Arbitration Committee, with the CheckUsers floating around on their own. Back in 2005 it was still possible to talk about administrator consensus, but it was a smaller body and shared a common outlook. I miss those days, but they aren't coming back.

A few months ago a couple of us kicked around the idea of delegating block review from ArbCom to a body of users, with final authority/final appeal still resting with ArbCom. What might also make sense is replacing the RfC system with something akin to the American appellate system: groups of users/administrators with powers to ban users from articles or to take other steps short of bans, with appeal to Arbcom. In other words, taking review out of the hands of administrators/the community en masse and investing it in an appointed or elected body. This frees the community to focus on content issues.

These are ramblings. While I think it's an idea worth considering I'm not convinced of its efficacy. I do know that Arbcom cases with talk pages in excess of 300KB symbolize failure. Mackensen (talk) 21:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

My 2 cents are that Arbcom is overworked and understaffed. If this RfC does go through, I'd support the idea of splitting up some of Arbs functions (like the fact that users with multiple non-violating accounts can register them with Arbcom!) and maybe even having Arb panels instead of a full body of 15 possible for each case, but that would be a discussion for the RfC. MBisanz ^talk 06:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression arbcom have had internal discussions about this and other issues. It would be nice if they could update us on this, and let us know if there has been progress on this. Carcharoth (talk) 12:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The Committee is, generally speaking, lethargic on any matter having to do with abstract, long-term reform. I think the initiative in any significant reform of the hierarchy and the pseudo-constitutional system we have will need to come from the community as a whole if it's to go anywhere in practice.

(And I do agree with Mackensen that a more developed hierarchy is likely to be the best long-term solution. This goes beyond the failures of the Committee in its normal tasks, incidentally; there are other areas in which we play no role—policy formulation, content disputes, and so forth—in which the size and non-homogeneity of the community is beginning to make traditional approaches infeasible. In the long run, the community ought to consider how it wants such decisions to be made, and set up the necessary infrastructure to make that work.) Kirill 13:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dealing with scale? Or can anyone come up with a better name. Do we have a name for long-term strategy pages? Essays? Carcharoth (talk) 16:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd call it Wikipedia:Devolution, but that might be begging the question. Mackensen (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Very sensible proposals. Thanks, Mackensen. I think we kicked around the idea of delegation in early 2006 (mini-arbcoms akin to circuits was one method of doing it that I considered). I'm cautiously happy about your proposals as outlined above, although still a bit iffy about the arbitration committee' idea of a sourcing committee (once a dodgy source gets the imprimatur, it might be difficult to revoke!) --Jenny 00:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

being an arbcom member is status and not a responsibility

In my opinion, a majority of arbcom does not bother to read and understand all the evidence in every case and this has been true for as long as we have had an arbcom. Most are just admins that have leveled up. WAS 4.250 (talk) 11:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Ouch. Whose fault is that? But this comment may be a bit premature. ++Lar: t/c 17:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not just laziness--in many cases the combined size of the evidence and workshop pages are simply beyond the capacity of a volunteer to grasp. I stood down at the last election because I didn't have the time to do the job right. Moreover, there's three or four open cases at once, each demanding attention. Again, I think that's an argument for splitting up responsibility. There's no reason for the committee to hear all cases en banc; in practice, one or two people take the lead in a given case anyway. Mackensen (talk) 18:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that in the last election I asked a leading question about splitting up to handle more cases, it was not very well received (for example Raul654's answer or NewYorkBrad's answer)... perhaps it's time to revisit that. ++Lar: t/c 22:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

On this very note, I had an idea that I mentioned to Brad that I need to try to write up tomorrow. It was for basically two types of AC cases. By default, all cases, period full stop, would a "Closed" format. Arbiters must announce the scope and things they will look at when accepting the case based on opening statements and linked early evidence. Slightly processy, but it would allow cases to be much sharper and focused. To add additional facets to the case, parties or whomever would propose requests to workshop, with why it should expand, to cover what, and with backing evidence. The AC would then decide in public there to expand or not on the valid points and questions. Each case would carry an "In a nutshell..." type header template so people know what questions the AC is considering. If an entire case hinges on, "Did Lawrence Cohen and Mackensen collaborate to frame Jimmy Wales for the Lindberg baby?" only evidence related to this is accepted. Everyone knows the proposed decision will revolve around this alone. But it can expand to a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th question, if a demonstrated need exists. Save us a crapton of time. If the AC decides to accept the case as an "Open" case--the IRC cases and Mantanmoreland cases probably would have, given the scale--it's like now, and anything goes. A "Closed" case is a precise trial, an "Open" case is a Senate investigation and hearing. Open cases would be infrequent to rare. If the AC feels it needs to, it can easily convert a Closed case to Open partway through, if the need arises. Lawrence § t/e 18:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

RFC section survey

OK, I have these sections now in this order.

• 1: Statements about what works well in the current Arbitration Committee process

Obvious.

• 2: Statements about what does not work well in the current Arbitration Committee process

Obious. Set seperate from "what works well" section on purpose, to allow more specific statements on both sides.

• 3: Clarifications on limits of what the Arbitration Committee can't do

This one has funny wording, but it's deliberate I think. The AC as a body I think can try to do anything--whether the community lets them, who knows? I see comments all the time though that the AC can't or doesn't do such and such, often conflicting slightly. Needs clearing up.

• 4: The Arbitration Committee and scaling

Made this a dedicated section as well--this seems to be a major concern going forward.

• 5: Arbitration Committee change and reform

Ideas about how to fix, change, or reform the AC and it's processes, aside from scaling matters.

• 6: Views and statements about this RFC

Views and statements about the RFC itself.

• 7: Discussion

Standard discussion section for RFCs, directing people to post here on talk.

I'm hesitant to break it up too much more. An RFC with a million top level sections will be a waste, but I think these are general and specific enough to start out. What do you all think? Lawrence § t/e 19:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Broadening the scope, making this about governance in general

The following proposes a somewhat dramatic shift of focus. I like what Lawrence has started here and am fine with sticking with something along these lines, but I'm suggesting we take it even further.

As Lar says above this is quite ambitious, but if it's going to be ambitious already why not throw caution to the wind and make it extremely ambitious? We could turn this into a community-wide "Request for Comment:Wikipedia Governance." Obviously discussion of the Arbitration process would be a huge part of that, but there's much more we could be talking about. Comments above already suggest a broadened scope would be good. Mackensen, MBisanz, and Kirill suggest devolving responsibilities to whole new subsets of users (which presumably would be "new processes" of the kind we are to avoid discussing in the "Arbitration Committee change and reform" section of this page) and others have raised the issue of election vs. selection which goes to questions about democracy, voting, and Jimbo's role that involve more than simple ArbCom elections.

As Durova and Carcharoth say the overall problem here is one of scale. Wikipedia is just too big to run the way it was run three years ago, and we need to have a big, honkin', community-wide conversation about that and what we should do as a result. Said conversation should last for months and bring in as many people as possible. We could run the proposal by Jimbo and the ArbCom and, if they are game, get their imprimatur so more folks would be inclined to participate. We would maintain very strict civility rules (maybe using a few different admin "clerks" a la ArbCom) and insist that the discussion not drudge up any old grievances, but rather confine itself to analyzing what works now and why, what doesn't work now and why, and what we might do about it going forward (general note: I think we would want to confine the discussion to issues of governance, not of content - they are obviously related but ultimately distinct).

I would also suggest that if we engage in a process like this (and if we don't do it now I think/hope it's inevitable that we'll do it some day) that we rid ourselves of some of Wikipedia's traditional skepticism of "experts" and consult some folks who have ability to shed real light (not heat) on the issues we will be discussing. Obviously we all have our areas of expertise (I can tell you quite a bit about the history of hip-hop and of American foreign policy during the Cold War, just ask!) but few of us know much about how to effectively organize massive online communities devoted to an intellectual project. Actually probably no one is a true expert on that, but there are certainly some people I'd much rather hear from. Why not consult organizational psychologists, anthropologists, sociologists, political scientists, and folks in similar fields? I think we would especially want to hear from those who have studied large online communities, or even large communities in general. The best place to start finding such people would be among Wikipedians, as I'm sure we have a number of folks with expertise in these areas. We could have some of these editors provide us with suggested reading lists that would educate those of us who are not experts and, more importantly, ask them to prepare white papers that deal specifically with Wikipedia in its current state as it relates to questions of governance. Obviously all of this "expert feedback" would not determine what we decide to do - the community would do that - it would just help us to make highly informed choices. Otherwise I feel in a conversation like this a lot of us (myself included) would be shooting from the hip without knowing what in the hell we were talking about.

So that's my BIG IDEA. Maybe it would function better in a different venue, though personally I think simply broadening the scope here would work well. There's been a lot of anger about certain recent ArbCom decisions and I think something needs to be done to address that which is why it makes sense that Lawrence set up this RfC. It seems to me though that this is a good time to have a Wikipedia wide conversation about how this remarkable project will actually function in the years ahead - better sooner than later. Thoughts?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

A complete, community-wide discussion about the future of Wikipedia? If it could be done without becoming a battleground, this could be one of the best ideas I've ever heard. Dr. eXtreme 19:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Possibly relevant links

• First ratification vote (talk)
  • Presumably on a revision dated 5 February or earlier. This one as edited by Jimbo Wales adding a link to the vote seems likely.
• Second ratification vote, by the community
  • The vote is on adopting Wikipedia:Arbitration policy "as it stands in the edit of 14:15, 30 Mar 2004"
    • There is no edit so dated. My guess, based on timezone issues, is that it is actually this edit, dated 13:15 UTC of that day, that was understood to be the subject of the vote.
  • The vote was intended to run from 2 April 2004 to 9 April 2004.
  • The vote was not closed until the end of 2005.
  • At the end of 9 April 2004, the count was 28-4 with one abstain.
  • The final count when it closed was 49-15 with two abstains.
• changes since then - what legitimacy, if any, do these have if ratification was required to adopt the policy? Are there any substantive changes? I don't see many at the first read through.
• Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy/Procedure_for_changing_this_policy indicates the existence of several past community efforts to change the way Arbcom does things.
• Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy/Proposed_amendment_revote - a number of the proposed amendments had broader support than the original ratification. There was a requirement for WP:100 votes with an 80% majority in two weeks that was not met, but the original ratification vote did not even come close 100 votes in the year and a half it was left open.
  • Specifically:

    A1 vote count was 77-4.*

    A3 vote count was 40-3.

    C1 vote count was 54-4.*

    D2 vote count was 46-2.

    *One of the support votes was an account which had no edits before or since outside the vote.

  • Note that there was a strict 500-edit requirement for suffrage in the ratification vote that did not apply to the amendments. I have not taken this into account, but note that users with under 500 edits could note their opinion in the "other support" section of the ratification vote, and only one vote is present in that section (others did, but their votes were moved into the main support section as their edit counts rose).
• Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy/Proposals may also be relevant

—Random832 17:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone think that any of the above (A) constitutes an irregularity at all or (B) is enough to call the legitimacy of the committee into question? I think A, I'm not sure one way or the other on B yet. --Random832 (contribs) 15:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Accountability

One issue I have with the present ArbCom process is the lack of accountability to the community. Committee members are appointed for three year terms, which is nearly an eternity in wiki-time. There has been much discussion about overriding or extending specific ArbCom decisions or indecisions. However, comparatively little seems to have been said about individual ArbCom members. Shouldn't there be some sort of mechanism for dealing with ArbCom members who have lost the faith of the community, and thus should be removed from their positions? I don't see where in the proposed RfC the possibility of instituting recall procedures would be added, but I see this as a necessary and long-overdue addition (as is admin recall, for that matter, but that's another discussion). I believe recent cases provide ample illustrations for the need for this addition, but believe this is not the place to present it at present. Please let me know if I am in error. Jay*Jay (talk) 08:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, there shouldn't be any means of removing ArbCom members between terms. That would completely destroy ArbCom's ability to rise above petty political squabbles and deliver its unbiased, honest conclusions without fear of retribution from "the community." ArbCom is our judiciary, and while there is precedent for judges to stand for re-election from time to time, there is no precedent for allowing the deliberative process to be placed under threat of popularity contests. FCYTravis (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course there should be a means of removing members between terms - and especially since they are so absurdly long. I am not suggesting that it should be a popularity process or a !vote, but if there is a genuine situation where the judgment of a member across a group of situations no longer enjoys the support of the community, that member should be removed. Relying on Jimbo to act in such a case is ridiculous, since this is a community- and consensus-based project. The US has procedures for removing Governors (recall elections) or Presidents (impeachment). Commonwealth countries can (and have) removed judges by parliamentary actions, and governments have even been removed. I am not suggesting a process that is easy to implement or which could be used as a weapon - it would probably require a substantial group to initiate - but none of that changes the fact that accountability is a reasonable check on the scope of the discretion enjoyed by ArbCom, and an appropriate inclusion in a balanced system. In WP terms, a process determined by bureaucrats where reasons for arguing that actions fall outside the reasonable bounds of discretion (and not simply that an editor disagrees with an action) would seem appropriate to me in the abstract. Jay*Jay (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom members are not Wiki-politicians. They are Wiki-judges. I vehemently oppose any attempt to further politicize our dispute resolution process. It is not for no good reason that U.S. federal judges are appointed for life, and may not be removed except in cases of true malfeasance and corruption, through the impeachment process. We do not remove judges because we might disagree with their conclusions in a particular case. Such a process would be one step further toward mob rule over deliberation and thoughtfulness.

Three years is not "absurdly long." ArbCom is a deliberative body, and any shorter period of time would compromise their effectiveness. ArbCom is there precisely to take long-term views and provide perspective based on experience, not on hot-button fervor.

Just as in the case of administrator recall, which has been repeatedly rejected by the community, there is not a single example which can be pointed to as to why we would need this process. Who would be recalled? Why? What grounds would be sufficient to say something's "outside the reasonable bounds of discretion?" There is no evidence that any ArbCom member has ever done something which would justify being recalled - so why would we invent something to answer a question nobody has asked? FCYTravis (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am not suggestion removal based on disagreements over conclusions in any one particular case, as the expressions (empahses added) judgment of a member across a group of situations and actions fall outside the reasonable bounds of discretion (and not simply that an editor disagrees with an action) make clear. Further, US federal judges' decisions are reviewable by the Supreme Court. Supreme Court actions can be overturned by legislative action. All three groups are constrained by a constitution. ArbCom decisions have very few of these sorts of limitations - the discretion allowed at present is essentially unlimited. Imposing a restriction of discretion within the broad region which might be considered reasonable to the community is neither overly restrictive nor unreasonable. Where reasonable people may disagree, discretion is fine - but consistent behaviours that lead to substantial disquiet about the competence of an ArbCom member should not be ignored if they were to exist. You note that federal judges can only be removed for true malfeasance and corruption - at present ArbCom members cannot be removed by the community, or by fellow ArbCom members, or by any other formal process even then. Such a situation is unsatisfactory and (I would contend) unjustifiable. Discussing whether provision should be made for some recall mechanism is perfectly reasonable, and this is not the place to debate what mechanism might be supported for adoption. Jay*Jay (talk) 18:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Supreme Court decisions cannot be overturned by a mere "legislative action" as such. They can only be overruled by amendment to the Constitution - which is composed of legislative actions, but is far more involved of an undertaking than passing a law.

You need to define how the "judgment of a member across a group of situations" being "outside the reasonable bounds of discretion" would ever be actionable. You need to define what those "reasonable bounds of discretion" are.

"Significant disquiet" among a group of people is no reason to remove a judge. Earl Warren aroused "significant disquiet" among people when he led the Warren Court to a series of decisions which shattered precedent, along with segregation and discrimination laws.

I would support a mechanism which allows for ArbCom members to be impeached by ArbCom upon evidence of specific acts of malfeasance, corruption or abuse of office. No popular-vote system based on challenging an arbitrator's "discretion" is acceptable. That goes down the path of mob rule - which is precisely what the ArbCom was invented to prevent. FCYTravis (talk) 18:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Just as a factual note... Supreme Court decisions can, and have been overturned by legislative action. Not all Supreme Court decisions are based on constitutional arguments. For example, the rulings requiring the EPA to regulate CO2 emissions are based on statute, and could be overturned by legislative action. --Barberio (talk) 23:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

As anyone who has ever taken any kind of elementary political science course can tell you, there are multiple recourses for the people to disagree with SCOTUS. First, they can just decide to ignore it; SCOTUS has no command authority to any military or law enforcement agencies, State or Federal. If everyone disagrees with it, they can just keep going about their business. Second, the legislative body can continue passing the law; SCOTUS does not have ex post facto priveleges either; as long as Congress continues to pass a law, then it is still in effect until SCOTUS says otherwise; once declared unconstitutional, they can simply pass it again and wait for a case to elevate itself to the court. These are fairly simple elements of a system of checks and balances to prevent the abuse of power. Unfortunately, Wikipedia has none of these. All we have is one authority that does whatever the hell it wants, and everyone else is powerless to stop abuse until the next election rolls around; unless you count the Foundation as a check, but they would only step in under the most egregious of circumstances. It can't be relied on as an effective check to ArbCom's "everyday" abuses of power. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I will also note that judges, including Supreme Court judges, can be impeached, or otherwise removed.--Filll (talk | wpc) 00:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I would counsel against taking lessons from American political science as a model for Wikipedia. The Committee isn't really a court of law and its authority isn't really subject to challenge in quite the same way. It might be interesting to sit down and write a history of those occasions in which Arbcom's authority has been successfully challenged. I suspect (from my own personal experience) that the majority of such challenges would turn out to have been in implementation. Legitimacy is often questioned, usually by people with some kind of agenda to push, but the broader community is unlikely to fall for that. --Jenny 00:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the Committee's authority isn't subject to challenge is exactly the problem, and is exactly why you wouldn't find a lot of challenges to their actions. You can head over to BLPSE and find lots of people thinking that it's a terrible idea, isn't going to work, and is a gross abuse of their authority, but the community is powerless to stop it. I suspect that if ArbCom had ever done this kind of thing before, they would have met with similar reactions. Assuming what you've said elsewhere is correct, at this point in time, they can do whatever they want whenever they want. While it might to be nice to put yourself in a fantasy world where everyone works together nicely with encyclopedic quality being the most important thing, everyone has different ideas about what that means. We don't vote on ArbComm members to act as a policy creating group. We vote on them to handle disputes and editing conflicts that have become extremely escalated. If the community isn't able to come to consensus about policy, then perhaps a policy creation group is needed. But we certainly can't have the same entity both creating policy and interpreting it; that's a recipe for disaster. It creates complacency in that group (especially with their long term of office), reinforces a mindset of unlimited power and then further reinforces that by actually giving them unlimited power with no substantive check on their actions by either the group that elected them or another group elected by the community to serve as an oversight. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Here I've just told you I have personal experience of successfully challenging decisions by the arbitration committee, and now you're telling me that the problem is that the Committee cannot be challenged. If I, a not particularly powerful or significant user, can recall two successful challenges in which I played a significant part, what does that say about your knowledge of the facts about the Committee's authority?

Moreover arbcom has long been the final arbiter on interpretation of policy and policy enforcement. I don't know how you somehow forgot this. If arbcom says we can enforce the BLP to the fullest extent of our abilities, that's their decision to take and good luck to them. --Jenny 01:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Tony, you were an exceptionally powerful user once upon a time. :) Can you please provide links to these two times you overruled or challenged successfully an Arbitration decision? rootology (T) 01:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I was never more than a humble OTRS volunteer (a role I resigned from when I felt unable to do justice to a very arduous job). I changed the Stevertigo RFA into a rather pointed request for a decision rather than the call for mob justice that had been ordered. The reconvened and desysopped him. I asked the Committee to reconsider a topic ban on a good editor after it became clear that the ban was both unworkable and counter-productive. They reconvened and commuted the ban into some kind of parole or probation. I'm sure there are far more successful challenges to the Committee's rulings than these two in which I was involved. --Jenny 04:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Re Motion to Suspend

Taking this discussion off the main page; It is, perhaps, as untimely to place this Request on the behest of a retiring volunteer upon their resignation as it is in view of the OrangeMarlin matter having contemporaneously being dropped upon the community. An undertaking to file the Request at the appropriate time may have been sufficient (I acknowledge your better understanding of the creator of the draft than I)? The request is filed, as was promised, and now I am suggesting it be suspended until recent events are digested - and hopefully concluded. I certainly would wish to participate in this RfC, but in areas which are unlikely to get the attention they deserve at the present moment. LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree. This RfC is still very fresh and the OM matter is within the scope. I questioned this at first, but after consideration, I see no reason why suspending this until one incident is resolved is really necessary. — _Maggot^Syn 09:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think enough people have either voiced an opinion in the RfC and have started contributing to it, or have directly opposed suspending the RfC, that further discussion on if we should postpone are moot. --Barberio (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Moved conversation

• • Without opinion for or against the motion, please bear in mind that this RFC has been in preparation for four months and bringing it live was the parting request of the retiring Wikipedian whose user space it had been in. Ideally I would have not have timed it for today, but his wish was going to be honored and was certainly not solely based upon a single day's events. Durova^Charge! 08:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Can I ask when the opportune time will arise? Or will we just keep resetting the clock each time the ArbCom make another blunder, and never have an RfC?
  • None of this is out of the blue. I specificaly gave the ArbCom clear questions to answer a week ago about how they were handling things, and there were clear signals from the community that there was a great deal of discomfort with the way ArbCom were handling things. However, instead of listening to the weight of opinion directly delivered to them by concerned parties, some members of ArbCom instead spent their time organising a 'secret trial'. They have clearly lost touch with how Arbitration is supposed to work, and the system has broken down.
  • I'm firmly opposed to suspending this RFC, when your car breaks down in the middle of the wilderness, you don't 'wait around a while to see if it fixes itself'. --Barberio (talk) 10:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    • a better time would be in a couple of weeks when feelings are less heated. Not hours after the trainwreck on WP:AN. (Durova - I realise that) Viridae^Talk 10:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
      • The ArbCom have been train wreck, after train wreck, after train wreck for some time now. There is no sign that ArbCom have taken on any of the criticism and community opinion, and seem set to simply go on as they have been. This can only lead to more and more heated feelings, not less! There has to be a point where you say "Enough. They obviously can not fix their own problems. Time for others to step in." --Barberio (talk) 10:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Personally I believe we definitely do need this RFC, but to allow a short delay until the current situation has been resolved and all the information is out in the open is why I am supporting a suspension. This will allow the RFC to go ahead with all the facts available and hopefully not get completely focused on this particular incident but instead be more wide ranging on ArbCom as a body. Davewild (talk) 10:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
          • Per Davewild, and particularly the last point. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
• To address the opposition to the suspension based on their not being a time limit I think it is pretty impossible to set a time until we know how quickly ArbCom are going to resolve the current situation and how quickly all the necessary information is revealed to the community. This may or may not reveal wider issues with ArbCom. Certainly, personally, I would say not more than two weeks and 1 week (or even less) might be ok depending on this being resolved very quickly. We are not talking about an indefinite postponement here. Davewild (talk) 13:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

  Sidaway has proposed an indefinite suspension and punting the problem to unspecified future 'policy discussions'. I think this is a 'stick our heads in the sand and maintain the status quo' option.

  I also think that any suspension will simply be followed by another suspension due to what ever next drama crops up, and another suspension after that, and so on and so on and so on... The subject has been brought up now, an RfC is current, it has community input, so far the only 'Drama' is being generated by those calling for delay. I simply can't understand why the call to suspend the RfC, unless it's a call to punt a difficult problem into the long grass. --Barberio (talk) 13:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

  Indefinite wasn't part of the proposed motion, but there has been so little traction on either of the "close" motions he put forward I guess he was getting a little lonely... LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

  Look at the timestamps. Snideness is unattractive, and snideness based on sloppiness is ugly and silly. --Jenny 04:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

As an example of how the problems have been tidied under the rug for too long, I first suggested panels of community arbitrators to reduce work-load back in 2007[1]. It was dismissed by claiming that the "work-load problem is greatly reduced now so we don't need to do this yet". --Barberio (talk) 14:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there any reason to believe that the workload has not decreased? The other day I compared the current arbitration case workload with that two years ago when I was an arbitration clerk, and the number of active cases now is only a fraction of what it was then. Most of the arbcom page is given over to minor legalistic quibbles and challenges from previous cases--most of which I notice with some gratification tend to be ignored by the arbitrators.

Rather, I suspect that the signs of unease coming from certain quarters of the community have arisen because the Committee now has more time and energy to devote to strategic thinking about systemic problems.

To put it simply, a lot of destructive behavior that had previously gone under the radar is being targeted. Those who are feeling the heat are desperate to cause a diversion, while others are simply puzzled at this new departure: an arbitration committee equipped to deal with longstanding conduct problems and willing to do so. --Jenny 01:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Evidently, though, the targeting of such behavior is viewed as problematic by at least some members of the ArbCom. When a gaffe of the magnitude of the "there-was-a-secret-trial, oh-wait-there-wasn't, was-too-let's-discuss-it-for-days-on-end" debacle, one has to wonder whether the ArbCom indeed is fit to be strategically thinking about longstanding conduct problems. It looks as though they can't even keep their own house in order. Dr. eXtreme 04:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the OrangeMarlin announcement had anything to do with the attempts to handle systemic problems in the BLP--at least, not on the face of it. Arbitrators are human and will make occasional mistakes (large-scale public gaffes like FT2's seem to be exceedingly rare). This kind of problem is minuscule and is very unlikely to harm Arbcom's ability to handle the Encyclopedia's long term problems. It will only appear to loom large to those who are already convinced that something horrible has happened to the Committee, and I don't think they're likely to prevail in the face of the strong evidence that the Committee has been operating substantially more efficiently over the past year than it ever did in the past. --Jenny 05:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Second moved discussion

• I'm not specifically opposed to this, but it's poorly timed. An arbitrator made a mistake at the same time as some people were becoming confused over a remedy made in a recent case, and there was even a belief in some quarters that the Committee had exceeded its powers. This has been interpreted by some editors to signify lack of confidence by the community in the arbitration committee--an interpretation that I believe to be spectacularly wrong. Discussing the arbitration committee is a good idea in the circumstances.
  • The format is poor--at least it was initially. For instance, some opinions placed at the top of the RFC were represented as facts. I've reformatted them as opinion and I invite whoever wrote them to sign the opinion.
  • As an RFC it's nominally part of the dispute resolution process--of which the Committee and (on appeal) Jimmy Wales are the final decision makers. I don't think this is a wise choice. The policy-making strand would be the more obvious path, because if we change arbitration policy we will have to do so as a community.
  • However it's a good idea to discuss the arbitration committee.
  • I invite editors interested in making new policy concerning the Arbitration Committee to take a look at Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Procedure for changing this policy (noting that there isn't yet an agreed procedure for doing so).
  • Obviously we don't want to risk the kind of open warfare that would result from a weakening or loss of the arbitration committee's powers to resolve disputes, so I suggest that proposals for change be considered with care for continuity.
• --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

  • RfCs are not solely for dispute resolution, and you are mistaken to state that RfCs are nominally part of dispute resolution. RfCs are regularly used to discuss policy, hence the existence of Template:RFCpolicy_list. --Barberio (talk) 13:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    Good point: the automated RFC notice mechanism is sometimes used to flag up policy discussions on the talk pages of policy documents (which is where we discuss policy changes). So technically, yes, the term "RFC" is sometimes used as part of policy change. However, my comment on the unsuitedness of the format of this particular document stands. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    The format is, I think, as good as it'll get for discussing major policy. If you have alternatives, please detail them. Calling to punt the discussion elsewhere is not productive discussion, as you haven't detailed where it will end up, and in what format it should be.

    Until we have a clearly outlined and better discussion format and location, this is where we should be discussing things. Please do not attempt to derail discussion by fragmenting things into multiple policy pages, and different formats of debate. --Barberio (talk) 13:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

  Policy changes are discussed on the talk page of the policy concerned. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

  Again, you're not providing a better alternative to this centralised discussion. --Barberio (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

  The alternatives already exist and I have delineated them. Policy discussions take place on the talk pages of the policies. The motion that has the broadest support so far (and by a mile) says "This RFC is premature and unfocussed. It is unlikely to serve any useful purpose." Maybe it's your turn to listen to what people are telling you. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

  RFCs don't have motions, they are not signed up to, and this is not a vote.

  RFCs have statements that others endorse, or make limited endorsements to. And you should note that some of the endorsements to your statement also said "But we should give it a try anyway.", and that those who did endorse it were endorsing only that they thought the RfC likely to cause ineffective drama. Not a single one of them endorsed your attempt to close the RfC. Few supported the suspension.

  Right now, it looks evenly split between those who want suspension, and those who want to just get on with it. With the note that one supporter has withdrew, and the last few endorsements have been in opposition. It looks well like this RfC will continue, and discussion about suspension should be closed.

  If, in the future, drama and ranting occurs and productive discussion is disrupted, then we might revisit steps needed to let cool heads prevail. But at the moment, the only drama generation is over if the RfC should continue. It seems to me that the cool heads are prevailing at the moment tho... --Barberio (talk) 16:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• It looks to me as if you agree with me that an RFC is unlikely to result in any binding policy change. This is presumably your aim, so if you want to achieve that aim I suggest that you take some advice. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

  Please do not make personal attacks. If you persist in trying to disrupt proceedings by making personal attacks, I'll start removing the comments where you make them, and you may ultimately be asked to leave. --Barberio (talk) 17:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

  I've made no personal attacks. Please avoid making false accusations. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

(restore indent) Centralized discussion is already occurring here. I'm sure it will move on to the appropriate policy talk pages at some point, but let it occur as a result of a natural process migration. Amerique^dialectics 17:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Seems like this discussion is needed. Tony, let it run it's course naturally, you don't need to try to dominate this. It was noted that other Wikipedias have even outright deleted their local arbitration committees, so seems like if everyone decides to do something binding here, then binding it is. rootology (T) 18:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
• I have struck my endorsement of "my" motion, chiefly since the consensus is that the process is already underway and is thus moot - but also because my original intent of a few days pause to allow a conclusion to the OM matter from clouding the issue has been co-opted into a different vision. I wish to have no part in any proposed indefinite suspension (otherwise I would have endorsed the Motion to Close). LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Tony, some people have lost confidence in ArbCom as a body. I, for one, lost confidence in ArbCom wen they passed the "Sourcing Adjudication Board" remedy without first proposing it to the community. I wouldn't be strongly opposed to the dissolution of the committee at this point, but I think that we can come up with solutions to limit their abilities to modify normal power and procedure without at all hurting their ability to arbitrate an individual case. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

  I think that the Committee and the Community could learn from a discussion of what's working and what isn't. However it's obviously going off half-cocked. Suspending the committee? It's plausible that Jimmy might do so in really dire circumstances, but that's not what is happening here. There would need to be some pretty strong evidence that the Committee was making things worse, or had lost control. Well there's evidence that elements of both the Community and the Committee are panicking over minor stuff, but that isn't really the kind of thing that will make Wikipedia's final dispute resolution mechanism unworkable. --Jenny 22:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

  I don't think that it's become bad enough that we need to go down that route, and I'd hate to see it go; it serves a very useful purpose. Hopefully, we never have to do that. Hopefully, things like this will clarify some things, and bring facts to the committee that they may not otherwise have known. Unfortunately, it's pretty clear that ArbCom needs some work and some reform. In the long run, if keeping a safe, stable editing environment requires the suspension of the committee until a more reasonable model can be worked out, then it might have to be done; hopefully not, because it would, as you say, make the dispute resolution mechanism extremely difficult. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

re collapsing of Motion to Suspend (ec and now the discussion here)

Oh, for fucksakes... it has not succeeded, but there is some decent arguments (which was the reason I struck my endorsement) there that will inform the newcomer to this matter - and it makes the above discussion orphaned. I am not embarrassed to have proposed it, and think it still adds to the debate. So much for transparency... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The discussion is still there, just in an expandable box.

In my time as an editor, I've seen far far far far too many discussions derailed by endless threaded discussion about the discussion itself instead of the original point of the discussion. I'd don't think we should allow that to happen here.

Some people wanted to suspend the RfC, they proposed it, it was given a days worth of discussion, and a lot of words spent on it. A lot of people made their voices known, and a decision was taken to continue the RfC. We really don't want to spend the next week talking about if we should suspend the RfC for a week do we? --Barberio (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggest using collapse boxes for old talk page material more than new talk page material, and being more conservative about applying them to the main RFC discussion. Durova^Charge! 21:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• I apologise for my language, and would comment that I recognise the actions were performed in good faith. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks. :) Durova^Charge! 00:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Meta-Discussion

I'm considering making liberal use of {{Collapse top}}+{{Collapse bottom}} on current and future meta-discussion about the RfC itself, to focus discussion on the Arbitration Committee, and avoid spiralling drama threads. --Barberio (talk) 13:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Previous discussion over drafting of the RfC has been collapsed. I'll hold off on collapsing other meta discussions (including this one) for now. --Barberio (talk) 13:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I think thats rather pointless. Your collapsing old discussions. We archive those. So just create an archive, seeing as how most of this discussion was prior to this RfC going live (from LC's userspace). — _Maggot^Syn 14:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

This is just collapsing the meta discussion on the draft which we should keep for a while. We can move to archiving later... --Barberio (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Please don't do that. It's annoying. --Jenny 21:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, what's annoying is saying I'm going to do something non-destructive and primarily cosmetic. Stating the clear sound reasons I'm going to do it. Leaving it most the day on a high traffic page that people are reading. Then doing it. And only *then* getting objections from someone who had every opportunity to object.

Can you explain why I shouldn't collapse extraneous meta-discussions into boxes? --Barberio (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

What's annoying is that you're making it difficult for people who, like me, want to read, and perform textual searches on, the discussion page and the RFC. There's no apparent reason to conceal, or to archive, comments in this RFC or in the talk page at this very early stage, and doing so would be an unusual step. I don't think you've explained why it is a necessary one. You didn't get any objections from me because I'd no idea what "collapsing" meant until I saw it. --Jenny 21:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

No Kafka

Support common sense in dispute resolution. Durova^Charge! 02:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Lulz were had. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

"Lulz were had." This is funny, as is the picture on the right. I am not privy to the rest of the joke, however; I have no idea about Kafka's characters, or about how and why arbitrators should (not) resemble them. Could someone please explain? The discussion, at least in its early phases, seems to take much for granted. Waltham, The Duke of 07:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The image refers to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee#No_Kafka, which seems to refer to his novel The Trial where a man is arrested, tried, convicted, and executed without ever being informed the name of his own supposed crime. Durova^Charge!

I'm assuming its meant to be a reference to secret in absentia trials at ArbCom. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 08:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

And other stuff where people get yanked into a case wondering huh? Durova^Charge! 16:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Off topic.. but is this picture appearing with inverted colors for anyone else? -- Ned Scott 09:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the photo shews as a negative and the No smoking bit is in black (I do use the greenscreen gadget, and had assumed it was a result of that). DuncanHill (talk) 11:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Some browsers might have trouble viewing it (I got a couple of complaints it didn't show at all last night when I first uploaded). Looks fine to me. Durova^Charge! 16:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

With the greenscreen turned off, it still appears as a negative (Safari 3.1.1 on WinXP). DuncanHill (talk) 16:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Weird. I wonder whether I set it to a color scale that doesn't reproduce well on all systems. Apologies for any inconvenience. (It's Sunday morning in my time zone and I'm still on my first round of coffee). Durova^Charge! 16:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I like it anyway, and the negative effect is actually rather appropriate for these Kafkaesque times :) DuncanHill (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee performance review

I've begun a statistical survey of ArbCom activity. See this post for the first installation. This type of information should be useful to help the community evaluate our present situation. Seeking assistance with data collection; please contact me if you'd like to help. Best, Durova^Charge! 06:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the data, I see that you note the marked drop in arbitration cases. Indeed it is astonishing how few ongoing cases there are at any one time being heard by the modern incarnation of the arbitration committee.

Even more remarkable is the drop in requests for arbitration. It seems that when I visit the arbitration page these days there are always very few new case requests (as I write there seem to be two substantive requests, at a stretch, and two weeks ago there was just one), whereas if I look at the same period a year ago I see seven requests (excluding one request to re-open a closed case) [2] and if I go two years back I see six. Most of the page currently seems to be requests for tweaks to existing cases, clarifications or appeals. This looks to me like a sign of a Committee that is on top of its job in a community that doesn't feel it has to run to the arbitrators as often as it used to. Whilst some other commentators may want to put a different complexion on things, it's hard to think of a more parsimonious explanation. --Jenny 06:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually a survey of requests for arbitration is one of the things on the to-do list for the review; would you like to undertake it? Obviously all the cases that actually opened will be there. The goal is to compare those against cases that didn't open. In order to keep track of cases that opened on the second or third attempt (and a few other statistical parsings) that will mean keeping track of the named parties in each proposed case. Individual usernames won't be published in the study--just cases and trends. Durova^Charge! 06:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

If I saw much value in it, I might be interested in doing work like that. Since case applications and acceptances both seem to have decreased markedly, however, I don't think there's much mileage to be had from examining past history where things were different. The process seems to be well matched to the requirements at present, and there seems to be enough slack for the arbitrators to countenance some quite extensive high level stuff in the background--believe me, I wish we'd had arbitrators able to get involved in stuff like this back in 2006.

Now if somebody could show me that we were heading for higher caseloads and we needed to work out how to recognise long term trends in order to reduce the overall burden over time by far-sighted effort, I'd jump at it. But it looks to me like that mountain has already been climbed. I think people are now beginning to complain that the arbitrators are now sticking their noses into things that, before, they never felt able to tackle. Feisty arbs, I like it. --Jenny (recently changed username) 07:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

One thing that may have been on the upswing is requests for clarification. Would you like to survey that? Durova^Charge! 08:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Somebody might like to do that. My subjective impression is that requests for clarification tend to be used for two different functions: to ask for clarification, and to mount a rhetorical challenge to arbitration committee decisions. The recent request by Barberio [3] illustrates the latter. Winding back three weeks (at random) I notice that there were two active requests for clarification of the other sort. Typically two or three arbitrators will give brief personal views on the detailed circumstances and their expectations. It obviously isn't onerous work for the arbitrators, who are not obliged to respond in any case. I expect the rhetorical challenges to increase over time as this area of the page becomes known as a good platform for barrack-room lawyers who fancy making their mark.

It might be interesting to find what a more comprehensive survey throws up. --Jenny (recently changed username) 18:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Formatting broken

What broke it? It's got that line/weirdness down the left side like AN had. rootology (T) 18:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Collapsed discussions

Although I appreciate seeing myself defended (I really do), the purpose of this RFC is process level issues and general reform. A principal danger in the undertaking is of things fracturing into microdebates about individual cases.

I ask that these collapsed discussions remain collapsed. Those who wish to continue posting of course may do so, yet I seriously ask you to rethink where these discussions are headed: are you likely to change anyone's mind this way? Is it likely to make anything better?

It's more important to me to see ArbCom operate well than to have my own case reheard. I have and will continue to speak up for anyone on behalf of fairness and good process, if a Wikipedian under arbitration scrutiny is getting handled badly. Everyone who knows my record knows I do this without regard for personal or political allegiance.

Please consider this pledge, and reconsider whether to debate individual grievances at this time. With respect toward all, Durova^Charge! 23:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The removal of the mess in the "Responses" section of White Cat's section is fine, but I don't agree with the removal of his comment (which was perfectly okay).

I don't understand the collapsing of the other two sections. They seem to be perfectly fine discussions to me. Could you explain that? --Jenny 20:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the editors who were participating in the other two discussions have accepted the decision. One even posted afterward that he regretted the exchange. Since they don't object and all the material remains open and available, let's let it be. Durova^Charge! 21:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem here, but I'm reading them and scratching my head wondering what the problem was. There was a lot of bad feeling against arbcom at the time of that Guettarda discussion, and the things said are understandable if not particularly praiseworthy. The discussion of my "under the radar" comment seems to have been universally polite. --Jenny 21:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

a lot of destructive behavior that had previously gone under the radar is being targeted

Extended content

Quoting from above: "To put it simply, a lot of destructive behavior that had previously gone under the radar is being targeted. Those who are feeling the heat are desperate to cause a diversion, while others are simply puzzled at this new departure: an arbitration committee equipped to deal with longstanding conduct problems and willing to do so. --Jenny 01:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)" There is a lot of truth in that. People need to behave better. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC) People definitely need to behave better. But changing standards can cause a lot of confusion. And in any case, trials with no chance of a defense are a bad precedent. And first with the Durova case, and then with the MatthewHoffman case (and probably a few other cases), and now the OM/ON case, that is the direction Arbcomm has been moving in. Don't look at evidence. Don't allow a defense. Just make up your mind, even if you do it too quickly and come to the wrong conclusion; who cares. And then kick butt around here!! Only problem is, Wikipedia depends on the goodwill of volunteer editors. And that is a fragile thing; if they destroy it, then Wikipedia is history.--Filll (talk | wpc) 18:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC) Yes. Expect a lot of confusion as WP:IAR is phased out in actual practice (that's been underway for a few years now). We are too big for people to do everything in their power to make wikipedia better. Because different groups of well meaning wikipedians have different ideas about what is best for wikipedia and the resulting un-rule-y clash is good for no one except the popcorn vendors. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC) So Wikipedia is to become a paradise for civil POV pushers? The repeated loss of expert editors has not arisen because those trying to maintain content in line with core policies have occasionally been uncivil. And some of the martyrs in the Orangemarlin case have been behaving in the way that has driven good editors away. . . dave souza, talk 19:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC) No. We do not have to choose between civil POV pushers and uncivil NPOV pushers. I'll bet you can work out an alternative you've left out. WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC) Well I will tell you my alternative. Until such time as I can edit without being attacked, I am staying away from those articles. And if they go to h_ll, so be it.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC) "Ignore all rules", as it's been practised since the early days of Wikipedia, is in no danger. Failing to observe nuances of process is far less important than working well with the community and producing good work. Conversely, the multiplication of formal processes has predictably led to opportunities to manipulate those processes as a means to a non-encyclopedic end. The latter problem is part of the class of problems that have been increasingly addressed by arbcom over time. Predictably, also, procedural objections to arbcom's prosecution of policy have multiplied as the abuse of proceduralism has been addressed. --Jenny (recently changed username) 20:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC) My comment, on which this section is based, isn't related to FT2's recent error in the case of Orangemarlin. That was regrettable, must not be repeated, and cannot be excused as a necessary part of enforcing Wikipedia's policies. The diversions to which I refer are the recent calls, apparently based on an alliance of editors dissatisfied with the outcome of a variety of arbitration cases, to toss the dice in the air and hope it comes out with a more malleable dispute resolution committee, one that will reach the "right" outcomes. ne that won't prosecute the biographies of living persons policy to the utmost of its considerable powers, and so on. --Jenny (recently changed username) 20:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC) Let's be clear. I believe in being civil, and take great care to be civil. What I see is editors putting considerable effort into dealing with tendentious pov pushing, slipping up occasionally, and being hammered as an example – to show that tendentious pov pushers are welcome, and that hard working editors are expendable. The example was already made with the MatthewHoffman case, leading to new forms of destructive behaviour by those uninterested in science. If you're pleased with the results then so be it. I've no complaint about reasonable and proportionate action to encourage civility, but shotgun justice and excessive sanctions just set up civility as a way of gaming the system. . . dave souza, talk 22:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

On "Addendum to View by Guettarda"

Extended content

I've brought this nascent discussion here from the main page --Jenny (recently changed username) My main point was that there's something wrong with the culture of the arbcomm, a problem that was illustrated by the fact that they decided to give FT2 opportunity to respond, leaving it to Jimbo to try to calm the community. The committee is an arm of the community, not a body that's separate from the community. The "solution" that they have come up with shows this even more starkly. Rather than dealing with their own problems (an arb who posts fake "decisions", a major fuck up that allowed it to happen) they just vacate the decision and fast-track the issue. And, to add insult to injury, they don't even bother to abide by the rules they came up with for this case; after posting a statement that says that the arbs will wait 48 hours to decide whether to accept the case or not, Charles votes to accept. Let's get this straight: giving FT2 a chance to respond was a failing of arbcom in your opinion? On "calming the community", well I think the passage of time, a bit of sleep, and a lot of people waking up feeling a little sheepish about what they wrote last night, has the necessary calming effect. --Jenny (recently changed username) 20:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC) FT2 posted a fake "decision". Kirill said as much. But we were left with two conflicting accounts by arbs - all we knew was that one of them wasn't telling the truth. We were left with this pervasive uncertainty while the arbcomm circled the wagons. It would have been pretty simple for any arb to say what Jimbo said - we don't do secret trials. That would have cleared the air while they sorted things out. Instead, they said nothing, forcing Jimbo to intervene. This was a failing on their part - that they prioritised one of their members at the expense of the whole community. Guettarda (talk) 20:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC) It is possible, indeed it is almost the rule, for different people to have different opinions based on the same facts. I do not think it is a good sign, that you seem to be unwilling to accept that two of our best users can honestly disagree with one another on the implication of a discussion. Kirill and FT2 apparently agree that their accounts are factually consistent but they differ in interpretation. This much was apparent to all editors of good faith on Friday night. You and one or two other people leapt to conclusions. Whilst that was regrettable, there's not a lot anybody could have done about it, given your initial decision to abandon the assumption good faith. The community was never jeopardised by your actions or by arbcom's decision not to rise to the bait, but some of them may have been misled by your interpretations in the meantime. That they may have been is also regrettable, but again, the community at large is unlikely to have decided that the opinions of a few over-excited editors outweighed the available facts and the assumption of good faith. --Jenny (recently changed username) 21:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC) That's nice. So it's just a few over-excited editors who thought that arbcom had announced the decision of a secret trial without any opportunity for defence, or even the courtesy of telling the accused? And it's only fair to leave the accused and the community under this "false" impression while taking plenty of time to decide on how to present this regrettable occurrence? How about showing some good faith in people who edit here? .. dave souza, talk 22:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC) I'm not sure what you're driving at. Is the community at large responsible for the false and unfounded beliefs of a few of its editors? --Jenny (recently changed username) 22:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC) That "initial" decision was to hold a secret tribunal and to declare all other evidence "unnecessary". Sorry, but I would have expected every single arbiter to balk at this, and not a single one to go ahead with such an obviously unjust scheme - even if, somehow, he or she had been convinced that all the other ones thought this to be a good idea. "I'm just following orders" or "I'm just doing my job" went out as an acceptable excuse several decades ago. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC) Stephan, you still seem to be retaining the same false assumptions of Friday night, which have now been comprehensively laid to rest. If you want to make accusations, it's usually a good idea to accumulate evidence, and it's normally considered unwise to persist in an allegation that has been refuted. --Jenny (recently changed username) 22:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC) Well, we might debate about the exact meaning of "secret tribunal" and "decision", but the fact remains that OM was handed down an ArbCom sanction out of the blue, with no chance of commenting on the evidence or the proposed findings and remedies. And, to quote User: FT2: "Please note that no further evidence is required" - that's from the original and initial posting of the evidence page.[4] And for good measure, appeals are also prejudged.[5] Every single Arbiter who was aware of that should have protested (I'll gladly believe that few shared that understanding), and no single arbiter should have consented to or implemented this. If I misinterpret the situation, be more specific. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC) What's disturbing about the above is the extremely narrow, selective representation of the facts of Friday night, as if nothing else happened. It's as if everything else went down the memory hole, even though this snapshot of the relevant discussion shows that you were one of the first to respond to Kirill's announcement. I suppose it's possible that you didn't see FT2's follow-up. If you were in bed by 2am, you would certainly have missed Josh's announcement, thought the latter, I daresay, came late afternoon-to-mid-evening for most active Wikipedians. --Jenny (recently changed username) 22:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC) Jenny/Tony, I've just stated the surface facts of Friday night, and I've not seen anything comprehensively laid to rest. It's a really good idea to accumulate evidence and subject it to careful cross-examination. What a pity that wasn't done with Orangemarlin. . . dave souza, talk 22:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC) I'm getting a distinct whiff of sour grapes. Your "surface facts" appear to incorporate assumptions not adopted by other editors who saw the same facts. --Jenny (recently changed username) 22:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC) The arbitrators either knew that they were discussing a case in secret with no opportunity for defence (in which case they are ethically challenged) or they didn't know what they were up to (in which case they were incompetent). The statements from arbitrators to date do not appear to me to allow any other interpretation. DuncanHill (talk) 23:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC) <undent>I have no idea what went on here. But whatever it was, it does not look good. --Filll (talk | wpc) 13:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

View by White Cat

Moved from RFC main page; personal grievances below. Please contact me if you disagree with the decision to move to talk and collapse. Durova^Charge! 20:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Since my statements seem to have been comprehensively misunderstood by all other parties involved, I'm happy with the removal of the response section. However I feel that White Cat's comments should be replaced on the page (without the existing response section, or at least without my comments) and I'll avoid commenting on it. The kerfuffle was no fault of White Cat's and I apologise for being the unwitting agent of what happened subsequently. --Jenny 20:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've already posted to White Cat's user talk. If he requests this move back to the main RFC I'll comply. Durova^Charge! 21:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Extended content

This section will be expanded, please hold on to your shorts in the meanwhile :) For now I want to start a section so as not to edit conflict like crazy. I'll expand this on the upcoming days. (This post is currently incomplete) I hereby state my experience as I experienced it. I have been involved with arbcom since my earlier days on wikipedia. The intention behind this post is to point out what is broken with arbcom as I see it. From my experience arbcom was less than helpful in resolving any dispute to date. I will give general and specific examples alike. What I say below applies to arbcom and arbitrators in general. It does not apply to each and every one of them. I personally believe all arbitrators act in good faith however the culture behind arbcom is currently the source of the problem. Communication A key problem with arbcom is communication. Getting a straight answer from arbcom is more challenging than you may think. For example many cases to date has expired (they were neither rejected nor accepted) because arbitrators ignored inconvenient cases. A claim is that such issues are discussed privately, even so it shouldn't be too hard to "reject" or "accept" a case with a satisfactory rationale. I have made countless appeals to arbcom of which none (I do not recall any) got a satisfactory reply. In real life one of the most incivil and disrespectful action you can do to a person is ignoring them when they are talking to you. Such an act will be more frustrating if the person in question is already frustrated by a dispute they are asking for your help. This is the first thing to be fixed. On the accepted cases, some arbitrators do not even make a single workshop comment. Some arbitrators go out of their way to avoid talking with people involved with the case they are overlooking. I could care less what arbcommers tell each other on their own private mailing list. However I would want to see a "filtered" (filtering out sensitive and/or private material) discussion showing what kind of ideas were discussed. Arbitrators could still stay anonymous in such a thing (arbitrators could be given nicknames like "arbitrator 1") -- Cat chi? 16:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Inability to resolve disputes Arbcom does not act as a part of dispute resolution. Arbcom tries to let users come up with solutions by themselves which is the very point why they are consulted. Arbcom does anything but resolve disputes. Perhaps this is to avoid content disputes. Last thing we want is an oversight body that dictates our content. Armenia-Azerbaijan rfars Consider the rather infamous ongoing case of Armenia-Azerbaijan rfar as an example. I was not involved with either one of these cases. I payed very little attention (near to none) to both cases. Both cases on Armenia-Azerbaijan have been officially closed - yet there is very little resolution. Content issues aside (Oh my sanity!)... There had been problems on the matter of enforcement of the remedies. Arbcom remedies were written in dealing with resurfacing sockpuppets of disruptive users involved with the case. There are plenty of such accounts. I helped nail a number of them though most of the credit goes to the checkusers. However truly uninvolved new users on these topics are almost treated like criminals. Certain sources (Turkish government, Turkish newspapers, or any other Turkish site) have been ruled unusable even on non-controversial topics. While there is no such consensus for such a thing, the people enforcing the arbcom remedies (namely Moreschi and several others) have ruled to this end. I think it is safe to say the overly harsh worded remedies by arbcom didn't resolve the dispute. Episode and Character rfars Arbcoms involvement with the RfAr on Episode and Character related articles was not satisfactory. The first case had no purpose whatsoever. Arbcom looked into the case rather superficially. The underlying issues were not addressed. Arbcom decided to let the community decide on this. What I would have liked to see on that first case was a ruling to halt all mass removals/additions/taggings. In other words a remedy to halt all aggressive behaviour. Arbcoms overly lightly worded first case appeared like a nod to both sides to continue whatever they were doing. On the second case despite objections arbcom refused to extend the scope of the case to include "video game" related articles which had became the target of the Episode/Character war as the arbcom case addressed non-video game related "television related" articles (re communication section above). I think it is safe to say the lightly worded remedies by arbcom didn't resolve the dispute. Conclusion from the above to examples I think arbcom lacks a level of balance in the remedies they pass. It is either way to light or way to harsh. This contributes to the problem and does not result in a resolution. Arbcom is particularly unhelpful on topics not covered by mainstream "western world" publications have little to no regulation. See: User:White Cat/Wikipedia is badly broken -- Cat chi? 16:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Arbcom cannot be criticized Criticizing arbcom is like suicide. You will be declared a "troll" the instant you complain about arbcoms inability to fix anything. In my case this "troll" declaration came from random from an arbitration clerk. The culture of treating arbcom as if it is the best thing since sliced bread has contributed to this problem. This RfC is probably a step in the right direction. All my past attempts to initiate a discussion like this either on various talk pages, the mailing list or IRC had been shot down. -- Cat chi? 16:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC) A rather amusing point If WP:DR fails to resolve this dispute with arbcom, will this be put in front of arbcom? On the technicality of the issue - yes. Arbcom reviewing a case on itself... It is not like there is a body acting as an oversight to arbcom. -- Cat chi? 11:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Responses Without the patience and care of the arbitration committee, I believe White Cat would have been chased off the wiki years ago. They haven't been able to work miracles, but they have intervened when it has been both possible and necessary to do so. --Jenny 19:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC) See? I am attacked the second I post a remark. Re: "Arbcom cannot be criticized" remark. Why would I be chased off of wiki? What is your rationale? I am tired of seeing people who pretend there is nothing wrong with arbcom. This is an RFC over arbcom, not me. -- Cat chi? 19:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC) White Cat, I suggest you ignore "Jenny" (also known as Tony Sidaway). Tony, please don't disrupt this RfC any more than you absolutely have to. DuncanHill (talk) 19:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC) I'm not attacking you, I'm stating my opinion, based on my observation of the patient and careful treatment you have received from Arbcom. For which I am grateful, because I wouldn't like to see you chased off. Duncan, you're probably not aware that I am White Cat's former Arbcom-appointed mentor, and nobody's troll. --Jenny 19:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC) The former modifier is telling. Tony, I contacted White Cat with concerns about the direction his intented proposals appeared likely to head, but I wouldn't dream of patronizing him publicly by arriving as soon as he posted and suggesting this longstanding Wikipedian doesn't know his own good. Strongly request a refactor; please take dirty laundry indoors and return to the hamper. DurovaCharge! 19:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC) I may just do that (refractor). However what I tired to do above was discuss two seperate cases which arbcom was either too harsh or too light in their ruling. I let you Durova to review and refactor my post above as you see fit so that it gets the message across. I am a bit busy in real life and I would truly appreciate such a service. Should you decide to do this, please comment out a copy of the old text so that I can take a look at what you changed :). I merely want to make sure the right message is conveyed. -- Cat chi? 20:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Apologies for the confusion; that refactor request was directed at Tony. Although refactors all around might be a good thing (I'll gladly withdraw my comments to this thread if others agree to do the same). DurovaCharge! 20:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Durova, the former is telling is an odd way of putting it. Yes, I was his mentor a long, long time ago. There is no dirty laundry here. White Cat has been targetted by some very ugly customers over the years, and I'm glad to have been able to help him to overcome those attacks. -Jenny 20:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Not banning White Cat is one of the worst things ArbCom have done, ever. This is what I mean by not paying due attention to encyclopedicity: anyone who doesn't understand that Turkish government sources are not good ones when it comes to articles relating to the Armenian Genocide really has no place here. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Moreschi, requesting a refactor in even stronger terms than I asked for one from Tony. Please take it outside, gentlemen. This is a peaceful bar. DurovaCharge! 20:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Um, no. White Cat is just abusing this RFC to hurl the same unjustified abuse at ArbCom that he was doing a month ago on WT:RFAR, WP:AN, wikien-l, foundation-l, and god knows where else. Heaven knows ArbCom deserve criticism, but this is not it. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC) I am the one abusing? By doing what? Telling what I think? You chose to not comment on what I said and instead decided to rain accusations at me. That tells a lot about you. -- Cat chi? 11:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Auto archive

The talk page is getting a bit long. Unless anyone objects, I'll switch on auto archiving for this page, using the following,

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|algo = old(7d)
|archive = Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee/Archive %(counter)d
|counter = 1
|maxarchivesize = 60K
}}

Which is archiving threads with no new comments for a week.

--Barberio (talk) 21:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

No objections from me. I proposed this earlier one, as opposed to collapsing. — _Maggot^Syn 21:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems okay to me. --Jenny 21:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Durova^Charge! 21:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm good with a week. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Please do not forget to create an archive navbox. --Dragon695 (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this will work. Top-level sections are constantly being expanded. A better solution would be to split off and transclude the largest section when the article gets to 300KB, repeating as necessary. #Arbitration Committee change and reform is already at 133KB, which is about half the size of the article. The full article weighs in at 339KB, big enough for a split.

As a point of comparison, Line of succession to the British throne is 340,885 bytes, and attempts to split it along logical lines have failed due to lack of consensus. On the other hand, my bold split of Wikipedia:List of missing journals, which once weighed in at 405,693 bytes, was accepted by the community. There are key difference between those two articles and this one though: This one is changing rapidly and this one is a discussion page. Another key difference is that when I split List of missing journal articles, the English Wikipedia still didn't have edit-top-section as a user preference. Still, spits by major sections are probably in order if things get big enough to cause browser failures. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Oops, I misread, I didn't see you were talking about the talk page. Yes, by all means, set up archiving on the talk page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Quick comment on the archive method proposed....it only archives sections that have no date stamps within 7 days. So, only when a section has in fact, gone stale. And it does it automatically, we don't have to pay attention to it. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 03:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know, which is why it probably won't work as intended. If it archives old sub-sections where the parent or sibling sections are still active, it will do so and separate them from the context of their parent section. This is bad. If it does not archive sub-sections independently of the top-level sections, very little will be archived anytime soon, defeating the purpose. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It does do only the level 2 sections (those with 2 =='s as the marker). when I quickly scanned down the page, I saw 5 or 6 sections that have information only from March when the draft of this was being assembled at first. And most of the sections here are only level 2's, so there will be limited potential for break ups, though some of the longer sections might have large stale portions, such is life. The idea is to set aside only that stuff which is really stale, not just make the page smaller. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 14:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Hang on. Barberio is talking about the talk page. Davidwr is talking about the associated front page (he linked to a section of it and is talking about sizes of that front page). The front page needs to be split up, as it is far too big now. The talk page may also need to be split among the subsidiary pages, but this one needs to remain as a centralized talk page, and talk page archiving will also help. The front page, though, can only be managed by manual splits to subpages. Carcharoth (talk) 15:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • For example, the talk page is 105 kilobytes, while the front page is 366 kilobytes. And please don't refer to this RfC page as an "article". Call these pages "the RfC page" and "the RfC talk page". Carcharoth (talk) 15:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Motion to split this RfC into sub-articles

At close to 400KB and longer than the longest article, this RfC is getting hard to keep track of and hard to use in certain browsers. With that in mind, I propose splitting it by section, into:

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee/Introductory statement
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee/Statements about what does not work well in the current Arbitration Committee process
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee/Arbitration Committee process
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee/Statements about what does not work well in the current Arbitration Committee process
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee/Clarifications on limits of what the Arbitration Committee can't do
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee/The Arbitration Committee and scaling
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee/Arbitration Committee change and reform
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee/The Arbitration Committee's Responsibility to Others
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee/Views and statements about this RFC
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee/Motions to close or extend this RFC

With the main article consisting of just transclusions, notices of transclusions, and the See also and Discussion sections.

Any considerations, objections, or !votes in support before we do this? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I've changed your links to subpages of the RfC page, not the RfC talk page. I agree that some splitting is needed, but would suggest leaving the introductory statement where it is - that is unlikely to expand much. Would also suggest transcluding (to allow dynamic updating) a short summary section from each subpage back to the main page. The summaries of the motions to close, for example, would list the ones that were open, and the current counts. Carcharoth (talk) 17:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)