Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia:Resolving disputes contains the official policy on dispute resolution for English Wikipedia. Arbitration is generally the last step, when a dispute cannot be resolved by any other means including informal or formal mediation, or by asking the community its opinion on the matter.

This page is focused on discussing the Arbitration Committee itself (specifically, the information on the project page attached to this talkpage). Requesting that a case be taken up here isn't likely to help you, but those of us in the dispute resolution community would be happy to assist.

Please click here if you want to file an arbitration case.

There are currently three archives:

1 New arbitrators and old cases
2 WP:RCU
3 5 closures
4 Wikipedia:Community noticeboard
5 Relevant discussion
6 Mentorship Committee
7 WP:RFO
8 Request for checkuser permission
9 Renaming banned users
10 Wording

[edit] New arbitrators and old cases

I would imagine we'll handle it like last time: where arbitrators no longer in office have voted on a case, they count as extra arbitrators for those cases only, and majority is adjusted appropriately.
New arbitrators will be counted as recused for all currently open cases unless they declare themselves un-recused for an individual case; this saves them from having to read up on all open cases immediately.

– Morven [1]

Based on the above, pending correction from the committee, the clerks will interpret this as follows.

As of January 1, the number of active arbitrators will be adjusted downward to seven (less recusals), to reflect the departure of Jayjg and The Epopt, the only arbitrators currently on the active list who are leaving (except in cases where they have already voted). The majorities will be adjusted accordingly.
Case opened after January 1 will reflect the state of the committee at that time (14 active, majority of 8).
New arbitrators are not expected to vote on cases already under consideration, but if they do, the majorities will be adjusted upward as needed, depending on who votes.

Thanks, and arbitrators please correct this if I am wrong. Thatcher131 08:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RCU

There is a backlog accumulating at requests for checkuser. Perhaps a couple people with checkuser privileges can take care of it. Thanks in advance. -- tariqabjotu 19:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 5 closures

Great job on closing five cases in the last week! It's good to see the new arbiters working hard. Keep it up! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Community noticeboard

It's been suggested that this new noticeboard would be a good place to post arbitration closures, perhaps instead of WP:AN. Arbitration decisions are of interest to the entire community and it's easier to reference a lower traffic noticeboard. Relaying the idea for consideration. Durova^Charge! 23:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

At this time we are posting closures to both AN and CN. Newyorkbrad 04:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relevant discussion

Contributors here may wish to see/comment on Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard#Clerks_of_all_types_need_to_be_deprecated --Durin 17:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mentorship Committee

Hello, I understand that mentorship can be an alternative to longterm blocks/bans, if mentors are available. So, I would like to try to revive the dead Mentorship Committee. I started making some changes in a proposal here, but I am not really sure where to go from there. Anyway, would the Arbitration Committee consider this useful? — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 02:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, forget about it. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 22:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RFO

As these are primarily handled though the mailing list, not sure if there are backlogs. But if there are, I'd be willing to help in this area. I am familiar with the process and policies relating to this function, as well as the GFDL ramifications of removing a revision. I am an admin here and on meta:, and am in the bot approvals group (listed as reference only). I am generally active from 5 to 6 days a week, typically between 22:00 and 06:00 UTC. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 04:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Typically only bureaucrats or arbcom members can be considered for getting checkuser/oversight rights. Voice-of-All 19:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This is reiterated at a RfA talk page. Cbrown1023 talk 23:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the initial comments, I've seen the "typically" messages before, and am fine either way, just offering services if desired. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I've also replied at Xaosflux's talk page, but want to copy that response here: Thanks for letting me know. I don't think we are in the process of doing so, but I will point out your request on the ArbCom mailing list so that others are aware, and if we do decide to do something. Thanks again. Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

A 'me too' comment, oversight is something that I could have used on several occasions, if I had the ability to use it. I personally believe oversight should be made a little more available, and that the requirements to possess it not be anywhere near as constrictive as they should be for CheckUser. I understand that it is the current position that oversight will be limited to a very select few however. I am not going to send an email unless there is an actual possibility of my request being granted, which I doubt at this point. Prodego ^talk 01:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

When MW 1.11 is released, if things remain as they are, revisiondelete would be given to all ~~users~~admins, even the "hide from sysops option". However, only oversight users can see the oversight log and can view revisions hidden from sysops.Voice-of-All 17:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Either I'm not understanding you right or that could cause some seriously destructive vandalism. Could you clarify and/or point me to the place where I can protest that change? Picaroon 19:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, apparently you meant "all admins" when you said "all users." Right? Picaroon 19:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes of course, it must be that. Take a look if you want. Prodego ^talk 19:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I meant admins only. Voice-of-All 20:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for checkuser permission

I would like to request CheckUser status. I understand that this is only ever granted if blessed by the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, it may very well be that you are only interested in granting CheckUser status to people already on the Arbitration Committee. It is not my intention to join the committee, only to help out with CheckUser requests.

I was granted the admin bit in January 2006. With over 35,000 edits (mostly vandalism reversion), I am one of the more active editors on the English Wikipedia. I would not expect to be given CheckUser access without first answering questions such as my familiarity with IP addresses and general network functioning. I can tell you exactly how I expect CheckUser would work (actually, this information is publicly available or obvious to people with any sysadmin knowledge), or answer any other questions. However, if you already know I won't qualify, there's not much point in doing so. Also, you may want the details not discussed publicly, in which case I can answer the questions by email. --Yamla 22:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm still interested in this. --Yamla 15:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how actively the arbitrators watch this page. You might want to send an e-mail to one of the arbitrators with a request that he or she distribute it to their mailing list. Newyorkbrad 16:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. --Yamla 16:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

(No email has been received by the list yet, FYI.) I will point this request out (along with the one above it) to the ArbCom mailing list, although I don't think that we're in the process of doing so for anyone at this point in time. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming banned users

Is there any policy to rename a permanently/semi-permanently banned user on WP:CHU? A person may legitimately want to exercise his or her right to vanish. Then again, another may want to evade the ban if and when a ban is lifted. Note that all user logs are wiped clean when renames are done. If ARB is against the renaming, we could probably have a blacklist to prevent such renames. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I know that at least one banned user has been renamed at Jimbo's request. Don't know how common this is. Thatcher131 12:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The only time I can think of when this would make sense is when the user has been editing under his or her real name, and wants to remove the name from Wikipedia pages at the time he or she is leaving. Newyorkbrad 13:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the best thing would be to come up with a Right to vanish policy. At the moment, we're relying on the page at meta, which doesn't actually say much. The right to vanish has been abused a few times recently by users who want certain accounts to vanish so they can turn up with new sockpuppets and a lost trail; the example that prompted Nichalp's enquiry is a clear abuse, in my view. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I've put up a proposal at Wikipedia:Right to vanish. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that a blocked/banned user should have the right to be renamed, subject to their ability to confirm that this is their wish (using their user page). This last section is to prevent some user from faking a request from a blocked/banned user. Expressing such a requestr should not be considered violating the ban. Eli Falk 13:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The right to vanish is a right reserved to users in good standing. I see no reason that banned users should be extended this courtesy. Raul654 23:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wording

Inactive - on an unknown absence (no AC participation in the last fortnight). Should that really say fortnight? How many people know that fortnight equals two weeks? Its not a common word. I recommend we change it to two weeks instead of fortnight. If no one replies to this within a day I will go ahead and make the edit. Thanks! Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 02:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Either way is fine with me. Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I think "fortnight" (short for "fourteen nights") is more commonly used in British English versus American. Out of curiosity, who wrote that part of the policy? Newyorkbrad 20:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Usually, I'd be opposed to such an edit. However, I believe it is much more important to use language that most readers would be familiar with. --Aarktica 22:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/b/Wikipedia_talk%7EArbitration_Committee_342f.html"