Wikinews talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 1

Assumptions

In writing up this policy I selected the number of 5 members for the committee semi-arbitrarily based on discussions with others:

• Should be odd to avoid deadlocks of a full committee.
• 3 members seemed too exclusive, 7 perhaps too unwieldy.
• 3 of four persons queried suggested 5.

Based on discussions on the water cooler, annual voting seemed most preferred. However, having seen issues develop on Wikipedia during terms, I have proposed a system where committee members terms should be staggered and up to one year in length (their choice), and that a discussion should occur when a vacancy happens, rather than waiting for an arbitrary term to be completed or requiring appointments from some higher authority.

Dig in here and come up with other solutions or changes to the policy. - Amgine 01:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I like the concept. Short and simple. Five members seems fine to me. The problem that those five are likely to be involved in a dispute before it even comes before the ArbCom, well, I think that seems unavoidable with a small community like this one.

One small question: Should we specify which cases can be brought before the ArbCom or are we gonna leave that that up to the Arbiters? --Deprifry|+T+ 02:02, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on this Amgine; in my opinion it is an excellent draft. I propose that the members of the committee not be current administrators. This will help avoid a lot of nasty "conflict of issue" situations and we have plenty of capable and active non-admin contributors as well as lots of great semi-active and inactive admins (who could resign their admins to serve). I'm thinking of the likes of The bellman and CGorman. Neutralizer 14:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the votes of confidence! Deprify: I think we leave that up to the arbcom, although I would encourage them to avoid second-guessing clear cases of enforcing policy (but encourage them to take up the murky ones.) Neutralizer: When the time comes for nominating members for the arbcom I encourage you to nominate either or both of those as well as others you feel are knowledgable members of the Wikinews community, but realize that each person will have to accept a nomination based on their perception of how available they can be and whether they want the job. - Amgine 03:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom members should Not retain their adminships

Amgine, you must have missed my point entirely. Here,on the discussion page, I am suggesting that the arbcom members be made up of non-admins or semi-active admins who would be willing to resign their adminships...the total of non-admins and semi-active admins make up 90%+ of our contributors and provide an ample pool of potential nominees. If an active admin. wants to be ArbCom; then the requirement should be that they de-admin. themselves so that we don't have to deal with the ongoing commotion of conflicts of interest and recluse requests. This is just plain common sense. With all the other capable people here, why would we want to have to deal with the problem of admins judging people they have been in recent disputes with; which you yourself said would happen frequently. You asked for discussion points and this is one right here. Neutralizer 03:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there should be any restriction on who can be a member of the arbitration committee built into policy. New editors or old, admin or not, anyone who has the trust of the community should allowed to be an arbitrator. We should not place artificial restrictions on the community in their choice of arbitrators. This is a question of basic equality. The community should not be forced to automatically exclude anyone from this process. --Chiacomo ^(talk) 03:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Wow; I must be worst communicator on the planet. I am not saying anyone or any group at all should be excluded from nomination..I'm simply saying that if an admin stands for election and is elected then they must give up their adminship; just like when a lawyer becomes a judge he suspends his law practice. This is soooo elementary to having a judicial system with integrity. Arbitrators are NEVER administrators of the establishment where they arbitrate. It's simply unethical and suspicious in appearance if not reality. Neutralizer 03:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, all of the Stewards can and do utilize administrative powers when required (though that is not their role). The Wikipedia arbitration committee, though unwieldy on some points, has no restrictions on membership (that I'm aware of) and this hasn't been a problem for them. By placing artificial restrictions on who can be an arbitrator we restrict the community's choice -- we should not place anyone in a position of having to choose a good arbitrator over a good admin. When I try to argue that admnistrators might have a conflict of interest, I cannot... All arbitrators have an equal chance of having a conflict of interest -- because this is a collaborative project and conflict between editors is common. We must remember that we are not a democracy, we are not an experiement in online self government, anarchy, or anything else... We are a wiki and we write news. If we could edit harmoniously we wouldn't even need an arbitration committe. Please, lets not make this any harder than it must be. --Chiacomo ^(talk) 04:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Repeat; Not calling for restrictions of any kind on who the community can nominate nor on who can be elected. This is not making anything harder; just making it more sustainable and reputable. Why do most discussion topics degenerate into 1 on 1 debates? and always with an admin being on 1 side of the debate. I'd like to hear what others have to say. The practical point is the community comes first; not individuals; so with all the semi-active and inactive admins and non-admins we don't need the aggravation of having the few active admins running arbitration where it's already been established they will likely run into lots of conflicts; "I could probably not serve on the committee: I would need to recuse myself from nearly any case due to involvement with it, and so it would be useless for me to be on it." Amgine[1]. If an active admin wants to be an arbitrator that's fine; but they have to choose; and there's nothing wrong with that. Neutralizer 04:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you either misunderstand the role of administrators or simply wish to discriminate against administrators. Why wouldn't an admin want to be an arbitrator? Their roles are fundamentally different. The argument could be made that arbitrators should be administrators -- regular editors cannot view deleted edits which might be used in the arbitration process. By placing restrictions on who can serve as an arbitrator you place the community in the position of choosing to de-admin a potentially good administrator -- you also force the administrator to make a choice. Equal rights for all Wikinewsies. We should all be able to serve in any and all positions the community chooses for us. --Chiacomo ^(talk) 04:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Repeat; No "restrictions on who can serve as an arbitrator". I'm not imagining potential conflicts; they would be a reality; "I could probably not serve on the committee: I would need to recuse myself from nearly any case due to involvement with it, and so it would be useless for me to be on it." Amgine [2] I will say no more on this and welcome the opinions of others and the will of the consensus. Neutralizer 04:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Just because someone is an ADMIN doesn't means that they have a conflict of intreast with everybody in the comunity. Admins have no special editing rights and should be treated just as any other user. their job is to act on behalf of the comunity to acsess features that could screw everybody over if an ill-intentioned user messed with them.(like blocking and editing things like MediaWiki:Sitenotice). If an Admin is having a Conflict of intereast with another member of the comunity, then it should be dealed with in the same way as anybody else having a conflict of intreast. Bawolff ☺☻ 04:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Resource info; "General Standard 2 states that an arbitrator must not serve when either:

A; he considers that he has doubts over his ability to be impartial or independent; or B;if facts or circumstances exist that from a reasonable third person’s point of view having knowledge of the relevant facts, give rise to justifiable doubts as to the arbitrator's impartiality or independence. [3]"

According to Amgine (above quote) It's likely that B will be a problem for active admins. In either de-admin hearings (loyalty factor) or de-editing hearings (previous direct involvement or loyalty to other active admins with direct involvement). We have 9 really active admins right now,9 semi-actives and 8 completely inactive admins. For the semis and in-actives, suspending their admins should be no problem at all and for the dozens of non-admins it's a non-issue...only the active admins will have to make a choice so, what's the big deal? Neutralizer 15:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Opposal to Committee

It is in my faith that I see no use for such a committee. If a user has violated the blocking policy, he should be blocked. If the user repeats, it should be a longer block. If the user doesn't make any edits contradictory to the blocking policy, they cannot and should not be blocked. All users who currently would be applicable to the ArbCom as interviewees would, in my opinion, show no respect to those on the committee as they already show a great lack of respect for the administrators and other community members here. Therefore, I oppose this committee - concluding that such a board would be unnecessary with the current issues and policy enforcement this site attempts to perform. --Mrmiscellanious 04:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Clarification please; what do you mean "in my faith"? Neutralizer 14:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I think this is mainly needed when the policy is not clear on what to do. There are a lot of cases where policy is not clear cut. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Still wondering what "in my faith" means; is it a religious reference or some form of colloquialism? If it's a religious reference and religious beliefs are overtly impacting our policies; then that is a serious event that should not be pushed under the carpet,imo. Neutralizer 14:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Neutralizer, that was a single comment from a single user - IF, and that's a big if because it could mean many things and I don't know any religious that reference wikinews, MrM was talking about religion, it would not and should not in any way effect the site. Under the carpet? Who was pushing it? Sorry, but all I see is MrM expressing opposition, and it should be kept like that. Lyellin 16:19, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Lyellin; again I used the wrong word; I meant we should not ignore a religious reference if it's used in connection with policy decisions. You're right, it has nothing to do with "under the carpet". Neutralizer 16:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

What is the point of Arbitration?

I would contend that some of those spending an inordinate amount of time on policy that may relate to sanctions that an individual or group appointed by the community can take against a disruptive user are those most likely to be on the receiving end of such sanctions. I would propose that discussions on the Arbitration committee be closed as soon as possible and ask other members of the community to endorse this proposal. As a worst-case I would again suggest that we continue without an ArbCom and someone inquire with Wikipedia if we, being a small community, could "borrow" their ArbCom in the event that a dispute such as United Administrators of Wikinews versus QPOV has to be brought.

As far as I am concerned the current project page is reasonable. It's really simple if you summarize it, you go before the ArbCom, the case is accepted or rejected, if accepted a ruling is forthcoming, failure to comply with the ruling may be enforced by blocks. It most definitely does not need analysed under a microscope. There are several points I've seen mentioned on this page that need covered.

First, the odds of needing administrator privileges to review evidence for a case are probably quite high. Yes, this means that if someone is seeking an arbitration ruling against an individual administrator they'll need a friendly administrator to look at deleted edits and say if they were appropriate or not. If they can't find said friendly administrator, they're kinda SOL. We're all allegedly volunteers, studies and real work can mean that you've got to believe something merits the effort. Here's the important point that should be drawn from that... Requests to de-admin are serious, require a high quality and reasonable quantity of evidence and are the purview of the ArbCom

Second, the requirement to stand down in case of conflict. This has the potential to lead to a reenactment of the courtroom circus that can be jury selection. You're back to needing someone who can make an objective judgement on someone's fitness for the case before the ArbCom. I don't have a solution to this, but it is an issue in that the entire community can get sucked into an ongoing controversy and disruptive users can then go, "nya nya! nobody's objective enough to do anything about me". Conclusion: Inactive admins should be welcomed onto the ArbCom if they can make a commitment to free up a half day or so given seven days warning.

Thirdly, and I'll stop after this - I do not want to spend lots of time on policy that works for me - is for a few people who have kept speaking on this to review their contributions. If we actually had an ArbCom I believe I could - if inclined to the effort - raise a case right now. One, I'm not that aggressive/confrontational, and two, I do not want to start listing off things I'd like done to people for site disruption, they might not be legal in all states of the US ;-). We are supposed to be a community with the objective of getting the news put together for people to read. Endless discussions that go nowhere belong on Usenet. Conclusion... if you think I might be picking on you with these comments, look at Indymedia and take edits you know wouldn't be accepted here to there, our license (I believe) allows you to do that. Brian McNeil / ^talk 16:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Would it not be possible to give arbitrators the authority to look at deleted edits? Agreed about inactives being a great source. I appreciate the comments on the issue and will not respond to the comments of a personal nature which,for sure, do not assume good faith. I think the project is important and will try to be a messenger of important facts(e.g. the Dan100 unilateral nonsensical restrictions on de-admin listings and the fact we do not have to have an arbcom where conflicts of interest are likely to be the norm) and to draw attention to existing or proposed policy which seems to be nonsensical; and then let the community decide what it thinks is reasonable. Neutralizer 17:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Who can view deleted edits isn't something I can comment on. It is a technical change, not just a few bits of wikicode. The other thing I'd like to request is you leave this page alone for a day or two to let other people comment. Repeatedly adding little bits to a conversation isn't giving time for the thing to be balanced by input from others (who I would like to comment with a view to closing and archiving this page with some semblance of agreed policy on the project page). Now if you don't mind, I'll go look for an article page to improve. Brian McNeil / ^talk 18:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea,Brian; I suggest we retire for a cup of tea. Neutralizer 19:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Closure of ArbCom discussion

Brian McNeil proposes above; "I would propose that discussions on the Arbitration committee be closed as soon as possible and ask other members of the community to endorse this proposal."

I have decided to endorse Brian's proposal because at this point any arbcom is better than no arbcom. I will assume goodfaith that there will be no self election(block voting) to the ArbCom by the 4 or 5 most active admins. Neutralizer 18:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I too endorse adoption of this draft as policy and trust the community's wisdom in selecting arbitrators through consensus (not through election). --Chiacomo ^(talk) 23:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree too, becuase arguing for ten years isn't goining to get us anywhere. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I support this draft aswell. --Deprifry|+T+ 06:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I am very disappointed that we need this, but it seems as we do so I am going to support. I would prefer if a few limits on what the arbcom can and can not do (ex. no block longer then x) would be added to the proposal. --Cspurrier 17:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to assume, lacking opposition, that this proposed policy is in force then, and we should begin considering a slate of people who would be good nominations to serve. - Amgine | ^talk 03:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I wannabe on Arbcom

• to hear an issue that has no relevance to a story trying to be published
• to hear an issue that has no relevance to Wikinews trying to get a story published
• to hear bulls**t

-Edbrown05 03:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

<considers> I think I will nominate Edbrown05 for Arbcom... - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 04:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I second the nomination for Ed.

Also, Me too; I see through the bulls**t and my Grandfather was a Georgia judge. Neutralizer 19:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee

Arbcom is an attempt to let rest with the findings of 5 persons an issue that the Wikinews community cannot resolve among itself with regard to its members.

It's a complete waste of time. -Edbrown05 03:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikinews downplays conflict with its contributors because it assumes good faith from the community, meaning that all who contribute do so because of the interest they express in the news, a shared watch.

Terms

We are supposed to select staggered terms of up to one year... We could offer those with the most support first choice -- or we could determine terms some other way. If no one objects, my term could expire January 1, 2007 0000 UTC... Any other thoughts? --Chiacomo ^(talk) 00:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe the staggered terms issue needs to be addressed. The policy as proposed calls for it, but I sense some reluctance on Wikinews to constant voting. If every two months an ArbComm member was up for re-election, would there be much interest in the voting process. Perhaps the community would prefer to deal with the issue once a year with an annual vote. If not, then every two months would be reasonable for one of the ArbComm members to come up for vote. -Edbrown05 00:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned that a vote every few months for just one open seat might result in a much more adversary process as that would put people in direct competition and might create division in the community. --Deprifry|+T+ 14:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

6 vs 5

I think there should only be 6 members when theres a tie. normally there should be five.Bawolff ☺☻ 00:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Other last minute thoughts

If arbcom makes a very bad ruling (that everyone not on arbcom disagrees with) is there any way to appeal it? Does it go to comunity vote (Straw poll yes vs no for voiding ruling). Oh well thinking of this would be Instruction creep so I'll stop thinking now. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

6 vs 7

I dont think 6 persons in arbcomm is really that good. I suggest an late expansion to 7 members to get an odd number. We have 7 good nominees and lets invite Elliot K by set the number of member in arbcomm to 7. Or make a new vote to find the 5th member between Ed and Craig International 13:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I very much like the idea of a 6 person arbcom, I think the fact that we can tie will prevent a small majority from overruling a slightly smaller minority. I believe this will help force us to work together and find solutions that are more widely acceptable. If we do run into cases that we can not get beyond a tie, we can always take the matter to a community vote, or let Jimbo or an agreed upon board member be the deciding vote.--Cspurrier 17:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think possibly a comunity vote or the board, but arbitray descisions by jimbo is a bad idea in my opinion. If we had to have arbitray decesions, I think Eloquence would be a much better candidate. (yes I relise Jimbo is on the board). I support a 6 person arbcom (I wouldn't care that much if it was seven, just not another election.) Bawolff ☺☻ 23:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Eloquence has been involved in several conflicts with other users, I would have supported him as a member of arbcom but since he was not elected, I would prefer giving this power to someone on the board or to Jimbo(who ultimately has this power anyways).Additionally I would prefer to have someone less likely to be involved in the dispute. --Cspurrier 23:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

If Jimbo will accept his being the "final court of appeal", then I would prefer giving it to Jimbo. --Chiacomo ^(talk) 23:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I respect Jimbo very much, but I would disagree with giving Jimbo the final court of appeal. I do realize his word is more or less law on wikimedia projects, because he more or less founded wikimedia and when it comes down to it he can decide whatever he wants and everyone (including me) will listen. However, he has done limited work on wikinews (I know that he did some stuff at the begening, but nothing recent). I think that his judgements would not be as respected because he does not know what happens at wikinews until a point of time where something blows-up and he's called in to settle it. Therefor most everything would be distorted, and I believe that a comunity vote (or Eloquence) would be better. (whew, that sounded kinda harsh but I'm not sure how to put it less bluntly). Bawolff ☺☻ 00:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Bawollf above, mirroring the musing that we should not, as a community, rely on one individual to call the final decision (especially one who hasn't been active in quite a while). With all respect to the user, this should be decided in another fashion. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 01:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it'll ever be an issue; If a 12 person jury has to come in unanimous, then surely our 6 can stick with it til they have a majority. Neutralizer 01:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, worst comes to worst, we could always ignore the arbcom (Yep, thats definitly my worst idea yet) Bawolff ☺ ☻ 01:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Recuse

Chiacomo advised we needed our own policy, so for now I have included the WP policy verbatim as a starting point. Neutralizer 17:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

"Proposed policy"

Please start a consensus poll. As of yet, this is still a proposed policy. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 05:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Your opposition to ArbCom is noted above, but you failed to ellaborate on it when asked to do so by other members of the community. Opposition to the committee could also have been voiced under the Closure of ArbCom discussion heading. A single member opposing the proposal doesn't constitute a consensus against the policy - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 21:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

All policies are proposed. We've already had a concensuss poll. but if you insist... Bawolff ☺☻ 00:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikinews:Polls/Arbcom→official

Editing policy

I will make small but important changes to policys regarding ArbCom. See them as bold suggestions as all changes to policy. international 00:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

election Time

It's time for a election, 3 members terms expire (Bawolff, Craig Spurrier and Deprifry). I propose Pre-Election and Nomination Period from Jan 11, 2007 - Jan 17, 2007, and the Arbitration Committee Elections running from Jan 18, 2007 - Jan 31, 2007. thoughts? Brian | (Talk) | ^{New Zealand Portal} 11:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Tell me if you need help with anything.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Successor to MessedRocker

Since MessedRocker resigned, are we going to hold another election, or just have 4 seats up in July?  Thunderhead  ►  01:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't know. I've emailed everyone on arbcom to see what they say. So far, 3 people want to leave vaccant t'll next election (a couple of months). No one else has responded. MessedRocker said "I don't care what you do with my vacant seat -- I abandoned it and so it is left for the public to claim. I nominated Skenmy merely as a suggestion if you couldn't be bothered with yet another election." So assuming no one objects, looks like just fill up next election. Its not like there is an urgent need for arbitrators. Bawolff ☺☻ 04:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Filling the seat at the next regular election probably is the best course of action. An election for just one seat would be unnecessary contentious and the person elected would serve only a few months anyway. --+Deprifry+ 08:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Correct. I removed Messed from the RfC and RfO page that ArbCom started.  Thunderhead  ►  09:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Election time again

It is rapidly approaching. The seats held by Bawolff (talk · contribs), Brian New Zealand (talk · contribs), and Doldrums (talk · contribs) will soon expire. We need Wikinews Arbitration Committee Election Coordinators, etc. I will set up Wikinews:Arbitration Committee/Elections January 2008 based on the July page. --SVTCobra 23:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to extend terms and have annual elections for all seats

Proposal

1. Extend the terms of current ArbCom members Bawolff (talk · contribs), Brian (talk · contribs) (formerly Brian New Zealand) and Doldrums (talk · contribs) by six months. These terms, which were due to expire on January 31, 2008, would then expire July 31, 2008.
2. The terms of all six ArbCom members would then expire on July 31, 2008. Elections will be held during July to elect or relect members for a one year terms, which expire on July 31, 2009. Elections will be held every July going forward until needs dictate a change in this procedure.

--SVTCobra 23:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• It has been suggested that having elections every six months for our rarely used Arbitration Committee is too burdensome. This proposal would alleviate that. There was a failure to implement a similar schema, the outline of which can be seen here. Please vote soon, because if this fails, we will have to organize elections under a time constraint. --SVTCobra 23:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
• If you have questions about this, they may already be answered in this discussion on WN:AAA. --SVTCobra 00:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Votes

Please use {{support}}, {{oppose}}, {{neutral}}, or {{comment}}

• Support --SVTCobra 23:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support Adambro 23:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support, but only because there is little-to-no activity on WN:RFAr (otherwise I would have to oppose; the staggered terms makes for a more stable ArbCom). —Zachary ^talk 00:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support --Jcart1534 00:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 11:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support Thunderhead - (talk - email - contributions) 21:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment don't have a problem with it either way. –Doldrums(talk) 19:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support --Skenmy^{(t•c•w•i)} 17:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment This should not apply to Brian as he has publicly announced his temporary withdrawal from the project. Therefore the election for his seat should take place on or around January 31st. --Skenmy^{(t•c•w•i)} 17:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

However, Brian mentioned on wikinews-l, that he could pop in if any bureaucrat action was required. I assume that might extend to arbcom if needed? --Jcart1534 18:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom is often a longer, drawn out process. Unless he can guarantee to devote that much time when needed then it should not apply to him. If he can guarantee it then I have no objection at all :) --Skenmy^(t•c•w) 18:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support--Cspurrier 17:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral it doesn't matter either way. —FellowWiki Newsie 02:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support Not sure on replacing the other Brian, I heard from him a couple of days ago when I got a query on "What to see in Edinburgh" so he isn't totally uncontactable. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 10:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support Wilhelm 12:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made under a separate subject header on this page, or it can be brought up at the Admin's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Suspending the committee

[4]. MessedRocker (talk) 04:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

ARE YOU NUTS? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 10:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Vacancy -byelection

Per NZGabriel's resignation, do we wish to hold a by-election, or hold the seat open till the next general election in July? Brian | (Talk) | ^{New Zealand Portal} 10:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The ArbCom was only really formed to deal with Neutraliser, so I have no preference either way. I would, however, be worried if we ended up needing to hold an election to use the committee. Perhaps a better question might be to informally ask who would stand. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 10:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

If you don't know who Neut was, or how batshit-insane-wrapped-in-tinfoil he was, read the link in the above section. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 10:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Where does Nzgabriel (talk · contribs) say he is resigning? Cirt (talk) 11:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind [5]. Cirt (talk) 11:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind standing to fill the vacant seat, if it doesn't require me submitting personal information to the Foundation (doesn't arbcom on most other WMF projects come packaged with CU and OS? Wikinews:Arbitration Committee#Requests for CheckUser / Oversight mentions something about checkuser, but doesn't specifically state that the tool is needed for arbcom). On the other hand, the elections will come around in a few months, and arbcom never really gets much use nowadays anyway. Still, it wouldn't be good if the committee suddenly had to be used, and we had to hold elections in order to use it. In any case, I don't really have much of an opinion one way or the other. tempodivalse 13:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not a requirement that you identify to the Foundation to stand for arbcom - but I wouldn't be opposed to that becoming a requirement. Checkuser is 'minimum 18', and separate from ArbCom - generally because we can't get the mass of voting locally to show clear support for CU. ArbCom, naturally, has to be decided by local people. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 15:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm ... well, after thinking it over a bit, I am of the opinion that it probably would indeed be best to appoint a filler to hold the seat for two months until the full elections come around; it's entirely possible some issue might come up between now and the elections and the committee will need to be used. Maybe we should hold an informal poll, just to see who would be interested in standing? tempodivalse 15:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Considering the amount that the committee is used, I am of the opinion that the remaining members are capable of dealing with anything that will come up (but have no strong opinions either way). Last time someone resigned we did not have a by-election. 24.65.82.136 (user:Bawolff not logged in) 19:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I would have to agree here. If anyone recalls, when arbcom was set up, it was only going contain five members; we ended up with six due to a tie in the first vote. In fact, I would suggest a change in the policy, which would state that a by-election would not be necessary if a vacancy occurs within 3 months of a general election. Provided there are at least five full members of the committee (thus allowing flexibility for these occasions when only one member resigns near election time). Thoughts? Brian | (Talk) | ^{New Zealand Portal} 04:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Or, here's another possibility: why don't we hold the full elections for all six seats right now? Having them a month or so earlier shouldn't really make much difference, should it? tempodivalse 19:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I think it is easiest and simplest to just have 5 seats until July 2009. Cirt (talk) 07:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

An election is due

Terms expire very doon. Elections are due very soon. Is anyone organising them? Computerjoe's talk 22:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikinews:Water cooler/policy

I've started a proposal at Wikinews:Water cooler/policy to abolish ArbCom. I welcome discussion there. Computerjoe's talk 23:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Brian McNeil (talk · contribs) - ArbCom resignation

Realistically, if the community would not trust me with CheckUser it would be highly inappropriate to continue as a member of the Arbitration Committee.

Whilst the committee is perpetually inactive, and I have argued fiercely that it should be maintained to avoid the disasters that beset Wikipedia prior to them initially setting up such, my presence on the committee would make any decision by such open to a challenge that may threaten the community.

As a consequence I am, with immediate effect, withdrawing from the committee and would, unless under only the most extreme of circumstances, ever stand as a candidate for such again.

I am, additionally, considering whether I should request removal of my 'crat privileges, and a vote of confidence over continuing to retain Adminship.

This incident over a diaster around Accredited Reporters has perhaps been one of the most damaging incidents I have seen in the over five years I have been involved with Wikinews. During the early time I was involved the project was, repeately, beset by the same moronic trolling; "tinfoil asshattery" that seems all-too-common on controversial issues over on Wikipedia. I have fought to avoid that here, along with the absurdly time-consuming abuse of policy and Assume Good Faith that sees 'pedia disputes drag on for months, if not years.

It does, realistically, seem as if the Wikipedia obsession with AGF and "being nice" is damaging this project; plus people are, indeed, failing to adequately review and copyedit. This will put our listing in Google News at risk, so it is up to the rest of the community to up their standards and make sure this does not happen.

Otherwise Wikinews may as well be rolled back into Wikipedia and here closed. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 12:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Election time...again

Well, its that time of year again. The seats held by my me, alongwith Blood Red Sandman, Cirt, Cspurrier, Tempodivalse will soon expire. As of Brianmc resignation, we also have one vacancy. We need Election Coordinators, etc. Just thought I would hightlight this on wiki Brian | (Talk) | ^{New Zealand Portal} 11:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Brian, this is already being discussed here; maybe move this over there to have discussion more centralised? Nice to see you around in editing, by the way Tempodivalse [talk] 13:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought there needed to be reminder here. Was meaning to link through but forgot. oops! Thanks Brian | (Talk) | ^{New Zealand Portal} 01:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Why Does This Exist

What does this exist? There is no need for this. Stewards and bureaucrat can be elected directly and should be.199.126.224.245 (talk) 21:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

This exists mostly as a result of a historical dispute involving Neutralizer. This has nothing to do with stewards/b'crats, as b'crats are elected locally here, and stewards are handled at meta. Bawolff ☺☻ 11:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Stewards and bureaucrats are not elected to handle dispute resolution. They have other quite precisely-defined roles. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Grumble

• Grumble, grumble. I'm self-nommed over on WN:RfP. I assume the survival of this section here means WN:OVERSIGHT remains current. Therefore, ArbCom approval sought. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 13:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

That passage looks messed up. It seems to assume all members of Arbcom are expected to be assigned Checkuser Oversight routinely, and retain it after they leave Arbcom, but I don't think we've ever done that at Wikinews. The whole page probably needs to be read through carefully and updates proposed. Meanwhile, with the size of the project it seems unlikely anyone could get the requisite number of supporting votes without a majority of Arbcom, so it shouldn't be a problem in practice. --Pi zero (talk) 17:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

election proposal '11

Just so we start thinking about it. I move that we set the following dates for Election 2011: The community must agree on all election procedures by July 1, and election committee members by July 10. Nominations will be accepted July 11–17. Questions and comments may be made during that time period, but no voting shall take place. Voting will take place from July 18–30. Since the incumbent members' seats expire on August 3th , the election committee must will declare the winners on about July 31st, and the new term begins after declaration. Should any case be before the arbcom at election time the current committee will continue to sit until that case has been heard. Brian | (Talk) | ^{New Zealand Portal} 04:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Two thoughts.

• I strongly recommend to the forthcoming election committee that there not be a special place set aside for "questions for all candidates". Such a place was set aside last year, for the first time. Last year's election was heavily politicized —which is inappropriate, because arbcom are judiciary, not legislative nor executive— and emotionally exhausting to stand through. From what I've been told, and from the evidence of earlier elections pages, previous elections were not like that. I believe the creation of a special place for questions-for-all structurally induces such arduous and inappropriate politicization.
• This is a ridiculously fine point given the extreme rarity of arbcom cases, but — presumably the current committee continues to sit after turnover only on cases that started under the current committee. That is, if a new case comes up after turnover it will be heard by the new committee, even if the current committee is still working on an old case.

--Pi zero (talk) 11:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Your correct on the second point, only a case that is open before, or during election time will be heard by the old committee. The new committee will hear any new cases filed after 3 August. Also, Yeah, the question aspect is interesting. I am not to sure where i sit on that matter - but I am leaning to supporting having questions so people can make a informed vote. This is the reason I am proposing this so early - so we can get all this detail sorted out before they creep up on us! Brian | (Talk) | ^{New Zealand Portal} 23:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

With one exception, there has always been a place set aside for questions to each candidate. Except for last year's election, though, that section has always been just before the votes for that candidate; thus, it was grouped with that candidate. To ask a question of all candidates, one would have to ask it separately of each candidate. If it really matters to you, you should be willing to do that, and you absolutely should be able to do that. But, in the history of our arbcom prior to last year's election, nobody had ever chosen to ask a question of all the candidates. The point I meant to make is that if one makes it trivially easy to ask a question of all the candidates, one guarantees a flood of such questions, and the consequences of such a flood are highly undesirable. --Pi zero (talk) 01:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I re-propose as follows: The community must agree on all election procedures by July 1, and election committee members by July 10. The deadline for nominations is 2000UTC July 17th Voting will take place from 2000 UTC July 18– 2000UTC 30 July.Questions and comments may be made during that time period. Since the incumbent members' seats expire on August 3th , the election committee must will declare the winners on about July 31st, and the new term begins after declaration. Should any case be before the arbcom at election time the current committee continues to sit after turnover on cases that started under the current committee. Any new case after turnover is for the new committee Brian | (Talk) | ^{New Zealand Portal} 01:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Support Works for me :-). --Pi zero (talk) 02:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't even want to think about an ArbCom election right now ... can't we just shove it in a corner and forget about it for a few years? D: —fetch·comms 02:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm unflagging this and starting a policy water cooler thread. --Pi zero (talk) 12:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)