This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This statement has been used to justify striking out ip comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noemi Letizia. My guess is that it is meant to mean actual elections, such as RFA and ArbCom elections, as opposed to discussions, such as AFD and talk pages. If it could be clarified to avoid similar confusion in the future, that would be super. Beeblebrox ( talk) 01:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Beeblebrox beat me to the punch here (two heads and three arms are faster than one and two, I guess.:-) )
- Looks like we want to clarify the language in "Editing from anonymous IPs" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy/Past_decisions#Editing_from_anonymous_IPs .
In a recent AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noemi Letizia, an editor struck out several "votes" (including mine). I complained about this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Changes_made_to_.22votes.22_in_AfD_of_Noemi_Letizia .
It transpired that an editor had struck out votes of anon IPs, on the basis (stated in Wikipedia:Arbitration) that "anonymous IP addresses are not allowed to vote on Wikipedia."
Others responded that "AFD is supposed to be a discussion, not a vote, and IPs are certainly allowed to participate."
At this point, I don't feel that I understand whether http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy/Past_decisions#Editing_from_anonymous_IPs does prohibit "votes" of anon IPs from being considered in AfDs or not.
Thanks for clarification on this. -- 201.37.230.43 ( talk) 01:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

In fact I've only striked out votes, not comments, by anonymous IPs. -- ElfQrin ( talk) 17:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Those decisions are very old, and they relate to WP:SOCK more than AFD. Community norms have progressed since then; the best place to take this query is WT:AFD. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 10:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Uh, but the problem is that someone was quoting this to justify their actions, the language on the page needs to be changed to reflect consensus. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and made the changes. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I know this gets discussed periodically, but I can't remember where we're supposed to discuss it. Anyway, the meat of my point is that currently we have cases on ADHD, Matisse and the Tang Dynasty. One of those concerns a user and the other two relate to topics. Which one is the user? For a split second I was trying to work out which side I take on the question of Matisse's disputed position as an Impressionist. Hiding T 13:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

ADHD ( talk · contribs) and Tang ( talk · contribs) are innocent!

I would prefer we use a numbering system for cases (e.g. 2009-018), and improve our Index to help people find cases.

I have often typed in the wrong name, such as "Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat" instead of "Prem Rawat 2", and it has taken a few good minutes of reading before realising my mistake.

If we ever have more than 999 cases in one year, I'll be passing on the baton and retiring to Wikisource. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 09:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

John: If you're observant enough, the case closure date is usually enough in and of itself to make the reader realise he has the wrong case. ;-) (Although, admittedly, subsequent cases are sometimes heard fairly close to one another, and so the date isn't always enough.) AGK 16:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases is almost 200KB. Does anyone have an objection to breaking it into per-year subpages? John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 09:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Go for it; 200kb is too large. AGK 16:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not see a procedure for a non-party to comment on an open arbitration. Is there one? Is it permissible for a non-party to appear as amicus curiae or amicus Wikipediae? I have a concern about one particular arbitration where, in my opinion, some of the proposed remedies will have an unintended adverse impact on the quality of Wikipedia. Finell (Talk) 21:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking, anyone is free to comment on any of the talk pages associated with an arbitration case. In your case, you'll probably want to comment either on the talk page of the "workshop" or the talk page of the "proposed decision". Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 04:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Your essay on professionalism, which I discovered from the link in your signature, captures standards to aspire to with extraordinary clarity and brevity. Finell (Talk) 05:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I submit for your consideration: Wikipedia:Arbitrating on content. — harej ( talk) 04:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I have made some suggestions here for improving the transparency of the process. Briefly, I propose:

1. That those accused of misconduct be routinely informed of the existence of the Arbitration guide; I was not and it might have helped me in my recent case.
2. That the guide be edited to specifically reflect that there should be no expectation of equity in the arbitration process; it already includes the information that: "Arbitration is not a court case - All actions and general conduct (not just the direct issue) may be taken into account; arbitration is not a legal process with fixed approaches to problems. A person's general manner is probably evidence of their likely behavior going forward, old incidents may not be actionable but can sometimes show a persistent history of problems, and insightful impressions by reasonable people may be valuable, even if just "impressions"", but it may need to go further and specifically mention that there is no guarantee of natural justice or audi alteram partem, and that remedies may therefore be voted on before the accused has a chance to defend themselves or research the nature of the charges against them. Mention should also perhaps be made that there is no sentencing tariff, and therefore no prejudice against implementing similar sanctions on users, the nature and degree of whose alleged misconduct has been very different.
3. Consideration be given to appointing a Public Defender for those inexperienced in the Arbcom system, as User:Bigtimepeace suggests here.

Thanks for any time you can spare to review these suggestions. -- John ( talk) 21:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Any comments? I realize arbs are terribly busy people but I thought you might have a response to this by now. -- John ( talk) 18:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

My recollection was that a process similar to a public defender had been done before - Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates - but was not felt to be helpful. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 11:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Does the arbitration committee consider this to be an accurate precis of a recent arbitration decision? I don't: it gives the impression that there is still something to do within 15 days and that the mentor changes clause refers to these 15 days, which is nonsense. I say this without wishing to imply any criticism of the clerk, who closed the case with due care and attention.

I have seen similar issues arising in other cases with clerk posts on user talk. What is the purpose of the clerk precis? The parties are surely going to read the full decision, and the precis carries no formal meaning. Further, the clerk cannot be expected to be familiar with the intricacies and subtleties of a case, so that even if a precis is desirable, the clerks are not the right people to provide it, especially not within a tight 24 hour framework. Geometry guy 06:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

What should have been included is the notes left on the proposed decision page. The bits that say "(Note: As reflected in the findings, Mattisse prepared a plan as required by this paragraph while the proposed decision was pending. See next paragraph.)" and "(Note: As reflected in the findings, Mattisse prepared a plan, as required by remedy 1, while the proposed decision was pending. See preceding paragraphs.)". Those notes were intended to avoid exactly this sort of confusion. I'll try and get those notes added to where the decision was published. Carcharoth ( talk) 08:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for the clarification and the time you have spent fixing this minor issue. I even want to apologize for raising it and distracting you from more important work, but my contention is that there is a procedural problem here: clerk precis is creating unnecessary work (the date linking case had another recent example of a misleading precis). Simple links from user talk to the full decision would be less problematic. Geometry guy 06:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggest you raise this with the clerks. They may be quite happy to accommodate your request. Carcharoth ( talk) 21:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Given that Arbcom found that the blocks of myself and User:MalikCarr by AMIB were improper, could they be expunged from our records? Jtrainor ( talk) 23:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I was recused on that case, but will point out your question. As you may have realised, this page isn't followed that closely... Carcharoth ( talk) 21:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The committee may be interested to know that I have just re-nominated myself for adminship in accordance with your desysopping of me last year. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tango 2. -- Tango ( talk) 02:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

A new Request for Comment has been opened at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee_2. This RFC focuses on the composition and selection of the committee; specifically, how many members should be on the Arbitration Committee, how long should their terms be, and how should they be selected? The issue of a Public vs Secret ballot is also under discussion, as is the issue of Support/Oppose voting vs Preferential or Cumulative Selection. Your comments are welcome. Thank you. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Nominations are now open for candidates to run in the Arbitration Committee elections of December 2009 ( WP:ACE2009). In order to be eligible to run, editors must have 1,000 mainspace edits, be at least 18 years of age, and be of legal age in their place of residence; note also that successful candidates must identify to the Wikimedia Foundation before taking their seats. Nominations will be accepted from today, November 10, through November 24, with voting scheduled to begin on December 1. To submit your candidacy, proceed to the candidate statements page. The conditions of the election are currently under discussion; all editors are encouraged to participate. For the coordination cabal,  Skomorokh, barbarian  01:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

This page might get a new policy category; the discussion is at WP:VPP#Wikipedia administrative policy. - Dank ( push to talk) 23:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I hope this is the right place to post this - I am trying to find my way around "project space" at the moment. I've been interested in reading about the way that disputes are handled on the wiki, and am interested that the Arbitration Committee sometimes refers an issue back to "the community" rather than deciding on it. Specifically I happened to be looking at this one: [1]. (See the first two remedies.) There doesn't seem to be any sort of link back to where these issues were then discussed by the community (if in fact they were at all).

I think that if the committee refers a decision back to the community, they should make a new page for discussing it on (or a new section of an existing page), and then link to it from the decision, so that if you are reading the case decision you can actually follow through to the resulting community discussion without having to have in depth inside knowledge of where these things are to be found. At least I assume that "community" in this sense is broad enough to include less active users who don't necessarily know their way around all the project pages but may still have an interest in the issue?

Thanks. Weedier Mickey ( talk) 14:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

RE: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases and the cases listed there.

Starting with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Seeyou, Decided 26 June 2009, all cases are in the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ format.

Has there been any discussion about moving older cases, for example, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Obama articles to make all the arbitration pages uniform? Ikip ( talk) 17:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been following a few arb cases and thought that it would be useful to see recent changes to the case pages. It can be done quite easily using {{ RFARcasenav}}, by creating a page with the content {{RFARcasenav|case name=<case name>}} for each case, for example in the form Wikipedia:Arbitration/Changes/<case name>, and link related changes to that page in {{ RFARcasenav}}. An example display is here. Cenarium ( talk) 00:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Question for: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Index/Principles (that pages talk page redirects here)

I wanted to add a Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Index/Principles section about off-wiki communications.

Here are all arbcom statements about off-wiki communication.

From the past rulings, I find that:

1. off-wiki harassment is not tolerated.
2. Other types off-wiki communication has not been decided sufficiently enough to draft an overall principle.

   The Jim62sch case states:

   "A user's conduct outside of Wikipedia is generally not subject to Wikipedia policies or sanctions. This includes actions such as sending private e-mails or commenting on Wikipedia and its users in other forums."

   The C68-FM-SV case seems contradictory to Jim62sch:

   "Behavior tending to cause unnecessary division or strife within the Wikipedia community is considered harmful...includ[ing] interfering with the consensus process through inappropriate canvassing, undue off-wiki coordination, coordinated "meatpuppetry"..."

   Unless, inappropriate canvassing, and coordinated "meatpuppetry" is talking about on-wiki cordination, not off-wiki.

   In the Eastern European disputes case the arbom found off wiki communications occured, but the arbcom did not sanction editors because direct evidence was difficult to find.

Ikip 18:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Note that the current Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride_2/Workshop#Jurisdiction case also deals with off-wiki communication. Okip (formerly Ikip) 01:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

[Posting here because this is bigger than just that one case, and meta the issues raised there.]

@ArbCom:

I just can't get my head around this BLP summary motion. I am so angry, so embittered by it. My only hope is that you guys don't fully comprehend the profound implications of what you've tried to do; and might still be made to 'get it'.

There are two huge issues here.

1. ArbCom are a judiciary, not an executive. Your job is to resolve disputes and address bad behaviour. The right to determine and implement policy rests with us, not you. In your official capacity as ArbCom, you have no right to make pronouncements on what policies are desirable or undesirable, good or bad, high or low priority. Your motion is an attempt to use your judicial powers to make binding executive decisions. It an attempt to gain executive power. It is, in short, a coup.
2. Whether you agree with the above or not, you won't dispute that you have pronounced that a policy ought to be pursued. And then, you have tried to use your judicial powers to protect those who pursue that policy! This is down there with the very worst levels of official corruption. The worst, most evil, most corrupt governments subvert their judiciary to protect those who support them, and to persecute their opposition. Militias and secret police. Zimbabwe, Burma, now Wikipedia. How can you do this? How can you openly use your judicial powers to promote a political agenda? How can you openly put someone "above the law" because you desire the reform they are pushing? I just cannot fathom the ethical penury of it.

Please tell me that you realise you've monumentally fucked up and will try to fix it.

Hesperian 13:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Very well said. Guettarda ( talk) 14:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I must admit I do feel like something of a coup has happened, and that the ensuing civility and disruption are being ignored. I am pleased Scott had the gumption to retract some comments he made, but some other behaviour has been concerning. Having been on arbcom and well aware of the nature of the predicament, I can understand and sympathise to a point with Kirill's motion but I do have misgivings. I think more examples are better off in the case. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 08:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I bet this will just peter out into a gimmick. A lot of times when ancient FAs with no cites are around the place, people will just add a random web ref at the end of a para and hope that nobody checks and only sees that the ref doesn't match up at all, or only covers the last sentence. A lot of people at FAR/FAC don't check at all and just AGF, let alone these spot-checks. ArbCom is about politics so they have to put on a brave face like the leader of a sports team or a political party, unless they are in the unconventional minority, they aren't going to say that there are major problems with nonsense content etc or that there needs to be a leadership change, so they will do this fluff, sabre-rattling etc, but it will just go unenforced and so forth. Heaps of people including admins fake sources etc or bend them out of shape or just cite blogs and rubbish anyway. I know PHG got knocked on the head for having info not match up with refs, but let's face it, look who was complaining about him? Durova, Elonka, Jehochman, Shell Kinney and others. All people who attract a lot of eyes when they campaign for something, so the ArbCom had to react with all the eyes on them. But many other established users including admins are career POV-pushers and have ethnic blocs to protect them. Who's going to bother manning them all the time? And a lot of aggressive admins, despite what they say, only crack down on people who show dissent, although ostensibly it is for POV pushing. They have no interest in the content and any smart POV pusher knows that the only thing they will care much about is their ego massage. I predict that people will just randomly attach fake refs or refs with incomplete coverage to get their stuff out of danger. Many of these sweeping pronouncements have little effect on anything without anything serious on the ground. Wikipedia is a lot about gaming metrics and feeling better about oneself by tricking the casual observer with some meaningless stats so that one's prestige increases. Like Robert S McNamara and his silly stats, so all the lieutenants, captains and majors report gamed body counts to get a promotion or being removed from command. A lot of smaller wikis create empty articles with blank infoboxes, section headers only with no prose, or copy the same meaningless sentence over; someone on the Marathi.wp created about 100 cricket biographies which all had the exact same sentence about something cut and pasted. They do this to move up the rankings so that the leaders of the said project look more prestigious and get more praise from the outsider who doesn't look beneath the surface. Or subdivide their edits or let lots of tweaking bots loose so that the # of edits per article skyrockets or create lots of meaningless bureaucracy pages so that their "depth" rating goes up on the meta:List of Wikipedias so that their articles appear more sophisticated, when they aren't. Or simply doing the bare mininum to pass GA/FA (and never improving the article again until it gets hauled to FAR/GAR) or choosing the easiest targets to inflate the WikiProject or personal FA/GA count, because the casual observer will assume that 100 FAs is better than 50 FAs when the 100 FAs could just be 5kb long about a small thing, while the 50 could be all 60kb long about complicated prime ministers or presidents who ruled for a long time. Or simply writing a FA/GA that is not comprehensive enough in the comfort that nobody else on wiki knows about the content and getting a cheap milestone. And so on. People have always added fake references, and there isn't any reason why they won't continue to do so here to pass the token screening. YellowMonkey ( bananabucket) 01:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Bottom line, coup or no coup, it doesn't prevent the troops on the ground from running amok, so it hardly matters. If it is a coup, it's more like awarding oneself hundreds of meaningless medals, like those North Korean generals YellowMonkey ( bananabucket) 01:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Not sure about a lot of what's said above, but if you arbcom did something wrong, then ignoring dissent like this will work well (feel free to ignore). - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 07:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

After a year or two of the original arbitration committee, arbitrator Fred Bauder introduced workshop pages. Prior to that all work in progress was restricted to the evidence page (edited by anyone) and the proposed decision page (edited only by arbitrators and. later, also by clerks). The idea was good: increase community involvement. It was a resounding success. Nowadays parties take it for granted that they can spend a few weeks editing motions condemning one another to various versions of wiki-hell, before the Committee surprises everybody with its own, definitive, decision.

The problem as I see it is that this may have contributed to the tendency of arbitration to be regarded as an extremely acrimonious and undesirable process. Perhaps that's inevitable. But I'd like the committee to consider that, since the Workshop format was basically the initiative of one member, albeit strongly supported by other arbitrators at the time and patronised with enthusiasm by involved parties ever since, it remains within the Committee's gift.

The committee may want to hear some cases on the evidence alone, without workshop. I suggest that arbitrators consider this question when they vote on whether to accept a case, or at some later point during the case. -- TS 02:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I'd think that it would help to give clerks the authority to "turn off the spigot", so to speak, in instances where it may be needed. It should be a rare thing, since we don't need to be creating more animosity between parties by interjecting heavy handed tactics, but I don't see a problem with allowing clerks to make reasonable calls to send the combatants back to their corners for a minute.
—  V = IR ( Talk •  Contribs) 17:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I just came here to make the same point. Workshop pages are a cesspit right now. I don't know the best way of fixing that but some suggestions might be:

• Remove the user-by-user stuff; that rolls it back to the version 1 pattern I guess
• Clerk the hell out of it
• Topic ban the argumentative types
• Have "proposed foo" followed by "comments" generally, not segmented; collapse and repost when a new version results fro wordsmithing

The last point is maybe the best: the idea is to wordsmith stuff in order to save time. Maybe that is no longer necessary. Maybe it is but we should work it more like an RfC. Whatever, the current workshop pages are often a toxic wasteland. Guy ( Help!) 23:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I never made any secret that I despise the workshop page, myself. Even when it doesn't degenerate in a game of "Who Can Propose the Most Offensive Remedy", it's at best a replay in-vitro of the original dispute. I'd do away with them entirely. —  Coren  ^(talk) 10:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Tony's idea is interesting, and he's certainly right that workshop pages feed acrimony. But as an arb, I find them extremely valuable (it's actually a source of some frustration to me that the case whose decision I'm co-drafting, Asgardian, has such a skimpy workshop page). Rather than dispense with workshop pages, I'd rather see us move towards a more timely resolution of cases, as I believe Brad is aiming to do with Gibraltar; that way, there'd at least be less time for the acrimony to develop. I also think that we arbs could be better at nipping over harsh remedies in the bud - if somebody proposes such a remedy on the workshop page, a simple "not happening" might be enough to prevent excessive discussion on it. As well, while I wasn't around for the pre-workshop days, did the acrimony that now exists on workshop pages not just take place on the evidence page instead? Surely we don't want to create a system in which case participants cannot make recommendations on findings? Steve Smith ( talk) 12:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that it was NewYorkBrad who fairly recently said that the committee would welcome some more involvement/commentary on cases here. I've at least been skimming over most of what shows up here ever since, which leads to a complaint that I'd like to make. I think that the current discussion convention used here is too rigid, stilted, and disjointed to really be effective. I only have a half formed proposal here, so if we could brainstorm on it some that would be nice. I see the definate utility in having "involved parties" make statements within a distinct section, and I think that should be retained. However, I think that it ends up causing more harm then good to force everyone else commenting to follow suit. For one thing it makes cases which garner any significant commentary huge, and like I said above the discussion can quickly become disjointed and confusing. My proposal is that, when a new case, motion, request, or whatever is started, that there should be a dedicated section for each of the involved parties, and then a Discussion section for everyone to comment about the case. We could, and probably should, then come up with some guidelines on limiting sniping by involved parties in the proposed discussion area, but I think that this would help facilitate things here overall.
—  V = IR ( Talk •  Contribs) 17:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy/Draft an active proposal, or just old history cluttering up the proposals category? Should it be marked as failed or just removed from the category? Fences& Windows 22:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

We're still working on it, although it has obviously been overshadowed by more pressing items; hopefully, an updated draft will be ready for comment in the next few weeks. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 02:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Great, I will leave it alone! Fences& Windows 15:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I have found a discrepancy between the arbitration principles and speedy deletion. The discussion about it may be found here: Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Discrepancy between Arbitration principles and CSD:G4 Stephen! ^Coming... 10:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Recently, while I was trying to calm the waves at a highly disputed article, I learned that my edits, which I thought to be impartial administrative actions, could easily be seen as violating the Discretionary sanctions, when an editor posted a message originally titled " You've broken the 1rr on the Gaza flotilla raid article - multiple times". It seems that a literal interpretation of WP:1RR allows typical disruptive POV warring edits, while forbidding their reversal. See discussion of my proposal for radical simplification. Can an ArbCom member please clarify the application of this rule? Would my proposed change better express its intent? — Sebastian 19:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This is in relation to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/KJV. The user at the center of the arbitration case, under the radar (or under my radar at least) back in February, reverted/restored the 200 articles which were at the center of that dispute (see Category:Gospel of Matthew verses). It does not appear there was any prior discussion, just a bold recreation of the exact same disputed content. My gut desire is just to revert that action wholesale, but I feel like since 5 years have passed and this may be controversial, I want to get additional input. I am coming here since there was an arbcom case, but I acknowledge there may be better places to go, and would gladly move elsewhere. I brought it up here as that was part of the old discussion, but I'm not sure anyone is watching that (or that any user who joined in the last 5 years knows that page exists).- Andrew c  ^[talk] 02:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't the best place to post this be at WP:ANI, WP:RFF, or WP:RFC, since this was 5 years ago. Then, if neccessary, report to WP:RFM, and if that fails, report here WP:RFAR. PopMusicBuff ^talk 15:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

After getting blown a bit out of proportion at ANI, another centralized discussion has been opened Wikipedia:Bible verses/2010, FYI. - Andrew c  ^[talk] 01:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't sure how to do this, but I sent an e-mail to "arbcom-l[AT]lists.wikimedia.org" which contained some sensitive information that I was unable to post openly on Wikipedia. Is that account regularly checked? I've heard a lot of stories about the Wikipedia e-mails disappearing into a pit with no response. Wasn't sure if there was anyone I needed to contact to alert them I'd sent that e-mail. - OberRanks ( talk) 03:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

After I made this tangentially related comment to the Climate Change arbitration case, Amorymeltzer thought that it was an interesting, if bureaucratic (which I agree with), question. So to put it simply: Are administrators who resigned their tools while in good standing allowed to invoke discretionary sanctions in cases where they would be allowed to do so had they the admin bit? NW ( Talk) 23:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I would say that they may not, regardless of whether we examine this in light of a literal interpretation of the policy.

If we follow the literal interpretation, Wikipedia:Administrators states that "administrators who stepped down... may request their administrator status be restored..." (emphasis mine). This necessarily implies that an administrator who resigns does not retain "administrator status", and is therefore ineligible for participation in activities that are limited to administrators.

From a more practical standpoint, many administrators who resign "in good standing" do so because of concerns of burnout and similar issues; it would hardly be advisable, under those circumstances, to invite them to take part in keeping order in the projects's most controversial areas. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 00:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

As a practical matter, only those areas where software enforces the need for the administrator bit require the bit. Even in areas where a particular policy or guideline states or suggest that an administrator is the one to perform an action, valid actions by non-administrators are still held to be valid, per the essays on WP:SNOW and the policy of WP:IAR. Generally speaking, if there is no doubt that an uninvolved administrator will handle the matter in a particular way, any uninvolved user may as well, so long as they don't need the bit to physically take the action. This has been held to be the case at AFD and other discussions, and it reinforces the view that administrators are not a "higher" class of users, but simply users that we trust with certian tools. Triona ( talk) 04:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The latest draft of the proposed update to the Arbitration policy is here with discussion of the draft here. All editors are cordially invited to participate.   Roger Davies ^talk 03:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

He permit himself to send a warning message about my edits. He go on and go on to accuse me about "personnal edits", while all the text was sourced, idem for the map. He does not want to discuss on the talk page. It is inadmissible in regards of the wikirules. -- 90.9.177.109 ( talk) 17:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Note: The following was transferred here by mutual agreement from the Proposed Decision talk page of the Climate Change arbitration case

Remedy 1.2, as drafted and currently passing, says: The sanctioned editor may appeal any sanction imposed under these provisions to the imposing administrator, the appropriate noticeboard (currently Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement), or the Committee.

I propose the appeals process be given a little more definition and transparency. The present formulation leaves a number of questions open:

• Is it entirely the sanctioned editor's choice which route of appeal (admin, noticeboard or committee) they select?
• Or, alternatively, are (1) admin (2) noticeboard (3) committee sequential steps? I.e. should the first appeal always be to the admin, the second to the noticeboard, and the third to the committee?
• How many appeals does an editor get?
• What is the precise process for lodging an appeal with the committee? Should this be done on a public page (if so, which page), or by e-mail?
• Will everyone who lodges an appeal with arbcom receive an answer?
• If so, will that answer be public? If it is public, which page will it appear on?
• Does the committee reserve the right to refuse to look into an appeal, or can any editor rely on it that their claim (and supporting evidence) will be looked into, and adjudicated by the committee?

If there are public pages on the project answering all of these questions already (I've been around for years and am not aware of any, but would be grateful for pointers), then perhaps a link to them could be added to the remedy. If there are no such pages, we should consider creating them, so there is a defined, transparent and binding process for handling appeals. -- JN 466 23:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that — in general — those points would gain from being clarified, I would be wary of using this already overlong case as the place to do so. In practice, your questions are answered by tradition and general practice:

• they are generally considered sequential steps and failiure to do one is prejudicial in the subsequent ones;
• the committee generally accepts appeals either on the request subpage specifically for appeals, or by email in cases involving privacy;
• the answer is normally given in the place where the appeal was lodged; and
• we always reserve the right to decline hearing an appeal (usually when it is too early), but we always state when that is the case.

—  Coren  ^(talk) 00:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Could we please add the arbcom e-mail address to the remedy, and link the appeals subpage in it? FWIW, I cannot find it: if I go to WP:RFAR and click "Edit", the options I get are:

• To initiate a case: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case
• To ask the Committee for clarification on a case: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification
• To request that a case be amended: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment
• To request enforcement of the remedies of a case: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Appeals does not exist. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Appeal redirects to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment.

If the appeals stages are sequential, and the next stage should not be entered until the previous one has run its full course, please reword the remedy to make this clear, so that editors are duly notified of the procedure they have to follow to maximise their chances of success.

As a point of process, it seems important that arbitrators rejecting an appeal on the grounds that the proceedings at the "lower court" have not yet been completed should do so in a very matter-of-fact way: they should point out that their rejection is a purely procedural matter and avoid making any comment on the merits of the case. -- JN 466 01:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I am aware you are trying to close this case and agree it may be best to transfer this discussion elsewhere. Would you have a suitable venue in mind? -- JN 466 01:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

WT:Arbitration is probably the least worst place to do so, albeit admittedly low profile. I'll copy things over there. —  Coren  ^(talk) 01:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Substantively, then, we tend to not make the email address too obvious since we discourage people from appealing by email unless there are unavoidable privacy matters; appeals for sanctions from enforcement should not normally be held privately.

In practice, I don't think that people have ever been turned away from reasonable appeal for points of process. When we decline to hear a case or an appeal, we try really hard to point at what the "right" next step should have been. That said, I'm really not opposed to making a process for appeals that is clear and straightforward — perhaps the AE board itself could give the appropriate pointers? (This is, in the end, where the sanctions should originate). I'd also think that it's the responsibility of the admin enforcing a sanction to be clear in their communications with the editor; at the very least an notification of a sanction should clearly explain how one may appeal it. —  Coren  ^(talk) 01:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• I agree it would make sense to include some instructions on the AE page. To be fair, there are some instructions on that page at present, but they don't really reflect the points you made above. Presently, they read:

"Appeals Arbitration decisions may provide that appeals against sanctions imposed under the decision are to be appealed to this noticeboard or to another community forum. For such appeals the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}} may be used."

• Arbitration remedies imposing discretionary sanctions should give a clear outline of this 3-level appeals process, too, and provide a link to the page where appeals with the committee can be lodged. (The present discretionary sanction remedy in the climate change case does not have this; if you or one of your colleagues could add this information, I am sure it will save trouble later on.)
• We could create a dedicated RFAR subpage for appeals; the present redirect from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Appeal to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment feels counterintuitive, and the editnotice at Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests in no way indicates that the amendment subpage should also be used for appeals.
• I accept your point about the arbcom e-mail address.
• Part of why I raised this was because I was aware of a rash of appeals last month originating from the TM case. Editors there seemed to be entirely at sea as to what the appeals process was. I realised then that I had no idea how an appeal to the committee works, either, despite often having read the phrase "editors may appeal to the committee ..." Arbitrators' comments in response weren't really helpful either. One comment, by yourself, stated, "This is not a request for clarification, despite the bold type, but an appeal/protest. Given that this is already ongoing at AE, this is the wrong forum." I understand the point you were making, but this comment would not have helped dispel confusion on the part of the editors who felt aggrieved. According to what you said above, it was (sort of; it should have been under amendment rather than clarification) the right forum, but the wrong time, as the discussions at AE needed to conclude first. Comments by other arbitrators focused on the merits (or rather lack thereof) of the complaint, which, from a procedural view, really should not happen if the committee fulfils the role of a court of appeal for AE.
• It will benefit the quality of adjudication at the AE level if editors there know that there is a transparent and effective appeals process in place that will check that correct procedure was followed (and point out if and where it wasn't). -- JN 466 19:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Those are good points, and part of the reason why I very much preferred the standardized version of the discretionary sanctions rather than rewriting them every time — this would have provided a natural and clear place where such appeal instructions should be located.

    I don't think that the remedy itself is the right place for them though. How about making a "Guide to appealing sanctions" as a subpage of AE, and give prominent links to it on AE and as part of the standard verbiage when a sanction is applied? This is more likely to be maintained, kept clear by the community, and much less gameable than possibly subtly different variants spread over numerous decisions? —  Coren  ^(talk) 15:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

    • I am busy with work the next couple of days, but will create a draft based on what we discussed above, once I get some free time. (One thing, while I remember it: if we end up making the RFAR Appeal subpage a page in its own right, then the collapsed coloured table at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide_to_arbitration#Requesting_Arbitration_.28RFAR.29 will need updating.) -- JN 466 16:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

(Copied from Coren's talk page:)

Coren, I wanted to do some work on the matter we discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration#Appeals_process_for_discretionary_sanctions last month. As you will remember, the AE appeals process is supposed to comprise three steps: (1) appeal to the administrator who has imposed the sanction, (2) appeal to the AE board, presumably using {{ Arbitration enforcement appeal}}, (3) appeal to arbcom. I would like to ask you for some advice:

1. One immediate problem I've come across in drafting this is that the sanction imposed at AE may well be a block. In that case, how does the sanctionee appeal to the admin who imposed the block? It's obviously not a problem if it's only a topic ban, but if they are blocked, they cannot contact the admin.
2. Anyway, where a user has been blocked, isn't it more normal for the blocked user to ask for a block review / to be unblocked on their user talk page?
3. Frequently, the decsion to impose a sanction follows a consensus established in AE discussion. In that sense, the actual admin imposing the sanction is just the messenger implementing the consensus arrived at at AE. That too seems to make it less sensible to direct the user to appeal to said admin; the admin's hands are tied, if all they did was implement a community consensus.
4. Assuming that there is a way to overcome the difficulties associated with step (1), does step (2), i.e. appealing to AE, really make that much sense? AE is usually sparsely populated. A block or topic ban is often preceded by a discussion involving most or all of the active admins at AE. Appealing to them after being sanctioned strikes me as akin to appealing to a judge who has just sentenced you. Do you see this differently?

Would be grateful for any pointers. Best, -- JN 466 19:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:AEBLOCK provides some more detail, saying the blocked editor should contact the blocking admin by e-mail. However, it also seems to contradict some of the basic principles we had agreed on in that it does not list a discussion at AE as an option; in fact it says that users "are not entitled to a community review of [their] block." and states "The reviewing administrator may decline to initiate a community discussion if you do not prepare a convincing appeal before making your unblock request". It all seems a little confusing. I will copy the above to the Arbitration talk page; it is probably best to carry the conversation on there. Cheers, -- JN 466 09:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

For a current case, see http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Ferahgo_the_Assassin&oldid=399103014#Blocked – an admin reviewed the unblock request on the user's talk page, and then transferred it to the AE board.

This makes sense, but it contradicts the standard wording of arbitration remedies like the one quoted at the beginning of the thread, which tells the editor to appeal sanctions (including blocks) at AE. (They'd obviously have to wait for the block to expire before they could ask for review of it at AE.) -- JN 466 09:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

For reference, the current wording of the "Instructions for appealing an arbitration enforcement action" in the AE editnotice is reproduced below.

{{subst:Arbitration enforcement appeal

| Appealing user        
  = <Username>

| User imposing the sanction
  = <Username>

| Sanction being appealed  
  = <Text>
  <!-- Provide a brief description, a link to the sanctions log (if any) and to the
       discussion resulting in the sanction (if any). Example:
       
       Topic ban from the subject of Antarctica-Micronesia relations, imposed at
       [[WP:AE/Archive50#Request concerning ProudPenguin]], logged at
       [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Antarctica-Micronesia#Log of blocks and bans]] -->

| Reason for the appeal
  = <Your text>
  <!-- Please explain *why* you appeal the sanction and whether you want it to be lifted or modified. -->

}}

This says, at the top, In all other cases, or alternatively, you may appeal to the Arbitration Committee, which is at variance with the idea expressed above that the Arbitration Committee should be the last court of appeal, to be approached once other avenues have been exhausted. -- JN 466 11:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

... a case is not accepted. Is it archived somewhere. Mjroots ( talk) 12:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

A link to the diff removing the request normally is archived at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. —  Coren  ^(talk) 12:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see the new page Wikipedia:Database reports/Talk pages by size (to be updated weekly). This talk page ranks 14th, with 13996 kilobytes. Perhaps this will motivate greater efficiency in the use of kilobytes.
— Wavelength ( talk) 21:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I just read the first few sections and still don't know what "Arbitration" is. I learned about what it is not and when it should be used, but what is it? 173.180.214.13 ( talk) 02:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration on Wikipedia is basically the exact same thing as the dictionary definition of it. It's basically the settling of a dispute between two or more parties by another person or group. That group, in Wikipedia's arbitration process, is the Arbitration Committee, which hears disputes and lays down binding solutions to solve them. It is used, however, in last resort when all else fails to solve disputes. ~ Super Hamster Talk Contribs 04:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding this principle, how would one have to go about seeing this applied to another, similar situation? I vividly remember when a group of editors frantically removed the middle names from many politicans' articles' infoboxes in order to justify the removal of "Hussein" from the infobox in Barack Obama. What happened back then fits the principle perfectly, but how could this be brought to the committee's attention? Does this warrant a full case? -- 87.78.73.29 ( talk) 04:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

There is an active proposal at Talk:Astrology which conflicts with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Generally considered pseudoscience:

Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.

A summary of the proposed changes is available at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Pseudoscientific status of astrology (see the comment dated "21:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)").

I am not sure what, if any, level of involvement ArbCom or editors involved with ArbCom may desire in this matter, but I thought it would be appropriate to post a notification here. Cheers, -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 21:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Search for "arbcom". If anyone wants to give an opinion on whether or not this feels like an appropriate job for Arbcom, you're more than welcome to weigh in. - Dank ( push to talk) 19:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I apologize if I should suggest this elsewhere, but I noticed the earlier discussion on workshop pages and felt the need to say something. I've been a longtime reader of arbitration cases (it makes for nice bedtime reading), and I don't know that I've ever really seen a workshop accomplish any grand purpose that justifies its existence. Certainly, I think the current committee has been doing an excellent job of utilizing the space to draft proposals and engage the parties, but it doesn't seem to really jive with the way arbitration even works. Arbitrators draft their own proposals, after all, and one certainly gets the idea from reading these cases that the committee does most of its deliberation privately. Workshops always seem like a free-for-all, and even people who I've learned to respect by reading these cases come across poorly in the workshop.

I'll freely admit that, as an inexperienced bystander, I might not have much to add to the discussion on this point, but it does concern me. Perhaps it requires an RFC (although I can't imagine that bringing more light than fire), but it might be possible for the arbitration committee to simply choose to eliminate workshop pages, replacing it with another page (I like the idea of doing oral arguments Supreme Court style) or allowing its useful functions to move elsewhere (the evidence talk page and proposed decision talk page, probably). Its current form, however, only encourages needless arguments and grandstanding without illuminating any situation. Maybe it would work better as a "closing argument" page? I don't know; anything would be better than the nearly formless mass of hate going on on that page.

Like I said: I'm nobody important around here. But it does seem like a valuable conversation, and if somebody as clueless as me can see this, surely my betters are concerning themselves with the issue. Regards, Archaeo ( talk) 18:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

How about changing

so that it goes into Template:RFARcasenav. We could put

{{#ifeq:{{{open}}}|yes|<div style="border: 2px blue solid; font-size: 115%; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: auto; margin-left:auto"><center>As this case is currently open, no changes to this page should be made and any unauthorised additions reverted.</br> If you have evidence you wish to present, please post it at the [[/Evidence|evidence page]]. Proposals may be made at the [[/Workshop|workshop]].</center></div>}} at the bottom of the template. ~~ EBE123~~ ^talk _Contribs 13:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that {{ RFARcasenav}} appears on the pages to which changes should be made as well. Unless you're planning to check the page nesting level and display the message only on the main case page, you'll wind up with two self-contradictory templates at the top of, say, the workshop page. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 10:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking for some clarification on removal of relevant information from articles where there are facts or theories in dispute. An arbcom decision from 19 years ago said:

• It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view. Wikipedia's NPOV policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view. [3]

I'm wondering if that is still policy. If so, is there a place where principles like this are readily available for quick reference?

And what should I do if I want to add an author's viewpoint about some controversial topic into an article, and someone reverts it? How prominent or well-educated does an author have to be, before his comments about one side in a controversy getting their way by underhanded methods are considered important enough to include in an article about that controversy? -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 00:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

It's in the future tense. No one noticed that this would need to be changed once ratified. Tony (talk) 09:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

My impression is that leaving the text as-is is normal practice in documents (constitutions, treaties, etc.) that contain provisions for their own ratification. Is this not the case? Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 10:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

This comment in a nutshell: Arbcom procedures appear not to include a provision for an explicitly definded scope section. While this may works in some cases, it could be a problem in the "cults" case. ArbCom should explicitly define the scope of each case

I'm concerned about how the scope of an arbitration case is determined.

While I closely monitored the Climate Case, it was clear that was an unusual case. I haven't been involved in other cases in any detail, so I'm hampered by lack of historical involvement, but I hope to make up for it with the advantage of (relatively) fresh eyes.

In the mis-named "cults" request, I see arbitrators concerned about the scope definition of the case. I saw this as a positive, but wondered how it would be resolved, because I see multiple comments about scope issues, but no specific area called "Scope".

I read the Arbitration guide, which didn't appear to address how the scope is determined. On the chance I missed something, I searched for the word "scope" and leaned it does not appear.

I reviewed Arbitration/Policy. This page does cover scope, but this defines the overall scope of the entire remit of the committee, not the specific scope for a specific case.

I realize not all procedures are codified, so I thought I could figure it out by looking at a case. I looked at the Date delinking case, because I had been reviewing it for other reasons. Surely a case that is closed will have a succinct summary of the scope of the case somewhere.

I didn't find it. I see an opening statement by Locke Cole, who starts by mentioning an ongoing content dispute (which is clearly outside the remit) and then mentioning user conduct emanating from these content disputes. Conduct is within the remit, but is it really the situation that the opening statement by the filing editor defines the scope? I do see arbitrators comments on scope in the opinions on hearing the matter, but I see nothing that clearly reconciles the differences. JV accepts with "tight scope of date delinking" while Rlevse accepts with a proposal to expand to include MOSNUM. Coren accepts, referring to "large scale implementation of style changes". Sounds like a broadening of the scope. I won't walk through all the comments of all arbitrators. That shouldn't be necessary. I do not disagree that arbitrators should have some back and forth about what the scope should be - that's entirely appropriate. I wouldn't be disagree that the scope might change depending on the nature of the evidence presented. But ArbCom should have a clear statement of the scope somewhere; one should have to "solve for the scope" by reading every comment of the arbitrators, and guessing where they ended up.

I grant this is only a minor issue when it comes to the date delinking case. Whether the scope is narrowing date delinking or broader is of some importance, but roughly speaking, most participants had a rough notion of the scope.

However, I think the failure to explicitly specify the scope, even in rough terms, is more problematic in the "Cults" issue. If the scope is largely determined by the filing editor, the statement by ResidentAnthropologist is rambling and very poorly defined. For example, point 8 refers to "the accused editors". Does this mean only the two editors mentioned in the opening paragraph, or any editor mentioned in the entire statement? Or the list of involved editors? (As an aside, why do we permit the use of the term "accused"? Why not simply use the less pejorative "involved")

Given the proposed name "cult" does that mean the Santorum related issues are outside the scope?

Wikipedia review? Are we serious? How on earth does the (broad) scope of ArbCom include the ability to comment on whether it is OK to post to WR?

I do have faith in the ability of ArbCom to define an appropriate scope, but I think such scope should be explicitly listed. Based upon my (admittedly limited) review of prior cases, I do not see such an explicit statement, and I do not believe that reviewing the arbitrators acceptance statements is the proper way to determine the scope of a case.-- SPhilbrick T 12:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that, in the end, the actual evidence tends to decide what the scope of the decision will be. Sometimes, what was thought to be the central issue ends up being a symptom of a more fundamental problem, and sometimes the opposite is true (that what seemed at first a complex issue ends up being a simple behavioral problem by very few editors). Any preliminary statement of scope is more about being a roadmap to what appears to be the nexus of the problem from the original statements, and trying to limit the decision to that imperfect and preliminary assessment is bound to cause more problems than it would solve. —  Coren  ^(talk) 22:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

In case this comment is tl:dr, I would like to formally propose a change to the ArbCom process. This does not appear to be the page for that disucssion. Should I go to WP:VPP is os another venue bettwr?

I am fully in agreement that the scope can change during the course of the investigation. However, this is an argument in favor of an explicit "scope" section, not an argument for excluding it. I'll analogize to an IT project which has been sucking up all of my non_WP time for over two years. We established an initial scope, and as we began working on it, we realized we had to modify the scope. Not a major problem, we update the scope statement, with minor tweaks every other sprint, and major tweaks every few months. Stakeholders, who aren't interested in following the day to day detail of the progress, can glance at the scope section to learn whether something critical tho them has been added or removed. The process works well.

In contrast, while I assume the active arbs and some of the major participants in a case have a sense of the scope, it isn't clear to outsiders. I don't think it is reasonable to expect me to read through hundreds of pages of material to understand the scope of the arbitration.

Consider Date delinking. I do not know for sure whether the scope of the case was narrowly Dates, or more broadly MOSNUM. (I suspect you know the answer, but that isn't the point). I don't think it is reasonable to have to read dozens of paragraphs of statements of fact and principles and remedies to figure out the answer. Even that may not definitely answer the question. I don't see any specific remedies related to numbers other than dates - does that mean the evidence was examined, and there were no problems except regarding dates, or does it mean that the scope excluded numbers other than dates. Again, I'm not looking for a specific answer here, I'm trying to illustrate that it is reasonable for parties not intimately involved in an arbitration to want to review the arbitration and understand the scope of the arbitration. A clearly stated scope section, updated monthly (or whatever frequency is appropriate) would be a help to participants as the case progresses, and especially to reviewers after the fact.

I do see evidence that some arbs, such as Sir Fozzie and The cavalry, are trying to identify the scope. This is commendable, I simply suggest that it should be codified in a defined section.

For example, a year or two from now, someone might wonder if Arbcom has made any pronouncements on community interaction with Wikipedia review. I suggest one should be able to figure it out by reviewing the scope section of this arbitration, and you shouldn't have to do a search for the term and figure it out with detective skills. Again, that's just one example, and not even my main concern, just one that is easy to articulate.

Thanks for responding, although it is clear to me that I am on a low-traffic page, so I'll return to my opening and main point - where is the best pace for me to formally propose that Arbitration proceedings incorporate a formal scope section?-- SPhilbrick T 14:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps this should be redirected here, as I am not seeing any replies to my question(s) posted there? Is that page watched by any arbitrators or clerks? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I for one do not watch this page, and I agree we ought to redirect to WT:A/R. AGK [ • 22:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The archive is showing no cases for June (it says: "1.2 June - The above months are hidden until they begin -->"). Is this an error? II | ( t - c) 20:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)