Wikinews:Requests for arbitration/Archive 1

User: vs. User:AmgineEdit

The following request posted by User: -Edbrown05 18:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[User:Amgine] -- a recently appointed administrator -- is repetitively deleting an article based on his/her allegations that the article is a "hoax." Evidence that the article is not a hoax has been included within the links in several versions posted by multiple users. Amigine apparently does not have time to do the required research, yet is still quite persistently trying to squelch the story. Amigene does not reply to his/her talk page.

Arbitrators' opinions on accepting requestEdit

  • Deny Request for Arbitration User has not pursued other methods of dispute resolution. --Chiacomo (talk) 00:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Decline - contributor making request should first calm down be respectful to the other person who is party to the arbitration request. -Edbrown05 06:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Do not accept - user should follow standard dispute resolution steps first. -- IlyaHaykinson 07:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Decline Request for Arbitration See WN:DISPUTE--Cspurrier 03:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

By majority vote, this request for arbitration was denied by the arbitration committee.

Wheel war of April 19-20Edit

Involved partiesEdit

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

(Provide diffs showing where parties other than the initiating parties have been informed about the request for arbitration.)

  • Amgine: [1]
  • Brian New Zealand: [2]
  • Karen: [3]
  • Mrmiscellanious: [4]
  • Ral315: Yes. Ral315 23:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

(If not, then explain why that would be fruitless)

No official dispute resolution was tried. However, previous problems between these users, posts on the admin alert board, and a failed mediation attempt made by myself lead me to believe that this case will not be resolved by official dispute resolution techniques.

Statement by Ral315Edit

(Please limit your statement to 500 words)

I was uninvolved in the dispute, other than blocking Ironiridis upon request, and changing the length of Mrmiscellanious' block twice, because it was made by an involved admin, contrary to the blocking policy. I stand by my blocks.

Basically, it stems down to a one hour block that Mrmiscellanious made against Karen, under the explanation of a personal attack. Believing the block to be an abuse of power and against the blocking policy, Amgine blocked Mrmiscellanious for a month, a block whose length itself probably violated the blocking policy. A series of blocks ensued, with Amgine and Brian New Zealand blocking each other, and Amgine reblocking Mrmiscellanious for 14 days multiple times despite other admins' reverts. If this case is taken, I hope the Arbitration Committee will take a look at not just the actions of parties in this case, but the blocking policy itself. I feel that it needs to be reinforced that admins cannot block users (or admins) with whom they're involved in a dispute with. I think many of the parties involved here forgot that. Ral315 23:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Statement by EloquenceEdit

I'm not sure if I'm following the procedures correctly here. I'm not involved in the wheel war or the blocks; I've been trying to help out a bit on IRC yesterday.

With all due respect to everyone involved, including Ral315, who has been extremely helpful throughout this ordeal, I would like to suggest that arbitration be avoided in this instance, and that we instead follow the doctrine of Forgive and Forget in this case. My suggestion is, that if all parties agree, no further blocks in response to the disputed behavior will be implemented for the time being (future infractions can of course be dealt with as usual), and all discussion will focus on Wikinews talk:Blocking policy. The goal is that we depersonalize the discussion, and instead of spending another few weeks wiki-lawyering, we try to figure out what exactly went wrong, and how we can prevent situations like this from arising in the future. I have made some specific suggestions on the policy talk page and tentatively edited the policy itself, and would appreciate feedback on these.

With regard to Brian's comment above, from what I know about Amgine, I believe he is very protective of Wikinews, and generally trying to follow and implement policy as best as he can. I do believe that, if we clarify the policy, he will follow it.--Eloquence 00:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Statement by NeutralizerEdit

My involvement was inhibited somewhat by a block which resulted from comments I made to MrM as a result of his censorship(imo) of the Flight 93 article which was the catalyst for his block of Karen and the ensuing wheel war. I completely agree with Amgine's view that the amount of premeditation and community discussion which preceded MrM's block of Karen proves an extreme defiance by MrM of the obvious will of the community and consequently drives this recent abuse of admin privilege by MrM to the highest level yet to be seen in this project. Therefore, as a member of the community I am very engaged in and supportive of this request for arbitration. Neutralizer 20:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Statement by MrmiscellaniousEdit

Blocking admins because you don't agree with a block doesn't solve anything. Instead of an arbcom case, there should be clearer policy definitions on WN:BP, including the restriction of administrator options when the admin themselves is blocked. There is no good claim of long blocks for "bad blocking" - and blocking others because you don't agree with a block only causes issues, especially when the block was on yourself. Forget the case, policy is what matters here. Let's get some changes listed on the Water Cooler - that's the only thing I can see which would make any difference. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 22:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Statement by DragonFire1024Edit

I was involved in opposing the block against MrM. I do not believe policy was immediately followed, however; I do believe that MrM did not have to get an opinion on the blocking of Karen, but he did. That was polite. When, IMO no administrators took action, MrM did. The block was a minimal 1 hour block. He could of done it longer but yet he didn't. That was Polite. Amgine then decided to block MrM for a month, IMO without a reason. Amgine states he did it according to WN:BP, however; a month is not minimal. Amgine was then blocked by BrianNewZealand for 2 hours for imposing an unnecessary long block on MrM and for abusing his powers. Amgine then overrided his block to block Brian for a day for "abusing admin. powers." Amgine abused his powers by blocking BrianNZ after he was already blocked. Brian then blocked amgine for 2 weeks, the same as the reduced block for MrM that Amgine imposed. Amgine then Blocked BrianNZ again (even though amgine was blocked) for again a day. BrianNZ then removed the block on Amgine for 2 weeks and then proceeded to "quite" Wikinews because of the wheel war. IMO, Amgine went above his powers as an admin. MrM did his best to NOT start a blocking war over Karen, but was still criticized for it. Although BrianNZ has withdrawn his request for de-admin, I feel as if the damage has already been done. This has caused the resignation of one Admin and also caused the attempt at a Wikibreak for several other regular editors and writers, including myself. Jason Safoutin 21:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Statment by Brian New ZealandEdit

Amgine caused mass site disruption yesterday. He abused his admin powers to block other users. He blocked MrM 6 times. After other admins reduced or changed his block he keeped reinstating it. Amgine, when Blocked by an admin (myself) preceded to block that admin in spite, despite he knowingly knew he was blocked. Then Amgine, still when blocked, went and blocked MrM, because he was not happy that it had been shortand. It must be pointed out, this is the second time, that Amgine, has been refered to arbcom, for misusing adminship. I am currently on a wikibreak, so I might not follow this case.

Statement by BawolffEdit

I didn't block anyone, but I might as well. I said alot of things I proablly shouldn't have, and got caught in the heat of the momment. I think mrm's original block was wrong, but my action wern't very good either. However I think this has caused everyone to reflect, and motions like User:Mrmiscellanious/Admin Code of Conduct, make me feel that mrm is working very hard to try and make everyone happy, and doing a good job at it. Therefor I Do not think an arbitration case is neccesary at this point in time. At this momment in time I have no issues with any parties of this. Bawolff ☺☻  04:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on accepting requestEdit

  • Recuse. Actually I'm pretty much a party to it. I should add a statement. Bawolff ☺☻  04:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Decline. The complaint is in addition to an existing case: Wikinews:Requests for arbitration/Users Cartman02au et al v Mrmiscellanious and should be taken under consideration in that forum. -Edbrown05 06:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Wait. Until all named parties have had a chance to submit statements. --Chiacomo (talk) 06:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: It seems to me that the two parties who are mostly affected by this RfArb (Amgine and MrM) don't have a very great interest in the pursuit of this case. Is this a correct impression and if so do others still see a necessity for this case? --Deprifry|+T+ 05:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Decline --Chiacomo (talk) 02:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Top Hollywood notables condemn Hamas and HezbollahEdit

(Step five: Bring it here - I suppose this is here)

I’d like if it was possible to have some wider audience give some input on the mentioned article so that perhaps it would finally be possible to reach some sort of conclusion and have the article closed, as it seems to be going nowhere and constantly having parts of it deleted and/or tags applied.

(Article: Rune X2 23:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Improper Venue Unfortunately, the arbitration committee is not the appropriate to address editorial concerns. Please contact other editors contributing to this article to resolve editorial disputes. --Chiacomo (talk) 23:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Reject Like Chiacomo said arbitration committee is not the appropriate to address editorial concerns--Cspurrier 23:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Reject. Per above. --+Deprifry+ 09:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Reject - try other parts of the dispute resolution process. —this is messedrocker (talk) 11:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Mink Butler Davenport v NeebsEdit

Involved partiesEdit


Mink Butler Davenport wrote story and headline ""Jezebel of Jazz," Anita O'Day dead at 87" in its entirety. User Neebs at, or approximately on 21:11, 24 November 2006, without discussion or warning, changed headline & moved ""Jezebel of Jazz" Anita O'Day dead at 87" to ""Jezebel of Jazz" Anita O'Day dies at 87" citing "present tense".

User Mink Butler Davenport, after two additional "wikifying edits" to the article ""Jezebel of Jazz" Anita O'Day dies at 87" then moved article to ""Jezebel of Jazz" Anita O'Day dead at 87", citing that "Reverting to previous gramatically proper headline - please see article talk for discussion. (One does not 'dies'. When one 'dies,' one is dead. Miss O'Day is dead.)"

User Mink Butler Davenport started the discussion page about the headline on or about Mink Butler Davenport 22:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC).

On or about 23:13, 24 November 2006, user Brianmc ( intervened, moved ""Jezebel of Jazz" Anita O'Day dead at 87" to ""Jezebel of Jazz" Anita O'Day dies aged 87" suggesting to "try a 3rd option."

On or about 23:18, 24 November 2006, user Messedrocker ( protected ""Jezebel of Jazz" Anita O'Day dies aged 87", stating in part, "move war [move=sysop]."

User Mink Butler Davenport has written extensively on and in defense of the headline in the article discussion page about the proper use of grammar and style as it pertains to the headline.

User Neebs has only two responses on discussion page, one-Thanks much. Neebs 23:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)" which was after article was locked from moving/changing headline. User Neebs other partial response was "Headlines should be written in the present tense."

Story headline is now further gramatically incorrect.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

User Brianmc cited on article discussion page or about 19:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC) that ""dead at" is more popular though. --Brian McNeil"

User Neebs on or about 18:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC) wrote in part on user Mink Butler Davnport's User talk page that "I will not be responding to any more talk page messages."

Sorry if this was in the wrong spot - but I was never informed of this arbitration. I confirm now that I have stumbled on this page. Obviously my request for him to stop speaking to me did include arbitration confirmation. The case is nearly over, and I would have never known I was in a case. Neebs 01:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

User Mink Butler Davenport has attempted to obtain consensus from within the Wikinews community by inviting users 1. Messedrocker-(, 2. Doldrums-(, and 3. Karen-(

Statement by party 1Edit

The reasons supporting my claim are set forth in detail on the discussion page of the news article about the death of jazz singer Anita O'Day, which follow , and state in part:

The present perfect tense (an event which happened or never happened before now {the present time} at a point in the past, but is being viewed from the present) is the tense which should be used in the headline.

The present perfect of 'die' (base form) is 'died,' (past participle) NOT 'dies' (third person singular), and when used to modify a singular subject, e.g. he, she, the girl/boy, etc., it should be XxX has died.

The present perfect continuous tense indicates the duration of an event which started in the past and is still continuing in the present.

The word 'dead' is an adjective. Rules concerning adjectives state that they are hierarchically categorized into 1) opinion, 2) size, 3) age, 4) shape, 5) color, 6) origin and 7) material. The hierarchy works only when the adjectives are used in aposition (position before the noun being modified).

There is an understood article, i.e. not specifically written/mentioned, in the original headline. That article is 'is'.

'dead' is Plural Countable Noun (Human). 'death' is a Singular Countable Noun. As a singular noun, 'death' can take a singular form of verbs, and can be an uncountable noun.

In the most fundamental sense, sentences must contain a subject and a verb. Predicate nominatives (noun or pronoun following a linking verb and referring to the person or thing as the subject of the verb) follow the verb. Thus, "Jezebel of Jazz," Anita O'Day dead at 87" is proper grammatically.

However, may I also share that a headline that states "Jezebel of Jazz," Anita O'Day dead at 87" would also be appropriate, because 'dead' is an adjective, and modifies the understood verb 'is'. In that case, the use of 'is' indicates the present third person singular.

Yet, in some regard, I can - with respect toward collaboration, improvement and compromise - agree to change the headline to "Jezebel of Jazz," Anita O'Day has died at 87". Then, of course, if she has died, she is dead. Mink Butler Davenport 17:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Statement by party 2Edit

Party 1 has completely ignored all my links to the style guide, in his arguements, talk pages, etc. that state headline titles are to be written in present tense. Every time I make an arguement, he babbles on about his professional writing, the many forms of the word 'die' and things I honestly don't care about. Present tense of die is dies. Other articles use dies. Only this user has used dead (past tense). I am glad the committee is denying the case request. Good night. Neebs 02:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on accepting requestEdit

  • Oppose taking the case. This is a content dispute, and no other Dispute resolution steps have been tried. --Cspurrier 20:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • This is not the proper venue for this dispute. oppose Bawolff 05:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I oppose the acceptance of the case for the aforestated reasons and instead offer some recommended reading. --+Deprifry+ 10:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikinews Community and Edbrown05Edit

Involved partiesEdit

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

At least four users have been direct targets of Ed's harassment. Because of the way that Ed communicates, coherent conversation is difficult, if not impossible, to maintain. (see example)

I (Ironiridis) tried to mediate my dispute with him. It failed miserably. Therefore, I don't believe dispute resolution will be effective if attempted with each and every user that has been the subject of his harassment.

Statement by IroniridisEdit

I've documented everything that would shape my statement here. My only thought at this point is that Ed has lost his sense of community, of purpose, and possibly of reality, and is no longer a positive force on this project. Which is really unfortunate.

Ammendment I'd like to propose that his talk page remain full protected until 04:54, 23 December 2007 UTC (that is, the end of his current block term) if he is reblocked for a longer period. He has used his talk page as a vehicle for harassment. This would prohibit any appeal until his current block is served, which I feel is reasonable since arbcom did not issue the current block. irid t i e 06:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
That is acceptable in my opinion. Bawolff 06:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Brian McNeilEdit

I no longer understand Ed. I have also come to the conclusion he does not understand what the various privileges such as checkuser and oversight are. He has displayed homophobia in his approach to some contributors, which is not acceptable. When he comments on articles he has issues with I find the message unintelligible, I can't work out what his point it. As a consequence I'd say he's no longer a positive contributor and call on those uninvolved people on ArbCom to, at the very least, discuss and implement appropriate measures to deter him from editing in a disruptive manner.

The issues at the very least go back to the ArbCom elections where amongst other things I was granted CU and oversight. Checkuser allows me to look at what IP addresses a user edited from, or what usernames edited from an IP address. Oversight allows me to erase a revision from the edit history such that administrators cannot see it as well as users. I have more fingers than the combined number of times I've used these tools. Ed seems to believe there is a shadowy cabal with these privileges which is manipulating Wikinews behind his back.

Statement by AdambroEdit

I'm relatively new to Wikinews but when I joined earlier this year I was soon the subject of a number of unpleasant encounters with Edbrown05. I understand Ed has made a great number of positive contributions in the past but my experience of him has been dominated by his hostile nature. Whilst I was quick to deal with some quite controversial issues when I joined WN and I was well aware this could cause some friction with more established contributors, I found that Ed was very difficult to deal with and seemed always out for an argument whereas other editors took time to listen to what I was saying rather than jumping to a conclusion that because I'm an established editor on Commons that I wouldn't understand some of the issues here or share the same aims for the project.

Any previous positive contributions have now been fair outweighed by the nuisance he has become. He is distracting us from the real business of writing news and his hostility could also damage the impression others have of the project. There is only one possible action appropriate in this situation, a long term block. My preference would be for a block of finite length which would eventually give Ed the chance to return if he wishes having had some time away. I note the suggestions for an indefinite block but I doubt that would be anything but permanent as I'm not aware of any suitable process by which an unblocking could occur. I'd like to think that as Ed has turned from a positive contributor to a nuisance, there is aways the possibility that he might eventually go the other way. Based upon his current attitude though that would be a long way off and I would suggest a block of 1 year in duration.

I would ask the arbitration committee to take this issue up and take appropriate action. I think this process is the best way by which long term blocks are decided upon. Adambro 16:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved party Ral315Edit

I could be wrong, but this doesn't seem like a dispute that needs ArbCom's attention. Sockpuppeting is a clear problem, but what's worst is Edbrown's downright disgusting comments toward DF, David, Adambro, Ironiridis, Thunderhead, etc. Therefore, I would be in support of an outright indefinite community ban, and I think it might be worth entertaining such an idea before taking it all the way to ArbCom. Edbrown's article writing doesn't excuse the fact that he's made Wikinews an unwelcome environment for some users, not just the users he's insulted, but those who may feel that by allowing this behavior to continue unchecked, that we've implicitly supported his absolutely vile comments about homosexuality. Any other users willing to support an indefinite ban? Ral315 (talk) 09:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite bans for non-vandal contributors can only be issued by the Arbitration Committee, i believe. Thunderhead - (talk - email - contributions) 22:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Thats not the impression I have. Indef bans can be handed out to "trouble makers not contributing to our goals" as long as there is wide support (aka, no one willing to start a wheel war over the issue). Bawolff 06:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by MessedrockerEdit

How come I'm an involved party? MessedRocker (talk) 15:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

In the evidence that Ironiridis has presented thus far, One of Ed's sock puppets said you're messed up, which some might consider an attack. If you don't wish to be an involved party, you can just say so here. Bawolff 22:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by DragonFire1024Edit

Ed has been around for well, for ever. He is not immune. His attacks have gone on long enough and are not welcome on Wikinews. He has been warned, and blocked, and warned and blocked again, yet refuses to follow policy. He uses sockpuppets to evade block and then continues to attack users. I am not sure that an ArbCom case will resolve his issues, which are IMO personal issues. The only option MIGHT be a perma ban. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 16:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by ThunderheadEdit

My experiences with Ed have been, in the most part, alright, but I do believe that because of his recent behavior, an arbitration between the community and Ed is imperative to the strengthening of both Wikinews and relationships with Ed. I hope that he sees it as an attempt to strengthen the community rather than an attack. Thunderhead - (talk - email - contributions) 20:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by NzgabrielEdit

To be completely honest I have not been keeping up with this situation regarding Edbrown. Yes I blocked him for a week using sockpuppets and whatever and this was a serious breach of our rules in my opinion and a strong message needed to be sent. However, he has no excuse for his behaviour that I have heard about and something needs to be done. We, as a small community, need to be able to work together and those who cannot get along with the rest, frankly have no place in the Wikinews community. Thus, if no appropriate action against attacks, etc, then I regrettably say that no other option is available to us but to see a community member go. --Nzgabriel | Talk 03:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Response to statement invitation by Edbrown05Edit

I didn't take a look, irid... I offered to meet Ilya in Washington but to no avail, I offered DragonFire to stay at my residence while on some bike tour. I offered to "press flesh". Timid shits are known accordingly. -Edbrown05 04:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by David ShankboneEdit

I don't support a permanent ban, but a three month ban that allows Ed some reflection. He should, without a doubt, have his accreditation revoked. Whatever his issue is, he is barely comprehensible in his statements and there is really no argument on his behalf that needs to be weighed: he doesn't like gays and he doesn't like people questioning him on it. That's fine. But this isn't the forum for him to wave that around. All of us on here are volunteers, and we all work on projects we consider important. It is through our combined efforts that we report on the world and the people who make it up. That one of us focuses on certain people or happenings (be it Ontario politics, New Zealand terrorists, or New York drag queens), together our efforts create a relatively global view. That one or more than one of us is not interested in all the reporting that goes on is inconsequential; we can choose to not read it. But to lambaste each other because we are not doing volunteer work that other people think we should do is not acceptable. To do so in Ed Brown's incoherent and syntax-challenged way is cause for a pro-longed block and loss of accreditation. A permanent ban? Perhaps, but not until other avenues are exhausted. I think ArbCom should reject this case and impose a three month block on all edits by the person who inhabits the multiple sockpuppets of EdBrown05, and immediately revoke his accreditation on a permanent basis, until he proves he will not embarrass the project. --David Shankbone 17:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

By virtue of Arbcom not accepting the case, it will not (cannot) impose a block. However, when Arbcom officially rejects the case, I'll be happy to issue a block/ban based on discussions with other admins. (Sorry, I guess I am a pedant.) irid t i e 18:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on accepting requestEdit

  • Accept I don't think we have a choice Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 08:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I am listed as an involved party, but I believe the ArbCom should accept this case. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Accept if Edbrown is willing to go through arbitration. If he refuses I don't think there would be much point to this. Bawolff 09:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • RejectAfter reading IlyaHaykinson's and Ral315 comments, I think a 2 year - indef ban that can be appealed to the arbcom would be the most effective stratagy to resolve this dispute. There is more then quadruple enough cause for it. The arbcom works most effectivly as an absolute last resort, and I do not feel it would accomplish much other then possibly banning him. Bawolff 06:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Reject. I do not believe that the case warrants ArbCom involvement. The user has made personal attacks, has not heeded warnings, and has been blocked. Our blocking policy allows for blocks of people who are not constructively contributing to the site. I believe that the appropriate response is a long or indefinite block — the user can always appeal the block to the ArbCom. -- IlyaHaykinson 03:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I think IlyaHaykinson approach might accomplish more then this arbcom request. Bawolff 05:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Seems to be heading towards a consensus on a prolonged block. --Brian McNeil / talk 07:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline. there is wide consensus that Ed's behavious is unacceptable and merits a long block. while there are differing suggestions on the exact length of the block, it doesn't appear to me to be an intractable dispute, needing the arbcom to decide on it. Ed is encouraged to change his behaviour on this site, failing that, there's plenty of time for people with differing views on the length of the block to agree on what's appropriate. –Doldrums(talk) 17:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline. A block looks to be the best option --Cspurrier 21:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to suspend Arbitration CommitteeEdit

Involved partiesEdit

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Best done by the ArbCom itself.

Statement by MessedrockerEdit

The ArbCom is now pointless, okay? It was useful when we had more problems on Wikinews, but now it's nothing but bureaucracy masturbation with exactly zero point. Until the committee is needed again, I recommend a suspension of all operations, including elections and the like. There'd be a point if there were like, conflicts and such. MessedRocker (talk) 04:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement by JoshuaZEdit

As long as the drama is kept to a minimum having a standing committee makes more sense since we don't know in advance when we will need it to decide something. If we have a large-scale issue that requires an Arbitration hearing all of a sudden that will be a really bad time to elect a new commitee. The overhead to keeping a commitee operational strikes me as minimal. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement by CirtEdit

I agree with everything said above by JoshuaZ (talk · contribs). I also agree with the point made below by Doldrums (talk · contribs) that this type of decision should be made by the community and not by the Arbitration Committee. Cirt (talk) 18:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on accepting requestEdit

  •   Comment while cutting down on the process of electing arbitrators is a worthwhile goal, waiting until a case arises to set up a committee is not a good idea. perhaps keeping the tenure period flexible and electing new arbitrators using a process similar to the RfA process (and on that page) will help cut down process. in any case, this is something for the community to decide rather than for the 'com itself. and finally, as the song goes, ♪ Bureaucratic masturbation makes the world go round ♪ –Doldrums(talk) 07:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment I have to reject any proposal to shut down arbcom. When it is needed we do not need associated drama convening it. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


Seriously, what's going on here? I fail to understand why a discussion about whether or not to keep an Arbitration Committee is being presented as a case within the dispute resolution framework. It also gives the incorrect impression that this decision is one for the Committee. It is up to the community. I suggest that this discussion undergo a process of refactoring to move it to Wikinews talk:Arbitration Committee or the Watercooler as appropriate. My personal opinion would be that it would be very unwise to try to form an Arb Com in response to a dispute. To do so during a period of already high drama would be difficult and I'd also be worried about whether the community would find themselves electing not those individuals that have demonstrated good judgement and dispute resolution but those whose decision in the current case will be inline with their opinion. Adambro (talk) 18:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

We may not always agree, but I 100% endorse this statement. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
As do I. Cirt (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that it should not be done away with, but Messed is right. We don't have the issues on WN, at the moment, that require the needs of ArbCom. But that is not to say we won't need it in the future. I propose that the seats of members be extended indefinitely. Putting together an ArbCom when we need it is much harder than setting up an election. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

That type of proposal would also be something the community should decide, not ArbCom (though that probably goes without saying). Cirt (talk) 19:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Let me rephrase: We cannot start this time around, but we can begin the process. Half the comm. gets a 1 year extension starting now, but only 1 year. That way half the comm goes up for election instead of all, and then we can extend the year to the other half, once the offset is complete. So essentially only half the comm is up for election each year, and also means a hell of a lot less wasted time.
I think this needs to be mostly up to ArbCom because we already started to elect and plus in one year who will be around to do this? Who knows. So as it stands, we waste about a month or more out of every year to hold elections on a committee that is rarely used, if ever. That is a complete waste of valuable time we could be using to write news and such. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
In any event it appears there is consensus that at the very least this is not the appropriate venue for this type of discussion, so an arbitrator should probably close it or move it to a different location (talkpage, etc.) Cirt (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure about whether ArbCom needs to be suspended indefinitely, but maybe taking disputes to Meta is a workable solution as I see it. --Kalspring (talk) 10:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)