text:
Talk:Quadrupole

Unclear terms
I would like to ask for some clarification on this article, particularly the mathematical formulas. Most of the variables are left undefined as far as what they are representing. In particular, the first equation given is extremely unclear. I can deduce that the Qij is the moment, that qn is the individual charge and that r is the distance between two charges (charges i and j perhaps?), but what is the delta, the xi, and the xj? Thank you! 84.37.22.14 (talk) 07:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

 * I changed the notation and added more explicit definition of the terms for the first two equations. Best regards, DeMk9D76 (talk) 19:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Whoops still!
Also regarding the section on quadrupoles in gravitation, I'm no expert, but I find it confusing how a rod, or a rod containing two lead balls on its ends, is considered a quadrupole rather than a dipole. I can imagine that each sphere might have two poles, but elsewhere it says the flattened-at-the-poles earth is, by itself, a quadrupole. If a sphere is a monopole, and a dumbbell is a quadrupole, what's a dipole? hkyriazi 04:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC) (forgot to sign this yesterday when I first posted it...)

Ah, I see now that I missed the mention that mass is always positive, and so massive objects cannot have a gravitational dipole. But then what does it mean for a massive object to have any pole at all? Is gravity now thought to be anisotropic in some way? hkyriazi 04:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Whoops!
There are some errors in section on quadrupoles in gravitation. First, moments are taken relative to some point. Second, the vanishing of dipole moment is not described correctly; this really arises from conservation of linear momentum. Third, in general relativity, the quadrupole radiation formula derived by Albert Einstein says that systems with time varying quadrupole moments produce radiation. A disk which is spinning with constant angular velocity (about the axis of symmetry) has a nonzero but constant quadrupole moment, so it produces no quadrupole radiation. On the other hand, a rod which is spinning with constant angular velocity (about an axis orthogonal to the axis of symmetry) does have a time varying quadrupole moment, and it does produce quadrupole radiation.---CH (talk) 00:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Salsb and everyone else
Your hot on this page! And do have fun! Whatever you do please don't mess up my Quad pic! LOL

Thanks Scott 20:53:59, 2005-09-09 (UTC)

Yeah, great work on this everyone! This article's been on my User:Laurascudder/To do forever (of course that list has a pathetic turnover rate). I think this could perhaps use a seperate mathematical formalism section at the end, which could include the formula in the intro along with perhaps a few ways of defining the quadrupole moment. It's a topic that could have a wide audience, so some I was thinking more math wouldn't be unwelcome, but might be a bit much at the start. What do you think?

If I recall correctly the "contested observation" of the magnetic monopole was from a researcher who set up the experiment on a back table just for kicks and let it run all the time. After a seriously long runtime he got one count, which doesn't mean he actually found one. It has of course not been reproduced, so a good cut. — Laura Scudder | Talk 06:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * This is my recollection as well, and since there wasn't a citation to anyone else, I figured it should get cut. I think this article still needs work, but we're making progress. cheers Salsb 11:40, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

It was not a honky-tonk experiment, and there are followups. See. Blas Cabrera at Stanford got the one positive result. The issue is of some importance, I have read, because the existence of one (1) magnetic monopole, it is said, will quantize all electric charges. As to how many one expects - the inflationary cosmology people have ways to wipe out most of them. Since experiments are still in progress, it may be worth keeping some discussion.Pdn 18:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I went and found the citation, which is PRL 48 (20). p1378-1382 (1982), and my recollection was correct. To further quote from the link you provided "

Cabrera's device never spotted another monopole. His group has built second- and third-generation detectors, the last of which was thousands of times more sensitive than the original. But they came up empty-handed. "We never again saw an event like this one in any of the individual instruments," he says. "It seemed less and less likely that the one event we saw was a monopole."" and " In the early 1990s, Cabrera switched to seeking other particles..." There was a nice review of the status of magnetic monopoles in 2002 in the International Journal of Modern Physics A vol 17 p732-747, and it also appears that the accelerator experiments stopped in the mid 1990's, although there is still some theoretical work ongoing. This should probably go into an article on magnetic monopoles, but I thinks it good not to appear here as the status, for now, is highly unlikly to exist. Salsb 18:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

R0
For calculating the nuclear quadrupole moment. I can't find the value of this anywhere - not in text books, not constants pages.. It is a constant right? 1.3E-15 ? if this is what i think it is, it might be useful to have this on here. Rog 12:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The nuclear quadrupole moment is not a constant. It depends on the individual atoms and isotopes.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.5.13.135 (talk) 15:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Clarity of introduction
Guys, the introduction of this article is not clear to someone who is not familiar with the field. For example, compare the other entries on Google:define. I am not an expert, and I do not know if they are completely accurate. But I'm sure that it is possible to write an equally (or more) clear and concise yet accurate introduction (definition). Ideally, it should be no longer than a couple of sentences. -Pgan002 02:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Article title
Is the article about quadrupoles or rather about multipoles? If "quadr" is part of the word, I strongly suspect that a quadrupole has something to do with "four". Yet "four" is mentioned only once in passing, towards the bottom of the article. It seems that the article needs be renamed. -Pgan002 03:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

not a very good description
This page only mentions the electric quadrupole as part of the multipole expasion-this can be found on the multipole expansion page. How is it derived? what are some of its properties? just some thoughts.

 * I seem to remember that the multipole expansion is derived by Laurent expanding $$ V ( \mathbf{r} ) = - \frac{1}{4 \pi \epsilon_0} \sum_i\frac{q_i}{ | \mathbf{r_i} - \mathbf{r} |} $$ and then identifying various bits as the multipole. The derivation is more messy than enlightening, something to really only be done once in one's career, but can be found in J. D. Jackson.  — Laura Scudder ☎ 16:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Gravitational multipoles
What is written in the section is essentially correct. -- 213.140.18.136 11:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Effect on the Moon orbit
The article says that the quadrupole from the flattened Earth is less important for distand satellites like the Moon. Hovewer, I've found out that there is indeed an important effect if precise ephemeris calculation is desired. From the JPL's Horizon project the precise positions and velocities of all known solar system bodies can be retrieved for any time between -3000 and 3000 AD. I retrieved the dates for 2000 and 2020 and did an N-body calculation (with all 8 planets, Pluto, the biggest three asteroids Ceres, Pallas and Vesta, and the Moon), using a high-precision Bulirsch-Stoer algorithm (actually that one from Numerical Recipes, but the free ODEX2 algorithm by Ernst Hairer is of equivalent precision). While there are obvious errors in the inner solar system from the neglection of relativistic effects (a position error of the planets themselves that is approx. three times larger than their relativistic perihelion precession), there are unexpectedly large errors for the Moon, about 400 km within 20 years. The error accumulates to about 1600 to 1700 km (i.e. about one Moon radius) within a century. It came out that the real Moon is feeling a slightly (about 0.5 ppm) larger force than from Newton's law of gravity. From an older calculation I made for the local gravity on Earth using centrifugal force and quadrupole moment, I could extrapolate the difference to the Moon's distance, and it is of precisely the same order of magnitude (if a mean geocentric latitude of about 15 degrees is assumed) required to fix the orbit error.

I am trying to find some third-party references to this to get this issue out of the fog of original research. Then it may be added to the article that quadrupole moments of planets (and maybe even of the Sun) have to be taken into account for precise solar system simulations.--SiriusB (talk) 09:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

gravitation graphic
I guess it was easier to find graphics for the others than for the gravitational quadrupole? 4.249.63.91 (talk) 22:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Clarity of the Maths
Can I echo the comments above about the Maths being presented unhelpfully here. Is it really necessary to stick to tensor notation throughout? I'm a Maths graduate and I (along with most Maths graduates) don't really know much about tensors. Would be nice to see the equations presented in more traditional format, so everyone can access them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.253.156.11 (talk) 00:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

please check
I do not really understand

Still higher multipoles, e.g. of order 2^l, would be obtained by dipolar (quadrupolar, octopolar, ...) arrangements of point dipoles (quadrupoles, octopoles, ...), not point monopoles, of lower order, e.g. 2^l-1

My math is poor and the phrase might be correct, but I would write

Still higher multipoles may be obtained by arrangements of lower order point ones, e.g. that of order 2^l by dipolar arrangements of 2^(l-1) multipoles, quadrupolar of 2^(l-2) ones ...

May someone explain me why my mouse is unable to move here 2^l and 2^(l-1) from the article?

I remember that in the Jackson the multipoles were defined using the spherical harmonics so that a factor 1/sqr(4*pi) appeared in the formulae ... but I am aged and have no more access to the library to check my memory.

thanks. pietro. 151.29.78.113 (talk) 09:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Quadrupole


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golden Sun 2: The Lost Age

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 17:03, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Golden Sun 2: The Lost Age
This page is simply patent nonsense, though the user appears to like the Game Boy Game in question. I quote: "It has all sorts of shit n stuff fo u 2 collect along da way to save da friggin' world...and shit." User has a history of vandalism. Zoso 00:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The correct name of this game is Golden Sun: The Lost Age. - Thatdog 00:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Golden Sun (Golden Sun: The Lost Age redirects to there anyways, so it wouldn't be a double redirect). -mysekurity 01:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete foul mouthed nonsense. JamesBurns 09:03, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text: User talk:70.177.57.224

title: User talk:70.177.57.224


text:
Anna Falchi

Anna Falchi (born Anna Kristiina Palomäki on 22 April 1972) is a Finnish-Italian model and film actress.

Career
Anna Kristiina Palomäki was born in Tampere, Finland, the daughter of an Italian father, Benito (Tito) Falchi, and Finnish mother Kaarina. She has a brother, Saro, and a half-brother in Sweden, Peter (by her father). In 1978, at the age of six, she moved to Italy with her family, where she started her career as a model. Falchi first appeared on television in a commercial for an Italian bank in 1992. The ad starred Paolo Villaggio, and was directed by the celebrated Federico Fellini. This helped her launch a film career, starting with Nel continente nero (in the black Continent) in 1993.

Falchi appeared in many films since, including the 1994 fantasy movie The Dragon Ring, the 1997 film La principessa e il povero and the 2005 comedy Nessun messaggio in segreteria. She has also been a popular television personality, hosting various specials on Italian television. Falchi is lesser known in the English-speaking world. Some know her for the lead female role in the film Dellamorte Dellamore, which was released in the US as Cemetery Man. In 1995 Falchi briefly explored the music industry, recording the Finnish dance single "Pium Paum (Vipula Vapula)" which was released through the Italian label Dig It International.

In a 2001, Falchi was a guest on the Italian late-night show Satyricon, during which she satirized one of the appearances of Madonna on Late Show with David Letterman during which Madonna jokingly teased Letterman for refusing to smell her panties. Falchi actually took off her red panties on stage, and the host, Daniele Luttazzi, went all the way to smell them, which caused some scandal in Italy.

Filmography

 * Nel continente nero (1993)
 * Anni 90: Parte II (1993)
 * S.P.Q.R.: 2,000 and a Half Years Ago (1994)
 * Miracolo italiano (1994)
 * C'è Kim Novak al telefono (1994)
 * Cemetery Man (1994)
 * L'affaire (1994)
 * Palla di neve (1995)
 * Celluloide (1995)
 * Giovani e belli (1996)
 * Paparazzi (1998)
 * Body Guards (2000)
 * Gli occhi dell'amore (2001)
 * Operazione Rosmarino (2001)
 * Nessun messaggio in segreteria (2005)
 * Bambini (2006)
 * L'allenatore nel pallone 2 (2008)
 * Un'estate al mare (2008)
 * Ce n'è per tutti (2009)
 * L'uomo nero (2009)
 * Box Office 3D: The Filmest of Films (2011)
 * I milionari (2013)

title: Anna Falchi


text:
Washburn Tunnel

The Washburn Tunnel is a two-lane underwater motor-vehicle tunnel connecting Galena Park and Pasadena, two suburbs of Houston, Texas. Completed in 1950, it travels north-south underneath the Houston Ship Channel. It was named after Harris County, Texas Auditor Harry L. Washburn. It is the largest and first toll-free vehicular tunnel in the Southern United States.

Overview
The Merritt Chapman and Scott Corporation of New York built the $7 million project. First, a trench 90 ft by 40 ft had to be dug. Second, the sections had to be locked into position 85 feet underwater. Finally, the last touches, such as tiling the inside, were completed.

It is the only underwater vehicle tunnel currently in operation in the state, as the Baytown Tunnel was replaced in 1995 by the Fred Hartman Bridge. The tunnel consists of a single bore, 895 meters (2,909 feet) in length, with a six-percent roadway grade outward from the center towards each exit. Forced transverse ventilation is potentially provided by three automatic high-speed Westinghouse Sturtevant blower fans located in a tower at the north entrance. These fans are designed to keep the air free from high-levels of carbon monoxide.

In the event of electrical failure, a generator can support the electrical needs of the tunnel. Every twelfth light is powered by a generator. The light intensity at the portals is three times brighter than the interior. This prevents temporary blindness when entering the tunnel.

Pumps located under the road surface counter accumulation of water by draining it back into the ship channel. Before Hurricane Ike in 2008, the tunnel had never flooded.

The tunnel is one of five vehicular crossings of the Ship Channel. The other four are the Sidney Sherman Bridge, popularly known as the (Interstate) 610 or Ship Channel bridge; the Sam Houston Ship Channel Bridge, formerly the Jesse Jones Toll Bridge and popularly known as the Beltway 8 Bridge; the Fred Hartman Bridge connecting La Porte, Texas and Baytown, Texas; and the Lynchburg Ferry. The tunnel is also the only 24-hour operation in Precinct Two.

The tunnel was added to the National Register of Historic Places on April 16, 2008.

On March 1, 2020, operations of the Washburn Tunnel, along with the Lynchburg Ferry, were transferred from Harris County Precinct 2 to the Harris County Toll Road Authority (HCTRA). There are no plans for HCTRA to implement tolls at either the Washburn Tunnel or the Lynchburg Ferry. Nevertheless, HCTRA's involvement will include plans to improve the operations of both facilities, as well as much-needed repairs and upgrades.

Specifications
Total Cost: $7,683,915 (1950)

Total Length: 3,791 Ft.

Distance between Portals: 2,936 Ft.

Length of Tube Section: 1,500 Ft.

Roadway Width: 22 Ft.

Headroom (each lane): 13 Ft.

Headroom (center Lane): 18 Ft.

Internal Diameter of Tubes: 32 Ft.

External Diameter of Tubes: 38 Ft.

Max. Grade: 6%

Max. Dept (Water to top): 45 Ft.

Max. Dept (Water to roadway): 68 Ft.

Max. Dept (water to bottom): 80 Ft.

Dredging: 425,273 cu. yards

Excavation: 289,600 cu. yards

Tremie Concrete: 11,750 cu. yards

Concrete: 34,250 cu. yards

Steel in tubes: 2,373 tons

Ceramic Tile: 1,061,000

Number of fans: 3

Max Ventilation: 760,000 cfm

Complete Air Exchange: 2 minutes

title: Washburn Tunnel


text:
Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 1

Initial ramblings on bootstrapping the Committee
I'm not so good at formulating policy documents, I have to say. James F. (talk) 11:37, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Jimbo suggested that we elect a chair, and proceed from there. I'm going to do an email and talk page spam session once I've got the details for it, and see where we get to. It might make sense to get a specialised mailing list eventually - I guess I'll raise a feature request via bug reports. Martin 20:31, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

feature requested at sourceforge. Eloquence declined the nomination (in case anyone doesn't believe me ;-))

Gender issues
Is it true that all the arbitrators are male? Hum.... — Alex756 03:23, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * this is so typical. ant

What is so typical? That women don't campaign for leadership roles? That more women than men prefer to hide their gender? That women are in the minority on Wikipedia? That unfortunate inequities exist? To whom may we direct your complaint, ant?168... 22:25, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * I think most women on en: are not hidden now; they still are in minority, but that minority is not so low, and I think many of them have a quite proeminent role and influence here. So...all in all, I guess the influence of women in the english wikipedia is quite satisfactory actually :-) However, yes, I think it is quite typical that men find themselves, just as in real life, in the decision making. Why is it so ? Hmmm, in this case, I suppose no women even considered having such a role. The other option is that one asked but was not chosen by Jimbo. Actually, before I made that comment, I really had a big laugh, because before Alex mentionned it, I had not even realised it :-) So, yeah, that was not a complaint, rather a amused reaction :-)

 * this said, I can't help wondering upon which arguments Jimbo decided to put a person here rather than there, and vice versa. I personally think a couple of choices were not so wise. Btw, I regret that you did not propose yourself for mediation.

I don't believe the gender of Gutza, The Cunctator, or UninvitedCompany is publically known, though I could be wrong. I suppose possible concerns might be that this could cause a perceived blind spot in our ability to handle disputes involving accusations of sexism or sexual harrassment, or that it makes us unrepresentative of the larger Wikipedia community. As Anthere notes, it is certainly an interesting example of gender roles in action. Martin 00:34, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well, everyone who requested a role got it, so if there are no women on the arbitration committee (which I don't know to be a fact, since I don't know everyone's gender), it's simply because no women asked to be on the arbitration committee. --Delirium 05:14, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)

 * I volunteered for either committee (but expressed a preference for mediation). I don't know about Angela and Anthere but it's possible that they also said either was OK.  So there was at least one woman available, possibly three.  That said, I'm not sure whether Jimbo was aware of my gender although it's been mentioned a few times including on the mailing list -- sannse 21:42, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * Same here. I also said I would be on either but expressed a preference for mediation. Angela. 22:02, Jan 23, 2004 (UTC)

Transparency question
Since arbitration is final and binding should members know who exactly all the arbitrators are, i.e. their personal biographies and what qualifies them to arbitrate disputes in a final and binding fashion? It only seems fair that someone who is being banned from Wikipedia should know who has the authority to do that to them. I am not certain that all the members of the arbitration committee are forthcoming about who they are outside the Wikipedia world. — Alex756 13:33, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * Hi Alex756, if that is your real name... ;-)

 * I'm not entirely sure what you're after, but I can give you a quick thumbnail sketch of myself, and see if it's the kind of thing you're looking for. A few of us have issues with publishing certain kinds of personal information on Wikipedia, due to privacy and other concerns, so I'm afraid we may have to leave some questions unanswered. Anyway:

 * "My name is Martin Harper, I am 24, single, army brat. I live in Worcester, England, and work as a programmer for a large US medical company. I've also worked for a children's playscheme. I have a BA in Computer Science from Cambridge. I enjoy kickboxing, computer games, reading, and travel. For contact details and a photo, see my home page."

 * "I've worked on the English Wikipedia for fourteen months. Previously I was a 2½ year member of h2g2, where I was once given a week's ban for "inappropriate behaviour" - this gives me a broad perspective on "problem" users. I'm interested in the dynamics of online communities, and I'm an active member of MeatballWiki."

 * Is that the sort of thing you were after from us? Regards qualifications, the blunt truth is that we qualified by volunteering when Jimbo Wales asked, and he accepted us as volunteers. Of course, none of us would have volunteered if we didn't feel up to it, and I hope the community will feel that our range of experiences qualifies us to do this job for them. Martin 00:15, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * Alex, I volunteered for the job out of concern for Wikipedia and out of a sense of duty since I was one of those clamoring for better ways to resolve disagreements. Wikipedia does not have a UseRealNames policy for users or sysops, and many users -- including you and many other prominent Wikipedians -- choose not to share many biographical details.  If you have concerns about me particularly, let me know at my talk page or contact me via e-mail.  UninvitedCompany 00:47, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * The system as current set up is... not perfect, and perhaps so much not so that people will have a problem with it, in that all of us who have been appointed to the board were done so at the personal discretion of Jimbo, whereas any and all future appointments (including our own re-appointments; mine is at Gregorian year-end) are intended to be based on a vote of some kind, at which point I have no doubt that people will expect those standing to offer a personal manifesto et al.; however, as of now, one does not know that information provided on my vanity domain as linked to from my user page is anything other than a fabrication, and, certainly, if I were so minded, I have little doubt that I could invent such a character background in such a way as to be pretty-much 'fool-proof', so that one would have a very great difficulty in verifying its veracity, and yet being partially or wholly false, and as such I feel that the only reliable (and, indeed, in any way sensible) basis of evidence is the way in which people have comported themselves whilst on the Wikipedia (and, I suppose, on the miscellaneous related mailing lists) - evidence which is, if not terribly easy to sift through, certainly available in all of its forms to anyone who wishes to look for it.
 * Hmm, that was all one sentence. ;-)
 * In short, all we can offer is a past history, goodwill, and hope that we can gain others' trust.
 * Thoughts?
 * James F. (talk) 04:35, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to give biographies, or even real names. We're on the committee because Jimbo appointed us there, and that's what gives us the authority, since currently Jimbo has final say on all Wikimedia decision making. In the future we will be elected based on our actions both on the committee and on Wikipedia in general; for those voting to decide whether they like our actions, it's sufficient to identify us by our Wikipedia usernames. --Delirium 05:15, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)

Anyone who wants to be an arbitrator should be subject to scrutiny because they will be wielding real power against other Wikimedia members that we do not know. Personally, I care about the other members and their rights; they should be treated fairly be individuals who are qualified to judge their behaviors because of their training, their personal background and their history as part of this community. I do not know of any democracy where the judges/arbitrators are anonymous or pseudonymous.

Regarding my user name I wouold like to state that anyone who has taken the time to read my user page knows that I use a pseudonym not to hide my identity or information about my personal biography (which can be discovered with a minimum of research) but because using a pseudonym shortens the duration of copyright protection before works enter the public domain. See Title 17 USC § 302(c). It is for this reason alone that I adopted a pseudonym to make contributions here.

Thank you Martin for your forthrightness; it is an excellent example for the rest of the group. And thank you to the rest of you in advance for your disclosures on this page so other members are aware of the idenitities of those who have taken it upon themselves to judge others and pass sentence upon them if you have not already done so on your user pages. Remember that I declined to be part of this process because I felt it important that someone remain available to look over the shoulders of the power possessors to protect the rights of those who have not been given such power to effect the course of other people's lives; being a court arbitrator I know that it is a very serious role that can have very serious consequences. — Alex756 05:18, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * I disagree with that. I think the only relevant qualification is track record in Wikipedia.  Track record in real life is irrelevant--there are plenty of esteemed, well-regarded, and tenured professors who have behaved less than excellently on Wikipedia, and vice versa.  In fact I personally don't bother to read any of this blog-style personal rambling about what people do in real life, and would object strongly to it being taken into account for any purpose whatsoever.

 * I think you are making the whole thing a bit too formal as well. This is not some sort of legal system.  We're doing the exact same thing Jimbo has been doing informally for years now, only now it's a group of people instead of just Jimbo doing it.  We're the dispute resolution committee of our little club, not some sort of government.  Jimbo didn't do it formalistically, and I don't think we should either.  The checks and balances are consensus, and voting of people onto the arbitration committee (which does have to be done somewhat more formally to make sure the elections are meaningful in some way). --Delirium 06:21, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)

 * Agreed, it does seem to be getting rather overly formal.
 * James F. (talk) 07:06, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * But, as I've said above, it is surely difficult for one to verify what Martin (no allegation of lying intended, of course) or I have written - what's the point in people posting unverifiable information in a sop effort to garner trust?
 * Surely the only trust metric that you can use is that provided by the community sense of a Wikipedian's interactions with it? For example:
 * "My name is Tracey Edmonds. I'm 48, widowed, with 3 children. I live in Phoenix, Arizona, US, where I work as a research chemist for a small local pharmecuticles cooperative. I have a PhD in biochemistry that I got from Penn. State, and have also spent time as a house-wife when my children were first growing up.
 * "I like reading books (especially Coleridge and Preust), hill walking, skiing, and scuba-diving, am a passionate Republican, and believe that we should cleanse this land of all the ills brought upon it by nefarious liberals.
 * "I would like to think that my experience in keeping my children from killing each other and promoting harmony within my family will help me, having gained the wisdom of Solomon through this process."
 * ... how do you 'know' that that is any more accurate an account of who I am than anything else, except that I say it isn't, and my past history of interaction on the Wikipedia?
 * Nevertheless, I have provided such a biography (I hesitate to call it 'mine', really, as even if the person described does exist, you only have my word that he is I, rather than just some stolen personality I have found that fits me suitably).
 * James F. (talk) 07:06, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I have a comment. I think that some of the decisions you may gonna take involve tough decisions, such as rejecting some people from the community. This is a heavy decision. And one arbitrators must feel ready to take responsability for in case of a subsequent issue. For this reason, I feel that Alex is right in suggesting that one gives his real identity. Jimbo plainly assume every decision he takes with his real name. Now, it is true that participating to wikipedia requires not to give one's real identity, but arbitrator is not a role we would agree any wikipedian should hold. It is a step above, in the trust scale. I do not think that it "should" be a requirement that a real name and personal information is known by all of us, but if people accept to give information, so much the best. If they do not, no big deal. Or if they feel like staying in the middle, they can offer that information to one trusted person, who will keep it private. The three options are ok to me.

Jdforrester, I lived on Broadway Rd, Mac Clintock corner, in Tempe. I liked the place very much ;-)

Part of the issue is accountability. If you don't want to disclose who you are why should a judge recognize your decisionmaking as final? If you want arbitration to be binding and final then it has to be betweeen people, not imaginary characters made up to "keep private" the identity of the author of those characters. Imagine if all these people are really just one person who has developed the ability to create and run multiple user accounts on Wikipedia:

User A: I agree with you, User B. User B; You are right User A.

Now if User A and User B are the same person, there is no agreement, is there? Why does someone who want to take on the responsibility to effect users lives not want to disclose who they are? Yes, they don't want anyone to know who they are so they cannot be confronted with their decision. Anonymity is great for people who don't want anyone to know who they are. Accountability requires verifiable identities. I don't buy the argument that everyone who puts themselves in the spotlight deserves absolute privacy, especially arbitrators. Judges have to disclose their relationships between the parties, their interests in corporations, and their professional qualifications; in a democracy judges are subject to a high degree of scrutiny in their public lives. Why should it be any different for arbitrators? I am asking for verifiability, not an invasion of privacy and not self serving "biographies" that could be just as much fiction as a novel. — Alex756 13:49, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * *sighs*
 * I'm sorry, I'm evidently not saying what I mean coherently enough, as we seem to each be reiterating the same points to each other; let me try again:
 * I'm happy to give a biography about myself, and have indeed done so.
 * I'm aware of the privacy that I otherwise enjoy, but am happy to give up said freedom if it pleases others.
 * I'm aware that I and the other arbitrators have been entrusted with a lot of power, and that we must be seen to be fair, and to some extent accountable to the overall community.
 * My (main) point is that the information we have been asked to provide is unverifiable, and as such is no more than a diversion, making people believe that they can have trust in 'us', but not actually providing anything 'real' or tangible.
 * ... and thus we arbitrators are giving up our privacy for no real point other than a falsely assumed sense of security.
 * James F. (talk) 16:05, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * If you gave a phone number, Jimbo could call you at a random date and time. If you've paid somebody to pose as you at that number, perhaps you won't have paid them enough to memorize all your postings to Wikipedia, some obscure questions about which Jim could pose to you. Or since he runs a business you could probably put a 3 cent refundable deposit down with his company, and if the charge went through he would know have a credit identity that could be traced (or a $10,000 deposit to be refunded only upon retiring from a term of office during which you live up to the highest standards!). Or he could send registered letters to addresses 1 digit higher and 1 digit lower than the one you provide and ask your neighbors if you really live there (or would one to you work? Do post office people ask for ID?). I dunno. Verification doesn't seem a priori hopeless once you give some off-Web info.168... 01:15, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

While James maintains that his identity is unverifiable, Warwick Uni confirms the existence of a James Forrester doing the course he claims to be doing, and a simple email is sufficient to provide all the verification a reasonable person might need. Food for thought. Martin 01:05, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I guess I don't see why there should be "personal" accountability, or why any of this is even relevant. The accountability ought to be based on the decisions of the committee: not who they are, but whether they make good decisions. If a particular committee member is consistently voting in odd ways that are out of sync with the wishes of the wider Wikipedia community, then that user should not be voted onto the committee again. If, on the other hand, the committee is making decisions that the rest of the community sees as reasonable, then there's no problem. I don't really care who is behind all these handles; I only care what sorts of decisions they make. --Delirium 01:25, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC)

 * That's my view too. Knowing who everybody is in real life is all very nice, and if people want to tell people who they are, that's fine, but I don't see why it should be required. If I have a degree in the history of art, or once worked for the government, or have a taste for hardcore Chilean bisexual pornography (and I'm not saying I do, but it is my birthday in six months, so if you're stuck for gift ideas...), then so what? --Camembert 03:28, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Some inspiring history for the 'committee'! Bwaaaahhhh! — Alex756 05:28, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Alex that the arbitration committee needs to have some transparency if they are going to be making binding decisions. For example, I think it would be a wise policy that the committee should have to admit to what usernames they are using. It seems highly unfair that someone would be editing, and possibly getting into conflicts with others under one username, and then making arbitration decisions under another. I'm not demanding to know their names in real life, but their usernames on Wikipedia really ought to be a minimum requirement. Are the arbitration committee themselves even aware of this information? If so, should the rest of the community not be told, or at least told that the committee are aware of it and have decided for whatever reason that they wish to withhold this information. If it is withheld, you risk the information leaking out anyway and rumours about which users other users might be will seriously reduce the amount of faith people have in the committee. Angela. 17:33, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC)

 * That I definitely agree with. The current version of this page links to all our User: pages, but if anyone has second (or third) accounts that they use besides the one listed, those should be mentioned. --Delirium 23:34, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC)

 * I completely agree - if anybody uses a second (or third, fourth...) username, they should declare it (I tend to think the same about all users, but I think it's even more important in the case of arbitrators). I personally am not aware of any of the arbitrators being in this position, however (I may be missing something, of course). --Camembert 01:50, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

We will explicitly deal with this (#4 on the current agenda), along with similar issues of openness and suchlike. For the time being, we have no power, so no harm done. Martin 01:53, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Help!

 * Policy suggestions now at wikipedia talk:policies and guidelines and village pump

 * I think that you probably want to persue a course of mediation first, as part of the system of conflict resolution, before you move on to arbitration (and, indeed, this will probably be part of the ground rules for arbitration, once we have written and published them). The arbitration committee is just getting started, and so we're not really able to do much of anything right now.
 * Really, try to talk with the people who you are having disagreements with, and if necessary try to involve a dis-interested third party too. Arbitration is a very much final answer for when mediation has failed...
 * HTH.
 * James F. (talk) 13:58, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Jack, while your policy suggestions are appreciated, as far as I am aware Jimbo has not delegated the ability to set policy to the arbitration committee. I suggest you discuss your proposals further at policies and guidelines or village pump. Martin 00:17, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * Ok, thank you for your kindness. I didn't know where else to go. User:tannin deletes anything I add to their talk page (edit notes refering to me as a troll) rather than responding, so I don't see how mediation is possible. But I will do what I can to contact a third party and see if there can be mediation. As far as my policy suggestions, I will post them on those two locations, and maybe the mailing list. Thanks, Jack 02:12, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Mediators who are arbitrators
Mr Chairman, I beg your leave to ask if there is a policy that no person can simultaneously serve as both arbiter and mediator. If there is no such policy, then I humbly ask that its adoption be considered. -- Lord Emsworth 23:58, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC)

 * Hi Lord Emsworth. Currently, no person is both a mediator and an arbitrator. There are no plans to elect new mediators or arbitrators until the end of this year. At some point before this point, the community will consider whether it wants to have people serving as both mediators and arbitrators. Martin 00:03, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * correction. Jimbo suggested that there were no plan to elect new arbitrators until the end of this year. However, no such thing was said about mediators. We are currently discussing this topic. Anthere

 * Thanks Anthere, for that correction. :) Martin 00:53, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Lir
Would you ban User:Lir, please? I've brought this up endlessly on other pages and not one user has written one word in Lir's favor. 168... 00:05, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * The arbitrators do not currently have the authority to ban anyone. First we need to create and propose a set of procedures, which must then be approved by the community and given Jimbo's stamp of approval. Your assistance in doing so would be appreciated. In the meantime, the prior arrangements for banning apply. Martin 00:09, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

That's too bad. Yes, I'll see what assistance I can provide. With Lir in mind, I just now added a few points of Wikiquette.168... 00:46, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The Title
Chairman and Members of the Committee, it is my consideration that this page could be moved to Arbitration Committee, in order to follow the standard used by the Mediation Committee. Otherwise, that page should be moved to Mediators. My suggestion is but for the sake of consistency. -- Lord Emsworth 02:42, Jan 23, 2004 (UTC)

 * Done.
 * James F. (talk) 00:29, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

-

Will we know why UC removed himself from the list ? I think this is most unfortunate. Anthère0

 * I gather UC has written to the other arbitrators about it, though my email is playing up so I've not got the message yet. I don't think we should quote him without permission, anyway - if you want to know why UC left, I guess asking him directly would be the best way to find out :) --Camembert

 * oki.

 * UC, why did you remove yourself from the list of arbitrators ? Anthère0

 * I was thinking maybe on his talk page :) - he might not be watching this page any more. --Camembert

 * After lengthy consideration I have concluded that the direction the committee has taken no longer matches the activity for which I volunteered. At the time I expressed my interest in the committee to Jimbo, I had hoped that arbitration could serve as a way of resolving disputes early, at the stage before the ForestFires started, and the civility-destroying effects of peoples' frustration ran their course.  I also saw it as an extension of SoftSecurity, where we would be able to resolve editorial disagreements, and that our means of implementation would be the respect of the "disputants" and the community for our actions.

 * as for resolving disputes before forestfires...yes, that is not the current direction...May I suggest that what you could have been seeking for was perhaps more related to mediation than the current arbitration ? Agreed, the mediator must not take decision...still...I have a suggestion : the step called "poll" requires to be expanded. Look, if there can be a rather global agreement to do something, even like temp banning, fire containing, silence respecting, page protecting...whatever...that can be rather globally decided...without last arbitration step, would not that be a good thing ?

 * Isnot that somehow the way MB works ? There is no arbitration. When most users agree to go in a direction, they do it, and that's it. If further issue is pushed, then, Sunir decides.
 * Currently, the whole poll business is just fluffy. I will give an example I think is relevant though I should perhaps not (but I think there is no problem as it is public information). Some users consider Lir is a vandal, who should be banned. And some honestly believe everyone agrees on this. While I think that obviously other users believe she is not, or even consider her usefull and reformed. I may suggest that a poll be done on the topic to estimate general opinion on the matter, and perhaps find a way that will both suit the ones very upset by her, and the other ones as well.

 * could not you work at some previous step in the process, that might help perhaps, more in the direction you were thinking of ?

 * I hope you understand what I wrote, because I am tired, and can't write very properly. Apology. SweetLittleFluffyThing 20:55, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Instead, we have become something of a dumping ground for problem users, where we are following an increasingly legalistic process that is intended to conclude, in most cases, with some sort of suspension of editing privileges. We are not providing Wikipedia with early dispute resolution, but rather formally ratifying the community consensus after a contributor has already become destructive.  I do not wish to participate in this, because my interests and strengths lie elsewhere.

 * UninvitedCompany 20:07, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

moved from Possible misuses of admin privileges

The Arbitration Committee

 * The one year banning of Plautus was grossly excessive. Even I wasn't banned for a year. Lirath Q. Pynnor
 * Funny comment Lir, but are you sure this is posted on the right page ?
 * Yes. Lirath Q. Pynnor
 * Banning isn't an admin privilege; it's the sole privilege of Jimbo and his designated agents, the Arbitration Committee. If you want to expose this issue in the public eye, the Village Pump is probably more appropriate than this page; if you want the Arbitration Committee to notice, the best method is probably to take the issue directly to them. -- Cyan 23:47, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * A quick glance at Requests for comment/Plautus satire shows that pretty much everyone wants him gone. Those of us who actually had to deal with him think he got off very lightly. So Lir, why are you wasting everyone's time with this frivilous complaint? →Raul654 00:33, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * It's Lir's right to have an opinion, and, as he is not banned, his privilege to post about the topic on Wikipedia. My own concern is that he should post in the most effective place to achieve his goals. I've found LifetimeBan to be instructive reading on the subject of ban lengths. -- Cyan 01:03, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * The arbitration committe consists of admins, thus, what they do can be construed as an abuse of their power. Lirath Q. Pynnor
 * Yes, but not an abuse of their admin powers. (There's no reason why a non-admin couldn't be a member of the committee.) Your typical admin isn't endowed with the right to ban users, only to block them. Let me put it to you this way: if Jimbo himself had made the decision, it would not be an abuse of admin privileges, and the Arbitration Committee is simply his proxy in this matter. The only possible thing they could be abusing by handing down this ban is Jimbo's trust in them. -- Cyan 05:49, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * There isn't a page for possible misuses of arbitration powers. Lirath Q. Pynnor
 * So what do you want to have happen? Do you want to heighten awareness of this ban and your assertion of its unfairness? Do you want the ban's length shortened? Do you have some other goal that I haven't considered? Whatever your goal is, is it best served by this listing, or is there some other forum that would better serve your purpose? (Sorry about the barrage of questions; I'm just not sure what it is you want.) -- Cyan 06:37, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * What I want isn't achievable, since I'm not even an accepted member of the community. But it doesn't hurt to try and point out that this site is dominated by some unfriendly types. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Lir: you (and other folks banned by Jimbo) were banned indefinately, for a potentially infinite length of time. Plautus is banned for a year. You had to beg Jimbo to be allowed to edit again, whereas Plautus can just wait a year. So there are differences. Martin 13:42, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Just to be clear: it's not true that all arbitrators are also admins. Gutza and nohat, for example, are not (though Gutza is on the Romanian 'pedia, I believe, and both may well become admins here at some point in the future). --Camembert

Admissibility of mediation stuff
I've been thinking about confidentiality with regards to mediation. Some of the issues touch on arbitration - in particular on whether anything said during mediation can be used in future arbitrations. Have you discussed this at all? Please see Confidentiality during mediation and the talk page. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 22:15, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

At the same time, it could be possible to discuss communications between advocates and their clients; e.g., if a client sends an e-mail to his attorney, perhaps outlining his views towards other users, is that e-mail admissible (including in future trials where the attorney might be on the opposite side), or is it privileged? -- Emsworth 22:22, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)

 * We have discussed it, and I think the opinion seemed to be that mediation stuff wouldn't be admissable, but it never made it into arbitration policy in time for the vote. Martin 22:44, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * As I understand it, mediation is meant to be in private so that involved parties feel they can talk freely. For this reason, things said in mediation are not admissible in arbitration unless all involved parties agree to it. As Martin says, I think we all agree on that, though it's not formalised anywhere. I'd consider emails between parties to arbitration and their advocates in a similar way. --Camembert

 * That's the norm, but sometimes there may be parts of the discussion on Wikipedia talk pages or the mediation boards (especially at the beginning of a mediation). Would you also consider these to be inadmissible?  -- sannse (talk) 23:11, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * I'd hope that any discussion between advocate and member would be inadmissible, regardless of the medium of communication. -- Emsworth 23:12, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)

 * OTOH, if a suspect and his lawyer conduct their discussion on a forthcoming case by yelling fire in a crowded theatre, then that might be taken into account. Similarly for Wikipedia. Martin 17:58, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Announcement of new nonbinding arbitration forum, if anyone wants to use it

 * User:Rickyrab/ Rickyrab's Nonbinding Arbitration Forum is open for nonbinding arbitration or mediation of disputes, if anyone is interested in using it. If nobody is, it will become a personal opinion page for my personal opinions. Rickyrab 20:53, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

User:24.45.99.191
Paul Vogel appeared here today at the above IP in violation of the ban. Initial blocks did not work, although unblocking and reblocking seemed to be effective. There was some confusion (on my part, at least) concerning why this IP was not already blocked. I've blocked him for 4 days (99 hours, specifically) because I wanted to wait to see what was up. Is this IP not going to be blocked? If so, how are we blocking Vogel? Also, on a related issue, if he's able to get here and edit, must those reverting his edits operate under the 3 revert rule or no? Today, everyone limited themselves to 3 edits in reverting Vogel's edits. Thank you for your prompt attention. :-) Jwrosenzweig 19:39, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, we've banned Vogel, but the rest, as they say, is up to you. I don't think the details of how the ban works in practice are up to us. Personally, I don't see any need for the three revert rule to apply here, but others may feel it's better not to make any exceptions - it shouldn't really be an issue, since he can just be blocked anyway (that assumes the blocks work, of course, which, as we've seen, they don't always...).

 * We didn't block all the IP addresses associated with Vogel when we banned him, so that explains that one. As far as I know it's not established whether the IP addresses Vogel has edited from can only possibly be used by him, or are liable to be used by others. If they can only be used by him, there's nothing wrong with blocking them all for a year, but if they might be used by others we probably don't want to do that, since we'd get innocent people get caught up in the ban. If that's the case, the only way to handle this is to just ban him for a few days at a time. But again, that's only my opinion.

 * Legal disclaimer: All this is just my opinion and isn't necessarily one shared by other arbitrators or anybody else in the universe. --Camembert

 * I think Lee has it right. If the admins see know other option, an IP range block has been used against other banned users, but in general we prefer to avoid banning entire cities for the actions of a single person. Martin 17:55, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Poll
I feel the Arbitration Committee is completely ineffective and causes more harm than help. As such, I feel the community should be polled to determine if the AC should be dissolved. My grievances against the Arbitration Committee are:
 * The members are appointed by Jimbo and do not reflect the will of the Wikipedia community.
 * The AC does not issue judgements in a timely manner.
 * The weakness of the AC has encouraged trolls, vandals, and other degenerates.

Even Jimbo being the only judicial authority was superior to the current situation - though I feel a representative Arbitration Committee would be best. --H. C HENEY 21:48, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Proposed poll wording: The Arbitration Committee should be dissolved.

 * We already have Arbitration policy ratification vote where people can express their support or lack thereof for the arbitration committee (and people can change their vote there at any time as their views change), so there's no need for anything new. As for your specific points: it's true that Jimbo appointed the original members to the arbitration committee (in fact, anybody who asked to was put on either the arbitration or mediation committees), but he indicated that in future there would be likely be votes to appoint arbitrators (maybe somebody else will provide a link to the relevant email--I'm too lazy to look it up just now); it is true that in some cases, the AC has been rather slow in dealing with cases, and this is something which we need to work on, but I do think that in the most egregious cases, we have moved reasonably quickly--on the whole it is the relatively trivial or "difficult" cases which have taken longer; and in my opinion, the AC has not "encouraged degenerates", either through its "weakness" or anything else, but that is just my opinion. --Camembert

Do you have an argument to back up the claim that Jimbo ruling was best. Also, do you have an effective replacement idea before any suggestion of dissolution ?

SweetLittleFluffyThing

 * I never said that Jimbo ruling was best, however Jimbo ruling is superior to the current mess of no accountability. I have laid a very rough draft of ideas out at User:Hcheney/Govern if you are interested. --H. C HENEY 03:32, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Jimbo ruling really isn't an option any more. Wikipedia is too big, Jimbo is too busy, etc. I agree with Cheney's desire to see an improved arbitration committee, but I suspect that we're more likely to achieve that via evolution, rather than revolution. First elections should be by the end of the year, according to Jimbo's stated plans.

 * Like Lee, I'd encourage you to use Arbitration policy ratification vote to express your opinion (if you haven't already) - if you feel that many people desire immediate dissolution, then ask them to join you in voting accordingly. Martin 22:15, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Share the pain, disagree with the solution
I share H. Cheney's pain, but do not agree with his solution.

The arbitration committee adopted a legalistic, court-like operating framework early in its history. I believe this was the fundamental mistake that made an otherwise excellent idea unworkable.

The present arbitration mechanism has evidentiary standards and operating principles comparable to those of an institution empowered to deprive people of life, liberty, or property. In such institutions (i.e. criminal courts of law) such safeguards are necessary and desirable, as history has shown all too well.

Depriving people of the ability to edit Wikipedia is a far less weighty matter, and the same evidentiary standards and protections really aren't appropriate. Rather than disband the committee, leaving a vacuum, we are better off working as a community to give clearer guidance to the committee.

The arbitration committe had, originally, a weak mandate. Without betraying any confidences, I believe that I can say that the arbitration committee, while I participated, operated with considerable concern that it might inadvertently act in a way that the community would see as a usurping of ungranted authority. I would speculate that this continues to be prominent in the group's decisionmaking to this day.

The arbitration committee's mandate should be strengthened by the community. H.Cheney and others in the community who share his concern would do well to enumerate policies that the AC should follow with the hope of bringing together a community consensus.

UninvitedCompany 02:17, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree with this, especially its sense of perspective. I think any Arb Committee should be relaxed about its position, not take itself or the consequences of its decrees too seriously, and work fairly quickly.  It should also view its purpose, not as a final arbiter of Justice or smackdowns, but as a safety mechanism to protect our most productive and community-minded editors from frustration and departure.  I would  be glad to see arbitration decisions of the form "we're not sure who is in the right and who is in the wrong, but this is what we've decided is most productive for the editing community: {suggestions, declarations}."  +sj +  21:53, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Like UninvitedCompany, I think Hcheney has identified problems, but do not support dissolving the Arbitration Committee as a solution.

Yes, the committee was originally appointed by Jimbo, but he planned for annual elections thereafter. Also, the committee was supposed to have 12 members, meaning that at least two positions are now vacant that were scheduled for an election around December. I think we should move up the timetable for that election, since the Board election demonstrated that we have a workable election system. Having 2 additional elected members would reduce concerns about legitimacy, and also make the committee more effective. We would get quicker decisions on accepting or rejecting cases, and the committee could also build a quorum of votes more quickly to issue judgments in a timely manner.

I also wonder if some of the existing arbitrators might not be glad to step down, if they could feel that someone else was taking over the work instead of them just abandoning it. If so, we could also have elections for additional seats being vacated.

Incidentally, in proposing this election, I add that if it happens, I will not be a candidate in it myself. --Michael Snow 23:44, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

And to think I never imagined the wikipedia AC to be so full of angst. Personally I've admired your low profile and reluctance to act. I think it takes great strength to do little! (to remove any doubt, yes I mean that) Anyway, just in case y'all have not noticed a couple of ideas (1 and 2) I've been pedalling, I post them here. The ideas, particularly the first one, obviously have an impact on the AC, and could make you more of a court of appeal when the admins are being too harsh or can't reach the necessary votes to act. Anyway they're just ideas. best wishes to all Erich 12:20, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree with what UninvitedCompany said. In many ways, the Arbitration Committee has been a step in the right direction. It has allowed numerous cases to be dealt with that would either have been left to fester, or had to be dealt with by Jimbo. But it's also become clear to me, and I know I'm not the only one, that it has some fairly major problems. UninvitedCompany is spot on, in that the AC needs a stronger mandate, and needs to be less legalistic. However, I'd also add to that that I believe the whole process, on top of being legalistic, is just outright slow. When dealing with nuisance users, it shouldn't be taking weeks to get a response. And on that note, I agree with Michael Snow, about the election for those places. How about setting a date?

 * There's also one point which I believe could be addressed by the arbitration committee as it stands. In the last week, I've seen two cases referred to mediation that were patently unsuitable for it.

 * In many cases, mediation is a great idea, and in the case of disputes over article content, it is very useful. However, in cases where you have a nuisance user who is being a nuisance across a wide number of articles, there's not much there to have a mediation about.

 * While the AC has chosen to put off doing anything, one of these people has had to be temp-banned (twice, now), and I've heard complaints about the other user from at least eight different people. In my opinion, trying to send these cases to mediation is a waste of time, and just ensures that they'll fester, and drive good editors mad. Ambivalenthysteria 09:36, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, there are now elections planned. See this mailing list post from Jimbo and Arbitration Committee Elections July 2004. --Camembert

Elections
Please see Arbitration Committee Elections July 2004 for details of the election for two new members of the Arbitration Committee. Angela. 23:15, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

Proposed alterations to the policy
I've knocked up a few proposed alterations to the Arbitration policy - thoughts?

James F. (talk) 03:21, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Level of arbitrator participation
The arbitrators have haphazardly noted here whether a particular arbitrator is "Inactive" or "Away". I think it would be useful to take a closer look at just how much (or how little) some of the arbitrators have participated over the past year.

To do this it is unfortunately necessary to single some people out. I do this not to criticize anyone; being an arbitrator is a thankless and time-consuming responsibility, this is a volunteer project where people do work because they want to do it, and certainly when most of the arbitrators volunteered for the task they cannot have fully anticipated what they were getting into. Nevertheless, as we will soon have another election for the Arbitration Committee, I think we need to consider whether it is necessary to replace a number of the current arbitrators.

I have summarized here the extent to which several arbitrators have participated in arbitration cases over recent months. I think that given the current caseload of the Arbitration Committee, it is clear that these levels of participation are inadequate for the task.

 * Camembert's most recent participation was a single edit on August 29, at which time he also put himself back on the "Active" list after having been "Away". When he initially marked himself "Away" on July 23, Camembert indicated it was "for reasons of sanity. If there is a mechanism to replace me permanently, then feel free to do so. If there is not, I will probably make a return in a month or two". Before this, his most recent edit to an arbitration case was on July 8.
 * Delirium's pattern of editing arbitration cases has been:
 * February: 30 edits
 * March 7-11: 8 edits
 * April 4: 1 edit
 * May 6-7: 7 edits
 * June: 7 edits
 * July 28-29: 5 edits
 * August 16: 1 edit
 * October 15: 2 edits
 * Gutza made 3 edits to arbitration cases in March before experiencing an internet outage. Since then, he has made 1 edit on June 25 and 8 edits on July 31.
 * Maveric149 has not participated in an arbitration case since August 26, when he changed his status to "Away". Before that, he was a reasonably regular participant.
 * Nohat's history of editing arbitration cases has been 3 edits in February, 5 edits in March, 2 edits in April, and a flurry of 15 edits in early May. Then nothing until 1 edit on August 31. Finally, 5 additional edits scattered in September, the most recent on September 27.

Each no doubt has reasons for focusing on other activities. Mav, for example, is now functioning as Wikimedia CFO and has had to devote considerable attention to financial matters. The choices they have made are not "wrong" in any sense; it merely means that they have been unable to serve effectively as arbitrators.

I have great respect for the many contributions each of these users has made to Wikipedia. I do not question whether they have the ability or judgment to be good arbitrators - when they have participated in cases, each has had something valuable to contribute. But unless they want to demonstrate a renewed commitment in the coming weeks to dealing with the problems before the Arbitration Committee, each of these users should be replaced as part of the coming election. --Michael Snow 06:00, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * For your information - in the upcoming election, James' (Jwro...g) and my seats re up, as are Cunc's and James (jdforesster). Martin Harper and Gutza have both resigned, effective in December. We (the arbcom and Jimbo) are not sure how to replace them, but suffice it to say, by the end of the year, the arbcom should have a large amount of new blood. →Raul654 06:26, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

 * Martin's resigning? That's too bad, he's been one of the most diligent. --Michael Snow 06:34, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * It's for personal reasons. I think he said he was either moving or getting a new job (I cannot remember which), so he won't have the time to do it. →Raul654 06:38, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

 * For my part, I would have resigned already if I was under the impression that there were suitable candidates interested in the position. Evidence suggests that there are not: The last election, which was widely advertised, drew a mere three acceptable candidates for a the two open seats.  Unless there are indication that this is likely to change, I plan not to resign as a way of keeping wholly unqualified people out: Doing nothing is better than actively doing harm. --Delirium 07:24, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * As the fourth-placed candidate in that election, I take offense at that statement, Delirium. Ambi 08:18, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Ambi, while I am sure someone has the right to be offended by Delirium, I do think it's worth noting that the three "acceptable" users were not named -- for all anyone knows, neither Raul nor I are among the three acceptable. And I hope Delirium will not say any more about it -- even if he's right, announcing it here I think serves only to divide the community. Jwrosenzweig 19:13, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Indeed I won't, and I actually made the "three" assessment a long time ago, so I don't even remember which three it was, and I could well have been mistaken. However, there are already six people currently up for election.  Do we reasonably have more than six qualified people willing to take the post? --Delirium 18:13, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Patience - the deck and other home improvements I've been doing for my mom are almost done. When that is done, I'll have 16 to 20 more hours a week to work on Wikipedia stuff - including arbitration. In short, my lack of participation in ArbCom matters is not the result in any systemic issue with my time or long term priorities here. --mav 04:43, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Given mav's high level of involvement until these recent issues, I strongly agree that there is no need to consider a replacement for him. I think (though I may be wrong) that the lack of involvement on the others' part is for different reasons -- I hope they will comment here, especially if they have no desire to continue as arbitrators. Jwrosenzweig 04:57, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I'll take mav's reassurance that he does intend to return to participation; in his case, it was difficult tell how temporary the issues were given his increased responsibilities elsewhere. --Michael Snow 06:26, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * With any luck I should be back to ArbCom duty in two, maybe three weeks (if it rains next weekend). --mav

Perhaps I'm being hypersensitive, but I wonder if the above picking apart of arbitrators' activity was really necessary. If the idea was to find out whether we'd be continuing as arbitrators beyond this year, why not just ask on our talk pages? As it is, although this apparently wasn't meant to be criticism, it feels like I'm being told off for not putting real life aside to do something which I only agreed to do on a voluntary basis in the first place (and which, incidentally, I did quite a lot in the first months of the committee's existence). But, as I say, I'm perhaps being too sensitive, so I'll shut up about it.

Enough whining. To get to the point: yes, I've been inactive for the past few months (not just in arbitration, but on the Wikipedia in general); yes, I intend to return to arbitration in a few days time; no, I don't intend to continue as an arbitrator beyond this year. My initial break from the committee ("for reasons of sanity") had to be extended unexpectedly (for personal reasons). I thought I was still on the "away" list during that extended break (in which case my absence would have had less of an impact, since only a majority of active arbitrators are needed for a vote to pass), forgetting that I had put myself back on the "active" list. My apologies for that. I'm back on the "away" list now, and, as I say, intend to return shortly. --Camembert

 * Michael - I'm afraid I do need to resign, simply because I am going to be out of time to be an effective arbitrator. I am writing this at 5am local time, which is clearly not a healthy long-term state! :) Once I've resigned, I'm going to see how the next year pans out - both for me personally, and for the arbitration committee. Depending on that, I may consider standing for arbitrator again in the future. I am also looking forward to being able to work on Wikipedia as an editor, and trying to write some fantastic new articles.

 * Under the existing system, arbitrators who take an extended leave of absence hinder only in that they don't make proposals - their lack of votes is not a problem. This could change further (eg, mav's ideas), so that it need not matter if some arbitrators are less active than others. Thus, rather than replacing comparatively inactive arbitrators, it may make more sense to add new arbitrators in addition to them. Martin 05:12, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * To Martin I would say that there is very much a need for more active arbitrators, and I felt there needed to be some relatively prompt action due to the impending election. The hindrance is not only in lack of proposals (itself a burden that definitely needs to be shared), but the lack of votes is a problem when it comes to accepting and closing, as the numbers required do not change with activity levels. I think a significant concern for many people has been the number of cases that languish at times in the request stage, without so much as a decision to accept or reject.

 * For Camembert: I did anticipate that this might be a sensitive subject, and tried to "pull the sting" from my comments as much as possible. Part of my reasons for addressing it publicly was because I saw it as a systemic problem; it wasn't the inactivity of any one arbitrator that was causing problems, it was the collective inactivity of so many. Also, because the method for replacing arbitrators is now by election, this is somewhat inevitably a public issue. Nevertheless, I apologize for any hurt feelings - I know that the task of arbitration is already painful enough, and have heard precious little "whining" from any of you over the course of the year. --Michael Snow 00:21, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Umm, well, I suppose that no, the level of votes required does indeed not change with Arbitrator "activity", but it certainly does with Arbitrator listing of activity level, but that is a rather minor semantic difference.
 * James F. (talk) 12:14, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Perhaps my understanding is flawed, but do you mean that the number of votes required to accept or close a case does change? Since unlike rulings, a majority of the active quorum is not required, I didn't know there was a basis for changing the four-vote threshold. --Michael Snow 00:03, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

December elections
I've decided to set the ball rolling for the oncoming elections; proposal only at this stage, of course.

James F. (talk) 11:53, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Admins + arbitrators
I note with a certain amount of disappointment that the entire list of arbitrators, with one inactive exception, are also admins. While I realize that all too often assemblies will elevate the same people to all positions, I wonder if it is a good thing for the admin presence in the arbitration process to be so striking. It would also certainly seem to make any arbitration involving a user and an admin a lopsided exercise in pessimism. - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler  [ flame ]  ]] 07:13, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

 * I noticed the same thing, and find myself in agreement. --Rebroad 18:51, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * The two are statistically associated (in other words, it's not a coincidence). Arbitrators should be long term wikipedia users whose conduct is above reproach; because these are the same criteria used for adminship, this automatically implies a selection bias in favor of admins. Put simply, good admins make good arbitrators. Saying that there should be exceptions for exception's sake is patently absurd. →Raul654 18:58, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't believe I said anything about making exceptions, but perhaps some realization of this tendency in the process of choosing arbitrators, and encouraging some expansion of non-admin representation in the arb pool. If all judges were police officers, I think societies would generally consider that a problem.
 * Perhaps the recent introduction of admin elections will have this effect anyway. I simply hadn't seen it noted, and it seems clear that it is not entirely an absurd or obscure concern. At least, that is, among those who are not or have not been admins or arbitrators.
 * - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler  [ flame ]  ]] 19:55, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * And to reiterate - your statement is patently absurd. We should not be giving non-admins preferential treatment when deciding who should sit on the arbcom, because, to wit, admins (who are choose on the basis of their good conduct and trustworthiness) are the ones who make the best arbitrators. What you are proposing is exactly what I said we should avoid - giving exceptions for the sake of giving exceptions. →Raul654 23:17, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

 * Admins aren't a monolithic group by any means; there's plenty of dissent and difference among them, and I very much doubt that an arbitrator who carries a sysop flag on his account is going to give a favorable ruling to the user who shares that flag, just because they both have it. Just look at Requests for arbitration/Cantus vs. Guanaco, for example. —No-One Jones (m) 19:08, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I would say that anecdotal evidence is only so meaningful, because there are probably those cases where some feel admin ganging-up occured. Regardless, I'm not saying it's a foregone conclusion that there is always going to be that conflict, but it does seem to be a potential conflict of interest, and trying to assuage it before the fact would be better then trying to fix it afterwards if it does become a perceived imbalance in case outcomes. Already it seems some are presuming that I am suggesting that admins should never be arbitrators, and that's not what I said. Perhaps, though, the fact that an arbitrator, or even arbitrator candidate, is an admin, should be noted. - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler  [ flame ]  ]] 19:55, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

I was an arbitrator at a time when I was not an admin, and found it to make no difference. As Raul points out, most long-time contributors to Wikipedia who have gained the trust of the community are administrators. And since arbitrators are all long-time contributors who have gained the trust of the community, it should be no surprise that they are, for the most part, administrators. I don't think this matters. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:38, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't think it is a surprise that arbitrators are chosen from among those who were also willing to serve as administrators. I do wonder why so many arbitrators have kept their sysop privileges, it would seem natural to give them up while one serves on the committee.  After all the committee can rely upon administrators to implement their decisions, and there is no shortage of administrators.  There is no need for arbitrators to have to serve in two roles at once.  Retention of the sysop powers by arbitrators gives the impression that one may be more motivated by accumulating powers as in Pokemon than in serving the community.--Silverback 00:12, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Arbitrators and no conflict of interest
I think I read somewhere on Wikipedia that any disputes can only be resolved by someone who is not involved in the dispute. In the same way as football referees, lawyers, etc. Is this correct?

For example, suppose there was a dispute over the article for Macedonia. There would be some people who would be more knowledgable on the subject, but there would also be some people who might be biased on coming to a final decision on any dispute.

Maybe a better example might be a head of state, where the people from that state might feel passionate about how their head of state is portrayed. Would this therefore make a citizen from that state an unsuitable candidate for being an arbitrator?

--Rebroad 18:50, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * One would have to know the arbitrator's views on his head of state, which might be positive, negative, or apathetic—so I don't think it's possible to say definitively one way or another. If the arbitrator has expressed an opinion on the issue in dispute, though, it would be only proper for him to recuse himself. —No-One Jones (m) 18:56, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * For the most part, arbitration is about user v user conflicts (IE, conflicts that occur on a large number of articles). Disputes involving individual articles generally don't make it to arbitration (I cannot think of a single one, although I'm sure someone will come along and cite a counterexample). →Raul654 20:56, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

Spamming for votes
Should various "welcome" messages to newbies which are signed "Sam Spade wants you to vote" (hyperlinked to the ArbCom election page see, User talk:Motta1 for an example) be considered spamming for votes? Is it acceptable conduct for a candidate during an election period?AndyL 18:15, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * New users can't vote anyways. I think you have to of been here 90 days or some such. If it said "vote for sam spade" I think that would be OK too, but due to comments left on my talk page by UC and others, I made a compromise to presenting a neutral suggestion to vote. I am not the only user w an election related signature, BTW. lst had a signature relating to the U.S. elections as well, if I remember correctly. Anyways, I hope it can be taken into account that andy has not spoken to me personally in regards to this issue, and has a long history of wasting time unsuccessfully trying to bother me (yes, you did manage to annoy me in the past Andy, but that was early on, and before I formed an understanding of what you do here). [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 20:46, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Are new users automatically blocked from voting (ie cannot access the voting page) or are they simply disqualified? If the latter than your signature creates a make work project for the election administrators.

As for motivations, it's fallacious reasoning to criticise an argument by attacking the motivations of the person making it; that's just a form of ad hominem. One should look at the facts of the situation, ie that you are a candidate and that you are posting messages on the pages of people you do not know encouraging them to vote - the facts are the same regardless of my motivations. As for the US election that analogy would be of relevance if Wikipedia were running the US election and/or if lst were a candidate. I don't think your signature would be a problem if you weren't a candidate but you are and so it looks like campaigning even if you are telling people to "vote" instead of to vote for you.

As for why I didn't raise this on your talk page first a) I knew it would make no difference - you wouldn't be influenced to change your behavioru b) I didn't need the aggravation.AndyL 23:28, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Election and right to vote
I wrote yesterday a note, complaining about the fact that I was not given the right to vote for the ArbCom election. Leaving apart that the request of having first edited a page at least 90 days before placing a vote is quite unusual for Wikipedia matters, anyway this should be applied to the person, regardless of username changes and late registrations: I mean, if I can state that I edited my first page earlier than 90 days ago, my statement should be accepted as I can prove that. By the way, the software automated check cannot take in account the Changing_attribution_for_an_edit and Changing_username. This means that, in this case, wikipedians' votes are processed literally and not according with un unfair criterium. TY, M7it 21:13, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee ? Democracy
Wikipedia is about democracy. As it is about democracy Arbitration should not try to solve disputes. Let the users that read particular article decide!

In a case of a dispute, survey is not a solution. Election is the most possible democratic solution and Wikipedia users should decide. Threshold could be either time to vote or number of voters.

As in any elections, interested parties should try to explain their position and if needed educate possible voters. That is The Purpose of Wikipedia – to educate. Elections are best way to check how well Wikipedia serves its duty.

 * No, Wikipedia is about creating a freely available encyclopædia from a neutral point of view for the benefit of all mankind. Democracy may be one of the tools we use in certain ways to get there, but it is not what we're "all about"; the project comes before anything else.
 * James F. (talk) 03:41, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Each encyclopaedia's goal is to educate people. Why? The more general population know, the harder it will be for anyone to rule them with lies. Knowledge = Power => People's knowledge = Democracy.
 * As encyclopaedia is about democracy, why not use democracy to establish neutral point? What is the advantage of having Arbitration above voting? Someone knows better than the whole population? In that case, he/she should educate others and put his/hers knowledge to the test.
 * Sava Z.
 * Sava Z.

Well, at some level (with regards to article content) the majority does not decide what is true and false and right and wrong. NPOV is not subject to majority rule. But the Arbitration Committee is not primarily concerned with article content matters, it's generally involved with user behaviour disputes. And when it comes to these sorts of disputes, a large community vote is suboptimal. Tell me, why should I as an average Wikipedia user have to worry about the details of Johnny Q Foobar's fight with User:Swik? Why should I have to spend time reviewing evidence against both sides? I really don't think the average citizen is that interested in going over the specifics with a fine tooth comb. Therefore, if we leave the matter open to a community-wide vote, we run two risks: first, that the average Wikipedian is too busy doing Important Things (like editing articles) to participate in this dispute, in which case it comes down to a popularity contest of whoever can muster the most friends to vote on the matter... and if ordinary, neutral people vote, they're unlikely to be able to make an informed decision, and the process becomes "whoever has the best rhetoric wins". This is suboptimal, at best. It also is more likely to polarize the community, breeding division and enmity. And in controversial cases, there will never be a sufficient majority to meet our standard rules for a "consensus", and you can be assured that people will add fifty dozen options to the choices about what to do to a user, and it's vulnerable to sock puppets, and suffers from all sorts of problems. A proper judicial system is not vulnerable to these sorts of abuse, is able to produce a clear yes-or-no decision, and helps ensure that the people making the decision will be making an informed decision. To bring an analogy: You don't see any democratic nation making their criminal justice a matter for the popular vote, do you? It just doesn't work very well. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 17:41, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Those interested in article will vote. They will write article, if needed. They will improve article. They will give another view. They are important.

 * By the way, planting judges is something known, isn't it? In the same way, one person could populate whole ArC. Thousand fake logins, twenty candidates, who will stop that?

 * Re: criminal justice - haven't you noticed that just those cases that get media attention are important. Why? Because public does count. Re: suboptimal – Romans had optimal government for people that like “optimal” solutions. Rulers were called Dictators.

 * user:Vagabund

 * The Romans had several different forms of government. See Roman Kingdom, Roman Republic, and the Roman Empire. In future, please research your tenuous analogies more thoroughly. Thanks. Martin 23:19, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I believe you thought: Roman dictator.
 * user:Vagabund

Don't vote on everything: Wikipedia is not a democracy, contrary to what some people foolishly say. →Raul654 01:34, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

 * Recommended: NPOV tutorial This discussion proves that Wikipedia is Democracy, only way to make true neutral point! Just some needs to read how to discuss - Staying cool when the editing gets hot. Not knowing how to discuss doesn't help editing an article.
 * user:Vagabund

New arbitrators
Er, OK. What should I read up on between now and Jan 1st? - David Gerard 23:33, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I suggest that all new arbitrators choose several decided cases -- perhaps a couple of cases where severe consequences were imposed and a couple of cases where little was done -- and take the time to read the evidence pages, the discussions, and the ultimate decisions (along with arbitrator comments). In this way I think you will get a sense of what precedents have been set, and also (I do hope) you will determine what changes you hope to make to the way the AC does business.  I would encourage anyone taking my advice to look at some of the most difficult cases we've had, in order to consider what other options might have been wiser -- the LaRouche case and the Rex case stick in my mind as most difficult and the ones most given to being second-guessed, but I'm sure there are many others.  Learn from the (possible) mistakes of the past. :-)  Or else discover that we all were a lot brighter and better than we were given credit for being. ;-) Hopefully that's of some help, David. :-) Jwrosenzweig 21:32, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Terms
I made up this diagram, in case anyone's wondering over who got which term when, as it were.

James F. (talk) 14:18, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Vote Tallies
Special:ArbComVote says complete results will be posted there, but as of today it still has a list of candidates. Will a tally of how many votes each candidate received be posted there? PedanticallySpeaking 17:14, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Umm... the total number of votes is already up (520), as are the percentages. It doesn't take a genius to figure out how many votes each candidate did or did not get. →Raul654 23:05, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * What the newly re-elected arbitrator with the worringly short temper failed to say was that the results are available at Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004, which due to some organizational or administrative failure, is not linked from helpful places such as Special:ArbComVote, or Arbitration Committee. No, it's not all that easy to find unless you're heavily involved in the process. Yes, it is disappointing that someone who so eagerly chooses to be insulting rather than helpful was just re-elected to the arbitration committee. - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler  [ flame ] ]] 23:18, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

How to complain an administrator?
Hello I would like to know if I can complain an administrator who has made a number of controversial reverts and requests for deletion and is being rude in discussions?

 * Please sign your posts with ~ . You may take a look at Dispute resolution. --Jiang 06:22, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Code of conduct for administrators
I am interested in a code of conduct for administrators in their use of sysop powers. I draw a distinction between administrators making mistakes about facts or interpretation, and those who abused their powers for personal reasons, for themselves or people or positions they favored. Are there any arbitration decisions which set a precedent for delineating distinctions such as this? If it isn't already, I hope to work for a policy of zero tolerance based on this distinction.--Silverback 00:32, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Off the top of my head, the only case I can recall where the arbcom dealt with specific abuse-of-powers accuastions was in the RickK/Guanaco case. →Raul654 00:56, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, 168/Mav as well. →Raul654 00:57, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanx for the cases. In the course of reviewing them I found that 172 has been desysopped before, but it was temporary.  So there definitely is not zero tolerance, for personal use of sysop powers.  I am also concerned about Jimbo's role.  His insistence on being consulted before desysopping (assuming this policy is still in place), seems to me to be treating sysop powers as a right rather than a privilege in service of a community of equals.  If admins and users truly are equals, then desysoping is not nearly as severe as blocking a user from edit, i.e., kicking them out of the community, yet Jimbo does not insist on involvement in this.  This inconvenience to the rest of us community members could possibly had been avoided it 172 had been "permanently" desysoped, not allowed to reapply for admin status for a period of time, and then required to disclose his previous desysopping when he reapplied.  I think the community would have been fair to him, if he had shown a change in attitude.--Silverback 01:53, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * p.s., I am going to post this to Jimbo's talk page. I don't want to talk about him behind his back.--Silverback 01:53, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Link broken
Link on Arbitration Committee was broken, commented it out till link is "repaired" http://boards.wikimedia.org/viewforum.php?f=2

Case: personal attacks from User:Fadix

 * I kept a polite attitude, I asked him to stop multiple times. Asked User:Tony Sidaway to help me out, he told me to follow various ways. It is imposible to discuss things when you are accused of, hidden agendas, being a troll, being a revisionsist, being type here. User is ignoring the "No Personal Attacks" policy. My discussion with him is clear in Talk:Armenian Genocide as well as in archives. User did not vandalise my user page or anything but it is stull quite irritating. At this point I am not sure what else I can do aside from showing up here. Just as I was typing this I was asked on my user page: "Mr. Coolcat, for the interest of the entire Wikipedian community, why have you lied about you." --Cool Cat My Talk 00:12, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Please advise me on any issue that requires my attendance. Thanks. --Cool Cat My Talk 00:12, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Coolcat was not accused of hidden agenda by only me, but as well, by various other members and he knows it. He got involved himself in every articles directly or indirectly involving Turkey, editing them with his POV by claiming to neutralize them. He came in with the Armenian Genocide entry and did the same thing. I have proposed everything and he has refused any propositions. I have proposed to present the Western version, the Turkish government version etc. and the critics for each according to the Academia and researchers in the field. He has refused, he wanted to dump every versions and merge them, edit etc. and get the entire article as the Turkish government version. I asked mediation, I made many concessions, but he has ignored. He has edited the World War I entry reference to the Armenian cases, a Holocaust entry because it got the Armenian cases, Genocide history entry, editing the Armenian cases. He got involved in many such articles, and now he is proposing himself to mediate Karabagh entry. A historian has told him to stop in the Greek Turkish relation entry... and many other people in other entries. I have tried everything, nothing worked. I have enough of this anti-elitist position. I wanted to participate in the genocide entry, because I know a lot about it, while Coolcat is trying to color with his nationalist aim, any entries directly or indirectly involving Turkey. I have enough of making concessions, and his ignoring of those concessions... I just want him officialy out of the Armenian genocide entry, as others want him out from other enteries. I advances the cases, that for one to be respected, that person must respect you, Coolcat has only harmed Wikipedia, and I admit that I just can't smell him anymore and that he does not worth my respect. And I believe that many will come here after being warned of Coolcat new attempt, and support my position. Fadix 00:29, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Point is the personal attacks are unacceptable, we are not discussing what is pov or not. You do not have the right to asign me things like hidden agenda accusations. Mulltiple users turned bad, which makes the situation worse. You are required to have a civil and polite tone. --Cool Cat My Talk 01:29, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * The user has made a drastic change, I withdraw my request as long as user stays like he is now. --Cool Cat My Talk 03:25, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC) My bad. --Cool Cat My Talk 23:55, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * What drastic changes are you talking about? I haven't posted anything since this. Are you afraid to be trapped on this [what you consider as] game yourself? The bad faith article in Wikipedia says that it does not include obvious bad faith, and saying such about you, is not against any Wikipedia rules. You have even deleted in the genocide talk entry important posts,(evidences) and now that your realise that you are the one having everything to lose in such a cases, you just drop it. But sorry, I will not on the other hand drop it. Fadix 13:49, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For future reference - requests for arbitration need to go on Requests for arbitration - there are links there to read about the process -- sannse (talk) 09:48, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom
Heh, ArbCom. That name sounds like some sort of elite military agency out of a Tom Clancy novel.

"We're going to DefCon 1! Call ArbCom!" "ArbCom on the way!"

- Pioneer-12 16:00, 1 May 2005 (UTC)


text:
Robert P. Watson

Robert P. Watson (born 1962) is an American political scientist and a historian of US politics, and the author of many books on US political and military history. He is Distinguished Professor of American History and Avron Fogelman Research Professor at Lynn University.

Education and career
Watson has a bachelor's degree from Virginia Tech, a master's degree from the University of West Florida, and a Ph.D. from Florida Atlantic University.

Watson held a position at Northern Arizona University before moving to the University of Hawaiʻi at Hilo in 1997 as an assistant professor of political science. By 2006, as an associate professor of political science at Florida Atlantic University, he was named the university's 2006 Distinguished Teacher of the Year. He joined Lynn University in 2007.

Books
Watson is the author of books including:
 * The Presidents' Wives: Reassessing the Office of the First Lady (Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2000; 2nd ed., 2014)
 * First Ladies of the United States: A Biographical Dictionary (Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2001)
 * Affairs of State: The Untold History of Presidential Love, Sex, and Scandal (Rowman & Littlefield, 2012)
 * America's First Crisis: The War of 1812 (SUNY Press, 2014)
 * The Nazi Titanic: The Incredible Untold Story of a Doomed Ship in World War II (Da Capo Press, 2016)
 * The Ghost Ship of Brooklyn: An Untold Story of the American Revolution (Da Capo Press, 2017)
 * George Washington's Final Battle: The Epic Struggle to Build a Capital and Nation (Georgetown University Press, 2021)
 * Escape! The Story of the Confederacy's Infamous Libby Prison and the Civil War's Largest Jail Break (Rowman & Littlefield, 2021)
 * America's First Plague: The Deadly 1793 Epidemic that Crippled a Young Nation (Rowman & Littlefield, 2023)
 * When Washington Burned: The British Invasion of the Capital and a Nation's Rise from the Ashes (Georgetown University Press, 2023)

His edited volumes include:
 * American First Ladies (edited, Salem, 2002)
 * The Presidential Companion: Readings on the First Ladies (edited with Anthony J. Eksterowicz, University of South Carolina Press, 2003)
 * Anticipating Madam President (edited with Ann Gordon, Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2003)
 * America's War on Terror (edited with Patrick Hayden and Tom Lansford, Ashgate, 2003; 2nd ed., 2009)
 * Counting Votes: Lessons from the 2000 Presidential Election in Florida (edited, University Press of Florida, 2004)
 * George McGovern: A Political Life, a Political Legacy (edited, South Dakota State Historical Society Press, 2004)
 * Debating The War On Terrorism (edited with Tom Langsford, Kendall/Hunt, 2005)
 * Lincoln's Enduring Legacy: Perspectives from Great Thinkers, Great Leaders, and the American Experiment (edited with William D. Pederson and Frank J. Williams, Lexington Books, 2010)

title: Robert P. Watson


text:
User:Grunge Is God

Hello, I am 15, I live in Georgia, though my family is from the Pacific Northwest. I am a hardcore Libertarian, and I am exceedingly displeased with our government's policies, which oppress the common man. I am a pillhead, and usually either passed out on the couch from sleeping pills, or wired from taking excessive doses of caffeine. I have self-diagnosed myself with paranoia, and am not right in the head. As anyone could tell from my name, I love Grunge music. Some of my interests are Music, Grand Theft Auto, and South Park. I occasionally troll random websites because I can, and it is very, very fun.

title: User:Grunge Is God


text: Category:Languages of Qatar

title: Category:Languages of Qatar


text:
Michigan Jake

Michigan Jake was a barbershop quartet that formed in 1995. The quartet borrowed the name from Michigan J. Frog, the singing frog in the 1955 Merrie Melodies short One Froggy Evening.

The original line-up comprised the section leaders of the Louisville Times chorus of Louisville, Kentucky. After a few changes in the line-up, Michigan Jake won the 2001 International Quartet Contest in Nashville, along with becoming the first barbershop quartet to win a Harmony Award from the Vocal Group Hall of Fame. They announced their retirement on July 1, 2004.

Discography

 * Steppin Out with the Louisville Times Chorus (CD, cassette; 1997)
 * For the Record (CD/cassette; 2000)
 * How Rhythm Was Born (CD; 2004)

title: Michigan Jake