Wikibooks talk:Arbitration/Panic2k4 vs. SBJohnny

Scope of Arbitration
At some point the scope of what is to be arbitrated will have to declared. It would help to verbalize the particular over-riding questions to be decided by arbitration. I would suggest "Was the block of Panic2k4 on 3, January 2007 warranted? Further, what actions should be taken to address the related situations that led to the block?" --xixtas 17:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur; an attempt to say what we're doing here would be helpful: what is being arbitrated, and what is the goal of arbitration. Some kind of current status summary in a prominent position would also be valuable. -- James Dennett 19:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Plaintiff and Defendant
I suggest a vocabulary change. From "plaintiff" and "defendant" to just "pro" and "con" or "supporters", and "opposition". I don't think we want to go throwing legal terms like these around casually. Also, as Panic2k4 has pointed out, in a real legal proceeding he would probably be the plaintiff in this action. Also, thinking of process in the future. --xixtas 17:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree fully with this suggestion -- Herby talk thyme 18:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It is all about sides but it can be seen from both ways, I can be "defendant" from a "plaintiff" accusation of wrong doing (It is the now the established format) that will lead to the requested discussion about the penalty I was imposed as I also seek reparation for abuse. But I read somewhere that SB Johnny was given the chance to change things before the process began, as it has already started there is no ways things that already have been said to be erased and I must have a chance to contest the accusations made, the only thing that would stop the process is one of the parties to concede defeat and if I was that party I should be penalized for wasting every one's time like increases of and renewal of the blocking time. --Panic 18:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Nobody's time is that valuable here that you can be penalized for wasting it. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 20:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreement to Arbitration
Perhaps a section where parties sign to specifically agree to arbitration in this document should be added. --xixtas 17:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Definitely in my view -- Herby talk thyme 18:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * By initiating the proceeding parties have already agreed, a formalization would be only more text to be read. --Panic 18:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There is value in having things all together in one place. --xixtas 19:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yup but the agreement is implied, it is like this, did you state that you are agreeing to discuss this topic (this conversation we are having?), by only participating in it you are agreeing in being a part of it, or not ? --Panic 19:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems to be a matter of concern to me that one of the parties to this arbitration would object to affirming his recognition of the arbitration on the arbitration page itself. --xixtas 20:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If any objection is expressed on agreement (at the start) then the Arbitration should be ended, but it seems that this isn't the case, I have asked directly about it and you can see by the other party comment that he is addressing the subject at hand. This process is still experimental but it is a improvement on the normal way things are done. --Panic 20:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I disagree. The "normal" way things are done is that users discuss substantive issues and reach a mutually acceptable solution through good faith consensus-building and compromise. This process is in no way better than that. This process is, at best, a necessary evil. --xixtas 05:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Deciding when to end "stages" of arbitration
I think what has been said against Panic has pretty much run its course, although I'm willing to entertain keeping the "comment" period open a bit longer if there is somebody else willing to participate.

Sometime tomorrow I'm going to "freeze" the plaintiff section (assuming no objection) and allow Panic to start addressing these complaints in an orderly fashion, without interference from those who might disagree with him. There will be room for a rebuttal, but let's try to keep this under control. Those who might be sympathetic to Panic are also encouraged to join into the discussion, but I would strongly recommend that they talk with Panic about how he wants to proceed for now. --Rob Horning 00:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

jguk's views on arbitration
I have tried to post this to textbook-l, seemingly without success. I attach my comments below:

It's indeed unfortunate that this issue has come to the fore. I also agree with comments I have seen that we do not want this to be a general precedent such that any admin action can result in what seems to be a formal process. As far as I can see, the following has happened:
 * Panic has engaged in behaviour in relation to the C++ book that other authors of that book have taken objection to
 * SBJohnny has come in as someone not involved in the C++ and reviewed the situation
 * That resulted in a short block of Panic's account
 * Such action has been consistent with policy since I've arrived on Wikibooks, and that policy has in effect been written down and is described as "enforced" on Be civil, although I note that that policy has not been explicitly cited by SBJohnny
 * It is clear from Be civil that SBJohnny's actions as an admin are subject to review by other administrators
 * Rob Horning has decided to formalise a review of that.

It would be useful if the following could be clarified, indeed I can foresee problems if they are not:


 * Had Panic and SBJohnny both agreed to the form of arbitration proposed by Rob, with Rob as sole arbiter, in advance of setting up the arbitration proceedings?
 * Is it accepted that SBJohnny acted in good faith and in compliance with Wikibooks policy (even though he, arguably, may have come to the wrong conclusions)? It is important to ask whether SBJohnny is actually at risk if Rob decides that the block was wrong
 * What is Rob's remit - what is it he is actually going to decide? Is it whether Panic should refrain from editing the C++ book, or some other restrictions should be put on his account?
 * How long will Rob's decision hold for - if it places restrictions on Panic, would they be subject to review in the event of good behaviour - if it places no restrictions and/or vindicates Panic's position - what if Panic's behaviour gets worse in the future?
 * I will give notice now that if any user voluntarily enters into binding arbitration with another user, and then goes on to edit contrary to the decision made, I will see that as a breach of Wikibooks:Be civil that may result in a long-term block. Is that what is intended?
 * To what extent are users who are not parties to the arbitration, including future users, bound by Rob's decision?

I should end with my personal views on the subject:


 * As far as I can tell, SBJohnny has acted in good faith and consistently with our Wikibooks:Be civil policy. Therefore I do not think he should be at any risk of sanction.
 * It is right, if he is concerned by SBJohnny's blocks, that Rob should review the situation. I gather from textbook-l that he did correspond with SBJohnny before removing the block, but it is unfortunate that he did not allow SBJohnny to remove it himself, which would have made it clearer that there was a review of the block, not a wheelwar.
 * Some arrangement needs to be worked out between Panic and the other authors of the C++ book. They have failed to find one themselves. This leaves two options: (1) an arrangement is imposed; (2) Panic is asked to no longer contribute to the book.
 * If an arrangement is to be imposed, it needs the buy-in of the major active contributors to the C++ book. It also needs to bear in mind that there will, hopefully, be future contributors, and any agreement should be such that their buy-in is likely.
 * Wikibooks exists to provide and write textbooks. If any user's presence on the site is detrimental to that aim, then we should ask that user to leave, and back that up by blocks if necessary. I pass no comment on whether this is applicable in this case.
 * I really don't like the formalisation occurring on Wikibooks:Arbitration. If parties agree how a dispute between themselves will be arbitrated and that they will accept binding arbitration, then let them go down that route of resolving the disputes. I'd have preferred it if Rob had asked SBJohnny for his explanation for the block, and if he still has concerns tell him what they are and invite a response. If he was still displeased, there are other active admins he could have bounced his concerns off.

Jguk 21:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with some of User:Jguk comments and notes, I will try to address some of them on my reply, I ask that the Arbiter and SBJohnny to avoid providing further comments on the subject on the table (other parties may), outside of the formal areas, as I will, since we are participating in the process (and it has already began) so to keep thing clear and clean. As I see Wikibooks:Arbitration as still under evolution and debate as such this (the active arbitration) is a prototype for similar processes in the future. --Panic 23:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd add that I hope this is not the prototype for similar processes in the future. Come the end of the day, this boils down to whether Panic and the other contributors to C++ can find a way of working together in the future. (What has happened in the past and whether anyone is to blame for it is, to my mind, irrelevant.) That way of working together may need to be imposed from above rather than agreed between Panic and the other contributors. Either way, I very much hope a way of Panic and the other contributors working together can be found. I'm also conscious that if, for whatever reason, and regardless of whether any blame is attached or not, that is not possible, Panic would need to be asked to cease contributing to the C++ book. That would be a last resort. I hope we're not there yet, but if we are, then we should be honest about it. Jguk 23:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It is my personal view that you are probably jumping the gun (hope it is the right expression), as I view the problem I can (and I am) no longer contributing to ANY Wikibook as an author (as in adding my own content), and probably the result will not change that factor but will see, you are also prejudging my actions and placing blind fate on any administrator (they are humans and so they will make mistakes), this process will only provide a way a common user may recur from an "adminsitrative" decision (this is VERY important) I to hope that we (Wikibooks users) will hall find harmony but I'm probably more of a realist and can see that if no chance is given to provide some sense of justice to the users, we (the community) will A) be misleading the users B) fail to get more momentum and will only survive on passing users until they realize the unwritten limitations they are imposed. --Panic 01:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like to note that I am not trying to be acting here as a God/King of Wikibooks, as I am neither. I am just another lowly ordinary Wikibookian who, however, does have some experience with this project and has been recognized as having a sort of leadership role here.  Certainly my ideas and opinions are not followed by everybody, nor am I in a position to be like User:Jimbo Wales here.


 * My main goal here was simply to formalize this discussion that was seemingly getting out of hand here and starting to become something of admin vs. admin and wheel warring. I know that Johnny has not been entirely thrilled (and has said so on my talk page) about what I've done here, although I should note that I've only done one action that "reversed" his previous actions, and that was only to unblock Panic after both Johnny and Panic agreed to a general cooling off period for edits, specifically on the C++ Wikibook.


 * As far as what actions may happen here, I would like to come to a concensus, which is why I have the 4-part series of "suggested actions". This may be a "long term block", or perhaps something much more benign, perhaps related to a "probationary period" or some other action.  I don't know right now, but I would strongly suggest that everybody involved here try to be a bit creative and work out a compromise.


 * The ultimate goal here in formalizing this discussion was to make it so somebody outside of Wikibooks, like either Jimbo, a steward, or some other WMF board member could come in and see what all the fuss is with reading just a few pages. That has happened more or less, as can be seen with the conclusions that User:Jguk has been able to come up with.  That is a good thing, and I hope that in spite of complaints about this process that some of those involved will see the merit of going this way rather than trying to expand the fight.  --Rob Horning 17:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm done.
I think there is more than enough here for Robert to work with, and I'm not going to hang around for another seven (seven???) stages of show trial. I hope this can be resolved quickly and peacefully. -- SB_Johnny | talk 11:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that Robert uses the information you've all written so far to make a decision? If so, I would agree.  This shouldn't go on for ever and each party has been allowed plenty of time to raise their arguements and provide evidence.  If each party agrees that they've finished then Robert should be allowed to make the decision.  This is just my opinion though. Xania [[Image:Flag_of_Poland_2.svg|15px]]talk 13:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sure Panic will want at least one more rebuttal, which is understandable... I would suggest cutting it off after that though, we don't need another 2 or 3 weeks of this. If Robert needs more after that, I suggest he use email, irc, IM, or some other means... I'm not going to take part in any more public spectacles on this matter (in fact I wish it had been done quietly from the start). -- SB_Johnny | talk 13:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Calm down here Johnny. You've spelled out your opinion on this whole thing very clearly, and I'm not trying to attack what you've done here.  Frankly, I think this is going on a very speedy course, and being surprising civil other than perhaps some very pointed personal attacks going both ways, but this is intended to air out those issues anyway.  Had you not written the rebuttal, I would have moved right on to the opinion, but I do feel that Panic does deserve to write a reply to your rebuttal.  One of the things about this whole process is that it is simply going to take some time, as it has been deliberately structured to try and "cool things down" and force everybody to try and write down what has been on an emotional sleeve. I hope that you would be willing to help participate in the next area where you would recommend some sort of corrective action to help encourage better behavior, as I don't want to come up with the specific "punishment" or actions directly if possible.  I would rather this come to a concensus unless there is an absolute impass here.  --Rob Horning 17:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Can we call this to an end?
The last edit on the defendant rebuttal page was made over a week ago, and I dont see any indication of people here trying to continue this process any further. The last comment on the discussion page by Rob was even longer ago then that. I think that so far as the issues are concerned, all the complaints on both sides have been aired, and all the further steps in the arbitration (arbiter passing judgement, proposing and rebutting punishment, etc) should be bypassed.

If the point of this arbitration hearing was to put the whole issue onto the table, then we have succeeded. If the point of this arbitration hearing was to pass judgement and lay punishment, then perhaps we need to sitback and ask ourselves how bloodthirsty we need to get. I propose this conclusion, if people are willing to agree on it:


 * 1) The arbitration be closed immediately.
 * 2) No further "Action" be taken against either User:SBJohnny, or User:Panic2k4.
 * 3) User:Panic2k4 not be blocked, and not be restricted from editing any page, like a normal user.
 * 4) User:Panic2k4 be warned not to engage in activities that got him here in the first place. Ignoring this warning could lead to further (and much more permanent) action being taken.
 * 5) User:SBJohnny be warned not to engage in disciplinary action against User:Panic2k4 in the future, considering the potential bias that might exist between these two users.

What i'm saying, basically, is that all that can be said about the past has already been said. The issues have been aired, and anything further would amount to a witchhunt or some kind of vendetta. Let us use this learning experiance to move past our issues, and start doing what we should be doing: writing textbooks. I hope everybody can agree to this. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 01:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Did Rob excused himself for the arbitration ? I don't like some of your proposed actions and several are in simple error or are just contradictory but I will not comment any more on this until the Arbiter takes an action on the subject. --Panic 02:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Rob hasn't spoken about this matter, to my knowledge, since 18 January. I think that this is one of the most generous ways to end this process, and I don't imagine that if the rest of the process is allowed to continue that you will be given as fair a deal. It's my impression that many in the community think that you should be punished in some way, and the fact that I am offering a resolution that apparently doesn't punish you in any way is one of the best ways that this could end for you. If you dont want to take this offer, that's fine by me. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Since what your are proposing only differs from the present situation in 2 or 3 points (and will not address the core problems), I would like to wait for Rob a bit more and see the process go forward.
 * It is clear that at present the ones involved aren't being damaged (more) by the arbitration nor is it intended to validate any kind of witchhunt or vendetta, the human resources used are low 2 Users and an Arbiter each has its own timing to participate so it is not a time intensive task for anyone, I'm the only user that has some freedoms restricted at present, by ending the arbitration in your proposed way, it will be subverting what was attempted here and will not address any of the 2 users problems. --Panic 05:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration Over
I am declaring this arbitration hearing over. I have spoken to a large number of wikibookians on this matter, and acting on (a) what I perceive to be the will of the community at large and (b) my best judgment as a long-time wikibookian, I am calling an end to this. Because of my involvement with this case and the involved parties, I will not be making any decisions on the matter. I have instead asked User:Withinfocus, another long-time and trusted wikibookian to act on the matter instead. Any decision that User:Withinfocus makes on these matters have my full endorsement.

User:Robert Horning, for all his good intentions, has not met his obligations on this matter, having left this hearing open for far too long. Since it began, this arbitration has served as a festering wound for this community, causing a large amount of stress, dissatisfaction, and unhappiness among some of our most active community members. I am not prepared to have this dissatisfaction continue or spread any further then it already has. I am going to make the following demands, in addition to any decisions that User:Withinfocus makes:


 * 1) User:SBJohnny not take any disciplinary action against User:Panic2k4 now or in the future, should User:Panic2k4 return.
 * 2) If I so much as hear a single complaint against User:Panic2k4 (should he return), or find any unhappiness with the way collaboration is occurring at the C++ Programming book, I will rain down page protections and user blocks like so much fire and brimstone.
 * 3) This case cannot be retried, appealed, or reviewed without clear and overwhelming insistence from the community, something that nobody asked for when we started this in the first place.

The community is sufficiently tired of all the associated drama and nonsense surrounding these issues that my demands here should not be too hard to deal with. If any user has issue with my decision here, or my actions, they may take it up with me on my user talk page. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Appeal
Hi guys,

I would like to have a change made in this page. The page is mentioning a possibility for appeal with the stewards of the WMF board. At least for the stewards, there is not such a possibility. Stewards do not have a mandate to file an arbitration case or any verdict. Stewards have been elected by the Wikimedia community to handle administrative tasks, and not to arbitrate. For the Wikimedia Foundation Board (which one? of Trustees, Advisory Board?) I assume that they are not interested, as they already have enough to do. I assume that this is a community issue, that has to be taken care of by this community. Please remove the sentence, it is creating a dangerous precedent. Thanks, Effeietsanders 19:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC) (steward)
 * At this point the dispute has been resolved, without (as far as I know) intervention from stewards. As far as I know no one plans to ask for their involvement. Mattb112885 (talk to me) 20:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I did ask at the time but was ignored (intentionally or due to active stewards not monitoring the their emails) or in the only case I reached one, the steward asked for a clean decission from the community (a consensus one way or another to examine the subject, that didn't happen), as for resolved it is a to optimistic view of the outcome. The situation was bypassed by common agreement of the involved parties, but there isn't yet a consensus on the way of addressing similar problems in the future... --Panic 23:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, how the case ended is not really mattering :). It is specifically about the factual "This decision is available for appeal to the Wikimedia Stewards, and presumably the WMF Board of Trustees.", which is incorrect, and could lead to wrong conclusions. Especially for future cases. Hence my request. Effeietsanders 23:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok so your view or the point you are making is that if the active community does reach an agreement the buck stop there, there is no chance of appeal (are you basing that interpretation on any written policy or guideline ?). If this a correct assumption do you propose any other kind of impartial solution (you must keep in mind that if the user is blocked his ability to provide or defend his "case" next to the community will be diminished). --Panic 23:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think what he or she is saying is that the stewards and WMF don't get involved in community issues. Its up to the community to resolve matters and any appeal would have to be with the community, there is no next step. If you look at Stewards policies or Steward handbook you'll see that even in times that they are asked to get involved they should make sure there doing so on behalf of what the community wants, in accordance with the policies and guidelines of the project before acting, and should generally only do so if there are no active local administrators or bureaucrats to do the job. --dark lama  01:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well if it only depends on what the community wants, if we decide that it should be a step, then it falls under that ruling (if we make it a policy to do so that doesn't go against any more generic ruling of Wikimedia), the problem is that there isn't a viable way of determining what should constitute the community (in general terms) and the best method we have is participation on discussions, and that make it fall under the discretion of a few active members that were aware of the discussion and willing to participate, in no case it should be considered a final decission (that is why we can update policies and even reverse actions from time to time), any decission  we make is done because it gathered a consensus from the participators in that particular time), so the problem here is determining the reasonable use of what constitutes "final" and the purpose it serves for the community in general not only to the ones involved on a particular decission.  --Panic 01:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all I said "and" meaning it depends on all of those things, not just one of them. Second individual projects don't define the responsibilities of stewards, thats defined at Meta through I believe a global consensus by all involved project community members to apply for all projects. Thirdly Stewards have global access to the sysop and/or bureaucrat tools and follow local policies/guidelines regarding things like deletion policy, undeletion policy, blocking users, unblocking users, whose eligible to vote or be involved in decisions regarding deletions, undeletions, blocking and unblocking, and any policies regarding use of the sysop/bureaucrat tools. The only requirement for stewards as I understand it is to do there best to act in the same manner as each community would expect the local administrators and bureaucrats to act when making a decision and nothing more. This can take some time because a steward would have to read all those policies and guidelines and any related pages that may be linked to and possibly read past decisions and discussions to understand how things work in a community and the best way to respond. So 99% of the time your likely to get a response from a steward such as "take it to the local admins", "discussion it with the community" or "where is the page that a decision on the matter was reached at". It works much like the US government does, the state government doesn't define the responsibilities of the federal government. --dark lama  14:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, how exactly appeals are done within your community is fine. And if you are looking for an impartial judge, sure, but stewards are not suitable for that, and I think neither the Board is. Personally I think that it is not bad to have some final decision at which is no appeal possible, just to finish finally the discussion. But of course that was not the point I was trying to make :) If someone could remove the sentence about the appeal for now, please. I suggest that you guys think just calmly on appeal stuff, just as long as you dont go to stewards etc, and check with the people you have in mind before appointing them as appeal court. Effeietsanders 19:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hum I think the the strong opposition for the formation of an fixed appeal court (even more if formed by community members) was the trigger for that selection, since the stewards as you said "have been elected by the Wikimedia community to handle administrative tasks" (and this tasks can be defined in each community) as for the "not to arbitrate" part is it written on the definition of the possible task they may perform ? (no one should be obligated to do anything on Wikimedia, but some tasks are taken as a compromise, for instance we have on Wikibooks a minimum of activity to stay with the administrative flag). --Panic 22:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't get what you try to say here... Effeietsanders 12:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Panic seems to be saying that he believes each project can define the responsibilities of stewards separately rather then as I understand it as being defined at Meta to be the same for all projects. Thats at lest my understanding of what Panic has said. --dark lama  13:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If this is what he said then I have to say I disagree; although there are separate policies on each project for a lot of things, stewards as I understand them are involved with all projects at once as a kind of link; in such a case, I don't think it's reasonable to expect them to follow 9-10 different sets of guidelines at once. If something happens involving two different projects, and each has a different set of actions or abilities dictated by policy, which set of policies would they follow?
 * If this is not what Panic meant feel free to strike out this comment. Mattb112885 (talk to me) 14:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

What I said is supported by common practice and what is written down in Stewards, Steward handbook and Steward policies. I think we all agree more or less with your view that Stewards "have been elected by the Wikimedia community to handle administrative tasks". I would put that this tasks are to be performed across projects based on valid community decisions (this is the only restriction), Stewards have a special value because they should be neutral at all times and are supra-community (they can act across all the projects). So if the Wikibooks community choses to give Stewards a special ability, it is within the scope of the rules that they may perform it, in this sense I disagree with the interpretation that we are defining special responsibilities (as in obligation), only giving the power for accepting to perform the task (as all the Stewards tasks, they can but they may chose not to perform them). I also disagree with Effeietsanders view that they are unable to arbitrate, the only wording against it is on Steward policies, but it deals with using personal judgment if not explicitly requested or forced to do so. If we define it as a task they may perform, it will then becomes a community decission that they can do so.--Panic 16:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * reset ident

---

I don't really understand the reluctance on the part of Stewards to get involved on this level, although I can see that making decisions like this is something that can be fraught with all kinds of peril in terms of having people flame at you in all kinds of manners and demand all sorts of action that may or may not be reasonable or even possible. I speak from experience here too!

As originally conceived, the Stewards were supposed to be some sort of "arch-Administrator" who was to act on all Wikimedia projects as a whole. And for the most part they do exactly that. Much of this was to off-load some of the tweaking that up until the Stewards were created, this was all done by the MediaWiki development team (who still have direct access to the Wikimedia servers). As fellow administrators, Stewards certainly can and should help with policing the actions of other administrators and step in when things have gone too far. While Effeietsanders may not wish to step in and perform some major actions on Wikibooks, that hasn't stopped other individuals from doing exactly that, primarily concerned with content deletion and restoration. And they have invoked their "Steward" credentials to make it happen, although admittedly the ultimate trump card as "chair of the WMF" has been invoked as well.

There is a huge need for somebody to review the actions of Wikimedia communities. In the more recent past, this responsibility was taken on by Jimbo himself, until it simply got way out of hand and he was "forced" to create the Wikipedia ArbCom. The process of creating that group made it seem initially that they had "jurisdiction" over all Wikimedia projects, although in practice it has been only for en.wikipedia and not for other Wikimedia projects. Some other language editions of Wikipedia have set up similar arbitration groups, but it has pretty much stayed with just Wikipedia.

Who might become a sort of ArbCom appeal has been debated before, with discussions on Foundation-l even point out strongly that it should fall upon Stewards, but with many Stewards like Effeietsanders has pointed out goes well beyond the normal duties of a Steward. And is in many ways more than they agreed upon in the first place when they agreed to become a Steward. As many of the Wikimedia projects (like Wikibooks) are growing enough to require more complex levels of organization, it is inevitable that this issue is going to present itself more frequently in the future, even though in this one situation the issue is moot as it has been more or less resolved by the community.

Keep in mind, all I wanted to convey was that a Steward might be interested to review the process, and that there were individuals who did have an ultimate authority over any decision I or any other Wikibooks administrator may make in an arbitration process. I don't think that "fact" has changed, even if those in a position to make a difference and reverse an arbitration decision are refusing to get into the process. Nothing that was mentioned in the arbitration process suggested that any Steward or even WMF board member had to really do anything, and inaction is precisely what did happen. Suggestions that Stewards could reverse decisions by admins has been on the Administrators (on previous versions of that page) and elsewhere, including on Meta and published on Foundation-l. This is not a new concept that I created out of whole cloth just on this page. --Rob Horning 01:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * On one hand, I know what you are saying: we have this group of people who are at a higher level of trust and responsibility, and likely have enough global knowledge and good-sense to act as overseers for problems. However, having open an appeal to an external source really undermines the legitimacy of any decisions we make here on Wikibooks. Also, if that route were open, imagine how much traffic it would receive? How many people on how many projects, seeking immediate intervention, would skip all forms of process and go directly to the top? The board would become inundated with requests to resolve petty disputes overnight.
 * Beyond that, saying that the wikibooks community is not the final word in a decision-making process really undermines this project. What power do we have to do anything, if everything can be appealed to an external authority?
 * I've proposed an addition to the Decision making policy that there is no further appeal, and all decisions made by the wikibooks community be considered "final". At least, final in the sense that the decision has been made but is always open to be reconsidered at a later time. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 01:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree that "all decisions made by the Wikibooks community be considered 'final'". Even defining that community or if a decision has been made can be up for a dispute, but more to the point, there are some very real reasons to seek an appeal, including gross abuse of authority by administrators and bureaucrats.  I know of at least one Wikimedia project (non-English language) that had a very "active" bureaucrat that pushed their POV on a large number of pages and "stacked the deck" by appointing a large number of like minded individuals as administrators.... promoting most of them to become bureaucrats as well.  Anybody with a contrary POV not only had their content reverted, but also had their accounts blocked by the cabal.  Indeed, it was a similar accusation (on a much smaller scale) that prompted this whole issue to go into arbitration in the first place.


 * Simply put, there are times that *somebody* has to step in and enforce some sanity and some of the basic foundational rules for Wikimedia projects: NPOV, no original research, etc.  In the past Jimbo himself took on that responsibliity, but nobody else has taken up the torch.  That is my point.


 * Regardless of if it is stated explicitly on our policy page or not, the WMF board does have ultimate authority over who is permitted to use this project, what kinds of content can (or can't) be permitted, and who has authority to make those decisions. They also have the ultimate decision to simply "pull the plug" and kill at least the web access to the project... until we decide to get a data dump and restart the project elsewhere on our own dime.  That through inaction the WMF doesn't want to use this authority is besides the point.  It is like the Queen of England...  She (and her immediate predecessors) haven't used the veto authority to kill acts of the House of Commons for nearly a century.  But the authority is still there to kill any act if in her opinion, and hers alone, is going to be a threat to English society.  I hope that the WMF would step in as little as possible and let individual projects decide their own general direction.  Actions by WMF board members here on Wikibooks have been disasterous in the past, and I hope those kind of actions are rare, even historical events.  But they have happened in the past and I see no reason why they won't happen again in the future, even if it isn't any current member of the WMF board of trustees.  --Rob Horning 03:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Barring monstrous catastrophe of the type that we haven't seen on this project nor are likely to see because of our infrastructure, it's not even an issue. We have been very cautious about appointing new bureaucrats around here, and we have also been careful not to land in a situation where we only have one or two. Also, the bureaucrats that we do have show a tremendous amount of restraint in promoting RFA candidates. In the course of regular business, there simply is not and should not be any appeal that is external to this project. Yes, on a hypothetical level there is always the authority of the WMF board, but you know as well as i do that they have a standing de facto policy against interfering with the workings of a project. Vandalous power abuses are already against policy here, and if they occur we don't get the WMF board to "appeal", we ask the stewards to come in here and implement our policies when we are inable to do it ourselves. To that effect, what you are talking about isn't a level of authority, it's an administrative safety net against policy abuses that can't be handled directly by the community.
 * The simple fact is that the stewards are not a decision-making body, and the WMF doesnt involve itself in the workings of a project. Saying that the WMF board will not act in an appeal is no different from saying that there is no appeal available beyond the community here. I find no reason, therefore, to not make this point clear. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 03:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ha, but then we go back to the beginning. Imposing a "final" and indisputable decission is flawed at the start, just because there is no greater legitimacy to impose that artifact in any policy/decission. Since the people discussing any decission can't name themselves the community. The community is by default an open definition that includes but is not restricted to the actual parties that will reach a decission at any given time (and time is of major importance if we intend to define a final decission).


 * I would say that this issue would be exacerbated if a steward were to step in and intervene on a community decision. That being said, I think that it would be worthwhile to have some organized way in which to settle disputes, and only failing that would the stewards be invoked. I know we have tried (with little success) to develop some sort of dispute resolution policy here, and the resulting chaos had a significant impact on the project. Allowing someone to make the decision (and, more importantly, to have that decision stand in the community without wheel wars) if our internal mechanisms fail is, in my opinion, a necessity for the stability of the project in the event of a major controversy, even though I also hope we never have need for such intervention. Mattb112885 (talk to me) 14:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As for making it harder to skip it to a top decission, that can be worked out by setting a working method to enable the appeal (and refuse access to it in any other event). We must not disregard that common rules will still apply, if actions are being done in bad faith the problem is a still born and we should not have to worry, the policy can be tweaked and improved at any time to correct such things so abuse will be prevented...
 * Can you elaborate on that definition of "final in the sense that the decision has been made but is always open to be reconsidered at a later time", to me this isn't what I take for final. It justs defuses the problem relegating it to a future and undefined method of appeal (that is worst that just removing the final word for any policy/guideline). --Panic 02:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)