Revision as of 14:11, 31 January 2008

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

• WP:RFAR
• WP:A/R
• WP:ARB/R
• WP:ARBREQ

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Misplaced Pages. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

• Request a new arbitration case
• Request clarification or amendment of an existing case

  This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed

• Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
• Arbitrator motions

  Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Current requests

Homeopathy

Initiated by Adam Cuerden at 11:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jim Butler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Peter morrell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Whig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Arion 3x3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Orangemarlin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Docboat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Danaullman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

All have been notified on their talk pages, and a further notice was placed at Talk:Homeopathy, for anyone who would care to join.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Endless discussion, bringing other admins in... but really, the case is such that we need some guidance from on high.

Statement by Adam Cuerden

It is fairly widely accepted that Homeopathy is one of the major battlegrounds in Misplaced Pages, and has largely divided into two camps, with much hostility between them.

The purpose of this case would be to help sort out some of the perennial issues. What are the standards of evidence for medical studies (clarification of WP:RS. Perhaps the influential John Ioannidis study would make a useful starting point). Can we get some guidelines for how to balance weight between mainstream science and homeopathy? (WP:Undue weight How about balancing it in the lead? (WP:LEAD) What about sub articles?

If we could get some good guidelines, many of the disputes would be short-circuited, and we might have a good chance to move past the war and into a new era of guided editing.

This is not a standard case, but it's possible it'll do a lot more good than all the other ones.

For the record: I largely agree with docboat, with the one quibble that references can be of several levels of quality, and low-quality ones (e.g. pilot studies, very small studies, low-impact or questionable journals) that disagree with higher-quality ones should be trumped by the better ones, with how much they're trumped corresponding to the divide in quality.

I'm afraid I don't agree with Aburesz/Arion 3x3, as I think that would go against the policies WP:Undue weight and the last paragraph of WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience, but such stark differences in opinion are one of the reasons that this case should be accepted - a few clarifications and all of us will know where we stand, and can then work within our better understanding.

As you can see, we're all willing to try and get along - I suppose there may be exceptions later, and if so, well, that may force considering more traditional Arbcom sanctions in those cases. But we are coming to you as a group that wants to get along, and so I would think that Thatcher's suggestion, while perhaps helpful in some cases, would not help with those of us who really would like to work together on friendly terms, but who have such different interpretations of policy that we need some guidance to be able to do so.

Statement by Orderinchaos

While I fully respect what Adam is trying to achieve, and hope that it comes about, I don't think ArbCom would have much of a role in setting down content standards. Not sure though what the best way would be of obtaining consensus and an agreeable list of standards on such a divisive topic - my guess would be some kind of mediation. Orderinchaos 12:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Thatcher

Adam frames the dispute as a series of content questions. The remedies proposed below for all pseudoscience cases, if enacted, will allow uninvolved admins to impose sanctions on editors whose behavior is disruptive, which in theory will enforce a more reasonable and less tendentious editing environment in which those content questions can be addressed through the normal editing process.

Statement by Docboat

If we take Homeopathy as an example, this can well serve the larger area of alternative sciences and philosophies, so this is well worth considering, as Adam suggests. There are, as I see it, two main issues:

• Firstly, when explaining a topic of a fringe or minority group, can an editor push a minority view which is clearly unreferenced, but whose view is passionately held and defended by a group of like-minded believers, and contrasting this with a situation where a minority view is clearly referenced, but held to be untenable by those who espouse a different belief, show different references, and demand that the minority view references be struck because of {insert justification for rejecting the reference here} to better reflect a majority concensus.

• Secondly, when the topic concerns a fringe or minority group subject, to what extent does the mainstream majority viewpoint need to be given priority in debunking the topic to reflect the views current among society or the strongly held views of mainstream editors?

The homeopathy topic has been plagued with editors whose viewpoint is both minority (pro-homeopathy) AND unreferenced AND closed-minded to the point of wishing to write an article which is 100% pro-homeopathy. We have editors whose views are minority AND referenced AND open-minded. There are editors whose views are mainstream (anti-homeopathy) AND referenced AND open-minded to homeopathic concepts. And we are also plagued with editors whose views are mainstream, AND referenced AND closed-minded - even to the point of espousing the aim of re-writing the topic to reflect a completely 100% opposition to the topic. This is normal in any area of Misplaced Pages - kooks abound in normal life. But what we are seeing is a breakdown in a preparedness to listen to the other, a driving away of reasonable editors, an attempt to coerce, frighten, bully editors of either persuasion. Only a few have adopted this attitude, but it is a pernicious attitude, a destructive attitude, and is completely foreign to the concept of advancing knowledge, understanding and scholarly collation of information. So what do we, as a community, wish to do about this?

For the record, I would state that it should be the case that an article in an encyclopaedia must do the essential following:

1. Provide referenced facts
2. Describe and discuss the topic at hand

If a minority viewpoint is being examined, the topic needs to be focused on that topic, first, foremost and in detail. Opposing viewpoints belong in the article after the topic has been adequately explained. So that in controversial topics, such as Creationism the idea is completely examined in the first part of the article, derivatives of the topic are explained, and then the topic is examined from the opposing viewpoint. In this way, someone investigating a topic can be informed completely from the viewpoint of the topic described, and then sees the whole evidence for opposing viewpoints. This is, IMHO, is not only clearer, with less confusion in conflicting statements and parenthetical additions, but equally importantly denies any reasonable editor the justification for reverting statements with which they disagree. There is no need to revert - they simply add to the information in the other part of the article. An unreasonable editor will be quickly identified, and can be sanctioned by community action.

Thank you Adam, for bringing this to a larger audience.

Statement by Arion 3x3

In the Homeopathy article, as in other examples of articles on alternative medicine or spiritual beliefs, there have been strong views asserting that the "skeptical" point of view must take precedence over the neutral presentation of the subject of the article. The more extreme positions insist on the deletion of articles and content, as has happened in the last 2 months.

I maintain that this is a general encyclopedia that should be a handy source of information, and a starting place for people wanting to pursue further research into a topic. It is not a "Skeptics Encyclopedia" in which mainstream scientific opinions are portrayed as the only reality, and non-mainstream topics are dismissed with insulting labels ("pseudoscience", "fringe", "junk science", etc.), and scientific evidence that does not fit the current mainstream is ignored or dismissed, with endless questioning of their validity and where they have been published.

Taking the specific example of the article about homeopathy: it is about homeopathy, pure and simple, not about "homeopathy and how it is viewed within mainstream medicine". However "homeopathy and how it is viewed within mainstream medicine" could (and should) be a subsection of the article on the topic of "homeopathy".

Attempts by some of the editors to get the homeopathy article edited to Misplaced Pages's NPOV standards have unfortunately been countered by juvenile humor, threats, and false claims that supporters of homeopathy want to remove all criticisms of homeopathy. This atmosphere on Misplaced Pages must change. Arion 3x3 (talk) 13:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Clarifying comment For "skeptical", read "scientific" --RDOlivaw (talk) 14:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Response Ordinary skepticism (which I maintain) acts to refine and improve scientific knowledge, but "organized skepticism" is something different and alarming. This attitude rejects, deletes, and ridicules all evidence contrary to dearly held beliefs (almost bordering on religious dogma). Arion 3x3 (talk) 15:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Arthur Rubin

Still seems to be a content dispute. However, if the ArbComm were to consider it on the basis of deciding what policies determine the content, the mainstream medical or scientific view should dominate, per WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. It is fringe science, at best. Reputable studies which show an effect should be included, but so should the consensus scientific view that it's not a real effect. (As for the fact that scientific studies are done, scientists frequently test the validity of theories they don't believe. Coincidentally, none of those have produced positive results....) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by semi-involved user ScienceApologist

Well, here I am again.

One of the issues here is that WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience was a content decision made by arbcomm which has led to some very weird protestations. Unfortunately, arbcomm did not give guidelines on how to determine when things were "obvious" or "generally considered" pseudoscience and so the arguments rage with most POV-promoters of homeopathy claiming that it isn't pseudoscience and everybody else saying that it is. This resulted in a rather pointy deletion request for Category:Pseudoscience that seem to be driving certain administrators into bizarre tailspins. There are plenty of competent editors who are capable of writing a neutral version of the article, but their efforts tend to get thwarted by a cacophony of alt. med. POV-pushers who clog the talkpage discussion and the edit history with provacative and outrageous claims. Most of the talkpage right now is trying to explain basic scientific ideas to these people who are basically unwilling to listen: but if we cannot start out on the same page and if homeopathic supporters cannot undestand that water memory is not a scientific concept, then editing will continue to stagnate. Mediation will not work at this point because there are literally dozens of editors and one single mediator would go nuts trying to handle the morass. Maybe a cadre of admin-tool bearing mediators who had the imprimatur to block at a moment's notice would be able to help, but anything less that that will just degenerate into the madness we see now. I believe that it is time that arbcomm took WP:DE and WP:TE seriously and began a concerted effort to remove true believers from disrupting the attempted discussions.

ScienceApologist (talk) 14:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

I request that Arbcom accept this case because a battleground has developed at homeopathy and related articles. Editors are unable to resolve the dispute through collegial discussion and instead have resorted to out of process means, such as vexatious requests for comment and counter-attacks in the form of community ban proposals. Disruption is spilling into multiple forums and there has been no movement toward resolution. While ArbCom cannot decide the content issues, they can restrict the troublemakers and establish remedies to provide a better editing environment so good faith editors from all sides can work together. Jehochman 14:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrators: do you see, a lot of people are pleading for help? If homeopathy and related articles are placed on article probation, and any particularly disruptive editors are identified and subjected to appropriate remedies, I think that would greatly improve the situation. Adam Cuerden has been run though the mill because he made a good faith effort to control a very bad situation. You should entertain his request and address his concerns for the good of the encyclopedia. These are your responsibilities. If the case is overly-broad, you can accept it anyways, and set appropriate boundaries. Jehochman 15:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It appears that article probation will be implemented via community discussion. Jehochman 21:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:MrDarwin

I'll consider myself an "involved" party due to the homeopathy discussions going on at several plant species articles; for example see here, here, here, here, and to a lesser extent at here. I've been abstaining from these discussions for the last couple of days--initially to cool off, but now I have serious doubts as to whether I will be returning to edit at Misplaced Pages at all. Some rather acrimonious edit wars and heated discussion have been going on there, not about whether homeopathy is scientifically sound or clinically supported-virtually all involved editors agree that it is not--but whether it can be appropriate to mention homeopathy at all in articles about plant species that are used in homeopathy.

Thuja occidentalis may not be the best example as I believe the notability and undue weight objections may have some merit in this particular case--but the objections to mentioning the use of this species in homeopathy go far beyond notability and undue weight. What bothers me about this case is that (1) a small group of editors who have demonstrated no knowledge, expertise, or even a particular interest in botany have been editing, more or less by fiat, several plant species articles to expunge any and all references to homeopathy, without seeking or even considering consensus or compromise from the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Plants project editors, many of whom have been working on these articles for several years (and none of whom are attempting to promote homeopathy); (2) this group of editors continues to mischaracterize other editors as "pro-homeopathy" when what those editors are trying to do is to acknowledge the well-documented use of several plant species in homeopathy; and (3) that it has become apparent that no source will be admitted as "reliable" by this group of editors, not even publications by professional botanists in the peer-reviewed botanical literature.

What I would like to see clarified is: when is it appropriate to include mention or discussion of homeopathy in an article, how to do so both factually and neutrally, and what kind of documentation is necessary to support that mention. Homeopathy is without scientific credibility or clinical support, but it has a very large number of believers and practitioners, and numerous clinical studies have examined it, if only to debunk it; for those reasons alone it is significant. Moreoever, the use of numerous plant species in homeopathy is notable enough to appear over and over in both the medical and botanical (never mind the homeopathic) literature. Many of these plants species are notable either primarily or significantly because of their medicinal usage, and in this context homeopathy is one of the significant uses of those plant species. But the repeated deletion by several editors of even the most factual, neutral, and reliably sourced mention of homeopathy smacks of censorship to me. If even botanists cannot be considered reliable sources for the uses of plant species, then I don't know who possibly can. I am not a proponent or believer of homeopathy, and this subject doesn't even particularly interest me, but I simply cannot continue to contribute to Misplaced Pages under these conditions. MrDarwin (talk) 15:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by semi-involved LinaMishima

Arion 3x3 states "In the Homeopathy article, as in other examples of articles on alternative medicine or spiritual beliefs". This is all well and good for spiritual beliefs and approaches to healing. However homeopathy is well-documented to present itself as a scientific subject. When considering due weight, we must consider the framework within which a subject presents itself. If a subject presents itself as a spiritual matter, then the majority of the weight must be applied to discussion of the spiritual aspect, comparisons to other beliefs, and so on. However, when a subject claims all the trappings of science (such as journals, proofs, methods of action, and so on) and rarely argues to be taken as a belief rather than as a science, a subject must be presented within the framework it desires for itself - science.

The need for a clarification is for matters of weight, reliable sources, and civility. Not only do we need clarification on how due weight is to be applied to a subject, but we need clarification that then the concept of reliable sources for that framework can then be applied. Finally, parties involved in this are acting quite uncivil. The skeptic/scientific crowd distinctly does have its bad eggs and members who take questionable approaches to arguing, however the 'believers' and supporters as a group features far fewer members willing to compromise, concede, and accept the other side's view points. Diffs may be found showing how scientific approach editors state that they do not believe but accept the possibility, only to then have the supporters reply with attempts to 'prove' the possibility, only inflaming debate further when they already are being accommodated. Talk pages and wikipedia is not the appropriate place for attempting to convert people to believe similarly.

The spill-over of the disputes into the plant articles is certainly proof that policies need clarification. When topics spill over into other articles and different forums, there is always some underlying problem, as is also evident in the TV episodes case. I have not been involved in that debate yet, however I feel that for some articles the brief mention is justified, whilst for others it is not.

Despite all this, however, I am still not sure if this should go to ArbCom. Although I believe that the routes to dispute resolution will fail due to vote stacking and the ability of one side to be utterly unshakable in their belief to the point of upsetting others, this does not excuse dispute resolution processes from being followed. For the matters of policy interpretation that need clarification, I strongly advise an arbitrator to find a previous case to place such motions within, so that only the policy clarifications are discussed and they are discussed swiftly. LinaMishima (talk) 15:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by semi-involved Infophile

I don't think anyone's going to disagree with me if I state that on Misplaced Pages, pretty much everything related to Homeopathy is a battleground, and as a result of this, a mess. I found out about this huge battle from spillover onto the Quackery article during the period where Homeopathy was protected (well, one of the periods). MrDarwin's noted that it's also spilled over onto plant articles, and it's also shown up in chemical articles (My biggest involvement here was in a discussion at Talk:Potassium dichromate).

I can sympathize with MrDarwin's concerns about how editors are acting on those articles, carrying out a seek-and-destroy mentality with regards to any mention of Homeopathy. It's an unfortunate side-effect of the tactics they've had to take when debating with actual Homeopathy promoters (I apologize if anyone finds "promoters" offensive. Yes, that happened). If they're given an inch, they take an article. The only way to prevent articles from descending into complete trash is to hold a solid line against them. When facing a foe who shows no chance whatsoever of changing their mind, anyone who wavers in the slightest will be completely overrun. Since Misplaced Pages rules of etiquette involve being at least somewhat open-minded, you can see how this becomes a problem.

Now, of course, this is just how I see the debate, with the closed-minded Homeopathy supporters forcing the mainstream editors to be equally closed-minded. I'm sure others will see it as being the other way. Maybe a neutral party will be able to decide independantly which is true. Anyways, I have to get out right now, so I don't have a chance to say everything I wanted to here. I'll finish this up when I get back (sorry if this poses any problem). --Infophile 16:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've decided I won't say too much more if/until this case is accepted. However, I would like to strongly urge ArbCom to take this case. Things here are headed towards a disaster of some sort, and I predict that if nothing is done now, down the road there will be significant trouble of some sort. I can't say exactly what it would be, but it would likely include massive incivility as frustration keeps building up on both sides. Something needs to be done here before that happens. --Infophile 19:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by recently-involved User:Jossi

First, a disclaimer: I have never taken an Homeopathic remedy, and understand from my own research (which is very recent) that Homeopathy's claims of being a scientific endeavor are not based on visible evidence. I came to the Homeopathy page on January 22, after seeing that the page was protected for more than 30 days. I unprotected the page and made a statement in talk about this, encouraging editors to work together and find common ground. See Talk:Homeopathy#Page_unprotected_and_How_to_write_a_lead. As an attempt to cool-off things, I proposed a voluntary 1RR pledge here: Talk:Homeopathy#Edit_warring, which did not last for long, despite an initial interest in exploring that possibility (the article has been protected again yesterday due to edit warring). Since that time, I have found myself in the midst of an ongoing battle between edit-warring factions that have been already described by other editors above, in which any attempt to bridge gaps results in bad faith accusations by *some* editors against those trying to build these bridges. I concur with MrDarwin and Docboat: ArbCom may need to hear this case and place further restrictions on this and related articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

In response to arbCom member The Uninvited Co. below, I would kindly ask to review the editor behavior issues that have been raised here, and completely ignore all aspects related to content. Doing that may help the ArbCom see the need to hear this case. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

A voice of reason: User:Jim Butler. I hear you and commend you on your effort. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Peter morrell

I have edited this article for almost 2 years and it is as bad now as it has ever been. I agree entirely with User:docboat, User:MrDarwin and User:Arion 3x3. It is and will continue to be impossible to add anything useful to this article as long as the edit warring and ad hominem attacks continue. There is no consensus except a broad disagreement on just about everything. Most of the people involved in the heated debates know little about homeopathy, have no intention of studying it neutrally and yet have a strong emotionally-held belief that it is garbage. How can you do any rational business with such people? There has to be some method of letting the subject speak for itself on its own terms without always being crowded out by all these conflicting and largely uninformed views fighting and jostling for position and shouting down others; they're acting like a pack of hyenas. Until some peace and mutual respect returns, then no progress can be made on the substance of the article. Peter morrell 17:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by involved MilesAgain

A few days ago -- prior to my ever having edited Homeopathy -- I added an explicit statement that homeopathy was pseudoscience and quackery to the introduction, and included several peer-reviewed sources in support of those statements. I was reverted within an hour. I asked here on WP:RFAR under requests for clarification whether homeopathy is generally considered pseudoscience, or just disputed science. I moved that discussion to WP:FTN, and the overwhelming consensus among uninvolved editors was that it is generally considered pseudoscience. I realized that the quackery issue called for dispute resolution and opened an RFC asking whether homeopathy should be unequivocally described as quackery in the intro. I then added, on the talk page, a dozen more sources from peer-reviewed medical journals and academic press monographs supporting the fact that homeopathy is malicious quackery, because homeopaths openly admit to advising people to refrain from immunization. Other sources made statments about the totality of recent research supporting the fact that homeopathy is pseudoscience. Even the pro-homeopathy editors agreed that discouraging vaccination costs lives. However, only a few people agreed that homeopathy should be explicitly called quackery in the introduction, so I added a {{POV}} tag with a link to the section with my concerns on the talk page. The tag was reverted three times, and I brushed up against 3RR replacing it.

Any situation where there is edit-warring over a POV tag clearly involves behavior issues, and other methods of dispute resolution have already been attempted, so I urge the committee to accept this request. MilesAgain (talk) 17:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by involved Whig

I would encourage the ArbCom to take some action to review and correct the behavior of participants in the Homeopathy articles. I would abstain from discussion of content issues here which are not generally within the purview of the ArbCom, but focus on the incivility exhibited by some editors. Several RfCs may also be relevant to this case.

As far as talk of two sides, there are more than two perspectives represented in the discussions, and there are editors who have been neutral. Conduct issues are independent of this. Insofar as NPOV is the guiding principle of Misplaced Pages, there should be some reinforcement of the meaning of this policy.

It may also be appropriate to include Quackwatch in this ArbCom case. —Whig (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by involved User:TimVickers

It has been possible in the past to produce a consensus version of the lead (see Talk:Homeopathy/Archive_21#Proposal_for_lead) for the discussion that resulted in one reasonably successful version. However, such consensus versions are only ever metastable and the text is constantly pushed either in one direction or the other. One of the main problems is an inability of many editors to see that a neutral point of view is not synonymous with a sympathetic point of view. Similarly, an article devoted to describing an area of belief and practice in alternative medicine should not read like an attack piece in a tabloid newspaper. I am skeptical that ArbCom will have any significant effect on this dispute, but you are welcome to try! Tim Vickers (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by semi involved User:Abridged

One of the basic premises of Adam's request above is that "we are a group of people who want to get along." My experience has shown that this is far from the case. People who want to get along are not dismissive towards each other, don't apply insulting labels to each other, and actually listen to what the other has to say. Unfortunately, editors on these articles do not bother to follow established wikipedia guidelines for civility and edit warrring. Just yesterday there was an edit war over the "pseudoscience" label. I think that at the end of the day, this is a content dispute. The only way out if it will be for people to really work with each other to reach consensus with some difficult compromise on each side. Given the current behavioral standards the editors in this subject area adhere to, I am not enthusiastic that this will happen. Abridged 19:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by semi involved User:Jim62sch

Short of banning this subject, which Misplaced Pages rightfully cannot and will not do, homeopathy will be a tendentious issue for the life of WP. Arbcom cannot effectively arbitrate nor define WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:Undue weight, WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience, WP:FRINGE, et cetera, ad nauseum, ad infinitum. Looking at editor behaviour on this particular article would be equally pointless as Homeopathy is essentially a battle-ground of the "believers" versus the "non-believers", and tendentiousness knows no bounds or sides in the debate.

True, there have been some calmer editors: User:Wikidudeman tried very hard to get the article as neutral as possible (to no avail), User:Jim Butler has tried to keep things balanced, same with User:Art Carlson. However, most of us have very definite opinions that really boil down to science vs mysticism (yes, this will tick some editors off, but I can think of no other way to phrase it). As those two "disciplines" or "thought paradigms" are diametrically opposed, this will always be a contentious subject; and as the propenents of both paradigms are quite passionate, there will never be a viable truce. True, editors on each side could be banned from the article, or general topic, but they would simply be replaced, continuing the process for the forseseeable future. •Jim62sch• 22:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Jim Butler

I'm involved only recently and at Adam Cuerden's invitation, and am optimistic that we can work this out. Not sure we need a case here as much as cooling-off.

Still, some things that might be considered:

(A) Adam makes a good point re educating readers about science, and the hazards of misleading readers about the weight of individual studies. I wouldn't keep such studies out of WP, but per WP:WEIGHT, we might as a rule have a "see also" template at the top of sections citing individual studies, linking to evidence-based medicine and such. That would provide adequate context, as we should. Having done so, it's OK to go into detail about homeopathy theory, even when superseded by science, on homeopathy pages. Overall, WP:WEIGHT says it all:

"Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Misplaced Pages is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view."

(B) Regarding WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience: those criteria were good and generally clear, but there are two possible things to clarify:

• What is the demarcation between "obvious pseudoscience" (tiny fringe, Time Cube-like stuff) and other areas that followed ("generally considered pseudoscience" e.g astrology, "questionable science" e.g. psychoanalysis etc.)? Though not explicit, it appeared to be that the latter are well-known and have attracted V RS commentary from scientists. If so, cool.

• We do need to source claims of consensus. WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience tells us that we may categorize as pseudoscience topics that "are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community". Meeting that criterion requires a source, right? Per WP:RS#Claims_of_consensus:

"Claims of consensus must be sourced. The claim that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources."

Scientific-consensus-type sources can be found in articles like this:

• List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design
• Scientific opinion on climate change

Lacking such sources, my understanding is that may not use category:pseudoscience, although we may and certainly should include criticism from reliable sources in articles. This stuff absolutely belongs in WP; only with the "category:pseudoscience" tag should we be more restrictive.

Does the above make sense to most editors, and if so, do we really need an ArbCom case? regards, Jim Butler 22:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

ArbCom has successfully tackled other issues which boil down, as this does, to faith versus science, and in the process given valuable guidance, but this is not possible with this request as framed. There may be an issue amenable to arbitration though, if it can be distilled out. Guy (Help!) 22:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Proposal: As a first step, how about a consensus application of article probation? There are sufficient respected editors on both sides to probably make that work. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Shot info

All the useful editors in articles such as this one have or are in the process of being driven away by the modern Misplaced Pages's obsession with keeping as many ill informed editors, obvious socks and meat puppets and POV-pushers as possible. Rather than dealing with the DE and TE problem, ArbCom just allows the problem to fester perhaps reasoning that the admins will keep control, while simultaneously persecuting any admins who do retain a modicum of control. Either way, ArbCom is currently presiding over the MySpaciation of Misplaced Pages due to a lack of allowing bold admins to do their job. Shot info (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Wanderer57

I agree with what Jzg wrote above, about distilling out an "issue amenable to arbitration" from this very broad request for arbitration.

I reviewed the archives of Talk:Homeopathy, of which there are now 26. I think it significant that in every single one of these archives, there is discussion (often heated) about whether the article is NPOV/POV. In many cases, there is debate about the meaning of the term NPOV.

It would be a huge step forward, IMO, if ArbCom would create a defined framework in which editors could create and then seek approval for a consensus definition of NPOV that would serve as a practical measure of the NPOVness of this and other highly polarized articles.

Wanderer57 (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I would add that four editors represented here who have a huge amount of experience of editing Homeopathy talk about NPOV as an important if not critical issue. Specifically, Adam Cuerden, Tim Vickers, Whig, and Filll. Wanderer57 (talk) 04:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Scientizzle

I've been involved in the morass at homeopathy for only a couple of weeks now. Among the general issues that have recently clogged up that talk page: the amount of the lead section devoted to outlining the scientific criticisms, the inclusion of Category:Pseudoscience (volatile consensus seems to be headed towards "Generally considered pseudoscience"), and the inclusion of {{Infobox Pseudoscience}} (which seems relatively disfavored for several reasons). Almost all the disputes concern the relevance and weight of scientific viewpoints regarding the topic.

I think there is an important, and specific, clarification that should be made in this case, perhaps expanding and tweaking the prior ruling in the pseudoscience arbcom case and it's effects on WP:NPOV:

• In articles and article sections that discuss topics (i.e., complementary and alternative medicine & modern evidence-based medicine, intelligent design & evolutionary theory, climate change denial & the scientific opinion on climate change, etc.) of considerable overlap with the general scientific discourse—often with deliberate antagonism towards the scientific consensus—should the general scientific consensus be considered the "default" neutral point-of-view?

Obviously, if this were to be confirmed or denied, it would be a valuable for discussions on the position disagreements between notable non-mainstream views and the general scientific consensus, in categorization issues (such as we've experienced at homeopathy), enacting any sort of one-way linking paradigm, and in evaluating undue weight issues. If it's rejected, specific guidelines on the manner in which to balance the scientific viewpoint (as Adam and Docboat have brought up) with the alternative claims would be advisable, particularly in determining the amount of validity to be given unscientific claims.

Such a distinction would not limit the appropriate explanations and elaborations of these topics, but would help guide the role of scientific criticism(s) within the relevant articles. Establishing a reasonable threshold for determining each dispute's scientific consensus is probably best determined in a case-by-case basis on the appropriate article talk pages, but a delineation of the specific role of the scientific viewpoint as a function of NPOV is becoming more necessary.

Statement by Filll

I first came to the homeopathy article around July of 2007 and found it an ugly disorganized mess. At that point, it was not heavily visited or edited, and I began trying to organize it and clean it up and add cited references. Many of my fellow science advocates were shocked that I was doing this.

As I made progress, User: Wikidudeman appeared and promised us he would clean it up for us in a sandbox. Although we were skeptical, I have to admit that Wikidudeman did a masterful job in forging a compromise between various camps. If there is a hero here anyplace, it is Wikidudemann and I think he has not received anywhere near enough credit for this unbelievably impressive effort. We should be almost canonizing Wikidudeman for this. And coming from me, and my previous skepticism, that is saying a lot.

Then the live homeopathy article was replaced by the sandbox article. What had been a quiet article when I first visited it became overrun by a large number of new editors who were not part of the consensus in the sandbox. Part of this is good, but also it led to more conflict. I suspect that Wikidudeman's rewritten article was more heavily linked and therefore appeared more prominently in google searches, bringing in more new editors. I also wonder if there was not some off-wiki canvassing for new editors as well, although I do not know.

The biggest problem it seems to me with WP homeopathy discussions is a misunderstanding of what constitutes NPOV on the part of some of the nonmainstream editors. There is a lot of selective reading, or misreading, or ignoring of the NPOV policy and related policies, and this leads to fighting and conflict.

I suspect that the core of the situation, the root as it were, is that we are essentially attacking people's livelihoods and careers, or they think we are. They do a search for homeopathy on google, and the 2nd hit is this Misplaced Pages article. They go to read it, and in the body and even in the LEAD, the WP article states that homeopathy is dismissed by the medical and scientific establishments and homeopathy is unlikely to work given what we know about chemistry, physics, etc and that there is no confirmed evidence for it.

This outrages many readers, and some of these readers are professional homeopaths. They see this as a direct affront and contrary to what their training and experience is. Some see the continuing persecution of Big Science and Big Medicine and Big Pharma, and even a conspiracy or two. And they feel that we are almost taking the food out of their children's mouths, and they are incensed and come to Misplaced Pages as editors to "fix" the situation. And then they run into NPOV etc. And we have a huge fight. Because what does NPOV really matter when we are talking about destroying people's livelihoods, right?

So things become more and more tense and combative and unpleasant. Recently on a couple of occasions people have started to claim that the phrase "homeopathy promoter" is offensive (an RfC was filed over this), and even worse, as sensitivities are inflamed.

So actually, in my opinion, one of the most important, valuable things that could be done is a clear and unambiguous statement, with examples, defining NPOV. The current situation and even the name "NPOV" is too unclear. Many interpret the "neutral" in NPOV to mean "no negative or contrary discussions or material, particularly in the LEAD", because negative material is not neutral, after all.

This leads to many difficulties and fights. Even to get agreement to include the word "controversial" in the first sentence or two a few months ago was quite difficult, and I would think that is one of the most obvious things one can say about homeopathy, is that it is "controversial".

The tensions are too ugly at the moment for me to even fix copy editing problems in the text. From time to time I try to discuss what NPOV means on the talk page but I am usually beaten back by a storm of angry attacks and so I retreat. People are just too angry for any real work to be done, and the same arguments happen over and over and over.

I think homeopathy is pseudoscience, at least some flavor of pseudoscience, but I am unsure if this needs to be mentioned in the article, and if it is mentioned, how prominent it needs to be. It seems to just make a bad situation worse, but I do not know. I am far more interested in maintaining overall NPOV than just fighting over the word "pseudoscience".

I do believe we should describe homeopathy on WP, but I think that this poisonous atmosphere is making it impossible to be productive. I tried to broker a compromise at the Plant articles mentioned above, but the other side, some of them botany enthusiasts and some homeopathy proponents, were not interested in a compromise. I suggested that we allow about 50 "minihomeopathy" articles or mentions in homeopathically notable animal mineral and vegetable components used to produce homeopathic remedies, so that we would not end up with 1000 or 10,000 or more homeopathic miniarticles. This was summarily rejected with prejudice. I gave up and then the two polarized sides were deadlocked again and tensions were escalating.

I am still interested in writing more homeopathy articles and even at this point have another article on homeopathic concentration scales in the sandbox, that I am writing with world-renowned homeopathic scholar, User: Peter morrell. We have been somewhat remiss on working on it over the last few weeks, but we will get back to it because I think it is both exciting and potentially highly useful for the homeopathic and scientific and medical communities trying to understand homepathy.

Clearly, contrary to what some have charged, I am not anti-homeopathy content at all. I am just interested in making sure that we include the mainstream science side in some reasonable proportion (although it is not clear how one might determine this proportion; by number of practitioners, number of patients, dollars expended, research presence, etc) for NPOV. And I want to make sure we do not end up with literally thousands of little paragraphs and subsections promoting homeopathy and about homeopathy throughout WP that would be impossible to maintain in the proper balance.

For full disclosure, I will confess that I have inadvertantly and unknowingly purchased and used homeopathic products on more than one occasion and even thought I experienced some benefits, although I know that placebo is a powerful effect. Wearing my scientist hat, I know it is extremely easy to fool oneself as well.

I think if Arbcomm decides to take this on, with one or two simple pronouncements or directives, they could probably take a lot of air out of this festering situation that appears to be spreading to other articles. For example, there is some effort to include short paragraphs in all articles on famous people that are known to have tried homeopathy, even if they rejected it subsequently because they thought it did not work. This, in addition to the moves to include homeopathy in a large number of plant, chemical, mineral and potentially animal articles, would lead to an extremely confused and diffuse body of homeopathy articles, homeopathy references, paragraphs, miniarticles etc in Misplaced Pages, which I am not sure would be viewed favorably by all concerned.

Quick Point of Fact by Adam Cuerden

The article has been full-protected for a week, yet again. This is only shortly after a month-and-a-half (or thereabouts) full protection, and there might have been another protection between the two. Clearly, there are major problems here, so I would strongly encourage taking the case.

Statement by Art Carlson

This article needs help. I see POV warriers on both sides. I assume and believe they are acting in good faith, but I don't see them doing what it takes to come to a consensus. Considering the difficulty and heat seen here in deciding what constitutes NPOV, I think it is necessary that a higher and less passionate instance clarifies Misplaced Pages policy and how it applies in concrete instances. Some points that could be clarified, which will have wider significance than just this article (and therefore are not strictly a content dispute), are

• the type and amount of evidence needed to justify characterizing a field as pseudoscience (or quackery, or fraud, or unethical),
• when it is appropriate to cite primary sources (scientific studies), when secondary sources (reviews and meta-analyses) are also available, and
• guidelines for the portion of a non-mainstream article which should be representative of the proponents, of the mainstream, or (somehow) neither.

Good night, and good luck. --Art Carlson (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Involvement: I am involved in editing this article, but I usually keep a low profile. I am personally "anti-homeopathy", but find myself often taking "pro" positions in the battles here out of principle.

Question/suggestion by ChrisO

I'm not involved in this article in any way, but it seems to me that it would be a good idea to first tackle some of the problematic editorial behaviour that has prompted this arbitration. Would the ArbCom have any objection to re-using the remedy agreed in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia? ("Any uninvolved administrator may, on their own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if that editor fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, the expected standards of behavior, or the normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; restrictions on reverts; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision.") It could be worth applying this remedy to the homeopathy article for an experimental period - say three months - to see if that reduces some of the tension. But can the use of such a remedy be authorised on the authority of uninvolved admins, or is it something that the ArbCom would have to authorise? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Following a discussion on the admin noticeboard, Homeopathy and related articles have been placed on article probation by the community . Thatcher 11:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/2/0/0)

• The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC) I do not believe that it is within the committee's capabilities to solve the problems raised here. We're not going to issue a remedy handing an unequivocal win to either the pro-homeopathy or pro-science caucuses. You're left with WP:NPOV and WP:RS.
• Decline. The scope of the arbitration case outlined is extraordinarily nebulous. It is not possible to imagine a resolution which would work without straying recklessly into areas of making content findings. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Alice

Initiated by Jose João (talk) at 22:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Perspicacite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Alice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Perspicacite

Alice has followed me from page to page for months in an attempt to get revenge for my daring to edit Tokelau, 'her page'. Previous 24-hour blocks have apparently not gotten the message through, and she has once again resumed her harassment, ranging from posting insults within articles to 3RR violations. She's even tried (unsuccessfully) to change the notability policy, solely to justify deleting articles I've started. I would have thought banning an editor who, despite a high volume of edits has yet to actually contribute to Misplaced Pages, would be a quicker process. As for previous dispute resolution, several editors have tried to step in here and nothing has been resolved. Jose João (talk) 22:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Ryan Postlethwaite

I'm not sure that arbitration intervention is required at this point in time. I see Alice has one 3RR block from January this year and that's it. I must admin I haven't looked into huge detail here, but I have viewed a couple of AN/I threads involving Alice. I would say that this is not harassment which requires arbitration rulings as the behaviour is not at the stage which has exhausted all other attempts at dispute resolution, and as pointed out earlier, it's not that serious. At first glance, this looks more like a glorified content dispute over a number of pages, with a few user conduct issues on the side. Should this be rejected by the arbitrators, I urge you to go through lower level dispute resolution such as a user conduct RfC to guage the communites thoughts on the matter, and hear suggestions how Alice could change her editing paterns so you no longer feel she is stalking you. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
On a second look, I see that this is not all Alices' fault. I urge the committee to take a look at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Civility issue: User:Perspicacite at AfD where there is evidence of extremely questionable behaviour from the initiating party of this request for arbitration. My advice - Perspicacite and Alice should simply keep away from each other. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Orderinchaos

Not seeing anything for ArbCom to do here - this proceeding seems to have been initiated in bad faith. I've just had to warn the initiator for removing comments on an AfD. Orderinchaos 23:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved One Night In Hackney

Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/W. Frank is relevant here. Even before any checkuser, there is strong evidence that Alice is a sockpuppet of User:W. Frank, a disruptive editor involved in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles, and this sockpuppet account is causing ongoing disruption. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Note, checkuser now confirms W. Frank and Alice are one and the same. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/4/0/0)

• Decline at this time. Insuffient evidence of a problem that administrators and the community cannot resolve either through ordinary measures or earlier stages in dispute resolution. Filing parties should please note that where there has been no earlier dispute resolution, it is all the more important to provide us with diffs showing evidence that there is a serious problem requiring arbitration. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Decline. I doubt it is true that Alice started following Perspicacite around because of the latter's edits to Tokelau, given that she did not reverse them. The community is capable of dealing with the problems here. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Reject per Newyorkbrad. FloNight (talk) 14:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Reject per Newyorkbrad. Try resolving this through other means first, since it appears you've not tried that yet. If that doesn't work, we can consider the case again. Deskana (talk) 11:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Franco-Mongol alliance

Initiated by Jehochman at 15:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Involved parties

• PHG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Elonka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Eupator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• WJBscribe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Other parties may need to be added.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Formal RfC (RfCHist), at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Request for comment

• ANI thread, and multiple sub-threads: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/POV-pushing by User:PHG
• ANI thread WP:ANI#Editorial and procedural abuses by User:Elonka
• Mediation: Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Franco-Mongol alliance
• Current ANI thread:

Statement by Jehochman

This is long festering dispute about the addition of ahistorical information to Middle Ages articles. Not unlike Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot we have a longstanding editor who appears to be publishing original research in Misplaced Pages, misrepresenting sources, and frustrating the deletion process and consensus by tendentiously reinstalling content that the community has decided to remove.

Mediation of the content dispute was attempted, but User:Tariqabjotu closed the case because the process was failing. PHG has now decided to increase the drama a notch by calling for Elonka to resign,. The claims of bad faith are flying. Before this degenerates further, I request that the Committee scrutinize the behavior of all parties. Jehochman 15:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I am very concerned that severe damage is being done to the encyclopedia through the addition of unverifiable, ahistorical information to a large number of articles. The community has been unable to control the problem. This has been going on for half a year. Rather than blocking PHG, which would be highly controversial, though justifiable in my opinion, I am bringing the matter here instead. ArbCom has sharper tools, and hopefully can craft a less restrictive remedy. Previous discussions in other forums have failed to produce any sort of resolution. The problem appears to be getting worse, not better. Arbitration sooner rather than later will help reduce the amount of disruption and bad blood. Jehochman 15:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's a deleted article: Mongol raids on Jerusalem

Here's a listed source:

How does this source, which makes about five passing references to Jerusalem, the most on point one being, "the Frankish Crusaders, clinging precariously to a narrow strip of Syrian coast, both hoped and feared that the Mongols might drive the Muslims from Jerusalem and restore the holy places to Christian possession.", support an article that starts out with, "In 1260, the Mongol ruler Hulagu conquered vast parts of the Holy Land, usually in alliance with the Franks and the Christian Armenians."? Jehochman 14:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Rlevse

I have full protected this page for two weeks. This seems to be a content dispute. It also appear Elonka did not use her admin bit in this issue and therefore is a regular editor in this matter. I posted a notice on the talk page to encourage peaceful resolution by all on the talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Tariqabjotu

It's tough for me to say whether this case is a content dispute (which ArbCom doesn't usually address) or a conduct issue. However, I'm inclined to encourage the ArbCom to treat this as a conduct issue and look at it as such. I know many editors who have not been following this page will immediately declare it as a content dispute, but this has long outgrown that description. Nearly every other available avenue of dispute resolution, including a mediation which I led, has been tried and -- particularly in the mediation case -- failed miserably. The article and its talk page, for the most part, can speak for themselves; we see repeated accusations of ownership, a slow-motion edit war, assumptions of bad faith, continuous allegations that sources are being misrepresented -- all the elements that together make a resolution to the now five-month dispute impossible by any other means. Additionally, the actions of certain editors on the article have made the conditions for less involved editors that want to contribute to this article just about unbearable. We have a serious problem here, one that calls into question the integrity of this article, and perhaps dozens others. Investigating the sort of behavior alleged here is not unheard-of, and I request that ArbCom do so again. -- tariqabjotu 16:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick reply to something Justin said: there is an Evidence phase within arbitration cases and this is not it. I assume Jehochman, and any others with specific allegations, will present such evidence when the appropriate time comes. -- tariqabjotu 18:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Justin

I, like User:Tariqabjotu am having difficulty deciding whether this issue is truly a content issue or a behavioral issue. However, I tend to lean towards the former and the evidence presented by User:Jehochman are all examples of content disputes. I'm extremely troubled by Jehochman's accusations (provided without dif's) of original research, and disagree with his assertion that there was a consensus to remove the content PHG added back into the article. I believe the Sadi Carnot arbitration isn't a particularly good analogy to this problem. The primary issue in that dispute was admins reverting each other, which hasn't been the case for this dispute.

I would also note, that I made a request for page protection for the article some time before User:PHG was given a 24 hour block. It was ignored until the block took place, and then denied after input from an involved admin. I applaud User:Rlevse for the two week page protection, as I do believe this will resolve the issues at hand. I have absolute faith that all of the editors involved will work toward a consensus, and eventually that consensus will be reached (with or without User:PHG agreeing). I consider User:Jehochman's suggested remedy of indef blocking an editor with nearly 30,000 edits completely beyond reason. The page protection should offer more than enough time for involved editors to find a consensus version of the article. Justin 17:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Response to Tariqabjotu: Granted, the ArbCom request doesn't require posting evidence, but an admin made some pretty extraordinary claims about a longstanding editor. By failing to give any evidence to his accusations, it appears that the motive was to poison the well. PHG's disruptions of the article in question were definitely inappropriate, but the sentence "publishing original research in Misplaced Pages, misrepresenting sources, and frustrating the deletion process and consensus by tendentiously reinstalling content that the community has decided to remove," is a fairly heavy-handed accusation. Jehochman followed up these accusations with a suggested remedy of indef blocking.

Given all of that, I think that since both the accusations and suggested remedy are fairly extreme, it would have been prudent to back up his accusations with evidence. Perhaps PHG has some behavioral problems outside of the article in question, and if that's the case, I'm sure the ArbCom members (and those of us that are unaware of other problems) would like to see evidence of it. In lieu of that, all of us are forced to assume Jehochman made his claims in bad faith or that PHG is indeed a bad faith editor as his claims assert. Neither case is preferable, hence my original point. Justin 20:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Shell Kinney

This case should most definately be accepted; while an underlying content dispute was the catalyst, the behaviors of the editors involved, in particular those of PHG, have spiraled out of the community's ability to control. For example:

• Since the abortive FAC last September, numerous attempts have been made to improve the article; all significant changes (and even some minor ones) have been reverted by PHG who displays rather clear ownership issues .
• The minority POV which was originally under dispute has now sprawled to more than 50 paragraphs in this article (even though the edit summary said "revert" ) and has been systematically inserted into scads of other articles creating more than a little bit of disruption that is requiring some rather serious cleanup efforts. (See this talk page post for the list of articles known to have been affected) The behavioral side of this issue stems from PHG is abusively edit warring, subverting myriad other articles and creating numerous POV forks in an attempt to "win" a content dispute.
• PHG has also canvassed in an attempt to skew the consensus.
• At least 6 other editors (myself included) are currently working productively on the article via talk page discussion; this was especially apparent during the 24 hours when PHG was blocked from interfering. These editors do not all agree, so this is not about one side winning the dispute.

The committee also needs to be aware that this dispute has attracted certain editors who, for one reason or another, wish to disrupt Elonka's activities on wiki such as editors from past or current Arb cases which she was involved in.

We're not asking ArbCom to intervene in a content dispute and, in fact, don't need any intervention since absent one highly disruptive editor, talk page discussions are resolving the content issues. However, I would strongly urge the Committee to review the clear behavioral problems that stemmed from this dispute. Shell 19:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Orderinchaos

This seems to be yet another argument between those promoting fringe theories or views and those holding a mainstream view on historical issues. Elonka appears to have been trying to defend the NPOV on this and related articles against what seems to be some odd behaviour on the other side. The dispute has gone on so long now (several months) that it's way beyond whatever it started out being about and now is essentially an issue where consensus has failed, and it may well be that some of the individuals on one side never had any intention of accepting a consensus removed from their own view. I would agree with Jehochman and Shell Kinney's points above, and WJB's points below. Orderinchaos 23:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Daniel

I have deleted and protected Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Franco-Mongol alliance, to protect the privileged nature of Mediation Committee mediation (see also Misplaced Pages:Arbitration policy#Hearing). Daniel (talk) 03:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Elonka

My statement is going to be about two views here, one in how I see this on-wiki, and another off. On-wiki, I don't think it's appropriate to have an ArbCom case on this at this time. I see ArbCom as something that is needed for complex user conduct cases, where the community has not been successful in dealing with them via other means. In this particular case, the community has been successful. We had one editor, PHG, who has been camping on an article in violation of WP:OWN, who has been using bad sources and has been misinterpreting good sources, and has been creating multiple POV forks. See User:Elonka/Mongol quickref for a few paragraphs that give context about the history involved, and the related content disputes. The proper way to handle this via Misplaced Pages procedures (without ArbCom) is to identify problems with the article(s), build consensus on the talkpage(s), and proceed with cleanup. Which is exactly what we've been doing lately. Now, it is true that in the early part of this dispute, meaning Fall 2007, things were exacerbated because we didn't have very many participants who understood the history involved, so we ended up with a kind of stalemate between me and PHG, with him saying, "Here's the history," and me saying, "No, that's not history, that's you cherry-picking and misinterpreting sources." Over the last month (January 2008) though, we have gotten more editors in to look at the situation, and consensus-building has been much easier (except for PHG). So, in a case where we have one editor who is not willing to work in a cooperative and collegial manner with other editors towards consensus-building, we already have Misplaced Pages procedures in place -- we have uninvolved administrators who can look into the situation, and warn and block as necessary. There is no need for ArbCom, as all that ArbCom would be able to do would be to confirm the same thing that any uninvolved administrator would: "PHG is being disruptive, PHG is reverting obsessively, PHG should be blocked if he continues to disrupt." We don't need a multi-month ArbCom case that wastes dozens of hours of time on the part of multiple good editors, to come up with that same conclusion.

And now, the off-wiki aspect. There are times in my life that I've got lots of free time for Misplaced Pages, and there are times that I don't. This coming month is going to be a "don't" time, since I've got a major tradeshow coming up in a few weeks. So if it's decided that there is going to be an ArbCom case on this, I just won't be able to participate much. Which will put ArbCom and the other participants in an awkward situation where they're forced to decide on either proceeding without me, or by further extending the case to allow time for me to assemble my own evidence. Which (my free time availability) I know is not one of the major factors on "should a case be accepted or not," but I wanted to make the Committee aware.

My own off-wiki time constraints aside though, I still recommend that this case not be accepted. The community is already dealing with the situation, and I can't see as any ArbCom decision would really change much about how the situation is proceeding. What would the result be? "PHG has been disruptive, PHG is cautioned to work in a collegial manner with other editors. Anyone engaging in disruptive behavior can be blocked by any uninvolved administrator." Which is what we're already doing. --Elonka 09:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by PHG

I have been contributing to Misplaced Pages since 2004/03/06, with over 23,389 edits to date, all referenced from reputable published material. I created more than 200 articles, and 8 articles which I created or unstubbed reached FA status (Boshin War, Imperial Japanese Navy, Hasekura Tsunenaga, Indo-Greek Kingdom, History of Buddhism etc...). I also have contributed hundreds of photographs from Museums around the world. My main interests revolve around cultural interaction through the Ages, and I enjoy developing content on these subjects. I am a multinational business manager, with over 20 years experience working in Asia, the US and Europe. I am a fervent supporter of Misplaced Pages:NPOV policy, according to which all significant views should be presented in articles.

When I created the Franco-Mongol alliance article in August 2007, I soon entered into heated discussions with Elonka whether there was actually an alliance or not and other details. She first tried to have the article renamed, but failed (here). Despite the quantity of authors who specifically described this alliance (here), she kept arguing that the view was "fringe" and did not deserve balanced representation with the alternative view ("only attempts at an alliance"...). She then tried quite violently to discredit me through the Administrator notice board, but again failed (here), thanks to several users who spoke up for me. I responded by pointing out her behaviour (here), without asking for punitive action. Actually her actions in relation to this article generated many of the Opposes in her recent nomination as Admin (here). She still spends a huge amount of time leaving enormous diatribes against me on various Talk Pages and User Pages (here or here for example). I even had to file a claim for harassment (here). Besides, I'm glad I'm not the only one: Elonka has a huge history of dubious disputes and litigations with many other contributors as well (an example).

Recently, Elonka again attacked the Franco-Mongol alliance page, trying to force her own rewrite, deleting 130k of content established collaboratively over a period of 6 months and over 300 academic sources, through false claims of consensus (Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#False claim of consensus). I think this conduct is unrespectfull of Misplaced Pages rules and unethical. She also has thrown false accusations in order to smear me (Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Why is the "longer version" get even longer?), and resorted to personal attacks, calling me a lier , when she is actually the one lying about facts, like claiming I added 50k of new content through a reinstalment of deleted content (here). On the Franco-Mongol alliance article I have only been upholding Misplaced Pages's rule that is there is no consensus for a replacement of a main article by an individual's own version, then the status quo should prevail. I expect every Wikipedian to uphold these rules as well.

What the heck? I'm here to share knowledge and contribute fascinating, referenced, stuff about ancient history and cultural interaction, and I must say I am not at all interested in Misplaced Pages politics or lobbying day long against specific users. Best regards to all. PHG (talk) 11:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Wjhonson

I am not an involved editor in this case. Wikibits of this situation have deposited themselves on various other pages and it peaked my interest to take a look. My rough estimate of the problem is that there was an initial failure to strive for consensus. The catalyst appears to be a complete re-write done in user space was plopped down in situ on top of a large established article. Frankly, were that to happen to an article I had largely contributed to, I would probably react in the same way as PHG. I do not find the approach initially taken in this case to be any remote attempt to strive for consensus. As the talk page clearly shows, many editors were against the rewrite and many were for it. However in that situation, normal consensus building would be to leave the status quo article as it. "Consensus decision-making is a decision-making process that not only seeks the agreement of most participants, but also to resolve or mitigate the objections of the minority to achieve the most agreeable decision. Consensus is usually defined as meaning both general agreement, and the process of getting to such agreement. Consensus decision-making is thus concerned primarily with that process." A more temperate approach, if the underlying issue were size would have been to fork the content. A more temperate approach, if the underlying issue were neutral-point-of-view would have been to take disputes to that Talk board. As well we have a reliable sources noticeboard, and a Talk page at original research. The approach taken in this case, has led, over many months, here. I think that's a fair indication, in light of the thousands of articles PHG has contributed to, that an ArbCom ruling would be effective.Wjhonson (talk) 11:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Durova

I've watched this conflict from afar since the Franco-Mongol alliance FAC of last summer. History is a field where autodidacts often have trouble due to unfamiliarity with priority of sources and historiography. A fair portion of books in the field have been written by untrained persons, some of which are excellent and some of which ought to be classified as humor or fantasy. The more faciful versions get repeated by other autodidact authors because they seem interesting, so absurdities sometimes gain the illusion of a pedigree among readers whose only means of guessing what constitutes mainstream history is to count the number of published books that advance a given hypothesis. This dynamic has manifested in any number of ways at Joan of Arc although the problem is less burdensome now that the article is featured (that Joan of Arc was a man, that she escaped execution, that she was the bastard daughter of the queen of France, etc. etc.). These editors aren't necessarily intending to violate WP:NPOV; they simply lack the knowledge base and critical training to determine what's fringe and what's mainstream.

The most serious assertion at this RFAR is misrepresentation of sources. I have seen no actual evidence to substanitate this. I request that the Committee accept this case to determine one way or the other. Durova 13:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Having now seen evidence of misrepresentation of sources, I urge the Committee to not only accept this case but to rename it PHG. The problem is greater than one article and is largely - perhaps entirely - confined to his conduct. This editor has been conducting what Misplaced Pages euphemistically calls original research and what the rest of the world terms academic dishonesty. That is, he has been misusing source material in order to claim that recognized experts have asserted things which they cannot reasonably be supposed to have concluded - all tending toward a hypothesis that the Mongol Empire was considerably more powerful than mainstream historians concur that it was. When other editors call upon him to step back from this extreme and novel view, he forks articles to continue promulgating it; when they identify specific misuse of one source, he changes the subject to assertions about other sources. Nothing persuades him. I've seen Adam Bishop (an actual doctoral candidate in Medieval studies) attempt to advise PHG and get rebuffed.

PHG's volunteer efforts for Misplaced Pages are considerable and his efforts to improve the site appear to be sincere. He has contributed multiple featured articles on various subjects, yet his conduct in this matter leaves me questioning the integrity of his other contributions. When NPA Personality Theory passed GAC before getting deleted, thoughtful Wikipedians were shaken. Franco-Mongol alliance progressed as far as FAC before an editor recognized its flaws, which raises serious questions about the eight other articles that have become FAs under this editor's guidance. This is an arbitration-worthy request, and an important one. Durova 02:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by WJBscribe

I am in two minds about whether this matter is appropriate for ArbCom. On the one hand, we do have mounting user conduct issues - especially the increasingly ludicrous ownership of the central article by PHG - and a failed attempt at mediation. On the other, we have a dispute heavily routed in content that is hard to process without getting involved in those issues. Involving itself in matters of content is something ArbCom prefers not to do but where the central issues are about accuracy of information, representation of sources and neutral POV it is hard to separate conduct and content. Violation of content policies is misconduct but it is hard to determine whether such conduct breaches have occured without taking a view on the content questions. Ultimately either PHG is trying to push a misleading account of the events covered by the article or he is not.

If ArbCom is willing to have a thorough look at this issue - including the underlying problems with whether Misplaced Pages policies on neutral point of view and fringe theories have been followed - then there are clear merits in pursuing this case. If only the most superficial of conduct issues will be touched upon, then this will likely prove a waste of time. A general admonishment for participants to work towards consensus isn't in my opinion going to be of help here. WjBscribe 15:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Kafka Liz

After silently following the dispute at Franco-mongol alliance for some months, I eventually got involved over what I saw as persistent problematic behaviour on the part of PHG. My initial concern stemmed from the creation of a series of forks that PHG presented as good faith attempts to shorten the main article, but in reality served to preserve and expand upon strongly disputed sections. Further examination of the article and its history convinced me that PHG's activities were in violation of two fundamental areas of Misplaced Pages policy, namely WP:OWN and WP:NPOV (specifically WP:UNDUE). Attempts by myself and other editors to work with PHG regarding these concerns have been met first with polite stonewalling and evasive answers, then accusations of "being polemical and systematically banding together, " and finally silence. I now see PHG resorting to various strategies of gaming the system: engaging in slow revert wars to evade 3RR, wikilawyering , and simply refusing to respond directly to the concerns of others.

I concur with the statements put forth by Jehochman, Shell Kinney, Orderinchaos, and WJBscribe, and believe Jehochman's reference to the Sadi Carnot case is particularly fitting to the case at hand. Kafka Liz (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by (fairly) uninvolved Iridescent

As someone who's spent an inordinate amount of time spatting with Elonka over this — and as a former occasional collaborator with Sadi Carnot (albeit not on the problematic articles) — I do agree that Arbcom ought to get involved here. After a lengthy argument with Elonka after I accused her of edit-warring on the issue, I actually went and checked the contributions of PHG more thoroughly, and on inspection he's the very model of a true problem editor. As with Sadi Carnot, he makes enough valid and high-quality contributions that they mask the problem edits, unless one goes looking for them. On the articles in question, his "sources" seem to be a mix of mistranslations, fabrications and self-published crackpots, and he's using these sources to replace material from numerous multiple independent sources.

There's always going to be a problem with articles like this, in that they rely on sources derived from other sources far removed from the original sources (unless we happen to have an editor floating around who speaks mediaeval Armenian); however, his pet theory (that Jerusalem was captured by the Mongols) would have been so significant, one would have to assume it would be chronicled in both Christian and Islamic histories; in this case, I think it is reasonable to assume that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Normally, this would just be a content dispute on a very low-traffic article that wouldn't warrant an Arbcom intervention. However, this saga is starting to have spin-off effects on the rest of Misplaced Pages which in my opinion warrants a high-level intervention by either Arbcom or Jimbo to put a stop to the whole mess. Not only is this dispute starting to be used by WR et al as anti-Misplaced Pages "evidence", but it's already derailed one RFA of Elonka's and (almost) derailed another*, and is starting to waste a lot of time of a lot of regulars who could be more profitably be doing something useful. — iridescent 15:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

*I know I opposed both of Elonka's RFAs for other reasons, but they should not have failed for this reason and I freely admit I was wrong; the accusation of edit-warring was unfair in this case.

Statement by uninvolved TimVickers

Any editor who writes that another contributor has "attacked the Franco-Mongol alliance page" and complains about "hijacking of this page" is, in my opinion, suffering from serious ownership issues. This is not a simple content dispute, the behavior of the editors involved needs to be examined in detail. I recommend the committee accept this case. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by John Kenney

My familiarity, at this point, with what ArbCom does, exactly, is not all too clear, so I can't say directly whether Arbcom should accept this case. I do think that PHG is a serious problem editor, that his contributions are full of incredibly tendentious arguments, and that he holds ground with a tenacity that makes it difficult for normal editing practice to arrive at consensus in improving these articles. As Tim Vickers notes above, PHG has serious ownership issues with articles he creates, and, further, he is very difficult to reason with. Something certainly ought to be done about him. john k (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Adam Bishop

My problem is not so much the content, just that there is too much of it, and that PHG has no idea how to read, study, or write history. It's embarrassing to read and is a perfect example of why Misplaced Pages is untrustworthy. But now it is too big to fix. If it were up to me, I would recommend deleting it and everything else that has been written about it, leaving it for a few months, and then restarting from scratch...but that's just me. I'm not sure this needs to be subjected to yet another Misplaced Pages process, but I agree with John that PHG is a huge problem. I know that PHG has been here for a long time and had worked on a large amount of articles on obscure topics, and that is usually a great thing, but after my experience here, I wonder whether those articles are as awful as this one is... Adam Bishop (talk) 08:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Pupster21

I agree completely with what Vickers said, I think this is a dispute with a little more than content involved. --Pupster21 Talk To Me 13:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/2/0/0)

• Accept to look at user conduct issues that are interfering with reaching consensus. The Community has not been able to sort this out. FloNight (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Accept; per Flonight there is disruption of article writing; serious issues of user conduct are alleged and there has been a failure of mediation. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Accept. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Decline, we are unlikely to be able to help. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Accept. Deskana (talk) 11:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Accept. --jpgordon 16:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Decline, I'm inclined to agree with UC. I've asked a few editors to give their opinions. I may change my mind based upon further review. Paul August ☎ 18:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Jeffrey O. Gustafson 2

Initiated by Ryan Postlethwaite at 20:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Ryan Postlethwaite (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiating party)
• Jeffrey O. Gustafson (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Edward Morgan Blake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• It’s not really applicable here since it’s a case of sock puppetry, but there have been these discussion about Jeffrey previously;
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Jeffrey O. Gustafson
• Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Jeffrey_O._Gustafson_2
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey O. Gustafson

With respect to the sock case itself, there has been;

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jeffrey O. Gustafson
• Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Jeffrey O. Gustafson

Other discussions:

• Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard (permanent link)
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (permanent link)

Statement by Ryan Postlethwaite

In this recent checkuser discussion it was confirmed that the administrator Jeffrey O. Gustafson had been using a sock puppet account to edit, whilst still using his administrator account. Yeah, people are allowed alternate account, but there is strong evidence that this was used abusively to help him win a content dispute. Part of the evidence is seen below (for an explanation of each edit, please see Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Jeffrey O. Gustafson);

I would like to ask the arbitration committee to investigate this properly as they are the best people to deal with sensitive CU data, and make sure that this is the only occurrence. Administrators are trusted members of the community, and by using sock puppets in this fashion they lose that trust, so I also believe that the committee should accept this case to consider desyopping, especially given that Jeffrey has had previous instances of severe misconduct. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Thatcher

It looks to me like Jeffrey was setting up a new account in order to vanish the other one, as he hasn't edited since December 7. Under those circumstances, he probably should have left his prior dispute with Rod behind him. It would have been my choice to ignore the matter, and leave Jeffrey's new identity as one of those "open secrets" that people don't talk about. For the record, I can confirm that other than the stale and rather minor reverts listed above, there is no checkuser evidence of inappropriate behavior by the owner of these accounts.

Having read Rod's RFA, this still looks like a tempest in a teapot. There was no massive swing in votes, just a couple of editors who opposed based on the comments of the Blake account. And I'm not sure I would call Blake's comments "unethical" as there was no use of multiple accounts in the RFA. It was misleading, and stupid because it exposed the account if it was an attempt to vanish and start over, but I don't think it was as dramatic as has been suggested. Thatcher 21:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved AnonEMouse

Note that this came up from the currently ongoing Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Rodhullandemu. The EMB account opposed due to Rodhullandemu's previous conflict with JOG, Rodhullandemu complained that he seemed to be being opposed by a sock puppet, EMB expressed outrage at being accused of being a sock puppet, then a number of people opposed either per EMB or in reaction to R's accusing JOG, a respected admin, of sock puppeting. This is not a "stale and rather minor revert" issue, this is darn close to an active attempt to scuttle another person's adminship request. Please accept. --AnonEMouse 20:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

There are possibilities that JOG is not the same person as EMB, and if so an ArbCom statement to that effect would also be appreciated, and again, looking into the case seems warranted. --AnonEMouse 21:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Ronnotel

I would like to point out the brief but decidedly one-sided discussion on this issue at WP:AN/I. The issue of starting with an RfC was briefly considered by the community but rejected in favor of Ryan's action. In addition, I concur with Jehochman synopsis (below) and believe the potential for disruption of the RfA process was high. Ronnotel (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the RfA, I agree that the RfA was probably not in danger. However, being an admin is a position of trust. There is no possible interpretation of Jeffery's actions that can be construed as accidental. He quite purposefully created a ficticious alternate persona in an attempt to lend credibility to his objections to the RfA. And, in fact, it was convincing enough to begin swaying other editors. The community simply cannot turn a blind eye to this type of behavior from an admin. It was done in a devious manner and with devious intent.

The claim by User:Edward Morgan Blake that he is not User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson only escalates the importance of this case. Either (i) a string of unfortunate coincidences converged in a highly unlikely but innocent way and two users need to have their names cleared, or (ii) we have continuing misbehavior by a highly disruptive individual and the remedies should not necessarily be limited to removal of the sysop bit. I'm confident that ArbCom is equipped to discover the truth, whatever it may be.

Given that conclusive evidence has been received by the committee, I unreservedly offer Jeffrey my apology for the accusation of sock-puppetry. While I strongly believe that a prima facie case was justified by the evidence, I am now satisfied that this was the result of a series of unfortunate circumstances. I thank the committee for their involvement. Ronnotel (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

The crux of the matter is unethical use of a sockpuppet at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Rodhullandemu. Edward Morgan Blake's oppose vote had begun to snowball when I noticed that User:Daniel was opposing the RfA because the candidate had suggested the possibility of sock puppetry. Rather than leaving the accusation hanging, I investigated, hoping to prove it false. Unfortunately, I found substantial evidence of sock puppetry, leading me to file Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Jeffrey O. Gustafson. Then, with the support of several administrators, I filed Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jeffrey O. Gustafson.

The diffs cited by Ryan are merely evidence connecting the two accounts. The serious issue is that Jeffrey O. Gustafson appears to have presented his opinion at RfA as if he were an uninvolved party, when in fact he was very involved in the underlying dispute. This would cast his opinion in a false light and deceived other editors. After the well was poisoned, two other editors opposed the RfA citing the sock puppet's opinion. The potential for harm here was very great, and this sort of behavior cannot be ignored. Jehochman 21:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Upon reviewing the edits of both accounts, I said, "Either it's one person, or they are two people taking turns on the same computer." I stand by this remark. Edward Morgan Blake has not fully explained the observations, because two roommates sharing a Wi-Fi connection would be expected to occasionally edit at the same time. The record shows far less interleaving than expected. I recommend that the case proceed in order to clear up this apparent discrepancy. We need guidance on how to handle the roommate explanation because any editor operating multiple accounts can claim that they are roommates. We have no way to verify such claims except by reviewing the contributions. We also need to know whether people living or working together are so closely connected that they are constructively responsible for each other's edits when their edits support each other. Jehochman 14:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If a satisfactory explanation has been provided to the Committee by email, then there is no need for a case. I do not think very much additional information can be obtained by starting a case, nor do I see much benefit in dragging this out. It would be preferable for the Committee to decide what remedies, if any, are needed based on the opening statements and linked reports. Jehochman 18:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by JodyB

Jeffrey O. Gustafson appears to have chosen to use a second account to create an impression that an uninvolved third party was troubled by the action of the RFA nominee. This appears to be a deliberate action carefully chosen to oppose the nominee. Jeffrey O. Gustafson is no fool and is well-versed in our rules and policies. It is well within reason to assume the above facts are an accurate representation of what happened.

However, there exists the possibility that there is an innocent answer. Therefore, I encourage the committee to accept this case as a proper forum to flesh out the real facts and deal with any violations appropriately. Jeffrey O. Gustafson is an administrator with considerable influence and activity. We ought ensure that he, like all, lives up to his mandate of trust. -JodyB _talk 21:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Revolving Bugbear

Disclosure: I nominated Rodhullandemu for adminship.

The fact that the Edward account apparently lied in his initial statement (provided that he is in fact a sock of the Jeffrey account) is indeed worrisome. While we don't actually have a policy, as far as I'm aware, that says you're supposed to be truthful in your dealings with other Wikipedians, this kind of deception is troublesome because it denies the other party -- in this case Rodhullandemu -- a level playing field. The bigger problem, though, is the berating of Rodhull by Edward when Rodhull intuited that Edward was a sock. Provided that Edward is indeed a sock, this is clearly disruptive -- he is accusing Rodhull of something he knows to be false, because he knows the sock allegations are true.

Given the fact that Jeffrey previously had his sysop tools suspended, the deceptive oppose coupled with the deceptive accusations appear to me to be a case of using a sock to avoid scrutiny. - Revolving Bugbear 22:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Ral315

I'd urge the Committee to take this case, primarily because there lies an uncertainty about how the existing policies on sockpuppeting apply. The sockpuppet was not used to double-vote as far as I can tell; that's usually an issue with sockpuppets. In fact, I see no evidence to state that prior to this RFA, that the sockpuppet was used for nefarious purposes. The question becomes, where does this particular situation fall -- using a sockpuppet to appear as if you're another user, concerned about issues between Rodhullandemu and your primary account. I don't believe this has ever been ruled upon, and I think it's a particularly important distinction, given that there's no real proof that Jeffrey/Edward's conduct was in bad faith. Personally, I believe the most likely scenario is that Jeffrey made the vote in a misguided attempt to oppose the RFA without showing activity on his main account, an attempt that clearly backfired. In any event, clarification of how this policy should be applied in cases like this might be worth exploring, as I'm willing to bet a similar situation will arise sooner or later. Ral315 (talk) 23:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by MastCell

If Jeffrey O. Gustafson was exercising his right to vanish, then he shouldn't have tried to settle an old score. If he wanted to settle an old score, he shouldn't have used an alternate account to do so. If he used an alternate account to settle an old score, then he shouldn't have played at false innocence and attacked Rod for calling him on it. If there's an alternate explanation for the checkuser and historical evidence, then Jeffrey ought to provide it privately if needed to ArbCom.

Is this a tempest in a teapot? Maybe, in the sense that this should not be a long, drawn-out ArbCom case but rather a quick one. Between the previous case and this, there's clearly enough evidence that Jeffrey O. Gustafson's sysop bit should be removed. Only ArbCom can do that, so I think the case should be accepted. At the very least, Jeffrey has some 'splaining to do if he wants to retain the sysop bit. In the absence of a response, the account ought to be desysopped and Jeffrey can begin anew if he likes, though ideally he'd avoid using his new accounts to go after his old nemeses. MastCell 00:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Solumeiras

This case should go before the Arbitration Committee, and not for the reasons stated above. There has been past concern about this user's admin actions, and a previous Arbitration ruling. With regard to Thatcher's point above about this being an "open secret", well, in my opinion taking the case would deal with the manner effectively. --Solumeiras (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment struck out - I concur with Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs · rights · renames)'s actions. --Solumeiras (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by the_undertow

All these diffs and assuming good faith are nice, but I find it unsettling. It seems fairly simple. It's fraudulent voting. ...Jeffrey was thoroughly creeped out by (told to me via private correspondence)... He is not speaking in third person - as the word 'correspondence' nullifies that. It's not an alternate account when you use it to speak as if you were a separate entity - and continue to mention your established one. Therefore we have an admin, who used a sockpuppet, to fraudulently vote and disrupt an RfA. Couple this with the fact that this could have completely gone unnoticed if it were not for the candidate himself doing the research and this is truly as bad as it gets. If Jeffrey had an oppose he should have voiced it as himself. There can be no legitimacy to any of this behavior. the_undertow 01:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Casliber

Agree with previous - to put it simply, this editor has violated community trust, which is a prerequisite for sysop status. Hence, desysopping to me seems fait accompli, with the option of seeking readminship via RfA at some time in the future if they can regain the community's trust. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Edward Morgan Blake

I am not Jeffrey. I made no secret that I know Jeff in "RL" - we are room-mates, using an unsecured wifi connection - we share similar interests and used that as a basis for finding room-mates in the first place. He did not ask me to oppose the request for adminship of Rodhullandemu, I did that on my own and I imagine he is unaware that I commented. When I was accused of being a sock puppet, it didn't even occur to me that the connection to Jeffrey - I did not even consider the IP. This is all mortifying for me, in part because I seem to have gotten Jeffrey in a great deal of trouble. --Edward Morgan Blake (talk) 04:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This statement was copied from User talk:Edward Morgan Blake at Edward's request by User:B. See diff. --B (talk) 04:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Rodhullandemu

Disclosure:This case arises from my RfA, which is still ongoing.
I have very little to say until the closure of my candidacy; however, the more I see of this, the more unanswered questions there are. A full and proper investigation is required. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 06:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Ned Scott

What the.. haven't we been over this before? BEFORE freaking out over the "omg holy checkuser results" bring up the issue with the involved users before making a big ruckus about it. How many past arbcom cases has this been stated (in better words, no doubt)? I'm pretty sure there has been at least two. A perfectly reasonable explanation has even been given, and we don't even have evidence of any abuse. -- Ned Scott 04:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Tariqabjotu

The fact that Edward is denying that he in fact is Jeffrey is insulting, and clear proof ArbCom needs to take a look at this. Given Jeffrey's last edit (07:04, Dec. 5) came just five minutes before Edward's first edit in a month and a half as well as in his series of continual editing (07:09, Dec. 5), either the two users are the same person, or this is the coincidence of the century. -- tariqabjotu 06:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

General bemusement from Nick

I don't see what the Arbitration Committee hopes to achieve with this case, we've got an admission that Edward Morgan Blake knows Jeff Gustafson and we've got an admission that they're using the same IP address, which is much the same as the Checkuser evidence which confirmed they are editing from the same IP address. Checkuser evidence isn't magic pixie dust, it can't confirm the human who was responsible for edits coming from a specific IP address, which is really what is needed here. The Arbitration Committee and the Checkusers are unable to disprove Edward Morgan Blake's comments above without resorting to relatively weak (and in my view relatively useless) circumstantial evidence, such as edits happening around the same time, in similar areas, all incidents which could represent one room-mate asking another to back him up, the exact same behaviour which happens on IRC, via e-mail and via instant messaging with thousands of editors every day.

I would say that JOG is sufficiently knowledgeable that if he genuinely wanted to sockpuppet, he could do so in a manner which would be undetectable to Checkuser. He doesn't strike me as a chap so completely without clue that he would sockpuppet from his usual IP address, unless he wishes to be caught.

The Committee might manage to confirm this is meatpuppetry, perhaps as a result of good faith editing rather that collusion between the parties here, but I can't see any benefit in examining this case further, there's no real evidence to examine. I'd recommend the case be dismissed but with the proviso that administrators and bureaucrats are made aware that EMB and JOG might be acting together and any comments are closely examined as part of determining consensus. Nick (talk) 12:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by TenOfAllTrades

Regarding Nick's comment above, it is well within the scope of ArbCom to consider evidence beyond the Magic Wiki Pixie Checkuser Dust. In cases where sockpuppetry is suspected, admins rely on a variety of heuristics based on user conduct: stylistic tics, editing times, interactions between editors, participation in related disputes, etc.. The ArbCom regularly makes judgements based on such user-conduct evidence—with or without corroborating Checkuser information.

While ArbCom is not bound by precedent, it is worth nothing that they have in the past ruled that

For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets. (source)

This principle has long been part of the sockpuppet policy, as well.

If the ArbCom so chooses, they may also request additional evidence from the involved parties. Some form of documentary evidence could be forwarded to the ArbCom (or to a trusted third party like a Board member or Foundation's counsel) to prove that JOG and EMB both exist and share a physical address. While it's certainly not in ArbCom's power to compel production of documents, they are entitled to ask. Should the ArbCom find the existing circumstantial evidence sufficiently compelling, as a precautionary measure they may make JOG's continued adminship contingent on the provision of exculpatory documents. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Acalamari

To be honest, I believe Edward Morgan Blake when he says that he’s not Jeffrey O. Gustafson, and instead, just a friend. Jeffrey O. Gustafson has been an administrator for over two years, and he is well familiar with policy, and should know about the rules regarding sockpupptry. I know that there have been issues with Jeffrey O. Gustafson in the past, but I personally do not think that he would attempt sockpuppetry, nor do I believe him to be untruthful. I hope that the Arbitration Committee will examine this case thoroughly (which, I am very sure that they will), so we don’t end up losing two contributors, with one being an improved admin. Acalamari 20:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Orderinchaos

I agree with Nick and Acalamari's points above. Jeffrey, as the last ArbCom and many other incidents demonstrated, is more than capable and fearless enough to take IAR by the horns under his own nick, and has done so on many occasions. However, I have never found him to be dishonest. There are certainly some questions raised, but I believe they are two different people. Re Tenofalltrades, I don't think real world documents unless offered in the first instance by the parties should be the basis of anything - Misplaced Pages is a relatively anonymous online environment and that sort of thing may set a precedent which would scare good faith contributors in controversial areas. There are other ways to confirm identity. Orderinchaos 23:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The comments from arbitrators, particularly Newyorkbrad's, seem a fair and reasonable conclusion to this situation in my opinion. Orderinchaos 21:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by the accused

I have had some time to calm down over the past 36 hours, as sometimes oftentimes my anger has a tendency to get the best of me. I will be emailing the committee tomorrow - there is some personal information involved that I am not comfortable revealing on wiki. I will likely post something afterwards for whoever is interested. In a nutshell: What Blake Said. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I have emailed the Committee via their mailing list (I think the message is still in the queue - I have not received an auto-response), and will forward the message verbatim to any trusted user who requests it via email, which I have re-enabled. I cannot guarantee a speedy response, but I will do my best. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Carcharoth

Whatever the outcome, someone should probably update Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Jeffrey O. Gustafson and Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jeffrey O. Gustafson, as it seems things have moved on a bit since those two pages were last updated. Some of the statements above, in this request for arbitration, and in the ANI thread, might need clarification if they turn out to have been inaccurate or misleading. For example "it was confirmed that the administrator Jeffrey O. Gustafson had been using a sock puppet account to edit" - the checkuser request didn't confirm that - it only confirmed that the same IP address was being used. And there should be a page somewhere warning people about the possible consequences, if a checkuser ever gets run, of knowingly sharing an IP address, or internet connection, or sharing a computer. There is no need to say who it is. Just say on your user page: "I share an IP address with another editor, so please, ask first before making sockpuppet accusations on the basis of a checkuser result." Carcharoth (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Daniel

Having reviewed the lengthy email Jeffrey sent to the Committee's private mailing list (per his comment above about any user in good standing), I have come to the same conclusion as Newyorkbrad and fully endorse his 21:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC) comment below. Daniel (talk) 01:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

02:01, 25 January 2008 Henrik (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked Edward Morgan Blake (Talk | contribs) ‎ (Unblock for arbitration proceedings) - Penwhale | 01:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/7/0/0)

• Awaiting statement from Jeffrey O. Gustafson and/or Edward Morgan Blake. Could the filing party or a Clerk notify Edward Morgan Blake of the case and follow his talkpage for any statement please. (I am aware of the checkuser finding that JOG=EMB, but even if this is the same individual he might not necessarily check both pages.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC) Accept and address in an expedited manner. The issues are straightforward and there should be no need, one way or the other, for lengthy proceedings. Edward Morgan Blake should be unblocked for the purpose of allowing him to participate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC) Now awaiting elaboration from Jeffrey O. Gustafson. See his statement above and User talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Accept. --Deskana (talk) 13:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

  Reject having read Jeffrey's e-mail. --Deskana (talk) 03:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

  Accept. FloNight (talk) 01:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC) After my first read of Jeffrey O. Gustafson's email statement and I'm unclear that an arbitration case is the best way forward. I need to further review the statement and the other on site statements. FloNight (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Reject. After re-reading all the statements and JOG email statement, I do not think an arbitration case is needed to sort of the issues presented. FloNight (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Reject. I have reviewed Jeffery's statement and other relevant evidence and concluded that no misconduct has taken place. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Accept. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Decline for now pending prompt receipt and review of Jeffrey's promised email. Paul August ☎ 18:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Decline. Jeffrey's statement satisfies me. --jpgordon 18:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Reject. I have read Jeffrey's statement, in conjunction with Edward Morgan Blake's statement, and it is quite clear that whatever suspicions have arisen here, there has been no breach of policy. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Decline. After requesting input from the named parties and reviewing the statement by Edward Morgan Blake, I previously voted to accept and expedite the case to address the suspicion raised, although I was not convinced the suspicion was well-founded. However, based upon a statement that Jeffrey O. Gustafson has provided privately to the Arbitration Committee (and which contains personal information that need not be posted on-wiki), I find as a fact that there has been no sockpuppetry or other misconduct. I have unblocked Edward Morgan Blake, who previously was granted a limited unblock solely to participate on the arbitration pages, for all purposes. While all concerned acted in good faith, this incident is another reminder that (except in cases of obviously abusive or throwaway accounts) a reasonable time for explanations should be accorded before taking actions such as placing sockpuppet tags on userpages or blocking accounts indefinitely. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Appeals and requests for clarification

Place appeals and requests for clarification on matters related to past Arbitration cases in this section. If the case is ongoing, please use the relevant talk page. Requests for enforcement of past cases should be made at Arbitration enforcement. Requests to clarify general Arbitration matters should be made on the Talk page. Place new requests at the top.

Request extension of RFAR/Martinphi-ScienceApologist to deal with multiple article disruptions

There is an ongoing problem with articles covering fringe scientific topics. As seen in the above case request, fringe articles are clearly targeted by a determined group of editors interested in inflating the legitimacy of the topics and de-weighting the scientific or evidence-based view. It is part of the wikipedia way of doing things that neither admins, nor arbcom, can make content rulings. Admins could be given more advanced tools for dealing with disruption, though.

Two prior cases, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience and Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist, dealt with narrow topics and resulted in bans for a few single-purpose editors and "cautions" to ScienceApologist. As a result of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist, Martinphi is placed on probation and ScienceApologist on civility parole, but these remedies do not begin to address the broad range of disruptive behavior and continual disruption at multiple articles. There have been multiple complaints filed against ScienceApologist, mostly groundless or incredibly minor, by editors seemingly more interested in getting rid of him than editing collaboratively, and ScienceApologist has unfortunately taken the bait more than once and responded in an inappropriate manner. There has also been edit warring on multiple articles, and at least two three disputed articles are currently protected.

I believe that a broad article probation covering the entire topic is needed to give admins the tools to deal with this long-running battle. I propose giving admins discretion to ban individual editors from pages they edit disruptively, for the short or long term, enforceable by blocking, and/or to place editors on revert limitation. Because the three previous cases have resulted in only probation for one editor and civility parole for a second, out of a large group of interested editors, has not given administrators an effective means of dealing with this long-term problem area. Thatcher 23:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Please propose specific language for a motion that potentially affected editors and the committee can review. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be premature to use the ultra-broad general sanctions imposed at Israel-Palestine, but 1RR and page bans are needed to impose some sort of order here. Thatcher 00:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

May I comment here? Anthon01 (talk) 00:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, general discussion is permitted. Thatcher 01:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments here are encouraged. To be most helpful, they should deal with how problems on these articles can be minimized going forward so that accurate, NPOV articles will be written and a harmonious editing environment maintained. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we can all recognize that Homeopathy is a controversial science, but pseudoscience is a pejorative that seems to be part of the problem here. Because what we need to move forward is an environment where editors treat one another with respect and let the sources speak for us in the article space. —Whig (talk) 01:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

comment: If the definition of Pseudoscience applies to Homeopathy, then WP:SPADE. This type of useage is not inappropriately pejorative. (See also List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts) -- Writtenonsand (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The definition does not fit in my opinion, but without bringing content issues here, that list is clearly NPOV disputed, and the ArbCom has spoken on this issue before. By their definitions, I believe Homeopathy qualifies as an alternative theoretical formulation, but certainly not obvious pseudoscience. —Whig (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Whatever it is, it's a problem. Thatcher 01:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should be more conservative when stating what "we can all recognize" or agree upon. I certainly don't agree that Homeopathy is not pseudoscience (it is rightly included in Category:Pseudoscience), nor do I agree that the term "pseudoscience" is a pejorative - and apparently neither does the Arbitration Committee. Dlabtot (talk) 02:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

To clarify what I said, I think we can all agree that it is controversial. —Whig (talk) 19:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be premature to use the ultra-broad general sanctions imposed at Israel-Palestine - Thatcher, what are those sanctions? Perhaps some of them would be appropriate here. Fwiw, I generally support your motion. Dlabtot (talk) 05:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Dlabtot, here is the link to the Palestine-Israel sanctions. Thatcher 12:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Thatcher, if you read past the rhethoric and look at the actual page disruptions, especially the ones that lead to a page being locked, you'll find that only one or two editors cause it while everyone else is participating on the talk page, acting civily and with respect for each other, trying to reach consensus despite individual differences in viewpoint. There really are only a handful of editors (less than five) who don't care about that process and just want their way, wiki-process be damned. The rhetoric you read from them centers around their view that the wiki-process of trying to develop consensus needs to be changed because they feel it is broken, when surprisingly this system seems to work for everyone else but them. The system isn't broke, just some editors don't care about it. Check the logs on the two articles you used as examples and see who caused the pages to be locked, and why. In both cases it's because they (admittedly) didn't care about the consensus-building process. They're the same ones that are saying massive reform needs to take place. While they're busy disrupting pages and saying Misplaced Pages is broken, everyone else is on the talk page trying to address actual problems. Please don't confuse their view as a correct assessment of the problem when they're the ones that are acting like WP:MASTADONS. Everyone else seems to be able to get along just fine. --Nealparr 01:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't know to whom you are referring and perhaps it is best if you don't name names. Maybe. The point is that aside from a few single purpose accounts that have been banned for significant problems (Like User:Richard Malter and User:Asmodeus), three arbitration cases have not either resolved the problems of these articles or given admins tools to resolve them. Unless you can convince the Arbitrators to open a case against the 4 or 5 specific editors you are thinking of, the ability to levy page bans and 1RR limitation should allow admins to get these disputes under control. And if you are correct, then only those 4 or 5 editors will be affected. Thatcher 01:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I would never dream of filing an arbitration case against the 4 or 5 mastadon editors who are actually disruptive, even if I wanted to, when vexatious complaints are considered part of the problem and any admin can ban me for it. As I'm sure you know, misreadings and misinterpretations are common at Misplaced Pages. I was just pointing out that there are far more editors willing to work together on these articles than those who don't, and that the handful of mastadons are the real problem. --Nealparr 05:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
      • The range of articles covered by Thatcher's proposal is remarkably broad. Of course, I've often agitated for something similar, so I can't argue with it. I'd only say that admin discretion is paramount: these articles are frequented by single-purpose agenda-driven accounts which edit-war, edit tendentiously, etc. These sanctions should not hit editors who have to deal with such accounts, but they run the risk of being used in such a manner. That said, provided there's some standard recourse for review of sanctions (via WP:AN/I and/or ArbCom), I would find myself hard-pressed to disagree with Thatcher on this. MastCell 05:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
        • • Odd you mention that, because it's exactly what led to this whole flareup. I can't mention names for fear of being sanctioned, but one editor that is a self-admitted agenda-driven editor had sanctions placed against him after two arbitrations where he was found to be consistently uncivil. He calls some people some names, someone complains, and the editor gets blocked. A few days after he is unblocked he edit wars against RfC consensus, someone complains, he gets blocked again, and two articles get locked down because of his massive edits that resulted in edit warring. A few days after that he is uncivil again and gets blocked again. In the wake of all this, a bunch of supporting editors say he's being "provoked" (though no one talked to him before the edits) and say that none of this is actually his fault but rather vexatious litigation. These editors are all riled up and calling for better tools to stop editors from "picking on him" (some of these people are admins). Look, I usually get along with the editor, and don't have a problem with him except when he's gone all angry mastadon, but sometimes we do disagree. How am I not supposed to be afraid of admins running around with banning powers on anyone they feel is disruptive?, some of whom clearly want to "avenge" him. It's just one editor who started this whole thing, while acting like your typical, angry, agenda-driven editor. Everyone else was mostly getting along. (Note: I didn't mention names and tried to be as civil as I could and still explain the situation the way it happened; please don't ban me). --Nealparr 06:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Why make the pretense of not naming names when you've done all but that? Although he cannot respond here due to his block, I've notified the ostensibly innominate user. Please, if a discussion like this ever comes up about me (even if not by name) at a place like this, extend me the same courtesy. Antelan 07:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If I had thought to I would have, but it's not like he can be sanctioned for anything I'm saying. He hasn't done anything new. My point is that these are broad ranging sanctions that could be misused, especially considering the exact circumstances involved that we're apparently not supposed to talk about because it's considered picking on someone. I don't understand any of this, quite frankly, because it focuses on possible future disruptions from a broad range of editors, when there's logs that show the locus of the dispute already in a small handful of editors. The locus is in editors who see Misplaced Pages as a battleground, not normal editors who get along and participate in normal content disputes. He knows how I feel about it, that I don't want him sanctioned further, and that I'd just like to see him stop being contentious. I'll send him a note. --Nealparr 07:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Honestly, if arbitration members feel it is a necessary addition to the Martinphi-ScienceApologist case to impose sanctions on a broad number of editors to prevent disruption, it's not that bad of a proposal. The current wording needs to drop the "vexatious litigation" part in a bad way though, because that's the part that is going to cause even more headaches as it's too open to interpretation. The proposal is effectively saying the ArbCom is tired of hearing about disruptions on these articles and is going to empower admins to deal with it by providing blocking tools. However, no one actually involved in the dispute is allowed to ask for help in resolving the situation because it may be interpreted as "solely to harass or subdue an adversary", in which case you'll be blocked too. Instead the only way to resolve the dispute is to hope that an uninvolved administrator happens upon the dispute by chance, reads through all the discussions, understands what's going on, and sides with you. Otherwise, you could get blocked just for telling the administrator that a disruptive editor made two reverts instead of one, or that someone called you a name. It happens. Busy admins don't always know what's going on and can interpret your good faith complaint in a bad way. I personally don't think that editors who try to work well with others, and don't see Misplaced Pages as a battleground, should be sanctioned and limited in what they can do here, but that's just my take on the subject. I am fully convinced, though, that imposing restrictions on what someone can complain about is just going to lead to more headaches. --Nealparr 11:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• So then, do you think that there should be no sanction for vexatious litigation? That someone should be able to bring repeated frivolous actions until they wear down their opposite number? Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

On one hand people are saying there's serious problems in these articles that to led to massive disruptions, and that editors should reign themselves in and follow normal dispute resolution processes. Then they say complaining is frivilous. The two views aren't compatible. --Nealparr 18:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure they are compatible. Nobody is saying that complaining is frivolous. Frivolous complaints are frivolous. If someone is both litigious and can't tell the difference between frivolous and serious problems, they will quickly discover the difference. This isn't all that different from Misplaced Pages under normal conditions. Antelan 18:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Replied below. --Nealparr 19:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

(Unindented) If I may, here are two diffs the underscore the problem we are having with moving forward on many of these pages. I am not certain that admin tools alone will solve this problem. Regardless of the merits, I suspect admins, in good faith, could be found who would support both sides of these discussions. There are also admins, who in good faith, believe that discouraging "minority or fringe views" are more important than civility. Because of that, I am concern about the misuse of additional tools against editors who support the inclusion of RS/V minority views on fringe topics. Anthon01 (talk) 07:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, that's a valid point - it illustrates the fact that the Quackwatch article is being disrupted, as it has been for years, by voceferous opponents of mainstream medicine and Stephen Barrett, and that this is winding up those who are here to write an encyclopaedia rather than serve an agenda. So much so that several people believe you, Anthon01, to be Anthony Zaffuto, and thus almost certainly an unacceptable party on that page per the restrictions and ban on Ilena Rosenthal. Guy (Help!) 12:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You have made my point exactly. Here is an admin who has it in for me. IMO, he has it in for me because is certain situations I have opposed SA. It is probable that in most situations I would agree with SA. However in these cases it isn't so. Like SAs current attempt to purge wikipedia of most mention of homeopathy. Guy has admitted himself he has a prejudice against non-mainstream writers. What do I do about that? I see pattern with your accusations. They are baseless and diffless. Why don't you prove it! When are going to stop your baseless and diffless accusations? Anthon01 (talk) 15:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Instead of discussing the content or merits, Guy is baselessly accusing and attacking me personally. Is there a remedy for admin abuse? Anthon01 (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You've made a claim. Who are the several people? Isn't there a policy against revealing personal information "A user may be blocked when necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public. A block for protection may be necessary in response to: ... * disclosing personal information (whether or not the information is accurate). Where do I address this issue? Anthon01 (talk) 16:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I assume Guy was referring to this discussion of you on the Administrator's noticeboard, but Guy can correct me if I'm wrong. Antelan 18:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Two questions here: (1) How can you reliably distinguish single-purpose and argumentative-but-new editors from new editors? To be frank, I don't trust the judgment of some administrators involved in this area when they label some editors as SPAs and trolls. (2) Under these sort of restrictions, what would have happened to User:MatthewHoffman? Would he have been indefinitely blocked? Should indefinite blocks be handed out as liberally as they are? (I see the provision here says that the blocks should be escalating - a point I wholeheartedly agree with). OK, that was more than two questions, but I don't want to see editors who participate constructively on talk pages banned merely because they argue for the wrong weight in an article. They can be wrong without being disruptive. Carcharoth (talk) 16:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If the committee finds the inclusion of "vexatious litigation" to be a problem they can remove it. As anyone can see from the recent discussion of Martinphi at WP:AE, while I agree that Martinphi's current probation could allow him to be banned from pages like RFC and RFAR for making disruptive complaints, I would be very reluctant to actually do so. In response to Carcharoth, probations are usually enforced incrementally. If this expanded authority were passed, I would unprotect Homeopathy and WTBDWK and place all editors on 1 revert per week limit, while encouraging talk page discussion. The next step would be bans from the article while continuing to allow use of the talk page. Actual bans from talk space are very rare, even under Arbitration, and should obviously be used with caution. In the case of MatthewHoffman, if he was found to be disruptive, the sanction would call for an article ban, not a total ban, and he could appeal as indicated. Thatcher 17:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good. Are there restrictions on what other admins can do and how this interacts with other processes? For instance, what is admins disgreed on what to do and one of them carried out an indefinite block for reasons related to that article, or if a community discussion based on behaviour at that article ended up with a complete ban of a particular editor? Carcharoth (talk) 17:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Under the terms of the remedy, a user would have to have been banned from some articles and/or violated a 1RR limit and been blocked at least 5 times before we started talking about an indefinite ban under the remedy. Arbitration remedies do not supersede ordinary admin action but are meant to give admins more tools; they do not immunize the editor from ordinary and normal discretionary actions. Suppose an editor was placed on 1RR for all pseudoscience articles, and later edit wars on an unrelated article; he could blocked for edit warring with or without violating 3RR at any admin's discretion like any other editor can be. Likewise the community can discuss and implement a community ban for someone even without that editor having reached his sixth blocking offense under the remedy, such discussion to be subject to the usual rules for such things. Thatcher 18:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I would support wholeheartedly these new restrictions. I think we have been too accommodating so far and that has not resolved much. These articles can and should be able to achieve NPOV and stability if the opposing parties would allow/encourage wider participation. I attempted offer help at the Quackwatch article and some other articles, but iy is extremely tedious and after a while whatever gains are made, are lost again in the never ending disputes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I would remove the ""vexatious litigation" item, though. Users need to have a way to alert admins and others without the fear that if they do, they will get dinged. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand your (and Nealparr's) concern. But the history of the present case shows that vexatious litigation has been an ongoing problem with these users. I'd rather leave this in and have it be applied with the same judgment and common sense we must use in any other administrative provision. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing problem? Let's look at that. Vexatious litigation is a "frivilous" complaint meant solely to remove an opponent, and here that's being defined as a disruption worthy of blocking. That's odd, because the whole purpose of the arbitration committee, and the arbitration enforcement page, is for people to come and complain about their opponent civily and seek remedy, presumably to have that opponent sanctioned for their actions. Again, calling that frivilous is incompatible with also treating dispute resolution seriously. This proposal criminalizes normal dispute resolution processes, with the possibility of blocking, and instead leaves the interpretation of what's frivilous up to any random admin. I have a problem with that. Namely because I was the one who pointed out that ScienceApologist has a history of being incivil in this very arbitration. I posted diffs stating that he was warned for incivility before, and then posted diffs showing that he continued doing so. In the arbitration I was accused by other editors, I think even an admin, of doing all of that just to support Martinphi. By this definition and remedy, apparently I was being frivilous and should be blocked because at least one admin thought I was frivilous. What common sense is there in that? The dispute resolution process is supposed to be about showing evidence of problems in opponents. It's probably for that reason that vexation litigation isn't in WP:DE, WP:DR, WP:HARASS or any other guideline that I'm aware of. When you have what you feel is a legitimate complaint you're supposed to take it to an authority who can help you. --Nealparr 19:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If the vexatious litigation clause were left in, it would be subject to the same admin discretion as the other remedies, plus could be appealable. Plus. if someone who had cried wolf too many times then had a legit complaint, he could ask and admin to review it and, if legit, the admin could temporarily lift the restriction. I'd rather not have to write that level of detail into a remedy that should be interpretable with common sense, but maybe it should be specified. Eh. Thatcher 19:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It would probably help if you established a basis for including it first before adding detail on how to interpret it. So far I've only seen people file complaints for what they believe are legitimate complaints. It's not been established that any complaint has been raised in bad faith. --Nealparr 19:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand it's hard to keep up with everything, but for what it's worth, several notices have been filed here, at ArbEnforcement, on the Admin Noticeboard, and elsewhere. I think there's a reasonable basis for this vexatious litigation element, and I'd be willing to go through the effort of compiling links to different filings if you haven't seen them. That said, I am OK with whatever, if anything, the Arbitrators decide. Antelan 20:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

A list doesn't demonstrate bad faith is my point. All the filings against ScienceApologist could be in the list, his filings against Martinphi could be as well, it could include filings that I'm not aware of, and the list would still not demonstrate that the intent was anything other than to resolve what they felt was legitimate disruptive editing. Filing complaints is not bad faith, nor is it disruptive (as this proposal suggests) especially when everywhere you turn it's what's encouraged instead of being disruptive. --Nealparr 21:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Isn't "vexatious litigation" a self-correcting problem? Because anyone who brings (for example) a request for arbitration, becomes subject to that arbitration... I'd also like to note that this whole matter of "vexatious litigation" really seems to be a veiled reference to Martinphi's request above - which is in its essence, no different from the one we are commenting on here, except that it was brought by an involved party, and was therefore couched in more one-sided terms. Dlabtot (talk) 19:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Besides the built-in self-correcting mechanism, don't admin already have tools to deal with vexing complaints? Anthon01 (talk) 05:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be helpful if editors can show us something which they considered to be vexatious litigation against ScienceApologist or Martinphi and explained to us exactly why they feel this way. Right now, I don't know how admins could draw the line if we as a community don't identify exactly where that line lies. -- Levine2112 02:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Please. We weren't born yesterday. This was pointed out in the latest of many postings to the ArbCom enforcement page, and you were involved in that discussion. This situation is characterised by entrenched positions. There are more editors pushing the pseudo / fringe POV on most of those articles, and the pro-mainstream POV is a lot closer to NPOV. No attempt has been made by either party to work with the other, and there is a constant attempt by the pseudo and fringe side to continually redraw a new average between the current article content and their POV, a creeping fallacy of false middle. The repeated postings to the arbcom enforcement page are as close to harassment as makes no difference, and it needs to stop. Guy (Help!) 21:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

That didn't even come near to answering my question. What I am looking for is an example of what editors considered to be vexatious litigation against ScienceApologist or Martinphi and an explanation. What I am not looking for is hostility. You talk about parties coming together to work, but all I see to get from you is grief. All the time. Again, all I was asking for is an example and an explanation. Just provide a link and a rationale. That's all. -- Levine2112 04:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think your inability to see the problem speaks volumes. Guy (Help!) 20:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

And your hostility speaks tomes. All I am asking for is a simple example so I know what is meant by vexatious litigation. Again, all I am getting is grief from you. Please check your attitude. Now then, you say that you dealt with "vexatious litigation" recently in an ArbCom enforcement in which I was involved. Can you please point me to it because I don't recall such a thing? -- Levine2112 01:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think everyone should take a moment of reflection here - there are people who are compensated to cast doubt on modern science - they are professional PR individuals. There are no individuals compensated to set the record straight - those people are required to be volunteers who love knowledge. This is a real and substantial problem, and it resonates throughout this project. The difference between the two is obvious and readily transparent. PouponOnToast (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

As a pure volunteer myself, it could easily be viewed in the opposite way, with a strong financial interest of pharmaceutical interests versus alternative medicine practices that rely on no patented methods. I think there are a wide mix of editors from every perspective, and assuming good faith is the best policy. —Whig (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Motions in prior cases

Motions

Shortcuts WP:ARM WP:ARBM This section can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Motions. Only arbitrators may propose or vote on motions on this page. You may visit WP:ARC or WP:ARCA for potential alternatives. Make a motion (Arbitrators only) You can make comments in the sections called "community discussion" or in some cases only in your own section. Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor any comment.

Arbitrator workflow motions

Workflow motions: Arbitrator discussion

• I am proposing these three motions for discussion, community input, and a vote. Each seeks to improve ArbCom's functioning by providing for the performance of basic administrative responsibilities that sometimes go neglected, which, in my opinion, if successful, would significantly improve ArbCom's overall capacity. Motivation: We've known about the need for improvements to our workflow and capacity for some years now – I wrote about some of these suggestions in my 2022 ACE statement. It's a regular occurrence that someone will email in with a request or information and, because of the press of other work and because nobody is responsible for tracking and following up on the thread, we will let the thread drop without even realizing it and without deciding that no action is needed. We can each probably name a number of times this has happened, but one recent public example of adverse consequences from such a blunder was highlighted in the Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area case request, which was partially caused by our failure to address a private request that had been submitted to us months earlier. Previous efforts: We've experimented with a number of technological solutions to this problem during my four years on the Committee, including: (a) tracking matters on a Trello board or on a private Phabricator space; (b) tracking threads in Google Groups with tags; (c) requesting the development of custom technical tools; (d) reducing the appeals we hear; and (e) tracking appeals more carefully on arbwiki. Some of these attempts have been moderately successful, or showed promise for a time before stalling, but none of them have fully and fundamentally addressed this dropping-balls issue, which has persisted, and which in my opinion requires a human solution rather than just a technological solution. Rationale: The work we need done as framed below (e.g. bumping email threads) isn't fundamentally difficult or sensitive, but it's essential, and it's structurally hard for an active arbitrator to be responsible for doing it. For example, I could never bring myself to bump/nag others to opine on matters that I hadn't done my best to resolve yet myself. But actually doing the research to substantively opine on an old thread (especially as the first arb) can take hours of work, and I'm more likely to forget about it before I have the time to resolve it, and then it'll get lost in the shuffle. So it's best to somewhat decouple the tracking/clerical function from the substantive arb-ing work. Other efforts: There is one more technological solution for which there was interest among arbitrators, which was to get a CRM/ticketing system – basically, VRTS but hopefully better. I think this could help and would layer well with any of the other options, but there are some open questions (e.g., which one to get, how to pay for it, whether we can get all arbs to adopt it), and I don't think that that alone would address this problem (see similar attempts discussed above), so I think we should move ahead with one of these three motions now and adopt a ticketing system with whichever of the other motions we end up going with. These three motions are the result of substantial internal workshopping, and have been variously discussed (as relevant) with the functionaries, the clerks, and the Wikimedia Foundation (on a call in November). Before that, we held an ideation session on workflow improvements with the Foundation in July and have had informal discussions for a number of years. I deeply appreciate the effort and input that has gone into these motions from the entire committee and from the clerks and functionaries, and hope we can now pass one of them. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
  • One other thing I forgot to suggest—I'd be glad to write motions 1 or 2 up as a trial if any arb prefers, perhaps for 6-12 months, after which the motion could be automatically repealed unless the committee takes further action by motion to permanently continue the motion. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:39, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Workflow motions: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Workflow motions: Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of which motions are passing. These notes were last updated by an automatic check at 14:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Motion name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Passing	Support needed	Notes
Motion 1: Correspondence clerks	2	3	0		4	One support vote contingent on 1.4 passing
Motion 1.2a: name the role "scrivener"	1	2	1		4
Motion 1.2b: name the role "coordination assistant"	0	1	3		4
Motion 1.3: make permanent (not trial)	0	3	1		5
Motion 1.4: expanding arbcom-en directly	1	2	1		4
Motion 2: WMF staff support	0	5	0		Cannot pass
Motion 3: Coordinating arbitrators	4	0	0		2
Motion 4: Grants for correspondence clerks	0	3	0		6

Notes

Motion 1: Correspondence clerks

Nine-month trial

The Arbitration Committee's procedures are amended by adding the following section for a trial period of nine months from the date of enactment, after which time the section shall be automatically repealed unless the Committee takes action to make it permanent or otherwise extend it:

Correspondence clerks

The Arbitration Committee may appoint one or more former elected members of the Arbitration Committee to be correspondence clerks for the Arbitration Committee. Correspondence clerks must meet the Wikimedia Foundation's criteria for access to non-public personal data and sign the Foundation's non-public information confidentiality agreement.

Correspondence clerks shall be responsible for assisting the Committee in the routine administration and organization of its mailing list and non-public work in a similar manner as the existing arbitration clerks assist in the administration of the Committee's on-wiki work.

The specific responsibilities of correspondence clerks shall include:

• Acknowledging the receipt of correspondence and assigning tracking identifiers to pending requests and other matters;
• Tracking the status of pending matters and providing regular updates and reminders on the status of the Committee's off-wiki work to arbitrators;
• Reminding members of the Committee to vote or otherwise take action in pending matters;
• Organizing related correspondence into case files; and
• Providing similar routine administrative and clerical assistance to the Arbitration Committee.

The remit of correspondence clerks shall not include:

• Participating in the substantive consideration or decision of any matters before the Committee; or
• Taking non-routine actions requiring the exercise of arbitrator discretion.

To that end, upon the first appointment of correspondence clerks, the current arbcom-en mailing list shall be renamed to arbcom-en-internal, which shall continue to be accessible only by arbitrators, and a new arbcom-en email list shall be established. The subscribers to the new arbcom-en list shall be the arbitrators and correspondence clerks.

The Committee shall establish a process to allow editors to, in unusual circumstances following a showing of good cause, directly email a mailing list accessible only by arbitrators and not by correspondence clerks.

All correspondence clerks shall hold concurrent appointments as arbitration clerks and shall be subject to the same requirements concerning conduct and recusal as the arbitration clerk team.

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support

1. This is my first choice and falls within ArbCom's community-granted authority to approve and remove access to mailing lists maintained by the Arbitration Committee and to designate individuals for particular tasks or roles and maintain a panel of clerks to assist with the smooth running of its functions. Currently, we have arbitration clerks to help with on-wiki work, but most of ArbCom's workload is private (on arbcom-en), and our clerks have no ability to help with that because they can't access any of ArbCom's non-public work. It has always seemed strange to me to have clerks for on-wiki work, but not for the bulk of the work which is off-wiki (and which has always needed more coordination help). When consulting the functionaries, I was pleasantly surprised to learn that four functionaries (including three former arbitrators) expressed interest in volunteering for this role. This would be lower-intensity than serving as an arbitrator, but still essential to the functioning of the committee. We already have a number of ex-arbs on the clerks-l mailing list to advise and assist, and this seems like a natural extension of that function. The Stewards have a somewhat similar "Steward clerk" role, although ArbCom correspondence clerks would be a higher-trust position (functionary-level appointments only). I see this as the strongest option because the structure is familiar (analogous to our existing clerks, but for off-wiki business), because we have trusted functionaries and former arbs interested who could well discharge these responsibilities, and because I think we would benefit from separating the administrative responsibility from the substantive responsibility. The cons I see are that volunteer correspondence clerks might be less reliable than paid staff and that we'd be adding one or two (ish) people to the arbcom-en list. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Contingent on 1.4 passing. This option was not my first choice, and I'm inclined to try having a coordinating Arb first, if we can get a volunteer/set of volunteers. Given that the new term should infuse the Committee with more life and vigor, we may find a coordinating Arb, or another solution. But I think we should put this in our toolbox for the moment. This doesn't force us to appoint someone, just gives us the ability and outlines the position. CaptainEek ⚓ 05:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I don't think we should extend access to the mailing list and the private information it contains beyond what is absolutely necessary. I understand the reasoning behind former arbitrators in such a role as they previously had such access, but people emailing the Arbitration Committee should have confidence that private information is kept need to know and that only the current arbitrators evaluating and making decisions based on that private information have ongoing access to it. - Aoidh (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Might as well make it formal per my opinions elsewhere on the page. Primefac (talk) 13:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
3. This is limited to former arbitrators for good reasons, most of them privacy-related. But the same concerns that led to this proposal being limited to former arbitrators are also arguments against doing this at all. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Abstain

Motion 1: Arbitrator views and discussions

• I'd be glad changing this to only appoint former arbs, if that would tip anyone's votes. Currently, it's written as "from among the English Misplaced Pages functionary corps (and preferably from among former members of the Arbitration Committee)" for flexibility if needed, but I imagine we would only really appoint former arbs if available, except under unusual circumstances, because they understand how the mailing list discussions go and have previously been elected to handle the same private info. I am also open to calling it something other than "correspondence clerk"; that just seemed like a descriptive title. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

  I do like the idea of using our Arbs emeritus for this position (and perhaps only Arbs emeritus); it ensures that they have experience in our byzantine process, and at least at some point held community trust. CaptainEek ⚓ 01:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  @CaptainEek: I have changed the motion to make only former arbs eligible. If anyone preferred broader (all funct) eligibility, I've added an alternative motion 1.1 below, which if any arb does prefer it, they should uncollapse and vote for it. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• I also think that if we adopt this we should choose a better name. I know Barkeep49 meant this suggestion as a bit of a joke, but I actually think he was on the money when he suggested "scrivener." I like "adjutant" even more, which I believe he also suggested. They capture the sort of whimsical Misplaced Pages charm evoked by titles like Most Pluperfect Labutnum while still being descriptive, and not easily confused for a traditional clerk. CaptainEek ⚓ 03:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

  Whimsy is important -- Guerillero 08:55, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• @CaptainEek and Guerillero: Per the above discussion points, I have (a) proposed two alternative names below that were workshopped among some arbs ("scrivener" on the more whimsical side and "coordination assistant" on the less whimsical side; see motions 1.2a and 1.2b), and (b) made this motion a nine-month trial, after which time the section is automatically repealed unless the Committee takes action to extend it. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
• I plan on supporting motion 1 over anything else. I've spent a week just getting onto all the platforms, and I'm already kind of shocked that this is how we do things. Not only is there a lot to keep track of, all of the information moves unintuitively between different places in a way that makes it very difficult to keep up unless you're actively plugged in enough to be on top of the ball – which I don't think anyone can be all the time. I just don't think a coordinating arb is sufficient: we need someone who can keep us on track without having to handle all of the standard work of reviewing evidence, deliberating, and making an informed decision. (Better-organized tech would also be great, but I'd need to spend a lot more time thinking about how it could be redone.) I understand the privacy concerns, but I don't think this represents a significant breach of confidentiality: people care more whether their report gets handled properly than whether it goes before 15 trusted people or 16. So, I'll be voting in favor of motion 1, and maybe motion 3 will be a distant second. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

References

1. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Policy § Scope and responsibilities
2. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Policy § Procedures and roles

Motion 1.1: expand eligible set to functionaries

Motion 1.2a: name the role "scrivener"

If motion 1 passes, replace the term "correspondence clerks" wherever it appears with the term "scriveners".

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support

1. Nicely whimsical, and not as likely to be confusing as correspondence clerk. CaptainEek ⚓ 04:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I think correspondence clerk is fine if role is something we're going with, it's less ambiguous as to what it entails than scrivener. - Aoidh (talk) 04:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
2. I have never heard that word before; at least "correspondence" and "clerk" are somewhat common in the English Misplaced Pages world. When possible, I think we should use words people don't have to look up in dictionaries. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Abstain

1. I think that because it's more archaic and possibly less serious, I disprefer this to either "coordination assistant" or "correspondence clerk", but would ultimately be perfectly happy with it. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrator discussion

Motion 1.2b: name the role "coordination assistant"

If motion 1 passes, replace the term "correspondence clerks" wherever it appears with the term "coordination assistants".

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support

Oppose

1. bleh. CaptainEek ⚓ 04:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Abstain

1. I am indifferent between this and "correspondence clerk". Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
2. If we're going to use a role like this, either this or correspondence clerk is fine. - Aoidh (talk) 04:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
3. That would be okay. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:08, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrator discussion

Motion 1.3: make permanent (not trial)

If motion 1 passes, omit the text for a trial period of nine months from the date of enactment, after which time the section shall be automatically repealed unless the Committee takes action to make it permanent or otherwise extend it.

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support

Oppose

1. I recently experimented with sunset clauses and think that frankly a lot more of what we do should have such time limits that require us to stop and critically evaluate if a thing is working. CaptainEek ⚓ 04:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
2. If this change is necessary, there should be a review of it after a reasonable trial period to see what does and does not work. - Aoidh (talk) 01:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
3. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Abstain

1. I have no preference as to whether this is permanent or a trial. I do think that nine months is a good length for the trial if we choose to have one: not too long to lock in a year's committee; not too short to make it unworthwhile. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrator discussion

Motion 1.4: expanding arbcom-en directly

If motion 1 passes, strike the following text:

To that end, upon the first appointment of correspondence clerks, the current arbcom-en mailing list shall be renamed to arbcom-en-internal, which shall continue to be accessible only by arbitrators, and a new arbcom-en email list shall be established. The subscribers to the new arbcom-en list shall be the arbitrators and correspondence clerks.

And replace it with the following:

To that end, correspondence clerks shall be added to the arbcom-en mailing list. The Committee shall continue to maintain at least one mailing list accessible only by arbitrators.

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support

1. Much less trouble to have them on the main list than to split the lists. CaptainEek ⚓ 04:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Access to private information should be as limited as possible to only what is strictly necessary to perform such a task, and I don't see a allowing full access to the contents of the current list necessary for this. I'd rather not split the list, but between that and giving full access then if we're going to have a correspondence clerk, then it needs to be split. - Aoidh (talk) 04:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Motion 1 is already problematic for privacy reasons; this would make it worse. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Abstain

1. I would not really object to this. C-clerks (or whatever we call them) are former arbs and have previously been on arbcom-en in any event, so it doesn't seem that like a big deal to do this. On the other hand, I would understand if folks prefer the split. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrator discussion

• Proposed per Guerillero's comment below. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Motion 2: WMF staff support

The Arbitration Committee requests that the Wikimedia Foundation Committee Support Team provide staff support for the routine administration and organization of the Committee's mailing list and non-public work.

The selected staff assistants shall be responsible for assisting the Committee in the routine administration and organization of its mailing list and non-public work in a similar manner as the existing arbitration clerks assist in the administration of the Committee's on-wiki work. Staff assistants shall perform their functions under the direction of the Arbitration Committee and shall not represent the Wikimedia Foundation in the course of their support work with the Arbitration Committee or disclose the Committee's internal deliberations except as directed by the Committee.

The specific responsibilities of the staff assistants shall include, as directed by the Committee:

• Acknowledging the receipt of correspondence and assigning tracking identifiers to pending requests and other matters;
• Tracking the status of pending matters and providing regular updates and reminders on the status of the Committee's off-wiki work to arbitrators;
• Reminding members of the Committee to vote or otherwise take action in pending matters;
• Organizing related correspondence into case files; and
• Providing similar routine administrative and clerical assistance to the Arbitration Committee.

The remit of staff assistants shall not include:

• Participating in the substantive consideration or decision of any matters before the Committee; or
• Taking non-routine actions requiring the exercise of arbitrator discretion.

To that end, upon the selection of staff assistants, the current arbcom-en mailing list shall be renamed to arbcom-en-internal, which shall continue to be accessible only by arbitrators, and a new arbcom-en email list shall be established. The subscribers to the new arbcom-en list shall be the arbitrators and staff assistants.

The Committee shall establish a process to allow editors to, in unusual circumstances following a showing of good cause, directly email a mailing list accessible only by arbitrators and not by staff assistants.

Staff assistants shall be subject to the same requirements concerning conduct and recusal as the arbitration clerk team.

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support

Oppose

1. I appreciate that Kevin put this together, and I think this would be very helpful, maybe even the most helpful, way to ensure that we stayed on top of the ball. But just because it would achieve one goal doesn't make it a good idea. A full version of my rationale is on the ArbList, for other Arbs. The short, WP:BEANS version is that this would destroy the line between us and the Foundation, which undoes much of our utility. CaptainEek ⚓ 01:22, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Per my comment on motion 4. - Aoidh (talk) 01:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
3. Might as well make it formal per my opinions elsewhere on the page. Primefac (talk) 13:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
4. I like the general idea of the WMF using its donated resources to support the community that made the donations possible. I am uncomfortable with putting WMF staff in front of ArbCom's e-mail queue, however, as this would come with unavoidable conflicts of interest and a loss of independence. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
5. The help would be useful, but the consequences would be detrimental to both ArbCom & WMF. Some space between us is necessary for ArbCom's impartiality & for the WMF's section 230 position. Cabayi (talk) 12:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Abstain

Motion 2: Arbitrator views and discussions

• I am quite open to this idea. A professional staff member assisting the committee might be the most reliable and consistent way to achieve this goal. ArbCom doesn't need the higher-intensity support that the WMF Committee Support Team provides other committees like AffCom and the grant committees, but having somebody to track threads and bump stalled discussions would be quite helpful. I'm going to wait to see if there's any community input on this motion before voting on it, though. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Motion 3: Coordinating arbitrators

The Arbitration Committee's procedures are amended by adding the following section:

Coordinating arbitrators

The Arbitration Committee shall, from time to time, designate one or more arbitrators to serve as the Committee's coordinating arbitrators.

Coordinating arbitrators shall be responsible for assisting the Committee in the routine administration and organization of its mailing list and non-public work in a similar manner as the existing arbitration clerks assist in the administration of the Committee's on-wiki work.

The specific responsibilities of coordinating arbitrators shall include:

• Acknowledging the receipt of correspondence and assigning tracking identifiers to pending requests and other matters;
• Tracking the status of pending matters and providing regular updates and reminders on the status of the Committee's off-wiki work to arbitrators;
• Reminding members of the Committee to vote or otherwise take action in pending matters;
• Organizing related correspondence into case files; and
• Performing similar routine administrative and clerical functions.

A coordinating arbitrator may, but is not required to, state an intention to abstain on some or all matters before the Committee without being listed as an "inactive" arbitrator.

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support

1. This is currently my first-choice option; we have unofficially in the past had arbitrators take on specific roles (e.g. tracking unblock requests, responding to emails, etc) and it seemed to work fairly well. Having those rules be more "official" seems like the best way to make sure someone is responsible for these things, without needing to expand the committee or the pool of people with access to private information. Primefac (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
2. I may still vote for the clerks option, but I think this is probably the minimum of what we need. Will it be suffucient...aye, there's the rub. CaptainEek ⚓ 01:14, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
3. Of the motions proposed, this one is the one I'd most support. It doesn't expand the number of people who can view the ArbCom mailing list beyond those on ArbCom, and creates a structure that may improve how the mailing list is handled. - Aoidh (talk) 23:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
4. Per Primefac. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Motion 3: Arbitrator views and discussions

• I am also open to this idea, though I am worried that it will be insufficient and haven't made up my mind on my vote yet. This idea was floated by a former arbitrator from back when the committee did have a coordinating arbitrator, though that role kind of quietly faded away. The benefits of this approach include that there's no need to bring anyone else onto the list. This motion also allows (but does not require) arbs to take a step back from active arb business to focus on the coordination role, which could help with the bifurcation I mention above. Cons include that this could be the least reliable option; that it's possible no arb is interested, or has the capacity to do this well; and that it's hard to be both a coordinator on top of the existing difficult role of serving as an active arb. I personally think this is better than nothing, but probably prefer one of the other two motions to actually add some capacity. Other ideas that have been floated include establishing a subcommittee of arbitrators responsible for these functions. My same concerns would apply there, but if there's interest, I'm glad to draft and propose a motion to do that; any other arb should also feel free to propose such a motion of their own. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
• I was partial to this idea, though it was not my first choice. I proposed that we might make it a rotating position, à la the presidency of the UN security council. Alternatively, a three person subcommittee might also be the way to go, so that the position isn't dependent on one person's activity. I like this solution in general because we already basically had it, with the coordinating arbitrator role. CaptainEek ⚓ 01:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
  • @CaptainEek: I think your last sentence actually kind of nails why I don't love this solution? From a new person on the scene, it doesn't seem to me like trying old strategies and things we've already been doing is really going to solve a chronic problem. If there are arbs who really are willing to be the coordinators, that's better than nothing, but I haven't seen any step up yet and I'm not convinced that relying on at least one arb having the extra time and trust in every committee to do this work is sustainable. I am leaning towards voting for the scriveners motion, though, because I do love a good whimsical name theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

    My concern with this is that if an arb already has the time and inclination you'd expect them to be filling the role, as has happened in the past. Simply formalizing the role doesn't help if no one has the motivation to do it. It's still the option I support the most out of those listed, though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

    I think formalizing it does move the needle on someone doing it. Two possible benefits of the formalization:

• It makes clear that this is a valuable role, one that an arb should feel is a sufficient and beneficial way to spend their time. It also communicates this to the community, which might otherwise ask an arb running for reelection why they spent their time coordinating (rather than on other arb work).
• It gives "permission" for coordinating arbs to go inactive on other business if they wish.

These two benefits make this motion more than symbolic in my view. My hesitation on it remains that it may be quite insufficient relative to motion 1. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Motion 4: Grants for correspondence clerks

In the event that "Motion 1: Correspondence clerks" passes, the Arbitration Committee shall request that the Wikimedia Foundation provide grants payable to correspondence clerks in recognition of their assistance to the Committee.

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support

Oppose

1. Misplaced Pages should remain a volunteer activity. If we cannot find volunteers to do the task, then perhaps it ought not be done in the first place. CaptainEek ⚓ 01:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
2. We should not have a clerk paid by the WMF handling English Misplaced Pages matters in this capacity. - Aoidh (talk) 01:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
3. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Abstain

Motion 4: Arbitrator views and discussions

• Proposing for discussion; thanks to voorts for the idea. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

  I am leaning no on this motion. The potential downsides of this plan do seem to outweigh the benefit of being able to compensate a correspondence clerk for what will ultimately likely be something like 5 hours a week at most. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Community discussion

Will correspondence clerks be required to sign an NDA? Currently clerks aren't. Regardless of what decision is made this should probably be in the motion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Good catch. I thought it was implied by "from among the English Misplaced Pages functionary corps" – who all sign NDAs as a condition to access functionaries-en and the CUOS tools; see Misplaced Pages:Functionaries (Functionary access requires that the user sign the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information.)  – but I've made it explicit now. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:31, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

You're right that that was there, but I missed it on my first readthrough of the rules (thinking correspondence clerks would be appointed from the clerk team instead). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Why does "coordinating arbitrators" need a (public) procedures change? Izno (talk) 18:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

As Primefac mentioned above, it seems reasonable to assume that having something written down "officially" might help make sure that the coordinating arbitrator knows what they are responsible for. In any event, it probably can't hurt. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

It is a pain in the ass to get formal procedures changed. There is an internal procedures page: I see 0 reason not to use it if you want to clarify what the role of this arbitrator is. Izno (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

On top of that, this doesn't actually change the status quo much if at all. It is almost entirely a role definition for an internal matter, given "we can make an arb a CA, but we don't have to have one" in it's "from time to time" clause. This just looks like noise to anyone reading ARBPRO who isn't on ArbCom: the public doesn't need to know this arb even exists, though they might commonly be the one responding to emails so they might get a sense there is such an arb. Izno (talk) 19:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

While I appreciate that some functionaries are open to volunteering for this role, this borders on is a part-time secretarial job and ought to be compensated as such. The correspondence clerks option combined with WMF throwing some grant money towards compensation would be my ideal. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this suggestion – I've added motion 4 to address this suggestion. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

In the first motion the word "users" in "The Committee shall establish a process to allow users to, in unusual circumstances" is confusing, it should probably be "editors". In the first and second motions, it should probably be explicit whether correspondence clerks/support staff are required, permitted or prohibited to:

• Share statistical information publicly
• Share status information (publicly or privately) with correspondents who wish to know the status of their request.
• Share status information (publicly or privately) about the status of a specific request with someone other than the correspondent.

  For this I'm thinking of scenarios like where e.g. an editor publicly says they emailed the Committee about something a while ago, and one or more other editors asks what is happening with it.

I think my preference would be for 1 or 2, as these seem likely to be the more reliable. Neither option precludes there also being a coordinating arbitrator doing some of the tasks as well. Thryduulf (talk) 18:49, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for these suggestions. I've changed "users" to "editors". The way I'm intending these motions to be read, correspondence clerks or staff assistants should only disclose information as directed by the committee. I think the details of which information should be shared upon whose request in routine cases could be decided later by the committee, with the default being "ask ArbCom before disclosing until the committee decides to approve routine disclosures in certain cases", because it's probably hard to know in advance which categories will be important to allow. I'm open to including more detail if you think that's important to include at this stage, though, and I'd welcome hearing why if so. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I see your point, but I think it worth clarifying certain things in advance before they become an issue to avoid unrealistic or mistaken expectations of the c-clerks by the community. Point 1 doesn't need to be specified in advance, maybe something like "communicating information publicly as directed by the Committee" would be useful to say in terms of expectation management or maybe it's still to specific? I can see both sides of that.

Point 2 I think is worth establishing quickly and while it is on people's minds. Waiting for the committee to make up its mind before knowing whether they can give a full response to a correspondent about this would be unfair to both the correspondent and clerk I think. This doesn't necessarily have to be before adoption, but if not it needs to be very soon afterwards.

Point 3 is similar, but c-clerks and community members knowing exactly what can and cannot be shared, and especially being able to point to something in writing about what cannot be said publicly, has the potential to reduce drama e.g. if there is another situation similar to Billed Mammal's recent case request. Thryduulf (talk) 19:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

What justification is there for the WMF to spend a single additional dollar on the workload of a project-specific committee whose workload is now demonstrably smaller than at any time in its history? (Noting here that there is a real dollar-cost to the support already being given by WMF, such as the monthly Arbcom/T&S calls that often result in the WMF accepting requests for certain activities.) And anyone who is being paid by the WMF is responsible to the WMF as the employer, not to English Misplaced Pages Arbcom.

I think Arbcom is perhaps not telling the community some very basic facts that are leading to their efforts to find someone to take responsibility for its organization, which might include "we have too many members who aren't pulling their weight" or "we have too many members who, for various reasons that don't have to do with Misplaced Pages, are inactive", or "we have some tasks that nobody really wants to do". There's no indication that any of these solutions would solve these kinds of problems, and I think that all of these issues are factors that are clearly visible to those who follow Arbcom on even an occasional basis. Arbitrators who are inactive for their own reasons aren't going to become more active because someone's organizing their mail. Arbitrators who don't care enough to vote on certain things aren't any more likely to vote if someone is reminding them to vote in a non-public forum; there's no additional peer pressure or public guilt-tripping. And if Arbcom continues to have tasks that nobody really wants to do, divest those tasks. Arbcom has successfully done that with a large number of tasks that were once its responsibility.

I think you can do a much better job of making your case. Risker (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I think there is a need to do something as poor communication and extremely slow replies, if replies are made at all, has been an ongoing issue for the committee for some time. However I agree that asking the foundation to pay someone to do it is going too far. The point that if you are paid by the foundation, you work for them and not en.wp or arbcom is a compelling one. There's also a slippery slope argument to be made in that if we're paying these people, shouldn't we pay the committee? If we're paying the committee, shouldn't we pay the arbitration clerks....and so on. Just Step Sideways 20:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I fully share Risker's concern about a paid WMF staffer who, no matter how well-intentioned, will be answerable to the WMF and not ARBCOM. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

The 2023-2024 committee is much more middle aged and has less university students and retirees, who oftentimes have more free time, than the 2016-2017 committee. -- Guerillero 08:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me that the issue of there often being some Committee members who, for whatever reason, are not "pulling their weight", is at the core of the problem to be addressed here. Because this happens "behind the scenes", the community has no way to hold anyone accountable in elections, and because of human nature and the understandable desire to maintain a collegial atmosphere within the Committee, I don't really expect any members to call out a colleague in public. I suppose there could even be a question of what happens if whoever might be filling the role proposed here nudges a member to act, but the member just disregards that. It's difficult to see how to make it enforceable. I don't have any real solutions, but this strikes me as central to the problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:31, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I think this is largely correct. I was reluctant on the committee to even note this committee's inactivity problem (worst of any 15-member arbcom ever), even though it was based on a metric that is public, when I was still on the committee. And it gets further complicated by the fact that some people not visibly active in public more than pull their weight behind the scenes - the testimonials Maxim received when running for re-election being a prime example. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

During my first term it was Roger Davies. He was barely a presence on-wiki but he kept the whole committee on point and up-to-date about what was pending. Trypto is right that it isn't enforceable, it is more a matter of applying pressure to either do the job or move oneself to the inactive list.

I also think the committee can and should be more proactive about declaring other arbs inactive even when they are otherwise present on-wiki or on the mailing list" That would probably require a procedures change, but I think it would make sense. If there is a case request, proposed decision, or other matter that requires a vote before the committee and an arb doesn't comment on it for ten days or more, they clearly don't have the time and/or inclination to do so and should be declared inactive on that matter so that their lack of action does not further delay the matter. It would be nice if they would just do so themselves, or just vote "abstain" on everything, which only takes a few minutes, but it seems it has not been happening in practice. Just Step Sideways 00:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

And Roger was a pensioner which kinda proves my point -- Guerillero 08:53, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Roger may have been a pensioner at the end of his time on the committee (7 years), but he certainly wasn't at the beginning of his term. He was co-ordinating arbitrator for a lot of that time, and did a good job without a single bit of extra software. The problem with that software is that people have to already be actively engaged to even contemplate using it. My sense is that the real issue here is the lack of engagement (whether periodic or chronic) on the part of many of the arbitrators. People who are inactive on Arbcom tasks aren't going to be active on any tasks, including reading emails asking them to do things or special software sending alerts. Simply put, if people aren't going to put Arbcom as their primary Misplaced Pages activity for the next two years, keeping in mind other life events that will likely take them away, they should not run in the first place. Yes, unexpected things happen. But I think a lot of the inactivity we've seen in the last few years involved some predictable absences that the arbs knew about when they were candidates. (Examples I've seen myself: Oh, I have a big exam to write that needs months of study; oh, I have a major life event that will require a lot of planning; oh, I'm graduating and will have to find a job.) No, I don't expect people to reveal this kind of information about themselves; yes, I do expect them to refrain from volunteering for roles that they can reasonably foresee they will have difficulty fulfilling. Risker (talk) 04:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I might as well ask a hard question. Is there a way to make public enough information for the community to be able to evaluate ArbCom candidates for (re)election, in terms of behind-the-scenes inactivity? If individual Arbs were to make public comments, that would do it, but it would also potentially be very contentious and could reduce effectiveness instead of improving it. Could ArbCom initiate a new process of posting onsite information about the processing of tasks, without revealing private information (such as: "Ban appeal 1", "Ban appeal 2", instead of "Ban appeal by "), and list those members who voted (perhaps without listing which way they voted)? Maybe do that monthly, and include all tasks that had not yet gotten a quorum. Yes, I know that's difficult. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I question an answer to the problem of "we're having trouble finding enough people to do the secretarial work we have already" being "let's create substantially more secretarial work" even accepting the premise that people would then get voted off if they didn't pull their weight. While I think that premise is correct, what this system would also encourage - even more than it already exists - is an incentive to just go along with whatever the first person (or the person who has clearly done the most homework) says. And that defeats the purpose of having a committee made up of individual thinkers. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

That's a fair point. I'll admit that, even from the outside, I sometimes see members who appear to wait to see which way the wind is blowing before voting on proposed decisions. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

That's something that's hard to know or verify, even for the other arbs. The arbs only know what the other arbs tell them, and I've never seen anyone admit to that. Just Step Sideways 23:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the timing for this is wrong. The committee is about to have between 6 and 9 new members (depending on whether Guerillero, Eek, and Primefac get re-elected). In addition it seems likely that some number of former arbs are about to rejoin the committee. This committee - basically the committee with the worst amount of active membership of any 15 member committee ever - seems like precisely the wrong one to be making large changes to ongoing workflows in December. Izno's idea of an easier to try and easier to change/abandon internal procedure for the coordinating arb feels like something appropriate to try now. The rest feel like it should be the prerogative of the new committee to decide among (or perhaps do a different change altogether). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Kevin can correct me if I'm wrong, but I assumed he was doing this now because he will not be on the committee a month from now.

That being said it could be deliberately held over, or conversely, possibly fall victim to the inactivity you mention and still be here for the new committee to decide. Just Step Sideways 23:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Since WP:ACE2024 elections are currently taking place it makes sense to have the incoming arbitrators weigh in on changes like this. They are the ones that will be affected by any of these motions passing rather than the outgoing arbitrators. - Aoidh (talk) 00:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh I assumed that's why he was doing it also. I am also assuming he's doing it to try and set up the future committees for success. That doesn't change my point about why this is the wrong time and why a different way of trying the coordinator role (if it has support) would be better. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Regarding "timing is wrong": I think you both would agree that these are a long time coming – we have been working on these and related ideas for years (I ran on a related idea in 2022). I do think there's never quite a good time. Very plausibly, the first half of the year is out because the new arbs will need that time to learn how the processes work and think about what kinds of things should be changed vs. kept the same. And then it might be another few months as the new ArbCom experiments with less-consequential changes like the ones laid about at the top: technological solutions, trying new ways of tracking stuff, etc., before being confident in the need for something like set out above. And then things get busy for other reasons; there will be weeks or even occasionally months when the whole committee is overtaken by some urgent situation. I've experienced a broadly similar dynamic a few times now; this is all to say that there's just not much time or space in the agenda for this kind of stuff in a one-year cycle, which would be a shame because I do think this is important to take on.
I do think that it should be the aspiration of every year's committee to leave the succeeding committee some improvements in the functioning of the committee based on lessons learned that year, so it would be nice to leave the next committee with this. That said, if arbitrators do feel that we should hold this over to the new committee, I'm not really in a position to object – as JSS says, this is my last year on the committee, so it's not like this will benefit me. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it's entirely possible for the new committee to have a sense of what it wants workload wise by February-April and so it's wrong to just rule out the first half of the year. By the end of the first six months of the year that you and I started (and which JSS was a sitting member on) we'd made a number of changes to how things were done. Off the top of my head I can name the structure of cases and doing quarterly reports of private appeals as two but there were others. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Here's what I'll leave you with overall. What you may see as a downside – these proposals being voted on relatively late in the year – I see as a significant possible upside. Members of this committee are able to draw on at least eleven months' experience as arbitrators in deciding what is working well and what might warrant change – experience which is important in determining what kinds of processes and systems lead to effective and ineffective outcomes. That experience is important: Although I have served on ArbCom for four years and before that served as an ArbCom clerk for almost six years, I still learn more every year about what makes this committee click. If what really concerns you is locking in the new committee to a particular path, as I wrote above, I'm very open to structuring this as a trial run that will end of its own accord unless the committee takes action to make it permanent. This would ensure that the new committee retains full control over whether to continue, discontinue, or adapt these changes. But in my book, it does not make sense to wait. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• As a 3-term former arb and a 3-term current ombuds commissioner, I've had experience of about a dozen Wikimedia committee "new intakes". I am quite convinced that these proposals are correctly timed. Process changes are better put in place prior to new appointees joining, so that they are not joining at a moment of upheaval. Doing them late in the day is not objectionable and momentum often comes at the end of term. If the changes end up not working (doubtful), the new committee would just vote to tweak the process or go back. I simply do not understand the benefit of deferring proposals into a new year, adding more work to the next year's committee. That surely affects the enthusiasm and goodwill of new members. As for the point that the '24 committee is understaffed and prone to indecision: argumentum ad hominem. If Kevin's proposals work, they work. If anything, it might be more difficult to agree administrative reforms when the committee is back at full staff. arcticocean ■ 15:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  If these pass now you will have new members join at a moment of upheaval as anything proposed here will still be in its infancy when the new members join (even if we pretend the new members are joining Jan 1 rather than much sooner given that results are in and new members tend to be added to the list once the right boxes are checked). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  You're right. And it's important to be realistic: any proposal would be under implementation for several months, so say from December through February. Would that be so bad? Any change will disrupt, in the sense that a few people need to spend time implementing it and everyone else needs to learn the new process. But waiting until later in the year causes even more disruption: members have to first learn an 'old' process and then learn the changes you're making to it… New member enthusiasm is also a keen force that could help to push through the changes. arcticocean ■ 16:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  I think new member enthusiasm is part of why I think this lame duck hobbled committee is the wrong one to do it. I have high hopes for next year's group and think they would be in a better place to come up with the right solution for them. And as I noted to Kevin above this isn't hypothetical - the year we both started as arbs we made a lot of process and procedure changes in the first six months. It was a great thing to funnel that new arb energy into because I was bought into what we were doing rather than trying to make something work that I had no say in and that the existing members had no experience with. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  While I think a solution such as adopting ZenDesk is something that could face objections, personally I think the idea of having someone track a list of work items for a committee is a pretty standard way of working (including pushing for timely resolution, something that really needs a person, not just a program). From an outsider's perspective, it's something I'd expect. It doesn't matter to non-arbitrators who does the tracking, so the committee should feel free to change that decision internally as often as it feels is effective. I'd rather there be a coordinating arbitrator in place in the interim until another solution is implemented, than have no one tracking work items in the meantime. isaacl (talk) 19:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Just to double check that I'm reading motion 1 correctly, it would still be possible to email the original list (for arbitrators only) if, for example, you were raising a concern about something the correspondence clerks should not be privy to (ie: misuse of tools by a functionary), correct? Granted, I think motion 3 is probably the simpler option here, but in the event motion 1 passes, is the understanding I wrote out accurate? EggRoll97 02:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@EggRoll97 Yes, but probably only after an additional step. The penultimate paragraph of motions 1 and 2 says The Committee shall establish a process to allow editors to, in unusual circumstances following a showing of good cause, directly email a mailing list accessible only by arbitrators and not by correspondence clerks . No details are given about what this process would be, but one possibility would I guess be something like contacting an individual arbitrator outlining clearly why you think the c-clerks should not be privy to whatever it is. If they agree they'll tell you how to submit your evidence (maybe they'll add your email address to a temporary whitelist). Thryduulf (talk) 03:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

In my experience working on committees and for non-profits, typically management is much more open to offering money for software solutions that they are told can resolve a problem than agreeing to pay additional compensation for new personnel. Are you sure there isn't some tracking solution that could resolve some of these problems? Liz 07:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

In our tentative discussions with WMF, it sounded like it would be much more plausible to get a 0.1-0.2 FTE of staffer time than it would to get us 15 ZenDesk licenses, which was also somewhat surprising to me. That wasn't a firm response – if we went back and said we really need this, I'm guessing it'd be plausible. And we've never asked about compensating c-clerks – that was an idea that came from Voorts's comment above, and I proposed it for discussion, not because I necessarily support it but because I think it's worth discussion, and I certainly don't think it's integral to the c-clerk proposal. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 15:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, offering compensation for on-wiki tasks would be breaking new ground for the project. I do wonder though about the possibility of securing former arbitrators for these correspondent clerks' positions. It sounds like all of the work of an arbitrator (or more) without any ability to influence the results. I don't know if we'd have many interested and eligible parties. How many clerks would you think would be necessary? One? Or 3 or 4? Liz 21:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, these are great questions. Responses to your points:

• On volunteers: As I wrote above, four functionaries (including three former arbs) expressed initial-stage interest when this was floated when I consulted functionaries – which is great and was a bit unexpected, and which is why I wrote it up this way. Arbitrators will know that my initial plan from previous months/years did not involve limiting this to functionaries, to have a broader pool of applicants. But since we do have several interested functs, and they are already trusted to hold NDA'd private information (especially the former arbs who have previously been elected to access to this very list), I thought this would be a good way to make this a more uncontroversial proposal.
• How many to appoint? I imagine one or two if it was up to me. One would be ideal (I think it's like 30 minutes of work per day ish, max), but two for redundancy might make a lot of sense. I don't think it's all of the work of an arbitrator (or more) without any ability to influence the results – because the c-clerk would be responsible for tracking matters, not actually attempting to resolve them, that's a lot less work than serving as an arb. It does require more consistency than most arbs have to put in, though.
• On compensating: Yeah, I'm not sure I'll end up supporting the idea, but I don't think it's unprecedented in the sense that you're thinking. Correspondence clerks aren't editing; none of the tasks listed in the motion require on-wiki edits. And there are plenty of WMF grants that have gone to off-wiki work for the benefit of projects; the first example I could think of was m:Grants:Programs/Wikimedia Community Fund/Rapid Fund/UTRS User Experience Development (ID: 22215192) but I know there are many.

Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I am quite confused, I often read arbs saying most of ArbCom work is behind-the-scenes work. But is all this behind-the-scenes work essentially just a one-person 30-minute-a-day work? If so, the solution here is that more arbs should simply pull their weight, which Motion 3 helps. I don't think WMF would pay someone to work 30 minutes a day either. Kenneth Kho (talk) 07:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

But is all this behind-the-scenes work essentially just a one-person 30-minute-a-day work?. No, the actual work takes a lot more time and effort because each arb has to read, understand and form opinions on many different things, and the committee needs to discuss most of those things, which will often re-reading and re-evaluating based on the points raised. Then in many cases there needs to be a vote. What the "one-person, 30 minutes a day" is referring to is just the meta of what tasks are open, what the current status of it is, who needs to opine on it, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 11:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I realized I misunderstood it. I see that this is a relatively lightweight proposal, perhaps it could work but it probably won't help much either.

@L235 I have been thinking of splitting ArbCom into Public ArbCom and Private ArbCom. I see Public ArbCom as being able to function without the tools as @Worm That Turned advocated, focused more on complex dispute resolution. I see Private ArbCom as high-trust roles with NDAs, privy to WMF and overseeing Public ArbCom. Both ArbComs are elected separately as 15-members bodies, and both will be left with about half the current authority and responsibility. Kenneth Kho (talk) 01:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Thryduulf is right; I think Kevin meant that the tracking itself might be a 30 minute a day activity. But it has to happen consistently, and with a high catch rate. It also has to happen on top of our usual Arb work, which for me already averages a good ten hours a week, but can be more than twenty hours in the busy times. And I, like the other arbs, already have a full time job and a life outside Misplaced Pages. I don't like the idea of splitting ArbCom in twain, nor do I think it could be achieved. CaptainEek ⚓ 02:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree, having someone managing the work could really help smooth things out. Kenneth Kho (talk) 11:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

My first thought is that cleanly splitting arbcom would be very difficult. For example what happens if there is an open public case and two-thirds of the way through the evidence phase someone discovers and wishes to submit private evidence? Thryduulf (talk) 02:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree, the split won't be entirely clean. I'm thinking Public ArbCom would narrowly remand part of the case to Private ArbCom if it finds that the private evidence is likely to materially affect the outcome. Kenneth Kho (talk) 11:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

How will public know whether the private evidence will materially affect the outcome without seeing the private evidence? Secondly, how will private arbcom determine whether it materially affects the outcome without reviewing all the public evidence and thus duplicating public arbcom's work (and thus also negating the workload benefits of the split)? What happens if public and private arbcom come to different conclusions about the same public evidence? Thryduulf (talk) 11:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

You raised good points that I did not address. I think that a way to do this would be to follow how Oversighters have the authority to override Admins that they use sparingly. Private ArbCom could have the right to receive any private evidence regarding an ongoing case on Public ArbCom, and Private ArbCom will have discretions to override Public ArbCom remedies without explanation other than something like "per private evidence". Private ArbCom would need to familiarize themselves with the case a bit, but this is mitigated by the fact that they only concerned with the narrow parts. Private ArbCom could have the authority to take the whole Public ArbCom case private if it deems that private evidence affect many parties. Kenneth Kho (talk) 11:55, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

12 candidates for 9 open seats is sufficient. But it hardly suggests we have so many people that we could support 30 people (even presuming some additional people would run under the split). Further, what happens behind the scenes already strains the trust of the community. But at least the community can see the public actions as a reminder of "well this person hasn't lost it completely while on ArbCom". I think it would be much harder to sustain trust under this split. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I honestly like the size of 12-member committee, too many proverbial cooks spoil the proverbial broth. I did think about the trust aspect, as the community has been holding ArbCom under scrutiny, but at the same time I consider that the community has been collegial with Bureaucrats, Checkusers, Oversighters. Private ArbCom would be far less visible, with Public ArbCom likely taking the heat for contentious decisions. Kenneth Kho (talk) 11:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with L235 regarding whether this is all the work and none of the authority: it does not come with all the responsibility that being an Arb comes with either. This role does not need to respond to material questions or concerns about arbitration matters and does not need to read and weigh the voluminous case work to come to a final decision. The c-clerk will need to keep up on emails and will probably need to have an idea of what's going on in public matters, but that was definitely not the bulk of the (stressful?) work of an arbitrator. Izno (talk) 00:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

@Liz well that's what I thought. I figured that ZenDesk was the winningest solution, until the Foundation made it seem like ZenDesk licenses were printed on gold bars. We did do some back of the envelope calculations, and it is decidedly expensive. Still...I have a hard time believing those ZenDesk licenses really cost more than all that staff time. I think we'll have to do some more convincing of the Foundation on that front, or implement a different solution. CaptainEek ⚓ 01:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I touched upon the idea of using former arbitrators to do administrative tasks on the arbitration committee talk page, and am also pleasantly surprised to hear there is some interest. I think this approach may be the most expeditious way to put something in place at least for the interim. (On a side note, I urge people not to let the term "c-clerk" catch on. It sounds like stuttering, or someone not good enough to be an A-level clerk. More importantly, it would be quite an obscure jargon term.) isaacl (talk) 23:18, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

To that end, upon the first appointment of correspondence clerks, the current arbcom-en mailing list shall be renamed to arbcom-en-internal, which shall continue to be accessible only by arbitrators, and a new arbcom-en email list shall be established. The subscribers to the new arbcom-en list shall be the arbitrators and correspondence clerks.

Something I raised in the functionary discussion was that this doesn't make sense to me. What is the basis for this split here? Izno (talk) 00:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I assumed it was so that the clerks would only see the incoming email and not be privy to the entire commitee's comments on the matter. While all functionaries and arbs sign the same NDA, operating on a need to know basis is not at all uncommon in groups that deal with sensitive information. When I worked for the census we had to clear our debriefing room of literally everything because it was being used the next day by higher-ups from Washington who were visiting. They outranked all of us by several orders of mgnitude, but they had no reason to be looking at the non-anonymized personal data we had lying all over the place.

Conversely it would spare the clerks from having their inboxes flooded by every single arb comment, which as you know can be quite voluminous. Just Step Sideways 00:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

And it would also prevent them from seeing information related to themselves or something they should actively recuse on. Thryduulf (talk) 01:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

This suggested rationale doesn't hold water: someone with an issue with a c-clerk or where they may need to recuse should just follow the normal process for an issue with an arb: to whit, kicking off arbcom-b for a private discussion. Izno (talk) 01:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I was thinking of material from before they were appointed, e.g. if there was a discussion involving the actions of user:Example in November and they become a c-clerk in December, they shouldn't be able to see the discussion even if the only comments were that the allegations against them are obviously ludicrous. I appreciate I didn't make this clear though. Thryduulf (talk) 02:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Making arbcom-en a "firewall" from the arb deliberations would inhibit the c-clerk from performing the duties listed in the motion. I cannot see how it would be workable for them to remind arbs to do the thing the electorate voluntold them to do if the c-clerk cannot see whether they have done those things (e.g. coming to a conclusion on an appeal), and would add to the overhead of introducing this secretarial position (email comes in, c-clerk forwards to -internal, arbs discussion on -internal, come to conclusion, send an email back to -en, which the c-clerk then actions back to the user on arbcom-en). This suggested rationale also does not hold water to me. Izno (talk) 01:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Apologies – if this was the interpretation, that's bad drafting on my part. The sole intention is that the new correspondence clerks won't see the past arbcom-en archives, which were emails sent to the committee on the understanding that only arbitrators would see those emails. C clerks will see everything that's newly sent on arbcom-en, including all deliberations held on arbcom-en, with the exception of anything that is so sensitive that the committee feels the need to restrict discussion to arbitrators (this should be fairly uncommon but covers the recusal concern above in a similar way as discussions about arbs who recuse sometimes get moved to arbcom-en-b). The C clerks will need to be able to see deliberations to be able to track pending matters and ensure that balls aren't being dropped, which could not happen unless they had access to the discussions – this is a reasonable "need to know" because they are fulfilling a function that is hard to combine with serving as an active arbitrator. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, I clearly totally misread your intent there. I.... don't think I like the idea that unelected clerks can see everything the committee is doing. Just Step Sideways 03:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, I oppose splitting arbcom-en a second time -- Guerillero 10:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Regarding 1.4, I think arbcom-en and -c are good ones for a c-clerk to have access to. -b probably doesn't need access ever, as it's used exclusively for work with recusals attached to it, which should be small enough for ArbCom to manage itself in the addition of a c-clerk. (This comment in private elicited the slight rework L235 made to the motion.) Izno (talk) 06:08, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

What does this mean – when was the first time? arcticocean ■ 15:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@Arcticocean: In 2018, arbcom-l became arbcom-en and the archives are in two different places. -- Guerillero 18:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Appointing one of the sitting arbitrators as "Coordinating Arbitrator" (motion 3) would be my recommended first choice of solution. We had a Coordinating Arbitrator—a carefully chosen title, as opposed to something like "Chair"—for a few years some time ago. It worked well, although it was not a panacea, and I frankly don't recollect why the coordinator role was dropped at some point. If there is a concern about over-reliance or over-burden on any one person, the role could rotate periodically (although I would suggest a six-month term to avoid too much time being spent on the mechanics of selecting someone and transitioning from one coordinator to the next). At any given time there should be at least one person on a 15-member Committee with the time and the skill-set to do the necessary record-keeping and nudging in addition to arbitrating, and this solution would avoid the complications associated with bringing another person onto the mailing list. I think there would be little community appetite for involving a WMF staff member (even one who is or was also an active Wikipedian) in the Committee's business; and if we are going to set the precedent of paying someone to handle tasks formerly handled by volunteers, with all due respect to the importance of ArbCom this is not where I would start. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:32, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Regarding little community appetite – that is precisely why we are inviting community input here on this page, as one way to assess how the community feels about the various options. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I also like the idea of an arb or two taking on this role more than another layer of clerks. I'm sure former arbs would be great at it but the committee needs to handle its own internal business. Just Step Sideways 03:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it is ideal for the arbitration committee to track its own work items and prompt its members for timely action, and may have written this some time ago on-wiki. However... years have passed now, and the arbitration committee elections aren't well-suited to selecting arbitrators with the requisite skill set (even if recruitment efforts were made, the community can only go by the assurance of the candidate regarding the skills they possess and the time they have available). So I think it's worth looking at the option of keeping an arbitrator involved in an emeritus position if they have shown the aptitude and availability to help with administration. This could be an interim approach, until another solution is in place (maybe there can be more targeted recruiting of specific editors who, by their ongoing Misplaced Pages work, have demonstrated availability and tracking ability). isaacl (talk) 18:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

2 and 4 don't seem like very good ideas to me. For 2, I think we need to maintain a firm distinction between community and WMF entities, and not do anything that even looks like blending them together. For 4, every time you involve money in something, you multiply your potential problems by a factor of at least ten (and why should that person get paid, when other people who contribute just as much time doing other things don't, and when, for that matter, even the arbs themselves don't?). For 1, I could see that being a good idea, to take some clerical/"grunt work" load off of ArbCom and give them more time for, well, actually arbitrating, and functionaries will all already have signed the NDA. I don't have any problem with 3, but don't see why ArbCom can't just do it if they want to; all the arbs already have access to the information in question so it's not like someone is being approved to see it who can't already. Seraphimblade 01:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: Following up on your comments on motion 1, depending on which aspect of the proposed job one wanted to emphasize, you could also consider "amanuensis," "registrar," or "receptionist." (The best on-wiki title in my opinion, though we now are used to it so the irony is lost, will always be "bureaucrat"; I wonder who first came up with that one.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Or "cat-herder". --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Following parliamentary tradition, perhaps "whip". (Less whimsically: "recording secretary".) isaacl (talk) 00:31, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad:, if memory serves @Keegan: knows who came up with it, and as I recall the story was that they wanted to come up with the most boring, unappealing name they could so not too many people would be applying for it all the time. Just Step Sideways 05:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

So, just to usher in a topic-specific discussion because it has been alluded to many times without specifics being given, what was the unofficial position of ArbCom coordinator like? Who held this role? How did it function? Were other arbitrators happy with it? Was the Coordinator given time off from other arbitrator responsibilities? I assume this happened when an arbitrator just assumed the role but did it have a more formal origin? Did it end because no one wanted to pick up the responsibility? Questions, questions. Liz 06:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I cannot speak for anything but my term. I performed this role for about 1.5 years of the 2 I was on the committee. To borrow an email I sent not long before I stepped off that touches on the topics in this whole set of motions (yes, this discussion isn't new):

• Daily, ~20 minutes: went into the list software and tagged the day's incoming new email chains with a label (think "upe", "duplicate", etc).
• Daily, ~10 minutes: took care of any filtered emails on the list (spam and not-spam).
• Monthly, 1-2 hours: trawled the specific categories of tags since the beginning of the month to add to an arbwiki page for tracking for "needs to get done". Did the inverse also (removed stuff from tracking that seemed either Done or Stale).
• Monthly, 15 minutes to prep: sent an email with a direct list of the open appeals and a reminder about the "needs doing" stuff (and a few months I highlighted a topic or two that were easy wins). This built off the daily work in a way that would be a long time if it were all done monthly instead of daily.

I was also an appeals focused admin, which had further overhead here that I would probably put in the responsibility of this kind of arb. Other types of arbs probably had similar things they would have wanted to do this direction but I saw very little of such. Daily for this effort, probably another 15 minutes or so:

• I copy-pasted appeal metadata from new appeals email to arbwiki
• Started countdown timers for appeals appearing to be at consensus
• Sent "easy" boilerplate emails e.g. "we got this appeal, we may be in touch" or "no way Jose you already appealed a month ago"
• Sent results for the easy appeals post-countdown timer and filled in relevant metadata (easy appeals here usually translated to "declined" since this was the quick-n-easy daily work frame, not the long-or-hard daily work frame)

(End extract from referenced email.) This second set is now probably a much-much lighter workload with the shedding of most CU appeals this year (which was 70% of the appeals by count during my term), and I can't say how much of this second group would be in the set of duties depending on which motion is decided above (or if even none of the motions are favored by the committee - you can see I've advocated for privately documenting the efforts of coordinating arbs rather than publicly documenting them regarding 3, and it wouldn't take much to get me to advocate against 2 and 4, I just know others can come to the right-ish conclusion on those two already; I'm pretty neutral on 1).

Based on the feedback I got as I was going out the door, it was appreciated. I did see some feedback that this version of the role was insufficiently personal to each arb. The tradeoff for doing something more personalized to each other arb is either time or software (i.e. money). I did sometimes occasionally call out when other members had not yet chimed in on discussions. That was ad hoc and mostly focused on onwiki matters (case votes particularly), but occasionally I had to name names when doing appeals work because the arbs getting to the appeal first were split. In general the rest of the committee didn't name names (which touches on some discussion above). I think some arbs appreciated seeing their name in an email when they were needed.

I was provided no formal relief from other matters. But as I discussed with one arb during one of the stressful cases of the term, I did provide relief informally for the duration of that case to that person for the stuff I was interested in, so I assume that either I in fact had no relief from other matters, or that I had relief but didn't know it (and just didn't ask for anyone else to do it - since I like to think I had it well enough in hand). :-) The committee is a team effort and not everyone on the team has the same skills, desire, or time to see to all other matters. (The probing above about arbs being insufficiently active is a worthwhile probe, to be certain.) To go further though, I definitely volunteered to do this work. Was it necessary work? I think so. I do not know what would have happened if I had not been doing it. (We managed to hit only one public snag related to timeliness during my term, which I count as a win; opinions may differ.)

There is no formal origin to the role that I know of. Someone else with longer committee-memory would have to answer whether all/recent committees have had this type, and who they were, and why if not.

I don't know how much of what I did lines up with what L235 had in mind proposing these motions. I do not think the work I did covers everything listed in the motions laid out. (I don't particularly need clarification on the point - it's a matter that will fall out in post-motion discussion.) Izno (talk) 08:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

The original announcement of the Coordinating Arbitrator position was here. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Archive zero: I love it! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Interestingly, that announcement also repeated the announcement at the top of the archive page that a departing arbitrator continued to assist the committee by co-ordinating the mailing list: acknowledging incoming emails and responding to senders with questions about them, and tracking issues to ensure they are resolved. So both a co-ordinator (plus a deputy!) and an arbitrator emeritus. isaacl (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

former arbitrator will continue to coordinate the ArbCom mailing list. was probably a statement along the lines of "knows how to deal with Mailman". And I think you're getting that role mixed up with the actual person doing the work management: the Arbitration Committee has decided to appoint one of its sitting arbitrators to act as coordinator (emphasis mine). Izno (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Obviously I have no personal knowledge of what ended up happening. I just listed the responsibilities as described at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 0 § Improving ArbCom co-ordination. I'm not sure what I'm getting mixed up; all I said is that a co-ordinator and deputy were appointed, and that a former arbitrator was said to be co-ordinating the mailing list. It's certainly possible the split of duties changed from the first post in the archive. isaacl (talk) 00:01, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I see that now. Izno (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I think I agree with Izno regarding the coordinating arbitrator role. There's no problem letting the community that the role exists, but I don't think it's necessary for the role's responsibilities to be part of the public-facing guarantees being made to the community. If the role needs to expand, shrink, split into multiple roles, or otherwise change, the committee should feel free to just do it as needed. The committee has the flexibility to organize itself as it best sees fit. isaacl (talk) 23:36, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I think this is the right approach. It doesn't need to be advertised who is coordinating activity on the mailing list, it just needs to get done. If it takes two people, fine, if they do it for six months and say they want out of the role, ask somebody else to do it. And so on. Just Step Sideways 23:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

For instance, I don't think it's necessary to codify whether or not the coordinating arbitrator role is permanent. Just put a task on the schedule to review how the role is working out in nine months, and then modify the procedure accordingly as desired. isaacl (talk) 23:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

One exception: the first bullet point regarding responding to communications and assigning a tracking identifier does involve the committee's interactions with the community. I feel, though, that for flexibility these guarantees can be made without codifying who does them, from the community's point of view. (It's fine of course to make them part of the coordinating arbitrator's tasks.) isaacl (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Izno, this actually sounds like a helluva lot of work, maybe not minute-wise but mental, keeping track of everything so requests don't fall through the cracks. I think anyone assuming this role should get a break from, say, drafting ARBCOM cases if nothing else. Liz 03:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

It might be a lot of work, but it wasn't the bulk of the work, even for the work that I was doing. There was a lot more steps to being the appeal-focused admin above. Izno (talk) 04:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

You made me laugh, Liz. That sounds like my normal start-of-day routine, to be accompanied by a cup of tea and, perhaps, a small breakfast. I'd expect most arbitrators to be reading the mail on a daily basis, unless they are inactive for some reason; the difference here is the tagging/flagging of messages and clearing the filters, which probably adds about 10-12 minutes. I'll simply say that any arb who isn't prepared to spend 30-45 minutes/day reading emails probably shouldn't be an arb. That's certainly a key part of the role. Risker (talk) 04:43, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

+1. In my thoughts to potential candidates I said an hour a day for emails but that included far more appeals than the committee gets now. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Never mind reading emails, the bulk of my private ArbCom time was spent on processing them: doing checks, reporting results, and otherwise responding to other work. You can get away with just reading internal emails, but it's going to surprise your fellow arbs if you don't pipe up with some rational thought when you see the committee thinking about something personally objectionable and the first time they hear about it is when motions have been posted and are waiting for votes. Izno (talk) 06:17, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Right now, I check my email account about once a week. I guess that will change if I'm elected to the committee. It would have helped to hear all of these details before the election. Liz 08:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

My hour included time to respond to emails, though I also note you're not going particularly deep on anything with that time (at least when ArbCom had more appeals). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages arbitration
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution
• Misplaced Pages Arbitration Committee