Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Akhilleus (talk | contribs) at 23:46, 2 December 2007 (→Statement by uninvolved []: restore my comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:46, 2 December 2007 by Akhilleus (talk | contribs) (→Statement by uninvolved []: restore my comment)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Weighing scales Arbitration​Committee
Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Misplaced Pages Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes
Shortcuts

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:

Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 21 Dec 2024 11 Jan 2025
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions
Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024

Current requests

Tokelau

Initiated by Jose João 20:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC) at 20:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

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

Statement by Perspicacite

I have been in almost constant conflict with Alice.S since a dispute on Tokelau back in October. Since then I have been stalked onto any at least ten other pages - Rhodesia, Angolan Civil War, and Barings Bank collapse to name a few. Informal attempts at mediation by John and a few others have failed. I believe she has violated virtually every Wiki policy; WP:STALK, WP:VAND, WP:SOCK, WP:POINT, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, and WP:ENGVAR. When confronted with diffs she has feigned inexperience or tried to dismiss the evidence by spamming talkpages. She has said repeatedly she wants to take this to arbitration so fine, let’s have arbitration. Jose João 20:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Alice.S

Statement by Guy

Just a quick note; this has been discussed several times at the admin noticeboard, I am not sure what other form of dispute resolution the warring parties would accept. It does seem to be bilateral, with some fault on both sides.

see also:

I have a suspicion that the admin community views this as a case of "a plague on both your houses" but I may be misremembering or misrepresenting there. Guy (Help!) 12:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/1/0/0)


RodentofDeath

Initiated by John254 at 20:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/RodentofDeath.

Statement by John254

As described on Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/RodentofDeath, RodentofDeath operates a single purpose account for the purpose of editing Angeles City and prostitution-related pages, and has engaged in repeated, blatant WP:NPOV violations, contentious editing, edit warring, and personal attacks. Furthermore, I regard RodentofDeath's username as inappropriate and threatening. While many established users at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/RodentofDeath have described RodentofDeath's behavior as highly disruptive, there are no statements favorable to RodentofDeath endorsed by anyone except RodentofDeath himself. John254 20:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by MER-C

I could understand the concerns about this following the RFC so quickly but this, yesterday shows that he still hasn't got the message and that the RFC has probably failed. MER-C 02:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by {party 2}

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/1)


Dbachmann

Initiated by futurebird at 19:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  1. futurebird 19:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  2. Dbachmann
  3. Ramdrake 15:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. John Carter 18:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I also let the other users who were involved in the RfC know.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • here he refuses a scheme aimed at resolving edit-warring on the Afrocentrism page.
  • here he is being warned his comments have been taken off the page for being uncivil.

Statement by futurebird

Dbachmann has been condescending to me and to other users: , , , During a talk page argument at Afrocentricity over material Dbachmann deteled from the article, Dbachmann posted a link to a nearly two year old case on deeceevoice in order to "shame" her. Later Dbachmann openly asked another admin to look in to a block for him. (see: , ) He said that he could not do it himself because of his own incivility. Although he did not use his admin powers directly, he used his influence as an admin, his long standing membership in the community, and his reputation for making many positive contributions to take out his anger on another user. The user was initially blocked for a year for actions that are at worst on par with Dbachmann's actions and, in the opinion of a fair number of users, not even as egregious. (the block was first reduced, then lifted. since so many users objected) I am concerned about what appears to be an unfair double standard as well as Dbachmann's unwillingness to engage in any form of mediation to help bring this matter to a healthy close.

Response to Debachmann

A few questions since you do not understand what the problem is.

  1. Do you think deeceevoice was blocked fairly?
  2. Do you take any responsibility for her being blocked?
  3. Is there anything that you might have done differently when editing the Afrocentricity article, or do you think you will continue to do such things in the future? futurebird 19:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
this is a request for arbitration. If you want my opinion on deeceevoice or any other topic, pray come to my talkpage. dab (𒁳) 19:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
You didn't respond to this in the RfC. I think we need outside help here at this point. futurebird 19:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
responsibility for the block lies with the blocking admin. As an involved party, I obviously was in no position to block her, but if I had been uninvolved, I might hypothetically have considered blocking her under her probation clause, yes. The Afrocentrism article needs more no-nonsense admin intervention enforcing strict adherence to policy, viz., less drama, more focus on encyclopedic content. Personally, I do not plan to invest much further effort in the article. dab (𒁳) 20:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Dbachmann

I have been notified of this. Beyond violation of Misplaced Pages:Mild condescension, I find it difficult to understand what I am accused of. See User_talk:Dbachmann#WP:CEM for my (patient, civil, but mildly annoyed) replies to futurebird's complaints. I am not aware of any complaints regarding "abuse of power". On the RfC page, we can read futurebird arguing that

"although he did not use his admin powers directly, he used his influence as an admin, his long standing membership in the community, and his reputation for making many positive contributions to take out his anger on another user. That is abuse of power."

well, this is my understanding of Misplaced Pages as a meritocracy. I am being accused of being a veteran editor in excellent standing, then, and, indirectly, of the fact that Deeceevoice's standing isn't all that excellent? That's a rather astounding feat of rhetorics then... According to this line of argument, we should conclude that we should offer positive discrimination to slashdot trolls, because, hey, their reputation as trolls gives them considerable disadvantage in getting their voice heard on Misplaced Pages. If the arbcom decides to consider this case, I would like to include Bakasuprman (talk · contribs) as a party, who took the opportunity of the RfC under discussion to continue his year-old (actually, biannarian) campaign of harassment against me. I do not feel I simply have to silently accept protracted campaigns of character assassination. If I have not protested against this harassment before, that is because I did never think it worth the effort. dab (𒁳) 19:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I never net Bakasuprman untill the RfC, I don't know why it would be a problem to inculde him, though I fear it may muddy the waters. (ie. I don't object, but I do wonder if that matter should not be treated separately? I leave it to arbcom members to make the choice) futurebird 20:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I note you endorsed his muddying the waters with his undead 2005 harassment campaign as long as it seemed to make me look bad. Whatever serves your cause, eh? dab (𒁳) 20:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that, Dbachmann, I just found that old first comment he linked to so offensive that it was hard not to respond. I did even at the time note that I thought it was a rather old comment to bring up. I suppose I felt it was "fair" because of the way that you brought up deeceevoice's old arbcom case. But you are right: it was wrong of me to get caught up in a game of tit-for-tat over old comments. In fact, that is why, when I asked you to try mediation with me, I said that I didn't want to talk about things you said way back in 2005. What concerns me are these recent events. futurebird 20:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

(To:Futurebird), While Dab, in his oft-quoted "first comment," may not have made the best choice of words, he was really trying to grapple there with something that other observers of India have noted, for example in India: A Million Mutinies Now or The Argumentative Indian, namely the emergence, in the public discourse in India, of myriad forms of cultural, regional, national, religious, or linguistic chauvinism. Chauvinism that is not only a far cry from Gandhi, but is often also lacking even the veneer of attendant politeness that might have been seen, say, in a Lincoln-Douglas Debate or a Huxley-Wilberforce Debate. When those dynamics play themselves out in a Misplaced Pages edit war, it becomes difficult for an administrator to make sense of them, much less fix them. When I myself arrived on Misplaced Pages a little over a year ago, many India-related pages were rife with such wars and warriors, and I can still conjure up, with a shiver, the first time a number of such warriors arrived — out of the blue and all at once — on a page I was editing and, without the courtesies of coherent edit-summaries, proceeded to ambush me. During the last twelve months alone, ArbCom has examined these issues at least four times in the cases of Hkelkar, user:Bharatveer, user:Freedom skies, and Hkelkar2 (please read the statement of Aksi great there.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Folantin

I will add more later if necessary, but I think this case should be thrown out as a waste of time. I would certainly like to note that Futurebird's statement at the top of this RfAr is false: "I also let the other users who were involved in the RfC know." I was involved in the RfC and I have not been informed. The users Futurebird has informed all seem to share a similar point of view to hers. --Folantin 20:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm really sorry. I didn't know I was meant to do everyone on the page, I used the list at the top and added JJJamal becuase I mentioned him. Crap. I really didn't mean to do that I'll inform everyone else right now. I've never done this before. futurebird 20:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, explanation accepted. This isn't an issue any more and Arb should ignore it. I still think this case is a waste of everybody's time but if it does go ahead and incivility and other policy violations are to be investigated then I think User:Deeceevoice should come in for some scrutiny, especially in the light of this ANI discussion from mid-November (very top of page) which strangely ended in no sanction against her whatsoever. She has a long-term history of disruption, but seems to have been extended unlimited credit to accuse other editors of racism and fascism at will and generally act rancorously. Her understanding of WP:SOAPBOX is probably pretty rickety too. As for the other commenters at the RfC, I second Moreschi's suggestion regarding Bakaman. The mysterious single purpose account User:Xyzisequation was indefinitely banned half way through the RfC for harrassment, but it might be interesting to run a "check user" on that one. --Folantin 09:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Otherwise I have little or nothing to add to the statement I made at the RfC, especially the comments "Dbachmann is merely trying to enforce Misplaced Pages's core policies. After all, we're supposed to be creating an encyclopaedia here" and "More admins should be following dab's example, then perhaps he wouldn't get so frustrated" - with the proviso that I believe this case has little to do with Dab's role as an admin. Unfortunately, instead of applying policy with the aim of helping build an encyclopaedia - as Dab does - it seems all too many admins have got time to waste on farcical matters like this ANI fracas over the humorous essay Misplaced Pages:Classification_of_administrators_by_name. Under such circumstances, I don't think we can afford even considering desysopping Dbachmann. --Folantin 11:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Moreschi

Any suggestion that Dbachmann has abused his sysop bit is a ludicrous falsehood. Check his logs, he doesn't use the bit (in terms of blocks, protects, deletes) enough to abuse it. Other matters apart, of which I will say more later, this is not a question of admin abuse. Moreschi 20:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's one idea, though - accept the case, relabel it from Dbachmann to Bakasuprman, whose comments at the RFC were appalling, and ban Baka as a disruptive editor. I, and other admins, will be delighted to provide plentiful evidence of time-wasting on Bakasuprman's part. Is this an option, or do I have to file a separate Bakasuprman case myself? Moreschi 20:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I second this idea. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Moreschi is not completely uninvolved. I think it is important to know the extent of all interests so I'll explain. He showed up at the Afrocentricity talk page shortly after Dbachmann. Moreschi tagged a section NPOV, then worked with me to fix it. That was fine, but in this case it was real "mild" condescension. Not really wrong, but still annoying. (I didn't find Dbachmann's condescension "mild.") Deeceevoice asked Moreschi to adopt a less condescending tone, which was a relief for me. Moreschi was also very vocal in the ANI discussion that got Deeceevoice banned, arguing strongly in favor of a ban. I mention this not to attack Moreschi, but rather for the sake of transparency. futurebird 13:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I am assuming you mean "condescension?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. It's not like he's covered in dew or something. futurebird 14:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
:) I was just trying to make sure that by "condensation" you didn't mean "reduction or abridgment of text." Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I really wasn't trying to be condescending, merely gently self-mocking. I can do nasty condescension, though, if you'd like :) Besides some of Deeceevoice's more outrageous comments, I think my tone of voice pales by comparison. Moreschi 14:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay thanks for explaining it. "The internets" are rough when it comes to sarcasm, and tone and things like that. I incidentally think that's why a lot of people get offended by deeceevoice when she's just being frank, and this little exchange shows that confusion can happen on all sides. futurebird 15:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
So? We already know that Moreschi edited the page after Dab. Why does our knowledge of Dab's invitation make Moreschi more complicit or less credible? Dab invited Moreschi only to take on a "troll-infested" page, not to practice condescension or anything else that Dab is now being accused of. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I believe that part of the reason we're here is that, pointedly, Dab called editors with whom he was having a dispute trolls, even though he was the one reverting, edit-warring and refusing to engage in a discussion to resolve the content dispute. Moreschi was involved insofar as his actions indicated he was implicitly endorsing Dab's assessment of the situation.--Ramdrake 19:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Look, we don't know why Moreschi acted in the way he did. Moresechi could have acted after independently assessing the situation and deciding that the page was indeed troll-infested or he may have acted for some other reason that has nothing to do with trolls. It is disingenuous to set up these implicit endorsements from someone's actions, especially on the basis of one invitation on a talk page. It would be another thing if there were proof of their continuing collusion (of back and forth, of advice given, of frustrations vented, of triumphs celebrated, etc.) in this, but there doesn't seem to be. All we have is Dab's invitation and Moreschi's reply agreeing that there were some serious POV-issues on that page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Fine no argument with this, and you're absolutely right that the subject of this RfArb is Dbachmann, and not Moreschi.--Ramdrake 20:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:Warlordjohncarter

I also was involved in the RfC but did not receive any notice. I ascribe this to the fact that Futurebird has stated that she was not sure exactly how to file an ArbCom case, not necessarily to any malicious intent. I also agree that I have seen no evidence whatsoever that Dbachmann has abused any admin powers. The sole basis for this request, so far as I can tell, is the question of Dbachmann's civility toward some other users. Dbachmann himself has pointed out that lack of civility is not limited to just him in many of these discussions, and, if this case is to proceed, I believe that the actions of several other people involved, probably including myself, although I really hope I haven't done anything to demand censure, would be within the scope of this request. However, as a purely personal judgement, I am not at all sure myself that the actions of Dbachmann necessarily are such that they rise to the level of ArbCom review. But, luckily for me, it's not my call, it's the call of the members of the committee, who I thank for responding to this and all the other matters brought before them. John Carter 20:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Fullstop

As I noted on the RFC, dbachmann's behaviour may not always be exemplary, but there is nothing in it that is fundamentally detrimental to WP.

Nor is there anything in his actions that warrants treatment as an arbitration case. All but one of the points raised in this RFAR have significant deficits:

  • "he refuses a scheme aimed at resolving edit-warring" is not correct. What dbachmann is here (which is, to better demonstrate context, one paragraph earlier than the link provided by futurebird) refusing to do is accept Wikidudeman's stipulation to unprotect only if everyone agrees to 1RR. What dbachmann however insists on is that policy be enforced, and that edit warring should cease on that basis. This is a matter of talking past each other: Wikidudeman's immediate concern was unprotection, but dab was thinking one step further.
  • "openly asked another admin to look in to a block for him" is also not correct. The link provided shows dbachmann asking another admin to "try hand at Afrocentrism too." Nothing more.
  • "He is asked to participate in WP:CEM, but refuses" is also not correct. What dbachmann really said was (paraphrasing for terseness) If futurebird has issues then bring them to him and he will reply, and that his replies would be identical regardless of whether the issues were communicated directly or via a mediator.
  • The other points (of all but one) are speculative and without diffs to support them.

The remaining issue relates to WP:CIVIL, and here I find that dbachmann does indeed sometimes overstep the boundaries of proper behavior. But as I noted on the RfC, this is neither typical for him, nor would it be realistic to expect him to always be the perfect angel. Dbachmann is one of the few tough guys we have on the good side. If the occasional burst of incivility is the price to pay for it, then its a very low price. As Folantin put it: "More admins should be following dab's example, then perhaps he wouldn't get so frustrated."

If this matter remains between futurebird and dbachmann, then perhaps it would be better if futurebird and dbachmann had a little fireside chat between them before proceeding for arbitration. dbachmann has more than once said that he will talk to anyone who is willing to talk to him. One occasion of him doing so is #6 above, linked to by futurebird as an indication of "refusal" to go to mediation.

I would also like to note that although I endorsed Folantin's comment on the RFC, I got a notice of this RFAR from futurbird anyway. As such, its not fair to suggest that futurebird only notified those people who agreed with his position.

-- Fullstop 23:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


  • Comment - Futurebird did acknowledge above that she made a mistake, and that she would subsequently contact everyone else involved in the RfC who she hadn't previously notified. On this basis, I believe that her earlier failure to do so can and should be ascribed only as not knowing the precise rules here, not to any attempt to stack the outcome. Officially, I was never notified, but my obvious early awareness of the events here was seemingly reason enough to assume I wouldn't need to be. John Carter 23:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by (uninvolved) Priyanath

As one of many Misplaced Pages editors who have been on the receiving end of Dbachmann’s name-calling and incivility, I have much sympathy for Futurebird. Dbachmann’s attitude is habitual, and is surprisingly supported by other long-time editors and admins. My concern is not just Dbachmann, but the growing number of long-time editors or admins who seem to think that WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA do not apply to them. There does seem to be some sort of ‘meritocracy’ (Dbachmann's term) in which violations of long-time core policies are ok when certain editors claim to be defending the homeland (Misplaced Pages) - even though many innocent, good-faith editors are attacked. Other recent cases of uncivil or over-reaching admins coming before ArbCom seem to indicate that this approach is becoming institutionalized. I don’t plan on being involved if this case is accepted, but I would like to see ArbCom and the community give some clarity on the broader issue – do longtime admins have more leeway in violating WP’s most core policies? If so, what do we do about the growing number of editors who seem to be getting the idea that rude comments and incivility are the way things are now done on Misplaced Pages? –priyanath talk 00:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I support this comment. futurebird 00:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Fowler&fowler

This is a waste of everyone's time, not least futurebird's, who, to her/his credit, has contributed more in a handful of edits to the article Cauchy's integral formula than she/he can ever hope to in the thousands of words of this arbitration. As for the issue itself, I can only restate what I said in the RfC:

In his interview in the New York Times two weekends ago, Jimbo Wales, in talking about Misplaced Pages, said,

“ We aren't democratic. Our readers edit the entries, but we're actually quite snobby. The core community appreciates when someone is knowledgeable, and thinks some people are idiots and shouldn't be writing. ”

That Dab is knowledgeable is something I can personally attest to from his edits on India-related pages. Whether he is polite or not is less relevant to the enterprise of building an encyclopedia. "Civility is important, but it does not trump all other considerations" (Raymond Arritt). Misplaced Pages has to decide, at the highest levels, whether facile politeness displayed by persistent "idiots" should be valued more than occasional not-so-polite expression of exasperation by a knowledgeable person who the core community appreciates. Otherwise, I see a lot of time wasted by knowledgeable editors (like Dab) in bending over backwards to appease others who not only cannot write and are often ignorant, but who also unrelentingly verbalize the cockeyed perspectives of their particular upbringing, education, or milieu in the name of universal truth, and yet can quote chapter and verse from the Misplaced Pages rule book on politeness. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

PS. However, if ArbCom does decide to accept this, then it should also include

  1. Bakasuprman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and
  2. Deeceevoice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

within the purview of this RFArb and scrutinize their behavior as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Univolved User:Rocksanddirt

I agree with Fowler&fowler. The community has long decided to tollerate a bit of incivility from users whose main purpose is the creation of good encyclopedia. Dab is by far not the worst offender in this situation. I recommend the committee not take this case, similar to the case of MONGO recently also declined. The issues are similar (though not the same). --Rocksanddirt 04:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:Ramdrake

I emphatically agree with User:Futurebird I have seen Dbachmann egregiously and repeatedly violate Misplaced Pages policy on at least two articles: Afrocentrism and Race of Ancient Egyptians. He has been uncivil yes, but also has launched into personal attacks and revert-warring, all this purportedly in the name of upholding policy. What I believe should be looked into is the seriousness of his breaches of policy as ocmpared to the potential breaches of policy he says he's trying to prevent. Basically, most of his defense for his behavior is that "the end justifies the means". My contention is that the violations of policy he has committed are way more serious than those he pretends to help avoid (if they indeed exist), worse that his behavior, rather than helping correcting problems, actually amplifies the very problems he tries to correct. I will, however, give him the benefit of the doubt that he genuinely believes he is helping Misplaced Pages by acting the way he does. In this matter, the opinions of experienced, neutral third parties such as the Arbitration Committee members may help him see that his behaviour is actually not helping the project when he starts edit warring and being dismissive of his fellow editors.--Ramdrake 15:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved User:Ovadyah

I came across a recent RFC on Dbachmann, and I was appalled by what I read. It's closer to a character assault than a complaint about user conduct. I recommend the committee take the case - to dispense swift justice to some of the complainers who have behaved far worse than Dab. Ovadyah 16:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved User:bloodofox

Hello there. Distancing myself from the Afrocentricism camp that I have nothing to do with, I would like to state that I've experienced issues with Dab over my time with Misplaced Pages that are considerably more troubling to me. That is Dab's intentional and systematic insertion of his own unreferenced material into numerous articles that is largely going unchecked, which can be a serious problem for those persons or subjects being accused or associated with these claims. For a thorough explanation, please see my statement here: I do not support ridiculous claims that Dab is a "racist" or a "fascist" at all but I think he can have a serious problem with policy when it suits him. I am not happy with having to go around mopping up after an administrator in the remote regions of Misplaced Pages that I inhabit. Other administrators in good standing working in similar areas have had such issues as well, as you can see in the comments section of the link in my post above by User:Kathryn NicDhàna & in User:Pigman's own comments here:. :bloodofox: 06:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


Statement by uninvolved User:Akhilleus

I'm surprised to see that the arbitrators are accepting this case, as I don't think the issues involved here are serious enough to need arbitration. However, if this case goes forward, I think that Deeceevoice (talk · contribs) needs to be added as a party, since her block and unblock are being blamed on Dbachmann somehow (see futurebird's questions above).

Please consider adding Bakasuprman as a party as well. As I've already posted on Misplaced Pages:Arbitration enforcement, I think that his statement at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Dbachmann_3#Comment_from_Bakaman violates the terms of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar_2; if the issue at hand in this case is civility, the accusation that Dbachmann "is inherently prejudiced against actual Indians/Hindus editing pages on India and Hinduism" should be given the attention it deserves. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

Korean cuisine

Initiated by Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) at 07:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  • All parties have been notified
Appletrees notification
Good friends100 notification
Badagnai notification
Melonbarmonster notification
Sennen goroshi notification
Bsharvy notification
Jjk82 notification
Patriotmissle notification
Keyngez notification
CJ DUB notification
Phlegmswicke of Numbtardia notification
Jerem43 notification
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by User:Tanner-Christopher

  • The original issue that started this ball rolling was edit warring on the dog meat section of the Korean cuisine article. This incident stemmed from consistent incivility on this article by certain editors that has exposed another long term issue.
  • The long term issue that has been exposing it self during the second step of the resolution process has been at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit war. It is clear that there are a number of what users have been calling "nationalists" of different Asian "viewpoints" that have been promoting an agenda on a multitude of Korean article which Korean cuisine is only a small part of. South Korea has also been blocked from editing for this reason.
  • Besides the edit warring, there are a number of parties involved that have been very hostile toward anyone working on the articles other than themselves and in addition, this stems from a larger issue with this users not being civil in many of there actions on Misplaced Pages unless another user agrees with them. So they are in clear violation of not only WP:Own, but also WP:Civility
  • As a response to the reasoning behind a need for more than discourse in the Korean or food communities is that certain users will not compromise at all and continue to use bullying techniques to get their way along with a manipulation of language to make other users trying to help, look like they are not. It seems that at a time like this when the arbitration has been requested, however, that they seem to be warming up to the idea but I do not know if this is dis-ingenious or heart-felt in intent. As this seems to be a pattern with a number of the editors, specifically those with block records, (which can not be a coincidence) this pattern will continue again with repeated disruption of these articles unless these users are addressed en mass by proper administrators as others of us have been unable to be effective.

Statement by Daniel

This case was listed for formal mediation with the Mediation Committee recently, however all the issues listed were primarily conduct-based. As I explained to the parties on the case page, formal mediation will only address disputes which have resolvable content issues (and we will only look at content, readily ignoring any conduct aspect unless it prevents mediation from working, in which case the request is closed). This is due to Committee convention which in turn is based from limits on the mediation model (see commentary).

Our goal is to resolve the content dispute which, in turn, will resolve the conduct issues having assisted the parties to a negotiated compromise. However, this requires for the content issues to be the primary issues and the conduct issues to be both secondary, manageable and not fatal to mediation attempts. In this case, it was clear that the conduct issues have slowly made their way from the primary to the secondary issue, and it was more-than-likely that the conduct issues would have made mediation unworkable.

I ask the Committee that if this case is rejected for whatever reason, that reason not be that "this request should go through mediation", unless the Arbitration Committee wishes for the Mediation Cabal to be involved prior to an arbitration case. Although I have absolutely no interest in the case whatsoever beyond wishing all parties well in resolving it, I felt it must be noted that the dispute as it currently stands (and is documented) was not applicable for formal mediation and this is why it was rejected/withdrawn.

Cheers, Daniel 07:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:Sennen_goroshi

While there has been some considerable amount of friction in the article(s), I think the holier than thou attitude of some newcomers to the article is not productive. The editor(s) who are calling for permanent bans are just as guilty of provocative editing, as the long standing contributers. Of course no one owns the article, and anyone is able to edit it, but I can understand the annoyance of some editors who have been working on this article for a long time, to suddenly have new editors step in and demand that the editing is done according to their standards.

Perhaps a little reasoning by all editors, and people trying to get opinions, rather than a mere show of hands before major changes are made would be useful. Consensus should not be assumed just because 4 editors say yes, and 3 say no.

Compromise has to be accepted by all parties, when compromise is hard to reach, editors should look at the examples set by other difficult articles, and general rules that have been set down.

I do understand the opinions of Jerem and CCC, this is just a food article, it should not be so hard to edit, it isn't an article on Jesus or abortion, it is a damn shame that it has become a pro/anti Japan/Korea article.

As far as I am concerned the only understandably controversial aspect of the article is the dog meat section.

To have people complaining about whether item A is Korean food, Japanese food, Korean food influenced by Japan or Korean food that was stolen by Japan, due to Japan's occupation of Korean is pathetic.

In short, with a little respect for the time and effort put into these articles by all editors involved, Jerem and CCC showing how easy food articles can be edited, rather than screaming "lets block everyone", and the more antagonistic editors saving the controversy for an article than actually deserves it, there might be a lot of problems solved rather easily, without the need for another 10 billion ANI reports.Sennen goroshi (talk) 12:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User Spartaz

Good friend100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was previously indefinitly blocked following his 6th or 8th violation (I forget) of the 3RR but this was lifted to allow him to participate in the Liancort Rocks arbitration case after he agreed a strict 1RR condition. Subsequently he was blocked twice for violating this condition and a community ban was considered at ANI but failed to find a clear consensus to ban him. Since then, his editing restrictions - partricularly the 1RR have been restated more clearly and are recorded on his talk page. I am regularly monitoring his contributions. I have not seen any recent edits that have given me any cause for concern. Good friend100 is now very clear that he is on his very final last chance and is making a real effort to behave himself. Including him in this request appears to be judging him on his past behaviour which has already been fully considered. This is unfair. I would ask the committee, if accepted, to only include him as a party of this case if specific diffs of recent poor behaviour are submitted. Spartaz 13:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User bsharvy

This request is unwarranted. It seems to be a substitute for making a sincere effort to discuss facts and reasons. The discourse concerning actual content (as opposed to personalities) has gone like this: 1) some people (including the requester) propose X, 2) some others (such as me) disagree and say why. Then, discussion stops and the requester declares a need for outside intervention, RFC, complaints to administrators, and now a request for arbitration. An editor should respond with reasons to another editor's different view, not just promptly go and request more opinions or some authority. I have no idea why editors disgree with the arguments I've presented. Nobody has responded in any signicant way to any point or principle I've asserted. On what grounds is there a claim of an impasse in the discussion of content? There has barely been an effort to discuss content (there has been plenty of effort to discuss personalities). It has been less than a week since the page was locked, but already the requester is describing it as a step that has been tried, and presumably failed (hence this next step). You have to talk to others; it is work. Requesting outside authorities the minute you hit disagreement (about content) is not consensus-building. Bsharvy 09:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

"For requests involving groups of editors on a particular article or topic area, it is expected that mediation will be attempted." Was this done? If so, nobody told me. Odd, considering I seem to be the main dissenter in the discussion about content. Bsharvy 11:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Jeremy (Jerem43)

I am the person who asked for the block to be placed on the article in the first place and need to comment on this situation.

I came to the article as part of the RfC placed on the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Food and drink and found several issues that the editors were having that was not allowing a true consensus to be formed which had degraded into a three month long edit war. Because of this I placed an ANI request to have the article locked down. These issues that drove me to this include:

  • WP:MoS - I noticed a small error in the formatting of the info box and fixed it as per WP:IBX, a change that was promptly reverted. I thought someone had misinterpreted my edit, I restored it and left a simple message on the talk page about following the MoS in regards to the placement of info boxes. The editors reverted it again, claimed that their consensus was not to follow the MoS thus they were not required to and told me I had no right to make the changes and was not allowed to change the article. This is a serious issue of WP:Own by this group. This issue of ownership is best exemplified by a comment made by the user Appletrees in the ANI discussion:

In my memory, "We" haven't requested your specialty in cuisine here though. So thank your for your "interest" so far.--Appletrees (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

  • WP:Civility - The interaction between this small group of editors and the rest of the Wiki-community has been brisk at best, openly hostile at its worst. Suggestions made from disinterested parties to help improve the quality of the article or breakup a logjam are often dismissed and the editor is told to go away. This goes against WP:Consensus because the groups places their view above the rest of the community's. Again Appletrees has made a comment that best exemplifies the behavior to others on display in the Talk:Korean cuisine article:

I only see your hostility, incivility and inappropriate usages of language. And don't dare to compare such the junk food with national cuisines. I get to know your specialty lies on that kind of foods, but your rationale sounds more implausible. Your opinion itself prove your violation on WP:OWN. I think somebody heard my opinion above so I think I need to talk about the matter on positioning and redesigning the useless template with many other people into national cuisine. Please don't mess up this talk page any further because you already brought up just chaos and troubles. That is called "disruptive behaviors". --Appletrees 21:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

  • WP:3R - The issue with the info box edit was just the last problem, the only reason it wasn't reverted for a third time was the article was locked before there was a third revert by the local group.
  • WP:Good faith - The local group's not trusting the intentions of others who only want to contribute has show a lack of good faith in the whole community.

I understand there may be some language issues and the usage of non-contextual translation services which lead some contributors to misinterpret my posts, which only compounded the problem. However the group is still refusing to come to a consensus over the inclusion of Dog meat in the article and this has put the whole process on hold. Editors are still hung up over the use of statistical information that is being used push each side's POV on the issue. The general consensus made with many of the regular contributors and most of the outside observers, Chris, Thespian, myself and others, is that there should be a brief mentioning of the dishes made from dog meat, that there should be no per capita consumption information without corresponding figures that put the data into context and that the rest should be covered in the Korea section of the Dog meat article. Unfortunately a few contributors wish to include a whole section on the topic. This is the main point (currently) and that is what needs help to arbitrate.

Other issues of civility, ownership and 3r over content also need to be worked on obviously.

Jeremy (Jerem43 20:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC))

Clerk notes

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


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

John Buscema

Initiated by User:Skyelarke at 05:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • A request for mediation begun July 20th -

was closed on November 12th due to mediator's unavailibility and User Tenebrae request to go to arbitration.

Statement by User:Skyelarke

In December 2006, I began to participate in an article revision process with user Tenebrae on the article. Having contributed the large majority of the article text up to that point but having neglected to include footnote references of my sources, I proposed to do so in mid-December - a process that user Tenebrae agreed to.

From practically the beginning I was faced with disruptive editing and uncivil behavior on the other party's part until I came to the conclusion the other party's behavior amounted to establishing ownership of said article. This was achieved basically through regular and systematic partial reversions and intimidating, disparaging, and uncivil remarks to other editors. I tried to proceed by encouraging proper editing protocol and etiquette, but by the time I had finished adding the footnotes at the beginning of June 2007, a dispute erupted and efforts to resolve that dispute have proven unsuccessful.

Sample proofs and examples

As an overall example of user Tenebrae's widespread peremptory, unsubstantiated removal of good-faith, credibly-referenced contributions compare the final updated version I presented on June 3-

with the current version reverted to by Tenebrae prior to requesting edit protection

the June 3rd version has 44 numbered footnotes whereas the current version has only 22. Hence, at least half of the footnoted passages, 22 in all, have been removed. This is not counting various other non-referenced passages.

Moreover, of the 15 images contained in the June 3rd, version, 6 have been removed in the current version.

The only explanation given for 19 of the referenced passages removed was the following -

and

18:12, 7 June 2007 Tenebrae (rv to Terpsichoreus 00:59, 17 May 2007 for Skylarke's blatant, days-long series of fancruft edits, footnote misformatting, and over-illustration in DIRECT CONTRADICTION to settled RfC matters.)

Various examples of disruptive editing behavior regularly practiced by user Tenebrae since December 2006.

Basically, there are four different types:

1- Misuse and improper implementation and application of a RfC -

a- Premature implemenatation of RfC

It was implemented 5 hours after I had made mention of an initial disagreement, without any prior discussion.

b- Non-neutral canvassing of favored collaborators

c- Vote-Stacking and disregard of consensus process

The above statement to give an indication that the Rfc consisted mainly in the aforementioned 9 editors contributing perfunctory statements that had an uncommon level of agreement with user Tenebrae's statements and little in ways of explanations or compromise and consensus-minded discussion.

d- Using disputed RfC results as a pretext to reject edits that were clearly outside the boundaries and contents of said RfC

The version established after RfC process ended on March7, only had 4 referenced passages -

This kind of repeated statement -

practically implies that the edits contributed after the RfC are somehow under restrictions of said RfC even though the were not present or discussed at the time of the RfC.

2- Improper editing protocol and disruptive editing behavior

a- Misleading, fallacious, and deceptive editing descriptions.

b- Making false policy claims to justify reversions.

3- Peremptory and antagonistic misuse of administrative procedures.

a- An inflammatory complaint made to the administrator's notice board -

April 27 -' Several editors, and heaven knows you can see them at Talk:John Buscema, have tried to work with a fanatic fan, User:Skyelarke, who is a single-purpose account... He has continually added POV and irrelevant, fan-page trivia,...' http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive84

b- Misleading page protection request -

June 12 - Page Protection Request filed by user Tenebrae is characterized as 'Severe, longstanding edit war...protection is requested to stop edit war...' when actual reciprocal reversions only began on June 11, remaining under the 3rr barrier.

4- Incivility and personal attacks (designed to intimidate and discredit other editors.)

Final note

To indicate that user Tenebrae's behavior goes beyond a personal dispute with myself and extends to several editors' contributions from that article, I'd like to point out that when user Tenebrae reverted the article to the May 17th version on June 12th, the following editors' contributions were effectively removed -

18:12, 11 June 2007 Mmaillot (Exteranl links)

17:41, 10 June 2007 Tman930 (→References)

06:55, 7 June 2007 66.137.180.95 (→1970s)

01:15, 5 June 2007 71.215.128.73 (→1980s - Page shown is from Fantastic Four #306, not the Avengers)

20:36, 26 May 2007 Steven J. Anderson (Repairing link to disambiguation page - You can help!)

00:55, 22 May 2007 GentlemanGhost (→1970s - Missing space)

--Skyelarke (talk) 05:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by John254

Tenebrae has engaged in disruptive canvassing to support his position in this content dispute -- see , in which he notifies selected editors of the article RFC on their talk pages. It is suspected that Tenebrae chose the editors to contact based on the belief that they would favor his version of the article. This request for arbitration appears to present serious user conduct issues. John254 13:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by {party 2}

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/0/0/0)

"Occupied" vs. "Disputed/Captured" Territories

Initiated by pedro gonnet - talk - 28.11.2007 16:01 at 16:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • Has been many times in many places, most recently here and here

Statement by User:Pedro Gonnet

The issue concerns the use of the term Occupied Territories when referring to all territories militarily occupied by Israel. According to Misplaced Pages itself:

“ Several organizations have stated that these areas are occupied and that the Fourth Geneva Convention provisions regarding occupied territories apply. These organizations include the United Nations Security Council (in Resolution 446, Resolution 465 and Resolution 484, among others), the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention, and the International Committee of the Red Cross. Also, in their decisions on the separation barrier, the International Court of Justice and Supreme Court of Israel have both ruled that the West Bank is occupied. The US State Department also considers the West Bank and Gaza Strip occupied. ”

Furthermore, the term "occupied territories" is used more often than "disputed territories", even in the Israeli meida (stats for Jerusalem Post and ynet) the term "occupied territories" is preferred.

The problem is that a subset of editors, mainly User:Jaakobou, insist on changing the term "occupied territories" to "disputed territories" in numerous articles regarding Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Usually the change is reverted and a long discussion with some low-scale edit-warring ensues and the term "occupied territories" is kept. User:Jaakobou and others, however, simply wait a few weeks and try again, sometimes on the same article, sometimes on a different article. In the latest iteration, User:Jaakobou went as far as changing the names of other occupation-related articles to make a WP:POINT (here and here) or crippling the readability of the article by rewording it such as to avoid the expression altogether (here).

The reason why I am posting this as a request for arbitration directly is that in every discussion on this topic, the offending parties (the anti-occpuationalists) have always backed out, only to replace the term a few weeks later, perhaps in the hope that nobody would be looking next time. This unwillingness to actually follow a discussion to the end and not just re-start the dispute elsewhere leads me to believe that WP:Mediation will not have any effect and that the issue would land here, albeit only a few months later. I also believe this is more of a WP:POINT and WP:DISRUPT issue than a content dispute.

What I would like is an arbitration decision of the sort: The term "occupied territories" can and should be used to describe territories militarily occupied by the state of Israel. This would avoid this recurring dispute in the future.

Statement by User:Jaakobou

i'm not sure why i'm the only one mentioned other than pedro. i haven't been quite so active on the page until recently where i tried to resolve the dispute by opening subsections diff for each of 3 small changes in dispute by pedro (and a few others, mostly anon. IPs). i actually got some fair responses for my suggestion before implementing changes according to discussion, and i feel pedro has been a tad uncivil telling me not to revert after he's gone and done just that. . Jaakobou 17:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by GRBerry

There is an allegation of a conduct issue contained within the complaint. What I don't see is any prior attempt to attract the attention of outside editors, such as via a RfC. If there have been such attempts, can they be clearly linked to? If there haven't been tried, they should be tried before coming here. GRBerry 17:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment: I suggested taking the issue to WP:DR a number of times, which User:Jaakobou ignored. Funny he should point out the one single time he suggested it. Anyway, as per the votes below, I have submitted this as an RfC here. Cheers and thank you for your time and efforts, pedro gonnet - talk - 29.11.2007 08:08

Clerk notes

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

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

Burntsauce appeal

Initiated by Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me)(public computer) at 12:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  • Burntsauce notified by e-mail that this was posted.
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar

Statement by Burntsauce via e-mail to Nwwaew

In the interest of getting straight to the point, I will keep this as brief as possible. I am carbon copying Jimmy Wales directly to make extra sure that he is aware of this situation.

The reason I am writing is to request that my account be reinstated and block log cleared. On November 8 2007 I was blocked for being JB196 (and if not this person directly, a friend, helper, assistant, or "puppet" of sorts). Allow me to make it myself clear: I am not JB196. I do not know JB196. Never once have I exchanged words with this person and I have never made a point to assist JB196 in any kind of agenda.

I have made well over 8,000 different edits to Misplaced Pages. These edits include removal of vandalism, identifying spam articles, hoax articles, general purpose editing, and the removal of unsourced material in biographies of living persons.

My records show that I have communicated with Jimmy Wales via email on multiple occassions regarding this unsourced material, and in general he supported my actions. I have discussed my actions ad nauseum on various administrative noticeboards prior to taking action, and there too I have generally received support from the community on my actions, granted there have been some detractors but many of them have a vested conflict of interest in making sure unsourced information stays in articles as long as possible -- something which both Jimmy Wales and the Arbitration Committee has repeatedly, time and time again, has said is a huge no no.

Unfortunately for me (and Misplaced Pages I might add), I stumbled upon a huge category of articles that contained heaping piles of BLP problems. The category I'm referring to is the pro-wrestling category, where, and I kid not, 99% of the articles were either not sourced or attributing the likes of geocities and yahoo message boards for sources. My taking action in this area of Misplaced Pages resulted in the administrator known as DUROVA to block me as a sockpuppet "JB196", and from there on my life on Misplaced Pages has been an uphill battle. To make matters worse, it became clear to me that JB196 himself or an impostor would follow me around whenever I would get into a dispute or leave me messages on my talk page. I never responded to his messages and would clear them as soon as I noticed them (if they weren't removed by another user first).

I would like to think that I have taken things in stride, and managed to be fairly reasonable about being blocked for someone I am not. Yes, I lost my cool a few times but what would you do if you were in my situation?

The follow diffs are examples of the type of resistance (and poor attitude in general) that Jimmy Wales himself was met with when he asked certain editors to provide reliable sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=130235125 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Sabian_%28wrestler%29&diff=prev&oldid=131487540 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=130638394 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Govvy&diff=prev&oldid=130374561 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Lid&diff=prev&oldid=130233378

I promised I would keep this short, and I think I've failed in that regard. Thanks for hearing me out.

--Burntsauce

Statement by User:Wikidemo

User:Burntsauce participated in one of the most contentious content deletion campaigns Misplaced Pages saw this fall, precipitating events that lead to blocks and bans of two administrators and a number of non-administrators. He was named as a party to an ArbCom case over his behavior, was informed of the case, and had every opportunity to defend himself. In its ruling ArbCom determined that User:Burntsauce was a meatpuppet of User:JB196, and banned him for disruption (see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar#Burntsauce banned).

Even if there is sometimes a reason for ArbCom to re-hear and reverse decisions less than a month after making them, this is not the time. We participated in a long, difficult arbitration case plagued by sockpuppets. Alkivar chose not to participate in the case. We should not have to start from scratch simply because Burntsauce changed his mind now. This matter is done. It is not a proper subject for an ArbCom case. Let us please avoid further disruption and close it now.

Further comment

It appears that ArbCom will consider the matter as a request for reconsideration, which means no public comment. I urge ArbCom to keep the ban in place unless (1) it misinterpreted the evidence that he is a meatpuppet, and (2) Burntsauce promises he will not repeat the disruptive behavior that caused the last two flare-ups. His statement above indicates he considers his actions justified. Instead of promising not disrupt the project again, he says Jimbo Wales is on his side and claims that his massive content deletions were to get rid of "heaping piles" of policy violations. It is clear that he would consider reinstatement to be a license to resume his disruptive ways.

However, I don't think we should carry a grudge. If he is a legitimate editor, and if he will pledge to contribute to the project instead of instigating trouble, we should forgive the past and welcome him back. It is a shame that we went through the effort and angst of a difficult ArbCom case that he ignored, only to have him try re-open the case in a forum where we have no input. But there too, we should forgive if he will move on too. Only if he will move on.

Please see my note on the talk page regarding this request.

Statement by Durova

Burntsauce contacted me via chat client regarding this request. I have no objection if the Committee chooses to open a formal review and I would gladly post an expanded version of my evidence onsite at review, except for private correspondence. Durova 23:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Although captioned as an appeal, this is effectively a request for reconsideration of a portion of this committee's decision in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar, in which the committee found that Burntsauce was a sockpuppet of a banned user and accordingly determined that Burntsauce was covered by the ban. Ordinarily, requests by or on behalf of banned users are considered on the ArbCom mailing list rather than on-wiki. However, in this instance, the request has been posted by a user in good standing and there may be considerations weighing in favor of consideration on-wiki. Accordingly, the Clerk has not removed this request but is leaving it for the arbitrators to determine how to proceed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Noting a question about the authenticity of this request, Burntsauce has posted the same request on his own talk page. Thatcher131 20:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Geobox and categories

Initiated by – Caroig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at 17:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

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

Statement by Caroig

I feel very uncomfortable from bring this case here yet I see no other alternative after so many objections and discussions very ignored. I think, and so do many other editors, the categories are useful for improving Misplaced Pages and as such they should be acceptable. What they should be named is a fair question, left for a consensus which can't be reached if some admins just delete first. This is all I ask for, to allow a discussion, consensus and fair treatment and not just delete and go. My previous thorough account has been copied to User:Caroig/Arbitration.

I'm the main author of the {{Geobox}} template which is a universal infobox for any geography related feature. After a request from some users I added code which put the pages with Geobox to some categories. I had checked WP:CAT and the categories seemed in accordance with these guidelines (as I understood them). User:Darwinek put a "suggestion" on my talk page in which he raised objections to the template without clearly stating what the problem was, just very vague statements. He also removed a part of the {{Geobox}} code without any rationale which I reverted. I re-read the policy, found the line I thought he was relating to and responded. There was never any answer, User:Darwinek started another "discussion" in which I was accused of claiming ownership of the template (no reason given), refusing cooperation (I answered every post, since the beginning I had been suggesting the categories will go if they indeed broke any rules), claiming they were needed (which I never did), they suggested removing the {{Geobox}}, there were completely off-topic comments and various other accusations. I only learned about this discussion when User:Darwinek put those categories at CfD. Countless times I asked everyone to discuss the issue at Geobox template talk page.

There I acknowleged the naming scheme was not perfect and I wrote I was working on an improved version. There were many comments and suggestions, yet User:BrownHairedGirl closed the debate while no solution had been agreed on and wrote the outcome was to delete which left me agape again. She wrote she expected objections and asked them to be first discussed with her, which I did.

I was waiting for an answer for almost two weeks but it never came. In the meantime I was working on a new, improved version which would address, in my best faith, the major objections. I first put it at Rfc, which didn't get much attention and later added the new code and manually created some categories for regions where users were systematically adding Geoboxes. Yet User:BrownHairedGirl deleted the code as recreated contents though the categories were generated on a completely different basis, without reading any of the previous posts, introducing a bug to the template. After my many objections she filed a Deletion review but only after I suggested arbitration. This CfD didn't dealt with the merit of the thing at all. I tried to address this by a longer answer in which I tried to explain the issue (as requested by another user). Yet this answer was dismissed by her completely, stating it was off-topic (part of those tried to answer her own off-topic comments).

Statement by Darwinek

This is a clear, settled and solved issue. I see no point in getting an ArbCom to this. Caroig took whole this case very personally, I don't know why, that's why we are here. Someone also stated that it is a conflict between Me and Caroig. It is not, I never had any intention to be in conflict with Caroig. I like his work, considered awarding him with a barnstar and many times praised and endorsed his work. This is, however, a community dispute, more precisely Caroig vs. the Community. Categories were deleted because they violate Misplaced Pages precedence and general consensus. They were recreated and deleted again by BrownHairedGirl. Caroig complained and complained, so whole case was brought to Deletion Review which unanimously upheld the decision to delete it. There is nothing to solve here. Solved issue. Period. - Darwinek (talk) 15:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by BrownHairedGirl

This request conflates several two related issues: a dispute between two editors about the use of the {{geobox}} template, and my closure of the CfD debate.

I have no view on the dispute between Darwinek and Caroig, nor any evidence to offer on that subject; I was not involved in it and have not reviewed it.

I believe that I closed the CfD fairly, based on the strength of the arguments wrt policies and guidelines and conventions.. It was clear from the debate that there was a history of acrimony between the nominator (Darwinek) and the category creator (Caroig), so I set that aside: the issue at CfD is the merits or otherwise of the category, not the the prior conduct of the participants.

Because of the heated nature of the debate, I asked in the closure, that concerned editors raise the matter on my talk page, which Caroig did here. Unfortunately most of the points raised were irrelevant to the CfD, and I set the issue aside for a while so I could think of a diplomatic way of separating the two. Unfortunately, I got sidetracked onto other issues, my talk page filled up with other discussions, and I forgot about the issue until I was told by Darwinek that a substantially similar set of categories had been re-created.

I checked, found that they were substantially the same, and speedily deleted them, notifying Caroig on his/her talk page, and apologising for my lack of a reply. In the process, I did introduce a small error into the template: two stray characters which appeared beside the infobox, and were promptly corrected. This oversight of mine was a cosmetic issue, for which I apologised here, and it did not in any way damage the functioning of the template.

That triggered a discussion on my talk page and on Caroig's, and when it became clear that Caroig was still unhappy, I initiated a deletion review, which endorsed the deletions. Caroig had asked for other reviews, but it seemed to me to be best for a CfD issue to be reviewed first at DRV rather than going straight to arbcom (see WP:RFAr#Before_requesting_Arbitration).

Caroig is wrong to say that her/his reply was "dismissed by her completely". My comment was to suggest that rather than a huge explanation of a dispute with another user, it would have more useful to focus the question of why Caroig believes that is appropriate to have categories in mainspace based on the presence of an infobox.

I am unclear why this issue has been brought to arbcom. The categories were deleted at CfD; the coding methods behind their re-creation is irrelevant to the fact that self-referencing mainspace categories were re-created, and all the deletions were upheld at deletion review, where Caroig was the only person who sought the overturn of the deletions. I don't know what arbcom is being asked to decide on. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment on statement by uninvolved AGK: I'm really don't see what there is to mediate about. The only issue involving me was my closure of the CfD and the subsequent speedy, both of which were upheld at WP:DRV: so far as I can see, the question of those categories is now closed. Caroig seems to have some beef with Darwinek, but I really think that Caroig be much better advised to move on than to place more energy into raking over the coals of an issue which is now settled. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved AGK

Whilst the Arbitrators seem to have picked up on this already, I shall give my opinion nonetheless. Although there have been several, in-depth attempts at prior Dispute Resolution, this is an out-and-out content issue, which the Arbitration Committee generally does not handle.

The DR attempts also appear to be very much on the "regimented" process areas, a surprisingly few number of the more content-orientated avenues have been attempted, which leads me to believe that this Arbitration Request is rather premature. From the information provided, the Parties have not attempted informal or formal Mediation, which could be highly beneficial in this matter. Perhaps the Parties could direct their attention there?

Anthøny 20:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your idea and suggestion. Could you help me with that? Yes, part of the dispute is content related - the reason I put my request here was far too many steps breaking the basic Misplaced Pages policies and etiquette. And there seems to be a misunderstanding what the problem is.
Neither of the two involved parties has answered to the propsal of the second categorization which took into account various comments (mainly those on the Geobox talkpage) which clearly stated that the template should either generate existing categories or temporary categories (which should follow the usual naming schemes) until the work is done. The second categorization was set-up to do exactly that and it was up to individual users what scheme they chose for their country/state etc. If these users do read that proposal, do post their comments and refrain from off-topic comments I'll gladly remove this request. – Caroig (talk) 21:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd be glad to. If you send me an email (see here) with the relevant information, I'll assist you in seeking Mediation. (You may prefer to leave me a talk page message instead). Anthøny 07:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

Ryulong

Initiated by Videmus Omnia at 19:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

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

Statement by Videmus Omnia

Ryulong is a prolific and hard-working administrator. However, a concern of many editors at Ryulong's RfA was that Ryulong would be too hasty and harsh with the "block" button. I'm sorry to say this has been the case, as expressed in the above-linked RfC. Even after the request for comment, Ryulong has continued to make blocks unjustified by the blocking policy - a notorious example would be his block of the administrator CattleGirl, among others, for making insufficient contributions to article space. That resulted in this thread initiated by Newyorkbrad, which I strongly encourage everyone considering this case to review.

Unfortunately, Ryulong has not been willing or able to honor his pledges to moderate his use of the block button. A review of his talk page archives shows a multitude of complaints for unjustified and overly-harsh blocks, inappropriately broad rangeblocks, and IPs incorrectly blocked as "open proxies" when they are not. As just one recent example, Ryulong indef-blocked the users Yugiohmike2001 (talk · contribs) and Chaingang29 (talk · contribs). Their offense was apparently "inserting unverifiable information". There was not a single attempt to work with those users, or even to warn them, prior to indef-block. No block explanation was left on their talk page. When asked to explain this, Ryulong simply stated "I did not think of it at the time". In response to a third opinion about the blocks left on his talk page, Ryulong reiterated that he feels his blocks are "beneficial to the encyclopedia". I'm afraid this demonstrates to me that Ryulong has little concern for the damage his actions cause to the encyclopedia in lost good-faith contributors, and his conduct should be examined with an eye toward removing his access to the admin tools.

I respectfully suggest that Raul654 recuse himself from this case, as he was the one who promoted Ryulong to adminship, a decision that many in the community found controversial.

Response to Ryulong's statement below

In response to Ryulong's statement below that I've been seeking his desysopping for some time, I'll point out that I've actually publicly stated before, more than once, that I would prefer that he retain his tools and reform his conduct. . I would have continued to address these issues with him on his talk page, but I was advised by another administrator that to continue to do so would be harrassment, and that I needed to bring my concerns here. Videmus Omnia 20:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Ryulong

These are a handful of blocks that are deviations from my improvements since the RFC. CattleGirl's block I immediately fixed, and after Yugiohmike2001 e-mailed me, I unblocked him (I should probably send him a reply via e-mail that I have done so, as it does not appear that he has edited). I do not think that these few bad blocks, most of which have been resolved, require the investigation of the arbitration committee.

The only thing that has been a problem with me is that Videmus Omnia (VO) has been persistently scrutinizing my every action and from all standpoints has been seeking that I be desysoped for some time now. I am the only administrator who has put any blocks in his block log, the first which was a mistaken application of WP:SOCK (from which I had discovered VO's initial account on my own, and then unblocked him) and a realization that he was not currently disrupting the encyclopedia with his user talk page posts about improper fair use images (he had stopped editing for some time after the block, thread at my talk page archived here). Since then, all he has done in relation to conversations with me is question blocks that I perform that are not explicitly allowed or forbidden by any of the WP:BLOCK policy. Examples are at User_talk:Ryulong/Archive_18#Proxy_range block, my range block to prevent Joehazelton from editing, my block of a genuinely disruptive user, my removal from the voluntary admin recall category, Newyorkbrad's statement, questioning my personal protected titles page (something else that at the time was not explicitly forbidden by policy), his MfD of that page, another statement that I'm not sure if it fits in exactly.

Other than that, any potentially bad blocks I have made since Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Ryulong, I have fixed and apologized for. There is nothing for the arbitration committee to do about occasional slip ups that I ameliorate as soon as I can.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:24, November 24, 2007

Infinitely recursive responses

The full thread on VO's talk page for a full understanding.—20:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by GRBerry

The RFC ended three months ago. Would it be more useful to have another RfC? I think it would be better, but I certainly can't certify. GRBerry 02:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by ZordZapper

Though I haven't edited (but only read pages like these from time to time) in a while, I think it's a good idea to do another RFC should this request fail. Because I confronted this user by him blocking me, I feel I must give my 2 cents. Administrators must have patience, accept responsibility for actions like blocking, and be ready to accept criticism. While, I'll admit my first edits were borderline, I think assuming good faith is a huge job for editors who are privvy to blocking others. Ryulong has been the role model of a user that can't seem to tolerate criticism and will react by blocking when he doesn't like what he hears or what other say to him and I am glad Videmus Omnia took the time to file this request.

Comment by bbatsell

I think that a request for arbitration is premature in this particular instance. I would support and participate in a second RFC. The only thing that concerns me is Ryulong's insistence that he not be faulted for good-faith mistakes. Well, yes, they are mistakes, and they are made in good faith — but if you keep making the same mistake without actually changing your approach to blocking that leads to said mistakes, then you can be faulted. To crib from Newyorkbrad when this was discussed recently on your talk page, Ryulong stating, "I did not think of it at the time" regarding warning a user (who had a redlinked talk page) before blocking is seriously disturbing considering the history involved here. If you don't want to deal with "vultures" (as you have described VO) in the future (and you will, if continue exhibiting poor judgment), then simply think twice before pressing the block button. I assure you, it's not that difficult. Blocks are easy to overturn, but they're impossible to remove from history, and it is impossible to remove the negative feelings that they can engender from the blockee. No account starts out perfect, and if zero attempts at discussion (or reform) are undertaken, then we have no idea what the editor could have become. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, I would like to respectfully, but firmly, dispute UC's characterization of the RFC. I've read through it several times today to refresh my memory and to see if perhaps I misremembered its conclusions; I had not. I simply can't fathom how anyone could read that and claim that, "the community by and large supports what Ryulong is doing." In fact, the conclusion in every comment that was supported by a large majority was that Ryulong is a good administrator who needs to exercise caution (some asserted extreme caution) when using the block button. That is precisely what has not happened; Ryulong has failed to recognize that. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 00:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Recuse from any clerk activity in this case. (Today seems to be my day for doing that—just a coincidence.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/5/1/0)

Requests for clarification

Place requests for clarification on matters related to the Arbitration process in this section. If the case is ongoing, please use the relevant talk page. Place new requests at the top.

Durova, part II

I ask clarification in the application of the enforcement clause (link).

The decision says that "hose edit-warring against an administrator following this ruling so as to restore private content without consent of its creator may be briefly blocked by any uninvolved administrator, up to a week in the event of repeated violations". However, as pointed out in this edit by Thebainer (talk), arbitration decisions generally only apply to the case they're made in (exceptions including a number of decisions in the BDJ case, etc.).

So, I ask, does this enforcement apply to the parties/involved users in this case, or all Wikipedians? Naturally, if it is the latter, it should be expected that the user be given a final warning if it can be reasonably assumed that the user wasn't aware of the decision. Daniel 23:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Durova

(Apologies if poorly worded; I'm tired)

Clarification is requested to ensure the community correctly interprets principle #3 in this case. In past cases well-intentioned but unforeseen interpretations of a case principle have led to diverse interpretations and many problems. This one has the same potential so following discussion with Mackensen, I'm requesting clarification early on before any incorrect or assumptive meanings are accidentally drawn. The relevant sentence requiring clarification is:

"If a user feels that they cannot justify their actions in public, they are obliged to refrain from that action altogether or to bring the matter before the Arbitration Committee."

There are several points of principle that may arise; I'd like to raise them all just to be safe.

  1. In the past, when arbcom has specified a process or a new principle in its cases, that has always been stated or understood to be a proposal, or ad-hoc process, which the community can review or finalize. Or it runs in parallel with the community's view. In other words, it's akin to "this is the starting point, until things get discussed more". Other than asserting Arbcom's right to be involved, rulings don't usually override future consensus by the community at large on the matter. However, a literal reading of this sentence might be taken to mean, "Arbcom has spoken; this is how confidential information is obligated to be handled. All (and future) community discussion futile. Matter decided."
    Evidence of need: posted today on a proposed policy talk page: "I think the "process" section is ... perhaps not necessary. ArbCom expressed in its ruling that all confidential evidence has to go through them, so it wouldn't seem to admit any other , not even a subset of ArbCom"
    Clarification #1 - Confirmation that in general, when Arbcom makes decision in the form of a process, it's not intended to have a chilling effect on communal learning, or prevent the community considering, finding, and later rethinking, its own ways, over time. (In fact my understanding is that the community is actively encouraged to do so.)
  2. In the past, behavioral evidence has been used against certain sophisticated sockpuppet users. For example, some 60 socks of repeatedly-banned vandal HeadleyDown (AKA. KrishnaVindaloo, maypole, ...) have now been blocked. In proposed policy discussion, more than one person has commented that evidence against well known sockmasters often cannot be placed in public, since its first use would then be to allows the sockmaster to change their "give-away behaviors" ("not a suicide pact").
    Clarification #2 - does Arbcom confirm it now wants all such matters to be its domain now, and no actions of this kind decided by any other user or users?
    Clarification #3 - If so, is this to be a permanent ruling, or more an interim one until the community finds a better proposal that gets consensus. Ie, if the community develops a suitable consensus on an alternative means of handling "confidential information" would Arbcom need to be asked to sanction the communal proposal, before it could replace this ruling?
    Clarification #4 - is it necessary to ask #3? (Not a trivial question, it goes to the heart of how such rulings by Arbcom may be changed or removed, and Arbcom's view on their standing of process rulings it may make)
  3. Finally, if appropriate to ask, does the committee encourage or support the community in developing a more long term policy on handling of confidential information? (One is being developed, but the perceived announcement by Arbcom that it will exclusively handle such matters from now on, has led to question of its merit by a number of users and a diminishing of effort.)

In general what is being requested to be clarified is two things - 1) when Arbcom makes a ruling that will specify what some communal norm, process or conduct should be, how much can the community then develop it own answers going forward, and, 2) in this specific ruling does Arbcom really intend that all administrators who have sockpuppets they can identify via "give-away" behavior, should cease handling these from now on unless Arbcom (as opposed to other people) have reviewed each incident?

I'm fairly sure what Arbcom's ruling means :) and I'm fairly sure it's intended to mean commonsense applies. I feel though that it would be useful to have this sentence re-explained, to ensure no incorrect meanings are drawn causing conflict.

Apologies for presenting a few extreme interpretations. It is because such meanings might be drawn by well-intentioned users, that I'd like this important set of clarifications made asap :)

FT2  21:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Let me respond to each in kind:
  1. Unless it specifically states otherwise, Arbcom rulings do not preclude the development of new policies. Arbcom rulings reflect policies as the committee understands them at that particular time. Arbcom does not, as a rule, create new policies, although it may reconcile conflicting policies.
  2. No, but the administrator should in those cases be able to state which banned user is being blocked, so that users have a point of reference.
  3. See #1, for the most part. If policy evolves in a different direction then the situation can change.
  4. See #1. Arbcom rulings are not court rulings, nor legislation. Arbcom rulings should not be understood as to prevent the development of new policies.
  • As I've said, this ruling reflects policy as we understood it, and I think there's consensus that only Arbcom ought to handle truly "secret" evidence. On the other hand, if a sock is obvious to one sysop, it'll probably be obvious to another. Common sense applies. Arbcom is not the grand clearing-house of sockpuppet investigations. Mackensen (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
The community is entirely free to develop a policy to handle matters involving confidential evidence (within reason); our rulings, in general, speak to what we consider to be the present state of Misplaced Pages convention and practice, and don't make assumptions about future developments.
As for what the principle itself means, there are really two implicit points:
  1. By long-standing tradition, the Committee has the authority to take actions based on evidence that, for various reasons, cannot be revealed to the community as a whole.
  2. Other individuals or groups do not have such authority (with certain narrow exceptions having to do with WMF-authorized work, and so forth).
Thus, users can't take action based on non-public evidence without consulting us and then refuse to explain their action to the community. The question of what sort of explanation the community considers sufficient is, of course, a question for the community as a whole rather than the Committee. If there is wide consensus to allow or disallow some particular option here, that's perfectly open to discussion.
Does that answer your questions, or did I miss something? Kirill 21:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Armenia-Azerbaijan

There seems to be a decent amount of activity. For the sake of convenience the logs of these two cases should be somehow merged, perhaps templatified so that same log is visible on both pages and when a new entry is added it shows on both pages. This is trivially easy to do. {{Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan/Enforcement Log}} can be created and transcluded on both pages for this task.

-- Cat 12:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I have created the sub page per WP:BOLD. I have not transcluded it yet tho (I am not THAT bold). I'd like to do so per some sort of approval. -- Cat 06:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
"For the sake of conveniece" Do you mean for your convenience? If so,why would it be convenient for you, and why should your convenience be a reason to merge two separate and extremely controversial RfC records? Meowy 03:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me? My convenience? I am neither an admin nor an involved party. How does this make it "more convenient" for me? These are two closely RfAr cases and not RfCs at all. The record in question are copies of block logs. Same information is available in the form of block logs. Merge suggestion was to simplify an already complex case with a centralized list as both cases are very closely related. Frankly this opposition baffled me. Yes I am quite surprised. -- Cat 15:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how it would be "more convenient" for you. You made the "convenience" comment, so you are the one who should know! The case is complex because the second RfA case was exceptional in its outcome, especially in its draconian powers and in (what I believe to be) the unparallelled breadth of its scope which extended the remit of the original RfA far beyond reasonable and normal limits. There should be no move to minimise or disguise that situation. Meowy 01:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
How is that "draconian" argument relevant to the block log? This is merely merge the block logs, something available in machine generated logs...
It helps distinguish really disruptive users that got regular blocks from others. For example, we had several users that had engaged in disruptive sockpuppetary. Past blocks may be overlooked in a hypothetical situation if a user was blocked per RfAR case 1 and needs to be blocked again per RfAR case 2. The complicated nature of the cases as you pointed out makes review rather difficult which exactly why simplifying that process as much as possible is necessary. Some logs are relentless! Such a synchronized block log would minimize the confusion. Block logs are public data and this suggestion isn't even remotely controversial.
Does you opposition have a reason? If so please state it because I do not see the mention of such a reason so far.
-- Cat 06:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


Status of TruthCrusader block review?

On October 31st User:TruthCrusader was indefinitely blocked for off-wiki harassment of User:Calton. TruthCrusader maintains that he did not make the off-wiki postings he was blocked for and requested that the blocking admin, User:Jpgordon, provide evidence justifying the block. Jpgordon declined to discuss the matter on the grounds that reviewing the material would further aggravate the harassment by making the attacks known to a wider population. The suggestion was made that only ArbCom should review the evidence because of its inflammatory nature and TruthCrusader thus submitted the matter to ArbCom for review. TruthCrusader states that no response has been forthcoming to date.

Generally, I think the less which is done 'behind closed doors' the better. Making the evidence publicly available exposes it to additional eyes who may see things that a handful of arbitrators do not and thus actually prove the truth of the matter one way or the other. We've recently seen how that works in the !! case. We should only be invoking 'secrecy' in the most extreme of cases where personally identifying information, legal complications, or the like are involved... and then only for the smallest portion of those cases which actually must be kept from the public.

Regardless, it has been a past axiom of ArbCom cases (and common sense) that admins must be prepared to explain and justify their actions. If Jpgordon will not publicly discuss how he determined that TruthCrusader was behind the off-wiki actions attributed to him then at the least we need to hear from ArbCom that they have reviewed the matter. As it stands we've got a user blocked for nearly a month for actions he allegedly committed off-wiki. If he is or may be innocent that's unacceptable. If he is guilty then it is well past time to say so and close this matter out. --CBD 14:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Application of the Misplaced Pages:Civility and Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks policies

Can the Arbitration committee please clarify their position on the application of these policies. There seems to be notable general feeling that past rulings by the committee have set precedent that 'Standing', ie history of contributions and administrative work, can be used as mitigation for incivil behavior and personal attacks against other editors. Specifically, I ask if 'Standing' can be used as defense even if past history indicates the editor will continue to make personal attacks and other disruptive incivility, something that policy indicates should result in preventative block. --Barberio (talk) 23:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

"Standing" should obviously have no effect on findings of fact. Our custom is to allow standing to affect any remedy. If "remedy" is taken literally - the AC actually does try to fix up situations - it should be clear why that is. The process is not punitive, but has regard to the work going on daily on the site. Analogy with criminal proceedings can mislead. If you are asking whether the AC should apply remedies it knows in advance are likely to fail, the answer is "no"; though of course we are allowed to take a more optimistic view than self-appointed prosecutors. And mixing in policy is an odd thing here; certain kinds of disruption are within the remit of any admin, quite independent of what the AC says. But it is true that an AC case ought to be considered to have 'dealt with' past history, given in evidence. After all, blocking productive editors is a loss to the project. Generally it is not that helpful if ancient incidents are brought up against people. Charles Matthews (talk) 23:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply, however I'm not sure you clarified the point I was asking about. I find your statement that "certain kinds of disruption are within the remit of any admin" very confusing.
You also seem to contradict the policy by saying past history of personal attacks should not be considered. To quote WP:NPA : "Recurring attacks are proportionally more likely to be considered 'disruption'. Blocking for personal attacks should only be done for prevention, not punishment. A block may be warranted if it seems likely that the user will continue using personal attacks." This seems to me clear indication that someone with an obvious past history of personal attacks, who makes no effort or only token efforts to reform, and continues to make personal attacks may be blocked as a preventative measure regardless of their 'standing'.
I'm not entirely sure if you are saying that an editor who habitually makes personal attacks, and thus could be preventively blocked, can be a productive editor. It would seem to me that such an editor is being counter-productive. --Barberio (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
The statement about admins is consistent with what you quoted from policy, no? "Recurring" needs sensible interpretation; once a week, yes, if you go back six months, no. Admins do have some discretion here; blocks for disruption are always in some measure judgement calls. You asked how the AC sees it, and I am of course speaking for myself here. But the AC tends to work from principles, not detailed policy wording (which is always very much subject to mission creep). "Preventive" blocking; I think we'd not be happy to see indefinite blocks, but "cooling off" blocks are within admin discretion, assuming they are proportionate to the situation. On your last point, it seems clear that some productive editors do also indulge in personal attacks. There is no "entitlement"; what actually happens is that the AC is only happy to take cases on this alone (loudmouth stuff) when there is something fairly definite to point to. One final point is that civility paroles are a standard remedy, which the AC will use in cases (and if we don't, it is some indication). Charles Matthews (talk) 11:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This raises the question of someone who after being warned about Personal Attacks, 'cleans up their act' for six months, but then reverts back to making personal attacks with signs they will continue. By your standard, we should not consider their history as it's 'the far past'. It is notable that application of 'civility parole' could lead to cases of this type arising where the editor returns to bad behavior some time after the period of parole is over.
This is explicitly not the standard that is applied to other cases of disruptive behavior such as edit waring. In those cases past history has been considered when an editor reverts to that behavior and appears ready to continue doing so. I'm confused as to why you feel this should not be applied to NPA and civility?
I'm afraid I must strongly disagree with you on your point that 'productive editors' may engage in personal attacks. By definition, productive editors are those who make contributions to the project. Making personal attacks significantly and strongly detracts from the project. Editors who are making personal attacks are not productive members of the project, and shouldn't be treated as if they are. A plumber who unclogs my toilet, repairs my shower, fixes my sink, then smashes all my windows; was not being productive. --Barberio (talk) 11:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) That's anyway not what I said. I said there is no entitlement to be incivil, whatever an editor's contribution. And you were asking about the AC's collective view, which I have tried to explain. Personally I'm a hawk on incivility - I always vote for civility parole remedies, as you could see from my voting record. I would answer your point by saying simply that the AC's real expertise is in the field of editor behaviour. We are expected to take everything into account, case-by-case. Your hypothetical plumber would be a vandalism case, not an incivility case. We are expected to place decisions in some sort of framework. That's what the principles are for. There are some relevant principles, but not what you are saying. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Would you be willing to restate, or link to, those principles you feel express the opinion of the ArbCom on this issue? --Barberio (talk) 21:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Charles, I just read what you wrote above about "cooling off" blocks. My thought was that this had generally been regarded as an unhelpful thing to do. Blocks tend to generate heat, not coolness, especially when the person being issued a "cooling off" block is already quite angry. I believe I've seen users blocked for being irritible come back enraged after the block expires. IronDuke 21:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

I'm requesting a review on my placement under supervision by User:Ryan Postlethwaite for the following reason. The AA2 remedy #2 states: "Any editor who edits articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility may be placed under several editing restrictions." Ryan Postletwaite claims that "Although I don't see any incivility, the scope of the remedy was supposed to cover disruption via incivility or edit warring". I don't see the word OR, which Ryan felt so strong about that he made it appear bold.

This is what Thatcher131 told me month ago: "So far, no admin including myself has found that you yourself have edited these articles in an "aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility" and so you have not yet been placed under the restrictions described here. Thatcher131 01:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)"

Am I being compared to E104421 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Previously indef banned for edit warring, who was simultaneously edit warring with me and another user , , , . Who breached WP:3RR , , , , Who kept insisting (by reverting) that its gonna be his way and no other? even by reverting my minor edits . Who generally disregarded the talkpage and is yet to give justification for most of his POV reverts. Was I wrong, when I tried to compromise and only reverted partially? Was I wrong when I tried to keep the article as neutral as possible? As I said before, even though I was not under the restriction and supervised editing, I never reverted without justification, always explained and justified my edits in the talkpage. Most importantly my edits were not marked by incivility.

In fear of turning this board into another "he said she said" I request that only administrators respond to this request. VartanM (talk) 05:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration remedies are not meant to be carte blanche for administrators unless they explicitly provide for such authority. Ryan's interpretation of the decision here is incorrect; the remedy is applicable only to cases where the editor is incivil. Kirill 05:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
How about many other users, such as User:Aynabend and User:Baku87, who were placed on parole without any prior warning, while they both had a clean block log and never made any incivil comments? I don't think E104421 was incivil either. Both VartanM and E104421 were placed on parole for edit warring on Shusha article, since they made 3rvs each. VartanM had a previous official warning from another admin to stop edit warring, otherwise he would be placed on parole . So I think we need a clarification here. Can admins place users on parole for just edit warring, or they need to be engaged in both edit warring and incivility to be placed on parole? If the latter, then parole of some users has to be lifted. Grandmaster (talk) 07:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Krill for a super fast reply. Grandmaster the answer to your question is most probably that they need to personally come here and make their case. Assuming good faith on GM's part for ignoring my kind request. Good night to all. VartanM (talk) 09:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
We need to clarify the general principle of application of this remedy. If it applies only for incivilty, then User:E104421, User:Aynabend and User:Baku87 should be all relieved of it, since they never violated any civility rules, and the latter 2 editors have no previous blocks, warnings, etc, unlike User:VartanM. Grandmaster (talk) 09:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Kirill, User:VartanM is violating Users national background and neutrality principle by engaging in edit warring and POV pushing across several articles without restriction. We are yet to see how you address that by giving him a green light to continue doing what he is doing. And if VartanM's behavior was not marked by incivility, then how did the ArbCom address these , several counts of incivility not ever supervised, restricted or paroled? And if the VartanM's continuous editing conduct allows for interpretation against supervised editing, then how would supervised editing apply in case of the other user User:E104421, whose edits were not incivil. Based on POV pushed by User:VartanM throughout Misplaced Pages without any review or restriction, and paroles being deliberately applied only to contributors of certain one side, lifting the supervised editing is a delibreate violation of neutrality. Atabek (talk) 09:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

And why does VartanM cross out administrator's decision when this should be done either by administrator or arbitrator? Atabek (talk) 09:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The ArbCom notice reads: "Notice: Under the terms of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, any editor who edits articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility may be placed under several editing restrictions, by notice on that editor's talk page." I edited the Shusha article for the first time yesterday. I did not edited in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility. I provided sources, cited the references, commented on the talk pages and edit summaries. On the other hand, VartanM deleted the new section, references and quotatins on "cultural life" added by myself from cited references. VartanM's POV is focused on my previous block-log due to my long term conflicts with Tajik on Nomadic Empires related topics. My last block is dated 1 April 2007. That case was closed. I edited for the first time an Az-Ar related topic in my life (just 4 times + 1 minor spell check), but it's claimed that i have history of Az-Ar related topics. Now, i was placed under the parole, but VartanM's parole is removed. What kind of double standard is this? Deletion of referenced material constantly is not regarded as edit-warring, but addition of "new section and references" are claimed to be edit-warring. What happened to the basic Misplaced Pages policies: "WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:DR"? Regards. E104421 (talk) 10:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks Kiril for the response here. I was under the impression that this remedy tried to stop disruption in all forms (i.e. edit warring or incivility) due to the history of editing on these pages. Whilst I see that both users here have edit warred on the pages, I fail to see any incivility coming from them, so unless there's evidence of that, I'll remove both names from the supervised editing log. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Both User:Aynabend and User:Baku87 were placed under the same parole for a single page edit and without any incivility cited. So please, review their paroles as well. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 11:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I've removed Baku87 and VartanM for now - I'll wait for a response from the administrators that put E104421 and Aynabend under supervised editing before removing their names. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Ryan. Atabek (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Kirill, if I get this right, the remedy implies that the editors are free to edit war on topic related articles as long as they remain civil? If not, what the arbcom remedy proposes to stop edit wars, which were the reason to 2 arbcom cases in the first place? Thanks. Grandmaster (talk) 05:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I share a similar concern with this remedy. Given the scale of the disruption on this topic, I don't think it's a good idea that users must be incivil with edit warring. Edit warring is disruptive on its own and this does seem to advocate edit warring on the pages provided that the users remain civil. I think when a case like this goes to arbitration twice, administrators should be given a little bit more freedom to interpret decisions because per the clarification from Kirill yesterday, I've had to remove five names from the supervised editing list that should all most probably have had their editing placed under supervision, but can't because of a technicality. In many ways it seems it's a way to game the system. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Last month I requested a RfC on the apparent arbitrary extensions of the powers that the RfA Armenia-Azerbaijan2 remedy created. Being out of the country for 4 weeks, I did not have the opportunity to see its result. Where (if anywhere?) would the archive of that discussion material be stored? I must point out to the initiator of this RfC, that remedy 2 does not actually contain the words he has quoted. The fact that it does not, was the crux of my RfC. Meowy 18:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I recall that one of the arbitrators said that he was happy with the way the remedy was enforced, and that was after a number of editors were placed on parole for edit warring and sockpuppetry. Grandmaster (talk) 12:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
True, but they aren't the ones that have to deal with the situation day in, day out, and might not be fully aware as to the extent of the problems on these pages. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
And the other 5 arbitrators didn't even bother to respond? Astonishing, especially since I personally asked each of them to do so and also pointed out in some detail the flaws in both the use and scope of the RfA remedy. I am seriously considering making a RfA on the validity of the mess that is the Armenian-Azerbaijan2 RfA remedy. Meowy 02:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
There was another prior discussion here: , and I might be wrong, but the remedy seemed to be interpreted differently at the time. Grandmaster (talk) 13:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you everyone for this initative. I indeed have no problem in coming ahead, stating and being very proud that I have never used any incivility in my communications neither in this page nor somewhere else, and would highly appreciate if this injustice be corrected. Thanks again --Aynabend (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

EK3 residual prohibition

On November 11, the main elements of the ruling Everyking 3, first imposed two years prior, expired. However, an AN discussion followed in which two arbitrators (Raul654 and Jpgordon) denied that some elements of the ruling had expired (remedies 5 and "X"), on the basis that those elements were not listed by name as expiring this November in the amended ruling of July 2006. However, I think that, because the amended ruling says that my previous restrictions (those imposed in November 2005) expire in November 2007, this logically must include everything that was imposed in November 2005, because it did not provide for any exceptions.

(The following, which could be interpreted as a violation of one of the prohibitions claimed to still be in effect, was approved for posting on WP:RFAR by Raul654.)

One of the prohibitions which I believe should now be considered expired deals with a certain user with whom I had a series of disagreements in 2005. This user has now left Misplaced Pages, with a parting message that gives every impression of finality. The practical reason I have sought to have my restrictions removed is not that I want to do the things they prohibit me from doing, but that the restrictions serve as a kind of "scarlet letter", and a case where I am prohibited from discussing or interacting with a user who has left Misplaced Pages is a perfect example of this: no benefit can come to that user from my restriction, since he has left, but I continue to suffer from the stigma of having that restriction formally applied to me.

I request, therefore, that the ArbCom determine whether the restrictions in question should be considered to have expired or to remain in effect, and if the answer to that is the latter, then I request that the ArbCom lift the restriction described in the previous paragraph. Everyking (talk) 02:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


RFAR/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram

I've been contacted by User:Certified.Gangsta, who left the project in June 2007 in consequence of the sanctions imposed on him in the Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram RFAR. He was finding it impossible to edit under them, and was feeling very frustrated. User:Ideogram is now under a community ban, where he was found to have baited Certified.Gangsta and attempted to drive him off the project (successfully). CG is thinking about returning, and wonders if he might possibly have his editing restrictions revoked, despite the infractions he has indeed committed. Would the arbitrators like to take a look at this case, please? To remind you of how it went, I've written up a short overview of the circumstances here. Other users should feel free to add their views of the matter at that subpage, or at this notification, whichever works. Bishonen | talk 09:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC).

The Committee is discussing this matter. Kirill 13:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Bishonen | talk 14:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC).

Comment. I would not personally recommend a lifting of the restriction, since Ideogram was not the only editor that encountered his edit warring and I fail to see a pressing need in the absence of his primary antagonist. Giving such a user the extra wiggle room of two to three non-vandalism reverts seems like a poor idea for an established edit warrior. However, I would not be opposed to the editing restrictions being lifted, since the community tends to take a dim view of continued nonsense from editors with a problematic history. If CG were to relapse towards poor behaviour, I'm fairly confidant it would be handled quite quickly without kid gloves. I doubt great harm would result from allowing him the chance to participate in Misplaced Pages productively without editing restrictions. Additionally, the endorsement of Bishonen and Jehochman for the lifting of restrictions is a strong point in its favour. A bit of thought on both sides of the coin. *hands out grains of salt* Vassyana 00:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC) Disclosure: I was the blocking sysop for the most recent parole violation.

Thank you, Vassyana. Some recent developments: in his edits of today, November 10, Certified.Gangsta points (on request) to his positive contributions to the project.. Please note especially his appeal here, and the new section "Contribution" on his talkpage, which he's in the process of adding to. Bishonen | talk 12:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC).

Motions in prior cases

Motions

Shortcuts

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 23:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0 6
1–2 5
3–4 4
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

If any arbitrator prefers this way, unhat this motion and vote for it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

If motion 1 passes, replace the text The Arbitration Committee may appoint one or more former elected members of the Arbitration Committee to be correspondence clerks for the Arbitration Committee. with the text The Arbitration Committee may appoint, from among the English Misplaced Pages functionary corps (and preferably from among former members of the Arbitration Committee), one or more users to be correspondence clerks for the Arbitration Committee..

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

Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0 6
1–2 5
3–4 4
Support
Oppose
Abstain


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.

Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0 6
1–2 5
3–4 4
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.

Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0 6
1–2 5
3–4 4
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.

Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0 6
1–2 5
3–4 4
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.

Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0 6
1–2 5
3–4 4
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

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.

Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0 6
1–2 5
3–4 4
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.

Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0 6
1–2 5
3–4 4
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.

Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0 6
1–2 5
3–4 4
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

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)
Categories: