Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Commodore Sloat (talk | contribs) at 22:50, 12 November 2007 (→Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Commodore Sloat-Biophys#Parties instructed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 14 Dec 2024 04 Jan 2025
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024

Current requests

Macedonia

Initiated by Future Perfect at Sunrise at 09:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

(possibly others to be added).

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

Not applicable, this is a long-term pattern of disruptive nationalist behaviour spanning dozens of articles, multiple users and more than one content issue.

Statement by Fut.Perf.

The next big nationalism case after Azerbaijan-Armenia, Eastern Europe etc. There are three main disputes between four neighbouring nations here:

The players in this edit war are a relatively small number of established ringleaders, plus a large and volatile group of short-lived accounts. The balances of edit-warring firepower are such that the four nations involved have established a local pecking order of POV-pushing: Greek tendentious editing can generally get away with murder; Bulgarian tendentious editing will have its way as long as it's not against the Greeks; Albanian editors get their way because Greeks and Bulgarians come to their aid just to annoy the Macedonians; and most Macedonian editors are immobilized to such a degree they can hardly get an edit through without having it reverted immediately - leading to predictable outbreaks of sock attacks and other forms of retaliatory disruption from their side.

We need topic bans for a couple of ringleaders and revert paroles for at least a dozen others, plus administrative carte blanche for dealing with new disruption, à la Armenia-Azerbaijan.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ·ΚέκρωΨ·

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise's claim that "Greek tendentious editing can generally get away with murder" is baffling, given that the "fragile consensus" he mentions has been struck at the expense of the Greek position, and any dissent is immediately censored. The name Macedonia is used throughout Wikipedia in a way that is highly offensive to Greeks, especially Macedonians; see Macedonia naming dispute for further information. Furthermore, his portrayal of one side as the perennial victims is unhelpful in a complicated dispute of this nature. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 10:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sam Blacketer

I have been drawn into this a few times, for example declining Xstatik's unblock request (see User talk:Xstatik and note the belief that any administrator who disagreed with him must be part of a Greek conspiracy), and taking action against Dimorsitanos who was disruptively attempting a copy and paste page move to change the title of the (ex-Yugoslav) Republic of Macedonia to Former Yugoslavic Republic of Macedonia. I am not sure I follow Future Perfect at Sunrise's analysis of the 'pecking order' here but I do endorse his encouragement of an arbitration hearing to settle what administrators may do to prevent disruption on this set of articles. Sam Blacketer 11:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Avg

It is true that this is a very sensitive issue to all parties involved. However, being sensitive does not equal being nationalistic. The recent surge in edit warring occurs because tensions are extremely heightened outside Wikipedia. These weeks or even days are a turning point in the Macedonia naming dispute, since UN is drafting a final plan to be accepted by both RoM and Greece before RoM's entry to NATO. Apart from that, I'm disappointed that User:Future Perfect at Sunrise is clearly taking sides in this dispute. Perhaps he's been long enough to these topics to have lost the balance he should have as an administrator? As a Greek I feel insulted by the use of an expression such as "Greeks can get away with murder", especially without any diff supporting it. So I certainly support this is escalated, in order for ArbCom to establish some guidelines for both editors and admins. --   Avg    14:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Moreschi

Strongly urge acceptance; Macedonia has been a hotspot of nationalist edit-warring ever since Wikipedia started, see User:Moreschi/The Plague and relevant subpages. It's high time this troublesome topic was finally dealt with properly. Take the case, ban a couple of the most egregious wrongdoers to show the rest we mean business, and then apply sweeping remedies as in Armenia-Azeri Round 2: ones that give us Alliterative Admins Plentiful Powers to dole out Beautiful Blocks. Cheerio! Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 15:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by occasionally involved jd2718

I have occasionally edited Macedonia-related articles. When I first came to Wikipedia, I was interested in fixing up Thessaloniki. What I found, however is essentially what Future Perfect at Sunrise reports. This is a long term, usually low-level case of POV-pushing back and forth across many articles.

When I saw this RfArb, I looked at Thessaloniki - first thing. I'm not saying this is evidence, just that it is the first article I looked at -- and here's what I found: In late September, there was an edit war over the term "Macedonia" in the lead. It was resolved on the talk page and user talk pages and the article itself, largely through the efforts of NikoSilver, FPaS, and myself (see Talk:Thessaloniki#Periphery, region etc). Kekrops was involved. But what did I find this morning? Kekrops waited a month and quietly reverted to his favorite version. I don't mean to single that user out, it was just the first example I found. But the low-level warring over the term "Macedonia" and the historical claims to its usage never stops.

That being said, I am not certain what ArbCom can do here. My sense is that most of those saving changes on these groups of pages are advocates first, editors second. Even where more reasonable editors have worked towards consensus, that consensus can be badly flawed by representing compromise amongst advocates at a table, rather than an attempt to reach NPOV. Minorities, groups that edit less, and groups no longer in the region consistently get short shrift. The articles tend to represent relative strength on WP rather than consensus. Can ArbCom find a remedy for that?

Statement by Francis Tyers

I concur with the point of view of Fut.Perf. In areas such as this, uninvolved admins need more leeway to forcefully arbitrate disputes and get rid of obvious trolls. Part of the problem comes from demographics and wealth, there are more Greeks, and more Bulgarians on the internet than Macedonians. This follows through to Wikipedia. There is a tendency for both Bulgarians and Greeks to "gang up" on Macedonians as Fut. Perf. describes.

Talk pages also generally get filled with nationalist rubbish and personal attacks / comments, one example of the off-topic stuff that goes on in most pages here. Fortunately Fut. Perf. had the good sense to remove this particular lot, but there is so much more.

Topic and article bans would be very welcome for the more disruptive users. Particularly those found engaging in "tag-team" reverting to avoid the 3RR.

I'd like to add that it isn't all users, many Greek, Macedonian and Bulgarian users manage to work on articles together perfectly well (see for example Macedonia (terminology) as suggested by Niko below). I'd like to add that not "practically adopting" the Greek position does not mean the same thing as "practically adopting" the ethnic Macedonian position.

Statement by NikoSilver

I agree with most of Fut.Perf's comments, and with the necessity of certain of his remedies proposed. I have tried to serve the cause for Wiki-serenity in Macedonia related articles through a featured contribution (Macedonia (terminology)) and various other articles (notably Macedonia naming dispute and WP:MOSMAC), always preserving the established consensus. As a Greek, I must note that doing so is extremely difficult, given that the consensus in Wikipedia, as established by the related policies, practically adopts the ethnic Macedonian position. I am noting this only to suggest that there may be an apparent excuse on behalf of the Greek editors, who can never swallow that "Macedonian" refers to anything other than their northern compatriots. On the other hand, the ethnic Macedonian users start from a consensus that matches their views in most issues, therefore there shouldn't have been as many needs for editing abuse. As such, I am deeply concerned about the "getting away with murder" comment, since Greeks aren't apparently successful in killing anybody, so I don't see what there may be to "get away" from. NikoSilver 20:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ireland101

I fully agree with the comments of Fut.Perf. The whole issue with Macedonian related articles has gone too far. As mentioned before the fact that members of the other ethnic groups gang up or "tag-team" against the edits of Macedonian users is quite apparent and troubling. This has gone so far that I have even seen ethnic Macedonian users leave Wikipedia because of this sort of injustice. Although some Greek users may not agree Fut.Perf is correct when stating that Greek users can get away with almost anything. The edits speak for themselves as in almost any conflict the Greek side has won. The several users that push the Bulgarian POV are quite successful mainly due to their organization. It is rare that I see edits from Macedonians that aren't reverted within 10 minutes. Besides the fact that it is proven that many of these users use socks I think some more investigation needs to be done as I suspect multiple users may be using those accounts to achive what they have. And as Fut.Perf also mentioned it is quite disappointing to see these users supporting the Albanians just to annoy the Macedonians. A solution must be found for this. Ireland101 21:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Li4kata

All people in Macedonia have a origin ethnic and this ethnic must be clearly showed. E.g. many Bulgarian revolutionaries are considered like ethnic Macedonian in Republic Macedonia. One of discussed people is Boris Sarafov. He is regular Bulgarian military officer, born in Region of Macedonia (present-day in Bulgaria). Some notes:

1. Boris Sarafov in your Memoirs he defined himself like ethnic Bulgarian. Boris Sarafov heve never defined like other ethnic.

2. In Republic of Macedonia defined ethnic origin according to born places. E.g. all members of Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization, born in Region of Macedonia are defined like Macedonians (ethnic) and this members born in North Bulgaria or Adrianople Thrace like Bulgarians. Art. 1 from Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization Regulation says, that in organization can member Bulgarians only. For more information see IMRO.

3. Boris Sarafov's brother Krastyo Sarofov is one of most popular and favorite Bulgarian theter actors. In Bulgaria Krastyo Sarafov National Academy for Theatre and Film Arts is the only one Theatre and Film Arts institution of higher education for all Bulgaria.

4. In Bulgarian SS. Cyril and Methodius National Library are preserved a lot of IMRO documents and personal correspondence of Boris Sarafov and all Bulgarian national heros from Macedonia, where they many times are defined themself like ethic Bulgarians. I see that for some of Bulgarians national heros there are already for several sources proved them ethnicity. What is need number sources, which put finish of this madness, to be defined some for ethic Macedonian, after he defined himself like Bulgarians! --Li4kata 10:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jingiby

I will answer to Future with citations from two persons.

- The first one is from Krste Misirkov, the most prominent figure of the ethnic Macedonian national awakening and as he was proclamed from Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts - Macedonian #1 of 20th Century. The citatation is from his mostly known work "On the Macedonian Matters" from 1903, were the central issue was - the existence, or not, of a Macedonian nation distinct from the Bulgarian nation.

"...We spokе Bulgarian language and we believed with Bulgarians is our strong power...The future of Macedonia was in the spiritual union of the Bulgarians in Macedonia... The Macedonian Slavs ware called Bulgarians...The biggest part of the population ware called Bulgarians... All spoke that Macedonians are Bulgarians...".

- The second one is from the former Vice-President and Premier of Republic of Macedonia and now Bulgarian citizen Ljubčo Georgievski.In late summer of 2007 Georgievski published his book "Facing the truth" in Bulgaria. In it he reveals his attitude to Macedonian identity and Bulgarian past in the Republic of Macedonia:

"Why are we ashamed and flee from the truth that whole positive Macedonian revolutionaries traditions comes exactly from Bulgarian Exarchate's part of Macedonian people. We shall not say a new truth if we mention the fact that everyone, Gotse Delchev, Dame Gruev, Giorche Petrov, Pere Toshev - must I list and count all of them - were Bulgarian Exarchate's teachers in Macedonia."

And now we have to change their ethnicity, or what?Jingby 15:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alex

I agree with Future Perfect. The fact that there is a pecking order disgusts me and this issue needs to be resolved. I am not saying Macedonians are always the victims but on Wikipedia it seems to be the case.

While Greeks take offense at hearing the name Macedonian referring to the ethnic Macedonians, ethnic Macedonians take offense in not being called Macedonians. The Greeks have the identifier "Greek" and some of them use "Macedonian", the Macedonians only have "Macedonian" and that is where the problem lies. But my question is, why did Greece not have a problem with the Socialist Republic of Macedonia? They used the name Macedonia (not Currently Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) yet Greece and Greeks did not care. And from the official codification (not invention) in 1944 of the Macedonian language up until Macedonian independence, there was no protest from the Greek side. It all happened after independence, when the Greek Government stated that Macedonia is Greek and Greeks started claiming that the use of "Macedonian" in connection with the newly independent country was offensive. After a while, what you claim and what you think can become the same. This may have happened with Skopjan and Slavomacedonian on the other side. Problem is, we can't change anything in terms of what is offensive now.

But in other parts of the world (even Melbourne, which has the most Greeks outside Athens), everybody knows what people mean when saying Macedonia. I went to a school where 1/3 of students were Greek and 1/3 were Macedonian - we learned our respective languages in the school, and no Greek (student, teacher or parent) referred to Macedonians as Slavs or Skopjans, but simply Macedonians. If you ask any Greek, regardless of geographical region, where they come from, they will say Greece, not Macedonia, not Thessaly but Greece. The ones that say Macedonia refer to the country, and even Greeks know this. I have even seen nationalist (or maybe just racist) Greeks saying "Macedonians Suck" - and that is a partial resolution (Greeks can hate Macedonians, yet call them by their name).

The Bulgarian users like to edit everything to do with Macedonians - even indisputably non-Bulgarian things like the SR Macedonia/SFR Yugoslavia place of birth thing. That is another problem.

And Future Perfect is not taking sides - many Macedonians find many articles unsatisfactory. Unfortunately, if Bulgarians and Greeks find articles unsatisfactory, they have the power in numbers to change them in the long run. Alex 202.10.89.28 07:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

Winter Soldier 2

Initiated by Heimstern Läufer (talk) at 04:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[2], [3]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Heimstern

TDC and Xenophrenic have been edit warring for quite some time at various articles: Winter Soldier Investigation, Mark Lane (author) and Vietnam Veterans Against the War. The edit warring lasted for days at times, for example, in late August and early September at Mark Lane (author). The first arbitration case on this topic concerned TDC and an anonymous editor known as 165.247.xxx; this checkuser request suggests that Xenophrenic is likely the same as the anonymous editor in this case. After seeing a recent three-revert rule report against TDC, I brought this to the incident noticeboard in the hopes of pursuing a community sanction, but the discussion has been unproductive. Several allegations and denials make this case complex: TDC accuses Xenophrenic of being a sockpuppet, which Xenophrenic denies. Xenophrenic, furthermore, denies being the same editor as the anon in the original arbitration case, though few others seem to believe him. In short: I feel this case is too complex for community sanctions and that the Committee should determine a proper solution to this problem. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by partially involved Chaser

I think we may be able to dodge arbitration here. TDC was happy to go to 1RR in the ANI thread (with conditions), and Xenophrenic just added a voluntary editing restriction to his own userpage [4]. These two have no shortage of other bad blood, but I think earlier steps in dispute resolution, like article RFCs, might benefit the situation more than arbitration if we aleady have the 1RR editing restriction in place.--chaser - t 07:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TDC

I don’t believe that this arbitration is warranted. I proposed several remedies over at ANI that would end any editing conflicts on the articles mentioned, dead in their tracks. I also do not think this is warranted because the other editor involved, user:Xenophrenic, is a sockpuuet of another user (yet to be clearly determined who that user is but obviously a sockpuppet), and no one, except for him naturally, disagrees with that. Holding me to the same level of scrutiny as a disruptive WP:SPA, and unconditionally providing that SPA with a forum is madness.

I also do not believe that Arbcom has the authority at this time to hear this case as there has been no consensus to file. After reviweing the ANI posting the opinion was not to take this to arbitration, but to find another avenue to settle this issue. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Xenophrenic

I came here all fired up with a statement to defend myself against charges of edit warring. Now I see by the statements of three other involved parties that edit warring isn't the real issue. Heimstern suggests the edit warring issue wouldn't require ArbCom attention, if not for a more "complex" issue. Chaser also suggests the edit warring isn't an ArbCom issue, but alludes to an "other bad blood" issue. TDC also feels the edit warring doesn't warrant ArbCom attention, saying he could easily stop the wars "dead in their tracks," but he mentions another issue instead.

My turn now. I'm am going to agree with the other three parties that this issue of edit warring doesn't rise to the level requiring ArbCom attention. Heimstern says we, "have been edit warring for quite some time at various articles," when in fact we have not. At the VVAW article, we each made about 20 competing edits over a two month period, then Chaser intervened, mediated, edited and built consensus, and neither TDC nor I have returned to that article in the past month. On the Lane article, we made about 30 competing edits each, and spent a lot of time on the talk page itemizing and hashing out every conflict we had. We resolved the issues (with some help from the Mediation Cabal on the last issue), and neither TDC nor I have returned to that article in the past month. TDC and I are presently editing the WSI article, and discussing some of our conflicts on the talk page, but it's been a bumpy road. I have requested and received a week long page protectionand also a 3RR editing block when I felt there was too much reverting and too little consensus-building. Progress is slowly being made.

The real issue: TDC's persistent accusations of sock puppetry and related harassment. This is a serious user conduct issue. Since I first started editing here, TDC has accused me of being an IP-user in an old ArbCom case, or a sock puppet of that user. He has also accused me of being User:Reddi, or a sock puppet of Reddi. He has also accused me of being a sock puppet of some yet to be revealed person known only to him. On talk page discussions, he disruptively refers to me as Anon or Reddi or Rob or Mr. Redding or anything other than my editing name. He even created an attack page containing insults and offering monetary rewards to Wikipedians that provide him with more fodder for his accusation tirade. Several Administrators immediately admonished TDC and speedy-deleted his creation. I mean, come on! Now other users are coming out of the woodwork, claiming they, too, are being falsely accused of sock puppetry by TDC during editing disputes with him. There is much more, but based on the above information alone I am urging the ArbCom to accept this case. Please have TDC present all of his sock puppet conspiracies for your review, determine their merit, and then explain how they justify his harassment and edit warring. I believe such a review would go a long way toward quelling current or future conflicts. Xenophrenic 23:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Travb

Xenophrenic in Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Xenophrenic the administrator said that it is "likely" that you are the same editor. So TDCs argument seems to have some validity. You certainly write a lot like the anon.

User:TDC has been through a lot of Arbcoms so he knows the restrictive conditions they can put on an editor. This time around you two will be banned forever from these articles, do you want this Xenophrenic? Is this your goal?

The anon was suicidally stubborn too, you also seem to share this trait.Travb (talk) 07:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Travb, I have seen the several CheckUser requests, including one that came back "likely". I don't know what TDC's argument is yet, unless it is "I think you are someone else, therefore I am allowed to edit war, harass and deserve a lighter level of scrutiny than you." It is hard to tell from just a brief opening statement. I have faith any sanctions issued by the ArbCom will be appropriate to their findings. I don't believe this is the location for these discussions, but if the case is accepted I am sure we'll talk later. Cheers, Xenophrenic 08:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Gnangarra

I have chosen to comment here after receiving a request on 10th Novemeber 2007 from TDC via email for information on Xenophrenic and the block in February 2007

I was involved with issues between these users in February 2007 and again September 2007. I want to clarify a point being discussed above the Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Xenophrenic, I agree that the CU says likely on 5th February 2007. The case was relisted on the 3rd August 2007 at which time it was closed as being a duplicate of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Reddi this one was tagged as unrelated on the 9th August 2007 diff by User:Mackensen, and closed as such.

Secondly the Arbcom ruling that TDC has been referring to had a parole period of 1 year from the Feb 11, 2006, to me that means that the 1R parole finished on 11th February 2007. yet TDC was still saying that Xenophrenic is subject to that arbcom ruling in August 2007diff. Even in September after the CU returned a conclusive unrelated the arbcom ruling was being quoted as the reason for extending the block period diff. Gnangarra 13:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tony Sidaway

I was involved as an administrator and sometimes "referee" in what I perceived as unabashed warfare over the Winter Soldier article two years ago. To the best of my knowledge I haven't encountered TDC since then.

TDC appears to have served out his article ban on that article and returned without changing his modus operandi, this time with one User:Xenophrenic taking the place of his former anonymous adversary. We've banned editors from Wikipedia for less. Time to consider sterner measures for TDC, and perhaps also to revisit this article, which has historically had big problems (including, at one point, extensive copyright infringement) not attributable solely to TDC.

A glance at TDC's user page shows that he remains unashamedly partisan and continues to abuse Wikipedia resources to advance (not merely to disclose, in the interests of neutral point of view) his political point of view. Does Wikipedia need the services of such self-proclaimed and proudly biased editors? --Tony Sidaway 18:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the problem of copyright infringement on that article was not a result of TDC's edits in any way. I gave it solely as an example of severe problems that have plagued the article, to justify looking at the state of the article itself, in relation to Wikipedia's policies, rather than simply the behavior of any one person or group who have edited it. --Tony Sidaway 21:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by MONGO

Simply put, there are articles on this website that are polarizing, and oftentimes attract those with widely divergent viewpoints. TDC has chosen to edit articles of this nature and has had to contend at times with those using multiple accounts to evade 3RR. There is no evidence that TDC has used sock accounts, however. TDC has, (though there is no currently binding arbcom remedy that he do so), told us he intends to follow a self imposed 1RR on the Winter Soldier and other articles[5], and I expect he will follow through with that promise....As TDC has stated, he expects that Xenophremic's accounts should be identified, and since checkuser has indicated that Xenophrenic is using sockpuppets to evade a previous ruling, then I concur that the main fault here lies with the sockpuppeteer. As far as banning editors because they hold strong political opinions?...of course not...especially not if they continue to provide us with reliable sources to back up their arguments, and TDC does this routinely.--MONGO 18:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Abe.Froman

Another dust-up over Winter Soldier involving TDC. Not a surprise. Another huge waste of time marked by pages and pages of comments. Will someone please play parent and give both stubborn editors a time-out so others can get on with useful editing? Abe Froman 20:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

Jasenovac concentration camp

Initiated by Rjecina at 15:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

dispute resolution is not possible because this is simple question with only possible answers Yes or No. Mediation is not possible because voting will become nationalistic fight between users from Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Serbia.

Statement by Rjecina

Question is simple if Jasenovac is one of Holocaust extermination camps. From my knowledge and from US Holocaust museum (list of Holocaust extermination camps) knowledge he is not because there is "only" 6 Holocaust extermination camps and this are Auschwitz · Bełżec · Chełmno · Majdanek · Sobibór and Treblinka. I have come here to ask for decision so this question which has started in 2006 with edits of single purpose account User:Soece so that this question will be solved. Even PaxEquilibrium know that there is "only" 6 Holocaust extermination camps [6] but he is reverting. What I, he or somebody else think is personal thinkings and nothing more or less. Wikipedia need to accepted historical truth in articles and not warmonger nationalism. I ask for decision so that all future similar writing that Jasenovac is Holocaust extermination camps can be reverted without looking to 3RR rule. Similar to that if your decision will be that he is 1 of historical Holocaust extermination camps all edits which say different can be reverted without problem.

Clerk notes

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

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




Requests for clarification

Place requests for clarification on matters related to the Arbitration process in this section. Place new requests at the top.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2

I've blocked DreamGuy initially for one week for abusive sock puppetry, incivility, and edit warring. I am requesting a review of his sanctions because there are additional factors that ArbCom was unaware of at the time. I recommend increasing the length of the block, and also a checkuser to confirm what appears to be an obvious case of sockpuppetry. See ANI thread and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dreamguy 2. In brief, DreamGuy appeared to be laying low during this case, but was actually editing with an IP sock puppet to avoid scrutiny. Just five days after the case closed, his sockpuppet was used for incivility and edit warring. I view this behavior as cynical manipulation that calls for stronger sanctions. - Jehochman Talk 15:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having difficulties following Jehochman's exposition; i.e. links to more links to more links, etc. El_C 17:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that, with Jehochman's permission, I have lifted the block. See my unblock notice for detail. El_C 03:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The editing restriction placed on DreamGuy applies to the person, not the account; if he's being incivil under another username, any admin is free to block him. I do not think there is any need for additional sanctions at this time. Kirill 03:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem experienced by Demcdevit and myself was to be shown evidence of any recent incivility as grounds for the block. El_C 03:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Kirill. That's helpful. - Jehochman Talk 05:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I urge the committee to investigate Jehochman's disturbingly uncommunicable conduct. El_C 06:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to submit a formal request for arbitration, you may do so further up the page. A request for clarification regarding an already-closed case is not an appropriate venue to consider the actions of an uninvolved editor. Kirill 06:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I've been left with no choice. El_C 07:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Might I suggest a little patience, El C? Perhaps try to resolve this via some other means...I would be glad to mediate.--MONGO 07:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the matter is now resolved. El_C 08:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Commodore Sloat-Biophys#Parties instructed

Hi - I need clarification on this instruction. My concern is that the other party has taken this instruction as a license to own articles; do I need to avoid any article he edits, and stop editing whatever articles I edit if he edits them too? As the arbitration came to a close he immediately went to one of the disputed pages and made the exact same changes that I and several other users had been protesting. Is this behavior considered reasonable, and am I expected to just ignore any page he chooses to edit? Or are his actions considered a violation of the spirit of this instruction? csloat 04:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ArbCom instruction was that we are "instructed to refrain from interacting with or commenting about each other in any way." But we might need a formal practical rule on that. So I proposed the following: "I will not edit any articles where you made any edits before me, however minor these edits might be; and you promise do the same with regard to articles I have ever edited." [7]. Is that reasonable? So far I followed exactly this rule. It is easy to see who of us edited an article first. We are both treated equally. This has nothing to do with own, since all remaining WP users are very welcome to edit any article in question. It is not possible to edit the same article without communication. Biophys 20:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I do not believe that is reasonable; it smacks of ownership of articles. Especially when one party to the arbitration has immediately taken the close of arbitration as a license to return to the extremely objectionable behavior of the recent past. I would like an arbitrator's view on the matter. (I would also like clarification on whether even this particular interaction violates the instruction; I don't think so but it is vague enough that it might). csloat 21:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I only said that I am not going to follow edits of another user (as ArbCom requested) and asked for the same in return. If that is not reasonable, some clarification may indeed be needed.Biophys 22:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What Biophys proposes is reasonable; neither one of you should edit an article the other is already engaged in editing. Splitting the articles formerly in conflict is somewhat arbitrary. If you guys can live with dividing them by which of you edited them first, that's fine. The alternative—which I suspect will be less to your liking—will be to restrict both of you from editing any article you've been in conflict over in the past (as was done in the WLU-Mystar case). Kirill 04:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the only articles where there was a significant problem were Communist terrorism and Operation Sarindar -- I would be ok with the solution that neither of us edits those two articles. csloat 16:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The list of articles that we edited both is much longer, including Criticism of Bill O'Reilly, Intelligence Summit, California in focus, and others. So, let's follow the official ArbCom decision as clarified by Kirill. We do not need ArbCom sanctions as in WLU-Mystar case.Biophys 17:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those are simply articles you stalked me to -- none of them were articles were we had actual substantive conflicts. I am asking for clarification of the arbitration decision; I think for the two articles named a better solution will be necessary as I have significant substantive problems with your use of original research on them. csloat 00:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid that we had a conflict in all articles that we both edited, and there are too many of them. So let's follow good advice by Kirill.Biophys 01:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No; we had no substantive conflict over the other articles. The substantive conflicts were over those two articles and I will agree to leave them alone if you agree to the same. But I do not think it is a good idea to say that you "own" those two articles. csloat 07:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted evidence in this case. Upon resolution, Biophys proceeded to undo all of my contributions to Operation Sarindar. We will hear no more of this, should both parties refrain from editing said two pages. Something, obviously, not for me to decide. smb 21:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avoiding all article where they have both made significant contributions in the past sounds like the best solution to me. Divvying up mutually-edited articles based on who edited first isn't an optimal solution in my opinion. Picaroon (t) 23:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What does it mean a "significant contribution"? Are we going to dispute here our contributions to all articles? We need a formal and simple criterion. There are only two simple options. Option 1: we divide all articles that we both edited, as has been suggested above (note that we both are treated equally). This option is consistent with current ArbCom decision, as clear from the statement by Kirill. Option 2: we do not edit any articles that we both previously edited, however all our newly edited articles would still be divided according to Option 1. Then a new decision by ArbCom is needed, and we do not want that.Biophys 17:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "significant contribution" standard seems clear enough to me. My interpretation of this would be any article in which both of us took a stake in the outcome, which can be determined by looking at edits. If you or I just came there to revert the other one a couple of times and didn't participate in talk, it would not be considered a significant contribution. But if we both made substantive changes to the article and participated in talk, it would be considered a significant contribution. This is an easily enforced standard, and we can clear it up right here. In my observation, the only articles where there is that much overlap is the Communist terrorism article and the Operation Sarindar article (which you have again changed the name of). I don't think you could make that case for any other article. csloat 21:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Biophys wrote: There are only two simple options. Fallacy of the excluded middle. Biophys and csloat can refrain from editing any article the other has made significant contributions to while at the same time both avoiding the two problematic pages that brought us here. Namely, Operation Sarindar and Communist terrorism. Fair and simple. There is no contradiction here at all. smb 21:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those are two options noted by ArbCom member Kirill, and I agree with him.Biophys 22:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually those are two that you made up, which are different from what Kirill suggested. One of Kirill's options is the option I have advocated here. csloat 22:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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).[reply]

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

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 Wikipedia 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.[reply]

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.[8]. 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).[reply]

Regarding Robert Prechter remedy

User:Newyorkbrad suggested this was the place to come for this problem.

In the RfA for Robert Prechter Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert Prechter I was banned from editing articles related to Prechter, essentially because I was putting "too much" negative information into a WP:BLP. I consider this ban a stain on my reputation. I think that subsequent events have shown that the decision was wrong, and I request that you review the ban.

In early August User:Rgfolsom quit editing Wikipedia following two major set-backs (for him not for Wikipedia). In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socionomics (2nd nomination) it was again decided that Socionomics be deleted (it was supposed to be put into a tempory redirect to Prechter and is still there.) Folsom offended many editors in that debate with his attack-dog style. As the closer said:

Discussion. — This is a very unwieldy discussion, so for the sake of efficiency I am simply discounting anything written by Rgfolsom (talk · contribs), who is being paid to promote and defend Robert Prechter's concept of "socionomics" and has a conflict of interest. As volunteer editors, we are simply not playing in the same league as he.

About the same time he fought unsucessfully to have the following deleted from the Prechter article:

In July 2007, the Hulbert Financial Digest, published by Dow Jones, reported that Elliott Wave International's Elliott Wave Financial Forecast had a 15-year annualized return of negative 25.4%/year and a return of negative 17.8% over the life of the newsletter.[17]

This is well documented, and other editors would simply not put up with his demands anymore. I think this is why he quit editing - everybody could easily see his bullying tactics, and the community would not let him use them anymore.

Since I was banned for putting too much weight on negative material, I think this fact needs to be considered (the negative 25.4% annual return over 15 years). When an investment advisor has a negative 25.4% annual return duing the biggest bull market in history, I don't see how the documented quotes from major news sources that I put in the article could be considered to be overly negative.

Combined with his attack-dog style which has offended just about everybody he's dealt with, I'd like you to reconsider the ban.

Sincerely,

Smallbones 23:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was partially involved during the mediation stage of this case. Rgfolsom was a most-disagreeable person to deal with via e-mail, and I think the restrictions on Smallbones were a bit too much. Personally, I would endorse a restoration of Smallbones' full editing rights. ^demon[omg plz] 13:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smallbones I think I understand your situation but I have two questions to be sure. Is the "negative" information stuff like: William Power (19 August 1993). "Robert Prechter sees his 3600 on the Dow--But 6 years late". The Wall Street Journal. ? While "positive" information comes mostly from him or his company? If the answers to both questions are yes, IMHO you are actually abiding by WP:NPOV and shouldn't be punished just because the sources say what they do. (Sometimes sources have more negative things to say than positive). Anynobody 08:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. All the negative information was in the form of quotes, from the most reliable business press - e.g. the Wall Street Journal, Fortune, the Financial Times, Barron's. When I put 1 of these sources in the article, Folsom reverted it, when I put 2 in he reverted, 3 ..., 4.... Maybe when I put nine in, it was a bit of overkill. The "positive" sources, if I recall correctly, were exclusively from Folsom's boss Prechter. When I started editing the article, it was a copyright violation, taken directly from Prechter's website. Smallbones 20:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That, for lack of a better word, sucks. This is exactly the type of situation I thought WP:UNDUE was meant to address. (Certainly we can mention Prechter's belief in his system, but the bulk of our article should come from sources like Wall Street Journal, Fortune, the Financial Times, Barron's.
Banning people like you from editing a topic for citing reliable sources is a big mistake and I hope the arbcom will notice this oversight. Anynobody 22:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To prove my point, it looks like Smallbones was topic banned because his version seemed overly negative. However the "negativity" isn't a product of POV pushing on his/her part but simply what the sources say. The two versions given and their references:

Template:Multicol

Smallbones version, includes 20 references:

1. ^ William Power (19 August 1993). "Robert Prechter sees his 3600 on the Dow--But 6 years late". The Wall Street Journal: 1. 2. ^ Robert McGough (July 17, 1997). "Bears Will Be Right On Stocks Someday, Just You Watch --- So They Missed 5,000 Points, It's No Reason They Ought To Stop Prognosticating". The Wall Street Journal: 1. 3. ^ Levy, Adam (February 2003). "The Ultimate Bear". Bloomberg Markets: p. 69. 4. ^ a b c d Robert R. Prechter, Jr. (various dates). "Elliott Wave Theorist". Elliott Wave International. 5. ^ Best Sellers List (11 August 2002). "Book Review". New York Times: p. 24. 6. ^ Robert R. Prechter, Jr. (1999). The Wave Principle of Human Social Behavior and the New Science of Socionomics. Gainesville, Georgia: New Classics Library. 7. ^ Penn, David (June 2003). "Social Mood and the Markets". Technical Analysis of Stocks & Commodities: p. 50. 8. ^ McCaffrey Brecht, Kira (July 2003). "Trader's Hall of Fame Award - Robert Prechter - An Interview with the Elliott Wave Guru". Stocks, Futures & Options Magazine: p. 42. 9. ^ a b Robert R. Prechter, Jr. (1996/2004). Prechter's Perspective. Gainesville, Georgia: New Classics Library, p. 6. 10. ^ Lazarovic, Karen (30 April 1985). "Elliott-wave technician sees 2d-half blastoff". New York Post: p. 36. 11. ^ Shaw, Russell; Landis, David (9 Oct. 1987). "Prechter flees Wall St. for Georgia hills". http://www.usatoday.com/ USA Today]: p. B1. 12. ^ Myerson, Allen R. (October, 1985). "Robert Prechter: From Lake Lanier, He Can See Wall Street Clearly". Georgia Trend: p. 26. 13. ^ Hendrick, Bill (July 15, 1990). "Unbelievers Don't Worry Prechter". Atlanta Journal Constitution: p. H-4. 14. ^ Robert Prechter (October 20, 1987). "The Crash of '87: Bull Market Guru Predicts Further Dow Average Fall". The Wall Street Journal. 15. ^ (October 22, 1987) "Corrections & Amplifications: Robert Prechter". The Wall Street Journal. 16. ^ William Power (19 August 1993). "Robert Prechter sees his 3600 on the Dow--But 6 years late". The Wall Street Journal: 1. 17. ^ Constance Mitchell (December 27, 1988). "Doomsayers Now Are Salient Among Market Bears". The Wall Street Journal. 18. ^ 'Elliott Wave' Forecaster Ends Public Appearances, The Wall Street Journal, March 10, 1989 19. ^ Geoffrey Colvin (16 October 2000). "The Wheelers, the Wavers, and the Star-Struck". Fortune: p. 84. 20. ^ Jonathan R. Laing (26 October 1998). "Ride that Wave! Is Bob Prechter's long-forecast economic and market collapse finally at hand?". Barron's. Template:Multicol-break The "balanced version" excludes citations from some Wall Street Journal articles, leaving 15 references. How can that be called balanced?

1. ^ Best Sellers List (11 August 2002). "Book Review". New York Times: p. 24. 2. ^ Levy, Adam (February 2003). "The Ultimate Bear". Bloomberg Markets: p. 69. 3. ^ a b c d Robert R. Prechter, Jr. (various dates). "Elliott Wave Theorist". Elliott Wave International. 4. ^ Robert R. Prechter, Jr. (1999). The Wave Principle of Human Social Behavior and the New Science of Socionomics. Gainesville, Georgia: New Classics Library. 5. ^ Penn, David (June 2003). "Social Mood and the Markets". Technical Analysis of Stocks & Commodities: p. 50. 6. ^ McCaffrey Brecht, Kira (July 2003). "Trader's Hall of Fame Award - Robert Prechter - An Interview with the Elliott Wave Guru". Stocks, Futures & Options Magazine: p. 42. 7. ^ a b Robert R. Prechter, Jr. (1996/2004). Prechter's Perspective. Gainesville, Georgia: New Classics Library, p. 6. 8. ^ Lazarovic, Karen (30 April 1985). "Elliott-wave technician sees 2d-half blastoff". New York Post: p. 36. 9. ^ Shaw, Russell; Landis, David (9 Oct. 1987). "Prechter flees Wall St. for Georgia hills". USA Today: p. B1. 10. ^ Myerson, Allen R. (October, 1985). "Robert Prechter: From Lake Lanier, He Can See Wall Street Clearly". Georgia Trend: p. 26. 11. ^ Hendrick, Bill (July 15, 1990). "Unbelievers Don't Worry Prechter". Atlanta Journal Constitution: p. H-4. 12. ^ Hulbert, Mark (4 October 1998). "Is the Time Right for Market Timing?". New York Times: p. C-7. 13. ^ Brimelow, Peter. Is Prechter's bearishness permanent?. Retrieved on 2006-12-4. 14. ^ Geoffrey Colvin (16 October 2000). "The Wheelers, the Wavers, and the Star-Struck". [Fortune (magazine): p. 84. 15. ^ William Power (19 August 1993). "Robert Prechter sees his 3600 on the Dow--But 6 years late". The Wall Street Journal. Template:Multicol-end

Anynobody 02:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks to the 2 above editors for their support. Just to be clear, I'm not asking for the case to be be re-arbitrated (even though I disagree with the decision, and think that, in retrospect it should be clear to the arbitrators that the decision was wrong). All I am asking for is that the indefinite ban on me editing articles related to Robert Prechter should be lifted, because a) it's been 7 months and b) nobody seems to have any major disagreement anymore with the edits I made on the Prechter article. And please do remember, Prechter's advice costs his clients 25% of their investment every year (as measured by Hulbert Financial Digest). Do you really want Folsom/Prechter or that type of editor putting his adverts on Wikipedia again? Smallbones 02:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Committee may find it useful to know that I have contacted ^demon by email about the above comment of his. I asked him why he characterized me as being "most-disagreeable" during the Socionomics mediation, but he has not replied. I am bewildered by what ^demon has said now, because my messages to him were civil and respectful; he even offered his help to me in filing the request I brought to this Committee (help which I accepted and found useful indeed). I do not know why ^demon has done this, but I can show that he is plainly mistaken in what he claims. I kept my entire email exchange with ^demon, and I am willing to make all those messages available to him and to the Committee for the asking. If necessary, I will provide Committee members with my gmail user name and password so that they can access my gmail account to verify the content of those emails, including the dates and time stamps.
As for Smallbones' request, I will only note that what he says now is more of what he said then to the Committee during the Arb case. This will be obvious enough to any Committee member who reviews the evidence, workshop, and unanimous vote from that case. Thank you.
--Rgfolsom 18:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smallbones has edited Elliott wave principle, an article related to Robert Prechter. This is a clear violation of the remedy from the arbitration case.
Rgfolsom 19:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have warned Smallbones that any further violations of the remedy will be met in blocks. In the future, please report violations at WP:AE. I'll archive this section tomorrow if no arbitrators show interest in modifying this remedy. Picaroon (t) 03:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The matter is being considered; we'll likely have an answer in the fairly near future. Kirill 03:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motions in prior cases

Motions

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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

Motion 1: Correspondence clerks

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

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 11 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support:

  1. This is my first choice and falls within ArbCom's community-granted authority to approve and remove access to [...] mailing lists maintained by the Arbitration Committee[1] and to designate individuals for particular tasks or roles and maintain a panel of clerks to assist with the smooth running of its functions.[2]
    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)[reply]

Oppose:

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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
    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 Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
  • 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 Wikipedia charm evoked by titles like Most Pluperfect Labutnum while still being descriptive, and not easily confused for a traditional clerk. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Whimsy is important -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 08:55, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy § Scope and responsibilities
  2. ^ Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 11 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Motion 1.1: Arbitrator views and discussions

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 11 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support:

Oppose:

  1. I appreciate that Kevin put this together, and I think this would be very helpful, maybe even the most helpful, way to ensure that we stayed on top of the ball. But just because it would achieve one goal doesn't make it a good idea. A full version of my rationale is on the ArbList, for other Arbs. The short, WP:BEANS version is that this would destroy the line between us and the Foundation, which undoes much of our utility. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:22, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 11 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support:

  1. This is currently my first-choice option; we have unofficially in the past had arbitrators take on specific roles (e.g. tracking unblock requests, responding to emails, etc) and it seemed to work fairly well. Having those rules be more "official" seems like the best way to make sure someone is responsible for these things, without needing to expand the committee or the pool of people with access to private information. Primefac (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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 Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 11 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support:

Oppose:

  1. Wikipedia 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 Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Good catch. I thought it was implied by "from among the English Wikipedia functionary corps" – who all sign NDAs as a condition to access functionaries-en and the CUOS tools; see Wikipedia: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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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)[reply]

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 from this world ..... today 20:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Parlez Moi 08:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 from this world ..... today 00:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And Roger was a pensioner which kinda proves my point -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 08:53, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 from this world ..... today 23:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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 (talk) 02:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@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 [staff assistants]. 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)[reply]

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 Read! Talk! 07:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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 Read! Talk! 21:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia. I don't like the idea of splitting ArbCom in twain, nor do I think it could be achieved. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, having someone managing the work could really help smooth things out. Kenneth Kho (talk) 11:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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 Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 from this world ..... today 00:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 from this world ..... today 03:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I oppose splitting arbcom-en a second time -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 10:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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 from this world ..... today 03:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wikipedia work, have demonstrated availability and tracking ability). isaacl (talk) 18:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 Talk to me 01:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=171063545"