Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ron Marshall (talk | contribs) at 19:36, 14 December 2007 (→Statement by Ron Marshall). 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

Cold fusion

Initiated by Pcarbonn (talk) at 19:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by pcarbonn

Wikipedia is based on facts, not opinions. Several editors wants to eliminate many well-sourced statements for the purpose of advancing a personal opinion that is contrary to available evidence. They started deleting well-sourced isolated sentences, well-sourced sections, and they reverted the whole article to the old 2004 FA version that has almost no sources (see the discussions listed above). They have failed to show that the deleted statements or the recent article were violating NPOV, Undue weight or NOR. Thus, deleting them or reverting the article is very disruptive, and done in violation to the WP:NPOV and WP:NOR policies. Following several edit wars, the page became protected and a wikiquette alert was raised.[15][16][17]

The deleted statements concern "theory vs experiment", the overview section, and the bibliography, among others (see the discussions listed above).

In the discussion on theory vs experiment[18], editors are seen misquoting sources, arguing against the basic tenet of science since Galileo which says that "the lack of a satisfactory explanation cannot be used to dismiss experimental evidence", and, when it all failed, used their personal opinion to justify it. They failed to respond to the request to provide sources to support their personal opinion that "cold fusion is plainly dismissed by the majority of scientists in the know".

In fact, there is considerable support for the statement that cold fusion is a scientific anomaly that begs for an explanation, and that serious, reliable scientists are still investigating it, although with little funding and recognition (see Wired article). Lack of recognition does not mean rejection. This version of the cold fusion article presents this view, and provide reliable sources to support it. While not perfect, that version is a perfectly good basis to continue editing towards FA.

There are now nearly 200 published reports of anomalous power[1] - mostly in non-mainstream publications, with a few in peer-reviewed journals.[2][3] Panels organized by the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE), the first in 1989 and the second in 2004, did not find the evidence convincing enough to justify a federally-funded program, though they did recommend further research. Scientists at SPAWAR reported further experimental results in a peer-reviewed journal [4], whose reproduction by independent team were discussed at length at the 2007 annual meetings of the American Physical Society (sessions A31 and B31), the American Chemical Society and other scientific meetings (see Wired article). Quoting these reliable sources is not giving them more notability than they have, and thus not a violation of WP:Fringe, nor WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE.

Despite all these evidences, some editors still believe that "cold fusion is essentially abandoned and not developing"[19], that "cold fusion is plainly dismissed by the majority of scientists in the know"[20], that "There seems to be a concerted group of pseudoscientists that have more-or-less co-opted the cold fusion idea"[21]. They are using such arguments to delete well-sourced statements in favor of cold fusion. According to wikipedia policies, the best way for them to defend their case is to provide reliable sources.

As for my own behavior, while I have a favorable opinion on cold fusion, I've been very cautious to keep it out of my edits, and to provide sentences only when supported by reliable sources. I have readily recognized cases where the source was rightly challenged (eg. on Widon-Larsen theory [22][23] or on the overview section [24]), and will continue to do so. I have not deleted well-sourced statements.

References
  1. ^ Storms, Edmund (2007). The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing. pp. pp 52-61. ISBN 9789812706201. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
  2. ^ For example those cited by LENR researchers in 2004 DoE review:
    Y. Arata and Y-C Zhang, "Anomalous difference between reaction energies generated within D20-cell and H20 Cell", Jpn. J. Appl. Phys 37, L1274 (1998)
    Iwamura, Y., M. Sakano, and T. Itoh, "Elemental Analysis of Pd Complexes: Effects of D2 Gas Permeation". Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. A, 2002. 41: p. 4642.
    Other:
    Mizuno, T., et al., "Production of Heat During Plasma Electrolysis in Liquid," Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, Vol. 39 p. 6055, (2000) [1]
  3. ^ For example those cited by LENR researchers in 2004 DoE review:
    M.H. Miles et al., "Correlation of excess power and helium production during D2O and H20 electrolysis using Palladium cathodes", J. Electroanal. Chem. 346 (1993) 99 [2]
    B.F. Bush et al, "Helium production during the electrolysis of D20 in cold fusion", J. Electroanal. Chem. 346 (1993) 99
  4. ^ Szpak, S.; et al. (March 2007). "Further Evidence Of Nuclear Reactions In The Pd/D Lattice: Emission Of Charged Particles" (PDF). Naturwissenschaften. Springer Berlin / Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/s00114-007-0221-7. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)

Statement by ScienceApologist

This is a content dispute, pure and simple. As such it is outside of arbcomm purview. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by JzG

Content dispute, as above. Article was demoted from FA status due to relentless POV-pushing, I reverted to the FA version due to the sheer quantity of fringe science, pseudoscience, abject nonsense, and conflicted editing from the "librarian" of a fringe website. The people who spent the last two years (including one previous revert to the FA version for the exact same reason) do not like the fact that their fringe POV is given less weight in the FA version than in the version that was demoted from FA due to excess POV. And this is a problem because?.....

Note the liberal and repeated use of the term information suppression in Ron Marshall's submission below. I know of mo more reliable indicator of frustrated POV-pushing than use of the term information suppression. Guy (Help!) 19:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Michaelbusch

I concur with Apologist and Guy that ArbCom should not be bothered with this case. However, I also note that Pcarbonn and Ron Marshall have consistently pushed their personal points of view regarding cold fusion onto the article. Since their pro-cold fusion beliefs are in contradiction to the scientific consensus, this may constitute a violation of previous ArbCom decision. Ron Marshall also claims that the activities of other editors to remove POV material constitute deliberate suppression (see Talk:Cold fusion) - which I consider to be conspiracy theorizing and perilously close to personal attacks. Again, I don't think ArbCom is needed here, but I would not object to a senior Admin reviewing the editing history of everyone concerned and deciding if any editors have exceeded the bounds of acceptable editing. Michaelbusch (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Ronnotel

I have been watching this dispute unfold and have intervened as necessary to protect the page when the edit warring became excessive. There are strong personalities on both sides and I believe that this is more than just a content dispute. While some poorly-sourced material was correctly removed, some well-sourced material was as well. For instance, User:ScienceApologist apparently rejects as problematic what by any objective standard is clearly a reliable source simply on the basis that it is published in a different country than where the research was performed. I would like to see a little more flexibility on both sides regarding sources, and I would like to see less use of terms such as scientific consensus and psuedoscience that rely too heavily on one's POV. On balance, I believe there may be some latitude for ArbComm to get involved. Ronnotel (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ron Marshall

At this point two members of the committee have declined arbitration citing "content dispute". If it is a "content dispute", how is it not a NPOV dispute?

This is a conflict about NPOV. The violation of NPOV is through "information suppression". "Information suppression" is achieved through rampant deletion of experimental evidence. Usually the deletion is justified by a made up rule and an insult. Some of my comments have been deleted from the talk page by anonymous users.

If cold fusion really is a low radiation nuclear heat generating process then suppression of information is a major disservice to the public. Pcarbon, myself, and others have worked toward a NPOV article that fairly presents the skeptic and experimental point of view. ScienceApologist uses circular logic. Cold fusion got a bad press in 1989 and a de facto censorship ensued. ScienceApologist uses the de facto censorship to justify more censorship. If the evidence we have today existed in 1989 we would not have this de facto censorship today. According to ScienceApologist's line of reasoning, old censorship justifies new censorship, regardless of new facts. ScienceApologist wants a skeptics only POV. Only strawman counter arguments would be allowed. He was a party in reverting the September 2006 article to the 2004 article. ScienceApologist wants to revert to the 2004 article again. This is blatant suppression of information and censorship.

The skeptics do not seem to have a grasp of the scientific method. In the scientific method, experiment is the reality check of science. Existing theory, consensus, and expertize are not. In science, experiment has the most weight, not consensus.

Even if cold fusion is not a useful nuclear reaction, there should still be a NPOV article and little harm would be done. On the other hand if cold fusion is a useful nuclear reaction then a lot of harm is done. Cold fusion is not a trivial academic issue.

Extracted form the NPOV Tutorial page

Information suppression

A common way of introducing bias is by one-sided selection of information. Information can be cited that supports one view while some important information that opposes it is omitted or even deleted. Such an article complies with Wikipedia:Verifiability but violates NPOV. A Wikipedia article must comply with all three guidelines (i.e. Verifiability, NPOV, and No original research) to be considered compliant.

Some examples of how editors may unwittingly or deliberately present a subject in an unfair way:

  • Biased or selective representation of sources, eg:
    • Explaining why evidence supports one view, but omitting such explanation in support of alternative views.
    • Making one opinion look superior by omitting strong and citable points against it, comparing it instead with low quality arguments for other POVs (strawman tactics).
    • Not allowing one view to "speak for itself", or refactoring its "world-view" into the words of its detractors.
  • Editing as if one given opinion is "right" and therefore other opinions have little substance:
    • Entirely omitting significant citable information in support of a minority view, with the argument that it is claimed to be not credible.
    • Ignoring or deleting significant views, research or information from notable sources that would usually be considered credible and verifiable in Wikipedia terms (this could be done on spurious grounds).
    • Concealing relevant information about sources or sources' credentials that is needed to fairly judge their value.

Thus, verifiability, proper citation and neutral phrasing are necessary but not sufficient to ensure NPOV. It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability.

ScienceApologist statements extracted from Cold Fusion Talk Page

Most of the time he uses circular logic. He uses the defacto censorship of cold fusion to justify more censorship. Comments appear below the relevant text.

Information Suppression.

These are some pretty shitty peer-review journals you're quoting Pcarbonn. Why not an article from Physical Review? Why not provide some cites to more visible and current physics journals? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have to provide a quote, it's my opinion as a professional and I'm certainly not going to ask that the article talk about my opinion. In any case, I think that these journals are a bit out-of-the-way considering how monumental the claim that is being made is. What is clear is that this view is being marginalized even as it tries to mitigate its own marginalization. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Insult of peer-review journals and misdirection to support information suppression.

This is relevant to the article, you have not been able to find a mainstream source post 2004 that indicates the non-fringe nature of this subject. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

“Non-fringe” implies an insult. The statement is in fact wrong. Once again ScienceApologist is trying to justify information suppression..

The DOE panel did not claim that cold fusion was no suddenly "not fringe". All it said was that further investigation was needed and that careful funding of well-posed projects could be done. The journal articles you quote are, frankly, not in the places I would expect for the claims that they are making. Were these people unsuccessful in their attempts to get them published in more accessible journals? ScienceApologist (talk) 16:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Information suppression.


Nope. A self-published book should only be included if it has notability. There is another self-published book which is established as notable since it is (supposedly) a prime example of pro-cold fusion account of the early controversy. This book has no assertion of notability. Let him publish it at a respectable scientific publishing house and we'll include it here. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed a number of self-published books from the reference section. In order to include a self-published book we must establish that it has notability outside of the pro-cold fusion community. Even a negative review will suffice. Please see WP:FRINGE. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Information suppression.

There are plenty of sources in the article that indicate that cold fusion falls under the general umbrella of fringe science. Also, the notability guidelines are a good way to figure out how to evaluate sources in terms of reliability. In particular, self-published sources need to be justified before included so as to avoid soapboxing and original research publications. See also external link guidelines. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Insult and information suppression.

I don't recommend these books because they are self-published and you have not answered the substance of my complaints. I will now revert your action which I take to be roughly inconsiderate in light of the controversial nature of this subject. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Information suppression.

The "pro-cold fusion community" would be the group of enthusiasts including a few scientists who believe that there has been successful reproduction of cold fusion experiments. Most of these people do not publish consistently in peer-review journals (thus the problem with a number of the websites listed) and many of them are rank amateurs in the field. Even the professionals are often marginalized in the sense that they are clamboring for mainstream recognition. We should focus on sources that have seen impact beyond this particular community. This would include mainstream journal articles, publications from respectable scientific publishing companies, and self-published works that have received recognition from people who dispute the grander claims of cold fusion advocates. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Insult in description of community and justification of information suppression.

Just being published in a peer-reviewed journal does not automatically mean that everything else the person does should be included at Wikipedia. We need to take each source individually. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justification for information suppression.

I argue that Mizuno hasn't been established as an expert in the topic because he hasn't been recognized as such by someone who is outside of the pro-cold fusion community. We should have an extremely high standard for including self-published sources, and I don't think having a single peer-review article on a related subject qualifies. Simply having a single article published doesn't do the trick when the person is ostensibly writing a review. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They don't seem to lend the rhetorical oomph I would like to see for someone self-publishing a book that reviews an entire subject. He seems to be interested in confirmation of cold fusion, but he hasn't, for example, been recognized as a reviewer by anyone outside of the pro-cold fusion community. If he had been asked by a mainstream publishing company, mainstream periodical, or a respected science review journal to write something along those lines, then I could see an argument for including a book he wrote reviewing the status of cold fusion. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's put it this way: Has the book received any notable reviews that would lend support to your desire to include it as a reliable resource for our readers? ScienceApologist (talk) 14:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is patently not how to apply undue weight. Just looking at papers published about cold fusion shows a deliberate publication bias since negative results rarely get published. Most of the time, the scientific community doesn't take the time to write papers challenging the existence of an idea they find to be dubious, even if they people who support it have managed to publish their "results" in out-of-the-way journals and periodicals. It is plainly fact that cold fusion is not considered viable by the vast majority of physicists, for example. Thus it is a distinct minority opinion in science and emphasizing "positive results" is the actual violation of undue weight. ScienceApologist 16:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the deal: There are a lot of books out there about a lot of subjects. Let's keep the books that Wikipedia references in controversial articles of the highest quality and published by groups that are univerisally considered respectable. That means avoiding publishing outfits such as Infinite Energy Press, Pacific Oaks Press, and Oak Grove Press as these are simply vanity publishing companies. Such companies have no consistent distribution process, no respect within the reference community, nor is there any real visibility for the books that they publish outside the singular fringe communities that are interested in the subject of cold fusion. ScienceApologist 16:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He hasn't had "many publications in scientific journals". I don't think that this reference is good at all since it is published by a very questionable publishing press. If you can find a publication by him in a more respectable outfit then that would be great to include! If you cannot, then why hasn't he published there? ScienceApologist 19:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Publishing papers on a subject does not mean that a book published by Infinite Energy Press is suddenly worthy of inclusion in our reference section. These journals he published in only establish that the reviewers of those journals thought his papers worthy of inclusion: it does not say anything about his status as an expert in cold fusion or that this particular book is a reliable source. Again, you need to come to terms with the fact that this book is not published by a mainstream company. There has to be a damn good reason to include such a text. That the author published some related papers in some obscure journals is not a good enough rationale. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Making up his own rules for information suppression.

In fact, all these paragraphs are very close to original research and I have therefore removed them from the article.

ScienceApologist 20:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Information Suppression.

The following is an example of the kind of experimental evidence that was suppressed when the September 2006 version was reverted to the 2004 version.

The cold fusion article as of 06:09, 29 September 2006 is shown in the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion&oldid=78453163 before it was trashed by ScienceApologist and others.

Nuclear Transmutations

Nuclear transmutations have been reported in many cold fusion experiments since 1992. These reactions (which may be a nuclear fusion or nuclear fission reaction) result in the transformation of a chemical element into another. If one accepts that nuclear transmutations are in fact observed in these experiments, he would have to accept that nuclear reactions take place in cold fusion experiments. He would also have to accept that an apparently enormous Coulomb barrier can be overcome, and that the released energy can be converted to heat.

Tadahiko Mizuno is a prominent nuclear transmutation experimenter, and was among the first to contribute several papers and a book on the subject.[1][2]

Nuclear transmutation experiments have been reviewed by Dr. Miley.[3], a recognized researcher in "Hot Fusion" for his contributions to Inertial electrostatic confinement. [4] He reports that several dozen laboratories are studying these effects. Some experiments result in the creation of only a few elements, while others result in a wide variety of elements from the periodic table. Calcium, copper, zinc, and iron were the most commonly reported elements. Lanthanides were also found: this is significant since they are unlikely to enter as impurities. In addition, the isotopic ratios of the observed elements differ from their natural isotopic ratio or natural abundance. Many elements have multiple isotopes and the percentages of the different isotopes are constant on earth within one tenth of one percent. In general it requires gaseous diffusion, thermal diffusion, electromagnetic separation or other exotic processes of isotope separation or a nuclear reaction to change an element from its natural isotope ratio. The presence of an unnatural isotope ratio makes contamination an implausible explanation. Some experiments reported both transmutations and excess heat, but the correlation between the two effects has not been established. Radiations have also been reported. Miley also reviews possible theories to explain these observations. [5]Ron Marshall (talk) 03:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

So far the clearest evidence for transmutation has come from an experiment made by Iwamura and associates, and published in 2002 in the Japanese Journal of Applied Physics (one of the top physics journals in Japan).[6] Instead of using electrolysis, they forced deuterium gas to permeate through a thin layer of caesium (also known as cesium) deposited on calcium oxide and palladium, while periodically analyzing the nature of the surface through X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy. As the deuterium gas permeated over a period of a week, the amount of caesium progressively decreased while the amount of praseodymium increased, so that caesium appeared to be transmuted into praseodymium. When caesium was replaced by strontium, it was transmuted into molybdenum with anomalous isotopic composition. In both cases this represents an addition of four deuterium nuclei to the original element. They have produced these results six times, and reproducibility was good. The energy released by these transmutations was too low to be observed as heat. No gamma rays were observed. When the calcium oxide was removed or when the deuterium gas was replaced by hydrogen, no transmutation was observed. The authors analyzed, and then rejected, the possibility to explain these various observations by contaminations or migration of impurities from the palladium interior. The experiment was replicated by researchers from Osaka University using Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry to analyze the nature of the surface (the Pd complex samples were provided by Iwamura).[7]

In later similar experiments by Iwamura Barium 138 was transmuted to Samarium 150 and Barium 137 was transmuted into Samarium 149. The Barium 138 experiment used a natural isotope ratio of Barium. The Barium 137 experiment used a Barium 137 enriched isotope ratio. These transmutations represent an addition of six deuterium nuclei.[8]

While recognizing the quality of the experiment, a 2004 DOE panelist said that, from a nuclear physics perspective, such conclusions of transmutations are "not to be believed". Fusing 2 deuterons is difficult enough; merging four deuterons with a heavy nucleus such as Palladium [sic] is not to be believed, especially when no evidence is presented for any nuclear products with intermediate atomic mass such as Yttrium, Zirconium, and Niobium. The panelist suggested that the observation could be explained by the migration of the anomalous elements from the interior of the Palladium. [9]

Cold fusion researchers responded that such migration is not possible:

1. Deuterium atoms, flowing from the surface to the interior, would cause diffusion of the anomalous element away from the surface, not toward the surface.

2. Mass spectroscopy done at various depths shows that the anomalous element was not present in the palladium.

3. The element that was originally on the surface disappears at the same rate as the anomalous element appears.

4. The isotopes of the anomalous element are unnatural, and the isotope shifts are exactly what are expected should the missing element transmute into the new element

They say that, since the initial element disappears, the "migration explanation" would imply that the element applied to the surface migrates toward the interior, while the anomalous element migrates in the opposite direction toward the surface. This would violate as many expected behaviors as does cold fusion but in a different field of science: therefore, the Iwamura results justify additional research to understand what's happening. They also said such explanations are mere hand waving, and that this kind of reasoning is typical of most reviews.[10]

Bush and Eagleton have reported the appearance of radioactive isotopes with an average half-life of 3.8 days in electrolytic cells, an observation that is difficult to explain by contamination or migration.[11]

Attempts to find at least partial theoretical explanations are being made by Takahashi and others. One proposal by Takahashi to explain the wide range of elements generated is that fission of palladium is initiated by high energy photons, and suggests potential applications in the treatment of nuclear wastes by transmutation.[12][13]

Statement by JohnAspinall

This is a debate over content and the impression that content creates in the uninformed reader.

Pseudoscience (and I am not expressing an opinion about whether cold fusion is in that category or not) succeeds by dressing itself in the scientific veneer and hoping the reader doesn't look beneath the surface. Pseudoscience reads like a sales brochure. In contrast, real science succeeds by being relentlessly critical of itself. Most of the current debate could have been avoided, had the editors of the reverted version been more critical of what was written.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnAspinall (talk • contribs)

Clerk notes

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

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

No Original Research

Initiated by COGDEN at 23:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

A prior list of all involved parties was originally included, but this list was too large, and has since been re-factored to include only the most active editors involving the ownership of NOR and blocking good faith edits and moves toward consensus. All the other parties have been notified, and if this request is accepted, they may produce evidence:

Editors most active in ownership and blocking good faith edits
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

A full list of links relating to dispute resolution would be a monumental task, given the scope of the dispute and the number of editors involved; however, what follows is a summary of major dispute resolution attempts:

Attempts to resolve the dispute began in July and August 2007. The ensuing months included a flurry of comments (about 50% on either side of the issue) essentially filling ten archive pages and counting,[89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98]. There have been several edit wars involving numerous editors, followed by periods of protection. There have been innumerable straw polls, and a number of administrators have taken positions on either side. The dispute has been listed on Wikipedia:Requests for comment many times, and on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) many times.

In early September 2007, there was a request for mediation; however, this request was rejected because many of the parties positively refused to participate. Despite several attempts to induce some sort of compromise, or to achieve some sort of modest consensus, it is apparent that any move toward consensus will inevitably result in an edit war among numerous editors, and repeated violations of policies such as WP:POLICY, WP:CONS, WP:EP, and WP:OWN. A decision by the Arbitration Committee appears to be the only way to enforce these policies and allow movement toward consensus.

Statement by COGDEN

This request is about the conduct of a very opinionated faction of editors who have assumed ownership of a relatively young and highly controversial section in Wikipedia's foundational No original research page.

Wikipedia has always encouraged the use of reliable sources, and Wikipedia's WP:NOR policy was created in 2003, after consultation with Jimbo, to ensure editors "stick to those sources". It's a simple rule. However, over the course of the NOR article's recent history, a few editors have gradually replaced this simple rule with a complicated framework derived from historiography which—possibly because of its complexity and intractability—has largely has gone unnoticed by the broader community of Wikipedia editors. Under this rather-artificial framework, sources were divided into three historiographic categories of reliable sources: reliable primary sources (like peer reviewed journals, newspapers, interviews, and works of fiction) were deprecated and sometimes prohibited. Secondary sources (like book reviews and reprints) were acceptable, unless they fell into the tertiary source sub-category (like textbooks), which again were deprecated.

This formulation is clearly controversial and demonstrably does not reflect widespread Wikipedia practice. A few of us were first able to demonstrate this in about July and August of 2007, which sparked the subsequent ownership and consensus violations by those involved in crafting the historiographic model and those sympathetic to that model. This formulation simply has too many loopholes and vagaries: it prohibits, or at least strongly discourages, many types of source references that have been the bread and butter of Wikipedia since its inception, including peer-reviewed journal articles, movies, novels, interviews, speeches, and newspaper articles.

After a flood of commentary on the subject from all corners of Wikipedia, it has become perfectly clear that the section at issue is highly controversial. Approximately half of the editors commenting on the NOR talk page oppose it, or think it should be changed. Having a non-consensus section in a policy page, however, is an untenable position, and there have been numerous proposals by many editors for compromise language. The "owners" have not responded to these proposals on their merits, simply because the proposed language is not same as the "owned" language. One well-meaning administrator "owner" has even suggested that ownership is okay in policy pages.(diff) (section)

Since the section is controversial and obviously does not reflect Wikipedia consensus, that section should be changed to match actual Wikipedia practice. Policy pages document consensus, not decree it. Moreover:

(see WP:CONS). It has been impossible, however, to permanently remove or alter the controversial section. Attempts to remove it and replace it with clear, neutral consensus language have been met with improper reversions by those who should not be allowed to own the article.

Statement by Phil Sandifer

This is an absurd case and should not be taken up. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SlimVirgin

An RfC was filed about Cogden earlier today, and his response was to file this RfAr. In fairness, the RfC should be given a chance to work as a first step in dispute resolution. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 00:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WAS 4.250

I have experienced a severe case of ownership with regard to the status of primary versus secondary sources at our content policy pages. WAS 4.250 (talk) 00:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dreadstar

This case is premature, the dispute process has not been allowed to run its course yet. An RfC on this subject is not even a day old, it was opened just today. Dreadstar † 00:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since this has cropped up several times, let me add that the RfC on Cogden had nothing to do with his general statement about possibly going to ArbCom, the RfC was in process long before he posted that statement. I had no clue he was putting together an Arbitration case until after the RfC had been filed. Honestly, I think Cogden’s rush to post this RfArb was an attempt to trump the RfC and game the dispute resolution process…similar to his apparent attempts to game policy by his non-consensus changes to WP:CON and, WP:POLICY to support his changes to WP:NOR, so he could then freely use Primary sources as he sees fit. Dreadstar † 01:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TheFarix

I'm not exactly sure why I'm being dragged into this other then having posted a couple of comments about an unrelated matter of whether a descriptive plot summary written from the work itself constituted original research, of which the consensus stated that it wasn't. --Farix (Talk) 00:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statemeny by Amarkov

How, exactly, were sixty-five parties concluded to be involved here? -Amarkov moo! 00:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Avillia

If a review of the diffs, archived discussion, and recent history of WP:NOR is to be believed, this does not at all merit dismissal as an 'absurd case'. To the contrary, it would appear that this is a issue of some true consequence.

Amongst other things:

  • The list of involved users is quite more extensive than the documentation of physical evidence -- it likely includes parties with remote levels of involvement, and I doubt that every party has been informed... this is something to correct, perhaps, COGDEN? Regardless, this makes a quick and painless summary rather difficult, although I am going to go ahead and review the majority of differences tonight -- I've already found a choice few for this statement, and I'll continue to update it.
  • WP:NOR is a crucial policy page and disruption involving it is a serious matter --- it is key to the project's claim of truthfulness, correctness, and verifiability. Additionally, the misapplication, misinterpretation, or misanythingelse of this policy could result in serious issues, up to and including legal issues involving the Wikimedia Foundation.
  • This dispute involves more than just COGDEN -- it involves the community at large's conflicting opinions on one of the key tenets of the project.
  • This dispute has had a long run through multiple attempts to "bridge the gap" by compromise, through multiple attempts to seek various forms of dispute resolution, and etcedra.
  • There is quite some occurence of what could be called incivility in relation to this dispute... I've gone ahead and tried to collect a few diffs --- [99] [100]
  • The Request for Comment regarding the submitter of this request, COGDEN, is related to his personal conduct -- while it may be something the Arbitration Committee needs to take under advisement and issue sanctions regarding, it is by no means inclusive of the issue at hand.
  • By no means does the result of arbitration have to reflect poorly on any given party. COGDEN may face sanctions, the administrators at hand may face sanctions -- this dispute has so polarized a key subset of Wikipedia that it will take careful weighting of multiple viewpoints and opinions to decide carefully -- something the Arbitration Committee was elected to do, and something that the community may be incapable of doing regarding this dispute due to that exact polarizing effect.

It would benefit all involved parties as well as the project as a whole if the Arbitration Committee took this case under advisement. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 00:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Crum375

I believe that the RfC filed today needs to be completed. Also, I think the number of 'involved parties' here is unwieldy. Crum375 (talk) 01:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fullstop

SlimVirgin's statement that Cogden filed this RfAr "in response" to the RfC is not correct. According to the initiating statement of the RfC itself, it was filed in part because (so the RfC filer's own words) "His latest threat is to take the disputing editors to ArbCom." SlimVirgin may however be excused for thinking otherwise since it is in effect his edits that we have to thank for the mess. ;)

Seriously though, and irrespective of whether someone sees deferral to ArbCom as a "threat," if Cogden feels there is something actionable here, then I think it ought to be heard. After N months the fundamental problem needs to be tackled somehow. If for nothing else, then to snap mandate 0RR for the page. Perhaps even a max.-20-words-per-edit rule.

Being a matter of policy it should perhaps even be heard with Jimbo, whose name/comments have sliced/diced and otherwise (mis)interpreted seven ways to Sunday.

Given that the PSTS section is the bone of contention, and the proponents of the section insist that it has "consensus," then I'm sure they won't object if to have this particular section undergo due process, i.e. the same process that any "new" page would go through to become policy. As WP:Consensus states, "Consensus can change."

-- Fullstop (talk) 01:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Vassyana

There is indeed a long-running dispute at a core policy that has resulted in multiple, often long-term, page protections. I must admit frustration with the process and difficulty in reaching consensus. I even believe ArbCom could be of assistance in resolving this matter. However, I strongly object to this particular filing. From the inaccurate description of the dispute to the grapeshot list of participants, and especially the division of participants into admins and "regular" users, this filing is rife with problems. (That is not to say I am not sympathetic to some of COGDEN's points/claims, but rather that I feel the presentation is inaccurate, including the list of parties.) As frustrated as I am (and believe me anyone looking at WT:NOR knows I'm terribly frustrated), I would suggest that a bit more time be allowed to resolve the dispute outside of ArbCom. If we can resolve it within the next couple weeks on our own, we can save a lot of time and save ArbCom a lot of effort. If ArbCom does accept this case, or an arbitor requests it, I will elaborate on my understanding of the dispute. I would also recommend that if this case is accepted that the list of participants be drastically reduced to only include those who have taken an active part over the past months. This is already a very complicated situation involving more people than usual and it's not fair or helpful to ArbCom, the parties to the dispute or the individuals to include those who've made only passing comments or similarly are not part of the dispute in question. The list of participants should also not be artifically divided into admins and "everyone else". I recently resigned my admin bit, but my participation in the discussion has not been affected one way or the other (because it's simply not relevant to the matter). Vassyana (talk) 01:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of fingerpointing going on, so I would like to take some responsibility here. The recent explosion was (at least in part) my fault. I posted a message of disgust with the frustrating process.[101] I also self-reverted in an openly angry manner.[102] I did strike out some of my comments later.[103] My heated comments and attitude set off something of a powderkeg. Considering my long-running participation at WT:NOR, I really should have known well-enough to wander away for a while to collect myself even if I still would have still (in my eyes) called a spade what it is. Vassyana (talk) 02:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Cla68

Further evidence of WP:OWN issues with NOR are here: [104]. Perhaps User:TimVickers should also be invited to leave comments on the issue. Before deciding on whether to accept this case or not, I suggest that the arbitrators determine if opening the RfC on COGDEN was an attempt to sabotage his request to open an ArbCom case on this issue. Cla68 (talk) 02:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Swatjester

I'm not sympathetic to COGDEN's concerns here, but that being said this is clearly something that ArbCom needs to decide. It's involving a behavior dispute on a policy page, one of our core policies. This is exactly the kind of thing ArbCom should be deciding, RFC or not. With this many people waiting for an RFC to finish is going to be an exercise in futility. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 03:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by involved (?) User:Raymond_arritt

The idea that anyone who edited a certain article or talk page is somehow a party to this dispute is plainly absurd. COGDEN had some points worth considering in his discussion on the policy page. Nonetheless I strongly recommend he be admonished or disciplined for the manner in which he brought this case, lest other editors believe that it is acceptable to waste the Arbitration Committee's time on asinine matters such as this. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by llywrch

It's been a few days to a couple of weeks since I participated in this discussion. I agree with COGDEN that both sides are opinionated. However, I respectfully disagree with him that this matter needs to be brought to the attention of the ArbCom at this time.

Unless things have dramatically changed since the last time I participated in the discussion, all parties are behaving in a civil & proper manner; the information I have seen in the RfC mentioned above does not convince me otherwise. Individuals on both sides are making thoughtful comments, which deserve to be considered in due speed. Unfortunately, as Vassyana mentioned above, this "due speed" is not as fast as people would like. The fact this discussion has been going on for a few months does not mean we should have a consensus soon: a man asked almost two thousand years ago, "What is truth", & people are still arguing over an answer. Speaking as someone who has contributed to Wikipedia for over five years, & has seen a far amount of wikidrama & discussion, improper behavior -- disruption, threats, intolerance, & so forth -- is the only reason why a matter should be brought before the ArbCom. -- llywrch (talk) 05:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by involved (?) User:Jossi

Codgen needs to get the hint, and hopefully the RfC will help him with this. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Dorftrottel

Didn't realise this was such a hotly debated topic. At any rate, for all I know there's no need to rush this and RfAr seems a bit premature. Let's see how the RfC goes. I dorftrottel I talk I 06:33, December 13, 2007

Oh, and I feel so second class, being listed seperately as a non-admin above [now changed, thus adjusting link to past revision]. Is there a particular reason for that? I dorftrottel I talk I 06:37, December 13, 2007

Statement by GTBacchus

I have nothing to do with this case, and I don't know why I'm listed as a party to it, except probably that I've posted to WT:NOR recently. I'd be happy enough to be removed from the list of involved parties. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by semi-involved User:Ssbohio

I recommend accepting this case for the purpose of examining and commenting/ruling upon user conduct. The question of how NOR relates to primary source, secondary source, or tertiary source sources is not one for ArbCom, but one to be addressed by bottom-up consensus building. IWhile I didn't jump into the kerfuffle at Wikipedia talk:No original research, I've previously been involved in a content dispute with a party to this case in which they used their admin tools to unilaterally enforce their preferred article content([105], [106], [107], [108]) and attempted to create their own standard of requiring multiple-sourcing for content they found personally objectionable.([109], [110], [111], [112]) The novel synthesis of NOR, RS, & BLP has led to problematic editing, particularly to a sort of carte blanche for those who want to delete unpalatable content. For all these reasons, I feel that the users' conduct in editing, interpreting, and administering/enforcing these policies is in desperate need of an authoritative look. --Ssbohio (talk) 07:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by dhaluza

I think that ArbCom should take up this case, because it involves more than a simple content dispute, and the parties have been unable to resolve it through an extended process of normal editing. I was planning to refer it myself, but COGDEN beat me to it. I would have formulated the case slightly differently, however, and may still refer it later if rejected here, since I seem to be late to the party already (I think it's unfortunate that we have arbitrarors making decisions only hours after the case is referred, before involved parties have an opportunity to comment).

Although ArbCom usually rejects simple content disputes, and only takes up matters involving sanctions against users, I think it would be helpful in this case to decide what the ground rules are for future editing of this policy (and by implication all policies) and to identify which types of editing behavior would be sanctioned if continued (but without considering specific sanctions against specific users at this time). The basic issue at hand is stability of policy documents vs. stagnation. Also at issue is how to interpret Consensus, especially implied consensus of historical policy formulations, vs. the current consensus, or lack of consensus of current contributors to the discussion. Dhaluza (talk) 11:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by BirgitteSB

Having previously taken part in discussions at WP:NOR I was asked to comment on the Request for Arbitration. I have been watching this page since before October of 2006. There have always been serious and consistent problems with any editing of this policy, which by sheer repetition with disparate editors, can have nothing to do with COGDEN in particular. (Although I am certain findings could be made against COGDEN if this case was accepted) I personally don't think Arbcom is competent in cases like this one so please reject it rather than oversimplifying this into something where one or two people found to be blatantly in the wrong and "all editors are reminded . . ." Arbcom is not going to help here.--BirgitteSB 15:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by wbfergus

I think that eventually, whether now or later, this 'issue' will need to resolved by the ArbCom. Timing issues aside, there are many different aspects to this 'case' that should be addressed by the ArbCom, as I don't feel the RfC alone can adequately address them. I think at least some 'decision' by the ArbCom (at some point, now or later) is going to have to be made or the core problems will merely continue unabated, though maybe at a less emotional level. As I have stated on the RfC page, both 'sides' have been at fault at various times, sometimes at the same time. At various times, I have agreed with one side or the other, but both of the two main 'sides' are at extremes most of the time as well.

To me, one of the main points points of contentions is that (copied from my comments on the RfC page):

  1. COgden has been a polarizing figure at one extreme for changes (call him 'far-right').
  2. Around 7 or so Admins and a couple non-Admins have been at the extreme other end, no changes whatsover under any conditions (call them 'far-left').
  3. Most participants fall in the middle, casting their 'vote' (stating their opinion) towards either side depending on the issue at hand.
  4. I can clearly see both 'sides' of this argument and also clearly see that neither side is willing to back down or is willing to compromise, and that this issue will not simply go away without COgden, but will instead simply continue.
Regarding the tag on the policy page issue, I have the following comments. It has been stated that this 'destabilizes' policy. The tag wasn't (at least in the final variations of it) at the top of the page, but down in the section were controversy exists. I didn't find it disruptive or destabilizing, but more as a 'flag' that it was being discussed for one reason or another, and if someone wanted to know why, they could go to the talk page to find out why it was so flagged. To me, this mainly was a mechanism for others to actively participate, since previous postings on the Village Pump and other related policies hadn't generated much extra participation. Since the tag first appeared though, there did seem to me to be more people joining in the discussions, so it seemed like the approach worked, though maybe the other 'side' didn't want more participation.
This in itself is one of the issues that seemed to vaguely reflect WP:OWN. At times, the 'anti-COgden' side seemed more interested in keeping the group of participants small.
On Oct. 13, 2006, the NOR policy looked like this [113]. By Oct. 31, 2006, NOR looked like this [114]. This is after 23 different edits by SlimVirgin, 12 edits by other editors, 5 of which were reverts. Further, this seems to be in clear violation of WP:POL that even on Sept. 29, 2006 (before the NOR edits and still exists today), where it explictly states "As with guidelines, amendments should generally be discussed on their talk pages, but are sometimes forked out if large in scope. One should not generally edit policy without seeking consensus first." As the before and after versions clearly show, this wasn't just minor editing, but a major rewrite. I have been unable to find anywhere (though I would love to proven wrong) any announcements on Village Pump or any related policy pages discussions about these changes. The only 'discussion' I have been able to find is on the (now) archived talk page in Archive 15 at [115], where one editor questioned the mass edits, and another editor replied back. That is it, no other discussions anywhere.
Since these mass edits, there have been around 700 edits, primarily about these changes, either modifications, changes or reverts. Looking over the edit history and the talk page, it 'seems' like these mas changes to a 'core policy' were done in a vacuum, with maybe 20 or so different editors aware of them. One of the common arguments any change to the policy has been (for the last 4-6 months), that these changes have been long-standing policy and made with wide-spread community consensus. I (and many others) have failed to see how so few editors can make 'widespread community consensus'. Another argument used to show there is (was?) consensus for these changes is that silence equates to acceptance, even though just yesterday, SlimVirgin on the WT:POL page in an argument with COgden explicitly stated "This is not what consensus is when it comes to policy. Silence doesn't mean people agree". This is in context to COgden assuming consensus when no objections to a change were brought forth.
So again, this really raises the specter of WP:OWN, when it seems that there is a protectionist 'group' to keep the status quo, and twists arguments from one policy discussion page around to suit their needs on another policy discussion page.
For right now, I won't even get into the issue of incivility from a few of those supporting any action against COgden, or the actions where a few people have been discussing NOR more or less behind the scenes on User talk pages and trying to solicit support. I don't know if that's allowable or not, but seems to be another pertinent aspect of this whole convoluted mess.

(end of copied text)

I think the 'last straw' that finally got people motivated enough to begin working on the RfC and this arbitration request were some of the actions and comments of the last week. Another user, Vassyana, has been working diligently for many, many months towards consensus building, etc. so that most people from either of the two extremes could agree on something, even if it did need a few more tweaks. He discussed his changes openly on the talk page, requested comments, and comments about further changes were addressed and made. After a period of inactivity, he re-proposed the changes, waited for further comments and made more changes as noted. Finally, with no further objections to his proposal (in that section of the talk page), he made the change to the policy itself. This quickly reverted in it's entirety, with the comment from a user that they didn't like the word 'raw'. So, instead of working to modify that word or clause, they just simply reverted everything. This has happened numerous times in the last week or two. Instead or addressing the key points (or words) they object to, it is simply a mass revert of everything. This is further complicated that the page has been protected so that only Admins can edit the policy page, and most of those in the 'no-change' camp are Admins. This in itself prevents any attempts at good faith edits by the rest of the community impossible. Since there are Admins on both sides of the issues though, it still hasn't prevented any more edit-warring than there would be without the protection.

That is it for now, I have other things to do (take my wife to a Dr. appointment), but by no means have I (or anybody else) addressed all of the various issues involved. wbfergus Talk 15:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Followup/additional comments)

As even a very cursory perusal of both the talk pages (active and archived) and the edit history of the policy page itself clearly show, the overwhelming majority of all 'activity' has centered around the PSTS section. One of the points I agree with the 'far-left' group (see above term), is that policies should be fairly stable, maybe a few tweaks here and there over time, but fairly consistent, stable, and definately very clear.
Myself and several other editors have suggested that perhaps a viable alternative to keep the policy fairly stable would be by moving PSTS somewhere else, perhaps into another policy or maybe it's own separate guideline. This would remove the controversial section that is causing so many problems from the policy, but could still be used as enforcement of the policy, much like WP:RS helps serve WP:V and many other policies and guidelines interact (WP:CIVIL with WP:EQ, etc.). This proposal has been offered as an alternative several times, but each time summarily rejected by the 'far-left' group as unworkable, a non-starter, or just claims of how it would weaken WP:NOR, without any actual examples given. Sometimes this has also just been met with the accusation that we are actually proposing to eliminate PSTS, which is blatantly untrue. Other policies and guidelines seem to be able to interact with each other well and without confusion, so it very unclear why WP:NOR couldn't have the same interaction with something like a new WP:PSTS guideline (that would start off at least as an exact copy of the current disputed section) or at least the inclusion in something else like WP:V that's more 'source' oriented. These are just ideas that have been submitted as alternatives to end this constant 'bickering' back and forth over one highly controversial section that in itself has been the sole destabilizing factor of the policy, not a 'disputed' tag or any particular editor. The destabilizing 'part' has been this one section created (or more accurately completely rewritten) a bit over a year ago with only the knowledge of maybe 20 or so editors max, and no announcements or discussions, per Wikipedia policy (then and now). wbfergus Talk 12:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of semi but not really involved Wikidemo

The edit war is intolerable and needs some resolution, but I'm not sure ArbCom is the place for that. I do have some opinions on what the WP:NOR policy page should say but they are not that strong. I learned how to edit here by reading the page, which at the time had a version of primary/secondary/tertiary distinction and the admonition to use secondary sources that I found extremely useful for editing purposes. I haven't looked at this from the broader perspective of building the best encyclopedia, but rather on how I can best contribute. The wording I read at the time did the trick, so perhaps I'm biased in favor of that particular version.

What is intolerable is that it keeps changing as two sides edit war over such a fundamental principle as what content is fit for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Thus, my main issues are stability of the policy, and keeping some decorum and civility in such an important, public place. It's disheartening to watch Wikiepdia's best-informed and smartest long-term contributors fighting with each other.

It seems to me that the choice of whether and how to implement a primary/secondary/tertiary source distinction is rather fundamental to what it is to be an encyclopedia - something that goes beyond consensus or policy or even arbitration, and rather goes to what kind of a project this is. Many of the passionate arguments made seem valid, or at least reasonable, but I question whether the issue is really up for negotiation. Currently, NOR is mentioned in the five pillars and the five pillars are officially non-negotiable. How to interpret and implement the five pillars is clearly negotiable on the other hand.

Maybe this will get to the level where we should ask for intervention from Jimbo and/or the Board. They can rule if they want. If they prefer to leave it to the rough and tumble of evolving consensus, ArbCom might want to take that cue and do the same, limiting its involvement merely to handling any misbehavior or procedural bottleneck that occurs. If that means suffering an endless edit war on the policy page, so be it. ArbCom can act to quash the edit war, but it may lack the tools or the authority to decide what the policy page should actually say.

I hope this will be proven wrong but I doubt the RFC will go anywhere, for what that's worth. If the only problem with this RFAR is that it's premature we can put it on ice for a week or so and the issue will likely be there still.

On the other hand, if we keep this to the more limited question of whether there is consensus, and who is resisting consensus, I got the impression that Vassyana's mediated solution does have consensus, and that the nominator and a few others who oppose it are simply refusing to accept the outcome. Wikidemo (talk) 16:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of User:Gerry Ashton

I view prohibiting the use of legitimate sources as virtual book-burning. Just as fires may be accidental or arson, virtual book-burning may be an intentional attempt to exclude information that is contrary to one's views, or it may be accidental, through the sloppy drafting of policy language. Because there are many sources of information, and the terms used to describe information sources, such as "primary", "secondary", "independent", "third-party", or "self-published" are fuzzy, it is not surprising that many attempts to alter this policy inadvertently lead to excluding legitimate sources. Since this amounts to virtual book-burning, it is not surprising that the response to these alterations is nearly as vigorous as the response of a fire department to a real burning books. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 20:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of User:SmokeyJoe

This is a case of a failing process to find consensus on a small piece of content of a policy page. The dispute is entrenched . The issue is being beaten by so many interested editors with many firmly held opinions that I cannot see a resolution, short of everyone becoming exhausted. I do not feel that any editors have been exhibiting bad faith. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of User:Minasbeede

NOR is an important part of the core Wikipedia policies and should be followed and respected.

Much of the controversy arises over source typing. I have never seen source typing, as advocated, adequately described. If the advocates cannot describe it then I suggest it is totally improper for inclusion in a policy. Insistence it needs to be there is not description.

I have also seen, in the evidence submitted in the NOR discussion page by an advocate of source typing that his own use of source typing, as seen in the example he submitted, was to unilaterally and without discussion remove edits made by another. Absent the editor/administrator's own testimony that his action was an example of the importance of source typing it is difficult for me to see how anyone could recognize the action (total removal of material without discussion) as arising from any policy.

I have made my own comments, some intemperate, on the NOR discussion page. The issue isn't arbitration nor RFC, the issue is the content of the NOR policy. There are editors acting in good faith to resolve the dispute, there are other editors. I doubt arbitrators can solve this problem. Wikipedia editors acting in true good faith can.

I see at least one other person has looked at the edit history of NOR and has seen that source typing appears to always have been desired by a minority and to not have had the long period of acceptance claimed by its advocates. There were early objections, there have been objections since.

It should be noted that at least some of the support for source typing is explicitly said by one or more of the advocates for it to be intended to "improve" Wikipedia (by making it be more restricted to the research conclusions of secondary sources.) Source typing, as used, attacks the "wiki" nature of Wikipedia. If partially destroying the wiki aspect of Wikipedia improves it - well, go ahead. Does it?

I suggest to the arbitrators, if they take this on, that they request the advocates of source typing to, themselves, come up with a definitive (for the purposes of the arbitration) description of source typing. I suggest that the arbitrators create a list of criteria for policy language, inviting others to participate in formulating the criteria, and then evaluate the definitive description against those criteria. The arbitrators can then determine, using all evidence and available comments, whether or not the source typing language meets the criteria. They could then accept the language, reject it, or at least create a better "starting version" of source typing that could be the basis for further discussion. I am not being benign nor neutral in specifying that the advocates be required to create a definitive (for them) statement of advocacy for source typing. I nonetheless think that it is a good idea.

I say this as a self-described "external observer." This issue, unresolved, is destructive to Wikipedia. I would not have commented had I not received a message informing me of this arbitration request. I have, with good if not perfect success, removed myself from the discussion. I have not looked at NOR nor at the discussion page since my last comment. I don't think I will look.

Good luck. --Minasbeede (talk) 22:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pixelface

I urge the arbitration committee to accept this case. There is some behavior here that definitely needs to be looked at, and it involves one of our 3 core policy pages. I do not believe that the RFCC on COGDEN will resolve the dispute. --Pixelface (talk) 07:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

Rob Bell

Initiated by Gump (talk) at 19:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rob_Bell#Arbitration

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

[116] [117] [118] [119]

Please note that Gump has not participated in any meaningful fashion in resolution on Talk:Rob_Bell

This arbitration request was issued by me -- the above statement was added afterwards to tip the scales. See my statement below. -- Gump (talk) 23:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gump

I'd also appreciate it if you could review the revert war taking place at Rob Bell.

A group of religious misfits ( here, here, and here have arrived to remove all substantial material content found by them to be even remotely critical in nature. They are now screaming to "discuss" the situation on the article's talk page yet their actions in reverting Alexfusco5, GeorgeLouis and my efforts to preserve critical viewpoints demonstrate their capacity for reasoning with opposition.

Opposing views are not tolerated and are routinely removed by this gang of Preterist buddies. This same group has removed unbiased revisions by many other users over the past year. Any discussions on the article's talk page are dominated by the gang and only accepted terms between these buddies are deemed final, as if a real process of discussion actually took place. I will admit that in my efforts to suppress the weight of their overwhelming presence, I have broken revert rules. For this I apologize and am now motivated to take this issue to the proper channels - namely, you.

You may or may not be familiar with their religious sect, but in sum, they belong to a radical element of Christianity called the "Emergent Church" which holds to a Preterist eschatology whose desire is to bring "justice" to earth by forcing heaven ("the kingdom") to come down in their rendition of social justice.....apparently they view winning this Wiki-war as one part of their war for "restoration" - yep, you read correctly.....please....help.

Statement from Isotope23

I'm not involved in this in any way, but it seems Arbitration is premature here. This should go through a request for comment, mediation, or even possibly be considered for deletion (as the subject doesn't appear especially notable, even if the article is well sourced). Arbitration is the last resort and I don't think it's quite gotten to that point yet.--Isotope23 talk 21:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lyonscc

Gump has completely refused to engage in discussion on the article and the need to maintain W:NPOV, W:NOR, W:V and to avoid Wikipedia:Coatrack issues.

It is very clear in W:V that blogs are not to be sources for Wikipedia articles, and that material, like that in apprising.org (the personal blog of Ken Silva) does not even come close to the level of scrutiny required for WP:BLP.

We have tried to include the SOURCE of criticism (which I would suggest is still too obscure, in cases) without trying to lay out a biased case for/against the criticism (in violation of W:NOR). The fact that Gump has not engaged in any meaningful fashion in discussing changes posted to Talk:Rob_Bell, along with his comments in the change log (and above) show a predisposed bias to never attempt coming to agreement on wording that is not in violation of multiple Wikipedia policies.

From the change log:

15:01, 10 December 2007 Gump (Talk | contribs) (15,663 bytes) (Undid revision 176994588 by Thunderbolt2002 There is nothing to discuss with the unreasonable: your crowd opposes ALL criticism. Stop censoring.) 14:57, 10 December 2007 Thunderbolt2002 (Talk | contribs) (14,154 bytes) (Undid revision 176993739 by Gump (talk) Per Recent Edit War - Please discuss changes in talk first.) (undo)

He keeps referring to "your crowd", and defining me as belonging to a religious sect that I certainly do not belong to, and refusing to even consider changes to the criticism section of the article to keep it in line with the W:NPOV guidelines. Please see Talk:Rob_Bell to for evidence of his unwillingness to consense.--Lyonscc (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {party 2}

Clerk notes

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

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

Bates method

Initiated by Famousdog (talk) at 14:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[120] [121]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

This has gone to mediation before and nothing came of it.

Statement by Famousdog

This has been going on for months. Seeyou objects to my edits to the Bates method page and has now resorted to accusing me of sockpuppetry here and here, attacking me personally here and possibly recruiting meatpuppets, or using anon accounts as sockpuppets to make edits to this page details here. In my defense, I am a vision scientist and I have always tried to provide adequate citations for my edits. Seeyou's edits amount to little beyond adding links to the "Visions of Joy" website and cheerleading against me. Things have got a little heated between us in the past, so I am attempting to maintain civility this time.

Statement by {party 2}

Clerk notes

For two prior declined requests concerning this article, see [122] and [123]. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Requests for clarification

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

Requested motions to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren

I request that the Committee consider the following motions. It is not clear where request for motions in a prior cases ought be placed, so could the clerks move this to the right spot if this is not it. Thanks. Martintg (talk) 18:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk note: I have moved these requests to the "requests for clarifications" section as probably the best place for them. I agree with Marting that it is not clear from the instructions where a request for relief from a prior decision should be posted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suspension of bans for both User:Digwuren and User:Petri Krohn

It is now obvious, after an initial bit of confusion and subsequent clarification, that the remedy 11 Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#General_restriction will be most effective in combating incivility, which was the core issue of this case. No one was calling for year long bans for either party in the original case, in fact most involved and uninvolved were explicitly against any ban, as Alex Bakharev succinctly argued here and seconded by many others including Geogre and Biophys in Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Proposed_decision#Remedies_are_too_harsh. Note too that Digwuren did make a reflective and conciliatory statement aplogising to those he had wronged and forgiving those who had wronged him Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Proposed_decision#Statement_by_Digwuren. Compare this to the recently banned Anonimu, where there was a clear concensus for a ban and he was defiant and un-remorseful to the end.

While a year is a long time, and shortening it may be useful, I'd like to see those users expressing remorse, telling us what they have learned and promising not to continue behavior that led to their ban before any shortening or suspension of a ban is considered.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no point in banning these editors, especially Petri, who unlike Digwuren, even sincerely apologized long before the case and was still punished for his actions taken prior to the apology, unlike Digwuren who continued to create "occupation" badwagons, revert war and bait contributors even while his arbitration was ongoing. Still, as far as Digwuren is concerned, I neither proposed nor supported a year-long ban. I have a very thick skin towards incivility and this aspect of his conduct did not bother me much. But if he is unblocked, he must be on the short leash regarding the number of reverts and coatracking.

Overall, I think that case needs a new hearing in light of how editors see it now in the retrospect and by the hopefully wisened up ArbCom as well. Also, there were several new developments, chiefly, editors using the "editing restrictions" to blockshop and vigorously "investigate" each other. This whole matter needs a fresh look, perhaps by a renewed Arbcom after the election which is almost over.

I would object to selective reversals of the original decision. The case was handled badly in a hands-off-by-ArbCom-type way during the entire precedings. Selective return of Digwuren and doing nothing else would just make matters worse. Rehashing that decision overall may be a good thing and hearing all parties in an orderly way by the arbitrators who actually listned and engage would be a good thing though. --Irpen 19:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strike User:Erik Jesse, User:3 Löwi and User:Klamber from the Involved parties list

These people were offline long before the case even started, never participated in the case, and continue to be offline to this day. No or little evidence was presented against them and no finding of fact either. In fact they had absolutely no involvement in the issues of this case and were only mentioned because they were included in an earlier checkuser case. Note however it is a finding of fact that Petri Krohn used Wikipedia as a battleground, and the checkuser case against these and other Estonian users was a part of that warfare. We don't want to perpetuate this wrong against these three editors.

Therefore I ask ArbCom to amend the case such that their names are struck from the list of involved parties and thus the notices removed from their talk pages. In fact I made a similar motion to this effect Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Workshop#Motion_to_strike_3_L.C3.B6wi_and_Klamber_from_the_list_of_parties during the case and it was seconded by the clerk Cbrown1023 at the time. I know it is a minor issue, but it is an important gesture that ArbCom ought to do to further heal the hurts and encourage them to return, particularly User:3 Löwi who has been an editor of good standing since 2005.

Expand definition of "uninvolved admin" in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#General_restriction

The principle of involved admins not being permitted to issue blocks is founded on the issue of conflict of interest and that trust should be maintained in the impartiality of the blocking admin. Generally "involved" means personal involvement in the immediate issue or article. However, given that the span of this general restriction covers all of Eastern Europe, and the principle that trust should be maintained in the blocking admin's impartiality, and that political issues (the role of the Soviet Union and communism) is the basis for much of the conflict on Eastern Europe; the definition of "involved" should be expanded for this remedy to include admins with overt and obvious political view points or past significant involvment in content disputes within Eastern Europe

The recent episode concerning blocks issued by El_C illustrates this problem. An admin with a "vanity page" consisting of figures associated with communist oppression and terrorism wades into a dispute involving Eastern Europe, not only is this highly provocative, but alarm bells start ringing as to the impartiality of this admin. Note that this is same admin saw no problem with the behaviour of the recently banned Anonimu, uncivilly branding those who brought the complaint as "ethno-nationalist editors". This fact of questionable impartiality and lack of trust only served to inflame the situation resulting a commited and significant editor and wikiproject coordinator Sander Säde to leave the project.

While one must endeavour to assume good faith, never the less, there would be an issue of trust in the judgement of an admin if, to illustrate with an example, they had a vanity page consisting of images of Osama bin Ladin and Hezbollah on their user page wading in and handing out blocks in a dispute regarding Israeli related topic. Common sense dictates that controversial admins of questionable partiality should not be involved enforcing this remedy.

Good point, but it all boils down to the issue of anonymity. El C at least declares some of his POV on his user page. I, for example, declare quite a few more things. Would you prefer to trust a user who declares nothing? How can we be sure if such declarations are truthful, and not ironic or simply deceptive? Looking back at the Essjay controversy I still think all admins should be required to reveal their identity, education, and POVs... but I am well aware this will not fly. I think "uninvolved admin" should be one that is accepted by the parties; but of course that creates a possibility for the parties to evade judgment by refusing to accept any admin as uninvolved. Perhaps to avoid that but deal with the problem you outlined, we should have a procedure parties can lodge complains about admin's involvement, where this could be reviewed by other admins and if involvement is determined (something like CoI), the admin's action is reverted and warning issued? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is time served included in block time?

Privatemusings [124] was prohibited from editing for 90 days Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings/Proposed decision due to an arbitration decision. Does the 90 days start from the time of the decision (December 2) or from the time his block for misbehavior started (November 18th)? Uncle uncle uncle (talk) 23:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The general rule is that remedies take effect at the time the decision is finalized and announced. I have suggested once or twice that the time might better run from an earlier effective date based on the equities of a specific case, but the idea has never been endorsed by any of the arbitrators. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If by some odd twist of fate you should find yourself enjoying the fine fruits of membership of that august body, you might push again for such a position. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ferrylodge#Ferrylodge restricted

A user has suggested that editing on presidential candidate Mitt Romney would violate this edit restriction because Romney's an anti-abortion flip-flopper. User specifically opposes Ferrylodge's participation in a debate about including reference to Romney's polygamist ancestors (because, it's argued, polygamy relates to reproduction).[125] Is Ferrylodge in fact restricted from these topics? Is he close to the line? Cool Hand Luke 02:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not banned from articles about abortion. The ArbCom decision stated: "Any uninvolved administrator may ban Ferrylodge from any article which relates to pregnancy or abortion, interpreted broadly, which they disrupt by inappropriate editing." First of all, no admin has remotely suggested that I have edited the Mitt Romney article inappropriately. That article has never been reverted by me once, and no admin (involved or uninvolved) has suggested otherwise, much less banned me from the article. Also, of course, the Mitt Romney article is not related to pregnancy or abortion. One could argue that every article is in some sense a result of pregnancy, but such arguments would be absurd. If I were editing an article on polygamy, could an uninvolved admin ban me from that article for editing inappropriately? I think not, but let's plunge off that bridge when we come to it.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The restriction is meant to be imposed on a case-by-case basis by an admin. Ferrylodge is not under any general ban. Kirill 02:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my two cents on FL's progress since the ArbCom ruling. During the ArbCom case, it was discussed and proposed that FL, in addition to being banned from abortion/pregnancy articles, also be banned from political articles. The committee in the long run did not add this to their remedies, and based on FL's edits since coming back to WP, I'm not sure that was the right decision. On December 1st, after a bit of incivility ("but Turtlescrubber thinks that false info in Wikipedia artoices is fine?" [126]), FL (and another editor) were warned by The Evil Spartan, being told to "cease-fire"[127]. Because of the content dispute, the article has since been protected, however FL has harassed contacted the admin who protected the article multiple times here, even after a RfC and two separate edit requests failed to accomplish FL's edits. While not clear cut abuse, I believe this added together is disruptive. And to give FL credit, there are other editors on the other side fighting for their POVs (you can't have a content dispute with just one side. there are always two sides). But I am extremely disappointed that after the close of the ArbCom case, FL has not taken the opportunity to prove to the community that he can be productive and increase the encyclopedic value of non-controversial articles, but instead has picked up arguing over petty matters at days length on highly contentious articles. I would suggest to FL to please stop editing presidential candidates articles for the time being, and do some neutral contribution to gain the trust of the community. Getting into such a large (yet in the long run insignificant) content dispute so soon after the ArbCom case just doesn't look good.-Andrew c [talk] 03:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew c, you are hardly a disinterested party here. For example, you accused me during the ArbCom proceedings of "aching for a fight," among many other things.[128] I politely decline your suggestion that I stop editing certain types of articles. Any objective person would see clearly that my edits to presidential candidate articles are very helpful, such as these edits today to the John McCain article. And there was no ArbCom vote about restricting me from political articles, contrary to what Andrew c suggests. Regarding the Mitt Romney article, there is certainly a dispute there, and I have supported at least one admin in that dispute. That article was certainly not protected due to any revert by me. I have never reverted the Mitt Romney article, not once. I thought that the ArbCom proceedings were over. Alas.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Re-opening the arbcom remedy is another question that I'm not asking. I just want to know whether there's anyway he's barred from editing Mitt Romney. It says that the subject should be interpreted broadly. I would say he's clearly forbidden from editing on a candidate's abortion stance, but editing on the candidate generally seems too weak a tangent to me. I want to know whether ArbCom could have possibly meant to forbid anything like this. Cool Hand Luke 04:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Read the remedy very carefully. He is not barred even from broad abortion and pregnancy topics, unless an uninvolved admin declares him to be in specific instances, in specific articles. Since no admin, involved or uninvolved, has done so at all, he cannot be argued to be banned from any article or topic at this moment. The mental gymnastics required to interpret the remedy, even in the broadest sense, to apply to presidential candidate articles in general would require facial expressions that I would actually pay to see. - Crockspot (talk) 04:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If FerryLodge were to edit the abortion-related parts of the Romney article in a disruptive fashion, an uninvolved admin could indeed ban him from the article, but he is under no blanket ban. You can ask any uninvolved admin to review FerryLodge's edits or post a request at Arbitration enforcement and if the admin decides a ban is needed, FL will be notified and the ban logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ferrylodge#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. Thatcher131 02:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#General_restriction

I request clarification of this Remedy. El C applied two blocks [129], [130], and over 24 hours later Thatcher131 places a notice of restriction [131]. Is the action of these two admins against the spirit of this particular remedy in that the notice of restriction should be applied first as a warning to that editor that any further violation may invoke an enforcement block, the intent being that the editor is given fair opportunity and chance to cease that particular behaviour? My concern is that the action of an over zealous admin may have driven a very productive editor away [132]. Martintg (talk) 11:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor note: What did you expect when this botched ArbCom ended? I mean, here we are, with El_C, admin and Che Guevara (Communist) wannabe considered "uninvolved" when the whole issue here is not "Eastern Europe", but the heritage of Communism and Soviet Russian occupation. Not to mention that you have the same definition of the "conflict area" in the recent Anonimu ArbCom. Just take a look who is defending the Communist and Soviet POV-pusher User:Anonimu. It's the "uninvolved" Communist User:El_C and the Russian User:Irpen. Miraculous, isn't it. :) Dpotop (talk) 12:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In this case the block was issued because of this one single comment on a user's talk page [133], yet there is seemingly no action when grossly more disruptive behaviour is brought to light here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Dr._Dan_inflaming_Eastern_European_topics Martintg (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Action has finally been taken. Martintg (talk) 23:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The intent of the notice (not "warning") clause was to ensure that parties subject to sanctions would be informed of the existence of the general restriction prior to it being applied to them. Editors obviously aware of the restriction—notably, the parties to the case—are not meant to receive additional notifications. Kirill 13:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill, so you are basically saying that the meaning of this remedy is that all and every single editor of EE topics, is already subject to this general restriction? So why is it worded "may be made subject to an editing restriction" if this is the case. So as editors of EE topics, we either all are subject to this editing restriction, or we all may be subject to the editing restriction given the appropriate notice, which is it? Most confusing. Should not every single editor of EE articles be now notified on their talk page that they are all subject to this general editing restriction? This need to be clarified. Martintg (talk) 19:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The remedy says that if someone is uncivil, makes personal attacks, or assumed bad faith, then an administrator may make them the subject of an editing restriction (ie, a block). How is that confusing? Obviously not everyone is currently affected by such a restriction, as not everyone is blocked. Kirill already answered your question regarding notification: those that are unaware should be notified, those that are already aware need not be. --Deskana (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for the clarification. So who should start with this notification process, I suspect that there are a lot of regular EE editors who may not be aware of this General Restriction. I suppose this notification should be similar to this User_talk:Sander_Säde#Notice_of_editing_restrictions, which warns "future violations of the provisions of this warning are subject to blocking". Martintg (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Deskana, I am still confused by this template {{subst:Digwuren enforcement}}, which you and Kirill must admit is structured as a warning notice, which must be logged in the appropriate place to take effect, according to the text below:

Notice of editing restrictions

File:Yellow warning.png

Notice: Under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, any editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined, may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. Should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he or she may be blocked for up to a week for each violation, and up to a month for each violation after the fifth. This restriction is effective on any editor following notice placed on his or her talk page. This notice is now given to you, and future violations of the provisions of this warning are subject to blocking.

Note: This notice is not effective unless given by an administrator and logged here.


I am not wiki-lawyering here, I just think it is necessary to clarify this mechanism for the benefit of not only us editors at the coal face, but also the admins who have to administer this. Let's have some clarity here to ensure the smooth running of Wikipedia, that is all I ask. Martintg (talk) 23:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill, Deskana, not wanting to labour the issue, but there is a distinction between an editing restriction and a block, is there not? You both seem to be implying that that they are the same thing, the block is the editing restriction. But this is at odds with Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Enforcement_by_block: "Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, they may be briefly blocked", an explicit distinction which Kirill himself drafted. I mean, there are all sorts of general editing restrictions in force, 3RR being one for example. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this suppose to operate thus:

  1. Misbehaviour -> Editing restriction placed via notice on user talk page and logged
  2. Further misbehaviour -> block applied and logged.

I know admins are encouraged to ignore the rules, but we do need clarification here before some over zealous admins begin driving good people off the project for the slightest infraction, as in the case of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Estonia coordinator User:Sander Säde. Martintg (talk) 04:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, you're correct. Keep in mind, though, that the main intent of the notification requirement is not to serve as a warning, per se; but, rather, to make sure that editors unaware of the existence of this remedy would not find themselves blocked without finding out about it beforehand. When the editor in question, having been a party to the actual case, is already well aware of the need to conduct themselves civilly, we're not going to crack down on admins for forgetting some of the paperwork. To be quite honest, anyone involved in the case has no excuse for being uncivil at this point; I think that we made it very clear that the poor behavior seen in this area is not acceptable. Kirill 05:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'm not looking to have an admin flogged for forgotten paperwork, just clarification and guidance for the benefit of editors and admins alike, because this does apply to the entire Eastern Europe, broadly defined. It must be noted that User:Sander Säde did subsequently apologise in his block review request.
How ever it appears that in his exuberance User:El_C used this remedy (which is aimed at incivility) for blocking User:Alexia Death for basically revert warring [134]. The revert warring was over this comment [135], and to interpret this as incivility is an asumption of bad faith. In fact this comment is a salute to Ghirla for the tough battles of the past with well wishes for the future. Using this remedy for edit warring is an inappropriate, so therefore I request that User:Alexia Death's logging of her enforcement block and associated notification log be removed from Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Enforcement_2. Martintg (talk) 05:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was apparently a case of forgotten "paperwork". Kirill has confirmed that for those who were not a party to the original case 1. Misbehaviour -> Editing restriction placed via notice on user talk page and logged, 2. Further misbehaviour -> block applied and logged. For those who were a party: both applied at the same time. Martintg (talk) 06:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there seems to have been a fair amount of confusion regarding what exactly the remedy was. For future use, I've created Wikipedia:General sanctions to keep track of these wide-area remedies. I'd appreciate it if people could leave links to it where appropriate. Kirill 06:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not talking about the notice. I was part of the case and I acknowledge it to be unnecessary. I talking about logging the block itself and requesting comment on delay in logging it as an enforcement block, witch I personally doubt it was.--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 09:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:General sanctions sounds like a good idea. I have taken the liberty to add the second Armenia-Azerbaijan case (with some rewording, for consistency) to it. I submit it to your and other members of the Committee's approval. El_C 09:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch, but keeping the actual wording is probably the better approach, to reduce potential confusion. Kirill 14:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Kirill. Please see my refractored comment here. El_C 14:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kirill, one more clarification needed on applicability. This remedy is only applicable to EE topics right? I mean if it happens in areas outside EE, for example, an editor gets into a discussion with an admin on another admin's talk page and they start revert warring over the editor's comment "So these are "Durova-style" rules! LOL. I cant take Wikipedia seriously any more. This is ridiculous!", [136], [137], [138], [139], and rightly or wrongly that admin ends up blocking this editor as a result [140] (I've searched and searched but cannot find this alleged inflammatory comment "you guys could do with little sunshine in your lives"), is it appropriate that this block be logged under this particular remedy? Martintg (talk) 11:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. The remedy, as written, is applicable to any editor working on EE topics, but places no limitations on where the actual incivility would need to occur. Given that a large part of the past problem was EE editors sniping at each other on user talk pages, noticeboards, etc. (often on topics unrelated to EE, but merely continuing personal fights that had started on EE matters months or years before), I think it's appropriate that editors subject to this remedy need to watch their behavior generally, not only on article talk pages or when directly engaged in article disputes.
(The comment is made here, incidentally.) Kirill 14:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While it is true that the initial statement by Alexia on Ghirla's talk page (do we assume good or bad faith here?) was the trigger, it quickly descended into a personal conflict between Alexia and User:El_C spanning across several user's talk pages. I don't believe that Alexia or User:El_C have had any personal fights in the past related to EE. By no means was User:El_C blocking action uncontroversial as another admin overturned the un-noticed block (forgotten paperwork) as evidenced here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Daniel Case. User:El_C clearly states that the main reason for the block was for this subsequent dispute, not the original triggering event:[141]. Of course the irony here is that User:El_C himself was as much a contributor due to his own combative and inflamatory approach.
In what way inflammatory you may ask? People like us Kirill, who were brought up in comfortable USA or Australia where images of Che may be considered mere t-shirt art, need to be sensitive to the fact that many people suffered under communist rule in Eastern Europe. For example I read that in the Baltic states, almost everyone had some family member who was deported or otherwise repressed. It touched everyone. So when an admin with a "vanity page" consisting of figures associated with communist oppression and terrorism wades into a dispute involving Eastern Europe, not only is this highly provocative, but alarm bells start ringing as to the impartiality of this admin. This was the substance of this dispute that lead to Alexia's block. Would you trust the judgement of an admin with images of Adolf Hitler on their user page wading in and handing out blocks in a dispute regarding the Holocaust? This is same admin who saw no problem with the behaviour of the recently banned Anonimu, uncivilly branding those who brought the complaint as "ethno-nationalist editors", and exhibited continued assumption of bad faith against the unblocking admin in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Daniel Case. Common sense dictates that controversial admins of questionable partiality should not be involved resolution of EE disputes, particular given the extra powers afforded by this remedy.
Anyway, thanks again for your clarifications. Rather than continuing on here, I'll be putting together a case to address this issue of involved admins and will putting it before the Committee in due course for consideration. Cheers. Martintg (talk) 00:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These uninhibited attacks by this user, who feels it necessary to link to my user page five times in a single five-sentence paragraph, are nothing more than cheap theatrics. Of course, I am far from being a supporter of the Social imperialist Eastern European caricature-communist regimes, and of course I saw a problem with the the behaviour of Anonimu (still, he was ruthlessly attacked, too; just the Bonparate front, tens of socks). I already responded to many of these other distortions elsewhere at length. El_C 14:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I cite: "far from being a supporter of the Social imperialist Eastern European caricature-communist regimes". Hm, the photo of Lenin on your page seems to say something else. In case you don't know, it was him who presided the imperialistic occupation of Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaidjan by the USSR. But imperialism was not his worst deed: He and his buddies created the Cheka and the widespread famine, and the politicide, a.s.o. Dpotop (talk) 15:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In conclusion, don't pretend to be an honest broker on these subjects. Dpotop (talk) 15:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In case you don't know. I have long ago ceased to respond to the crude, intentionally-insulting demagoguery of Dpotop. El_C 16:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My formulation was based on an assumption of good faith from your part. Otherwise, I can't see how you could state on one side that you don't support imperialist communists, and on the other side support Lenin. Dpotop (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also believe that such accusations of "demagoguery", "combativeness", a.s.o. would have ended in a block for any other Wikipedia users. It's sad to see that some editors (you, for instance) can do whatever they want with impunity. Dpotop (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Above, he calls me he a wannabe, a few days ago he calls me a hypocrite. It's all standard practice for Dpotop. El_C 16:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a suggestion to Dpotop. Why dosen't he make a few edits that are not related to targeting myself or reverting Eastern European articles. It'd go along way toward establishing calm on these two unrelated fronts. El_C 16:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The original question has been asked and answered. In the case of Alexia Death, the formal notice I placed on her talk page was not required as she was a listed party to the case and was informed of the decision at the time it closed. Editors who were not parties to the case should be notified about the editing restrictions before any enforcement action is taken pursuant to those remedies. Are there any points that need additional clarification? Thatcher131 16:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing that doesn't involve targeting me, I'm sure. El_C 16:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on a moment, I just looked at the Case again, and civility restrictions 1 Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Proposed_decision#Alexia_Death_restricted and 10 Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Proposed_decision#Sander_S.C3.A4de_restricted were never adopted, so I don't think El_C was correct in blocking them with enforcement blocks. At most he should have placed the notice of general restriction first. Surely if ArbCom wanted the parties to be blocked without further notice as you suggest Thatcher131, they would have passed those remedies. Martintg (talk) 21:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of ArbCom action does not condone bad behavior nor prevent admins from dealing with bad behavior through the normal means. Since these folks were party to this case, they were well aware of the general restrictions, so there was no need for further notification. The fact that they have been given additional notification subsequently is a courtesy intended to help them comply. - Jehochman Talk 21:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Note JamesF's vote in opposition, "oppose in favor of the general restriction." As the general restriction applies to all parties upon notice, and the closing clerk notified both Alexia [142] and Sander [143], then the notification requirement has been met. I applied the warning template as a formality and because Sander was listed as a party in the case opening, but he clearly was considered a party when the case closed, as noted on the proposed decision page and as demonstrated by Cbrown's notification. Thatcher131 21:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And FloNight in support of the general restriction said "I prefer this to keep newer users from gaining the upper hand by bashing our established editors over the head with our decision at the time these established users are trying to adjust their conduct to match our remedies." Didn't the thing that FloNight wanted to avoid just happen in this case, Alexia and Sander were bashed over the head without a chance to adjust by being notified first according to remedy 11? Martintg (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the notices you linked were provided at the conclusion of the case and only mentioned Remedies 2, 5 and 10. There was no mention of Remedy 11 in that notice. I am particularly concerned about the other Involved Parties, User:Erik Jesse, User:3 Löwi and User:Klamber, who were offline long before the case even started, never participated in the case, and continue to be offline to this day, returning some time in the future and being clobbered over the head without a chance to adjust. Martintg (talk) 22:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The general restriction is indeed linked in that notice. Thatcher131 23:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed you are correct, I mis-read the notice. However what of FloNight's concern and the issue of the three involved parties I mentioned being potentially bashed over the head without being given a chance to adjust? It's pretty tough on them, isn't it? No finding of fact against them, yet they have this threat of instant block hanging over their heads. Martintg (talk) 23:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I read Flo's comment to mean that she does not want new unnamed editors to have the upper hand on older editors named in specific remedies, hence the general remedy. (Although you are welcome to ask her specifically.) Regarding inactive editors, I can only say that I would hope that they read their talk pages (and indeed, they have an obligation to follow up on an Arbitration case naming them that was pending when they last edited), but even so I personally would issue another warning before issuing blocks. And in any case, the initial blocks are meant to be brief, and only escalate on repeated violations. If you wish to specifically exempt these editors you will need Arbcom to vote a motion modifying the decision. Thatcher131 00:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you would personally issue them with a warning, but other admins may not. As for your stated obligation that they should follow up any ArbCom case pending since their last edit, the fact is they have been off line long long before this case was ever requested, let alone pending. I have no idea why they were even listed as involved parties, apart from their ethnictiy. It would be bit of a nasty surprise if they ever return to find this notice on their talk page related to a case that they never participated in let alone a finding of fact made against them. And yet they have been singled out for no other reason that they happen to live in Estonia and subjected to harser regime than you or me, we get a second chance because we get a notice only after the first infraction, and they get none. Don't you find this disquieting?
So I ask ArbCom to amend the case such that their names are struck from the list of involved parties and thus the notices removed from their talk pages. In fact a motion to this effect Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Workshop#Motion_to_strike_3_L.C3.B6wi_and_Klamber_from_the_list_of_parties was made during the case and seconded by the clerk User:Cbrown1023 at the time, but may have been overlooked in the general noise of the Workshop page. Martintg (talk) 00:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom warnings and reminders

Sometimes, ArbCom will close a case with a remedy, where an editor is warned/reminded not to do something but is not punished. What if the editor ignores the warning/reminder? Is there a process to tell ArbCom that the editor ignored the warning/reminder and should be punished? --Kaypoh (talk) 08:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing a new case, typically. Non-binding remedies are just that: non-binding. Kirill 12:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Privatemusings sockpuppet principle

I would like to request clarification on one matter here, namely the restriction that "Sockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates." I know I'm not the only administrator to use a secondary account for security purposes while on a public or shared machine. Generally, such secondary accounts are clearly marked as to who they are controlled by, and cannot be used, for example, for circumvention or "bad hand" purposes, as they are clearly linked to their owner. Does the committee intend this ruling to apply even to such accounts? Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This use came up during the Committee's discussion about our understanding of the sockpuppet policy. As long as the accounts are labeled in a way that makes the connection obvious there should not be a problem. Going the extra step of signing these posts with both account names will help if the account names are not obviously the same person. FloNight (talk) 15:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a related thread (from the proposed decision talk page here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, part II

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

The decision says that "[t]hose edit-warring against an administrator following this ruling so as to restore private content without consent of its creator may be briefly blocked by any uninvolved administrator, up to a week in the event of repeated violations". However, as pointed out in this edit by Thebainer (talk), arbitration decisions generally only apply to the case they're made in (exceptions including a number of decisions in the BDJ case, etc.).

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

The enforcement applies only to the particulars of this case. Paul August ☎ 15:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paul, I think your statement is ambiguous. Does "particulars" mean "particular facts" or "particular parties"? GRBerry 20:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The general principle is that the principles, findings, remedies and enforcements of a given case apply only to that case. It is not intended that a case decision make new policy or be precedent setting. Thus the enforcement in this case is to be construed conservatively and narrowly, to apply only to the particular parties of this case, and only to the particular private content of this case. It is not intended to apply to other parties or other private content. Paul August ☎ 23:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I'm still unclear. Applies only to the parties in this case, and the private information cited in this case? Mercury 00:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Paul August ☎ 17:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durova

(Apologies if poorly worded; I'm tired)

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

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

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

  1. In the past, when arbcom has specified a process or a new principle in its cases, that has always been stated or understood to be a proposal, or ad-hoc process, which the community can review or finalize. Or it runs in parallel with the community's view. In other words, it's akin to "this is the starting point, until things get discussed more". Other than asserting Arbcom's right to be involved, rulings don't usually override future consensus by the community at large on the matter. However, a literal reading of this sentence might be taken to mean, "Arbcom has spoken; this is how confidential information is obligated to be handled. All (and future) community discussion futile. Matter decided."
    Evidence of need: posted today on a proposed policy talk page: "I think the "process" section is ... perhaps not necessary. ArbCom expressed in its ruling that all confidential evidence has to go through them, so it wouldn't seem to admit any other [approaches], not even a subset of ArbCom" [144]
    Clarification #1 - Confirmation that in general, when Arbcom makes decision in the form of a process, it's not intended to have a chilling effect on communal learning, or prevent the community considering, finding, and later rethinking, its own ways, over time. (In fact my understanding is that the community is actively encouraged to do so.)
  2. In the past, behavioral evidence has been used against certain sophisticated sockpuppet users. For example, some 60 socks of repeatedly-banned vandal HeadleyDown (AKA. KrishnaVindaloo, maypole, ...) have now been blocked. In proposed policy discussion, more than one person has commented that evidence against well known sockmasters often cannot be placed in public, since its first use would then be to allows the sockmaster to change their "give-away behaviors" ("not a suicide pact").
    Clarification #2 - does Arbcom confirm it now wants all such matters to be its domain now, and no actions of this kind decided by any other user or users?
    Clarification #3 - If so, is this to be a permanent ruling, or more an interim one until the community finds a better proposal that gets consensus. Ie, if the community develops a suitable consensus on an alternative means of handling "confidential information" would Arbcom need to be asked to sanction the communal proposal, before it could replace this ruling?
    Clarification #4 - is it necessary to ask #3? (Not a trivial question, it goes to the heart of how such rulings by Arbcom may be changed or removed, and Arbcom's view on their standing of process rulings it may make)
  3. Finally, if appropriate to ask, does the committee encourage or support the community in developing a more long term policy on handling of confidential information? (One is being developed, but the perceived announcement by Arbcom that it will exclusively handle such matters from now on, has led to question of its merit by a number of users and a diminishing of effort.)

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

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

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

FT2 (Talk | email) 21:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Armenia-Azerbaijan

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

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

I have created the sub page per WP:BOLD. I have not transcluded it yet tho (I am not THAT bold). I'd like to do so per some sort of approval. -- Cat chi? 06:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
"For the sake of conveniece" Do you mean for your convenience? If so,why would it be convenient for you, and why should your convenience be a reason to merge two separate and extremely controversial RfC records? Meowy 03:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? My convenience? I am neither an admin nor an involved party. How does this make it "more convenient" for me? These are two closely RfAr cases and not RfCs at all. The record in question are copies of block logs. Same information is available in the form of block logs. Merge suggestion was to simplify an already complex case with a centralized list as both cases are very closely related. Frankly this opposition baffled me. Yes I am quite surprised. -- Cat chi? 15:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how it would be "more convenient" for you. You made the "convenience" comment, so you are the one who should know! The case is complex because the second RfA case was exceptional in its outcome, especially in its draconian powers and in (what I believe to be) the unparallelled breadth of its scope which extended the remit of the original RfA far beyond reasonable and normal limits. There should be no move to minimise or disguise that situation. Meowy 01:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is that "draconian" argument relevant to the block log? This is merely merge the block logs, something available in machine generated logs...
It helps distinguish really disruptive users that got regular blocks from others. For example, we had several users that had engaged in disruptive sockpuppetary. Past blocks may be overlooked in a hypothetical situation if a user was blocked per RfAR case 1 and needs to be blocked again per RfAR case 2. The complicated nature of the cases as you pointed out makes review rather difficult which exactly why simplifying that process as much as possible is necessary. Some logs are relentless! Such a synchronized block log would minimize the confusion. Block logs are public data and this suggestion isn't even remotely controversial.
Does you opposition have a reason? If so please state it because I do not see the mention of such a reason so far.
-- Cat chi? 06:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Will a single arbitrator or clerk comment on this? -- Cat chi? 12:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Short answer: no. The two cases are distinct; merging the logs will merely confuse everyone regarding what exactly each case allows for. Kirill 17:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Status of TruthCrusader block review?

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

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

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

Application of the Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks policies

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

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

Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

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

This is what Thatcher131 told me month ago: "So far, no admin including myself has found that you yourself have edited these articles in an "aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility" and so you have not yet been placed under the restrictions described here. Thatcher131 01:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)"[145]

Am I being compared to E104421 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Previously indef banned for edit warring, who was simultaneously edit warring with me and another user [146], [147], [148], . Who breached WP:3RR [149], [150], [151], [152], Who kept insisting (by reverting) that its gonna be his way and no other? even by reverting my minor edits [153]. Who generally disregarded the talkpage and is yet to give justification for most of his POV reverts. Was I wrong, when I tried to compromise and only reverted partially? Was I wrong when I tried to keep the article as neutral as possible? As I said before, even though I was not under the restriction and supervised editing, I never reverted without justification, always explained and justified my edits in the talkpage. Most importantly my edits were not marked by incivility.

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

Arbitration remedies are not meant to be carte blanche for administrators unless they explicitly provide for such authority. Ryan's interpretation of the decision here is incorrect; the remedy is applicable only to cases where the editor is incivil. Kirill 05:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about many other users, such as User:Aynabend and User:Baku87, who were placed on parole without any prior warning, while they both had a clean block log and never made any incivil comments? I don't think E104421 was incivil either. Both VartanM and E104421 were placed on parole for edit warring on Shusha article, since they made 3rvs each. VartanM had a previous official warning from another admin to stop edit warring, otherwise he would be placed on parole [154]. So I think we need a clarification here. Can admins place users on parole for just edit warring, or they need to be engaged in both edit warring and incivility to be placed on parole? If the latter, then parole of some users has to be lifted. Grandmaster (talk) 07:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Krill for a super fast reply. Grandmaster the answer to your question is most probably that they need to personally come here and make their case. Assuming good faith on GM's part for ignoring my kind request. Good night to all. VartanM (talk) 09:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We need to clarify the general principle of application of this remedy. If it applies only for incivilty, then User:E104421, User:Aynabend and User:Baku87 should be all relieved of it, since they never violated any civility rules, and the latter 2 editors have no previous blocks, warnings, etc, unlike User:VartanM. Grandmaster (talk) 09:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill, User:VartanM is violating Users national background and neutrality principle by engaging in edit warring and POV pushing across several articles without restriction. We are yet to see how you address that by giving him a green light to continue doing what he is doing. And if VartanM's behavior was not marked by incivility, then how did the ArbCom address these [155], several counts of incivility not ever supervised, restricted or paroled? And if the VartanM's continuous editing conduct allows for interpretation against supervised editing, then how would supervised editing apply in case of the other user User:E104421, whose edits were not incivil. Based on POV pushed by User:VartanM throughout Wikipedia without any review or restriction, and paroles being deliberately applied only to contributors of certain one side, lifting the supervised editing is a delibreate violation of neutrality. Atabek (talk) 09:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And why does VartanM cross out administrator's decision [156] when this should be done either by administrator or arbitrator? Atabek (talk) 09:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ArbCom notice reads: "Notice: Under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, any editor who edits articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility may be placed under several editing restrictions, by notice on that editor's talk page." I edited the Shusha article for the first time yesterday. I did not edited in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility. I provided sources, cited the references, commented on the talk pages and edit summaries. On the other hand, VartanM deleted the new section, references and quotatins on "cultural life" added by myself from cited references. VartanM's POV is focused on my previous block-log due to my long term conflicts with Tajik on Nomadic Empires related topics. My last block is dated 1 April 2007. That case was closed. I edited for the first time an Az-Ar related topic in my life (just 4 times + 1 minor spell check), but it's claimed that i have history of Az-Ar related topics. Now, i was placed under the parole, but VartanM's parole is removed. What kind of double standard is this? Deletion of referenced material constantly is not regarded as edit-warring, but addition of "new section and references" are claimed to be edit-warring. What happened to the basic Wikipedia policies: "WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:DR"? Regards. E104421 (talk) 10:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Kiril for the response here. I was under the impression that this remedy tried to stop disruption in all forms (i.e. edit warring or incivility) due to the history of editing on these pages. Whilst I see that both users here have edit warred on the pages, I fail to see any incivility coming from them, so unless there's evidence of that, I'll remove both names from the supervised editing log. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both User:Aynabend and User:Baku87 were placed under the same parole for a single page edit and without any incivility cited. So please, review their paroles as well. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 11:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed Baku87 and VartanM for now - I'll wait for a response from the administrators that put E104421 and Aynabend under supervised editing before removing their names. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ryan. Atabek (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I share a similar concern with this remedy. Given the scale of the disruption on this topic, I don't think it's a good idea that users must be incivil with edit warring. Edit warring is disruptive on its own and this does seem to advocate edit warring on the pages provided that the users remain civil. I think when a case like this goes to arbitration twice, administrators should be given a little bit more freedom to interpret decisions because per the clarification from Kirill yesterday, I've had to remove five names from the supervised editing list that should all most probably have had their editing placed under supervision, but can't because of a technicality. In many ways it seems it's a way to game the system. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Last month I requested a RfC on the apparent arbitrary extensions of the powers that the RfA Armenia-Azerbaijan2 remedy created. Being out of the country for 4 weeks, I did not have the opportunity to see its result. Where (if anywhere?) would the archive of that discussion material be stored? I must point out to the initiator of this RfC, that remedy 2 does not actually contain the words he has quoted. The fact that it does not, was the crux of my RfC. Meowy 18:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I recall that one of the arbitrators said that he was happy with the way the remedy was enforced, and that was after a number of editors were placed on parole for edit warring and sockpuppetry. [157] Grandmaster (talk) 12:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, but they aren't the ones that have to deal with the situation day in, day out, and might not be fully aware as to the extent of the problems on these pages. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And the other 5 arbitrators didn't even bother to respond? Astonishing, especially since I personally asked each of them to do so and also pointed out in some detail the flaws in both the use and scope of the RfA remedy. I am seriously considering making a RfA on the validity of the mess that is the Armenian-Azerbaijan2 RfA remedy. Meowy 02:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was another prior discussion here: [158], and I might be wrong, but the remedy seemed to be interpreted differently at the time. Grandmaster (talk) 13:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you everyone for this initative. I indeed have no problem in coming ahead, stating and being very proud that I have never used any incivility in my communications neither in this page nor somewhere else, and would highly appreciate if this injustice be corrected. Thanks again --Aynabend (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like nobody is going to comment. But I would be really interested to know the opinion of the arbitrators about how the remedies passed under the second Armenia – Azerbaijan arbcom are supposed to stop disruption on topic related articles, if they limit the application of the remedy 2 to incivility only, while disruption on topic related articles was never limited to incivility? The Armenia – Azerbaijan 2 case specifically mentions among the principles that edit warring, disruptive editing and sockpuppet abuse are considered harmful, but now it turns out that the editors placed on parole for those specific abuses should be relieved of their parole, because the remedy in fact provides for only one specific form of disruption. It seems like Armenia – Azerbaijan 2 case might not be the last one. It would be nice to get additional comments from the arbitrators with regard to how this remedy is supposed to stop disruption by new users, not restricted by any measures from the 1st case, and who are now free to edit disruptively as long as they remain civil? Thanks in advance for any comment. Grandmaster 11:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An update on the present situation. Since the time a number of editors were removed from the list of users placed on parole, 2 pages got protected due to edit wars, in which those users took an active part. Those articles are Shusha and Armenian-Tatar massacres 1905-1907‎. There are other articles (such as Shusha pogrom (1920)) heading the same way. Note that since the end of the last arbcom case no pages have been protected until now. The activity of User:Andranikpasha I believe deserves special attention. Grandmaster (talk) 13:58, 13 December 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.[159]. 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]

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=177935172"