Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:53, 29 December 2007 view sourceJeffpw (talk | contribs)9,574 edits →Statement by Jeffpw: typo← Previous edit Revision as of 23:09, 29 December 2007 view source Crum375 (talk | contribs)Administrators23,961 edits →Statement by Jeffpw: remove link to site with multiple BLP violationsNext edit →
Line 121: Line 121:
Since that time I have had her talk page watchlisted, and am astonished at the number of people she helps, and the hours she logs to move this project forward. She has a well deserved reputation for excellence and collegiality on this site. Since that time I have had her talk page watchlisted, and am astonished at the number of people she helps, and the hours she logs to move this project forward. She has a well deserved reputation for excellence and collegiality on this site.


That Sandy has been unfairly maligned by Zeraeph is beyond question to me. What is a question is why Zeraeph has been allowed to without being banned from further disruption of this project. That Sandy has been unfairly maligned by Zeraeph is beyond question to me. What is a question is why Zeraeph has been allowed to without being banned from further disruption of this project.


Zeraeph has not only attacked SandyGeorgia here, but on , an attack site targeting Wikipedian editors. That s/he has been allowed to continue these attacks, which would earn most other editors a block, is baffling. Baffling, too, is the presence of a Misplaced Pages Administrator, ], on the Review site, engaged in discussion with Zeraeph and also involved in this arbitration proceeding. This seems a clear conflict of interest to me. Zeraeph has not only attacked SandyGeorgia here, but on Misplaced Pages review, an attack site targeting Wikipedian editors. That s/he has been allowed to continue these attacks, which would earn most other editors a block, is baffling. Baffling, too, is the presence of a Misplaced Pages Administrator, ], on the Review site, engaged in discussion with Zeraeph and also involved in this arbitration proceeding. This seems a clear conflict of interest to me.


I urge rejection of this arbitration and nothing less than a total block of Zeraeph. This disruption of the project has gone on far too long and runs the risk of driving away contributers who form the very backbone of our mission. ] (]) 22:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC) I urge rejection of this arbitration and nothing less than a total block of Zeraeph. This disruption of the project has gone on far too long and runs the risk of driving away contributers who form the very backbone of our mission. ] (]) 22:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:09, 29 December 2007

Weighing scales Arbitration​Committee
Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Misplaced Pages Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes
Shortcuts

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

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

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

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

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

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

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

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

Current requests

Zeraeph

Initiated by Jehochman 17:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Jehochman

This is a contentious dispute that has persisted for more than one year involving multiple parties. We've had a disputed unblock already, and two community ban discussions that failed to reach consensus. It is my belief that this dispute cannot be resolved without arbitration.

Zeraeph and SandyGeorgia each feel that they have been attacked by the other. Zeraeph has a history of making unsupported accusations of stalking. After a recent one month block of Zeraeph by Mikkalai, SlimVirgin became involved and granted an unblock, against the wishes of several parties. Zeraeph continues to make accusations and hostile remarks to SandyGeorgia in spite of my offer to mediate a settlement, and Zeraeph refuses to accept any agreement that does not treat the parties equally. Given that SandyGeorgia has a clear block log, and Zeraeph has an extensive block history, I do not feel that further negotiations will be fruitful. Additionally, SandyGeorgia says that she is not the only party in conflict with Zeraeph.

I request that the Arbitration Committee investigate the behavior of all parties concerned. The list of involved parties may need to be expanded. Jehochman 17:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Holy smokes! Look at all the bandwidth wasted on prior discussions. Disputes should not be allowed to fester like this. This one is long past due for arbitration. Jehochman 21:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Zeraeph

I feel strongly that SandyGeorgia's continuing to make unsubstantiated and unprovoked personal attacks on me to other editors and on a variety of talk pages, whilst also jumping in to exacerbate any conflict which touches me does, in fact, constitute stalking and harassment, which has, effectively, and for the most part, over time, driven me off Misplaced Pages.

I want this situation to end so that we can both edit comfortably and productively.

I am prepared to voluntarily undertake any equal agreement with SandyGeorgia that involves both us undertaking to refrain from discussing or mentioning each other, with identical conditions and sanctions. I will neither request, nor submit to, any unequal agreement as I feel certain, on past experience, such would only serve to exacerbate the situation.

I don't know whether this is the right place to respond to Jehochman above but there is at least one party who wishes to be added as "involved", also, I thoroughly agree, there will obviously not be any resolution by agreement now, so why can't we stop all the circular discussion and let matters take their course? --Zeraeph (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Durova

SandyGeorgia is a longstanding Wikipedian with a stellar record. Zaraeph - however sincere she might be - has a history that is extremely spotty and has been unable to substantiate her repeated and extreme accusations with anything resembling adequate evidence. This is not the kind of situation that ought to need arbitration, and Sandy has stated repeatedly that this proposal is the opposite of her desires. Most poignantly, Enough. I lost all evening at FAC and tomorrow I'll be behind. This is nothing but an insult, and worse, from someone who should know what it feels like. I urge the Committee to reject this request and likewise urge certain Wikipedians to withdraw from a situation where their interference is counterproductive and unwelcome. Durova 18:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

With regard to LessHeardvanU's statement, it is a straw man argument to insinuate that my statement refers to block records only. Read the above: I never mention either party's block history. SandyGeorgia is one of this Misplaced Pages's 100 most prolific contributors with a long and honorable history of congenial service to the project. Zaraeph has come into conflict with multiple people and has a consistent history of personal attacks and edit warring. Attempts to construe this as some sort of two sided dispute are based upon two factors:
  • Zaraeth makes personal attacks so habitually that some people appear to have become inured and fail to block for it.
  • Sandy finds this situation frustrating, since she is the principal target of the personal attacks, and occasionally expresses her frustration in polite terms.
Durova 21:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by listed Mikkalai

I support the opinion of Durova that this case is not for ArbCom. The issue is clean and simple and covered by the corresponding policy, which may be invoked by any admin. Both sides must state clearly that they will refrain from attacks on each other in article talk pages and discuss article content only. I blocked user:Zeraeph for longer time for their aggressive behavior in "Psychopathy" and Talk:Psychopathy and strongly warned user:Mattisse to stop waging the chaotic war however justified it may me. I also told user:Zeraeph that I will unblock them if Seraeph promises to discuss article content only, rather than editor's personality. This was met with flat refusal. Later user:SlimVirgin unblocked user:Zeraeph and I see a rather normal pattern of editing in Psychopathy. I would advice both parties to "forgive and forget", remember that people are not ideal, give each other some slack, and limit themselves to discussing content rather than each other. If there is no agreement as to content, the proper way is to involve other wikipedians rather than beat each other on heads.

The nominator wrote: "Zeraeph refuses to accept any agreement that does not treat the parties equally." I fail to see what's wrong with this. I may only guess that Zeraeph was angry that I blocked ony Zeraeph but not Mattisse. I have no idea what's the deal with SandyGeorgia.

Since SlimVirgin unblocked Zeraeph, it is her responsibility to make an attempt to coach Zeraeph into acceptable behavior. If this fails, than the block must be reinstated, clean and simple.

On the other hand, all other editors must correspondingly take a break and stop any accusations towards Zeraeph, even if provoked, and discuss article content only.

The statement of Zeraeph is in agreement with this proposal and IMO this is enough to defuse the situation. `'Míkka>t 19:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Marskell

The committee has a difficult choice on this one. On the one hand, Durova is correct that an arb case shouldn't be necessary. A clear cease-and-desist order to Zeraeph with an escalating block structure developed at AN ought to be enough. But that's failed thus far. Numerous mediation attempts and previous ban discussions have not improved Zeraeph's behaviour. Two critical issues, as I see them, both on display after the latest unblock:

  1. Zeraeph appears to remain convinced that Sandy is a stalker she encountered nine years ago. "In September 2006 I sincerely mistook her for a sockpuppet of a woman who has stalked me since 1999. I made this mistake for the very simple reason that User:SandyGeorgia behaves just, uncannily, like her. I knew that then, and it is proved to me many times over since." (My emphasis).
  2. More general persecution fantasies are at work. Regarding User:Ceoil: "...he is becoming very personal and heated, I have just realised that he also seems to live within 30 miles of me" and then "I just feel genuinely scared to see so much completely groundless vitriol, from a total (I hope) stranger emanate from such a nearby geographical location." That is, a completely unsubstantiated insinuation that another editor poses a physical threat, fresh from her unblock.

This editor needs correction and, on balance, I suggest arb take the case. I am totally sympathetic to the fact that she may have faced off-Wiki problems that have created paranoia here, but other editors should not have to bear the brunt of it. Marskell (talk) 20:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: I'd suggest delayed acceptance. There is still discussion at AN. If that has some success, this may not be necessary. Marskell (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by LessHeard vanU

I believe that ArbCom is now the only venue by which all the parties are able to put forward their views on these matters, where they are not distracted by input of other parties, will be able to review and answer specifically points raised regarding their and other peoples statements, and possibly have the opportunity to fully comprehend the other parties concerns and viewpoints. Other attempts at dispute resolution (noting that disputes within particular articles often do not include parties that have or had influenced that particular matter) have not been able to encompass all of the parties and viewpoints in a formal manner. In short, no other procedure is available to all concerned which can evaluate and address all of the problems arising, and I feel that only decisions at this level is going to be acceptable and recognised by all of the individuals.

With respect to Durova, a clean block record vs. one filled with entries is no basis on which to consider the validity of a request. My block log is also clear, and I deservedly received my first proper warning yesterday over this matter. Our actions alone will condone or condemn us.

Statement by JzG

Picking a fight with SandyGeorgia is... special. I have come across a lot of people on Misplaced Pages, and SandyGeorgia is one of the most energetic and excellent builders of content ad consensus I know. I've had nothing to do with the dispute, but I feel strongly enough about SandyGeorgia's commitment to the encyclopaedia that I can't let this pass without a testimonial, for what it's worth (i.e. not a lot). Guy (Help!) 21:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Jeffpw

I have known SandyGeorgia since my start on Misplaced Pages. She has been unfailingly helpful to me, and in fact, undertook to help me improve the referencing of a Featured Article I wrote which she felt had been promoted while not ready. Though frustrated by what had occurred, she gave hours of her time to help someone when she had no reason to other than a desire to improve Misplaced Pages.

Since that time I have had her talk page watchlisted, and am astonished at the number of people she helps, and the hours she logs to move this project forward. She has a well deserved reputation for excellence and collegiality on this site.

That Sandy has been unfairly maligned by Zeraeph is beyond question to me. What is a question is why Zeraeph has been allowed to without being banned from further disruption of this project.

Zeraeph has not only attacked SandyGeorgia here, but on Misplaced Pages review, an attack site targeting Wikipedian editors. That s/he has been allowed to continue these attacks, which would earn most other editors a block, is baffling. Baffling, too, is the presence of a Misplaced Pages Administrator, LessHeard vanU, on the Review site, engaged in discussion with Zeraeph and also involved in this arbitration proceeding. This seems a clear conflict of interest to me.

I urge rejection of this arbitration and nothing less than a total block of Zeraeph. This disruption of the project has gone on far too long and runs the risk of driving away contributers who form the very backbone of our mission. Jeffpw (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

NE2

Initiated by Rschen7754 (T C) at 02:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

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

Statement by Rschen7754

NE2 has refused to follow consensus several times, leading to the exhausting of the patience of the U.S. Roads WikiProject. With the current issue at hand, the inclusion of auto trails and city streets within the scope of USRD, NE2 has gone against the consensus (of six editors) and has reverted mainspace and project pages several times. In fact, he said he is willing to ignore consensus. In the Mediation Cabal started shortly thereafter, he declined mediation, fearing that it would lead to concerns about his conduct here. However, this conduct is nothing new. Three previous RFCs have been filed in regards to similar matters. In fact, with the last mediation (being carried out at WT:HWY), even though the consensus was against him, many users just gave up because they were tired of fighting.

And yes, this does remind me of the WP:RFAR/HWY case, where SPUI held a similar attitude (section 7.2.3), and of the subsequent end to SRNC with a refusal to listen to consensus.

Statement by NE2

The locus of the dispute is the purpose of WikiProject tags on talk pages. Should they be used on articles that relate to the project, or ones that the project members care about? (Two examples of disputed articles are Old Plank Road and Lake Shore Drive.) I would argue the former, since someone editing the article and wanting help should know which projects may be able to help. The other editors listed argue the latter, since they feel having stubs that they don't care about reflects badly on them and hurts their placement on the "Leaderboard". I asked what the purpose of these tags is at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Council#What's the use of a project tag on the talk page?, and the general consensus of uninvolved editors, where they opined, is that they exist to help editors new to Misplaced Pages or that topic, and that it's not a problem if stubs exist because it's "the top of the scale" that matters. There are a number of sub-disputes that have erupted from this, such as the fact that the project scopes are often unclear, apparent collaboration on IRC to oppose me, and wanting any road (such as East Fork Road) that doesn't pass their somewhat strange notability criteria (basically anything numbered at the state level is notable but there's a very high bar for unnumbered routes, similar to the dispute over what gets tagged as part of the project), but the general question is why the project tags exist. --NE2 03:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Scott5114

NE2 has clashed with the U.S. Roads project community several times. This is not inherently bad, but the manner in which these clashes have taken place is what has exhausted our patience with him. NE2 frequently edits against a consensus, as he did during the "decommissioned" debate this past October; an RFC was filed against him for this, which has links to diffs of edits such as these. During this dispute, he has said "You don't need consensus to improve articles". During the course of the most recent debate, he said "I'm always willing to ignore consensus" and "You'll have to force me out". While NE2 can contribute positively to the encyclopedia, headbutting with him over issues has quickly become tiring. Civility may also be an issue here, with comments like "Would you like an eyepatch? We're having a special: two for $2..." and "Duh... we already discussed this, and nobody objected." He has also failed to assume good faith by accusing his opponents of forming a false consensus through IRC. NE2's conduct makes working on roads projects difficult, as there's always a chance that a discussion will be roadblocked by him and nothing gets done.

NE2 has apparently clashed with other groups of editors as well, judging from comments left on RFC 1 and RFC 2. I believe that, undeterred, NE2's pattern of refusing to cooperate with the community will continue. —Scott5114↗ 03:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Picaroon

This doesn't appear to be an arbcom-level dispute; the extent to which user conduct is an issue here is even less than in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters. In this case, several project members have an opinion one way, while NE2 disagrees (see talk page). That's about it. RFCs 1 and 2, while pitting NE2 vs a couple of the same project members, are not the same dispute as this one, and should not be listed under the dispute resolution section. None of the three show much outside commentary: the project members who disagreed with NE2 are signing one set of views, while NE2 signs another view.

In response to Scott5514, and are isolated examples of borderline incivility. Hardly arbcom worthy. "He has also failed to assume good faith by accusing his opponents of forming a false consensus through IRC" Assuming SPUI is telling the truth here, (and I see no reason to assume otherwise), NE2's distrust of this cliquish project's IRC channel is well-founded.

Again, there's not really a case here. My advice to the road project members is to desist with the fortress mentality, which Krimpet brings up in the second rfc, and actually seek a compromise with NE2. You're all part of one encyclopedia, first and foremost. Wikiprojects are insignificant in the scheme of things, and attempts to make them otherwise should be discouraged. Picaroon (t) 04:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Edit Centric

In the process of contributing to the WP:USRD and WP:CASH projects, it has been my fortune to work with a number of these editors, including NE2. While some of our discussions have not been, shall we say "productive", I have also seen this editor make some noteworthy contributions to articles that I regularly keep a weather eye on, such as CA SR 99's history section. I truly believe that NE2 is capable of some fantastic contributions to the project overall.

While saying this, I also have noted his unwillingness to work within consensus at various times, as well as an equal unwillingness to join other USRD editors over in IRC. I'm not insinuating that the IRC factor is necessary for development of articles, however it IS a useful tool for real-time discussion of various edits, proposals, and just getting to know your fellow editors. In short, it's yet another community-builder, one that NE2 has chosen to remain OUTSIDE of. I have personally invited him over to IRC, in the hopes that through this medium, the different thought processes and conversations that affect USRD might be better revealed, and that NE2 might be a bit more enlightened by it, as would all USRD editors.

Since there have been other RFCs on this editor, this begs the question; how many does it require before an editor will either A)work within the project's editing community for the betterment of the project, or B)be respectfully asked to dissociate themselves from the project, and move on to other avenues for success? Personally, I would LOVE to see NE2 make more attempts to follow consensus, make more wonderful contributions like he has done in the past, and remain a viable part of USRD. It is my sincere hope that this RFA process will result in these ends. Edit Centric (talk) 09:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Son

This discussion originated as a debate over making an Auto Trails task force within WP:USRD, which I proposed, but did not otherwise comment in.

The debate then changed to Misplaced Pages talk:USRD#Change of scope nationwide, which was a proposal by Rschen7754. The proposal was to eliminate city streets from WP:USRD. After numerous comments and debate, I decided to add my two cents, by pointing out to NE2 that the user was the only one arguing against the proposal, and that WP:USST was created with the point of taking city street articles from WP:USRD.

After several more comments, NE2 asked for a proposal to work with, so I quoted Rschen7754's initial proposal. After more discussion, I commented again. NE2 replied and I responded back starting a back and forth conversation between the two of us. I stated that WP:USST was created specifically to remove articles from WP:USRD. NE2 responded by saying that it was created for all the wrong purposes and is not "a garbage dump for unwanted articles." This upset me, as while the project was created specifically to remove articles from under WP:USRD, the purpose of the project is to help grow and improve these articles. NE2 also challenged the standing of WP:USST, which is a young project and still has not gotten off its feet, largely because of the amount of clashing between WP:USRD and WP:USST. I also pointed out that consensus was not in NE2's corner. NE2 responded by saying "You'll have to force me out." I replied by asking NE2 if "you were willing to ride against consensus and be a disruption?" NE2's response was "If you're talking to me, I'm always willing to ignore consensus." I asked if NE2 was trying to make some kind of point , and the response was "No, I just know your track record. This is a reference to a discussion on whether decommissioned highway is a neologism or not. My position was to follow common sense and ignore the rules in that particular situation.

That is my primary involvement in the discussion. Through that discussion, NE2 has truly demonstrated that he would be willing to be a disruption to the project, all to obtain his result, even when consensus is clearly against him. When I mentioned WP:IAR it was under the understanding that it is meant to be used in specific cases. I felt that that was one of them. To use WP:IAR as a means to run around consensus is a disruption. NE2 has admitted as such.

While I believe that while NE2 has been somewhat helpful to the project, the negatives NE2 shows by being more of a disruption than anything else (, , ) outweigh the helpfulness NE2 has brought to the project at this point. NE2 has had two RfC's (Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/NE2 and Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/NE2 (second RFC)). Nothing has seemed to improve with NE2's behavior, despite these RfCs. NE2's level of incivility can be overbearing at times also, and that has not changed over time. I find it highly unlikely that it will change, nor do I find it likely that NE2 will change unless action is taken. NE2 has stated that NE2 would be willing to be a disruption if NE2 does not get what NE2 wants. This cannot be allowed. --Son (talk) 05:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Will Beback

I'm concerned with a related admin action by Rschen7754. He edited the project page in the midst of an edit-dispute, then protected it. When I asked him about it on his talk page he showed no awareness of his error. On further onvestigation, it appears that Rschen7754's blanking was not neutral, but rather had the effect of reverting a previous edit by NE2, his opponent in this dispute. (I've been told that the blanking was reasonably neutral) If the ArbCom takes this case I suggest they review this type of behavior. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm also concerned about the behavior exhibited regarding East Fork Road, which is how I became aware of this dispute. That article has been on my watchlist for years. NE2 made some small additions to it earlier this month, then yesterday he tagged it as belonging to the USRD project. Rschen7754 reverted that tagging four miuntes later. 32 minutes later, with no apparent discussion, Rschen7754 redirected the article to California State Route 39, even though they are different roads. He immediately undid that action and a minute later user:O nominated the article for deletion. The AfD was marked by at least one "per Scott5114 and Rschen7754" vote by a party to this RfAr. In the midst of the discussion Rschen7754 cited a notability standard that apparently has not been adopted. Within three hours six members of the USRD project had participated, all (besides NE2) asking for deletion or merging. As it happens, sources and additional claims of notability were easily added and the nominator withdrew the AfD. But the quick piling-on seemed so notable that I commented about it on the mediation page. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by TwinsMetsFan

The recent issue with NE2 is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg, and focusing only on said tip does not do this case justice. Issues with NE2 regarding consensus date as far back as the conclusion of the state route naming conventions poll in 2006 when NE2 attempted to reopen the entirety of SRNC, a resolution to months of absolutely absurd actions (page move wars, revert wars, a conflict that resulted in an ArbCom case - you name it, it probably happened) accepted by consensus, for nothing more than a minor programming change. Is it wrong to give a suggestion? No. But is it wrong to give one considering the circumstances and also continually attempting to force-feed this suggestion for no reason other than to take advantage of the "pipe trick"? I believe so.

There's been other disputes, some less important than others. But a consistent trait from SRNC through the modern day is that NE2 is extremely difficult to work and collaborate with. I have tried to do so, with very mixed success. There was one dispute over content on New York State Route 52 that was resolved after a long period of discussion. There have been others, most recently a debate over a word used in the articles of former numbered highways, where he took unilateral, controversial action over dozens of articles, swapping one word for another, with no discussion. When the discussion was brought to the table, the end result was a long, drawn-out argument that ended only when an uninvolved third party developed an acceptable compromise. Both sides were at fault here in hindsight, but NE2's cold, condescending, self-omniscient manner that he carries with him to virtually every talk page likely delayed a resolution that could have been obtained much faster. And recently, NE2 has defied consensus by unilaterally determining project scopes against the consensus developed by said project. Now, the ArbCom probably doesn't give two damns about the actual action since it doesn't touch article space, but it is the point behind the action; that NE2 is on record as saying that he will ignore consensus if he doesn't believe the consensus is palatable. This creates an unhealthy environment for all editors and hinders the amount of progress that can actually be done. Misplaced Pages works by consensus and discussion, and it's apparent to me that NE2 is unable to accept the former and contribute to the latter in a manner that allows for peaceful resolutions. He's had three RFCs and two MedCabal cases levied against him for actions such as the ones previously described.

He has performed the same way at other projects as well (namely WP:NYCPT) and I see no reason that he will change now or in the future unless something is done. Every effort is made to work out a compromise when disputes arise, but what good is a compromise when he'll ignore it anyway if he doesn't like it? What is then the point of discussion? How can an editor help others work productively in a wiki-based environment if they think that the community's ideas, even widespread and generally accepted ones, are worthless and not worth following? The point of compromising and discussion is to come to a consensus, and ignoring consensus, especially blatantly and intentionally ignoring it as NE2 is doing, helps no one. Comments such as "you'll have to force me out" don't help either. --TMF 07:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Amarkov

Neither side is free of blame here. NE2 is certainly ignoring consensus when he wants to, but at the same time the USRD participants are either collaborating on IRC or doing a very good job of appearing to. I think we really need Arbcom to sort this out. -Amarkov moo! 07:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by tangentially involved Krimpet

I used to be involved in USRD months ago, and pretty much ended my activity with the WikiProject over these issues. As Picaroon mentioned above, I stated my opinion on this dispute in one of the NE2 RfCs, and I'll expand on it here.

Sadly, this is largely a rerun of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Highways. USRD has unfortunately turned into a rather arcane bureaucracy, claiming and maintaining roads-related articles as a walled garden with their declared processes and guidelines over such minor and trivial details as style, formatting, and WikiProject tags, the same kind of trivial stuff that led to the SRNC debacle that was thankfully before my time here. :/ NE2 tends to be quite BOLD and overly headstrong at times, but his concerns are valid and it seems he's being ignored and steamrolled by a supposed consensus to revert his changes per these supposed processes and guidelines even when it's been explicitly stressed in the Highways RfAR that here on Misplaced Pages that guidelines are only that and not binding, alternative forms and arbitrary decisions are acceptable, and that there are many ways acceptable to accomplish a given task.

If there's something ArbCom needs to look at, it should really be the "us vs. them" attitude of a core group of USRD members, and how the WikiProject has largely become a bureaucratic walled garden instead of integrated with and subordinate to the project and community as a whole. krimpet✽ 14:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by partly-involved Mitchazenia

I am a usual active member of USRD but decided to back out until being persuaded by another user to release my feelings. I've opposed this ArbCom case in the IRC channel, where much of yelling and complaining goes on over and over again.

Most users find NE2 an editor who does good work when its right, but he often goes against consensus. Usually consensus is not a thing to ignore consensus. The first example was in the third RFC where he changed the term "decommissioned" to "deleted" without a consensus. He did start a conversation before doing that however. My personal feelings are that NE2 should try to start waiting for consensus. His continuous denial of everything is causing the project to go nowhere. We're here to make/expand articles for the common good, not to argue over dumb issues like consensus. I'd also like to see less of the "All of us versus NE2" in IRC and on Wiki, as its causing a big blacklistment of the project and problems with the users. The third RFC was a minor example of this and now this ArbCom case is making things worse.

This is not the first time that USRD has gotten in trouble, see the State Route Naming Conventions case back in 2006. Most of those users aren't with Wiki anymore, but it helped make the project better (and unfortunately gave it a black-eye for some users). Around May 2007, the current group of USRD editors came together. However, NE2 has always felt we hate him and always defy anything we say. Look at New York State Route 52, he and the usual group disputed his ownership of the article, that resulted in the first RFC for him. That was solved in time, and he learned that. For a little while, it was just small bouts. Then he decided to have a thing for the Non-free shields, causing another RFC, which was filed under WikiLawyering. Things got worse, with more IRC bashing, and the third RFC came out over the decommissioned dispute. I haven't checked if there was a consensus, but I know that is was going somewhere. Now this. Everything was going smoothly on a new task force, and NE2 went crazy on it.

Now that I've expressed details, this is what I want to see personally:

  • For NE2:
  1. NE2 listening to consensus and be willing to be more civil.
  2. NE2 to be more on the willing side at all. He has issues. He's a great editor, he's just gotta be more understanding. If you have an idea, bring it up civily, not personally attacking people.
  • For Rschen, TMF, Scott5114 and etc.
  1. The current users, including me, stop bashing all of NE2's moves on IRC and take it like men.
  2. Stop using IRC for consensus: This is what personally is making all these messes. Ideas should be brought up on IRC, but also brought to the project talk.

One reason I opposed this ArbCom is that I don't wanna see my buds here at USRD banned or topic banned from Wiki, they're some of my best friends and I accept them a lot. Sure, I'm not the best, so what? They do enough for me and willing to stand up for my friends in return. Thanks for your time and patience.32 17:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/0/1/1)

BlueAzure

Initiated by HollywoodFan1 (talk) at 19:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Some of the steps I have taken prior to filing for arbitration (from most recent on top):

Statement by HollywoodFan1

User:BlueAzure has been WP:Stalk me, and a group of other editors in relation to a specific group of articles starting with a COI case he/she began under MetaphorEnt, December 9, 2007. Conflict on interest noticeboard When the case wasn't going where he/she wanted it to, they continued the harassment with a sockpuppet charge Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/64.30.201.109 which was closed because of "pure nonsense". BlueAzure has now put an Afd on an article I started and is listed in their original COIN case, which if you look at the Mimi Fuenzalida article history already had an Afd tag on it by a co-editor BlueAzure has been working closely with on Conflict on interest noticeboard , and the Afd was cleared by non-partisan editors. I believe User:BlueAzure may have something personally against the management company representing all of the talent listed in the COIN complaint and shouldn't be allowed to edit or tag any of the listed articles (BlueAzure "outed" the management company which doesn't even have any article written about them, or have any articles on WP where they are mentioned). I also would like BlueAzure to stay away from me and the articles I may edit in the future. For the record, I have no relationship to The management company. I am in a completely different business. I would like to continue to help create WP, but have been afraid to do anything beyond this mess, since this has all started.

Statement by BlueAzure

This request was improperly filed, as the COI case at Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#MetaphorEnt is still in progress and there has not been an RFC. I am concerned that this is an inappropriate attempt to stop the COI case. The actions referred to in HollywoodFan1’s statement were taken as part of resolving the various issues in the COI case and HollywoodFan1’s remedy would effectively block me from working on the COI case. BlueAzure (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

2nd Statement by HollywoodFan1

The COI case was opened Dec 9th. On Dec 19th an editor who does a lot of work on the COI board proposed to close the MetaphorEnt thread, which has remained open regardless of the fact that no more COI questions have come in to play. Instead BlueAzure has inappropriately used the COI board to advertise his sockpuppet proposal, Adf and now copy write issues. This is the exact reason I requested arbitration and hope to find a justifiable and peaceful resolution.HollywoodFan1 (talk) 07:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Request by HollywoodFan1 regarding RFC vs. 3rd Opinion

Thank you for looking at this so quickly. User:BlueAzure has put three articles up for Afd, and one for immediate deletion and it's important that some sort of resolution is found before a large number of articles are deleted. Per Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment and WP:DR " If you need neutral outside opinions in a dispute involving only two editors, turn to Misplaced Pages:Third opinion." I did this. I will do an RFC if this is required in addition to the already posted third opinion. Please let me know what I should do next.HollywoodFan1 (talk) 01:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

  • (Posting here because my term as an arbitrator doesn't officially start until Tuesday.) In answer to Hollywoodfan1's question, third opinion is most suited for situations where two editors disagree over something and another opinion might lead to a resolution. An article-content RfC is suited for more complicated disputes where outside users can post their thoughts on an issue. It is expected that the editors who filed the RfC would then take those views into account as they continue editing the article. A user-conduct RfC is a different procedure in which the behavior of a specific editor is considered; this is a more serious step and be sure to note the requirements listed on the RfC page. If the parties are willing, mediation might also be tried here. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Lavvu

Initiated by Dinkytown (talk) at 06:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • Request for Comment (History) RFChist
  • Request for Comment (Science) RFCsci
  • Failed discussion
  • Requests for Comment at Reliable sources/Noticeboard.
  • Failed Formal Mediation
  • Note: This debate has been going on continuously since October 14, 2007

Statement by Dinkytown

Issues
  • Traditional lavvu v. bell tent (a.k.a. single-pole "lavvu")
The issue is what should be inserted in the Lavvu page:
Dinkytown's position: the definition of the lavvu structure as defined by historical and academic sources, or;
Labongo position: the inclusion of a single-pole "lavvu" which has no historical reference as a lavvu, but has a long history as a Bell tent, which has only recently been promoted by a few tent manufacturers with the name of "lavvu" placed on it.
  • Reliable sources v. Commercial websites and blogs
Labongo has been inserting commercial links to website that have a significant conflict of interest with the Lavvu page, which is in conflict to Misplaced Pages Policy.
Can prove without any doubt that these commercial websites for this product are completely unreliable and can not be trusted as a reliable source.
  • Inclusion of a Comparative Product Table - a precedent for Misplaced Pages
Can provide evidence that Labongo has been trying to insert a table that would compare tent manufacturers' products with each other, which is outside the scoop of the article, and also in conflict with Misplaced Pages Policy.
  • Comments from other contributors
Can provide commentary from other contributors during the discussion period that conflict with Labongo's position.
Labongo's Behavior
  • Labongo's position has never been clear
Can provide documentation that Labongo's position is not only ambiguous, but also contradicting himself.
  • Erroneously placed NPOV and citation tags
Placed NPOV and Citation tags because it did not include POV from commercial advertisers
  • Inserted Spam into the page through the above mentioned table
Can provide evidence that Labongo frequently mentioned a specific manufacture’s name and website, contrary to Misplaced Pages Policy.
  • POV pushing and trolling
Can provide evidence that Labongo maintained a certain POV and refused to moderate or deviated from it which can be interpreted has Trolling, contrary to Misplaced Pages Policy.
  • Removed academic sources that he didn't like
Can provide evidence that Labongo removed sources that he admitted that he didn’t like without discussing it first on ‘discussion’ page.
  • Labongo was provided numerous 'offers' and concessions, but was not willing to compromise
Can provide evidence that numerous offers were provided to Labongo by several people and concessions made by me, but all were rejected by Labongo.
  • Labongo made assumptions of my position that I did not state, nor believed in
Can provide evidence that Labongo tried to discredit myself by claiming that I had 'assumptions', for which I never claimed.
  • Provided no reliable sources for his claims but has accused others of not having a NPOV
Labongo has never submitted any reliable sources to the article, and yet accused others of not having a NPOV, contrary to Misplaced Pages Policy.
Asking for Relief

I ask for the Arbitration Committee to take this case as I seek relief in this matter. Thank you. Dinkytown (talk) 06:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Labongo

I hope a request for arbitration is not necessary. But at the same time I hope some experienced editor would take an interest to resolve this issue. As you may see there have been many request for comments, but almost no answers.

From my point of view the issue(s) can be solved by applying WP:NPOV and WP:V.

  • Misplaced Pages cannot create definitions, and hence determine if something is or is not a cultural artifact. For the lavvu case there is no entity that has the authority to make such a definition, and hence we should describe any tent commonly known as a lavvu per WP:NPOV. This is the core of this issue.
  • I don't see a problem in using commercial whitepapers as source for “technical” specifications such as weight, height and so on. In addition some source for these specifications is necessary to satisfy WP:V. I believe dinkytown has for some reason got the idea that source from commercial sources are never allowed on Misplaced Pages.
  • Assumptions such as the single-pole lavvu is a Bell tent needs to be verifiable, since it is a statement that can be challenged. It is also necessary to provide sources for statements such as: “the single-pole “tent” is not a lavvu”, since this contradicts what is common knowledge at least in Scandinavia.
  • For the “comparative product table”, I have no idea why it is controversial to compare for example the weight of different tent designs (whether they are lavvu’s or not).
  • As for inserting spam (citations to commercial whitepapers), POV pushing (requiring that the article is written with a NPOV), removal of academic sources (a link to a paper I assume is something written by a student for a introductory course about the Sami), adding NPOV tags, adding citation-needed tags, trolling, being unclear, etc. I feel pretty confident that it can be shown that all these have been done in the interest of improving the article.

Labongo (talk) 01:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

Requests for clarification

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

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters#Parties urged

How does the arbitration committee recommend users not working collaboratively and constructively? The very complaint of the rfar was a lack of users working collaboratively and constructively. Users instead employed brute forcing their interpretations on guidelines (or alleged guidelines since the validity of the actual guideline is in dispute).

I am somewhat skeptical on how much this rfar resolved the dispute put before the arbitration committee.

-- Cat 17:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for increased enforcement Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris

A previous request by Thatcher131 was declined declined in April however the the pattern of disruption has continued, has been experienced by non-affiliated editors, and evidence of the disruption being due to the same editor using a succession of different accounts has been built up. Yes, the article has improved substantially due the input of editors with no association with the article subject, however the disruption is something the article, and other editors, could well do without. Relevant sockpuppet reports are .

The pattern of disruption usually involves editing with contempt for consensus, edit waring, taunting other editors based on their affiliation, incivility and ranting against the article subject. Strong enforcement of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:NOR and WP:CONS would effectively screen out the disruption.

I have tried using normal dispute resolution methods but this is getting tiring for me, other editors who have dropped by to help and also the admins that have to deal with the constant requests for help. Regards Bksimonb (talk) 13:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


I suggest that there has been little to no "disruption" at all and this is just another preemptive strike by an individual that admits to be part of the organization in question, a new religious movements' called the BKWSU, own Internet PR Team; and is acting in accordance with the organization's PR aims. An individual that has invested a huge amount of time, effort and admins' energy in attempt to control the topic for his affiliated organization.
To state this for the sake of new admins coming to this issue is hardly "taunting". It is a statement of fact. I hope that eventually the Misplaced Pages admins will appreciate this for what it is. Simon has become incredibly skilled in his manipulation of Misplaced Pages admins and constructing accusations.
Let's look at the timing of this and the collusion of yet another BKWSU contributor, User:76.79.146.8. Bksimonb requests an early unprotection, User:76.79.146.8 reverts and accuses vandalism, attacks etc. Both complain to admins etc. Bksimonb puts RfA.
Putting aside the loaded and hysterical language, the seemingly endless accusations and complaints, if we look at the differences between the BKWSU's chosen version, the main differences are really;
  • the removal of weblink to an informed independent website that makes public and openly discusses the BKWSU's core teachings, the only independent website about the organization and one that the BKWSU's USA trust spent considerable amount of money attempting to recent silence via legal action and failed to do so.
  • the attempt to play down the centrality of channelling and mediumship to its practises. The channelling and mediumship of a spirit guide its followers are told is God and a centrality which illfits with its public face and political ambitions.
  • the instant removal and erasure of considerable time and effort made making neutral and beneficial formatting ... etc the 65 edits, here;.
Personally, I just want to get on and contribute to the Misplaced Pages. I am sick of being the target of these people. I know the subjects I edit on. I add form, content and provide citations. It gives me no pleasure to be continually subjected to wasting admin's time and constantly tripping over the stumbling blocks these people are persistently using in an attempt to exclude me.
I am happy to discuss this in detail and supply all the diffs that illustrate just exactly what Simon and the BKWSU are up to if required. but, frankly, the Misplaced Pages admins cannot see this for what it is by looking at nature and amount of complaints this individual has made, then I am afraid that I would wasting my time.
References;
--Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 18:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
As a remedy I am asking for strong enforcement of Misplaced Pages's policies. If this causes a problem then it is clear where that problem lies. I am not asking for unilateral enforcement. I am happy for the same rules to apply to me and other editors. It is clear from the above post that there is a strong bias against the BKWSU and a rather obvious attempt to discredit me and other editors based on our affiliation and non-agreement with the the above editor's own views. In the above post alone I am being accused, as if it were some indisputable fact, of "collusion", "PR", "preemptive strike", "manipulation" and censorship. In fact, I am most grateful for the above post as it clearly illustrates the problem. Regards Bksimonb (talk) 05:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


I agree with the need for enforcement of Misplaced Pages's policies. In particular WP:COI where it states;
" Editing in the interests of public relations is particularly frowned upon. This includes, but is not limited to, edits made by public relations departments of corporations; or of other public or private for-profit or not-for-profit organizations; or by professional editors paid to edit a Misplaced Pages article with the sole intent of improving that organization's image."
BK Simon B is a member, if not leader, of the BKWSU Internet PR team. In fact, I think the correct title is "core Internet PR team". The Internet PR team of the organization in question. If Simon choses to deny this, here, then I am happy to provide evidence to support this assertion. He is and has been supported by other BK followers (BK is the title followers given themselves) and they also work together to suppress other internet source, e.g. they (Simon and other BK Misplaced Pages editors) recently acted in a failed attempt to close down an independent website via a domain name dispute. This is the same domain that BK Simon and the other BK contributors keep removing from the article; http://www.brahmakumaris.info.
I do not think it is fair that the Misplaced Pages's admins have their time used up protecting the PR interests of a new religious movement but that it is only in this context can we understand what is going on here.
The BKWSU has invests a considerable amount of money on its public face and generally keeps hidden from newcomers the more extreme elements of its beliefs, e.g.
  • the practise of mediumship or channelling of a spirit they claim is God himself via their mediums at the Indian headquarters
  • the belief is a 5,000 year Cycle of time that repeats identically
  • numerous failed predictions of the End of the World in which 6 Billion are meant to die so that 900,000 of their faithful followers will inherit a Golden Age heaven on earth (all, of course, backed up by independent, academic sources).
  • their historical revision and superiority as God's chosen religion
The last year or more has been one long war of attrition in which the BK followers, with varying degrees of finesse and investment in gaming the Misplaced Pages system, have attempt to distort the topic to hide these core, identifying elements to bring the topic inline with the 'vanilla' version presented on their websites. This gaming continues with a barrage of complaints, accusations, unfounded vituperative depending each time on some new admin or contributor not knowing the history and not knowing the organization.
I think it is wrong that the Misplaced Pages allows this waste of volunteers resources. I think this individual has made a disproportionate amount of complaints underling his and his organization's single intent ... which is to break the spirit of any informed, independent contributor and push their PR agenda. Even the Scientology article includes independent websites and external links. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 08:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for Clarification for User:Fyslee

Transferred to Arbitration enforcement. Thatcher 01:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for Clarification for User:Ferrylodge

Transferred to Arbitration enforcement. Thatcher 22:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for Clarification for User:John Gohde

Transferred to Arbitration enforcement. Thatcher 22:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for Clarification of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles

The remedy states that To address the extensive edit-warring that has taken place on articles relating to The Troubles, as well as the Ulster banner and British baronets, any user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing on these or related articles may be placed on Misplaced Pages:Probation by any uninvolved administrator. This may include any user who was a party to this case, or any other user after a warning has been given. The administrator shall notify the user on his or her talkpage and make an entry on Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Log of blocks, bans, and probations. The terms of probation, if imposed on any editor, are set forth in the enforcement ruling below. During the case itself, a discussion arose on the Proposed Decision page, that no arbitrator took part in, but consensus of the discussion was that the definition of "uninvolved" was for not being involved in "edit-warring or disruptive editing", since there was no finding in the ArbCom case that ANY administrator had been non-neutral.

Previously, myself and Tyrenius (who were both parties to the ArbCom) have used this remedy to try to keep folks calm, with no peep of protest. Now, three weeks after User:Aatomic1 was placed on a one-month probation by administrator User:Alison, User:Aatomic1 has attempted to remove himself from the terms of probation, because Alison was one of the parties who provided evidence and discussion for the case. This came after Aatomic1 attempted to incite an admin who WAS in an edit war with User:Domer48 to place "That troll" (ie Domer) on its terms. Could the ArbCom please clarify this remedy, as to whom may place it, and if my definition is correct? SirFozzie (talk) 19:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The probation should remain in place. For purposes of this case, Alison was not an involved admin and she remains uninvolved as far as I can tell. Meaning that she has not been involved in edits disputes with the user or about these articles. We need admin to become "involved" as Alison did. Meaning that they learn about conflicts, bring them to ArbCom for rulings, and apply sanctions as needed when cases close. I think that is what Alison did and so the probation should remain. FloNight (talk) 00:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
On this basis, then, I will withdraw from the voluntary recusal I placed myself under, after a probation violation warning was issued to one party and a raft of protesters argued that as a named party I was an "involved" admin. Rockpocket 00:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
"Involved" for the purposes of enforcement could mean that if you edit war with another user on articles A and B, you should not impose a sanction on article C, even if you haven't edited that article. However, learning about a dispute and trying to help settle it, and taking action when needed, is not really involvement. Thatcher131 01:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
That was my understanding too, however our-soon-to-be-newest Arb appeared to have a different opinion. Note that "heavily involved in the earlier disputes" equates to being one of the admins who attempted to deal with earlier disputes. Rockpocket 01:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
It's always a judgment call, and a balancing: We don't want editors to believe they are being treated unfairly, but neither do we want to multiply the opportunities for forum shopping. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
For future reference, is to be assumed that all "uninvolved admin" rulings (e.g. Digwuren) should be interpreted in this way? Will 01:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
As a clerk I always find that "uninvolved" in this case means that you have a neutral opinion on the subject. (Like, I would not touch anything related to Chinese politics with a 10' pole.) You cannot pass judgment on anyone without learning why, and if we become "involved", we'd never get anything done. - Penwhale | 02:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Will, if you apply a remedy and the target thinks you are too involved, he can appeal to WP:AE, WP:ANI, or email the Arbcom. Remedies applied by one admin can be lifted by another for good cause like any other admin action, although as with reversing any other action, discussion and consultation beforehand is a good thing. If you do end up dropping the hammer on someone you shouldn't, someone will let you know one way or the other. Thatcher131 02:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, of course. And I don't mean to give the impression that any admin should reserve an absolute right to be the one to take action (sometimes its better to step back to avoid even the appearance of a COI). My concern is simply that this does leave open an avenue in which editors who are under ArbCom remedies could take out of the equation the very admins that are most familiar with their MO in an effort to further a disruptive agenda. It is a balance, but as we saw from the reversing of Ty's block, the community has in place mechanisms that provides it without asking those with previous experience to recuse themselves on principle. This is especially important in complex and long running cases, where entirely "uninvolved" admins would not have a clue what was going on.
On a personal note, I felt particularly aggrieved by this suggestion, because I was the one who volunteered to provide the evidence about a particular editor in this case, and as a result I was the one targeted (by an entire lobby) as the person with the vendetta. I could easily have stood back and let someone else provide the evidence, but didn't consider it an issue at the time. As it stood, I was not planning to provide any more evidence to future cases, lest the same accusations be leveled against me. I'd feel much more confidence in contributing to the arbitration process if I felt that my evidence as an admin who tried to enforce our policies was not codified as being an involved in the problem. Rockpocket 03:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Would a neutral observer think, by your actions or the way you presented evidence, that you had taken sides? Or are you presenting yourself as a neutral party trying to resolve ongoing conflicts? If so, you probably should not take enforcement action. If not, then there should not be a problem. Complaints from the people you have sanctioned is routine. Try the Armenia-Azerbaijani dispute. I respond to a large majority of the reports and I'm pretty sure neither side has much liked my responses. Thatcher131 03:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
As far as I am aware no neutral observer has ever suggested any of the admins involved have taken sides, though plenty have said that its best of avoid it looking that way. Well, when the lobbies (on both sides) are doing their damnedest to make it look that way, then we have a problem. So what happens is one editor complains loudly when an admin takes action, within (literally) minutes the other members of the lobby pile on with the same complaint. The neutral observer sees a number of editors in agreement and suggests you should probably not make the enforcement action if only to avoid the perception of bias. QED, the lobby has got exactly what they want. So the "involved" admins probably do inflame the situation, but thats because its in the interests of those people who are under remedy to cause the inflammation. I see this as a real and ongoing problem. The obvious answer is to have other admins take over, but quite frankly, requests for outside eyes in this sort of lengthy, simmering and bitter dispute come to nothing, no-one wants to touch it - and you can hardly blame them. Rockpocket 05:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • This isn't intended to be obtuse or confusing. If you are part of the problem, you should not be the one to impose the remedy. I think this is clear from the current Matthew Hoffman case where Adam is under review for blocking editors whose edits he opposed for content reasons, even though he did not edit the exact article in dispute but did edit other articles in the broad topic. However, if you step into a situation to try and resolve it peacefully, and maintain your objectivity, and find that one party or both needs to be sanctioned, you probably can do it. Editors should not feel that they are being taken advantage of by their opponents who happen to have a sysop bit, but at the same time, disruptive editors should not be able to game the system and forum shop by claiming that every admin who tries to resolve a situation in a neutral way is now too tainted by involvement to make a fair judgement call on sanctions. Thatcher131 03:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, we need administrator to become knowledgeable about the situation in order to make clueful decisions. There should be no problem with monitoring a situation over time to make sure is properly resolved. Keeping articles on a watchlist and stepping in to calm down edit wars is a good use of admin time. FloNight (talk) 03:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


Request for review of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Election

While merging the list at Misplaced Pages:Article probation into Misplaced Pages:General sanctions, I noticed that this 2006 case needs a review. The article probation remedy stated:

Articles which are the locus of dispute, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Election/Proposed decision#Locus of dispute, are placed on probation. Any editor may be banned from any or all of the articles, or other reasonably related pages, by an administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, incivilty, and original research. The Arbitration Committee reserves the right to appoint one or more mentors at any time, and will review the situation in one year.

The one year review was due in July 2007, but apparently has not been done yet. After looking at the edit histories of these articles, I recommend that article probation be lifted for some, but not all of the articles. In particular, I noticed recent editing disputes at 2004 United States presidential election controversy, vote suppression, and several of the articles still have neutrality disputed tags. - Jehochman 23:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I expect that we will conduct a review of all the currently active general sanctions in January, once the new arbitrators are on board. Kirill 15:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Requested motions to Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

I think most of the involved parties had findings of fact regarding revert warring. The differentiating aspect for Digwuren and Petri Krohn was using Misplaced Pages as a battleground. Note that the root cause of this battle was the Bronze soldier controversy, which has now largely resolved itself, the threat for further battling has significantly diminished. Also given that bans are in principle intended to stop further damage to Misplaced Pages, rather for retribution and punishment for its own sake, and they have already served some months of this ban, I see no reason to continue this ban, particularly since there seems a concensus against a ban in the first place, the parties have shown remorse as I have linked above and the Bronze soldier issues have dissipated. I am not asking for selective reversals, just a suspension. Martintg (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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)

Motions in prior cases

Motions

Shortcuts

This section can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Motions.

Only arbitrators may propose or vote on motions on this page. You may visit WP:ARC or WP:ARCA for potential alternatives.

Make a motion (Arbitrators only)

You can make comments in the sections called "community discussion" or in some cases only in your own section. Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor any comment.

Arbitrator workflow motions

Workflow motions: Arbitrator discussion

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

Workflow motions: Clerk notes

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

Workflow motions: Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of which motions are passing. These notes were last updated by an automatic check at 23:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Motion name Support Oppose Abstain Passing Support needed Notes
Motion 1: Correspondence clerks 3 7 0 Currently not passing 5 One support vote contingent on 1.4 passing
Motion 1.2a: name the role "scrivener" 2 6 1 Currently not passing 6
Motion 1.2b: name the role "coordination assistant" 1 5 3 Currently not passing 6
Motion 1.3: make permanent (not trial) 0 8 0 Cannot pass Cannot pass
Motion 1.4: expanding arbcom-en directly 2 5 2 Currently not passing 5
Motion 2: WMF staff support 1 8 0 Cannot pass Cannot pass
Motion 3: Coordinating arbitrators 8 0 1 Passing · 2 support votes are second choice to motion 1
Motion 4: Grants for correspondence clerks 0 8 0 Cannot pass Cannot pass
Notes


Motion 1: Correspondence clerks

Nine-month trial

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

Correspondence clerks

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

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

The specific responsibilities of correspondence clerks shall include:

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

The remit of correspondence clerks shall not include:

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

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

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

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

For this motion there are 15 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0–1 8
2–3 7
4–5 6
Support
  • (former arbitrator) This is my first choice and falls within ArbCom's community-granted authority to approve and remove access to mailing lists maintained by the Arbitration Committee and to designate individuals for particular tasks or roles and maintain a panel of clerks to assist with the smooth running of its functions. Currently, we have arbitration clerks to help with on-wiki work, but most of ArbCom's workload is private (on arbcom-en), and our clerks have no ability to help with that because they can't access any of ArbCom's non-public work. It has always seemed strange to me to have clerks for on-wiki work, but not for the bulk of the work which is off-wiki (and which has always needed more coordination help). When consulting the functionaries, I was pleasantly surprised to learn that four functionaries (including three former arbitrators) expressed interest in volunteering for this role. This would be lower-intensity than serving as an arbitrator, but still essential to the functioning of the committee. We already have a number of ex-arbs on the clerks-l mailing list to advise and assist, and this seems like a natural extension of that function. The Stewards have a somewhat similar "Steward clerk" role, although ArbCom correspondence clerks would be a higher-trust position (functionary-level appointments only). I see this as the strongest option because the structure is familiar (analogous to our existing clerks, but for off-wiki business), because we have trusted functionaries and former arbs interested who could well discharge these responsibilities, and because I think we would benefit from separating the administrative responsibility from the substantive responsibility. The cons I see are that volunteer correspondence clerks might be less reliable than paid staff and that we'd be adding one or two (ish) people to the arbcom-en list. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
    I continue to urge my colleagues to support this motion to establish the trial of correspondence clerks. I hear the concern that this will add one or two more people to the mailing list, bringing it from 15 to 16-17, but I would suggest that the additional risk is quite small relative to the other considerations, which should predominate.
    Every new arbitrator elected in the future has access to every email sent to the committee now. One might estimate that over the next ten years, perhaps on average eight arbs will be elected per year of which four will be new to the committee. So, in addition to 15 current arbitrators, 40 future arbitrators will also be able to see the mailing list. (And let's be honest – it's not that hard to be elected to the committee.)
    By contrast, this proposal draws solely on former arbitrators (who have already had mailing list access), and doesn't increase the set much at all. And I trust that the committee will appoint only those former arbs who in its view retain its trust to access highly confidential information.
    In 2019, the community increased the size of the committee from 13 to 15, which reversed the 2018 change from 15 to 13. In neither discussion did the additional security risk of 15 mailing list subscribers (over 13), or the marginal security benefit of 13 subscribers instead of 15, even come up. The community was far more concerned with the effect of the committee's size on its ability to fulfill its functions.
    Similarly, here, I believe the committee should focus on whether this change could help the committee execute on its responsibilities. If yes, I urge the committee to give it a try; this nine-month trial isn't all that risky in the grand scheme of things.
    As for Cabayi's point that some material should be seen only by arbitrators, that's why this proposal explicitly provides that 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.
    Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 08:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  1. Contingent on 1.4 passing. This option was not my first choice, and I'm inclined to try having a coordinating Arb first, if we can get a volunteer/set of volunteers. Given that the new term should infuse the Committee with more life and vigor, we may find a coordinating Arb, or another solution. But I think we should put this in our toolbox for the moment. This doesn't force us to appoint someone, just gives us the ability and outlines the position. CaptainEek ⚓ 05:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
  2. Per below – the community wants us to solve problems, and this is what best helps us solve problems. I don't think we severely damage people's privacy by increasing the number of ANPDP-signed and trusted functionaries who view the emails from 15 to 16, and to the extent it's bad for the opacity of ArbCom as an institution, that's just not my highest priority. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
  3. I think this idea would allow someone to nudge us to ensure votes would take place. In the past, this was done by individual arbs, and if that worked we wouldn't need this motion. However, it hasn't and thus outside assistance would probably be more likely to solve the workflow problems we experience. Z1720 (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. I don't think we should extend access to the mailing list and the private information it contains beyond what is absolutely necessary. I understand the reasoning behind former arbitrators in such a role as they previously had such access, but people emailing the Arbitration Committee should have confidence that private information is kept need to know and that only the current arbitrators evaluating and making decisions based on that private information have ongoing access to it. - Aoidh (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
  2. Might as well make it formal per my opinions elsewhere on the page. Primefac (talk) 13:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
  3. This is limited to former arbitrators for good reasons, most of them privacy-related. But the same concerns that led to this proposal being limited to former arbitrators are also arguments against doing this at all. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
  4. I don't find it hard to think of correspondence that the committee has received recently that absolutely should not have a wider circulation. I find myself in agreement with Aoidh - need to know. Cabayi (talk) 11:32, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  5. As I've made clear in private, I prefer having staff help (see that vote). I think that having non-professionals in this role mean that this proposal barely fails in balancing an acceptable level of "intrusion" on the list (ie the reduced privacy) against the probability of success and benefits. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  6. Roughly per Aoidh, with additional concerns about creating additional overhead such as another mailing list and creating a bottleneck that could become a problem if the clerk were to become inactive for any reason. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
  7. Coordinating arbitrators appears to be passing, and that's my preference on trying to keep workflow moving behind-the-scenes. I am not necessarily opposed to this in principle, but my preference would be to try coordinating arbitrators (including one coordinating this portfolio) first, and if for any reason we get a portion of the way through the year and that still isn't working, very happy to look at this again. I was considering supporting for the same reasons as Eek (put it in our toolkit for a rainy day), but instead I'm voting oppose on the basis that, should we wish to try it in the future, it's a very easy vote to quickly run through at that point (and, even if this passed, we'd probably need to have an internal vote to implement it at that time anyways). Daniel (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Abstain

Motion 1: Arbitrator views and discussions

  • I'd be glad changing this to only appoint former arbs, if that would tip anyone's votes. Currently, it's written as "from among the English Misplaced Pages functionary corps (and preferably from among former members of the Arbitration Committee)" for flexibility if needed, but I imagine we would only really appoint former arbs if available, except under unusual circumstances, because they understand how the mailing list discussions go and have previously been elected to handle the same private info. I am also open to calling it something other than "correspondence clerk"; that just seemed like a descriptive title. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
    I do like the idea of using our Arbs emeritus for this position (and perhaps only Arbs emeritus); it ensures that they have experience in our byzantine process, and at least at some point held community trust. CaptainEek ⚓ 01:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
    @CaptainEek: I have changed the motion to make only former arbs eligible. If anyone preferred broader (all funct) eligibility, I've added an alternative motion 1.1 below, which if any arb does prefer it, they should uncollapse and vote for it. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
  • I also think that if we adopt this we should choose a better name. I know Barkeep49 meant this suggestion as a bit of a joke, but I actually think he was on the money when he suggested "scrivener." I like "adjutant" even more, which I believe he also suggested. They capture the sort of whimsical Misplaced Pages charm evoked by titles like Most Pluperfect Labutnum while still being descriptive, and not easily confused for a traditional clerk. CaptainEek ⚓ 03:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
    Whimsy is important -- Guerillero 08:55, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
  • @CaptainEek and Guerillero: Per the above discussion points, I have (a) proposed two alternative names below that were workshopped among some arbs ("scrivener" on the more whimsical side and "coordination assistant" on the less whimsical side; see motions 1.2a and 1.2b), and (b) made this motion a nine-month trial, after which time the section is automatically repealed unless the Committee takes action to extend it. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
  • I plan on supporting motion 1 over anything else. I've spent a week just getting onto all the platforms, and I'm already kind of shocked that this is how we do things. Not only is there a lot to keep track of, all of the information moves unintuitively between different places in a way that makes it very difficult to keep up unless you're actively plugged in enough to be on top of the ball – which I don't think anyone can be all the time. I just don't think a coordinating arb is sufficient: we need someone who can keep us on track without having to handle all of the standard work of reviewing evidence, deliberating, and making an informed decision. (Better-organized tech would also be great, but I'd need to spend a lot more time thinking about how it could be redone.) I understand the privacy concerns, but I don't think this represents a significant breach of confidentiality: people care more whether their report gets handled properly than whether it goes before 15 trusted people or 16. So, I'll be voting in favor of motion 1, and maybe motion 3 will be a distant second. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
  • I just want to briefly address @Moneytrees's question. In my view, nothing a c-clerk (or anyone else) can do can make arbs fulfill their functions. What the c-clerks can do is help reduce the needless duplicated time and effort arbs spend on trying to figure out what matters are outstanding, what balls they might be dropping, where their time can be effectively spent. But if an arb truly is checked out, yeah, regular emailed reminders aren't going to help. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 08:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

References

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

Motion 1.1: expand eligible set to functionaries

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

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

For this motion there are 15 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0–1 8
2–3 7
4–5 6
Support
Oppose
Abstain


Motion 1.2a: name the role "scrivener"

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

For this motion there are 15 active arbitrators. With 1 arbitrator abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0–1 8
2–3 7
4–5 6
Support
  1. Nicely whimsical, and not as likely to be confusing as correspondence clerk. CaptainEek ⚓ 04:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
  2. per Eek :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. I think correspondence clerk is fine if role is something we're going with, it's less ambiguous as to what it entails than scrivener. - Aoidh (talk) 04:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  2. I have never heard that word before; at least "correspondence" and "clerk" are somewhat common in the English Misplaced Pages world. When possible, I think we should use words people don't have to look up in dictionaries. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
  3. Follows on from my vote on Motion 1. Cabayi (talk) 11:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  4. As I've said in private, I think that this name would be unnecessarily opaque and complicated. Most people would need to search in a dictionary to understand what this means. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  5. This sounds too much like we are appointing pirates, IMO. Too obscure of a word. Z1720 (talk) 17:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
  6. I might be in the minority but I have no issue with 'correspondence clerks'. Daniel (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Abstain
  1. I don't think the name matters overmuch, although I think even if this passed they'd probably still be called a clerk in practice because who wants to type out scrivener every time? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Arbitrator discussion

Motion 1.2b: name the role "coordination assistant"

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

For this motion there are 15 active arbitrators. With 3 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0–1 8
2–3 7
4–5 6
Support
  1. Slightly better, I guess, in that the role (whatever it is called) is more about coordination (keeping track of business) than actual correspondence (replying to people who contact us). Not exactly an issue of paramount importance. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. bleh. CaptainEek ⚓ 04:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
  2. Follows on from my vote on Motion 1. Cabayi (talk) 11:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  3. mm, not my favorite. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
  4. Prefer correspondence clerks. Z1720 (talk) 17:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
  5. Per 1.2a. Daniel (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Abstain
  1. If we're going to use a role like this, either this or correspondence clerk is fine. - Aoidh (talk) 04:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  2. That would be okay. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:08, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
  3. I'm not fussed about what color we paint the bike shed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Arbitrator discussion

Motion 1.3: make permanent (not trial)

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

For this motion there are 15 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0–1 8
2–3 7
4–5 6
Support
Oppose
  1. I recently experimented with sunset clauses and think that frankly a lot more of what we do should have such time limits that require us to stop and critically evaluate if a thing is working. CaptainEek ⚓ 04:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
  2. If this change is necessary, there should be a review of it after a reasonable trial period to see what does and does not work. - Aoidh (talk) 01:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
  3. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
  4. Follows on from my vote on Motion 1. Cabayi (talk) 11:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  5. This is a big change and so I'd rather that we forced a review. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  6. If this passed it should require affirmative consensus to continue past the trial period. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
  7. A trial first would be better. Z1720 (talk) 17:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
  8. Daniel (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Abstain
  • (former arbitrator) I have no preference as to whether this is permanent or a trial. I do think that nine months is a good length for the trial if we choose to have one: not too long to lock in a year's committee; not too short to make it unworthwhile. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Arbitrator discussion

Motion 1.4: expanding arbcom-en directly

If motion 1 passes, strike the following text:

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

And replace it with the following:

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

For this motion there are 15 active arbitrators. With 2 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0–1 8
2–3 7
4–5 6
Support
  1. Much less trouble to have them on the main list than to split the lists. CaptainEek ⚓ 04:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
  2. Especially if it's former arbs who've already had access to most of the list at one point or another, I think the trade-off of scriveners being able to properly do their jobs is worth it. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Access to private information should be as limited as possible to only what is strictly necessary to perform such a task, and I don't see allowing full access to the contents of the current list necessary for this. I'd rather not split the list, but between that and giving full access then if we're going to have a correspondence clerk, then it needs to be split. - Aoidh (talk) 04:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  2. Motion 1 is already problematic for privacy reasons; this would make it worse. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
  3. Follows on from my vote on Motion 1. Cabayi (talk) 11:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  4. If the clerk/skrivienenrener (see, I can't even spell it!) motion passes I would prefer to split the lists. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
  5. I'd like to split the lists, in case there is a topic that arbs want to discuss as arb-only. The new role doesn't need to be observers in many discussions we have amongst arbs. Z1720 (talk) 17:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Abstain
  • (former arbitrator) I would not really object to this. C-clerks (or whatever we call them) are former arbs and have previously been on arbcom-en in any event, so it doesn't seem that like a big deal to do this. On the other hand, I would understand if folks prefer the split. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
  1. I am really torn on the competing arguments between decreased effectiveness and privacy of the lists. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  2. Per Kevin & Sdrqaz. Daniel (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Arbitrator discussion

Motion 2: WMF staff support

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

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

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

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

The remit of staff assistants shall not include:

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

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

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

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

For this motion there are 15 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0–1 8
2–3 7
4–5 6
Support
  1. I will come out here and support this, given my many comments in private, though it seems unlikely to pass now. Pragmatically speaking, I think that having staff on-list would have a greater likelihood of effectiveness due to being professionals who do this in their day job and having a greater obligation to help us because they're, well, staff (have a clearer subordinate–superior relationship in the WMF structure compared to a clerk, who is ultimately a volunteer that cannot be forced to work). Moreover, while I think that the separation between Community and Foundation is important, I feel that active Community members would have greater chances of having conflicts of interest due to pre-existing relationships; we have had very few petitions to us on Foundation actions in the last few years. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. I appreciate that Kevin put this together, and I think this would be very helpful, maybe even the most helpful, way to ensure that we stayed on top of the ball. But just because it would achieve one goal doesn't make it a good idea. A full version of my rationale is on the ArbList, for other Arbs. The short, WP:BEANS version is that this would destroy the line between us and the Foundation, which undoes much of our utility. CaptainEek ⚓ 01:22, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
  2. Per my comment on motion 4. - Aoidh (talk) 01:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
  3. Might as well make it formal per my opinions elsewhere on the page. Primefac (talk) 13:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
  4. I like the general idea of the WMF using its donated resources to support the community that made the donations possible. I am uncomfortable with putting WMF staff in front of ArbCom's e-mail queue, however, as this would come with unavoidable conflicts of interest and a loss of independence. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
  5. The help would be useful, but the consequences would be detrimental to both ArbCom & WMF. Some space between us is necessary for ArbCom's impartiality & for the WMF's section 230 position. Cabayi (talk) 12:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
  6. This would likely be the most effective way to go for keeping things moving, but I'm too concerned about the separation of Arbcom and WMF. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
  7. I think other options need to be tried first before considering getting resources from WMF. Z1720 (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
  8. Daniel (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Abstain

Motion 2: Arbitrator views and discussions

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

Motion 3: Coordinating arbitrators

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

Coordinating arbitrators

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

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

The specific responsibilities of coordinating arbitrators shall include:

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

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

For this motion there are 15 active arbitrators. With 1 arbitrator abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0–1 8
2–3 7
4–5 6
Support
  1. This is currently my first-choice option; we have unofficially in the past had arbitrators take on specific roles (e.g. tracking unblock requests, responding to emails, etc) and it seemed to work fairly well. Having those rules be more "official" seems like the best way to make sure someone is responsible for these things, without needing to expand the committee or the pool of people with access to private information. Primefac (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
  2. I may still vote for the clerks option, but I think this is probably the minimum of what we need. Will it be suffucient...aye, there's the rub. CaptainEek ⚓ 01:14, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
  3. Of the motions proposed, this one is the one I'd most support. It doesn't expand the number of people who can view the ArbCom mailing list beyond those on ArbCom, and creates a structure that may improve how the mailing list is handled. - Aoidh (talk) 23:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
  4. Per Primefac. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
  5. Second choice to motion 1. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
  6. I've mentioned that I don't think that having a titled role will make it more likely that the work gets done, but I accept that Kevin's arguments have some merit so here I am. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
  7. Second choice to motion 1: I would prefer that the correspondence clerks be implemented instead: if this option worked, I think it would already be implemented (and has been implemented informally in the past in various forms). However, if motion 1 doesn't pass, this is probably the next best thing. Z1720 (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
  8. First preference, per Primefac. Daniel (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Oppose
Abstain
  1. I don't think that this needs to be in our public procedures and feel like this could have been carried out without needing a formal vote on the subject (see comments by Izno and leek/SFR). I do have some reservations over whether having a specific person to do x will mean that the rest of us won't do x, but we'll see. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Motion 3: Arbitrator views and discussions

  • I am also open to this idea, though I am worried that it will be insufficient and haven't made up my mind on my vote yet. This idea was floated by a former arbitrator from back when the committee did have a coordinating arbitrator, though that role kind of quietly faded away. The benefits of this approach include that there's no need to bring anyone else onto the list. This motion also allows (but does not require) arbs to take a step back from active arb business to focus on the coordination role, which could help with the bifurcation I mention above. Cons include that this could be the least reliable option; that it's possible no arb is interested, or has the capacity to do this well; and that it's hard to be both a coordinator on top of the existing difficult role of serving as an active arb. I personally think this is better than nothing, but probably prefer one of the other two motions to actually add some capacity. Other ideas that have been floated include establishing a subcommittee of arbitrators responsible for these functions. My same concerns would apply there, but if there's interest, I'm glad to draft and propose a motion to do that; any other arb should also feel free to propose such a motion of their own. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
  • I was partial to this idea, though it was not my first choice. I proposed that we might make it a rotating position, à la the presidency of the UN security council. Alternatively, a three person subcommittee might also be the way to go, so that the position isn't dependent on one person's activity. I like this solution in general because we already basically had it, with the coordinating arbitrator role. CaptainEek ⚓ 01:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
    • @CaptainEek: I think your last sentence actually kind of nails why I don't love this solution? From a new person on the scene, it doesn't seem to me like trying old strategies and things we've already been doing is really going to solve a chronic problem. If there are arbs who really are willing to be the coordinators, that's better than nothing, but I haven't seen any step up yet and I'm not convinced that relying on at least one arb having the extra time and trust in every committee to do this work is sustainable. I am leaning towards voting for the scriveners motion, though, because I do love a good whimsical name 😄 theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
      My concern with this is that if an arb already has the time and inclination you'd expect them to be filling the role, as has happened in the past. Simply formalizing the role doesn't help if no one has the motivation to do it. It's still the option I support the most out of those listed, though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
      I think formalizing it does move the needle on someone doing it. Two possible benefits of the formalization:
      • It makes clear that this is a valuable role, one that an arb should feel is a sufficient and beneficial way to spend their time. It also communicates this to the community, which might otherwise ask an arb running for reelection why they spent their time coordinating (rather than on other arb work).
      • It gives "permission" for coordinating arbs to go inactive on other business if they wish.
      These two benefits make this motion more than symbolic in my view. My hesitation on it remains that it may be quite insufficient relative to motion 1. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
  • I could get behind this idea, not as a permanent single coordinating arb but as a "hat" that gets passed on, with each of us taking a turn. That would allow the flexibility for periods of inactivity and balancing workload when the coordinating arb wants/needs to act as a drafter on a complex case. It would also ensure that a wide-view of our workload was held by a wide-range of arbs. 3.5 weeks each and the year is covered. Cabayi (talk) 08:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Motion 4: Grants for correspondence clerks

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

For this motion there are 15 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0–1 8
2–3 7
4–5 6
Support
Oppose
  1. Misplaced Pages should remain a volunteer activity. If we cannot find volunteers to do the task, then perhaps it ought not be done in the first place. CaptainEek ⚓ 01:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
  2. We should not have a clerk paid by the WMF handling English Misplaced Pages matters in this capacity. - Aoidh (talk) 01:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
  3. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
  4. I feel bound by my RFA promise - "I have never edited for pay, or any other consideration, and never will." Cabayi (talk) 08:41, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  5. Per the others. Primefac (talk) 07:23, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  6. Not against having a paid clerk in general, given my support of a WMF staff liaison, but would rather devote that money to a WMF professional, whom I believe would provide a greater likelihood of effectiveness. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  7. I might support something like this if it were to to hire a clerk independent of the WMF and volunteer functionaries, but I don't support paying a volunteer to tell other volunteers they need to respond to emails. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
  8. Daniel (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Abstain

Motion 4: Arbitrator views and discussions

Community discussion

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

Good catch. I thought it was implied by "from among the English Misplaced Pages functionary corps" – who all sign NDAs as a condition to access functionaries-en and the CUOS tools; see Misplaced Pages:Functionaries (Functionary access requires that the user sign the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information.)  – but I've made it explicit now. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:31, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
You're right that that was there, but I missed it on my first readthrough of the rules (thinking correspondence clerks would be appointed from the clerk team instead). * Pppery * it has begun... 18:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

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

As Primefac mentioned above, it seems reasonable to assume that having something written down "officially" might help make sure that the coordinating arbitrator knows what they are responsible for. In any event, it probably can't hurt. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
It is a pain in the ass to get formal procedures changed. There is an internal procedures page: I see 0 reason not to use it if you want to clarify what the role of this arbitrator is. Izno (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
On top of that, this doesn't actually change the status quo much if at all. It is almost entirely a role definition for an internal matter, given "we can make an arb a CA, but we don't have to have one" in it's "from time to time" clause. This just looks like noise to anyone reading ARBPRO who isn't on ArbCom: the public doesn't need to know this arb even exists, though they might commonly be the one responding to emails so they might get a sense there is such an arb. Izno (talk) 19:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

  • Share statistical information publicly
  • Share status information (publicly or privately) with correspondents who wish to know the status of their request.
  • Share status information (publicly or privately) about the status of a specific request with someone other than the correspondent.
    For this I'm thinking of scenarios like where e.g. an editor publicly says they emailed the Committee about something a while ago, and one or more other editors asks what is happening with it.

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

Thanks for these suggestions. I've changed "users" to "editors". The way I'm intending these motions to be read, correspondence clerks or staff assistants should only disclose information as directed by the committee. I think the details of which information should be shared upon whose request in routine cases could be decided later by the committee, with the default being "ask ArbCom before disclosing until the committee decides to approve routine disclosures in certain cases", because it's probably hard to know in advance which categories will be important to allow. I'm open to including more detail if you think that's important to include at this stage, though, and I'd welcome hearing why if so. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
I see your point, but I think it worth clarifying certain things in advance before they become an issue to avoid unrealistic or mistaken expectations of the c-clerks by the community. Point 1 doesn't need to be specified in advance, maybe something like "communicating information publicly as directed by the Committee" would be useful to say in terms of expectation management or maybe it's still to specific? I can see both sides of that.
Point 2 I think is worth establishing quickly and while it is on people's minds. Waiting for the committee to make up its mind before knowing whether they can give a full response to a correspondent about this would be unfair to both the correspondent and clerk I think. This doesn't necessarily have to be before adoption, but if not it needs to be very soon afterwards.
Point 3 is similar, but c-clerks and community members knowing exactly what can and cannot be shared, and especially being able to point to something in writing about what cannot be said publicly, has the potential to reduce drama e.g. if there is another situation similar to Billed Mammal's recent case request. Thryduulf (talk) 19:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

I think there is a need to do something as poor communication and extremely slow replies, if replies are made at all, has been an ongoing issue for the committee for some time. However I agree that asking the foundation to pay someone to do it is going too far. The point that if you are paid by the foundation, you work for them and not en.wp or arbcom is a compelling one. There's also a slippery slope argument to be made in that if we're paying these people, shouldn't we pay the committee? If we're paying the committee, shouldn't we pay the arbitration clerks....and so on. Just Step Sideways 20:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
I fully share Risker's concern about a paid WMF staffer who, no matter how well-intentioned, will be answerable to the WMF and not ARBCOM. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
The 2023-2024 committee is much more middle aged and has less university students and retirees, who oftentimes have more free time, than the 2016-2017 committee. -- Guerillero 08:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
It seems to me that the issue of there often being some Committee members who, for whatever reason, are not "pulling their weight", is at the core of the problem to be addressed here. Because this happens "behind the scenes", the community has no way to hold anyone accountable in elections, and because of human nature and the understandable desire to maintain a collegial atmosphere within the Committee, I don't really expect any members to call out a colleague in public. I suppose there could even be a question of what happens if whoever might be filling the role proposed here nudges a member to act, but the member just disregards that. It's difficult to see how to make it enforceable. I don't have any real solutions, but this strikes me as central to the problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:31, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
I think this is largely correct. I was reluctant on the committee to even note this committee's inactivity problem (worst of any 15-member arbcom ever), even though it was based on a metric that is public, when I was still on the committee. And it gets further complicated by the fact that some people not visibly active in public more than pull their weight behind the scenes - the testimonials Maxim received when running for re-election being a prime example. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
During my first term it was Roger Davies. He was barely a presence on-wiki but he kept the whole committee on point and up-to-date about what was pending. Trypto is right that it isn't enforceable, it is more a matter of applying pressure to either do the job or move oneself to the inactive list.
I also think the committee can and should be more proactive about declaring other arbs inactive even when they are otherwise present on-wiki or on the mailing list" That would probably require a procedures change, but I think it would make sense. If there is a case request, proposed decision, or other matter that requires a vote before the committee and an arb doesn't comment on it for ten days or more, they clearly don't have the time and/or inclination to do so and should be declared inactive on that matter so that their lack of action does not further delay the matter. It would be nice if they would just do so themselves, or just vote "abstain" on everything, which only takes a few minutes, but it seems it has not been happening in practice. Just Step Sideways 00:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
And Roger was a pensioner which kinda proves my point -- Guerillero 08:53, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Roger may have been a pensioner at the end of his time on the committee (7 years), but he certainly wasn't at the beginning of his term. He was co-ordinating arbitrator for a lot of that time, and did a good job without a single bit of extra software. The problem with that software is that people have to already be actively engaged to even contemplate using it. My sense is that the real issue here is the lack of engagement (whether periodic or chronic) on the part of many of the arbitrators. People who are inactive on Arbcom tasks aren't going to be active on any tasks, including reading emails asking them to do things or special software sending alerts. Simply put, if people aren't going to put Arbcom as their primary Misplaced Pages activity for the next two years, keeping in mind other life events that will likely take them away, they should not run in the first place. Yes, unexpected things happen. But I think a lot of the inactivity we've seen in the last few years involved some predictable absences that the arbs knew about when they were candidates. (Examples I've seen myself: Oh, I have a big exam to write that needs months of study; oh, I have a major life event that will require a lot of planning; oh, I'm graduating and will have to find a job.) No, I don't expect people to reveal this kind of information about themselves; yes, I do expect them to refrain from volunteering for roles that they can reasonably foresee they will have difficulty fulfilling. Risker (talk) 04:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
I might as well ask a hard question. Is there a way to make public enough information for the community to be able to evaluate ArbCom candidates for (re)election, in terms of behind-the-scenes inactivity? If individual Arbs were to make public comments, that would do it, but it would also potentially be very contentious and could reduce effectiveness instead of improving it. Could ArbCom initiate a new process of posting onsite information about the processing of tasks, without revealing private information (such as: "Ban appeal 1", "Ban appeal 2", instead of "Ban appeal by "), and list those members who voted (perhaps without listing which way they voted)? Maybe do that monthly, and include all tasks that had not yet gotten a quorum. Yes, I know that's difficult. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
I question an answer to the problem of "we're having trouble finding enough people to do the secretarial work we have already" being "let's create substantially more secretarial work" even accepting the premise that people would then get voted off if they didn't pull their weight. While I think that premise is correct, what this system would also encourage - even more than it already exists - is an incentive to just go along with whatever the first person (or the person who has clearly done the most homework) says. And that defeats the purpose of having a committee made up of individual thinkers. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
That's a fair point. I'll admit that, even from the outside, I sometimes see members who appear to wait to see which way the wind is blowing before voting on proposed decisions. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
That's something that's hard to know or verify, even for the other arbs. The arbs only know what the other arbs tell them, and I've never seen anyone admit to that. Just Step Sideways 23:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Kevin can correct me if I'm wrong, but I assumed he was doing this now because he will not be on the committee a month from now.
That being said it could be deliberately held over, or conversely, possibly fall victim to the inactivity you mention and still be here for the new committee to decide. Just Step Sideways 23:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Since WP:ACE2024 elections are currently taking place it makes sense to have the incoming arbitrators weigh in on changes like this. They are the ones that will be affected by any of these motions passing rather than the outgoing arbitrators. - Aoidh (talk) 00:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Oh I assumed that's why he was doing it also. I am also assuming he's doing it to try and set up the future committees for success. That doesn't change my point about why this is the wrong time and why a different way of trying the coordinator role (if it has support) would be better. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Regarding "timing is wrong": I think you both would agree that these are a long time coming – we have been working on these and related ideas for years (I ran on a related idea in 2022). I do think there's never quite a good time. Very plausibly, the first half of the year is out because the new arbs will need that time to learn how the processes work and think about what kinds of things should be changed vs. kept the same. And then it might be another few months as the new ArbCom experiments with less-consequential changes like the ones laid about at the top: technological solutions, trying new ways of tracking stuff, etc., before being confident in the need for something like set out above. And then things get busy for other reasons; there will be weeks or even occasionally months when the whole committee is overtaken by some urgent situation. I've experienced a broadly similar dynamic a few times now; this is all to say that there's just not much time or space in the agenda for this kind of stuff in a one-year cycle, which would be a shame because I do think this is important to take on.
I do think that it should be the aspiration of every year's committee to leave the succeeding committee some improvements in the functioning of the committee based on lessons learned that year, so it would be nice to leave the next committee with this. That said, if arbitrators do feel that we should hold this over to the new committee, I'm not really in a position to object – as JSS says, this is my last year on the committee, so it's not like this will benefit me. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
I think it's entirely possible for the new committee to have a sense of what it wants workload wise by February-April and so it's wrong to just rule out the first half of the year. By the end of the first six months of the year that you and I started (and which JSS was a sitting member on) we'd made a number of changes to how things were done. Off the top of my head I can name the structure of cases and doing quarterly reports of private appeals as two but there were others. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Here's what I'll leave you with overall. What you may see as a downside – these proposals being voted on relatively late in the year – I see as a significant possible upside. Members of this committee are able to draw on at least eleven months' experience as arbitrators in deciding what is working well and what might warrant change – experience which is important in determining what kinds of processes and systems lead to effective and ineffective outcomes. That experience is important: Although I have served on ArbCom for four years and before that served as an ArbCom clerk for almost six years, I still learn more every year about what makes this committee click. If what really concerns you is locking in the new committee to a particular path, as I wrote above, I'm very open to structuring this as a trial run that will end of its own accord unless the committee takes action to make it permanent. This would ensure that the new committee retains full control over whether to continue, discontinue, or adapt these changes. But in my book, it does not make sense to wait. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
  • As a 3-term former arb and a 3-term current ombuds commissioner, I've had experience of about a dozen Wikimedia committee "new intakes". I am quite convinced that these proposals are correctly timed. Process changes are better put in place prior to new appointees joining, so that they are not joining at a moment of upheaval. Doing them late in the day is not objectionable and momentum often comes at the end of term. If the changes end up not working (doubtful), the new committee would just vote to tweak the process or go back. I simply do not understand the benefit of deferring proposals into a new year, adding more work to the next year's committee. That surely affects the enthusiasm and goodwill of new members. As for the point that the '24 committee is understaffed and prone to indecision: argumentum ad hominem. If Kevin's proposals work, they work. If anything, it might be more difficult to agree administrative reforms when the committee is back at full staff. arcticocean ■ 15:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
    If these pass now you will have new members join at a moment of upheaval as anything proposed here will still be in its infancy when the new members join (even if we pretend the new members are joining Jan 1 rather than much sooner given that results are in and new members tend to be added to the list once the right boxes are checked). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
    You're right. And it's important to be realistic: any proposal would be under implementation for several months, so say from December through February. Would that be so bad? Any change will disrupt, in the sense that a few people need to spend time implementing it and everyone else needs to learn the new process. But waiting until later in the year causes even more disruption: members have to first learn an 'old' process and then learn the changes you're making to it… New member enthusiasm is also a keen force that could help to push through the changes. arcticocean ■ 16:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
    I think new member enthusiasm is part of why I think this lame duck hobbled committee is the wrong one to do it. I have high hopes for next year's group and think they would be in a better place to come up with the right solution for them. And as I noted to Kevin above this isn't hypothetical - the year we both started as arbs we made a lot of process and procedure changes in the first six months. It was a great thing to funnel that new arb energy into because I was bought into what we were doing rather than trying to make something work that I had no say in and that the existing members had no experience with. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
    While I think a solution such as adopting ZenDesk is something that could face objections, personally I think the idea of having someone track a list of work items for a committee is a pretty standard way of working (including pushing for timely resolution, something that really needs a person, not just a program). From an outsider's perspective, it's something I'd expect. It doesn't matter to non-arbitrators who does the tracking, so the committee should feel free to change that decision internally as often as it feels is effective. I'd rather there be a coordinating arbitrator in place in the interim until another solution is implemented, than have no one tracking work items in the meantime. isaacl (talk) 19:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

In our tentative discussions with WMF, it sounded like it would be much more plausible to get a 0.1-0.2 FTE of staffer time than it would to get us 15 ZenDesk licenses, which was also somewhat surprising to me. That wasn't a firm response – if we went back and said we really need this, I'm guessing it'd be plausible. And we've never asked about compensating c-clerks – that was an idea that came from Voorts's comment above, and I proposed it for discussion, not because I necessarily support it but because I think it's worth discussion, and I certainly don't think it's integral to the c-clerk proposal. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 15:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Well, offering compensation for on-wiki tasks would be breaking new ground for the project. I do wonder though about the possibility of securing former arbitrators for these correspondent clerks' positions. It sounds like all of the work of an arbitrator (or more) without any ability to influence the results. I don't know if we'd have many interested and eligible parties. How many clerks would you think would be necessary? One? Or 3 or 4? Liz 21:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, these are great questions. Responses to your points:
  • On volunteers: As I wrote above, four functionaries (including three former arbs) expressed initial-stage interest when this was floated when I consulted functionaries – which is great and was a bit unexpected, and which is why I wrote it up this way. Arbitrators will know that my initial plan from previous months/years did not involve limiting this to functionaries, to have a broader pool of applicants. But since we do have several interested functs, and they are already trusted to hold NDA'd private information (especially the former arbs who have previously been elected to access to this very list), I thought this would be a good way to make this a more uncontroversial proposal.
  • How many to appoint? I imagine one or two if it was up to me. One would be ideal (I think it's like 30 minutes of work per day ish, max), but two for redundancy might make a lot of sense. I don't think it's all of the work of an arbitrator (or more) without any ability to influence the results – because the c-clerk would be responsible for tracking matters, not actually attempting to resolve them, that's a lot less work than serving as an arb. It does require more consistency than most arbs have to put in, though.
  • On compensating: Yeah, I'm not sure I'll end up supporting the idea, but I don't think it's unprecedented in the sense that you're thinking. Correspondence clerks aren't editing; none of the tasks listed in the motion require on-wiki edits. And there are plenty of WMF grants that have gone to off-wiki work for the benefit of projects; the first example I could think of was m:Grants:Programs/Wikimedia Community Fund/Rapid Fund/UTRS User Experience Development (ID: 22215192) but I know there are many.
Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
I am quite confused, I often read arbs saying most of ArbCom work is behind-the-scenes work. But is all this behind-the-scenes work essentially just a one-person 30-minute-a-day work? If so, the solution here is that more arbs should simply pull their weight, which Motion 3 helps. I don't think WMF would pay someone to work 30 minutes a day either. Kenneth Kho (talk) 07:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
But is all this behind-the-scenes work essentially just a one-person 30-minute-a-day work?. No, the actual work takes a lot more time and effort because each arb has to read, understand and form opinions on many different things, and the committee needs to discuss most of those things, which will often re-reading and re-evaluating based on the points raised. Then in many cases there needs to be a vote. What the "one-person, 30 minutes a day" is referring to is just the meta of what tasks are open, what the current status of it is, who needs to opine on it, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 11:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, I realized I misunderstood it. I see that this is a relatively lightweight proposal, perhaps it could work but it probably won't help much either.
@L235 I have been thinking of splitting ArbCom into Public ArbCom and Private ArbCom. I see Public ArbCom as being able to function without the tools as @Worm That Turned advocated, focused more on complex dispute resolution. I see Private ArbCom as high-trust roles with NDAs, privy to WMF and overseeing Public ArbCom. Both ArbComs are elected separately as 15-members bodies, and both will be left with about half the current authority and responsibility. Kenneth Kho (talk) 01:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Thryduulf is right; I think Kevin meant that the tracking itself might be a 30 minute a day activity. But it has to happen consistently, and with a high catch rate. It also has to happen on top of our usual Arb work, which for me already averages a good ten hours a week, but can be more than twenty hours in the busy times. And I, like the other arbs, already have a full time job and a life outside Misplaced Pages. I don't like the idea of splitting ArbCom in twain, nor do I think it could be achieved. CaptainEek ⚓ 02:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
I agree, having someone managing the work could really help smooth things out. Kenneth Kho (talk) 11:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
My first thought is that cleanly splitting arbcom would be very difficult. For example what happens if there is an open public case and two-thirds of the way through the evidence phase someone discovers and wishes to submit private evidence? Thryduulf (talk) 02:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
I agree, the split won't be entirely clean. I'm thinking Public ArbCom would narrowly remand part of the case to Private ArbCom if it finds that the private evidence is likely to materially affect the outcome. Kenneth Kho (talk) 11:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
How will public know whether the private evidence will materially affect the outcome without seeing the private evidence? Secondly, how will private arbcom determine whether it materially affects the outcome without reviewing all the public evidence and thus duplicating public arbcom's work (and thus also negating the workload benefits of the split)? What happens if public and private arbcom come to different conclusions about the same public evidence? Thryduulf (talk) 11:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
You raised good points that I did not address. I think that a way to do this would be to follow how Oversighters have the authority to override Admins that they use sparingly. Private ArbCom could have the right to receive any private evidence regarding an ongoing case on Public ArbCom, and Private ArbCom will have discretions to override Public ArbCom remedies without explanation other than something like "per private evidence". Private ArbCom would need to familiarize themselves with the case a bit, but this is mitigated by the fact that they only concerned with the narrow parts. Private ArbCom could have the authority to take the whole Public ArbCom case private if it deems that private evidence affect many parties. Kenneth Kho (talk) 11:55, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
12 candidates for 9 open seats is sufficient. But it hardly suggests we have so many people that we could support 30 people (even presuming some additional people would run under the split). Further, what happens behind the scenes already strains the trust of the community. But at least the community can see the public actions as a reminder of "well this person hasn't lost it completely while on ArbCom". I think it would be much harder to sustain trust under this split. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
I honestly like the size of 12-member committee, too many proverbial cooks spoil the proverbial broth. I did think about the trust aspect, as the community has been holding ArbCom under scrutiny, but at the same time I consider that the community has been collegial with Bureaucrats, Checkusers, Oversighters. Private ArbCom would be far less visible, with Public ArbCom likely taking the heat for contentious decisions. Kenneth Kho (talk) 11:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
I agree with L235 regarding whether this is all the work and none of the authority: it does not come with all the responsibility that being an Arb comes with either. This role does not need to respond to material questions or concerns about arbitration matters and does not need to read and weigh the voluminous case work to come to a final decision. The c-clerk will need to keep up on emails and will probably need to have an idea of what's going on in public matters, but that was definitely not the bulk of the (stressful?) work of an arbitrator. Izno (talk) 00:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
@Liz well that's what I thought. I figured that ZenDesk was the winningest solution, until the Foundation made it seem like ZenDesk licenses were printed on gold bars. We did do some back of the envelope calculations, and it is decidedly expensive. Still...I have a hard time believing those ZenDesk licenses really cost more than all that staff time. I think we'll have to do some more convincing of the Foundation on that front, or implement a different solution. CaptainEek ⚓ 01:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

I assumed it was so that the clerks would only see the incoming email and not be privy to the entire commitee's comments on the matter. While all functionaries and arbs sign the same NDA, operating on a need to know basis is not at all uncommon in groups that deal with sensitive information. When I worked for the census we had to clear our debriefing room of literally everything because it was being used the next day by higher-ups from Washington who were visiting. They outranked all of us by several orders of mgnitude, but they had no reason to be looking at the non-anonymized personal data we had lying all over the place.
Conversely it would spare the clerks from having their inboxes flooded by every single arb comment, which as you know can be quite voluminous. Just Step Sideways 00:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
And it would also prevent them from seeing information related to themselves or something they should actively recuse on. Thryduulf (talk) 01:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
This suggested rationale doesn't hold water: someone with an issue with a c-clerk or where they may need to recuse should just follow the normal process for an issue with an arb: to whit, kicking off arbcom-b for a private discussion. Izno (talk) 01:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
I was thinking of material from before they were appointed, e.g. if there was a discussion involving the actions of user:Example in November and they become a c-clerk in December, they shouldn't be able to see the discussion even if the only comments were that the allegations against them are obviously ludicrous. I appreciate I didn't make this clear though. Thryduulf (talk) 02:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Making arbcom-en a "firewall" from the arb deliberations would inhibit the c-clerk from performing the duties listed in the motion. I cannot see how it would be workable for them to remind arbs to do the thing the electorate voluntold them to do if the c-clerk cannot see whether they have done those things (e.g. coming to a conclusion on an appeal), and would add to the overhead of introducing this secretarial position (email comes in, c-clerk forwards to -internal, arbs discussion on -internal, come to conclusion, send an email back to -en, which the c-clerk then actions back to the user on arbcom-en). This suggested rationale also does not hold water to me. Izno (talk) 01:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Apologies – if this was the interpretation, that's bad drafting on my part. The sole intention is that the new correspondence clerks won't see the past arbcom-en archives, which were emails sent to the committee on the understanding that only arbitrators would see those emails. C clerks will see everything that's newly sent on arbcom-en, including all deliberations held on arbcom-en, with the exception of anything that is so sensitive that the committee feels the need to restrict discussion to arbitrators (this should be fairly uncommon but covers the recusal concern above in a similar way as discussions about arbs who recuse sometimes get moved to arbcom-en-b). The C clerks will need to be able to see deliberations to be able to track pending matters and ensure that balls aren't being dropped, which could not happen unless they had access to the discussions – this is a reasonable "need to know" because they are fulfilling a function that is hard to combine with serving as an active arbitrator. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Well, I clearly totally misread your intent there. I.... don't think I like the idea that unelected clerks can see everything the committee is doing. Just Step Sideways 03:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
FWIW, I oppose splitting arbcom-en a second time -- Guerillero 10:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Regarding 1.4, I think arbcom-en and -c are good ones for a c-clerk to have access to. -b probably doesn't need access ever, as it's used exclusively for work with recusals attached to it, which should be small enough for ArbCom to manage itself in the addition of a c-clerk. (This comment in private elicited the slight rework L235 made to the motion.) Izno (talk) 06:08, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
What does this mean – when was the first time? arcticocean ■ 15:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
@Arcticocean: In 2018, arbcom-l became arbcom-en and the archives are in two different places. -- Guerillero 18:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Thanks for your comments. Regarding little community appetite – that is precisely why we are inviting community input here on this page, as one way to assess how the community feels about the various options. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
I also like the idea of an arb or two taking on this role more than another layer of clerks. I'm sure former arbs would be great at it but the committee needs to handle its own internal business. Just Step Sideways 03:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
I think it is ideal for the arbitration committee to track its own work items and prompt its members for timely action, and may have written this some time ago on-wiki. However... years have passed now, and the arbitration committee elections aren't well-suited to selecting arbitrators with the requisite skill set (even if recruitment efforts were made, the community can only go by the assurance of the candidate regarding the skills they possess and the time they have available). So I think it's worth looking at the option of keeping an arbitrator involved in an emeritus position if they have shown the aptitude and availability to help with administration. This could be an interim approach, until another solution is in place (maybe there can be more targeted recruiting of specific editors who, by their ongoing Misplaced Pages work, have demonstrated availability and tracking ability). isaacl (talk) 18:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Or "cat-herder". --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Following parliamentary tradition, perhaps "whip". (Less whimsically: "recording secretary".) isaacl (talk) 00:31, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
@Newyorkbrad:, if memory serves @Keegan: knows who came up with it, and as I recall the story was that they wanted to come up with the most boring, unappealing name they could so not too many people would be applying for it all the time. Just Step Sideways 05:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

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

I cannot speak for anything but my term. I performed this role for about 1.5 years of the 2 I was on the committee. To borrow an email I sent not long before I stepped off that touches on the topics in this whole set of motions (yes, this discussion isn't new):
  • Daily, ~20 minutes: went into the list software and tagged the day's incoming new email chains with a label (think "upe", "duplicate", etc).
  • Daily, ~10 minutes: took care of any filtered emails on the list (spam and not-spam).
  • Monthly, 1-2 hours: trawled the specific categories of tags since the beginning of the month to add to an arbwiki page for tracking for "needs to get done". Did the inverse also (removed stuff from tracking that seemed either Done or Stale).
  • Monthly, 15 minutes to prep: sent an email with a direct list of the open appeals and a reminder about the "needs doing" stuff (and a few months I highlighted a topic or two that were easy wins). This built off the daily work in a way that would be a long time if it were all done monthly instead of daily.
I was also an appeals focused admin, which had further overhead here that I would probably put in the responsibility of this kind of arb. Other types of arbs probably had similar things they would have wanted to do this direction but I saw very little of such. Daily for this effort, probably another 15 minutes or so:
  • I copy-pasted appeal metadata from new appeals email to arbwiki
  • Started countdown timers for appeals appearing to be at consensus
  • Sent "easy" boilerplate emails e.g. "we got this appeal, we may be in touch" or "no way Jose you already appealed a month ago"
  • Sent results for the easy appeals post-countdown timer and filled in relevant metadata (easy appeals here usually translated to "declined" since this was the quick-n-easy daily work frame, not the long-or-hard daily work frame)
(End extract from referenced email.) This second set is now probably a much-much lighter workload with the shedding of most CU appeals this year (which was 70% of the appeals by count during my term), and I can't say how much of this second group would be in the set of duties depending on which motion is decided above (or if even none of the motions are favored by the committee - you can see I've advocated for privately documenting the efforts of coordinating arbs rather than publicly documenting them regarding 3, and it wouldn't take much to get me to advocate against 2 and 4, I just know others can come to the right-ish conclusion on those two already; I'm pretty neutral on 1).
Based on the feedback I got as I was going out the door, it was appreciated. I did see some feedback that this version of the role was insufficiently personal to each arb. The tradeoff for doing something more personalized to each other arb is either time or software (i.e. money). I did sometimes occasionally call out when other members had not yet chimed in on discussions. That was ad hoc and mostly focused on onwiki matters (case votes particularly), but occasionally I had to name names when doing appeals work because the arbs getting to the appeal first were split. In general the rest of the committee didn't name names (which touches on some discussion above). I think some arbs appreciated seeing their name in an email when they were needed.
I was provided no formal relief from other matters. But as I discussed with one arb during one of the stressful cases of the term, I did provide relief informally for the duration of that case to that person for the stuff I was interested in, so I assume that either I in fact had no relief from other matters, or that I had relief but didn't know it (and just didn't ask for anyone else to do it - since I like to think I had it well enough in hand). :-) The committee is a team effort and not everyone on the team has the same skills, desire, or time to see to all other matters. (The probing above about arbs being insufficiently active is a worthwhile probe, to be certain.) To go further though, I definitely volunteered to do this work. Was it necessary work? I think so. I do not know what would have happened if I had not been doing it. (We managed to hit only one public snag related to timeliness during my term, which I count as a win; opinions may differ.)
There is no formal origin to the role that I know of. Someone else with longer committee-memory would have to answer whether all/recent committees have had this type, and who they were, and why if not.
I don't know how much of what I did lines up with what L235 had in mind proposing these motions. I do not think the work I did covers everything listed in the motions laid out. (I don't particularly need clarification on the point - it's a matter that will fall out in post-motion discussion.) Izno (talk) 08:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
The original announcement of the Coordinating Arbitrator position was here. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Archive zero: I love it! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Interestingly, that announcement also repeated the announcement at the top of the archive page that a departing arbitrator continued to assist the committee by co-ordinating the mailing list: acknowledging incoming emails and responding to senders with questions about them, and tracking issues to ensure they are resolved. So both a co-ordinator (plus a deputy!) and an arbitrator emeritus. isaacl (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
former arbitrator will continue to coordinate the ArbCom mailing list. was probably a statement along the lines of "knows how to deal with Mailman". And I think you're getting that role mixed up with the actual person doing the work management: the Arbitration Committee has decided to appoint one of its sitting arbitrators to act as coordinator (emphasis mine). Izno (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Obviously I have no personal knowledge of what ended up happening. I just listed the responsibilities as described at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 0 § Improving ArbCom co-ordination. I'm not sure what I'm getting mixed up; all I said is that a co-ordinator and deputy were appointed, and that a former arbitrator was said to be co-ordinating the mailing list. It's certainly possible the split of duties changed from the first post in the archive. isaacl (talk) 00:01, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Oh, I see that now. Izno (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
I think I agree with Izno regarding the coordinating arbitrator role. There's no problem letting the community that the role exists, but I don't think it's necessary for the role's responsibilities to be part of the public-facing guarantees being made to the community. If the role needs to expand, shrink, split into multiple roles, or otherwise change, the committee should feel free to just do it as needed. The committee has the flexibility to organize itself as it best sees fit. isaacl (talk) 23:36, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
I think this is the right approach. It doesn't need to be advertised who is coordinating activity on the mailing list, it just needs to get done. If it takes two people, fine, if they do it for six months and say they want out of the role, ask somebody else to do it. And so on. Just Step Sideways 23:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
For instance, I don't think it's necessary to codify whether or not the coordinating arbitrator role is permanent. Just put a task on the schedule to review how the role is working out in nine months, and then modify the procedure accordingly as desired. isaacl (talk) 23:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
One exception: the first bullet point regarding responding to communications and assigning a tracking identifier does involve the committee's interactions with the community. I feel, though, that for flexibility these guarantees can be made without codifying who does them, from the community's point of view. (It's fine of course to make them part of the coordinating arbitrator's tasks.) isaacl (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Izno, this actually sounds like a helluva lot of work, maybe not minute-wise but mental, keeping track of everything so requests don't fall through the cracks. I think anyone assuming this role should get a break from, say, drafting ARBCOM cases if nothing else. Liz 03:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
It might be a lot of work, but it wasn't the bulk of the work, even for the work that I was doing. There was a lot more steps to being the appeal-focused admin above. Izno (talk) 04:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
You made me laugh, Liz. That sounds like my normal start-of-day routine, to be accompanied by a cup of tea and, perhaps, a small breakfast. I'd expect most arbitrators to be reading the mail on a daily basis, unless they are inactive for some reason; the difference here is the tagging/flagging of messages and clearing the filters, which probably adds about 10-12 minutes. I'll simply say that any arb who isn't prepared to spend 30-45 minutes/day reading emails probably shouldn't be an arb. That's certainly a key part of the role. Risker (talk) 04:43, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
+1. In my thoughts to potential candidates I said an hour a day for emails but that included far more appeals than the committee gets now. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Never mind reading emails, the bulk of my private ArbCom time was spent on processing them: doing checks, reporting results, and otherwise responding to other work. You can get away with just reading internal emails, but it's going to surprise your fellow arbs if you don't pipe up with some rational thought when you see the committee thinking about something personally objectionable and the first time they hear about it is when motions have been posted and are waiting for votes. Izno (talk) 06:17, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Right now, I check my email account about once a week. I guess that will change if I'm elected to the committee. It would have helped to hear all of these details before the election. Liz 08:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
My hour included time to respond to emails, though I also note you're not going particularly deep on anything with that time (at least when ArbCom had more appeals). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Now that I'm off the committee and have had a moment to compile some fairly accurate stats, here was the committee's email load over the last four years:
  • 2024: 6435 emails in 1040 distinct threads
  • 2023: 7826 emails in 1093 distinct threads
  • 2022: 7679 emails in 1103 distinct threads
  • 2021: 9687 emails in 1271 distinct threads
These are undercounts of the true email load, because this only counts the main arbcom-en list and not the clerks-l, arbcom-en-b, and arbcom-en-c lists, all of which are used for ArbCom-related purposes. But hopefully this gives a general flavor for why, when I was on the committee, I viewed better managing the email workflow as a priority for the committee. My guess would be that these email rates are substantially higher than most, and quite possibly all, other volunteer-driven committees within the Wikimedia movement. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
By the way, I just did some counting and clerks-l had 2724 emails in the four-year period between 2021 and 2024 — which is substantially down from the average rate from when I was a clerk. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Categories: