Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:04, 18 November 2007

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

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

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

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Request a new arbitration case
Request clarification or amendment of an existing case
This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed
Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
Arbitrator motions
Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

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

[edit]

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

MONGO 2

Initiated by Viridae ^Talk at 03:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

MONGO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Viridae (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Dtobias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Alecmconroy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

MONGO: [1]
Dtobias: [2]
GTBacchus: [3]
Alecmconroy: [4]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Viridae

Personal attacks

There has been recent disputes at WP:NPA over whether a section on external links is appropriate or necessary. There are people who are passionately arguing both sides, which I believe (despite accusations otherwise by commenters on the RfC) to be a good thing. However what is not good is the massive amount of personal attacks from MONGO, largely dismissing people’s opinions because they are either members of either The Wikipedia Review or Enclopedia Dramatica. MONGO has a history of this kind of behaviour. Approximately a year ago MONGO was desysopped by arbcom. As part of their findings of the arbcom stated “In many instances he has reacted inappropriately to such harassment and events, freely characterizing opponents in a derogatory manner…” This behaviour continues to this day. He has disparaged his opponents for perceived biases:

“the only dispute is by those who contribute to WR” [6]
"revert, known ED contributor" [7]
"rv another ED contributor..." [8]
“so it certainly is a disgusting COI when partiticipants in those websites try and argue against not being able to link to them” [9]
“OH...hahahahaha! I don't participant in a website that is a capricious pile of shit like WR...you do! Yet you oppose banning links to it...okay...well, shucks golly gee...surely that's not a COI...surely.” [10]

This is despite WP:NPA stating “Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views [is never acceptable] -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme.” and “Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done.”

After all this, Alec started an RfC in an attempt to resolve the situation (linked above) which MONGO has refused to participate in, stating “I won't be party to your Rfc...I see it as blatant harassmen". In addition to MONGOs rejection of appropriate dispute resolution, those people that certified the RfC were accused of: being vindictive (Guy), harassing him (Guy, Crum375 three times, DHeyward, Slim Virgin), using the dispute resolution process to gain leverage in the NPA dispute (Addhoc), baiting him (rogerd), using the RfC to create drama (DHeyward). There is no alternative but arbitration, all avenues have been exhausted. MONGO has a history of uncivil behaviour that is well known on the project, and is constantly being enabled by others who are often equally uncivil. I do not wish to see MONGO banned as part of this arbcom, I simply want to be able to discuss the NPA policies in an adult manner without being constantly attacked.

Related edit warring

After a massive amount of edit warring (eleven reverts over four days) including 3 sets of three reverts on three different days by MONGO as part of a massive 27 reverts (if I have counted correctly) from the 17th of October when the policy page was unprotected to the 22nd of October when I re-protected and including one 24 hours period of protection. This means that over a third of those reverts were performed by MONGO.

This part of the dispute can be detailed if necessary, or sent to a member of Arbcom if they would prefer.

Please note that this abr request has been limited to the very recent behaviour surrounding one issue. If the arbitrators felt it to be more appropriate it could be expanded to cover all the incivility and personal attacks since the last arbitration case, for which he has been constantly taken to task with no visible change in behaviour (as evinced by the most recent bout). Viridae ^Talk 03:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GTBacchus

I would prefer not to be a party to this request. I have no dispute with MONGO, and I think things are working out (albeit very slowly) over at WT:NPA. I thank Viridae for his good-faith efforts, and I may have comments along the way, should the arbitration be accepted, but I don't see any reason for me to be a named party.

As far as the complaint in this case, it's entirely related to one content dispute over at Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I think we can work out the content dispute without the need for arbitration, if there's enough will to do that, and if we can put aside all of the name-calling and accusations of bad-faith. I guess whether or not ArbCom should take the case depends on the size of those two ifs. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alecmconroy

To add to what has been said above:

This cases is NOT about a policy dispute. The policy dispute over BADSITES is being resolved through the normal consensus building process, and there have been major strides in that direction. Arbcom is not being asked to settle the policy dispute-- the community is working on it, and will continue to. Though I don't know what the finished product will look like, I have confidence the community will be able to reach a consensus any content/policy disputes are under discussion. Indeed, two weeks ago, it had APPEARED we had reached consensus-- so clearly, the policy dispute resolution is coming along fine.

This case IS about a specific pattern of behavior by a singe user, MONGO, which is longstanding, disruptive, and frankly, deeply upsetting. MONGO has a documented history of engaging in disruptive and incivil behavior. This is a pattern has has, regrettably, continued.

Mongo continues to engage in disruptive editing. He repeatedly (19 times!) reinserted his own controversial views into Wikipedia Policy pages, without achieving any consensus for them. He continues to sling personal insults, making a habit of "commenting on the contributor, rather than the content" and attempting to "use others' affiliations (often imagined affiliations) to discredit ideas". With me personally, he continue to falsely imply or suggest that I have some connection to the website "Encyclopedia Dramatica", despite my frequent insistence that, outside of the Wikipedia policy dispute, I have no connection to the site whatsoever. I do not support the site, I do not approve of the site, I do not edit the site, and except in my capacity of a Wikipedia editor, I have never even READ the site.

I've tried everything I can think of to bring his behavior to a stop, nothing has worked.

We've discussed MONGO's behavior extensively, in multiple different forums.
I've personally, sincerely, and repeatedly apologized to him for any times that I've inadvertently upset him, hoping what would solve the problem of MONGO's behavior.
I intentionally did not present any evidence about MONGO's behavior problems in the Attack Sites Case, hoping that after clarification from Arbcom, MONGO'S problematic behavior would cease.
I wrote an essay urging the cessation of personal attacks in the policy dispute, hoping that would end the problem of MONGO's behavior.
Along with others, I filed an RFC on MONGO's behavior in the hopes that that would settle the issue. Regrettably, most of the responses seemed to agree that the RFC was unlikely to solve the situation and that this should go forward to ArbCom.

I know we all loathe yet another case related to this matter, but I don't know what else to do. --Alecmconroy (talk) 14:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum

For those who oppose Arbcom taking the case now, let me ask: when SHOULD we come back with a case?

Mongo has, without consensus and usually without discussion, readded his proposal to the policy page NINETEEN times, over SIX months: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]

No matter what anyone thinks of the merits of his proposal, we all agree that policies pages should only contain text that already has achieved consensus. Nineteen attempts to circumvent consensus, combined with rampant incivility, is a problem.

I think it's a problem that needs to be stopped immediately. But a couple people, who I truly do respect, suggest it's not yet a problem that Arbcom needs to solve.

So I'd ask this: If nineteen controversial reinsertions-into-policy without consensus isn't a problem, tell me just how many reinsertions MONGO should get before it does becomes a problem, so I'll know when to come back. 20 reverts? 25 reverts? 30? 40? 50?

On the person attacks-- Mongo is frequently incivil. Off the top of my head, I can think of at least SIX different long-term editors who MONGO has personally attack: GTBACCHUS, Gentgee, Luna Santin, Me, DanT, and Viridae. I'm sure there are many more. Now if attacking six different isn't enough to constitute a problem worth Arbcom looking into, tell me just how users MONGO can personally attacks before it IS a problem worth Arbcom looking into? Then so I'll know when to come back. 10 users attacked? 15 users attacked? 20? 30?

I'm not trying to cause trouble, I swear. We all wish we could just not deal with the situation and hope it would get better. But this incivility and disruption has been going on for, I'm told, nearly two years, and we have to face it sooner or later. Today's as good a day as any.--Alecmconroy (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Tom Harrison

I don't see the need for this. With progress being made now on the talk page, this is more likely to stir things up again. Tom Harrison ^Talk 04:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by certainly involved Amarkov

We need a ruling on this. Ignore anyone who tells you that it's been resolved elsewhere. It hasn't, and it never will be. -Amarkov moo! 05:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Newyorkbrad

I would certainly like to see an immediate and substantial de-escalation of rhetoric by several editors involved in the attack-page links/NPA controversy, which has received, by this point, a completely disproportionate amount of attention. Unless I am missing something, though, there seems to be a de facto consensus as to how most of these links are being handled in practice at the moment, while discussion of wording of formal policy language continues. While I respect the good faith of the filing party, I don't see opening another arbitration case at this stage as likely to assist with any aspect of the problem. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SchmuckyTheCat

This is not about content (in the form of the NPA policy) it is about user behavior. Unfortunately, because multiple other admins are very vocal in their support of this user, no other admins are willing to address the behavior.

The only thing Arbcom needs to do is make a clear, and enforceable, statement that MONGO will be held to the same standard as every other Wikipedia editor. The "special rules for MONGO" have been well known for at least two years now. Time to end it.

There are two bad behaviors here:

Incivility and personal attacks by MONGO. That MONGO has been incivil and makes personal attacks has been the basis of previous Arbcom cases; has been a side issue in other Arbcom cases; and has been the issue in several rejected cases. MONGO continues to be incivil and make personal attacks. Blocks on MONGO based on his behavior have been the basis of wheel warring by admins. Contrary to discussion on the failed RfC, MONGO has not been baited or provoked (which does not excuse it anyway).
Edit warring, lack of discussion and ignorance of consensus by MONGO. MONGO's edit warring on the NPA page has gotten it protected multiple times. He has clearly gamed 3RR in his revert warring. He made a voluntary commitment to 1RR then broke it at the next opportunity. When discussion on the page turned towards a consensus to a minimal statement MONGO made no objection. MONGO then inserted a much longer statement against the emerged consensus without any discussion - and of course edit warred to keep it. I'm sure other editors could provide evidence (and may already have) of this behavior.

The first is an indisputable part of the Arbcom records. The second doesn't seem to be disputed either, when it is brought up his supporters simply talk past it and/or blame the other parties. But how many different parties have attempted ANI discussion, or RfC, or RFAR with MONGO? It's ALWAYS the other party.

Rebuttal of Tom Harrison: First, this is not about content, it is about user behavior. What actually happens on that policy page is an entire side issue. Second, any progress being made on the talk page is for appearances only, as we have seen multiple times. The NPA policy page gets protected by edit warring. The talk page becomes active and the BADSITES crowd says they can work together. The page gets unprotected. Everyone else says "we think this minimal statement provides all we need" and nobody disagrees. The BADSITES crowd stops talking. A week later MONGO places an entire new section into the policy without any previous discussion. The BADSITES crowd revert wars to maintain it with no talk page discussion. The page is re-protected. This cycle has now occurred multiple times and there is no evidence the cycle will not continue if the bad behavior of edit warring and ignorance of previous discussion is allowed to continue.

Comment to Newyorkbrad: This arbcom filing is unlikely to assist with any aspect of the problem if the problem is seen as the NPA policy page revert war. That is not the problem, the problem is MONGO's continued incivility and insults to other users, and edit warring and lack of discussion for his version of content. Arbcom would do well to ignore the battleground where this is occurring and focus on the behavior of those involved. The actual content can resolve itself when bad behavior is addressed.

SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Statement by previously involved, now mostly bystanding Dorftrottel

Let me just say that if this case is accepted, I hope the focus will include the actions of all involved users. That's why I also think the title of this request is a bit unfortunate, to say the least. |dorftrottel |humor me 18:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Could the filing party please clarify how Dtobias and GTBacchus, who are listed as parties, are involved? Picaroon (t) 03:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both have been attacked by MONGO in the same manner as he has attacked Alec and myself, attacking their affiliations. Viridae ^Talk 03:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reject. I'm certainly not comfortable with some of the language used; robust debate is OK, but everyone should be aware that edged weapons of rhetoric do not build consensus. On the other hand, we all know that the basic issue has been very divisive, and yet a working consensus of the place of WP:NPA in the context of external linking and WP:HARASS seems to be emerging. This is what the ArbCom would prefer, to having to intervene again to deal with ad hominem arguments (which are not always fallacious). Charles Matthews (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Mongo's behaviour has been problematic. Paul August ☎ 20:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anonimu

Initiated by Will ^(talk) at 02:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Anonimu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Biruitorul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Istvan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
K. Lastochka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sceptre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Anonimu, Biruitorul, K. Lastochka, Istvan

I am aware. Biruitorul (talk) 02:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too am aware. K. Lásztocska 02:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware but mostly out of pocket till Dec. István (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Anonimu
- Masses of AN, ANI threads and talk threads, all available on the RFC page.

Statement by Sceptre

Anonimu is a problem user. I first ran into him during the now infamous "nuclear rowboat" saga on ANI, several months ago. I kept a watch over his contributions to watch out for more examples, and there were plenty. Anonimu has broken as many policies and guidelines as there are arbritators: NPOV, OR, CIVIL, AGF, USER, 3RR. I suggested that he be placed under the general Eastern European restriction, but the incivility he's shown would've got him banned without the restriction. It's time to get an end to this, once and for all. Will ^(talk) 02:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Biruitorul

I echo Sceptre's sentiments, and it is not my intention to rehash the tedious, draining arguments that for months on end have consumed our time and energy in dealing with Anonimu. Let me just say that Anonimu has clearly and unequivocally violated numerous core Wikipedia policies (most frequently but certainly not limited to NPA, CIV, AGF and POINT). Yes, the complainants here hold rather different political views from his but that is not the crux of the matter: I for one work well with people all over the ideological spectrum, provided they show some modicum of respect and courtesy. That has never been the case with Anonimu, and that is why we are here. All along, he has shown himself a petty, vindictive and dangerous miscreant whose actions threaten the integrity of the project. That is what has pushed our tolerance well past its limits, and why I urge arbitrators to impose a ban. Biruitorul (talk) 02:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by K. Lastochka

Agree with both above statements. Anonimu's behavior is, even ignoring completely any political differences that inflame the issue, completely uncivil and disruptive and obnoxious. For as long as I've known him he spends far more time needling other editors, edit-warring and deliberately provoking arguments and incivility than he does writing anything constructive or useful to the project. There are some editors who contribute prolifically and competently enough that I'm willing to cut them a bit of slack with regards to a bad attitude (tireless mapmaker Panonian comes to mind--where's he been these days btw?) but Anonimu in no way falls into that category. He contributes nothing to the project except headaches and wasted energy on the part of the editors in good standing who have to put up with his beloved pastime of picking fights. K. Lásztocska 05:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by István

I too agree that Anonimu should not edit the Wikipedia. A description of his disruptive behaviour is found at his RfC. Please note that this has nothing to do with POV, but rather the relentless and disruptively incivil assertion of it beyond any standard of reason. Do not be fooled into thinking that this is about content or personality clashes. It's about civility - something the wikipedia is increasingly challenged to maintain as it grows.

In the past we were challenged by bored teenagers writing swear words and blanking pages. Today, we deal more with relentless ideologues (esp. on East/Central European topics) and POV pushers who dont go away because they are convinced they are right and all others (including those who write and publish) are wrong. In the future, when the wikipedia is finally recognized as the "brain of the world" (or something similar) we will have the even more difficult task of removing stealth spam from bored or struggling brand managers; doing so effectively (mark these words) will require a general ethos of civility and a reason-first attitude - one that does not tolerate disruption for its own sake. The alternative is decline (I'm not here to erect the world's largest free billboard - something the universe can do without). Back to point - this is not about Marxism or semantics or content, but disruption. István (talk) 18:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Biophys

I had very little interaction with Anonimu. But he was often involved in RR warring with other users [29] [30] [31], and yes, he has very strong political convictions [32].Biophys (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Turgidson

I too agree that Anonimu should not be editing Wikipedia. He is very disruptive, engaging in constant reverts and such, almost never making an effort to actually improve or expand articles. After making numerous attempts at discussing things with Anonimu on talk pages, I've come to the sad conclusion that it's just about impossible to reason with him, or to get him to see that others may have a valid point, or that there is such thing as a consensus against his position among the other editors, or that he should defer to reliable sources when they overwhelmingly contradict his point of view. His tactics are simple: he never budges an inch, he is always on the attack, never seeks compromise or consensus, always ready to spread invective and scorn on people who disagree with him, always ready to impugn the motives of others. To say he lacks civility is the mildest I can put it. It's all very tiring, upsetting, and time consuming, and saps the energies of editors who actually are trying to improve WP, not disrupt it. Turgidson (talk) 14:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AdrianTM

I will keep it short. The main problems are incivility, personal attacks, and revert warring. The RfC and its talk page are evidence enough for incivility and personal attacks, he uses personal attacks as weapons even when he tries to defend himself of the accusations of incivility and personal attacks. As for revert warring his Special:Contributions/Anonimu is enough proof. -- AdrianTM (talk) 15:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

Accept. Kirill 19:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Episode and character articles

Initiated by Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) at 21:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Bignole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
DanTD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Ned Scott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Peregrine Fisher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sceptre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sgeureka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
TTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Ursasapien (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
White Cat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Yukichigai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiating party)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

TTN, White Cat, Peregrine Fisher, Sgeureka, DanTD, Bignole, Ned Scott

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

[35]

Statement by Yukichigai

Over a period of several months TTN has engaged in a pattern of edits performed on various fiction or fiction-related articles which has caused a large amount of discordancy and general unpleasantness on Wikipedia. The core of these actions has been a large-scale and often times very hurried blanking and redirecting of numerous episode or character articles to a related "parent" article, usually with no information from the smaller articles retained in the course of the "merge" and often times with little discussion of the matter. When there is a discussion opened TTN is either absent from the process or completely unmoved by any opinions which do not agree with his own.

While on their face these actions are not particularly different than those of many other "passionate" or "strong willed" editors on Wikipedia, TTN's behavior is particularly troubling because of the sheer number of such edits he performs in a given day of editing and his relative inflexibility in compromising on his edits. On casual glance I can find several instances where in a ~12-hour period TTN has blanked and redirected over 200 articles, and in situations where such edits have been reverted the only edits TTN has subsequently made to that article have either been the addition of {{merge}} tags or additional reverts to turn the article into a redirect page.

Furthermore, there is a sense of what can only be described as spite in many dealings with TTN. When responding to editor comments on talk pages TTN has implied he will achieve his goals by edit war attrition, openly expressed his intention to engage in a revert war, stated that the number of users who disagree with him "doesn't really matter", threatened to take articles to AfD if users don't go along with his merge and then effectively called those users stupid. TTN has also indicated numerous times that when it comes to merge discussions acceptable consensus is what he says it is.

Irrespective of the nature of the policies and guidelines TTN is upholding, his execution thereof is having a vastly detrimental effect on both the mood of editors and the quality of Wikipedia as a whole. Attempts to reason with him or otherwise convince him to conduct himself in a more pleasant and less off-putting manner have met with no success. Based on his unwillingness to participate in the WP:AN/I discussion and several comments on various talk pages I feel that there is no way to persuade him to change his behavior other than Arbitration.

Statement by sgeureka

First and foremost, I strongly believe that an article needs to satisfy wikipedia's policies and guidelines, or should at least demonstrate its potential to do so. So, it seems, does TTN. There are some TV shows that have already shown that individual episode articles are not necessary at all, e.g. Smallville (season 1) (much work done by User:Bignole), and the Carnivàle articles, which may soon become the first TV show to become a Featured Topic without a single episode article despite having a huge 18 episode-specific award wins+nominations per 24 episodes ratio to demonstrate episode notability. Since fiction is so popular, merging is often necessary to refocus on real-world information (production, writers' inspiration, reception), not blow-by-blow plot summaries that very often tend to violate WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:NOR (both a policy); WP:EPISODE, WP:FICT and WP:WAF (fiction notability and style guidelines); and WP:TRIVIA and WP:QUOTE (other guidelines). I should probably state in this light that I support the enforcement of policies and guidelines but not necessarily TTN's actions.

There are obviously controversies and edit wars between TTN and fans, e.g. at List of Farscape episodes and List of 3rd Rock from the Sun episodes. It's understandable why some fans are upset about TTN's measures and forget civility in the heat of the moment, but as far as I can tell, TTN presents WP's policies and guidelines very calmly to them (compare any thread on his talkpage, although he may sometimes be too detached from what fans want wikipedia to be, and too rational on following/enforcing guidelines). Since TTN does this almost every day, I do also understand why he stayed away from the AN/I episodes discussion where some editors kept ignoring the necessity of following policies and guidelines. The discussion there grew somewhat tiresome and went in circles after a while, and the blame was/is still continuously put solely on TTN although many other people argued reasonably that his actions are supported by (1) policies and guidelines, (2) editors who like fiction, (3) editors who are not as deletion-minded as TTN. I'd like to highlight that TTN leaves the merge/redirect discussions open for over a month now and clearly states at the beginning that he disregards WP:ILIKEIT !votes.[36] [37] He has also repeatedly said that he just wants to see a minimum of notability and would then no longer consider redirecting the article.[38] Surprisingly, almost no fan adds (or even shows the existence of) this kind of information, actually supporting TTN's view that the episodes are nonnotable / have no significant secondary coverage by reliable sources to justify a separate article, or that it is unlikely that this kind of information is ever added if even fans refrain from adding it in the light of losing articles. Out of interest, I tested whether TTN asks for too much, with an average episode of Stargate SG-1 (almost none of their articles establish notability at the moment) - this is the result of three hours of work of research. I'll let other be the judge.

As taking episode articles to AfD is frowned upon (e.g. here), I consider the month-long episode notability & merge discussions completely appropriate. I do however see why fans are so critical of the redirecting (instead of the claimed merging) business. To accomodate fans a little, I suggested to TTN some days ago to just "dump" all old plot summaries (and add cleanup tags) into the episode lists in the merging process instead of just redirecting, and he replied "It may work for a couple people here and there, but the rest will just complain about something else.". I can't tell whether he is right with his assessment, but I would still prefer this approach instead of just redirection. Still, my desired outcome of this case (if it should open) would be to strengthen the awareness and acceptance of WP:FICT/WP:NOTABILITY and WP:EPISODE and the continued review of episode articles. I'd consider it a bad precedent for WP:NOT#PLOT and co if the huge number of guideline-ignorant (willingly or unwillingly) fans can annul the enforcement of policies. – sgeureka ^t•c 00:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added As Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions states, applying the reasonings of I like it, It doesn't do any harm and Notability is inherited (amongst others) for keeping articles should be avoided in deletion discussions (and probably also in merging/redirecting discussion). The same is true for the exact opposite reasoning for deletion. WP:PAPER states in bolded letters that This policy is not a free pass for inclusion. WP:CONSENSUS, which was/is required to create and maintain the guidelines and polices, states that [consensus] always means 'within the framework of established policy and practice'. Even a majority of a limited group of editors will almost never outweigh community consensus on a wider scale, as documented within policies. In the absense of reasonable proof that a specific article does not violate existing policies and guidelines (or won't soon anymore), wikipedia has shown that it prefers to err on the safe side (e.g. WP:CRYSTAL, WP:BLP, WP:SPEEDY). However, per Assume good faith, these rules have previously not been (strictly) enforced for fictional topics because there were more pressing issues. But in the end, fiction is just another wikipedia domain where the same (strict) guidelines and policies apply, and it is high time that these are enforced, starting with the articles that least qualify for passing. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Eusebeus

I am a strong supporter of what TTN is doing, so my bias is clear. That disclaimer proffered, I think this arb case is wholly inappropriate and I urge it be rejected. This is really a debate about policy, since it would be hard to argue that TTN has engaged systematically in behaviour that falls outside of long-elaborated, consensus driven policy (noted above variously at WP:FICT, WP:N, WP:NOT, etc...). The real tension here is between franchise fans, who support the family of articles of their favourite TV series, and editors like TTN and others (me) who assert the encyclopedic standards that have developed over the years.

Thus, I see this as a policy issue, not a personal issue. TTN engages in actions backed up by the consensus of our policies and guidelines. He frequently encounters (understandably enough) determined opposition from a small group of interested editors who don't care what policy is and who insist upon a "consensus" derived from a local canvassing; their reaction (linked above on TTN's talk page among other places) is often emotional, especially since they seem unwilling or incapable of reading through Wikipedia policy pages to understand the basis for such actions.

This is the source of the impasse. It is worth noting that precious few of these franchise editors care enough to participate in the ongoing debate at WAF, FICT or the episode subpage at AN/I - sustenance to the view that local fan concern does not redound to any larger encyclopedic ambition. I thus support what sgeureka states above and go further. If there is to be an arb case, let it focus specifically on the suitability of applying the policies we have governing television episodes, fictional characters, and the proscription against plot summaries, not the individual actions of TTN, which smacks of a run-around by editors who have otherwise failed to change the consensus view at the main policy pages. Eusebeus 15:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by White Cat

Hi, I am here as per notification on my talk page.

I think in core any large scale edits involving a mass number of "articles in general" must be based on a solid consensus. Mere disagreement in personal interpretation of a non-critical guideline is no such consensus. Encyclopedic standards are determined by the entire community as a whole including "franchise fans" and everyone else and not by an "elite group" of users in support of each other.

People blanking fiction related articles so far has failed to quote such a discussion that agrees with the mass urgent and indisputable blanking of poorly written (virtually any non-featured fiction related article) fiction related article. Furthermore people ("blankers" I'll reference them here for the sake of clarity) have been avoiding any serious discussion on the matter.

An RFC is out of the question because RFCs deal with spesific articles or people which is not the case. The problem involves a broad number of people and a very broad number of articles. This problem is neither a spesific user or spesific article.
A mediation isn't possible if people aren't willing to discuss this issue. Several users, even uninvolved ones have tried to resolve the dispute but their concerns were outright ignored (see example talk page). There is also evidence of motivation that goes beyond seeking proper citations and notability standards such as "ganging up" (other part of the thread 1 2) prior to AFDs or merge discussions which violates WP:CANVASS. Groups of people who request the redirectification turns out to be the same people. There is also the "ganged up" slow-paced revert wars for redirectification. For that particular random pick, I found this source and this source with a trivial amount of effort.

There also is evidence of slow paced revert wars among other things that does not violate the word of but the spirit of policy (IMHO). This is despite an AFD closed with "a lack of consensus for deletion" despite somewhat weak keep arguments. I believe the article in question was created by TTN merging and trimming individual articles on fictional characters of the series into a character list. Therefore right now we have no mention of a single character that made an appearance in the Samurai Shodown video game series (at least I do not see it).
The process of article development of WP:STUB -> start class -> b-class -> ga-class -> a-class -> featured class is not been observed. Any article below featured class may get redirectified or heavily trimmed (prompting redirectification later on) and even featured or formerly featured (Bulbasaur) articles aren't immune to this.
I am not even counting the strain on the system due to this such as the orphanage of mass amount of fair-use images as a result. Their deletion aside, if the mass redirectification was done improperly we do have a serious backlog for undeletion of these images.

Although there is a jaw dropping and obvious problem, the community has so far had ignored the issue despite its scale. This may probably be because of its overwhelming scale. Community is uncertain weather or not to allow non-discussion speedy mass removals of content.

TNN's edit stats: (tool server)

First edit: 19:42, 19 June 2006
Total: 24454
Mainspace: 18566
Mainspace talk: 2777
Non-Mainspace & Non-mainspace talk: 3111
Unique pages: 11217
Total/Unique pages ~ 2.18 (user has on average 2 edits per unique page)

There is evidence of redirectification/blanking starting with his 11th edit. To my knowledge TTN has not participated in anything else other than [mass] removal of fiction related articles through afds, redirectifications and any other means.

Reply to Jack Merridew

Some math for you:

Price of the most expensive internal hard drive on newegg.com: a terabyte hard drive ($350)
Conversion of a terabyte to kilobyte: 1TB = 1,073,741,824KB
Lets assume that for the sake of calculations that an average featured article is 200KB.
1,073,741,824KB/200KB = 5,368,709 articles (total)
Average overall donation to Wikimedia Foundation: $30
Number of articles per average donation: (5,368,709*30)/350 = 460,175 articles.

In other words for a single 30$ donation we can have 460,175 articles. All this information was as of 17:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC).

English Wikipedia only has 1683 featured articles.
Total number of articles: 2,092,465
2,092,465 - 1683 = 2,090,782 problem articles that violate a guideline or policy for certain (not being featured)

There are over 2 million problematic articles on wikipedia. I see no sane reason to remove them in bulk for that reason alone. The problem of a lack of quality in vast number of articles is by no means unique to fiction related articles. It is a broad problem of any incomplete encyclopedia such as Wikipedia or Britannica. This report is as of 18:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC).

Some more fun math based on above numbers:

Total number of articles on wikipedia: 2,092,465
The number of articles you can 'buy' with $30 (they are all exactly 200KB each): 460,175
Number of donations to cover hard drive space cost of every article on wikipedia with above assumptions: 2,092,465 / 460,175 = 4.55 donations
Total cost for hard drive space of every article on wikipedia: $30 * 4.55 = $136.5

The cost does not even add up to half the cost of a single hard drive. Meaning if you double the total number of articles on wikipedia by adding 2,092,465 featured episode articles you would not even fill a single terabyte drive. Of course there is other costs such as administering and maintaining of hardware but those are equally trivially priced. The most important cost would be the bandwidth costs. If "no one cares about these topics" then there is no bandwidth issue either.

Even if such a problem did exist, you would still need a community-wide consensus to deal with it. Was this attempted? We do not let people just rampage across the wiki mass removing mass number of articles indiscriminately you know. A bot for example can make a good number of TTN's edits just as easily and much much more efficiently but there is no consensus for this. Even Autowikibrowser can do this. All the math above demonstrates that there is no critical problem requiring urgent action.

“

[...] There are hundreds of TV networks worldwide and they're all cranking out vast numbers of TV show episodes. This has been going on for decades and will only accelerate in the future. Do the math — this 'pedia going to host a million articles on TV show episodes? [...]

”

Any reason why not? Hard drives are cheap. Hear this interview on this blog out at "Wikipedia Is Just the Start: An Interview With Jimmy Wales (May 29, 2007)". Retrieved 2007-11-16.

“

[...] Wiki is not paper, meaning there's no reason for us to restrict our range of topics for reasons of space. It's all hypertext stored on the hard drive, and hard drives are cheap. And even some of the physical parameters that would limit us eventually don't seem to be even close to coming into play. [...] So I think that's one of the important parameters is to say, look, you really can't say that space is a constraint, so cutting things down based on space makes no sense. [...] And it seems to me that one of the mistakes that people make when we argue about this is to adopt a too rigid universalism of the who thing, in other words: to imagine that "Well gee, if we settle if we settle on particular principle with respect to this particular article in physics we're going to have to delete all the Pokeman articles, because we can't find any academic sources". And I think that's a mistake. I think it's a mistake to treat different realms of knowledge as if they are some how fundamentally the same. You can look a physics, and say look, a web page on Geocities, of commentary and listing about physics is not a really good source, unless you have some really compelling reason. Say: actually for some unknown strange reason some Nobel prize winner has his home page on Geocities then maybe OK. But in general no. Whereas for other aspects of popular culture, it's really kinda hard to say where else you go. Harvard University has so far failed to publish a Journal of Pokemon so there's not much academic commentary out there.

”

Before you dump this blog as non-reliable source, the author is David Weinberger, a fellow at Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet and Society. And the person he is interviewing is our very own Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia.

With that statement of yours, you are not specifying a problem at all aside from the fact that that very argument is the pretense of the mass deletion.

Of course I do not expect the arbitration committee to deal with the philosophical nature of the issue. The issue I want arbitration committee to look into is this near-fanatical behavior some people against fiction related articles under false pretenses such as notability and WP:NOT#PLOT. Indeed articles need to meet such policies and guidelines but this does not mean people should be ganging up against fiction related articles by ignoring any opposition and by "picking off smaller ones".

The issue that needs to be resolve has nothing to do with the content of the individual episodes. The problem is this non-discussion imposed nominal consensus of an elite group of so-called experts. Jack Merridew is absolutely right. This problem isn't just about TTN there are other users such as Jack Merridew himself for example who engage in similar behavior to a lesser extent. This statement is intended to establish that this problem involves more than just TTN's edits. It isn't intended to accuse anyone of anything.

Unless a policy or guideline as immediate legal implications (WP:BLP, WP:C) there is absolutely no reason why WP:CON should be completely ignored both in word and spirit. Even then both WP:BLP and WP:C themselves are based on consensus. If people have no interest in seeking consensus, they have no business being a part of this community.

So far someone is yet to explain why we hate to have a non-discussion speedy mass blanking/redirectification of mass amount of pages.

Comment by Peregrine Fisher

TTN is using redirection (under the guise of merging) and slow motion edit warring (make two reverts, wait 24 hours if necessary before making more) to make an end run around AfD. It's because he doesn't like the results there, where he can't control the final decision. He's pretty rude about it as well, with comments like "Please read over WP:3RR, especially the nut shell. Anyways, I'm sure you'll back down before I do. TTN 23:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)"[39] being typical. - Peregrine Fisher 15:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved GDonato

I was aware of this issue, or made aware of it if you want to put it that way, a little while ago and I must admit that some of the behaviour by editors in blanking or redirecting episode-related articles concerned me. Pretty much all of the diffs have already been shown above so I will not pull out anymore. I can say that I have seen cases where not even a rough consensus has been present and editors (User:TTN and perhaps others) have proceeded to carry out mass-redirecting anyway. I agree with White Cat's statement that the community has somewhat tried to ignore this issue due to the fact that it is difficult to deal with and I believe that an arbitration case is likely to be the most effective way to solve the problems. GDonato (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ned Scott

Using arbcom to handle this situation is probably not the best idea. We don't come here to set policy. If this is about how TTN and others (possibly myself) have dealt with these situations, then I can see that, but please take into consideration the sheer amount of ranting and complaints that TTN has had to deal with. (not to say that all of the complaints where that way.) I'm also concerned that the reason this arbitration case was suggested was not to address the behavior of anyone, but rather to protect the fiction-related articles themselves from being merged, redirected, or deleted.

TTN has taken up a lot of work that no one really wants. I find myself making parallels between the responses people give him with the response people were giving when Betacommandbot started mass tagging. One of the big reasons fiction-related articles have grown so much out of control is because people don't want to put up with all the complaints by the local editors of those articles.

I believe the solution to a lot of these issues is not about having X article on Wikipedia or not, but finding it a proper home. No one likes to see the work they've done, or the work someone else has done, simply "go away". I myself have recently got involved in the first real/mass transwiki project that I've done, in relation to WP:DIGI and wikia:digimon, and hope to apply some ideas for the future.

A few of us attempted to make a review process for TV episodes at WP:TV-REVIEW. The process was attacked before it ever got off the ground, but we were able to organize several review discussions. The formality of the process is likely why it stalled, but I think we were still able to learn from it, We do still need a way other than AfD to deal with mass sub-fiction related articles.

In other words, we are trying to find better ways to deal with these situations. It will take some time, and more input from the community, to help make these things go more smoothly.

Fiction, entertainment, and pop-culture articles often have had situations like this, where when some people start getting strict about policies and guidelines, there are people who will be very upset about it. Other examples include Wikipedia:Trivia sections and Wikipedia:Spoiler. It is a very unfortunate situation, but I don't think it's fair to say that anyone is actually doing something "wrong" here. This is more than likely simply one of those growing pains for Wikipedia, as we find a better way to deal with these articles.

I don't always agree with everything that TTN does, and there are times when I wish he would be less aggressive. Often I look at my own past actions and wonder why I sometimes get so passionate about some of these things.

I honestly believe that, more than anything, we need direction and not hand slapping. I believe TTN, myself, and others on both sides of this dispute, will all be glad to find other methods to dealing with these articles that doesn't put us at each other's throats. I don't think we'll find the solution in an arbcom case, but it is likely that the attention we are getting right now is a good starting point for a new batch of discussion that will involve the greater community. -- Ned Scott 22:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ursasapien

This case has both broad and narrow implications. First, the broad issue is that Wikipedia must deal with the issue of fiction related articles, preferably sooner than later. Two broad groups are focused on this issue and a wiki-war has developed. The one side feel that Wikipedia has too many poor-quality or non-notable articles related to fiction. As the retitled request indicates, these articles generally involve television episodes and characters in fictional works (to include video games). This side believes that all these articles are damaging to the quality of the encyclopedia. They have been looking for various ways to clean out Wikipedia (deletion, redirection to lists, merging information, transferring to wikia, etc.)

The other side in this content war feel that, as there are no space limitations and no time limit, Wikipedia should contain an article on the latest episode of Kim Possible and editors should be given nearly unlimited time to come up with "real world" information like critical response or cultural significance. These editors contend that a large number of viewers is enough to establish notability.

There have been allegations on both sides and both sides saying they are using existing Wikipedia policies and guidelines like WP:BOLD, WP:IAR, and the like. Each side has accused the other of votestacking and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. What has developed is an all out edit war. Of course, there is an even broader issue of notability and what that means. There is currently no movement to merge all articles on highways into List of highways in (State, Province, Country). So, somewhere, we as a broad community need to have the discussion and develop consensus regarding how we will cover fiction related topics and we need to clarify what notability is and how we establish it.

As for TTN's behavior, I have absolutely no doubt that he feels he is doing something incredibly valuble for the encyclopedia. In my honest opinion, wholesale redirection (usually without any merging) is not helping make the encyclopedia better and is only stoking the flames on this massive content war. To answer one of the arbitrators' question, yes there has been an RfC and other attempts at mediation. There has also been RfC's on editors in the opposing camp. TTN firmly believes he is in the right and he is often curt and blunt in his responses (skirting the edge of civility in my opinion). Nevertheless, I do not believe any editor can say his behavior is anywhere near "indisputably problematic." His behavior is disruptive for some editors and heroic to others. I would like to see him slow it down a bit (like 10 redirects a day and only 1 revert per article per day), until we can have the broader discussion in full, but YMMV. Ursasapien (talk) 08:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jack Merridew

This is most certainly not merely about TTN's actions — which I whole-heartedly support. As I see it, the core issue is that it is too easy for editors to create a non-notable article about the latest episode of their favourite TV show – or blocks of episodes of older shows just released on DVD – and far too difficult for editors with a more critical eye to do something about it. As to the "merge-issue" — merge what? Most of the "content" is unencyclopaedic, unsourced, plot summary, cruft, and the onus is on fans to resurrect what they will in a policy-conforming form.

There are hundreds of TV networks worldwide and they're all cranking out vast numbers of TV show episodes. This has been going on for decades and will only accelerate in the future. Do the math — this 'pedia going to host a million articles on TV show episodes? These are for the most part non-notable. We need a speedier process of dealing with the backlog of dross and a higher bar for new episode articles to clear. --Jack Merridew 13:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a succinct reply to White Cat

They are NOT NOTABLE
Where did I mention space as a concern? The NUMBER of non-notable articles (extant and potential) IS of concern. Poorly conceived articles require maintenance, occupy category space, and use names that are inappropriate (Command Decision, history and Midsummer Night's Dream, history) all of which are a burden on everyone
The issue of too many non-notable articles underfoot needs sorting sooner rather than later because the scope of the problem keeps growing. First thing to do is stop digging the hole deeper.

In White Cat's statement he offers: "ganging up" prior to an AFD which violates WP:CANVASS — oldID

That is a link to a comment of mine — diff
It in no way concerns an AFD
The only AFD that comes to mind is this one (see also)
It has nothing to do with canvassing
It DID concern the actions of some anon who was systematically removing clean-up tags from images and articles
The anon had already been blocked twice (2 IPs)
I was alerting another user to the problem

--Jack Merridew (talk) 11:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sceptre

People not liking what someone is doing isn't vandalism at all. Ever since this came up, I've been constantly voting not to delete (at the start, "merge", to "speedy keep without prejudice to merge" due to WP:EPISODE asking editors not to AFD) on any AFDs that swing by. LOEs are fine, but 60-70 gargantuan plot summaries with trivia aren't. There's the matter of WP:COPYRIGHTS and WP:5P that discourages both. TTN would be fine to be bold on the first redirect, but if people oppose his merges, don't revert, fix the problem. TTN merges because there isn't real world information, or there is very very little (such as a singular Nielsen rating). Then look for it. How it was made. What reviewers thought of it. Seeing as there's about 50 (maybe more) episode GAs, look at them and model upon them. Don't edit war. It generates unnecessary drama, like this RfAr. Will ^(talk) 21:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DanTD

I've been struggling to work on my statement, which is why I've taken so long to respond.

For the record, while I've been more passionate about protecting articles on Kim Possible episodes, I've been equally willing to protect articles on television episodes I either like, don't like, or am indifferent to. Yukichigai, White Cat, and Peregrine Fisher have already covered a great deal of what I wanted to say, but I'd like to add more. The current rampage of deletions without consensus has forced expansion of plot summaries into lists of episodes that would otherwise have their own articles, as in the case of the List of The Suite Life of Zack & Cody episodes. Upon reading the episodes "I Want My Mummy", "Arwinstein", "Team Tipton," and some others, the need for separate articles is clear. In the past, episode lists for Lizzie McGuire and Daria have also contained long plot summaries for some episodes, that require whole new pages. While I'm here I'd also like to raise the issue of the criteria for deletion. I have never objected to the idea that any articles should meet, or at least approach any of the guidelines. My grievances are that these mass deletions deprive editors of the ability to help them reach those guidelines. When articles are faced with the threat of deletion, TTN, and people like him keep insisting that we have to have "real world information" and "third party reliable sources" in order to keep the articles alive. The fact is, some of the criteria for "real world information," and "third party reliable sources" are virtually impossible to reach, especially if you intend to use them for characters such as blue-skinned failed scientific megalomaniacs with no positions of political power who seek world conquest, royal family members with genetically mutated appendages, teenagers who can transform into dragons, seasick sea serpents, talking animals, Klingons, Vulcans, Orkans, and other mythical and implausible beings. Supporters of his efforts have showed links to on-line newspaper articles, while failing to realize that these articles aren't permanent, and frequently require registration with each specific paper in order to read. Furthermore, not every episode of a TV show has had an article written about it, giving the appearance that only selected TV episodes can ever be written about. Criteria such as this makes television-related wikipedia projects elitist. To make matters worse, far too often TTN tends to change his mind about acceptable sources. At one point he told me that TV.com was acceptable, despite past criticism of the site, and later he reverted to saying it wasn't acceptable. Among the so-called "reliable sources" fansites have faced severe rejections. These are in fact the best sources for information, even if they don't provide a NPOV, because they clarify subjects that other users wouldn't be as familiar with. Every effort I've made to point out the benefits of fansites have been ignored, and every efofrt to reveal the damage caused by these deletions have beem dismissed. Every effort to transwiki the articles has failed as well, due partially to some technical problems and the lack of assistance from other users. On Sunday, November 11, 2007, during a break from an all-day heated argument with TTN, sgeureka revealed a past incident on wikipedia known as the Pokémon test. Until that point, I understood why such an effort would be carried out, but I still believe there's a clear enough distinction between "my Pokemon is more notable than yours," and the existance of an episode of a television show, as well as the events within the episode. In the meantime, TTN himself did offer me a redlink to my own sandbox, in hope of using it and others to upgrade the standards of the articles. Despite this, when I finally read the All Hell Breaks Loose (Supernatural) episode article, it became clear that is offer was little more than a ruse. In short, I can't help believing that the articles are being deleted just for the sake of doing so. Fewer of us are able to have good faith in his actions.

P.S.; I apologize if this is too long. ----DanTD (talk) 02:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nydas

Massive, one-person crusades are an open door for bias. For example, TTN opposed the merging of Rinoa Heartilly into Characters of Final Fantasy VIII, even though the character is not any more notable than the thousands he's eliminated. Who knows what else he thinks is 'admissible'? My concern is that Wikipedia's systemic bias will be accentuated by this sort of campaign. We have 144 Scrubs (TV series) episodes, whilst The Golden Girls, a massive hit in the 80s, has no episode articles, thanks to TTN's redirection efforts.--Nydas^(Talk) 17:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by mostly uninvolved Wizardman

I've only seen a small part of this iceberg; yet only from that little bit I urge arbcom to accept this case. Back in late June I began Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-26 List of Mario series enemies, where User:TTN wanted to merge all these enemies that had their own articles into one list. After a few weeks of mediation, we compromised; a few articles stayed intact, but most of the enemies were merged. Goomba, Koopa Troopa, and 1 or 2 others survived, the rest I decided to merge since TTN's argument was convincing enough. I thought this was it. Since then, TTN merged the ones that he agreed to keep separate, and even removed a lot of the enemies from the list that there was never a discussion on, appearing to show no desire to accept compromises. To make it easy for the readers:

Now, overall this doesn't look like too big of a deal. However, multiply the situation on this article by at least 30 or 40 (he's hit at lest that many fields, How many exactly he hit I have no way to accurately count. With something of this scale, and probably more stories that parallel mine, this does need to be looked into. Is what TTN is doing good for Wikipedia, disruptive, or something else? One thing I can be certain of is that this has moved well beyond a simple content dispute. Wizardman 21:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by partially uninvolved Rdfox 76

I don't claim to be fully uninvolved in this issue--I've clashed with TTN before over some of the Kim Possible character and episode articles before, and I personally believe he isn't doing Wikipedia a service, but I recently noticed a discussion on his talkpage that I find quite disturbing. Here, TTN is informed that a page he redirected as a "merge" had already been through a past merge discussion that ended as a do-not-close. Out of curiosity on a dull Sunday morning, I went looking through it, and found that the article talkpage shows a nine-month-long merge discussion that was closed in early June as "oppose merge." While the exact wording isn't correct (it should have been "no consensus"), there was a brief revert war over closing the discussion, which ended with someone pointing out that the merge tag had been present for ten months, and that it doesn't take that long to come to consensus.

Less than two months later, TTN redirected the article to the main Dead Rising page. After User:Smile Lee reverted the redirect, pointing out (correctly) that the article had just been through an unsuccessful merge attempt, TTN put the redirect into place again. After a four-month gap that I admittedly don't understand the reason for, Smile Lee re-reverted to the non-redirected version; TTN redirected it again four minutes later; he has since twice reversed reverts of his redirection. This, in my opinion, is a rather POINTy way of operating, since it applied WP:IAR in an attempt to bypass the procedure that was already followed in a recent merge attempt; his returning months later to maintain his preferred edit smacks of bad faith. I also note that TTN made no effort to explain his reasoning to Smile Lee after SL brought it up on TTN's talkpage, either on SL's page (history) or on his own page (history).

Just my thoughts, but with TTN doing this sort of thing even when there's an RFArb pending on his actions, I think SOME sort of action has to be taken. Rdfox 76 (talk) 17:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

I've renamed this request from "TTN, part Deux" to simply TTN. A title regarding the pages on which the dispute is taking place, episode articles, is also a possibility. Picaroon (t) 02:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Accept. Given the sheer scale of TTN's activity, forcing the parties to go through the motions of preliminary dispute resolution while he continues unabated would be a bad idea. Kirill 21:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Questions? Has the editor received feedback from an editor conduct RFC? Has a true attempt at mediation of the dispute occurred? If an user's activity is indisputably problematic then the Community will usually handle it. Is there disagreement in the Community about how to handle the dispute? As a general rule, starting an Arbitration case against someone instead of following the steps of dispute resolution is not a good idea. Please make it clear why this case should be an exception. I'm not seeing it yet. FloNight ♥♥♥ 12:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dalmatia 2

Initiated by --Gp75motorsports at 16:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Giovanni Giove (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
DIREKTOR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Gp75motorsports (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

The messages that I sent these two about the case are on the bottoms of their talk pages. Evidence: these links.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Other exercises have been tried since the last reporting. I will be back shortly with the section in which resolution was attemted. Here.

The evideince is on Giove's page. --Gp75motorsports 15:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gp75motorsports

The two users listed above have edit warred over numerous articles and the former has even resorted to calling other involved users nationalist. This case has been presented before, but now will be the last time (hopefully).

Comment by Thatcher131

I have posted a request below for expanded enforcement authority of the original case. Thatcher131 01:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Prior case, which closed recently, was Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia. Please fill in the fields where I have entered None provided. Picaroon (t) 16:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reject unless and until some evidence is produced that the recently imposed restrictions have been used but have failed to curb edit-warring. Kirill 21:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reject per Kirill. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reject, no need for a new case at this time. FloNight ♥♥♥ 22:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Winter Soldier 2

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

Involved parties

TDC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Xenophrenic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Heimstern (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiating party)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[40], [41]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Heimstern

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

Comment by partially involved Chaser

I think we may be able to dodge arbitration here. TDC was happy to go to 1RR in the ANI thread (with conditions), and Xenophrenic just added a voluntary editing restriction to his own userpage [42]. These two have no shortage of other bad blood, but I think earlier steps in dispute resolution, like article RFCs, might benefit the situation more than arbitration if we aleady have the 1RR editing restriction in place.--chaser - t 07:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TDC

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

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

Statement by Xenophrenic

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

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

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

Statement by Travb

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

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

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

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

Statement by Gnangarra

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

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

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

Statement by Tony Sidaway

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

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

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

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

Comment by MONGO

Simply put, there are articles on this website that are polarizing, and oftentimes attract those with widely divergent viewpoints. TDC has chosen to edit articles of this nature and has had to contend at times with those using multiple accounts to evade 3RR. There is no evidence that TDC has used sock accounts, however. TDC has, (though there is no currently binding arbcom remedy that he do so), told us he intends to follow a self imposed 1RR on the Winter Soldier and other articles[43], and I expect he will follow through with that promise....As TDC has stated, he expects that Xenophremic's accounts should be identified, and since checkuser has indicated that Xenophrenic is using sockpuppets to evade a previous ruling, then I concur that the main fault here lies with the sockpuppeteer. As far as banning editors because they hold strong political opinions?...of course not...especially not if they continue to provide us with reliable sources to back up their arguments, and TDC does this routinely.--MONGO 18:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Abe.Froman

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

Clerk notes

Four votes to accept and open; to open Monday absent further developments. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Accept to consider the behavior of everyone involved. Kirill 03:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. I think an in depth review of the situation is needed. FloNight ♥♥♥ 18:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. James F. (talk) 22:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for clarification

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

Request for expanded authority in the matter of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia

I request that the Committee enact a motion expanding the enforceable remedies in the Dalmatia case. While Giovanni Giove has continued to edit aggressively, he is not alone. Raguseo (talk · contribs) and Aradic-en (talk · contribs) are both relatively new accounts that edit solely on this topic and advance the same Croatian Nationalist POV. In addition, Raguseo has been abusing sockpuppets. Ghepeu (talk · contribs) (Italian side) and Kubura (talk · contribs) (Croatian side), while more experienced editors, have also participated in aggressive biased editing, although to a lesser degree that Giovanni Giove and DIREKTOR. DIREKTOR communicates extensively with Kubura and to a lesser degree with these other editors, frequently in Croatian [44] [45] [46] [47].

I request these additional remedies, patterned on RFAR/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2:

1. Any editor who edits articles related to Dalmatia (broadly construed to include ethnic and nationalist disputes between Italy and Croatia) in an aggressive biased manner may be placed on Supervised Editing and Revert Limitation by any uninvolved administrator. Editors under revert limitation are limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism, and must discuss all reversions on the talk page. Editors on supervised editing may be banned from any or all articles relating to Dalmatia (as above) for aggressive biased editing or incivility. Violations may be enforced by blocks as described. Before any penalty is applied, a warning placed on the editor's user talk page by an administrator shall serve as notice to the user that these remedies apply to them.

Thatcher131 01:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to hold off acting on this for a bit; the current Macedonia case may wind up resulting in restrictions of some sort imposed over the entirety of Balkan topics, which would supersede anything imposed here. Kirill 02:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so you'll patrol WP:AE for me, right? Dalmatia topics are going to get messy if Ragueso, Aradic-en, Kubura and Ghepeu are left unencumbered. Thatcher131 03:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further note, Ragueso and Aradic-en 's first edits are just days before the Dalmatia case was accepted, so they missed the case by being too new at the time it was filed. Thatcher131 03:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The ArbCom instruction was that we are "instructed to refrain from interacting with or commenting about each other in any way." But we might need a formal practical rule on that. So I proposed the following: "I will not edit any articles where you made any edits before me, however minor these edits might be; and you promise do the same with regard to articles I have ever edited." [48]. Is that reasonable? So far I followed exactly this rule. It is easy to see who of us edited an article first. We are both treated equally. This has nothing to do with own, since all remaining WP users are very welcome to edit any article in question. It is not possible to edit the same article without communication. Biophys 20:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not believe that is reasonable; it smacks of ownership of articles. Especially when one party to the arbitration has immediately taken the close of arbitration as a license to return to the extremely objectionable behavior of the recent past. I would like an arbitrator's view on the matter. (I would also like clarification on whether even this particular interaction violates the instruction; I don't think so but it is vague enough that it might). csloat 21:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only said that I am not going to follow edits of another user (as ArbCom requested) and asked for the same in return. If that is not reasonable, some clarification may indeed be needed.Biophys 22:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What Biophys proposes is reasonable; neither one of you should edit an article the other is already engaged in editing. Splitting the articles formerly in conflict is somewhat arbitrary. If you guys can live with dividing them by which of you edited them first, that's fine. The alternative—which I suspect will be less to your liking—will be to restrict both of you from editing any article you've been in conflict over in the past (as was done in the WLU-Mystar case). Kirill 04:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the only articles where there was a significant problem were Communist terrorism and Operation Sarindar -- I would be ok with the solution that neither of us edits those two articles. csloat 16:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list of articles that we edited both is much longer, including Criticism of Bill O'Reilly, Intelligence Summit, California in focus, and others. So, let's follow the official ArbCom decision as clarified by Kirill. We do not need ArbCom sanctions as in WLU-Mystar case.Biophys 17:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are simply articles you stalked me to -- none of them were articles were we had actual substantive conflicts. I am asking for clarification of the arbitration decision; I think for the two articles named a better solution will be necessary as I have significant substantive problems with your use of original research on them. csloat 00:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that we had a conflict in all articles that we both edited, and there are too many of them. So let's follow good advice by Kirill.Biophys 01:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No; we had no substantive conflict over the other articles. The substantive conflicts were over those two articles and I will agree to leave them alone if you agree to the same. But I do not think it is a good idea to say that you "own" those two articles. csloat 07:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Avoiding all article where they have both made significant contributions in the past sounds like the best solution to me. Divvying up mutually-edited articles based on who edited first isn't an optimal solution in my opinion. Picaroon (t) 23:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does it mean a "significant contribution"? Are we going to dispute here our contributions to all articles? We need a formal and simple criterion. There are only two simple options. Option 1: we divide all articles that we both edited, as has been suggested above (note that we both are treated equally). This option is consistent with current ArbCom decision, as clear from the statement by Kirill. Option 2: we do not edit any articles that we both previously edited, however all our newly edited articles would still be divided according to Option 1. Then a new decision by ArbCom is needed, and we do not want that.Biophys 17:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "significant contribution" standard seems clear enough to me. My interpretation of this would be any article in which both of us took a stake in the outcome, which can be determined by looking at edits. If you or I just came there to revert the other one a couple of times and didn't participate in talk, it would not be considered a significant contribution. But if we both made substantive changes to the article and participated in talk, it would be considered a significant contribution. This is an easily enforced standard, and we can clear it up right here. In my observation, the only articles where there is that much overlap is the Communist terrorism article and the Operation Sarindar article (which you have again changed the name of). I don't think you could make that case for any other article. csloat 21:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biophys wrote: There are only two simple options. Fallacy of the excluded middle. Biophys and csloat can refrain from editing any article the other has made significant contributions to while at the same time both avoiding the two problematic pages that brought us here. Namely, Operation Sarindar and Communist terrorism. Fair and simple. There is no contradiction here at all. smb 21:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are two options noted by ArbCom member Kirill, and I agree with him.Biophys 22:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually those are two that you made up, which are different from what Kirill suggested. One of Kirill's options is the option I have advocated here. csloat 22:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then let's move by little steps. Do you agree not to edit any articles that I have edited after this ArbCom decision and will edit in the future? I can promise you the same if you agree.Biophys 06:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly don't think such an arrangement is appropriate - the issue is the articles we've edited in the past where we actually had conflicts; arbitrary restrictions based on any edits in the future are useless here. And I'd rather not give each party an incentive to make meaningless edits on as many pages as possible to drive the other editor off pages. Perhaps if we simply agree to interact civilly with each other when we have to do so, we can avoid such arbitrary restrictions. If you are willing to do so I will certainly agree to that. The point is to actually address and resolve conflicts, not to draw arbitrary boundaries around them. csloat 08:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you suggested would be a reasonable solution in the past. But right now we have ArbCom instruction to avoid each other, and we must follow that instruction. Not only you refused to stop following my edits in the past, but you just refused to stop following my edits made after this ArbCom decision, and instead suggested to single out several articles based on your choice.Biophys 16:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This back-and-forth between the two of you is ridiculous. The arbitrators reviewed the evidence of prior hostility between you and could have imposed substantial restrictions on both of your editing. Instead, they decided that fortunately, things were not so bad as in other cases that come before them and settled for asking you to avoid each other and stay out of each other's way. There is no reason why with a modicum of good faith, the two of you could not accomplish that. Instead, you are here practically begging the committee to impose much stronger sanctions against each of you. I suggest that you both stop this nonsense right now. Newyorkbrad 20:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for that. I agree to stop immediately, to consider this matter resolved, and to follow exactly the ArbCom instruction as clarified by Kirill. The instruction was "to refrain from interacting with or commenting about each other in any way". In particular, I am not going to edit any articles that have been created or edited by another side before me. I hope that will be enough to avoid any interaction. Biophys 20:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My only problem is that the arbcom decision was never clarified on this point. I have no desire whatsoever to further interact with the other party and don't plan to, but I also don't plan to avoid articles just because the other party demands that I stay away from them. Another important problem is that the arbcom decision did not address the other party's tendency to own articles, an issue I expect to see brought to admins' attention again in the very near future. csloat 15:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFAR/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram

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

The Committee is discussing this matter. Kirill 13:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Bishonen | talk 14:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

Thank you, Vassyana. Some recent developments: in his edits of today, November 10, Certified.Gangsta points (on request) to his positive contributions to the project.[49]. Please note especially his appeal here, and the new section "Contribution" on his talkpage, which he's in the process of adding to. Bishonen | talk 12:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Motions in prior cases

Motions

Shortcuts

This section can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived at Wikipedia: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)[reply]
- One other thing I forgot to suggest—I'd be glad to write motions 1 or 2 up as a trial if any arb prefers, perhaps for 6-12 months, after which the motion could be automatically repealed unless the committee takes further action by motion to permanently continue the motion. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:39, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 20:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Notes

Motion 1: Correspondence clerks

Nine-month trial

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

Correspondence clerks

The Arbitration Committee may appoint one or more former elected members of the Arbitration Committee to be correspondence clerks for the Arbitration Committee. Correspondence clerks must meet the Wikimedia Foundation's criteria for access to non-public personal data and sign the Foundation's non-public information confidentiality agreement.
Correspondence clerks shall be responsible for assisting the Committee in the routine administration and organization of its mailing list and non-public work in a similar manner as the existing arbitration clerks assist in the administration of the Committee's on-wiki work.
The specific responsibilities of correspondence clerks shall include:

Acknowledging the receipt of correspondence and assigning tracking identifiers to pending requests and other matters;

Tracking the status of pending matters and providing regular updates and reminders on the status of the Committee's off-wiki work to arbitrators;

Reminding members of the Committee to vote or otherwise take action in pending matters;

Organizing related correspondence into case files; and

Providing similar routine administrative and clerical assistance to the Arbitration Committee.

The remit of correspondence clerks shall not include:

Participating in the substantive consideration or decision of any matters before the Committee; or

Taking non-routine actions requiring the exercise of arbitrator discretion.

To that end, upon the first appointment of correspondence clerks, the current arbcom-en mailing list shall be renamed to arbcom-en-internal, which shall continue to be accessible only by arbitrators, and a new arbcom-en email list shall be established. The subscribers to the new arbcom-en list shall be the arbitrators and correspondence clerks.
The Committee shall establish a process to allow editors to, in unusual circumstances following a showing of good cause, directly email a mailing list accessible only by arbitrators and not by correspondence clerks.
All correspondence clerks shall hold concurrent appointments as arbitration clerks and shall be subject to the same requirements concerning conduct and recusal as the arbitration clerk team.

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

Support

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

Oppose

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)[reply]
Might as well make it formal per my opinions elsewhere on the page. Primefac (talk) 13:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Abstain

Motion 1: Arbitrator views and discussions

I'd be glad changing this to only appoint former arbs, if that would tip anyone's votes. Currently, it's written as "from among the English Wikipedia functionary corps (and preferably from among former members of the Arbitration Committee)" for flexibility if needed, but I imagine we would only really appoint former arbs if available, except under unusual circumstances, because they understand how the mailing list discussions go and have previously been elected to handle the same private info. I am also open to calling it something other than "correspondence clerk"; that just seemed like a descriptive title. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do like the idea of using our Arbs emeritus for this position (and perhaps only Arbs emeritus); it ensures that they have experience in our byzantine process, and at least at some point held community trust. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CaptainEek: I have changed the motion to make only former arbs eligible. If anyone preferred broader (all funct) eligibility, I've added an alternative motion 1.1 below, which if any arb does prefer it, they should uncollapse and vote for it. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that if we adopt this we should choose a better name. I know Barkeep49 meant this suggestion as a bit of a joke, but I actually think he was on the money when he suggested "scrivener." I like "adjutant" even more, which I believe he also suggested. They capture the sort of whimsical Wikipedia charm evoked by titles like Most Pluperfect Labutnum while still being descriptive, and not easily confused for a traditional clerk. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whimsy is important -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 08:55, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

References

Motion 1.1: expand eligible set to functionaries

If any arbitrator prefers this way, unhat this motion and vote for it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

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

Support

Oppose

Abstain

Motion 1.2a: name the role "scrivener"

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

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

Support

Nicely whimsical, and not as likely to be confusing as correspondence clerk. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

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)[reply]
I have never heard that word before; at least "correspondence" and "clerk" are somewhat common in the English Wikipedia 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)[reply]

Abstain

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

Arbitrator discussion

Motion 1.2b: name the role "coordination assistant"

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

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

Support

Oppose

bleh. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

I am indifferent between this and "correspondence clerk". Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
That would be okay. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:08, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator discussion

Motion 1.3: make permanent (not trial)

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

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

Support

Oppose

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 ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

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)[reply]

Arbitrator discussion

Motion 1.4: expanding arbcom-en directly

If motion 1 passes, strike the following text:

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

And replace it with the following:

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

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

Support

Much less trouble to have them on the main list than to split the lists. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

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

Abstain

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)[reply]

Arbitrator discussion

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

Motion 2: WMF staff support

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

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

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

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

The remit of staff assistants shall not include:

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

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

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

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

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

Support

Oppose

I appreciate that Kevin put this together, and I think this would be very helpful, maybe even the most helpful, way to ensure that we stayed on top of the ball. But just because it would achieve one goal doesn't make it a good idea. A full version of my rationale is on the ArbList, for other Arbs. The short, WP:BEANS version is that this would destroy the line between us and the Foundation, which undoes much of our utility. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:22, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comment on motion 4. - Aoidh (talk) 01:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Might as well make it formal per my opinions elsewhere on the page. Primefac (talk) 13:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Abstain

Motion 2: Arbitrator views and discussions

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

Motion 3: Coordinating arbitrators

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

Coordinating arbitrators

The Arbitration Committee shall, from time to time, designate one or more arbitrators to serve as the Committee's coordinating arbitrators.
Coordinating arbitrators shall be responsible for assisting the Committee in the routine administration and organization of its mailing list and non-public work in a similar manner as the existing arbitration clerks assist in the administration of the Committee's on-wiki work.
The specific responsibilities of coordinating arbitrators shall include:

Acknowledging the receipt of correspondence and assigning tracking identifiers to pending requests and other matters;

Tracking the status of pending matters and providing regular updates and reminders on the status of the Committee's off-wiki work to arbitrators;

Reminding members of the Committee to vote or otherwise take action in pending matters;

Organizing related correspondence into case files; and

Performing similar routine administrative and clerical functions.

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

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

Support

This is currently my first-choice option; we have unofficially in the past had arbitrators take on specific roles (e.g. tracking unblock requests, responding to emails, etc) and it seemed to work fairly well. Having those rules be more "official" seems like the best way to make sure someone is responsible for these things, without needing to expand the committee or the pool of people with access to private information. Primefac (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:14, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Per Primefac. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

Motion 3: Arbitrator views and discussions

I am also open to this idea, though I am worried that it will be insufficient and haven't made up my mind on my vote yet. This idea was floated by a former arbitrator from back when the committee did have a coordinating arbitrator, though that role kind of quietly faded away. The benefits of this approach include that there's no need to bring anyone else onto the list. This motion also allows (but does not require) arbs to take a step back from active arb business to focus on the coordination role, which could help with the bifurcation I mention above. Cons include that this could be the least reliable option; that it's possible no arb is interested, or has the capacity to do this well; and that it's hard to be both a coordinator on top of the existing difficult role of serving as an active arb. I personally think this is better than nothing, but probably prefer one of the other two motions to actually add some capacity.
Other ideas that have been floated include establishing a subcommittee of arbitrators responsible for these functions. My same concerns would apply there, but if there's interest, I'm glad to draft and propose a motion to do that; any other arb should also feel free to propose such a motion of their own. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was partial to this idea, though it was not my first choice. I proposed that we might make it a rotating position, à la the presidency of the UN security council. Alternatively, a three person subcommittee might also be the way to go, so that the position isn't dependent on one person's activity. I like this solution in general because we already basically had it, with the coordinating arbitrator role. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]

Motion 4: Grants for correspondence clerks

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

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

Support

Oppose

Wikipedia should remain a volunteer activity. If we cannot find volunteers to do the task, then perhaps it ought not be done in the first place. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should not have a clerk paid by the WMF handling English Wikipedia matters in this capacity. - Aoidh (talk) 01:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

Motion 4: Arbitrator views and discussions

Proposing for discussion; thanks to voorts for the idea. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am leaning no on this motion. The potential downsides of this plan do seem to outweigh the benefit of being able to compensate a correspondence clerk for what will ultimately likely be something like 5 hours a week at most. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Community discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And Roger was a pensioner which kinda proves my point -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 08:53, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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 [name]"), 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^{from this world ..... today} 23:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's what I'll leave you with overall. What you may see as a downside – these proposals being voted on relatively late in the year – I see as a significant possible upside. Members of this committee are able to draw on at least eleven months' experience as arbitrators in deciding what is working well and what might warrant change – experience which is important in determining what kinds of processes and systems lead to effective and ineffective outcomes. That experience is important: Although I have served on ArbCom for four years and before that served as an ArbCom clerk for almost six years, I still learn more every year about what makes this committee click.

If what really concerns you is locking in the new committee to a particular path, as I wrote above, I'm very open to structuring this as a trial run that will end of its own accord unless the committee takes action to make it permanent. This would ensure that the new committee retains full control over whether to continue, discontinue, or adapt these changes. But in my book, it does not make sense to wait. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, I clearly totally misread your intent there. I.... don't think I like the idea that unelected clerks can see everything the committee is doing. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 03:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I oppose splitting arbcom-en a second time -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

@Arcticocean: In 2018, arbcom-l became arbcom-en and the archives are in two different places. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@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 ^{from this world ..... today} 05:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^{Read! Talk!} 06:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Obviously I have no personal knowledge of what ended up happening. I just listed the responsibilities as described at Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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 ^{from this world ..... today} 23:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^{Read! Talk!} 03:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

+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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^{Read! Talk!} 08:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

[1] Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy § Scope and responsibilities

[2] Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy § Procedures and roles

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 133: / Line 133: @@
 ::Both have been attacked by MONGO in the same manner as he has attacked Alec and myself, attacking their affiliations. [[User:Viridae|Viridae]][[User talk:Viridae|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 03:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
-==== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/1/0/0) ====
+==== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/1/0/0) ====
 *Reject. I'm certainly not comfortable with some of the language used; robust debate is OK, but everyone should be aware that edged weapons of rhetoric do not build consensus. On the other hand, we all know that the basic issue has been very divisive, and yet a working consensus of the place of [[WP:NPA]] in the context of external linking and [[WP:HARASS]] seems to be emerging. This is what the ArbCom would prefer, to having to intervene again to deal with ''ad hominem'' arguments (which are not always fallacious). [[User:Charles Matthews|Charles Matthews]] ([[User talk:Charles Matthews|talk]]) 17:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
+*Accept. Mongo's behaviour has been problematic. [[User:Paul August|Paul August]] [[User_talk:Paul August|&#9742;]] 20:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 ----

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

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

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

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