Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lazydown (talk | contribs) at 23:18, 11 January 2008 (→Statement by almost uninvolved Angusmclellan). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes
Shortcuts

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

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

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

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

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

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

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 10 January 2025

Current requests

Rollback consensus

Initiated by Docg at 00:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Everyone here

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

Statement by Doc

Non admin rollback is a perenial debate, for which there is a long-standing failure to gain an community consensus. A poll Wikipedia:Requests for rollback privileges/Poll was held over many months from January 2006, and having closed at 216 support to 108 oppose (exactly 2:1) was deemed to be without consensus. Another poll Wikipedia:Non-administrator rollback/Poll was opened by proponents of the idea on December 30th 2007. This poll (advertised on AN and ANI and Central discussions) was marked as due to close on January 6th. I discover it on January 4th - and with 48 hours to run - it had only attracted 60 votes, and was deemed to be "succeeding" with c. 49/11. Concerned over the propriety of a short snap poll over the holidays, I tried to persuade the initiators to extend it for a few weeks, when they refused, I took a lot of flack for "spamming" the official mailing list with my concerns. After that it was added to the site notices. The poll, however, was closed on 7/8th January (8 days) with 304 support and 151 oppose (exactly the same % as 2006 - nothing had moved).

Following the second poll, the feature was implemented by a developer on 9 January 2008 as noted at Template:Bug. - Since then, a new process Wikipedia:Requests for rollback has been initiated - and rollback widely granted. I understood that developers were only to turn on functions for wikimedia communities where there was a settled local consensus. As can be seen from the bug report, Ryan Postlethwaite presented 67% as representing an en.wp "consensus" and a dev accepted this (perhaps there were other conversations). Although consensus is more than numbers, this was the same non-consenus ration as have been stable for two years, and we don't even promote admins on 66% never mind begin a whole new policy and process - so how it can be presented and accepted as local consensus is beyond me. Every precedent has required more support that this. And the result is heated debate and a general feeling of community consensus having been manipulated by people determined to get their way.

Rollback is in itself no big deal. However, giving the power to 1400 admins to giveth and taketh away, gives alarming potential for disputes drama and the growth of process, rules and instruction creep. we have seen enough of all of these in 25 hours. Thus this impacts hugely on the project and is a potential sink hole for admin time. So we must not do this lightly on six day polls and a developer's bad judgement.

As this has been done outside of the community's process, there is no remedy other than arbcom or the WMF board. Arbcom does not make policy. The community does that. But the community cannot agree, at this point, whether there is a consensus for this new policy or not. Arbcom's role is to be a mediator where the community cannot agree. Arbcom should NOT decide whether rollback is bad or good. But I am asking them, however, to arbitrate the community dispute as to whether there exists a settled consensus.

Jimbo has already indicated that arbcom do have a roll here: [1] "ArbCom will discuss and vote on the result, and make a formal request to the Wikimedia Foundation about whether it should be turned on or not, and to establish the policy.... ArbCom will of course most likely follow the vote of the community, but I will not require them to do so. They should serve as a "check and balance" in the event something strange happens here, or in case the discussion shows a way forward that the vote itself does not accurately represent.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)" [reply]

I asking Arbcom to do something less than Jimbo has done. I am asking them merely to arbitrate the dispute as to whether consensus exists.

--Docg 00:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Addition

Jimbo has said "I recommend that people basically do nothing at all here, i.e. please don't go awarding this ability to lots of people in an effort to create "facts on the ground" about how it is used." Unfortunately, that's too late. Within minutes (or hours if my time zones are wrong - but I don't think so) of a dev responding to Ryan Postlethwaith's plea that there was community consensus (2008-01-09 22:53:17 UTC), the other initiator Majorly, moved, a ready-made process out of Ryan's userspace into action 2008-01-09 23:05 and declared it "switched on" - a site bar header invited applicants to the page shortly after.--Docg 02:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question Two arbs are saying that the community should decide this. However, the community DID. We polled (badly and manipulatively) and reached no consensus = status quo remains. A developed overrode our conventions and declared this to be mandate to proceed. What is the redress if not arbcom? How is the community to address this when a large chunk are content that they've got their way - and there cannot be a consensus to reverse it? Do I personally go and lobby a developer to turn it off? I really cannot see how we move forward from here. Discussion will end with the same lack of consensus and the normal lack of consensus option (=do nothing) has been overridden.--Docg 09:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw from this case. The Christmas holiday coup d'etat has been unprecedentely successful in forcing through a major change without consensus. All credit to them - I'd probably have tried the same if I'd wanted something as badly and had as little chance of getting legitimate agreement. But, now we effectively have a new status-quo in this crazy process - and I predict we'll rue the day. However, that's what we've got, and the chances of the community obtaining a *genuine* consensus, which could change this status-quo, are as nil as they always have been. Jimbo's haverings about the WMF board and a new poll make no sense to me, and arbcom are not going to involve themselves in any difficult substantive issues. Maybe they will wag a finger at Ryan Postlewaith at al (a nice, manageable, user conduct issue for them) but what good would that do? Consensus lost here, and that's sad. But, as the victors have repeatedly and rightly implied, the rest of us had best shut up and get over it.--Docg 14:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carcharoth

From what I saw of what happened here, this was largely a poorly-timed (over Christmas) and poorly-planned (no exit strategy) poll. My feeling is that the breakdown in communication occurred when Ryan posted in the bugzilla thread that he personally saw consensus and asked the developers to have a look and judge for themselves ("The poll has now closed with 304 supports and around 150 opposes. I'd say that's consensus, but please take a look."). It seems that the developer then switched the feature on for en-wiki (I believe the feature was already implemented globally with a default 'off' setting and was actually ready to go, unlike last time). However, a little bit of digging and reading around the talk pages would have shown that things were not yet clear. But judging a borderline or otherwise uncertain consensus should not be the role of developers. What should have happened instead was for uninvolved en-wiki bureaucrats to be asked to judge the consensus, and for the result of that judgment to be posted at the bugzilla thread. Ideally, the bureaucrats would have been asked to 'clerk' the poll beforehand, so they could remain uninvolved if needed. I will add that the en-wiki community (writing the English-language encyclopedia) and the community of developers (writing the software) and sysadmins (integrating the software changes) need to make clearer to each other how they communicate on issues like this. Carcharoth (talk) 01:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response to Gurch (and Nick and Acalamari and anyone else worrying that this is about shutting the process down): The title of the request specifically mentions consensus. I agree with you that for better or for worse we have non-admin rollback, and that it is bedding in quite well, and there is no need to talk about disabling or suspending it. The point here is to find out what should have happened in order to settle the consensus issue, and learn lessons for next time a change like this is proposed (eg. how to improve communications). Carcharoth (talk) 02:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to Sean William: Thanks for pointing out Ned Scott's draft RfArb. The latest version before he blanked it is here. I agree with what Ned has said concerning issues of user behaviour, and would encourage him to post the statement he was drafting. Carcharoth (talk) 02:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to self: Other examples of technical processes being implemented, with and without drama. The "Table" namespace. The New Pages patrolled feature. Anonymous page creation disabled (and the nearly-implemented proposal to switch it back on).

Statement by Ultraexactzz

I agree that the questions raised by Doc are significant, and worthy of the Committee's consideration. Where is consensus? Is it a certain percentage? Or, to borrow a metaphor, is it whoever shouts the loudest? I know that every technical change is not approved, or even discussed, by the community - but when are the developers bound to seek (and follow) consensus, and how are their decisions reviewed if they go against consensus? I would argue that, in this case, the Arbcom is the appropriate venue.

I also note for the record that the admins who put together and operate the process at Requests for Rollback have made what appears to be a good faith effort to implement a process for which there was some disagreement. The approval of any number of editors (myself included) to receive rollback tools isn't, in my view, an attempt to short-circuit consensus, but rather an attempt to fairly and reasonably implement a new process. The issues of this case should be limited to the events surrounding the activation of the developer's change, including the process for determining consensus beforehand, and whether such consensus existed (or exists).

-- UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 01:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gurch

Just when I thought discussion was dying down, Jimbo decided to intervene and now this came up. There is very definitely a community consensus to grant rollback in some form or other, all that is being debated is the workings of the process. The current process is not perfect, of course, but no process is. I think the amount that was achieved in 24 hours was remarkable, especically given that it was achieved despite the bickering of many contributors who did not like the way in which it was implemented. Sure, it could have been introduced a lot more smoothly. But we've got this far... can we please not screw up now? Requests for rollback have already died down after an initial surge. There are already long-establised rules governing the use of rollback that can simply be carried over from administrators; the only thing to settle is the process itself. We as a community can tweak and get consensus for the working of the process in good time on our own, we do not need a committee to babysit us. If the Arbitration Committee decided now to disbale use of the rollback tool, that would in all probablilty be the last time any non-administrator ever saw it. For the good of the project, this really, really isn't a good idea – Gurch 01:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Marlith

The implementation of rollback hit us without anyone knowing about it. I also agree with Gurch on thsi topic. Just as we finished the initial voting we went forth to a short period of discussion about the definition of consensus. Hours later, we discover that it was implemented quite quietly. The problem that caused so much controversy is the vague definition of consensus. Could it be the dictionary definition? Does it mean that one side has more logical and convinicing arguements like this? This controversy has escalated to the point where only the ArbCom can decide. Personally, I believe that RfR should be tweaked into an RfA like process instead of the RFPP like process we have now to prevent users from misusing the tool. Or if we have intelligent discussion the community can come to an agreement. Although rollback allows users to be bitey, I would like to remember that rollback can be taken away from disruptive users and it is also a very good anti vandalisim tool. Also I have seen much bad faith in the arguments against rollback, the problems lie with the users, not with the proposals or everyone who has rollback. Thank you. Marlith T/C 01:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A modest proposal by Durova

This just isn't worth the fuss. I respectfully request that the developer who implemented this un-implement it temporarily while the community decides whether/what type of implementation is appropriate, that ArbCom dismiss this case, and that people put their energies into something useful. DurovaCharge! 02:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Halo

I agree with Carcharoth - it was largely a breakdown of communication between the en-Wiki process and the developers. I, for one, firmly believe there wasn't consensus for this change.

In future, there needs to be a better way to decide whether a policy has passed or not, avoiding replying on developer discretion wherever possible simply to make life easier for everyone - the suggestion by Jimbo Wales on Wikipedia:AN#Arbcom to let the ArbCom have the final decision on these sorts of polls and communicate this to developers seems like the best idea going forward. A way of preventing ambiguity over poll results and consensus should be the most important thing to come out of this process - if nothing else than to prevent discouraging developers from making active changes to Wikipedia lest they be controversial, and to prevent future controversial decisions.

However, I can't help but think Ryan Postlethwaite, the original author of WP:RFR, did his very best to muddy the waters and tried to cause as much confusion as possible to push through the policy by implying that there was consensus on Bugzilla bug 12534 while not showing his conflict of interest (or that his opinions on consensus differ from many) and advertising on MediaWiki:watchlist-details prematurely.

Rolling out WP:RFR at the first possible time irrespective of the fact that the policy wasn't ready causing confusion with policy made up on the spot was a bad idea. I believe that these sorts of actions should be strongly discouraged in future, and changes such as this should be done in a more considered manner - even if something is technically possible and enabled that doesn't mean it should be rushed into. -Halo (talk) 02:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nick

I welcome and strongly support the comments made by Gurch. I would also ask that the Arbitration Committee clarify their powers in relation to technical features. Whilst not strictly relevant, I note that some Arbitrators have been appointed following the recent elections with a level of support comparable to the level of support for the Rollback proposal (both in terms of votes and in terms of percentages). Arbitrators with such a level of support enjoy a clear mandate, and I believe this should also be the case with the Rollback proposal, as such, I cannot do anything but ask the Arbitration Committee to reject the full case, permit users to be given the Rollback permission and direct the community to create suitable policy to govern the process as it has been implemented. Nick (talk) 02:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MBK004

I received rollback through the process on 10 January. I echo the concerns of Gurch, and urge that a consensus be determined between the administrators granting rollback as suggested by Nick. Regardless, of what is decided, my main concern is what is to happen to the editors who have received rollback if the process is halted. I agree that the process is flawed, and have no doubts that many disagree with how the process was implemented in the first place. I commend the admins who have tried to work in good faith to implement a process to effectively judge if an editor should be given this tool. If the decision is made to stop this process of granting rollback to non-administrators, I would advocate that the editors who already have it (approximately 350+), be allowed to keep the tool, with the knowledge that their actions would be closely monitored, in order to judge if the concerns of the community in the aforementioned polls to determine community consensus have merit or not. This is because the unannounced (to those who have not kept up with the recent events following this process) removal of the tool to the 350+ users with it screams of assuming bad faith in the editors who have rollback. - -MBK004 02:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alexfusco5

I was an original opposer of this proposal before it was implemented. Now that I have seen how he process is operating my concerns have been addressed. Many of the oppose votes (my included) opposed because of unneeded bureaucracy or dislike of the process. I believe that a new policy needs to be made behind the new feature to assure that the policy has consensus. As was seen by the poll many people supported the idea but opposed the way it worked (i.e. should be carried out bureaucrats, twinkle does the same thing etc.). The solution would probably be to draft a new rollback policy that has consensus from the community (unless the policy was supposed to be implemented by majority) Alexfusco5 02:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Mercury

Everything Gurch said above.

Statement by Sean William

This situation was handled poorly on every level. Once the developers activated the feature, the process immediately began - causing utter chaos. I tried to protect the page so that some discussion could be had, but it was only protected for about 40 minutes when John Reaves unprotected it as "not needed". I feel that it absolutely was needed, and still is. The parties list could be narrowed down easily to a few key players; Ned Scott already tried to do it in a sandbox of his (User:Ned Scott/sandbox4, old revision). Sean William @ 02:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Acalamari

I also agree with what Gurch said. As one of the most frequent participants at requests for rollback, I can say that everything has been going fine there, and problems, if/when they have arisen at the place, have been discussed and sorted out. I don't see any reason to close the process down, and I don't see what an arbitration case will achieve apart from waste a load of time for many people. Acalamari 02:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cobi

I have to echo Gurch, Nick, and MBK004 as well. Furthermore, ClueBot has seen a major performance boost since it was granted rollback. Regardless of the outcome of this request for arbitration, my main concern is those who have received rollback. Especially the anti-vandal bots, because all rollback is for the bots is a more efficient way to do the exact same thing that they do already. I have not seen any misuse of rollback since it has been granted, and to remove it would go clearly against our fundamental principle about assuming good faith. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 02:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ashley Y

From this case I hope to see an improvement of the process by which technical changes are made to the site. I note, for instance, that WP:PWD "passed" by 51 to 22, smaller numbers and proportionally less discussion no doubt due to not being linked on watchlists, yet was not implemented.

People get upset not because things don't happen to go their way, but when they feel the generally agreed rules and customs of the site are not being applied fairly. Upsetting people tends to damage the encyclopedia, but a clear process can mitigate that. —Ashley Y 02:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Ashley Y

Regarding WP:PWD, it was not implemented due to lack of discussion. The rollback proposal, on the other hand has had tons of it. Majorly (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lawrence Cohen

Oh, enough already: Wikipedia:Requests for rollback/Vote. Lawrence Cohen 03:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update Please accept this case. An extreme minority has taken to supercede consensus now even on the vote, and have edit warred it out of Wikipedia, primarily administrators. Take this case, please. Please review: this and reconsider. This situation is hopeless, if some ultra minority of admins is going to drive an edit war to even take away the community's voice to decide such things like this, and kill an in-process vote that Jimbo called for. Lawrence Cohen 14:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ryan Postlethwaite

I’m not sure really what to say about this, we had what many could consider an RfC on the subject, a proposal and then a vote on the proposal which two thirds of the community said they wanted. What was my role in this? Well, I created the proposal which was discussed, then I created a final proposal which was put to a community vote. After around 450 people had voted on this, someone closed the poll citing discussion (I had nothing to do with the closure of the poll, I unwatchlisted it soon after it was created and I think it was closed by someone who opposed the proposal). A couple of days later, Corvus cornix cited a bug request that had been put forward by an uninvolved party (Note: This was visible to all parties on the talk page of the poll) and I simply responded on the bug, citing that I personally thought there was consensus but asked the developers to take a look at the poll). I had previously created Wikipedia:Requests for rollback and userfied it just in case it was implemented. I was as shocked as anyone when I saw it had been moved out of my userspace and the first request was already up. I think it would have been better for us to have had a few days (at least) warning before implementation so we could have got our policy and procedures up to scratch to stop any resulting mess happening, but this didn’t happen. I hindsight, I think everyones done a fantastic job developing this into a non bureaucratic procedure as we’ve worked in real time to sort out some real problems we had when it first started last night. As with all procedures here, they need time to develop, and I really can’t see how there’ve been any major problems with it so far. This was in no way ideal, we should have had warning, but we’ve made the best of a bad situation, and what the majority of the community wanted. Over the next few weeks I expect us to develop further and unless there’s problems (which no-one has yet been able to cite), I can’t see any real need to change things. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mr.Z-man

I too agree with what Gurch says. At this point, most of the drama seems to just be for the sake of drama. Instead of continuing to argue about whether there was a consensus that the poll had a consensus, we should evaluate what has already been done. Is rollback being misused by non-admins on a significant scale (or at all)? Is the lack of a fully agreed upon system actually causing problems (other than people complaining about the lack of a process)? I've been mostly avoiding the discussion on the admins' noticeboard, but have instead been focusing on the discussion and process at WP:RFR and WT:RFR. For all the shouting and panicking elsewhere about how not having a pre-existing policy would be and is a disaster, it seems to be running fairly smoothly. There have been bumps, but for a totally new system, that is to be expected and work at the RFR talk page based on the experiences of people taking part in and observing the actual process is producing helpful results and minimal drama. Would having a fully agreed upon process before this was implemented have helped? Probably. Is it necessary? No. For one, except for important content policies, rules are supposed to be descriptive. How do we describe something that doesn't exist? Was is a total disaster? No, even without rules, people used (*gasp*) common sense and started to form rules based on how things were working. Even if we created rules before it started, unless we got really lucky, we probably would have ended up rewriting most of them once the process started. I'm reminded of when patrolled edits for Special:Newpages was activated (not quite as significant a change, but still quite noticeable). There was minimal on-wiki discussion beforehand, no RFC, no proposal, no straw poll, just a short discussion on the Village Pump. When it was turned on, I drafted up a quick set of rules based on my thoughts and some previous discussion (both public and off-wiki), people agreed with most, asked questions and commented on the talk page, and after a few bumps at the start (some due to it being misconfigured) it proceeded with minimal drama. Even without rules written beforehand and pages of discussion, it went quite well. I imagine that given a few days to iron out some issues, this will go well also. Mr.Z-man 03:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Justin

I want to emphasize a major point here. There are mixed opinions about whether or not WP:RFR is working, and those above me have commented on the various good and bad points. That being said, the real question here is not whether the tool is effective, or if the feature is a good or bad, but whether or not the implementation was made with consensus. I strongly disagree with User:Cobi that removing this tool is a violation of WP:AGF, if it's found that enabling the feature was without consensus in the first place. At this juncture, I believe full protecting WP:RFR and allowing a true consensus to form is the appropriate course of action. I see no reason to remove access to the tool, for those already granted access, unless the community decides to remove it entirely from non-admins (which I sincerely doubt will happen). As an aside, while I did vote in Lawrence Cohen's poll above, I don't think a "straight poll" is going to be any less contentious than the present situation. Justin chat 03:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:TenOfAllTrades

The poll has a number of troubling aspects. Most have been enumerated above, so I will sketch them only briefly here.

  • The poll was open for a very short period of time; I count less than nine days from first to last vote.
  • The proposal on which people were voting changed substantially over the course of the voting period: [2].
  • Even if 67% is taken to be a consensus that non-admin rollback ought to be made available, there appear to be wildly disparate opinions on when and to whom rollback should be granted.

For comparison, I remind the Committee of the last major policy that depended on a vote to assess consensus: the three-revert rule. In that case there was as widely publicized poll, a clear question, and a full two weeks of voting: Wikipedia:Three revert rule enforcement. The 3RR was passed with the support of 85% of the participants in the vote.

Obviously the cat is out of the bag. The configuration that allows admins to grant and revoke rollback has gone live. There's no point to antagonizing the developers by asking them to pull the plug; it's not their fault that we've done a poor job of keeping our house in order. Indeed, I suspect that it will be beneficial to the project to have more (responsible) people with access to rollback. What might be a good idea – and what is a matter that I would very much like to see the Committee consider – is a temporary injunction.

I strongly urge the ArbCom to declare a moratorium on granting rollback bits until the enwiki community can develop something like a stable policy on when and to whom rollback is granted. In the last days, I've seen a great deal of argument and very little agreement on a number of issues.

  • Should rollback be granted via private email requests, or only through a public process page?
  • How long should the community be allowed to consider or comment on a public request? (Times from fifteen minutes to twenty-four hours have been proposed; rollback requests have been granted within four minutes of their appearance on WP:RFR.)
  • Who decides if an editor should have rollback? I've seen one admin refuse a request, only to be immediately overruled by another without any comment or discussion.
  • How is rollback withdrawn?
  • How are requests logged? Should only successful/unsuccessful requests be recorded? If private requests are permitted, should they be logged to prevent 'admin shopping'?

Right now the de facto policy is being decided not through consensus but by whichever admins decide to deliberate for the shortest amount of time and act with the least prior discussion. Presented with a fait accompli, there is a natural reluctance on the part of dissenting editors to risk the perception of wheel warring. This is not a good way to develop policy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Husond

I was very surprised to witness the blitzkrieg implementation of the non-admin rollback proposal. I'm really not convinced that there was a consensus for this change in the first place (it was way too borderline, and one should bear in mind that the support camp naturally attracted many users who, instead of pondering the pros and cons, simply supported because of their own benefit of getting the rollback tool). Anyway, even if we are to determine the outcome as consensual, I think that the amount of opposition should at least justify a slow and very well discussed implementation of non-admin rollback. Which just didn't happen. It was a disappointing process and bad omen for further proposals. Húsönd 04:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by KnowledgeOfSelf

While ArbCom does not make policy, and this RfAb is out of the realm of what ArbCom normally handles, I do believe this is a special case that requires a firm adjudicature from some type of authority. It is very unlikely that true consensus could be reached on this issue without a firm conclusion from such an entity as ArbCom. With that being said, the issue here is not Special:Userrights, it is not the request page either. The issue is the blatant disregard of established practice and community understanding and application of consensus.

Policy or guideline pages should never be implemented in such a scant time period. The fact that a dev enabled this feature does not mean that it was accepted by the community. When I first became aware that requests for rollback were being given I stated, "This sets a substandard precedent, and completely undermines established practice. Consensus is not counting the votes, it is not 2-1, and it is not this."

The real grievance here is the disregard shown to community consensus. A prime example is the issuing of rollback to anti-vandal bots, based on this discussion which lasted just a couple days. Consensus can change, but not in 2 days or 2 weeks for a feature that can cause a ripple effect of this magnitude. I urge ArbCom to accept this case, and be a facilitator of calmness and reason to this very serious issue. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 04:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:B

This is silly. Around 300 people have requested rollback in the time since it went live. Presumably they like the idea of it. 2/3 of the community approved the policy in this form. Of the 1/3 that didn't like it, many of the objections were either flat out wrong (e.g. worrying about admins taking rollback away from each other) or were objections that would also apply to tools like WP:TWINKLE (in other words, no new problems). If someone has a better implementation than the current system, then propose it, but there is nothing good that can come from arbcom reviewing this. --B (talk) 04:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Mbisanz

Well it seems that most if not all of the points of this discussion have been covered. The one thing I'd like to add, is that I personally disagree with the concept of developers judging consensus of userights issues. Meta says "This position [Steward] was created to dissociate rights management from software development [Developer]." While developers must, by nature, flick the switch, a steward or at least a crat should have been the judge of consensus to notify the developers. Thats not to say that any users here acted in bad faith or improperly (or even that the decision to turn it on was wrong), just that in order to avoid the possible appearance of impropriety on anyone's part, a steward or a crat should have made the call publically on the vote (like an RfA or AfD) and then notified the developers, however that is normally done. MBisanz talk 06:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also note that while all parties who contributed to the original discussion are listed as parties, this RfArb has only been mentioned on AN/I and the 2 Rollback related pages. If accepted I'd strongly urge a bot-notification of everyone who signed the discussion/vote page. MBisanz talk 16:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EconomicsGuy

I understand that this was initiated based on Jimbo's comments about this so no blame to the initiator but Jimbo is way off here. We don't need ArbCom or even Jimbo for that matter to figure this out. What we need is for everyone to stop seeing ghosts and get back to writing the encyclopedia. It's rollback - it's not delete or block. This love of process is a gigantic waste of time and needs to end now. EconomicsGuy (talk) 07:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Okay I'm getting more worried now. Given how this is going and the fact that the only thing we can agree on is an image of a white cat on the polling page I think we may have to ask ArbCom to act as mediators. Not policy makers, but mediators because clearly we are incapable of doing this ourselves. EconomicsGuy (talk) 13:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Also, may I just point out to Flonight who accepted this that the current list of involved parties per this request includes some 450 people not counting those who have become involved since? I think the best solution here would be for a group of arbitrators to act as neutral mediators. EconomicsGuy (talk) 14:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. Apparently pointless now that there is a ban of at least 3 months on voting about this. I don't know where that was decided but apparently it was. So much for transparency. EconomicsGuy (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ned Scott

This might sound odd coming from me, since about 24 hours ago I was drafting a proposal for a case, but I'm not sure about taking this to arbcom anymore. Maybe yes, maybe no, but I've been thinking a lot about this in the last day.

It's not a big deal in that it's not life or death, but people need to stop being mean to people who were upset by this. Same goes the other way around, when it applies. It's not ok for people to label such editors as being disruptive, because they have a concern, because they want to talk about it. We should avoid needless drama, but that does not mean rejecting anything that might generate some drama as a byproduct.

The situation should have been dealt with better. We should have waited before promoting users. It didn't happen, and for what it's worth, the world did not explode. Still, we need a way of stopping such stampedes in the future. A lot of people thought it was ok to just jump right on in, and there was no way for someone to put it on hold without being brushed off as being "disruptive".

Still, the way everyone responded, on both sides, was somewhat.. expected/ reasonable, consideration the situations, and how people normally react to such situations (at least for Wikipedia). But I'm still sorry this turned out to be somewhat of a mess. I'm sorry I got mad and that other people got mad. I'm glad that rollback granting itself have gone fairly smoothly despite all this. I feel bad for some of the things I said and did, and I feel bad that situations like this can put some users at odds with other users. I feel bad that this seems unfair to everyone involved in many ways (though there are certain things that could have easily improved the situation).

I find myself agreeing with both Doc glasgow and Ryan Postlethwaite in a lot of what they say on this page. And a lot of other users too. I don't know, and it's almost 5 am and I'm tired. I don't know if I should just walk away from this whole issue, or try to help us improve things for the next time we have a similar issue. I don't even know if I would be of any help, but I'd like to be of some help if I can.

I like just about all of you on this project. I really like our project and I really like working with everyone. Valid concerns or not, for when I was a bonehead, I hope people can forgive me, and I hope I can remember to do the same for others. -- Ned Scott 12:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hiding

There are issues here that need to be examined. WP:CONSENSUS is a fundamental policy and should not be disregarded. When a consensus is disputed that dispute should be settled through dispute resolution, not ignoring the dispute. More than that, there is also a strong statement of principle by Jimmy that Any changes to the software must be gradual and reversible. We need to make sure that any changes contribute positively to the community, as ultimately determined by me, in full consultation with the community consensus. Did we have a full consultation? Were all issues aired properly? Was dispute resolution followed? Was WP:CONSENSUS, the most fundamental resolution policy, followed? Hiding T 12:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]

  • Further. I just also want to say this. I asked Ryan how to contact the devs and at no point did he mention the bug page. I wanted to point out that whilst there may be consensus that there should be some form of rollback granting, it may be that the current proposal was not the best implementation and that the community needed time to work out the best method. The current method stinks of instruction creep, and it may be that the community could have decided that no granting of the ability to amend user rights needed to be granted to admins. We may have decided that blocking could have been the method to deal with abuses of rollback and that rollback could have been granted to all accounts or to accounts with x amount of edits. There really has been a huge swathe of discussion curtailed here and behaviour does need to be examined at some level. I'm not suggesting Ryan deliberately misled me, but I think the fact that he didn't mention it to me perhaps undercuts his statement somewhat and thus part of the reason for Sam's decline to hear this. If it was an honest oversight, fair enough, but it just feels like enough people were asking for more discussion, for proponents to slow down. It felt like proponents were dismissing that as attempts to kill the issue by filibustering, something that breaches AGF if you ask me. It felt like contrasting opinions were being disregarded by those who wished this to be implemented. Hiding T 18:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn per statement to that effect from Anthere. Hiding T 22:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Slakr

This is my first arb post ever, so please excuse me if it's too lengthy/not addressing the right things/etc, as I normally avoid these kinds of things. :P

I think there are several issues in play here:

  • This is a permanent change — I think the pivotal issue here is the fact that we're deciding on something that is going to be a de facto permanent change, but it's been treated with wild disrespect and incorrect protocol for a serious policy change. Sure, we can say that “oh, we can just open another vote to have it removed,” but practically-speaking, even if there was wide abuse, there won't be a snowball's chance in hell of prying +rollbacker from the public's cold, dead hands.
  • +rollbacker isn't and won't be easy to remove in cases of abuse — One of the original arguments for adding it in the first place was that it would be easy to remove if it were to be abused. We've already seen that, in only the first few days of the ability being added and granted, people have allegedly abused it. But, when it comes to removing said permission, there tends to be strong favor toward readding it quickly. Whether that will be the case in the future is uncertain, but this doesn't particularly bode well for occurring within only a couple of days of the permission being live. But, because it's a logged permissions change, it it certain to draw the wrath of those involved should they perceive injustice in any form; and, it goes without saying that any negative permissions entries, including +rollbacker, will be a scarlet letter in RfA and other issues of character.
  • There have been very bizarre, confusing, atypical, and overall strange occurrences/incidents during the discussion and !voting processes — particularly:
    • Blanking votes here and here is troubling. People who would otherwise think they have casted their vote may not know it/they got wiped away until it's too late. This is extremely troubling, and I don't believe that User:Random832 meant anything by it, but in any vote where that happens, I believe that the poll should immediately closed, the issue dropped, and then reopened a couple weeks later once everyone is back on the same page.
    • Non-neutral images in the header as of this revision is also troubling. There are reasons there aren't pictures strewn about polling booths, and psychological priming has a lot to do with it. Also, notice the caption: “Do you already has rollback?” Which, in my opinion, directly prompts action resembling rally-like behavior.
    • Tacking on bots to a discussion about users and the subsequent hard-closing discussion after only 3 days of being active with atypical reasoning “I'm closing this, because it's already been acted on” ??? I could be wrong, but someone being BOLD in giving bots +rollbacker does not constitute consensus— especially after only 3 days of discussion (presumably because someone assumed it was a vote, which, in that particular case should be highly frowned upon because it involves technical issues that actually do need discussion).
    • A developer ticket being opened unilaterally before consensus was established to enable non-admin rollback. Judging by precedent of Wikipedia:Per-article blocking, if even 84% percent !vote support isn't accepted as clear consensus, then a figure of, around 68% definitely shouldn't be either.
    • During the discussion and straw poll, this and prior revisions had unsourced, OR, opinionated rebuttals to opposition placed well before the poll itself in a highly visible location. As a result, it is likely that people who came to the discussion with opposition were dissuaded from voicing and/or agreeing with fellow opposers, while those who arrived to support were merely reinforced in their support. Granted, this is speculation on my part, but it wouldn't be fair to do the same thing in a polling booth during an election, so I wouldn't expect it to be done here.
    • Inadvertent canvassing using Template:Watchlist — I say inadvertent, because posting a watchlist message to registered users is an issue of conflict of interest, much like posting a rally to a non-notable forum up for deletion is also a conflict of interest. My reasoning here is that there is a fundamental net gain from any editor supporting the ability to receive +rollback who isn't an admin already. As a result, people who wouldn't even be interested in policy changes in the first place or even know what rollback is are suddenly called to action, thereby artificially inflating the vote count, stimulating a false dichotomy, and reaffirming why polls are evil.


In my opinion, I do not believe that any resultant vote will be fully reflective of either consensus or numbers due to the various misconducts in the process itself. I understand that I opposed the change in the first place, but I must affirm that despite that opposition, I'm not here to try to fight against consensus or anything, as might be inferred. Anyone who knows/investigates my history will know I'll always gladly defer to consensus, but in this case, I do not believe that we will have an accurate gauge of consensus for the time being.

I'm not blaming anyone, as they seem to be done in good faith and/or as humor and/or to alleviate confusion; but, in any election/poll, controlling for bias is critical, and when the result might not reflect the true state of things, we need to decide if a recount is necessary, and what preventative measures need to be taken to assure that all procedural elements are lucid.

My opinion? I believe the entire thing should be scrapped'n'archived, waitlisted for about a month, then re-opened for discussion/vote/whatever— only in the interests of letting the dust and confusion settle so that everyone is back on the same page. From there, if a vote, discussion, or whatever is desired, then it should be done and a neutral, uninvolved group should decide what the consensus actually is; because, right now, this whole thing has turned into a zoo— and I'm not using the metaphor lightly. --slakr\ talk / 14:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GlassCobra

Like Slakr above me, I have been involved with ArbCom only marginally before now; please forgive me if I’m off-topic. However, I feel too strongly about this to sit on the sidelines.

I am disappointed. So far, two three of our newly elected arbs have decided to reject this case to send it back to the community, when clearly the community is incapable of deciding on its own in this matter; as EconomicsGuy has said, the only thing we can seem to agree on is having a picture of a cat on the vote page, as the vote itself has been blanked several times, and now protected before I could vote. The Arbitration Committee is not suited to the job of deciding on whether policy changes should be implemented; however, in this case, the policy change was implemented without consensus from the community. Even Jimbo seems to want to pawn this off onto someone else. I confess being a little disappointed in Doc glasgow, whose previous statement, before he struck it out, seemed to be along the same lines as my thoughts here. This is not something to merely roll over and take.

To be blunt: this is unacceptable. As much respect as I have for Ryan Postlethwaite, he seems to have some serious misguidings about what exactly consensus is. Consensus is not about straight numbers, not about who gets the most votes, and it certainly is not "who shouts the loudest." This is the premise by which he has declared victory, so to speak, and he is wrong. Ned Scott made some good points in his statement a few above mine; not only were the self-proclaimed "winners" of the rollback proposal being arrogant and rude, they were completely and utterly dismissive of anyone attempting to voice opposition, even as the feature was being implemented; see B’s post above as an example. From the very beginning, this proposal has had problems. As we all know, this is not the first time that non-admin rollback has been discussed. It was clear from the previous discussion that this was not something that could be simply voted on, and especially not in the six days that the proposal went before the proponents declared victory. As some will know, there’s been quite an uproar on the mailing list. So not only was there no consensus for this feature, there was absolutely no discussion on how it should be managed. I urge everyone to go and look at WT:RFR right now and witness the chaos currently underway; everyone voicing their opinions as to how people should be granted rollback, and we have indeed seen the beginnings of some wheel warring over permissions, as predicted. In the meantime, while the bickering continues, editors are being granted this tool left and right, with unknown ramifications. Like TenOfAllTrades and Durova, I strongly urge the ArbCom to declare a moratorium on granting this privilege until the community can develop a stable policy on when and to whom rollback is granted.

I don’t really feel that this proposal is all that much of a good one. If people like Marlith feel that this should be more like an RfA, why not just send these candidates to RfA? These are obviously good, quality editors, otherwise we wouldn’t be granting them rollback (right?). Perhaps a large influx of candidates will help the RfA process to be less of a big deal, as it has become. God knows we can always use more admins to help out around here. To sum up: like Ned Scott, I respect all of you. Like I said on my RfA back in November, these conflicts are absolutely inherent and unavoidable when such a large number of people come from so many different backgrounds to work on something together. I hope we can all work together to arrive at a solution that best serves the project. GlassCobra 15:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sm8900

Sorry, I don't have any knowledgable details about the very important issue of how the discussion was handled. However, I do agree with all editors above who express any misgivngs about acceptance of and implementation of rollback. who needs it? what does it add, and how does it benefit anyone? but anything with such deep implications for Wikipedia needs to be looked at very, very carefully. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Blue Tie

I don't believe I saw this vote and I cannot help but wonder why this is a big issue. Why do we need to have this tool? Why does it matter if we do have it? But, if the vote was not handled right and consensus not followed then it should be reversed. So in essence I am in agreement with SM8900--Blue Tie (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Injunction

I support the current Arbitrators who are opting to decline a case on this issue, I agree their involvement is premature. I think this is something the community ought to try working out first. However, judging by the discussion on AN/I and the absurd edit warring at Wikipedia:Requests_for_rollback/Vote I would like to request an injunction from ArbCom to frame the proceedings.

My idea is an injunction defining where and for how long discussion ought to proceed. It's unusual, true, but it looks like most of the fighting is over the weight of past discussions and allow new discussion to proceed. So I would suggest defining a discussion period of at least one week, to be restricted to one page at or below Wikipedia:Requests_for_rollback. Following this, an open poll to last at least two weeks, also located in the same area. I wouldn't suggest any further definition of the discussion or polling, merely state that at the end of that time ArbCom would issue a statement either recognizing a consensus (for or against) or reopening discussions. Also at that time, ArbCom can reevaluate the need for them to referee the discussions further.

I feel an injunction like this would go a long way to calming the current drama, and refocusing energies into something constructive. --InkSplotch (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tariqabjotu

Frivolous. -- tariqabjotu 20:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/3/0/0)

  • Decline, and (whether the current view is consensus or not) refer it back to community, to choose an approach to generate (or check) a consensus-based decision on the rollback facility. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. FT2 speaks well here. ArbCom can explicitly ratify the community's consensus once that is established; we do so all the time implicitly every time we use a community policy in a case. But I'm not sure why we should, regardless of Jimbo's request; if the decision is a really bad decision, we're not going to be the only ones or the first ones to notice it, and the community's request to the Foundation would hopefully be rejected anyway; and if the decision is a good decision, ArbCom's imprimature is hardly going to make it a better decision (unless there's something odd I don't know about the Foundation's deliberation processes.) If the community likes the idea of ArbCom being some sort of conduit for the rare policy request to the Foundation, I suppose we could do that, but I'm not sure why it should be necessary. I do think the declaration of "consensus" to the developers bears examination, but that's about it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 08:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept to examine user conduct issues related to civility and prematurely declaring consensus in an important issue that effects the entire community. FloNight (talk) 11:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline per FT2. In other circumstances a case based on misconduct through misrepresentation of consensus to a developer might have been worth taking but Ryan Postlethwaite's statement makes it clear that there was no misconduct on his part. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Waterboarding

Initiated by henrik•talk at 11:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • (All of these are from December 26 to today, I did not include earlier discussions)

Statement by Henrik

The battle that has been going on is growing beyond the ability of the community to handle. Several admins, myself included, have attempted to bring order to the discussion only to be dragged into the maelstrom. The basic content dispute the question of whether there is a significant dispute that Waterboarding is/is not torture, and what weight that should be given to the various positions. There has has been an unwillingess for the parties to make compromises and talk to each other, and as a result the page has been protected, almost since the begining of november. Multiple warnings and blocks, an RFC, and an attempt at community article probation have failed. There have been cases of sock puppetry, disruptive argumentation, the atmosphere is generally unproductive, and a group of students at Harvard attempting to participate in a Wikipedia debate got bitten. I would welcome ArbCom input on how to move forward, to get this article back to constructive editing.

A followup: Some have suggested mediation should be tried first. If we are dealing with sock puppets of banned users as some have suggested, I believe mediation is unlikely to be successful. Mediation is a voluntary process and requires the good faith of everybody involved. Some posts on the page seem designed to drive other editors apart and provoke confrontation and endless argument, almost in the style of HeadleyDown. This, combined with sockpuppetry, wireless Sprint addresses, strange connections between some of the users (and Free Republic somehow lurking in the shadows). Had I believed we simply had a breakdown in communications, mediation what I would have suggested. henrik•talk 17:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Neutral Good

I am one of the so-called "SPAs" on this account. I openly admit that I have a single purpose: it's called NPOV. The Waterboarding article represents one of the great moral dilemmas of the early 21st Century and it's "In The News," so it is attracting a lot of attention from observers at all points of the political spectrum. The first six words of the article pretend that "waterboarding is torture" is not disputed by anyone, despite the fact that such prominent legal experts as Rudolph Giuliani (former US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, possibly the next president of the United States) and Andrew C. McCarthy (former assistant US attorney for SDNY, now director of the Center for Law and Counterterrorism) have said that in some cases, waterboarding may not be torture. The "waterboarding is torture" advocates have gone so far as to extend this pretension to a section header for the section of the article that focuses on the very real dispute, expunging the word "dispute" from that section header. Administrative process has been persistently abused by one side in an attempt to WP:OWN the article; for every sockpuppet accusation that was accurate, there have been at least three resulting in findings of Red X Unrelated or no Declined, my User Talk page has been blanketed by warnings, and there have been no less than three separate threads started at WP:ANI by the same person. They have violated WP:TE and WP:DE during brief periods of semi-protection, they have an SPA of their own created at the end of October that mysteriously agrees with everything they say, and there have been absolutely zero consequences for them. Someone needs to take action to make the first six words of the article NPOV.

Statement by Black Kite

I came to this article as uninvolved; whilst there are undoubtedly good-faith editors involved in the "not torture" side of the dispute, the majority of the problems are almost certainly caused by an organised campaign of POV-pushing by numerous accounts and IPs (see Talk:Waterboarding#Protection).

Results of my initial investigations are as follows.

Shibumi2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  • Recently confirmed as a sockmaster warring on this article by CU (Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/GooseCreek) and blocked for 2 weeks.
  • Account was created on 7 January 2007, one day after User:BryanFromPalatine was blocked for two weeks (and later indefinitely). Note that BryanFromPalatine, as the name suggests, hailed from Palatine, Illinois.
  • Both Shibumi2 and BryanFromPalatine share an major interest in the article Free Republic.

209.221.240.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

  • Previously confirmed by CU as sock of User:BryanFromPalatine, it is the gateway IP from his workplace. Never blocked, however, as there are unrelated edits from this IP, presumably from unrelated employees of the company.

Neutral Good (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  • SPA account created 22/12/2007, This diff [20] after he forgot to log in, reveals an IP address which resolves to Illinois as well.
  • Nominated Shibumi2 for adminship (Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Shibumi2, deleted and thus only viewable by admins).
  • There is no overlap whatsoever between the editing times of Neutral Good and his known IPs, and Shibumi2 and related Sprint IPs.

Other IPs which supported the "not torture" side of the dispute
68.29.174.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

  • Supported "not torture" proposal on talk page. Resolves to Sprint, as does Shibumi2.

70.9.150.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

  • Supported "not torture" proposal on talk page. Resolves to Sprint.

68.31.220.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) "Bob"

  • accused other editors of being POV warriors. Only other edit was related to Free Republic. Resolves to Sprint.

Statement by semi-uninvolved Nescio

Although not named I have been part of the discussion presented above, but have not edited the article AFAIK, and would like to share my thoughts on this. Coming to ArbCom seems premature at this point, as formal mediation would be the logical next step. However, should the case be accepted I think a summary of what has happened is helpful. So, here we go.

There is certainly something amiss on this article, where editors want to state waterboarding is a form of torture. (Clearly, some guidance as to how to interpret and apply WP:ASF, WP:FRINGE, WP:WEIGHT, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:CON seems to be in order) Opposing that sentence, claiming a widespread dispute, there have been numerous incidents involving sockpuppetry, SPA's, sudden influx of outside contributors, that apparently discussed the matter and reached a position prior to getting involved. (These incidents would be one of the mysteriously coincidental parts of the debate that needs attention clarfying possible sinister motives.) During the debate I noticed that some editors have missed the numerous rebuttals of the there is a dispute-fallacy. Unfortunately they are also unable to find them on the talk-page and the RFC. Still trying to abide by WP:AGF I repost a summary of that discussion here.

  1. A 140+ legal experts say it is torture, 4 experts say it is not, 8 are unable/unwilling to make any determination. AFAIK nobody disagrees with this, see RFC for details.
  2. The following logic has been advanced as argument for the existence of a "controversy:" confronted with a dissenting expert voice, even if it is just only one lone wolf, we effectively have a dispute. This, of course, is nonsens. If the existence of any opposition could negate consensus among experts they would still be debating the way our earth is shaped, what causes AIDS, is evolution real, did the Holocaust happen, are aliens experimenting on us, et cetera. Clearly that is not the case. Therefore, opposition by a very small group of experts does not a dispute make.
  3. Within the US 1/3 think it nis not torture and 2/3 think it is. AFAIK nobody disputes this, see RFC for details.
  4. The following logic has been advanced as argument for the existence of a "controversy:" since US public opinion is split 2:1 this evidently constitutes a dispute. Although very interesting and certainly notable public opinion is irrelevant to what experts think on this. Public opinion has brought us such notable and successful concepts as the facts of 9/11, antisemitism, facism, McCarthyism, superstition, quackery, witchhunt, mucoid plaque, holocaust denial, scam, et cetera. Confronted with the evident unreliability the world developed a new concept in an attempt to better explain the world in a more unbiased and unlikely to be manipulated manner. Soon it was discovered this new way of explaining things was far superior than the frequently incorrect gut feeling that was used before. With that knowledge relying on public opinion became a logical fallacy. So, using public opinion as argument is not a valid rebuttal but people keep refusing to answer why public opinion, in determining the legalities involved, is more important than expert opinion.
  5. Some argue that determining whether waterboarding meets the legal definition of torture, i.e. UNCAT, is a socio-political question.Clearly somebody does not understand that whenever we have to establish whether an individual violated the law, i.e. tax fraud, rape, murder, torture, et cetera, we do not go out in the street and ask the general public. What I think editors attempt to say is that the possibility of allowing torture under certain circumstances is a socio-political debate. Thinking on it, it is self-evident that a legal determination the US engaged in war crimes, factually correct or not, has political consequences. Hence the lack of international zeal to take up cases invoking universal jurisdiction. Possibly this is what is meant with the socio-political part of the argument.added afterthought Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 18:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Then people argue that the sources themselves are wrong, i.e. conflating definitions. Surely everybody is aware that it is not up to us to evaluate and correct sources. Please remember, it is not whether information is correct but can we verify it?
  7. Others claim that even if waterboarding is torture the technique used by the CIA is entirely different.Unless we can substantiate this with outside sources it is inadmissable as speculation by a WP-editor.
  8. Yet another argument advanced in this debate is that people are unable to define expert in this context. Highly dubious position because if the article were called rape, homicide, tax fraud, et cetera, I wonder if anyone would be unable to think of what constitutes an expert. Surely nobody argues we should ask the general public whether individual X violated any of these examples. The fact we have an activity that could implicate a US administration in authorising war crimes does not alter the legal basis for the question: does waterboarding meet the definition of torture?added this point Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 13:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this clarifies the reasons why any opposition to it is torture is insufficiently substantiated with WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, WP:WEIGHT, WP:V and common sense in mind. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 13:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be sure, the summary is intended to better understand the content dispute. The question to ArbCom is not to arbitrate that but to explain to us how to interpret and apply WP:ASF, WP:FRINGE, WP:WEIGHT, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:CON as it pertains to this article. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 10:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved HiDrNick

I think that this case is premature, and hope that the committee will choose to not hear it at this time. There are some community-based remedies being discussed that, if adopted, would certainly reduce the amount of tendentious editing on the page. Failing that, mediation as a next step would be reasonable.

Statement by Walton One

This is a content dispute, so I expect the ArbCom will turn it down.

I am also not sure why I have been named as a party. I have been involved in a couple of discussions on the talk page in the last two days, but I have not edit-warred. Indeed I have made a grand total of one edit to the article itself - namely this one, which consisted of adding a closing square bracket. Hardly wildly controversial.

I happen to have a viewpoint on the content issue in question which largely coincides with that of Neutral Good, but I have no idea whether he's behaved inappropriately, and I have no further comment to make on this matter. WaltonOne 13:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to my statement. Having discussed the matter with Henrik, I understand that there are no allegations against me.
I recognise that editors such as Lawrence Cohen, Black Kite, Jehochman et al. are acting in good faith (although I disagree with them about the content issue) and I understand the reasons for bringing this RfArb. However, I think it would be a mistake to view this as primarily a user conduct issue - although I don't doubt that there has been misconduct and disruptive editing involved in this dispute (which can be dealt with using blocks, as per normal procedure) there is still a bona fide content issue here (i.e. whether it is appropriate to say in the lead section "waterboarding is a form of torture"). Blocking the more aggressive editors won't make that issue go away. WaltonOne 15:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman

Not merely a content dispute, this is also a case about behavior problems: tendentious editing, frustration of consensus, pushing original research in the form of synthesis and fringe theories, and sock puppetry. The locus of dispute is waterboarding, a contentious political topic.

Unfortunately, I have not yet had any opportunity to edit the article, because it has been constantly protected. I had hope to advance this one to good article or featured article standards. That's why I have stated that I would not use admin powers in this dispute, though I hoped that uninvolved administrators would. [21][22] Many attempts at dispute resolution have failed, and not for lack of effort. Perhaps ArbCom can help. Jehochman Talk 19:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lawrence Cohen

Thanks to Henrik for filing. Jehochman is correct, this is only superficially viewable as a content matter. It's a complete breakdown in understanding of NPOV, and what that means, which has led to intractable arguments, incivility, sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, vote stacking, external inadvertant disruption of Wikipedia by Harvard law students, multiple attempts by editors and admins to try everything in resolution from handing out flowers with hugs and cookies to practically beating editors with bricks now. Nothing has worked to calm this situation since the time frame of Archive 5, begining November 2007 (please read, to watch the downward beginning with the infamous "Foreign opinion is irrelevant" comment), and the closer it has moved to the beginnings of the American 2008 election cycle. Waterboarding is one of the major political hot potatoes here, along with the Iraq War. I posted this summary (please read it, if possible) last night on ANI. I noted that in the past 24-48 hours, or so, that all Hell finally did break loose on the article, article RFC, and related pages after constantly boiling. Proof that this will probably only get worse without a mandatory, enforced Arbitration article probation is the timing of this all Hell, that I just realized when I sat down to write this statement: this final outbreak of insanity and everyone apparently upping the stakes happened right after and during the Iowa and New Hampshire election primaries here. This article will only get worse between now and November and disrupt Wikipedia unless it's locked down. If the case is not taken, I'm begging you to at the least state you reject the case, but support here standard article probation, and give admins undisputed leeway to take a firm hand with this article and related for at least the next year to guard against disruption. All other mediation attempts have failed. Mediation attempts outside of the standard Mediation groups was attempted, as well as bringing in various people over a prolonged period of time via the Reliable Sources noticeboard, Fringe Theories noticeboard, NPOV talk page, Reliable sources talk page, AN, ANI, and I've lost track of where else. None have been successful.

Update: Black Kite's summary about the fact that a lot of these SPAs look, smell, geolocate and in fact the same same IP address as User:BryanFromPalatine/User:DeanHinnen (plus have edited on Free Republic, his focus), a notorious AC-banned right wing zealot, puppetmaster, and troll, is compelling. I had made that point several times after I first noticed the notes on the 209 IP talk page, and looked into it, but various people had dismissed my concerns under AGF. I don't know if AGF holds up anymore there, seeing now that Illinois is the home of these characters. Please consider this as well. I have found extensive evidence that BryanFromPalatine is back, and want to present it as part of this arbitration. Start here, for evidence of this. Lawrence Cohen 20:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to User:Blue Tie's sockpuppetry witch-hunt comment: I don't think the problem here is a case of anyone acting out in a fashion as Abigail did, but rather a case of someone using many names, disrupting Wikipedia: "We are mob, for there are so many of us.". Lawrence Cohen 20:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by OtterSmith (htom)

Not an administrator; I think that this may be premature, as the RfC cited above has not been closed (and discussion continues there) and we have not tried either formal mediation or the new rules proposed. However, there is a problem and it may be possible that the ArbCom may be able to help.

There are several many things going on there.

A POV dispute
whether the statement "Waterboarding is torture" is NPOV or POV.
A POV dispute
whether the statement "Waterboarding is a form of torture" is NPOV or POV.
An ownership dispute
those who support the two statements above as NPOV owning the article, or not.
A bullying dispute
people are being "threatened" with CheckUser, ArbCon, blocking, ... and reacting badly to this. (Hint to all -- the way to build trust and good faith is not to issue threats, whether or not deserved.)
A content dispute
what the physical process of waterboarding is. (This is what drew me into the article, I thought the process was poorly described.)
A sources dispute
To my eye, some of the usually reliable sources are confounding waterboarding (whatever that is, it's agreed -- well, it seems to be agreed -- by all that it's not water cure) with water cure. As a result, these sources (to me) cease to be reliable about this topic. This is not about the sources being right or wrong, but that particular citation in the source is confounding two different things, and it would be SYN to claim the confounded citation supported either thing.
A political dispute
Politicians of all stripes have been making claims about waterboarding, hoping for political advantage; within the article, how relevant are their opinions and judgments.
A popular dispute
whether the USA's population's opinion, as polled, is relevant.

Doubtless there are more. There's a huge echo chamber there of "Buzzword is Baaaad!"; to me, it's unencyclopedic.

I fear there will be more, here, as well. htom (talk) 16:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WAS 4.250

The article as it stands is quite good, and we easily could do worse than simply freezing the article til hell freezes over. Both evidence and logic indicate some people are pushing a non-neutral non-evidence-based POV. Everyone agrees waterboarding is part of an interrogation technique. What part? Is it the question? the answer? the reward for cooperating? No, it is obviously a punishment, a threat of pain, an actual pain. How much pain, how big a punishment? How do you measure that? Maybe by how fast it works? 14 seconds is how fast. How much punishment, how severe a punishment needs to be to qualify as torture seems a less relevant a question to some than who is doing what to who. If George Bush authorized something to be done to a terrorist, it obviously is not torture - too good for them if they lived is what it was - can't be torture. Writing neutral encyclopedia articles requires a certain level of emotional distancing. Contributors who show difficulty with doing that need to be told their emotional COI is not helpful to the goals of this WikiMedia project regarding the content of this article, but thanks for trying. WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Neon White

I was originally drawn to the article from a debate at the Reliable sources noticeboard.Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#.22Foreign_opinion_is_irrelevant.22 On entering and reading the already much discussed subject, it seemed clear that there was a handful of editors, one a simgle purpose account, trying to centre this article around the recent US controversy and to give it, in my opinion, undue weight in the article in the historical and worldwide context of waterboarding. I believe this is the core issue and some of the other disputes have been used to confuse this point. The consensus has been continually disrupted by editors continual hammering the same personal view points, misrepresenting or misunderstanding policy on NPOV refusing to verify that the dispute represents any more than a small minority of current political views, many of which are vague and non-committal and deserve any more proportion of the weight in the article. It became clear from comments that these were biased editors basing their objections on their own political views to the point of ignoring the balance of sources and the consensus. --neonwhite user page talk 17:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Blue Tie

I will discuss four areas of concern:

A. Article Content disputes
B. Sufficient naming of Arbcom participants
C. Patterns of negative behavior
D. Arbcom case not needed right now


Article Content disputes

There are two issues: 1) NPOV and 2) Poor Definition.

NPOV Policy

I identified the first problem very quickly after getting to the page. The page asserts "Waterboarding is torture", which I originally read uncritically and with acceptance. However, upon review, I noticed that there is a substantial dispute in a wide variety of venues over whether it really is or should be classified as torture. Most people think it is torture, but I discovered that it is far more than just a tiny minority (it is large enough that the majority would not have “consensus” on Wikipedia). Further, some of the folk who dispute that it is torture are very notable.

What does policy say?

  1. WP:WEIGHT -- per Jimbo Wales criteria, the minority should be classified as "significant".
  2. WP:ASF and per #1 above - the statement "Waterboarding is torture" is "seriously disputed".
  3. Again, per WP:ASF something that is seriously disputed is an opinion, not a fact
  4. Conclusion: The statement "Waterboarding is torture" is not a fact.

But, the article asserts in the voice of wikipedia that "Waterboarding is torture" without any suggestion or hint that this is not a fact but an opinion. Though later in the article the dispute is discussed, the lead, which should be a good summary of the article content does not mention this dispute. For these reasons, the lead to the article is in violation of WP:NPOV.

Several editors assert that, regardless of policy, the consensus on that page is that the article should read “Wikipedia is torture”. I do not agree that we have consensus on the talk page but even if we did, WP:CON says that consensus on article talk pages cannot usually override project wide consensus on policy.

You are being asked to clarify WP:NPOV and to apply WP:FRINGE to WP:WEIGHT aspect. I do not believe a guideline has the authority to overturn a policy. I also do not believe I have stretched or distorted policy in any way and I believe that the arguments above are simple, obvious applications of normal policy. I feel that if editors were willing to simply abide by policy we would not need to be here.

Definition Problems

This is a subtle, unobvious but pervasive and extremely difficult problem. Rather than clutter this page and continual fixing of this section, I will link to a subpage on my talk page where I will discuss this problem.

Sufficient naming of Arbcom participants

I am not sure how this selection of participants was chosen but some other people have weighed in and they are not included here. Some names come to mind as follows: Lciaccio, Shamulou, Theokrat, Akhilleus and Vhettinger. Another editor has left the page. I am not sure if that means he is not part of this issue but he might be since he left because he felt he was driven from the page by other editors. His name is Randy2063. If the case is about editor behaviors, he should be heard. There may be more who ought to be in this case (if it is a case); thats just the few that I am aware of off the top of my head. I also point out that Raymond Arritt is not really involved except to protect the page. That seems like simple mop handling and not really involvement.

Patterns of negative behavior

I hate this part of arbitration. I hate he said –she said finger pointing. I will not focus on individuals but on general patterns.

Failure to submit to policy As I said above, If editors were willing to simply abide by policy we would not need to be here. I believe some editors are hoping Arbcom will create new policy by re-defining established policy in new ways.

Undue Ownership Concerns that the political debates in the US (which are not very significantly focused on this issue) are driving a need to “protect” the article from NPOV are leading to WP:OWN problems on the article.

Original Research / Synthesis The article contains many instances of Synthesis and much of the argument associated with “Waterboarding is torture” is synthesis of this nature:

Torture involves certain discomforts
Waterboarding may lead to these discomforts
Hence Waterboarding is torture

I believe that to some people this is line of reasoning is so obvious that it should not be called Synthesis and be allowable, but it is pure synthesis exactly as described as unallowable in the OR policy.

Witch hunts for Sockpuppets On this board, editors are being called “proven” sockpuppets and “meat puppets” when in fact, the resulting investigations did not always or completely show that to be so. There is a great deal of paranoia on this matter. If editors would cease from “head counting” and use the weight of arguments for building consensus this would not even be an issue. But fears of vote stacking instead of reasoning through the problems leads to witch hunts. Witch hunts for sock puppets are more destructive to the project these days than sock puppets are. It seems these witch hunts are hurting many people ... the witches, the reverend Parish's and the John Proctors. Recent Durova case is an example. This case also has some embarrassingly paranoid examples as well. (Concerns about SPA -- not a violation of policy -- are also in this whole arena)

A pattern of editor/admins using administrator authority in opposing those who disagree with them

The sockpuppet thing is one part of this but there is more. I do not want to discuss this but if this Arbcom goes forward as a behavior matter, this should be (reluctantly) included.

Arbcom case not needed right now

Maybe we do need it, but perhaps not just yet. There still remains an unclosed RfC. Shouldn't that be handled first? We have not tried mediation, both informal and formal. Shouldn't that be tried second? Wouldn't Arbcom be the last thing to do? I personally am not excited to have to deal with all the evidence stuff and especially "he said she said" finger pointing in Arbcom, so I am hoping that this is not accepted .... yet. But I accept that when all else fails this is the venue.


NOTE: I have attempted to refactor my original comments for brevity and clarity. I failed with regard to brevity. I hope I succeeded in making them more clear. --Blue Tie (talk) 13:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hypnosadist

Please just let this POV-war end so that the article can be edited to make it better. If that is not possible then protect the article until the end of the US presidential election. (Hypnosadist) 18:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Remember

There has been a long-term ongoing debate about whether to include the words "waterboarding is torture" in some form in the lead of the article for several months now. There are people that are firmly for this statement and people that are firmly against this statement. Both sides claim to be on the side of NPOV and there seems to be no way that consensus can be reached. People positions have become inflexible,intractable, and adamantine. This has resulted in the article being completely locked for long periods of time. In addition, there has been various sketchy activity by other editors that has confounded the whole process of reaching consensus. I don't know if arbitration is the right place for this, but all other attempts at moving discussion forward between all parties has broken down. Remember (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Badagnani

I ask only one thing: that any editor or admin weighing in here first read *all* the discussion archives of the Waterboarding article. This will be a significant investment of time but without doing so the necessary context will not be sufficient to make any substantive decision about the article. I have nothing further to add, as all of what is needed is contained in the discussion archives. I respectfully ask that any editors or admins eventually making any decision regarding this article affirm that they have done so. Badagnani (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Chris Bainbridge

I originally got involved after a posting by Lawrence on WP:RSN asking for uninvolved editors to contribute. After watching for a few weeks, I will agree with him that the presence of certain editors is extremely disruptive to the consensus building approach. Almost every posting by a certain editor is designed to drive other editors apart and provoke confrontation and endless argument. The endless contributions from anonymous Sprint wireless IP addresses, the confirmed sockpuppeting from those addresses, Neutral Good's Request for Adminship for the sock-puppeteer, the support of those addresses here etc. I don't know how these editors are connected, but it seems to involve Free Republic somehow. While all of this is going on, any attempt to build consensus will fail, and editors will be driven away from the article.

I also agree that this disruption is completely about American politics. There are absolutely no citations from before 2001 questioning the status of the various waterboarding techniques as a form of torture. The dispute is wholly as a result of its use by the CIA, and those who wish to justify that use. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 20:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved MastCell

In response to interminable AN/I threads on the issue, I proposed a solution here which would involve temporarily topic-banning what I viewed to be one of the worst offenders, a single-purpose POV-pushing tendentious agenda account, as a first step. There was some support, but some involved parties objected and things ended up here.

It's a mess. I would prefer to see it handled by the community, via topic bans and informal article probation, but that solution may not have the legitimacy that an ArbCom mandate would have. I don't think this is a job for mediation - there's a likely IP sock of a banned editor heavily involved as well as some agenda-driven SPA's, and they often don't lend themselves particularly well to mediation. I'd urge ArbCom to accept this - it's a clear user-conduct case occurring on top of a content dispute. If the case is rejected, then there needs to be a real, significant community-based intervention. Otherwise we may just as well protect the article indefinitely. MastCell Talk 21:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved ChrisO

I've not been involved in this dispute or editing this article in any way up to now, but I've reviewed its history in response to its appearance here so that an independent view can be provided. I agree entirely with MastCell's comments above and support a referral to the Arbitration Committee. There is a content dispute here, but the main reason it's not being resolved satisfactorily is because of a number of editors seeking to impose their own particular POV - in some cases through rather obvious sockpuppetry - instead of trying to reach a good-faith consensus. The logjam on this article can best be resolved by tackling the conduct issues that have made the content issues impossible to solve so far. The number of editors involved make it unlikely that individual admins or the community at large can resolve this satisfactorily, so the ArbCom's involvement would seem to be the best way of achieving this goal. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Sandstein

I recommend that the Committee accept this case, not to address the content dispute, but with a view to providing for conditions under which this article can be productively edited again, such as article probation. I don't know whether there is indeed any sockpuppetry or other concerted disruption going on, but if there is, the Committee is best positioned to authoritatively determine and sanction it. It is not helpful, however, to present the content dispute as a conduct issue by phrasing it in terms of OR, NPOV and assorted other content policy violations. These arguments are just the inevitable consequence of the content dispute and are accordingly unsuited to be addressed through the arbitration process. (My involvement with the article is limited to reviewing a good article nomination in December, and, I think, one or two protected edit requests.) Sandstein (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by involved BQZip01

I was involved in this discussion, but was never informed of ArbCom. Given the sheer volume of the discussion, I really don't mind so much, but I wish I had been notified and no malice is assumed unless proven otherwise (I don't expect that to even be possible). IMHO, the problem resides in individual (not individual users, per se, but moreso individual cited people) views of what constitutes torture. Those opinions are present in individual user interpretations and tend to color the discussion accordingly. That said, the basic technique is what should really be emphasized here, not a legal definition (since laws vary from country to country). That its status is disputed should definitely be included in the article and proclamations of its status as "torture" should be avoided. There are lots of things permitted under the Geneva Conventions that U.S. police cannot do; as an example: keeping prisoners awake for 20 hours of every day allowing only 4 nonconsecutive hours of sleep. Some organizations and governments believe this constitutes torture. It certainly isn't permitted in any state in the US, but (and this is the distinction that continues to be missed) it isn't "torture" under the Geneva Conventions. The same goes for this technique. Labeling it as an interrogation technique is certainly factual. Stating that it is not permitted by DoD personnel is certainly factual, but drawing a conclusion that it is illegal and/or is "torture" is not the job of Wikipedia. United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart once proclaimed about porn (rather ineptly IMHO), "I'll know it when I see it." With all due respect to Wikipedians, you aren't the Supreme Court and it is not up to you to decide. That there is controversy regarding a subject needs to be addressed. There should be no absolute proclamations on its status. I truly hope the ArbCom decides to review this and I look forward to their decision. — BQZip01 — talk 00:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by involved Inertia Tensor

It doesn't appear all active parties were notified, myself included - I have been heavily involved with this article, though have avoided it recently as in an edit warring environment I have nothing useful to offer. I have tried to keep myself on the talk page only recently so may not have appeared on the radar of the admin requesting Arb. I have also been involved in the warring before (latest series started Halloween) and have no interest in merely participating in a cyclical war - been there, seen that, learnt a few things. This isn't really a content issue as an ongoing see-saw over weight vs undue weight. It has become highly cyclical. Numerous good faith attempts by involved editors on both sides of the dispute have failed, as not all parties have been willing to work to a consensus. Some have not shown flexibility, and others have sat quietly until the article was unlocked and resumed fundamental edits without archiving consensus for the revised versions. There have been multiple RFCs, and these have helped somewhat in archiving consensus , it simply has not been enough. I'm not sure Arb will want to get involved here, however I see no other way to break the cycle as repeated good faith mediations will breakdown as the editor pool shifts over time - as has shown to be the case.

Though others would disagree, I would boil down the dispute as follows:

  • Does the possible, and not admitted opinion of someone committing the crime carry enough weight to alter what is widely accepted as torture for a long time, globally.

I believe it does not, and though such possible, but unproven disagreements by the administration are indeed noteworthy, and should continue to be mentioned lower in the article, it does not lend enough weight to overturn global consensus on the issue.

  • I have also been concerned by some obfuscation being used where the two following questions are being interchanged when selecting references to back claims that someone of note says it is not torture. (1) So and so says it is/isn't torture Vs. (2) So and so says it is/isn't acceptable in some cases, but not necessarily saying whether it is torture or not.

I request that arbcom offer guidance on WEIGHT vs UNDUE WEIGHT as it applies to this. Inertia Tensor (talk) 07:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ka-Ping Yee

My understanding so far is that ArbCom is for handling misbehaviour rather than settling content disputes, so I will avoid discussing content here (I have already explained my opinions on that matter on the article's talk page and RfC page in some detail).

There has been a lot of counterproductive behaviour surrounding this article, including repeated edit wars and counterproductive comments by many involved parties, some of which have made it difficult for me to continue to assume the good faith of everyone involved. Tensions are high. I believe the actions of administrators have been justified, though I feel the tone of recent responses has sometimes been a bit too harsh — probably brought on by heightened sensitivity after many weeks (months?) of disruption.

The high-bandwidth, strident debate over this single issue of whether the article can say "waterboarding is a form of torture" has consumed vast amounts of time and effort here, sucking all attention and energy away from making other productive progress on the article. I am sure it is frustrating to all involved, and I really hope we can find a way to move past this. I have tried to propose compromises, but have not succeeded. This is my first encounter with a Wikipedia dispute that has been this difficult; I hope that ArbCom can help us, if it is indeed the right body to do so, and I look forward to learning from this process. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 09:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SirFozzie

This seems to me to be a good opportunity to apply lessons learned from the Great Irish Famine and "The Troubles" ArbCom cases, and set up a system where tendentious edit warriors can be placed on probation. I made such a suggestion during the most recent ANI discussion,, but there was some question if we needed an ArbCom finding to do so. Looking at the protection log of the article, figuring out the main edit-warriors on either side and putting them on Probation should reduce future concerns. SirFozzie (talk) 15:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from LCiaccio

As one of the "bitten" Harvard Law students (although not new to Wikipedia, I am entirely new to disputes/RfCs, etc) I am still hesitant to mistep, having been warned that a lack of thorough knowledge of procedures and social norms makes me incompetent to express my views. If this is the case, I apologize. However, since I do have an opinion on the matter and my name has been mentioned, I will give it my best shot.

The more I read the sources linked, the more I am starting to believe that the truth lies somewhere quite close to the line of opinion v. fact. Hence, the closness of the call on content itself has made this a difficult issue to resolve, leading to stalls in the consensus process. From my budding knowledge of WP policies, I do agree that WP:BITE and WP:OWN problems are exacerbating the process; indeed some editors managed to drive me away from voicing my own views until I received an influx of differing opinions.

It does appear to me that the chaotic nature of the talk and comments page is also stalling the process. Several attempts at organizing the sources and clarifying the question have blended into a mess of accusations and other commentary. The former teacher in me wants to believe that a coherent attempt at organization could give us a clearer picture of what we're dealing with, and I suspect the possibility that a few focal voices are making it hard to assess what the weight of consensus really is. However, the future lawyer in me has the cynical suspicion that the current state of disaray might defeat further attempts to clarify and asess the bigger picture. I'm afraid my lack of familiarity with the mediation procedure leaves me unable to weigh in on whether that would help.-Lciaccio (talk) 15:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Randy2063 who withdrew from the maelstrom

The dispute wasn't described properly in the beginning. Whereas it's been called "Waterboarding is/is not torture," I think it's really whether "waterboarding is torture" or whether it's "widely considered torture." The distinction seems subtle but it amounts to a political statement.

So, the question really is, should Wikipedia as a matter of policy pick a side in a political and legal matter?

A word on sources: Most of the oft-noted "140+ legal experts" who say it's always torture seem to be ideologues. I see many political views in that list that are not simply moderate-left; they're further from the mainstream than that. While theirs is a notable opinion, it's a biased one. But even if you agree with them, which is perfectly fine with me, it's still an opinion.

I've suggested WP:NPOV#Let the facts speak for themselves numerous times. One would think we could simply describe waterboarding as a process and as a legal issue and then let readers draw their own conclusions. Yet many editors insist that the word "torture" must be used without reservations. The phrase "widely considered" isn't strong enough for them.

This, on an encyclopedia that's not supposed to call Saddam Hussein a bad guy.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

  • Accept. Content dispute? Yes. However, the circumstances surrounding this dispute seem a bit of concern to the smooth running of Wikipedia. There are clear signs of a battleground that need to be addressed. There are other issues of sockpuppetry that need to be verified as well. The involvment of a large number of users has made this dispute too hard to be solved via regular channels. Therefore, I see no reason to reject this case. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept to look primarily at edit warring and related conduct that has prevented this resolving. Whilst we will not judge the actual "answer" for the parties (content issue), we can give guidance of principle on how WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NPOV, and other relevant policies are intended to work and interact, so they can decide the answer for themselves. FT2 (Talk | email) 05:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. FloNight (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Howe (claimant to King of Mann)

Initiated by Kingofmann (talk) at 03:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

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

In an attempt to resolve this issue with user Newguy34 and having researched for several hours his edits as well as many others, based on the discussions of several editors on my biography's talk page at Talk:David_Howe_(claimant_to_King_of_Mann) with those attempting to edit to Wikipedia's policies, I do not feel that this issue is easily resolved and it does suggest that there is a group effort to edit to the negative with three of the parties involved as well as other anonymous editors not cited using various USENET groups as a base for orchestrating their efforts. See MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January_2008#Unreal_Royal citing user Wjhonson involvement. See Talk:David_Howe_(claimant_to_King_of_Mann)/Archive_2#Celebrity_Friends_and_Royal_Cousins illustrating user Hearldic's participation in a USENET group with a long list of libelous claims against me.

Statement by Kingofmann

I am David Howe, the subject of a Wikipedia Biography.

My initial dispute had to do with the inclusion of a business that I own, that has nothing to do with my notability, on a biography page about me. I requested to Admin Hu12 that he aid me with the removal on his talk page and I cited WP:Blp#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy as the reason why. I eventually deleted the material I felt violated my privacy and stated why on my talk page. User Newguy34 reverted it twice and that is when I requested page protection which was issued.

In response to what seemed like several editors of my biography page, namely Newguy34, Heraldic, Wjhonson and some anonymous users involvement in what seems to be an orchestrated effort to circumvent WP:BLP and present a negative point of view see MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January_2008#Unreal_Royal, Admin Hu12 on his talk page as well as my biography's talk page stated, "The Media bias is evident in many of the sources, which are attributable and doesn't surprise me since its rooted in forms of Cultural biass. The subject of David Howe is no doubt a Political one to many, however lets keep these biases out of the article space." His request has had no effect.

There are numerous examples on the biography's talk page that show the well telegraphed intent of some editors. Just a few are as follows: December 27, 2007, editor Newguy34 was an advocate for the Wikipedia blacklisted site that has since be revised several times to appear less libelous. Talk:David_Howe_(claimant_to_King_of_Mann)/Archive_2#Celebrity_Friends_and_Royal_Cousins Despite the fact the site isn't a reliable third-party source, addressing another editor's objection to the site he stated, "Your bias appears clear, namely to advance Howe's claims. The author of the website is well respected in genealogy circles and has fully cited and referenced his "opinions."" In fact none of these things are true. The author of the site at the bottom of the first page describes himself, as of January 9, 2008, "an accountant with a keen amateur interest in history and genealogy."

Heraldic and Wjhonson advocating for including libelous blacklisted site see MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January_2008#unrealroyal.com and then attempting to get it removed from the blacklist See MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January_2008#Unreal_Royal. Here it was also revealed that Wjhonson had conspired with the author of the blacklisted site to misuse Wikipedia.

Statement by Wjhonson

When a person has achieved that level of notability that a biography is acceptable, all known facts about the person have an equal chance of being represented. The person, short of pointing out libelous statements, has no special prerogative to exclude certain details. We do not allow this priviledge to Ann Coulter, we do not allow it to Jimmy Wales, we allow it to nobody. It is a red-herring argument that only issues *related* to notability are included. We include a biography based on notability, but once included, each statement does not need to pass notability to be included.

Contrary to the claim that I was involved in "...circumvent[ing] WP:BLP and present[ing] a negative point of view see MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January_2008#Unreal_Royal...." I submit that all of my edits have quite plainly adhered to WP:BLP. The issue regarding what I perceive as an out-of-process blacklisting is a seperate issue to this article. That the http: //www.unrealroyal.com site was blacklisted as an "attack site", when IMHO it is a "criticism" site of a *public figure* as the King of Man is most clearly. If the King of Man were not himself a public figure, than pointed criticism might be a valid reason for blacklisting a site which criticizes a Wikipedian. The fact that he is a *public figure* puts him outside that purview and he is then fair-game just as surely as George Bush is himself. We do not blacklist sites critical of Bush, and if Bush became a Wikipedian we would not blacklist sites critical of Bush.

Contary to the assertion that "The author of the website is well respected in genealogy circles and has fully cited and referenced his "opinions."" In fact none of these things are true.", I submit that indeed the author is well-respected in genealogy circles, and his fair-and-even criticism of David Howe is fully cited and referenced.

Contary to the assertion that the site is "...libelous..." is my assertion that it in fact engages in well-reasoned and pointed criticism of a public figure.

Contrary to the assertion that "...Wjhonson had conspired with the author of the blacklisted site to misuse Wikipedia." is my assertion that outside Wikipedia, in particular on the soc.genealogy.medieval newsgroup, I know the author of the website. My agreeing with his perception that his website was unfairly blacklisted, is not a conspiracy.

Statement by Newguy34

I am disappointed that this has reached the ArbCom, and am not sure quite where to start in this unfortunate episode.

First, either Mr. Howe is notable as an individual (for which information such as his primary business venture is relevant) or he is notable for only a single event (namely his claim) and the BLP should be merged with another article. I think a BLP of Mr. Howe is unwarranted. As it relates to WP guidelines, a person is generally notable if a) the person has received significant recognized awards or honors, or b) the person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.

Further, when a person is associated with only one event, such as an unsubstantiated claim to be related to ancient royalty, consideration should be given to the need to create a standalone article on the person. If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted.

And from BLP, if reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy, which is exactly the situation we are facing in this matter. I fail to see how Mr. Howe has achieved any notability other than through this singular claim, and the recent coverage of it. In spite of this, a single user Lazydown has made the majority of edits in support of Mr. Howe's claim, while several editors (including those involved in this arbitration matter) have been consistent in attempting to achieve a balance and neutrality to the article, Lazydown's (and now Howe's) protestations that we are somehow violating NPOV aside. The support for this assertion is contained on the article's talk page and the edit history, and is clear for anyone to read.

As to the information I seek to have included, I believe the inclusion of Mr. Howe's business is relevant information, which is entirely permissible and standard for a BLP. I cited the information from a verifiable, reliable source in accordance with WP policies. The fact that he owns a Glass Doctor franchise in Frederick is a matter of public record and comes from press releases penned by (or authorized by) him. I can not see how it now should be excluded (in its present form) from a biographical article [emphasis added] on claimed grounds of privacy, especially given that it was Mr. Howe who first put this information in the public domain. That Mr. Howe does not like the relevant information he has placed in the public domain being used in a BLP article about himself is insufficient support for its exclusion under privacy concerns.

I attempted to reach consensus with Mr. Howe on the issue (as evidenced on his talk page), but he refuses to discuss the matter further and instead has made a very serious threat of legal action against me (and possibly Wikipedia) see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kingofmann. A threat which I take very seriously, and for which I believe he should be admonished. He has not engaged in dispute resolution. These are indisputable facts, evidenced in various talk pages.

Mr. Howe's assertion that there are several editors involved in "an orchestrated effort to circumvent BLP and present a negative point of view" is a gross misrepresentation of the facts and represents libel. I have never met any of the other editors. My edits have been to retain NPOV after numerous attempts by Lazydown to edit the article in a light most advantageous to Mr. Howe and his claim. Lazydown's edits are typically accompanied by accusations that the editors involved in this arbitration are violating NPOV and other WP policies. I have posted that I believe we are involved in a content dispute. I have attempted to reach consensus on the issue with Lazydown, but he too refuses to discuss the matter. Instead, he posts accusations of a number of us on the talk pages of several administrators, namely Hu12. As such, I believe that Lazydown has not been exhibiting good faith, and am curious why Lazydown is not also a subject of this arbitration action given the inordinate number of edits he has made.

I also take strong personal offense to Mr. Howe's implication that the edits of myself and others amount to a "well telegraphed intent" on our part. Again, I have never met the other editors in question, and there is no evidence or factual basis to support this latest assertion. Contrary to Mr. Howe's assertion, I was not an advocate for the now-blacklisted site, but rather sought to understand the objections of Lazydown in that matter. It is important to note that at the time of my posts on the matter, the website in question was not blacklisted. It is also important to note that the criticism of Mr. Howe on the website in question is fully cited and is fully referenced. The occupation of the website author is not relevant to his recognized expertise in the matters the website discusses. I, too, believe the blacklisting of the website is inappropriate and uncalled for.

In summary, I believe this is a very disturbing series of events, filled with red herring arguments, selective adherence to WP policies, inappropriate COI on the part of Howe, and an exercise of bad faith on the part of Howe and user Lazydown. I welcome the consideration of these matters by ArbCom, but as one who believes in the Wikipedia project, I am disappointed that it has come to this. Newguy34 (talk) 06:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Heraldic

Firstly, I should say that I have been on steep learning curve when it comes to the Wikipedia way of doing things. Hopefully I am not repeating any of my earlier procedural errors.

Given the nature of Mr Howe’s claims it is understandable that they would come under considerable scrutiny. I do not think that it is in Wikipedia’s interest to allow the Howe article to be perceived in any way as an endorsement of his claims. To that end I have attempted to provide a balance to the Howe article, clarifying certain broad statements or citing references that reflect that all is not as clear cut as Howe may wish.

With regard to the unrealroyal site; whilst the observations of the author may not meet Wikipedia guidelines (as I now understand), I do believe the factual content is worthy of note. It was for the latter reason I questioned its blacklisting. As for its reinstatement, you will see that I stated that if it was to remain blacklisted it should be for its content not because Wjhonson chose to query the blacklisting. I do not believe that simply disagreeing with an admin is a misuse of Wikipedia.

As part of this arbitration process, I hope that the administrators will also look into the relevant issue of sockpuppets. The dedication shown by users Theisles and Lazydown in the editing the article to reflect Howe’s case and the rigid application of Wiki procedures when it comes to the exclusion of any material that is critical of Howe has given rise to the suspicion that they are either Howe himself or a close associate. The most recent example can be found at Talk:David_Howe_(claimant_to_King_of_Mann)#The_Viscount_Howe_claim .Clarification of their status will go along way to calming things down.

For the record, I am not the owner, author or webmaster of the unrealroyal website. Nor have I had contact with any of the editors here to listed other than through Wikipedia public talk pages.--Heraldic 09:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved DrKiernan

See also: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Theisles, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive118#King David Isle of Man and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#David Howe (claimant to King of Mann).

David, I'm not quite clear on what you're asking for: do you want the article to be deleted or redirected per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Articles about people notable only for one event? DrKiernan (talk) 15:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second Statement by Kingofmann

With all due respect, I am I to understand correctly there is an expectation that I must personally hash this dispute out with each of the other parties involved first in order to try and remedy the problem when I have an urgent need for privacy and protection against a negatively slanted biography before I can bring it to the arbitration committee?

Is this the same expectation of others who are the subjects of a Wikipedia biography?

This process has already been an extreme drain on my time and resources. The editors that I have noted in my original statement share a negative view of me and they have not hidden this in their edits or discussion on my biographies talk page or other related talk pages. I feel that it is part of a larger agenda. I also feel that any extra steps required of me in this process and in this public forum are an invasion of my privacy and is an embarrassment.

Is it really necessary that I, the subject of a Wikipedia biography, be required to do anything more to gain some urgently needed protection from Wikipedia? I really hope that this is not the case.--Kingofmann (talk) 15:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved CarbonLifeForm

This article seems to breach WP:NN, WP:BLP, WP:RS and WP:V. It is pretentious nonsense. I have put it up for afd. - CarbonLifeForm (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by almost uninvolved Angusmclellan

When this article was mentioned at WP:BLPN, I had a look at it. My reaction was negative. The article was several sorts of WP:COATRACK: a collection of trivial press mentions, a grab-bag of badly sourced criticisms, a smattering of innuendo. Basically this is a WP:BLP1E where the event in question - the subject's bizarre claims - never got any analysis, and thus a non-event so far as an encyclopedia is concerned. There'd have been no need for the negative aspects to be so poorly referenced had anyone in fact bothered to rebut the claims. Whose fault is this? Don't care. How do we fix it? WP:AFD not WP:RFAR. If the arbcom are minded to consider whether WP:NPOV is more or less important that WP:BLP, I can save some time and trouble. Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable. What's could usefully be arbitrated here? Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by involved Lazydown

Today, 1/11/08, User Carbonlifeform, started an articles for deletion page for this BLP Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Howe_(claimant_to_King_of_Mann) and then proceeded to nominate it for deletion. So, I don't know if that quite qualifies as having no involvement. Beyond that, I think his motion was very premature.

Most are recommending it for deletion based on the subject being WP:ONEEVENT or WP:NN. But, all pretenders to a throne as well as all Kings and Queens are notable for only one event and all other things are as a result of their station. HRH Prince Charles of Wales is notable for one thing. I can't imagine deleting his BLP. If this is the grounds for deleting this subjects BLP then it should be applied evenly across the board and not selectively to those lacking popularity and fame.--Lazydown (talk) 23:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

  • Abstain for now. Waiting to see other statements (if any) to see if there is genuinely a basis for us to look at this. If accepted, then to look at the conduct of all parties (without prior assumption) and BLP/NPOV/privacy crossover. Possible thoughts why we might:
    1. There may be important BLP issues here that arise in many articles that don't reach request for arbitration, and which would help to clarify.
    2. Unsure if DR has been tried sufficiently, but BLP disputes are rated "serious" more easily than many other kinds of dispute and if the community genuinely cannot solve, giving direction urgently rather than demanding every step of DR may be reasonable.
    3. BLP is a policy which has great weight in "real life", and NPOV has great weight in articles; both are "non-negotiable" in their requirements. So a perceived conflict may need more clarification. BLP v. NPOV v. privacy is an area that merits experienced eyeballs.
For now though, waiting for (and would like to have presented) further statements, ideally including insight by other experienced users, to help identify if this issue actually needs arbcom to accept, or not. FT2 (Talk | email) 05:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. I think both sides of the dispute can better explain the issues involved in this venue than others. The potential conflict between NPOV and BLP needs to be addressed. FloNight (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:R. fiend

Initiated by SirFozzie (talk) at 22:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

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

Two threads at ANI, as well as current RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/R. fiend‎

Statement by SirFozzie

R. fiend has been accused of using his administrator powers in numerous inappropriate ways. Among the incidents of questionable adminstrator rights brought up in the RfC:

A) Reverting to a preferred version in the Black Irish page, and then immediately semi-protecting the page to prevent the IP addresses that he was edit-warring against from editing the page. Then, having "won" the edit war, left the page semi-protected indefinitely for almost six months. Revert Protection, Protection Log

B) Continual insertion of questionably-sourced information about a person' (that would violate WP:BLP if the person in question was living). R. fiend again semi-protected the page (without any message as to reason) to "lock out" the anonymous IP editor from editing the page. Link to diff of protection. When the anonymous editor in question requested the page unprotection, two administrators asked R. fiend for the rationale for the protection. He stated that his edits were per the talk page's consensus On the administrator's talk page], but when asked for a link to show this consensus, he did not reply.

C) R. fiend blocked User:Ed Poor in an apparent error in October, leaving no block summary. User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson unblocked Ed nine hours later in the absence of any communication. When questioned on it on his talk page by a three other admins,[23], he replied, "Hmmm. Looks like a mistake. Oh well. No harm done.".[24] When it was suggested by User:WJBscribe that he apologize, R. fiend just walked away and never approached User:Ed Poor on the matter again. (Block log). When this matter was brought up as part of the RfC, he apologized stating that he must have been drunk or high while he edited, which he stated he did infrequently. Link to R. fiend statement about block of Ed Poor. Ed Poor has asked that the block be expunged from his record.

D)R. fiend has been involved in a content dispute with User:Domer48 over the Segi article.[25][26][27]. He then went on to block Domer48 for WP:3RR violation on the same article, even though he was in dispute and editing there. Nor had R. fiend approached Domer48 at any time before the block. While it is fairly well understood that Domer48 was at least at 3 Reverts (and may have broken 3RR), R. fiend, as a participant in the dispute should NOT have been the one to carry out the block. After Domer48 was blocked, uninvolved admins, User:Luna Santin and User:Metros and other editors voiced their concerns.[28][29] R. fiend replied that he didn't see any problem with being a participant in the dispute and blocking Domer, stating "If I didn't block him, someone else would have" [30] Luna Santin questioned that comment, saying that it could be considered an abuse of admin privileges, that besides the obvious conflict of interest in the block, it could have a chilling effect on future editors who found themselves in dispute with R. fiend.'[31]. R. fiend chose not to reply, instead refused to unblock and got more irate[32] when questioned by myself .[33]

In the interests of brevity, I will not list several other incidents that R. fiend was involved in, however, should ArbCom wish to review this additional information, I invite them to review the evidence posted at theRfC on R.fiend‎ Throughout, R. fiend has refused to acknowledge that he had done anything wrong in most of the incidents above, stating that he thought folks were whining, and that most of his actions were fundamentally correct. He also says that he is a self-admitted "Snide Bastard" and that folks knew what they were getting when they passed his RfA, therefore this allows his behavior. [34]

ArbCom should accept this case, review the incivility and use of his administrator rights and privileges, and determine if at least a temporary suspension of these rights, if not a permanent revocation of his administrator rights, is called for.

Statement by Alison

I originally opened the recent RfC on User:R. fiend, having unsuccessfully tried to have the issues addressed at WP:ANI. The desired outcome was as follows:

  1. R. fiend needs to completely refrain from using his administrative tools on articles in which he is involved, even tangentially. This particularly applies to article protection. Instead, he should apply to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection as any other editor should so that a neutral administrator can review the situation and act accordingly. This is how other administrators operate. He needs to understand the protection policy and what it covers.
  2. R. fiend should also pay particularly close attention to the policy on civility, as administrators are obliged to follow this in the same way as any other editor. In ways, administrators should also be exemplars when it comes to civility, politeness and respect for their fellow-editors.
  3. If R. fiend performs an administrative action for whatever reason and is requested to comment on it, he should do so rather than simply ignoring it.

These are basic admin requirements yet, one RfC and much discussion later, R. fiend has still refused to sign up to these. An admin should never protect an article they are in dispute over and, as a rule, should not subsequently edit a protected article especially if there's a dispute involved. In his career as an admin, R. fiend has only done about 25 article protects, but a good 6 of these have been problematic. From the RfC:

  • R. fiend was in an edit-war over addition of "Popular culture references" to the Black Irish article,[35][36][37] and chose to lock out the anonymous editors by reverting to his own version[38] and immediately semi-protecting the article without specifying any protect rationale.[39]. This was in May; the article remained semi-protected and untagged until I discovered it today (Prot. log).
  • He was involved in a content dispute with an anonymous editor on the Patrick Pearse article, regarding additions relating to Ruth Dudley Edwards.[40][41] the anonymous editor had been removing largely unsourced commentary regarding the subject's sexuality and had been using good edit summaries to justify the changes, whereas R. fiend had been using none. R. fiend then indefinitely semi-protected the article without specifying any protect rationale.[42]. The anonymous editor made a request to unprotect on WP:RPP. I was on RPP patrol at the time and handled the request. Rather than simply undo the rather blatantly inappropriate protect, I left a polite message on his talk page[43] requesting clarification. Another regular RPP patrolling admin, User:Steel359 weighed in on his talk page to concur[44] R. fiend replied on my talk page here stating consensus was achieved on the talk page. When I checked, I could not find it and when I asked where, he never replied. Nor did he reply to my question, "This sounds from what you are saying that you semi-protected the page to block out an anon editor who is involved in a content dispute, and is in dialog. Is this the case here?". The article was subsequently unprotected by User:Steel359 with the comment, "Inappropriate use of semi-protection". A second unprotect request had been made on WP:RPP and Steel had gone to investigate. He also requested of R. fiend to point to talk page consensus, but he could/did not. (Prot. log). Today, R. fiend still remains active on this article.
  • R. fiend was involved in reverting the Shaun Glass by changing it to a redirect.[45] He changed the article to a redir, whereupon another editor reverted and began adding detail to the article.[46] A few days later he returned, reverted to his redirect[47] and straight away semi-protected it indefinitely[48] without commentary whatsoever; neither on his edits, on talk pages, nor in the protection summary, even though the article had been significantly updated in the interim. The protect is still in place today. (Prot. log)
  • Similarly, on the article As I Lay Dying, R fiend redirected this to As I Lay Dying (novel) without comment in what was a dispute between the significance of the redirect to the novel or to As I Lay Dying (band). Another editor reverted his changes[49] whereupon R. fiend reverted again[50] and immediately fully protected the article indefinitely[51] without any comments whatsoever, even though a number of editors had disagreed. The protect is still in place, almost two months later (Prot. log)
  • In November, he was revert-warring with User:Domer48 on Kevin Barry, yet another "Troubles"-related article.[52][53] He had been in a content dispute and was reverting without discussion using Admin Rollback. He then immediately fully protected the article without edit summaries.[54] This was subsequently unprotected an hour later by uninvolved admin User:Mercury with the comment, "note on administrators talk".[55] Mercury's comment was, "Whats going on at Kevin Barry. It appears that you were edit warring, and have protected your version, or have I mistaken?".[56] At that point, he had been repeatedly warned about edit-warring on that article by a number of people. R. fiend chose to blank most of the warning messages[57] and walk away without responding to anyone, including User:Mercury. Mercury was left with no option but to leave a warning, "Please note that edit warring is disruptive and can lead to preventative blocks. Additionally, please do not apply protection to articles you are currently in dispute.",[58] and unprotect (Prot. log)
  • This week, R. fiend was involved in revert-warring with User:Domer48 and User:BigDunc on the Easter Rising article, another "Troubles" article. The article was then protected by uninvolved admin, User:Luna Santin with the statement, "edit warring".[59] R. fiend then went on to make a revert to the article using his ability as an admin.[60] When called on this, he self-reverted two hours later[61] Later, the article was again fully protected due to the same edit-warriors. This time, R. fiend immediately made an (albeit trivial) edit to the article using his admin powers[62][63]. (Prot. log). This led to the matter of this admin being brought up at WP:ANI, which led to the RfC and then this RFAr case.

Additionally, As SirFozzie notes, R. fiend blocked User:Domer48 for an arguable 3RR offense, even though he was revert-warring with him at the time.

In October, R. fiend blocked User:Ed Poor indefinitely for no reason whatsoever. When questioned on it by a number of admins, he said, " Hmmm. Looks like a mistake. Oh well. No harm done.", and left it at that. He never again approached Ed Poor on the matter to explain what happened. Yesterday, I discovered an essay, written by R. fiend, about Conservapedia. Ed Poor happens to be an admin there[64] and R. fiend states the following there;

Ed Poor is quite upset about his block being on his record as he's currently on parole and now needs to explain why he was blocked and unblocked. When I questioned R. fiend directly on the matter yesterday, quoting the essay,[65] he replied that he was possibly "really really drunk when that happened (maybe even high) [...] there have been occasions where I have blacked out, and done things I really can't attest to."[66]

As an admin, he has been quite unresponsive and uncivil, and dismissive in his edit summaries and talk page comments. For example, when informed that he was being discussed on WP:ANI[67], he replied[68], "Thanks, but I'm less than inclined to care about such inanity", eventually only participating when he was informed again[69] that it could result in an RfC. Edit summaries such as "restoring FASCIST CENSORSHIP or REFERENCED MATERIAL. This has a FOOTNOTE. Therefore it CANNIT be removed or altered by ANYONE, ever. To do so would be ORIGINAL RESEARCH!!!!111!!11oneone1!!!",[70] humourous as it may be intended, are highly inappropriate. Comments like "Good. Glad this needless discussion is over. I accept your surrender"[71] are inappropriate and needlessly inflammatory, especially considering "surrender" carries certain well-known connotations on "Troubles"-related articles. User:Domer48 left a message stating that R. fiend was reported to WP:AN3 for revert-warring.[72] R. fiend then blanked it with the summary, "whoop-de-fucking-doo".[73]

In summary, I did not want this issue to reach the ArbCom stage. All I wanted was R. fiend to commit to the "desired outcome" of the RfC; that he refrain from using the tools in an abusive manner, especially on articles/editors with which he was involved. He refused to sign up to these , noting that it's more expedient that he do these things himself, rather than call in a neutral admin, or use {{editprotected}} or whatever. So long as (he feels) another admin would produce the same result, that made it okay. He sees little wrong in what he has been doing here.

Addendum

Can the Arbitration Committee make a clear statement regarding the block of User:Ed Poor, carried out by R. fiend? As Ed Poor is on parole, it would help him greatly if ArbCom could officially have the block struck from his record as it reflects badly upon his parole history. Thanks - Alison ❤ 20:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by R. fiend

First off, I want to say that the recent spate of free time I've recently had that has allowed to me spent large amounts of time to editing and discussions at Wikipedia is drawing to a close, so I won't be able to devote as much time to this as I have to other things recently, nor will I be editing as regularly in general, for reasons not associated with AN/I, RfC or Arbcom.

Basically, I just want to say this. At the RfC, I clearly stated that I would refrain from obnoxious comments, show more restraint in article protection, and be more careful when blocking people. Other editors seem to have decided ahead of time that I am not going to do theses things. I just think it would make sense to put off an Arbcom until we see if they are right.

Thank you. That is all. -R. fiend (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I have a little more time now, I'll say a couple more things here, because, again, there are some misrepresentations. First of all, the information in the Patrick Pearse article was sourced (dispute B in SirFozzies's statement). Someone just didn't like the source, thinking it was biased, so removed all information directly attributed to that source (which, incidentally, is the only available biography of the subject) as well as the source itself from the bibliography. This sort of thing has happened a couple times in the past, and I have spent hours dealing with the matter on the talk page. Some people don't like seeing any criticism of their heroes. They need to read Wikipedia guidelines on NPOV. (The article would pass WP:BLP fine, by the way.)
About Segi (D): there was an edit war going on, but I was not part of it. In the course of constant reversions, essential information (the very defining facts about Segi) was being removed. I assume it was unintentional, and that Domer was not deliberately sabotaging the article to make a point. I put it back in, but as others edit warred it was again reverted to an earlier uncorrected version. Therefore I did not consider myself a party to the dispute, just the clean up as it progressed. In any case, as I said, I intend to be more careful about blocking people in th future.
Also this sentence by SirFozzie is also quite the misrepresentation: "Throughout, R. fiend has refused to acknowledge that he had done anything wrong in most of the incidents above, stating that he thought folks were whining, and that most of his actions were fundamentally correct. He also says that he is a self-admitted 'Snide Bastard' and that folks knew what they were getting when they passed his RfA, therefore this allows his behavior."
The only incident I referred to as "whining" was the minor one that brought the original AN/I (and which SirFozzie seems to have thought to minor to even mention here). I also didn't say I was a "snide bastard", merely that I could be one at times (which is different), nor did I say anything about it allowing my behavior. I only noted that others had made that observation, and that it in and of itself was apparently not seen by the community to be worth declining an RfA.
I also think SirFozzie should question his use of the term "irate."
Again, despite multiple assertions that nothing has been accomplished, and given the fact I've stated improvements that I will make, and the fact that I have made no objectionable actions (as far as I know) since the AN/I, I have to wonder if this is the best use of everyone's time. I'm sure if I am seen to be abusing admin powers in the future there will be no hesitation on the part of several people to bring it to Arbcom then. -R. fiend (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Aatomic1

Item C Above

At least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this sysop and have failed. I cannot see evidence of this at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/R. fiend. Indeed I can also see evidence that no one noticed.

Aatomic1 (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are three users who certified the RFC, and 24 more who agreed with the summation. Horologium (talk) 23:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Padraig

I'am disappointed that this has reached Arbcom, but giving R. fiend attitude in the RfC, I see no other way that this can now be resolved.--Padraig (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rjd0060

I'd just like to mention that it really is unfortunate that Arbitration has been requested, as we (myself and several others) have tried to resolve these matters elsewhere (ANI and RFC/U as mentioned above), however the lack of consideration and effort by R. fiend to resolve these issues leaves no other alternative. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jj137

I'm sure this has mainly already been said; this matter has gone from talk page → AN/I → RfC → and now ArbCom. I really didn't see any progress whatsoever until the RfC, and even so I don't think there was much. I think it is unfortunate it had to go this far, but it is probably the best way to go if this matter will ever be resolved. In the RfC, Brownhairgirl made a statement proposing R. fiend voluntarily remove his admin status and go back to RfA if he chooses; 16 users accepted the statement. I do not know whether that is the best course of action, but I think it is an option.   jj137 ♠ 01:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Domer48

A number of Administrators have gone out of their way on the RfC to advise and encourage R. fiend to engage constructively to prevent this escalation. With such support being offered, R. fiend’s attitude unfortunately left no other alternative open other than this final step. --Domer48 (talk) 10:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved User:BQZip01

I've reviewed the problems in question and it appears to me that R. fiend may have abused his powers. At a minimum, the appearance of abuse is certainly present. This ArbCom session is needed, if for nothing else, to clear the air. Additionally, it concerns me that R. fiend has openly stated that he has blacked out and done things without remembering them. Though this is not the kind of behavior we can accept from an admin, I am far more concerned for his well-being and earnestly request he seek some assistance from someone. This is simply a website with some information; your real life needs should take precedent. I implore you to take a break at the earliest possible convenience (possibly even with the ArbCom's blessing/encouragement and a delay in these proceedings). You can certainly finish this ArbCom when you get back. — BQZip01 — talk 05:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Four votes to accept noted. Will be opened late January 11 (UTC). Daniel (talk) 10:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (6/0/0/0)

Principality of Sealand

Initiated by Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) at 19:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Gene Poole

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Onecanadasquarebishopsgate

What began as a simple debate eventually became an argumentative dispute that eventually led to the dispute resolution process. I used Third opinion and Request for Comment - but Gene Poole would not cooperate, as can be seen here. After progress was made with the Request for Comment (which Gene Poole did not take part in), Gene Poole returned arguing that Sealand is a micronation. Other editors within the discussion page of Principality of Sealand consider Sealand a micronation, but Gene Poole is the only one that does not cooperate with dispute resolution.

It was clear now that because Gene Poole considers Sealand a micronation and I consider Sealand a sovereign state, there was, and still is, a dispute. But Gene poole became less and less cooperative. After the Third Opinion and Request for Comment, I decided to write on his discussion page (after he thought that I was a sockpuppet):

"On the same day as the above was posted I suggested using a solution that has been used for the past week with success (Note: this solution is to have a similar first pargraph to Empire of Atlantium). Maybe this could solve the problem?"

Gene Poole would not reply and after reminding him of the statement I wrote he deleted the reminders and called them trolling. He then wrote on Legal status of Sealand:

"There is no dispute about Sealand's legal status. A single-purpose editor is currently attempting to insinuate an unreferenced, strong pro-sovereignty position into a range of Sealand-related articles, and this appears to be one of them."

After that the dispute continued here, where he questioned my comprehension of the subject and my linguistic ability. I then decided to use Request for Mediation and placed this notice on his discussion page:

"Rather than continue with this absurd to-and-fro, perhaps you would agree to mediation.

I would like to see this dispute resolved, why not in a NPOV way?"

Gene Poole replied with this on my discussion page:

"The matter has only one possible resolution: you must comply fully and immediately with WP content policies by ceasing to promote a POV that is unsupported by either reliable third party sources or consensus. There is nothing to mediate, and nothing further to discuss."

He has refused to cooperate with dispute resolution, and another user (Cheeser1) is not pleased:

"I am not pleased that this person is not cooperating in dispute resolution."

This dispute needs to be resolved, but the purpose of this statement is for the following to happen:

  • Gene Poole needs to cooperate with the dispute resolution process so that a solution can be found.
  • Gene Poole needs to stop attacking user's opinions in an argument (particularly the Sealand is a sovereign state opinion), and instead support his own opinions in a debate.
  • Gene Poole needs to stop commenting on the contributor.

His history of sockpuppetry and attacking rather than discussing opinions have caused enough problems and this dispute needs to be resolved. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to withdraw my request. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Warlordjohncarter

I remember when the above editor was attempting to demand that Sealand falls within the scope of the Wikipedia:WikiProject European Microstates, despite the fact that that project was never contacted by him to request inclusion in its scope and it does not fall within the project's currently stated scope. He did however demand that it be included as per here. He made similar comments at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Sealand discussion, stating that Sealand falls within the scope of the above project, despite not being mentioned there. He has also made similar categorical statements that Sealand must be at least considered a microstate at Talk:Sealand#Micronation/Microstate. Unfortunately, I have never seen any evidence to support that contention, barring a few passport stamps and a few news articles, and the apparent formal lack of recognition by any countries clearly mitigates against that. I regret to say that the originator of this request seems to me to be a rather absolutist POV pusher. I believe it could reasonably be stated that attempting to introduce statements that Sealand is a microstate based on the scanty evidence available, none of which seems to come from sources which would be considered reliable for these purposes, could be at least possibly reasonably be thought of as vandalism. John Carter (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved DrKiernan

Sam is correct that Gene has accused Onecanadasquare of vandalism,[74] but seems to have missed Onecanadasquare calling Gene a troll[75].

Fault on both sides, perhaps? Onecanadasquare's insistence that the Principality of Sealand is a sovereign state, when it quite clearly is not, could count as POV OR fringe theory, and, if the committee accepts this case, you may wish to examine this aspect of the dispute. DrKiernan (talk) 13:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman

Individual administrative action should be sufficient to control one or possibly two disruptive editors. There does not appear to be any substantial dispute amongst administrators over how to handle this.

This request for arbitration may be vexatious, given that a request for mediation was filed one day before. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate seems to be forum shopping: [76][77][78][79] I have left messages for both parties to the dispute [80][81] and feel confident that this will be resolved through ordinary process. Please reject the case. Jehochman Talk 15:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support the request to withdraw. If the parties would like my help to resolve the dispute, I will be available, or else than can use the initial steps in dispute resolution. It seems like the temperature has been turned down and people are willing to work through the usual processes. Hopefully we will not be back later. Jehochman Talk 21:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

  • I'm wavering on this at the moment because it's clearly a longrunning problem with editor misbehaviour, but Gene Poole's labelling good faith communications as vandalism or trolling and rejection of mediation is edging him close to the point at which it becomes obvious that he is unable to work with others. In other words, if Gene Poole makes further disruptive edits, an uninvolved admin should consider warning him, and restrict his editing so as to prevent future disruption, with no need to open an arbitration case. Gene Poole may be able to convince me that there is more to be considered but I'm inclined to reject at the moment. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject for now while attempts to settle the issue through mediation etc. appear to be happening. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extraordinary rendition by the United States

Ccson Ccson (talk) at 20:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Swatjester

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Ccson

I have inserted text within the article and cited the World Policy Council as the source for the statements and their opinion. User Swatjester continues to remove the text because he feels the source is unreliable. I have shown the WPC is associated with a university, the WPC seek the advice of experts when needed, and I have consensus from other editors that the source is reliable for their opinion. I attempted cabal mediation, however, the user declined mediation and reverted again.

The opinion presented is the agreement of 9 persons whose background include a Senator, U.S. Ambassadors, U.S. Congressmen, College Presidents, Leaders of Churches and Foundations, and a professor at Ivy league universities.

Each person is highly regarded for their individual opinions and an agreement of the nine should be regarded more highly as a reliable source within wikipedia.

I hope the committee will accept this case and determine that the World Policy Council is a reliable source to cite within Wikipedia.

I wasn't aware that I was "forum shopping". I was following the suggested steps for dispute resolution. I'm surprised that Swatjester says that no time was given to develop this since he refused mediation so I interpreted this action that he didn't want to reach a truce even with the help of a neutral party. His response on the RSN board seems more like a scolding for the editors who decided the WPC was a reliable source. Becauuse Swatjester is an admin, I thought he woud respect the Wikipedia:BRD policy, however, the diffs shows that he restates his objections then reverts. I would also like to note that Swatjester has provided no reliable source for his continuing to revert other than his own personal knowledge of Alpha Phi Alpha and that he lives 3 blocks from Howard University where the World Policy Council was founded and based. I will wait to see if other users post on the RSN and seek the other options suggested such as 3rd opinion and RFC. thanks for your response.--Ccson (talk) 03:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kendrick7

Current use of this source fails WP:SOAP because no third party source is given which attests to the WP:Notability of this group's opinion.

This is a content dispute, and premature prior to filing a WP:RFC

Statement by Swatjester

Content dispute. Excessively rapid escalation with no time to develop. Mountain. Molehill. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 01:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/6/0/0)

Elvis Presley / Onefortyone

Initiated by Steve Pastor (talk) at 16:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Onefortyone[82] Rikstar [83] Northmeister [84] LaraLove [85] Maria202 [86] Jaye9 [87]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Several editors have made heroic attempts to work with OneFortyOne. All editors who have tried to do this have thrown their hands up in frustration, as can be noted by the comments of the editors who have joined in this request.

Statement by Steve Pastor

Comments by the combined editors of the Elvis Presley article should suffice to substantiate the following request

that user OneFortyOne be permanently banned from editing the Elvis Presley article, including the Discussion page. Furthermore I request that OneFortyOne be banned from editing any article with a mention of Elvis Presley, including, but not limited to, the Milton Berle Show, Steve Allen, The Steve Allen Show, Ed Sullivan, and The Ed Sullivan Show articles.

This has been a long term pernicious problem. As Rikstar has written, 141 "knows how to play the edit warring game without getting into obvious trouble, his posts beg to be answered ... and this has been as tiresome as it has been unproductive". It should be noted that 141 brings up the same previously rejected arguments and material over and over again.

OneForty One has been banned previously. You may wish to review the following pages: [88], [89], [90].

The following are remarks are from on the Discussion page of the Elvis Presley article:

Disruptive editing. 141 continues to edit this article unilaterally, making little or no effort to co-operate with others. 141 was asked to leave my last edits for others to consider and comment on. He did not. 141 was asked to justify his accusations of fan bias in later sections on these pages first. He did not, and has gone ahead and made changes. It was explained in detail above that 141's edits regarding guitar playing didn't work and that the citation was incomplete. He reverted the changes I subsequently made and it remains a poor read and poorly cited. 141 has been asked if his intention is to make this an article of GA or FA status: no comment. 141 is refusing to allow any of his precious edits to be removed, inspite of article length, and the good will of others in removing or allowing the removal of their own contributions. Rikstar 12:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

We've approached a point where regardless of efforts to include onefortyones edits within the summary style of Wikipedia, and despite concessions to him; this editor continues to spoil any effort to bring improvement to the article so that it may become among the best at Wikipedia and receive feature status. Numerous editors thus far including yourself and tireless Rikstar have improve this article substantially. I would hate to see it all ruined by one editor who is not getting the point of our efforts nor Wikipedia WP:Point. It is time this matter is resolved by outside parties. --Northmeister 01:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This article has been degraded enough. Too much time and hard work has gone to waste. This article has great potential to be an FA. Currently, it can't even keep GA. It's time to fix the issues that ail this article. Lara❤Love 17:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It pains me to see what one user, 141, has done to this article. I watched many others work very hard on getting it to FA status. Maria202 (talk) 15:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

So much of the "current controversy" occurs because one particular user (guess) keeps trying to own this article, and the Talk Page. I'm in favor of taking it to arbitration, or even having him banned for his behavior in and about this article and Talk. It's a shame that this user has made such a mess of this page with his obsessive blather that the page is sinking into a swamp of user despair. Hoserjoe (talk) 00:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC) To Steve Pastor add me to your list, please.--Jaye9 (talk) 15:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I will add my own comments:

If I thought it would make a difference to 141, I would go through the archeives and repeat the arguments that have been made by other editors as to why this material does not belong in this article. Since 141 has been unable or unwilling to understand, or accept any other viewpoints on this subject, that exercise would be pointless. Steve Pastor (talk) 20:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Rikstar has by far put the most effort into this article, and provided these additional comments.

I posted my worries about improving the Elvis article on Dec. 8, 2006 - my comment is still in the summary of FA/GA submissions. My concerns actually referred to the involvement of one user, Onefortyone, though I did not mention him by name. His history already indicated that he had an alarming and persistent preoccupation with negative and sexually biased material, something not reflected in other encyclopedic articles. I noted he had at times been banned/committed violations.

By May, 2007, I was being actively encouraged by user Northmeister to edit (he has since given up) because of other editors' concerns about the state of the article; the lack of progress seemed tied to article length, trivia, fan bias, structure and to 141's continued involvement. In the last 6 months, I have tried to improve the article but I have felt regularly frustrated by 141's talk, edits, reverts, ignoring consensus and general tactics that lead me to seriously believe he has some kind of agenda to be disruptive and/or to have his POV included at any cost. His posting of a list of miswritten lyrics implying Presley was gay was as perplexing as it was disturbing. Responding to his claims, new submissions, etc. has taken up more time and effort than with any other user, and the payback has been negligible.

141 is shrewd: he knows how to play the edit warring game without getting into obvious trouble, his posts beg to be answered if only not to give his claims undue weight, and this has been as tiresome as it has been unproductive. I hope that my own posts on the talk pages will give sufficient details about the specific objections I and others have had to 141's editing behavior, and that they will be seen as fair and as objective as possible. It should be noted however that the frustration over many hours of discussion/arguing with 141 alone has pushed me to the point where I have felt physically repelled at the thought of doing any more editing, period. I have stretched my patience to its limit trying to negotiate with/accommodate/tolerate 141, to ignore his rehashing of stale tactics/arguments. However, the evidence is there, I think, that this and other articles will never improve as they should with his continued involvement. I also believe he has scared off too many people who could help make this a featured article. And I may well be another casuality. Rikstar (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Additional statement by Onefortyone concerning false claims by Steve Pastor

Here are some false claims made by Steve Pastor in his statement above:

  • "141 continues to edit this article unilaterally, making little or no effort to co-operate with others."
This is not true, as the discussion page shows and my efforts in order to shorten longer versions of specific paragraphs previously written by me prove. See [91], [92]. See also [93]and [94], [95], [96]. However, if some users removed entire, well-sourced paragraphs, I did not agree, which I hope is understandable. In these cases I tried to reinclude the deleted material in the original form or, alternatively, in revised, abridged form. It should be noted that others also reverted such edits. See [97], [98], [99], [100].
  • "141 was asked to justify his accusations of fan bias in later sections on these pages first. He did not..."
I did. See [101], [102], [103], [104], etc.
  • "It was explained in detail above that 141's edits regarding guitar playing didn't work and that the citation was incomplete. He reverted the changes I subsequently made and it remains a poor read and poorly cited."
For my response, see [105], where I have demonstrated that Steve Pastor's edits regarding guitar playing "suggests that Elvis's music was accepted from the beginning by the majority of listeners. But this isn't true," as the sources I have provided show. The said passage has been reworded by me and Rikstar several weeks ago and it is now a good read.
  • "141 has been asked if his intention is to make this an article of GA or FA status: no comment."
This is also a false claim. For my statements that I am willing to help to make Elvis Presley an article of GA or FA status, see [106], [107], [108].
  • 141 is refusing to allow any of his precious edits to be removed.
This is not true. For example, when Rikstar shortened this section, I did not revert it to the previous, much longer version written by me. In many other cases, I accepted edits by others, as the contribution history of the Elvis article clearly shows.

So much for Steve Pastor's false claims.

Statement by Onefortyone

It's interesting that User:Steve Pastor requests a ban in view of his biased removals of well-sourced, critical information and inclusion of fan-oriented material in Elvis-related articles.

To my mind, the whole thing is simply a content dispute concerning Elvis-related topics. Pastor seems to be primarily interested in removing critical information and including material mentioning "that some of Elvis's greatest assets were his youth and good looks." And he adds, "I have several sources (my favorite is a BB King statement, which can be seen on dvd) that he tought Elvis would be popular whether he could sing or not." See [109].

It should be further noted that most editors who have joined in Steve Pastor's request are acknowledged fans of Elvis Presley.

  • Northmeister says on his user page, "I've been a lifelong fan of Elvis Presley even though he passed away in my very early years." See [110].
  • LaraLove says, "I am an Elvis fan, but of his music and look, not so much his life and how he lived it." See [111].
  • Jaye9 says, "Oh by the way 141, I am an Elvis Fan..." See [112]. This could suggest that they may be interested in excluding more critical material from the Elvis article.

See also these four edits by Pastor of May 2007: [113], [114], [115], [116]. Furthermore, which contributions to The Ed Sullivan Show are more encyclopedic? This one and this one by Steve Pastor or that one and that one by Onefortyone?

In the past, User:Steve Pastor repeatedly removed content he didn't like from the Elvis page. See [117], [118], [119], [120], [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], [127], [128], [129], etc. etc.

What is more, Steve Pastor frequently includes references to specific fan sites and DVDs in Wikipedia articles. See [130], [131], [132], [133], [134], [135], [136], [137], [138], [139], [140], [141], [142]. Other users had also a suspicion that the hyperlinks Steve Pastor prefers seem "designed primarily to sell CDs." See [143], [144]. This inclusion of references to Elvis fan sites, DVDs etc., which is not in line with Wikipedia policies, may indicate that Pastor is part of an Elvis fan group and may therefore be an editor who has a conflict of interest.

Concerning the well-sourced material I have used for my contributions, Steve Pastor writes:

  • I think we need to keep in mind that many of the people who wrote about Elvis were writing books. Much of what they write is opinion and doesn't need to be repeated here. See [145].
  • We no longer have to rely on second hand accounts of many things. We also no longer have to rely on someone elses account of what the music sounds like with the availablity of samples. See [146]

Third-party users seem to agree with my edits:

  • "The article seems a bit too fan influenced. I wish that some of the input by Onefortyone (biased though he may or may not be) got more air time. Elvis was wonderful, but an encyclopedia article, especially a wikipedia article should be brutally honest." See [147].
  • "Elvis was a controversial figure. His sexuality, drug taking, divorce, eating disorders etc etc all attract differing points of view. To some he was a god; to others a fat bloke who died on the toilet. For many aspects of his life there is no definitive answer. ... To attempt to compromise, this article needs to show both sides with suitable references and let the reader decide." See [148].
  • "Onefortyone presents well documented information on a lot of negative aspects of Elvis` life and it gets continually edited out. Let the truth be heard, you inane fanboys." See [149].

Here are some other commentaries concerning my contributions:

  • ... If the Presley article is so POV and controlled by biased Elvis fans as you claim, then feel free to make all the edits you like. They seem to wasted just appearing on the talk page. You are obviously intelligent, erudite and can write excellent prose that is unimpeachably cited. Other people are freely editing the article, so why don't you? See [150]
  • I like your recent compromise. It shows we can work together and that you understand my concerns. I moved the later material to 1968 comeback to fit better in the article. In this way we can work towards your concerns. See [151]
  • A Resilient Barnstar for learning and improving from criticisms, and not letting mistakes or blunders impede your growth as Wikipedian. I'm really impressed. See [152]

As far as I can see, I am the only editor who frequently cites his sources, among them mainstream Elvis biographies, essays by reputed Elvis experts, books by people who knew Elvis and peer-reviewed studies published by university presses. For the many sources I have used for my contributions, see [153].

Significantly, my opponents now endeavor to remove exactly the same sourced information that my former opponents had removed, who are banned by former arbcom decisions. To my mind, Steve Pastor and some new sockpuppets of Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabbadoo are still edit warring with me, as multiple hardbanned User:Ted Wilkes alias User:DW and banned User:Lochdale did in the past. Onefortyone (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Jehochman

You have claimed, "Onefortyone appears to have been in persistent conflict since at least May 2007..." and "I believe Onefortyone has significantly impeded development of the article, based on the statements of involved parties." If you look at the contribution history, you will find that I didn't touch the Elvis article between May 19 and August 27, 2007. As there was a permanent edit war in the past, I didn't revert any removals by other users for months in order to show good faith. This means that there was plenty of time for my opponents to develop the article, and they changed a lot. However, there was a discussion on the talk page, as my opponents frequently removed sourced content that was not in line with their personal opinion. In August, Rikstar said on the talk page, "...feel free to make all the edits you like. They seem to wasted just appearing on the talk page. You are obviously intelligent, erudite and can write excellent prose that is unimpeachably cited. Other people are freely editing the article, so why don't you?" See [154]. So I returned. The edit war started again with this edit by Northmeister, who, as usual, removed well-sourced information from the article page. Furthermore, if you look at the Elvis article in its present state from a neutral point of view, is it really such a mess as my opponents claim? Onefortyone (talk) 01:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to LaraLove

I think I have shown on the talk page that the claims by Jaye9, perhaps a newly created sockpuppet of one of my former opponents (see his contribution history), are unjustified. Jaye9 even made false claims concerning Elvis's father, Vernon, and his stepmother, Dee Presley, on the talk page similar to the claims made by banned user Lochdale, who even added this false information to the Elvis article. See [155] and my reply here. Onefortyone (talk) 01:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman

I direct the Committee's attention to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive249#Still an unresolved problem. I am concerned that the current remedies against Onefortyone may be entirely insufficient to deal with the level of disruption that seems to be going on. I urge the committee to accept this matter for review to help resolve a long running controversy that the community has been unable to handle. Onefortyone appears to have been in persistent conflict since at least May 2007 and probably much longer. I remain concerned about the possibility of disruptive sock puppetry, and of false allegations against other editors. Jehochman Talk 23:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not feel comfortable applying the existing probation remedy because it is too narrowly written. I believe Onefortyone has significantly impeded development of the article, based on the statements of involved parties. Additionally, Sam Blacketer has stated that he thinks Onefortyone's editing has been acceptable. It seems that there is a conflict amongst administrators how to handle this problem. The status quo since at least May 2007 has been paralysis resulting in valued contributors becoming frustrated to the point that they abandon the article. I think an expedited review of editing since the last case and a decision to remove, alter, or sustain the existing remedy would be helpful. Jehochman Talk 22:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LaraLove

In the months I have been working on this article, I have found Onefortyone to be a consistent obstacle in article improvement. My involvement started after the article was improperly promoted to GA status in August 2007. It's my opinion that every attempt to bring this article to GA standards is halted by Onefortyone. Evidence has been shown on Talk:Elvis Presley that brings Onefortyone's sourced additions into question, as it appears as though he has selectively pulled information in order to push his preferred POV. He refuses to allow information to be removed in order to bring the article down to a manageable, readable length, which is why his latest additions remain. I created Wikipedia:WikiProject Elvis Presley in hopes of being able to get more attention on the article, however, it's no further along now than it was when it began a month and a half ago. Something has to change in this situation because no progress is being made and every other editor that consistently works on this article is ready to give up, which is not in the best interest of the project. Lara❤Love 18:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Egghead06

There is so much about the life of Elvis that is unknown. Since his death much rumour and gossip have grown-up around the man. How can anyone give a definitive view? They can't! What they can do is offer data which differs from the norm. As long as this is given with good references this can only help to provide a fuller picture. How can you ban someone who does that? There appears to be a drive here to only have one view point - put them all as long as they are referenced and let the reader decide. There also appears to be a drive to keep the article short so as to acheive some internal star or pat-on-the back. Brevity and accuracy do not always go hand-in-hand. This is not an encyclopedia for goldfish. Surely people can keep their span of attention long enough to grasp all the possibilities. This user may not toe the line but banning is too heavy handed. --Egghead06 (talk) 08:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

There appear to be two reports in the enforcement archives, see first and second and the enforcement log. Thatcher 17:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/2/0/4)

  • The situation is troubling, but I am not certain that a new case is necessary. It appears that the problem could be addressed through enforcement of the existing remedies through a report to Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement. That page is used where an editor fails to abide by a rule in a prior arbitration case(s) and enforcement of remedies under the prior ruling are sufficient to resolve the issue. Could the parties kindly address whether the problem could be addressed more efficiently in this way. If arbitration enforcement is insufficient to address the problem then I lean toward acceptance, subject to Onefortyone's statement and possibly as a Review of editing since the prior decisions rather than a whole new case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. Onefortyone is a restrained editor of the actual article on Elvis Presley and his more recent additions appear to be reliably sourced and have stayed in the article. While the talk page can get heated at times, I am very reluctant to sanction an editor merely because they happen to be in a minority. Discussion and debate is working. The current sanctions are in my view sufficient. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline for now as per Newyorkbrad. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not want to reject a case that can not be handled by past remedies or the community, but I do not see evidence for a case now. I need to see more specific evidence that we need to be involved before I can accept. FloNight (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would rather have a motion on a previous case than open a whole new case about essentially the same issues. I would like to see evidence of occasions where 141 has been disruptive in ways that are not covered by the existing sanctions from previous cases, and suggestions for ways those sanctions could be improved to better handle the situation. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would rather see this re-presented as an update to the previous case, in light of subsequent events, than a completely new one. That said, before doing so, clarity and outside views would be helpful to all. Is there evidence it really can't be dealt with by conduct/content views from the community (possibly backed by uninvolved admins), and use of past remedies?
  • Conduct issues - The above describe many attempts to discuss/negotiate/seek consensus, but not any attempts to apply usual admin measures if there is a breach of usual editorial standards (including WP:CONSENSUS) or other forms of disruptive editing by any party. If theres a real problem, then a quick solution might be to seek conduct RFC and present the conduct problem, and state the consensus or remedy that is hoped the community will endorse (note, RFC may look at the conduct of all). And/or if necessary ask at ANI for uninvolved eyeballs and admin involvement.
  • Content disagreements - Additionally is there a genuine case that regardless of interpersonal issues some significant viewpoint is being unduly marginalized or emphasized? Ask that at RFC too.
Arbcomus non necesse. If RFC or ANI or other community-based means fail, and the dispute is still damaging, that's usually when to revisit it here for arbitrated remedies. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Dominicanism

Initiated by Zenwhat (talk) at 19:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[156] [157] [158] [159]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

XLR8TION (talk · contribs) was banned for a week by Nishkid64 (talk · contribs) [160] Also, see the see Wikiquette alert. [161]

Statement by Zenwhat

To begin with, I was completely outside of this dispute but happened to come across it while surfing Special:Random. User:UnclePaco has been pushing anti-Dominican and anti-black racism, including fringe theories about Dominican racial heritage. These include denying that modern Dominicans have any genetic relation to the native tribes that preceded them [162], claiming that such native tribes were wiped out entirely [163], and Dominicans today are mostly of "African roots," not of Hispanic or Native origin. [164] And he characterized a Dominican politician as supporting "reverse discrimination" by appealing to black Dominicans and that black Dominicans maintain "political supremacy." [165] Recently, he has attempted to associate the Dominican Day Parade with crime. [166] [167] And he has used homophobic epithets. [168] He posted a video critical of black Dominican basketball player, Felipe López [169] and black NBA star, Amare Stoudemire, [170] whose status as a Dominican cannot be confirmed, but he is from Florida. [171]

Aside from the above obvious POV-pushing, this is an overall pattern of behavior, where some of his edits seem to be made with the subtle intent of supporting racism, such as by uploading the mugshot of the black dominican involved in the alleged plot to attack St. John's University [172] and trying to create an article to push POV about that event. [173]

He has engaged in wikilawyering in order to push his POV. Recently, he reported XLR8TION (talk · contribs) for violating the 3RR on Dominican Day Parade [174] and for bad ettiquette. [175] by being accused of speaking English as a second language. [176]

After noting on WP:ANI that his 3RR report was unfounded, an anonymous user suddenly made baseless accusations against me, of harassment and stalking. [177] An RFCU will likely confirm this is UnclePaco, who has been making edits while not logged in, possibly in order to hide his identity. [178]

He's also engaged in edit wars over long periods of time, attempting to insert two objectionable photos of his into various articles on Dominicans. See his contributions list to see the reverts.

XLR8TION's accusation that UnclePaco speaks english as as second language was rude, however, given UnclePaco's name and the fact that he does often use broken english [179], this is a reasonable criticism. A one-week ban seems particularly extreme and XLR8TION's violation of the 3RR doesn't apply, because UnclePaco is editing in bad faith.

I request that XLR8TION be unblocked, that UnclePaco be blocked for a time determined by the arbitrator, and that he be investigated for sockpuppetry, per the edits by the anonymous user above.

Although there's been no RFCU, It's pretty much been confirmed that the anonymous IP isn't UnclePaco, UnclePaco's ban is now over, and I wasn't aware of XLR8TION'S block log, so these comments no longer apply. However, I do request that some arbitration ruling be made about the "violence section," on Dominican Day Parade, because of its contentious edit history, as admin Sam Blacketer suggests below. Zenwhat (talk) 06:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Zenwhat

XLR8TION reverted other editors over the "white nationalism" reference and claimed he was being accuse of racism. He also told B to stop making ignorant accusations. This matter could have easily been resolved, had XLR8TION asked the other editors what they were referring to. There was no need to make personal attacks or continuing the edit war. Also, XLR8TION may not have a history of being a "white nationalist troll", but he certainly has a history of violating 3RR, making personal attacks and being uncivil on Dominican-related articles. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nishkid64

UnclePaco filed a 3RR report against XLR8TION on January 1, 2008. The two users had been edit warring over this edit by UnclePaco, which highlights the incidents of crime at the Dominican Day Parade in 2007. B found that both users had violated WP:3RR on Dominican Day Parade, but they were currently engaging in discussion in the talk page, so he felt blocks were not necessary. Hours later, UnclePaco left a message at the 3RR report board about personal attacks from XLR8TION. XLR8TION's comment on Talk:Dominican Day Parade were uncivil, as he justified removing UnclePaco's additions because they brought the article to a "standard that is low and unreliable." Next, he claimed that from UnclePaco's edits, it was apparent that English was not his first language. XLR8TION states that since he is a native speaker, it is his "duty to maintain proper grammar and structure in articles." Afterwards, XLR8TION and UnclePaco continued to edit war on Dominican Day Parade, and XLR8TION began an edit war on Puerto Rican Day Parade, which included admin B (talk · contribs) and IP users. On Puerto Rican Day Parade, XLR8TION added a reference from a [www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/puerto-ricans-133236p6.html] "white nationalist" message board. 67.87.197.9 removed the reference. XLR8TION reverted the edit with the edit summary: "Revert, there is nothing mentions White power here". Another IP removed the reference, and XLR8TION reverted the editor, stating that the removal of sourced information can be labeled as vandalism. Admin B (talk · contribs) came to the article and removed the reference with the edit summary: "Completely unacceptable source (white power message board), no position on the rest of it." XLR8TION promptly reverted B, and left a threatening edit summary, in which he told B to "refrain from ignorant accusations" and that his next revert would lead to "corrective action." B reverted and left an edit summary: "You're joking, right? It's a message board (bad) with a big logo in the upper left corner that says 'white proud'" Meanwhile, on Dominican Day Parade, an IP re-inserted the material previously added by UnclePaco. XLR8TION promptly reverted. Shortly after, B went back to the 3RR board, where he requested a review of the previous 3RR report by an uninvolved administrator. Two minutes later, XLR8TION reverted B's edit on Puerto Rican Day Parade and told him to once again refrain from ignorant language.

I saw the report and evaluated XLR8TION's contributions. As I was reviewing his contributions, he made an edit at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, in which he accused B of making racist and uncivil accusations of "white power" against him. 15 minutes later, I blocked XLR8TION for one week, due to edit warring, incivility and personal attacks. Within the hour, I received an e-mail from XLR8TION about the block. He felt the block was unfair, and claimed that he was being accused of "white power" propaganda. We sent over a dozen e-mails back and forth, in which I explained the reasons for the block. He claimed he did not know the message board he was adding as a reference was a "white nationalist" website. He stated that his firewall at blocked parts of the page, so he did not see the banners indicative of the site's purpose. He believed that this firewall should be taken into consideration. He repeatedly asked what I was going to do about UnclePaco. He advocated for a block, but I felt it was unnecessary. Finally, I told him I would look into the matter. When I went back on Wikipedia hours later, I saw UnclePaco was edit warring on St. John's University (New York City)‎ and Dominican Day Parade. I then blocked UnclePaco for 24 hours due to edit warring.

A few points of clarification from ZenWhat's statement and the entire case, itself:

  • No dispute resolution
  • I blocked, not banned XLR8TION for one week. I have been in contact via e-mail regarding his block
  • Sandstein declined the unblock request on XLR8TION's talk page
  • XLR8TION's 3RR report was not unfounded; B (talk · contribs) found both UnclePaco and XLR8TION had violated WP:3RR, but he chose not to block the users at the time
Reply to Nishkid64
I received an email from XLR8TION, where he claimed that he did not realize Stormfront.org was a "white power" site, and feels embarrassed about the matter, because his ISP has a firewall his blocks certain objectionable content (I assume he means a word filter, he could explain better than I). A copy of the email can be found here: [180] Because he does NOT have an history of contributions supporting white nationalism, per WP:Assume Good Faith, I see no reason to disbelieve him. Although I admit the edit war was a bad idea and I would like to hear more specifics about his ISP's firewall. Zenwhat (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I received e-mails from XLR8TION as well. The issue is not about "white nationalism", but about the edit warring and personal attacks he made on Puerto Rican Day Parade. A firewall is no excuse for inappropriate incivility and edit warring. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by UnclePaco replied on January 7, 2008

  • Amare Stoudamire isn't hispanic at all. He's black. I posted an article that spoke about him and summarized it. [181]. What you wrote is a strech of the imagination and simply trying to find things to bury me on.
  • The felipe lopez article. [182] This was his last college game. How is it critical of him? http://youtube.com/watch?v=vdmf9l6b8Bc Again, trying to find something to bury me on. Why don't you look at the video!
  • the alleged homophobia comment. In the context of the article we discussed how allegations with no substance can still make it into articles, such as [Rock Hudsons] personal life. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_Hudson#Personal_life[183]. We discussed the Patriot Act, Habeous Corpus, Guilty until proven innocent (i.e. Rock Hudsons personal life). [184] To which he stated Gay not being a crime, and that depends on what nation you're at. AT no point did I make homophobic remarks. If someone chooses to live a certain lifestyle that is on them. I'm indifferent.
  • Dominican Day Parade crime section. I created a section similiar to two other articles in New York about parades that had similiar sections. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_Day_Carnival#Violence and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rican_Day_Parade#Controversy . I placed in verified information NY Times, NY Sun, NY Daily News, NY Post to illustrate this. Why is it ok for the Labor Day Carnival to have a violence section and the Puerto Rican Day Parade to have a controversy section, but the Dominican Day Parade not to have one? I have brought this up on talk pages. [185]
  • The black supremacy section, well I did reinsert the trivia section [186]. I simply didn't read the whole thing. It was originally inserted in Dec 2005 way before I became a member. I saw it was deleted and saw the first couple of sentences and it looked good to me. [187]
  • Dominican racial identity is simply up for debate. [188] There are numerous articles that state that DR is simply african and spaniard. Also that the native indians died off.

http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/about/amholocaust-5.html http://pine3.info/Barbecue%20Heritage.htm http://forests.org/archive/general/columbus.htm http://forests.org/archive/general/columbus.htm http://www.websteruniv.edu/~corbetre/haiti/history/precolumbian/tainospring.htm http://www.delhey.de/content-00/en/reports/domrep.htm www.dominican-rep.com/history.html http://www.icumedia.com/santodomingo/sd-history.shtml http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096409671 http://www.intellnet.org/resources/american_terrorism/IndianGenocide.html to easily name a few.


There does seem to be some kind of relationship between Zenwhat and XLR8TION. For a period they seem to have a similiar writing style and utilization of edits or accusation that has no true source. Look at the Felipe Lopez article and what I was accused of for example. How could that even remotely be considered to be anti-dominican or racism. Zenwhat below states that he wants us to Assume Good Faith for XlR8TION (for posting racist message boards, and stating that english isn't my first language ; which I might add is someting that individuals who are on those sites tend to do (white message boards). They tell people to speak english or mock peoples english skills), but is going for the throat with me with outlandish accusation. UnclePaco (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:B

I have interacted with all of these editors over the last few days on two separate occasions while patrolling WP:AN3 and I will make an effort to give some background.

UnclePaco (talk · contribs) reported XLR8TION (talk · contribs) for 3RR on Dominican Day Parade. (See [190] for the thread.) Both users were in violation, but appeared to be talking it out on the talk page. I felt it would be appropriate to simply warn them, rather than block them. After that, XLR8TION resumed edit warring and repeatedly adding a link to a thread on a white power message board [191] to Puerto Rican Day Parade. I removed it for obvious reasons and he reverted the removal twice. I realized my prior conclusion that the disruptive editing had stopped was incorrect and, though I would have been justified in making the block myself, in order to maintain transparency I posted a request at 3RR that another admin review my previous decision and consider making a block. Nishkid64 decided, based on the continued edit warring, incivility, and inappropriate external link, to block XLR8TION for one week. I concur with this block. During the interim before the block was made, XLR8TION opened a frivolous WQA alert concerning my removal of the inappropriate external link.[192]

UnclePaco has repeatedly added to Puerto Rican Day Parade the comment "with Manuel Vargas being deemed the ring leader." [193] That statement is supported by the source, although not knowing the issue, I can't see a reason why this matters - no foundation is given - who is he? He has also edit warred on Dominican Day Parade. Again, I don't know anything about the issue to conclude a right or wrong, only that it is a disruption. 67.101.248.187 (talk · contribs) seems to almost certainly be UnclePaco editing while logged out. UnclePaco says on his talk page that he isn't the IP, and it's completely moot to everything else I typed - I just assumed it was him based on seeing the same edit summary in the same article, this wasn't meant to be an accusation. --B (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I obviously feel that overturning XLR8TION's block would be a bad idea. UnclePaco's editing is somewhat tenuous and if it continues, it can be dealt with, but arbitration is premature. --B (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the above, I have serious doubts about the technical likelihood of this selective firewall. "Stormfront White Nationalist Community" is the top level forum of this message board and it is printed in plain text (not an image) in the same HTML file (not overlayed by a javascript). The "White Pride World Wide" image is on the same domain (www.stormfront.org) as the rest of the site. The alt text is "Return to Stormfront White Pride World Wide Main Page". This particular sub-forum is the "América Latina White Nationalists in Latin America." There is enough racist nonsense on that message board that I feel sick in my stomach from just looking at it. I am often told that I have a poor imagination, but I have a difficult time imagining someone taking more than a cursory glance at this site and not realizing what it is. --B (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The blatant obviousness of Stormfront as a white nationalist site is precisely why I believe XLR8TION's claim that Stormfront's material is partially blocked. Even a legitimately white nationalist troll is probably not going to be stupid enough to cite Stormfront.org, with "White Nationalist" plastered all over it, then claim in his edit summaries that it isn't white nationalist, and engage in an edit war over it. It's not effective trolling. It's the same reason there isn't a "White Nationalist" usebox. Per WP:Assume good faith and because XLR8TION doesn't have a suspicious edit history, as all white nationalist trolls should, I think we should reserve judgment on the issue until XLR8TION can explain his claim more in detail and name his specific ISP. If he does both, we could easily confirm or deny the claim. XLR8TION seems genuinely concerned that his reputation has been severely tarnished by being branded a racist. If this matter isn't cleared up, it may affect the credibility of his future edits. It wouldn't require hardly any effort to confirm or deny and, if it turns out that I'm right, it's a particularly important detail for the arbitrators to consider. Zenwhat (talk) 23:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please move your comments to your section. If you want, you can make subsections like ===Reply to B=== or something, but you should not edit another person's section. If the site was "partially blocked", exactly what part wasn't blocked? It doesn't make any sense. There's no mindreading software that can selectively cleanse the page of the racist material and leave whatever it was being used to source. But if he is really seeing something else, he can take a screenshot of what he is seeing (alt+printscreen), paste it into Microsoft Paint, save it, and upload it to somewhere like flickr or webshots and post the link here. --B (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Cheeser1

As one of the primary responders to the WQA complaint, I would like to point out a few things. The block was not for this incident, but for something else that occurred. Check the block log and the WQA history:

Block Log: 21:41, 3 January 2008 Nishkid64 (Talk | contribs) blocked "XLR8TION (Talk | contribs)"
WP:WQA: 22:50, 3 January 2008 UnclePaco (Talk | contribs) (185,592 bytes) (XLR8TION) (undo)

As for the WP:SKILL issue, it doesn't matter if UnclePaco is the worst editor in history, WP:SKILL still applies. And "but he really is bad at English" is not a valid defense, nor is "but he's not a good contributor." There may be merit in considering UnclePaco's contributions, because they were certainly dubious. But XLR8TION is responsible for his actions and they can't be excused based on the quality of UnclePaco's contributions. He has a history of being warned and blocked for incivility, personal attacks, and edit warring in this exact way (read: he should know better), and his block seems to be self-evidently appropriate (several instances of totally incivility during edit wars). His appeal was declined because his defense was the same one coming up here: UnclePaco is bad at English, and he's a bad contributor. That's not relevant, especially since he's being blocked for an incident prior to it. The prior incident, by the way, was also reported at the WQA here, where you can confirm that the block is not related to the incident involving UnclePaco - not that another round of incivility doesn't support the validity of the block anyway. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: After seeing a more thorough account, it seems that all of these incidents are loosely related. However, there is still a misunderstanding that UnclePaco reported XLR8TION at the WQA, and then he gets blocked, and then UnclePaco is the winner. There was a similar issue when XLR8TION asserted that UnclePaco had not been warned for 3RR, when he had (and has, in fact, been blocked too). Like I said, UnclePaco's POV and content issues merit examination (although perhaps not here). Unblocking XLR8TION is not related to that, and does not seem warranted. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more consideration: As for the edit warring over the Stormfront message board "reference" - XLR8TION's explanation about some sort of partial firewall seems dubious, but I'm willing to accept that as an explanation for his having used such an obviously inappropriate source. Once. When someone says "your source is a white nationalist messageboard, and is thus inappropriate," then you just found out what all your "partial firewall" or whatever was blocking on that page (although I can't imagine it wasn't obviously some kind of forum, which should be enough). Edit warring and breaching WP:CIVIL in order to reinsert a source that he has admitted to at least being unable to assess the reliability of - that's not appropriate and is not excused by anything others might have done. I think XLR8TION even jumped to the odd conclusion that "the reference you are citing is a white power messageboard" means the same as "you are a white supremacist." --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by trying to be funny Kendrick7

Looks like a Jesuit plot to me. Oh, wait -- wrong anti-Dominicanism. -- Kendrick7talk 22:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/6/0/0)

Requests for clarification

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


Scope of previous ruling

In a previous ruling it was decided that a given editor, User:Ferrylodge, would be subject to an indefinite restriction regarding articles relating to pregnancy and abortion here. There has been recent discussion here regarding whether that restriction would apply to articles in the broader "political" sphere as well, specifically regarding a current presidential candidate. Would the previous restriction apply in this case or not? John Carter (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generally Arbitration decisions mean what they say. Obviously this does not immunize the editor against administrative action that might be taken for disruptive editing of other articles, but such action has to be justified according to the usual standards and means for dealing with disruption. You may wish to ask Arbcom for a modification or extension of the prior case. Thatcher 19:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To ban or not to ban

There's been an incident following a recently closed Arb case :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Tenebrae

The party received a warning, but for future considerations, would such an incident be subject to temporary banning under Remedy 3?

Disruptive editing 3) Any uninvolved administrator may ban Skyelarke or Tenebrae from editing John Buscema or any related article or page for a reasonable period of time, either before or after three months have expired, if either engages in any form of disruptive editing, edit-warring, or editing against an established consensus.

--Skyelarke (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An uninvolved administrator may ban either participant in the case from any article or page related to John Buscema for the reasons stated. The words "or page" were added to the remedy to make it clear that talk pages are included. Talk pages are for discussion, even for expressing disagreement with other editors, so banning someone from a talkpage normally should not be necessary, but if there is disruption from either party it can be done in the discretion of the administrator handling arbitration enforcement. I will add that I am very, very disappointed to see the two of you sniping at each other again so soon after the case was resolved. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanky for reply, Newyorkbrad - Hopefully, it's an isolated impulsive reaction following case closure - things should hopefully cool down once parties have taken the time to review and integrate the arbcom case decision a little better.

Thanks also, for your double-duty efforts (clerk and arbitrator) on the case, and best of luck with your new arbitration appointment.

Cheers,

--Skyelarke (talk) 16:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin actions don't generally start with the most severe remedy, and blocks don't normally start at the longest length. It's normally the other way around; the exceptions are things like vandal only accounts. In this case there was also the issue of what the arb case applied to. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motions in prior cases

Motions

Arbitrator workflow motions

Motion 3 enacted. SilverLocust 💬 23:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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 SilverLocust 💬 at 05:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Motion name Support Oppose Abstain Passing Support needed Notes
Motion 1: Correspondence clerks 4 7 0 Cannot pass Cannot pass One support vote contingent on 1.4 passing
Motion 1.2a: name the role "scrivener" 2 6 2 Cannot pass Cannot pass
Motion 1.2b: name the role "coordination assistant" 1 5 4 Cannot pass Cannot pass
Motion 1.3: make permanent (not trial) 0 9 0 Cannot pass Cannot pass
Motion 1.4: expanding arbcom-en directly 3 5 2 Cannot pass Cannot pass Cannot pass because motion 1 is not passing
Motion 2: WMF staff support 1 9 0 Cannot pass Cannot pass
Motion 3: Coordinating arbitrators 8 0 2 Passing · Two support votes are second choice to motion 1
Motion 4: Grants for correspondence clerks 0 8 0 Cannot pass Cannot pass

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 14 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support
  • (former arbitrator) This is my first choice and falls within ArbCom's community-granted authority to approve and remove access to [...] mailing lists maintained by the Arbitration Committee[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]
    I continue to urge my colleagues to support this motion to establish the trial of correspondence clerks. I hear the concern that this will add one or two more people to the mailing list, bringing it from 15 to 16-17, but I would suggest that the additional risk is quite small relative to the other considerations, which should predominate.
    Every new arbitrator elected in the future has access to every email sent to the committee now. One might estimate that over the next ten years, perhaps on average eight arbs will be elected per year of which four will be new to the committee. So, in addition to 15 current arbitrators, 40 future arbitrators will also be able to see the mailing list. (And let's be honest – it's not that hard to be elected to the committee.)
    By contrast, this proposal draws solely on former arbitrators (who have already had mailing list access), and doesn't increase the set much at all. And I trust that the committee will appoint only those former arbs who in its view retain its trust to access highly confidential information.
    In 2019, the community increased the size of the committee from 13 to 15, which reversed the 2018 change from 15 to 13. In neither discussion did the additional security risk of 15 mailing list subscribers (over 13), or the marginal security benefit of 13 subscribers instead of 15, even come up. The community was far more concerned with the effect of the committee's size on its ability to fulfill its functions.
    Similarly, here, I believe the committee should focus on whether this change could help the committee execute on its responsibilities. If yes, I urge the committee to give it a try; this nine-month trial isn't all that risky in the grand scheme of things.
    As for Cabayi's point that some material should be seen only by arbitrators, that's why this proposal explicitly provides that The Committee shall establish a process to allow editors to, in unusual circumstances following a showing of good cause, directly email a mailing list accessible only by arbitrators and not by correspondence clerks.
    Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 08:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Contingent on 1.4 passing. This option was not my first choice, and I'm inclined to try having a coordinating Arb first, if we can get a volunteer/set of volunteers. Given that the new term should infuse the Committee with more life and vigor, we may find a coordinating Arb, or another solution. But I think we should put this in our toolbox for the moment. This doesn't force us to appoint someone, just gives us the ability and outlines the position. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per below – the community wants us to solve problems, and this is what best helps us solve problems. I don't think we severely damage people's privacy by increasing the number of ANPDP-signed and trusted functionaries who view the emails from 15 to 16, and to the extent it's bad for the opacity of ArbCom as an institution, that's just not my highest priority. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I think this idea would allow someone to nudge us to ensure votes would take place. In the past, this was done by individual arbs, and if that worked we wouldn't need this motion. However, it hasn't and thus outside assistance would probably be more likely to solve the workflow problems we experience. Z1720 (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Eek. Former arbs know what this is like, they know how to push the buttons, they understand the privacy implications, and of the myriad imperfect solutions that have been suggested, it's imho the best one. Katietalk 23:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. I don't think we should extend access to the mailing list and the private information it contains beyond what is absolutely necessary. I understand the reasoning behind former arbitrators in such a role as they previously had such access, but people emailing the Arbitration Committee should have confidence that private information is kept need to know and that only the current arbitrators evaluating and making decisions based on that private information have ongoing access to it. - Aoidh (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Might as well make it formal per my opinions elsewhere on the page. Primefac (talk) 13:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This is limited to former arbitrators for good reasons, most of them privacy-related. But the same concerns that led to this proposal being limited to former arbitrators are also arguments against doing this at all. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I don't find it hard to think of correspondence that the committee has received recently that absolutely should not have a wider circulation. I find myself in agreement with Aoidh - need to know. Cabayi (talk) 11:32, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. As I've made clear in private, I prefer having staff help (see that vote). I think that having non-professionals in this role mean that this proposal barely fails in balancing an acceptable level of "intrusion" on the list (ie the reduced privacy) against the probability of success and benefits. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Roughly per Aoidh, with additional concerns about creating additional overhead such as another mailing list and creating a bottleneck that could become a problem if the clerk were to become inactive for any reason. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Coordinating arbitrators appears to be passing, and that's my preference on trying to keep workflow moving behind-the-scenes. I am not necessarily opposed to this in principle, but my preference would be to try coordinating arbitrators (including one coordinating this portfolio) first, and if for any reason we get a portion of the way through the year and that still isn't working, very happy to look at this again. I was considering supporting for the same reasons as Eek (put it in our toolkit for a rainy day), but instead I'm voting oppose on the basis that, should we wish to try it in the future, it's a very easy vote to quickly run through at that point (and, even if this passed, we'd probably need to have an internal vote to implement it at that time anyways). Daniel (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[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]
  • I just want to briefly address @Moneytrees's question. In my view, nothing a c-clerk (or anyone else) can do can make arbs fulfill their functions. What the c-clerks can do is help reduce the needless duplicated time and effort arbs spend on trying to figure out what matters are outstanding, what balls they might be dropping, where their time can be effectively spent. But if an arb truly is checked out, yeah, regular emailed reminders aren't going to help. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 08:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy § Scope and responsibilities
  2. ^ Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy § Procedures and roles

Motion 1.1: expand eligible set to functionaries

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

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

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 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 14 active arbitrators. With 1 arbitrator abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support
  1. Nicely whimsical, and not as likely to be confusing as correspondence clerk. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. per Eek :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. I think correspondence clerk is fine if role is something we're going with, it's less ambiguous as to what it entails than scrivener. - Aoidh (talk) 04:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 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]
  3. Follows on from my vote on Motion 1. Cabayi (talk) 11:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. As I've said in private, I think that this name would be unnecessarily opaque and complicated. Most people would need to search in a dictionary to understand what this means. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. This sounds too much like we are appointing pirates, IMO. Too obscure of a word. Z1720 (talk) 17:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I might be in the minority but I have no issue with 'correspondence clerks'. Daniel (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
  1. I don't think the name matters overmuch, although I think even if this passed they'd probably still be called a clerk in practice because who wants to type out scrivener every time? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I do. not. care. what it's called. Katietalk 23:12, 6 January 2025 (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 14 active arbitrators. With 3 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

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

Support
Oppose
  1. I recently experimented with sunset clauses and think that frankly a lot more of what we do should have such time limits that require us to stop and critically evaluate if a thing is working. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. If this change is necessary, there should be a review of it after a reasonable trial period to see what does and does not work. - Aoidh (talk) 01:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Follows on from my vote on Motion 1. Cabayi (talk) 11:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. This is a big change and so I'd rather that we forced a review. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. If this passed it should require affirmative consensus to continue past the trial period. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. A trial first would be better. Z1720 (talk) 17:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Daniel (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Katietalk 23:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
  • (former arbitrator) I have no preference as to whether this is permanent or a trial. I do think that nine months is a good length for the trial if we choose to have one: not too long to lock in a year's committee; not too short to make it unworthwhile. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[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 14 active arbitrators. With 2 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support
  1. 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]
  2. Especially if it's former arbs who've already had access to most of the list at one point or another, I think the trade-off of scriveners being able to properly do their jobs is worth it. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per my vote above. Katietalk 23:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Access to private information should be as limited as possible to only what is strictly necessary to perform such a task, and I don't see allowing full access to the contents of the current list necessary for this. I'd rather not split the list, but between that and giving full access then if we're going to have a correspondence clerk, then it needs to be split. - Aoidh (talk) 04:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Motion 1 is already problematic for privacy reasons; this would make it worse. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Follows on from my vote on Motion 1. Cabayi (talk) 11:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. If the clerk/skrivienenrener (see, I can't even spell it!) motion passes I would prefer to split the lists. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I'd like to split the lists, in case there is a topic that arbs want to discuss as arb-only. The new role doesn't need to be observers in many discussions we have amongst arbs. Z1720 (talk) 17:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
  • (former arbitrator) I would not really object to this. C-clerks (or whatever we call them) are former arbs and have previously been on arbcom-en in any event, so it doesn't seem that like a big deal to do this. On the other hand, I would understand if folks prefer the split. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I am really torn on the competing arguments between decreased effectiveness and privacy of the lists. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Kevin & Sdrqaz. Daniel (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrator discussion

Motion 2: WMF staff support

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

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

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

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

The remit of staff assistants shall not include:

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

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

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

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

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support
  1. I will come out here and support this, given my many comments in private, though it seems unlikely to pass now. Pragmatically speaking, I think that having staff on-list would have a greater likelihood of effectiveness due to being professionals who do this in their day job and having a greater obligation to help us because they're, well, staff (have a clearer subordinate–superior relationship in the WMF structure compared to a clerk, who is ultimately a volunteer that cannot be forced to work). Moreover, while I think that the separation between Community and Foundation is important, I feel that active Community members would have greater chances of having conflicts of interest due to pre-existing relationships; we have had very few petitions to us on Foundation actions in the last few years. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. I appreciate that Kevin put this together, and I think this would be very helpful, maybe even the most helpful, way to ensure that we stayed on top of the ball. But just because it would achieve one goal doesn't make it a good idea. A full version of my rationale is on the ArbList, for other Arbs. The short, WP:BEANS version is that this would destroy the line between us and the Foundation, which undoes much of our utility. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:22, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per my comment on motion 4. - Aoidh (talk) 01:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Might as well make it formal per my opinions elsewhere on the page. Primefac (talk) 13:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I like the general idea of the WMF using its donated resources to support the community that made the donations possible. I am uncomfortable with putting WMF staff in front of ArbCom's e-mail queue, however, as this would come with unavoidable conflicts of interest and a loss of independence. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The help would be useful, but the consequences would be detrimental to both ArbCom & WMF. Some space between us is necessary for ArbCom's impartiality & for the WMF's section 230 position. Cabayi (talk) 12:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. This would likely be the most effective way to go for keeping things moving, but I'm too concerned about the separation of Arbcom and WMF. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I think other options need to be tried first before considering getting resources from WMF. Z1720 (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Daniel (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Under no circumstances do I want the WMF inserted into the arb list. Katietalk 23:02, 6 January 2025 (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 14 active arbitrators. With 1 arbitrator abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted. SilverLocust 💬 23:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. This is currently my first-choice option; we have unofficially in the past had arbitrators take on specific roles (e.g. tracking unblock requests, responding to emails, etc) and it seemed to work fairly well. Having those rules be more "official" seems like the best way to make sure someone is responsible for these things, without needing to expand the committee or the pool of people with access to private information. Primefac (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I may still vote for the clerks option, but I think this is probably the minimum of what we need. Will it be suffucient...aye, there's the rub. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:14, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Of the motions proposed, this one is the one I'd most support. It doesn't expand the number of people who can view the ArbCom mailing list beyond those on ArbCom, and creates a structure that may improve how the mailing list is handled. - Aoidh (talk) 23:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Primefac. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Second choice to motion 1. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I've mentioned that I don't think that having a titled role will make it more likely that the work gets done, but I accept that Kevin's arguments have some merit so here I am. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Second choice to motion 1: I would prefer that the correspondence clerks be implemented instead: if this option worked, I think it would already be implemented (and has been implemented informally in the past in various forms). However, if motion 1 doesn't pass, this is probably the next best thing. Z1720 (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. First preference, per Primefac. Daniel (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
  1. I don't think that this needs to be in our public procedures and feel like this could have been carried out without needing a formal vote on the subject (see comments by Izno and leek/SFR). I do have some reservations over whether having a specific person to do x will mean that the rest of us won't do x, but we'll see. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. My first thought was "as long as I'm not the one who has to do it," and if that's how I'm thinking, I should sit this one out. Katietalk 23:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]
  • I could get behind this idea, not as a permanent single coordinating arb but as a "hat" that gets passed on, with each of us taking a turn. That would allow the flexibility for periods of inactivity and balancing workload when the coordinating arb wants/needs to act as a drafter on a complex case. It would also ensure that a wide-view of our workload was held by a wide-range of arbs. 3.5 weeks each and the year is covered. Cabayi (talk) 08:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[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 14 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

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

Motion 4: Arbitrator views and discussions

Community discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think there is a need to do something as poor communication and extremely slow replies, if replies are made at all, has been an ongoing issue for the committee for some time. However I agree that asking the foundation to pay someone to do it is going too far. The point that if you are paid by the foundation, you work for them and not en.wp or arbcom is a compelling one. There's also a slippery slope argument to be made in that if we're paying these people, shouldn't we pay the committee? If we're paying the committee, shouldn't we pay the arbitration clerks....and so on. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 20:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fully share Risker's concern about a paid WMF staffer who, no matter how well-intentioned, will be answerable to the WMF and not ARBCOM. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 2023-2024 committee is much more middle aged and has less university students and retirees, who oftentimes have more free time, than the 2016-2017 committee. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 08:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the issue of there often being some Committee members who, for whatever reason, are not "pulling their weight", is at the core of the problem to be addressed here. Because this happens "behind the scenes", the community has no way to hold anyone accountable in elections, and because of human nature and the understandable desire to maintain a collegial atmosphere within the Committee, I don't really expect any members to call out a colleague in public. I suppose there could even be a question of what happens if whoever might be filling the role proposed here nudges a member to act, but the member just disregards that. It's difficult to see how to make it enforceable. I don't have any real solutions, but this strikes me as central to the problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:31, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is largely correct. I was reluctant on the committee to even note this committee's inactivity problem (worst of any 15-member arbcom ever), even though it was based on a metric that is public, when I was still on the committee. And it gets further complicated by the fact that some people not visibly active in public more than pull their weight behind the scenes - the testimonials Maxim received when running for re-election being a prime example. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
During my first term it was Roger Davies. He was barely a presence on-wiki but he kept the whole committee on point and up-to-date about what was pending. Trypto is right that it isn't enforceable, it is more a matter of applying pressure to either do the job or move oneself to the inactive list.
I also think the committee can and should be more proactive about declaring other arbs inactive even when they are otherwise present on-wiki or on the mailing list" That would probably require a procedures change, but I think it would make sense. If there is a case request, proposed decision, or other matter that requires a vote before the committee and an arb doesn't comment on it for ten days or more, they clearly don't have the time and/or inclination to do so and should be declared inactive on that matter so that their lack of action does not further delay the matter. It would be nice if they would just do so themselves, or just vote "abstain" on everything, which only takes a few minutes, but it seems it has not been happening in practice. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 00:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And Roger was a pensioner which kinda proves my point -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 08:53, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Now that I'm off the committee and have had a moment to compile some fairly accurate stats, here was the committee's email load over the last four years:
  • 2024: 6435 emails in 1040 distinct threads
  • 2023: 7826 emails in 1093 distinct threads
  • 2022: 7679 emails in 1103 distinct threads
  • 2021: 9687 emails in 1271 distinct threads
These are undercounts of the true email load, because this only counts the main arbcom-en list and not the clerks-l, arbcom-en-b, and arbcom-en-c lists, all of which are used for ArbCom-related purposes. But hopefully this gives a general flavor for why, when I was on the committee, I viewed better managing the email workflow as a priority for the committee. My guess would be that these email rates are substantially higher than most, and quite possibly all, other volunteer-driven committees within the Wikimedia movement. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I just did some counting and clerks-l had 2724 emails in the four-year period between 2021 and 2024 — which is substantially down from the average rate from when I was a clerk. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, motion 3 passes and other motions fail. If there is no more !votes in 3 days, I think this case can be closed. Kenneth Kho (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=183733589"