Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 22

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Updates to appeals procedure (February 2020)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Foreword: this update changes the email address that some blocked users are given if they need to appeal their block to ArbCom. ArbCom has jurisdiction to "hear appeals from blocked, banned, or otherwise restricted users". In 2015, ArbCom decided that only blocks which were based on private or technical evidence would be appealable to it.

The volume of email – principally from {{Checkuserblock}}s – is still sizable. Last year, we received 215 appeals of which only around 12 were ban or sanction appeals.

Currently, the committee has a single email list that accommodates all committee business and email discussion. This update creates a secondary one that users will generally email directly, keeping the primary email list clearer for non-appeals business. Email directed into the wrong email list will still be handled. AGK ■ 12:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed motion:

The Arbitration Committee establishes a secondary mailing list for its correspondence, named arbcom-appeals-en. Users blocked or banned by the community for reasons that are unsuitable for public discussion (including blocks identified as CheckUser or Oversight blocks) may appeal to the Arbitration Committee only by emailing arbcom-appeals-en

wikimedia.org.

For the avoidance of doubt, {{ArbComBlock}}s are applied by the committee itself and appeals should, therefore, continue to be sent to the main address for committee business, arbcom-en

wikimedia.org.

The committee will try to forward misdirected appeals to the correct list.

This motion should be announced – at least at WP:AC/N, w:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, w:Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy, w:Wikipedia talk:CheckUser, w:Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations, w:Template talk:CheckUser block, and w:Template talk:OversightBlock – with the following:

The Arbitration Committee establishes a secondary mailing list for its correspondence, arbcom-appeals-en. Users blocked or banned by the community for reasons that are unsuitable for public discussion (including blocks identified as CheckUser or Oversight blocks) may now appeal to the Arbitration Committee only by emailing [email protected].
Appeals of an {{ArbComBlock}} should continue being sent to the main address for committee business, [email protected].
The committee is not changing the quorum or the procedure for deciding appeals. This change is broadly only a matter of mail management.

Vote:

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

Support

This is mainly a workflow improvement. –xeno^talk 14:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I am indenting my support until it is supported by more of those who regularly take point on these requests (message moderation, acknowledgement, charting, etc.) as the testing has revealed it may actually make things more difficult. –xeno^talk 02:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
What xeno said. Regards So Why 15:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Minor tweak, no substantive change. –xeno^talk 18:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

~~GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)~~ Moving to oppose, reasoning below. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

~~This should help with managing my inbox. – bradv🍁 16:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)~~
For what it's worth, I find the arb wiki infinitely more useful for tracking appeals, but if this helps others manage their inbox, I'll all for it. Maxim_(talk) 16:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
I personally don't especially care whether we receive e-mails via one list or two, but if colleagues believe separating out the appeals e-mails will make things easier for them, that's fine. Also, there's no plan to confuse appealing editors with "paperwork" rules; if an editor appealing in good faith inadvertently sends an e-mail to the wrong list, we might forward it the other list but we'll still consider the appeal. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
AGK ■ 14:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Maintaining support. GorillaWarfare and Bradv are ignoring the fact that the number of misdirected appeals will be next to zero. AGK ■ 22:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Switching to oppose: AGK ■ 22:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
If people write the committee about content related issues -- and I would estimate 1 in 6 appeals to ArbCom do not fall within our jurisdiction, why do you think the rate of error will be "next to zero" from the people who correctly contact will also always be at the right email address? Anyone with experience at OTRS knows there are sufficient rates of errors by the public in using the right queues. We also already see this on the OS, CU, and Functionary list... Mkdw ^talk 02:02, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Many of the incoming appeals are repeats from six months ago or longer. Just this week we received an appeal that was still addressed to arbcom-l. Changing the email address on {{checkuserblock-account}} will only get the fresh appeals, and not those who have attempted an appeal previously. I don't know what proportion that is, but it's not next to zero. – bradv🍁 02:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

There are a number of reasons why I think this will have the opposite effect than intended. I have expressed these privately, but since we are voting on this publicly, I will repeat them here.
1. Nearly the entire Arbitration Committee, if not all, conduct their work via email rather than in the Google Group interface. Everything received on Google Groups is forwarded to everyone's individual inbox and it there that most people work from; it all ends up in the same place. This does not create a segregated workflow unless you are solely using Google Groups. So, the proposal that this will create a separate workflow which is the entire reason for adopting this new system does not seem to practically apply. Maybe I am missing something obvious in which case I am happy to be wrong.
2. One of the most problematic issues we have on the list are multiple threads about the same individual. Quite often, we will close one appeal but fail identify other threads 'in process' from the same person. This usually happens if they send us multiple inquiries or appeals with different subject lines and when we have a large backlog. Frequently, we continue on investigating and assessing the other threads only realize much later that it has already been dealt with previously. By having two emails which people can contact us, I expect our rates for duplication and multiple threads will greatly increase. Either from people emailing us on both lists at once, or someone who does not receive an immediate response so they try the other email not realizing it just goes to the same distribution list and inboxes.
3. We have no way in Google Groups to 'move' threads into the other queue. The only way to 'sort' the two lists is for the thread to be forwarded from one list to the other. This will create a new thread in everyone's email inbox thereby providing a third way threads will become regularly duplicated. Everyone will have to delete the old thread in their inbox which I expect won't happen among 15 people. The moment someone does not realize this and replies to the original thread, it will re-create the thread in everyone's inbox again. For example, we get people who still cast votes on threads that have already been closed further up the chain.
4. Approximately 1 in 20 emails sent to arbcom-en are not even for ArbCom to review. Maybe it is even higher. Usually they are complaints about content and we direct them to OTRS or the Village Pump. For the 19 in 20 emails correctly sent to arbcom-en, we should expect a decent proportion of these emails will still be sent to the wrong email. It is important to remind ourselves that the vast majority of appeals we receive are not from experienced editors who have an in-depth understand of Wikipedia and the Arbitration Committee, but rather from relative newcomers (appeals from editors with fewer than 1000 edits; a lot of newcomers who are CU blocked).
5. More than half of emails we receive are sent using the on-wiki email system via the account User:Arbitration Committee. If we create another account, such as User:Arbitration Committee Appeals, we should realistically expect a certain number of people will not send to the correct account regardless of attempts for clear instructions. As previously noted, we already have challenges about people writing us about ArbCom appropriate matters let alone the right queue.
Overall, I am absolutely for any system that will make our lives easier, but this really does not seem like it will do it. I am totally happy to be proven wrong, but at the same time if I think something is a bad idea and will actually make our lives more difficult, I should say something. I think this change will make an already complicated process even more challenging for the people we are trying to deal with and any benefits seem extremely minimal when compared to the number of downsides. Mkdw ^talk 03:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Mkdw: The main reason - for me - is so that my email client can be instructed to apply an appropriate label to the appeals, and for that category of email to be placed into a separate inbox from the main list. I realize that this will be far from perfect due to errors at origin.

Other possible solutions would be asking appellants to use a prefix, but such an instruction will not be followed at least some of the time, or labelling the emails manually.

As for "not using the Google Groups interface": is that a hunch or something you’ve determined from asking colleagues? The Groups interface is necessary for new arbitrators to catch up and I found it particularly useful in identifying appeals that had fallen through the cracks (by looking for threads with only the initial post). It’s far from perfect, I will concede.

It’s amusing, but also a little sad, that the same workflow issues that we were grappling with in 2011 are still trying to be solved in 2020. I guess we never got that CRM, eh Risker? –xeno^talk 14:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Xeno here. If appeals come from a separate list, I can instruct my email client to filter them into a separate folder. Currently, I have to do that manually and every new email restores it into the main folder. That some people might not use the right address and some mails might be duplicated is not really that big of a risk imho. Worst that could happen is that you get all those emails in the same inbox like you do now already. So there is a chance it could make things easier and even if it doesn't, nothing would probably change in practice. On a side note, we already have multiple mail addresses and most people manage to use the main one. Regards So Why 14:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

If it is a useful data point, I primarily work out of my GMail inbox. I'm not strongly opposed to changing my workflow if it is useful, but that is the habit I've built. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Experience. We tried using tags to sort the status of appeals inside Google Groups and very few people adopted it. It required time to maintain the tags which was not being done. If this new procedure requires people to use Google Groups for it to efficiently work, including sorting, it should have been identified at the beginning as a material requirement of the new procedure and process. My feeling is that the "hunch" here was that the potential problems were inexplicably not going to be an issue or addressed. The request for the system to be even lightly tested and troubleshot in advance was ignored until now; there was no due diligence to ensure that this was going to be a good idea and everyone would adjust their workflow. Mkdw ^talk 01:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I was under the impression that messages could be moved from one queue to another during the moderation phase. If that's not possible, this could result in an even messier situation than we have now. I've struck my vote while we figure this out. – bradv🍁 15:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
I was also under this impression. ~~Is there some way we can find out for sure? My googling has not turned up much.~~ GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2020 (UTC) Update: I was able to do some testing, which I've outlined below. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Moving to oppose, after doing some testing. I sent an email to the -c list to determine if I could move the email from one list to another before allowing the email through moderation. I determined that I was not able to move the email until after allowing it through moderation. So, to extend this example to the -en and -appeals lists: If someone emails an appeal to the -en list, moderators will have to allow it through moderation before moving it to the -appeals list. This will generate an email in all of the arbitrators' inboxes, from the -en list. Then the moderator will move the email to the -appeals list, which does not generate a new email notification for the arbitrators (so that's good, at least we wouldn't get duplicate emails). However, arbitrators working out of their GMail inboxes and not the Google Groups interface will end up replying to the original email, which is in the -en list. Google Groups does not appear to be able to detect that someone is replying to a moved thread, and so any replies will end up in a split thread in the -en list; meanwhile any arbitrators working directly in Google Groups will properly be responding to the -appeals thread (unless they respond to an email that an arbitrator working from their inbox has sent to the -en list). This will be absolute chaos, if you ask me, and is not worth the (fairly small) benefit of allowing us to more accurately tag emails in our inboxes. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you GW for doing the test on the c-list. My #3 oppose rationale was exactly this issue. I recall it had been an issue during a case where a person submitted private evidence to the main list and the case was being heard on one of the alternate lists because of recusals. Mkdw ^talk 01:54, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Moved to oppose, per GorillaWarfare. – bradv🍁 19:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Per all of the above opposes, this needs the bugs worked out of it so it actually helps the entire committee, as it stands I'm just not seeing it as an improvement. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
oppose, as unnecesary. We have had the usual January inflow of requests, and are dealing with them. And as harmful, the system for appeals is already overcomplicated. DGG ( talk ) 03:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
AGK ■ 22:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Abstain

Comments

I think we should try to briefly clarify what types of appeals are handled and have edited that in (and changed "should" to "may"). What about AE blocks? –xeno^talk 13:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- As it stands, we receive 7 types of appeal:
  1. Blocks imposed by ArbCom
  2. Site bans imposed by ArbCom
  3. Non-siteban restrictions imposed by ArbCom
  4. Sanctions imposed under delegated authority (AE)
  5. Community blocks based on private evidence; marked {{checkuserblock}} or {{oversightblock}}, or based on non-public evidence
  6. Community blocks of any other kind
  7. Outside of jurisdiction
  The blocking policy and our procedures contain clear definitions of these six types of appeal. What sort of clarification were you thinking we should make? The motion simply proposes changing the email address given out to Type E users… Might be easiest separately voting on substantial changes. AGK ■ 14:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  - Like in Special:Diff/936703314. Feel free to tweak. Are you counting AE blocks as "imposed by ArbCom"? –xeno^talk 14:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
    - Got you. That looks good to me! No, so make that 7 types (and edited the list, reflecting that). AGK ■ 14:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
      - Great- which list should AE block appeals go to (assuming they can't be handled onwiki)? –xeno^talk 14:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
AGK: Supported as this will improve workflow. The only other thing I would suggest is perhaps a trailer notice as to where other blocks/bans may be appealed (i.e. WP:GAB or WP:UTRS). –xeno^talk 14:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Here's my attempt at simplifying this. I'm sure someone will let me know if I've missed something:
1. Appeal of blocks and bans issued by Arbcom – arbcom-en
2. Appeal of blocks and bans issued under delegated authority (checkuser, oversight, AE) – arbcom-appeals-en
3. Appeal of blocks and bans issued by the community or individual administrator – referred to AN

In rare cases there will be appeals that fall in two categories, such as checkuser blocks where there is also an automatic three strikes ban. In this case the appeal will still go to arbcom-appeals-en, but will then be posted to AN for an unban discussion.

For appeals within Arbcom jurisdiction (types 1 and 2), the arbitrators may choose to vote on the appeal at WP:ARBM. This is done in order to allow for comments from the community, and can only be done with the approval of the appellant. – bradv🍁 16:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@AGK: Could you clarify the meaning of the sentence that Last year, we received 215 appeals of which only around 12 were ban or sanction appeals? Do you mean that only around 12 were appeals from bans or sanctions imposed by ArbCom as opposed to someone else? Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: The point was about type of appeal as opposed to origin. Except for those 12, all appeals in 2019 related to blocks rather than to bans and other sanctions. AGK ■ 19:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@AGK: Thanks. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I've been quiet on this so far and basically going along with those who seemed to have a better idea of what this is supposed to accomplish than I do. However, reading the discussion below and the new oppose by GW I'm starting to feel like I don't see any benefit to this for the committee as a whole. It is starting to seem like it would primarily benefit only those of us who do the majority of their arb business through google groups, which so far I have not even been able to log into successfully and we've not been able to resolve why that might be. And I know I'm not that stupid. I'm not opposing just yet, but I do find the opposes compelling. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion and comments

All users – not just committee members – are welcome to comment here.

I suggest tweaking the announcement to specify that it's the Arbitration Committee, as this is not necessarily going to be obvious in every venue. I'd also suggest adding Template talk:OversightBlock to the announcement locations. Thryduulf (talk) 20:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Good point, I've changed committee to Arbitration Committee on the first mention and added that notification location. (No substantive change.) –xeno^talk 16:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Regarding having an appeal motion only when approved by the appellant: I understand if the arbitration committee wants to do this for specific appeals, such as when there are potential privacy issues to consider, but I'm unclear if this should be a hard rule for all cases. Surely the committee can set the conditions for granting an appeal, including receiving feedback from the community beforehand? isaacl (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Isaacl generally what we are hesitant on is posting the appellant's written text without their permission. If they didn't give permission to post the text of their appeal, we could still seek opinions as to whether an appeal should be granted (though that might be somewhat awkward). –xeno^talk 17:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree with that, but it's already covered under existing privacy policy. Personally I'd prefer not to tie all possible appeal motions to this issue. The committee can consider it of course for any specific appeal. isaacl (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Isaacl, emails sent to the committee are held in confidence. We will always check with the appellant before posting their appeal onwiki. (Note also that this is not part of the motion, it's just my explanatory comment.) – bradv🍁 17:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, as I said, I understand this is already covered by existing privacy policy. I thought you were proposing a simplification that would get incorporated into the appeals procedure somewhere, but if not, then of course the exact wording isn't as important. isaacl (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Oh no, I'm not proposing to change the motion, just making sure we're all on the same page. Sorry if that wasn't clear. – bradv🍁 17:47, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Hmmm. I'd suggest you're not really solving any problems by creating a new mailing list. The real issue is the number of requests. (It's a ridiculously high number, which I think is even higher than when Arbcom addressed *all* types of unblock requests before limiting itself to Arbcom-related or privacy-related unblock requests.) And if most of the requests you're getting are coming through the "email this user" interface, they're still going to wind up on your main mailing list. As someone who is both a checkuser and oversighter, I'm pretty surprised to see the frequency of these requests, because the CU and OS teams have no idea that this many of their blocks is being questioned.
Consider leveraging the Functionary and Oversight lists to review the CU/OS blocks. This will resolve several issues: Someone other than arbitrators will carry the bulk of the workload (even just the data collection will reduce Arbcom's workload); CU and OS will become more educated on when blocks are being appealed and may identify issues, behaviour patterns, and opportunities to change blocking practices; and knowing that these unblock requests are being looked at by people who are genuinely expert in the tools involved may reduce the number of frivolous or inappropriate requests. Now, I don't really have an objection to a separate mailing list, although if it's really not going to change your work patterns (i.e., if everyone is on both lists) then I don't really think you're solving anything. And yeah...CRMs. We had great opportunities to make use of CRM systems that the WMF had rights to, but as often happens, "perfect" became the enemy of good and the few arbitrators who cared enough to try to address it couldn't come to a mutually satisfactory conclusion. Risker (talk) 16:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Discussion based on this comment has been copied to a new section below. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Does ArbCom not have a ticketing system for these requests? Could the WP:UTRS system be cloned for use by ArbCom to improve workflow and reduce the redundancy that MKDW mentions? — Wug·a·po·des 23:16, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
We do not. I have in the past suggested we move to a CRM or something along those lines, but unfortunately moving systems is extremely disruptive for the Committee, and burdensome on the WMF and on those trying to get in contact with us. The shift from mailman to Google Groups was a drawn out and painful process, and even though I would love to have a better system I dread the thought of repeating that fiasco. It would also leave us with archived emails in three places and not just two, unless we found a system that was particularly capable at importing a very tangled email history. (As a side note, I feel that I ought to mention that although I do work for a company that develops and sells CRM software, I have not recommended that we adopt it.) GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:29, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
To be fair, we should also count the three “archive-only” lists from our arbcom-l days! AGK ■ 23:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I was referring to archives in mailman and the archives in Google Groups, which themselves are split up into several locations... :/ GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion about checkusers handling some ArbCom appeals

Copied from discussion section above. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'd suggest you're not really solving any problems by creating a new mailing list. The real issue is the number of requests. (It's a ridiculously high number, which I think is even higher than when Arbcom addressed *all* types of unblock requests before limiting itself to Arbcom-related or privacy-related unblock requests.) And if most of the requests you're getting are coming through the "email this user" interface, they're still going to wind up on your main mailing list. As someone who is both a checkuser and oversighter, I'm pretty surprised to see the frequency of these requests, because the CU and OS teams have no idea that this many of their blocks is being questioned.
Consider leveraging the Functionary and Oversight lists to review the CU/OS blocks. This will resolve several issues: Someone other than arbitrators will carry the bulk of the workload (even just the data collection will reduce Arbcom's workload); CU and OS will become more educated on when blocks are being appealed and may identify issues, behaviour patterns, and opportunities to change blocking practices; and knowing that these unblock requests are being looked at by people who are genuinely expert in the tools involved may reduce the number of frivolous or inappropriate requests. Now, I don't really have an objection to a separate mailing list, although if it's really not going to change your work patterns (i.e., if everyone is on both lists) then I don't really think you're solving anything. And yeah...CRMs. We had great opportunities to make use of CRM systems that the WMF had rights to, but as often happens, "perfect" became the enemy of good and the few arbitrators who cared enough to try to address it couldn't come to a mutually satisfactory conclusion. Risker (talk) 16:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
I've said this on the ArbCom email list, but I'll repeat it here since you or others might have thoughts: I do really like the idea of the checkusers being the ones to handle checkuser block appeals. In general, although a handful of arbitrators tend to become skilled with the checkuser tool, our most qualified checkusers are not on the Arbitration Committee. Since the majority of the appeals we hear are checkuserblocks, I think specifically moving that category of appeals would solve both the problem of volume and it would allow the most adept checkusers to look into what are often technically complex appeals. The biggest blocker to making this a reality is a venue in which these appeals can be heard. checkuser-en-wp (the relatively recently-created checkuser queue) could potentially work, but do we have any information on how many checkusers regularly check the queue? My thought: have we considered trying to leverage UTRS for this? The additional data collected by the system could be valuable when considering checkuser block appeals, and it has a similar ticketing system to OTRS that is much preferable to an email list such as ours (in my opinion). GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm intrigued by this idea. I would be on board with including checkusers in the appeal process for checkuser blocks, assuming they're willing, and assuming we could find a process that works well. The obvious solution would be to use the checkuser queue in OTRS, which already includes all the checkusers and arbitrators. It also allows for side comments and votes, and the system is already secure enough to protect private data. The big problem with OTRS is that it doesn't allow people to interface with it only from their email. They actually have to log into the OTRS interface, which has its limitations.
I'm curious about using UTRS for this instead, although I'm not sure if it's set up with all the features we would need to handle voting on appeals, and managing the private data inherent in many of the requests. What would we need to make that work? – bradv🍁 20:29, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
I think the two biggest limitations of UTRS that we would need to overcome are a lack of voting mechanism (although this could be approximated in comments on a ticket), and a lack of a separate queue where appeals containing private information could be visible only to checkusers. I also think UTRS has the pitfall of OTRS in that you must log in to the system to handle tickets. Also, credit where credit is due to Wugapodes below for the UTRS idea. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare and Bradv (and everyone else, for that matter), we already have 28 of 43 checkusers subscribed to the checkuser-en-wp OTRS queue. It's been my observation that we've had occasional requests directed to that list already, although I think most of those have been in relation to IP blocks rather than account blocks. I haven't discussed this with other checkusers, but it would probably be the right place to send those unblock requests. Checkuser wiki can be used to store data and discuss, where applicable; it would also be an appropriate place to keep track of accounts that have made requests to have CU blocks lifted, because everyone with access has signed the applicable confidentiality agreements. I suspect that, just as with Arbcom, only a segment of checkusers will actively participate in reviews of CU blocks. There are notably fewer CUs who participate in UTRS than OTRS. On the other hand, there have definitely been some CU block reviews requested on UTRS that have been reviewed by CUs. I'll note in passing that most CUs don't have this page on their watchlist and are unaware of this discussion; I was flagged because of my past history of trying to get a CRM for Arbcom. I think it might be a good idea to ping the functionaries mailing list to bring more voices to this discussion.
I will note in passing some concern that there are so many requests for review of checkuser blocks; based on what various arbitrators are saying here, I'm guessing that it's somewhere between 10 and 18 requests/month. That's a LOT of requests. With that number of requests, we should be able to identify patterns and commonalities. It may also reflect a more liberal "request again" process being used by Arbcom, since someone has mentioned people re-requesting at six months. I'd suggest one year is more appropriate. Risker (talk) 21:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
I'll drop a note on func-en about this discussion. Thanks for providing numbers about the CU queue, that's useful information to have. I do agree that the six month re-appeal timeline is often too short—we've actually been discussing that somewhat recently. @Risker: Do you mind if I split this discussion out into a separate section below so it's easier to link to from the functionaries email? GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea to me, GorillaWarfare. Risker (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Great, I've split this out (but left a copy of your original comment above, since it does pertain to the separate ArbCom list). I've also emailed the functionaries to alert them of the conversation here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Can I review appeals of my own blocks? I don't know about other CUs, but I am "subscribed" to UTRS but really only use it to read, not to comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Copying what I said when GW notified the list: I think it makes sense for ArbCom to completely remove itself from OS blocks before looking at CU blocks.
Those are already subject to peer review, we have an en-only mailing list, the OTRS function is actively used, and there’s significantly more institutional memory of how blocks came about there than on the committee.
Not really sure my views on CU blocks yet, but the OS appeals are 100% something that can be offloaded. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
And copying my on-list reply: We get next to no oversight block appeals, whereas checkuser block appeals are the primary category we receive. In practice it's very easy for us to just reply to the OS-l thread started when an oversight block is placed, and solicit input from the enwiki oversighters when we get an appeal like that. I agree that we can (and probably should) formally divest OS blocks, but not much will change in practice if we do. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
If appeals are such a large burden, you could restart WP:BASC as a real subcommittee, instead of as a sort of committee of the whole as it was before, with non-Arbitrator functionaries. I could easily see 1 Arb, 2 OSers, and 2 CUs with 1 year terms as an appeals panel. Having every person on functionaries-en as a sort of senate would also be an option per Risker. --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 17:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't think Arbcom needs to review checkuser blocks. We already have Category:Requests for unblock and WP:UTRS. If we need something else to handle appeals with private information, it could go to any number of places besides Arbcom, such as an independent BASC, a CU-only queue on UTRS, functionaries-en, OTRS, etc. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
I like Guerillero's suggestion above, of restarting BASC. Ideally in conjunction with some sort of professional CRM, and the option to toss requests to functionaries-en for wider discussion if needed. I don't think OTRS is ideal for the job, I might be wrong, but I don't really see an easy way to use it for internal discussion / commenting on requests. A private UTRS queue might work, but I'm not sure that it would be implementable at this time, DeltaQuad, and TParis are both not active on enwiki at the moment, and I don't have the time / experience to implement it at this time either. SQL ^{Query me!} 16:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

(guy who blew up BASC completely by accident) Since BASC was disbanded by community consensus, it would be extremely poor form for the committee to reconstruct it without consultation. I would note that my intent when I opened the RFC that ended it was that we would agree on some sort of hybridized version of it, to lessen the workload for the full committee, but that was not the outcome. I would personally still support such an effort. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Beeblebrox, Ah, I wasn't aware of the history. Here's the RFC for anyone curious, as well as motions and discussion. SQL ^{Query me!} 16:46, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I floated the idea of resurrecting BASC on the list about a month ago and it wasn't received positively. The block appeals are reasonably burdensome right now, because we're catching up last year (this is entirely understandable and by no means should this be considered a slight against the post-Fram-incident 2019 committee), but we're making good progress on them. It looks like we get about 15-20 appeals per month. Most of these are checkuser blocks; there is an occasional oversight block or two, and I don't see any arbcom blocks in the table. Roughly 5 or so appeals a month are not our jurisdiction - these either don't involve personal information, or there's a global lock involved (so stewards have to be contacted first). Of the (roughly) 15 appeals of CU blocks a month, easily half, if not more, are without any merit and get quickly rejected. The rest do require more research. Speaking for myself only here, if I'm stuck on following the evidence or conclusion for a CU block, I will reach out to the blocking CU to get clarification. (As a career bureaucrat I never quite intended on doing checkuser investigations, but here we are.) Otherwise, yes, we're somewhat opaque with the checkuser team in terms of how things are done, and that's probably not a Good Thing. Maxim_(talk) 17:04, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
It seems like people want less work, but don't want to give up control. I think that restarting BASC (with outsiders to the committee) to hear only the kinds of appeals that arbcom currently hears wouldn't be against the spirit of the RFC. The problem points would be arbcom blocks (99% of which will never be lifted if you read the archives) and arbcom bans (a few a year are normally lifted, but letting non-arbs be an appeals body to the committee would make committee members twitchy). Returning control of community bans to the community was a big part of the RCF and it has turned out well. --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 17:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's accurate—I'd love to give up control, at least of the checkuser block appeals. I think if we could manage to siphon the CU blocks off to the checkusers and leave the other kinds of appeals with the Committee, we would achieve the goal of significantly reducing the number of appeals the Committee needs to consider. This would also benefit the appellants and the community, I think, as the most qualified CUs tend not to be the Committee members who happen to hold the tool. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:56, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I spoke with @Bradv: and @GorillaWarfare: the other day about UTRS with a seperate ArbCom queue (or whatever type of queue) possibility. It's definitely a possibility as I am building UTRS 2.0, and that's one of my projects I will remain on. If anyone is wanting this or specific parts of this to be features, then this is the time to say so, so that they can be ready for launch. That said, I can't offer anything in a speedy manner. I'm in cycle of being slammed every two weeks for about two weeks, then two weeks to do everything else I want. That will be till the end of April or so. An interim solution should still be considered if there is an existing problem for ArbCom. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@DeltaQuad: Amanda, could you give an update on UTRS 2.0? I haven't been able to get ahold of you other than that short discussion the other day, but I'm interested in how far along it is. Is 42 SV still supporting it?--v/r - T P 00:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

While at lunch today, I had a thought. If someone else has already suggested it, forgive me. What if CU block appeals still went to the Committee but they were screened before going to the full Committee? A bit like the US Supreme Court. A single arbitrator (that position would rotate) would screen the appeal and determine the merit of the appeal. If they felt it did, they would pass it on to the Committee. If not, it would be rejected. This wouldn't reduce the number of appeals, but it would considerably reduce the workload on the members.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Not a bad idea Bbb23 and somewhat similar to how it’s handled now. Any given appeal will usually get looked at by a single arb at first (there’s a few really diligent arbs who try to stay on top of the flood) and get the ball rolling with their initial thoughts. Usually if they’re in favour of an unblock then the appeal will get a bit more attention faster, and it only take net four arbitrators to come to a decision rather than the whole or a majority of the committee. –xeno^talk 00:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
@Xeno: If that's how it's handled now, then it obviously isn't working well enough or there wouldn't be this push to use a different system. Any stats on (a) how much time is spent by the initial arb and (b) how often the initial arb recommends an unblock?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Bbb23, I can only speak for myself, but if I'm doing a thorough investigation maybe half an hour to an hour? Not counting getting stuck and emailing the blocking CU, which I'm starting to avoid nowadays. :-) Feel free to take a look at my CU logs - there's an example from 5 February in there. I usually don't recommend an unblock with checkuserblocks. What will typically happen is that I retrace the steps that blocking checkuser took and (a) come to the same conclusion and (b) suggest that appeal is without merit as a lot of them in such cases tend to be. To paraphrase a lot of the appeals, "my block is very unjust/unfair and I was making productive edits". Maxim_(talk) 03:09, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Maxim, any idea how many baseless appeals vs. ones with merit?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Bbb23, that's tough to say. For checkuser blocks, the appeals we get are on a spectrum from "why did you block me fuck you" sort of appeal to "it wasn't me" with no further explanation (and it still looks like sockpuppetry or sometimes it's still ongoing) to cases where it is explained as meatpuppetry to users admitting it and asking for a second chance. The latter two have a chance to be successful, whereas the first two don't really. Speaking for myself, there's been a few cases where I couldn't put together the evidence for the checkuser block, so I contacted the blocking checkusers, who, so far, have set me straight. Maxim_(talk) 01:30, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Maxim, I lost you. You mention the first two and the latter two, but I count only three. Regardless, do you spend any time on the "fuck you" and "it wasn't me" appeals? I guess the way I'm leaning is more appeals should be summarily rejected, although I'm not sure the Committee would go for that.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:57, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
It usually doesn't take long to get to net 4 decline on an obviously frivolous appeal. –xeno^talk 02:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Bbb23, sorry, the four examples were "fuck you", "it wasn't me", meatpuppetry, and "second chance". The point I was trying to make is that it's generally a spectrum of appeal types, so it's tough to tell how many appeals are baseless versus ones with merits. Some are totally baseless, some are reasonable, and some are in between. There's appeals where the user shouldn't be unblocked regardless of the checkuser block (e.g. UPE). (Apologies in advance if I made it even more confusing.) Myself, I do take a look at the baseless ones - not as much to find a reason to unblock but more to find ongoing socking. Keep in mind there are many flavours of baseless appeal; the ones that don't deal with private info (i.e. a straightforward unblock request) we just tell them to use talkpage or UTRS. Maxim_(talk) 03:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User-friendly documentation?

I got a boilerplate notice from NinjaRobotPirate on my User_talk: page informing me that for certain pages "a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect" and linking to "the Arbitration Committee's decision here" [for those page]. On that page the relevant info is waay down in section 16.3.3 and states "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages", linking to WP:AC/DS, which article does not actually define what "standard discretionary sanctions" means, although it does use the phrase twice in the "Authorisation" section. After a bit of rereading and headscratching, I think "standard discretionary sanctions for a page" seems to mean that if an editor doesn't follow the "Guidance for editors" then "sanctions may be imposed" on the editor. I'm not personally worried about being sanctioned under these provisions; I think I'm a fairly well-behaved editor. That said, I have some constructive criticisms arising from my experience in reacting to the boilerplate notice:

I think using the word "sanctions" in two different senses is confusing -- you talk about a page being "subject to discretionary sanctions" as opposed to a user being "sanctioned". Perhaps the terminological horse has bolted, but it might be clearer to replace "subject to discretionary sanctions" with some label that doesn't overload the word "sanctions". One suggestion I offer is a page being "under vigilance" (as opposed to a user being "under sanctions").
when an ArbCom decision page is pipelinking to WP:AC/DS using a phrase like "standard discretionary sanctions" or whatever, then please ensure that phrase is actually defined/explained within the target page.
The current WP:AC/DS article is a mixture of information for editors and for administrators; I think the "Guidance for editors" information should be first (if not on a separate page) with a user-friendly introduction. The legalese "Definitions" up front is intimidating.
Perhaps the boilerplate from NinjaRobotPirate would better link to section 16.3.3 of the decision instead of making us read all the way down from the top.

jnestorius^(talk) 19:45, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The pertinent part of discretionary sanctions is Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Expectations; all that boilerplate means in essence is "be aware that you're editing on a topic in which breaking the rules can get you blocked without a warning". I agree that the boilerplate text is confusing verbiage, but unfortunately it needs to cover everything so there's no possibility anyone can ever say "I wasn't aware!". Personally I think they cause more problems than they solve and should be abolished, but as long as we have them it's surprisingly difficult to come up with changes to the wording that wouldn't run the risk of confusing editors still more. (They link to the case rather than the specific remedy because we want people receiving the notification to read the case and familiarise themselves with what the behaviour was that led to DS being authorised in the first place so they don't unintentionally repeat it.) The page you say doesn't define "standard discretionary sanctions" certainly does: Any uninvolved administrator is authorised to place: revert and move restrictions, interaction bans, topic bans, and blocks of up to one year in duration, or other reasonable measures that the enforcing administrator believes are necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project. ‑ Iridescent 19:57, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@Iridescent: My issue is the word "standard". Your quote is from a subsubsection called "Sanctions". Could it be renamed "Standard discretionary sanctions"? I'm still not sure what other kinds of "discretionary sanctions" there are besides the "standard" ones. Is "Page restrictions" a separate type? Is "standard" the least-severe type, with "Page restrictions" being an extra layer of severity? jnestorius^(talk) 20:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@Jnestorius: Thanks for your suggestions

. Discretionary sanctions are especially confusing for the reasons I listed here, but we can certainly be better about communication in general. If you'd like to help with that, we can certainly work together to suggest some updates. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I am happy to be the ignoramus who can spot the gaps in any proposed rewording by tripping over them. Eventually I may know enough about the process not to be eligible for that role. jnestorius^(talk) 20:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The one-sentence gist is the following sentence from the notice: Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. Normally, administrators can only block users to stop immediate disruption, and editing restrictions (which includes site bans) can only be put in place through a community discussion (leaving aside arbitration cases for the moment). When the use of discretionary sanctions has been authorized, administrators are empowered to devise an editing restriction that they feel will manage the situation. Administrators can try to craft specialized remedies, though due to the overhead in enforcing them, particularly if they are unfamiliar ones, administrators typically stick with well-known remedies. Due to the wide latitude given, an exhaustive list of possible sanctions can't be provided. isaacl (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

Just wanted to say thank you to the arbitrators for the steady pace at which the committee has been dispatching its business this year, and the high rate of responsiveness to the community. Agree or disagree on the substantive issues, I think we all have noticed and appreciate the effort you've all put in. Thanks, Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 22:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Levivich, that's kind of you to say! GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, thank you. I appreciate that, and would extend my thanks to the hard work out in by other committee members. Worm^TT(talk) 09:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Clarification requested

Hey ArbCom, is it okay if we create the two redirects at WP:AFCRD? Both pages are full-salted due an ArbCom decison (MONGO) in 2007. The article Encyclopedia Dramatica has been recreated since, so is it allowed to recreate the redirects, or is another procedure required? L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there's any reason to prohibit the redirects given that the page exists now (although I'd echo a comment on the redirects page that they don't seem all that necessary.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think you need approval from us. I can't see anything in any of the MONGO remedies that prohibits recreating the article or redirects, and there is this clarification from a year later: The Arbitration Committee's decisions in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites shall not be interpreted to prohibit (or to encourage) the creation of an article on Encyclopædia Dramatica. The existence and contents of any such article may be determined through the ordinary editorial and deletion processes. Perhaps @KrakatoaKatie: remembers more since she happens to have deleted one of them back in 2007? – Joe (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Stay at home bot

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A bot to tell people to stay home. What a stupid idea. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Was this thing really approved by Arbcom? If so, there probably should be a link to the relevant discussion somewhere on its user page - as of now, I don't see how anyone could verify that this is not someone's unauthorized pet project. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Aaand blocked. Well, so much for giving benefit of doubt :p --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Unauthorized bot. –xeno^talk 19:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
@Elmidae: Despite the claim on the bot's talk page that the bot was "approved" by the Arbitration Committee, we're not in the business of approving bots. That's up to the Bot Approvals Group. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
It was one of our regular LTA time-wasters. Elmidae has it spot on - Arbcom know enough about how things work that they would at least independently verify such an account. Of course I hope they never do that... -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:59, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

The problem with bots in general is that they remove user-to-user communication, and are often a waste of time. It is quite annoying to see that I, as a human being, would waste time with a "message" auto-generated by some script (aka bot), so I would massively recommend against the usage of bots here. It's quite bad on reddit too by the way. 2A02:8388:1641:8380:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F (talk) 23:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How to find unexpired alerts to editors?

Maybe I've been doing it wrong all along, or there's a bug somewhere. In the past, I've checked user talk page logs. Recently, I've noticed that unexpired alerts are no longer showing up there. What's the correct way to check? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:46, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

When posting an alert, a notice appears cautioning the posting editor to check that includes a working link. Good enough. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hipal: I typically use the filter search for Edit Filter 602, that logs all edit filter warnings using DS Warnings. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hipal: Look at the history of the user talk page. In the Tag filter box, enter "discretionary sanctions alert" and click Show revisions. My browser remembers that I entered that text and I only have to type "disc" then press Down and Enter. That shows all alerts successfully added to that talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 23:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Note should you forget these instructions, for future reference, you can look at the documentation for the {{Ds/alert}} template. The "Logging" section describes how to search for the alert. isaacl (talk) 00:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Only appeals for currently active sanctions?

I hadn't realised this was part of the standard ruleset.

Given that blocks escalate, this seems to risk being absent for a fairly short amount of time and missing the first sanction. That could be an incorrect sanction and yet you are permanently stuck with it, and if you do then commit another breach, you'd pick up the longer penalty without good reason.

You can appeal a sanction that's expired in the normal state of affairs (so long as you get to it fairly directly after coming back - I imagine the Community might reject an attempt three months down the line), why is it permitted here? Nosebagbear (talk) 15:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure I understand what you are asking. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't realised this talk page was used for all the sub pages. I'm referring to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Appeals by sanctioned editors "Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction." - I can't understand why an appeal of a recently active sanction would be prohibited Nosebagbear (talk) 17:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, I would say it is because there's nothing to appeal if the sanction is expired or inactive. We do sometimes get requests from users wanting us to clean up their past record. If we started doing this floodgates would open and everyone who was ever subject to a sanction in the last sixteen years would want it scrubbed. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

There is something to appeal because records are a legitimate thing, and issues there do cause limitations, and because a prior issue increases a future penalty. It's also a false dichotomy to indicate there is nothing between "only currently active sanctions" and "every sanction ever authorised by ARBCOM" - within 3 months would work perfectly fine. If they haven't been back or cared to do anything within the duration of the sanction+3 months, that would seem sufficient. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps the later of three months after the start of the sanction period or the end of the sanction period would be a better window? (The arbitration committee can of course choose to make exceptions for unusual circumstances.) isaacl (talk) 00:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I think IAR probably applies here. If you can make a good case why a particular sanction should be appealed after it has expired, i.e. why this specific case is different to most, then the arbs should consider it. However I would be reluctant to say all expired sanctions can be appealed within 3 months (of start or end) as that's going to result in many people attempting to relitigate things. I'd be more open to allowing appeals of expired sanctions that were shorter than 1 week, as long as the appeal was launched (a) within seven days of it expiring and (b) within 24 hours of the user's first edit after the sanction expired. Outside of exceptional circumstances, a sanction longer than a week is plenty long enough for someone to become aware of it while it is active, the second restriction would be to make it clear that you should appeal pretty much as soon as you do become aware of it. However, WP:NOTBURO and WP:IAR should be sufficient to cover exceptional circumstances where someone is genuinely unaware of a sanction. Thryduulf (talk) 10:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd be more open to allowing appeals of expired sanctions that were shorter than 1 week, as long as the appeal was launched (a) within seven days of it expiring and (b) within 24 hours of the user's first edit after the sanction expired. - that would also be fine. I am generally reticent to rely on IAR in block-related issues, especially ARB-related areas Nosebagbear (talk) 10:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there is a good reason to allow a six-month sanction, for example, to be appealed after it has expired. However I am also more comfortable than you are with leaving it up to the arbitration committee's discretion, since these procedures are their own, and so they can choose to make exceptions at will, no matter what is written. isaacl (talk) 16:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

If anything needs to be in writing we just need to add a note to "only for a currently active sanction" saying something like "in exceptional circumstances the Committee may, at their discretion, choose the hear the appeal of short sanction shortly after it has expired". I still think though that WP:NOTBURO already covers this adequately. Thryduulf (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

If it were something like ANI policy we were discussing I'd probably be fine with that. But when discussing ARBCOM both they and the community seem more inclined to stick to the written notes. I mean, if we have this here we can point out that IAR has been pre-considered as sufficient in that aspect, then that could be okay - I suppose I'd leave to a judgement of you whether the current arbs, and at least the recent arbs, would all have been willing to consider it in the circumstances (i.e. short-term blocks) we've considered above, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure I count as recent any more, but had someone presented an appeal of say a 24 hour block three days after it had expired saying that this was the first time they were aware of it, and that was at least plausible (e.g. based on their contribution history, how long it had been discussed, etc) then I'd at least consider the appeal on its merits. No guarantee it would be successful of course. Thryduulf (talk) 23:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure I don't count as recent, but I always lobbied quite noisily (and unsuccessfully) for the right of editors to request that logs etc be redacted, or at least clearly annotated, when there was an after-the-fact clear consensus that sanctions had been inappropriate. It's always seemed quite unfair to me that if an admin misunderstood the evidence—or made an outright "oops, blocked the wrong side" error for that matter—that the target of their action receives a permanent stain on their record with no possibility of appeal. ‑ Iridescent 07:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Iridescent: If you want the block log clearly annotated, I have a patch pending at phab:T160233 to allow adding comment-only log entries via Special:AnnotateBlockLog. At some point I need to start an RfC to see if there is support for this as a feature; if you would be willing to help I'd be grateful. DannyS712 (talk) 03:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

For the particular purposes we're talking about here, the technical ability to edit existing log entries and the social ability to redact log entries would be more useful. (We already have the technical ability to oversight logs but for reasons I've never understood it's forbidden.) While annotation would be better than nothing, it still has the problem of extending the log—to someone doing a quick skim and not reading the context, something this potentially triggers a "four entries in the block log, no smoke withut fire" reaction, and adding a fifth entry to the list would just make that issue worse. ‑ Iridescent 08:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposed project addition to GS edit notice

Pls see Template talk:COVID19 GS editnotice#Edit request on 27 May 2020.--Moxy 🍁 01:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

What's happening for the anti-harassment RfC?

It's been a couple of months since the discussion in the draft died down, what's going on now? Banedon (talk) 05:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Banedon, thanks for the reminder. That poor RfC keeps getting bumped for more urgent stuff, but it is just as important. I'll see if we can get it started in the next few days. – bradv🍁 01:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Brumby page.

Hello I am new to Wiki, I have been including eddits to this page to try to resolve the fact that it bias and demeaning towards the horse bread, the page is using termanoligy that in a recent Australian court case, the judge residing chose not to use the word ferial due to its demeaning nature that being feral, the page is for the Brumby not the Ferial horse, I have rearranged the page to show the positive instead of the negitive first, I have not deleted or distroyed this page only tried to enhance it. The Brumby horse trails in Australia is not very transparent and there seems to be many people keeping a public status quote of worthless and as a pest, to maintain there ability to exploit this animal. This page in my opinion is supporting this narrative and I need help in resolving this as we need to get this page to a fair unbias state for the reader, as the repercussions of this could mean the harming and unfair treatment of this animal the Australian Brumby Shenqijing (talk) 13:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

This is being hashed out at ANI and is not an Arbcom issue. Montanabw^(talk) 18:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Emails to the Committee and follow ups

There really needs to be a better way to handle incoming emails. I sent an email to the committee in the beginning of May and I did not get a read receipt (as the email notice says I would) or any other form of communication, I then contacted an ARB a few weeks later to ask about status and was told my email is under discussion, which is fine, but should I now ask that Arb again to find out the status, should I email the committee? For those dealing with the committee via email, how do we deal with communication issues? I know there are lots on the plate, but I also think it would be nice to know where things stand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Joseph (talk • contribs) 19:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, we have now replied to your email, with apologies for the delay in getting back to you. For future reference, a follow-up reminder email to ArbCom is often appreciated, particularly if you haven't received an initial confirmation or if the request is time-sensitive. – bradv🍁 21:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, I also apologize for taking a while to get back to you. I can assure you that we carefully considered your email. To expand an answer on how to deal with communication issues and handling emails in particular... I have long associated the idiom "herding cats" with the committee. And now that I've been on it for 5 months, that seems to sum up our internal workings a lot of the time. Replying to an email that requests something of us in particular will require the input of, if not the majority of the active arbs, then something close to that, so we can write (a) on behalf of the committee (b) can in good conscience agree that we carefully considered an email. Regardless of how we handle emails - whether just keeping on the mailing list, using the wiki, or even setting up some sort of ticket system - there's going to be a fair few cases where, between general wiki-stress, real-life constraints, having other committee business, and a multitude of other reasons, it will take a while to get enough arbs to respond. At any rate, follow-up reminder emails, as bradv mentions, may often be useful. Maxim_(talk) 21:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Maxim, thank you and I understand which is why I didn't send a reminder. One other suggestion, if I may: When you make a decision via email, instead of saying "for the committee" since it's a decision, it should have who participated and how they decided. I know in my case, I just sent an email back requesting it and I hope to get an email back, at least to the part requesting who participated and how they decided, especially since this Arbcom has decided to try to be more transparent when possible. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

While I have no objection to sharing a list of votes or arbs participating in a discussion, I've never understood how this meaningful increases transparency. Anything sent "For the Arbitration Committee," is a decision of the committee as a whole, either after a majority vote or consensus. What extra insight does having the list of usernames provide? What would you use the information for? It just strikes me as extra bureaucracy for no real reason. – Joe (talk) 08:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

It helps editors know who to vote foe and helps editors oversee arbcom. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 14:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Joe Roe, Considering that there are I think 15 members of the committee and some are inactive, and "for the committee" can mean 5 people deciding on an action, it can mean 8 people for the action, it can mean 15 unanimous people. Further, as Levivich pointed out, votes have consequences. Just like in real governments, many decisions are voice votes or roll call votes. If you claim to be transparent, you then can't then say it's bureaucracy to include how people voted. That is no extra work. Someone had to tally the votes anyway. And since nobody answered my email asking for a roll call vote, I'm wondering why it's such an issue. So I'm asking you publicly, please provide me a roll call of votes. Thanks. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

As I've said I have no objection to doing it, I just (still) don't see how it adds any meaningful transparency to the committee's deliberations (which must still be private under WP:ARBPOL) and so wouldn't support making it an automatic part of our procedures. As for the response, you sent your last email 16 hours ago. Please be patient; we are a committee of volunteers with many other matters to deal with. – Joe (talk) 14:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Joe Roe, OK, thanks for the explanation. I will try to explain again. Your decision was wrong. It was also against Wikipedia policy because you skipped that part of the sentence I highlighted in my last email that specifically mentioned ARBCOM.

If your ruling just says, "for the Committee" I really can't do anything about it. If I know how the vote went, I can know how to vote the next time we have elections. It adds very meaningful transparency whenever we know how people vote. Your deliberations may be private, but this a vote, just like your votes are all public on Wiki. I could have put my case on Wiki but I didn't want the drama. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think providing details of how individual committee members reacted to a private request provides any value to the community at all. This was a private request, to which you received a private response. If you don't want it to be private, make a public request. Or if you like, we can copy your email here, together with our response and the names of those who were active on it. – bradv🍁 15:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Bradv, I can publish the final decision since you basically just misquoted policy and I think the community would want to know which ARBCOM member voted for that decision. I am not sure how knowing who voted for that isn't a good thing. Even if something remains private, it is still a good thing for transparency. I am not sure how you can't see that saying "for the committee" is not as good as "the following voted for it... and the following voted against it....." You can even publish that as a stat that "The committee entertained a private motion and the following arbs participated...." People want to know who is active and how they vote (just to see if things are unanimous, etc.) Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, we didn't misquote policy – we just weren't convinced by your argument that this needed to be handled privately, without scrutiny by the community. There's still no reason you can't go to WP:AN with your request. – bradv🍁 17:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Bradv, you quoted the policy. Policy says, "or Arbcom agreement," I also would have thought you would abstain from the discussion considering our past. In any event, I will await the roll-call vote. Thank you for your service. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I just want to follow up here, before following up via email, I still haven't gotten a response. Is two days an appropriate enough time to just get a vote tally or should I wait a bit longer to send another email to the committee to remind them? Thanks. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I am very saddened to say that ARBCOM has decided that they will not be telling me how the vote went. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

ARBCOM has decided to WIKILAWYER and they emailed and told me they will not provide me with a vote tally. Very disappointing, especially considering that people are punished on Wikipedia for WIKILAWYERING. All I'm asking for is a vote tally, not some sort of secret deliberations. A simple yes/no with a name is all I want. I don't think anyone would be against that.

Remove past transclusions from AELOG and full announcements

WP:AELOG is a huge page with all of the transclusions and it seems quite unnecessary when the links are right at the top and the current year seems to be the only ones that are required quickly. Alternatively, we could make a subpage instead with all of the transclusions like WP:AELOG/Full, so people can Ctrl+F at their pleasure.
Can ArbClerkBot post full announcements instead of linking to the original, it gives context and saves having to click again, because often it goes like somewhere else -> talk page of noticeboard -> noticeboard to find the link, and that's a bit annoying. --qedk (t 愛 c) 14:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
+1 –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
@QEDK: I don't object to the AELOG thing, but doesn't WP:AELOG/2020 already do that? Would you like to see some kind of WP:AELOGCURRENT? Regarding ArbClerkBot, it does post current announcements, unless I'm missing something? Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
@L235: ArbClerkBot posts links to the accounement and not the announcement itself, which is what I'm suggesting a change for. And, I meant that WP:AELOG should be redirected to WP:AELOG/2020's destination instead imo because bulk of the work is to add logs, and WP:AELOGFULL can redirect to the full log page (the page where AELOG currently points) - or that AELOG page have the old logs moved to another page for ease of access. The most common use-case is to add logs to the current year and then secondarily, look up for violations and even rarer would be to remove old sanctions where appeals are successful. In that respect, the current year logs should be the most visible without loading a humongous page, that's all. --qedk (t 愛 c) 05:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm still not getting it. ArbClerkBot's job is to cross-post the original announcement, not just a link to the discussion. Perhaps I'm not understanding? Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
The bot doesn't post full annoucements on the talk page, only the link to the announcement: see Special:Diff/961080124. --qedk (t 愛 c) 10:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Ah, I see what you're saying now – you're talking about WT:ACN. That's an interesting idea and I'll think about it. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Sounds good! --qedk (t 愛 c) 06:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Brahma Kumaris article probation

I've just replaced remaining article probation notices I found on talk pages with Ds/talk notice|topic=b or Ds/talk notice|topic=pr as appropriate. The only one that didn't have a Ds/talk entry is Brahma Kumaris. I don't see any indication that the sanctions for Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris have been lifted, but the case is over ten years old, and I may have missed it. Should the article probation notice be replaced by a new Ds/talk template, or should it be removed? BlackcurrantTea (talk) 03:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I posted here because Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions redirects to this page. If there's a more appropriate place, please let me know. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 16:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:ARCA would probably be the correct place to discuss this. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll post there. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 06:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Committee Elections voter message

Id like to participate in the process, as I didn't see the msgs in time for 2016/2018. However, I don't believe I fully understand the processes of Wikipedia when navigating it outside of the edits I made or reverted & the best place to learn the more advanced things (like the first sentence in the topic above for example I don't get) in a tutorial for where things are discussed etc/how to navigate. Has anyone made a good video for it before or Youtubed themselves making changes before? Jeydo (talk) 23:30, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Jeydo, the next ArbCom elections won't be until December, so there's plenty of time. This page is rather specialised, and not really what you're looking for; I left a note on your talk page with links to places you can go for help. Happy editing! BlackcurrantTea (talk) 09:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

email from ‪BenteleyCard‬

Hello, I received an email from "‪BenteleyCard‬" from [email protected]

The email in its entirety says:

‪BenteleyCard‬在您的讨论页留言了。

查看消息  ‪BenteleyCard‬  查看更改

要控制我们给您发送的电子邮件，请检查您的参数设置。
Wikimedia Foundation, 1 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600, San Francisco, CA 94104, USA

Apparently, this is Chinese, and the translation says: BenteleyCard‬ commented on your discussion page.
View messages ‪BenteleyCard‬ View changes To control the emails we send to you, please check your parameter settings.

It seemed fishy to me, so I didn't click on anything. I didn't receive any notification on enwiki, or Chinese Wikipedia. Any idea what this is about? Regards, —usernamekiran (talk) 03:00, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Looks like someone vandalised your user talk page on zh.wiki and an admin there deleted it. zh:User_talk:Usernamekiran shows a deletion log entry from Aug 7. Possibly the wholesale deletion removes the notification, since you can't be notified of an edit that doesn't exist? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks ♠PMC♠ I didnt realise the page was deleted. Previously, the vandalisations were rev-del'ed on different wikis, without page being deleted; and I could still see the page histories. Thanks again. See you around. —usernamekiran (talk) 09:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Cheers :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Evaluation

It seems that editors leave after Arbitration Committee decisions. Would it be useful to have a study or evaluation of the past 10 years or so? Does the committee resolve disputes or eliminate editors? Just curious. Eschoryii (talk) 22:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Just a placeholder to note (and remind myself) that I've seen this and will respond in the next day or so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

This is not an either or situation. There are disputes that end up at arbitration where removing a single problematic editor (either from a single topic or more broadly) is required to resolve a dispute. The thing to look for would be where an editor has been removed but the dispute has not been resolved. Whether someone who is given a sanction other than a site ban chooses to leave the project entirely is not something that is within the Committee's power to influence. It's also worth noting that ten years is a very long time on Wikipedia and there may be no correlation between someone who receives a sanction and the reason they are no longer editing. Thryduulf (talk) 11:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Many deserve a sanction but I have been seeing collateral damage to other editors. It seems the long term contributions get overlooked and Wikipedia loses a lot of skill and experience. Then they retire and lots of editors express sorry to see you leave notes on the talk page. What do those comments accomplish? Telling them to take a break and come back later. Do offended editors return? Eschoryii (talk) 00:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

It's reasonably common for retired editors to wander back eventually, whether they left as a result of Arbitration or other matters. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that some skilled and experienced users (who in many cases have done nothing wrong) are driven away by those who were sanctioned. There is no good way I know of to track these cases. There are also many examples where inexperienced users have been driven away, there is no way of knowing whether they would otherwise have gone on to be highly valued editors in the long term. Thryduulf (talk) 15:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Seems to me that some folks who lack WP:COMPETENCE in collaborative teamwork just leave before they get here. Arbcom of course is the last stop so the brew of editors has been filtered and distilled so that those who do end up here, instead of doing their own constructive WP:Dispute resolution, have a higher concentration of anti-teamwork people. If there were a higher authority to appeal to, they'd carry the fight to the bitter end. So its natural that these folks would finally fall away after exhausting the court of last resort, and I find I shed no tears for this fact... only that it couldn't happen sooner without costing everyone else so much time and grief. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Agree.Eschoryii (talk) 00:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I took a look at cases from 2012 to 2015 where editors were subject to sanctions and named in the title of the case and were not site banned (thus, they could continue to edit if they so chose). It was just a snapshot of ten cases. In eight of those cases, the editors continued editing. Of seven such cases across 2018-2019 (well, one was banned for six months), five of them continued editing (one of which was the one who was banned for six months). I don't think the data supports the conclusion that editors leave after arbcom decisions. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Is there a brain drain as a result of the Abritration process? Eschoryii (talk) 01:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
As compared to having no Arbitration Committee, and letting the community duke things out endlessly to the point of exhaustion? I'm not being snide: I think it's important to consider. It's easy to look at what we are doing and and say it's harmful because people often get upset at the end result, but you have to compare against what things would look like if we had no final binding process at all. (This isn't to say that ArbCom is flawless, but neither is major surgery and both are generally better than the alternative). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for that @Hammersoft:, I admit that is better than I would've expected. It certainly isn't the intent of arbcom to remove users when applying sanctions less than a site ban, indeed, the very purpose of all lesser sanctions is to allow them an avenue to continue contributing. If they chose instead to simply leave, I don't feel like arbcom is to blame unless the applied sanction was clearly excessive or manifestly incorrect. The committees's purpose is to end prolonged disruptive behavior. If it requires a formal sanction to stop your disruptive behavior, and your reaction to that is to just quit,that's probably an indication the restriction was warranted. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
I am not blaming the committee. There just seems to be something wrong. Should the insiders, administrators and knowledgeable and active editors look at this issue? If others see no problem, let it go. Eschoryii (talk) 01:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
I decided to take a detailed look to see what the evidence was. This has taken much longer than I thought so I have only done 2010 so far (I may or may not do more later, depends if there is interest). In that year, 34 editors were mentioned by name in the final decision as receiving a warning, restriction, or time-limited ban (including 1 who was indefinitely banned by the community during the case. Of those 34 editors:
- 3 clearly left because of the case (including 1 who ceased editing before the conclusion of the case).
- 3 left probably (but not definitely) because of the case (including 2 who ceased editing before the conclusion of the case).
- 4 left possibly due to the case, but either the reason is completely unclear or it was probably due to some other reason
- 3 ceased editing, but it is debatable whether the case was the reason or not
- 21 either have not left or left due to reasons unrelated to the arbitration case.
- 8 were subsequently indefinitely banned by the community (1 of these editors successfully appealed the ban 3½ years later and last edited the project about a week ago).
- 10 made their most recent edit in 2020, although this includes 1 editor who may or may not resume activity. It does not include 1 editor whose most recent edit was part of an unsuccessful appeal of their indefinite community ban. Thryduulf (talk) 15:15, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
That was a lot of good work. I am a political scientist and I look for power and effects. I think that looking at the most recent years would be more useful. I have noticed things in the last 3 years. Eschoryii (talk) 01:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Thryduulf, perhaps this is in your list but I'm failing at reading: are there cases of either who, while did not truly leave, have greatly reduced their activity? As much as I hate to use a real example, the aftermath of this case was the editor sanctioned reduced his activity by ~10-fold (edits/month) 1-2 months following the case; even during prior low-activity periods, the lowest month-over-month editing rate was about 40-50 edits/month.
The OP brings up a really interesting question. Earlier this year we had a discussion on the mailing list similar in substance, but specifically to do with desysoping admins. When Arbcom desysops an admin (whether directly or the admin resigns during/because/before a case), it's worked almost as a permaban from adminship (cf. WT:RFA thread). These outcomes pose sort of a catch-22: arbcom is the only body that can desysop, but how does one distinguish between conduct that deserves risking a permaban from adminship, something that's more worthy of a slap on the wrist, and then the tough cases in between where loss of tools is probably warranted but the permban might be overkill? Maxim_(talk) 14:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
I have not been tracking activity levels beyond "still contributing to the encyclopaedia" and "not still contributing" (e.g. one editor sanctioned responded to comments on their talk page for a few years after their last mainspace edit, making it clear they were not interested in returning - although in that case this has probably been to the encyclopaedia's benefit as they seemed either not to understand that their POV and NPOV were not the same thing). Doing so would be interesting but it would be a lot of work - even the level I was doing was taking sometimes 10-15 minutes per user and that was without assessing contribution rates. Thryduulf (talk) 15:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- - I think this is a useful discussion, and, as someone who is not sanctioned at all, I'd like to add a few observations of my own. There can be exaggerated effects from limited sanctions of experienced and otherwise productive editors, although I think that's largely unavoidable. And cases can leave residue that leaves case participants (me) feeling discouraged. I've seen a lot of that recently, coming out of the recent case on Medicine. I first want to say that ArbCom and other editors should absolutely not conclude that ArbCom needs to go easy on editors who need to be restricted. Quite the opposite. But I just don't want my comments to be misconstrued in that way. Anyone who wants to can take a look at my user page and talk page, if you want to see where I'm at. Following the Medicine case, there has been a massive exodus of active and productive long-term editors from WP:MED. (And there is now a separate project from Wikipedia, where quite a few of us have moved to: [1]. Editors familiar with the issues in the Medicine case will find the section there called "How we differ from Wikipedia" interesting reading, to put it mildly. It's, at a minimum, an interesting experiment.) Now having said all that, I want to make it clear that I don't have a problem with any of the findings or remedies in that case (or at least nothing big, and nothing that I didn't say at the time). The problem wasn't with what ArbCom did, so much as what ArbCom didn't do. The case pages, the decision, and the subsequent exodus of editors, have all been excessively one-sided (mostly because some parties were very active in the case discussions while others, unfortunately, were not). And there was a widespread perception following the case that the decision was harsh on one "side" of the case while letting the other "side" off easy. And that discouraged not only some editors who were named in the decision, but also parties who were (correctly) found to have done nothing sanctionable. I say all of this because the discussion began with a question about editors leaving as a result of cases, and I think this is illustrative. But I realize that this isn't easy to solve. As I said before, I don't want ArbCom to pull its punches. And I don't want ArbCom to engage in false equivalences. And it's not ArbCom's fault that some editors did not participate enough in the case pages. (But as was discussed at the time, the removal of word count limits was an experiment that should not be repeated. Not least because it led to excessively one-sided discussions.) But I do want to say that this has been different from the kinds of cases where "If it requires a formal sanction to stop your disruptive behavior, and your reaction to that is to just quit, that's probably an indication the restriction was warranted." I wish I had a better concluding statement for this comment, but I don't. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Your comments outline the problem as I sense it. I am just not steeped in the Wikipedia community and consensus standards to answer my own concerns. Editors come and go for many reasons. Thanks for this response. Eschoryii (talk) 01:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Presentation of the arbitration committee

Hi all, the Italian community is organizing the itWikicon and we would like to speak about the functionalities of the Arbcom. Do you have someone in mind that can speak Italian and having this presentation (24th or 25th October)? --Ilario (talk) 19:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I'll ask on the functionaries mailing list, but I'm not at all sure we have any that speak Italian. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Salvio giuliano is a former arb, guess it depends on if you're just looking for someone to speak about it. Primefac (talk) 22:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Amendment to arbitration procedures: prohibition of multiple roles (September 2020)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Original discussion

Based on the outcome of the community discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC: Multiple roles for active arbitrators, the Arbitration Committee procedures are amended by adding a new Section 1.6, providing:

To avoid any potential conflicts of interest, current arbitrators may not serve as members of either the Ombuds Commission or the WMF Case Review Committee while serving as arbitrators.

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

Enacted - Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Support

This amendment would implement the outcome of the recent RfC, in which there was a community consensus that arbitrators should not concurrently hold these additional roles. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
per RfC Worm^TT(talk) 17:55, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Per the RfC. Katie^talk 18:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Beeblebrox (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
– bradv🍁 19:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
–xeno^talk 19:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Maxim_(talk) 20:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 23:24, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
per RfC Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:46, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
– Joe (talk) 15:50, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Arbitrator discussion and comments

Community discussion and comments

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Wikipedia:AC" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:AC. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 19#Wikipedia:AC until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 11:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 election RfC

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020 will close in a few days. One proposal that might pass is to require a minimum of 15 supports for a proposal to pass, but there are several proposals mutually exclusive proposals that have not had that level of engagement (i.e. "Do X" and "Do not do X" both have fewer than 15 supports). To avoid any complications from this it would be very useful if more editors could express their opinions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Arbcom-banned banned-user-template question

I'd love some arbcom input at Template talk:Banned user#Suppressing the banner for arbcom bans, take 2. I filed it there because it's about a feature of the template that doesn't seem to be explained anywhere I could find there, but it relates specifically to its use in cases of arbcom bans. DMacks (talk) 15:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

How to contact ArbCom?

Hello ArbCom,

I have some information from a private Slack server about a banned member of Wikipedia who has been evading his ban to add material intended to undermine Wikipedia's credibility. In a recent ANI discussion, I was told that I should raise this matter with ArbCom, but that I should do so privately in order to not violate WP:OUTING. I'm not entirely clear on how to send ArbCom this type of information. Could ArbCom please give me instructions about how to do so?

Please bear in mind that I cannot enable cookies on the device I use to edit, so I'm not able to stay logged into a Wikipedia account. However, I can send email, if that is an acceptable method. 2600:1004:B105:1B59:1C85:3F98:4A0E:9345 (talk) 18:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee#Contacting the Committee. The email address is [email protected]. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:17, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I have one other question: would it actually be productive for me to contact ArbCom with this type of information, even though it does not relate to any current arbitration case?

My understanding is that ArbCom only has processes for taking action in a limited set of situations, such as cases and case amendments, ban appeals, or the child protection policy. This is a large part of why I haven't tried to contact ArbCom about this issue previously, as I assumed that if my message did not relate to any current arbitration case, there was no possible way it could lead to any action. But I'd like to know if that assumption was incorrect. 2600:1004:B105:1B59:1C85:3F98:4A0E:9345 (talk) 18:48, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, if you have private information like this, ArbCom would be the place to send it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:51, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

All right, if you say so. I'll plan on sending ArbCom an email about this issue sometime in the next few days. 2600:1004:B105:1B59:1C85:3F98:4A0E:9345 (talk) 19:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I've now sent my information to the email address you gave me. Can ArbCom confirm that they received it? 2600:1004:B142:1557:FC60:1052:FFEF:5E7D (talk) 04:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Received. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:14, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Could you please answer my earlier question, about whether ArbCom is able to act on this type of information if it does not relate to any current arbitration request? When you instructed me to send the information to ArbCom, I assumed that meant the answer to my question was yes. But if ArbCom requested this information only for record-keeping purposes, and it cannot be acted on outside of a public arbitration request, I'd like to know that. 2600:1004:B16F:7CD3:AD49:7C69:18D2:EC7C (talk) 19:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Nutshell

The nutshell didn't really explain to me what this procedure does. I am still a bit vague about the difference to the nornal dispute resolution, and how editors who aren't about to be sactioned know it's an area of conflict. Anyway, here is my attempt.

The Discretionary Sanction Procedure aims to creates an acceptable and collaborative editing environment for topics that the Arbitration Committee identified as contentious or strife-torn.

The Aminstrators are given the discretion to impose sanctions to those editing in areas of conflict, if the normal dispute resolution process is not working. There are rights of appeal and additional responsibilities for editors and administrators

--++ The last sentence at the end about the date isn't relevant to a nutshell and should be in a separate section.

Later dates are also mentioned in the procedure, so changes WERE done after the date of motion ( it's also not clear that it was the Arbitration Committee passed the motion ,)

My suggestion is if you want to specify a procedure date and have no change to the page except by motion , then the areas of conflict should go to a seperate page Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 11:46, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Wakelamp: I am assume you're talking about the nutshell on Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions? If so I agree that it doesn't do a good job of actually summarising the policy; it's more like a lead than a nutshell. But I don't think your proposed changes are quite accurate:

+The Aminstrators are given the discretion to impose sanctions to those editing in areas of conflict – sanctions can apply to pages, not just individual editors.

ok

-within specified topics after the Arbitration Committee has authorised their use – this is quite important. DS can only be used in topic areas specifically referred to in arbitration decisions.
+if the normal dispute resolution process is not working – there's no such requirement. The whole point of DS is that they're applied in areas where ArbCom has already determined that normal dispute resolution processes either don't work or are overly burdensome, and allow admins to bypass them if they think it's necessary.

I am not quite sure on what the difference between not working and not working/overly burdensome.Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk)

Moving the list of areas of conflict – I'm not sure I see the point? Things can only be added, removed, or change in this list as a result of an ArbCom decision, so there's no reason that other editors would need to edit it.

My concern wasn't about who edits the page. This wiki page reads like a date tracked and controlled - the document as a whole mentions dates of amendment and modification for certain sections and has an amended section for the page. Having the list of areas of conflict means that the page has been updated after that. Its a bit legalese-y, but the document refers to things like this "All sanctions and restrictions imposed under earlier versions of this process remain in force. Warnings issued under earlier procedures are not sanctions and become alerts for twelve months from the date of the passing of the motion authorising this procedure (3 May 2014 [1]), then expire." Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 06:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

But maybe we can come up with something more helpful. It is a confusing system, even for us who are supposed to be running it... – Joe (talk) 12:36, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes I am talking about "the nutshell on Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions" . I was interested because https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Coronavirus_disease_2019 has a discretionary sanctions warning. I didn't quite understand the warning, and so I came to this page and found they didn't quite line up. And I still didn't quite understand either or the difference between general, discretionary or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 06:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Indexes of ArbCom statements of principles

FYI

– Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Index/Principles 2#Requested move 8 December 2020.

Summary: proposal to move this currently maintained page to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Index/Principles, and move the dead page presently occupying that pagename to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles (historical). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Editnotice awareness and the Community Wishlist

The m:Community Wishlist Survey 2021 is open for voting. Editnotices are used to communicate DS page restrictions to editors, but one issue with them is: Editors using mobile devices may not see edit notices (WP:AC/DS#sanctions.page). As a solution, the following wishlist proposal may be of interest to the Committee and talk page watchers: m:Community Wishlist Survey 2021/Mobile and apps/Mobile editnotices. Perhaps if it is implemented we could also move to a saner awareness system? (nb: canvassing is encouraged for wishlist proposals) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:38, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Habesha peoples

There's some discussion about possibly setting up discretionary sanctions for the Habesha peoples page (case: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Horn of Africa), see Talk:Habesha peoples#Discretionary sanctions? – some help on the decision whether that is needed, and if yes, on implementing, would be appreciated. Thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars - private wiki

It seems that this private wiki was set up for Wikipedia:Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars in 2008. Is it still being used? Could it be closed? --Rs chen 7754 20:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@Rschen7754: The final report seems to have been published back in 2008 and I am almost certain that no one will notice if it is closed. I don't have access to it and I don't know if anyone else currently does either. Newyorkbrad, you were on the committee back then – you know anything about this? Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Also ping @Maxim and AGK: Rs chen 7754 21:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't have much recollection of this, unfortunately. Kirill Lokshin was probably the most active arbitrator that year, so pinging him also. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I figured out my password to it, the last edit of significance appears to be from September 2008 which is roughly when the report was published (may have been last days of August). Maxim_(talk) 15:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Anything on there worth saving/exporting? KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Liability of users functioning in Wikimedia Arbitration Committees

According to the Wikimedia Foundation Inc USA Terms of Use (version 2014), users are being hold responsible for their own conduct:

"You are responsible for your own actions: You are legally responsible for your edits and contributions on Wikimedia Projects. (...) WMF generally cannot offer any protection, guarantee, immunity or indemnification."^[1] This phrasing does not exclude actions and contributions of users in their role as Arbitration Committee Member. It would be fair to users thinking about a function as arbiter, the official Wikimedia Arbitration Committee page makes clear who bears responsibility for user-actions in an Arbitration Committee.2001:16B8:1190:3201:FC26:4C77:C9CC:989E (talk) 13:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

References

^ Wikimedia Terms of Use (2014)

My own view is that candidates for the committee know just what they are getting into. AGK ■ 13:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. The TOU applies to all users, I can't see any reason it needs to be explained that it also applies to arbs, and on top of the TOU, arbs also have to meet the Access to nonpublic personal data policy and sign the Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information. And while not a hard requirement, every single person ever elected to the committee has already been elected as an admin as well. Naive people with no experience cannot, as a practical matter, get elected as arbs so I just don't see the need to coddle them in this manner. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@AGK: @Beeblebrox: Yes, admins and arbitrators must be experienced in editing but must not have any experience or know-how in legal matters. It's not made clear by the Wikimedia Foundations (as legal site-owners and are content-copyrightholders), what policies, guidelines etc. must be seen as 'applicable' or as official Wikimedia publications. Users are the main workers / producers at all Wikimedia Foundation projects but it's not made clear what conduct by Dispute Resolution Officers protects them from legal claims. Didn't find one line on (en:wikipedia) policypages and infopages describing this situation and possible consequences for users. 2001:16B8:115A:2A01:6DD0:CD4D:3CF1:18FD (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

"Arbitration Committee" not specific enough

Now that official Wikimedia Foundation Inc USA chapters have their own "Arbitration Committees", it would be good when in the header of this Wikimedia project page clearly is being described for what Wikimedia Project Arbitration Committees this page is being meant. The page probably in the first place overlooks the Bomis Inc / Wikimedia Foundation Inc USA project "english speaking Wikipedia", but maybe other Committees have to 'obey' (some of) the policies, guidelines, procedures and other rules described and/or linked to on this page as well. Thanks, Keep up! 2001:16B8:1190:3201:FC26:4C77:C9CC:989E (talk) 12:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The page clearly describes the purpose and scope of this committee, which I believe was the first entity of any kind to go by this name in any Wikipedia context. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:ARBPOL and WP:ARBINFO are fairly clear as well. Mkdw ^talk 17:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: With "this committee" you refer only to the english language wikipedia project of US Wikimedia Foundation Inc formerly BOMIS Inc.. right? So do the links of @Mkdw: right? People from all over the world looking for information on any wikipedia arbitration committee will look for info here. Links to other wikipedia arbitration committees are missing. Also missing are the above mentioned links and others to en:wikipedia:arbitration project pages, f.i. Wikipedia Arbitration Guide and Wikipedia Arbitration Committee Procedures (looks official, not listed as official Wikimedia policy). 2001:16B8:115A:2A01:6DD0:CD4D:3CF1:18FD (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

No, the links I provided expressly state the 'English Wikipedia'. I think it is also worth mentioning that these pages are all hosted on the English Wikipedia as well. Mkdw ^talk 17:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Extortion attempt

I understand that ARBCOM is looking into issues raised at WP:ANI#"Being held ransom to delete the page unless we pay" comment at AfD. I would appreciate a message at my talk page if this develops into a case. Mjroots (talk) 09:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mjroots: We'll try keeping you updated but if you don't hear from us within a few weeks please feel free to ping or email me. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 10:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

edit-request for protected user-talk page

Shouldn't the "Discuss this" link at the bottom of User talk:Phil Sandifer link to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 24#Phil Sandifer desysopped and banned rather than Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Phil Sandifer desysopped and banned? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 21:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but it seems like it would make more sense to link to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 9#Phil Sandifer desysopped and banned, which is the actual announcement as opposed to the talk page discussion about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Derp, It didn't register with me that the entire decision is already posted on his talk page. That being the case I'm not sure it makes much difference in the grand scheme of things. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Renaming some arbitration edit notice categories

As a result of a group nomination at CfD to standardize the naming schemes of edit notice categories, a few arbcom related categories will be renamed and associated templates updated later today. I thought it would be best to leave a notice as I've previously understood that arbcom at times have been a bit reluctant towards even technical and non-substantial edits to arbcom templates and categories. --Trialpears (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Trialpears, thanks for the notice. I think this is fine (me being an arb clerk), especially as this is a very minor change which does not effect the visual effect of the template. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Purpose of Talk Page

This is a talk page. Its purpose is to discuss edits for the corresponding page. Edits should not be reverted except on the basis of any discussion that takes place here. I have just noticed, after one of my edits was immediately reverted by User:Barkeep49, that there was a notice saying that editing of the page is reserved for only certain people, which is somewhat counter to the purpose of this talk page. You the man(converse) 20:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm just noting that you didn't edit the talk page. You edited the procedure page. ArbCom pages have special rules about editing them that are longstanding. I don't have an opinion about your wording change but have learned that ArbCom wording really matters and this is why the rules are in place. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, wording does matter, and admittedly, this is not a mere opinion. My concern was precisely based on the absolute importance of proper wording. I know exactly what I did, and have explained why I did it. The existing wording is deficient, and the Arbitration Committee has now been made aware of this. You the man(converse) 20:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

So, there's a right way to do that, and a wrong way. Directly editing an arbcom procedure page that has an edit notice saying not to edit it without discussing it with the committee first is the wrong way. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Truly, I did not see the notice. After my edit was undone by User:Barkeep49, I looked more closely. Is there anyone else on the Arbitration Committee that monitors this page? I move that the wording for stage one of the process for Appeals by sanctioned editors be updated to

1. ask the enforcing administrator to lift the saction;

The reasons for this are given in the previous section.

You the man(converse) 02:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Case Workshops (February 2021)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Beeblebrox (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Case or decision affected: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures

Motion: Make workshops optional

Arbitration Committee cases shall no longer have a workshop as a default. Arbitration procedures will be modified to indicate that the workshop phase is optional, at the discretion of either the drafting arbitrators or the full committee.

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support

As proposer. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Happy for the flexibility if needed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
More flexibility seems like a good thing. Regards So Why 18:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Comments

Workshops have, in many cases, become counterproductive, serving more as place for involved parties to snipe at each other as opposed to the actual crafting of proper proposed decisions. In looking onto this, it became clear that there actually are no rules for workshops. They simply became a standard part of cases at some point without any apparent policy or procedure outlining how they are to be used. This is but one of several ideas we have been discussing and there will probably be more motions to follow to more clearly establish what workshops will look like when they are still used. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I am somewhat reluctant to remove the flexibility we have now by codifying it into procedures, even as what we're codifying is apparently flexible, because subsequent changes would need their own vote which would remove our ability to respond in the middle of a case. I don't know why we might need to but I'm also not completely convinced we need to lock ourselves in with a formal procedure. If we're going to formally introduce Workshops into procedures, I think getting the wording right for how we do it is important. So while I am philosophically in favor of this change and the two below, based in no small part on the extensive feedback we've already received from the community at WT:ACN, I would love to hear from our clerk term and L235 before I start voting. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

This is basically what I'm getting at with the third motion, when we do have them the arbs can set the ground rules at the outset, and the participants will be held to those rules. The way it is now, it seems like every workshop works under the same rules, or lack thereof. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I share BK's reluctance to codify much more on this front, but perhaps I could support "Discretionary authority in workshops" on the understanding that this is already status quo, just codified and formalized. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Isaacl: That is indeed the only mention anywhere of how workshops work and what they are for. That is the problem I am aiming to address, for whatever reason, when workshops became a thing they were just there all the sudden. Their initial purpose was for the arbs to draft the proposed decision, but that function has by and large moved to the arbwiki, and a more finished product is usually presented in the PD, while the workshop is just a free-for-all. As to the the overall timeline, that is also pretty flexible, usually being established as the first step once a case is accepted. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm struggling here, because I don't like workshops - however, after the discussion on WT:AC/N, I'm not convinced that they are a Bad Thing^TM. They are useful in a number of ways. The difficulty comes with how to manage the workshops - they can be very stressful for participants, but at the same time any direct action taken against a specific individual gets significant push back - so the line is perhaps drawn higher than it should be. We often find this in civility discussions, people may agree that "generally" level of discourse is lower than would be hoped, but "specifically" it is difficult to point comments that should be removed / updated to improve matters. Given that the entire area of the workshop is to discuss ideas for how to improve a situation, we're always going to have some level of upset.
So, I agree there are certain types of cases where we should not have a workshop - cases where we are focused on the behaviour of a couple of individuals or perhaps admin accountability cases, and so I wholly support the idea of an "optional" workshop. However, other sorts of cases may benefit more from a workshop, especially those where we are looking at "area of dispute". I guess I'm just not happy about the first sentence, which I'm reading as "by default we won't have a workshop, and so will need to justify having one". Worm^TT(talk) 11:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Kolya Butternut, my thoughts on removal for one or two individuals comes back to a "disciplinary process" approach. In those cases, statistically, if your name is in the case name, there is a good chance you will be sanctioned. It is likely that the case will be taken personally, and be very stressful for those participants. The plausible benefits of the workshop are outweighed by the damage it can cause.

Thryduulf I agree in theory. However, in practise, this does not work, just as it does not work at other locations where similar complaints come up, say, RFA. As I say, people consider the "general" tone to be low but struggle to point to "specifics". Further, when you do point to a specific low level issue (nipping problems in the bud), the moderator is likely to a) be pointed to another "low toned" comment, or b) simply disagree that there's anything wrong. What to be done? Removal of the comment / Removal of the participant? Both may be seen as overblown except in clear cut cases. Worm^TT(talk) 15:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree with this sentiment from WTT. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
I share the concerns of Thryduulf and Tryptofish below that this is a further step than we should take just yet. I hope this isn't just quibbling, but wording with more flexibility may help. It may not have been the intent, but this reads to me a strictly opt-in process: "There are no workshops unless the drafters choose to have one". Maybe something more open-ended, like, "There will not necessarily be workshops, and drafters will decide whether they're appropriate for individual cases". Maybe I'm just writing my own motion at this point... --BDD (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
I feel like the wording "the workshop phase is optional" is pretty clear, and I personally do not feel like this is all that drastic of a step. I deliberately kept the wording simple because this should be a very simple process. I would think in most cases it would be a simple, brief discussion between the drafting arbs. All that being said, I'm very used to people not liking the way I present ideas and am always happy to consider any proposed alternate wording. I just felt like we needed to get the ball rolling here. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm definitely quibbling about language now! "Shall" sounds like there's a prescription. I agree that "the workshop phase is optional" is clear. Maybe this is as simple as striking the first sentence. --BDD (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Community discussion of Motion: Make workshops optional

The only current mention of workshops in the procedures is in the section Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Target timetable for proceedings. Thus will the change be essentially changing step 2 to "The optional workshop phase" and step 3 to something like "within one week of the evidence phase or the optional workshop phase closing"? isaacl (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, I was trying to understand, in light of Barkeep49's concern, if there would be any more codification in the procedures beyond changing the target timeline section. Because the format of the case pages is entirely within the discretion the arbitration committee, there may not be any need for additional procedures to be formally written. isaacl (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

When will the decision to include / exclude a workshop be made? Will it be subject to community comment / discussion or just internal discussion of ArbCom (or uniltateral decision of the drafting Arbs? Has consideration been given to how not having a workshop might effect editors submission of evidence? The evidence page has no place for arbitrator comment, so will skipping a workshop mean there is even greater scope for a PD to appear that comes as a shock to participants? Where will arbitrator questions / requests for evidence appear? What about motions relating to cases? I'm wondering about unintended consequences... EdChem (talk) 01:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
I think at least some of these concerns are already addressed in the motion. The drafting arbs would probably make the call most of the time, but if other arbs disagree it will go to the full committee. The committee usually decides on a timeline for cases as soon as it is clear that the case is being accepted, I would think the decision on whether to have a workshop or not would naturally occur as part of that process (which I realize is invisible to non-arbs as it takes place on the mailing list) The signal-to-noise ratio in many cases of recent years has been just awful, that's the motivation behind this. As for discussion, it would just be one less talk page, arbs can still communicate as they do now on the evidence and PD talk pages. In the event that we actually decide to do a temporary injunction (which is pretty rare these days) we can just create a subpage just for that in place of the full workshop as needed. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe we need to keep an analysis of evidence section separate from the main evidence section. If analysis were to be combined with the evidence phase then we would be virtually guaranteed to need an extension for analysis of the statements of evidence, so at that point we should just separate the sections. Also, it can take too much time to make one's own statement and analyze all the other evidence. I think it makes more sense for arbitrators to ask questions during the evidence phase but leave the analysis to the workshop. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, you said that workshops "simply became a standard part of cases at some point without any apparent policy or procedure outlining how they are to be used", but workshops have been explained before as early as 2005: "The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision."[2][3][4][5][6] I hear you that there is no current official policy. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC) added diffs Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC) +"as early as 2005" Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The change in the description of the workshop phase seems to have first appeared in March 2009: "Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision."[7] Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Worm That Turned, you stated that we should not have workshops for cases about the behavior of a couple of individuals; what are your thoughts there? What I saw at the recent FF and WW case was almost no moderation from clerks or arbs, and almost no participation at all until the very end. I would like to see us try to have workshops for user conduct issues where arbitrators put themselves out there more, not less by eliminating one of the only forums that isn't behind-the-scenes. I understand the concern about push back arbitrators can receive, but I think that if arbitrators were to give light warnings, like we saw on the talk pages of the past case, that could be effective feedback to keep workshops in line. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Worm That Turned, I think if we just eliminated threaded discussions from the workshop there would be a great improvement. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the workshops as they are now can have serious problems, but I don't believe that this can be solved by getting rid of the workshops - the sniping and incivility will move elsewhere (the evidence talk page is one possibility, but I'm not sure there will be a single place). Rather I think what is needed is active moderation of the workshop by arbitrators or people who are explicitly appointed by the arbitrators to do the moderation. I don't support this motion. Thryduulf (talk) 14:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The thing is, the workshop, in many cases, accomplishes nothing. I think this is particularly true in cases that are about the behavior of a very small number of editors, or a single admin. Looking at recent cases, the average is roughly eight workshop proposals at each one. Do we need eight different people workshopping what to do about one or two other people, while the drafting arbs are drawing their own conclusions and drafting the "real"proposed decision elsewhere? I really don't think so. That is the kind of case this change is aimed at. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Do we need eight different suites of proposals? No. Do we need eight different perspectives which the Arbs can use for inspiration, see reactions to, etc? I think this can add significant value. With arb feedback and closing down of anything clearly inappropriate the possibility of harm and distraction is minimised. I also reiterate that the "real" proposed decision should not be drafted in isolation and presented as a complete proposed decision. Thryduulf (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

This is somewhat orthogonal, but Beeblebrox, would this not count as [s]ignificant or substantive modifications of the Arbitration Committee's procedures according to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Modification of procedures, thus warranting notice in a few more places? Isaacl's initial comment notes how scantily mentioned Workshops are, but given the history and precedence (and WT:ACN discussion) it does seem this might be considered as such. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Amorymeltzer, I have made the necessary notifications (to AN and ACN). If you feel it needs posting elsewhere, let me know where you think it is also needed. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I suggest that the Committee first experiment with the options that are available in the second proposed motion, and only after that consider seeing what happens if you skip a Workshop entirely. Take it one step at a time. There is no need to do this in one fell swoop. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Question, Beeblebrox, what criteria would the drafting arbs look for to enable the workshop? Without an idea of criteria of what arbs are looking to see to judge that a workshop would be helpful, I guess it would just be either arbitrary/personal preference (depending on the drafting arbs) or always disabled. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
I think worm's comments on when they are useful or not are pretty on point. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Excellent idea to give Arbs the discretion to choose. Per WTT, single Admin reviews or 2 party feuds might often not justify the community time + potential prolonged stress from a full length case. Whereas more complex cases might. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I think this is a good idea, and I don't really understand the hand-wringing on the part of some of the Arb responses so far. Making it explicitly optional and not "on" by default doesn't in any way tie ArbCom's hands. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
So, the last case I remember where we didn't have a workshop was the 2015 case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2. I didn't follow the case that closely, but I remember it vaguely because I thought it was unusual to forgo the workshop phase. I recall that at the time there was a lot of frustration during the PD phase of the case (one arb described the case in the motion to close section as "an utter waste of time"), and it looks like several observers commented that not doing the workshop was a mistake. Doug Weller wrote, for instance, that What I'd like to see is Arbitrators making more use of the workshop page, including perhaps some proposals themselves that might go in the PD. A good workshop makes writing a successful PD much easier and exposes possible problem, especially if the drafters use it. Like I said, I don't remember the case that well, but I figure I bring it up as looking back at this case might provide a case study for the kinds of challenges a workshop-less case might produce in the future. Naturally, the ArbCom of today is much different from the ArbCom of 2015, and it could well be the case that the changing culture surrounding ArbCom has also changed our needs. Mz7 (talk) 23:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
As I recall, the workshop phase was omitted for that case in an attempt to shorten it, as none of the facts in question were in dispute. Because it related to the reversal of a block placed to enforce an arbitration case remedy, the arbitration committee had to deal with it, and it chose to hold a case on an abbreviated schedule. No workshop was needed to provide analysis of the facts. As I mentioned elsewhere, personally I think the committee should decide for itself what structure it prefers to use to receive feedback on its proposed decision, and it should have the freedom to decide on a case-by-case basis. isaacl (talk) 00:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Those may have been the circumstances, but the links provided by Mz7 do indeed show a lot of sentiment at the time that skipping the Workshop had been a mistake. I actually find that very significant for the present discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
The issue was very divisive of the community, so they'll always be people objecting to any choice made. The problem regarding effectiveness, as I recall (I'm in no mood to re-read that case in its entirety), was not really related to the presence or absence of a workshop phase. The arbitration committee had done its best in the first case that had just closed two months earlier to find a way to break the block-unblock-lengthy discussion cycle for the editor in question, and so unsurprisingly there weren't any new ideas. All possible approaches had been discussed during the first case. isaacl (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

If it were up to me, the Workshop phase would be jettisoned. I've only been involved in one ArbCom case and the Workshop was a travesty because it became a litter box of people who had been obviously chomping at the bit for an opportunity to dig up every grievance they had with one of the parties -- allegations and diffs were plastered on the page that had zero relevance to the specific subject of the case. The holier-than-thous vying to be the one who had a final sway in the ArbCom decision, composing and recomposing dictums for ArbCom, was a farce, with the cherry on the icing being the participation from editors with a history of warnings, blocks, and I-bans. As I see it, whatever the purpose of the Workshop may have been when it was initiated, it now exists as a target shoot. The Evidence stage should suffice. And if ArbCom members can't hang their hats solely on the Evidence presented ... they shouldn't be wearing them to begin with. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 21:31, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Motion: Discretionary authority in workshops

In cases where a workshop phase is employed, the drafting arbitrators shall have broad authority to set case-specific rules regarding what is and is not permitted during the workshop. Any arbitrator or arbitration clerk may take whatever action they feel is needed to enforce standards of decorum and civility, and to limit "sprawling" outside the scope of the case.

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support

Beeblebrox (talk) 23:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
This is a positive step even if it only codifies current practice. --BDD (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
pragmatic and sensible Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Makes sense to codify. Regards So Why 18:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
As status quo. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 09:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Comments

Technically, this is already true, but I feel it would be good to formalize it as it has been clear for some time now that behavior at workshops needs to be reined in. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Community discussion of Motion: Discretionary authority in workshops

Getting clarification on what actually is the scope of a case has been a difficulty in cases that I have watched. Clerks guessing what is or is not within scope is problematic. Arbitrtators appear reluctant to spend substantial time dealing with workshop contributions. The draft presupposes that scope is something that is clearly known / understood and at times I've felt the drafting arbs are the only ones who actually know this. EdChem (talk) 01:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Subject to the caveats that the case scope and workshop rules are clear and arbs are responsive to questions about them, then this is a Good Thing. Thryduulf (talk) 14:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Is this meaningfully different from Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Procedures#Maintaining order and decorum on arbitration pages? It's possible that modern clerks are given a somewhat shorter leash, or that modern Arbs have generally preferred giving permission rather than forgiveness, but I think both clauses here are already True and well-known. If the intent is to clarify already-existing policy (WP:AC/P?), I'm not sure it's helpful to limit the wording to workshops. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
I think that this motion is really at the heart of what the community has been discussing. As written, the motion is somewhat broad and vague, which may be appropriate, but that is probably why editors are asking whether it really is anything new. It's important to make clear what specific assertions of authority are being made – either in a revised version of the motion, or, as correctly noted by Thryduulf, as will be necessary no matter what on specific case pages and in answers to questions from participating editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
I concur with all four of the above. This will be a good step toward preventing trainwrecks, but may not be enough in and of itself. BDD's "only codifies current practice" is kind of wishful thinking. While Amorymeltzer is correct that there's already language kind of suggestive of this, it's clearly not resulted in an enforced set of procedural rules, and that is what we need. So, I feel this is perhaps a bit too vague. For one thing, "standards of decorum and civility" isn't really enough. A substantial part of the problem is whether workshop/analysis accusations are actually supported by any evidence, so maybe "enforce standards of decorum, civility, and evidence" or something like that. I'm not sure any of these motions are getting at a central part of the problem, which has been the threaded-discussion nature of the workshop phase. Even the talk pages of these pages don't permit that, so none of the pages themselves should permit it. If you feel compelled to respond to someone's evidentiary/analysis claims, it needs to be in your own section and within your length limits (original, or as extended after approved request). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
In hindsight, intuitive. El_C 19:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Motion: Analysis of evidence

In cases where there is no workshop phase, the "Analysis of evidence" section shall be moved to the evidence phase and close concurrently with that phase. Extensions may be granted on request if there are late submissions that a participant wishes to respond to.

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support

sensible Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
So Why 18:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Subject to the authority of drafting arbitrators to modify or depart from this rule in a particular case. I also think it'd be a good chance to revisit what we actually want in the analysis section, as it varies significantly between cases and drafters. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 09:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Comments

I think the comment from Trypto/Isaac about moving analysis of evidence always to the Evidence page, and thus always subject to word lengths, is intriguing. Some amount evidence that is regularly offered is really more analysis anyway. I know that "evidence" I offered that was cited in the final decision of at least 1 case contained a large amount of analysis anyway. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Community discussion of Motion: Analysis of evidence

Although personally I like separating analysis from a plain description of acts with citations, I appreciate that many participants in past arbitration cases have preferred to integrate the two more tightly. Perhaps as a middle ground, consideration can be given to dividing each participant's section into evidence and analysis subsections. isaacl (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Beeblebrox does this motion allow extensions for adding Analysis of evidence, or does it allow an extension for everything to do with evidence? It is probably best to be clear, as although this motion seems to be only about analysis of evidence its current wording could be seen in different ways. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I think we could make clear which it is when granting any extensions, i.e. "you are granted a five-day extension in order to reply to evidence already submitted." Beeblebrox (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I think that it has long been confusing to the community to have the analysis on the Workshop page. It actually might make sense to always move it to the Evidence page, regardless of whether or not there is a Workshop, and have it stay open for a while after the evidence per se has been closed. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The analysis section was long ignored until recently—the increasing amount of use may have been triggered by concerns about word limits in the evidence section. (Once upon a time, I believe an arbitrator said, in response to someone asking if they should be placing a statement on the evidence page, workshop page, or one of the talk pages, that they read them all anyway, and a clerk can move it to wherever seems best.) I still think participants should be encouraged to separate analysis from evidence, as I think this helps establish a better common context for discussion. But I also think they should stop arguing with each other about whether or not someone else has breached the format conventions, and focus on their own points. (Note: using more words isn't always desirable; conciseness can be more compelling.) Perhaps having their evidence and analysis together in one section will help with that. isaacl (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I concur with Tryptofish above, though support this motion regardless. There is little opportunity for "analysis" of evidence to turn into a Gish gallop of vague accusations if constrained to strict length limits. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Motion: Timetable and case structure

Once a case has been accepted, the Arbitration Committee will instruct the clerks on the name, structure, and timetable for a case so they may create the applicable pages. The name is for ease of identification only and may be changed by the Committee at any time. The Committee will designate one or more arbitrators to be drafting arbitrator(s) for the case, to ensure it progresses, and to act as a designated point of contact for any matters arising.

The standard structure of a case will include the following phases and timetable:

An evidence phase that lasts two weeks from the date of the case pages opening;
A workshop phase, that ends one week after the evidence phase closes;
A proposed decision which is published within one week of the workshop phase closing.

The timetable and structure of the case may be adjusted (e.g. a phase may be extended, closed early, added or removed) by the initiative of the Committee, at the discretion of the drafting arbitrator(s) during the case. Drafting arbitrator(s) shall also have broad authority to set case-specific rules regarding the running of the phases (e.g. enforce threaded discussions, set a word limit for participants in the workshop phase) to enforce the expectation of behavior during a case. Parties to the case may also petition for changes to the timetable and structure for a case.

Implementation note: upon this motion passing, Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Target_timetable_for_proceedings will be removed, the final paragraph of Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Opening_of_proceedings will be struck, and a new section, with the heading "Timetable and case structure", will be added to the Committee's procedures with the above text. In the announcement for this change, the Committee will note its intention to incorporate the analysis of evidence into the evidence phase as part of the standard structure and to make the workshop phase optional. The Workshop phase will be omitted for some cases, such as those examining the conduct of one or two editors.

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 1 arbitrator abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted - Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Support

Per comments below. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
This is the sort of thing I could get behind. My only niggle is that the standard structure is with a workshop and you've got that the structure can be "added". I've switched that to removed, which therefore opens us up to the flexibility which I believe we want to have, whilst also keeping the option of a status quo. I'd also be happy with "added or removed" instead. Worm^TT(talk) 10:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
On second thoughts, added or removed is better as it could refer to analysis of evidence phase. Worm^TT(talk) 10:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
This tweak is definitely fine with me and I'll just note that the parenthetical statements are designed to be examples and not the full range of how a case may be adjusted or case-specific rules drafting arbs may set. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, this looks reasonable. --BDD (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Of the four proposals, this one has the most "bang for the buck", giving details without being too specific (or vague) and leaves things open for some measure of discretion for unforeseen circumstances. Primefac (talk) 13:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I split my motions up because I didn't want the whole thing to fail because of objections to one of the three parts, but apparently I needn't have worried. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
I think this provides the committee needed flexibility, without being overly broad. Clearly, workshops have been troublesome, but they needn't be dynamited altogether. We can now use some common sense about whether a case needs a workshop, and if so, what restrictions it may or may not need. I think this will allow cases to produce less drama than in the past. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ — Preceding undated comment added 18:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Parking myself here given this is now passing. I've skimmed the proposal and I see nothing outrageous but I've been too swamped with other Committee business to look at the proposal and discussion in sufficient detail. Maxim_(talk) 19:51, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments

This is designed to collapse the three motions above into a single motion, while allowing us to maintain the flexibility that our current procedures and processes allow, and to reflect current practices in terms of how a case is opened. I have included the idea of putting analysis of evidence into the evidence phase but if other arbs don't want this to be standard practice and instead only practice when we don't have a workshop that's fine with me. I'll also note that this is worded in a way that we could have an "Analysis of evidence" phase even in cases where we choose not to have a full workshop. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: copy edits made. Substantively, the culture of arbcom, at least from my limited experience with two cases this year and some limited reading of the archives, is that the drafting arbs do check-in with the larger committee. I specifically included actions that drafting arbs have historically done (extending the deadline for a phase, saying yes to threaded discussions) as signposts. Personally, yes I would rather the drafting arbs feel empowered rather than have potential paralysis waiting for a group of people who are, often, quite busy. With the proposal above, I could see, for instance, the drafting arbs deciding midcase to do an "Arb proposals only" workshop in the middle of a case where there hadn't been a plan for a workshop.

As for the statement about making workshops optional, I put that in there to try to reassure people like you and Thrydulf who don't like the direction this committee is going, that this is about flexibility not eliminating the chance for party and community feedback. But the idea that we should open ourselves up to more workshops like we got at Flyer/WW (which I'll note was actually a three party case, something I intentionally thought about when I was wording it because there is indeed nothing magical about two versus three) while we try something is not appealing to me in the least. For that case we had participating editors indicating how upsetting the whole process was to them and arbs saying "We didn't get anything of value" (well actually I did get something of value, the idea that we should rethink the name of GamerGate, but that was hardly of such value as to make the whole endeavor worthwhile). So no I don't think we should try some other partial measure, whose efficacy I expect to be higher on paper than in reality. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut: I don't understand your question. This proposal gives the committee when opening the case and drafting arbs during the case some latitude to change from the default template. However, no member of the current committee has, that I'm aware of, expressed a desire to change the current evidence phase in any substantial way. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@EdChem: incorporating a scope into the case is interesting. However, midcase updates of whether there is sufficient evidence is not something I think practical or would support. This would be true for a number of reasons a few of which are: arb attention is hard to get, drafting arbs opinions might not represent the committee as a whole, there's value in the committee just listening rather than jumping to conclusions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Can we get a version of this where it says "optional" for workshop? Regards So Why 18:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe the clause (e.g. a phase may be extended, closed early, added or removed) (emphasis added) indicates that any of the phases may be omitted if necessary. Primefac (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

It is also covered by the sentence the Arbitration Committee will instruct the clerks on the name, structure, and timetable for a case so they may create the applicable pages. The Committee has a standard structure and timetable detailed but may deviate from it, as it sees fit, when opening a case. Midcase further adjustments may be made by the Committee or by a subset of the Committee, drafting arb(s). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I got that but I think the "default" setting should be "no Workshop unless required" while this proposal makes the default "Workshop unless removed". Regards So Why 06:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Community discussion of Motion: Timetable and case structure

First, just some trivial nitpicks: In the second sentence, you might want to change "title" to "case name" or "case-name". And in the third sentence add "a" to "a designated point of contact".

I think that "The Workshop phase will be omitted for some cases, such as those examining the conduct of one or two editors" raises problems. Must it be omitted for every case examining one or two editors? Is three really a meaningful cut-off? More broadly, is the Committee really ready to take this leap before experimenting with case-specific rules set by the drafting arbs for the Workshop phase?

Do the drafting arbs have full authority to change the timetable and structure, or are there things where the whole Committee should be consulted?

Having said all that, I think that it's good to combine three motions into one, and that this motion is very much on the right track. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I generally agree with this, except that point 2 should say "optional", unless the first motion in this section (that workshops will be optional and not the default) does not pass. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Does this proposal allow for questions to the parties, arbitrators, and "witnesses" during the evidence phase? Secondly, I want to note for the record that no evidence has been presented to show that the case which led to these proposals (WanderingWanda and Flyer22 Frozen) had a workshop which was unfair to the complainee. (But let's leave it at that.) Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
I feel like eliminating the workshops (which we've had since 2005, see above) for conduct cases, etc., protects Arbcom at the expense of the community. If arbitrators had moderated the last workshop, they could have put a stop to the arguments, but they chose not to. Their solution appears to be to eliminate that difficult responsibility instead of maintaining workshops with new rules. This proposal will lead to even less transparency, and less community engagement. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Dreamy Jazz, would you provide notifications for this new proposal at WP:AN and WP:ACN? Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, I don't see that they are necessarily needed again. The announcement is still up on ACN, and interested editors may have watchlisted this page. As these motions are all part of a group the wording shall be announced on the Committee's noticeboard and the administrator's noticeboard by the clerks when first proposed suggests that when the motions are first proposed a announcement is needed. Second or more proposals for the same group of motions then from my understanding don't need a further announcement. A second notification is likely to be unneeded, but if you disagree do explain why. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 11:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, I fully endorse Dreamy Jazz's reading of the situation. Worm^TT(talk) 11:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I had made this request over thirty hours before receiving a first response, so I added a notice myself rather than wait, because this discussion seems a bit bureaucratic. I feel a notice is the polite thing to do, because folks who were not interested in the previous proposals may be interested in new ones of which they were not aware. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I mean this is kind of showing a couple of the situations I've been discussing through these conversations. First, no one person was authorized to speak for the committee and so nothing was said which was frustrating. Finally something was said by both a clerk and an arb and since the answer wasn't what the person wanted to hear the answer was ignored (WTT responded at 11:37 UTC, it was posted to AN at 15:11). If this were happening in a case, rather than in something open like this, we'd then be in a situation where we would need to do something and that could just cause further divisiveness. I think this committee is willing to say that behavior in the case will impact the final outcome, it might just happen in a delayed manner. Now obviously in this situation Kolya was free to do as they wished but because this is low stakes situation I wanted to point to it for why I've been pushing back on people who think the answer is "ArbCom needs to moderate discussions more/better". Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I would say that my post to AN was itself an act of moderation of this community discussion...but I expect we disagree. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

No I think we agree on how to characterize this action. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I commented above and did get a response from Beeblebrox (thanks) but I'm not sure that some of my concerns are clear, so I'm trying again. Allow me to preface this with agreement that some case Workshops have become highly combative and dysfunctional. I suspect there are times that a non-drafting Arbitrator might reasonable have opened the page and considered a more enjoyable and productive use for their time, like taking some nail clippers outside to mow the lawn. Reform is needed... but I am concerned about what might happen when the proposed changes are implemented.

This motion appears to indicate that any decision to exclude a Workshop phase will be made and communicated to the Clerks before the case pages are created to open the case.
- To me, it is still unclear who will make the decision. Read literally, the motion appears to say that the Committee as a whole will decide on structure, case name, drafting Arbs, etc, and this will then all be communicated to the Clerks. I had the impression (perhaps incorrectly) that drafting Arbs were selected and then they took on the rest of the issues, and that ArbCom as a whole could then alter decisions of the drafting Arbs if deemed necessary, or consider any issues referred to the Committee as a whole by the drafting Arbs. If a workshop / no workshop decision proves contentious, it is reasonable for the community to know if it was taken by the drafting Arbs and is reviewable by ArbCom as a whole if there are sufficient grounds, or if it is already a whole of ArbCom decision (whether by vote or consensus).
- Supposing that a no-workshop decision is made, will there be scope for input during the case if parties / participants believe that a workshop would be helpful? If so, will this be a public discussion (where?) or will it become a reason for off-wiki / email-lobbying of ArbCom (which I am guessing we not be a positive development from ArbCom's perspective)?
- Conversely, if a workshop phase is included but parties / others think it is undesirable, will representations to eliminate it / end it early (for example) be entertained?
- Does this mean that the case request stage, especially once acceptance appears likely, becomes the place to make submissions for or against a Workshop in a particular case? How will such submissions be managed if they eventuate?
- Will the workshop / no-workshop decision be based on... the expectation of usefulness given the nature of the case? the views of the drafting arbs about workshops in general? the extent of community interest and the submissions made at the case request? the behaviour of parties / community commenters at the case request? guidelines to be developed internally within ArbCom? ...?
Suppose a case is opened with no workshop. I believe this is likely to alter the behaviour and nature of evidence submissions from parties and others. ArbCom's requests for factual evidence and diffs rather than advocacy in the evidence phase is more difficult to follow when the usual place for advocacy is absent. Calculations as to the balance of defensive content against highlighting problematic evidence from others become potentially more difficult.
What if a decision to remove the workshop phase occurs further into the proceeding, near the end of the evidence phase, for example? Will this be seen as unfair by parties? Will it lead to re-evaluations of evidence so that things intended for the workshop still get expressed?
Have you considered opening a workshop with a warning that inappropriate behaviour might not only lead to sanctions against individuals, but possibly an early closure of the workshop?
I recognise that the role of Arbitrator must be both burdensome and unpleasant (at least at times) and that patrolling case pages for problematic behaviours or to answer questions that seem unreasonable would be frustrating. It is my perception, however, that Arbitrator involvement is helpful to the process, and I fear this change could result in less engagement and more situations where a PD comes as a surprise / shock to parties and the community. One area that is a regular source of misaligned expectations / understandings is case scope. I think that there are workshops that would have been much less problematic if there was clear communication and understanding of (a) what ArbCom saw as the scope and (b) areas where there is sufficient evidence v. areas where more evidence is needed. Communicating this would not only help the parties and participants to focus on what is useful to ArbCom, it would also guide Clerks in trying to curtail / hat / act on threads moving both in unhelpful directions and with escalating heat. In short, those workshops that do degenerate into uselessness are the fault of the parties and contributors but the Arbitrators and Clerks share responsibility for not having managed the pages more effectively. Please, do not allow these changes to become a vehicle for reduced Arbitrator participation in case pages.
On a related point, the Workshop structure includes a place for Arbitrators to ask questions, and it was (IMO) under-utilised. I suggest that a place be kept for Arbitrator questions and accompanied by a place for questions to Arbitrators, which should be given a prompt response (an answer, or strike as inappropriate, or "is a matter that will be addressed in the PD", or "We aren't going to answer that because XYZ", or ...). This should be included whether there is a workshop phase or not, IMO.
In fact, a statement (brief) on scope, perhaps as a set of questions that the drafting Arbs see as being before the Committee to answer, would be a useful addition to the evidence page for each case. Perhaps accompanied by an update with a couple of days of the evidence phase to go, indicating (a) which questions appear to have sufficient evidence, (b) which questions would benefit from more evidence, (c) any questions that have become moot / changed or any new questions that have arisen, and (d) perhaps any questions / topics that are seen as unlikely to be included in a PD – this last one could be a way of saying "drop XXX, it isn't going to happen," or of saying "we aren't convinced YYY is relevant, so you need to persuade us with something significant or you are wasting your time." I know more work is not what Arbitrators need, but more guidance could result in more useful / helpful submissions and less extraneous material.

EdChem (talk) 02:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

So Beebs gets thanked and I get no acknowledgement of my ping response? Ok I guess I better reply here then :).

To answer your questions:

Who makes the decisions about opening a case? The Committee discusses and decides. In theory the committee could just agree on who the drafting arbs are and they decide but that's not how it's being done now.

Can parties request a workshop? Yes. The motion says Parties to the case may also petition for changes to the timetable and structure for a case. I would expect this to be done at the talk page of the main case or in email to the committee depending on the nature of the request. If they were to ask a drafting arb or clerk, I'm sure they could get help (and/or a decision) as well.

Can parties ask for Workshops to end early? Yes. See above answer.

Should a desire for the workshop be part of ARC? In my opinion, think one of our messages with all this is that arbs are well positioned to be making this decision. First we have more experiences with workshops than a party will and so will have some ideas about what kinds of workshops are/aren't effective. Second the idea of the workshop is, in my mind, ultimately to help us reach the best case outcome possible. There is definitely value in everyone feeling like they've been heard and had their say, but Workshops are hardly the only place where that can happen.

What criteria will be used? I expect us to use a wide range of criteria. I expect that criteria to be refined as we actually do this over the next couple years.

Will stopping a workshop midcase be upsetting? You're right that this might be upsetting to some participants. This is why, in my opinion, the committee is more reluctant to moderate than those who have expressed opinions here and at WT:ACN would have us be. I expect us to only do that if the decorum of the case has devolved so far as to be necessary or if there were other explainable reasons that made it a wise course of action.

Have we considered opening a workshop with a warning? This entire motion, if implemented is that warning. The wording of the case page could also be adjusted. Something to think about.

I've explained previously why I think some of the other suggestions are not things I could support so I won't repeat myself. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

EdChem, one alternative to workshops might be for each arbitration participant to workshop the case on their own user subpage. They could post a link on the case talk page for arbitrators to consider as they choose. "Owners" of the talk page would be able to moderate the discussion themselves per WP:User pages#Ownership and editing of user pages. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

EdChem asked about opening a Workshop with warnings about conduct on the page, and Barkeep agreed that it is something to think about. I'd like to encourage the Committee to make significant use of warnings, or special rules, at the outset of a Workshop, as a way to communicate what to do and what not to do on the Workshop page. This can only be a good thing, in terms of preventing unpleasantness before it happens, and it may very well help the Committee in not needing to do too much monitoring and policing.

I also want to echo a very good point that EdChem made, that "It is my perception, however, that Arbitrator involvement is helpful to the process, and I fear this change could result in less engagement and more situations where a PD comes as a surprise / shock to parties and the community." Barkeep responded to that point in terms of stopping a Workshop mid-case, but I believe that it also applies, maybe even more so, to skipping the Workshop from the outset of a case. I get it, that some Arbs are pushing back against this argument, on the basis of not wanting to have to moderate case pages, but I want you to hear the message that there is a pitfall here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Case Workshops: Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of which motions are passing. These notes were last updated by Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Motion name	Support	Abstain	Support needed
Motion: Make workshops optional	3	0	4
Motion: Discretionary authority in workshops	5	0	2
Motion: Analysis of evidence	3	0	4
Motion: Timetable and case structure	8	1	·

Notes

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Method of appeal for sanctioned editors

Advising the sactioner to reconsider their original decision to sanction is counterproductive to having the sanction lifted because

a. it implies that the sanction was placed in error, a pointless discussion to become engaged in because of the power dynamic that exists between sanctionee and sanctioner, and the inevitable role of human egos, especially when the sanction was placed arbitrarily;

b. revisiting the original decision will not give anyone back any time - it is water under the bridge, and immaterial to the current situation. People and circumstances change and this is where the focus should be if the goal is to have a sanction lifted that was placed for whatever reason at some point in the past.

Instead, the sanctioned editor should ask that a sanction be lifted on the simple basis of "time served", or perhaps better-defined editing goals or methodology that will not lead to the same sanction. You the man(converse) 08:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Sotuman, changes to DS should be raised at WP:ARCA - to ensure community discussion before a motion can be proposed and voted on by the committee. That said, I don't agree that "lift the sanction" is better than "reconsider their original decision" - the latter includes the former, as well as a breadth of other options. For example - it may be that the uninvolved admin will agree to a lesser sanction with "buy-in" from the sanctioned editor. Worm^TT(talk) 10:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

There are broadly two types of appeal for Wikipedia sanctions. The first type is "this sanction should not have been made" and should focus on why it is not needed at all (or if the belief is that it is too broad, which part(s) are not required and why). These can and do succeed (although obviously not every appeal is successful), either with the person who placed the sanction or when considered by other admins. However this type of appeal is only ever successful shortly after the sanction was imposed (around 3 months at absolute most)

The second type of appeal is "this sanction is no longer required" and should focus on what has changed since the sanction was imposed and where possible should point to evidence of the appellant doing good work and behaving well somewhere they were not banned from. It is assumed that the sanction was required when it was first placed, although it is not really relevant either way. This chances of this type of appeal succeeding increase with the time since the sanction was placed or the last time it was breached (whichever is later), and are extremely rarely successful in the first 4-6 weeks.

Time served is not a viable appeal reason on Wikipedia, because sanctions are preventative not punitive it makes no sense to remove a sanction after an arbitrary length of time if the person sanctioned is just going to go right back to the behaviour which resulted in the sanction in the first place. People need to be convinced that lifting the restriction will not result in disruption. Thryduulf (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

We all believe in giving people second chances, because no one is perfect. This is not to say that if a person does happen to "go right back to the behaviour which resulted in the sanction" that escalating sanctions shouldn't be imposed, only that penalizing people indefinitely for their imagined future crimes is fundamentally prejudicial, which needlessly promotes resentment and low morale. The rules ARE important, but MUST be balanced with good faith. It makes a lot of sense to remove an arbitrary discretionary sanction, after a DEFINED LENGTH of time, NOT an arbitrary length, whether it's six weeks or six months, it's a duration that may easily be determined in direct proportion to the severity of the initial disruption, and avoids the pitfalls of prejudicial indefinite sanctions.

If the "sanction was required when it was first placed," i.e, there really WAS a "behaviour which resulted in the sanction in the first place," then there WAS ALSO a reason for the sanction. If the reason is later "not really relevant either way", then the primary factor in the decreased relevance is the passage of a significant amount of time.

If there are two distinct types of appeals that can be made, then the wording needs to indicate this. For the second type of appeal as you've defined it, the sanctioned editor shouldn't bother to "ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision," because it is no longer at issue. If it IS at issue, then the sanction should be punitive, and for a SET LENGTH. We cannot have it both ways, either define the crime and it's punishment clearly, or don't. But if it's not defined, then it's also not justice.

You the man(converse) 01:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Questions about WP:ARBHORN and discretionary sanctions

I had previously left some comments at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Horn of Africa, but I think I had misunderstood discretionary sanctions as some kind of technical remedy (e.g. somehow embedded into the code). I've been wondering if or how discretionary sanctions would apply to WP:ARBHORN pages, more specifically those related to Habesha peoples (which would fall under the topic area). The following are slightly refactored comments/questions that I had previously posted to WP:AN/I and Talk:Habesha peoples, but I figure an actual ArbCom page is a better place to bring them:

I am not sure why I have so much trouble wrapping my head around WP:ACDS. I am not sure about applying sanctions myself, as I would seem to be fairly much WP:INVOLVED. It's unclear to me what a discretionary sanction would look like, in this case. As far as Habesha peoples and related articles (and templates etc.) are concerned, almost all of the problematic edits have been via Hoaeter and their sockpuppet accounts. Unless I'm mistaken, Hoaeter is technically banned from editing the English Wikipedia, as per WP:THREESTRIKES, and their edits can be reverted on that basis. (There's a separate issue regarding their behavior at Simple Wikipedia, but I haven't delved into that.) Hoaeter is already not allowed to edit, and (as of this writing & in my opinion) no one else has been so disruptive that page restrictions are justified. (I believe page protection is a separate remedy, and we've used that in the past.) Blocking sock accounts as they are identified seems just as effective and, as a normal admin action, is something that I can do (unless I am mistaken) even if I'm WP:INVOLVED. (I'm still logging blocked accounts at WP:SPI/Hoaeter for the sake of documentation, and transparency on my part.) As far as I know, there's really nothing else to do where Hoaeter's concerned that we aren't already doing. If there is an uninvolved admin who reads this far and wants to apply discretionary sanctions, then please do so, but where the Habesha-related articles (and templates etc.) are concerned, we're really only concerned about a single editor using multiple accounts. And if I am overlooking something really obvious that discretionary sanctions would do for us (e.g. some technical remedy I don't know about), then please point this out to me.

Also, WP:ARBHORN was supposed to expire(?) or come up for review(?) as of a week ago so I'm wondering where it all stands, as of now. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Do we need an audit of "discretionary sanctions"

This is somewhat related to some of the discussion above in the workshop proposal.

See some thoughts here. Usually when an institution implements a particular policy it's common, and good, practice, to come back to it after some time and do an evaluation. Has it been effective at its stated goals? What have the side effects been? Are the benefits worth the costs?

In this specific instance I think the question begs to be asked: have discretionary sanctions actually improved any topic areas that they have been applied to? How would we know or measure such success or failure? Volunteer Marek 05:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

We would know that discretionary sanctions are not needed if people stopped complaining about them. Johnuniq (talk) 06:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Not your most wildly helpful answer there, John. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Those are all good questions. I think this is a fair comment from Levivich on the state of some topic areas. The editing experience in PIA and AP2 is not great to put it mildly (or at least was not before the election, I imagine it's somewhat better now?)

As for whether they're necessary? Well, admins cannot (for example) topic ban without them. So that means a CBAN is required at ANI. Which is a much greater bar and a messy venue to get anything complex analysed, and often the discussions end up in such a mess that the conclusion is no consensus. So the disruption continues. DS lets an admin take more proactive action, and for the most problematic topic areas that seems important. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

But again this is just speculation. How do we actually know they’re “necessary”? How do we know they’re important? “It seems” doesn’t really cut it. And even if they do do some good, do they also do some bad? It’s quite possible they do more harm than good and perpetuate conflicts and disputes by incentivizing block shopping in lieu of hashing it out on the talk page. As I mention in the linked piece, any reasonable institution would conduct an audit of such a policy. I have my own prior here, but I’m also very much interested in actual evidence that would inform my opinion. Volunteer Marek 04:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, what do we think happens when admins can't topic ban? We know what happens in other topic areas that don't have DS (but are still contentious). There are archives of this at ANI. Often they end up as no consensus, and a few months or a few more ANIs later they end up as TBANs. We also know that Israel-Palestine disputes that end up at ANI, rather than at AE, end up as a total mess. (example, and pertinent comment) We also know what happens in contentious GS areas which suffer from a lack of the same structure as ArbCom's DS, and lack of a structured venue like AE. For example: the long section currently at the top of AN in regards to COVID conspiracy theories that has went on for months (since that thread was started several editors have finally been topic banned, some more blocked, half a dozen pages ECP protected, and one editor ArbCom-banned). It would be a reasonable assumption that the same stuff would happen in contentious areas where DS happens to be authorised, too, if DS were revoked. The only way to conclusively prove this, in the way that I think you're getting at, is to revoke all the DS and see what happens. But I don't think that's in the interests of anyone. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, what DOES happen in other topic areas that don't have DS? Is there systematic evidence of any kind that those areas do worse? There are archives of WP:AE which seem to indicate that DS doesn't actually solve any problems in the topic areas it's applied to. There's even some suggestive evidence it might make matters worse by incentivizing block shopping and battleground attitudes. I-P disputes that wind up ANYWHERE end up as a total mess.

And I don't think we need to revoke all DS and see what happens to figure out whether it works or not. We just need to look at the past ten years of its effects. We have plenty of data already, all we need is to use it. Volunteer Marek 20:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

To answer some of the questions at your link, you can find an answer to the history of DS at User:RGloucester/Sanctions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Volunteer Marek 04:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Not to pick on anyone here for not closely following ArbCom, but multiple candidates (not me, but others) ran on DS reform as a central thing they'd like to do this year. In good news, this has been affirmed a few times by Arbs in some recent amendment requests. On a voice call we had earlier this week, L235 mentioned that they expect to circulate a proposal on how a DS review should be done to the committee sometime soon. Having seen a draft of this already, I'm hopeful that the committee will agree to the format and we can begin community consultation this month. I'm hesitant to say too much else but I would expect whatever form the consultation takes to focus, at minimum, on the why and how of DS. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I think that’s good but I also think it would be useful before reforming anything to actually do a formal (or semi formal) assessment. Who knows, maybe there are parts which work and parts which don’t, but we don’t do that unless someone sits down and analyzes the history and the evidence. Volunteer Marek 04:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

That would be the why of DS I mentioned above. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

We have addressed some specific cases already, and actual data was very helpful in our process regarding the cutoff date for American Politics, for example. So I do think some data being presented could be very informative in any and all cases of DS review. That being said, it may not be entirely apparent, but we are pretty swamped with arb business right now and just keeping up with it all takes a considerable amount of time, so it might be a minute before we realistically have the time to really dig into this. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:36, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

One minute... starting.... now! isaacl (talk) 00:57, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Ahh rookie mistake thinking Beebs said it would be a minute. It might be a minute. Or it might be 3 months. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me like things tend to slow down toward the middle of the year, but I didn't want to make any specific projections or promises. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

It's all relative, anyway. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

[1] Wikimedia Terms of Use (2014)

[1]

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

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	8
1–2	7
3–4	6

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	7
1–2	6
3–4	5

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	7
1–2	6
3–4	5

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	7
1–2	6
3–4	5