Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 19

I have questions about a ban where should I post them? -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:17, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

It would depend on the question and about what type of ban you're inquiring about. If it is a community ban question, there are a number of potential venues but you could ask it first at WP:AN. If it's an Arbitration Committee ban question (and not an appeal), you could ask it here or by email. If it's a question or appeal about a specific sanction or restriction placed on you then you should follow the process at WP:ARCA. Mkdw ^talk 17:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I have an incident where an editor questions where I violated a restriction I have and we would like clarifications. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Plainly, I told Magioladitis he may have violated his ban here with comments like this, or is dancing very close to a ban violation. Magioladitis wants clarification on this. See also Special:Permalink/849002852#Error 78 is listed as not cosmetic. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this is important to clarify since I am not the one who defined which errors are cosmetic and which are not. I gave HB a heads up of the list that in the past they helped to sort (and at some point they stopped). -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

This is 'important' to clarify in the sense that making claims like "One more proof that sometimes an edit may be valid even if it does not change the rendered output." is in no way a good-faith request to clarify WP:COSMETICBOT for an existing bot task or one you may undertake. This is quite clearly a commentary on WP:COSMETICBOT and the nature of cosmetic edits. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Since my comment was on AWB's pge it was a comment on the bug report and why AWB fixes error this while Mediawiki just surpresses it. --- Magioladitis (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the discussion at WT:AWB had nothing to do with COSMETICBOT until Magioladitis brought it up. While the error may have not changed the visual output of the page, the primary issue and discussion was about the errant addition of another {{reflist}} template, and subsequently about WP:AWBRULES. In my opinion, Magioladitis seemingly very intentionally brought up COSTMETICBOT without any prompt in a very pointed way and thereby violated his restriction. Magioladitis, you must drop your personal crusade and completely remove yourself from any COSMETICBOT discussions as outlined in Remedy 1.1. Mkdw ^talk 05:22, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Magioladitis, this wasn't a good move. Stay away from COSMETICBOT discussions. Doug Weller talk 13:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

OK. I will try to explain the AWB/Mediawiki issue that causes the bug in Phabricator. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I would like to be able to reply to AWB issues so I'll probably have to ask for some relaxation of the rules at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. Till then I will refrain for every similar action. Thanks everyone for the advice. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:22, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, discussing the bug itself is fine ("Mediawiki problem not AWB. Mediawiki hides second occurrance of reflist. There is a CHECKWIKI task for it."). What isn't fine is the "One more proof that sometimes an edit may be valid even if it does not change the rendered output." comment that follows it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

In response to WP:ARBINFOBOX and WP:ARBINFOBOX2 suggesting that the community needs to come up with infobox inclusion criteria and/or an include/exclude default, I've opened a broad discussion of the matter here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:24, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

PS: There's a fair amount of sentiment there to just ignore ArbCom's idea that the community should impose criteria or a default, either because ArbCom is wrong, or it's just outside ArbCom's scope to tell the community what it needs to decide. (I don't agree, but simply note that the "do nothing" responses are non-trivial, though the bulk of the discussion is about possible rationales for and details of potential criteria).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:29, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Can ArbCom authorise Discretionary Sanctions to authorise a new deletion process to enable arbitrary deletion of articles, unreviewable by WP:DRV? See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Cryptocurrency_general_sanctions_and_Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2018_July_9#Universa_Blockchain_Protocol. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:11, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: I doubt there's debate as to whether ArbCom remedies can mandate the deletion of a page. Whether ArbCom did authorize deletion as a discretionary sanction is a closer question, but I would say yes. Whether the deletion-as-discretionary-sanction in this particular case was a good idea within administrative discretion is a question for WP:AE/WP:AN (and ultimately WP:ARCA); please keep in mind that "All enforcement actions are presumed valid and proper, so the provisions relating to modifying or overturning sanctions apply, until an appeal is successful", so until an appeal is successful, it is improper to overturn the sanction and administrators doing so may be desysopped by the Committee. I express no opinion on whether the sanction was advisable and this comment is in my personal capacity (not on behalf of the Committee). Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:43, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

• I think the answer is a simple "No". Content decisions were never in the remit of ArbCom. ArbCom exists for arbitration, which means editor issues. Not content. The deletion of a mainspace page, a intended article, is a content decision. Deletion policy applies. I though this was so simple, but I guess a well advertised RfC is needed, see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Discussion_on_RfC_Formulation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The simple solution to this question is simply to review the GS question at AN if there is a contested sanction again in the future. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:14, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • ArbCom doesn't make content decisions, but it can create procedures through which our policies are enforced. For example, ArbCom has authorized binding naming conventions for Macedonia, mandated that the results of a consensus on the lede of an article be considered binding for three years, and most prominently "authorized [administrators] to use any and all means at their disposal", including "page protection and deletion tools" (which has since been superseded by discretionary sanctions), to enforce BLP. Administrators commonly use DS to require consensus for any contentious changes to articles (example). In all of these instances, the content of articles is being restricted under ArbCom's authority, but it isn't ArbCom making "content decisions". ArbCom clearly has the authority to authorize deletion of pages; whether it's a wise decision is a question for when it actually comes up. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:50, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Thanks Kevin. Interesting. No issues with Macedonia and Jerusalem. WP:BLPBAN!! That was a good thing, I had never seen it, an it explains why respected admins have, for years, been deleting "per BLPDELETE", in apparent contravention of WP:CSD. At WP:BLPDELETE, there is and was no mention of BLPBAN, and WP:CSD contains no information. "Superseded"? I can read the links, and a lot of May 2014 stuff, but it is all human unreadable jargon to me. Where in "discretionary sanctions" is the authorisation to delete BLPs? Is there any objective criteria? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:51, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

      That lack of cross-referencing from BLPDELETE to BLPBAN should surely be fixed, even if it's just in an {{efn}} footnote.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

      Whether or not ArbCom has actually authorized deletion as a discretionary sanction is a closer question than whether it has the power to; based on my reading, as well as the history and context (ArbCom clearly did not mean to restrict administrative authority when it enacted the "housekeeping provisions" which replaced BLPBAN, which did authorize deletion, with discretionary sanctions), the authorization to impose "page protection, revert restrictions, prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists), or any other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project" (WP:AC/DS#sanctions.page) included deletion in "any other reasonable measure". That's not an official interpretation for the Committee, though. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

      The way I prefer to look at Wikipedia policy, policy pages document best practice, the solutions to this is to document BLPDELETE at WP:CSD, as well as mentioning WP:GS/Crypto alongside or inside CSD#G11. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

      See Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Add_mention_of_WP:BLPDELETE_to_WP:CSD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I checked Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis but I can't find which of the Remedies werε implemennted ανδ which were not. How can I check the status of these remedies? -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

They were all implemented by virtue of having passed. As for their status, they're all still active, save for "Community encouraged to review policy on cosmetic edits", which pretty much happened and is a settled question now. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the last one (5.3.2). Where did it happen? How did the ArbCom implement this? Was there any call for centralised discussion? Same for 5.3.1. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

ARBCOM may not impose anything upon the community. ARBCOM encouraged it. Whether or not the community does it is up to the community. It happened (incompletely) with WP:CHECKWIKI at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Check Wikipedia/Archive 3#Identifying cosmetic fixes. For AWB there is T138977, T100443, any of these and various other open tickets. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom imposed restrictions to editors i.e. to community. Moreover, how the ARBCOM communicates with the community? -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Of course ArbCom can impose restrictions on editors when necessary, that is its purpose and its remit. What it cannot do is make or change policy, or force the community to hold an RfC to make or change policy. It can recommend that the community review its policy, which is what happened in that case. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

So, did my actions actually helped in reviewing and changing the policy on "cosmetic fixes"? That's nice news! But ,I think the discussion still remained between a few people. Is there any way to make this known to widr audience and attact more people on discussing these matters? As said before this discussion still it is incomplete and since we had a second ArbCom case with almost the same people involved, we should proceed further in order to rresolve this in an even better way. The AWB requests were mainly by me or before this Arbcom case which also shows how valuable was this case and the one that proceded this in resolving a longstanind issue in the community. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 23:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

News? This stuff is over a years old. And most of this stuff was designed from the start to curb your problematic edits. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:59, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Recall that 14 CHECKWIKI errors still remain in unknown status. If we resolve this, we can go back to ArbCom case and reexamine my case too. Recall that we also have a new watchlist system which is near to the one I described in the ArbCom cases. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:54, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Note that Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis 2#COSMETICBOT-discussion prohibition (1) remains in effect. isaacl (talk) 23:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

The ArbCom has to resolve this then. The remedies of cases were posed more than a year ago. Does 2.1 of case 2 affect CHECKWIKI project too? -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Insofar as it explicitly prohibits you from discussing COSMETICBOT, yes. It has been in force since the case. It is still in force. It will remain in force for the foreseeable future until it is explicitly rescinded by the Arbitration Committe.

You were warned about potentially violating your restriction less than two weeks ago in a discussion just a little ways up this page, and here you are circling the same point yet again. If you say one more word about COSMETICBOT, or the impact of your cosmetic edits, I will block you for violating your restrictions despite ample warning. Please don't make me do that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I am wondering if this is appropriate/accepted-practice (or not). One of the talk page is Talk:Sergei Skripal and here is the edit history, the other two can be found in the editor's contributions history. Can anyone (not just an ArbCom member or an admin) place these notices on talk pages? Couldn't find the answer so I thought I'd ask here. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 16:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Usually an admin does it but afaik there's no restriction on anyone else doing it. If you disagree, discuss or follow normal dispute resolution procedures, but it's honesty not a huge deal. Just having the template there doesn't do anything; the enforcing administrator will make a call as to whether specific edits fall in DS topics whether or not there's a template. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:53, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

That's always been my interpretation but I'd like to hear some Arbs confirm it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:38, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this was discussed somewhere in the last few months... But here is a statement from an arbitrator in 2016: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 18#Who can put discretionary sanctions notices on an article's talk page? isaacl (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I went from that link back to links located there, which led me to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Alerts, which I think answers this question officially. It begins: Any editor may advise any other editor that discretionary sanctions are in force for an area of conflict. I think that's the answer. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:54, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Through AC and its AE, every GamerGate-tagged articles have become perfect examples of WP:cabal. Any meaningful discussions are heavily censored by a core group of gatekeepers prioritize punishment of any trace of wrongthink. These gatekeepers are doing this at absolutely any cost and their drive is simply to cabalize the topic; it does not serve the interest of Wikipedia in the long run, and breaks the spirit of WP:Pillars. With little oversight, AC has even allowed the AE enforcement of GG rules to be applied to even loosely-related articles, those which gatekeepers see fit to their own views. AC might want to have a closer look at the imposed AE rules, and specifically at how rigorously they are applied in practice. 86.125.45.220 (talk) 12:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Unless you're a logged out editor or also use a different IP range, you've not had any problems yourself. GG applies to any related edits in any article, even if the majority of the article isn't covered by sanctions. If you want something done, you'll have to provide chapter and verse with diffs and probably bring a case. Doug Weller talk 15:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Some bits of the arbitration process run slower than pretty much everybody thinks would be ideal. One small part of this that I remember from my time on the committee was getting enough voices heard to make a decision about stuff (for example one motion was waiting one more arb to say yay or nay for several weeks and eventually rolled over to the following committee). Obviously I don't know if this is still true three years later though.

A thought that just occurred to me that might help this would be for arbitrators to be deemed inactive on all business they have not commented on within N days (7 or 10 perhaps) of it first being raised. This would not require a substantial contribution - even just an acknowledgement that they have seen it and intend to comment on it later would be enough to not be inactive on it. for a case request an "awaiting statements" comment would count.

I haven't fully thought this through, so this is not a proposal (or at least not yet). It's a request for input from other people to see if this is a good idea (as is or with changes) or a bad idea. Would it actually help? Are there problems with it I've not spotted? Thryduulf (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

To certain extent I think it is still true. With the mailing list as it is, I think it is difficult to track the last time someone has commented; some people does it, but it just feels tedious. With the on wiki stuff it can be slightly tricky; a lot of the folks are active on mailing list but doesn't really comment on wiki; personally I feel decisions are reached much faster when it is being deliberated on wiki, but I guess this is another topic. Alex Shih (talk) 05:13, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I remember that I used to email a weekly summary of the open votes and which active arbs hadn't voted. It didn't work great since clerks don't have access to most of the committee's deliberations, but I think a similar system could work well – emailed reminders of what matters are open and which arbs might have accidentally missed votes. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey, it recently came to my attention that even though three of my four editing restrictions (the two TBANs and the 1RR) from this case were suspended, only one of them has been marked as such on the actual case page. The relevant motions for the other two are here and here. I have no idea where to go to ask about this, which is why I'm here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:13, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Original discussion

I wasn't thinking of myself as a party in the current case, but Fred Bauder's submission to the workshop is clearly aimed at making me one, and basically blaming me specifically for the entire affair. I don't buy that but I guess I need to be added as a party now. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I'll check with the committee on this and advise. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: the committee has decided to add you as a party, I'll be doing so shortly. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 05:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Looking over the list of currently authorized Discretionary Sanctions, there's a few there that have been granted quite some time back (particularly those in cases still using the older Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ naming schematic). Shouldn't the committee be regularly reviewing these prior authorizations and evaluating them on their need?Additionally and/or alternatively, should future authorizations include a sunset clause whereby they automatically expire a given time in the future (say, 24-36 months after Case conclusion or motion issued)? Dax Bane 09:13, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has in the past reviewed topic areas where discretionary sanctions are authorized to prune those that are unused or ineffective. I don't think an automatic expiry makes sense—some topic areas are unlikely to become less contentious in the near future. I discussed this a bit in an answer to a question on the ArbCom elections page, there are certainly a few that could be examined to determine if they're still useful: (see question 3). GorillaWarfare (talk) 09:34, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I haven't cross referenced that list with the DS that have been issued this year, but there are easily cases where enforcements from 2011 are still being used, and I don't see areas like American Politics settling down in the next two years before the election, nor after. So an automatic sunset clause is not something I'd consider at all. That said, a review every so often is warranted. I haven't gone through the list like I said, but at least once or twice in the past year (maybe two years, my memory isn't great) we have rescinded some DS authorizations that haven't been used at all, otherwise leave them. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Some have been discussed this year somewhere onwiki and although the areas involved are having no problems the editors who are active there said that they thought that was because the DS were working. I wouldn't want to see the Committee removing any without consultation with editors involved in the areas under sanctions. Doug Weller talk 20:12, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

The Committee (and members of its clerk team) regularly reviews the topics for which discretionary sanctions have been authorized and rescinds unused topics. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

As of time of writing, Arbcom is nearing the end of this ARCA. All arbitrators that have commented have supported the proposed motion. However, I don't understand how this is happening. If we look at the ARCA, there are editors in favor of much heavier sanctions, just like there are editors in favor of lifting all sanctions. If Arbcom were a representative sample of the community, it's natural to expect that Arbcom would also be divided. How, then, can Arbcom possibly be unanimous? Off the top of my head, some possibilities are:

1. Arbcom isn't representative of the community. I can't think of why this would be the case though, other than the fact that Arbcom members are all admins (which still shouldn't affect how they view the issues in the ARCA).
2. Arbcom just does what it thinks the community wants. This would be why we have the workshop phase in case requests, and why arbitrators like OR have said they "need to hear from a balanced cross-section of the community" (since if Arbcom doesn't hear from the community it doesn't know what to do).
3. Arbcom exhibits groupthink. One arbitrator says jump, all the other arbitrators say jump as well. They might ask questions about which feet to push off the ground with, how high to jump, etc, but they all say jump.

I wonder what others thinks of this, because I find it troubling if either #2 or #3 are true. If #2 is true, then arbcom would just be a grand appeal committee whenever consensus isn't clear, which isn't the stated purpose of arbcom (i.e. to resolve disputes the community cannot handle). If #3 is true, then arbcom is less of an impartial committee and more of a first-come-first-served platform where the person that states a clear position first gets his or her way. Banedon (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I haven't been following that specific case, but I'm pretty sure there is also number 4: After thinking about it, the Arbs believe that some of the editors who commented were incorrect. It's true, though, that I have seen Proposed Decisions where it looks like whatever a drafting Arb wrote just gets a lot of seemingly tired agreement, instead of some real revision and refinement. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• I would suggest the situation is significantly more complex and I think some of the assumptions being made are incorrect.

The expectation on editors from the community and the Arbitration Committee are different. Both approach the situation with often different goals. For example, editors are free to express their opinion and desires for an outcome without the mandatory restriction of having the best interest of the community in mind. On principle, the Arbitration Committee should consider matters with the best interest of the community in mind, especially over the needs of an individual editor if the situation will impact many.

Editors from the community are not expected to reach a general consensus with each other and come up with a collective solution. It would have been interesting to see all the ARCA editors reach a consensus on a motion and compare it against the one voted on by the committee with the same guidelines. The Arbitration Committee is expected to resolve disputes and a stalemate outcome is not an option. The Arbitration Committee seeks for solutions that will have a high chance of success, often measured by assessing the likelihood of whether the situation will come back to arbitration. I am not sure if all the comments from the community take this into the same consideration, though I think many do.

Two individuals on the committee recused and did not participate in the motion. That mechanism fundamentally alters the composition of who is voting on the motion. The process for the community does not restrict editors in the same way, thereby allowing commentary from individuals with close ties or bias. If the community discussion was restricted to uninvolved members of the community, it might have been a closer comparison, however a profoundly different process and purpose.

You will notice only one motion was put forward instead of nine different versions from each member of the Arbitration Committee. The motion was the product of discussion and compromise among those on the committee who contributed to writing to it. Not everything was included and not everyone was 100% satisfied with the final draft of the motion. We did arrive on one we were all willing to support which is an important distinction. The very function of compromise works to remove outright opposition and allow for something to be passed. Even then, changes were still made during the voting process. For me, there are some parts of the motion I am not certain about, such as the action to remove “general” from the sanction wording in light of positive commitments from TRM. In the end, I provided an overall support because there are things included I do support that outweigh my concerns. I am sure more time would have allowed the motion to be reshaped but the drawn-out timeline of the ARCA should indicate that it was not an easy or quick decision.

You do bring up a good point that ArbCom is not a representative sample of the community. For better or worse, ArbCom has almost always consisted of all well-established administrators. Usually, editors appointed to the community [committee] have edits in the tens of thousands, years of experience, and have involved themselves in the bureaucracy of Wikipedia to a much greater degree than even most administrators (e.g. checkusers, oversighters, bureaucrats, ArbCom clerks, SPI clerks, SPI patrolling admins, OTRS and UTRS experience, etc.). On that point, I think it distances the committee and OR’s comments about the important of hearing from a broad section of the community is critical to helping address that issue. Mkdw ^talk 19:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Given the innumerable flaws with the finally "agreed" wording, and the number of easy loopholes which people will be seeking to exploit now allowed by the last-gasp removal of the word "general", we're going to need to re-visit this one, just a heads-up. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Mkdw: when you write "a stalemate outcome is not an option", that's not strictly true is it - you could have e.g. a motion that gets passed 5-4 with 2 recusals. The motion that was actually passed implies that *everyone* in Arbcom felt that TRM's behavior was not acceptable, which contradicts the expectation from the ARCA statements that at least some Arbcom members will find TRM's behavior acceptable. There's something unexpected going on here that remains troubling to me. Banedon (talk) 01:31, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

A 5-4 vote would not be a stalemate by definition and I was broadly referring to the expectation on the committee, not the mathematical possibility of a stalemate. The community expects the Arbitration Committee to implement solutions and passing something that significantly divides the committee is not a favourable option when reasonable compromises can be made. While this is not possible all the time, as evident by voting on some cases in particular, the motion proposed and voted upon this time was able to do so. The motion is to be read literally and prescriptively. It does not contain findings on past situations and focuses on implementing new procedures and definitions to resolve future conflicts. For example, if the committee disagreed with the outcome of the AE findings, we could have overturned those actions or completely removed AE from the enforcement process. We did not. I would caution reading into the changes as being commentary on selective past issues. Instead, AE outcomes where the consensus was not clear, or heavily disputed, will go to the committee, not as a means to overturn community outcome consensus (which if there is one will not go to the committee). Rather the motion seeks to address issues raised where the community expressed challenges related to the process. Whether these will be successful or not is to be determined. Mkdw ^talk 20:08, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Those choosing to comment at a request for clarification and amendment are a self-selected set, and so do not necessarily represent the consensus view of the entire community. Additionally not everyone who supports a given view will add a supporting opinion, as in theory these aren't straw polls and repetition is not necessary, so the relative percentages amongst those who do comment do not necessarily reflect the overall level of support. The arbitration committee has the mandate to find an approach that it believes will benefit the community the most. It isn't rigidly restricted to what the commenters have offered. isaacl (talk) 00:23, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Even if we say that the ARCA statements are from involved editors, the entire case wound up at Arbcom in the first place because uninvolved editors at ANI couldn't reach a consensus, i.e. even uninvolved editors will not agree whether TRM's behavior is acceptable. I don't find this explanation for Arbcom's surprising unanimity satisfactory. Banedon (talk) 01:31, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Just a note that self-selected doesn't mean involved; it's just not necessarily representative of the community as a whole. isaacl (talk) 02:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• This is why a lot of the mailing discussions needs to be made public, as many of these harmless deliberations are by no means confidential nor unsuitable for public view, and by being publicly viewable it helps the community to understand how these decisions came to a conclusion, rather than creating an impression that decisions are arbitrary made not reflective of the community discussions that were made. Speaking from experience I think all three points raised by Banedon are true to a certain extent, but to strictly comment on the unanimous decision aspect alone, I don't think that is highly unusual: in other community processes like the RfA there is always some kind of prevalent need to exhibit "conformity" (i.e. if a "respectable" editor vote a certain way, another editor may change their original vote accordingly). I have commented in the past about this rather disturbing trend of "conformity", and to be honest the same trend happens a lot in committee discussions also. Wholly unnecessary. Alex Shih (talk) 02:30, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Real consensus (as opposed to the straw poll approach typically followed in English Wikipedia decision-making) is everyone agreeing to something they can live with, even if it isn't completely in alignment with their preferred approach. Consensus can work in a small group setting where there is a strong alignment in goals, and so it's not unusual to see the arbitration committee reach consensus. isaacl (talk) 02:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
    • @Isaacl: Yes, but I don't think that was Banedon's point. The problem raised here (I think) is that a unanimous "consensus" was reached when the ARCA discussion was highly divisive. How? From a motion that was posted after weeks of stagnation and suddenly all of the arbs are on board and agreeing with each other. Why? Because it is rather common practice for the committee members to talk exhaustively and privately on the mailing list, and make sure everyone is (mostly) agreeing with each other before anything (especially motions) are posted on wiki. This lack of transparency is unnecessary, unfair to all parties involved, counterproductive and needs to stop. Alex Shih (talk) 04:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
      • I was commenting on your interpretation of the consensus result being a consequence of conformity. I don't believe this must be the case. I have commented on the original point elsewhere (and I appreciate that the original poster disagrees). isaacl (talk) 06:17, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
        • I think Isaacl's explanation is a good one, although it still indicates a surprising amount of unanimity among Arbcom (from the ARCA, there are people who don't even think there's a problem in the first place, and it's hard to believe that these people would get on board a sanction, however light). Banedon (talk) 08:33, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
• I have trouble following point #2 in the OP - "arbcom is less divided than the community, so maybe it's just doing what the community wants"? But more importantly, I think Mkdw and Isaacl are both exactly right. The dynamics of an open-ended invitation for people to share their views are just inherently different than the dynamics of a defined group that needs to reach a specific decision. You can see this effect at work by comparing the arb views section to the motion, for example. You'll also get a broader range of views if you ask everyone what their favorite thing to eat for dinner is than if you need to make a reservation at a specific restaurant. There's no conspiracy in "well, I'd rather have sushi, but it sounds like a lot of people want Mexican so that's fine". A lot of committee decisions are like that - there's a reason "written by committee" is a recognizable style. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

  The logic is: if Arbcom isn't a committee that grants the wishes of the community, why would it need to hear from the community? I will edit this into the OP. Also, the situation you describe is what I'm afraid of. You go from eating sushi to eating Mexican. That's completely different isn't it? In the case of this ARCA, where are the motions for imposing harsher sanctions as well as the motions for lifting all sanctions? Sure, perhaps neither would've passed, but it's not like these don't have precedent, e.g. [5] Banedon (talk) 08:33, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

  Sorry, I don't follow that logic at all. Surely there are reasons we might want to hear from the community other than 'granting wishes'? We're a handful of people; we can't possibly observe everything directly. Often people make good suggestions for solutions, but what's always valuable in cmmunity comments on any topic is information.

  What I wanted was to eat dinner with friends, which is what I got by choosing to eat fish tacos instead of sitting all by myself with my sad tuna roll. Your link is to a proposed decision in a case, which is a bit different, but not too much - sometimes the only way to get a decision is to post a stack of alternatives and count noses, but IMO it's not usually the best way. It artificially constrains the apparent options and it sometimes makes a collaborative process seem unnecessarily adversarial. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

  Yes, you want information, but that comes under the evidence page - not workshop. As for fish tacos and tuna rolls, as mentioned, this motion implies TRM's behavior is not acceptable. The people who find TRM's behavior acceptable are unlikely to ever agree to this motion. By the ARCA, such editors exist. Where are they on Arbcom then? Are you saying that you/someone persuaded them that TRM's behavior is not acceptable? Or are you saying that these editors are a minority who elected to conform with the majority so that they can eat fish tacos instead of tuna rolls? Banedon (talk) 12:01, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

  Something that Alex Shih said seems to me to be worth coming back to. I've long had the feeling that there are a lot of mailing list discussions that really do not need to be confidential, because no personal information is involved, that are constructed around making sure that members are in agreement before posting a motion or decision on-site. I can understand the human tendency to want to avoid showing dirty laundry, but I think the community might be better served if there were more transparency there. It's OK to let the community see more of the sausage-making, and could well increase rather than decrease trust. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

  I fear there would be a loss of frankness in discussion if they were held in public. (A story follows; for the sake of everyone involved, I ask that no one try to figure out any of the editor identities.) A few years ago, I copy edited an article to remove what I felt to be extraneous material, and to strengthen the writing. The edits were quickly reverted by an editor, and so I went through every single change and explained my reasoning, and the editor accepted all of the changes without any discussion. Why did this happen? Well, another editor suggested it was a desire to keep the article within the expansion requirement for Did You Know? articles. The editor promptly protested that this failed to assume good faith, and so we stopped discussing it. If the arbitration committee were to hold all of their deliberations in public (excluding matters of privacy), it may be unable to frankly discuss editor motivations based on its best interpretations of editor behaviour. I do not believe this would be helpful in devising the best way forward in contentious situations. The ability to explore different possibilities is needed, and striving to avoid upsetting anyone can hinder this. isaacl (talk) 22:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

  I don't see it as being as "either/or" as that, and I certainly would not argue that everything should be discussed publicly. There is a difference between discussing whether a user is trustworthy (perhaps better discussed privately) and whether a particular wording would cover all that it needs to cover, and I think members of the Committee can tell the difference. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

  I didn't get the sense from the previous commenters that they were only interested in how the final wording is shaped. In the past, some drafting arbitrators used the workshop to hammer out wording details. Perhaps this could be made the default practice? isaacl (talk) 00:11, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

  I was thinking more in terms of the general case, rather than the specific one here. As for the Workshop, I agree enthusiastically that this is a good way to go, at least in terms of crafting Proposed Decisions (only one part of what ArbCom does, so it addresses only a part of what I was talking about, albeit a significant part). It's been discussed a lot, including in candidate statements in the just-completed election, and it pretty much comes down to whether the Drafting Arbs actually do it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:26, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

  I think it would be cumbersome to take conversations offline each time an editor's motivations were being discussed to build a line of reasoning. It would break up the flow between online and offline discussions. I think a certain amount of discussion has to happen offline, to isolate the dimensions of the problem and what goals need to be achieved. After this, there is more opportunity for open discussion. However, I also think arbitrators should not have to try to defend every proposal they make against the entire English Wikipedia community. They should feel free to make proposals to be shot down by other arbitrators, as part of an open brainstorming process. Since the questions above seem to be about how did the arbitration committee reach their stated conclusion, one idea is for the committee, after the case decision, to publish case notes on its thought processes that led to the decision. I suspect, though, that the added overhead makes this difficult to put into practice. isaacl (talk) 00:49, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

  It's possible to overthink this. I'm just saying that more can be discussed on-wiki. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

  I agree more can be discussed on-wiki. The tricky part, though, is what to change in the process to make this happen without unduly hindering effectiveness? isaacl (talk) 00:57, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

  It's not a question of needing new processes or rules. Just a matter of sometimes choosing to post in public. And that can be chosen more frequently. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:03, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

  The question is where? We talked about posting proposals during the workshop, and you said this only covers a part of what you were talking about. Should there be a section in the workshop for deliberations? (That's what I mean by a change to the existing process.) isaacl (talk) 03:17, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

  Talk pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

  Also, the sections for "Comments by Arbitrators" that are on all case pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

  The Comments by Arbitrators sub-sections are associated with specific evidence, proposals, and so forth. Talk pages are wide open for anyone to interject, which is fine for some discussions. Does that cover everything you were thinking of? I thought you wanted some of the deliberations amongst the arbitrators to be made public, but if not, I agree that no new sections are needed. isaacl (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

  Yes, it's really just as simple as that. Sometimes, make use of those discussions instead of keeping it on email. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

  I'm intrigued by the case notes suggestion, though I suspect you're right that it would probably be a lot of overhead. I also think publishing detailed reasoning after a case has closed has limited utility—while it offers insight into the collective thought process, there's no way for people to meaningfully respond if they disagree with something unless they open an ARCA. I personally like the idea of utilizing the workshop pages more when possible, and am planning to make an effort to do that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:07, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

  The motivation of a set of case notes after the decision is to provide insight into the possibilities considered and not selected, without having the entire discussion in public and having people respond to your every thought along the way. Another idea is to issue regular progress notes on the latest status of deliberations. I am a bit wary of opening things too much. Like everyone else, I too like to weigh in when I think the arbitrators are spinning their wheels in the wrong direction, but I also recognize that the arbitrators need space to come to their own conclusions without having to worry about back seat drivers demanding attention constantly. isaacl (talk) 03:29, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

  I don't think it's likely the ArbCom would post case notes without people wishing to comment on them—inevitably, someone will take issue with something (a perceived flaw, oversight, etc.) and want to address it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

  It's just a question of when you want the feedback. If you want it during the case deliberations, then by all means let's have progress notes. I think having regular updates would help ease concerns about the range of evidence and options the arbitrators consider during their discussions. isaacl (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

  When the motion was proposed, the proposer said it was the best solution we could find. Rightly or not, I assumed this linked to off-wiki discussion about the motion. Alex Shih has asked more than once whether the matter was discussed privately, but not received an answer. I agree it would help in this case to understand where the sausage was made. AGK ■ 23:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Though you linked to me, I didn't propose it, I was merely the first who voted for it. Certainly it reflected off-wiki discussion. As Mkdw has already said above, " The motion was the product of discussion and compromise among those on the committee who contributed to writing to it. Not everything was included and not everyone was 100% satisfied with the final draft of the motion. We did arrive on one we were all willing to support which is an important distinction." How much clearer could this have been said? What I said in my comment reflects this. I'm not sure that anyone was completely satisfied, but after discussion, nobody had anything better to suggest. The role of arb com is to resolve disputes, which means we must somehow come up with a decision. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I proposed it but DGG's comment is pretty accurate. There were around 100 emails in the Committee's deliberations on what the problems were and what we could do to fix it. Like it or not the format and method of onwiki discussion is not conducive that that amount of traffic (often overlapping, read edit conflict) nor to the ease of using email over needing to log in from a device (likely a mobile device) and edit a 270 kilobyte page. While I absolutely agree that it has its downfall (particularly around transparency), it is the most time and effort-effective method of coming to a Committee decision. It's also worth considering that, in the past, the Committee has been criticised for not being a cohesive group able to come to a decision and having multiple proposals that don't go anywhere. Finding a happy middle ground is difficult and in this instance there ended up being a reasonable amount of discussion in the arb's section before a motion was proposed. I think it's important for the Committee to be more willing to explain decision making processes in public; however, in complex cases, such as this, email is the most time effective method for the Committee to discuss possible options and develop a consensus, the mechanics of onwiki discussion just don't allow for it as simply. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• The ARCA of The Rambling Man presented a simple problem: how to amend the ineffective wording of its principal sanction. 35,000 words of debate were heard prior to bringing a motion. Given the narrow scope and exhaustive on-wiki discussion, is dysfunction or ineffectiveness by the committee indicated by the fact only one motion emerged? I wouldn't agree it is. AGK ■ 23:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
• Seeing the ongoing discussion at WT:ACN, it continues to amaze me how some of the community can approve of the ARCA (in spirit if not the exact text), some disapprove, and yet Arbcom are unanimous. Banedon (talk) 21:07, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

With the aim of improving communications with the English Wikipedia community, can you consider the following requests?

• Can you strive to use the case pages as much as possible to comment on submitted evidence, analyses, and proposals, as well as for your own analyses and proposals? There will naturally be some discussions that are better held in private to avoid undue disruption, such as investigating various possibilities for findings related to editor motivations.
• Can you issue regular progress notes, particularly during periods where there is little on-wiki activity, to help keep the community aware of the ongoing progress in the case?

Any other initiatives you choose to pursue to help improve collaboration with the community are welcome. isaacl (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

The Committee does try to do this but I problem we face is that there is always a lot going on so things which take time and take away from consensus building tend to fall off the list. Over the time I've been involved with the Committee both as a clerk and arb, it's been pretty clear that some Committees do better at public communication than others. It's generally due to the individuals on the Committee at the time, some arbs are more willing, and have the time, to engage community members in public discussion whereas others focus on the behind the scenes discussion and consensus building in order to come to a solution which will be supported by a majority. Keep in mind as well that public discussion are always going to take longer due to the mechanics of onwiki discussion but also that arbs will need to spend more time responding to community members rather than each other. Given that the time it takes the Committee to come to a decision is, generally, the main area of complaint, it's likely that future Committees will place a greater emphasis on faster and more effective email discussion than slower and more laborious onwiki discussion. Over the year, this Committee has also been better at keeping the community updated on the progress in each case. That always depends, however, on the time and priorities of the arbitrators drafting a case decision, sometimes they give heaps of updates other times they need to use the limited Wikipedia time they have to review evidence and workshop proposals and to draft a decision. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:01, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree that greater engagement with the community will require more time, and so the community will have to agree to be more patient if it wants more ongoing interaction. (I tried to cover this in the requests to the community section but forgot about counseling patience.) It's also why I tried to isolate some specific areas where more on-wiki comments could occur that would not result in a completely open conversation (such as greater use of the talk pages, for example, which could quickly turn into a thicket of multiple threads). Although the volume of incoming email has to be dealt with regardless of where the discussion occurs, using email does linearize the conversation, so all new comments can be readily found, as opposed to on-wiki discussions. I appreciate the practicalities of email conversation and time constraints (I would have gone into it in greater detail than I had in the discussion thread above, but thought it would be better to let the arbitrators speak for themselves). Nonetheless, perhaps some thought can be given to these proposals (perhaps in addition to a drafting arbitrator, a liaison could be named for a case), or for other ones you can devise to allow for more connection between the larger community and the arbitration committee. isaacl (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Another idea I had: assign a liaison/community representative for each case from one of the candidates who finished with 60%+ support in the recent election but was not elected to a seat. Having passed the 60%+ threshold, they have received sufficient trust to be included on emails, but they would not participate in any private discussions. The liaison would have the task of issuing progress updates. (This might have to wait until after the 2019 elections, though, so the ground rules on who will be seeing the arbitration committee deliberations would be known ahead of time.) isaacl (talk) 17:38, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, I'd suggest that the pool of potential liaisons include the arbitration committee plus other candidates who finished with 60%+ support (or I suppose 50%+ support if an arbitrator with 50%+ support had been appointed). The liaison for a given case can be chosen from the entire pool, contingent on their availability. The extended pool would provide additional resources if needed to assist with providing updates. isaacl (talk) 17:54, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

My first reaction is that that sounds like kind of an unpleasant job - having to try to explain and illuminate decisions you couldn't participate in - especially if offered as an also-ran slot to people who explicitly did volunteer to participate. No, I feel pretty strongly about that one; the people who made the decisions have the responsibility to communicate those decisions, and creating another layer of intermediary bureaucracy in between wouldn't be a positive step. (With no criticism meant to the actual clerks, I feel somewhat the same way about the concept of clerkitude.)

All that said, I tend to write some pretty long-ass posts about arb business, and I tend to justify my tldr habit to myself by claiming it's useful to express my thought process in some detail, and as far as I can tell there's not much demand for more of that kind of stuff - if anything, I have the impression that lengthy, discursive thinking-out-loud is taking up too much conversational space as it is. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:27, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis: Re your last sentence, I know the feeling. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I think all victims of Arbcom are looking for is transparency and commonality. The "clarification" to my most recent case involved an Arb making a last-gasp modification to the wording because of some chatter on the "mailing list", midway through voting, and it was thus writ. That, I'm afraid, is utter bollocks, and shameful. Especially since that last-gap modification has resulted in complete and enhanced ambiguity, which I believe the original purpose of the case was designed to eradicate. Diastrous doesn't really cover it, but it's close. The clarification request to the clarification request will be filed soon, and this committee's legacy (which I had originally thought to be okay since it was relatively anonymous) keeps on giving. High-five to Brad for the in-jokes. Perhaps that's now blockable for me now? Who actually knows? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

In-jokes: also not blockable. At least not as AE. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

My preference would be for an arbitrator to issue progress updates; I was just brainstorming ideas for offloading the work. Progress notes wouldn't be an exposition of anyone's thoughts or reasoning; it would just provide insight into the current state of deliberations. isaacl (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I suspect it's a view-from-within-the-bubble thing but I don't know what the "current state of deliberations" would be other than people sharing their opinions about whatever the issue is and what they see as the key aspects of it/why their colleagues are wrong (which seems a lot like... deliberating :) Otherwise it seems too bare to be useful. "There are currently 32 emails over 2 threads about this subject"? I would find people's thought process more interesting than their schedule/plans/state of their inbox, but obviously I'm biased. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I didn't want to be too prescriptive in order to give the arbitration committee some flexibility; here are some ideas I had in mind. When there is clear progress visible from the on-wiki discussion, then I think that can generally speak for itself. If there isn't much activity going on, then indications of what areas are being discussed may be helpful. Are basic principles still being established, or are they mostly settled? (Obviously they can be revisited; this is just a snapshot-of-the-moment update.) Are findings still being discussed? Are there particular large issues still being discussed to be resolved, or have the basic bones been established and the committee is working out finer details? If sanctions are being discussed, have the specific behaviours to be prevented or improved been isolated, and if so, what are they? Basically, provide an indication of how much work remains in the various steps of analyzing the case, and highlight any areas where the committee would appreciate input. With this knowledge, the community can better weigh how to direct their feedback effectively. isaacl (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I very much appreciate the intention here, but I think it would be best to avoid being prescriptive. The way I see it, it's more like: "ArbCom, wherever it makes sense to you, please give the community more of your thinking, at places like noticeboards, talk pages, and Arbitrator Comments sections. Thanks." --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that was indeed my original intent, which is why the proposal doesn't provide specific details. But at the behest of Opabinia regalis, I provided some examples. isaacl (talk) 23:34, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate many editors will continue to be dissatisfied with the arbitration committee, because almost inevitably dispute resolution leaves some people discontent with the process. I acknowledge there are a lot of imperfections in the process that are unfair and we ought to strive to reduce this as much as possible. So while I completely understand if you choose not to accede to the following requests, I submit them as something to think about.

• Due to the wide number of commenters and limits on available time, it's highly likely some comments will not get addressed directly by the arbitrators, even if you thought they were deserving of a response. Please try to assume your comments were indeed considered in any case.
• While additional communication is great, it adds complexity in responding to comments and pondering different viewpoints. To lighten the load, thereby increasing the chance your comments will get due consideration, please make your comments concise, and consider refraining from commenting if someone else has already covered most of what you want to say.
• Editors can disagree with you while still having considered and understood your arguments. Please avoid prolonging discussion by simply repeating your arguments.

Asking for additional trust from the arbitrators is a two-way street: the community should in turn trust its comments are appreciated and taken into account. Having more arbitrator conversations in public should not be an opportunity to reiterate points already made, or to command actions from the arbitrators. The community should endeavour to keep the process moving forward as smoothly as possible. isaacl (talk) 23:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I want to stress that I didn't start this thread because of the things you mention. I don't hate the ARCA, I just think it's extremely optimistic (should be said as well that 'optimistic' usually carries positive connotations). It's just that the decision was unanimous when I did not expect it to be. Something similar is the religious makeup of the US Congress. Roughly 18% of US adults have no religion; however all but one member of Congress is religious. Different people will interpret that differently, but I remember one author saying that this is impossible, and some members of Congress must have lied about their religion to get elected. I want to know if the same thing is happening here, if there are arbitrators who being affected by subconscious bias without realizing it, etc. Banedon (talk) 00:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your statement; this subsection (and the one above) is a followup to the thread on more public discussion, rather than your original post. Perhaps I should have started a separate section; my apologies. isaacl (talk) 03:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

The rules say that DS appeals can be made at either AE or AN, but is the form of the appeal meant to be different at each venue, or is the only difference meant to be the venue used? The standard appeal form - which is most often used on AE, but is also utilized when filing an appeal at AN - calls for the "Result of the appeal" section to be used by admins only, but is that the case when the appeal is made at AN?

I ask because non-admins are posting their opinions about the FkpCascais appeal currently at AN in the "Results" section, [6] and some, indeed, have expressed distress that some previous non-admin comments there have been moved (by me) to the "Discussion among uninvolved editors" section.

So, is the intention that the two different venues provide two different "juries" (so to speak), admins at AE versus all editors at AN, or is the intention simply that AN is a more highly trafficked page than AE, providing more opinions in the "Uninvolved discussion" section for an appeal posted at AN, but that the discussion about "Results" should be the same in both venues, limited to admins only? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:01, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Appeals_and_modifications says that an appeal is successful if agreed to by "the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN". Thus, my reading is that the "juries" are different: uninvolved administrators at AE, uninvolved editors at AN. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:28, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. In that case, perhaps a form to be specifically used at AN, different from the one to be used at AE, would be a good idea. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:47, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

AN is less proceduralised than AE. I've always presumed that AN lacks a format for appeals by design, not for want of one… To your case of FkpCascais, I think AE's form is ill-suited to AN. Certainly the editors/admins distinction should not appear there at all. AGK ■ 14:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

You;re right that the form is not well-suited to AN. Perhaps the doc for the template should say something about using it on AE only, if there's not an alternate looser template got AN? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

The following is on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Admissibility_of_evidence and since Mediation Committee no longer exists should probably be removed: "Evidence from official mediation is only admissible with the express prior written consent of the Mediation Committee." Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Since I was asked by a clerk - I am aware this would take a committee motion. If this was the wrong place to suggest such housekeeping, apologies, and I hope a clerk could assist me by moving it to the correct place or telling me where I should properly do so. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

FYI, the policy actually can't be amended by the committee acting alone – amendments have to be ratified by the community, with at least 100 editors in favor. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

It looks to me like this is pretty much a correction to reflect already-existing community consensus. Is such ratification really necessary for what amounts to little more than correcting a typo? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I mean, technically, the consensus by which MedCom was disbanded itself wouldn't have been strong enough to amend ArbPol. The ArbPol is the only policy for which we have a formal ratification and amendment process, and it's not so far outside the realm of possibility that MedCom or a MedCom-like substitute may be reestablished at some point in the future. I would suggest that we write out MedCom next time we revise ArbPol for real, and in the meantime the section isn't doing much harm. (We should perhaps add a footnote saying that MedCom has been disbanded, though?) Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

It also serves as a reminder of what the policy about that sort of evidence WAS. I don't see any harm in adding a footnote with the MedCom disbanding note for reference though. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added a footnote to mention that the MedCom was disbanded. I'd rather just edit the page, but if it requires a 100-person consensus to do so then it's not worth the trouble. It seems like bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake—small changes like that to the policy should not require such a process. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I guess the question would be what would happen if an old MedCom case somehow was referred to arbitration. It's not very likely that it would happen given that MedCom was mostly inactive before it was disbanded, though. --Rschen7754 02:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

How about updating "before 31 December" on the page? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

That is left there because there still is a case that was opened before December 31st and still hasn't closed, therefore arbitrators are still allowed to vote on it. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)