Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: This page is for discussing announcements relating to the Arbitration Committee. Editors commenting here are required to act with appropriate decorum. While grievances, complaints, or criticism of arbitration decisions are frequently posted here, you are expected to present them without being rude or hostile. Comments that are uncivil may be removed without warning. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions.
Arbitration motions regarding Palestine-Israel articles
edit- For anyone wondering why PeleYoetz is in the original but not revised list of parties, this is almost certainly because they have been blocked as a sockpuppet. Thryduulf (talk) 12:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- PIA5 was well-overdue. Happy that Arbcom will actually be taking this up, even with the glacial pace it's moved at. The Kip (contribs) 19:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Then I hope you will participate in the case to offer evidence and workshop potential remedies to quell the disruption. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- @HJ Mitchell I’ll certainly be watching with interest, but unfortunately I’m neither consistently involved enough in the topic area nor qualified enough to substantially aid in either of those (beyond my longstanding but not widely popular belief in nuking the topic area’s userbase). The Kip (contribs) 21:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- I understand why some people might advocate for that. In a topic area that wasn't at the whims of real-world events it could conceivably work but I think it's unlikely to work here though we don't know yet where the evidence will lead. As you will have seen, my reluctance to take the case was largely because, in four previous cases, we appear to have exhausted the remedies at our disposal so if you have ideas for new ones I would certainly welcome them. In the meantime, I have some hope for the new remedies just passed in these motions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Harry, I'm a bit surprised by what you say about new remedies. When I recommended ARBCOM take this case, it wasn't because I think you can devise a miraculous new tool for administrators, but simply because determining which editors are engaged in bad behavior requires parsing more evidence than AE can reasonably handle. I fully believe that the usual combination of blocks, bans, and warnings can handle the conflict between the principal actors here at least for the moment. Is there an expectation that you need a new class of remedies? Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Vanamonde93 possibly not an expectation, but if somebody has new ideas I'm all ears. This is our most troublesome topic area and will continue to be so until the politicians get their act together, regardless of what we decide to do with these editors. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Harry, I'm a bit surprised by what you say about new remedies. When I recommended ARBCOM take this case, it wasn't because I think you can devise a miraculous new tool for administrators, but simply because determining which editors are engaged in bad behavior requires parsing more evidence than AE can reasonably handle. I fully believe that the usual combination of blocks, bans, and warnings can handle the conflict between the principal actors here at least for the moment. Is there an expectation that you need a new class of remedies? Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- I understand why some people might advocate for that. In a topic area that wasn't at the whims of real-world events it could conceivably work but I think it's unlikely to work here though we don't know yet where the evidence will lead. As you will have seen, my reluctance to take the case was largely because, in four previous cases, we appear to have exhausted the remedies at our disposal so if you have ideas for new ones I would certainly welcome them. In the meantime, I have some hope for the new remedies just passed in these motions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- @HJ Mitchell I’ll certainly be watching with interest, but unfortunately I’m neither consistently involved enough in the topic area nor qualified enough to substantially aid in either of those (beyond my longstanding but not widely popular belief in nuking the topic area’s userbase). The Kip (contribs) 21:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- Then I hope you will participate in the case to offer evidence and workshop potential remedies to quell the disruption. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- What's an "interaction" tho? Selfstudier (talk) 19:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Selfstudier A conversation or exchange between people. I'm guessing the ArbCom is examining the conversations and exchanges between the parties in the case. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 21:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- The definition of interaction ban at the banning policy page should make it clear what the committee is looking for. Donald Albury 21:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- @HJ Mitchell: Hello, as drafter can you please clarify whether the scope is exclusively about the interaction of editors as mentioned here? Also, will some sort of introduction be provided prior to the opening of the case (ex: structure of the process/type of acceptable evidence/type of editors who will be able to provide inputs/etc..)? Makeandtoss (talk) 07:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Makeandtoss the exact scope is still a little nebulous, and your idea of an introduction is a good one which I'll give more thought to before we open the case. The way I see it is we want to consider whether there are problems with those editors in particular or with the interactions between them, but we also want to explore why the entire topic area is such a problem and whether ArbCom can impose any remedies to help with that or to help admins deal with problems. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- @HJ Mitchell: Thanks for the reply, glad to hear this is being considered comprehensively. Also relevant in my opinion to the success of this case with its specific scope is whether some limitations are necessary, such as the type and number of editors allowed to participate/amount of interventions/character limits/type of allowed evidence/good faith presentation of evidence/etc. As we can see, there is understandable eagerness to participate in these discussions, so there is a need to ensure that the case does not become overwhelming, and that these points can be considered along with their context. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- The way I see it, the PIA area is a very dangerous combination of intractible ethnopolitical dispute (a la EE or AP2), open war in meatspace (a la AA2 or EE) and one that everyone in the world and their dog has a horse in for one reason or another (a la AB or GS). None of these are things Wikipedia and its processes have any hope of handling because the on-wiki behaviour is a symptom of real-world disputes that cannot be resolved that way. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:38, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- This is likely true and true for a long time, which begs the question, what exactly is it that is different now? Selfstudier (talk) 11:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- The answer is to focus where the focus belongs. No one should expect ArbCom to deal with intractable worldwide problems. Instead, the case should focus on whether there are individual editors whose conduct is making the editing environment worse. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:12, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- That's not an answer to my question tho (which wasn't intended as a coatrack for you to hang your well known opinion on). Selfstudier (talk) 19:16, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- I was responding more to what Jéské said, that there was no hope of ArbCom being able to handle the problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- a) That's not all they said. b) I want to know what they think the problem is (now). Selfstudier (talk) 19:29, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Selfstudier, you ask what the problem is now. The problem is editors in the PIA topic area appear to not be playing by the rules, in a way that our existing system isn't solving. We can't pretend to ignore the real world here. Obviously the war in Gaza is ultimately driving the issue. But Jéské Couriano is right: we can't fix the real world problem. A body of 15 volunteers on a website staffed by people with names like CaptainEek are not going to end a war that has its roots more than a century deep. But we can assess, in our little corner of the internet, whether our own editors are following the rules while writing about that real world topic. We will assess the conduct of editors, and whether our existing Contentious Topics scheme is keeping a lid on the topic area. I doubt that PIA5 will be the last PIA case, but with luck it will help resolve some tensions in the area for the next few years. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- I get that, still doesn't answer the question, why now? Have these editors only now decided to not play by the rules, whereas they did previously? Or is it instead, that there is a lot of noise, mainly from one side of the fence, suggesting that that is the problem, hmm? That possible? Selfstudier (talk) 20:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Enough evidence has been presented of an apparent problem that the community has been unable to resolve. The Arbitration Committee thus considers it worthwhile to examine the topic area in more detail to determine (a) whether the apparent problem is an actual problem, and (b) if so, what remedies the Committee can enact in an attempt to resolve that problem. Such remedies may focus on individual editors, if there are any editors who are determined to be disrupting the functioning of the topic area. If it turns out that there aren't any such editors, then they wont be sanctioned.
- When someone says or implies that the whole problem is caused by editors on one side of an editing dispute that relates to a real-world ethnic, nationalist, religious and/or political dispute, in my experience this most commonly just means that they are not seeing (or not acknowledging as disruptive) the problematic behaviours from those who share their point of view. Thryduulf (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
When someone says. .
You mean me? Sure, I must have been confused about that for years and years. I'm sure I'll get over it now that you have pointed me in the right direction. Selfstudier (talk) 22:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)- I think that it was just a neutral general statement. Also, in this case it likely most applies to BilledMammal, as he brought up this issue in the first place, and simultaneously has a documented history of attempting to censor reliable information that is inconvenient for the heavily pro-Israeli perspective, or seemingly spending enormous amounts of effort to catalogue and thereby target many of the editors that disagree with him in this area, as I partially listed and linked to previously in this discussion.
- Anyway, I obviously heavily disagree with the "indiscriminately ban them all" solution that seemed to be suggested here previously. If an editor has not actually done anything bad, and has strictly added accurate and reliably referenced information, while being as polite as they can manage, especially given the scale of the ongoing atrocities, I do not think that they should be punished for it, and removing all of the most knowledgeable members who know how to edit properly and who follow Wikipedia's rules, would open up the floodgates for trolls, vandals, death threatening criminals, and large-scale removals of reliable content. Please see here for some examples: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] David A (talk) 07:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Enough evidence has been presented
Where was evidence presented? I've been waiting to see it. Levivich (talk) 05:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)- Sufficient evidence has been presented at the arbitration request, at ARCA and possibly in private that the Arbitration Committee believe there is an issue that needs investigating. Nobody needs to satisfy you personally. Thryduulf (talk) 09:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Cool it with the snarky responses, Thryduulf. Zerotalk 11:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- That was not intended to be snarky, and while I can squint a bit and see how the second sentence might be taken that way, and I apologise if Levivich does see it that way, it does not undermine the point I was making that there has been no shortage of evidence presented. Thryduulf (talk) 11:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- If people would forgive an experienced Wikipedian/netizen for giving unsolicited advice...
- @Thryduulf (and everyone else here) I'm not sure if you know about tonality indicators, but here's a carrd about them. While they were developed for people with neurodivergence negatively impacting social communication (autism, social communication disorder, etc.), they do have a curb cut effect for everyone else.
- @Zero0000 Part of assuming good faith can, at times, sometimes include being curious about tonality. A reminder to everyone that even I mess up on this, so I would appreciate a lack of dogpiling. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 21:45, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- That was not intended to be snarky, and while I can squint a bit and see how the second sentence might be taken that way, and I apologise if Levivich does see it that way, it does not undermine the point I was making that there has been no shortage of evidence presented. Thryduulf (talk) 11:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Cool it with the snarky responses, Thryduulf. Zerotalk 11:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Sufficient evidence has been presented at the arbitration request, at ARCA and possibly in private that the Arbitration Committee believe there is an issue that needs investigating. Nobody needs to satisfy you personally. Thryduulf (talk) 09:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Selfstudier: This help? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:32, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- 4 was procedural so I flipped to the evidence for 3 and the first thing I see is from a sock "The main problem with Palestine-Israel articles isn't necessarily the new editors or socks but rather some of the old editors who know how to play the rules and transfer Wikipedia into an outlet of propaganda instead of outlet of neutral knowledge. The only way to create a change is effective enforcement and punishment against editors who constantly violate the rules." Gosh, that sounds familiar. Selfstudier (talk) 14:13, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Could I get a link for that quote please. Thanks, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 14:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Evidence#Conclusion Selfstudier (talk) 14:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you User:Selfstudier for that very interesting link. That statement was made by User:Settleman, later blocked for .......socking. Huldra (talk) 22:25, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- I find it useful to remember that sociopathy is not very rare, and Wikipedia's open access model means we get a large sample size. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Would it be a good idea to use Twinkle to request a sockpuppet investigation, with all of the available evidence included? David A (talk) 10:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you User:Selfstudier for that very interesting link. That statement was made by User:Settleman, later blocked for .......socking. Huldra (talk) 22:25, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Evidence#Conclusion Selfstudier (talk) 14:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Could I get a link for that quote please. Thanks, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 14:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- 4 was procedural so I flipped to the evidence for 3 and the first thing I see is from a sock "The main problem with Palestine-Israel articles isn't necessarily the new editors or socks but rather some of the old editors who know how to play the rules and transfer Wikipedia into an outlet of propaganda instead of outlet of neutral knowledge. The only way to create a change is effective enforcement and punishment against editors who constantly violate the rules." Gosh, that sounds familiar. Selfstudier (talk) 14:13, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- I get that, still doesn't answer the question, why now? Have these editors only now decided to not play by the rules, whereas they did previously? Or is it instead, that there is a lot of noise, mainly from one side of the fence, suggesting that that is the problem, hmm? That possible? Selfstudier (talk) 20:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Selfstudier, you ask what the problem is now. The problem is editors in the PIA topic area appear to not be playing by the rules, in a way that our existing system isn't solving. We can't pretend to ignore the real world here. Obviously the war in Gaza is ultimately driving the issue. But Jéské Couriano is right: we can't fix the real world problem. A body of 15 volunteers on a website staffed by people with names like CaptainEek are not going to end a war that has its roots more than a century deep. But we can assess, in our little corner of the internet, whether our own editors are following the rules while writing about that real world topic. We will assess the conduct of editors, and whether our existing Contentious Topics scheme is keeping a lid on the topic area. I doubt that PIA5 will be the last PIA case, but with luck it will help resolve some tensions in the area for the next few years. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- a) That's not all they said. b) I want to know what they think the problem is (now). Selfstudier (talk) 19:29, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- I was responding more to what Jéské said, that there was no hope of ArbCom being able to handle the problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- That's not an answer to my question tho (which wasn't intended as a coatrack for you to hang your well known opinion on). Selfstudier (talk) 19:16, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- The answer is to focus where the focus belongs. No one should expect ArbCom to deal with intractable worldwide problems. Instead, the case should focus on whether there are individual editors whose conduct is making the editing environment worse. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:12, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- This is likely true and true for a long time, which begs the question, what exactly is it that is different now? Selfstudier (talk) 11:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Makeandtoss the exact scope is still a little nebulous, and your idea of an introduction is a good one which I'll give more thought to before we open the case. The way I see it is we want to consider whether there are problems with those editors in particular or with the interactions between them, but we also want to explore why the entire topic area is such a problem and whether ArbCom can impose any remedies to help with that or to help admins deal with problems. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- @HJ Mitchell: Hello, as drafter can you please clarify whether the scope is exclusively about the interaction of editors as mentioned here? Also, will some sort of introduction be provided prior to the opening of the case (ex: structure of the process/type of acceptable evidence/type of editors who will be able to provide inputs/etc..)? Makeandtoss (talk) 07:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- @HJ Mitchell:
the exact scope is still a little nebulous, and your idea of an introduction is a good one which I'll give more thought to before we open the case. The way I see it is we want to consider whether there are problems with those editors in particular or with the interactions between them, but we also want to explore why the entire topic area is such a problem and whether ArbCom can impose any remedies to help with that or to help admins deal with problems
- Are there any developments here? Selfstudier (talk) 15:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- @HJ Mitchell:
- I'm no ArbCom historian, so I'm wondering if Motion 2c is the first time that ArbCom has decided to limit discussion in a contentious topic. Zerotalk 03:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- You may be right. I'm not aware of anything similar being applied to a whole topic. I hope it will make editors think more carefully about what they want to say and resist the urge to reply to every opposing comment. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- "Replying to every opposing comment" is a problem in the area, but 50 words for each of 20 opposing editors (or 100*10) is enough for that, and Motion 2b (admin imposed limits on individuals) can control that. The most effective automatic way would be to restrict editors to their own sections. What concerns me more about 2c is that editors who like to bring reliable sources and quotations from them will reach the limit quite easily but we should be encouraging that approach to content issues. Zerotalk 06:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Zero0000 That's a fair criticism. I'd like to see how these new remedies bed in first, but if they cause more problems than they solve I'm happy to look at them again. Admins already have discretion so I hope they wouldn't sanction editors for exceeding a word limit by posting quotes from sources but similarly, if the remedies need fine-tuning to help discussions function effectively, we can look at that. And personally I welcome new ideas for helping the topic area to function. When the workshop phase opens in the case, please do post your suggestion for editors commenting only in their own sections, and any others you have. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- I certainly wouldn't count quotations against the word total. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Of all the CT, it would appear that PIA is the one where ArbCom seems to be handling the most. As a result, it would appear that they try their new anti-disruption ideas at PIA, and then decide if it should apply to all CTs. Animal lover |666| 21:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- It's mainly because PIA has a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG history of being an intractible ethnopolitical hellhole topic area that the community cannot itself handle, even more so than the equally-long-running Eastern Europe topic area.(yes, each of those letters is a link to a case that is centred in the PIA area.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- Of all the CT, it would appear that PIA is the one where ArbCom seems to be handling the most. As a result, it would appear that they try their new anti-disruption ideas at PIA, and then decide if it should apply to all CTs. Animal lover |666| 21:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
What concerns me more about 2c is that editors who like to bring reliable sources and quotations from them will reach the limit quite easily but we should be encouraging that approach to content issues.
I'm not a huge fan of this restriction but I do think that in that case an editor could just present their quotations in another discussion thread or on a subpage, which wouldn't have such limits, and could then link to it in their RFC / RM comment. The purpose of the restriction is to get such discussions out of structured conversations, not to prevent people from producing large lists of quotes.--Aquillion (talk) 13:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)- This is happening right now, with me posting quotes in response to people saying "the sources don't say that", at Talk:Zionism#RFC about a recently added claim about Zionism. Levivich (talk) 18:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sooner or later a dispute will erupt between someone who does that and someone who thinks it is 'gaming' the word limit. Also, it would be better if the sources are where they are cited and not somewhere else. The best solution would be to fix the restriction to exclude citation and quotations of sources from the word limit. Zerotalk 23:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah and another advantage of having the rule explicitly say source cites/quotes don't count is that it will encourage editors to cite/quote sources in formal discussions, which would be good to do. Levivich (talk) 02:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think @Levivich makes a very good point and am more than happy to explicitly exclude sources from the word limit. I think the most useful thing that folks could muse on here would be draft wording. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah and another advantage of having the rule explicitly say source cites/quotes don't count is that it will encourage editors to cite/quote sources in formal discussions, which would be good to do. Levivich (talk) 02:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sooner or later a dispute will erupt between someone who does that and someone who thinks it is 'gaming' the word limit. Also, it would be better if the sources are where they are cited and not somewhere else. The best solution would be to fix the restriction to exclude citation and quotations of sources from the word limit. Zerotalk 23:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is happening right now, with me posting quotes in response to people saying "the sources don't say that", at Talk:Zionism#RFC about a recently added claim about Zionism. Levivich (talk) 18:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- "Replying to every opposing comment" is a problem in the area, but 50 words for each of 20 opposing editors (or 100*10) is enough for that, and Motion 2b (admin imposed limits on individuals) can control that. The most effective automatic way would be to restrict editors to their own sections. What concerns me more about 2c is that editors who like to bring reliable sources and quotations from them will reach the limit quite easily but we should be encouraging that approach to content issues. Zerotalk 06:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- The committee passed discussion restrictions in the Iranian politics case. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Those are part of IRP's available discretionary sanctions; they aren't ArbCom explicitly limiting participants in discussions in the topic writ large. The closest thing I can think of would be IAN (via motion) and MAC2, and those both are more about restricting the discussions themselves rather than the debate within them. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- You may be right. I'm not aware of anything similar being applied to a whole topic. I hope it will make editors think more carefully about what they want to say and resist the urge to reply to every opposing comment. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Proposed motions to improve ArbCom workflow
editNew Arbitration Committee appointments for 2025
editThe Electoral Commission is pleased to announce the certified results of the Arbitration Committee Election 2024. CaptainEek has extended her term for another two years, and Primefac has extended their term for another year. The new and returning appointees for the next two years are Daniel, Elli, KrakatoaKatie, Liz, ScottishFinnishRadish, Theleekycauldron, and Worm That Turned.
Congratulations!!!
On behalf of ElectCom: —CYBERPOWER (Merry Christmas) 13:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Cyberpower678 (or any others on EC) wherever you're sourcing these, consider changing "appointments" to "elected" or similar. These people are no longer appointed. On which point, I also don't think we need to continue dropping a specific mention of the selections off at Jimbo's talk page any longer. Izno (talk) 18:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Would certainly save a few pings. Primefac (talk) 18:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- My condolences to everyone who was elected or reelected, and my thanks to everyone who ran and to all of the outgoing members of the Committee. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Despite not getting reelected myself, I'm pretty pleased with this result. This looks like a very solid group, with a good balance between old hands and new arbs with fresh perspectives. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 18:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm counting two continued terms (CaptainEek and Primefac), two returning arbs (Worm That Turned who was an arb from January 2013 – December 2014, January 2018 – September 2023, and KrakatoaKatie who was an arb from January 2018 – December 2021), and five noobies to the committee (Daniel, Elli, Liz, ScottishFinnishRadish, and Theleekycauldron). Not that you don't know of course JSS, but for anybody who doesn't want to do the leg work lol. Certainly a great blend that I have high hopes for. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Just slow your roll. I'm all about managing expectations. You can have one high hope, the rest have to be middling hopes, at best. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Fine, I'll reallocate the additional high hopes I have elsewhere, such as the upcoming NPP backlog drive =D Hey man im josh (talk) 19:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Careful, SFR, you might get promoted to parsnip. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Just don't cover me in wax and call me a rutabaga! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Just slow your roll. I'm all about managing expectations. You can have one high hope, the rest have to be middling hopes, at best. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm counting two continued terms (CaptainEek and Primefac), two returning arbs (Worm That Turned who was an arb from January 2013 – December 2014, January 2018 – September 2023, and KrakatoaKatie who was an arb from January 2018 – December 2021), and five noobies to the committee (Daniel, Elli, Liz, ScottishFinnishRadish, and Theleekycauldron). Not that you don't know of course JSS, but for anybody who doesn't want to do the leg work lol. Certainly a great blend that I have high hopes for. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Congratulations to all the successful candidates, and thanks to all the candidates as well as those who provided coordination and support for the elections. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Cyberpower678, just wondering if the results should be actually posted on the Noticeboard, not just the Talk page, and at WP:AN as well. Thought I'd check. Liz Read! Talk! 03:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, as neither a clerk nor sitting ArbCom member, I'm not allowed to post to the noticeboard. Certainly worth bringing up in the next RfC. —CYBERPOWER (Merry Christmas) 03:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- The Committee will make an announcement regarding the results (and paperwork such as CU/OS) ourselves – it is not necessary for non-clerks/members to make announcements on the noticeboard (but the talk page here is fine). Speaking for myself, I'd like to wait for the WMF to confirm that our members-elect have signed the confidentiality agreements. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- As my colleague points out we'd not be allowed to post to ACN. On a more philosophical level, the elections are not done under ArbCom's auspices or authority. They are done under the community's auspices and authority. ACN is for announcing ArbCom decisions/information but this is not that. Your point that results should be officially posted to AN is a good one. I've added it to the "to do" for next year. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- The miscellaneous Village Pump may be a better fit for the results of a community process (though I appreciate the administrator's noticeboard is a practical location to reach a lot of users). isaacl (talk) 04:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Traditionally, the sitting Arbitration Committee posts the names of the new arbitrators once they have completed the final step of signing the required confidentiality statement, and have determined whether they want one or both of CheckUser and Oversight permissions (technically, they announce the new CU/OS, I suppose). Just noting that, absent that confidentiality statement signature, they are prospective arbitrators; they have not yet completed the requirements to become officially elected. Speaking personally, I'd like to make it a requirement of candidacy that all candidates sign the confidentiality statement prior to the beginning of the election. Now that it does not require anyone to provide personal details such as RL name, address, etc., and only involves an undertaking to maintain confidentiality of information, this should not be an issue. This isn't a hypothetical; there have been cases within the Wikimedia world where people have been elected to positions requiring that statement who have declined to sign off on it. Risker (talk) 03:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'd recommend adding it to the suggestions for next year. I personally would be opposed. I think making candidates give the statement is good. I think disqualifying someone for something that we can't control (the posting of signatures to the ANPDP) is bad. We should, however, encourage people to sign it at the time of their candidacy; now that you can sign your screen name the "cost" of signing is much lower. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'd be happy enough with requiring a statement that they have completed and submitted the form as part of the candidacy statement, similar to how we require a declaration of alternate accounts today. Thus, action isn't dependent on the WMF clearing their inbox immediately; they'd have the whole length of the candidacy and election to do so. Risker (talk) 04:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Woah, I wasn't expecting this level of response to what I thought was a simple oversight (posted on the talk page rather than the noticeboard). I just expected to see it at WP:AN. But I greatly appreciate the information and history you have all provided to us all, I'm sure that the next two years will include a steep learning curve for us newbies. Liz Read! Talk! 03:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'd recommend adding it to the suggestions for next year. I personally would be opposed. I think making candidates give the statement is good. I think disqualifying someone for something that we can't control (the posting of signatures to the ANPDP) is bad. We should, however, encourage people to sign it at the time of their candidacy; now that you can sign your screen name the "cost" of signing is much lower. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Off-wiki misconduct in Palestine–Israel topic area
edit- Glad to see some action on this front. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- I get the sense Ivana either refused to respond or they were unrepentant and doubled-down. Either tends to be a very good way to get a site-and-topic-ban combo. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Huldra was very publicly accused of misconduct, is there any public statement on whether or not that evidence indicated any malfeasance on her part? And if it did not, is there any reason why such a public accusation is not met with just as public a refutation? nableezy - 18:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- The Committee does not generally publish exonerations or dismissals of claims via motion. We did however let Huldra know that we closed this without action in regards to her, and that we appreciated her patience and responsiveness throughout the process. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- The committee also generally doesnt allow public accusations to be made based on private evidence. nableezy - 18:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Which is why we removed the accusations and made the issue private. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- It has been on my mind that perhaps the committee should make such statements. Maybe not in private cases but in public ones. For example, findings of fact that explicitly reject items submitted in the evidence phase that were off-topic or not at all compelling. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 19:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- I recall suggesting something similar during my time on the committee (2015). However one of my fellow arbitrators (I don't remember who) was firmly of the opinion that every finding of fact should directly support at least one remedy. The same argument was made (I think by someone else) more recently when I suggested that things which were directly necessary for the situation being adjudicated to occur but which were themselves neutral (I don't remember the context for this, but I do remember using the analogy of a rail accident investigation into why a train ran away - that it was on a gradient was necessary for the runaway to occur, and so a finding of fact was made to this effect, even though it was not relevant to any remedy). Every remedy should be supported by at least one finding of fact, but I still disagree that the only purpose of findings of fact is to support remedies. Thryduulf (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- It has been on my mind that perhaps the committee should make such statements. Maybe not in private cases but in public ones. For example, findings of fact that explicitly reject items submitted in the evidence phase that were off-topic or not at all compelling. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 19:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Which is why we removed the accusations and made the issue private. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- The committee also generally doesnt allow public accusations to be made based on private evidence. nableezy - 18:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- The Committee does not generally publish exonerations or dismissals of claims via motion. We did however let Huldra know that we closed this without action in regards to her, and that we appreciated her patience and responsiveness throughout the process. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- As I said in my response to the inquiry, I accept the judgement of the committee regarding me. I am however not pleased the committee seems to acquiesce to such clearly politically motivated acts of intimidation. Nothing new here I'm afraid. Tashmetu (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- I will note in my opinion, the evidence for Tashmetu was weaker and their response made me unwilling to support the revocation, unlike with the other revocation. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- While I am limited in what I can say, this coming out now, in December, has been for me a prime example of the limitations (which I mainly attribute to capacity) of this year's committee. Despite how long it took this seems to be a thoughtful and considered response. I have high hopes for next year's committee and hope they live up to (or exceed them). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think we can all thank the committee for taking a reasoned and considered action, announcing it, and remember that people can and do learn and change and get 2nd chances and even 3rd chances. Andre🚐 03:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
I have some questions about the 2 "For gaming the extended confirmed restriction"
- Do they tell us something useful about the statute of limitations for gaming? In those cases, the gaming occurred many months ago. There seems to be a lack of clarity and diversity of views on this issue. The staleness question is relevant to a current AE case for example. Gaming is often spotted long after the EC grant is issued (or not at all probably). If there is something like a statute of limitations, it may make actively searching for accounts that look like they may have employed gaming worthwhile, at least for accounts that went on to edit in a contentious topic area.
- Is gaming enough by itself or does there need to be another element of the "crime" to trigger removal of the privilege e.g. leapt into a contentious topic area post-EC grant, or was involved in edit warring, or off-wiki coordination etc.? Wikipedia provides several tools that people can use to pretty rapidly make 500 perfectly legitimate edits, so there seems to be a fuzzy boundary between ok and not-ok for the first 500 edits.
Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- There is no one sized fits all solution to ECP gaming I'm afraid. In this case of course, there was an off-wiki element which makes it perhaps a poor comparison to other cases. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think if a) it can be shown that an editor employed gaming and b) the editor went on to make a significant proportion of the edits in a contentious topic area, then running a checkuser might reduce the ban evasion rate. I think this might be the case for a couple of reasons
- The likelihood that a revision to an article was done by a ban evading actor is far higher in PIA than across Wikipedia in general. This is clear when you compare the PIA topic area to 500,000 randomly selected articles. For a PIA article revision, the chance that it's a sock edit is 5.9%, whereas for the random sample it's 2.9%, at least for the 2020 until now period. For the post-Oct 7, 2023 year, 2023-10-07 to 2024-10-06, it's 6.82% vs 1.96%.
- EC requirements appear to concentrate ban evading actors in the subpopulation with EC rights. This subpopulation is relatively small compared to the general population, which could be a useful feature. Annual grants for EC are generally only in the 3500 to 4500 accounts range as far as I can tell, very substantially less than the total number of new accounts each year. And the chance that an EC account is blocked for ban evasion is high, in the 5 to 10% range, depending on the year. Furthermore, the speed of EC acquisition, the number of days from registration to extendedconfirmed, tells you something about the likelihood that an account will be blocked for ban evasion i.e. the quicker someone acquires EC, the more likely they will be blocked for ban evasion. You can see that relationship here for all newly acquired EC grants across Wikipedia from 2018 onwards.
- So, maybe gaming followed by contentious topic area editing could be an indicator of an increased likelihood of ban evasion. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think if a) it can be shown that an editor employed gaming and b) the editor went on to make a significant proportion of the edits in a contentious topic area, then running a checkuser might reduce the ban evasion rate. I think this might be the case for a couple of reasons