Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
---|---|---|---|
Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland | Motion | ( orig. case) | 21 June 2024 |
Amendment request: Extended confirmed restriction | none | none | 31 July 2024 |
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b) | none | none | 26 July 2024 |
Motion name | Date posted |
---|---|
Historical elections | 21 July 2024 |
This page can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions. Only arbitrators may propose or vote on motions on this page. You may visit WP:ARC or WP:ARCA for potential alternatives. You can make comments in the sections called "community discussion" or in some cases only in your own section. Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor any comment. |
Following a request for action based on evidence of alleged harassment and canvassing, the Arbitration Committee directs its clerks to open a case to examine the topic area of historical elections. Subject to amendment by the drafting arbitrators, the following rules will govern the case:
For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Proposing -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Consensus was clearly achieved in favor of not removing elements of county pages (presidential election results) that had been there for decades and are clearly a key aspect of understanding a county. I'm not sure what this is about other than someone having sour grapes that the universe of users who care deeply about this aspect of county pages and believe it’s a critical aspect (even if prose might be preferable). DemocraticLuntz ( talk) 22:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
I have seen an increasing problem with off-wiki canvassing (largely done via Twitter) since the middle of last year. This has largely taken the form of editors posting on Twitter about disputes they are having on Wikipedia (or about matters they disagree with), which in turn has driven both edit warring and canvassed contributions to discussions. In several cases, these canvassed contribution have changed the direction/outcome of the discussions (for example this discussion, the consensus of which completely changed after off-wiki activity started on 15 June).
In addition to the canvassing effect, the off-wiki activity has often involved personal attacks and sometimes veered into harassment. In one recent incident, an editor who edits under their real name had their details posted on Twitter by another editor who was using Twitter to canvass people to an American politics dispute. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative environment, but from a personal perspective, it is extremely hard to maintain civil collaboration with editors that you are aware are saying things about you on their social media accounts that would fall under WP:NPA if posted here. When raising off-wiki personal attacks with one editor, rather than apologise, they brushed it off, saying it was "separate" to their Wikipedia work, while another editor who became involved in the dispute after seeing the posts on Twitter saying such attacks were fine "as long as it does compromise your privacy or safety".
If there is to be a case on this issue, I personally would like to see three outcomes:
Number 5 7 21:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm phoning in from what The Good Captain aptly called the "peanut gallery", to comment about the aspect of hybrid cases that concerns whether or not ArbCom should assume the role of the filing party. I've been thinking about this, and I think I can offer a distinction that may be useful, and points in this case to yes, you should accept this case.
There's a pretty well-established consensus that ArbCom should consider cases where (a) the community has said there's a problem, and where (b) the community cannot solve it ourselves. Here, there have been some ANI threads, and there appear to be private communications from community members to ArbCom, in which there is private evidence of concerns about harassment and/or canvassing (per discussion here). That satisfies the criteria of (a) the community asking for ArbCom help, and (b) the community being unable to process private information. Also, and this is key, it might well be awkward to expect the editor(s) who feel harassed to come forward in public and be the filing party. So it makes good sense for ArbCom to "self-file".
In contrast, hybrid cases didn't work so well in the Polish Holocaust case, where ArbCom initiated the case after an outside publication criticized Wikipedia. (Strictly speaking, there had also been requests from the community, including a declined case request, but those never reached critical mass.) What prompted ArbCom to initiate that case was ArbCom's reaction to outside pressure. A couple of months later, ArbCom granted ECP to an account representing an outside group, in order for that account to file a case, but it turned out that that person was wasting everyone's time.
So the distinction I want to make is that it's good for ArbCom to self-initiate a case when there is private evidence, particularly of harassment, and members of the community have provided this private evidence, but might suffer further harassment if they filed the case themselves. I would want ArbCom to consider such cases, including this one. But when the pressure to start a case is coming primarily from outside the community, ArbCom should generally wait for a community request to come forward (or private evidence from the community about harassment), instead of ArbCom jumping ahead themselves. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
The purpose of this statement is to respond to the Arbitration Committee's note that it is welcoming thoughts about the Tropical Cyclones case and other "hybrid" cases involving both public and private evidence. A principle that should be followed in this case, as in other cases involving off-wiki coordination, is that transparency is the best policy when possible, and that ArbCom should consider whether evidence that is received as private evidence must be kept private, or may be made public. Private evidence should be made public unless there is a sufficient reason for keeping it private. Valid reasons for keeping evidence private include preserving the identity of pseudonymous editors and fear of reprisals or adverse consequences. As much information as is possible should be made public, in order to maintain the trust and confidence of the community. Since Twitter / X is an open social medium, discussions on Twitter / X should be entered into public evidence, although the identity of pseudonymous editors should be preserved.
I have not been involved in the discussions of historical elections. However, I infer from the mention of county pages that one of the issues is similar to one of the main issues with tropical cyclones, which is at what level of detail should information be broken out. One of the issues with tropical cyclones was that discussion of when individual articles were in order about specific storms was being suppressed, based on a previously established consensus. If there are issues about keeping or merging county pages, it is necessary that they be discussed openly, on article talk pages, or by deletion discussions, not off-wiki. Guidelines for when separate articles are in order at the county level or other specific level should be agreed to by consensus when possible.
Transparency is the best policy whenever possible, and ArbCom should make as much evidence public as is possible. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
One type of private evidence may be evidence that is mailed to ArbCom by the submitter because the submitter does not want their identity disclosed publicly. ArbCom should consider both whether the evidence can be displayed publicly as an anonymous submission, and whether the submitter's reason for requesting anonymity is adequate, such as realistic fear of adverse consequence. The governing principle should be the maximum possible amount of transparency while protecting individual rights of privacy and fears of consequences. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:51, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
My guess is that the lack of commentary from the parties is due to one of a few things:
Just because no party is discussing it doesn't mean there's not a controversy. ArbCom has run cases where parties refused to give opening statements (or participate full-stop) in the past. — Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this motion as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should open the proposed case or provide additional information.
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
---|---|---|---|
Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland | Motion | ( orig. case) | 21 June 2024 |
Amendment request: Extended confirmed restriction | none | none | 31 July 2024 |
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b) | none | none | 26 July 2024 |
Motion name | Date posted |
---|---|
Historical elections | 21 July 2024 |
This page can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions. Only arbitrators may propose or vote on motions on this page. You may visit WP:ARC or WP:ARCA for potential alternatives. You can make comments in the sections called "community discussion" or in some cases only in your own section. Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor any comment. |
Following a request for action based on evidence of alleged harassment and canvassing, the Arbitration Committee directs its clerks to open a case to examine the topic area of historical elections. Subject to amendment by the drafting arbitrators, the following rules will govern the case:
For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Proposing -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Consensus was clearly achieved in favor of not removing elements of county pages (presidential election results) that had been there for decades and are clearly a key aspect of understanding a county. I'm not sure what this is about other than someone having sour grapes that the universe of users who care deeply about this aspect of county pages and believe it’s a critical aspect (even if prose might be preferable). DemocraticLuntz ( talk) 22:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
I have seen an increasing problem with off-wiki canvassing (largely done via Twitter) since the middle of last year. This has largely taken the form of editors posting on Twitter about disputes they are having on Wikipedia (or about matters they disagree with), which in turn has driven both edit warring and canvassed contributions to discussions. In several cases, these canvassed contribution have changed the direction/outcome of the discussions (for example this discussion, the consensus of which completely changed after off-wiki activity started on 15 June).
In addition to the canvassing effect, the off-wiki activity has often involved personal attacks and sometimes veered into harassment. In one recent incident, an editor who edits under their real name had their details posted on Twitter by another editor who was using Twitter to canvass people to an American politics dispute. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative environment, but from a personal perspective, it is extremely hard to maintain civil collaboration with editors that you are aware are saying things about you on their social media accounts that would fall under WP:NPA if posted here. When raising off-wiki personal attacks with one editor, rather than apologise, they brushed it off, saying it was "separate" to their Wikipedia work, while another editor who became involved in the dispute after seeing the posts on Twitter saying such attacks were fine "as long as it does compromise your privacy or safety".
If there is to be a case on this issue, I personally would like to see three outcomes:
Number 5 7 21:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm phoning in from what The Good Captain aptly called the "peanut gallery", to comment about the aspect of hybrid cases that concerns whether or not ArbCom should assume the role of the filing party. I've been thinking about this, and I think I can offer a distinction that may be useful, and points in this case to yes, you should accept this case.
There's a pretty well-established consensus that ArbCom should consider cases where (a) the community has said there's a problem, and where (b) the community cannot solve it ourselves. Here, there have been some ANI threads, and there appear to be private communications from community members to ArbCom, in which there is private evidence of concerns about harassment and/or canvassing (per discussion here). That satisfies the criteria of (a) the community asking for ArbCom help, and (b) the community being unable to process private information. Also, and this is key, it might well be awkward to expect the editor(s) who feel harassed to come forward in public and be the filing party. So it makes good sense for ArbCom to "self-file".
In contrast, hybrid cases didn't work so well in the Polish Holocaust case, where ArbCom initiated the case after an outside publication criticized Wikipedia. (Strictly speaking, there had also been requests from the community, including a declined case request, but those never reached critical mass.) What prompted ArbCom to initiate that case was ArbCom's reaction to outside pressure. A couple of months later, ArbCom granted ECP to an account representing an outside group, in order for that account to file a case, but it turned out that that person was wasting everyone's time.
So the distinction I want to make is that it's good for ArbCom to self-initiate a case when there is private evidence, particularly of harassment, and members of the community have provided this private evidence, but might suffer further harassment if they filed the case themselves. I would want ArbCom to consider such cases, including this one. But when the pressure to start a case is coming primarily from outside the community, ArbCom should generally wait for a community request to come forward (or private evidence from the community about harassment), instead of ArbCom jumping ahead themselves. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
The purpose of this statement is to respond to the Arbitration Committee's note that it is welcoming thoughts about the Tropical Cyclones case and other "hybrid" cases involving both public and private evidence. A principle that should be followed in this case, as in other cases involving off-wiki coordination, is that transparency is the best policy when possible, and that ArbCom should consider whether evidence that is received as private evidence must be kept private, or may be made public. Private evidence should be made public unless there is a sufficient reason for keeping it private. Valid reasons for keeping evidence private include preserving the identity of pseudonymous editors and fear of reprisals or adverse consequences. As much information as is possible should be made public, in order to maintain the trust and confidence of the community. Since Twitter / X is an open social medium, discussions on Twitter / X should be entered into public evidence, although the identity of pseudonymous editors should be preserved.
I have not been involved in the discussions of historical elections. However, I infer from the mention of county pages that one of the issues is similar to one of the main issues with tropical cyclones, which is at what level of detail should information be broken out. One of the issues with tropical cyclones was that discussion of when individual articles were in order about specific storms was being suppressed, based on a previously established consensus. If there are issues about keeping or merging county pages, it is necessary that they be discussed openly, on article talk pages, or by deletion discussions, not off-wiki. Guidelines for when separate articles are in order at the county level or other specific level should be agreed to by consensus when possible.
Transparency is the best policy whenever possible, and ArbCom should make as much evidence public as is possible. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
One type of private evidence may be evidence that is mailed to ArbCom by the submitter because the submitter does not want their identity disclosed publicly. ArbCom should consider both whether the evidence can be displayed publicly as an anonymous submission, and whether the submitter's reason for requesting anonymity is adequate, such as realistic fear of adverse consequence. The governing principle should be the maximum possible amount of transparency while protecting individual rights of privacy and fears of consequences. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:51, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
My guess is that the lack of commentary from the parties is due to one of a few things:
Just because no party is discussing it doesn't mean there's not a controversy. ArbCom has run cases where parties refused to give opening statements (or participate full-stop) in the past. — Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this motion as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should open the proposed case or provide additional information.