This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | → | Archive 25 |
At 11:13, 21 May 2019, the following Ds/talk notice was added to the Get the L Out article:
Five minutes later, at 11:18, 21 May 2019, the following Ds/alert was posted in my Talk page:
Question 1: Does a Ds/talk notice need to be posted before edits are made to an article or after edits have been made to an article?
Question 2: When did the Arbitration Committee rule that any Wikipedia editor can post a Ds/alert on an editor's talk page?
Question 3: If any editor can post a Ds/alert on an editor's talk page, what are the steps that must be followed before this action is taken? Are there any criteria in place that govern the posting of a Ds/alert by non-Admin editors?
Question 4: When did the AC rule that the Ds/talk notice applies to any and all articles that relate to gender and transgender issues?
If any editor is allowed to employ a Ds/alert for any reason and anytime, then it can be misused as a tool for attempted intimidation. I seek clarification of the specific measures in place for when a Ds/alert is warranted. (The edit history for the reason why I've created this topic can be provided if needed.) Thank you.
Pyxis Solitary
yak
22:54, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
an indication or accusation that [an editor has] done anything wrong" -- but does what it's not supposed to be used for stop an editor from perverting its purpose? Pyxis Solitary yak 23:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
You should continue not misconducting yourself." Huh? I've been a WP editor for over 10 years. I'm not a newbie here. Up to now I've been cautious in not detailing exactly what's behind the reason for my creating this discussion. I created an article on 18 May 2019. An editor who is vociferously against the subject of the article began to delete content (as of this time, 22 non-minor edits since the article was created) while the deletion nomination discussion is still in progress. Besides deleting material, if a source was from the conservative media it was deleted. Two websites were accused of being "alt-right" (they aren't). One source was in the further reading section. The editor deleted it. I salvaged the source by adding it as a citation in the body. The editor deleted it. I objected to the reasoning for the deletion and provided WP:BIASED and Bias in sources in the summary. The editor deleted the source again and THEN, on 21 May -- after deleting the source 3x and having made multiple edits to the article -- he added the Ds/talk notice to it, followed by adding a Ds/alert on my talk page 5 minutes later. Besides the specific topic of this discussion, the same editor is now suggesting that I have been canvassing by blogging and posting on social media: 1 2.
Any fool" should not be allowed to use a Ds/alert. A warning template should be used sparingly, particularly if it's a Ds/alert warning used by an editor who has reached WP:3RR. An editor with a vested interest in editing an article should be excluded from adding a Ds/talk notice after the fact and a Ds/alert on the talk page of an editor he disagrees with. When it comes to non-Admin editors employing a Ds notice, the cart should not come before the horse because that is when the purpose of Ds becomes weaponized. There is no qualification criteria in place for the use of a Ds/alert by non-Admins. And without the existence of checks and balances Ds/alerts are open to abuse. Pyxis Solitary yak 15:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
From section Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Scope and responsibilities:
The Arbitration Committee of the English Wikipedia has the following duties and responsibilities:
...
- 3. To handle requests (other than self-requests) for removal of administrative tools;
Note 2 on the same page clarifies this: ... administrator accounts which had been inactive for over a year ... may also be
desysopped by a community process
, and links to subsection of
Wikipedia:Administrators. The linked subsection "Procedural removal for inactive administrators" is actually a part of section
Review and removal of adminship. Should the Note 2 be altered to explain the whole section, not just a subsection of policy
WP:ADMIN? There is also another project page about removal of administrative tools—
Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Removal of permissions. Should it be referenced in the same or separate footnote? —
andrybak (
talk)
20:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Atsme at 19:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Topics subject to DS require that we alert users of same.
An editor is considered aware if:
- They were mentioned by name in the applicable Final Decision; or
- They have ever been sanctioned within the area of conflict (and at least one of such sanctions has not been successfully appealed); or
- In the last twelve months, the editor has given and/or received an alert for the area of conflict; or
- In the last twelve months, the editor has participated in any process about the area of conflict at arbitration requests or arbitration enforcement; or
- In the last twelve months, the editor has successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict.
Proposal to add something along the lines of the following example:
- The editor maintains a DS Awareness Notice at the top of their user page stating they are aware of sanctions in the respective area(s) of conflict. Any editor who adds a DS Alert to a user's TP despite such notice of awareness for a specific area of conflict (custom or otherwise) will be in violation of DS and subject to AE per current Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Alerts 21:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Reasoning: some established editors have been the recipients of multiple DS alerts which may be viewed as harassment or abuse of the process. Admins have been taken to task for it from time to time. It typically occurs when a disagreement arises in a conflicted area and a DS notice suddenly appears on an editor's TP. Some editors, intentionally or otherwise, will add a DS template on the TP of an opponent without first checking to see if that editor is already aware, the latter of which is a difficult task in itself, but it can be easily remedied. While DS alerts are included on the conflicted article's TP, and typically in an edit view banner for the article itself, such notices apparently aren't enough.
My proposal is an effort to help limit DS alert template overuse/abuse (perceived or otherwise) by allowing editors, who are already aware of DS in specific topic areas, to include a permanent notice (customized or standardized) at the top of their user TP stating they are aware of specific areas subject to DS. In order for it to work, ArbCom needs to modify the DS Awareness section to include some form of mandatory check for said TP DS notices before an editor adds the respective DS alert template. I have a customized DS Notice at the top of my user page which I customized for aesthetics, but until ArbCom formally includes/accepts such notices as an acceptable notice of awareness and makes checking for same a mandatory procedure, the harassment issue will probably continue. It is actually an easy and efficient way for editors to make sure they are not overusing the DS alert template, or inadvertently finding themselves in a dispute over it.
It's actually quite simple - see Galobtter's statement below. In summary, I have an aesthetic "I am DS aware" notice at the top of my TP. Either JFG, Awilley or Galobtter (or all 3) have volunteered to write an ?embedded? or ?hidden? code we can simply add to our TP that triggers an already aware notice whenever someone attempts to add another DS notice - see Galobtter's example. I'm thinking most editors will see the custom DS-aware notice at the top of a user's TP and won't bother trying to post another one. But...if they don't see it, and attempt to post another DS notice, doing so will auto trigger an "already aware notice" and prevent it from being added. It's a wonderful thing - no aggravation - no extra work - everybody's happy. My apologies for not explaining it that simply from the get-go. Atsme Talk 📧 02:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
I like the idea of an opt-in "I'm aware of discretionary sanctions in <topic-area-1>, <topic-area-2>" notice, and I'm fine with discouraging editors from adding another notice for any of the listed areas. However I think the proposal to make leaving another notice a sanctionable offence is going too far - e.g. alerting to major changes should be allowed (the recent merging of the Balkans sanctions into the Eastern European sanctions comes to mind as a major change that users professing awareness of one or the other should still be able to be formally made aware of). If someone is being disruptive or harassing another editor by use of the notices then that can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis without most editors being dragged to AE for mistakes. Thryduulf ( talk) 18:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Isn't the solution to getting a redundant DS notice to just remove it with the edit summary "Thanks, I already knew that"? The DS process is already complicated, why make it more complicated? -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 20:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I'll strongly oppose this, FWIW. It would be an added complication to something that is already unnecessarily complicated, without sufficient benefit to justify that added complication. I'd love to see some proposals to simplify.
BTW, editors who don't like receiving routine non-critical DS alerts can issue them to themselves, which creates the normal page history entries. I pointed this out to Atsme before she opened this item. It takes a minute or two per year, not an unreasonable burden in my opinion. ― Mandruss ☎ 20:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Atsme's argument appears to rest on the false premise that it's too difficult to check the UTP history. Notices are difficult to find, especially for TP that get a lot of traffic.
That is simply not true, and it's clear that Atsme wasn't aware of the easy way to do this when she opened this item. If Atsme's experience with duplicate alerts was due to good-faith lack of editor awareness (1) she is just as capable of pointing editors to the instructions as anyone else, and (2) doesn't her proposal presume and require editor awareness? If it was harassment (certainly possible, although Atsme has shown a marked tendency to perceive harassment where it doesn't exist
[1]), the solution is sanctions, not an added complication to the system that wouldn't prevent harassment anyway. ―
Mandruss
☎
20:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
@
GRuban: surely there should be some way to ask that specific boilerplate notices not come to our talk pages?
And surely there is one, as explained in my first comment above. Are you really supporting this added complication to the rules to save a few editors that one or two minutes per year? Are you saying editors shouldn't be subjected to boilerplate notices from themselves? Is it just me, or does this approach the comical? Seriously, molehill→mountain. ―
Mandruss
☎
22:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
@GRuban, you're certainly not the first to fail to weigh the upside of a proposal against its downside with equal clarity and focus on both. That complexity is an ongoing cost is a fact that is very widely supported by experts—virtually indisputable—and yet almost completely ignored in countless decisions like this one throughout Wikipedia's history. That's why we have an editing environment that is maddeningly complex, and unnecessarily so. I will continue to fight that from time to time, as my time and motivation level permit. ― Mandruss ☎ 00:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
@ Atsme: I completely understand your reasoning, and in my view you're missing the following. You propose to make things easier on editors in one way, without showing how many editors need things made easier in that way. At the same time, your proposal would make things harder on editors in a different way, a way that would affect every editor without question (that is, every editor who uses DS alerts). Currently, editors must check the page history. If your proposal were implemented, editors would have to check the top of the UTP, and then check the page history if they don't see the message. That's clearly a little more difficult; worse in my view, it's incrementally more complicated, i.e. more difficult to understand and remember. It's just a small increase in complexity, but the monumental mess we call Wikipedia editing is the sum of thousands of small increases in complexity just like this one.Thus your argument hinges on widespread use of your proposed message—the more widespread, the better—and you ask us to take that widespread use on faith. I wouldn't use it.had I known you would have been offended by this, I would have approached it much differently.- Helpful hint for future reference: Editors will somewhat predictably be offended when you call their constructive criticism "harassment", which is a sanctionable offense. ― Mandruss ☎ 01:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
@MONGO - This discussion is not about me or my comment on Atsme's UTP, and it's ridiculous to respond to a brief parenthetical aside with a 300-word off-topic essay. I seriously considered ignoring your comments entirely, but I assume most present will appreciate my not following you down that bottomless rabbit hole. ― Mandruss ☎ 22:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
@
Premeditated Chaos: I really don't see the drawback of letting someone essentially opt in to knowing about DS.
Let them spend one to two minutes per year showing that they know about DS, with no change required to the existing system. Or, let them stop being annoyed so easily, neither alternative too much to ask of a grown-ass man or woman. Homo sapiens is the most adaptable species on the planet, and it's a fool's errand to continually complicate the system to save a few vocal editors from having to make a small adjustment for the greater good. That only invites more of the same—literally without end. ―
Mandruss
☎
01:48, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
@
Premeditated Chaos: - I really don't see it as a complication
- It unquestionably adds a degree of complexity, slightly lengthening the learning curve for every editor introduced to DS alerts, for as long as DS alerts exist, as explained above. It will add to existing documentation and probably add one or more new software elements like templates. The return on that investment: (1) Some undetermined number of editors, only a handful that we actually know of, are saved the one or two minutes a year required to issue DS alerts to themselves, and (2) some undetermined fraction of editors who issue DS alerts—that fraction depending on how widely the new notice is used, a total unknown—are saved the small effort of checking the UTP history using the filter (note that there is no requirement for any single editor to issue DS alerts, and every editor is free to leave that to others if they find that checking too difficult). I'm sorry if folks can't see that that's a bad trade-off, and I guess I've outlived any usefulness I've had in this discussion. Good luck. ―
Mandruss
☎
00:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
@SilkTork - We are here to serve the project, not have the project serve us.
- Exactly. Thank you! Somebody please enlarge that, frame it, and hang it on the wall. ―
Mandruss
☎
20:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Support basically per Thryduulf. We're allegedly not a bureaucracy, we don't have rules for the sake of having rules, Atsme maintains a prominent notice on her talk page that she is aware of these sanctions, and finds getting them annoying. Surely there should be some way to opt-out. Just saying "well she shouldn't find them annoying" as some here seem to be saying does not answer that. We're allowed to ask specific people not to come to our talk pages, surely there should be some way to ask that specific boilerplate notices not come to our talk pages? -- GRuban ( talk) 21:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Just 2.1 weeks back, ATSME complained about a DS warning on her page attacking two editors for actionable harassment, one correctly following procedure and one (me) defending the editor after the attack. [2]. There was no DS alert in the previous 12 months. Somehow the editor leaving the alert was supposed to know there was a recent appeal by ATSME. I then received an odd (but polite) notice on my TP that I was incorrect in defending the editor for following procedure. [3]
I leave a fair number of DS alerts. I search history (which can be very long) and the 602 log. Am I now supposed to also search the editor TP to see if they demand that I don’t leave a DS alert? (ATSME’s TP is now 35,377 bytes.) Further, if a DS alert isn't left annually, how is the next person to know not to leave another without an entry in the log?
A rare extra DS alert, which are now politely stated, is nothing compared to the SPAM I receive every day (hour). Just say thanks or remove it. The notice at the top of ATSME’s page telling editors not to post DS alerts is inappropriate. O3000 ( talk) 00:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
And wile we are on the topic, I am having a hard time figuring this out because I'm also hearing that someone got upset at an edit summary last week, and that people were elated when Bill Gates delivered a computer to their place of work, or something like that. Which reminds me that Atsme's topic ban (former topic ban?) was issued in part because of that kind of chatter on talk pages, was it not? Drmies ( talk) 03:04, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
@ BU Rob13: I don't know about the "fact" that admins have been taken to task for leaving a DS notice, since you're worried about that. It's only a fact that Atsme has stated that "Admins have been taken to task for it from time to time". Please supply diffs, Atsme. "Taken to task" sounds like something imposed from above, i. e. taken to task by arbcom. Really? Bishonen | talk 09:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC).
I don't think this has been mentioned yet (?), but using
User:Bellezzasolo/Scripts/arb—
link—to place DS alerts searches for a previous alert within the first year automatically, so you don't have to do it yourself (the script is able to automate the procedure for checking that a user has previously been notified of sanctions
.
——
SerialNumber
54129
12:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Seems like a solution in search of a problem. I, for one, check the EF hits (that can be easily accessed from the banner that automatically pops up, once you try to save the page for the first time with the template) to detect whether the user has been served with the same DS notice in the last year and accordingly proceed with issuing the notice. Also, in case of redundant issuings of notices, we need to assume good faith. ∯WBG converse 14:43, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
1. @ Serial Number 54129: IIRC, ARBCOM recently ruled that you can't use that anymore, but I can be mistaken.
2. I'm not exactly sure what the issue is. As it's written now, if you give yourself an alert every twelve months, you are covered by this:
*In the last twelve months, the editor has given and/or received an alert for the area of conflict; or
and when someone tries to give you a DS notice, the edit filter will catch it. All you have to do is just renew that every twelve months on your own talk page. I don't think we should add another rule or layer of bureaucracy. If you want to add something to the top of your talk page, then do so,and add a notify alert to yourself to renew the alert within twelve months so you can renew the alert.
Sir Joseph
(talk)
18:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I generally agree that having to deal with repeated notices can be a pain, but also just wanted to add that we have many bots that frequently drop user-talk messages and which recognize opt-out messages linked on the user's talk page. We treat those opt-outs that the user is well aware that any result from not recieving new notices is wholly their responsibility (eg image deletion).
If we were to have "DS message bot", in which DSes can only be placed by the bot by a request of an admin, that bot can check for such opt-outs. But how often does this situation come up? I'm just brainstomring here in case the community goes in that direction. -- Masem ( t) 19:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I wonder how many people who have issued DS "reminders" can honestly state that each and every time they have done this was just to provide a "friendly reminder". As part of AE enforcements one of the first steps to get a sanction placed against a editing foe is to make sure they first get a DS "friendly reminder".-- MONGO ( talk) 19:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Mandruss above alludes that his comment at Atsme talkpage was "constructive criticism" and I assume he meant this criticism (and almost immediately removed here) that I personally would label as harassment and bullying, particularly in the specific timeframe Mandruss posted it. I personally do not find the following passage to be "constructive criticism: "I forget whether I'm welcome here or not. After this comment, probably not, as there is a high correlation between support and welcome on this page. According to the page history, the previous AP2 DS alert expired in July 2018. [5] There is no requirement to be aware of, let alone observe, a notice at the top of the UTP. That notice is not a substitute for the page history entries that editors are instructed to check before issuing an alert. I issued my currently-active AP2 DS alert to myself, just to save others the trouble. [6] If you don't like receiving them from others, Atsme, you might consider doing the same in the future." I mean, if one isn't clear if they are even welcome at a talkpage, why badger that person at all? Yes, as Mandruss admits himself the last DS warning in that topic area was indeed less than a year ago and for petes sake, Atsme was sanctioned since then so I mean, it's obvious they are aware of the DS on that topic you think? The last sentence Mandruss offers makes a little sense, maybe, but why the hell are we going to place DS tags on our own pages just to avoid someone else doing it for us? For the record, my placement of a DS "friendly reminder" on my own talkpage was directly due to demonstrating the folly of such a notion.-- MONGO ( talk) 20:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
The whole process of alerted editors to DS is overly bureaucratic for the sake of bureaucracy, especially because there's more ways than just the talk page notice to show editors are aware. Take this one, for example - "In the last twelve months, the editor has participated in any process about the area of conflict at arbitration requests or arbitration enforcement." Now back in February 2019, both myself and Objective3000 commented in an AE case in the AmPol topic area. But you may notice on my talk page that O3000 gave me the annual refresher 2 months later in April 2019. I'm technically also permanently aware, as I've been sanctioned (but since successfully appealed) in that topic area before. Is it reasonable to expect editors to check AE comment histories or logs to confirm that editors are aware? I don't think so, but it did annoy me somewhat to be given another notice, especially since I'd have a very similar discussion (see here) still visible on my talk page. I'm not sure what to do about it, if Arbcom insists that all the awareness criteria should remain. These talk page notices should really only be given to new or inexperienced editors. Everyone else is surely aware that misbehavior (real or perceived) gets you in trouble. Mr Ernie ( talk) 09:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
A suggestion for something that (I think) would be pretty straightforward to implement.
We currently have
Special:AbuseFilter/602 that detects if somebody is trying to add {{
DS/Alert}} to a page and gives them the following warning:
{{
MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-DS}}
It shouldn't be too difficult to modify that edit filter to also detect a self-awareness template or category on the same user talk page.
"* The editor has placed a {{ DS/Aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page, or has removed the template within the last 12 months"to the list of items under "An editor is considered aware if:"
I imagine this would take a couple of hours for somebody with the technical know-how, and I wouldn't be surprised to see lots of people opt in. The current system of manual annual alerts for each topic area is annoying.
~ Awilley ( talk) 15:21, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
"Yeah, DS Alerts are mildly annoying, but the proposed solution makes things as annoying or more annoying by adding more hassle for people doing the perfectly acceptable work of placing alert templates. I'm open to other solutions that are less annoying and that don't create more work."I believe my proposal is just that. It's less annoying for the people who don't like getting templated every year (they no longer receive templates) and it's less annoying for the people placing the templates (they no longer have to search through the edit filter logs to try and determine whether the user is aware, since the automatic warning template would now explicitly say "This user is aware of the sanctions for the following topic areas: foo bar baz")
"complicating the issuance of DS alerts in any way would be the step backwards."I agree. I think my proposal is a step in the direction of simplifying things. See the following table
Current system | Proposed modification | |
---|---|---|
Regular user protected by ACDS#aware.aware | 1. Place the template on user talk page and hit Save 2. Use the link from the Warning template to sort through previous alerts and verify that the user hasn't been alerted about this particular topic area in the last 12 months 3. (optional) Perform a search of the archives at WP:AE to see if the user has participated in cases related to the topic area in the last 12 months 4. (rarely done) Make sure the user wasn't a participant in the original arbitration case 5. Try to recall if the user is under any active discretionary sanctions for the topic area 6. Hit "Save" again to actually place the template 7. Be prepared to respond to the user's questions about why you templated them | No change in complexity from current system |
User who has opted out of ACDS#aware.aware by placing {{ DS/Aware}} on their talkpage | — | 1. Place the template on user talk page and hit Save 2. The Warning template pops up and says that the user is already aware 3. Go back to editing |
The current system is just fine, instead of making a DS notice to be a big deal, we just need to destigmatize the notice. I oppose any proposal of pressing a button to inform an editor, it should be compulsory for an editor to do their due diligence. If it's absolutely necessary, we might as well shift the responsibility to bots, to inform editors whose edits meet a certain condition (bytes/number of edits) and log DS notices and get it off our hands entirely, instead of a half-hearted attempt to automate part of the process, then this finger-pointing with notices can finally stop. -- qedk ( t 桜 c) 15:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
As a "regular" in the AP2 DS domain, I have had my fair share of giving and receiving DS alerts. In several instances when I received one, I got the uneasy feeling that "somebody wants to stir drama now". Sometimes I ask for clarification from the alert dispenser, to check whether any recent editing of mine prompted their action. I consider myself as having a pretty thick skin, and yet I sometimes feel attacked, so I understand that Atsme or other editors may feel threatened by such alerts, especially when it's obvious that they are editing regularly in a DS area, and they would be aware of the process. The feeling may be even stronger after an editor recently went through an AE case, irrespective of the outcome. I have unfortunately seen alerts being handed out as an intimidation tactic, despite the best efforts of alert drafters in making them less threatening now than they originally sounded. In the spirit of WP:DTR, I think that editors should be able to opt out of receiving such alerts, being understood that they cannot then defend themselves in an AE case by claiming ignorance.
As a practical step, I fully support Awilley's proposal of a standard {{ DS/Aware}} message that could be placed on one's user talk page, and would be checked by relevant bots and edit filters. People trying to place an alert would be themselves notified that "this user already knows about DS in this area", thus saving both editors some time and mental effort. Should the Committee support this change, I would volunteer to help craft and test the appropriate technicalities.
Finally, I join other commenters in rejecting any automatic boomerang effect on editors who place DS notices despite an "I'm aware" message. Such behaviour, if deemed objectionable, would be assessed in the normal course of an AE proceeding. — JFG talk 06:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
@ SilkTork and Awilley: I'm largely off-wiki this week. Would be happy to work further on the draft technical solution and template wording if that's what you feel the committee needs in order to reach a decision. I feel the committee could usefully rule on principle only, but that's just me. — JFG talk 06:05, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Just dropping in to say... I've studiously avoided learning about the various topic-area editing restrictions so far. So, I would appreciate getting a notice on my talk telling me I need to start thinking about them so I can adjust my behavior accordingly, if anyone thinks I do (rather than getting whacked with a sanction without warning). (I mostly do smallish, infrequent edits, and I guess no one's felt they needed to give me a notice so far.) So, please don't replace it with "you're expected to read the talk page before any edit to see if there's a sanction notice" or similar pitfalls for the unwary. All that said, a way for people to opt out if they don't want the messages doesn't sound like a bad idea. Thanks! (I hope I commented here correctly, and am supposed to; feel free to move/delete this if you want.) —{{u| Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)|😹|✝️|John 15:12|☮️|🍂| T/ C 18:19, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't have a strong opinion about this specific proposal, but I do about the bigger picture. ArbCom introduced discretionary sanctions in 2007 as a way of dealing with ongoing problems in our most contentious articles and topic-areas. Because the editing rules for pages covered by DS may be very different from the usual rules, and violations may be sanctioned more quickly or more severely, since the inception of DS there has been a requirement that editors be warned that the rules exist before they can be sanctioned under them. This is matter of basic fairness, to ensure that editors are not sanctioned for breaking a rule that they didn't know existed, and would have complied with had they known.
From this common-sense origin of the "warn before sanctioning" requirement, over the past 12 years there has developed an increasingly complicated and arcane set of procedural rules for DS warnings and notifications. This accompanies the increasing complexity of the actual discretionary sanctions themselves in the various topic-areas (including but not limited to the uniquely complicated rules for the Israel-Palestine and American politics areas). Each incremental step along this path has been well-intentioned, but the cumulative effect is that we may have created a morass of complexity that is increasingly difficult to understand. I myself don't understand all the rules at this point; and if I don't, given that I've spent more of my wikilife on the arbitration pages than any other editor, I'm not sure what chance anyone else has.
I don't have any specific changes to propose, and my intention is to finish stepping away from the arbitration pages (a process which this posting suggests I'm not all that good at), but in the interim I would urge caution before taking any step that might make matters even more complicated than they already are. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 14:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Rather than a big visible notice that would itself be annoying for users who find DS alerts annoying, it would be entirely possible to use an invisible process to achieve the same result.
The current system relies on edit filter 602 picking up an attempted edit matching the alert template text. Technically there is nothing to stop extending that filter to pick up on matches to an otherwise invisible template being added to the users talk page by themselves. This can then create a log entry showing that the user has elected to log that they are aware of DS applying to any topic(s) they are interested in.
Under current procedures for DS alerts, this then avoids any further notices for the next 12 months for that topic.
-- Fæ ( talk) 08:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
@ Od Mishehu: makes sensible remarks with respect to implementation, however I believe it wise for Arbcom to make a decision on the principle alone, without resolving specifics about what is technically reasonable, best or possible. For example, rather than discussing a clarification about notice templates and the edit filter, the clarification here should be focused on whether a user should be able to flag themselves as being aware of DS on given topics, and then be considered opted out of alerts. However that is then technically implemented is downstream, whether by self-added templates, self alerting, a request page/list or something else, and does not need to be resolved here through Arbcom motions, as usability and practicality is better done via community consensus. -- Fæ ( talk) 11:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
@ Fæ and JFG: Users can already alert themselves with {{ Ds/alert}}, and Mandruss has suggested doing that above. The presumable benefit to a change here is having a notice that works permanently, i.e without notifications every 12 months for multiple topic areas. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 07:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
@ SilkTork and Awilley: Everything technical has been done. See Template:Ds/aware for the mockup (which calls Module:Ds/aware).
So the remaining steps are
{{#invoke:Ds/aware|detect}}
, which will show a message if a person has {{
Ds/aware}} on their talk page, along with the topic areas they have indicated awareness ofAnd then people will be able to use {{ Ds/aware}}.
As a sidenote, in the interests of not ever-increasing the complexities of WP:AC/DS#aware.aware, I personally would suggest axing the "In the last twelve months, the editor has participated in any process about the area of conflict at arbitration requests or arbitration enforcement" criterion. That one is almost never applicable in my experience, because anyone active enough to participate in ARCAs and AEs has very likely been active enough in the topic area to have received an alert - that criterion just adds complexity, and is an absolute pain to search for. Although that could probably be a separate ARCA. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 13:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Since a number of users are suggesting that we use the edit filter to disallow DS warnings under certain conditions, I think I should clarify on some technical issues:
I disagree Galobtter. I've not once received an alert (nor would I particularly like to tbh) and have participated in the areas of AE and ARCA. I'd prefer we keep that bit in there or at least have a separate discussion about it another time. Either way, it looks like User talk:MJL/Editnotice will need an update... – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 03:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
let them stop being annoyed so easily, neither alternative too much to ask of a grown-ass man or woman, but it feels like we could ask the same of you here. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
The Awareness section of the discretionary sanctions procedure is modified to the following:
No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict. An editor is aware if:
Enacted - GoldenRing ( talk) 12:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Just posting here to link to the note I left on my talk page. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 10:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Exactly what particular discretionary sanctions are authorized? Or do you mean that the admin in charge of that article/page can invoke any sanction that they feel like imposing? Oldperson ( talk) 23:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare Thanks, I just noticed that TERF was not on the list Oldperson ( talk) 00:03, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
for all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construedas a part of the GamerGate case. This supersedes sanctions which were authorized for
pages dealing with transgender issuesas part of Sexology and Manning naming dispute. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Any uninvolved administrator is authorised to place: revert and move restrictions, interaction bans, topic bans, and blocks of up to one year in duration, or other reasonable measures that the enforcing administrator believes are necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project.So yes, they are given the discretion to devise an appropriate sanction, for the topics on the list referenced above. isaacl ( talk) 01:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Exactly what particular discretionary sanctions are authorized?—what, not who. isaacl ( talk) 01:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
( edit conflict) I'm requesting a clarification of the guideline or policy (if any) regarding which articles fall under discretionary sanctions after a ruling is issued, and about who can place notices of page restrictions for articles that do fall under sanctions, and under what conditions.
This question is prompted by the warning notice currently at the top of Talk:TERF, which currently warns of active arbitration remedies and a WP:1RR page restriction. This warning was placed in good faith by Tsumiki ( talk · contribs) (non-admin) in this edit on June 10, 2019, with the edit summary "copy from Talk:Gamergate controversy". There was no follow-up on the Talk page regarding placement of this warning afaik.
The wikicode was apparently taken from this edit (a hand-written tmbox) at Talk:Gamergate controversy by admin HJ Mitchell ( talk · contribs) January 29, 2015 with summary tidy templates, note DS, 1RR. HJ Mitchell followed that edit by adding a new Talk page section two minutes later entitled "1RR" ( diff, permalink) announcing the "newly authorised discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBGG".
The TERF article has had significant gender-related controversy and seems as ripe as any article in the area of gender-related articles on Wikipedia for such sanctions to be announced and applied. However, it wasn't named in the WP:ARBGG page (which didn't exist at the outset, and wasn't added by amendment) so, who gets to do so? In the general case, whether gg-related or wrt to some other sanction, who decides that the article falls under a given sanction? Who should or may place an arbitration warning? Is there a template with some boilerplate text available for this, or must the warning be hand-crafted or copied from somewhere else each time? Is an accompanying Talk page section announcing such placement required or recommended? Can anyone place them, or only an Admin? And perhaps most importantly, how does one determine if a particular page falls under an existing sanctions topic area, or not? The Gamergate controversy page clearly falls under WP:ARBGG, because it's named there. I would think that TERF does, as well, but who decides? Is it all to fall under consensus at the article Talk page itself? That would seem to beg the original question. Mathglot ( talk) 01:12, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
there is no restriction on who may place an alert that a page falls under a topic area where discretionary sanctions have been authorized."Technically, those talk page notices are not "alerts". The ACDS fine print defines one and only one thing as an "alert"... this is the template placed on the users talk page using {{ Ds/Alert}}. As it says in the documentation for that template
Special rules govern alerts.The special rules are located here. These article talk page notices are something else.... packaging, fluff, FYI. Their existence (or absence) is irrelevant to the operation of ACDS proceedings. You can seek enforcement of ACDS at WP:AE simply by showing the other ed had "awareness" that ACDS was in effect. What qualifies for showing awareness is also defined in the procedure. The talk page notice isn't even mentioned. (Example, there is a section at Hurricane Sandy#Relation to global warming, which falls under WP:ARBCC even though there is no talk page notice.) When the current ACDS procedure was hashed out a few years ago, we talked a lot about the talk page notice and the outcome was... they're nice, but completely irrelevant. And since they don't matter beyond FYI, and are only really noticed by a tiny subset of editors who read the informational stuff in the first place, anyone can toss one around. They are talk page notices.... please take care to use "alerts" for {{ Ds/Alert}} and talk page notices as just a fluffy article talk page thingy. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 10:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm including both of these issues together because they are related
When ECP was granted to admins for general usage, it was done so under clear circumstances "to combat any form of disruption (such as vandalism, edit wars, etc.) on any topic, given that semi-protection has proven to be ineffective". Since that time, some admins have been applying ECP for reasons outside those narrowly defined parameters: Some admins have applied ECP to user pages and user talk pages upon request from a user/to their own pages. Others have applied it despite other measures available or prior to trying lower levels of protection. Some have given vague reasons or even no reason whatsoever.
Examples of each from the past 45 days (not exhaustive)
The question is, what do we do about admins that are abusing the limited role ECP is supposed to fill? Every application of ECP is one more instance where we chip away at "The Encyclopedia that anyone can edit". All unnecessary/vague ECPs degrade that goal even further. For those involving discretionary sanctions, Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Role_of_administrators we have additional expectations and list that consequences will follow. To date, I have not seen application of such consequences.
As such, I request the following:
Please discuss. Buffs ( talk) 20:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
References
I do not think this is appropriate for a case request and the attendant drama so I'll try it here instead. This request is two parts. Neither in my opinion require a case and may simply be done by motion. I really am trying to be sensitive here but I believe strongly that not examining the roots of this whole mess will be far more toxic to the community than allowing easy scrutiny.
The intent of this is to allow the edits and behavior of those active editors which may have facilitated this mess to be examined. I believe these interactions may give some clue to the genesis of FRAMGATE and the vanishing will allow the editor in question to avoid scrutiny both by the community and any interested parties who may be unfamiliar with the arcana of Wikipedia. In particular subpages.
I have purposely used much less detail than is customary because the vanished user is unlikely to speak in her own defense. I can recast the material I linked to specifically address the issues raised re this user upon request should you find the linked material and reasoning unpersuasive. Jbh Talk 21:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Something bad happened centering around the owner of this account. I firmly and resolutely believe that has been proven sufficiently to say that it is not in the interests of Wikipedia as a project or as a community for there to be this impediment to scrutiny. If we do not understand what really happened here; what potential motives there were for causing the upheaval of FRAMGATE; and who had a stake in it then the system is open to further similar abuse.
Simple. Wikipedia is about openness and accountability. Whether this person has left or not is immaterial. Beyond that her ermm... COI... means she is very unlikely to be completely disengaged from Wikipedia or the Foundation. In point of fact it is so unlikely I confidently say belief to the contrary is farcical.
Add: See [27] for some of my reasoning re investigating the issues as well as the practical constraints thereof. Jbh Talk 17:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC) Last edited: 17:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Who makes the decisions about vanishing then? We have a policy on it which says it can not be used to avoid scrutiny so it is under the discretion of enwp. Do you disagree that this vanishing has the effect of hindering scrutiny, especially from outside sources? The FRAMBAN is inside baseball and I doubt any media is interested but the whole APC thing along with the apparent abuse of process etc. that is likely to have some legs. So, not only is it of interest to us for policing behavior and BLP but it is also essential for the ability to fairly report on both the Foundation and Movement. Right now, considering my AGF is low to non-existent, I would see the vanishing; the history of out of process deleting of the talk page with Raystorm's comments; then the subsequent hiding the talk page as an unlinked subpage when the deletion did not stick -- well I think it is fishy and if I were an outside party it certainly would not make me disbelieve a cover-up. So, yep... its worth the fight. Where do I properly bring it up? Jbh Talk 18:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, I'll check with the stewards but do, please reconsider moving the talk page back where it belongs. Whether "some admins do it that way" has zero relevance to the simple fact that the effect is to further avoid scrutiny. Regardless please say whether or not that move is an "Arbcom action" an "admin action" or just your own preference. Thanks. Jbh Talk 20:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
At Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram/Proposed decision, there has been some comments about the iterative nature of the ongoing discussion amongst the arbitrators and with the community. I am posting some feedback here rather than at that page, because my comments are not related to that specific case and do not help to resolve it.
In December 2018, Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 19 § Arbcom and unanimous decisions, some editors expressed a desire for arbitrators to post more information on the case pages to keep the community better informed, and to see the options that the committee has considered. There have been other calls for greater transparency in operations, such as requesting that deliberations be held within Wikipedia, as much as possible. Now a cycle similar to what was described in May this year is occurring, where concerns are being raised about the degree of discussion occurring on Wikipedia. The reality is that dispute resolution isn't clean and simple, progressing smoothly from principles to findings to remedies. If the community wants to see deliberations on-wiki, it's going to be messy, with arbitrators re-considering their positions and revisiting matters. If instead the community wants to see a final answer without any preliminaries, then it won't get a sense of how the committee explored its options, and it may get a false impression of all arbitrators having a single, monolithic opinion. It can't work both ways, and trying to have it both ways only encourages the committee to agree ahead of time on what gets said publicly. Having more discussion on-wiki, with the resulting need to integrate community feedback, requires the community to have additional patience. isaacl ( talk) 04:51, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The main ArbCom page needs a search field, to quickly access case history. Can someone well-versed in the case archival system please add that feature? — JFG talk 08:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles authorised discretionary sanctions for the e-cigs topic area, and [ [28]] at least includes a note about them (in the middle of a sea of notices, but that's a separate issue). However, unless I'm being blind, they aren't included in the list at WP:DSTOPICS. I'm guessing this is just a simple oversight (as Wikiblame suggests they've never been listed) but figured it was better to check before adding them (especially as I don't want to accidentally get anything out of sync). Thryduulf ( talk) 09:28, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
AGK ( talk · contribs) has added extra material at User:Arbitration Committee/Emailnotice (the talk page redirects here). This extra material is also being shown to editors requesting oversight, via Special:EmailUser/Oversight, and I think it's confusing to show it there. If someone with admin permissions agrees, could they replace the redirect User:Oversight/Emailnotice with a copy of the parts that are relevant to oversight? -- John of Reading ( talk) 06:09, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm looking forward to the Fram-ordered RFC on harassment, and wondering whether it's being held for a specific reason or whether it can go ahead? I have quite a lot I'd like to say about both organized and systemic harassment and how the community, admins, Committee, and Foundation tend to handle both. I hope that the scope is broad enough to cover Swarm's specific concerns about the harassment-related findings in that case and in general.
Furthermore, is merely a clerk-run RFC really appropriate for an issue of this magnitude? The Working Group established by the Palestine-Israel articles case seemed profoundly productive and effective to me, and I think it's a shame the working group approach never was tried again. I suggest that the general issue of harassment is wide-ranging enough to be more amenable to such an approach. EllenCT ( talk) 07:11, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
the ArbCom bother with acknowledgement letters/emails? Or, does the last iteration of OmbCom, seem attractive? ∯WBG converse 15:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Joe Roe has
asked me to refrain from posting to their talk page and from triggering event notifications in their name. I was attempting to dialogue with Joe Roe regarding their interpretation of WP:COI and their application of it in regards to a recent RfA and attendant discussions. Although Joe Roe never indicated they were speaking in an arbitration capacity, I do feel that they remain accountable to reasonable inquiry on their participation, as an arbitrator’s contributions to any discussion of policy is generally seen to carry more weight and given deference. Accordingly, if a community member feels that an arbitration committee member is misreading, or misapplying policy, they are permitted to inquire with that committee member to resolve any potential misunderstandings on either side (
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Conduct of arbitrators). If Joe Roe does not wish to engage with the community on their understanding and application of this topic, I respectfully submit that they should resign from the committee without delay. Failing that, I reserve the right to continue to hold Joe Roe accountable to the arbitrator conduct guidelines unless instructed to do otherwise by the entire committee or a community-imposed restriction.
I assume Joe Roe is watching this page, however if someone feels they should be notified please do so. –
xeno
talk
14:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
May I please have an update on the status of the clerk-led RFC to be held on harassment? I would like to reiterate my request that a working group may be more appropriate in this case, but I would be happy to express that view in an RFC as well. EllenCT ( talk) 22:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
As Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#aware.aware was amended in July, could a corresponding note be added to the section? Thanks. isaacl ( talk) 19:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Should WP:ARBCOM describe and link to the forthcoming elections? The Rambling Man ( Staying alive since 2005!) 19:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
1. The reason we have Discretionary Sanctions (DS) is to eliminate the second mover advantage in ordinary administrative sanctions.--topic bans, interaction bans, blocks. When DS were adopted, this 2nd mover advantage was being exploited by supporters of abusive admins, mostly abusive admins from the early years, who would overturn other admins sanctions against them and effectually paralyze enforcement.
2. Discretionary Sanctions changes this to first mover advantage. No other administrator can remove the sanction without clear consensus--this is called stickiness. This causes a different form of unfairness, by favoring the actions of whichever admins are prepared to enforce most aggressively. Making DS more sticky was essential--but we seem to have over-done it. We need to balance.
3. We could modify Discretionary Sanction slightly for balance by decreasing the stickiness. this could be done by:
BUT, do we need Discretionary Sanctions on individual editors at all?
AT LEAST, do we need individual placements of Discretionary Sanctions on editors , without going to AE; there were only 83 EA actions against individuals so far in 2019 listed at
WP:Arbitration enforcement log, most of which could clearly have beed be achieved by ordinary means without using AE.
KEEP IN MIND that the entire set of rules grew up gradually as Arb procedures. Therefore, adopting any of these changes needs to be either done by the Arbitration Committee, or by the very difficult process of changing Arbitration Policy.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG ( talk • contribs) 16:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 16:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
The reason we have Discretionary Sanctions (DS) is to eliminate the second mover advantage in ordinary administrative sanctions.--topic bans, interaction bans, blocks.: bans are not ordinary administrative sanctions. Ordinarily, they can only be imposed by the community or the Arbitration Committee. Discretionary sanctions, as I understand it, was invented as a way for the Arbitration Committee to delegate some of its authority to administrators for issuing bans, in specific areas it identifies as contentious. As Johnuniq mentioned, I believe this possibility for quick reactions to problematic editors can help dowse inflammatory discussion. isaacl ( talk) 06:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
When a consensus of uninvolved administrators is emerging in a discussion, administrators willing to overrule their colleagues should act with caution and must explain their reasons on request.As I said in January 2018 as part of an amendment request for arbitration case 2015-5, neither arbitration case 2015-10 nor 2015-15 made much progress on balancing the goal of discretionary sanctions—
to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment for even our most contentious articles—with the need to have safeguards against arbitrary enforcement decisions. I suggested having circuit-breaker rules to trigger the need for a consensus discussion before any sanctions could be applied, though I'm still uncertain what set of rules would be appropriate. isaacl ( talk) 05:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
I find this section somewhat unclear. For example:
[in] the last twelve months, the editor has participated in any process about the area of conflict at arbitration requests or arbitration enforcement. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
At Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals (a case almost certain to still be open in January) the question was asked about whether old or new arbitrators would be the ones voting. I replied explaining what the clear precedent is, but despite thinking this is documented somewhere I've been unable to find it. If it is documented somewhere, please could someone link to it here (and probably in the ArbCom procedures section). If it isn't it should probably be documented somewhere and linked in those places. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:54, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
An arbitrator whose term expires while a case is pending may remain active on that case until its conclusion. Newly appointed arbitrators may become active on any matter before the Committee with immediate effect from the date of their appointment.Note that this is the arrangement for cases, but does not apply to outstanding ARCAs or motions – outgoing arbs cease being active on those as soon as their term ends. – bradv 🍁 15:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Looking at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019#Vacant seats, approximately 40% of arbitrators elected in the past two elections have become inactive or left Arbcom before the end of their terms. A committee of eight active arbitrators is near the low end of what I feel comfortable with having. Given that arbitrators are volunteers and that the role is demanding, I understand why people would decide to leave, but are there changes that should be made to improve retention? As much as I wish there was consensus and a funding source for paying arbitrators and other people who are in demanding community roles, I am not currently aware of any willing funder, so what could be done instead? ↠Pine (✉) 08:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Not being active in DS fields as an admin, and almost never as an editor, I was interested by the line of this which indicates that Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction
. Sometimes short blocks can be handed out - if an editor happened to miss this, would it not be impossible for them to appeal it? Even a short block has lasting consequences well after the actual editing prevention has ended. This includes formal (e.g. prohibitions against applying for certain user rights) and informal. At least in the case of the former, would that count as the sanction still being active, and thus subject to appeal?
Nosebagbear (
talk)
15:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
This may sound superficial, but I am wondering if some modifications Arbcom pages' visual designs, improvements to ease of navigation, would help in any statistically significant way, both for the sake of arbitrators and the sake of the broader community. I think that Flow was supposed to help with some of this, and maybe upcoming changes to the mobile and desktop interfaces will also be designed to help with ease of navigation of lengthy discussions. (Pinging CKoerner (WMF) to request comment on this point; there may be multiple WMF projects that are relevant here.) I don't think that Arcbom or the community would want WMF to make changes specifically to the designs of Arbcom pages, but changes to ease of navigation for lengthy and/or multi-page discussions might result in improved efficiency and ease of use for many people who read or contribute to these types of discussions. ↠Pine (✉) 17:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
CKoerner (WMF) ( talk) 17:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Last year, many concerns were raised with problems in wording of statements by arbitrators and the arbitration committee as a whole. (One notable example was discussed at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 40 § Return of permissions to administrators notice, but there are numerous other instances.) I am hopeful that the committee has taken stock of these concerns and will continue to work on improving. I am troubled, though, at the use of "right away" in this statement. Under the best of circumstances, asking a volunteer to do something right away is somewhat confrontational. In this case, the person in question has already expressed distaste with such statements and the wording is unlikely to expedite matters. I believe it is preferable to use another wording that still indicates the urgency from the committee's point of view, while still acknowledging the community's volunteer aspect, such as "as soon as practical". I trust arbitrators will do their best to consider how the effect of their words will help produce the desired result, or hinder it from occurring. isaacl ( talk) 06:31, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I've been away for ten years. Isn't TTN banned from deletion stuff? Thanks. Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 07:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Is there a someone who is currently assigned to the role of coordinating arbitrator? My understanding is that the coordinating arbitrator is assigned to sorting incoming email, and I was looking for a way to contact that person. I have heard that the main Arbcom mailing list gets flooded with junk mail, so I want to make sure that an email thread that was sent to that mailing list was processed. Thank you. ↠Pine (✉) 01:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | → | Archive 25 |
At 11:13, 21 May 2019, the following Ds/talk notice was added to the Get the L Out article:
Five minutes later, at 11:18, 21 May 2019, the following Ds/alert was posted in my Talk page:
Question 1: Does a Ds/talk notice need to be posted before edits are made to an article or after edits have been made to an article?
Question 2: When did the Arbitration Committee rule that any Wikipedia editor can post a Ds/alert on an editor's talk page?
Question 3: If any editor can post a Ds/alert on an editor's talk page, what are the steps that must be followed before this action is taken? Are there any criteria in place that govern the posting of a Ds/alert by non-Admin editors?
Question 4: When did the AC rule that the Ds/talk notice applies to any and all articles that relate to gender and transgender issues?
If any editor is allowed to employ a Ds/alert for any reason and anytime, then it can be misused as a tool for attempted intimidation. I seek clarification of the specific measures in place for when a Ds/alert is warranted. (The edit history for the reason why I've created this topic can be provided if needed.) Thank you.
Pyxis Solitary
yak
22:54, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
an indication or accusation that [an editor has] done anything wrong" -- but does what it's not supposed to be used for stop an editor from perverting its purpose? Pyxis Solitary yak 23:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
You should continue not misconducting yourself." Huh? I've been a WP editor for over 10 years. I'm not a newbie here. Up to now I've been cautious in not detailing exactly what's behind the reason for my creating this discussion. I created an article on 18 May 2019. An editor who is vociferously against the subject of the article began to delete content (as of this time, 22 non-minor edits since the article was created) while the deletion nomination discussion is still in progress. Besides deleting material, if a source was from the conservative media it was deleted. Two websites were accused of being "alt-right" (they aren't). One source was in the further reading section. The editor deleted it. I salvaged the source by adding it as a citation in the body. The editor deleted it. I objected to the reasoning for the deletion and provided WP:BIASED and Bias in sources in the summary. The editor deleted the source again and THEN, on 21 May -- after deleting the source 3x and having made multiple edits to the article -- he added the Ds/talk notice to it, followed by adding a Ds/alert on my talk page 5 minutes later. Besides the specific topic of this discussion, the same editor is now suggesting that I have been canvassing by blogging and posting on social media: 1 2.
Any fool" should not be allowed to use a Ds/alert. A warning template should be used sparingly, particularly if it's a Ds/alert warning used by an editor who has reached WP:3RR. An editor with a vested interest in editing an article should be excluded from adding a Ds/talk notice after the fact and a Ds/alert on the talk page of an editor he disagrees with. When it comes to non-Admin editors employing a Ds notice, the cart should not come before the horse because that is when the purpose of Ds becomes weaponized. There is no qualification criteria in place for the use of a Ds/alert by non-Admins. And without the existence of checks and balances Ds/alerts are open to abuse. Pyxis Solitary yak 15:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
From section Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Scope and responsibilities:
The Arbitration Committee of the English Wikipedia has the following duties and responsibilities:
...
- 3. To handle requests (other than self-requests) for removal of administrative tools;
Note 2 on the same page clarifies this: ... administrator accounts which had been inactive for over a year ... may also be
desysopped by a community process
, and links to subsection of
Wikipedia:Administrators. The linked subsection "Procedural removal for inactive administrators" is actually a part of section
Review and removal of adminship. Should the Note 2 be altered to explain the whole section, not just a subsection of policy
WP:ADMIN? There is also another project page about removal of administrative tools—
Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Removal of permissions. Should it be referenced in the same or separate footnote? —
andrybak (
talk)
20:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Atsme at 19:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Topics subject to DS require that we alert users of same.
An editor is considered aware if:
- They were mentioned by name in the applicable Final Decision; or
- They have ever been sanctioned within the area of conflict (and at least one of such sanctions has not been successfully appealed); or
- In the last twelve months, the editor has given and/or received an alert for the area of conflict; or
- In the last twelve months, the editor has participated in any process about the area of conflict at arbitration requests or arbitration enforcement; or
- In the last twelve months, the editor has successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict.
Proposal to add something along the lines of the following example:
- The editor maintains a DS Awareness Notice at the top of their user page stating they are aware of sanctions in the respective area(s) of conflict. Any editor who adds a DS Alert to a user's TP despite such notice of awareness for a specific area of conflict (custom or otherwise) will be in violation of DS and subject to AE per current Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Alerts 21:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Reasoning: some established editors have been the recipients of multiple DS alerts which may be viewed as harassment or abuse of the process. Admins have been taken to task for it from time to time. It typically occurs when a disagreement arises in a conflicted area and a DS notice suddenly appears on an editor's TP. Some editors, intentionally or otherwise, will add a DS template on the TP of an opponent without first checking to see if that editor is already aware, the latter of which is a difficult task in itself, but it can be easily remedied. While DS alerts are included on the conflicted article's TP, and typically in an edit view banner for the article itself, such notices apparently aren't enough.
My proposal is an effort to help limit DS alert template overuse/abuse (perceived or otherwise) by allowing editors, who are already aware of DS in specific topic areas, to include a permanent notice (customized or standardized) at the top of their user TP stating they are aware of specific areas subject to DS. In order for it to work, ArbCom needs to modify the DS Awareness section to include some form of mandatory check for said TP DS notices before an editor adds the respective DS alert template. I have a customized DS Notice at the top of my user page which I customized for aesthetics, but until ArbCom formally includes/accepts such notices as an acceptable notice of awareness and makes checking for same a mandatory procedure, the harassment issue will probably continue. It is actually an easy and efficient way for editors to make sure they are not overusing the DS alert template, or inadvertently finding themselves in a dispute over it.
It's actually quite simple - see Galobtter's statement below. In summary, I have an aesthetic "I am DS aware" notice at the top of my TP. Either JFG, Awilley or Galobtter (or all 3) have volunteered to write an ?embedded? or ?hidden? code we can simply add to our TP that triggers an already aware notice whenever someone attempts to add another DS notice - see Galobtter's example. I'm thinking most editors will see the custom DS-aware notice at the top of a user's TP and won't bother trying to post another one. But...if they don't see it, and attempt to post another DS notice, doing so will auto trigger an "already aware notice" and prevent it from being added. It's a wonderful thing - no aggravation - no extra work - everybody's happy. My apologies for not explaining it that simply from the get-go. Atsme Talk 📧 02:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
I like the idea of an opt-in "I'm aware of discretionary sanctions in <topic-area-1>, <topic-area-2>" notice, and I'm fine with discouraging editors from adding another notice for any of the listed areas. However I think the proposal to make leaving another notice a sanctionable offence is going too far - e.g. alerting to major changes should be allowed (the recent merging of the Balkans sanctions into the Eastern European sanctions comes to mind as a major change that users professing awareness of one or the other should still be able to be formally made aware of). If someone is being disruptive or harassing another editor by use of the notices then that can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis without most editors being dragged to AE for mistakes. Thryduulf ( talk) 18:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Isn't the solution to getting a redundant DS notice to just remove it with the edit summary "Thanks, I already knew that"? The DS process is already complicated, why make it more complicated? -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 20:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I'll strongly oppose this, FWIW. It would be an added complication to something that is already unnecessarily complicated, without sufficient benefit to justify that added complication. I'd love to see some proposals to simplify.
BTW, editors who don't like receiving routine non-critical DS alerts can issue them to themselves, which creates the normal page history entries. I pointed this out to Atsme before she opened this item. It takes a minute or two per year, not an unreasonable burden in my opinion. ― Mandruss ☎ 20:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Atsme's argument appears to rest on the false premise that it's too difficult to check the UTP history. Notices are difficult to find, especially for TP that get a lot of traffic.
That is simply not true, and it's clear that Atsme wasn't aware of the easy way to do this when she opened this item. If Atsme's experience with duplicate alerts was due to good-faith lack of editor awareness (1) she is just as capable of pointing editors to the instructions as anyone else, and (2) doesn't her proposal presume and require editor awareness? If it was harassment (certainly possible, although Atsme has shown a marked tendency to perceive harassment where it doesn't exist
[1]), the solution is sanctions, not an added complication to the system that wouldn't prevent harassment anyway. ―
Mandruss
☎
20:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
@
GRuban: surely there should be some way to ask that specific boilerplate notices not come to our talk pages?
And surely there is one, as explained in my first comment above. Are you really supporting this added complication to the rules to save a few editors that one or two minutes per year? Are you saying editors shouldn't be subjected to boilerplate notices from themselves? Is it just me, or does this approach the comical? Seriously, molehill→mountain. ―
Mandruss
☎
22:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
@GRuban, you're certainly not the first to fail to weigh the upside of a proposal against its downside with equal clarity and focus on both. That complexity is an ongoing cost is a fact that is very widely supported by experts—virtually indisputable—and yet almost completely ignored in countless decisions like this one throughout Wikipedia's history. That's why we have an editing environment that is maddeningly complex, and unnecessarily so. I will continue to fight that from time to time, as my time and motivation level permit. ― Mandruss ☎ 00:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
@ Atsme: I completely understand your reasoning, and in my view you're missing the following. You propose to make things easier on editors in one way, without showing how many editors need things made easier in that way. At the same time, your proposal would make things harder on editors in a different way, a way that would affect every editor without question (that is, every editor who uses DS alerts). Currently, editors must check the page history. If your proposal were implemented, editors would have to check the top of the UTP, and then check the page history if they don't see the message. That's clearly a little more difficult; worse in my view, it's incrementally more complicated, i.e. more difficult to understand and remember. It's just a small increase in complexity, but the monumental mess we call Wikipedia editing is the sum of thousands of small increases in complexity just like this one.Thus your argument hinges on widespread use of your proposed message—the more widespread, the better—and you ask us to take that widespread use on faith. I wouldn't use it.had I known you would have been offended by this, I would have approached it much differently.- Helpful hint for future reference: Editors will somewhat predictably be offended when you call their constructive criticism "harassment", which is a sanctionable offense. ― Mandruss ☎ 01:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
@MONGO - This discussion is not about me or my comment on Atsme's UTP, and it's ridiculous to respond to a brief parenthetical aside with a 300-word off-topic essay. I seriously considered ignoring your comments entirely, but I assume most present will appreciate my not following you down that bottomless rabbit hole. ― Mandruss ☎ 22:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
@
Premeditated Chaos: I really don't see the drawback of letting someone essentially opt in to knowing about DS.
Let them spend one to two minutes per year showing that they know about DS, with no change required to the existing system. Or, let them stop being annoyed so easily, neither alternative too much to ask of a grown-ass man or woman. Homo sapiens is the most adaptable species on the planet, and it's a fool's errand to continually complicate the system to save a few vocal editors from having to make a small adjustment for the greater good. That only invites more of the same—literally without end. ―
Mandruss
☎
01:48, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
@
Premeditated Chaos: - I really don't see it as a complication
- It unquestionably adds a degree of complexity, slightly lengthening the learning curve for every editor introduced to DS alerts, for as long as DS alerts exist, as explained above. It will add to existing documentation and probably add one or more new software elements like templates. The return on that investment: (1) Some undetermined number of editors, only a handful that we actually know of, are saved the one or two minutes a year required to issue DS alerts to themselves, and (2) some undetermined fraction of editors who issue DS alerts—that fraction depending on how widely the new notice is used, a total unknown—are saved the small effort of checking the UTP history using the filter (note that there is no requirement for any single editor to issue DS alerts, and every editor is free to leave that to others if they find that checking too difficult). I'm sorry if folks can't see that that's a bad trade-off, and I guess I've outlived any usefulness I've had in this discussion. Good luck. ―
Mandruss
☎
00:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
@SilkTork - We are here to serve the project, not have the project serve us.
- Exactly. Thank you! Somebody please enlarge that, frame it, and hang it on the wall. ―
Mandruss
☎
20:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Support basically per Thryduulf. We're allegedly not a bureaucracy, we don't have rules for the sake of having rules, Atsme maintains a prominent notice on her talk page that she is aware of these sanctions, and finds getting them annoying. Surely there should be some way to opt-out. Just saying "well she shouldn't find them annoying" as some here seem to be saying does not answer that. We're allowed to ask specific people not to come to our talk pages, surely there should be some way to ask that specific boilerplate notices not come to our talk pages? -- GRuban ( talk) 21:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Just 2.1 weeks back, ATSME complained about a DS warning on her page attacking two editors for actionable harassment, one correctly following procedure and one (me) defending the editor after the attack. [2]. There was no DS alert in the previous 12 months. Somehow the editor leaving the alert was supposed to know there was a recent appeal by ATSME. I then received an odd (but polite) notice on my TP that I was incorrect in defending the editor for following procedure. [3]
I leave a fair number of DS alerts. I search history (which can be very long) and the 602 log. Am I now supposed to also search the editor TP to see if they demand that I don’t leave a DS alert? (ATSME’s TP is now 35,377 bytes.) Further, if a DS alert isn't left annually, how is the next person to know not to leave another without an entry in the log?
A rare extra DS alert, which are now politely stated, is nothing compared to the SPAM I receive every day (hour). Just say thanks or remove it. The notice at the top of ATSME’s page telling editors not to post DS alerts is inappropriate. O3000 ( talk) 00:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
And wile we are on the topic, I am having a hard time figuring this out because I'm also hearing that someone got upset at an edit summary last week, and that people were elated when Bill Gates delivered a computer to their place of work, or something like that. Which reminds me that Atsme's topic ban (former topic ban?) was issued in part because of that kind of chatter on talk pages, was it not? Drmies ( talk) 03:04, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
@ BU Rob13: I don't know about the "fact" that admins have been taken to task for leaving a DS notice, since you're worried about that. It's only a fact that Atsme has stated that "Admins have been taken to task for it from time to time". Please supply diffs, Atsme. "Taken to task" sounds like something imposed from above, i. e. taken to task by arbcom. Really? Bishonen | talk 09:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC).
I don't think this has been mentioned yet (?), but using
User:Bellezzasolo/Scripts/arb—
link—to place DS alerts searches for a previous alert within the first year automatically, so you don't have to do it yourself (the script is able to automate the procedure for checking that a user has previously been notified of sanctions
.
——
SerialNumber
54129
12:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Seems like a solution in search of a problem. I, for one, check the EF hits (that can be easily accessed from the banner that automatically pops up, once you try to save the page for the first time with the template) to detect whether the user has been served with the same DS notice in the last year and accordingly proceed with issuing the notice. Also, in case of redundant issuings of notices, we need to assume good faith. ∯WBG converse 14:43, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
1. @ Serial Number 54129: IIRC, ARBCOM recently ruled that you can't use that anymore, but I can be mistaken.
2. I'm not exactly sure what the issue is. As it's written now, if you give yourself an alert every twelve months, you are covered by this:
*In the last twelve months, the editor has given and/or received an alert for the area of conflict; or
and when someone tries to give you a DS notice, the edit filter will catch it. All you have to do is just renew that every twelve months on your own talk page. I don't think we should add another rule or layer of bureaucracy. If you want to add something to the top of your talk page, then do so,and add a notify alert to yourself to renew the alert within twelve months so you can renew the alert.
Sir Joseph
(talk)
18:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I generally agree that having to deal with repeated notices can be a pain, but also just wanted to add that we have many bots that frequently drop user-talk messages and which recognize opt-out messages linked on the user's talk page. We treat those opt-outs that the user is well aware that any result from not recieving new notices is wholly their responsibility (eg image deletion).
If we were to have "DS message bot", in which DSes can only be placed by the bot by a request of an admin, that bot can check for such opt-outs. But how often does this situation come up? I'm just brainstomring here in case the community goes in that direction. -- Masem ( t) 19:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I wonder how many people who have issued DS "reminders" can honestly state that each and every time they have done this was just to provide a "friendly reminder". As part of AE enforcements one of the first steps to get a sanction placed against a editing foe is to make sure they first get a DS "friendly reminder".-- MONGO ( talk) 19:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Mandruss above alludes that his comment at Atsme talkpage was "constructive criticism" and I assume he meant this criticism (and almost immediately removed here) that I personally would label as harassment and bullying, particularly in the specific timeframe Mandruss posted it. I personally do not find the following passage to be "constructive criticism: "I forget whether I'm welcome here or not. After this comment, probably not, as there is a high correlation between support and welcome on this page. According to the page history, the previous AP2 DS alert expired in July 2018. [5] There is no requirement to be aware of, let alone observe, a notice at the top of the UTP. That notice is not a substitute for the page history entries that editors are instructed to check before issuing an alert. I issued my currently-active AP2 DS alert to myself, just to save others the trouble. [6] If you don't like receiving them from others, Atsme, you might consider doing the same in the future." I mean, if one isn't clear if they are even welcome at a talkpage, why badger that person at all? Yes, as Mandruss admits himself the last DS warning in that topic area was indeed less than a year ago and for petes sake, Atsme was sanctioned since then so I mean, it's obvious they are aware of the DS on that topic you think? The last sentence Mandruss offers makes a little sense, maybe, but why the hell are we going to place DS tags on our own pages just to avoid someone else doing it for us? For the record, my placement of a DS "friendly reminder" on my own talkpage was directly due to demonstrating the folly of such a notion.-- MONGO ( talk) 20:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
The whole process of alerted editors to DS is overly bureaucratic for the sake of bureaucracy, especially because there's more ways than just the talk page notice to show editors are aware. Take this one, for example - "In the last twelve months, the editor has participated in any process about the area of conflict at arbitration requests or arbitration enforcement." Now back in February 2019, both myself and Objective3000 commented in an AE case in the AmPol topic area. But you may notice on my talk page that O3000 gave me the annual refresher 2 months later in April 2019. I'm technically also permanently aware, as I've been sanctioned (but since successfully appealed) in that topic area before. Is it reasonable to expect editors to check AE comment histories or logs to confirm that editors are aware? I don't think so, but it did annoy me somewhat to be given another notice, especially since I'd have a very similar discussion (see here) still visible on my talk page. I'm not sure what to do about it, if Arbcom insists that all the awareness criteria should remain. These talk page notices should really only be given to new or inexperienced editors. Everyone else is surely aware that misbehavior (real or perceived) gets you in trouble. Mr Ernie ( talk) 09:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
A suggestion for something that (I think) would be pretty straightforward to implement.
We currently have
Special:AbuseFilter/602 that detects if somebody is trying to add {{
DS/Alert}} to a page and gives them the following warning:
{{
MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-DS}}
It shouldn't be too difficult to modify that edit filter to also detect a self-awareness template or category on the same user talk page.
"* The editor has placed a {{ DS/Aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page, or has removed the template within the last 12 months"to the list of items under "An editor is considered aware if:"
I imagine this would take a couple of hours for somebody with the technical know-how, and I wouldn't be surprised to see lots of people opt in. The current system of manual annual alerts for each topic area is annoying.
~ Awilley ( talk) 15:21, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
"Yeah, DS Alerts are mildly annoying, but the proposed solution makes things as annoying or more annoying by adding more hassle for people doing the perfectly acceptable work of placing alert templates. I'm open to other solutions that are less annoying and that don't create more work."I believe my proposal is just that. It's less annoying for the people who don't like getting templated every year (they no longer receive templates) and it's less annoying for the people placing the templates (they no longer have to search through the edit filter logs to try and determine whether the user is aware, since the automatic warning template would now explicitly say "This user is aware of the sanctions for the following topic areas: foo bar baz")
"complicating the issuance of DS alerts in any way would be the step backwards."I agree. I think my proposal is a step in the direction of simplifying things. See the following table
Current system | Proposed modification | |
---|---|---|
Regular user protected by ACDS#aware.aware | 1. Place the template on user talk page and hit Save 2. Use the link from the Warning template to sort through previous alerts and verify that the user hasn't been alerted about this particular topic area in the last 12 months 3. (optional) Perform a search of the archives at WP:AE to see if the user has participated in cases related to the topic area in the last 12 months 4. (rarely done) Make sure the user wasn't a participant in the original arbitration case 5. Try to recall if the user is under any active discretionary sanctions for the topic area 6. Hit "Save" again to actually place the template 7. Be prepared to respond to the user's questions about why you templated them | No change in complexity from current system |
User who has opted out of ACDS#aware.aware by placing {{ DS/Aware}} on their talkpage | — | 1. Place the template on user talk page and hit Save 2. The Warning template pops up and says that the user is already aware 3. Go back to editing |
The current system is just fine, instead of making a DS notice to be a big deal, we just need to destigmatize the notice. I oppose any proposal of pressing a button to inform an editor, it should be compulsory for an editor to do their due diligence. If it's absolutely necessary, we might as well shift the responsibility to bots, to inform editors whose edits meet a certain condition (bytes/number of edits) and log DS notices and get it off our hands entirely, instead of a half-hearted attempt to automate part of the process, then this finger-pointing with notices can finally stop. -- qedk ( t 桜 c) 15:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
As a "regular" in the AP2 DS domain, I have had my fair share of giving and receiving DS alerts. In several instances when I received one, I got the uneasy feeling that "somebody wants to stir drama now". Sometimes I ask for clarification from the alert dispenser, to check whether any recent editing of mine prompted their action. I consider myself as having a pretty thick skin, and yet I sometimes feel attacked, so I understand that Atsme or other editors may feel threatened by such alerts, especially when it's obvious that they are editing regularly in a DS area, and they would be aware of the process. The feeling may be even stronger after an editor recently went through an AE case, irrespective of the outcome. I have unfortunately seen alerts being handed out as an intimidation tactic, despite the best efforts of alert drafters in making them less threatening now than they originally sounded. In the spirit of WP:DTR, I think that editors should be able to opt out of receiving such alerts, being understood that they cannot then defend themselves in an AE case by claiming ignorance.
As a practical step, I fully support Awilley's proposal of a standard {{ DS/Aware}} message that could be placed on one's user talk page, and would be checked by relevant bots and edit filters. People trying to place an alert would be themselves notified that "this user already knows about DS in this area", thus saving both editors some time and mental effort. Should the Committee support this change, I would volunteer to help craft and test the appropriate technicalities.
Finally, I join other commenters in rejecting any automatic boomerang effect on editors who place DS notices despite an "I'm aware" message. Such behaviour, if deemed objectionable, would be assessed in the normal course of an AE proceeding. — JFG talk 06:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
@ SilkTork and Awilley: I'm largely off-wiki this week. Would be happy to work further on the draft technical solution and template wording if that's what you feel the committee needs in order to reach a decision. I feel the committee could usefully rule on principle only, but that's just me. — JFG talk 06:05, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Just dropping in to say... I've studiously avoided learning about the various topic-area editing restrictions so far. So, I would appreciate getting a notice on my talk telling me I need to start thinking about them so I can adjust my behavior accordingly, if anyone thinks I do (rather than getting whacked with a sanction without warning). (I mostly do smallish, infrequent edits, and I guess no one's felt they needed to give me a notice so far.) So, please don't replace it with "you're expected to read the talk page before any edit to see if there's a sanction notice" or similar pitfalls for the unwary. All that said, a way for people to opt out if they don't want the messages doesn't sound like a bad idea. Thanks! (I hope I commented here correctly, and am supposed to; feel free to move/delete this if you want.) —{{u| Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)|😹|✝️|John 15:12|☮️|🍂| T/ C 18:19, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't have a strong opinion about this specific proposal, but I do about the bigger picture. ArbCom introduced discretionary sanctions in 2007 as a way of dealing with ongoing problems in our most contentious articles and topic-areas. Because the editing rules for pages covered by DS may be very different from the usual rules, and violations may be sanctioned more quickly or more severely, since the inception of DS there has been a requirement that editors be warned that the rules exist before they can be sanctioned under them. This is matter of basic fairness, to ensure that editors are not sanctioned for breaking a rule that they didn't know existed, and would have complied with had they known.
From this common-sense origin of the "warn before sanctioning" requirement, over the past 12 years there has developed an increasingly complicated and arcane set of procedural rules for DS warnings and notifications. This accompanies the increasing complexity of the actual discretionary sanctions themselves in the various topic-areas (including but not limited to the uniquely complicated rules for the Israel-Palestine and American politics areas). Each incremental step along this path has been well-intentioned, but the cumulative effect is that we may have created a morass of complexity that is increasingly difficult to understand. I myself don't understand all the rules at this point; and if I don't, given that I've spent more of my wikilife on the arbitration pages than any other editor, I'm not sure what chance anyone else has.
I don't have any specific changes to propose, and my intention is to finish stepping away from the arbitration pages (a process which this posting suggests I'm not all that good at), but in the interim I would urge caution before taking any step that might make matters even more complicated than they already are. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 14:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Rather than a big visible notice that would itself be annoying for users who find DS alerts annoying, it would be entirely possible to use an invisible process to achieve the same result.
The current system relies on edit filter 602 picking up an attempted edit matching the alert template text. Technically there is nothing to stop extending that filter to pick up on matches to an otherwise invisible template being added to the users talk page by themselves. This can then create a log entry showing that the user has elected to log that they are aware of DS applying to any topic(s) they are interested in.
Under current procedures for DS alerts, this then avoids any further notices for the next 12 months for that topic.
-- Fæ ( talk) 08:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
@ Od Mishehu: makes sensible remarks with respect to implementation, however I believe it wise for Arbcom to make a decision on the principle alone, without resolving specifics about what is technically reasonable, best or possible. For example, rather than discussing a clarification about notice templates and the edit filter, the clarification here should be focused on whether a user should be able to flag themselves as being aware of DS on given topics, and then be considered opted out of alerts. However that is then technically implemented is downstream, whether by self-added templates, self alerting, a request page/list or something else, and does not need to be resolved here through Arbcom motions, as usability and practicality is better done via community consensus. -- Fæ ( talk) 11:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
@ Fæ and JFG: Users can already alert themselves with {{ Ds/alert}}, and Mandruss has suggested doing that above. The presumable benefit to a change here is having a notice that works permanently, i.e without notifications every 12 months for multiple topic areas. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 07:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
@ SilkTork and Awilley: Everything technical has been done. See Template:Ds/aware for the mockup (which calls Module:Ds/aware).
So the remaining steps are
{{#invoke:Ds/aware|detect}}
, which will show a message if a person has {{
Ds/aware}} on their talk page, along with the topic areas they have indicated awareness ofAnd then people will be able to use {{ Ds/aware}}.
As a sidenote, in the interests of not ever-increasing the complexities of WP:AC/DS#aware.aware, I personally would suggest axing the "In the last twelve months, the editor has participated in any process about the area of conflict at arbitration requests or arbitration enforcement" criterion. That one is almost never applicable in my experience, because anyone active enough to participate in ARCAs and AEs has very likely been active enough in the topic area to have received an alert - that criterion just adds complexity, and is an absolute pain to search for. Although that could probably be a separate ARCA. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 13:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Since a number of users are suggesting that we use the edit filter to disallow DS warnings under certain conditions, I think I should clarify on some technical issues:
I disagree Galobtter. I've not once received an alert (nor would I particularly like to tbh) and have participated in the areas of AE and ARCA. I'd prefer we keep that bit in there or at least have a separate discussion about it another time. Either way, it looks like User talk:MJL/Editnotice will need an update... – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 03:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
let them stop being annoyed so easily, neither alternative too much to ask of a grown-ass man or woman, but it feels like we could ask the same of you here. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
The Awareness section of the discretionary sanctions procedure is modified to the following:
No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict. An editor is aware if:
Enacted - GoldenRing ( talk) 12:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Just posting here to link to the note I left on my talk page. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 10:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Exactly what particular discretionary sanctions are authorized? Or do you mean that the admin in charge of that article/page can invoke any sanction that they feel like imposing? Oldperson ( talk) 23:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare Thanks, I just noticed that TERF was not on the list Oldperson ( talk) 00:03, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
for all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construedas a part of the GamerGate case. This supersedes sanctions which were authorized for
pages dealing with transgender issuesas part of Sexology and Manning naming dispute. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Any uninvolved administrator is authorised to place: revert and move restrictions, interaction bans, topic bans, and blocks of up to one year in duration, or other reasonable measures that the enforcing administrator believes are necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project.So yes, they are given the discretion to devise an appropriate sanction, for the topics on the list referenced above. isaacl ( talk) 01:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Exactly what particular discretionary sanctions are authorized?—what, not who. isaacl ( talk) 01:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
( edit conflict) I'm requesting a clarification of the guideline or policy (if any) regarding which articles fall under discretionary sanctions after a ruling is issued, and about who can place notices of page restrictions for articles that do fall under sanctions, and under what conditions.
This question is prompted by the warning notice currently at the top of Talk:TERF, which currently warns of active arbitration remedies and a WP:1RR page restriction. This warning was placed in good faith by Tsumiki ( talk · contribs) (non-admin) in this edit on June 10, 2019, with the edit summary "copy from Talk:Gamergate controversy". There was no follow-up on the Talk page regarding placement of this warning afaik.
The wikicode was apparently taken from this edit (a hand-written tmbox) at Talk:Gamergate controversy by admin HJ Mitchell ( talk · contribs) January 29, 2015 with summary tidy templates, note DS, 1RR. HJ Mitchell followed that edit by adding a new Talk page section two minutes later entitled "1RR" ( diff, permalink) announcing the "newly authorised discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBGG".
The TERF article has had significant gender-related controversy and seems as ripe as any article in the area of gender-related articles on Wikipedia for such sanctions to be announced and applied. However, it wasn't named in the WP:ARBGG page (which didn't exist at the outset, and wasn't added by amendment) so, who gets to do so? In the general case, whether gg-related or wrt to some other sanction, who decides that the article falls under a given sanction? Who should or may place an arbitration warning? Is there a template with some boilerplate text available for this, or must the warning be hand-crafted or copied from somewhere else each time? Is an accompanying Talk page section announcing such placement required or recommended? Can anyone place them, or only an Admin? And perhaps most importantly, how does one determine if a particular page falls under an existing sanctions topic area, or not? The Gamergate controversy page clearly falls under WP:ARBGG, because it's named there. I would think that TERF does, as well, but who decides? Is it all to fall under consensus at the article Talk page itself? That would seem to beg the original question. Mathglot ( talk) 01:12, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
there is no restriction on who may place an alert that a page falls under a topic area where discretionary sanctions have been authorized."Technically, those talk page notices are not "alerts". The ACDS fine print defines one and only one thing as an "alert"... this is the template placed on the users talk page using {{ Ds/Alert}}. As it says in the documentation for that template
Special rules govern alerts.The special rules are located here. These article talk page notices are something else.... packaging, fluff, FYI. Their existence (or absence) is irrelevant to the operation of ACDS proceedings. You can seek enforcement of ACDS at WP:AE simply by showing the other ed had "awareness" that ACDS was in effect. What qualifies for showing awareness is also defined in the procedure. The talk page notice isn't even mentioned. (Example, there is a section at Hurricane Sandy#Relation to global warming, which falls under WP:ARBCC even though there is no talk page notice.) When the current ACDS procedure was hashed out a few years ago, we talked a lot about the talk page notice and the outcome was... they're nice, but completely irrelevant. And since they don't matter beyond FYI, and are only really noticed by a tiny subset of editors who read the informational stuff in the first place, anyone can toss one around. They are talk page notices.... please take care to use "alerts" for {{ Ds/Alert}} and talk page notices as just a fluffy article talk page thingy. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 10:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm including both of these issues together because they are related
When ECP was granted to admins for general usage, it was done so under clear circumstances "to combat any form of disruption (such as vandalism, edit wars, etc.) on any topic, given that semi-protection has proven to be ineffective". Since that time, some admins have been applying ECP for reasons outside those narrowly defined parameters: Some admins have applied ECP to user pages and user talk pages upon request from a user/to their own pages. Others have applied it despite other measures available or prior to trying lower levels of protection. Some have given vague reasons or even no reason whatsoever.
Examples of each from the past 45 days (not exhaustive)
The question is, what do we do about admins that are abusing the limited role ECP is supposed to fill? Every application of ECP is one more instance where we chip away at "The Encyclopedia that anyone can edit". All unnecessary/vague ECPs degrade that goal even further. For those involving discretionary sanctions, Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Role_of_administrators we have additional expectations and list that consequences will follow. To date, I have not seen application of such consequences.
As such, I request the following:
Please discuss. Buffs ( talk) 20:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
References
I do not think this is appropriate for a case request and the attendant drama so I'll try it here instead. This request is two parts. Neither in my opinion require a case and may simply be done by motion. I really am trying to be sensitive here but I believe strongly that not examining the roots of this whole mess will be far more toxic to the community than allowing easy scrutiny.
The intent of this is to allow the edits and behavior of those active editors which may have facilitated this mess to be examined. I believe these interactions may give some clue to the genesis of FRAMGATE and the vanishing will allow the editor in question to avoid scrutiny both by the community and any interested parties who may be unfamiliar with the arcana of Wikipedia. In particular subpages.
I have purposely used much less detail than is customary because the vanished user is unlikely to speak in her own defense. I can recast the material I linked to specifically address the issues raised re this user upon request should you find the linked material and reasoning unpersuasive. Jbh Talk 21:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Something bad happened centering around the owner of this account. I firmly and resolutely believe that has been proven sufficiently to say that it is not in the interests of Wikipedia as a project or as a community for there to be this impediment to scrutiny. If we do not understand what really happened here; what potential motives there were for causing the upheaval of FRAMGATE; and who had a stake in it then the system is open to further similar abuse.
Simple. Wikipedia is about openness and accountability. Whether this person has left or not is immaterial. Beyond that her ermm... COI... means she is very unlikely to be completely disengaged from Wikipedia or the Foundation. In point of fact it is so unlikely I confidently say belief to the contrary is farcical.
Add: See [27] for some of my reasoning re investigating the issues as well as the practical constraints thereof. Jbh Talk 17:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC) Last edited: 17:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Who makes the decisions about vanishing then? We have a policy on it which says it can not be used to avoid scrutiny so it is under the discretion of enwp. Do you disagree that this vanishing has the effect of hindering scrutiny, especially from outside sources? The FRAMBAN is inside baseball and I doubt any media is interested but the whole APC thing along with the apparent abuse of process etc. that is likely to have some legs. So, not only is it of interest to us for policing behavior and BLP but it is also essential for the ability to fairly report on both the Foundation and Movement. Right now, considering my AGF is low to non-existent, I would see the vanishing; the history of out of process deleting of the talk page with Raystorm's comments; then the subsequent hiding the talk page as an unlinked subpage when the deletion did not stick -- well I think it is fishy and if I were an outside party it certainly would not make me disbelieve a cover-up. So, yep... its worth the fight. Where do I properly bring it up? Jbh Talk 18:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, I'll check with the stewards but do, please reconsider moving the talk page back where it belongs. Whether "some admins do it that way" has zero relevance to the simple fact that the effect is to further avoid scrutiny. Regardless please say whether or not that move is an "Arbcom action" an "admin action" or just your own preference. Thanks. Jbh Talk 20:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
At Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram/Proposed decision, there has been some comments about the iterative nature of the ongoing discussion amongst the arbitrators and with the community. I am posting some feedback here rather than at that page, because my comments are not related to that specific case and do not help to resolve it.
In December 2018, Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 19 § Arbcom and unanimous decisions, some editors expressed a desire for arbitrators to post more information on the case pages to keep the community better informed, and to see the options that the committee has considered. There have been other calls for greater transparency in operations, such as requesting that deliberations be held within Wikipedia, as much as possible. Now a cycle similar to what was described in May this year is occurring, where concerns are being raised about the degree of discussion occurring on Wikipedia. The reality is that dispute resolution isn't clean and simple, progressing smoothly from principles to findings to remedies. If the community wants to see deliberations on-wiki, it's going to be messy, with arbitrators re-considering their positions and revisiting matters. If instead the community wants to see a final answer without any preliminaries, then it won't get a sense of how the committee explored its options, and it may get a false impression of all arbitrators having a single, monolithic opinion. It can't work both ways, and trying to have it both ways only encourages the committee to agree ahead of time on what gets said publicly. Having more discussion on-wiki, with the resulting need to integrate community feedback, requires the community to have additional patience. isaacl ( talk) 04:51, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The main ArbCom page needs a search field, to quickly access case history. Can someone well-versed in the case archival system please add that feature? — JFG talk 08:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles authorised discretionary sanctions for the e-cigs topic area, and [ [28]] at least includes a note about them (in the middle of a sea of notices, but that's a separate issue). However, unless I'm being blind, they aren't included in the list at WP:DSTOPICS. I'm guessing this is just a simple oversight (as Wikiblame suggests they've never been listed) but figured it was better to check before adding them (especially as I don't want to accidentally get anything out of sync). Thryduulf ( talk) 09:28, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
AGK ( talk · contribs) has added extra material at User:Arbitration Committee/Emailnotice (the talk page redirects here). This extra material is also being shown to editors requesting oversight, via Special:EmailUser/Oversight, and I think it's confusing to show it there. If someone with admin permissions agrees, could they replace the redirect User:Oversight/Emailnotice with a copy of the parts that are relevant to oversight? -- John of Reading ( talk) 06:09, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm looking forward to the Fram-ordered RFC on harassment, and wondering whether it's being held for a specific reason or whether it can go ahead? I have quite a lot I'd like to say about both organized and systemic harassment and how the community, admins, Committee, and Foundation tend to handle both. I hope that the scope is broad enough to cover Swarm's specific concerns about the harassment-related findings in that case and in general.
Furthermore, is merely a clerk-run RFC really appropriate for an issue of this magnitude? The Working Group established by the Palestine-Israel articles case seemed profoundly productive and effective to me, and I think it's a shame the working group approach never was tried again. I suggest that the general issue of harassment is wide-ranging enough to be more amenable to such an approach. EllenCT ( talk) 07:11, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
the ArbCom bother with acknowledgement letters/emails? Or, does the last iteration of OmbCom, seem attractive? ∯WBG converse 15:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Joe Roe has
asked me to refrain from posting to their talk page and from triggering event notifications in their name. I was attempting to dialogue with Joe Roe regarding their interpretation of WP:COI and their application of it in regards to a recent RfA and attendant discussions. Although Joe Roe never indicated they were speaking in an arbitration capacity, I do feel that they remain accountable to reasonable inquiry on their participation, as an arbitrator’s contributions to any discussion of policy is generally seen to carry more weight and given deference. Accordingly, if a community member feels that an arbitration committee member is misreading, or misapplying policy, they are permitted to inquire with that committee member to resolve any potential misunderstandings on either side (
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Conduct of arbitrators). If Joe Roe does not wish to engage with the community on their understanding and application of this topic, I respectfully submit that they should resign from the committee without delay. Failing that, I reserve the right to continue to hold Joe Roe accountable to the arbitrator conduct guidelines unless instructed to do otherwise by the entire committee or a community-imposed restriction.
I assume Joe Roe is watching this page, however if someone feels they should be notified please do so. –
xeno
talk
14:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
May I please have an update on the status of the clerk-led RFC to be held on harassment? I would like to reiterate my request that a working group may be more appropriate in this case, but I would be happy to express that view in an RFC as well. EllenCT ( talk) 22:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
As Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#aware.aware was amended in July, could a corresponding note be added to the section? Thanks. isaacl ( talk) 19:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Should WP:ARBCOM describe and link to the forthcoming elections? The Rambling Man ( Staying alive since 2005!) 19:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
1. The reason we have Discretionary Sanctions (DS) is to eliminate the second mover advantage in ordinary administrative sanctions.--topic bans, interaction bans, blocks. When DS were adopted, this 2nd mover advantage was being exploited by supporters of abusive admins, mostly abusive admins from the early years, who would overturn other admins sanctions against them and effectually paralyze enforcement.
2. Discretionary Sanctions changes this to first mover advantage. No other administrator can remove the sanction without clear consensus--this is called stickiness. This causes a different form of unfairness, by favoring the actions of whichever admins are prepared to enforce most aggressively. Making DS more sticky was essential--but we seem to have over-done it. We need to balance.
3. We could modify Discretionary Sanction slightly for balance by decreasing the stickiness. this could be done by:
BUT, do we need Discretionary Sanctions on individual editors at all?
AT LEAST, do we need individual placements of Discretionary Sanctions on editors , without going to AE; there were only 83 EA actions against individuals so far in 2019 listed at
WP:Arbitration enforcement log, most of which could clearly have beed be achieved by ordinary means without using AE.
KEEP IN MIND that the entire set of rules grew up gradually as Arb procedures. Therefore, adopting any of these changes needs to be either done by the Arbitration Committee, or by the very difficult process of changing Arbitration Policy.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG ( talk • contribs) 16:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 16:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
The reason we have Discretionary Sanctions (DS) is to eliminate the second mover advantage in ordinary administrative sanctions.--topic bans, interaction bans, blocks.: bans are not ordinary administrative sanctions. Ordinarily, they can only be imposed by the community or the Arbitration Committee. Discretionary sanctions, as I understand it, was invented as a way for the Arbitration Committee to delegate some of its authority to administrators for issuing bans, in specific areas it identifies as contentious. As Johnuniq mentioned, I believe this possibility for quick reactions to problematic editors can help dowse inflammatory discussion. isaacl ( talk) 06:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
When a consensus of uninvolved administrators is emerging in a discussion, administrators willing to overrule their colleagues should act with caution and must explain their reasons on request.As I said in January 2018 as part of an amendment request for arbitration case 2015-5, neither arbitration case 2015-10 nor 2015-15 made much progress on balancing the goal of discretionary sanctions—
to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment for even our most contentious articles—with the need to have safeguards against arbitrary enforcement decisions. I suggested having circuit-breaker rules to trigger the need for a consensus discussion before any sanctions could be applied, though I'm still uncertain what set of rules would be appropriate. isaacl ( talk) 05:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
I find this section somewhat unclear. For example:
[in] the last twelve months, the editor has participated in any process about the area of conflict at arbitration requests or arbitration enforcement. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
At Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals (a case almost certain to still be open in January) the question was asked about whether old or new arbitrators would be the ones voting. I replied explaining what the clear precedent is, but despite thinking this is documented somewhere I've been unable to find it. If it is documented somewhere, please could someone link to it here (and probably in the ArbCom procedures section). If it isn't it should probably be documented somewhere and linked in those places. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:54, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
An arbitrator whose term expires while a case is pending may remain active on that case until its conclusion. Newly appointed arbitrators may become active on any matter before the Committee with immediate effect from the date of their appointment.Note that this is the arrangement for cases, but does not apply to outstanding ARCAs or motions – outgoing arbs cease being active on those as soon as their term ends. – bradv 🍁 15:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Looking at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019#Vacant seats, approximately 40% of arbitrators elected in the past two elections have become inactive or left Arbcom before the end of their terms. A committee of eight active arbitrators is near the low end of what I feel comfortable with having. Given that arbitrators are volunteers and that the role is demanding, I understand why people would decide to leave, but are there changes that should be made to improve retention? As much as I wish there was consensus and a funding source for paying arbitrators and other people who are in demanding community roles, I am not currently aware of any willing funder, so what could be done instead? ↠Pine (✉) 08:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Not being active in DS fields as an admin, and almost never as an editor, I was interested by the line of this which indicates that Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction
. Sometimes short blocks can be handed out - if an editor happened to miss this, would it not be impossible for them to appeal it? Even a short block has lasting consequences well after the actual editing prevention has ended. This includes formal (e.g. prohibitions against applying for certain user rights) and informal. At least in the case of the former, would that count as the sanction still being active, and thus subject to appeal?
Nosebagbear (
talk)
15:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
This may sound superficial, but I am wondering if some modifications Arbcom pages' visual designs, improvements to ease of navigation, would help in any statistically significant way, both for the sake of arbitrators and the sake of the broader community. I think that Flow was supposed to help with some of this, and maybe upcoming changes to the mobile and desktop interfaces will also be designed to help with ease of navigation of lengthy discussions. (Pinging CKoerner (WMF) to request comment on this point; there may be multiple WMF projects that are relevant here.) I don't think that Arcbom or the community would want WMF to make changes specifically to the designs of Arbcom pages, but changes to ease of navigation for lengthy and/or multi-page discussions might result in improved efficiency and ease of use for many people who read or contribute to these types of discussions. ↠Pine (✉) 17:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
CKoerner (WMF) ( talk) 17:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Last year, many concerns were raised with problems in wording of statements by arbitrators and the arbitration committee as a whole. (One notable example was discussed at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 40 § Return of permissions to administrators notice, but there are numerous other instances.) I am hopeful that the committee has taken stock of these concerns and will continue to work on improving. I am troubled, though, at the use of "right away" in this statement. Under the best of circumstances, asking a volunteer to do something right away is somewhat confrontational. In this case, the person in question has already expressed distaste with such statements and the wording is unlikely to expedite matters. I believe it is preferable to use another wording that still indicates the urgency from the committee's point of view, while still acknowledging the community's volunteer aspect, such as "as soon as practical". I trust arbitrators will do their best to consider how the effect of their words will help produce the desired result, or hinder it from occurring. isaacl ( talk) 06:31, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I've been away for ten years. Isn't TTN banned from deletion stuff? Thanks. Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 07:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Is there a someone who is currently assigned to the role of coordinating arbitrator? My understanding is that the coordinating arbitrator is assigned to sorting incoming email, and I was looking for a way to contact that person. I have heard that the main Arbcom mailing list gets flooded with junk mail, so I want to make sure that an email thread that was sent to that mailing list was processed. Thank you. ↠Pine (✉) 01:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)