User talk:SlimVirgin/November 2015

5 Million: We celebrate your contribution



 * Thank you, Smallbones! SarahSV (talk) 23:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Belated apology
Hello SlimVirgin. Almost two years ago you graciously reviewed Westminster Assembly for me, and during the review I inexplicably disappeared. I had personal reasons for restricting myself from Wikipedia at that time, but I should have at least let you know I was taking a wikibreak. I'm not asking you to rereview it or anything, though you are free to if you'd like, but it's been bugging me since I started editing again so I thought I'd apologize. --JFH (talk) 21:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for letting me know, and I'm glad to see you're back. No need to apologize, though I do appreciate it. I was worried that I had upset you or that something had happened to you, so I'm very pleased to see that all is well. SarahSV (talk) 23:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

?
I would ask you over there but he's (rightfully) shut the talk page section down, but how on earth did you equate me asking why he jumped straight to a 4im warning to "jumping to conclusions"? Asking an admin (whose judgement I generally trust why he chose to jump all the way to 4im from linked diffs that showed nothing worse than how admins speak to each other day is hardly 'jumping to conclusions,' it's try to understand someone's viewpoint. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Kevin, perhaps the admin was aware of the history. But as I said, it's better left like that. SarahSV (talk) 21:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Neelix/deletions
Great idea to set up a subpage for Neelix deletion notifications. Could you set up an archive for that page too that would allow one click archiving of the resolved items? That would greatly facilitate everyone involved not wasting time looking at or scrolling past resolved issues. Legacypac (talk) 10:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Legacypac, I went to the page to set it up but see you've done it already. SarahSV (talk) 21:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Template
I've run out of time on this for now (real world and the WP:ANI taking my last effort). I am highly interested in that scenario. Regards Widefox ; talk 01:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom?
How about it? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you,, but I see a need for radical reform, and I don't think it can come from inside the committee. Jehochman has started a debate about reform, which I think we should continue because it will be a long process. I've posted some suggestions. SarahSV (talk) 00:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, that's certainly radical, and sensible. I'll watch with interest. I don't believe I have sufficient wisdom or experience to add value to that discussion, though. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Just in case my ping didn't work, I have requested your leadership on arbcom reform here. Viriditas (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, V. I haven't followed the case or the dispute, so I wouldn't have enough information to comment. I'd prefer to focus on reform in general. SarahSV (talk) 23:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.  The link I gave you shows a discussion involving multiple users from different areas (some opposed) of a recent arbcom case. Coincidentally, many of the concerns raised in this and other related discussions, nicely aligns with the proposed reforms you recently discussed on VP.  My purpose in linking you to this discussion was to show you that you have timely support for many of your proposed reforms.  Whether this is synchronicity or a symptom of the pressing need to reform doesn't matter, what's important is that there is momentum for your proposal right now, and many of these editors would be more than happy to help you get the ball rolling.  Thanks for your consideration. Viriditas (talk) 23:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I left that post on the pump after Jonathan's, hoping that people would chime in, but when I last looked not many had. I think there is strong support for reform, but everyone is hoping someone else will do it because of the time involved. What we need to do is set up a dedicated page to prepare for an RfC in which everything is on the cards, including abolition of the ArbCom in its present form. Something is causing it not to work. It's not the fault of any particular committee because it's been happening for years, so it's a structural thing, or series of things. SarahSV (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Here's what I suggest: someone (you, me, someone else) set up Requests for comment/Arbitration reform or similar. We post an introduction explaining that this is a preliminary RfC to find out what people see as the problem. Each person has their own section and proposes their reforms. Former Arbs are asked to take part because they know it from the inside. Current Arbs too if they're willing. The aim would be to take the key points from the page and use them to form a second RfC with concrete proposals. It's a process that would take several months. SarahSV (talk) 23:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I would like to see more women lead reform efforts. Perhaps Minor4th and other women will step in and take the lead. Viriditas (talk) 00:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * - I believe I saw somewhere where you mentioned that an Arb case can be declared a "mistrial" of sorts -- scrapped and reformed. I think this would be appropriate in the current GMO case and I would be willing to bring such a motion if you could help me with the procedural niceties and such.  Minor4th  21:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's ping Newyorkbrad, he knows much more than I do on this matter. I recall that in at least several instances, a case can be paused and restarted, or paused and closed without a final proposed decision, which is probably a pseudo-mistrial, but IANAL. Realistically, it should be possible to petition arbcom with the majority of involved parties signing, requesting a reexamination of the evidence and a reboot after a recess of sorts. Of course, I could be wrong. Viriditas (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked at the merits of the GMO case, so no comment on whether the proposed decision is substantively good or bad or indifferent. There have been cases closed without action, and there certainly have been plenty of cases in which the timetable has been extended for various reasons. And there have been cases in which Arbitrator A offered a set of proposals, and then Arbitrator B made additional or alternative proposals. I don't recall anything along the specific lines that Minor4th is suggesting, however. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks brad. Here are a couple thoughts or avenues of inquiry -- a motion for new trial could be brought on Arb pages and supported by a majority of "involved parties" (or not and stand on its own - I don't have a problem sponsoring such a motion; or it could be brought at AN or Village Pump or some other venue subject to community consensus. I don't know of any precedent for this, so I would assume that Arb could simply ignore it if they choose -- is there any way to get some teeth in this so it can't just be ignored by ArbCom?  Minor4th  21:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Brad, the reason I recommended this is because the proposed decision (and corresponding discussion) gives every indication that the majority of arbcom members on this case have not reviewed the evidence due to time constraints, and are merely voting en bloc or with their colleagues. Further, the multiple errors, from including Tryptofish's workshop efforts to removing JzG because he's uninvolved, demonstrate that the proposed decision is flawed and the case should be suspended in favor of discretionary sanctions alone. Is there a way to petition arbcom to drop the proposed decision in favor of DS? Viriditas (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thinking further about this, it would be more akin to a "Motion for New Trial" - although we don't really need to start over from the beginning, but it would be appropriate for Arb to relook at parties and exclude or include as necessary, and perhaps have a new and abbreviated evidence phase II wherein we specifically provide diffs on the actual parties and for specific behaviors: edit warring, battleground and incivility since those are what Arb seems to care about.  I would have liked for them to have taken a legitimate look at ownership issues, but they didn't and I don't know how to make them do that.  <b style="color:#000;font-size:100%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 22:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I support your ideas for a re-start.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   06:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The only way any major changes will come about, will be from within Arbcom. Come on SV, run for Arbcom. I would myself, if it weren't for the confidentialty requirements. GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Sarah, from what I'm seeing, the Arbs need to be protected from the possibility of any sort of bullying, outing, harassment or pressure from the outside. Otherwise there is little reason to have faith that it can function as intended. They're more like targets, and are asked to do a tremendous amount of boring work, for which they receive no thanks. I think these positions should not be culled from the volunteer pool. It's simply too much to ask, especially given what they endure - burnout happens fast. This breeds the dysfunction we see today, I would imagine.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   06:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * , are you suggesting we employ professional arbiters? That would complicate things, given that the Foundation would be expected to pay for it. I see almost no chance of that happening. But they could certainly pay for training. SarahSV (talk) 01:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I am suggesting that, and it stems from earlier conversations we've had pertaining to the BP issue. During those conversations here, we discussed a possible remedy for the effects of industry editing, given that it was being allowed, and that editors had no reasonable course of action when encountering articles with industry-slanted POV. The conversation turned to discussions about the imbalance, industry seemed to have a lot of help here, between OTRS, CREWE, and the PAGs, whilst editors who operate independently are expected to spend months and even years ascending from one noticeboard to the next, eventually landing at ArbCom, perhaps, where they are then expected to play lawyer.


 * We talked about going to the WMF with a proposal, if I remember correctly (maybe, , or can correct me if needed, they were part of those discussions), to pay for a team. Actually, search the term "independent body" on this page, and you'll see where I am getting the seed for this idea.    petrarchan47  คุ  ก   03:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * , the "independent body" idea was a different thing, to do with paid editing. But I agree: industry does seem to get help where volunteers get none. It's something that could be raised with the OTRS admins. But the problem with all these things – even just making suggestions, never mind pursuing them – is that they're so time-consuming. SarahSV (talk) 03:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Another part of that conversation, which regrettably never resulted in anything, is this:
 * when I said only paid editors can combat the PR pros, I was referring to editors who went through the process you described: elected and paid specifically to help COI needs whilst maintaining a balanced article. Do we have a word for the overall issue at hand that includes PR, paid editors, ghostwriting, CREWE, etc? It would help if we clearly established what exactly we're addressing and to give it a name. - Petra
 * I realize this was not related to ArbCom, but this is where I get the idea that it is possible to pay editors, if what we're asking of them goes so far above and beyond what should be expected from a volunteer, especially when it almost guarantees a more neutral result. In the case of ArbCom, I think the need for this type of support is far greater. We don't have independent editors (barring ones who've recently been outed) being targeted in the way that Arbs are being, and that targeting (harassment, etc.) has a direct effect on the results of their efforts. Since they are the Supreme Court, the need for reform there surpasses all else on WP, in my view.


 * I agree, it is frustrating that these discussion almost never have any resolution, it's why I don't participate in them much. But for me, this suggestion is the culmination of a lot of time and some grueling experience, so I hope you'll forgive this intrusion. I was hoping that someone could simply carry this suggestion forth to the discussion you are talking about ("Each person has their own section and proposes their reforms"), in case I am not around to do it myself. Thanks,   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   03:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that sounded unnecessarily dramatic; I asked that my suggestion/comments here be carried forth to a more serious discussion (should one ensue) "in case I'm not around", because I'm not sure about my commitment here. Ignore that request. It sounds silly upon reflection.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   03:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Please excuse the intrusion, but I've noticed over the years that Petrarchan47 has come up with an enormous number of good ideas that never get acted upon. I'm wondering if a specific village pump page would be better for her proposals or if the gender gap project could help her structure her proposals so that they are more amenable to acceptance. I think it's a real shame that her ideas are just being ignored. I suspect the WMF could also benefit from her insight in many different ways. Viriditas (talk) 07:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * , the Foundation's IdeaLab is a good place to start if a grant is needed: meta:Grants:IdeaLab. Or Village pump (idea lab) if it's a local volunteer thing. SarahSV (talk) 16:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

, just saw your ping. Afraid I don't recall the paid-board discussion that you're referring to. I'm not sure it's really necessary, actually. However, the GMO arbitration was such a mess, beginning to end, that I would concur that reform is required. The problems as I see it were: 1) Addition of parties on a whim (Jusdafax) and non-addition of necessary parties (JzG), wasting the time of Jusdafax and potentially violating JzG's due-process rights, as then sanctions were proposed though he wasn't a party. 2) A "split the baby" approach in the findings, with many not supported by the diffs (Petra and Wuerzele) 3) A slap-the-wrist approach to one party who deserved to be (and at the moment apparently is) blocked indefinitely 4) Slamming people for minor civility breaches during the proceedings, and using their generally inoffensive comments as diffs in support of sanctions and 5) As pointed out by others, just a generally slipshod and lazy approach to the whole thing. I'm sure I've left stuff out. Sure they're volunteers, but were any of them forced to become arbs? Coretheapple (talk) 15:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see my comments to you about this here.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   23:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * , if I were on ArbCom and unfamiliar with the dispute, I would find the evidence page difficult to make use of. I think that's often the case, especially since the word limits were introduced. Teaching people how to present evidence would help, as would extending those limits. It's hard to write succinctly. SarahSV (talk) 16:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * But you know, I don't have too much sympathy for that argument. In real-world legal cases people do go on and on and on.... it's a fact of life. People join that committee knowing they'll have to read a lot, that Wiki users are not trained barristers, that when there is an arbcom case people are scared and overwrought. Arbs can't join the committee and then say "I don't want to wade through all that." If they don't want to wade through stuff, if they don't want to deal with emotional, long-winded and inarticulate parties, don't become an arbitrator. Coretheapple (talk) 16:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , IRL lawyers are compensated for that. Arbs can't join the committee and then say "I don't want to wade through all that." If they don't want to wade through stuff, if they don't want to deal with emotional, long-winded and inarticulate parties, don't become an arbitrator - As you're probably aware, they're having a hard time finding people willing to run for ArbCom right now. The few entries I've viewed at the nominee's questioning can be summed up as "So, you're aware being an Arb is much like going through a meat grinder, yes? And it's likely you'll be outed and the target of harassment, yes? Can you handle that?" Well, for heaven's sake, no one should even have to consider this. It's untenable at the outset. They need protection, they need support, and they need us to realize that asking people to play lawyer for absolutely no discernible payoff is ludicrous. It is also ludicrous to continue to blame the individuals. It was never set up to function properly in the first place.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   23:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC) Again, apologies for my riude placement of this comment, i'm not sure where to put it without 'butting in' but still keeping context intact. Oy vey.    petrarchan47  คุ  ก   01:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the committee made it harder for itself a few years ago when it introduced those word limits. Evidence used to consist of narratives – long-winded and annoying, but they were stories a person could follow. Now it's all hints and links: "Comparison of X and Y": diff diff diff.


 * The case was doomed from the start because of the structure. It needed to be about people (and one person in particular), rather than GMO. The problems went beyond GMO, and limiting it to the very bad behaviour, no matter where it occurred, would have made it more manageable and less unfair. SarahSV (talk) 16:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC), SarahSV (talk) 16:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes you're absolutely right, it did boil down to that, but from the git-go, before they even heard any evidence, they decided on the thrust of the case. They wanted to be "even-handed" and by doing so they risked lousing up the GMO articles. That is still possible. Coretheapple (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes Core, I think that you are right about the "even-handed" part. It happened to me when I believe that I was used as the one to show how even-handed an arbcom decision was.  Someone, and bless his sweet dear heart, made a bold move to remove the word "death" from the first sentence of the Abortion article.  This is a very important thing for the people that want to see women's choice done away with because it implies person hood to an unborn fetus.  The discussion lasted many weeks with page after page of discussion and was finally brought to arbcom.  Of course I got the notice, but I had no idea what arbcome even was back then except that it had nothing to do with me and I didn't pay any attention to it.  When their decision came out they banned several editors and warned several others, including me, though I was just one vote away from being banned as well.  The reason that almost half of them wanted to ban me?  I'd been sarcastic three times.  I'm not making this up - that was it.  No history of trouble making, etc., not even a 3RR, not anything.  I was the only pro choice editor that was admonished and I can only guess that they used me, a newbie to the article, to show how fair they were.  I was absolutely stunned to get the notice, I was certain that it was a mistake of some sort.  A lot of my work here has to do with women's issues and I was really, really hurt to my core that I would be treated like that.  After the hurt passed I was very angry about it, as I still am today, that not one person came to me to explain that I should be aware that my behavior was being discussed.  Lucky for Wikipedia I went on to help with many women-related articles.  Sorry to go on at such length about my own experience...  Gandydancer (talk) 19:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, that sounds perfectly plausible based on what I've seen in this latest maelstrom. In Petra's case, her diffs were largely from the case pages, not the articles. It's just senseless. In JzG's case, and I know people are upset by his conduct: look, he wasn't made a party. If someone's not a party, it just isn't right to consider sanctions. PS We miss you on Talk:Wikipediocracy! There's an RfC there, you know. Coretheapple (talk) 20:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * But Core, isn't the problem that several parties were requesting that JzG should also be included as a party and there was complete silence from ArbCom. Had we been given reasons why he was not to be included, then perhaps there would be no argument.  Ok, he might not have misused his admin tools, but his behaviour on talk pages and elsewhere has been uncivil and extremely disruptive.  He has a case to answer but it appears he was/is protected. DrChrissy (talk) 23:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point. Coretheapple (talk) 02:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's very true it appears he is being protected, which is beyond shameful, considering. However, the failure to include him officially was being described recently as a 'procedural error'. I will keep looking for that diff, but it was from an Arb...   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   00:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Totally agree with Dr. Chrissy and Petra. Gandydancer (talk) 00:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Gandydancer, my user name is DrChrissy. The way you write it as Dr. Chrissy indicates that I have a Ph.D. or other doctorate.  I may, I may not.  Let's keep the buggers guessing!  hee hee DrChrissy (talk) 00:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Your Holiness, the venerable DRChrissy, here is the promised diff.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   00:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I've been trying to find when this rigid distinction between a party and non-party emerged. Until relatively recently, it made no difference whether you were named as a party before the case began. If someone presented evidence against you, and the committee wanted to act on it, they did. The first time I saw someone say that certain evidence couldn't be produced because it involved a non-party was, I believe during the Lightbreather case. There's nothing about it in Arbitration/Policy. SarahSV (talk) 00:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That's exactly right - on big cases, they didn't even name involved parties; whoever participated was involved in the case and whoever else had evidence provided against them could be sanctioned as long as they were notified.  It's silly the way they are so legalistic about this particular "due process" aspect but the underlying concept of fundamental fairness is completely lost because the arbs aren't really taking the time to read and meaningfully understand the case.  Don't know if that is because Arbs are overburdened or because of burnout or apathy or ....what?  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:100%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 01:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure about your use of "or" - these all seem related: overburdened / burnout / apathy. Minor, what would make a person believe that this wouldn't be an inevitable result of doing for free, with no protection from egregious and relentless harassment, something for which IRL people earn hefty sums?   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   02:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * There's nothing in Arbitration/Guide to arbitration that says evidence may be presented only against parties.


 * Deciding in advance who is a party, and that evidence against non-parties won't be admitted, often serves to decide the case in advance. When I read that only Lightbreather would be the party in her case, I knew she was going to be banned. There was no point in posting evidence showing that she had been harassed; and indeed her efforts to defend herself from harassment were presented as evidence against her. On the other hand, Giano was added as a party after evidence against him was presented, which contradicted the committee's own (new) rule. So there is no consistency. Has that inconsistency been explained anywhere? SarahSV (talk) 02:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Wasn't aware of any of this. Very informative conversation here. They shouldn't call it "arbitration" if it is going to be so anarchic, arbitrary and utterly capricious. How about calling it "pillow fight"? Coretheapple (talk) 02:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It does seem capricious, yet accompanied by a sprawling, quasi-legalistic structure. It makes me think of someone trying to squeeze into clothes that are too small for them; things keep bursting out and having to be squished in again. But it has been like this for a long time, so it's not the fault of this committee, though the "no evidence against non-parties" thing might be. SarahSV (talk) 02:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Have you all seen this WikiConference USA talk, where harassment on WP is discussed? In a way similar to what I have been suggesting above, at 137:00 "insulating" the decision makers is being recommended.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   05:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, the guide to arbitration is horribly out of date and we're trying to update it, so that it reflects current practice. We should have gotten to that sooner, but I guess we didn't even know how out of date it was, until there were problems with editors following it, during the GMO case. Concerning the issue of parties/non-parties, I don't know when the distinction started being relevant, but, from what I recall, for as long as I have been on ArbCom. I consider it basic fairness: listing someone as a party tells an editor that his conduct may be scrutinised, which in turn means that he may have to keep an eye on the various case pages, if he so chooses, to be able to provide countervidence and rebuttals. To prevent unfair outcomes, it's possible to ask for the addition of new parties before and during a case (there is disagreement as to the moment until which it is possible to ask for the addition of new parties, but it's not relevant here) and, clearly, the standard for the addition is different. In Giano's case, he was added because evidence was provided; in JzG's case, as I said, evidence was provided and he should have been made a party. That he wasn't was a mistake, but one which would make it unfair to "ambush" him now with an unexpected FOF. As I said, though, there is a solution: once the case closes, file an amendment request at ARCA. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the reply, . I hope the party/non-party issue will be sorted out very soon, because it's leading to unfairness.


 * In 's case, I remember you saying (words to the effect) that she would be the only party, but that others could be added if there was evidence. But to provide that evidence would have involved a tremendous amount of work. She had been harassed by several people, and you had to know where to find it because the key to it was the volume, rather than individual diffs. And some of the material had been removed, so you had to remember where to look. The prospect of collecting all that, then being told it couldn't be used because it was about non-parties, meant that no one even started the research, so LB was left to struggle alone and almost had a breakdown in the process. No one from the committee stepped in to stop that, even though her distress was obvious.


 * It meant that the case itself became the latest example of the harassment, which is a problem faced by those involved in real-life dispute-resolution processes too: for example, when someone accused of a violent crime decides to represent himself and question his victim. So this issue of deciding who the parties are, then finding ways to control their input so that whatever they've been doing isn't simply repeated via the case pages, seems to me to be a major issue. SarahSV (talk) 21:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * How would you change the party/non-party issue, though? If we said that arbcom may sanction anyone against whom evidence has been presented during a case, that too could be used to harass editors: there's an editor you dislike, then you just have to add evidence against him. Not even that much, just enough to force him to keep an eye on the case pages, because he knows that, if he doesn't, he may find himself sanctioned when the PD is posted. I am genuinely interested in discussing ways to make arbcom cases better for everyone involved, but in this regard I don't know how this rule could be changed without making it unfair. I also understand that one may not want to waste a lot of time to collect evidence concerning another editor, only to be told that arbcom doesn't intend to add the other person as a party. The response, here, is probably that the standard for the addition of parties should be low, but, again, that too could be misused... Finding the right balance in these things is very difficult, especially when you have people with different perspectives and life experiences. There's also another problem, when it comes to wikihounding, in that a certain measure of unwanted contact is permissible under the rules as they are now. For instance, there is a serial block evader with whom I, as a cu, am familiar; his socks are usually reported to me and I'm usually the one blocking them. I am pretty certain, though he's never said it to me explicitly, that he wishes I'd stop interacting with him, but that is not harassment under our rules. The same thing happens when an editor is a POV-pusher: there may be other editors following him around to make sure his edits do not violate wp:npov. Is that harassment? I believe there needs to be a community-wide discussion about harassment, to come up with standards that can be applied by the community and by arbcom; a discussion that should be supervised, if possible, by real-life experts, to prevent it from becoming an ungodly mess. And now I've started rambling, I'm sorry. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio, when there's a case request, everybody should state whether or not a case is needed, who the parties should be, and what the issues are. Then the committee decides whether to accept, and what the scope of the case should be, including the parties and the issues.  That decisions should stick.  If there's a need to expand the scope due to surprising new evidence, then a request can be made, but that request to add parties or issues should be presented to the whole committee and voted in public.  This shouldn't happen often, and it shouldn't be done strategically just to annoy somebody or settle a score or bypass community dispute resolution.  Jehochman Talk 14:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that makes sense. Otherwise it's just too much of a mess. Coretheapple (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * So, let's say a case on subject X has been accepted and initial parties are editors A,B,C and D. Let's say I'm the drafter and I discover that during the course of enquiries editors E and F have been engaging in problematic conduct (possibly worse than the intiial listed parties) to the point where I feel sanctions are needed - if I propose a Finding of Fact, the committee by voting yea or nay is essentially voting on that anyway. Who else are you saying should authorise it? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I agree with Jehochman, if I understand what they are suggesting. Currently, most arb-cases have some commentary by the arbs that bangAccept, but nothing specific about the parties, which is decided on an ad hoc basis later.  I'd rather see the arbs commit to writing ("Accept with parties A,B,C,D" for one arb's bangAccept whereas another arb might say "Accept with parties A,B,C,D,E,F" but get over-ruled by consensus amongst the other sitting arbs).  The answer to the question, as phrased:  if you see problematic conduct, you are an admin, block them or sanction them using your admin-bit.  Why add them to the extant case, which was already started without them being named parties?  If you want them sanctioned *more* than an individual admin can do on their own, such as you want them desysop'd, then file a second arb-case specifically about E & F.  But don't use your position as drafting arb, to pull them into a case that happens to be sitting on the drafting-table, even (perhaps especially) if their actions pertain to the rememdies which ought to be enacted *in* that currently open extant arb-case.  For the sake of IAR, feel free to use common sense when drafting the remedies, if they can be generalized, but for the sake of the perceived fairness and equitability of arbcom, don't bring people in later than the accept-phase, and don't remove parties based on off-wiki votes.
 * p.s. My thinking on this crystallized with the recent GMO and AE2 cases; these involved a party who was explicitly excluded during the acceptance-phase and then later added back in, parties who were selectively included/excluded during the acceptance-phase after both being given amnesty in a prior case, and a party who was added late in the case based on the introduction of evidence that was early on explicitly disallowed by the arbs from being used.  But although these sequences of events, are what led me to strongly dislike the way that party and non-party status is handled, I do NOT actually think the sitting arbs are doing anything particularly badly... the selection of parties and non-parties has pretty much *always* been done on an ad hoc basis.  I think the rationale for that, is that since historically arbs tend to also be admins, they don't NEED to add parties to a case to sanction them:  they can just banhammer them unilaterally, with the block button, right?  And in 2005, and maybe even 2010, that rationale actually kinda made sense.  But in 2015, getting sanctioned by an individual admin, acting in their individual admin capacity, is very different from getting an arbcom sanction.   So rather than act like adding/removing parties is no big deal in 2015 (it is), or that adding/removing parties is not going to be perceived as inherently unfair (it is gonna be perceived thataway by at least some folks), it is far better to get the parties and non-parties straightened out *during* the acceptance-phase, and then permit evidence to cover any parties (for context), but remedies may only target named parties.  If additional sanctions are needed, for parties not named, such things can be enacted by admins in their admin-role (whether that admin happens to also be an arb or not is mostly immaterial), or in the worst case, be addressed by filing a subsequent arb-case (with recusal as needed).  That way, there is no  much less room for the parties, the non-parties, the bystandars, and the arbs themselves to fear non-impartiality.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

YGM

 * Hi, just to let you know that nothing arrived. I've checked my spam folder too. SarahSV (talk) 01:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's probably because of my email server (I've encountered this issue before and Wikipedia's email service has been conflicting with my email server lately for some reason. If you try me first instead, I can reply with the attached papers.) TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Done, thank you, and sorry for the bother. SarahSV (talk) 01:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Request
Could you look at this edit here: in regards to RO? I have asked Lynn nicely to retract part of the statement. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * KK, the best thing would be for you to stop commenting, because all it does is prolong things. SarahSV (talk) 03:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)