Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 18

ArbCom statement
On the Signpost editorial's talk page, I commented on the impropriety (in my view) of punishing a Wikipedia editor for making off-wiki inquiries into the identity of a Wikipedia editor engaged in off-wiki sexual harassment of her (section link: Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-10-21/Editorial).

said in reply, I feel an official statement from arbcom is better than individual replies, given the seriousness of your allegation. I have started the process of getting this but it will obviously take a bit of time.

Will such a statement be forthcoming? Andreas JN 466 12:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I know you are busy but ... will there be a statement forthcoming on whether there will be a statement forthcoming ...? Andreas JN 466 01:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Anyone? Pinging               --Andreas  JN 466 02:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm supposed to be on vacation, but given how I disagreed with both the fof and remedy under consideration, I'm not sure a statement could be forthcoming that both the majority and myself would agree to. Courcelles (talk) 16:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Non-administrator Arbitrators RfC
An RfC has been opened to discuss if non-administrators appointed to the arbitration committee should be granted the administrator right. All editors are encouraged to provide their input. Mike V • Talk 21:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

My next year and ArbCom
Since my first year is coming to a close with the Arbitration Committee, I would like to take the time with the community to go over how I as an individual Arbitrator can improve to serve the community better. If you would like to opine or drop a comment, I'd be happy to hear from you at my talkpage. Thank you, -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 09:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Motion: Removal of Unused Sanctions (November 2015)

 * Original discussion



Every so often, it becomes reasonable to terminate sanctions that are no longer necessary,
 * 1) Remedy 1 of the Lapsed Pacifist 2 case is rescinded;
 * 2) Remedy 2 of the Mantanmoreland case is rescinded;
 * 3) Remedy 1 of the Waterboarding case is rescinded;
 * 4) Remedy 1 of the Vivaldi case is rescinded;
 * 5) Nothing in this motion provides grounds for appeal of remedies or restrictions imposed while article probations for the foregoing cases were in force. Such appeals or requests to lift or modify such sanctions may be made under the same terms as any other appeal;
 * 6) In the event that disruptive editing resumes in any of these topic-areas, a request to consider reinstating discretionary sanctions in that topic-area may be made on the clarifications and amendments page.
 * Enacted - --L235 (alt / t / c / ping in reply ) 20:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) -- Guerillero  &#124;  Parlez Moi  23:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yunshui 雲 水 11:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)   This arbitrator has resigned. L235 (t / c /  ping in reply ) 22:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Per Yunshi's comment below, I think the small risk that this will flare up without the threat of sanctions is small enough and easily countered enough (cf our recent motion regarding Longevity) that we can take it. Thryduulf (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) AGK  [•] 23:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Support recision except for Mantanmoreland. It's very old, but let's do nothing to encourage its return. Editor misconduct in the other three areas can be more easily responded to via usual dispute resolution mechanisms. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC).  Amended in the spirit of compromise. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Support since point 6 makes it possible to restore sanctions without having to go through a full case. Doug Weller (talk) 13:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 5)  DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) As the committee retains jurisdiction, these can always be reinstated by motion if the need arises.   Roger Davies  talk 06:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) I'm not sure I see a huge benefit to removing these particular remedies, but I do agree with removing unused sanctions (with the understanding that they can be reinstated at ARCA). GorillaWarfare (talk) 13:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Enough of these have the potential to flare up that I think this is a bad idea. Courcelles (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 2)  Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Abstain
 * 1) L Faraone  17:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Want to expedite things but havne't adequately reviewed to satisfaction. NativeForeigner Talk 03:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Recuse

Discussion by arbitrators (removal of unused sanctions)

 * Proposed -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  23:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm going to wait for any community comments before opining here. Thryduulf (talk) 23:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * These are all pretty old, and a review of the relevant article histories suggests that they may no longer be needed; however I'm mindful of the fact that the sanctions may be the reason that the articles have been so quiet recently. I'm leaning towards supporting this motion, but like Thryduulf would be happier to wait until a few more opinions are in. Yunshui 雲 水 08:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sod it, I think the benefits outweigh the risks. The option of reinstatement by request at ARCA does, as Harry points out, make this a reasonably safe gamble. Yunshui 雲 水 11:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Community comments (removal of unused sanctions)

 * Noting ' objection, but I would have thought that point 6 (allowing the sanctions to be reinstated by request at ARCA if necessary) covers everyone in the event that disruption returns. Some topic areas won't quieten down until real-world events do (the obvious example being Israel-Palestine), but we shouldn't keep discretionary sanctions lingering around where they're no longer necessary or useful. The alerts and warning notices that editors see whenever they edit an affected article potentially deter valuable contributions and give an impression of a dispute that is no longer there. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  13:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Given the state of the US and its jaunts into the middle-east (as well as its treatment of Muslims at home) object to the waterboarding being lifted (no comment on the others). 'Closely related pages' effectively means anything involving state-sanctioned torture. Totally cant see how THAT might flare up... Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * But the last sanction imposed pursuant to a remedy in that case was nearly five years ago (by strange coincidence, I was the admin imposing it), and the sanctions can always be re-imposed if necessary. Besides, most subjects to do with waterboarding as it relates to the United States' foreign policy would probably be covered by the discretionary sanctions on American politics. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well I would generally follow the school of thought that states 'Its calm because of the sanctions'. However you are right American Politics would (probably, someone will argue otherwise no doubt) cover any US based torture problems. Sadly the US does not have a monopoly in torture. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I hate to keep bringing up essentially the same thing every time, but once again we have a problem (a minor one this time, but entirely avoidable) this time caused by someone referring to the "last" item on a list that is still having items added and removed. This small issue and a number of large issues to come can be avoided by the simple idea of designing procedures and sticking to them instead of winging it every time. To be specific, in this particular situation, anyone commenting on a list item should refer to "item number 6" instead of "the last item. Anyone removing an item should replace it with "6. (removed) instead of deleting it and letting a new item take the #6 slot. Please Arbom, there are members of the community who are experts at designing these sorts of procedures. Let us help. We won't step on your authority and you will get to approve all procedures. Whether because of lack of skills, lack of time, or lack of interest, you really suck at this. Just give the word and I will start recruiting experts and drafting procedures (on-wiki, so you can comment and veto at any point in the process). --Guy Macon (talk)
 * Re "easily corrected"; it was corrected while I composed the above. My point about procedures still stands though. If anyone wants to dispute this, I can document previous problems that weren't so easy to fix. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? You are the first person to edit this page in over two days -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  03:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oops. When I went back to look at the page I looked at "Motion: Removal of Unused Sanctions" (which doesn't have the problem) instead of "Motion: Overlap of Sanctions" (which does have the problem -- in the oppose section) and assumed it had been fixed. Sorry for the error. Does anyone wish to comment on my offer? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I didn't think so. See you next time the lack of procedures causes a problem, and I hope it is a minor problem like this one. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Even after your post above, I still do not understand what your comment relates to. Thryduulf (talk) 12:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the merits of the numbering in this motion, you'd like us to comment on your view that Arbcoms (now and in the past) kind of suck at concise and accurate wording. You're completely correct. At risk of sounding like the tedious bureaucrat that I actually am, there is a reason for administrative writing and this is it - for precision, and to avoid doubt when the material is read later by people other than those who drafted it. Whenever there is a badly worded motion, please feel free to offer suggested changes. If they're good, the Committee should adopt them (or explain why not). -- Euryalus (talk) 07:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Can you clarify if Yunshui explicitly removed his support for this motion? He was active at the time of his vote and comments. I don't see why his retirement would affect his position on the matter. Mike V • Talk 23:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I was not told if Yunshui explicitly removed his support. However, I was explicitly directed to strike his votes on all matters and recalculate majorities by an arbitrator on clerks-l. Thanks, L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 23:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * L235@undefined Liz@undefined Isn't this a motion that has passed now (6 is a majority and 7/8 have voted support)?  Would be nice to see some more sanction-cruft removed.    All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC).


 * The majority is 7 (I just corrected it), and the conditions set by Euryalus haven't been met so their support isn't counted. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ive amended my vote in the spirit of compromise, and to get this resolution moving along. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Informal poll
Comments are welcome at User talk:Tryptofish. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

History of the sanctions system
I've started writing a history of the sanctions system, which I think some people here might be interested in. It is much easier to understand the system if one takes a look at its history. RGloucester — ☎ 14:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * +1! The real detail-devils are in the original implementation of the WP:AC/DS page, the 2013 revision, and the seemingly less community-involving 2014 revision. It's quite a lot of material to diff (in broader, off-WP sense) and analyze. PS: Given that essentially invented DS, I would hope to see that editor's input regarding the ways in which its been working vs. failing.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I asked for his opinion. However, he did not respond to my request. Whilst the present system may leave something to be desired, I do give Kirill credit for thinking up and implementing such a regime. That's more problem solving than we ever see in ArbCom today, regardless of whether it has worked out in practice.  RGloucester  — ☎ 17:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

AC/DS "alerts" system is broken, and how to fix it
The fact that WP:AC/DS requires a silly notice-delivery bureaucracy is a serious WP:GAMING problem. It should instead be scrapped, with the assumption that anyone who participates with X number of posts or over Y amount of time at a page with a DS banner on its talk page is considered "aware" of the DS that apply to that topic area. Unless and until that happens, involved editors are often able to escape sanctions on a technicality. I recently had that happen in a failed dispute resolution; the other side was "immune" to DS, despite being in the top-5 editors in the topic in question, because their last formal DS notice had been more than 1 year ago. Yet there is absolutely no question that the editor was well aware of the DS, having discussed them openly before. A sanctions system that anyone can loophole their way out of simply by being civil enough to not trigger someone into delivering an alert to them on time is a pointless system, tailor made for system-gaming. At bare minimum, any of the following should constitute "awareness" of, and thus jurisdiction under, the DS for any given topic, based on simple WP:COMMONSENSE: If we're going to bother keeping the Ds/alert template, we should also have a bot that identifies all posters who qualify under X posts and/or Y time span of participation (the criteria that can be machine-calculated), and auto-delivers them the Ds/alert for the topic in question, and re-delivers it a year later if they're still participating within any of the thresholds. Zero editors who are in reality well aware of the DS should be able to escape those DS on the "I wasn't alerted exactly so" technicality. Otherwise, this alert bureaucracy is ideal for exploitation by long-game "civil-PoV", "slow-editwar" pushers, to lure good-faith editors into disputes in which they'll be punished one-sidedly while the pusher uses the loophole to evade any repercussions and just "win" through a war of attrition. – We assume anyone who has edited more than trivially at a page the talk page of which has a DS banner, or anyone ever told of or discussing DS relating to that topic, is aware of the DS, and doesn't magically become "dis-aware" of them on day 366. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted more than 5 times over 3 months (but not all in the same day) to a talk page with a DS banner.
 * Edited non-trivially more than 5 times over 3 months (but not all in the same day) at a page subject to DS the talk page of which bears a DS banner. (Bot, AWB, and typo/gnome edits don't count.)
 * Edited non-trivially more than 10 times over 6 months (but not all in the same day) at such a page.
 * Mentioned, discussed, or reminded someone of the DS pertaining to that topic within the last year.
 * Informally reminded of those DS within the last year, by more than one editor (on own talk page, or on another page in a thread they later posted to again, indicating having read the preceding posts).
 * Informally reminded of those DS within the last year, by any administrator, arbitrator, or mediator (acting as such).
 * Ever added to a page the DS banner relating to that topic (editor is aware in perpetuity).
 * Altered or attempted to remove such a banner (editor is aware for one year).
 * Was a party in the RfArb case that lead to those DS, or any ARCA that sought to clarify/modify them (editor is aware in perpetuity).
 * Ever was sanctioned with DS pertaining to that topic (editor is aware in perpetuity).
 * Ever sought, imposed, or warned/threatened sanctioning of another with DS pertaining to that topic (editor is aware in perpetuity).
 * A current long-term regular editor of any page the talk page of which has a DS banner – one year or longer, contiguous, with more than 20 edits to the page or its talk page in the last two years, at least some within the last year.
 * Received or delivered a formal AD/DS alert for that topic within the last year, following the instructions at Template:Ds/alert (if the template is retained at all).
 * Aware of the DS pertaining to the topic generally, per any of the above, and editing a page clearly within the scope, narrowly defined, which does not yet have a DS banner, such as a recently split-off new article.
 * Otherwise demonstrating awareness, or any pattern of editing that would be expected to ensure awareness. Especially includes wikilawyering at the page then feigning lack of awareness of the DS.


 * I'm not sure about your suggestions, but I don't like the 'past year' qualification. And "Ever added to a page the DS banner relating to that topic (editor is aware in perpetuity)" makes a lot of sense. Need to think about the rest. Doug Weller (talk) 16:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "past year"; I did not use that exact text string anywhere. The present Template:Ds/alert expires after one year, so I've tied some of the suggestions above to a one year span, out of verisimilitude, though personally I think anyone made aware of sanctions in an area, ever, should just be considered aware of them, period. I put time limits on some of the suggestions because the extant template has them, and there was presumably a discussion in favor of such time limits that I wasn't party to, that's all. Also, the list is not meant to be absolute or 100% exhaustive; the important part is "get rid of the expired-alert loophole.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:05, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest waiting until arbcom 2016 is seated to review AC/DS. NE Ent 16:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Why? This is a problem now (and for some time), and is not a problem tied to personalities on the current committee, but is simply a process logic problem.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:05, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * While I am certain that you've presented concerns about potential gaming in good faith, are there any actual examples of this occurring in a real and substantive way? And is a loosening of the notification requirements actually the best way to go about dealing with it?  A few thoughts&mdash;
 * In areas that I edit which happen to be covered by DS (fringe science and biomedical topics), the 'regular' editors tend to be fairly proactive about providing formal DS notifications to new (or 'new') editors and accounts who seem to be headed off the rails.
 * If an editor's conduct is problematic enough to warrant the imposition of a block (or other restriction) under DS, it is certainly possible to bring that conduct to another noticeboard to ask for the same remedy. If Alice and Bob were edit warring, I could block both of them even if only Alice had been notified of DS.  I could choose to protect the article and make sure that both editors were on the same 'notification' status going forward.  The DS framework imposes specific requirements for undoing or reversing certain administrative actions; it doesn't prevent admins from taking ordinary admin actions completely independently of whatever DS may apply to a given topic.
 * Similarly, I strongly suspect that the admins at the DS noticeboard would raise their eyebrows awfully high if an experienced editor tried to pull the "ha ha my notification is 12 months plus two weeks old, so I'm not notified" card, or play some other sort of silly buggers.
 * If an editor is engaging in behavior pre-notification (or post-notification-expiry) that would lead to sanctions under DS, then notify and warn them. ("By the way, these articles are under discretionary sanctions.  If you pull any more nonsense then the following things will happen....")  Either they shape up, or they get topic banned the following week: win-win.
 * Finally, I'm reluctant to expand the "presumed-to-be-notified" criteria, or to pull back the "notification expiry" criteria. Yes, we might whack a few more editors with sanctions, but I can see good-faith editors genuinely being unaware of banners.  There are a number of talk pages where I pretty much always jump to the active discussion (at the bottom of the page) using the direct link from my watchlist; I could go years without looking at the top of the page.  And if I did happen to catch a peek of the top of the page, I'd probably not notice the DS banner anyway, since it's lost in a sea of other notices and banners.  (Talk:Cold fusion has at least 11 yellow boxes, some of which have sub-boxes; Talk:Homeopathy has at least a dozen, amounting to more than a screenful of text.)  And I'm a heck of a lot more attuned to the bureacratic side of Wikipedia than most folks.  Regular, non-policy-wonk editors – the ones who don't read pages like this one – aren't going to know or care about ArbCom sanctions unless those sanctions are specifically drawn to their attention. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * A case could be made for a mass removal of tags from many articles on the grounds of overloading the user and interfering with important notices. Also, WP:CREEP comes to mind as a similar phenomenon.


 * Does every reader of Talk:Cold fusion really need to know it was merged into, mentioned in an On this day, the subject of mediation (6 years ago) or a former featured article (11 years ago)? Or mentioned by a media organization in 2009? Do we really need to give WikiProjects free advertising in the talk page banners of so many articles? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a side topic, but I agree that "article history" trivia would be best put into a right-hand sidebar box like the archives; this should probably be proposed at Village Pump since it would affect so many pages.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:05, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Taking these in order: I feel comfortable linking to one specific recent instance of the loophole resulting in it being impossible to apply sanctions evenly despite administrative intent do so, since it does not actually imply willful gaming by the "beneficiary" of the loophole: . I flatly refuse to point fingers accusing anyone in particular of gaming, since the most common DS sanction other than for editwarring is for personalizing disputes and casting aspersions (and twice I've had Sandstein apply sanctions to me, in WP:AE, for precisely that, despite the fact that AE exists to raise user behavior issues!), so that's a pitfall I'm going to steer clear of here. It should be enough that I've been observing the effect of these notices and their gameability, and am sufficiently alarmed by it to propose the changes I have in this level of detail. (FYI, I first drafted this in August 2015, but decided to sit on it, and see if the situation improved, or if I was misperceiving. It did not, and I was not.) And anyway, most of the gaming would be hard to detect, as detailed below.
 * The very fact that would-be guardians of a topic go around throwing Ds/alerts at people (often new editors), usually in a confrontational manner, is generally considered problematic by a lot of editors; it's a current topic of discussion on the proposed decision page in the e-cigs case, for example. And in many other topic areas where DS have been applied, it is  normal practice to hand out Ds/alerts. It's seen as aggressive and fight-picking (one such [internal] topic area is article titles policy and the MoS, per WP:ARBATC. The #1 complaint about this whole WP:POLICY area is that many editors feel it is too controlled by a small number of editors. If they were to adopt the habitual use of Ds/alerts to "notify" incoming editors (no matter what their intentions in doing so) it would be interpreted as WP:OWN behavior.  If a bot does it by automated process, instead of editors delivering them when they feel like it, this problem would be mitigated. A decreased reliance of Ds/alert notices to begin with would also ameliorate the "User so-and-so is threatening me with this notice, so I'm not going to participate in these discussions" effect.
 * It is not really plausible that someone who has escaped DS on a technicality and just received some kind of finger-wagging warning in lieu of DS can then be dragged to, e.g., WP:ANI and subjected to a double jeopardy "trial" there. That would be blatant WP:Forum shopping, and would be be perceived as vexatious, pointy, aggressive battlegrounding. In the case I did link to, the ongoing noticeboard dispute resolution was actually shut down, unresolved, by the DS-applying admin; the request to reopen it for proper resolution was ignored. Once DS has been applied to anyone in a dispute, that seems to shut the matter down completely. I've said before and will use this opportunity to do so again: DS should not be applicable within dispute resolution forums, like AE, ANI, ANEW, etc., since they are dispute resolution processes that necessarily entail raising of problems with other editors and presenting evidence of them, while DS is an alternative DR process of last resort.  I'm unaware of any ArbCom decision or even discussion in which it was ever suggested that the purpose of DS is to short-circuit other DR processes as some kind of "everyone STFU" supervote. It's an authoritarian interference with WP's internal self-governance process. But that's perhaps another matter for another time.
 * It does not require that someone be a sneering asshat holding up a "ha ha" card. The procedural instructions for DS require that admins thinking of employing them verify the potential recipient's notification status. That's why this is so gameable. If you know you have no valid "alert", you can simply be disruptive in ways that would be subject to DS but which would probably not quite result in ANI action, and get away with it, without ever giving the impression that you even know that DS apply or exist. It's a loophole that the system will apply for you without you making a peep.
 * Yes someone can be given the alert belatedly and then be dealt with via DS if they continue to be disruptive, but this does nothing about the fact that sanctions applied to multiple editors in the original dispute, who all really were already aware, will end up being disproportionate if one or another of them is "magically immune" to DS. (As a side matter, topic-banning someone is not really a win-win. DS does not have to result in a topic ban, and topic bans are generally pretty detrimental to the project when used as a means of punishing usually-productive editors who sometimes lose their cool.  It's not a preventative measure but a punitive one in such cases (vs cases of shutting down SPA PoV pushers on a mission to warp neutral coverage of their pet topic). Short-term blocks are usually far more effective in "you've lost your temper and crossed the line" cases, and well within DS authority.)
 * If we really think that talk page top banners about DS are insufficient notice, then make them editnotices so no one can miss them; problem solved. They're certainly far more important than "this article uses British English" WP:ENGVAR claim-staking, the most common use of article and article talk editnotices.  The issue all of this is about is that anyone who is a long-term, regular participant in an area subject to DS already knows that the area is subject to DS, and it's counterproductive to suppose that they are not because they didn't get a recent user talk posting about it that was formatted just so. Aside from editnotices, use of a bot to auto-deliver Ds/alerts to all editors whose participation passes a threshold level of involvement would also help ensure that people are aware. I agree that casual participants on a talk page of an article subject to DS might be unaware of the DS; my numbers were just examples, and could be raised, e.g. to "Posted more than 10 times over 2 months", or whatever. The particulars are not really important.
 * — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:05, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The requirement that editors be notified that discretionary sanctions apply to a topic area before they are sanctions was first proposed by me, several years ago, in response to genuine instances of editors responding to a block or restriction imposed under DS with "um, what are you talking about?" What I wrote at the time was, "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines." There may be too many topic-areas under DS and too many worn-out admins right now for detailed counseling to be practicable, though it would still be a best practice, at least in the case of clearly good-faith editors. But the purpose was always intended to be to promote real communication with editors, not creating a form to fill out for its own sake.
 * I agree with TenOfAllTrades that blatant game-playing with notification technicalities hasn't been a huge problem that I've noticed. If an editor avoids a sanction once because he or she hadn't been warned before, but gets warned now, then one of two things will happen: either the editing will improve, in which case the purpose of DS has been served better than a block would have done, or the editing won't improve, in which case the sanction can then be imposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As I explain above, the gaming would largely not be noticeable, because any admin following the DS instructions will automatically conclude that a no-notice or expired-notice editor cannot be subject to the DS, without the editor ever having to say anything about it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:05, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I think this clause might be a problem: An editor is also considered aware if in the last twelve months: 1) The editor has given and/or received an alert for the area of conflict... (several other possible condition involving appeals and arbitration). If I was writing a proposal, I would argue that if, for example, I received a BLP DS alert in 2014, I don't need to receive another one in 2016 for an admin to impose a sanction on me. And, yet, that's the way the Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions is written. I assume this is a policy because the sanctions might change over time but I think those cases are the exception rather than the rule. Liz  Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 23:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Having the alerts expire after 12 months is Arbcom's preference. They could change this with a wave of their hand. They could choose a different interval or declare that alerts never expire. I haven't seen much evidence that this is a problem, though. In his comment above SMcCandlish may be referring to a dispute from September 2015 that was handled under Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation. In that case the 12-month expiry would have made no difference because the other party had never been notified. EdJohnston (talk) 00:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's just one instance, but is why I dug out my August draft of this and posted it; the one-sided use of DS (one-sided only because of this loophole, and unfair enough that WP:AN voided the DS that were applied to me), and the use of DS to shut down ongoing dispute resolution at WP:ANEW, was a serious enough case of bureaucracy resulting in unjust and impractical results that I couldn't in good conscience not try to effectuate some useful DS-related change. Under what I propose, the loophole would not have applied to that editor, because no formal notice would have been needed. Their daily participation on a page that's had a big DS banner atop it for 2+ years would be more than enough "awareness" (the editor in question is among the top-5 most frequent posters there, so their awareness is unquestionable). Logically speaking, we all know that it is more than enough, and an administrator who believes that DS should have been applied to that party should not have had their hands bureaucratically tied and prevented from applying them because of this "no alert or expired alert" get-out-of-jail-free card (even if said admin also should not have shut down the ANEW case that was open, a separate issue). This really isn't about that particular dispute, though (I normally get along fine with that other editor, and the underlying dispute can actually be resolved with a shipload of citations to reliable sources); it was just a catalyst for my posting here about the DS bureaucracy problems.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:05, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Re: talk page banners about DS being sufficient notice, I'll quote admin Sandstein on that, from an actual WP:AN request: "However the page in question has a very clear notification of AC/DS - I'd consider that sufficient constructive warning for all involved" . So, if AN enforcers of DS are already interpreting the DS talk banners as sufficient notice, and have been doing so since at least early 2012, why would they not be actually sufficient?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Further datapoint showing that people notice the talk page DS banners and take note of them:, from Talk:Caitlyn Jenner.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

How did this "twelve month expiry" clause sneak in? Notifications were never originally interpreted that way, and I don't recall any discussion about this when the instructions were rewritten. I can't see any good reason for a twelve month expiry clause. It has often been argued that alerts themselves are unnecessarily bureaucratic as they can sometimes prevent appropriate sanctions being applied; expecting that they now be renewed every twelve months for every user active in a DS-listed topic area before a sanction can be applied is needless red tape that is only likely to allow users to escape legitimate sanction on a technicality. Gatoclass (talk) 04:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Right. This actually happening already is what brought me here. AFIAK, the one-year expiry was introduced in the 2013 discretionary sanctions review that was spearheaded by Roger Davies, and was added by ArbCom based on concerns that someone alerted to DS  is not apt to remember the fact very long, and 1 year seemed like a reasonable cut-off.  The most obvious problem with this is that it has nothing to do with 99% of the editors to whom DS might be expected to be applied, who are continuing, regular participants in the topic area in question, and quite well aware that DS applies there. Indeed, it's pretty unlikely that someone incidentally notified of DS about Azerbaijan-related topics who has only edited there once would be strongly sanctioned under DS a long time later they finally entered another Azerbaijan-related thread and "personalized" a comment or was assumed to have assumed bad faith. (Don't get me started on how vague and gameable  is. The problems with DS go way beyond this template bureaucracy.  WP does not need a thoughtcrime enforcement system.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * This is worse than I thought. There's an entirely different loophole that can give someone almost a year "free pass" because of how the editfilter works in relation to the checking tools; see Template talk:Ds.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Just something to think about ... The edit notice system you propose is also open to gaming. As a simple example, for example, it won't apply to the creation of POV-pushing articles because at the point of creation they will bear no edit notice nor will it apply to the addition of, for instance, POV-pushing sections into previously unaffected (BLPs are the usual target for this). It won't ever be possible to place edit notices on all article content tangentially covered by the DS. In some areas (Palestine/Israel, for instance), the number of articles with edit notices will run into thousands and still not be complete. Even just adding the edit notices is itself a Herculean task. The only solution is to target the editor and not the article. Which is what the current Alerts system attempts to do. Roger Davies talk 12:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that would actually be a loophole, because the "problem editors" (as well as non-problematic active editors alike) in these overall topic areas would be editing on enough of the "big ticket" pages subject to the DS in question that they'd be "aware" of the DS and its scope. Because DS are (unless specified otherwise) applied in a "broadly construed" manner, even under the present system, no one who is aware/notified can wikilawyer their way out of DS by engaging in DS-encompassed jackassery on a new page or a new section of a previous not-encompassed page, since those activities are auto-covered by the broad construal. Otherwise these clowns would PoV-fork like mad to game the system every day already. So, it's only necessary to DS/notice tag the major pages, e.g. Talk:Palestine, etc., not every Israeli bio's talk page, to continue with that case as an example. As for targeting specific editors, the proposed bot (to auto-notify all editors who edit "regularly enough", by some algorithm, at pages central to a DS-encompassed dispute), would deal with that. I didn't propose one solution  the other; they were not meant to be mutually exclusive.  The point about the article talk page banners is that regular editors at pages bearing them  aware of the DS (or are willfully ignoring a prominent alert they should not be), and it's farcical to pretend that they're not and to prevent admins from applying DS in such cases on the technicality of a missing/expired alert template in user talk. I'm certainly not proposing the addition of the WP:ARBIP Ds/notice to 10,000 articles!  LOL.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
 * Ds/alerts are not and never have been a vehicle for production-lining sanctions. They do not prohibit an admin from acting: if the conduct is poor enough, the perpetrator can be warned for misconduct in the ordinary non-DS way. A Ds/alert applied at 12 noon can result in sanctions for misconduct that took place at 1 p.m. This is neither cumbersome nor onerous and prevents the sanctioning of the innocent, the posting of scarlet letters etc that you and your associates were so incensed about a year or two back.  Roger Davies  talk 17:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I understand what you mean, yet I'm having difficulty picturing a scenario where it would have new fallout for "innocents"; can you outline some examples of what you envision?  That Feb. 2013 AE, later ARCA, matter did not involve related concerns. It arose because the original alert template was phrased as a direct accusation of "continue[d] ... misconduct", leading to its misuse as a hypocritical "aspersion-casting on steroids" mechanism. That's been resolved. Among the unresolved problems with the DS system, especially the alerts red tape, is that it does sometimes prevent (or is interpreted as preventing) Arbitration Enforcement admins from taking actions that are even-handed (cf. meaning of arbitration) and  (cf. enforcement requirements).  Tying, at least in part, "awareness" of topical DS to a high level of activity in a DS-encompassed topic would resolve that particular problem, though there are various others. In what way(s) would it be a threat of some kind?  Is there a class of editors, participating frequently in a DS-encompassed area, to whom DS should not be applicable even if their behavior warrants it?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * My own personal experience is that it is almost impossible to keep up with related articles with edit notices. I tried this in the Syrian Civil War area which was extended to cover anything ISIS-related, and it became an impossible task as new articles were being created so quickly. Doug Weller (talk) 13:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Which brings us back to the central issue: The "notice"/"awareness" approach is a WP:BUREAUCRACY problem, and we all already understand as a WP:COMMONSENSE matter than anyone regularly editing in the "ISIS-related, broadly construed" topic area is already "aware and notified" of the DS that apply to that topic area. Ergo, no super-persnicketty templating should need to happen in order for an admin to apply DS to disruptive editing by that editor in that topic area – not user-talk templates, and not banner templates on minor articles.  I've not really framed it this way before or seen anyone else do so, but here's another way of looking at it: If we're going to continue with DS or something like it indefinitely, and we consider this to, necessarily, thus be a part of established Wikipedia policy and procedure, the several years of this being in operation are long enough for editors to absorb the idea and to be smart enough to a) understand that they should suspect DS could be applicable to any area that seems highly controversial, and b) that the main policies generally enforced under DS (WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF) are not optional essays but enforceable policies, ergo they should already be moderating any tendencies they have towards jackassery. Meanwhile we also know in practice that AE and admins generally do not dump a ton[ne] of enforcement bricks on people for a first infraction; they get a simple warning/admonition as a first enforcement action under DS anyway.  That is, the need to be certain of individual awareness doesn't really exist. The initial warning isn't going to knock anyone's head off, and that warning will in fact ensure the desired awareness automatically. So the whole super-precise user templating system is a solution in search of a problem.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * An additional issue: The Ds/alert template isn't just a menacing-looking thing, it's a legalese text-wall no one wants to read, and pisses people off when it doesn't scare them. I just got savaged (by an admin, no less) for leaving a Ds/alert, because he thought it was my own work: "Seriously, to be effective, get the message across quickly and succinctly. I've asked you to do this before, but it seems to have fallen on deaf ears. For what it's worth, I know nothing about the machinations of Arb sanctions, unlike you I spend a good portion of my time on Wikipedia improving articles and away from the drama boards, so your message was, frankly, wasted on me. Have a great weekend and remember, less is more." (Given that both those accusations, of dwelling on drama boards and of not contributing to articles, are false aspersion-casting and dispute personalization, and followed directly on a DS/alert about about such aspersions and personalizing, that was actually an actionable post under DS. But of course admins are effectively immune from any action at AE or any other admin noticeboard; DS are consistently applied against whoever is less popular with the AE admin pool, and this is the principal reason they're not working.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Additional loophole: Cases do not always quickly get a code in the Ds/alert template. As a consequence, I cannot "notify"/"alert" an editor presently engaging in behavior that is covered by the DS on a recently closed case, because the template requires a case code. The user is immune to DS in that case because they weren't a participant in the case (at least not under this username), and it's impossible to leave them a Ds/alert. Their behavior seems to indicate they know this, given the disruptive nature of the antics this soon after the closure of the case.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

A 2015/2016 DS review
I'm thinking that what is needed is another comprehensive, structured review of the DS system so we can see how the whole thing is working in practice. The 2013 review's changes have had plenty of time to settle in so there should be enough actual evidence to distinguish systematic issues from temporary glitches and to be able to distinguish fundamental problems that require a rethink of the system from those problems that arise from things which just require clarification. It needs to be well structured as the presentation of the problems above do not lead to any easy way to discuss or investigate individual issues. The question is whether it is better to start this review before or after the election - now may see arbs working on it after their terms expire and this is not the committee's quietest moment. After the election though there is no guarantee the committee will be less busy, and we will have up to 9 inexperienced new arbitrators learning the ropes. My feeling is that on-balance a start before the election is better, especially considering SMcCandlish's comments directly addressing this question on 10 November. Thryduulf (talk) 13:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Strongly concur on all points. If the discussion gets started now, it can be shaped to an extent by people who've had to work with it more directly, before being handed off to those who'll have to live with it for a long spell henceforth. The only risk I see in this is just the ball being dropped entirely after the election, but a few of us pinging should be enough to keep it in play.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * If this is going to happen (and I hope my colleagues will also be commenting in favour here) it is important to do a good job of it. Perhaps, and anyone else interested, would take some time to take a look at the 2013 review and see what worked and what didn't from a process point of view and offer suggestions here for how to structure this review. It would seem silly to repeat any mistakes made last time. Thryduulf (talk) 09:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've worked on this, from my point of view, about what the specific issues are/were (and as much about the current AC/DS as the 2013 review). In the draft, I've broken it up into a series of topical sections. The way I write, it's of course turned into a huge essay, so I'd have to think of some way to distill it to a "PowerPoint version" (I've nutshelled one section already toward that end). I've put this at User:SMcCandlish/Discretionary sanctions/2013–2015 review. I gave each section a descriptive title, so the ToC at least serves as a bullet-point outline, albeit an op-ed one.  To me, the matters for a 2015/2016 DS overhaul are more to do with rationale, scope, approach, and results, than with specific, isolated failures in the 2013 review process per se (and I realize that Roger was largely herding cats in trying to manage that in the first place).  It wasn't really so much a review of AC/DS, as a section-by-section polishing of the prose. While it did have the effect of significantly changing various line-items, with some real-wikiworld results (including positive ones) the entire process proceeded from the assumption that the overall nature of it all was just fine and only needed minor tweaking. This pre-determined conclusion that only adjustments needed to be made, instead of an examination of the entire approach, and consideration of its possible replacement or abandonment, is key to why so few of the problems identified before the review began, and raised during it, have been addressed, or could have been, given the review's structure and nature. I've also identified a couple of cognitive dissonance problems – "rules" that do not in fact reflect reality.  And addressed some of the administrative, appeals-process, and other fallout of DS not working so well. Anyway, the present copy of my "post-mortem" on it is a several-hour brain dump, and probably a 15-minute read (if you just plough through it without replying with demurrers), but its a start towards IDing at least my own views of what the issues are, and laying out some proposals for improvement. I've tried to keep old butthurt out of it, but there are a few grumbles I may need to weed out that probably aren't as illustrative as they seemed when I added them.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd certainly support such a review. Perhaps User:Roger Davies would also be interested. Doug Weller (talk) 17:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * A caveat to my support - this is something that ArbCom should do. Hopefully that's what you were thinking. Doug Weller (talk) 17:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking at your proposals,, I'm not sure how much you've taken on board of the opposing comments here. Repeatedly saying something is broken doesn't make it so. The e-cigs code has now been done (it was simply overlooked by the closing clerk) so the alerts should now be working. Any review incidentally needs to be arbitrator-led as it's an entirely ArbCom process.  Roger Davies  talk 18:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand; that page is in my userspace for a reason, a first draft / brain-dump in response to Thryduulf's idea to "take a look at ... what worked and what didn't from a process point of view". I'm trying to understand more concretely your concerns raised with certain aspects of what I'm proposing in the parent thread, and taking the time to address those of others, too. I hadn't taken them for "opposing comments" in an encompassing sense, and some of them raise the same concerns I do (e.g. from Liz: "I would argue that if ... I received a BLP DS alert in 2014, I don't need to receive another one in 2016 for an admin to impose a sanction ..."). The desire/need for a review, raised by someone else, exists independently of anything I'd propose in the review or in support of having one. I have no problem, of course, with ArbCom itself leading and managing this review; the only real risk there seems to be structuring or steering it in a way that leads to a pre-determined result or effectively excludes ideas, implicitly or explicitly. (The bulk of my own proposals for making DS work better are predicated on much of DS continuing to work as before, but someone else might have a radically better idea. DS itself was a surprisingly orthogonal change from the earlier system of "article probation", after all, and not much altered from it its original outline to its implementation. "We've been doing it this way for a while" isn't much of basis to not change something, then or now.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Sure,, but a lot of this was considered during the review a couple of years ago (see the talk page and its archives). The community was heavily involved and the Ds/alerts scheme was proposed by community members (not arbitrators). Roger Davies talk 09:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Information
Current ArbCom members, and newly elected ArbCom members, may perhaps want to take a look at User talk:Tryptofish/Archive 27. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Joining
How does a user join? Are there any requirements? 174.113.214.250 (talk) 13:05, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Joining the arbitration committee is done by election, see the most recent election results here Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015. —  xaosflux  Talk 13:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You can also note the candidate requirements from the most recent election here Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates. — xaosflux  Talk 13:32, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The IP editor should particularly note that in order to run for ArbCom, or even to vote in the election, a registered account with a certain number of edits is required. Neutron (talk) 15:55, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

"Arbitrator" user group
A discussion is currently being held regarding creating a special usergroup for ArbCom, to keep it centralized, please see Village_pump_(idea_lab). Best regards, — xaosflux  Talk 22:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Legal reasons?
Can someone point to where WMF has delegated authority to English ArbCom decision making authority regarding legal matters?


 * o resolve matters unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal, or similar reasons;

I can see WMF legal department referring action to ArbCom but I doubt WMF legal as abdicated its role as sole determiner of whether an issue has "legal" ramifications to WMF. en-ArbCom is wholly unsuitable to deal with legal issues and should not be making legal determinations regarding "suitability." That is reserved exclusively to the WMF legal team. Please discuss and/or amend. This issue arises because ArbCom has recently taken on an active "legal" determination, rather than simply accepting passive determinations from IMF. It is rather risky to allow ArbCom to arbitrarily determine, without counsel, what is a "legal" reason to resolve an issue in private. By association, "privacy" and "similar" reasons should not be invoked without counsel. Consequences of this usurpation of determination and authority may be severe (i.e. calling a person a "harasser" or "stalker" based on material that is not disclosed or given context within ArbComs jurisdiction.) Indef bans for "harassment" will eventually affect the real life of an accused party and the lack of context from "in camera" evaluations exposes WP and WMF to legal jeopardy if ArbCom usurps the power to determine legal boundaries of conduct. Concerned or not? . Should en-arbcom be calling living people "stalkers" or "harassers" without providing the context of site dispute resolution that WP "stalking" and "harassment" may include both illegal and legal behavior - and where the editors behavior lay? It's only a matter of time before these "in camera" decisions and their brutal announcements accusing a living person of "stalking" and "harassment" leads to a claim of defamation. It will not be surprising if job offers are rescinded or declined because en-wp ArbCom pronounced them a "harasser" or "stalker" using private eveidence that doesn't provide context. For comparison, image en-arbcom making a unilateral decision with private, undisclosed evidence, "for pedophilia, user X is banned from en-wp" - no one argues that pedophiles should be banned but every lawyer should cringe at a lay person committee making a determination of what a pedophile is and announcing it to the world. A better reponse would be ArbCom referring their conclusions to WMF legal which can issue a global ban "User X is banned from all WMF projects. Contact WMF legal for any questions." en-wp ArbCom is using legal terminology beyond its scope and exposing WMF to lawsuits as they believe they are empowered to make thes determinations. --DHeyward (talk) 06:19, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think in obvious cases of harassment, etc. - or rather cases that are obvious to anyone with access to private information - you don't need to consult a lawyer. That doesn't mean you must or even should put "blocked for harassment" in the block log, only that if you do, any lawsuit against you for defamation should quickly be tossed out of court ("the truth is a defense to libel" etc. etc.).  Disclaimer:  I am not a lawyer and I don't play one on the Internet. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  17:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the issue revolves around the difference of what is considered "harassment" and "stalking" on Wikipedia is different than IRL definitions. This difference is highlighted in What harassment is not.  Increasingly, peoples on-line conduct is being screened and if WP ArbCom is using terms without providing "the truth" because it's private, there is still potential damages.  At least in the U.S. it's very rare for an employer to provide disparaging comments about a former employee even if fired for cause because of concern regarding false light damages where "truth" is juxtaposed with "misleading".  Especially if the cause is as sensitive as "harassment," it's unlikely that companies will give anything more than dates of employment.  In an open ArbCom case, a prospective employer can read exactly what their prospective employee was accused of and the details around it (which is slightly better).  If it's a byzantine en-WP rules violation, that can be given appropriate weight.  But if it's all hidden and the prospective employers HR background search turns up "harassment" or "stalking" determined by a closed door hearing of a major website for possible "legal reasons," the IRL consequences to the person banned may be disproportionate to the finding.  Without context, "false light" ramifications may be real if the words used by ArbCom are harsher IRL than in en-wp.  --DHeyward (talk) 01:47, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Page needs updating
Arbitration_Committee/Procedures should include the relevant part of the linked motion: The Arbitration Committee will take appeals (i) from editors who are subject to an OversightBlock or a Checkuserblock; (ii) from editors who are blocked for reasons that are unsuitable for public discussion; and (iii) from editors blocked or banned by Arbitration and Arbitration Enforcement decisions (I left out the "for the time being" because it's kind of stupid, because all policies are for "the time being" until subsequently modified, right? NE Ent 03:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 January 2016
Please add Ds to the See-also section of WP:ACDS, perhaps under the first entry with hypertext “Other notices and templates relating to discretionary sanctions” or something to that effect. I didn‘t see a link to it anywhere else on the page; I was actually looking for Ds/talk notice, but the whole suite would seem pertinent.—Odysseus 1 4  7  9  01:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

—Odysseus 1 4  7  9  01:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Ability of Jimbo Wales to amend or grant appeals to ArbCom remedies
At Arbitration/Policy, it is stated that: "Appeal of decisions

Any editor may ask the Committee to reconsider or amend a ruling, which the Committee may accept or decline at its discretion. The Committee may require a minimum time to have elapsed since the enactment of the ruling, or since any prior request for reconsideration, before reviewing it. Remedies may be appealed to, and amended by, Jimbo Wales, unless the case involves Jimbo Wales' own actions."

This RfC seeks the community's opinion on the following question:
 * As Wikipedia approaches its 15th birthday, is it still appropriate for to hold the power to amend or grant appeals to remedies set by the Arbitration Committee, an elected body?

Jimbo Wales's additional ceremonial role in appointing the members of the Committee is not within the scope of this question. —  Scott  •  talk  13:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Has he ever actually used his ability? And how many times has he declined to use his ability (i.e. Rejected appeals)? –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 14:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's clear to me that there ought to be some way of appealing to someone other than sitting Arbcom members. Whether Jimbo's talk page is the right venue is more doubtful, but I would oppose removing this provision without supplying an alternative.— S Marshall  T/C 15:15, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd say that some sort of supermajority admin vote might be justified as an appeal. Something around the 3/4rs mark in favour of overturning. We cannot remove appeals without an alternative. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Either way, removing that means amending the arbitration policy. And that isn't easy.--Müdigkeit (talk) 15:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

"Ratification and amendment Once adopted by the Committee, this policy will undergo formal ratification through a community referendum and will enter into force once it receives majority support, with at least one hundred editors voting in favour of adopting it. Until this policy is ratified, the existing arbitration policy remains in effect.

Amendments to this policy require an identical ratification process. Proposed amendments may be submitted for ratification only after being approved by a majority vote of the Committee, or having been requested by a petition signed by at least one hundred editors in good standing."

I doubt arbcom would be willing or able to approve the submission of a proposed amendment before the new year, even if you had a proposed amendment. So my suggestion if you really want to do this is
 * 1st come up with a proposed amendment
 * 2nd find 100 en-Wikipedians in good standing, willing to sign such a petition
 * 3rd get ready for the opposition once the proposed amendment is put forward for ratification.

Smallbones( smalltalk ) 16:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Remove Jimbo's authority, but replace it with something else first. It's far past time for one man to able to overturn the arbitration committee.  However, there needs to be a safety valve for the rare cases when 1) the Committee gets it wrong in a big way, 2) it is unlikely that they will consider an appeal or treat an appealing party fairly, and 3) "waiting for the next election before appealing" would do more harm than an immediate appeal.  We should have a larger RFC to consider possibilities.  Here is one possibility that comes to mind:
 * Allow appeals to an ad-hoc committee made up of all past and present ARBCOM members and bureaucrats (plus Jimbo) who are are "un-involved" and in good standing and who choose to participate in a given case, provided that the case is "sponsored" by at least one more eligible Wikipedian than the number who voted against the appealing party in the most recent ARBCOM action. In other words, if I am appealing a decision I lost 6-4, the case would have to be "sponsored" by at least 7 eligible Wikipedians (i.e. past or present ARBCOM members, past or present bureaucrats, and Jimbo) before it would even get out of the starting gate.  Even then, the ad-hoc committee would need to be formed, it would need to accept the case, and eventually vote on it.
 * Whatever safety valve is put in place, I would anticipate that the 3 conditions above would very rarely all be met and as a result appeals to a "third party appeal board" would almost always fail. However, there needs to be a way to appeal and the proposal I offer above seems more "democratic" than having this power in the hands of a single individual. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  16:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Per xeno, I'm unclear as to whether this addresses a practical or a theoretical issue. If theoretical, this RfC seems pointless. Coretheapple (talk) 17:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)(Am aware of the GMO appeal, but unclear whether Jimbo has ever actually ruled one way or the other on arbcom decisions) Coretheapple (talk) 18:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - First, this isn't a well-formed RFC. However, second, regardless of whether the policy states that the WMF can review or reverse ArbCom decisions, the WMF can review and reverse ArbCom decisions, as a matter of corporate law, because the WMF owns the servers and has ultimate control.  So appeal does exist to the WMF.  Jimbo's talk page is as good a place as any to state an appeal to the WMF, but it should then be presented as an appeal to the WMF, not to Jimbo himself.  Third, if, as it appears, this does have to do with the GMO case, the real problem there is not that there was anything wrong with the decision.  In my opinion, the decision was suboptimal, but more or less reasonable.  The real problem is that the GMO case divides and polarizes the community even more than most ArbCom cases (and the ArbCom accepts cases that divide and polarize the community and so cannot be decided at WP:ANI), and that many editors are unhappy about it because there was no possible decision that would leave everyone satisfied.  In conclusion, the WMF does have ultimate authority.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Jimbo's talk page is the last place I'd go to communicate with the WMF. There's a whole listing of the WMF bureaucracy at wmf:Staff and contractors -- and even if you guess wrong and contact the wrong person it's been my experience they'll refer a question to the right person. Per WP:CGTW #6, Jimbo's talk page is for grandstanding wiki-political rhetoric, not anything particularly useful. (Except for the rare occasions when someone simply wants to ask him a actual legit question.) NE Ent 16:01, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As a general comment, I think that the idea of the alternative appeal going to the WMF, with Jimbo serving as a sort of figurehead instead of as the actual entity that can overrule ArbCom, is a good approach to be taking. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I am the editor whose posting on Jimbo's Talk page probably generated this discussion. Whilst this discussion may or may not be needed, there is no doubt it is prejudicing my appeal.  I respectfully request the OP that this RfC is temporarily withdrawn and redacted until Jimbo has made his decision on my appeal, and then re-posted. DrChrissy (talk) 20:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The final appeal should be to a person, both in form and in reality. The WMF may in practice have the technical ability to over-ride arb com by doing whatever it wants to the computer files. It has the technical power to over-ride all WP policy also, if it wants to use it, up to the point at which the Board would presumably stop it, for that's where the actual final authority is, not in the programmers or the executive director. That doesn't mean we should say in policy that it is permitted to do this on the enWP.  DGG ( talk ) 22:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I would like to expand on Robert McClenon's well-thought-out "the WMF owns the servers and has ultimate control" comment. If things became very very bad (far worse than any on the present WMF members would ever allow), we as a community do have the ability to essentially fire the WMF. The way to do this would be to [A] create a new site to replace the present Wikipedia, [B] copy all of the current Wikipedia content over to the new site, and [C] convince the vast majority of editors, administrators, and readers to move to the new site.


 * A and B are easy. Dozens of sites have done that already. See Mirrors and forks. We even have a FAQ explaining how. See FAQ/Forking.


 * C is very, very hard. The WMF would have to do something very, very bad before the majority of admins, editors and users would be willing to leave. This is not going to happen over some Arbcom decision that some folks dislike. Charging $29.99 per month to access Wikipedia would do it...


 * An example of a website where this happened was Digg. First, the Digg legal team made a decision about DRM and copyright violations that was badly out of touch with what the community wanted. Next, Digg failed at keeping paid spammers from influencing what content made the home page, with the result being that ordinary users never made the front page, but by paying the right person well over $1000 you could be on the front page at will. This in turn was followed in by Digg failing at keeping political POV pushers from controlling the results. All of this was made far worse by dig rolling out new untested versions of their base software that made it easier to game the system, and stonewalling user complaints about the new software. The end result of this series of missteps was most of the user base abandoning Digg and moving to Reddit.


 * None of this is likely to happen here (although the bits about the legal team digging in their heels about DRM and the software team digging in their heels about rolling out unwanted software make one pause), but in theory we could be on a new Wikipedia with a new name and new management a year from now if the WMF does something that we as a community simply cannot tolerate. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The idea of more than one Wikipedia, or of a Wikipedia War Between the States, is so bizarre that I am not sure I can function for the remainder of the year. Meanwhile, I think Mr. Chrissy may have a point about this RfC prejudicing his completely hopeless appeal to Jimbo, so perhaps this can be tabled for the moment. Do I hear a second? Hearing none, the motion is adopted. Coretheapple (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Parli Pro was never your thing, was it? Carrite (talk) 16:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * How did you guess? Coretheapple (talk) 16:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * New information here says I was wrong to close this without waiting for to have his say.  Scott, I'm apologizing for jumping to conclusions and for making a decision that was yours to make.  However, I still agree with Coretheapple that if this discussion unfairly impacts other discussions and that postponing the discussion a few days or weeks will cure the unfairness without causing worse problems, why not table it?  I'll say it again: I was wrong to make that call - the call is yours to make.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  00:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok - as the RfC has been reopened (hopefully temporarily). It is precisely the type of comment made above by Coretheapple that is the reason why this thread should be withdrawn and redacted for the moment.  Coretheapple states that this thread should be tabled.  That is fine, but they then go on to state that my appeal is "completely hopeless".  Why put this negativity into the discussion?  They are prejudicing an accepted method of my appealing an ArbCom finding.  I reiterate that I have already appealed to ArbCom on the basis that it is unacceptable for them to issue a topic ban for an editor when the editor has not even edited in the topic area; ArbCom have not yet replied.  That is the basis of my appeal to Jimbo - there has been a complete absence of evidence of me editing the topic area, let alone being disruptive.  I also reiterate that I have indicated I am happy for Jimbo not to make any decision until after this matter is dealt with by ArbCom.  It might be entirely unnecessary for Jimbo to comment on this ArbCom decision, but the comments unfolding in this thread are most definitely prejudicing my getting a fair appeal. DrChrissy (talk) 01:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Personal (not Arbcom) opinion:There seems no reason why we cannot debate Arbcom appeal mechanisms at the same time as someone seeks to have an actual appeal heard. Any outcome of this discussion is unlikely to prejudice any decision by Jimbo on your appeal. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Dr. Chrissy, all I'm saying is that Jimbo doesn't care if you were treated fairly. It's hopeless in the sense that you are unlikely to even get a response from him. (I hope he takes this as a challenge, if he reads this, and proves me wrong.) He takes a bureaucratic approach to things and rarely upsets the apple cart. So therefore, unless someone can point to a case where he has intervened to overturn an arbcom decision, this strikes me as a theoretical argument and a waste of time. But if it is going to be conducted, first someone should attempt to extract from Jimbo whether he plans to intervene in your case or not, rather than his handling this kind of thing as he usually does, by being mute. Good luck with that. Coretheapple (talk) 15:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see what you mean now. Thanks for the clarification.  Apologies for over-reacting...a bit of cognitive bias on my part, hopefully understandable considering what is going on at the moment.  I do not watch the Talk page so I am not aware of how many appeals are lodged there and how many of those Jimbo comments on. Thanks also for the comment below my appeal. DrChrissy (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I saw enough of the GMO arb, which I commented on, to understand how it's possible that they screwed up with you as well. However, people go to Jimbo for "justice" and most of the time he doesn't even bother to answer. Coretheapple (talk) 16:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's worth a shot. This is no trivial matter, in my view. One involved admin was continually given a pass by ArbCom members on being named a party in the case, despite a number of requests from myself and others. The fact that said admin was handed an interaction ban during the case, after repeated abuses, says a lot. Jimmy, I appeal to you directly: if ever there was a time to step up, this GMO case is it. Jus  da  fax   17:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think the presence of an admin makes this more enticing for him to intervene, if anything less so. Keep in mind too that his intervention might well boomerang, and he could make things worse. That's why except for one occasion some months ago I never ask him for anything on that page. I view him more as expedient and rather self-centered and not a wellspring of justice. Coretheapple (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the broader issue of whether a body should exist to appeal ArbCom decisions (and if so, in what form) is worth discussing. Should such a body have the authority to completely overturn decisions, or should such a body be solely responsible for ensuring the committee is following its own policies and procedures? After 15 years, yes, Jimbo's role in the project has considerably decreased, and we should look into alternatives. I have a hard time wrapping my head around the idea of the WMF Board of Trustees hearing an an appeal of an ArbCom case, however. I suppose it's possible technically, but I doubt it will ever be done effectively. Mz7 (talk) 20:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I can think of one type of occasion, but's more along the line of a forced intervention than an appeal from an editor. It would be very ugly and it's almost certain to never happen:  If the WMF has reason to believe that the ARBCOM decision was tainted by corruption (I'm talking real-world blackmail/bribery here) or some other factor (an ARBCOM account was compromised and taken over by someone else) AND they have good reason (such as a gag-order from a court due to a pending criminal investigation, or simply advice from WMF legal) to not tell the remaining ARBCOM members what is going on.  In such a case they might globally-OFFICE-ban all editors suspected of corrupting the case and order the remaining ARBCOM members to vacate the entire case and, if they wished, start over de novo.  Again, outside of the alternative-universe-with-an-evil-ARBCOM trash-fiction novel that I'm not going to write, I can't think of any case where this is even remotely plausible.  But as a hypothetical situation, it is remotely possible.  I'll place my bets on the Zombie Invasion From Mars happening first though.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  23:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Speaking personally, i.e. not for Arbcom, I rather agree with S Marshall's comments way up thread. There should be some way to appeal arbcom decisions, and if that way is not Jimbo then Jimbo must retain us role until his replacement is established and ready to go. There should be a very high bar to acceptance of an appeal, so it doesn't just become a standard step for those who are never wrong in their own eyes. I've supported the idea for some time of arbitration cases being heard by a subset of arbitrators, if so an appeal could be made to the remainder of the committee without the bureaucracy associated with some suggestions here. Alternatively, an appeal could be heard by three former arbitrators in good standing, but certainly in the short term there is no urgent need to replace Jimbo imho. Thryduulf (talk) 10:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Off-topic here but I want to comment on your suggestion of a subset of Arbitrators handling a case. At best there are only 15 members and often 2 or 3 are technically not active, leaving say 13 active. Some resign and the number drops. Others though formally not active aren't actually very active. A subset of this is going to be pretty small. Even with 15 if you have 2 subsets the maximum number will be 7, so someone could be site banned by 4 Arbs.Not something I'd like to see. Doug Weller (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * In response to the concerns above over whether this is a well-formed RfC – the formal ratification and amendment proceedings are the last step in any arbitration reform. Informal RfCs are useful to establish the community's position on a few issues and to function as a makeshift idea lab. If there is a general consensus here that change needs to occur (i.e. in a replacement of Jimbo for arbcom appeals), we should first solidify what change needs to happen (through more informal RfCs) before taking a formal ratification vote. I agree with Thryduulf that there's no rush. Mz7 (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There's one step in between an RfC and a ratification vote that you didn't mention. Under the relevant section of the Arbitration Policy (quoted above by Smallbones), there would first have be either an approval by a majority of the Arbitration Committee, or a petition "signed" by at least 100 editors.  Both of these things pre-suppose that there is a specific policy change for which ArbCom approval or 100 "signatures" are being sought.  I agree that an RfC could be useful in formulating a specific proposal, though what I see so far is a few different ideas being thrown around (including by the OP) with no consensus developing on any of them.  But RfC's are open for at least 30 days (right?) so there is still time.  Neutron (talk) 19:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where you think you've seen me put forward any ideas, because I haven't. But you're right that this is intended as a discussion exercise to gauge community feeling. If there seems to be any obvious avenue for movement after a month, then more specific RfCs can be posed. —  Scott  •  talk  20:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, I struck that. I guess I inferred from your question that you were proposing that appeals no longer go to Jimbo.  But you're right, you didn't actually propose anything.  That may have something to do with the sort of aimless wandering that this "discussion exercise" has been doing so far, but obviously it's up to you.  Neutron (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. In answer to questions above, there is no list kept of appeals from Arbitration Committee decisions to Jimmy, but I'd guestimate that in the past ten years there have been maybe a dozen or so. I am not aware of any instance in which Jimmy has reversed an ArbCom decision. There was one instance in which Jimmy modified a decision, by stating that an editor who had been banned indefinitely could appeal after a certain period of time provided he met certain conditions (but it is not clear how much of a modification this was as a practical matter, since the Committee would surely have considered an appeal after some period of time whether or not expressly stated). I don't have a strong opinion either way on this proposal, but to answer another point raised above, if any change is made, it should clearly not have any prejudicial effect on any appeal that might already be pending. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Appeals to any arbitration decisions may be made to a body that includes all current and former arbitrators except: -banned or blocked arbitrators -arbitrators whose rights were removed under a cloud -inactive arbitrators -arbitrators involved in the decision, if there are at least 10 arbitrators avaliable otherwise To make an exceptional appeal, one of the following two processes must be met: First, a binding decision exists that should be appealed Then 1. a user can send the appeal text not including sensitive information to someone per e-mail if sitebanned, or directly at the following page: WP:Arbitration Comittee/Requests/Exceptional appeal. Any user in good standing who thinks an exceptional appeal seems to be reasonable may support the appeal. If 50 users in good standing or three sitting arbitrators support the appeal within two weeks, the current arbitration committee is being informed. If they(the current arbcom) decide not to amend the decision according to the appeal, they have to send it to the body of current and former arbitrators mentioned above. This body may reach a decision, which may include sanctions to appeal supporters as well as arbitrators. If the body comes to the conclusion that members of the current Arbitration Committee have abused their position, they may remove them from the committee. This may trigger an emergency election if there are too few members left. 2.3 sitting arbitrators can also appeal a decision. In this case, the process in 1. is followed, beginning with a decision of the current Arbitration Committee to amend the decision according to the appeal or not. If the appeal would have to include private information not to be released to the public in the appeal text, or if the appellate body is incapable or has rejected the appeal, and if there is serious misconduct of arbitrators that cannot be solved otherwise, please contact legal@wikimedia.org. This would ensure that arbcom decisions would remain final under normal circumstances, and that very problematic arbcom decisions or outright corruption could be addressed.--Müdigkeit (talk) 10:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I would propose the following:


 * That is an extremely elaborate way to ensure that editors who would be far better off just dropping the WP:STICK never do, and can carry on in a way that ensures that the maximum number of other editors continue to be aggravated for the maximum length of time. Former Arbs second-guessing sitting Arbs?  Canvassing for 50 votes?  Outright corruption?  Sanctioning sitting Arbs because you don't like a decision they reached?  Cases that drag on for a couple of months followed up by another month or two of bickering over appeals?  Dragging Wikimedia Legal into enwiki's user conduct disputes?  I'm having difficulty thinking of ways to more effectively remove the last traces of sanity from the Arbitration process. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not think current arbitrators should be part of any group hearing appeals, because they would be passing judgment on their own actions. I also do not think former arbs should be involved because after their term ends, their "mandate" from the community to decide cases also ends.  (Leaving aside any short-term transition rules for completion of cases pending at the end of a term.)  They should not be in a position of overruling current arbs.  In addition, some of the former arbs are former arbs because they lost in a race for re-election, and/or their term ended and then they ran again in a later year and lost.  In their case, it makes particularly no sense for them to be in a position to overrule current arbs.  So I don't think the proposed "body" is a good idea.  There also was a similar proposal earlier on this page, but it also included bureaucrats.  That also is not a good idea because that is not what they were elected for.  As for what the solution should be:  If we had a "GovCom" (an elected body separate from ArbCom) that was already doing other governing-type things, I would suggest adding the "appeals" function to that group's responsibilities.  But I am not going to propose adding a new elected body just for this, partly because it would send a message that appeals are encouraged, and partly because (based on past discussions) I see no chance of such a proposal being approved by the community.  Neutron (talk) 16:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Remove any and all authority from Jimbo Wales. Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit and owns WP thus no one should benefit personnel like extra authority founder or not. Wales is a board member only and not an exeuctive of the WMF. Grant the authority to the Executive Director or his staff designate. Spshu (talk) 22:33, 24 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Pointless discussion. Wales is, and ever shall be, THE FOUNDER and will have more wiki-cred that any arbcom. Because he also has excellent political instincts, he rarely to never has or is going to cause a ruckus by getting involved some petty arbcom dispute. (Five million articles and active users means, that, no matter how important a spat may seem to the handful of editors involved, in the big scheme of things, the results /remedy of a particular arbcom case just aren't that important.) NE Ent 16:06, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It should be removed from policy because it only unnecessarily confuses people. As recent attempt of appeal demonstrates, co-founder Wales is not going to get involved with Arbcom matters, probably due realization that he has no mandate for that.--Staberinde (talk) 18:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Well I think it could certainly be clarified, but if you look at Arbitration Committee/History it should be pretty clear that this is a basic safety mechanism. <b style="font-family:'Segoe Script',cursive;"> --Jules (Mrjulesd)</b> 21:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't really see it as a functioning safety mechanism, more like just a hot air. Only ones that could theoretically act as a safeguard would be WMF.--Staberinde (talk) 15:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * As I stated elsewhere, I agree that we should remove the authority from Jimbo. He has never used it and never will so leaving it in the policy is just a means for people to gravedance with comments like "Take it to Jimbo!". Maj Turmoil (talk) 20:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: don't be so sure of that. If things went seriously awry with ArbCom then his influence could well be valuable. I know that is unlikely, but the provision was written in that this would be unlikely. <b style="font-family:'Segoe Script',cursive;"> --Jules (Mrjulesd)</b> 21:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia will be 15 years old in the next few weeks and Jimbo has never, not once as far as I know, used his authority to override an Arbcom decision. Its unlikely he would do so now and he has been stepping farther and farther away as time goes on. Having that "talk to Jimbo" rule just confuses editors, enflames the situation and has no purpose at this point. I'll be honest, I wish he would frankly because from what I have seen, more often than not, the decisions Arbcom makes are bad for the project, but its just not likely that Jimbo cares anymore nor does he have the desire to intervene. Maj Turmoil (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * There was once a time, long before I became active here as an editor, when Jimbo Wales was far more active in Wikipedia's administration. According to Wikipedia power structure, Jimbo was once involved in nearly all proposed bans. Jimbo's current ability to overturn Arbcom decisions is a remnant of his previous "benevolent dictator" role in the project, one that has grown less and less prominent with the passage of time. Indeed, today, Jimbo rarely involves himself in Wikipedia administration. His last unilateral site-ban, to my knowledge, was in 2011. Yes, Jimbo will always play a special role in the project as its founder, but as the nature of his role evolves over time, we should accordingly update our policies. Mz7 (talk) 02:20, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I would like to see this appeal route, which it seems is never used successfully, replaced by an appeals committee of elected editors, who are not current or former Arbs. That we have no appeals process is wrong, and that there used to be one consisting of the same Arbs saying no again for the same reasons was bizarre. We do need a safeguard against mistakes or unreasonable decisions. SarahSV (talk) 02:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, and will there be an appeals body to that appeals body? Won't that appeals body receive appeals for 99% of cases? At some point, the buck needs to stop and right now that is ArbCom. Adding another layer of bureaucracy adds another layer of work before an issue comes to an end. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  03:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose changing Jimbo's role and oppose additional appeal methods or bodies. I agree with Guerillero and would point out that ArbCom is, in effect, already the appeal from, first, individual arbitrator action and, second, from ANI. As soon as people don't get the results they want from the proposed new arbitration body or method, then they're going to start wanting an appeal of the appeal of the appeal. We need to remember, first, that en-Wikipedia is not a nation-state and, second, that Wikipedia is not a democracy and, third, that our position has always been that editors are fungible (or as we usually put it, Wikipedia is not about you) and, thus, we do not need additional appeals or appeal bodies. The only appeal we need from ArbCom is for those situations in which ArbCom has made a decision which clearly and undeniably (and, perhaps, immediately) imperils the ongoing viability of the encyclopedia and while Jimbo shouldn't (and, to his credit, doesn't) have much to do with the day to day operations of the encyclopedia, I'm sure that we can utterly rely on him for that. And when, FSM forbid, he goes to that great encyclopedia in the noodle pot, on the Foundation via its staff for that same service. Regards, TransporterMan  (<font face="Trebuchet MS" size="1">TALK ) 21:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * At some point, things need to be final. We're here to write an encyclopaedia, not get mired in an endless quasi-judicial system or rulings and appeals to ever-higher bodies. Such a system invites only the sort of editors who enjoy politicking in project space more than writing articles, and is a perfect recipe for disruptive editors to waste everybody's time by working the system to have their (almost certainly well-deserved) bans reviewed ad nauseum. That said, that final authority should not rest with one man who was never elected to anything. Yes, he founded (or co-founded, or something) the website, but it's grown far beyond being one man's pet project now. There are many thousands of people who have contributed far more to its content and inner workings than he has, and probably hundreds who are more in touch with the community and the day-to-day running of things and better able to render an informed decision. If people want a constitutional monarch, I don't begrudge that, but constitutional monarchs have a right to be informed, to advise, and to warn; they don't actually make any decisions and what influence they have is wielded quietly behind the scenes. The decision-making is left to elected representatives. So it should be on Wikipedia.  HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  22:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Now that this RfC has run for a little while, I'll add my own opinion, which is that an unelected individual should not be able to overrule an elected body, even if he co-founded the project. It may have been otherwise in the past, but we have grown past that stage. —  Scott  •  talk  18:16, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose change Now I know ArbCom is an elected body. And democracy is the best system we've got. But at the same time it is not perfect: with only a little knowledge of history, there are many occasions when democracy has gone seriously awry. And if you don't know of any examples you should definitely educate yourself. So some degree of oversight is preferable, and many democracies have such oversight, in the forms of non-elected bodies such as supreme courts or constitutional monarchs.
 * Now we are all subject from oversight from the WMF, in the form of their terms of service. So even without Jimbo, ArbCom and all editors here are under oversight. Now which would you prefer: some faceless bureaucrat at the WMF? Or Jimbo himself? I know which I would prefer. <b style="font-family:'Segoe Script',cursive;"> --Jules (Mrjulesd)</b> 22:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, the WMF goes to great pains not to get involved in the day-to-day running of the project for many good and complicated reasons including legal reasons (but the details are beyond the scope of this RfC and beyond me at this time of night!). HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  23:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * During my period on ArbCom there was at least one occasion when Jimbo took on board an appeal and implied that he was going to overturn a Committee decision. The mood in the camp was one of curious and lively interest at what would happen if Jimbo did try to do that, and some anti-Jimbo members were positively rubbing their hands in anticipation, certain that it would finally sever Jimbo completely from the Committee, and could even result in him being banned from Wikipedia. The strength of the Committee is that decisions cannot be overturned by anyone other than the Committee. Conflict on Wikipedia is when people cannot agree, and arguments go to and fro with nothing being settled. The purpose of ArbCom is to end that conflict by making a decision. The Committee will attempt to make the best decision it can, but the important principle is that a decision is made and it is enforced. So ends the conflict. Putting another level on top of ArbCom simply extends the conflict, and fails to understand the principle behind what ArbCom do. Bear in mind folks that the worse that ArbCom can do is restrict a username. The person behind the username can sign up under a different name and carry on quietly editing. Yes, usernames contain reputations and our reputations on Wikipedia are important to us, but the way to protect our reputations is not to get involved in inappropriate or dubious behaviour in the first place, rather than hoping some higher authority will bail us out when we are sanctioned for that behaviour.
 * While Jimbo might occasionally say he's going to look into an appeal, he has judgement enough to know the problems it would cause if he did try to overturn a legitimate decision by the Committee, so he's unlikely to ever try it. However, while the offer is there in writing for users to appeal to him, they occasionally will, and that's inappropriate. It gives the users some sense of false hope, and it puts Jimbo in an awkward position where he might sympathise with the user, but not be able to do anything about it because he's aware of the consequences of attempting to overturn ArbCom, but he doesn't want to admit that he can't overturn a decision because it's part of the structure that he does hear appeals. So, I think we should do away with the clause that Jimbo can hear appeals. It's unfair to all concerned because it's unrealistic and unworkable.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  11:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't see what is so unrealistic or unworkable. Somebody asks him for an appeal. Jimbo doesn't respond, but other editors respond that this is very unlikely. You see this as a bad thing, but I just can't see it myself. According to policy, Jimbo could hear an appeal, but any input would only be in the case of catastrophic failure of ArbCom. The question is, is ArbCom infallible? I would say no. <b style="font-family:'Segoe Script',cursive;"> --Jules (Mrjulesd)</b> 15:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The policy doesn't say anything about "catastrophic failure" or give any other indication that a decision is never (or almost never) modified by Jimbo. Nor does it indicate that the person appealing probably will not even receive a response.  (The result being that nobody except Jimbo knows whether the appeal has been given serious consideration, or even read.)  This strikes me somewhat as "false advertising."  The policy tells people that they have an avenue of appeal to Jimbo, and from all appearances, they really don't.  Some of these people may not have spent years reading the "back pages" of Wikipedia on which one learns about the unique, poorly defined, controversial and ever-evolving role of Jimmy Wales on this project.  They may assume that the policy means what it says, and what it implies.  I think it implies that the appeal is part of an actual system and that the person's request will receive serious consideration and a decision.  It does not imply that after they appeal on Jimbo's talk page, and after all the talk page stalkers have had their say about how they shouldn't have appealed, or how there shouldn't be any appeals, the appeal will almost certainly scroll off the talk page and they will never hear about it again.  If there is a consensus to remove that route of appeal (and the proper procedures are later followed to actually amend the Arbitration Policy), that's fine with me, but based on the discussion so far it seems unlikely that there will be a consensus.  (I haven't counted, but my impression is that the majority want to retain some ability to appeal from ArbCom, but everybody who feels that way has a different idea about who the appeal should go to, whether it should be an elected body, or one made up of past and/or present arbitrators, or remain with Jimbo.  That is usually a recipe for a policy not being changed.)  When this was being discussed on Jimbo's talk page, I suggested that if Jimbo is to remain the route of appeal, the policy should at least be amended to state that if the appellant does not receive a response within 30 days, they should assume that the ArbCom decision has been upheld.  That way the person is not waiting forever for a response.  It also gives the person a hint that they shouldn't hold out too much hope, without actually coming out and saying it. Neutron (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment – the suggestion Jimbo Wales should have the power to unilaterally control and change decisions made by the arbitration committee is bizarre. Wales has repeatedly shown himself as indifferent, if not outright hostile to the plight of committed content builders on Wikipedia. Rather than engage constructively with editors who attempt to aquaint him a civil manner with the barriers and difficulties committed content builders confront, he has determinedly reacted in antagonistic ways, such as systematically ignoring their concerns, even banning them outright from his talk page for the effrontery of asking him questions (in a civil manner), and calling for populist purges by social networkers of the editors he feels most uncomfortable with. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Support removal. On the condition that there is something put in place of this.  If Jimbo does not use this then I do not see any reason for him to have it.--5 albert square (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal – Royal prerogative must remain. It is the essence of the constitutional system in place here, however scattered and uncodified. We must remember that the Arbitration Committee was created by Mr Wales, and for that reason it must be accountable to him, regardless of how rarely he uses such powers. RGloucester  — ☎ 23:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Not one single part of your comment contains any logical reasoning. —  Scott  •  talk  03:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not known for reason, and I find it to be overrated. However, I will note that without the continuity of Mr Wales's authority, the Arbitration Committee risks falling into a "GovCom" role. Even if Mr Wales does not exercise his authority, the spectre of it ensures that the ArbCom knows its place in the system, and does not overstep the bounds of its authority. This is the essence of accountability in a constitutional monarchy, and why royal prerogative is retained even when it is not exercised. Mr Wales serves as the font of authority. Any replacement for his role would not be satisfactory, and would lead to more bureaucracy and politicking, neither of which we need. RGloucester  — ☎ 06:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If Arbcom still gives any consideration to Wales's existence in their decision making, then they are truly incompetent. If Wales tries to overrule them, then it will just end up as a public humiliation from him. There is reason why Jimbo doesn't even acknowledge reading appeals posted to his talk page, he knows that his "power" is just a fiction at this point.--Staberinde (talk) 13:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It is a question of symbolism. One does not want ArbCom to be the highest authority of the project by default. The dilemma you describe is the exactly dilemma facing constitutional monarchs the world over. Whether his power is a "fiction" or not, that spectre of that power ensures that ArbCom can never claim to be the highest authority. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * One does not Please only speak for yourself. —  Scott  •  talk  18:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Waste of time even discussing this - if Wales holds the keys to this whole enterprise, he can have as much leverage or as little as he decides. That's the nature of being the person with the keys - any decision by the community on this point is utterly irrelevant. Get over yourselves. JMWt (talk) 08:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Wales doesn't hold any keys. WMF holds the keys and they are separate entity. Wales is just one of the ten members of the board of trustees, and some sort of unofficial public face for media due historical reasons.--Staberinde (talk) 13:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - A community referendum which gathers a special majority (65% sorts) with atleast 100 votes from autoconfirmed users (and above) sounds like a good replacement to me. Also, I put in absolutely random values here and there, so don't kill me please. --<span style="font-family:'Tahoma',Geneva,sans-serif">QEDK ( T &#128214;  C ) 11:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose There may well come a time when the elected committee gets it seriously wrong and if this is implemented then it will be very hard to challenge the decision. It may also have the case where a "real" cabal is created to make the petition to what they want. Keeping reserve powers is a way to ensure that there is oversight on the elected representatives. The Constitutional Monarchy system on Wikipedia works best in practice and to change it would open the door to populist republicanism.  The C of E  God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 23:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support removal There obviously will always be an end point in Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes, and with all respect to Jimbo I think that Wikipedia has matured well beyond it being his judgement (if ever exercised). The elected ArbCom is a much more appropriate end point, not least as a) despite what some people endlessly rattle on about, its members are committed to doing a good job and generally sensitive to community views and b) if any or all of its members go off the rails they can be voted out if they don't resign first. Nick-D (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - In a sense we're all Mr. Wales' guests on here, and I think this kind of symbolic role for him is a reasonable tradition to keep up. I've always liked the aesthetics of a constitutional monarchy system (perhaps because I live in one). If we get to some really serious disagreement between Arbcom and Jimbo we can all worry about this kind of problem when it comes. Blythwood (talk) 06:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose on the grounds that it is not up to editors here to decide what powers the Wikipedia founder should have. If Jimbo Wales is happy to formally give up his rights of overturning ArbCom decisions, fine. Otherwise he is and will always be free to run this project of his in any way he likes, whatever we may think of it. So, simply ask Jimbo whether he is ready to rescind his right to override the popular vote. This RfC looks like an element of some power struggle, someone intending to show Jimbo that editors here can vote his powers out. Clearly someone here has never managed an organisation with hundreds of staff, and falls for the "all power to the people" fashion... — kashmiri  <sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#80F;">TALK  21:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a common misunderstanding that Jimbo still runs the Wikipedia. That is not really true, WMF runs Wikipedia, Jimbo is just one of the ten members of the board of trustees, and also an unofficial media face. Jimbo was actually asked about his opinion on this appeals issue . He never replied. Just like he doesn't reply for appeals themselves. For all practical purposes this policy just fools editors into thinking that there is another final appeal, while actually there isn't any because Jimbo does not even acknowledge reading those appeals.--Staberinde (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Quite. If anything, this theoretical power should be removed from him on the basis of his incredibly dismissive attitude towards members of the community on the topic. —  Scott  •  talk  15:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I am the editor whose appeal to Jimbo sparked this RfC.  I actually don't care whether Jimbo can or can not ammend remedies agreed by ArbCom (although I believe ArbCom should be responsible to someone, or some committee).  What I do really care about though is the way this IS currently a valid avenue of appeal, but some editors choose to attack and deride editors using this process.  First, I don't think anyone should be given false hope - it appears that is the case at the moment.  Second, no editor should be expected to trawl through the talk page archives to find out that Jimbo's involvement is, it seems, about as rare as hen's teeth.  But third, and my most important point, is that editors should remain civil when addressing the appealant.  The very first comment after I formally made my appeal was "You are making a fool of yourself" and further taunts and baiting ensued.  On other pages, editors complained that my appeal was "whining" and "wasting the communities time". Discussion of my appeal to Jimbo was ultimately involved in a thread which led to my receiving a 7-day site ban (my first, and hopefully last, ever ban).  While Jimbo and others can not control the behaviour of those hell-bent on deriding or attacking me, if there is no chance of an appeal to Jimbo being acted upon, it should not be made available to avoid exposing the naive to these sorts of attacks.  So, it really needs to cleared up whether Jimbo has this authority, or not.  If he does, it should be used so there is no false hope for editors.  If not, this avenue of appeal should be removed from the template. DrChrissy (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not a question of Jimbo's authority IMHO. He has an authority to do pretty much anything. The matter is, whether a possibility to appeal from ArbCom to him should be set forth as a procedural option. To reiterate: this should not be about Jimbo's authority but about the appeal procedure. If the issue was presented in this way from the beginning, perhaps answers would be different. —  kashmiri  <sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#80F;">TALK  22:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - I agree that some form of appeal beyond ArbCom should be available, but no one individual should be able to make unilateral decisions in any matter of such importance. However, the method of appeal should be to a fairly large, highly experienced group;  status is too easy to obtain, and even the usergroup proposed at the Village Pump seems too low to me. Perhaps a quorum of 10% of active and semi-active uninvolved administrators, with a 2/3 supermajority vote required to amend or overturn the Arbcom decision. It should definitely be a public process, in so much as the process is visible to the community, but the only editors who should be allowed to present arguments should be the appellant and any persons directly linked to the appealed case (i.e. Arbitrators, involved admins, other involved editors); editors who only made comments on the talk page should not be considered involved, but those who supplied statements on the actual case page should be considered involved. The "appeals court" will, of course, have access to all evidence and statements presented during the original case, and no one other than the appellant should be compelled to provide any additional statements. I have additional ideas on how this process would work, but I will share those with others if requested. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 09:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong support: remove and replace with democratic procedures. I would even vote for Wales if he finally instated a fully democratic governing here. It is way overdue to overcome medieval times of dictatorship. --.js[democracy needed] 08:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support removal. I don't know if a higher appeal after ArbCom is needed (such a chain has to stop somewhere in any case), but if it exists, it should be with something with community trust and control. We can't control Wales (his "founder" flag is not removable by any of us), and he certainly hasn't my trust, based on years of problematic edits, discussions, and in the past use of tools (here and at Commons). Fram (talk) 09:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support removal of special authority for Jimbo Wales. No other Wikimedia project that I am aware of has a monarch, and we do not need one either. Also, the last times Jimbo used his superpowers (both here and at Commons) were spectacular failures suggesting he should not have special authority. —Kusma (t·c) 10:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose change. It ain't broke, so don't fix it. Guy (Help!) 13:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Assuming, as appears to be the case, that people who submit an appeal to Jimbo from an ArbCom decision never get any response from him at all, ever, then "it" does seem to be "broke". Which is a somewhat different issue from the one originally raised in this RfC, but it is still an issue.  Neutron (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Questions: How is this even ripe for an RFC? Speedy close?  Or are there no rules on what makes an RFC 'ripe' other than who carries the bigger stick.-- Elvey (t•c) 23:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Appeals for blocks, not ArbCom related, including indefinite block from editing talk page
This page says that AC oversees "Appeals of blocks or bans directly related to Arbitration Committee decisions or arbitration enforcement: Discussed and decided by the full committee."

I was contacted by a user who wants to appeal a block applied by an administrator but unrelated to ArbCom. This user is indefinitely blocked from editing their own talk page. I checked and I do not see guidance on how users may appeal blocks of their talk page.
 * Appealing a block
 * Guide to appealing blocks

Who accepts appeals from users whose talkpages are indefinitely blocked?  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  21:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Both pages direct an editor to WP:UTRS to file an appeal if their talk page access is revoked.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Archives need update
The archive box on this page only goes up to /Archive 17, but at least /Archive 18 exists (I would take 30 sec. to fix it, but am under the impression that regular editors are forbidden to tweak things on any ArbCom-related pages, even templates relating to AC, so I'm not going to mess with archive box templates on AC's own talk page). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. Amortias (T)(C) 21:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

2016 Discretionary Sanctions review
At Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 18 it was proposed, and at least some of the then-Arbs accepted the idea, that we're due for another review of the WP:AC/DS system. There was a sense that this should be deferred to the incoming, post-election Arbs, so we here we are. Can we set this in motion please? If you review /Archive 18 and /Archive 17 (at least), the Template talk:Ds/alert page, and the number of times that "wait, this user's Ds/alert expired [or they didn't get one], so we can't act decisively even though the article's talk page has a big DS alert banner on top of it" has come up, etc., it's clear that the DS and its alerts system still have kinks to work out. There's still a general perception that DS alerts are threats, and that leaving one is hostile act, not a steering toward civility and dispute resolution. Etc. It's been since 2013, I think, since the system was reviewed cohesively and tweaked. (This is aside from any concerns that DS, at least as presently authorized, might be too much, that it gives random admins too much power to "shoot from the hip" based on first impressions about the present tenor a dispute without looking into the facts behind it. There are countervailing concerns that it's toothless, because few admins will ever use it.  And counter-countervailing one that some admins use it too much, in one-sided ways. Etc.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh this looks like fun...let me read and digest....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * One of the big things I think would help is that currently, the edit filter log isn't triggered when there is already a (or more) discretionary sanction alert on the talk page. That I'd like to change. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with the original poster. In my opinion, we have Discretionary Sanctions because the existing methods of dispute resolution are ineffective, inefficient, and inadequate. In my case, I was making a special effort to do everything by the book:
 * (a) I discussed everything first (I made no edits), but I was accused of Wikilawyering (b) I provided several references to support my position, other editors said it was too onerous and unreasonable for them to have to provide references (WP:RS!) (c) I provided primary sources supporting my position, other editors were no able to (I later discovered they did not even have the primary sources) (d) I sought other opinions through dispute resolution
 * The subject I was discussing had nothing to do with pseudoscience. The source I was discussing had nothing to do with pseudoscience. So "Broadly construed" was taken to absurd extremes: (a) It was argued that the author of the source had also written about a contentious subject (not categorised as pseudoscience), which (b) at one time during said article's history (for about 2 weeks), it had been incorrectly labelled as "Category:Fringe subjects without critical scientific evaluation", and that (c) this category was a subcategory of Category:Pseudoscience. Bingo.
 * In my opinion, the following improvements should be made:
 * Discontinue Discretionary Sanctions, and improve Dispute Resolution.
 * (a) Stricter requirement for sources and diffs supporting WP:BURDEN and WP:ASPERSIONS, otherwise they are not following policy, and should be struck through. (b) Stricter enforcement of WP:CIVIL, it's a core policy (Criticize content, not the editor)
 * Bans/blocks should escalate and be finite, in order to stop unreasonable subjective durations, and lengthy appeals, ie/. 1-day, 3-day, 1-week, 2-week, 1-month, 2m, 4m 6m, 1y --Iantresman (talk) 14:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Double listing in "Areas of current conflict" on WP:AC/DS
It appears that GMOs are listed twice in the WP:AC/DS and the second entry does not link to a case. Requesting that the second mention be removed as redundant. Thank you!  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 04:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions
I have three years experience as administrator, including arb enforcement, and I served previously on the arb committee of the Russian Wikipedia. However, I am not a lawyer by profession. I just spent half an hour trying to figure out what steps should I make to put the article Shusha (which is amenable to Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2) under 1RR (and whether I am authorized to do this) and failed miserably. The case was amended, fine. I am allowed to use discretionary sanctions. Fine. There is Ds for discretionary sanctions. It has very bad description page which mentions no Armenia or Azerbaijan. After trying to walk in circles, suprised by the level of inefficiency of wiki-bureaucracy, I landed here.

I would very much appreciate if
 * Someone leaves a step by step instruction (or shows where it is located) explaining what is my authority as uninvolved administrator and how I can add 1RR (what and who should be notified, logged and how), generally applicable for all arb cases.
 * Someone makes sure that this instruction (or a link to an existing instruction) gets stored permanently so that one can ever find it faster that in half an hour.

<Going off-line for three hours> Much appreciated, --Ymblanter (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No idea about the full procedure beyond what it says there, but the code for Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, found in Ds/topics, is “a-a”. So I expect a relevant talk-page-header notice linked to that decision would be produced by, or a user-talk alert by  . Hope this tidbit helps.—Odysseus 1  4  7  9  18:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, it is helpful, but I would still like to see the instruction streamlined. If I can not figure out how it could be done, almost noone can.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to get something done about this. I agree it needs a step-by-step guide. I'm busy/away for about a week so can't do it myself, but we are discussing it. Editnotice is going to be necessary if you want edit notices to appear when someone opens an edit window. Doug Weller  talk 10:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Template:Ds/alert is a counterproductive failure
People have reported this problem multiple times in multiple places, but it always seems to fall on deaf ears. I'm going to spell it out pointedly and in no-uncertain terms.
 * This template is always and invariably seen as hostile and a palapable threat. No matter what you say, it is never taken as a neutral just-FYI notice, and it is never appreciated.
 * The almost universal reaction to this template is to yell at the person who left it, and leave them a tit-for-tat copy of it on their own talk page, no matter how many it has received in the last year (mostly from people leaving "revenge" Ds/alerts, which are pointless - anyone who left you one is already are of the DS, by definition).
 * No one reads the instructions (see previous point), and despite the commanding tone of the documentation, compliance with it is not enforced in any way.
 * No one takes it seriously as a warning or neutral notice, only an an invitation to fight to the death. I cannot think of a single case in which this template has been delivered that it did not result in an marked in battlegrounding behavior by the recipient.
 * I could even point to specific cases where the leaving of the template is itself what catalyzed borderline behavior to worsen to such an extent that it led to escalating sanctions and an eventual topic ban or indeff of the notified party (but talking in detail about editors who can't speak for themselves would not be cool).

I've done an experiment. Despite the fact that I believe WP:ARBATC to be wrong-headed, I have been leaving on user talk pages of everyone who appears to be transgressing WP:ARBATC, since late last year. I have tried just leaving the alert, leaving it with a note explaining that I don't think ARBATC is legit but that this will not stop AE admins from applying DS to WP:AT / WP:MOS disputes, leaving it with a bot-like reference to the diff that triggered the notice, and leaving it with a personal outright complaint/warning about the behavior – one extreme to the other.

Result: Despite this variance, the reaction is always as described above. This matches the reaction to every other Ds/alert I've ever left in any other topic area (WP:ARBAA2, and some medical ones, for example), so it is not limited at WP:ARBATC.

Conclusion: This needs to be scrapped. This template serves no constructive purpose and is doing more harm than good. (That's aside from the fact that the template is technically malfunctional, as reported many times at Template talk:Ds, and never fixed.)

Common-sense alternative:
 * Anyone participating regularly in a topic area subject to discretionary sanctions must simply be considered aware of the DS that apply there (we have talk page banners announcing this, remember?).
 * Anyone involved in any WP:RFARB, WP:ARCA, WP:AE, or other noticeboard action about the topic area, in which the DS are discussed or clearly linked to is aware of them (and obviously if they've been sanctioned or had it proposed that they be sanctioned).
 * Anyone notified of the DS in clear terms by anyone, with a link to the case page or the enforcement log, is aware of them.

This has been one of the most farcical WP:BUREAUCRACY failures in WP history and is just needs to be thrown out in favor of the same anti-wikilawyering, anti-gaming, plain common sense we apply to all disciplinary matters. The loophole this template was created to close was a pointless illusion cast by ArbCom itself. And it created a worse one: People can escape (and actually have escaped) sanctions on the basis of their Ds/alert having expired.

It was concluded last year that another DS review was in order, but that it would punted for the new ArbCom. We'll, you're here now, four months into your term, so can we please have a timeline for when this will be dealt with? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * A rewrite could help. Maybe something like "Just to let you know, topic is a very contentious area that has seen a lot of trouble in the past. Please edit carefully and always discuss before making big changes. Read more details at this link." Without special colors or formatting, just the text and the signature. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The alert seems to work well enough for pseudoscience and fringe science. Maybe it's just that the entire topic of capitalisation inspires weapons-grade lameness. Guy (Help!) 23:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's more complicated than that. The FRINGE stuff attracts, well, fringey people, who are used to being on the questionable side of things and being told they're in the wrong or crossing a line; many of them relish being the underdog and rooting out the conspiracy, and blah blah blah. These people are not all that common. But many native speakers and quite a new non-native ones believe that whatever they were taught in 7th grade about how to use English is  correct way to do it, period, and or that there may be more than one way to do it thus every way every documented anywhere at any time  be permitted, not matter what, just so they don't have to write here any differently than they'd write in their personal blog. Thus, MOS (and AT and RM, which deal with many of the same matters, just in titles) attract a constant trickle of "@#$% this crap, this is, and I will not give up until it is righted" viewpoints on various stylistic nitpicks that most editors just WP:DGAF about.  This flow of tendentiousness and battlegrounding comes from people who are not otherwise fringey or disruptive. And they become unreasonably incensed at the idea that they're ever doing anything transgressive in trying to write whatever punctuation GREATWRONG they're going off about. A better comparison might be to the "my ethnicity/religion/political group vs. yours" types, than to fringe "science" pushers. If you're some racist being warned of WP:ARBAA2, you  in you heart that those [insert one of at least Azerbaijanis, Armenians, Turks, Kurds] are no good and trying to lie through Wikipedia about [insert one of: genocide, pogroms, terrorism, invasion, etc.]. Fringey people tend to back off, holy warriors don't, and the MOS disruptors behave more like the latter.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It also seems that the DS/A edit filter doesn't currently make any sense, but I don't understand enough what it's supposed to do to fix it. Sam Walton (talk) 23:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The technical problem with the template is it does not offer any tools to check whether someone's already been alerted, or instruction not to use the template in a WP:JERK manner and so on, until you try to save it.  If they have already been warned, it does not offer this material at all, saves the template, and warns them again, making the poster of the template the rule-violator by leaving duplicate notices within the last year. If they  already have the notice, it then gives you the option to check if they already have a notice, but it already knows that they don't. The entire thing is backasswards.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * While the template might need a rewrite to sound less threatening (even though it states that receiving a notice is not evidence of wrong-doing), I don't see how you can make sweeping statements about the notices never having any effect or people only reacting to them negatively or posting notices resulting in more conflict than before. We just don't have the data to back up generalizations like those. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 23:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's an AGF thing. No one is going to WP:NOTHERE for months or years on end diffing Ds/alert postings and every form of reaction to them. WP already has too much of people writing internal documentation about internal documentation about internal documentation. If I tell you that nearly every time I leave one of these it causes some kind of histrionic reaction and a worsening of behavior, I am not kidding.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * It would help a lot if the template were rewritten in a casual, conversational style instead of being so formal and Vogonish. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * And the technical problems fixed. But it would be much more sensible to simply do as I suggested, and assume that people who obviously should be aware of DS after being warned, or participating in DS area for months or years on end are aware of it, and throwing out the gameable, broken alert-notice bureaucracy. ArbCom isn't magically immune to WP:BUREAUCRACY policy simply because they're ArbCom. They really need to rethink this.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikicology
I am uncertain if this is the right page to post this. Wikicology has been recently sanctioned in the latest case to close, but he looks to have courtesy vanished by blanking his user and user talk pages. Has the arbitators been informed of these actions? 00:22, 14 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.148.94.128 (talk)


 * Yes; it‘s under discussion on the ArbCom noticeboard.—Odysseus 1 4  7  9  00:56, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions page
Cont.alerts

Replace

With:

to fix the tense.

Or preferably:

to simplify somewhat.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC).

anyone seen Courcelles?
He hasn't edited since May 4, so I wonder if anyone knows if he'll be back anytime soon. Thanks. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 02:27, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Courcelles is currently inactive. Arbitrators are people too, and for various reasons we are not always able to be available non-stop during our terms. If you are hoping to know more specifically when he will be active again, I would try asking him directly. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I left him a ping on my user talk a couple weeks ago and posted here when he didn't respond after a while.  It was about a page protection that he did several years back, not arbitration releated, but I thought someone here might know something.  I'll post on WP:RFPP about the protection. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 17:03, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Info on committee
Where can we find information, if at all, as to the exact users who make up the Arbitration Committee? WebofDeceit (talk) 21:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Astonishingly enough, at Arbitration Committee. &#8209; Iridescent 21:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Courcelles?
Courcelles, are you around? I left you a note on my talk page since yours is protected. Thanks. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 09:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You can request this here. I can't speak for but I disagree that placing an edit request on the talk page isn't preferable to unprotection. Drmies (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no way I'd ever unprotect that page, and if I did, it would be in a timescale measured in decades. The scandal itself is a vandalism magnet, and college football in general is polarizing, leading to this still being a potential BLP and vandalism nightmare.  Courcelles (talk) 18:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Misprint breaking link
Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms contains the text " Surpassed by motion at 22:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC) " but it should be " Surpassed by motion at 22:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC) ". Are non-Arbs/clerks really not allowed to edit those pages when there is a clear problem like that? Any disruptive edit to those pages would be immediately noticed as such, while asking me to post this here (or, worse still, at ARCA!) is an incredible time drain. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 05:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's far, far easier and simpler just to say "no edits" by anyone who isn't an arb/clerk than to define what is and isn't disruptive, etc, for all possible circumstances. However, I know of no occasion when someone has got into trouble for invoking WP:IAR to fix a typo that is breaking a link. Now you have pointed it out here and no arbs/clerks have responded to you I'll do it to save it being broken even longer. Thryduulf (talk) 14:36, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks both. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 03:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 CUOS appointments ?
Hello ArbCom, does the committee plan on holding community application process for these functionary appointments in 2016? Please see also this thread: Village_pump_(proposals). Thank you, — xaosflux  Talk 21:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , we're talking about this and will get back to you all. In the meantime we are proposing cloning ; with a bit of luck little Floq will start pushing buttons in about twelve years, but you were asking about 2016, of course, not 2028. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 13:34, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. — xaosflux  Talk 13:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , I have no positive news on the Floq-cloning; apparently his sample was tainted. On the other question, it is not likely that the WMF will change its mind regarding the requirements for CU/OS, and the ArbCom members who have responded to my email question do not think that this is a good idea. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the update, regarding the not "good idea" are you referring to holding a call for applications process, the changes requested at VPR, or both? — xaosflux  Talk 15:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was referring to the changes that were discussed at the Village Pump. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , I've asked for this to be brought up with the Powers That Be. If anything comes out of it we'll be in touch. It's times like this when I realize I'm just a pawn in the game of life, as a wise man once said. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you again. — xaosflux  Talk 17:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Incoming Mail on procedures page still refers to dissolved Audit Subcommittee
The Incoming Mail section on the Arbitration Committee/Procedures page still refers to the disbanded Audit Subcommittee, specifically in Complaints regarding CheckUser or Oversight use shall be referred to the Audit Subcommittee. This should be updated, but there is a stern warning on the top of the page that  Therefore, I think this is the best place to bring this up. --Sincerely, Marksomnian. (talk) 12:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this. Fixed. Doug Weller  talk 15:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Indefinite blocks and DS
I'd like to get some clarifying information about whether indefinite blocks are supported under DS. The sanctions page reads "blocks of up to one year in duration" but I noted in the DS log that many users have seemingly been handed indefinite blocks over the years. A recent relevant case is discussed here. was indefinitely blocked (block notice here by and is now questioning the block duration. Spartaz, I mean no disrespect to you in bringing the issue here without discussing it with you, but I gathered from your note to Darkfrog24 that you don't want to discuss it. Without commenting on Darkfrog's behavior and the legitimacy of the block, I think the user has a right to a clear answer and for her block to be reduced to a year if that's the policy. We should also remind admins working DS that a year is the maximum block authorized by the committee. -- Laser brain   (talk)  14:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe WP:ARCA is the best place to raise that question. [In my role as a clerk,] Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 15:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Explicitly not in my role as a clerk, I believe DS blocks are limited to one year per direct motion by the Committee. I have seen, however, an indefinite block that was made with DS authorization only for the first year and as a normal admin action for the indefinite. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 15:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I am hardly the committee's local expert on DS procedure, but Kevin's description is how I thought it worked too. The first year is a special-AE-protection block and after that it's just an ordinary indef. (Of course, if you want an Official Answer, ARCA is the place to go.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That is my interpretation as well. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I certainly see no problem with that interpretation. It makes sense that an Admin should be able to block someone indefinitely with the first year (only) being under DS. Doug Weller  talk 08:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Who can put discretionary sanctions notices on an article's talk page?
I'd quite like to put on Talk:Violence at UEFA Euro 2016 - can I just be bold and do it, or do the Arbitration Committee need some notice somewhere first? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  09:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, anyone can add a discretionary sanctions notice to a talk page or alert users to the existence of discretionary sanctions. In the end, it's up to administrators who want to impose a sanction to ensure that the edits they are sanctioning for are adequately covered by DS and that the user was aware. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, make sure you alert affected editors with per WP:AC/DS. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay, it's just after stuff like this (which to me indicates potential trouble ahead), that I think it's worth doing. In that specific case, I blocked the IP anyway (based on other edits) as they were clearly WP:NOTHERE, but I fear there will be more like that in the future, and they might be more persistent - in which case they'll get a DS alert as and when it's needed. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

On changing ARBPOL
I would just like some clarification on the amendment section of the Arbitration Policy. First of all, using the first listed method, is holding an RfC and then requesting an ArbCom motion insufficient? Is it strictly required that ArbCom must approve the proposed amendment before it is submitted to the community? And if someone opts to use the second method, how is one supposed to start one of these petitions? Is advertising the petition allowed, or not? If not, how will the petition ever obtain any signatures? I would just like some clarification, because the policy is a bit vague. Thanks! Biblio (talk) Help improve Wikipedia. 01:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The policy does indeed mandate a specific order in which these actions must be performed; a proposed amendment can either (a) be approved by a majority of the committee and then be approved by majority vote in a community referendum, or (b) be requested by a petition of 100+ editors and then be approved by majority vote in a community referendum.
 * As far as petitions are concerned, there's no set procedure for starting them at this point, as that process has never been utilized. Personally, I see no problem with advertising the existence of such a petition, subject to the usual rules about canvassing.
 * I will note, incidentally, that using the petition mechanism may, in practice, be more difficult than convincing the committee. The policy requires that the petition request a specific amendment, and while I imagine many people may want to change the policy, it's quite possible that they all disagree about how the policy should be changed, such that no particular proposal would achieve the necessary number of endorsements. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 02:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Kirill. Biblio (talk) Help improve Wikipedia. 05:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I was an ArbCom member when the new policy was developed and my general understanding is the same as Kirill's. If I recall correctly, Roger Davies took the lead within the Committee in working on the new draft, so I am pinging him in case he has anything to add. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I have just read Kirill's succinct and lucid comments above, and agree entirely with his and NYB's interpretation.  Roger Davies  talk 14:10, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

ArbitrationCommitteeChart
Is there a reason why User:Opabinia regalis isn't on ArbitrationCommitteeChart? I'll slot them in between Casliber and Keilana in tranche beta (done) as the order seems to be the order they came in at the election (except for continuing arbitrators who retain their slot). Carcharoth (talk) 07:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Dammit, you blew my cover! ;) Probably just a mistake, thanks (I think...) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Carch. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 16:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Draft looking for feedback
I've started a preliminary draft about outing and COI procedures at User:Tryptofish/Drafts/COI List Draft. Feedback about it is welcome at User talk:Tryptofish/Drafts/COI List Draft. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposal
There is a proposal at Village pump (proposals). --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Revising previous decisions
I am asking this question because another Wikipedia is interested to know how EN WP ARBCOM (as the role model of its local similar committee) handles certain situations:


 * 1) Does EN WP ARBCOM revise previous cases if one of the parties asks for a review in light of new evidence? Has this ever been done?
 * 2) If the answer to 1 is yes, assuming that the original decision of ARBCOM was to de-admin a user, and the revised decision is to restate their adminship, does this user regain access immediately or have to go through an RfA? Has this ever happened in the history of EN WP ARBCOM?

Please provide links or diffs as you see fit. Thanks in advance, huji— TALK 13:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Regarding the first question, what about revising a previous case despite lack of new evidence? Can the ArbCom repeal a previous decision just because its members have changed over time? 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As a procedural matter, yes. The ArbCom can revisit any of their past cases at any time, and past decisions do not create binding precedent for future cases. It is possible for an ArbCom to repeal a previous decision just because its members have changed over time, but I think that in practice, new ArbComs tend to defer to the reasoning of the ArbCom that made the original decision and won't amend them unless the parties to the case argue for it or new evidence is uncovered. The goal is dispute resolution, not politics. Mz7 (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I am not an arbitrator, so I obviously cannot speak for the Committee. However, the answer to the first question would be yes, in accordance with Arbitration/Policy, the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee retains jurisdiction over all matters heard by it, including associated enforcement processes, and may, at its sole discretion, revisit any proceeding at any time. To set up a process for this, the committee created the page Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment (commonly known as "ARCA"), where any user (including parties to previous cases) may file a request for the committee to clarify or amend a previous case or proceeding. At ARCA, users may also submit appeals to rescind ArbCom-imposed bans or other editing restrictions. Just recently, the Committee granted an appeal from a longstanding editor who has respectfully stayed within the bounds of an editing restriction placed on him over four years ago.
 * The second question is a bit more complicated. In almost every case where the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee has removed a user's administrator access (commonly called "desysopping"), they have stated that the user in question may apply for re-adminship at any time at WP:RFA. In other words, the user usually does not have to ask ArbCom to revise their decision in order to regain administrator access. With that being said, the administrator policy also states that the ArbCom can prevent a user from regaining adminship through WP:RFA if it so chooses. This is exceptionally rare. I have been observing the ArbCom since mid-2011, and I can't remember a time when this ArbCom has specifically denied a desysopped user a new WP:RFA. Mz7 (talk) 20:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your detailed answers, Mz7! I agree with everything you've said. Regarding the second question, I'm not sure this has ever happened. I would personally feel that if we had mistakenly or incorrectly removed a user's admin tools, they should not have to go through another RfA, but this would of course be a case-by-case thing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It did happen 10 years ago here, although that particular clause was struck two years ago. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:Mz7 for your thorough response. My second question was trying to ask something slightly different: if a user is desysoped by the ArbCom, has there ever been a case where the user was re-sysoped by the ArbCom as a result of revisiting the case (e.g. in light of new evidence)? Basically, I want to know if it is allowed and/or exercised by the ArbCom to reinstate a previous admin, without an RfA. huji— TALK 19:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * We used to do it (see, for instance), but it's been years since we last did it. We still technically have the power to do it, but, barring exceptional cases, we generally prefer to let the community decide (for a recentish case, see this amendment request); quoting myself, there I wrote I can see us regranting adminiship when we made a mistake, or when new evidence comes to light which should have been taken into consideration but wasn't or other, similar, and exceptional cases. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

If ANI imposed a block that couldn't be appealed on talk, UTRS, or IRC could it be appealed to arbcom?
Administrator noticeboard/incidents is floating a block including a block on tpa on the condition that it couldn't be appealed to utrs, and presumably that would rule out an irc appeal as well. If this is something they can do, would it be possible to appeal such a block to arbcom? Asking for a friend(not really, sadly, no).TeeTylerToe (talk) 23:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Speaking generally, I'd be very uncomfortable with a user who does not fit the criteria at Arbitration Committee/Ban appeals being indefinitely blocked without being able to appeal on their talk page or to UTRS, since this really only leaves them the option to appeal to Jimbo Wales (who is not known for granting appeals that the community/ArbCom have not). However, it appears you've left out the detail that the block proposed at ANI would be for six months, not indefinite.


 * This does raise the point that, if this is to be considered a community ban, UNBAN and Arbitration Committee/Ban appeals are in conflict: the first says that community bans may be appealed to ArbCom, the second does not. It's worth sorting out either way. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * FWIW different people are proposing blocks of different lengths including both 6 months and indef.TeeTylerToe (talk) 03:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, while I imagine that arbcom cases aren't short and sweet, how would you feel if you were blocked for 6 months, tried to appeal, and your appeal was denied on the grounds that you should just sit it out? Maybe arbcom should take such appeals, or maybe such blocks shouldn't only be appeal-able to arbcom.TeeTylerToe (talk) 07:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As far as my understanding was, ArbCom has the theoretical authority to overturn any community sanction, but generally only would do so in cases of clear impropriety or abuse of discretion (an involved admin closing the discussion, a clear misrepresentation of consensus, the discussion hadn't run for the required time, etc.). I don't believe that ArbCom has ever overturned a community sanction where the consensus of the community was genuine and properly interpreted, and I certainly don't think it should. That being said, if no means of appeal were left but to appeal to ArbCom, it would seem to at least make sense that ArbCom could at least decide to allow such an appeal to take place. But if that restriction on appeals were for a reasonably time-limited period like six months, and nothing else was defective or inappropriate about the decision, I would think the response would be "Wait it out and appeal after that restriction expires." Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You don't think there should be any checks and balances on an/i whatsoever if they go through proper procedure? Hypothetical indefs handed out for the slightest infraction or even no infraction whatsoever?  There may have been a time I too might not have thought a need for that could exist.TeeTylerToe (talk) 04:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a check. ArbCom or Jimbo can overturn it if it's improper or outrageous. Otherwise, the community has every right to determine who may and may not participate in it, and in what way. That's why the idea of a community sanction exists to start with. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * So arbcom should handle ani block appeals that don't allow any other appeal?TeeTylerToe (talk) 07:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that blocks this harsh were proposed because he has been indeffed before, look at his block log. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not uncommon for sanctions such as X month block with no appeal for X months or Y year ban with no appeal for 1 year to be proposed on ANI or AN. These are at times coupled with indefinite topic bans in ABC topic area with no appeal for X months. IN cases of blocks, UTRS should always be a recourse for unblock requests. The no recourse to appeal the block usually refers to the standard unblock request that blocked users can raise on their talk page. Blackmane (talk) 01:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

RFC on rule changes for the December 2016 Arbitration Committee Election
The annual Request For Comment to set rules for the December 2016 Arbitration Committee Election is now open. As in recent years, the rules from 2015 will remain in place unless changed by consensus during this RFC. The RFC is scheduled to last approximately 30 days, and should end after September 30. For anyone interested in participating, the RFC can be found at Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016. Thanks in advance for your participation. Monty 845  01:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Relevant TfD
Procedural notification: a disused arbcom template, Template:Editnotices/Page/Template:ArbComBlock, has been TfD'd here. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

RfC of possible interest
Editors and Arbitrators may perhaps be interested in Wikipedia talk:Harassment. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Concerning recusal
As a general point of principle, arbitrators who recuse themselves from a specific case or process should try to stay away from it completely. If they are asked for pertinent information by other participants they may respond, and if they are parties to a case they may take all the actions appropriate for parties, but otherwise they should refrain from commenting. The rationale is that their status as arbitrators may give them undue influence on other arbs even if they don't vote. I understand the temptation, but it ought to be resisted. Best regards, Looie496 (talk) 14:27, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If an arbitrator has been involved with a dispute (or with the disputants) and has relevant information to contribute, but is not party, then why would you want this evidence not to be available to the committee? Arbitrators who are recused do not take part in any behind the scenes discussion about the matters from which they are recused, and the rest of the committee are perfectly capable of treating their colleague the same as they would anybody else. Thryduulf (talk) 20:26, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Anything in particular prompting this comment?
 * I don't think there's a one-size-fits-all rule for deciding when to participate with the "arb hat" off, but speaking for myself I want as much information as possible about a problem. Asking people with pertinent knowledge to keep mum for "appearance" reasons would be a net negative. The idea that arbs would be specifically more likely to defer to or agree with other arbs always surprises me when people express it. Arbcom is a group of 15 people elected for the express purpose of having opinions on things. The model wouldn't work if we just agreed with each other all the time. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I suppose I didn't make the point clearly enough. If recused arbs have pertinent knowledge, of course it should be made available.  But too often I have seen recused arbs expressing opinions about a case, and that is what generally shouldn't happen. Looie496 (talk) 13:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Recusal means an arbitrator can't participate in the case in their capacity as an arbitrator. That means no voting, no participation in private or arb-only discussions and areas, no participation in formulation of case decision drafts, and so on. It does not, however, forbid participation in the same way any member of the community could, such as offering evidence and opinions in the same area open to all editors for doing so. A recused arb is still a member of the community, and can do all the things open to non-arb members of the community for a matter they're recused on. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * And, at least in my opinion, I think that recused arbs should be able to do those things (i.e. the current situation is correct). Thryduulf (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I would certainly agree. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * For what little it may be worth, I also agree with the other comments here, and I'm left wondering why you, Looie, raised the issue. OR asked if there was something in particular that prompted the posting, and I too have to suspect that there was something. Looie, could you comment on whether you had a concern about a specific example? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * +1. Feedback from experienced users is great, but hard to put to use if it isn't specific and if we can't put it in context. You've seen something "too often" - when, where, about what? Why do you think the outcome was a problem and the comments you're reacting to contributed to it? We need data :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay in responding. I am not reacting to any specifically problematic action.  I just think that if you look at situations where court judges recuse themselves from cases, you will very rarely find them thinking it proper to intervene in a non-judicial capacity. I think the same ought to apply to arbs, on the general principle of avoiding even the appearance of possible impropriety.  All I can say is that it makes me uncomfortable to see this. I suspect that I am not alone. Looie496 (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well arbitration is not a court, and it's goal is not to uphold the law but to resolve disputes that are harming or preventing improvement to the encyclopaedia, so the analogy you make is a very poor fit. I've was an arbitrator for twelve months, and I've been following arbitration matters for around a decade all told; in that time this is the first occasion I can recall where the involvement of recused arbitrators as participants in cases has been described as giving the appearance of impropriety when no specific allegations of misconduct have been made (and those allegations have been few, far between and almost always completely baseless). My feeling is that your discomfort is decidedly more uncommon that you think it is, and I struggle to see how removing valuable input from cases in order to avoid the very unlikely potential for very vague problems is something that will benefit the encyclopaedia. If you have concerns about the actions of one or more specific arbitrator(s) in a specific case, then please share them (publicly or privately), giving as much detail about why those actions are (or seem to be) problematic as you can. That is something that can be looked into and action taken if necessary. Thryduulf (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I also do not see what should look improper about a recused judge still participating, but like a party like anyone else does. And not all claims of "appearance" are legitimate, either. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:52, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Also agreeing with Thryduulf, I might add that a silent recusal, so to speak, makes one wonder what’s behind it, but when the recused makes a statement or submits evidence the reason is usually apparent, to the benefit of ‘transparency’ and for the satisfaction of idle curiosity.—Odysseus 1 4  7  9  05:50, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , you started this thread apropos of seemingly nothing to describe a problem you say you've seen "too often", but you have no specific examples? If you don't want to post in public, feel free to email the mailing list, or contact the particular arb you're reacting to and let them know your concerns. Otherwise, this "many people are saying" stuff isn't specific enough to be feedback we can work with. If you think the standards for recusal should be changed in general, here's how to propose changes to the arbitration policy. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I repeat that I'm trying to establish a point of principle, not reacting to a specific case. Let me try once more to explain the issue.  The argument about why it is okay for recused arbs to participate is that if they are recused, they have no more influence than any other party.  This is not provable one way or the other, but I simply don't believe it.  I believe that most arbs will feel a need to maintain good relations with the other arbs, and consequently will pay special attention to input if it comes from an arb.  I am not arguing for a formal change in policy, I am simply suggesting that arbs should try to resist the urge to express their opinions in cases where they are recused. Looie496 (talk) 15:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That being the case, I think that it's reasonable (and also not at all controversial) that recused members should not privately communicate their opinions to the other members – but that expressing input in the role of "any other editor" is actually helpful if it is done onsite and transparently. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

When I was an arbitrator, if I recused from a case, I would try to stay completely away from the case, unless for some reason I had information or perspective that I could not expect other editors to provide. In the rare circumstance that I had something to communicate that I expected no one else would contribute if I didn't, then I would communicate it as if I were a non-arbitrator. I think this is the approach that most recused arbs use: that it's best for them to stay altogether away from the case, but not at the expense of the Committee being left completely unaware of something important.

All that being said, the importance of fine-tuning the Arbitration Policy and procedures with regard to issues of this nature seems small at this time. I don't, by any means, mean to belittle the importance of the ArbCom and its various functions, but in terms of actual cases, the number of cases decided this year can literally be counted on the fingers of one hand, which is a 95% reduction from the peak caseload a decade ago. (I've discussed the overall trend elsewhere and won't repeat the whole discussion here).

My point is not to disagree with the precept that arbitrators should have high standards of conduct, but merely to observe that for every dispute that becomes an ArbCom case, there are a couple of hundred others that are resolved on a noticeboard or an earlier stage of the DR process, and that it is a mistake for the community to focus too heavily on the finer points on the least used of all the processes. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:ARBCOM mass-messages
I have added myself to Category:Opted-out of message delivery to avoid the mass-messages sent by WP:ARBCOM. Please provide a means for me to opt out of your messages so I can go back receiving important mass-messages from other sources. Users interested in elections could watch Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard and so a one-time mass message (or preferably pop-up) to this effect would be welcome. Cessation of using the mass-message feature for election notices would avoid unwanted intrusion to the entire Wikipedia community. Thank you. --AlastairIrvine (talk) 07:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi! Consensus was established in this RfC to notify all eligible voters who have edited in the last year. A similar RfC should be held before next year's elections, so I would recommend chiming in to this effect when that RfC is held. =) Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 07:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * @Ks0stm: See also User_talk:Mdann52 --AlastairIrvine (talk) 07:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems fair to me. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 08:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Even if I opted out, I would still see the thousands of notices to user's whose pages I watch. I wish I could see the watchlist for only a few hours. Every time that I want to look today, it takes minutes. - Could you (whoever responsible next year) at least not send it to people who HAVE voted? Like myself. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Have you tried the "hide bots" option on the watchlist page? — xaosflux  Talk 13:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I have now. (Not that it has anything to with arbcom, but once you ask here:) I wasn't precise. It's not so much the number of entries that I mind, but the time it takes to wait. To use the "hide bots", you first have to get to the watchlist (waiting), then you can hide (waiting again). Normally I want to see what bots do, but how about a new function as a user preference: "ignore arbcom-related messages". All of them. The low number of cases in 2016 is a true blessing, thanks to all sitting arbs! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Logo
Hi there, I created a logo for you. Please use it as you wish. Kind regards, --Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 16:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Declining caseload
This year has been an unusually quiet year for ArbCom. If the Committee does not accept another case this year, that would mean 2016 will have only experienced 4 arbitration cases actually 5 arbitration cases. This is the least number of arbitration cases per year in the history of the Arbitration Committee.

Pulling the number of cases from the top of each year's case index: I haven't been around here terribly long, so I'm a bit curious about what caused this apparent decline in cases. Does the decline indicate that the community is becoming better at resolving conflicts on its own without a formal, structured process? Or does it indicate there are less conflicts in general? Is that because there are fewer members of the community in general than 10 years ago? Or has the ArbCom simply become more restrictive over time on what kinds of dispute deserve arbitration – i.e. would the same kind of case accepted by the 2006 ArbCom be accepted by today's ArbCom? Mz7 (talk) 02:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 2004: 35 cases
 * 2005: 100 cases
 * 2006: 116 cases
 * 2007: 91 cases, 6 dismissed without action
 * 2008: 39 cases, 2 dismissed without action
 * 2009: 30 cases
 * 2010: 12 cases
 * 2011: 16 cases
 * 2012: 11 cases
 * 2013: 12 cases
 * 2014: 11 cases
 * 2015: 18 cases
 * 2016: 4 cases (as of 12 November 2016) actually 5 arbitration cases


 * Keep in mind, also, that many things are handled behind the scenes. A decline in cases does not necessarily mean a decline in workload. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 02:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This is true. I guess I just assumed the amount of behind the scenes work remained the same. Has there been a corresponding increase in the amount of work done behind the scenes as opposed to on-wiki? Mz7 (talk) 03:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I did some stats on arbcom email traffic awhile back and it looked like this year has been within the same range as the past few years, so either we're talking more than usual about each case, or the proportion of "behind the scenes" stuff has gone up a bit. (Also, people always talk about number of cases and not ARCAs, but IIRC those are up a bit too, and they can sometimes take a fair bit of time/discussion.) Peak Arbcom Email happened in 2009 and traffic is now at around a third of its peak.
 * As for taking cases, one thing to keep in mind is that many of the recurring areas of dispute eventually ended up under DS, so instead of generating new arbcom cases, they're now being handled through AE. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That's an important point. I'm sure there's a link between the introduction and spread of DS and the declining caseload. Doug Weller  talk 19:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a major factor I think - without discretionary sanctions the Israel-Palestine topic area alone would probably generate 2-3 arbitration case requests each year, some of which would result in a case. Thryduulf (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If you go back and look at that cases from circa 2004-2006 you will see many disputes that would today never get anywhere near arbcom - they'd be resolved at a much lower level. This does mean that the cases which do reach arbcom these days are the disputes are the complex ones that take significant untangling, which is why a 2016 case takes much longer than a 2006 case. Thryduulf (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I've said before that I think the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of avoiding arbcom at all costs, with the consequence that decisions are made in less structured venues like ANI where there's less time and motivation for careful research. It's a self-reinforcing cycle that there's no obvious way out of - if we only get the very messiest cases, then all people see of arbcom is long, ponderous, bureaucracy-laden tedium accompanied by a month of mudslinging on the talk pages, and it perpetuates the idea that arbcom is best avoided if at all possible. One thing I do think we did well with the lower case volume this year is getting PDs out promptly - I don't think they were ever more than a few days past the target date, compared to last year when there were weeks of delay in some cases.
 * As for AE/DS, that has its ups and downs - on the one hand, one might wonder what the point is of going through a month-long, high-drama election to choose arbs when most of the ground-level decisions are going to be made by whichever admins self-select into AE work, on the basis of case decisions made several arbcoms ago. On the other hand, arbcom has never really built an effective mechanism for quick decisions on small things - ARCA is one of the slowest arb-related venues lately - and at this point the community has built up enough experience with these hot-spot areas that a long investigative process really isn't necessary.
 * Another consequence of the dropping-case-volume trend is that the relative importance of the behind-the-scenes parts of the job increases, even if the quantity doesn't change that much. Obviously, it's harder for the community to judge who will be (or was) effective in the behind-the-scenes roles, and arguably harder to recruit arb candidates to do a job they haven't been able to see. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That's interesting. Overall, do you think the arbitrators do a good job of handling the behind-the-scenes work, despite it not being exactly what they signed up for, or do you think there could potentially be a better way to handle it? Mz7 (talk) 19:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we're reasonably good at handling the "routine" behind-the-scenes stuff, though many of the issues brought to us are unfortunately not really things we can help much with. As a rough guess, around a quarter to a third of arbcom-l threads that originate from people who are not arbs, functionaries, or trolls are about harassment/outing issues, often involving things happening on other sites. (We also get a lot of appeals of CU blocks, and lost souls who ought to have sent their issue to OTRS.) That being said, the more unusual the circumstance, the more ineffective we'll probably be - we're really muddling through on some of that harassment stuff.
 * What we're not very good at is handling these things quickly. One of us will do a sweep every so often to find external messages that haven't yet received responses, but there are still sometimes lengthy delays in getting back to people. (Speaking for myself, I find it easier to keep up with email than wiki stuff, because it's easier to deal with on a phone, but other people have different systems.) A skim of the arbcom-l archives suggests that this is a case of "twas ever thus", though. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * @OR: That's an interesting explanation, thanks. I want to ask some follow-up questions, but since that will get slightly off-topic, I'm starting a subsection below for that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Correction: 2016 had 5 arbitration cases, not 4. Mz7 (talk) 00:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It depends on how you count them. I'd count only cases brought to the committee this year, so wouldn't count the Kevin Gorman case, that should be counted for 2015. Doug Weller  talk 19:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * A truly minor point, I think most people take the numbers of cases from the tallies on WP:RFAR/C, which dates the cases based on when they closed. The reason for the minor 4-vs.-5 discrepancy noted above is not the holdover case, but that one case (Michael Hardy) was inadvertently omitted from the listing until someone added it yesterday. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation, I was wondering why the number had changed. Doug Weller  talk 06:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Newyorkbrad, for clarifying. That's exactly where I was pulling the numbers of cases from. Mz7 (talk) 19:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I think it's worth bearing in mind that back when the ArbCom was formed, it was nearly impossible to permanently (or indefinitely) ban a user. If I remember correctly, Jimbo had that power, and that was it.  The ArbCom itself didn't have the authority to impose a sanction that lasted for more than a year.  You could say that either "we hadn't yet accumulated sufficient collective institutional experience", or possibly that "we were hopelessly naive".  All the stuff that's now "obvious" about how to handle everything from personal attacks to legal threats to sockpuppetry to plagiarism to POV-pushing was fresh, untrodden territory a dozen(ish) years ago.  We had to hash out at great and often repetitive length how to deal with a great many different types of problems, and sometimes we needed a body to examine a situation and select a final answer.
 * Looking at early versions of ArbCom policy pages and such is instructive. Here's the Arbitration Policy from February 2004.  Look at the process: 11 arbitrators; cases will be accepted if any 4 agree (note the quaintly pretentious terminology&mdash; granting of certiorari); a final decision is imposed by majority vote after one week.  This was a process and a body that faced issues that would be swiftly dealt with at AN/I today (if not by an admin acting independently).  For your amusement, here's a link to the full text of one of those February 2004 cases: Requests for arbitration/Theresa knott vs. Mr-Natural-Health.  (It's just the first case link I found.)  Mr-Natural-Health was an alternative-medicine POV-pusher who made a number of personal attacks on talk pages and in edit summaries.  The case resulted in a 30-day ban for Mr-Natural-Health.
 * That's the kind of trivial-in-retrospect matter that ArbCom used to spend its time on, for lack of any community-operated alternative. The community has matured tremendously, and with that maturity and experience we have developed the ability to handle so many more issues without (further) reference to ArbCom.  ArbCom, meanwhile, gets saddled with the few remaining massive, complex, nigh-intractable messes. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well I for one am shocked to learn that "Mr Natural Health" could not edit neutrally about alternative medicine. Shocked I tell you! Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:17, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Off-wiki workload
I'm continuing here from Opabinia's comment above, about how Arbcom-l is going, and consequently what that means for workload. I have a bunch of questions:
 * 1) You wrote about "threads that originate from people who are not arbs, functionaries, or trolls", so my first questions are about threads that do originate from Arbs. To what extent are such threads about cases? To what extent do those threads deal with matters that could just as readily be dealt with on Workshop or PD pages? To what extent are Arbs uncomfortable with discussing non-private case issues onsite for fear of provoking criticism?
 * 2) When "lost souls" contact you when they should have contacts OTRS, or should have contacted anyone else, is the process of redirecting them to the right place efficient, or does it take up a lot of Arb time?
 * 3) It sounds like there are sometimes messages where a "sweep" reveals that no one got back to the sender. Would it help to always designate one member, on a rotating basis, to make sure that messages get replies?
 * 4) To what extent does slowness to reply to messages result from the difficulty of getting enough Committee members to agree? Are there times when the Committee waits a long time for one member to respond, when it would be better to just go with the decision of those who already have responded?
 * 5) Are there times when appeals that are obviously without merit get discussed with the requesting user too long, when a prompt "no" would have been better?

Thanks, --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I have a filter for non-arb messages to the arb lists to help keep track of them, but I don't do the same for case-related threads. This year won't be representative, anyway, since there were so few cases, and several of them involved private material. The stuff that isn't strictly private is mostly spitballing; I guess throwing ideas out to the arbs before posting them in public could be "fear of criticism", but it's more like asking someone to read your manuscript before submitting it to a journal. Better to have a few arbs tell you that was a bad idea than to freak out dozens of case-watchers thinking that "hmm, what if?" thing you thought of in the shower is a foregone conclusion. I think arbs and cases vary with how much of this is done on the list/arbwiki and how much is on the workshop. Sometimes discussing by email is just a practical constraint; it's easier to send an email on a phone than to edit case pages.
 * That doesn't take much time, though sometimes we just deal with the issue rather than send the person off through more bureaucracy.
 * Various things have been tried by past committees to make email tracking more efficient - I don't remember if this was actually tried or just discussed. I thought going in that the obvious thing to do was use a CRM system, and I still think that would have been the right way to do BASC, but I'm less convinced now that it would be effective for our workflow. (A project management tool like Trello or Asana would be a good fit in principle, but introduces a lot of other issues.) I think the most likely result of trying to have a rotating correspondence secretary would be a bunch of extra work for whoever has to organize the rota.
 * Delays waiting for a majority to vote one way or another do happen sometimes, but we don't necessarily vote on simple stuff and dealing with email is pretty decentralized. The delay is usually just waiting for someone to get time to write up and send the response message. Not every iteration of the committee, I understand, could reliably work that way; it's actually a sign of sanity that the source of delay is mostly "people have other stuff to do".
 * Probably, but IMO this isn't such a big issue. A lot of people are pretty bad at describing their problem in their first message. I've become a fan of messages that explicitly say "this is the final word on this issue" to repeat emailers. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:14, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * (I'll preface this by saying that I would still welcome responses from other Arbs.) Thank you for that thoughtful and excellent answer. In one fish's opinion, the Committee has made impressive progress towards working more intelligently during 2016. And that being the situation, the fact that there are fewer full cases seems to me to be a feature rather than a bug. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Number of seats
This page should indicate how many seats there are on the committee, and what are the criteria for being elected. Is there a limited number of seats, and that number of candidates with the highest number of votes are elected, or can the number of members vary, and is there some other criterion for determining who is elected (e.g. above a certain percentage of valid votes cast)? Timothy Cooper (talk) 09:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * that information is only a few clicks away. From the Arbitration navbox at right, under “Arbitration Committee” (shown by clicking “more“) there’s an Elections link to a history section, which includes in turn a link to the most recent—now current—election page (WP:ACE). I don’t know whether or not it’s possible to make that template show the ArbCom group by default (on this page only), but at any rate that’s where it is.—Odysseus 1 4  7  9  00:52, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Pseudo-headings
Change all of the pseudo-headings (headings prefixed by ';') to real headings (=== level 3 === is fine).

Screen readers currently hear the start of an empty definition list, rather than the intended heading. It might look alright to a sighted reader, but it's a long way from useful to the visually impaired.

See WP:PSEUDOHEAD for more details and examples. RexxS (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

This request is for Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, a fully-protected page. The associated talk page redirects here. Along with the void template in the edit request, that should go a long way towards making it difficult for anybody to request an edit. --RexxS (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Those headings are produced by vanchor. Not sure if I can just convert those to === ? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Would it work to use anchor instead? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * First,, those are not headings; second, they are not produced by vanchor. Examine the html produced at Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions :
 * First,, those are not headings; second, they are not produced by vanchor. Examine the html produced at Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions :

<pre style="margin-left:5.1em;"> <dl> <dt> Decorum guide.decor </dt> </dl>
 * You don't see any sign of <h3 ></h3> or any other heading. The <dl ></dl> and <dt ></dt> tags are produced by the wikimarkup  The vanchor merely adds the first  with.
 * So the bold pseudo-heading Decorum results from the misuse of  as I explained. And, no, using anchor wouldn't help; it would just not display the Decorum text. Try   for yourself if you want to check.
 * If you have real headings, you don't need kludges like .   instead is just fine. --RexxS (talk) 00:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation, RexxS. I should have been more specific, sorry. What I really meant was: . But that's moot now, since it has already been "done". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, . I don't miss an opportunity to expound when there's an accessibility issue that folks might not be aware of. Whenever you create a heading, the MediWiki software automatically creates an anchor (well, it adds an id attribute, which works as one), so the only point of having next to a heading is to produce an anchor with a different id from the heading, for example if the name of the heading is changed, but there are incoming links to the previous name. Hope that makes sense. --RexxS (talk) 22:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And as an editor with very limited technical skills, I always appreciate the expounding. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Clarifying the DS awareness criteria
At Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions, I think it's counterintuitive for the criteria to be a combination of the paragraph and the numbered list. People may read both initially, but when skimming it months later their eyes may advance directly to the list, tricking them into thinking the criteria is just the list. I would propose unifying them:

Manul ~ talk 12:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you have a point here, but has this been a problem in practice or is this just a theoretical concern? It's been written as-is for awhile now... Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Clarifying the DS awareness criteria
At Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions, I think it's counterintuitive for the criteria to be a combination of the paragraph and the numbered list. People may read both initially, but when skimming it months later their eyes may advance directly to the list, tricking them into thinking the criteria is just the list. I would propose unifying them:

Manul ~ talk 12:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you have a point here, but has this been a problem in practice or is this just a theoretical concern? It's been written as-is for awhile now... Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * a veteran editor in topics covered by DS said it was unclear, and I agreed. maybe you want to weigh in. Another reason I would add is that nowhere else in AC/DS are such paragraph-list combos used. Manul ~ talk 13:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's unclear. Normally this'd be just a minor quibble but since the whole area around DS can get a bit ... legalistic ... it's probably better for this to be completely clear. Alexbrn (talk) 14:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Right, and remember we're talking about the possibility that an editor can be sanctioned as a result of not fully understanding the awareness criteria. Someone could have brought a case against Alexbrn claiming that he disruptively gave an alert because the person he alerted was already technically "aware". Manul ~ talk 15:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I can't see any downside to this change. Doug Weller  talk 17:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * We're discussing this and if there's no objection I'll do it tomorrow. Doug Weller  talk 19:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input. This has now been done. Doug Weller  talk 09:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * User:Doug Weller, I'm concerned that there is no provision for users who were warned by certified mail, by carrier pigeon delivery, or via smoke signals (preferably from Camel Blues). Drmies (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Version of English
I am curious about the wording in This page in a nut shell, "Discretionary sanctions may be placed by administrators within specified topics after the Arbitration Committee have authorised their use.". Is this rendered as "British English"? Otr500 (talk) 00:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Good question. This collection of style guides suggests it isn't so much a matter of British or American English but whether the emphasis is on the unit or the individual members. Here it is on the unit so yes, it should be singular. Doug Weller  talk 06:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And changed to has. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)