User talk:Jimbo Wales

Edit count

Hey Jimbo, I have some good news, we are almost at a total of one billion total edits on the English Wikipedia, this includes talk pages, user pages, and so on! 99721829Max (talk) 23:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Wow!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:57, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I hope we get a bunch of editors trying for 1,000,000,000 like they did for 1,000,000. EllenCT (talk) 00:11, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

If my back of the envelope calculation is right, given edit count from WP:STATS, we should get there in 19 months. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

We are 86,162,511 edits away from our 1,000,000,000th edit, and we are 994,061,552 articles away from our 1,000,000,000th article. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Bets on what the 1 billionth article will be? I'll put forward Celebrity Big Brother Season 4139, starring all your favorite has-been celebrity AI simulacra stuck in the same nanotube for a full two cycles! — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories regarding the 1,276th Presidency of the cryogenically frozen head of Donald Trump. But eventually deleted as a POV fork. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:04, 1 October 2019 (UTC) (also, 4,635,672 editors will be blocked for edit warring about whether "Presidency" should be capitalized in the article title. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Who could ever need more than 670K readers at a time?

"humanity spent about 672,349 years reading Wikipedia from November 2017 through October 2018."[1] EllenCT (talk) 19:50, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration appeal by Icewhiz

Statement by Icewhiz

Mr. Wales,

I'm appealing (per this policy) the decision in the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland. I requested a case on 1 June 2019 after being referred to do so by admins at AE. The case was opened on 9 June 2019. The committee failed to engage during the workshop phase. The case then languished, unprocessed save a temporary IBAN injunction (sanctioning also me) after I dared complain in August of continued WP:HOUNDing during the case here, and here. The PD draft, riddled with errors, was only published on 7 September. The committee ignored multiple involved and uninvolved editors, pointing out errors at the proposed decision talk page.

Mr. Wales, I accuse that:

1. The arbitration committee failed to engage during the workshop phase. Committee member Worm That Turned admitted this - diff - "I am hoping to play around with the case deadlines in the next day or so, and might even re-open the workshop for an additional week, so that we can have a proper participatory workshop" (this did not occur).
2. The drafting arbiter produced a biased proposed decision, seemingly picking random assertions from the evidence without properly evaluating the claims therein and subsequent workshop discussion. Among the more absurd findings: (Extended refutation of additional FoFs section below covers these and others in more depth)
   1. Deeming "Polophilic"(diff) as "inappropriate ethnically derogatory comments"[2] - contrast our Polonophile article (and Francophile or Anglophile) and mainstream use of this positive language.
   2. Deeming diff as a "negative insinuations about Poland". Beyond it being unclear how "negative insinuations about Poland" are counter to Wikipedia policy, my statement on the legality of writing on Polish complicity in Poland is in fact within mainstream academic consensus on the effects of the widely condemned Polish Holocaust Law - e.g. ”Moreover, the law also criminalised any insinuation that individual Poles may have committed anti-Semitic crimes during the Holocaust”. See also:
   3. deeming diff as "BLP-violating edits on talk pages by posting negative claims or speculations about living scholars" - however this is not speculation, Davies said so himself, and this is one of the most widely covered episode in his career. See New York Times - SCHOLAR SAYS HIS VIEWS ON JEWS COST HIM A POST AT STANFORD or this book. Or Financial Times in 2012, [3] labelling this as "the most controversial episode of his academic career"
3. The arbitration committee has failed to properly weigh the evidence placed before them, !voting in the affirmative on the proposed decisions that included findings of fact that are false.
4. The arbitration committee of enacting remedies unsupported by evidence and facts.
5. The arbitration committee has failed to adhere to the expected conduct of arbitrators, and ignored community input - failing to respond to community feedback by multiple editors at proposed decision talk page who pointed out several issues in the decision.
6. The arbitration committee of creating a chilling effect against the lodging of any future complaint involving fabrication of hateful content on the English Wikipedia.
7. This Wikipedia is hosting distortions on the Jewish Holocaust in Poland and its aftermath.
8. This Wikipedia is not responding properly to complaints on bullying and spread of such content.

Following case closure on 22 September, several uninvolved editors voiced their concerns on the handling of this case and arbitrator conduct on the committee’s noticeboard.

Extended refutation of additional FoFs

This section contains several additional issues in the ruling, please expand
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
These FoFs pertain to my alleged conduct. In each there are several errors: 4.2.4: "made inappropriate ethnically derogatory comments comments ([4], [5])" –this is defamatory libel by the committee, as this is not only not “ethnically derogatory”, but rather mainstream accepted language. Specifically: Polocaust,a contraction of “Polish Holocaust”, is used by mainstream sources (+the Polish government itself) to describe theories advanced by the PiS government and right-wing elements in Poland on the Holocaust in Poland: [6][7][8][9] “Polophilic” – “Polophile” is a spelling variant of Polonophile (no “ethnically derogatory” in our article), is analogous to Francophile or Anglophile, and is used by multiple mainstream sources to describe people favorable to Poland. "made negative insinuations about Poland ([10])" – it unclear what Wikipedia policy prohibits “negative insinuations about Poland”. Furthermore, my comments on the legal environment facing editors on Polish Wikipedia editors as a result of the Holocaust law is in-line with mainstream writing on the subject: ”Moreover, the law also criminalised any insinuation that individual Poles may have committed anti-Semitic crimes during the Holocaust”. See also: 4.2.10: "made negative edits to BLPs ([11])" – “negative edits to BLPs” are not counter to Wikipedia policy. We are supposed describe BLPs, such as David Irving, in the manner they are described in WP:RSes. Ewa Kurek is primarily known for Holocaust distortion (and has been compared to Irving) – [12][13][14] (recent media in English, Polish sources also available). When Kurek last visited NYC, her speaking engagements at local churches were cancelled by the bishop – [15]. "including editorializing in Wikipedia's voice ([16], [17])" – in both cases the edits were mostly attributed and sourced to high quality academic sources (monographs written by scholars in the field, published by reputable publishers) – and closely followed the language in the sources. Kurek espouses the view that Jews lived voluntarily in Nazi ghettos and that this constituted a national autonomy for Jews – ”outlandish” was used by the academic source. Furthermore, these assertions was added by committee member Premeditated Chaos without them being in evidence. In one of the exceedingly rare comments on the PD talk page, Premeditated Chaos stated that – this was ”response in Whatever newspaper"”[18] – however the source in question – Collaboration with the Nazis: Public Discourse After the Holocaust: "Poland: where the past is never past", edited by Roni Stauber, essay by Laurence Weinbaum, Routledge, 2010 – is a peer-reviewed secondary source by a scholar in the field and published by Routledge – it is not a newspaper – this blatant error indicates that Premeditated Chaos did not thoroughly examine the evidence in question. "and made arguably BLP-violating edits on talk pages by posting negative claims or speculations about living scholars": [19] - Norman Davies tenure at Standford was rejected in conjunction with his writing on Jewish-Polish issues. This is not speculation - Davies said so himself (filing a protracted lawsuit on this basis), and this has had major coverage. See New York Times - SCHOLAR SAYS HIS VIEWS ON JEWS COST HIM A POST AT STANFORD or this book. Nor is this just an item of the distant past - e.g. Lunch with the FT: Norman Davies, 2012 in the Financial Times labels this as "the most controversial episode of his academic career" [20]) - Bronisław Wildstein is not a scholar (error #1). Furthermore Wildstein is primarily known for the Wildstein list controversy - the publication of over a hundred thousand names connected by archives to the communists. The uproar, at the time, led to Wildstein being fired from Rzeczpospolita (newspaper) - see Guardian in English. At least in English this controversy is his primary claim to notability. 4.2.5: "interpreted editing of old text attributable to a long-blocked sock as "proxying" despite lack of evidence of communication with the sockmaster ([21])" – this is a misunderstanding of what I was trying to convey. In my AE complaint I stated that a provision of the WP:PROXYING policy applies (namely that "Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned or blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content.") in relation to content reinstated after being challenged as a (tagged and blocked) sockpuppet edit. At no point did I assert that proxying was taking place (as it was unlikely) – just that Volunteer Marek was responsible (as he authored it himself) for verifying the content he reinstated. "Icewhiz interpreted an apparent error by Poeticbent as a deliberate hoax (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland/Evidence#Poeticbent:_anti-Jewish_hoaxes)" – See below - 7 separate serious distortions were presented (some of which involved multiple edits vs. challenges to the content) – a pattern, and far from a single error. Furthermore that charge here relates to an arbitration complaint – a complaint on the introduction of false material to the English Wikipedia: Jewish Welcoming: commons, wiki1, wiki2 – a drab Soviet election notice was presented as a “Jewish welcoming banner for the Soviet forces invading Poland”.[22] This false presentation of the image falls within the Jewish Bolshevism Antisemitic canard. Stawiski[23] anti-Jewish pogrom perpetrated by Poles were falsely presented as tales of Jewish communists persecuting Poles followed by a massacre carried out by Germans (+” Some Poles, who emerged from their forest hideaways.. were led to acts of revenge-killing in German presence (approximately 6 suspects, around July 5–7)”). Not only were the facts of this Holocaust massacre distorted, the much more famous Jedwabne pogrom was presented in the same manner. The presentation here falls within the Jewish Bolshevism Antisemitic canard. Radziłów: [24][25] – similar false presentation (including Jedwabne denial). Volunteer Marek re-introduced some of this false content – [26], [27]. Chełmno extermination camp – [28] – falsely presented as ” The early killing process carried out by the SS from December 8, 1941, until mid January 1942, was targeted at removal of Jews and Poles from all nearby towns and villages slated for German colonization”. Chełmno was not employed for systematic extermination of Poles. Narrative presented falls into notions of “Polish Holocaust” advanced by the Polish far-right and unsupported by historians. Belzec extermination camp – in a series of edits (2013, 2014, 2015, 2015) Poeticbent removed long-standing content of wartime and post-war gravedigging by Poles and covered up his removal with fabricated information (e.g. stating the camp was nearly unknown, when it was in fact investigated post-war + was covered extensively in the press due to gravedigging and efforts to stop it. Presenting cleanup efforts by Polish school children in the 1990s as occurring in the 1950s (instead of the gravedigging). Jewish immigration: [29] – post-Holocaust Jewish flight from Poland presented as if prompted by “preferential treatment” in Israel (when the source in-fact states such proposals were rejected), and not by the widespread anti-Jewish violence (the 1946 Kielce pogrom and others). Volunteer Marek – [30][31] – removed sourced information on the anti-Jewish violence and reinstated the false content. KL Warschau conspiracy - [32] – misrepresenting a source and promoting a conspiracy theory following a citation-needed challenge. Sent to ARBCOM via e-mail (+noted to PD). Promotion of the well-known User:Icewhiz/KL Warschau conspiracy theory (which was present until 2019 in 7 Wikipedia articles). 4.2.9: "Icewhiz inappropriately and falsely linked Volunteer Marek to Holocaust denial ([33]". This is a false charge, since: I provided evidence and made assertions regarding Poeticbent. For Volunteer Marek I stated – ”Volunteer Marek ..., has been reverting and stonewalling corrections”, in the case I provided evidence of Volunteer Marek reverting back in Poeticbent authored content on the Holocaust (Radziłów massacre, post-Holocaust flight of Jews from Poland). These issues were presented to the committee by myself and other members of the community, and were not even met with a response.

Conclusion

Mr. Wales, I’ve demonstrated that the findings are not supported by the evidence, therefore I request that you modify findings and remedies:

1. Remove the erroneous FoFs pertaining to me from: [34], [35], [36], [37]
2. Remove the provisions applying to my edits from 4.3.2 Icewhiz and Volunteer Marek interaction-banned – converting this to a 1-way IBAN.
3. Vacate 4.3.3 Icewhiz topic-banned.

References, click to expand
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
References

Comments by involved editors

• Regarding the accusation that we've not met WP:ARBCOND: there's no requirement that we individually reply to every comment or question. Our votes may or may not be influenced by input from others, but they certainly shouldn't be a mere conduit for the subset of the community that comments on the case talk pages (or what would be the point of electing arbitrators?). Speaking for myself, I read the workshop and PD talk page before voting, and I read it again after the case closed and people complained, and I stick by my votes. Several of the points raised there, which Icewhiz implies here were ignored, were actually explicitly discussed during the voting phase of the PD, e.g. #Insinuations of Holocaust denial, #BLP violations. – Joe (talk) 18:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
• On point one, I read over the information that had been posted and did not see a need to re-open the workshop. Like Joe, I read everything thoroughly, multiple times. I stand by my votes. Worm^TT(talk) 08:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments by uninvolved editors

• I thoroughly recommend reading editors' responses to the proposed decision[38] and to case closure.[39] A total of 21 editors voiced their concerns, not including the parties; the consensus is that this was sub-par performance for ArbCom. François Robere (talk) 23:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• As one of the editors who commented in the linked page about the disappointing lack of interaction between arbitrators and the community in this case (it is pretty clear this case was on a backburner why the more prominent cases / topics were prioritized...) I nonetheless don't see the connection between this and the need for the appeal. That the arbitrators were slow and unresponsive is not related to whether they were 'right' and such. Slow justice is still justice. (Through as as I also said elsewhere, it is hard to see what solution would satisfy everyone, and of course people who get sanctioned will be among those not particularly satisfied...). PS. I think it is clear the Arbitrtion Committee needs to be expanded to include 2x if not 3x the members. Most of the time, 50-75% of the members will burn out/resign/be mostly inactive. See my peer reviewed research on this at Decision making in the self-evolved collegiate court: Wikipedia’s Arbitration Committee and its implications for self-governance and judiciary in cyberspace (for free access go to Sci Hub :D). Too often ArbCom rejects cases because they can't handle the workload, and if a crisis hits, they find themselves undermanned. More members would be a simple solution. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
• This is an obvious request for a do-over, based on Icewhiz disputing some of the findings. However, if people didn't dispute the findings, we'd hardly need arbitration. It is quite hard to see how any other outcome would have been reached given the long history of battleground conduct, on the part of several editors specifically including Icewhiz. The IBAN is long overdue and the topic ban was inevitable. The removal of both these editors from this contentious area will be better for the project, and actually probably also better for them. Sure, it is not the platonic ideal of an ArbCom case. However, the outcome is what I half expected to happen as a community action from the numerous ANI reports. Guy (help!) 12:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
• I agree that this is a sub-par performance from ArbCom. As someone once said, results there usually end up in "nothing really being done, or generate a thick forest for bureaucracy, like complicated remedies, discretionary sanctions people have a hard time keeping track of, and "whack everyone involved on the head just for being involved" remedies in one of ArbCom's typical desperate attempts to appear more impartial than they really are." Icewhiz was indeed on the receiving end of unprovoked WP:HOUNDing and WP:CIVIL violations, and was TBANed as a result of reporting this. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
• Dear Mr. Wales, Holocaust was a horrible disaster happened in the history of human beings, but this is a separate issue. Israel is causing systematic bias in Wikipedia. Please, do not let them do that. I know Icewhiz and company from another article, where they are trying to change history by washing crimes off of this "formerly terrorist group" (currently an ally of Israel). I am a father of two with more than one job. Yet, I cannot stand what is being done before my eyes and that is what is driving me in being a Wiki editor. I apologize if I do not sound eloquent enough, but this is just too much. Kazemita1 (talk) 20:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
• I do not agree that "this is a sub-par performance from ArbCom". I think they did a fine job and made a wise decision. They were a bit slow because of a heavy workload, but that doesn't equal "sub-par performance". Neither does a comparative lack of discussion. Some cases are of such a nature that the editors making comments bring up a bunch of things that require careful thought and extended discussion between arbs and between arbs and editors. Others are pretty cut and dry cases where the arbs look at the situation, read the comments, and all come to the same conclusion. After seeing Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland#History at dispute-resolution venues and reading the linked discussions, I can't see how they could have come to a different conclusion. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
• I read everything on this case. I didn't agree with everything the arbitrators wrote, but there are no grounds to suggest that they were fundamentally mistaken in their final decisions. The decisions reached by arbcom would likely be reached by any arbcom hearing the case on the same evidence. In summary, this appeal is without foundation. Zero^talk 01:52, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz blocked indefinitely

FYI. I fear there was a certain inevitability to this conclusion, its speed being the only surprising aspect. ——SerialNumber54129 13:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely by Arbcom with TPA revoked in the middle of appealing an Arbcom decision...largely on the basis of lack of involvement by Arbcom in the case. I’m sure there’s a rock solid reason for this. Anybody know where the reason was explained? (It’s not in the block log or block notice.) – Levivich 13:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Levivich, Given the circumstances, I'll put up an announcement presently. Worm^TT(talk) 13:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Announcement Worm^TT(talk) 13:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Just to note that we were mindful that this appeal was in progress and don't intend to circumvent the process. However, on balance we felt the situation needed a prompt response. Jimbo of course has access to the private evidence and our mailing list discussions should he need to see them to make a decision here. – Joe (talk) 18:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Jimbo, I would appreciate it if you would review this Arbcom siteban of the editor who is appealing to you, and tell us if you agree the evidence justifies it. I think you can appreciate the optics of Arbcom sitebanning an editor during an appeal based entirely on secret off-wiki evidence. (We, like, literally just went through this exact issue with T&S and Framgate.) Thank you. – Levivich 18:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Also note that Icewhiz filed this appeal (immediately) after we contacted him about the off-wiki harassment. – Joe (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Just for the record, how long is "immediately"? François Robere (talk) 20:58, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Is "immediately" enough time to write that whole appeal with all those diffs? Or could it be that he posted the appeal on the 7th day, i.e., just under the deadline, which would be pretty normal? – Levivich 21:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

That's a stupid question. Icewhiz is a very prolific editor - it would be easy for him to compose a 26,475 bytes appeal, complete with 75 links, 52 Wikilinks and 9 refs, between the main course and dessert. Oh, "dessert" - because ArbCom emailed him on the Jewish New Year's Eve - which he may or may not celebrate, but the committee could easily figure he might - which also happened to fall on the last day he could appeal. Damn good timing! François Robere (talk) 21:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the point is that this ArbCom inquiry began we contacted Icewhiz before the appeal to Jimbo, we didn't block them as some sort of reactionary punishment for it. I'll let Joe Roe answer the question about timing -- looking back through my emails the timing isn't super clear to me because of forwarding/time zones. I'm pretty sure the two events were fairly simultaneous (within a few hours?), but I could be wrong. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Wait, are you saying the "inquiry" started just two days ago, and he's already blocked? François Robere (talk) 22:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

No, I've adjusted my wording. It was technically correct to say "this ArbCom inquiry began before the appeal to Jimbo" too, I suppose, but I didn't mean to imply it began just two days ago. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:24, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

It's clear Arbcom didn't start the inquiry in response to this appeal. It's equally clear that WTT and Joe Roe are incorrect in their suggestion that the appeal was filed in response to the inquiry... since the appeal, and Arbcom's first email to Icewhiz, happened almost simultaneously. I look forward to WTT and Joe Roe striking their unfounded accusations that this appeal was a response to the siteban. – Levivich 23:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Timing, timing, timing!!! Yeah there's bad timing here but that's it. There isn't really anything interesting in this situation that requires a good old Jimbo review. How could anyone seeing a collective yet nefarious conspiracy from our elected ARBCOM officials have their concerns assuaged from the review of our Benevolent dictator for life?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

If Jimbo doesn't give them the answer they want, then he is clearly in on the conspiracy...

I would like to comment on Levivich's claim ("...based entirely on secret off-wiki evidence. We, like, literally just went through this exact issue with T&S and Framgate"). Apparently the words "this exact issue" now mean "quite different issues". Arbcom has acted on evidence that they cannot reveal to the rest of us from day one, and rightly so. If Arbcom received private evidence showing that I posted information offwiki containing Levivich's home address, credit card numbers and complete medical records, would he want every detail of that evidence revealed publicly? Or would he want me booted from Wikipedia with no indication of who I outed or where to look for the information I posted? The Fram situation was completely different from arbcom acting on evidence that they cannot reveal to the rest of us. It started with T&S refusing to let anyone -- including Fram, Jimbo and Arbcom -- see the evidence, then under pressure allowed arbcom alone to see but not reveal a redacted version of it. If that's "literally the exact same issue" I am a Dalek. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. We have a community system which largely works - but for which there appears to be a significant degree of support for improving. I for one think we need to improve it - which includes finding ways to support ArbCom so that they can make the tough choices and do the right things even when it may generate a lot of noise. Otherwise, we will fail in our mission to make Wikipedia a safe fun thing where we work together in good faith and with good will - and could even face a future in which staff moderators work in a model similar to youtube or twitter or facebook, making unaccountable decisions behind closed doors even in very routine cases.

In this case, as with all cases, I'm not going to hear an appeal or second guess ArbCom unless there is some very significant reason to do so. Having briefly reviewed the evidence here, and having consulted with ArbCom, I was advised by a member of ArbCom to post my thoughts, which are that I'm completely persuaded by the reasons for this indefinite block and I don't intend to intervene.

There are plenty of cases where our rather strict rules against outing mean that certain types of evidence and situations dealing with off-site behavior can't be easily or properly discussed on-wiki. We need to trust and support our elected ArbCom, and believe me, I stand ready whenever necessary to exercise my (theoretical?) reserve powers to call an election if I see a power-mad ArbCom going off the rails. We are very very far from that situation today.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2019

• From the editors: Where do we go from here?

• Special report: Post-Framgate wrapup

• In the media: A net loss: Wikipedia attacked, closing off Russia? welcoming back Turkey?

• Traffic report: Varied and intriguing entries, less Luck, and some retreads

• News from the WMF: How the Wikimedia Foundation is making efforts to go green

• Recent research: Wikipedia's role in assessing credibility of news sources; using wikis against procrastination; OpenSym 2019 report

• Gallery: Finding freely licensed photo collections

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

• In focus: Wikidata & Wikibase for national libraries: the inaugural meeting

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

About Wikirank.net ?

Lewoniewski et al. is superb, spectacular, and profound. EllenCT (talk) 21:48, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure about EllenCT's link right above has to do with the Signpost list above it, so I'm putting it in it's own section. Please revert if there is a link. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:12, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom deficiencies

Hello Jimmy. I think we have run into some problems with the way ArbCom is working. As you were originally responsible for this group, I'd like your thoughts on whether there should be an RfC to improve things. Some of my concerns:

1. The Fram arbitration case was unfair because Fram was not unblocked to participate. We should agree that editors having a case heard by ArbCom should be unblocked so that they can participate in their own case. If an editor can't be trusted to participate in their own case, then there's no need for arbitration; just block them and be done with it.
2. Arbitrators are under intense stress, as evidenced by their high attrition rate. We should discuss whether each case should be heard by a smaller number of arbitrators. This might help ease the workload.
3. Arbitrators are being criticized for failing to engage with case parties and failing to sufficiently explain their reasoning (See IceWhiz appeal above). What can be done to improve communication? Even if an editor is in the wrong, they should feel that they have been heard. I've witnessed many times that ArbCom seems to decide cases on their private mailing list and then votes in a pro forma manner. (The Fram case was actually a good counter example of them not doing this.)
4. ArbCom's data security is questionable. They have an unlimited retention period for confidential data, which ensures that this data will eventually leak. There should be a more thoughtful data retention policy.

In general the community does not want to ruled. Instead, we want ArbCom to be functional to help resolve intractable disputes. Jehochman ^Talk 12:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for this Jehochman, I hope you don't mind me responding in turn.

1. The board required that Fram would remain blocked while the review happened. We had the choice of accepting this requirement, or stamping our feet over this issue. I personally did turn up on Fram's meta talk page during the workshop as much as I could and I am aware that he pinged and discussed matters - I am not sure that having him on en.wp would have made a massive difference to the case. I agree that it would have been preferable to have him unblocked to participate - however there were a number of things I would have changed about the case if I had the option.
2. Of the five arbitrators who retired this year, three were for personal reasons unrelated to cases, and the arbitrators had not been particularly active up to that point. I can get you the statistics of how many emails were sent to the list if it helps. I am not convinced that smaller numbers of arbitrators on cases would reduce the stress - however this is something that should be discussed. Probably not at Jimmy's talk page though
3. The committee did not engage sufficiently on the Poland case. This is because the arbitrators who were working on the case included one who left for personal reasons, one who was less active than he hoped and one who focussed on co-ordinating the Fram case. This did not stop us reaching the correct decision (in my opinion). However, given that we will be electing 11 out of 15 of the new committee next year, can I suggest you raise your communication concerns as a candidate question at the next election? You do generally issue a voter's guide - perhaps include it in that.
4. I generally agree.

Overall, I very much doubt people feel ruled by the Arbitration Committee. We are here to deal with the stuff the community cannot or will not. Worm^TT(talk) 13:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, your activity in the Fram case was quite good. ArbCom has lasted a long time. Really the reason I'm asking here is to see if it's worth revisiting the arbitration policy and having an RfC as a refresh. On point 1, I hear you that the Fram case was difficult, but we can try to learn from it and make things better for the next case. Other points we seem to agree. I don't usually issue a voter guide. We should think about ways to improve communication. As a party, it would be nice to have an area where one could direct questions to arbitrators and get answers. The talk pages seems to risk questions getting lost and going unanswered. Additionally, we should encourage discussion between disputants and arbitrators. Underneath the bureaucracy, arbitration is a negotiation. The best result is if the parties are introspective and try to find ways to resolve their dispute by agreement. That is most likely to happen when they can talk constructively. Jehochman ^Talk 13:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Jehochman, thank you - of course I'm aware of ways my activity could have been better. The Fram case was a one off - out of jurisdiction, we didn't follow our own standard processes, but made something that looked like an Arbcom case so that we could follow it. I have not seen anyone suggest that there will be a next one. There will be an RfC run by Arbcom soon on these issues though - I encourage you to participate there. Worm^TT(talk) 13:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I understand that the scope is “dealing with harassment”. Can we expand it to include, “updating and strengthening arbitration policy”? These issues are inter-related. Jehochman ^Talk 13:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

"The board required that we do X" doesn't contradict "X makes the case unfair"; it just means that5 the board is dictating unfairness. Fram was given no reasonable chance to respond to the charges, and then was tried based on secret evidence, and stripped of his privileges based on secret evidence. And both Arbcom and the WMF know or should have been able to figure out that the de-facto requirements for making someone an admin and removing adminship are not mirror images of one another and that de-sysopping Fram and then requiring that he get another RFA is a sanction, not just being neutral and letting the community decide. If random admins were subject to RFAs in highly publicized situations I doubt most of them would be able to succeed.

(And it's amazing how many people dismiss the problems with secret evidence and not being able to respond to charges on the basis that since Fram obviously had some problems, it's not too bad a decision. Due process is *how you figure out* what the evidence means and whether it is good; when the process for dealing with evidence is tainted, you should not be concluding "it's okay because the evidence was good anyway".

Fram was still blatantly railroaded. The fact that Fram isn't quite as badly railroaded as he was before massive protests is damning with faint praise. Ken Arromdee (talk) 17:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Actually the board did not require the committee to act, but the alternative would have been continued ban -- the board asked the committee to decide, and the committee decided what it decided according to its view of its procedures (and what they thought best for English Wikipedia). Anyone and everyone may disagree with what the committee decided but it is the foundational nature of an elected committee that only those elected to be on the committee are entrusted to decide.

But sure, everyone no doubt has there own opinion of how an RfA would have turned out, were it held in say, May. And also there own ideas on what level of process is "due" for a volunteer website permission. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

• Well, if "Arbcom Deficiencies" is a general topic of discussion, here's my two cents as elections approach. (1) The biggest complaint I hear off-site on The Message Board That Will Not Be Named is that Arbcom does a terrible job of acknowledging receipt of communications. My suggestion there was that the committee should elect a Corresponding Secretary from within its ranks responsible for doing that for every non-spam communication. (2) I've begun to think over the last couple years that Arbcom should divide its members into two groups, who then sit out every other case to reduce workload and conserve energy, thereby reducing chance of burnout and resignations. This would also ensure smaller group organization for quicker decision-making. Exception to be made for giant cases such as the existential Fram case. Not positive this would work, but it's a thought. (3) Arbcom communication with the community has been consistently awful for years and years. Some kind of weekly, biweekly, or monthly summary report of activity needs to be officially issued. Carrite (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

  Carrite, I like ideas 1 and 3. I tried to manage communication in 2014, but really burned out doing so. Now, I help out but leave the heavy lifting to others. Putting in a requirement without someone who is willing to may well backfire. Worm^TT(talk) 16:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) You're right that we have not done a good job of acknowledging receipt of communications; I've served on the Committee for a long time and there were times when we were, but this year has not been good. It's something I'm trying to be more cognizant of and active in doing. As for sitting out on cases, I'm not sure dictating who is active or inactive on a case in that way would be a good thing. Different arbitrators are stronger in different types of cases, and I think it's helpful for arbitrators to be active on cases that play to their strengths—requiring arbs to be inactive on cases where they would otherwise be an asset would be counterproductive, I think. The every-other-case model would also not work well if arbitrators needed to be away for a period of time for some reason. Perhaps it could be somewhat informal, in that arbitrators are encouraged to be active on some percentage of cases (less than 100%) and the choice of which cases they are inactive on is up to them. As for 3, what kinds of activity would you want to see reported? I assume you mean things like # of block appeals processed, etc.? GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Point taken on natural scheduling conflicts, illness, etc. potentially an insurmountable problem on splitting Arbcom into two "squads." Agreed it makes more sense developing a culture of specialization and an expectation that Arbs will sit out some significant percentage of cases on their own if it is outside their main strengths or primary interests. As for a regular communication vehicle, a simple 1000 to 2000 word statement every month: "These are the communications and appeals received (redacting names of complainants names as necessary), these are the arbs taking the lead on case 1, these are the arbs taking the lead on case 2. In weeks 1 and 2 the arb list mostly discussed case 1 and discussed appeals of indef blocks of party A and party B and we decided blahblahblah. In week 3 we did this and in week 4 we did that..." And so on and so forth. Yes, it would be more work, but it might go a long ways reducing the level of background noise from disaffected and unhappy people who feel like no progress is being made on anything or that their own situation is not being considered. Carrite (talk) 22:50, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

• Re. #3, weekly–monthly might be difficult, but ArbCom used to do annual reports and I've been compiling statistics with an eye to do something similar this year. – Joe (talk) 20:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

WMF question

Hi Jimbo - hope you and yours are well. I have a question regarding a current RfC on Meta As founder/co-founder (I'm not debating either side here), I'd like your thoughts as you were developing the WMF and Arbcom pretty much at the same time (as best as I can ascertain). Did you (or do you) intend for the WMF to be the/an administrative entity in the day to day operations of English Wikipedia? I've always thought that Arbcom was intended to be the group of folks who would decide behavior issues and various other user problems, and the community to decide content issues if possible ON WIKI. I thought the WMF was primarily to oversee the business/money/assets end of things, and only step in on other wiki projects which didn't have a self-sustaining organizational ability. I've tried to research all the Bomis, Nupedia, Wikipedia history etc. myself, but any clarification would be appreciated. I'm going to voice my own individual thoughts on those RfC questions, but if possible, I'd like your input before I do. Thanks. — Ched (talk) 13:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Is that the official meta:Office actions/Community consultation on partial and temporary office actions/09 2019 or did someone start it early? Fine with me, as long as we can add the sub-questions, they said they would add. Arbcom asked that it be opened, anyway. EllenCT (talk) 00:16, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done I also stood up for your right to hear appeals, Jimbo. Sure you're imperfect, but until we can scan your brain into the institutional memory-a-tron, you're likely to continue to make reasonable delegation decisions. Don't say I never said anything nice about you. EllenCT (talk) 00:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)