Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Behaviour on this page: This page is for discussing announcements relating to the Arbitration Committee. Editors commenting here are required to act with appropriate decorum. While grievances, complaints, or criticism of arbitration decisions are frequently posted here, you are expected to present them without being rude or hostile. Comments that are uncivil may be removed without warning. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions.

Resignation of Courcelles

Original announcement

I'd just like to say thank you to Courcelles for volunteering to serve and I look forward to working with you again in the future. Worm^TT(talk) 23:05, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your work in multiple arbitrator stints, Courcelles.

I think another resignation (and another on the way?) demonstrates what demanding work being on ArbCom is. Keep this in mind, potential candidates in November. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• I was sorry to read this. Thank you, Courcelles, for all you've done for the community. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Thank you to Courcelles of course - tons of hard work both on and off of Arbcom for many years, you have my thanks and appreciation. My observations have me wondering if we are at a record for the number of Arbs who have resigned (edit: and/or been removed) in one year. I wonder why we've seen such an exodus this year. Was there any sort of infighting that led to this? — Ched (talk) 23:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

  Ched, we have been under significant strain with such a difficult issue and have largely burned out. As for infighting, no, I haven't really seen that much at all. Worm^TT(talk) 23:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

  Indeed, there has not been infighting to speak of. The ArbCom workload is high (higher than it may appear on-wiki, given much of the work involves email), and not friendly to the competing (and often unexpected) demands on time that real life often throws at us. It's also emotionally draining; this year more so than any year I've served in the past. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:43, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• Courcelles, thank you for your recent and past work on the Committee. I've enjoyed working with you and hope to do so in the future, on or off the ArbCom. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:43, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
• Courcelles, thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
• Allow me to rain on the parade by expressing my sorrow that you chose to opine and vote in an Arbcom case in which you seem to have held a clear financial conflict of interest through marital relations to a Trust and Safety team member. That was a terrible decision and will be part of your legacy. Carrite (talk) 04:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Uhm, he didn't actually vote on anything though, did he? He made two brief comments on the very first day of the affair back in June and only had a dozen or so edits since, none of them to the Fram case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

  Carrite, as Courcelles was recused in the Fram case, could you tell us which case you are talking about? —Kusma (t·c) 10:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

My apologies, I could have sworn I saw his name in the proposed decision. Thank you for calling this to my attention. best, Carrite (talk) 11:29, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• Well, lacking a definitive answer, I checked in on Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/History. And while this has indeed been the roughest year in a long time with 5 resignations, it seems like 2009 still has the most with 6. But thanks for the replies regarding other questions I had. — Ched (talk) 10:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
• With barely a dozen edits this year and having assured during your ACE2018 run that you would be available for AC work this year - not to mention COIN in the Fram case - this announcement is well overdue. Leaky caldron (talk) 10:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
• I just want to express my gratitude for Courcelles's work over the years.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
• I, too, very much appreciate Courcelles' contributions, and am sorry to see him go. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
• Me thinks there's yet another resignation about to occur. Bringing it to 6, this year. GoodDay (talk) 11:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Why do you think that? Jehochman ^Talk 11:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I do believe Arbitrator SilkTork may be able to answer that. GoodDay (talk) 11:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Link? What’s going on? Jehochman ^Talk 11:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Jehochman just look at SilkTork's talk page. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

[1] Jehochman ^Talk 11:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Jehochman, check Silktorks talk page. Worm^TT(talk) 11:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• Even without another resignation this is the worst year - as we've lost 5/13 of the arbitrators as compared to 6/15 (hence the functionally unianimous agreement to revert to 15 in the RfC) Nosebagbear (talk) 11:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

  Purely on the numbers that may well be accurate. To me, the qualitative judgement on the AC decisions will always be the lasting legacy. It's a bit like the recurring Admin. meme - we are losing more than we recruit. An argument which immediately falls flat when the total value of the inactive Admins' activity amounts to zero. Leaky caldron (talk) 11:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

  True that. ∯WBG^converse 11:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

  There is a delayed action in this in that the point when we desysop an inactive admin is x months after they become inactive, not immediately after their last edit or admin action. But we usually don't know whether an inactive volunteer is on a multi week break, a multi year break or is permanently gone, hence the inactive who are desyopped for inactivity have not recently been active. But admins who have never been active are vanishingly rare, I'm pretty sure that admins who have actually not used the tools are rarer than admins who appear to have few or no admin actions because we only have logs for such actions since Dec 2004, and some of our former admins had their period of activity before then. Off hand I can't think of any Arbs who resigned without a period of on wiki arb activity, but as only fellow arbs would know about arbs offwiki arb activity, perhaps an arb could tell us if they can recall there ever being an elected arb who never contributed as an arb? ϢereSpielChequers 12:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

  I can't think of one. Everyone is usually pretty enthusiastic in January and February.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

  Well, this explains a question I've long had, WereSpielChequers. On the AdminStats page, there are admins without any activity at all...I guess they were active before December 2004 and then went inactive. Otherwise, why become an admin? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

  Hi Liz this gets complicated, and I may not have the whole story. According to User:JamesR/AdminStats we have 4,162 admins who have made at least one admin action. I'm aware of 2,168 admins via Wikipedia:RFA_by_month, to which we can add some admin bots, Jimbo and quite a few WMF staffers, not all of whom have (WMF) in their account name, plus one or two people who have moved their bit between accounts. That still leaves lots of people, probably more than a third of those 4,162 who are only listed on adminstats because of anomalies such as the bug that says people have an admin action when they have done a move over a redirect. Not everyone who has ever made admin has necessarily intended to use those admin tools that are logged in adminstats, most successful RFAs took place in the era before Rollback was unbundled, so it is possible that we have had some active admins who only used rollback and or view deleted. We also know that Admins from the early years who retired before December 2004 won't appear in these statistics. I've checked one of the admins who was desysopped before Dec 2004, and they don't appear on adminstats, but since they were desyopped for misuse of admintools it is a reasonable assumption that they used those tools. I do know of one admin who was "persuaded" to resign almost as soon as they passed RFA due to something that wasn't spotted in the RFA, and there may be other actual admins who genuinely have few or no admin actions. But I'm pretty sure they are rare, and I would continue with the assumption that the lack of logs from before Dec 04, and the inclusion of well over a thousand non admins in Adminstats, gives some people the false impression that we have many admins who have rarely if ever used the tools. Another way of looking at it is that about half the admins in adminstats have logged a significant number of admin actions, and that correlates with a high prportion of admins having at least a few hundred logged actions. ϢereSpielChequers 11:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

  User:Ffirehorse is an example of an admin who never made a logged admin action.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

  I had no idea that if a regular editor made a move over a redirect, that would count as an admin action. Technically, it is considered a deletion and it appears in the deletion log but I bet that regular editors were not cognizant of the fact that they were deleting pages and acting as admins. These moves happen daily and I guess that you are right, that is part of why AdminStats might consider these editors as "admins" if they conduct these moves. It's hard to otherwise imagine that there were ever 4K+ admins! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Note: Based on all of the above, and assuming the Committee is expanded back to 15 members in the RfC, there will now be eleven seats to be filled in the upcoming election, at least seven of which will not have incumbents. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The odds are in your favor. 🔥 Jehochman ^Talk 12:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• Yeah well the odds are in NYB's favor anyway if he chooses to run. Over the last 10 ArbCom elections only 5 candidates have broken the 80% support mark. 3 of those were NYB, and the top 3 % supports are held by him. Barring some massive scandal involving NYB (which of course is highly unlikely), he can be on ArbCom whenever he wants to run for election. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I am a bit worried about finding that many good candidates. —Kusma (t·c) 12:43, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• We won't. The average support of ArbCom members elected in this cycle will likely be substantially lower than in years past. With less support possibly comes more criticism of first time arbitrators. It might be a case of 'be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.' --Hammersoft (talk) 12:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Well I’m available. BTW, I understand that one of our many WP:UNIVALVED admins has thrown his, er, shell into the ring. EEng 14:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

As long as NYB is there to mentor, we're probably safe. Guy (help!) 14:29, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd run if I had more mainspace edits. That's the main thing preventing me from getting any sort of position like this, I think.--WaltCip (talk) 14:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Just to call it out, those are seats that "may" be filled - it is possible that the election does not fill all seats. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Would that be a bad thing? — Ched (talk) 16:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Versus bad candidates? I'd say no, but this year has suggested that if we have another trying year we might as well switch to an appeals court-style triumvirate because we won’t have committee members enough for anything larger :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for your service on ArbCom, Courcelles. I hope you can get back to doing what you enjoy here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
• Thank you for your time and service Courcelles --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
• Thank you for your service. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, returning to the original topic is good. Thanks to Courcelles for carrying out one of Wikipedia's toughest jobs, and thanks to all the Arbs who carry out such a difficult duty on behalf of the community. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• I don't believe that I interacted much with Courcelles, but I always thought the level-headed approach that he brought to ArbCom as well as his sysop work was refreshing to see. Best wishes, friend, and I hope you get well soon! OhKayeSierra (talk) 21:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
• My thanks to you for your work C. MarnetteD|Talk 01:25, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
• Thank you for your service and hard work, Courcelles. I hope to see you around . --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:29, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Fram unbanned immediately (temporary injunction in Fram case)

Original announcement

Welcome back fram! 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 16:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Worm That Turned: shouldn't this appear at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram under temporary injunctions which currently states (none)? Also, did this pass per a "net 4" rule related to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram/Proposed_decision#Remedy_1a_takes_effect_immediately (4-0, with 5 active not voting)? — xaosflux ^Talk 17:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this passed under the net 4 rule. Since the injunction stated immediately, I did so. I'll sort the temporary injunctions on the case now. Worm^TT(talk) 17:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply! — xaosflux ^Talk 17:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

2nd the ty for quick info, I was wondering also. KillerChihuahua 17:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

A fifth arbitrator has now supported, in any event. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome back! And on a somewhat related note, I leave to go to school and almost immediately all of the dramahs afflicting Wikipedia fix themselves. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 17:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Good. Thank you WTT, GW, and the others who moved this forward. 28bytes (talk) 17:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

A step in the right direction finally, thank you. This should bring shame to the arbitrators that refuses to even comment on the injunction in some kind of bizarre attempt at filibuster. Alex Shih (talk) 17:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Alex Shih, I don't believe there was any intention of keeping Fram banned longer - just an attempt to follow standard process. The entire case is backwards, Fram has started as banned and the agreement we had did not allow him to be unbanned. Normally there's no massive problem with carrying on to get the right decision, indeed it is a laudable outcome - but in this case it was unfair as Fram remained banned throughout. The people we had the agreement with were not the same people as actually banned Fram, so we needed to make sure that agreement carried over. So many problems with this case. Worm^TT(talk) 17:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Worm That Turned, from reading between the lines, I disagree with your comment. If there was never any intention from all committee members to keep Fram banned longer, Mkdw would probably have been more explicit in their comment here rather than the ambiguous "most of us" as it is. Combined with Joe Roe's response here reflecting on the desire to "wrap up the whole case together" rather than pass the injunction first despite of the obvious split in committee opinion over remedy 2d and 2e, in addition to another committee member's indirect admittance over not wanting to even hear what Fram has to say ([2]), I think it’s safe to assume that there are arbitrators that wants to make sure 1) Fram desysopped 2) Case concludes, before even considering unblocking Fram to allow them to participate in the PD, despite of having unanimously agreed that Fram should not have been blocked in the first place. Awaiting some of explicit statement from WMF, in my opinion only, is a reflection on the lack of desire to take responsibility over something that has overwhelming support by the majority of this community as it seems, in addition to several board members. Not to criticise on the cautious approach, but not everything has to be spelled out in explicit terms when so much politics has been involved throughout this case. Alex Shih (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Question - Does WMF have the ability or authority to reverse this?--WaltCip (talk) 19:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@WaltCip: The meta:Terms of use give the WMF wide latitude to do whatever they feel needs to be done to protect the wiki, including banning users as office actions. That being said, I highly doubt they would do something as contentious as rebanning Fram after months of scathing criticism and controversy from the community. OhKayeSierra (talk) 20:27, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for doing the right thing. As I've said repeatedly, this si less about Fram and more about due process, which he certainly did not get. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Miniapolis 22:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Beeblebrox; it's quite true that Fram did not enjoy the protections of due process in this case, nor did the WMF or ArbCom follow due process. The case is a sham on the face of it because of this, regardless of whatever wrongdoings Fram may or may not have committed. If this case had actually been in court, I strongly suspect it would have been thrown out with prejudice because the prosecution (the WMF and to some extent ArbCom) refused to provide the defense (Fram) with the evidence against them. But let's be clear; Fram, nor any of us, have any right of due process here. The only thing we have here is the Terms of Use. We can either choose to abide by them or leave. What is quite chilling is that the WMF still maintains that it can hold evidence against you without your knowledge and potentially act on that evidence without your having any chance of rebuttal. It doesn't matter that the WMF has handed this case to ArbCom. The situation that created this crisis remains the same, only the symptoms of it are changing (Fram being unbanned). The disease remains. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

It would have been dismissed because WMF has plenary authority over editing rights on its websites. Guy (help!) 23:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• The WMF certainly does have such authority, but found out rapidly that exercising that authority has severe costs. My analogy though extended to it being outside of that situation, as if the WMF were only a plaintiff in a criminal suit and Fram the defendant, not the WMF being the plenary authority here. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Should User:EngFram be unblocked now? That account is still blocked by WMFOffice. Philbert^2.71828 23:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I've unblocked it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Two sides to every story

A fundamental part of dispute resolution on this website is that both sides of a dispute will have their behavior looked at. If I come to a noticeboard complaining that someone is reverting my edits, then of course 3rd parties will examine my edits to see if they should have been reverted or not. I can't come to a noticeboard and say that someone's reversions to my edits make me feel harassed, but you aren't allowed to look at my edits. In effect, this is exactly what Arb has done to Fram. A FoF states that all of the evidence is available on-wiki, yet no arb will point to any of this evidence to support the desysop. Yet the Arbs feel confident to cast aspersions against Fram and say they were hounding and bordering on harassment. From what's available out of the dossier, Fram's actions were 100% correct and supported by the community. In the case of Laura Hale, that user was editing for pay disguised as a Wikipedian in Residence, and widely protected by other editors involved in or supporting the scheme, as well as by an undisclosed personal relationship with someone very senior at the WMF. This has resulted in an unfair process that goes completely against the core policies of transparency and fairness. This Committee has done the community a grave disservice. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

When Mr Ernie said "protected by other editors involved in or supporting the scheme" logic would dictate that this list of editors can readily be determined. If this were a normal Arbcom case, instead of the product of an anonymous complaint to T&S, the complainant and list of editors would become the named parties to the case, and the Arbcom would determine what sanctions, if any were appropriate for all parties. That step is missing here. Hlevy2 (talk) 12:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I assuming that the community will have the chance to 'restore' Fram's administratorship. GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram

Original announcement

• Now, the community shall restore his administratorship. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  I highly doubt so, see Floq's RfA being a prime example of how divisive any involvement with WP:FRAM can be, and now that Fram has been desysop-ed by the committee, the chances for the community to not trust the judgement of their elected body are slim, especially after so many of us demanded the oversight of the case to be handed down to the committee, at the very least. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks to Arbcom for dealing with this very difficult case. I doubt that there's much fun to be had being an arbitrator at any time, but I think this case was particularly harrowing, and for you to work through the issues with such diligence was far more than we can expect of volunteers. I particularly want to thank Gorilla Warfare, Worm That Turned, SilkTork, Joe Roe and Mkdw for their engagement with the community during the process.-gadfium 19:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
• I'm glad the WMF and the Arbitration Committee has come to a peaceful solution in the end. This incident is finally over. Hopefully things will improve from here on. INeedSupport ^:V 19:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure they have, I'm not sure it is and I'm not sure they will. :( Leaky caldron (talk) 19:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• Our best hope is for everyone to remain calm and judge the RFA on it’s merits. I prefer to look at this case as glass half full. Fram was unbanned and now the community gets to decide. Jehochman ^Talk 20:00, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  You think some of the less informed in the community will look past a WMF ban and Arbcom desysop without a strong statement from Arb that it was wrong? Seems naive. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  I think that when a plurality of more informed members support and explain why, the others will see the logic. This desysop isn't damaging in my opinion because the only verifiable reason given was that Fram once said "Fuck ArbCom". I think a lot of people have felt that way at one time or another. It all depends upon how Fram comes across in the questions and his interaction with other editors. If he does a good job, I think he can pass. Jehochman ^Talk 21:15, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• On one hand I guess this is what we asked for, but FFS this is a stupid precedence to be set. That you can be desysopped but not provided the evidence as to why and expected to improve is asinine to me. Here's hoping that the RFA isn't the shitfest waste of time that some people expect it to be. Valeince (talk) 20:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
• Very shameful. This is a new low for Arbcom. I will not thank the arbitrators for their “hard work” on this case, except those voting against the desysop. This was lazy at best, as some of the arbs didn’t bother to look at any of the evidence until after the PD was posted. These Arbs are going to be remembered, and not in a good way. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:50, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  I think you are being too harsh. This case started very much on the wrong foot and despite that they got it at least half right and the desysop only passed by a narrow margin. They're humans and are allowed to make mistakes. It's now in the community's hands and we have the chance to fix it if we want to. All will be best served if we come together and try to create a less toxic atmosphere (despite the serious bumbling that brought about this case and created a very toxic situation). Jehochman ^Talk 21:55, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks from me for handling this complex and difficult case, as well as for the Committee's decisive intervention during the WP:FRAM mess which led to a breakthrough. I imagine that it caused considerable stress for all the Committee members, and I'm grateful once again that people volunteer for this role. Nick-D (talk) 22:52, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
• I'm trying very hard to do as Jehochman says. And I do want to thank the (remaining) Arbs for working through what was clearly an incredibly difficult set of conditions. I mean that. But I am nonetheless unhappy with the final product. (And the workshop contained some spot-on suggestions from Newyorkbrad, so nobody can say that the Committee really needed to write the final decision in the way that they did.) But look at the findings of fact in the final decision. In FoF 6, you say: "In addition, the evidence reveals instances in which Fram has made mistakes as an administrator, including the overturned blocks of Martinevans and GorillaWarfare, but does not constitute misuse of administrative tools." And then you desysop nonetheless. OK, giving the benefit of the doubt, I recognize that there are multiple FoFs about Fram's conduct, based on different subsets of the evidence, and what I just quoted was from the one about community evidence. Maybe the tools weren't misused, but the demeanor of how Fram interacted with other users was the basis of the desysop. FoFs 7 and 8 maybe provide some documentation of that. But FoF 12, which is ultimately the rationale for the desysop, is very vague about the exact reasons, just some sort of evidence that "accumulated" and mostly "cannot be disclosed to either Fram or the community". Now we know from FoF 9 that there "was no evidence of off-wiki misconduct in either the Office provided case materials, or the community provided evidence", so we know that all of Fram's conduct that led to the desysop can be found in publicly accessible diffs. So that leaves us with 2 diffs in FoF 7, which hardly look like a sufficient justification, combined with some secret "accumulation" of complaints about how other editors felt.

It's not really possible for the community at large to look at that and understand the reasons for the desysop. And that matters. There will apparently be an RfA, and editors discuss above how it might turn out. And as noted, there will be a lot of editors who are not familiar with all the details, but who will see that ArbCom desysoped for some reason, and who are likely to oppose based on that. I'm pessimistic about the ability of "more informed members" to provide guidance, because we don't really know the reasons either, and can only speculate″ and opine. This isn't about how the RfA turns out. It's about fairness. And the final decision is going to make fairness nearly impossible. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

There will be an RFA and that may resolve it. If not, a new ArbCom will be elected shortly and then Fram can appeal the decision based on the fact that this screwy decision poisoned the well at his RFA. There's a clear series of steps going forward, and will be helpful to all, including Fram, if we try to be optimistic (rather than negative, which can become toxic, and discourage participation at RFA). Jehochman ^Talk 23:12, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I used to be optimistic that Hillary Clinton would beat Donald Trump. It's hard to predict the outcome. So I'm disinclined to be optimistic here, as much as I would like to be. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

This is kind of an interesting hypothetical... I'm not really sure what an appeal of a desysop vote (or a "decline to resysop" vote..) would really result in—I don't think anyone has ever been resysopped via appeal to the Committee; usually that decision is explicitly left to the community at RfA. But then again, this is hardly comparable to any situation we've been in before. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, Coffee was resysoped by motion in 2009, but that was a decade ago. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I stand corrected! GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Note though that the arbitration committee explicitly gave the option for Coffee to apply to the committee to have administrative privileges restored. isaacl (talk) 01:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

GW, if Fram is voted down because of things people find in the record, so be it. If he fails to pass because of opposes that say, in effect, “per ArbCom”, I think he’d have grounds to appeal. This was a weird case because 70 pages of evidence could not be shared. ArbCom suggested that RFA could make an independent determination. In the alternative, I suppose bureaucrats could choose to discount any such “per ArbCom” votes (because ArbCom never disclosed the evidence, and the proceeding was utterly irregular and outside policy). Jehochman ^Talk 02:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

That seems to imply that the bureaucrats don't trust Arbcom, and consider it appropriate to encourage other editors to do the same. I note in particular finding of fact 12 where ArbCom concluded unanimously that "Fram's conduct was not consistent with WP:ADMINCOND" on the basis of the public and private evidence available to them. In my view, it would be entirely legitimate for editors to vote against returning the admin tools on that basis, and I intend to do so if an RfA eventuates in the near term. Other editors are, of course, very welcome to take other views, but I don't think that we should encourage ArbCom findings to be dismissed. The situation with the WMF's evidence is unsatisfactory for a bunch of reasons, but I trust the Committee to have evaluated it sensibly and they state it wasn't the only basis for their decision here. Nick-D (talk) 03:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

That's not at all what I was thinking. You are entitled to your opinion, and I will follow my conscience. Now is not the time to re-argue the case. Jehochman ^Talk 04:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

So in this hypothetical scenario: the ArbCom case ends with Fram needing to go to RfA to get adminship again, Fram decides to go through RfA, they do not pass, and then after having gone through the RfA they appeal the decision in which the ArbCom decided they must go through RfA to regain adminship? And ArbCom decides to reverse the decision that Fram must go to RfA to regain adminship after they've already done so, thus overriding the community decision at RfA, based on the fact that too many people referred to the ArbCom's concerns about Fram's behavior in private evidence? I guess I can't really see the logic in this, but I also suppose this can all just wait until if that hypothetical becomes reality. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

My view is that a future iteration of ArbCom would be well within their rights to review what took place here and overturn any and all aspects of this, depending on what the review uncovers. This would apply regardless of whether an RfA is run or not. Some people will (like Nick-D) trust ArbCom to have made the right decision. I am not so sure about that (having been an arbitrator, I know a committee can collectively reach the wrong decision). Whether there would need to be a public explanation of why the decision was overturned (if it was) is another matter! A complicating factor would be the presence between years of arbitrators that participated in the case (unless those whose terms are expiring stand again, there will be four that carry over to next year: you (GW), AGK, Joe Roe, and Mkdw). Carcharoth (talk) 07:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I see a problem with a future appeal to ArbCom. Some of the Arbs said in this case that they would reject any case request that would ask to relitigate this case. That was in the context of Fram being accused by someone else of having done the same kinds of behavior as before, after a successful RfA, and it was intended to reaffirm that the community's decision in the RfA would be respected by ArbCom. But if ArbCom is going to respect an RfA that is successful, can they comfortably override the community if the RfA is unsuccessful? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: ...(having been an arbitrator, I know a committee can collectively reach the wrong decision). It is worth noting too, they can also collectively reach the right decision. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: You presumably also know, as a former arbitrator, that any decision would have been the 'wrong' one to somebody. I have no patience for those going around lauding arbs they agreed with on particular points and threatening those they didn't. We reached this decision collectively, as a committee. – Joe (talk) 09:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Joe Roe, who, till date, has lauded some arbitrators and threatened others? This venue is not the best choice for you to engage in overblown rhetoric. ∯WBG^converse 10:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

[3] isaacl (talk) 15:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Isaacl, what’s the threat? That people are going to remember which of these arbs made a bad call? I hope people do. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:34, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I won't have made that post but there's nothing threatening in it. Unless and until the arbitrators feel entitled to be thanked for their deliberations or be remembered in a good way, both of which are quite concerning.∯WBG^converse 17:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Joe Roe I fully understand that all of the committee votes to close, even those who did vote against the desysopping. I fully agree that you are collectively accountable for that decision. --Dirk Beetstra ^T<C 14:30, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Can you elaborate? Are you saying that if somebody on the committee was really against the desysop, he/she could have refused to vote to close? How would that have worked? Not trying to start an argument here, I'm genuinely curious.—Chowbok ☠ 00:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Chowbok: Well, there were at some point 3 oppose to close !votes. That would have made it impossible to get a net 4 closes. That simply means that there is no consensus to close. How would that have worked? I don't know. Possible a longer drawn out dramah? They could also just have refused to support the close, in which case that would have been a voice of protest, but we would have gotten to a close at least. To me, a support to close is an endorsement of the result of the case. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:58, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Beetstra and Chowbok: In my experience the arbitrators' voting to close a case is just an administrative step meaning that all the drafting and voting is finished so it's time to wrap the case up. I voted to close plenty of cases in which I disagreed with all or part of the decision, but once I've made my arguments and the other arbitrators disagreed, it was time to move on. Voting to close is definitely not an endorsement of the decision, and I'm sure that no one would want to move to a system in which, if the vote on a decision was 6-to-3, the minority would permanently oppose closing and the decision would never take effect. (To invoke the inevitable if flawed U.S. Supreme Court comparison, the Justices dissenting from a 5-4 decision don't refuse to show up for work to prevent the decision from being released, which in theory they could do since a statutory quorum for the Supreme Court is six.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks from me too, per NickD. This can't have been easy, and it's unfortunate that the politics with T&S meant it had to be handled in this bizarre way, with the anonymous evidence, but that was our of ArbCom's hands. I hope that will not be repeated and that we quickly move to an understanding on how ArbCom and T&S talk to each other. Although the WMF handled it badly, the saga also brought out the worst in a lot of others too. I obviously haven't seen the evidence the committee saw, but I trust that they used their skill and judgement in concluding the way they did. I would recommend against any RFA for at least six months, to allow the dust to settle and also for Fram to give us an exemplary record on which to judge him as we move onwards.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
• And from me, though I associate myself with the comments of Tryptofish, with whom I have many times disagreed over the years, but never found lacking in clue. Reliance on secret evidence that somehow is actually public does nothing to restore confidence in ArbCom. It is difficult to see how they will have sufficient community standing to lead in a RFC on how such evidence should be used, as we are led to believe will happen.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
• I wish I could ask those who engineered the start of this massive waste of time, given the subsequent mess, resignations, and nearly complete reversal of decision, if it was worth it. This is my most earnest wish. 50.35.82.234 (talk) 03:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
• Thanks from me. A very tough ask, and plenty of detractors. Given the imperfect nature of this whole business (largely caused by T&S not staying in their lane) I think the outcome is acceptable. I look forward to Fram submitting a RfA for re-sysop. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
• I just wanted to say thanks to every single Arbcom member who dealt with this mess and tried to resolve it the best they could - WMF created one huge mess and essentially left it for Arbcom to deal with/fix so I do thank them for their hard work in trying to resolve and fix this,

I will just add for the record I'm not at all happy with the desysop but I've said all of what I wanted to say on the PD page - IMHO all of WMFs actions should've been reversed, That's all I'll say on that. –Davey2010^Talk 08:58, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• While I understand concerns that some people will vote oppose because ArbCom did not resysop Fram, I also understand concerns that some people will vote support because they disagree with the Foundation banning anyone on Wikipedia. I'm not sure if these two groups will balance each other out, so what we are left with is an RfA based purely on Fram, but I hope so. It's also worth saying that Fram preferred the option of going to a RfA than having to make a pledge to ArbCom to abide by Admincond. SilkTork (talk) 09:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I hope bureaucrats will discount both types of irrational votes: protest votes (“to hell with WMF”) and blind followers (“all hail ArbCom”). The votes that matter most are those based on the merits, where the voter ties their opinion to their own analysis of the facts. Jehochman ^Talk 10:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

He'd probably be better off getting his bits back by being elected to ArbCom. More likely a successful result.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

That would be...awkward. Jehochman ^Talk 11:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

The facts are clear that as an administrator Fram has caused a lot more heat than light (the last thing we want from our administrators, and his immediate attempt to apply for admin will again apply further heat and disruption) and suggestions from experienced contributors than he should run for arbcom just shows how broken the neutrality of the community is and explains exactly why the foundation felt it was time to step in and assist. Arbcom has supported the removal of his advanced permissions and it it time for Fram to take a back seat and reduce disruption of the project. Govindaharihari (talk) 11:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• @SilkTork: my reading of what transpired between you and Fram on Fram's meta talk page is different to yours. People can read for themselves the very long back-and-forth that took place at meta:User talk:Fram#Looking for a solution, or they can skip to the final section at meta:User talk:Fram#Areas of concern where I believe you made your 'pledge' offer. Fram's reply to that is here. If you look carefully at what Fram is saying, it is clear that he has become frustrated with the whole process, the mis-steps being taken at the proposed decision page, and the fact that Fram was not really being allowed to take part in the case (Fram was only later unblocked to take part right at the end of the case). Now, you and Fram did (sort of) reconcile at the very end of that section, but Fram's frustration was understandable there. What is not acceptable is the way you (SilkTork), the one in a position of power here, remember, reacted and have since been portraying Fram's reaction ("he refused to engage and didn't want to make a pledge"). That is misleading in so many ways. My reading of it is that Fram got frustrated with the discussion, then calmed down later. And that Fram is perfectly willing to make a pledge of that nature, but to the community, not to a body (ArbCom) that while they had done well to take control back (of sorts) from T&S, were still not handling the case very well. And the comment that you (SilkTork) made that Fram "preferred the option of going to a RfA" is simply wrong. If you had been following what Fram said, you can see that he clearly stated here that "I would prefer the crats to deal with it. An RfA would be a second choice only, but then as soon as possible.". Maybe you could correct what you have said above, SilkTork? Carcharoth (talk) 09:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

This is neither the time nor the place to relitigate Fram's behavior. If they open an RfA I'm sure your comments will be welcomed there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:48, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Would you like to explain how Fram is/was disrupting the project? I'm sure that all of the arbitrators and other editors that have spent a very large amount of time discussing this over the last few months are hanging on your every word. Black Kite (talk) 13:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC) If you can't see the disruption the admin Fram account has caused to the community I can't help you. Govindaharihari (talk) 13:03, 22 September 2019 (UTC) Why don't you post a few diffs, such as a "greatest hits" list. If Fram is so disruptive, you should have no problem finding them. I'll post this one: "Fuck ArbCom which doesn't even understand their own messages and again give themselves powers they don't have." Do you have some others? I think the Fuck ArbCom comment is excessively strident, but I don't think it's disruptive because Fram is giving specific criticism and he may even be correct in his analysis. Take out the word fuck, and the comment is perfectly fine. Are we banning people for using the seven dirty words? Jehochman Talk 17:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC) I think it is a simple fact that all editing history and this case easily confirms, I don't give a fuck about his fuck arbcom comment his admin account has a long history and that is what has created all this disruption. Govindaharihari (talk) 17:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC) If you wave your hands any harder you might fly away. Why not post a few diffs? Come on, don’t be shy. People sometimes hear made up stuff and just repeat it. Jehochman Talk 17:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC) Considering the whole situation we,en wikipedia doesn't need Fram to be an admin and he doesn't need to be one either. Govindaharihari (talk) 17:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC) FWIW I am also ignoring attempts to demean me, like, If you wave your hands any harder you might fly away and I'm sure that all of the arbitrators and other editors that have spent a very large amount of time discussing this over the last few months are hanging on your every word. Govindaharihari (talk) 17:44, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• Is the T&S dossier included in the ArbCom-L archives now? If not, will it be made available to the 2020 committee if they are required to revisit this case? –xeno^talk 13:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, the document is in our archives and therefore will be available to any future arbitrators added to the mailing list. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  “Any information kept long enough eventually leaks.” —Hochman’s Law. Jehochman ^Talk 17:29, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  What if Fram is elected to the committee? –xeno^talk 11:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

  Awkward! 🍿 ArbCom, if you are smart, you will delete that report now that the case is closed. If it's needed in the future you can request it again from T&S. Jehochman ^Talk 13:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• At the very least, if an RFA is opened for Fram, I hope we will be informed of it. GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

*sigh* All RFAs are posted as a watchlist notice, why would this be any different? –FlyingAce^✈hello 17:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Perfecto. GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• As someone who has been asking the simple, fundamental question, over and over again, as to whether or not there was "harassment", I find the relevant FoF to be pathetic. "Hounding", per your own invocation of enwiki policy, is the practice of following users around in order to cause "irritation, annoyance, or distress", causing "disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or disruption to the project generally, for no constructive reason". This is a simple concept. Following somebody around just to troll them, or give them a hard time, or to disrupt the project, is harassment, of course, otherwise known as "hounding". Very simple. Yet, in spite of this clear-cut definition, the committee's "finding of fact" was that Fram engaged in "borderline harassment", because he was "excessively highlighting their failures". Strange. If Fram was following users for no reason, then that's harassment. Apparently that's not what the evidence showed, because you could not say that he engaged in harassment, which many people have accusing him of solely based on the existence of the ban for harassment. If Fram was following users because they were problematic, and the issue was that he was "excessively highlighting their failures", then that's not "hounding", that's, presumably, working in the best interest of the project but being too uncivil about it. Sure, you could call that 'borderline harassment' in an informal sense, and I'm sure a user with connections would complain to their friends in the office that they're being harassed, but it really isn't harassment as defined by our standards, at all, is it? And look at the atrocious "harassment" section on the evidence page. Fram harassed Ymblanter? Based on that out of context quote in which Fram is actually paraphrasing an inappropriate comment made by Ymblanter. Fram harassed Gatoclass? Based on those diffs, Fram objected to Gatoclass making an inappropriate threat, then objected to Gatoclass personally attacking him, then mistakenly criticized Gatoclass of changing an article to match a DYK hook, and struck his comment once his mistake was pointed out. Then of course we have the harassment of Laura Hale, based on his...appropriately filing complaints about legitimate problems in the appropriate forum? Sigh. You guys have nothing. You're just covering for the WMF. That's what this looks like. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Now is probably the wrong time, but at some future point it would be entirely appropriate to ask ArbCom for clarification on these points. They are reasonable people and would I am sure be quite willing to clarify those aspects of the case if well-argued points were put forward to show that clarification is needed. Carcharoth (talk) 09:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

  I understand why there is confusion, and will happily offer my point of view. Harassment is a difficult term as it covers everything from hounding on-wiki to turning up unexpectedly at someone's house. The former may be regarded as harassment, while the latter would likely be a breach of the law. Fram was never anywhere near the latter. However, he did follow individuals around on wiki, causing "irritation, annoyance, or distress" and "disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or disruption to the project generally" - You'll note I left off the "for no constructive reason".
  In my view, there was always a constructive reason - I do not believe Fram acted in malice. However, what the committee focussed on was "excessively highlighting their failures" - that's where we pushed into the harassment territory - and why I supported the "borderline harassment" term. Civility was a factor, but so were the highlighting of minutae, the excessive focus on little details, the regular issues raised. This happened to multiple different users. I won't go into the community evidence, as I have said enough on that on the workshop - but there is more to the case than just what we were provided with by the community. We were hamstrung by the WMF, but I do not believe we were covering for them. Worm^TT(talk) 10:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

  Is it possible that the committee (whose members differ on the interpretation of things such as WP:ADMINCOND and the degree to which Fram's behaviour improved after the conduct warning) disagree on the extent to which this is 'harassment'? More importantly, are committee members going beyond their remit in interpreting Wikipedia policies? The community (that wrote the policies and guidelines) might not agree with how you (ArbCom) are interpreting the policies. Does excessively highlighting someone's failures count as harassment under policies as they stood at the time (and even now)? It is nearly impossible to discuss these things in a meaningful way without examples. Where is the line drawn between excessive and not excessive? Who draws that line? And how is Fram supposed to know in future what is excessive and what is not excessive? Carcharoth (talk) 10:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

  I wouldn't like to talk to my colleagues opinions, but reading their comments on the materials provided by T&S in the proposed decision does answer a lot of your questions. I do believe that excessively highlighting failure counts as harassment, by the very definition of "excessively". But you are right, it is near impossible to discuss this in any meaningful way without examples, and I cannot give them. I've made my feeling clear how that should have affected the decision but the case is done. I'm happy to discuss further at my talk page, but I don't think prolonging discussion here is particularly helpful. Worm^TT(talk) 10:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

  Feel free to use communication between Fram and me as an example if needed.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

  @Carcharoth: These are great questions and I believe we touched on them in the decision. FoF 4 attempted to find the definition of harassment in enwiki and policy and didn't find one. Instead, we found some related but not exactly equivalent terms. But "harassment" is mentioned (but not defined) in the ToU and this was the grounds given for Fram's ban. Presumably, T&S have another yet another definition, but we don't know what that is. All this made it difficult to answer the question of whether Fram "harassed" anyone and therefore whether T&S' grounds for the ban was valid. If you read the PD there was a range of views on this point and I think that is a major reason that ban was unanimously overturned.

  If we're going to show the WMF that we can deal with their concerns about 'community health' and ToU-enforcement locally, we as a project need to put some serious effort into developing a working definition and policy around harassment.

  However, it's important to point out that we didn't desysop Fram for harassment. We did so because they failed to meet local enwiki policy (specifically WP:ADMINCOND). – Joe (talk) 11:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

  Herein lies a core issue I have with this whole thing. Put yourself in my shoes as a largely uninvolved person trying to decide if I should vote in Fram's upcoming RFA. If what you say is true and has not substantially improved since the conduct warning, I would like to know about it to make an informed vote. Right now my sense of fairness obliges me to give Fram the benefit of any doubt, as he has been mistreated so badly and there isn't convincing evidence to the contrary, but I'd like to actually know what I'm about to vote for. Magisch ^{talk to me} 10:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

  My preference was for a "no-fault" RfA - I know it's almost impossible, but try to look at Fram's admin rights as if he were choosing to run a reconfirmation RfA - allowing the community to show what reasons they have for and against him being an admin. None of this cloak and dagger nonsense. Worm^TT(talk) 10:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, I would like to thank the Arbitration Committee for all its hard work on this case. We know both the case and situation were unusual, and we appreciate Arbcom's dedication and approaching this with thought and nuance. We also appreciate Arbcom recognizing that it is permitted to hear and adjudicate private cases when such a case type is necessary.

The Wikimedia Foundation looks forward to the coming RFC on the topic of "how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future". We also invite community members to participate in the upcoming community consultation on the topic of partial and temporary office actions, which will be launching next Monday on Meta. Best regards --Jan (WMF) (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jan (WMF): Will Fram be receiving an apology? WJBscribe (talk) 15:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland closed

Original announcement

• All of you shall be collectively ashamed for not having the willingness (or competency) to even minimally engage the multitude of folks, including but not limited to administrators and functionaries, who had raised questions about multiple aspects of the PD over the t/p. ∯WBG^converse 19:47, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
• I'm sorry to say I share WBG's disappointment that several arbitrators, despite being active elsewhere, declined to answer questions and pings on the talk page. If you're too busy, then you shouldn't have been closing the case. If the issue is one you consider trivial, then at least have the courtesy to say that. If you've already discussed it elsewhere, then have the courtesy to say that. I hope I'm proved wrong, but I'm fairly certain that the language you used has made some of our most contentious areas more prone to unscholarly historical revisionism. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:30, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
• You know, I feel like the Committee used FRAM to their advantage; specifically, everyone was paying attention to the Fram case, so they slipped out this contentious decision without many noticing... | abequinn^fourteen 23:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
• Agreeing with WBG - how embarrassing for all of you. Talk about "checked out". - DoubleCross (talk) 03:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
• I concur that from my perspective, the ArbCom seems to have ignored most comments on the talk. Sure, it's one thing to consider it all a peanut gallery, but I wonder, what is the purpose of having a talk page open to non-parties or anyone if all we get is an occasional clerk clarification of a technicality, or the 'this is passed on and discussed on arbcom email list', with no follow up. Still, it is possible this will be sufficient to solve the issue, with all the other issues (sources/non-parties) resolving itself. Let's hope for that, since I think this is what the ArbCom did... and hey, if it doesn't work out, it will be the problem for the 2020/2021 Arbitrators, not the current ones, right? :> --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
• The funny part is that the arbcom talk pages are sectioned so that editors can talk to arbitrators and not to each other. So much for that. – Levivich 13:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Resignation of SilkTork

Original announcement

As I mentioned on his talk page a little while ago, I'm very sorry to see this - have enjoyed working with SilkTork on this committee and the last time I did. Worm^TT(talk) 07:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry to see this. Thanks for your service on ArbCom during a difficult period, SilkTork. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:51, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
• Sorry to hear this, and thanks SilkTork for your excellent work on the committee.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:03, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
• Thank you for your service, SilkTork. As a bit of a side note, for 2020 only four current arbitrators (AGK, Mkdw, GorillaWarfare, Joe Roe) will remain on the committee. Assuming that the size of the Arbitration Committee increases to 15 arbitrators in 2020 (see this ongoing RfC), this leaves at most eleven vacant seats up for election in WP:ACE2019. This feels like an unprecedented number. To provide some context, in WP:ACE2018 thirteen candidates stood for election, exactly eleven of which achieved at least 50% support. (Under current rules, only candidates with >50% support can be appointed.) If we ran the same election this year, that means all eleven of those candidates would be appointed. Mz7 (talk) 08:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  • It's not an unprecedented number. In 2010 we elected 12. In 2014, we elected 10. The average over the last 10 years is 8.6. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)