User talk:Opabinia regalis

Thank you ...

we give thanks

Gratias agimus

Thank you so much for being the spirit of arbitration! - The music is the theme song of my life, so to speak, from Psalm 75, and Bach also used the same music in his final Dona nobis pacem, - "give us peace" is the best we can ask from arbs ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't know how much peace I've been giving lately - unless my not being around makes things more peaceful? :) *peeks at ARCA* *peeks at overflowing inbox* eh, I dunno about that... Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Haven't looked at anything arb lately, - better for my peace ;) - I gave the same template to an editor new to me whom I seem to have confused. He was blocked unfairly (but I have no time to look into the details), thinks that a DS info is stimatising, and waits for apologies which probably won't come. Don't know what to say, - I know the feeling of being treated unfairly (not that I was ever blocked, or thought DS is a stigma). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I follow that thread, but just getting one of those DS templates should have all the emotional significance of, I dunno, getting an all-staff email at work about the weekly break-room fridge cleanup. Or a notice from the city about new recycling bins. Or any other mild encounter with a relatively harmless bureaucracy reminding you to do a thing you were already going to do anyway. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Would you repeat that where expressed, perhaps? (I pinged you before I saw your reply here, - had my talk open when I returned and work on my watchlist top to bottom.) Or ping the user to here? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt, don't overthink it; the editor in question is ridiculously aggressive (currently on a final warning from me for incivility, and I have an extremely high bar when it comes to what constitutes unacceptable rudeness), and would have feigned taking offense at you even if the template consisted of a basket of kittens. I sometimes think that we should get a bot to spam the talk page of every active user once a year with a list of all active DS areas; yes it would be annoying but wouldn't clutter watchlists any more than the annual election-spam, and we could then work on the assumption that all users were aware of all sanctions and we'd have no need to go through the constant "does someone who writes about architecture need to be given an AP2 notice when they edit Trump Tower?" confusion. ‑ Iridescent 15:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I told him (what makes me so sure it's a he?) "love your enemies", to no avail, - today's gospel was about the splinter in your sister's eye, - I enjoy the irony. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:45, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Although it violates WP:SPEAKENGLISH, you might want to try speaking to him in German. I have a feeling that a lot of his (I'm certain it's a "he", as his de-wiki userpage gives his name) issues ultimately stem from the fact that his understanding of English is nowhere near as good as he thinks it is, and he consequently misunderstands when things are explained to him but is too proud to admit that he doesn't understand. ‑ Iridescent 20:02, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

My interest in talking to him is rather limited. Where do you think Germans learn the term "POV-pushers"? It has such a ring of old times to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I've seen the exact term "Pov-pushen" being used, untranslated, in German Wikipedia. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:12, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt looking at the most recent exchange, I think this may all stem from his not understanding that the word "warning" has multiple meanings in English whereas German has both "achtung" and "warnen". He's interpreting it as used in "I'm warning you about your conduct" or "I'm warning you that if you move I'll shoot", but the intent is as used in "Warning, narrow road ahead" or "this is a warning that your flight leaves in ten minutes". (The templates intentionally use the unambiguous "alert" and "notification" rather than "warning" for precisely this reason.) That said, as per my previous comment I'm fairly certain that this is a user who's looking for a pretext to have an argument rather than someone who's genuinely offended. He's already on a final warning that any further "personal attacks on other editors" or "making accusations of misconduct against other editors without providing evidence" will lead to a block, so if he keeps it up I'll send him to find a new hobby. (He likes to characterize everyone who disagrees with him as being part of a conspiracy, but I think we can safely say any claim that I'm working at the behest of POTW is not going to be taken very seriously.) ‑ Iridescent 14:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I think you are right. Had to think for a moment what the abbreviation means but guess you mean Andy. When has he "pushed" last time? I think he's almost as far away from a topic that still causes headaches as I am. In 2013, he was almost banned, and the diff given by the arb whose vote made that the majority was uncollapsing an infobox (that I had added to an article I had created). In 2014, he was taken to AE for properly formatting an infobox for someone else, and an edit that was good for just a thank-you-click - but I think they were not invented then - kept the noticeboards busy for a while. Tell our friend who uses "hostility" too much but for some reason only perceives it as directed at him, that to my limited observation Andy has received an unbelievable amount of it, for trying to improve articles. - I missed Teh Wars from 2005 to 2012, which may have left scars I can't imagine. In the 2013 case, I suggested "We start today" - which we could still do, with new aspects. Looking at the mentioned Siegfried and Ban on Love, it's hard to imagine that there ever was a fight. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

On today's Main page La traviata, and I don't regret having "pushed" towards the title woman pictured, not the composer, pictured uniformly for all operas decades after he wrote this one. Viva-Verdi did it (his Callas image was recently deleted), not known as a pov pusher, but a solid foundation of project opera ("one of the most active and helpful members of WikiProject Opera. He will be greatly missed by all his colleagues there.") --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I'll stay out of this one. The infobox DS authorization is in this case, FWIW. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. DYK that I had completely forgotten that the case even existed? I ignored it when running. Interesting how many times my name was called. Well, if I serve a purpose as the infobox topic's most suitable scape-goat, so be it. We'll see for how long. Haven't "pushed" an infobox (if ever) since 2015. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

About apologies

That statement on the most recent case request reminded me of this discussion about apologies for some reason. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Good points there. I think the problem I mean is a little different - I'm talking about the case where the impediment to apologizing (and cleaning up the mess you caused, which is an often-overlooked step) isn't insincerity, but more like a fear that it will be interpreted as admitting fault for the whole issue, or letting the other side "win". But I may just be outright wrong about the dynamic here. Sometimes I think we should just move the arbitration pages to Wikipedia: Why I was right and the other person is worse and it's really all everybody else's fault. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

... or there's a splinter in my sister's eye --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

A bit too generic IMO, these mentalities underpin a lot of conflicts even when they don't reach Arbcom. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 12:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, just my deficit's worth...when arguing/presenting a case at AE, AN, ANI, etc. we have community favs and their supporters wanting a pound of flesh via a boomerang against the OP. I can't help but wonder if diffs beyond the 1st 3 to 5 are actually read and/or evaluated in proper context. How many are thinking to themselves, I've got things to do - can we get this over with ASAP? I would love for someone to convince me otherwise. There are also a few cases when the innocent will admit to guilt hoping for a lesser sentence, and end-up looking more guilty than the guilty. Why? More times than not, they haven't perfected their strategy as would a seasoned POV warrior. And so it goes...and goes...and goes. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 03:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Despite the pile-ons you always get at the start of dramaboard threads, people generally do read the whole thing, and it's certainly not unusual for an intervention to change the course of a discussion even after a large number of people have piled on. (My comment at 10:11 5 March here almost certainly stopped IW being unceremoniously kicked off the project, for instance.) Part of the reason you see boomerangs at AN/ANI/Arb is that while it may not have been part of the original design, it serves a useful purpose in stress-testing the editors on both sides of whatever the issue is; if someone has a battleground mentality, the stress of being put under the microscope often gets them to flare up and reveal their true colors. Bear in mind that except in some specific cases such as people pushing obviously crazy positions or misusing sources, from the point of view of an arbitrator or a closing admin we don't care what the views of the participants are on the issue in hand, we care about how they interact with other people who don't share their views. (When it comes to content disputes, as a very rough rule of thumb if you can work out from a Wikipedia editor's edits regarding the topic what their personal views on that topic are, that editor is potentially problematic. As an even rougher rule of thumb—and I say this as an inveterate writer of walls-of-text—whoever has made the longest post is more often than not the cause of the problem.) ‑ Iridescent 18:35, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Interesting perspective, thank you Iridescent. I realize ;tldr may have a negative influence. ("I have made this letter longer than usual, because I lack the time to make it short." ~ Blaise Pascal) ^Atsme 👂🏻 📧 18:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

It's true that a well-placed and persuasive intervention in an ANI thread can change its course for the better. The problem is then the extent to which a sane outcome from an ANI thread depends on that kind of intervention. There's only a few people who do it often or effectively, but there are lots of people whose ANI participation is either pure noise, or actively negative.

And on that last point, I am a regular offender when it comes to tediously long posts, but it's almost alarming how good the correlation is between post volume and degree of responsibility for the problem. Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I find this statements concerning. We all are capable of being upset, of being pushed to a limit and of reacting badly. I don't believe, with all respect to Iridescent, that these are the true colors of any editor. Why are we talking about stress testing people. How about just trying to get to the bottom of the issues at hand supporting editors and trying reintegrate them into the smooth workings of an encyclopedia. Seems to me that when we look for guilt we are already in trouble; when we push people to react then we are not getting to the bottom of the issues. I wonder if this is a punitive model. I'm not usually a talk page stalker but this caught my eye, really bothered me, and I couldn't not comment. By the way I was told many years ago by an arb that they seldom read everything so anyone posting should make it short and very very succinct. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

The arbs won't necessarily read the workshop, but we'd certainly read all the statements; while the primary purpose for the 500 limit is to force people to keep to the point, the secondary purpose is that it's mind-numbingly dull reading and absorbing even the short statements, especially back when RFAR was more active. On the topic of putting people under stress, nobody goes out of their way to put people under stress, but it's nonetheless a useful tool. Bluntly, if you don't want to be dragged to those noticeboards where you'll be put under stress, don't be disruptive and cause people to drag you there in the first place. This is a collaborative academic project, not a social network or blogging site, and if people aren't able to collaborate with people with whom they disagree it's in both our interest and theirs that they realise Wikipedia is not the appropriate place for them. ‑ Iridescent 18:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I have no gripe against the arbs and what they can or cannot read. It's a tough job, maybe a dirty job, and those doing it to the best of their ability with honesty have only my gratitude whether I agree with them or not. I simply wanted to mention what one arb said to me, as a point. I'm sorry, but no, people are pulled to drama boards all the time without having done anything wrong, without even being disruptive in part because what disrupts is subjective and we all don't see things the same way. Being at a drama board cannot confer guilt; it simply means there is an issue probably where two side see things differently. I respect the editors here and hope they can also see that there is more than one way to eat an apple. (Animal lover here so no cat words.) Best wishes all. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Just curious...if you don't read the diffs in context or examine the components of a case, how do you know the statements made are supported by evidence or policy based or if they're simply aspersions and embellished rhetoric designed to rid oneself of opposition? I understand how statements (arguments) work for an RfC because we don't count iVotes; rather, we base results on the merits of the arguments. But it doesn't work the same way when it involves a case of WP:POV railroad. I may be wrong, but I always thought arbs were required to be far more thorough when studying a case than, say...everyday admins who are inundated with multiple cases almost daily. Why bother electing an arbitration committee if they aren't going to devote the necessary time to arrive at fair, well-informed decisions? We might as well let individual admins make all the decisions at their discretion, and hope it's not a hair trigger decision. At least in the latter scenario, the torment ends sooner. ^Atsme 👂🏻 📧 20:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

OR is better placed than me to say how things are done now; for all I know, present-day arbs read the workshop avidly, but I somehow doubt it.

In my personal opinion the workshop phase is a vestigial remnant of the very early days of Wikipedia when Jimmy envisaged Arbcom as a circle of his trusted courtiers who would act on his behalf by actually arbitrating between arguing parties, rather than doling out blocks and bans. To my mind, its main function now is to act as a fuckwittery heatsink, to keep the bickering and squabbling off the main case pages. (Frankly, I'd say the primary purpose of Arbcom itself nowadays is to serve as Wikipedia's fuckwittery heatsink to keep the bickering and squabbling off the rest of the project; they dealt with a mighty seven actual cases in the whole of 2018, one of which they abandoned two days after it opened.)

Yes, I totally agree that the arbs' need to read the diffs in context or examine the components of a case, but that's what the evidence page is for; the workshop these days is just a glorified talk page in which all the usual look-at-me types wade in explaining why the evidence proves that the best course of action is to block the guy with whom, by complete coincidence, they're currently in dispute. If we need to keep Arbcom (a big if), I personally don't feel anything would be lost if cases jumped straight from the evidence phase in which people post the relevant diffs and explain how they pertain to the case, to the PD page in which people discuss which parts of the evidence are potentially actionable and what the best action to take would be. There's absolutely no benefit to either the parties, the arbs, or the wider community in the current double-phase approach in which the proposals for the PD are effectively written twice, once with running commentary from the peanut gallery and once about.

FWIW, the word "workshop" doesn't appear once in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy; the current five-phase request→evidence→workshop→PD→ruling model isn't some hallowed and inviolable part of the Wikipedia Constitution but just an artefact of systemic inertia because That's How We've Always Done It, and "Fred Bauder thought it was a good idea in 2005 and nobody could be bothered to argue because at that time Arbcom was just one of a bunch of competing self-appointed mediation bodies so nobody realised it would become Wikipedia's ruling council" really isn't much of a foundation on which to build a system.* If you look at the cases from the period when the "workshop" concept was introduced, in most cases the Workshop page is blank. It was intended as a scratchpad for the arbs and parties to jot down their thinking, and was never intended to be an integral part of the process; I believe Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek/Workshop was the first time the workshop page was actually used for anything approaching its present use, and even then it was almost exclusively used for the arbs and parties to discuss among themselves, not for every passing person with a grudge to aim a kick at their enemies while they were down. Newyorkbrad might be better placed than me to do the Institutional Memory thing in this instance, as he was a clerk or arb during the period when workshopping became popular whereas to me arbcom was largely an annoying buzz in the background. ‑ Iridescent 16:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
*Fred Bauder's thoughts on what the workshop phase became compared to what he intended it to be mirror mine, incidentally. ‑ Iridescent 16:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

The workshop was already an established part of the process by the time I got involved with the arbitration pages, so I don’t have much to add regarding how it got that way. In some cases during my tenure the workshop was useful; on others, very much not. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Although even I haven't been very good at it, I've always felt that all non-recused Arb should take part in the workshop and that the PD itself should be worked on there. Doug Weller talk 18:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

The workshop of the infoboxes case seemed to have been ignored, but then the arb who wrote the case placed my suggestion for Beethoven to the article, following community consensus. Productive ;) - Now look at Mozart's talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I have to admit I'm not a big fan of the workshop as it currently exists. Cases are long, so I usually do end up reading almost all of what's posted sooner or later, but certainly not in real-time or all at once. For the workshop in particular I usually look at the first couple of proposals from each person (or maybe the ones with the most interesting-looking section headers) and if they're thoughtful and sensible I'll read the rest, but I don't put too much more time into stuff that's obviously unreasonable, off-topic, etc. I think the "write a proposed proposed decision" format of the workshop is part of the problem - some people take it seriously and do a good job, but it encourages soapboxing and weird efforts to push the Overton window on the PD. (I guess it does also serve the "heatsink" function of containing the dispute to a back-office page until a solution can be sorted out.) I think it'd be more useful for the parties to give a two-sentence summary of what they want to change or how they want the problem to be handled in the future. You know that cheesy quasi-management-y stuff about I statements? More like that. It seems like even case parties who were reasonable through the evidence phase start to get a little defensive and brain-fried when the workshop rolls around and people start posting sanctions proposals. Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

So why not eliminate it all together? I would think the majority of editors/arbs/admins would support its removal. ^Atsme 📣 📧 16:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not just a case of flipping a switch. Because the relevant part of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures which converted "the way we've always done it" into formal policy was formally adopted rather than just "we'll keep doing this unless someone complains", it would take a formal motion and subsequent vote of the committee to change it. I'd imagine any such motion would be bitterly opposed, as so many of the usual suspects would be dismayed at potentially losing one of their favourite trolling venues. ‑ Iridescent 20:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Yep, there would be a ton of complaints if the community previously had a specific space for input on thing X and then arbcom "took it away". (Star Chamber, forced disappearances, George Orwell references, we're just like <fill in your favorite fascist dictator>, etc etc.) Some of those complaints would be "hey, what do you mean I can't troll there anymore??" but some would be genuine concern. It also wouldn't leave many alternative places for the other functions of the workshop - I guess the heatsink would just move to the case's talk pages, which are generally harder to keep under control. What's currently the "analysis of evidence" section of the workshop page has always seemed misplaced to me, but the concept of secondary analysis has merit (especially since, well, the narrative framing of most of the parties in their evidence sections is often less than useful - "here's all the reasons nothing is my fault and the other side has wronged me and should be banninated"). All in all I don't really want to get rid of it, I just want less soapboxing.

If I were going to redo the whole case process from scratch it would be much more goal-oriented. Right now the semi-adversarial setup of the case pages encourages people to lose perspective and get too wrapped up in the short-term "goal" of getting someone to say "Yes, you were right". Never mind that one diff from six months ago where that nasty so-and-so said something (gasp!) uncivil and are we really going to let someone get away with that??? - what do you actually want to happen now? Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:30, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

In theory I would prefer to keep the workshop page, but I also think the evidence page should be clerked more rigidly to keep it to matters that can be verified with a minimum of interpretation, with all interpretation moved to the workshop. That isn't going to happen, though.

Ideally, I think the analysis portion of the workshop page should be used to lay out the lines of reasoning that lead to determining the key problematic issues to be resolved, and the pros and cons of different remedies. I believe the soapboxing, as Opabinia regalis called it, in people's proposed principles arises because they are trying to lay out their argument for their proposed remedies. As a result, these oddly hyper-specific principles are proposed, rather than more general principles that are more befitting of the name. I don't really know how to encourage people not to do this, though. Remedies could be required to point to corresponding analysis sections to describe their rationale, but that probably won't stop people from writing their principles highly tailored to the case in question. isaacl (talk) 17:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

We were pulling in parallel to the dock, Captain said port left, so I gave him our last bottle. Next thing I know, we're going down!!

File:Cat on suitcase.jpg

I requested a case as well, see?

In an ideal world, there would be a bigger but more aggressively clerked case request page; the word limits would be done away with, but in return any statement not in the form "I see the problem as _____, the evidence to support my assertion is _____, and I see the potential solutions as _____, _____ or _____" would be removed. Such a thing would probably do away with whatever need there actually is for the workshop and evidence phases, as people would be forced up front to say what they hoped to achieve, why they hoped to achieve it and why the committee should care. I can't see it happening this side of the next millenium; I was there when WP:ARBPOL was brought into force and watching Roger steer that through was like watching someone trying to parallel-park an oil tanker, and that was essentially just codifying existing practice rather than the kind of radical change I'm proposing. Wikipedia's model has many virtues, but it doesn't do change at all well. ‑ Iridescent 16:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Once upon a time, I suggested that community-selected co-ordinators should present the major viewpoints for a case, in order to streamline its presentation and thereby save everyone's time. Absent this, though, I don't think every commenter should be required to present evidence, analysis, and proposed remedies. I think it makes sense to gather everyone's presented evidence together, separate from analysis, so someone can go through it and verify it readily, without having to sift through analysis intermixed within. I agree whole-heartedly that more bare-bones statements are highly desirable. isaacl (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Iridescent's idea is exactly the right way to do it. (A cat on every case page would help too - and that one's somewhat more likely to actually be implemented, even if just for a little while till a clerk notices.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I have had an interest in Arbitrations for many years not because of my own experiences which I believe in the end were fair although complex and convoluted, (and AE is another matter) but because I have seen well meaning editors lost to Wikipedia because the "ropes" at arbitration and even AE created an uneven playing field for those newer editors. I think Iridescent's suggestion for request page is excellent. But more importantly is something that is missing from the way arbitration functions now and that is that editors and especially newer editors do not always know what they will be sanctioned for, what the real issues are, what the arbs are looking at and might want to see in their deliberations. Experienced editors in the same situation know what arbs generally look at what, the trigger words are which can nail the coffin shut. What is lacking overall is transparency. We as experienced editors know lots of discussion goes on the background which the editor is not part of and often even understands. That can't be corrected, but an antidote can be created in a very concrete and transparent way by simply openly asking the editors questions, questions which are based on the issues the arbs see as problems. From the answers to those questions arbs will get a very good idea of the editor's knowledge, and understanding of what is going on. How often have I seen an editor say something innocently and with integrity that will hang them not because they did anything wrong but because they did not understand the situation and "looked" guilty. In this model, at this initial phase of a case there is no place for anyone else with an interest wether helpful or not to comment. That, if necessary, comes later. Experienced editors do not always realize how far they've cone in understanding the complexities of the Wikipedia culture, norms and language. Second to this arbs must not come into an arbitration with an agenda assuming guilt or innocence and must maintain the non-punitive stance Wikipedia was built on. Further, and on a less positive note experienced editors can know how to hang an inexperienced editor if that is their leaning. We have lost good editors this way as inexperienced editors trying to do the right thing but not understanding the culture are dragged to Arbitrations and sanctioned. Experienced editors don't see this as a problem since they may feel they are fighting for Wikipedia and the ends justify whatever means necessary to remove editors rather than integrate them. I realize there are many situations where editors are here to damage but an open transparent model where editors see and understand what the issues are because they are being asked about it should deal with that problem too. And no this isn't about me or my experiences, it's about a long term issue which I have viewed and wondered about and even written about [1] in the past. Dr Chrissy has since died but he was a good editor potentially great who could have been saved had he been dealt with differently. One thing I do disagree with is that the editor who becomes upset is not admitting in some subtle way to guilt. There are multiple reasons they might be upset. We can find out why by simply asking them. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Adding...ArbCom and AE should consider putting a reasonable limit on the number of diffs one can submit (not more than 5) because it's highly unlikely anything more will be read anyway, and crack down heavily on aspersions. If it takes 50 diffs to show disruption, or there are no diffs that show disruption, it's highly likely there is no disruption; rather, it is more likely opposition and the OP may just be trying to rid themselves of it. ^Atsme 📣 📧 17:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

No, that wouldn't work; sometimes it's necessary to have a wall of diffs to demonstrate that there's a long term problem that the community hasn't been able to address. Here's an example from just yesterday; the long list is necessary to illustrate that there's no realistic chance of the issue resolving itself. ‑ Iridescent 17:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Iridescent, sorry, ;tldr 😂 ❤️ ^Atsme 📣 📧 22:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

What's generally missing is context. Wikipedia is a two dimensional format. Diffs are necessary but can be used in such a way as to indicate guilt or innocence and in such an instance a great number of diffs can add a kind of context. There may be other ways to add context as well even using a two dimensional format. Asking questions may do that. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I would think 5 diffs of incivility would be enough to start/determine a case of incivility. How many times should we be allowing an editor to be uncivil before any action is taken? Perhaps therein the problem lies. Few are going to read all the diffs anyway - and it's probably very likely that I can collect at least 20 diffs from comments by just about any editor and make them appear problematic. A lot of diffs really do look impressive - Wow, that editor is a major disruption!! - but if they had been a major disruption, you would have known long ago - someone would have reported them. What you'll most likely be getting from an accumulation of diffs is system gamers compiling a whole lot of innocuous diffs taken out of context, and prepended by aspersions to make it look like something it's not. Admins/arbs tend to take a veteran OP at their word - especially if alliances have been formed - which makes it even harder to reach an unbiased result. No reflection on you, Iridescent, but the latter does happen. Perhaps the bar on tolerance for incivility is set too high and needs to be lowered. I can't think of any editor offhand who likes being told to f-off, or STFU, etc., and I know there are times when it's very difficult to hold back and just walk away, so incivility breeds incivility. I would much rather be spending my time in a civil discussion/argument being bludgeoned at a controversial article than having to deal with incivility. We don't learn anything from the latter, but the former may actually shed some light on a topic we may not have realized prior to our involvement in the debate. Just my 5¢ worth. It's off to work I go... ^Atsme 📣 📧 18:15, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

The Wikipedian understanding of civility is basically limited to superficial politeness, which is part of the problem. Under a mature definition of civility, bludgeoning someone at a talk page is uncivil, as are feigned incomprehension, soup-spitting, and sealioning—all of which are more corrosive than bad language. Given the hypothetical choice, I'd rather just be told to fuck off, instead of having to put up with stonewalling, or "just asking questions", or walls of text that studiously avoid addressing the underlying issue at hand. (And no, that's not an invitation to verbally abuse me, just a preference between several undesirable types of incivility ). MastCell ^Talk 19:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

So we just can't verbally abuse you. Ok...I'll try to keep that in mind when you enter Atsme's Chamber of anything's possible, as long as you remember you're entering at your own risk. I think what's being overlooked (re: bludgeoning) are the occasions of mandatory discussions (1RR-consensus required) wherein editors have opposing views. When one side has their fill of the other, that's when accusations of bludgeoning appear. It takes 2 to tango 💃 - so who gets to make the determination of guilt? It's clearly not length that gives rise to accusations of bludgeoning because when everyone is in agreement, a discussion could become quite lengthy. It's only when there's disagreement. I can easily recognize bludgeoning at AE, ANI, AN & RfAs but when there is civil discourse at an RfC, I don't consider debate and/or responding to questions/challenges to be bludgeoning. Maybe commenting after every opposing view could be considered bludgeoning - like we see more often at RfAs, but I've never seen any action taken to prevent it. Perhaps there should be a time limit ⏳ for RfCs & local consensus discussions to help guide the talkaholics? ^Atsme 📣 📧 20:09, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I think most people understand there are more ways to be, shall we say, unco-operative beyond being profane. It's just harder to get agreement that someone's being deliberately unco-operative. It requires inferring intent, which people take as a personal accusation and so react strongly, and it tends to be political, because supporters of one viewpoint often can more readily see or are more willing to confront poor behaviour in supporters of other viewpoints. The usual remedy in online forums is to have moderators make the final decisions. For better or worse, at present English Wikipedia isn't willing to cede responsibility in this manner. isaacl (talk) 22:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

The introduction of the workshop page was one of the worst things to happen to arbitration, in my view. The intentions were good, but the effect was to intensify disputes, rather than giving people a rest and allowing time for the strong feelings to die down between the evidence phase and the decision. Now after the dispute itself and perhaps an AN/I, we have a lengthy RfAr, followed by the evidence phase, followed by the workshop, followed almost immediately by the decision and the lengthy voting. It's too much to expect anyone to tolerate. I think these cases are affecting people's mental and physical health, and that we really ought to sort it out. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for saying this. "I think these cases are affecting people's mental and physical health, and that we really ought to sort it out." I know of several people whose health has been impacted negatively, and several who had to leave Wikipedia to protect themselves. When the outcome is this poor the approach has to wrong Littleolive oil (talk) 23:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I've wondered in the past about holding an RfC to abolish the workshops. I have no idea how that would go. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion - if that does happen, consider a section for editors who have been through an Arb case to respond, and a section for those who have not. The responses from those of us who have experienced it should weigh a bit more than those who have not - somewhat along the same lines as uninvolved editors vs involved at the dramah boards. ^Atsme 📣 📧 00:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd strongly oppose that (prioritising the comments of those who'd previously been a party in an arb case). That's essentially penalising people for the ability to resolve conflict (if anything, the opinions of people who've been involved in conflicts but managed to resolve them without ever reaching RFAR are probable more valuable); plus, since the longer one has been active the more opportunity one has had for someone to complain about you, so it would formalise the "old timers are more important" mentality. I also don't really understand the logic behind it; did my opinions suddenly become more valuable on 11 November 2018 because I happened to add myself as a party to the Fred Bauder case? ‑ Iridescent 09:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Experiences/procedures, not opinions/behaviors. My reference is more procedural in nature - if you've never experienced the workshops, how can you know if they're necessary, or what role they play in a process? Regarding your question about your own experience, I'd say "yes" as it refers to the "process" but "no extra weight" as it relates to your opinion for resolution of the actual behavioral issue(s) that caused it to become a case. Does that make sense? If I'm going to build a 20 story building, the first thing I'm going to review in potential building contractors is "level of experience", then I'll look at the personalities of the individuals I'll be working with on the job. Another hypothetical - We're at the lake, can't see the bottom, don't know if there is an undertow. Are you going to ask someone who never swam in that lake what it's like? ^Atsme 📣 📧 12:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

On the lake analogy I would argue that it would be more valuable to ask a dry person sitting in the lifeguard tower overlooking the lake who dispatches rescue helicopters than a wet person who spent time floundering in the water, only able to see up to the next wave crest. ~Awilley (talk) 14:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree! ^Atsme 📣 📧 14:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Experience from the other side counts also, not just as a named party, and parallel experiences count too. If I'm building a conduct dispute resolution process for a large organization, I want to hear from those with experience with managing interpersonal issues in large organizations (and in this case, ideally volunteer ones). Too many people in English Wikipedia make suggestions that betray a lack of experience with how groups actually work out their differences in a way that recognizes the ongoing collaborative nature of their interactions (winning today is not a win if it means losing in the long run). isaacl (talk) 15:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh wow, that's a lot of notifications for a few days off-wiki. Iridescent, is this what your talk page is like all the time? :)

On the topic of what to post in cases and workshops in particular: I did my share of soapboxing from the case talk pages before I joined the committee and experienced for myself just how annoying that is. Crazy as it sounds, arbs are just people. With a bunch of unrelated real-life responsibilities competing for mental space, and probably with other wiki-interests that are, all else being equal, more interesting than someone's five-paragraph essay on Why My Enemy Should Get Banned. Being useful in the workshop (and making it more likely that your suggestions make it into the PD) is actually pretty easy:

• Remember that your primary audience is the arbitrators, not the various case-page hangers-on who like to comment on everything and definitely not the other people on your "side" who will be egging you on.
• You don't need to write a "complete" pseudo-PD. If you skip a section, make it the principles. Don't propose remedies without corresponding findings, don't propose findings without evidence, and don't start workshopping the exact wording of your bannination proposal when the evidence page just opened two hours ago. (OK, you usually can do this, but you will be getting side-eye from at least five eyes if you do.) Stick to a few key points and resist the urge to lard up your findings with every little vaguely-related thing you can find.
• There's a template with some formatting suggestions, but you don't actually have to write a pseudo-PD at all. A brief description of what kind of outcome you want is fine - but seriously, one or two sentences. Short and succinct enough that it could be turned into a PD proposal if the idea is good.
• If someone posts obvious craziness, just ignore it. Yes, even if it's about you. If someone is obviously trying to rile you up, ignore it even harder. If a little voice in your head suggests trying to rile someone else up, ignore that too.
• Don't waste your time and mental energy policing anyone else's sections (word limits, minor incivility, etc). Don't get into long back-and-forth bickering sessions on the talk pages. Post issues with the case on the case pages, not arbs' or clerks' talk pages. Save email for actual private stuff, not backchanneling.

Ultimately, arbcom cases are back-office stuff about people being wrong on the internet. If people's health is being affected by their participation in an internet project, that's as clear a sign as anyone could ask for that it's time to step back, arbcom case or not - nothing here, and certainly not an arbcom case, is worth anyone risking their health to participate. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)