Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee

Comments on ArbCom and gender

Those interested in the all things ArbCom might be interested in the apparent community opinion of the Committee as expressed at WikiConference USA (questions and comments). All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC).

For those of us who don't have time to watch a 2 hour video, please could you summarise the relevant points. Thryduulf (talk) 09:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Not the community opinion; folks who attend a WikiConference are not a representative sample of 121,919 active users. It's likely the vast number of editors is barely aware the committee (and this is a good thing, as it indicates most folks can get along without admin / community / arbcom assistance). NE Ent 09:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The opinions are expressed in the questions to the speaker; starting at 1hr 25min 45sec. (I recommend the whole speech, actually. There's a lot of blank space at the beginning of the clip and the speech starts at about 44min 25sec.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Direct link to 1hr 25min 30sec into video (Q&A session) --Fæ (talk) 15:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to Rich for highlighting the videoed Q&A.

The summary of the relevant Arbcom cases, and other issues, was perfectly reasonable, including the statement that the outcome for the community is that those who feel harassed is to avoid Arbcom due to the history of those being harassed being blocked in Arbcom cases. The key advice to anyone who might be harassed is to "keep a low profile". Individual Arbcom members may disagree with this, or feel it unfair, but both the published facts of actions resulting from cases involving harassment, and the perception of the majority of Wikipedians seem well represented by this video and the discussion. I heartily recommend all those interested in Arbcom and related policies take a moment to review the video (the Q&A is about 45 minutes).

My interest is as someone who was blocked with significant real life repercussions, and still has restrictions years later from the same Arbcom case that found that I was harassed, and as a long term member of WM-LGBT and the GenderGap list where discussion of harassment and non-Arbcom solutions has been active for years.

P.S. congratulations to @Pharos: and the others involved in producing such good quality live streamed video on YouTube, a great way to involve the wider community in your conference at little additional cost. --Fæ (talk) 13:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• The reality is that ArbCom is grossly unfair. It is structured to be so, and will remain so until vast change takes place to replace the current paradigm. Being on ArbCom requires no prior experience in dispute resolution. Once on ArbCom, there's no training involved to bring a sitting member to a level of competence. ArbCom has eschewed any suggestions of training, claiming the cost is simply too great. It is hardly surprising that ArbCom's response to people being harassed is to make yourself have a lower profile (summarizing from 1:31:10 - 1:31:30 in the video). As is, when ArbCom is faced with a situation with 20 complainants and 1 victim, ArbCom almost universally rules against the 1, further victimizing them. This is akin to 20 robbers complaining a victim resisted too much, with ArbCom agreeing and issuing an edict that victims of robbery should be more compliant. ArbCom as constructed is simply incompetent to deal with situations as this. They lack the knowledge, the experience and the ability to properly handle such situations. I don't blame ArbCom. I blame the community and the WMF for allowing this sort of paradigm to exist. We can't very well blame ArbCom; it'd be like building a structure out of toothpicks and being surprised and critical when the building fails in the first decent storm. The community and the WMF have gotten exactly what they built, and what they've built is horrendous. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Bluntly, I would expect every sitting arbitrator who wasn't present to listen to the speech from start to finish, (there's even a a transcript of the Q&A, though not the whole thing. If you're on ENWP's highest moot court and are unwilling to listen to a two hour talk from a professor holding a named chair at a major university who has written for well over a dozen MSM publications and many journals, is in significant part responsible for getting major legislation through in many states, and is recognized globally as an expert on online harrassment, given that it's universally recognized that ENWP has an online harrassment problem - and given that as arbs, almost every case you accept deals with online harassment - you should step down. For crying out loud - almost all arbs spend more time than this video requires engaging in petty arguments about minor details, let alone drafting cases and in private discussions. You can spend hours arguing about trivialities, but won't spend two hours getting free advice from a recognized expert in online harrassment? Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • @Thryduulf: - although I welcome comments from any and all intrested arbirtrators here, I would particularly like to hear your explanation of why, as a sitting arbitrator on a committee that deals primarily with issues of online harassment, you're unable or unwilling to watch a video of an internationally recognized expert in cyber harrassment who gave a keynote at a Wikimedia conference tailored to our community. I'm fully aware of the details and time-intensive nature of being an arbitrator in general - if you can't spare the time for a less than two hour piece of free advice tailored to WP's issues (in large part,) by an internationally recognized expert in cyber harrassment, how on earth do you have time to fulfill the rest of your arb duties? Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:46, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
    • The time I am giving to arbitration matters is in blocks of time much smaller than two hour chunks (see my several previous comments about this) - such as the 10 minutes I'm currently on Wikipedia for (I'm also not sure that my internet connection would stay up for that long, given that it fails about 40% of the time on 5-10 minute videos). I therefore have to prioritise my time, and watching a two hour video about "the apparent community opinion of the Committee", which would actually be the opinion of the subset of interested Wikipedians at a regional conference, didn't seem like a good use of that limited time. You however describe the video as "free advice tailored to WP's issues (in large part,) by an internationally recognized expert in cyber harrassment", which is a completely different thing. As for training for arbitrators - if you would like to find a way to resolve the problems of zero budget and the logistics of 15 volunteers in about 6 or 7 different time zones on at least three continents then please arrange some. Thryduulf (talk) 00:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Hi User:Thryduulf - The Q&A section came at the end of a keynote by Danielle Citron, internationally recognized expert in cyber harrassment. If your internet connection is an issue, I can probably arrange for the entire thing to be transcribed. I also have trouble seeing a sitting arb not reading the Q&A, because it wasn't just a discussion among US community members, it was a Q&A between US community members and Danielle Citron. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
        • Again, what this actually was is very different to what the initial description implied it to be. I knew there was no chance I could attend this conference (I'm based in the UK) so I didn't pay any attention to the programme. Thryduulf (talk) 02:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict)So Kevin Gorman thinks harassing people online is a good response to online harassment. Counterproductive. There's an open invitation for an editor to watch and summarize the video for the committee, anyone that cares should just do that. As the committee is time limited AND doesn't set policy this notion that taking limited wiki time away from the responsibilities to watch a video isn't a reasonable argument. I watched about four minutes from the position linked above, about one minute was Professor Citron, following by someone from the audience claiming 'every arbitration case in the last two years has resulted in all of them being banned.' Which is nonsense of course; there are not that many cases in the first place, not all Wikipedians are gender identified, and this is not a ban. So personally I'm not interested. Given typical reading rates are 250 to 300 words per minute (wpm) vs 150 to 160 wpm for speech [1], presenting information n writing is far more efficient communication. I'm sure the social and human interaction aspects of the conference added value for folks there in person, but watching a video isn't the same. NE Ent 01:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
      • I'm sure the social and human interaction aspects of the conference added value for folks there in person, but watching a video isn't the same I fully agree with this. I got very significantly more from Wikimania 2014 where I was there person, even though I was on the organising team and so working rather than attending, than I did from the videos from Mexico that I managed to see. Thryduulf (talk) 02:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
        • It's understood that being an arb is a volunteer position, and as such, the only deliverables are what individual volunteers are in a position to provide. It's understandable if some folks are busy, but it's a concern if suggesting spending a couple hours to get an introduction to current US legal perspectives on online harassment is considered an unreasonable imposition. If it is, this calls into question the current group's personal commitment to maintaining a harassment-free community, and its capacity to cope with its existing workload. Although it is quicker to read transcripts, part of the point of watching a public speech is making that personal commitment of time to actually listen to what is being said, and sharing your reactions afterwards with others. There is a tendency to think that the efficiency of electronic communication means there is no longer any need to bother with time-wasting social norms, but this is not necessarily the case. Human biology didn't disappear when we invented the Internet, and our physical experience of watching and listening to other people gives us context and subtle cues that help us communicate. What we're doing together isn't simply an exercise in mutual data transfer, it's an effort to develop group cohesion. Emotions and personal reactions are part of this process. There seems to be a lot of resistance recently to things like meeting in person, or posting videos, as being "simply too expensive." (And an even more frightening prospect-- the unscheduled, unrecorded "phone call"-- why that's way, way too personal!) At some point all the insistence that human contact is too costly, too inappropriate, and too much trouble begs the question, what's going on here? Is this so called "Wikipedia movement" something truly from the heart, or simply a cynical exercise in optimal exploitation of crowdsourced data? Where is this going? --Djembayz (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
• NE, are you seriously sugggesting that requesting explanations from arbs as to why they don't want to view material directly relevant to their roles is harrassment? I don't know an arb policy shortcut for this offhand, but asking Thry why he didn't want to view the video of a transcript of something is an arb equivalent of WP:ADMINACCT, or, like, commonsense. As I already offered, a transcript can be produced if it would help Thry in viewing the material in the first part of the speech (there is already one of the Q&A,) which is given by a world recognized expert in online harrassment, adopted to Wikipedia, and given that a huge many of cases that arbcom accepts involve online harrassment.. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

It's amazing how arbitrators, once the elections are over, seem to have so little interest in doing their job and so little time to spend on it. It's also amazing how other people, who are not arbitrators, seem to have a great deal of interest in the ArbCom's doings and plenty of time to worry about how badly they are doing their jobs. I guess it's kind of like volunteering to feed animals at a rescue—everyone thinks it's such a swell thing that you're doing it, except you're not really doing it, because you lose interest and you're busy with other things. The animals who are going hungry, on the other hand, are quite preoccupied by the subject, and have plenty of time to dwell on it. Everyking (talk) 06:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• Someone has kindly offered to produce a transcript of the entire speech (I was not looking forward to doing so myself.) Once the transcript is done, I'm awfully tempted to ping every arb who wasn't physically present at the session and ask for their thoughts on either the speech or video as an obvious extension of WP:ADMINACCT. Since most arb cases involve online harrassment in one form or another, I would expect everyone to at least read over the transcript. (do I really need to write a page WP:ARBACCT?) Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I've just watched this. Apparently I was not paying close enough attention to my watchlist, because I'm a bit late responding here. I'm not the kind of person who typically has the time or attention span to watch a 1+ hour video (though I often do read video transcripts, so thanks to all who are trying to provide one). That said, this talk was very much worth the time spent watching it. I wish I had been there to talk to her in person. GorillaWarfare (talk) 08:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Inactivity and communication

Are the clerks authorized to update the active/inactive list at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee and at each case to reflect unannounced absences per Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Unannounced_arbitrator_absence? If not, they should be; and also to update case information to indicate that there is no drafting arbitrator or schedule in case the drafting arbitrator is absent and not communicating. It is understandable and an unavoidable reality that arbitrators have other demands on their time and must sometimes be unexpectedly inactive. The important thing is for realistic information to be communicated to the parties and other users. For obvious reasons, we can't depend on someone who's absent to update the info. For this reason, the clerks should be able to take silence into account when updating case and activity info, rather than waiting for positive information that's not forthcoming. --Amble (talk) 19:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I would ask that they first inquire about it on the clerks-l list, in case the arbitrators have more information on the absence or the case timeline, but yes, I would say that's completely within the clerks' remit. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, that's great. Do the clerks know this? Based on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles/Proposed decision they seem to be waiting for positive instructions. --Amble (talk) 20:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll bring this conversation to their attention the clerks list. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't feel comfortable with part of this suggestion, specifically, For this reason, the clerks should be able to take silence into account when updating case and activity info, rather than waiting for positive information that's not forthcoming implies that if clerks don't hear from an arbitrator, we should decide ourselves that they are functionally inactive, even if they are marked as active, and change the arbitration members list along with the list of arbitrators reviewing cases. This would be a subjective decision where there might not even be agreement among clerks and I don't think arbitrators would appreciate us taking that initiative. I would hope that arbitrators would themselves notice when an arbitrator has gone inactive and then inform clerks who could update the members list. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Liz. We should be making very few judgement calls, other than those relating to keeping order and decorum on case pages. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Liz/User:L235: That's exactly what I mean to say; otherwise, it's a system of "raise your hand everybody who isn't here." I think the clerks can be trusted to use good sense in confirming someone is really absent. That could include checking with the other arbitrators, but I don't think it should wait on the arbs to take initiative. This doesn't require a subjective judgement, as the arbitration procedures already deem a person inactive after not participating for seven days. That seems like a reasonable rule of thumb. --Amble (talk) 20:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Amble, there are cases, in fact one happened today, where the clerks haven't seen much recent activity from an arbitrator and an email is sent out and they then respond with an explanation. Often. the other arbitrators are aware of situations we don't know anything about and they can fill us in. But the only initiative I can see clerks taking is more frequent checking-in with arbitrators who have been silent for several weeks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Liz, That's fine, of course you should communicate with the arbs. But if they aren't responding, they're not active. And if they are inactive for a good reason, that also doesn't make them active. I'm not asking for someone to jump in and instantly finish everything at the e-cigs arbitration -- but if the case is stalled and nobody has time to work on it, it would be better to say so. From my inexperienced outside perspective this seems like something the clerks can do; two arbs who responded here seem to agree (although they can speak for themselves about what they'd like the clerks to do). --Amble (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Liz brings up a good point, but I see no problem with clerks sending an email to the arbitrators if they notice an arbitrator has been inactive in public spheres for this amount of time. We can always say "no, they've been active on the private list" and close the matter. GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with GW. Thryduulf (talk) 20:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to both. --Amble (talk) 20:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The procedure indicates that an arbitrator will be deemed inactive if he or she hasn't posted in "the usual venues" for seven days. I always took the ArbCom-l mailing list as one of those venues. If this is still the interpretation, then there is no way the Clerks can monitor inactivity on their own, as they have no access to that list. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I see, thanks. I took the "usual venues" to mean public ones because the procedure singles out voting; but that's probably because inactive/active status affects the number of votes needed to pass. --Amble (talk) 06:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

How about, if you don't have the time or the willingness to be active, you resign, or be considered dismissed by the community for not doing the job it elected you to do? And let's consider inactivity on a strictly on-wiki basis. If you can't be bothered to do anything on-wiki, but you're still whispering in smoky backrooms, you are part of the problem, even more so than an arbitrator who does nothing at all. I suspect we'd see a lot more work from these arbitrators who are always so sidelined by real-life demands (but curiously, had a blissfully wide-open schedule at the time of their election) if they knew they'd lose their precious title if they didn't put in some hours to justify it. Everyking (talk) 06:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The unannounced arbitrator absence section of the arbitration procedures says that an arbitrator who has not been active in seven days is deemed inactive. I don't think that a seven day absence is grounds for removal from the Arbitration Committee, particularly when the terms run for two years. I could see the argument if the arbitrator was inactive for an extremely long period of time (significantly more than seven days), but keep in mind that arbitrators are only elected once a year. Is it better to remove an inactive arbitrator and leave an empty spot even if they might come back before the next election? I can see re-evaluating arbitrators at election time if one has been absent for extended periods of time, even if their term is not up. But removing them before then seems fairly pointless. GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• There is an active case that has less than half of the 15 seats of ArbCom sitting for the case. As is, the policy and procedures governing ArbCom do not have any structure in place to handle significant loss of ArbCom. There should be such a structure. Two years is a long time. We can't anticipate that all 15 arbitrators will remain active on ArbCom for those two years. Some may need to be away for extended periods they did not anticipate. We've had arbitrators effectively abandon their posts without resigning before. We elect to fill (usually) 15 seats because the work burden on ArbCom is heavy enough to warrant it. If we continue to have large segments of ArbCom away from their posts, the community has a reasonable expectation of having an ArbCom that is capable of fulfilling its duties. As is, an argument can be made this is not happening right now, where a PD is three weeks overdue (case). At a minimum, we should have a structure in place to replace arbitrators who resign before their term is up. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Off the top of my head, I think policy allows Jimbo to call a special election for more arbitrators - I can't imagine he would without being explicitly asked though, and I can't imagine us asking unless we were significantly shorthanded with several months to go before the next election. Realistically a special election would take at least 2 months from being called to having the new people in post, given adequate time for nominations, questions, voting and scrutinising. so it would not be worth it less than 3-4 months before a regular election. Any formal backup structure other than this will probably need an amendment to Arbitration Policy. I think it's worth doing the research to find out exactly what the status quo is, and having an advertised discussion about that with realistic proposals for change (if desirable). Roger Davies is more intimately familiar with arbitration policy than I am though. Thryduulf (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• Agreed. I was thinking along the lines of having alternates declared as a result of elections. I.e., two or three "spares" that would replace arbitrators who resigned during their terms, perhaps limiting it to resignations occurring before four or six months before the end of their terms. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• As a personal view, this is a great idea. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I think one solution is to have more than one arbitrator assigned as a drafter, require two or three for each case. The fact is that real life intrudes into Wikipedia time. People can get sick, move or change jobs. Life happens. Have the practice of having backup arbitrators who can take over a case if an arbitrator needs to step away from it for a while. Given how much work occurs just keeping up with the email list discussion and requests for action that come in, having more than one person responsible for making sure an assigned cases progresses in a timely fashion can really help, I think. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Sadly several cases with "co-drafters" end up being a solo drafting affair. -Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the specific failure mode with co-drafters is the lack of a Directly Responsible Individual (DRI, for lack of a better term than managementspeak) for the drafting role. Ideally, it should be the case DRI's job to coordinate work amongst the co-drafters and ensure the deadlines are met or explicitly slipped and roles reassigned. Like many other bodies of equals, ArbCom often falls into the trap of nobody feeling empowered to take action. Perhaps a "decider" would be helpful. LFaraone 20:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

LFarone, what about the possibility of a trial of having a DRI for each case in January 2016 when there is a newly formed arbitration committee in place? It seems like, in practice, there is usually one drafter who is more involved in responding to talk page questions and such even if there are two or three contributing to the drafting the proposed decision. This would only make sense if the other drafters didn't feel disempowered by having one arbitrator taking the lead. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think we'll get the work done faster by getting rid of the people who could do it. I'm just hoping that there's a way to improve communication when things fall behind. --Amble (talk) 17:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Motion: New Religious Movements

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	6
2–3	5
4–5	4

Due to how closely related the topic areas of several of the existing sanctions are,

1. Remedy 3 of the Brahma Kumaris case is rescinded;
2. The 23 October 2014 Motion to the Falun Gong case is rescinded;
3. The 20 December 2012 Motion the Prem Rawat case is rescinded;
4. The 1 June 2012 Motion to the Scientology case is rescinded;
5. Remedy 7 of the Transcendental Meditation movement case is rescinded;
6. In place of these sanctions, Standard Discretionary sanctions are authorised with immediate effect for all pages relating to post-1929 New Religious Movements and related people, broadly construed. This includes all of the areas listed in parts 1-5 of this motion. In the case that there is a disagreement over a group's categorization as a New Religious Movement, these sanctions apply to a topic if the high-quality, reliable, independent sources describe it as such;
7. Nothing in this motion provides grounds for appeal of remedies or restrictions imposed while discretionary sanctions or article probations for the foregoing cases were in force. Such appeals or requests to lift or modify such sanctions may be made under the same terms as any other appeal.

Support

Oppose

1. Two major flaws in this one, it extends coverage to things that have not been problems, and then picks an arbitrary (and too recent) initial date to define NRM's, as well as a definition that makes admins at AE make content decisions in order to use the sanctions. This is just an all-around bad idea.. Courcelles (talk) 02:44, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Casts the net too wide for my liking. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
3. It is impossible to cast this net without it being way too wide. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
4. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
5. . Oppose for being too broad. DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
6. I've been thinking about the comments on this for quite a while. There is clearly some support for some consolidation in this topic area, but only for something more nuanced than the simple all New Religious Movements post 1929 here. So my opposition here is for this specific motion, rather than opposition to combining these at all, so if someone is inclined to do the necessary thinking and believes a combination would be worthwhile then please feel free to present your suggestion. Thryduulf (talk) 02:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
7. Perhaps we should just archive this particular motion. Tend to agree this would oversimplify matters, though the general motive is good. NativeForeigner ^Talk 11:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
8. Agree,this isn't the right soluion. Doug Weller (talk) 11:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Abstain

1. LFaraone 17:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Recuse

Discussion by arbitrators (new religious movements)

This was proposed as an alternative to removing the Brahma Kumaris article probation. I added the 1930 cutoff so groups such as The Salvation Army, Quakers, Mormons, Bahá'í Faith, Apostolic Church, Opus Dei and Conservative Judaism are not placed under DS without any problems. I'm still not 100% happy with this setup because Rastafari is covered by this setup. At the same time, I know that this will solve future problems. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I was the one who proposed this, but I'd like to see community comments before deciding whether this was one of my better ideas or not. Thryduulf (talk) 23:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Community comments (new religious movements)

• Can it be more clearly stated that all the subjects for which individual sanctions are being removed are explicitly included in "post-1929 New Religious Movements"? This is to prevent Wikilawyering on the order of "my faith is not part of the New Religious Movement". BMK (talk) 02:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's a good idea. NE Ent 02:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
    • I will try to do this --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
    • @Beyond My Ken and NE Ent: How does this look? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Looks good to me, thanks. BMK (talk) 03:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Great. NE Ent 09:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
        • Not knowing the reason for the cut-off date, this looks at first glance good to me, although I might welcome some clarification whether the sometimes smallish base groups which prompt further spinout groups would be grandfathered in or not. Some of those parent groups might be older than 1929, but, at least sometimes, not much older. John Carter (talk) 01:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
          • P.S. Basically, because I just like making life harder for you all ;) Speaking unofficially, meaning without citations, it seems to me that there are some topics of a broadly NRM or New Age (which is itself counted as an NRM) type which are perhaps not considered by all individuals as "religious." I am thinking specifically about the recent popularity of the Christ myth theory, and the questioning of the Historicity of Jesus associated with it. So far as I can tell, this is most strongly associated with the more recent agnostic/atheist movement, which probably broadly qualifies in the NRM field, and has peer-reviewed academic journals, just like virtually every major denomination or faith tradition. However, in the broader field of what might be called "academic history," the idea has as little weight as some of the historically nonsupportable beliefs of some older faith traditions. Would "alternative"/fringe beliefs associated primarily with NRMs, and which purport in some cases to fall within the areas of sciences or some other area of academia, but have little support outside of that group, qualify under these sanctions? And, again, sorry for the question, but I think it might apply to the various proposals of von Daniken and other fringey New Age thoughts. John Carter (talk) 14:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
            • If the sources consider a religion to be a NRM then the DS would cover it. I am not prepared to stretch this so far as to encompass the Historicity of Jesus, which is under its own DS. This is not a junk drawer to throw any tangelty related topic that might spark a controversy.

              The post-1929 date is to keep Opus Dei, a fairly-mainstream Catholic movement from being encompassed. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

              • Understood about the historicity of Jesus, my apologies for the bad example, and thanks for the clarification. But, well, there are a lot groups within the NRM field, like several groups like the Raelians and others who believe that we are bred by aliens, for instance. I am going to assume that the theories of anyone who is a self-declared Raelian would be covered by the sanctions, but would for instance pages in the Category:Ancient astronaut speculation which reflect in substance the fringey beliefs of the Raelians and similar NRMs, and the Raelians are in fact the subject of the only subcat of that specific category, qualify in the "broadly construed" section or not, even if the proponents aren't necessarily explicitly tied to a group that qualifies? John Carter (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
                • Topics such as Star people (New Age belief) or The Law of One (The Ra Material) would be covered because of their religious component; since the sources to not tie Jungfrau Park to a NRM it would not be covered. The DS are guided by the sources and not by original research or categorization --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
                  • I would very STRONGLY support such a move. It is neither the community’s nor admins fault to be ignorant on issues regarding the specific new religious movements. The issue is highly contentious and when dealing with the group’s adherents it is just like fighting windmills and nerve racking as I experienced on the articles regarding Soka Gakkai and Soka Gakkai International.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
                    • I did some wordsmithing to hopefully resolve some of the potential conflicts. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• In response to @Courcelles:, I have gathered together a page at User:John Carter/Alphabetical list of new religious movements which I hope in time, as I do other things, to add to the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/New religious movements work group/Prospectus, and I think the sources used in the first list are at least of sufficient quality and respect that they can serve as at least a partial list of what qualifies as an NRM. There are other such sources, of course, but I have trouble seeing that there will be many new groups, other than those started since those works were published, which will not be covered. There is a question regarding the date, and, personally, I'm not sure I would want to exclude Opus Dei myself (I dunno - I don't think I've ever really dealt with that content) but unless some sort of dividing line is established, then we will have the group of NRMs going back to some established centuries earlier. I suppose one other option might be to allow all NRMs, described as such in the relevant reference sources, qualify for discretionary sanctions by simple motion. That might work. If such were to be done, I think a real case would that Soka Gakkai related content should be considered by motion. John Carter (talk) 17:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• Also, I guess I should add that, much like seems to be true regarding most pseudoscience content, there is an inherent problem with the terms new religious movement, and the closely related term cult, in and of themselves. That particular issue has been raised repeatedly regarding any number of articles. It was, in fact, the reason I spend the rather extensive period of time gathering the user space list above in the first place. There are a few editors who have edited extensively in this broad topic area, including perhaps most notably @Jayen466: and @Cirt:, and I would welcome any input they might have, in addition, of course, to@Dougweller:, who has been at least peripherally involved with several related topics as an editor. John Carter (talk)

• I should add as a qualifier that Cirt has expressed reservations here regarding whether it would be permissable for him to comment here. I guess I can understand that, but, as one of the editors who has been most involved with this topic, I think it wouldn't be unreasonable to allow the restriction to not apply to comments here, and request clarification if he can edit here according to the restrictions and/or that the restrictions be waived for this discussion. John Carter (talk) 18:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• And I guess I should add that the Landmark Education Corporation now Landmark Worldwide in its previous incarnations is also described as an NRM, and, on that basis, might be reasonably included in the group of subtopics included in the list above. Maybe others too, I haven't checked actually. John Carter (talk) 19:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• needs more clarity(as to the parameters of its enforcement)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • @Ozzie10aaaa: Please can you be more specific about what you feel lacks clarity? Thryduulf (talk) 01:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
    • by clarity(quality of coherence) I would echo the opinion it extends coverage to things that have not been problems[2] ... Rastafari [3] would be covered by this motion, but where is the evidence it should be?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 08:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
      • The evidence for the scope of this coverage, more or less as per the discussion on my user talk page at User talk:John Carter#FYI, in my conversation with Cirt, which he suggested I link to here. The terms new religious movement and cult are, basically, inherently problematic in and of themselves, much like the word "pseudoscience". There are already two existing ArbCom discretionary sanctions on the broad topics of pseudoscience and alternative medicine. Certainly in the case of the first of those two, the term "pseudoscience" itself can be one of the more controversial aspects of the topic. And, of course, the study of the sociology of many of the NRMs, particularly that from the most active era of the anti-cult movement, is almost always controversial. I don't see any particular difference between the rationality of the existing decisions regarding the fields of pseudoscience and alternative medicine and the rationality of this one. There are, and will be, in all of them some aspects which are no longer at this point at all controversial, but that can and often will change over time, and the existing controversy about the terms themselves will, not surprisingly, possibly extend to many or most of the individual articles or topics involved. John Carter (talk) 17:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
• Would groups like 3HO or Dera Sacha Sauda be included in this? Both claim to be "service organizations" but are quite obviously religious movements and sources seem to consider them to be just that. These are just two examples and there are a dozens more from where they come, though a good chunk of them would also be covered by WP:ARBIPA (3HO wouldn't though). cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 19:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • If that an organisation would be considered a NRM if either they self-describe as such or if there are independent reliable sources that call them that. If it is unclear then a consensus of uninvolved editors could be sought, or if that fails then we could consider it at ARCA (assuming that there is a need for discretionary sanctions - if there ins't then it's not worth risking importing drama imho). Thryduulf (talk) 20:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
    • I'd say that in a lot of these dozens of articles there's a need for DS as most of these topics don't get taken to ANI etc simply because hardly anyone cares enough (but a history of some of the articles in the 3HO group would show the pendulum switch between the two extremes) or on the off chance they do go there, they are left unattended. In such a situation a sledgehammer to crack a nut would appear to be the only solution, therefore my question: could hitherto unattended topics be brought under the purview of this, and it appears that the answer is "yes, if the circumstances require it." Please correct me if I'm wrong. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 05:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes, as long as they are new religious movements and the standard DS requirements are met (e.g. awareness) then it wouldn't matter whether the article had previously been discussed at ANI or not. This is the same as in existing authorisations, for example Scientology in Brazil does not currently exist, but it will be within the scope of the Scientology authorisation (or the NRM authorisation if this motion passes) the moment it is created. When the American Politics authorisation was passed, articles like Delaware gubernatorial election, 2012 became within the scope even though it doesn't seem like there has been any significant dispute regarding that article. Thryduulf (talk) 11:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
• I'd oppose for now. For some of these there have been motions to put under standard discretionary sanctions replacing an initial remedy before. Why make the process even more convoluted? I don't really see a rationale being given for that.

Also, in general, with the replacing remedy I see more borderline issues. Don't think it a good idea. Would A Course in Miracles fall under it? Would ISIS fall under it? I mean, I like the clean sweep idea, but seems to have more downsides than advantages in this area. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually this would make placing discretionary sanctions easier rather than more convoluted - there would not need to be a request to place the topic area under sanctions first as this motions would already have done that. ISIS is not a religious movement (they are a militant group) and so would not fall under these sanctions. A Course in Miracles would seem to be about a book describing a new religious/spiritual philopsophy rather than a movement or organisation and so would not be covered. Thryduulf (talk) 11:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

For what little it might be worth, A Course of Miracles is, in and of itself, a book, but it has inspired a large number of other books and speeches and tapes and god knows what all else, and that broader field is, more or less, counted as being an NRM given its unique teachings according to at least some of the relevant reference works. And, in response to Spaceman above, I have seen where 3HO is described in the relevant reference sources as an NRM, but I haven't that I know of seen Dera Sacha Sauda described as such to my knowledge, although I admit I haven't looked completely.

I can and, I guess, do see some basis for saying that not all NRMs are inherently controversial. Some have died out completely, for instance, and at this point are at best subjects of apathy among most, including a lot of academia. Having said that, I tthink that there still remains at least a bit of controversy around most of those groups which were broadly included as targets of the anticult movement. If there were some way to limit the scope of these sanctions to those groups, or similar groups which would have been counted as such if they were active at the time, given similar reception by the general public, that might limit it a little. Having said that, I don't know of any specific sources off the top of my head which could easily identify only those groups called "cults" and those which would have been called that had they been active at the time. John Carter (talk) 14:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I would support this. As a case in point, I offer the fresh edit warring by an account on Scientology. Even though France classes the movement as a cult and the very parliamentary report that establishes this classification is given as a source, the same account has deleted both the source and any reference to it three times in just one hour now. I believe it shows how contentious these articles are and why sanctions may be needed. Jeppiz (talk) 20:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
• Actually, having just looked, after being prompted by the above discussion, I think that only one of the existing sanctions being discussed, regarding Prem Rawat, is not about groups included in the article Governmental lists of cults and sects. The Prem Rawat sanctions, from what I can remember, were basically about BLP matters, which are, probably, already covered by BLP sanctions. Most if not all of the other problematic groups I can think of are included in that list as well. Maybe we could alter the phrasing of the sanctions to specifically cover only those covered on that list? Other groups or sets of articles could presumably be addressed elsewhere, or, perhaps, by specific amendment. John Carter (talk) 20:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd support the above suggestion. Jeppiz (talk) 20:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I can see adding any groups which have specifically been denied legal recognition as a religion or cult in those countries where such legal recognition is required, or groups which have had in some way specific modern governments declare it is acceptable to call the groups in question cults or similar. The one primary example of the latter that comes to mind is The Local Church, which a US court said at some point might fairly be called a cult. And it might, I suppose, be not unreasonable to maybe specifically include many or most of the articles or subarticles related to recent controversies regarding many groups, as I think at this point, most of the content related to the anticult movement is to be found there. John Carter (talk) 16:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Having looked over the list of Governmental lists of cults and sects, the ones which have links in the article are as follows: American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property; Ancient Mystical Order Rosae Crucis; Anopsology; Anthroposophy; Aum Shinrikyo; Aumism; Avatar Course; Beili Wang; Born Again Movement; Boston Church of Christ; Branch Davidians; Buddhism in France#Tibetan Buddhist communities; Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints; Church of Scientology; Cultural Office of Cluny; Dami Mission; Divine Light Mission; Doalnara; Doomsday cults; Eastern Lightning; Eckankar; Énergo-Chromo-Kinèse; European Grouping of Marketing Professionals; Evangelical Missionary Church of Besançon; Falun Gong; Family International; Fiat Lux; Freemasonry; Grail Movement; Guanyin Famen; Insight Seminars; Invitation to Life; ISKCON; Jehovah's Witnesses; Landmark Education; League for Catholic Counter-Reformation; Lectorium Rosicrucianum; Local Church; Multi-level marketing; New Acropolis; New Apostolic Church; New Testament Church (China); Occultism; Opus Dei; Order of the Solar Temple; Osho movement; Raelism; Sahaja Yoga; Sai Baba; Sanban Puren Pai; Satanism; The Shouters; Shri Ram Chandra Mission; Silva Method; Soka Gakkai; South China Church; Spirit Church (China); Sri Chinmoy; Sukyo Mahikari; Transcendental Meditation; True Buddha School; Tudihui; Unification Church; Universal Life; Universal White Brotherhood; Zhushenjiao; various other local and/or neopagan movements;

I can only see a few topics included which I don't know to be at least topic of occasional significant controversy here in that list. Most of those are of groups I've never heard of. The LDS Church, ISKCON, Jehovah's Witnesses, Landmark Education, Unification Church, Raelians, Soka Gakkai, and some of the Rosicrucians are articles/topics which are included there which have had some degree of controversy, including at least once ArbCom controversy, involved. There might be a few articles/topics which aren't controversial, more or less of the who knows or cares variety, but I do think that the majority of those with which I am familiar would benefit significantly and have some of the disruption which has been handled at ANI and elsewhere if not here more easily addressed. John Carter (talk) 18:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Arbcom power!

I am very innocent of exactly the limits, if any, to Arbcom power. But I did not think that banning a user by arbitrary motion was part of it. Was I wrong?

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC).

You are correct. Arbitrary, summary abusive bans are traditionally part of the administrator's tool set. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:ACDS not explaining what 'discretionary sanctions' are

Is it just me or does WP:ACDS not explain what 'discretionary sanctions' are? The "this page in a nutshell" banner is surprisingly unhelpful - it explains what the discretionary sanctions are supposed to do, but not what they actually are - and the rest of the page is not much help. Banedon (talk) 00:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Gag orders

IMHO, restrictions shouldn't include an editor's talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 12:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

GoodDay, the Committee generally always imposes restrictions with the wording as defined by the community (ie WP:TBAN). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom statement

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

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

Will such a statement be forthcoming? Andreas JN466 12:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)