Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests

Archives

Could there be a word or two distinguishing WT:RFAR archives (2004-2009) from Various archives (2004-2011) and Ongoing WT:A/R archives (2009-)? It's especially unclear what "Various archives" refers to and it's unclear where to look for an older request. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Another way of saying various archives is random archives search at own peril, they are mainly collections of archives from various places including during the transition from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests. What sort of older request are you after? The Arbitration Index has links to accepted cases, motions and declined case requests. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

That is surprising, Callanecc, I would think since ARBCOM has clerks that the Archives would be nice and tidy. That sounds like a good weekend project, like cleaning out the garage. ;-)

When did that transition occur? I'm trying to get a sense of how ARBCOM has changed over time and Arbitration Committee (English Wikipedia) doesn't provide much detail. I don't have a specific case I'm looking for information on. Are the only archived records regarding ARBCOM, records of cases, requests and elections? I assume email list archives are private. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Another question, I don't see the Noticeboard archives. How can I find them and how far back in time do they go? Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Finally, I promise, will Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Statistics 2011 be expanded to include 2012? Right now, there are only stats for the 2008-2011 period. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure when the transition occurred, but Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/History, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/History/January to June 2009 and "The position of clerk was created by the Committee in January 2006" (from WP:AC/C) may be of assistance. I believe the noticeboard is a reasonably new thing. AGK, may be able to help some more, he's been around for a while. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Statistics 2011 won't be extended, but you can get the same information from the index and subpages. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

@Liz: Oh dear, you have asked a lot of questions! No matter – I enjoy dredging the institutional memory :-).

• Committee clerks implement our decisions and administer the process. They are not like the committee's secretaries, and keeping everything neat and tidy is not part of their job. The archives are actually often updated by community members, not the clerks.
• The transition from the Requests for arbitration to the Arbitration/Requests process occurred in April 2009.
• Records are kept of arbitration case requests, requests for clarification, requests for amendment, arbitrator-initiated motions, arbitration cases (and their workshops, evidence and PD pages, and all talk pages), announcements, discussion of announcements, and Audit Subcommittee personnel changes and public reports.
• The noticeboard started in 2008–2009 and its archives are linked at the top of WP:ACN.
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Statistics 2011 and its predecessors was created by a very complicated Perl script that took hours to run and required frequent maintenance. Beginning in 2010, it was decided that it was not an effective use of volunteer time to keep producing those statistics. I did, however, maintain a different set of statistics in my userspace for a short time: see User:AGK/Arbitration_timekeeping.
• Mailing list archives are private.

However, I think the very best way of getting a sense of how the committee has changed over the years is to look through our case decisions (at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases), starting in 2004 and 2005 and reading a couple of cases from each year. It's fascinating how the process itself as changed, as well as what sort of disputes came in front of the committee then compared to now. I hope this helps, AGK [•] 23:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks, Callanecc and AGK, for all of this information. I found this one particularly stunning:

"Records are kept of arbitration case requests, requests for clarification, requests for amendment, arbitrator-initiated motions, arbitration cases (and their workshops, evidence and PD pages, and all talk pages), announcements, discussion of announcements, and Audit Subcommittee personnel changes and public reports."

Yikes! That sounds like a whole lot more pages that are present in the boxes at the top right of this page. It would be nice to have one index page (or, I guess a Category page) that listed all the archives in some complete, standardized way. But, to be honest, I don't imagine that you really get that many inquiries like mine.

I have gone back (well, as far back as 2006) and looked at some of the more involved cases (Scientology, TM, Eastern Europe, cases involving specific Editors/Admins, and, of course, Ebionites2) but I probably need to look at some more "ordinary" cases that don't involve a dozen involved parties. I'm guessing that prior to 2004, disputes were more or less handled privately?

Since July, I've been diving into Wikipedia (policies, disputes, projects and organization) and I think the most consistent element I've found (well, besides the Five Pillars) is the constant complaint by some Editors that conditions have deteriorated since they first joined, specifically that there was a higher quality of Admins and Arbitrators. But I've seen comments saying basically the same thing in 2005, 2008, 2010, 2011 and now. It makes me wonder if this Golden Era actually ever existed.

That's why I asked Risker the other day if she could put together some thoughts and reflections about ARBCOM as she is leaving because so much of your work is done behind closed doors. People just see the final decisions on a few cases, they aren't aware of ways that ARBCOM has tried to reform itself or become more balanced, efficient or fair. Editors see authoritative words coming from you admonishing Editors (or not) but, to put it bluntly, they don't see you sweat, they aren't aware of activities that fill your days. Of course, the details of most of this can't be posted publicly but I think there should be some record of how ARBCOM has evolved and changed that doesn't involve reading between the lines. And I don't see it as navel-gazing but as preserving institutional history. There is going to be a big turnover of Arbitrators this year and I think it would be helpful for them to have some idea of what changes have been tried, what the common obstacles are and what projects you wished you'd have had time to get to.

Just some thoughts, for what it's worth. ;-) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

@Liz: "they aren't aware of activities that fill your days": I did write some thoughts up last year that may go some way to answering that question. See User:AGK/ACE2012. And Risker also wrote something pertinent in 2009. However, you are correct that there is an enormous amount of behind-the-scenes work to this role; for example, our to-do list contained 21 items up until a week ago! AGK [•] 23:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

That's what I'm looking for! Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.

You know, all of the calls for transparency aren't just coming from people who want to see dirty laundry or to put you on the spot. I think, frankly, the average Editor doesn't have a clue what you all do (beyond the case files they see) and I think ARBCOM would get less grief if users knew how hard you work. Where there is a paucity of information, people just project on to you whatever ambivalent feelings they have about authority. I've no doubt that there are some who have created entirely fictitious conceptions of how ARBCOM operates based on the information they do get to see and their own suspicions. Transparency not only educates those on the outside, but it also helps them see you as well-intentioned, hard-working users. It's a win-win situation! ;-) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration for unresolved dispute : Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati

Respected Sir i never with drew from the dispute resolution filed by me. I only mentioned i have no stamina left to bear insults and degrading of the subject. I demand justice Sir. Further instead of giving justice the people involved in the dispute had started Vendetta. All sections of talk page has gone to archives. Further they have started raising new issues against the subject after that dispute, which they them self accepted initially. I invite you to visit the article Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati for same The dispute filed by me was "Talk page of the article "Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati", Talk page of the editors themselves in discussion about the subject of the article, NeilN, Yunshui, Ihardlythinkso, Myself, Subject." I beg you and feel sorry if any language of mine was considered as with drawing of dispute. RegardsSarower Sigh Bhati (talk) 07:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

You said two days ago you were giving your "last message" and that you would never again log in to Wikipedia. Anybody with common sense would conclude that the request you filed could be closed as withdrawn. Now it looks like your "last message" was theatrics. Binksternet (talk) 16:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, several people were editing with that account and the involved parties are all now indefinitely blocked. He had an urgent message to get to ARBCOM. It was almost impossible to understand though and an Admin has deleted it, twice, from his Talk Page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Tumbleman WP:AR displeasure

I just wanted to record my displeasure at the recent Tumbleman WP:AR. It seems that only admin MastCell was at least willing to wait before making a more circumspect decision. The rest of the process seemed not too dissimilar from Monty Python's Life of Brian "Blashphemy" sketch. I am disgusted at this WP:AR:

1. It concluded in less than 24 hours, whatever happened to due process?
2. Tumbleman has not even contributed, whatever happened to a right to reply, or providing his side of the story?
3. Not one editing diff was provided showing inappropriate editing of any kind.
4. No diff showing an initial warning from an involved administrator, as required by Discretionary sanctions.
5. Blocked per WP:NOTHERE when his contributions to this page are demonstrably constructive.
6. Two WP:AR administrators who should know better, in addition to editors, showing clear incivility with personal attacks, such as questioning his competence (WP:COMPETENCE).
7. Of the nine editors who responsed to the WP:AR request, five where clearly not in favour of sanctions against Tumbleman. That's a majority of 55% against. Whatever happened to WP:CONSENSUS?

I am dismayed at this flawed process, ashamed that Wikipedia allows this to happen, and not in the least bit surprised. --Iantresman (talk) 17:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Responding to only a few of these points: there isn't a default timeframe which constitutes "due process" at WP:AE. The rate-limiting step is usually the speed at which admins review the cases and comment. Some are resolved in 24 hours or less, and some stay open for weeks. In this case, five experienced admins reviewed the case—that is due process at WP:AE. In fact, it's far better than most AE cases, which are resolved with input from only one or two admins.

Tumbleman provided responses on his own talkpage, which is a common approach in requests dealing with blocked editors. As Iantresman notes, I suggested we table the request until Tumbleman was unblocked, but I think the consensus of the 4 other admins—to action the case more swiftly—was reasonable. The point about the lack of a warning is potentially valid, but frankly strikes me as a technicality. There was sufficient cause to block Tumbleman indefinitely for disruptive editing, regardless of the existence of discretionary sanctions, and I don't think it serves any purpose to insist on yet another warning when he's already had a number of general warnings about his conduct.

To the final point, it should be obvious that WP:AE cases are not handled according to a head-count of commenting editors. They are resolved by an uninvolved admin, or by consensus among uninvolved admins, and editorial comments are advisory in nature. In this case, there was a clear consensus among reviewing admins to block Tumbleman indefinitely, and that's what happened. MastCell ^Talk 17:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Some Editors really know how to work the system. I'll just say that I'm surprised that so many Admins came down so harshly upon an Editor who was participating in a content discussion. It makes me wonder who is next. It is really chilling.

And if I'm accused of not AGF I'll just say I'm assuming as much good faith towards others as they extended to Tumbleman. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I've already been threatened with WP:AE[1][2] apparently for discussing the wrong academic sources, and pushing a POV in an article I haven't actually edited for 18 months. --Iantresman (talk) 18:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Forget weak consensus on the indef block, there was no consensus. I'm worried on what that could mean for others taken to AE. It's certainly a matter that needs more looking into. KonveyorBelt 18:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

No, let's be clear. There was an obvious consensus among uninvolved admins for an indefinite block. That's how AE works. I will repeat this as many times as necessary: WP:AE is not WP:AN/I. Reports at AE are not disposed on the basis of head-counting editors' comments, so it makes no sense to refer to a consensus (or lack thereof) among commentators on the request. MastCell ^Talk 19:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I see comparisons to the Community sanction noticeboard (CSN, that was closed because it was flawed. See CSN closure nomination. Now that I think of it, I see no difference. --Iantresman (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)