Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee

Requesting feedback from Arbitrators

In DGG's recently closed amendment request, CaptainEek and Barkeep49 both said that they were going to look into the issue of editors misrepresenting sources (and the persistent inability of talk pages and noticeboards to resolve that issue), and have a discussion about how it could be addressed. However, the amendment request was closed by the clerks before that discussion could happen.

Could either of you please clarify the status of that planned discussion, and how you think this issue ought to be addressed? As I said in my last comment there, if someone is going to request another amendment or a full case, I think first there needs to be more clarity about what Arbcom considers to be within their remit in this respect, and which case (Fringe science or Race and intelligence) it should be filed under. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 14:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Ferahgo the Assassin I say this with the caveat that the committee might not agree with me. I think the answer needs to be either a new case request, i.e. "Race and Intelligence 2", "Fringe 2", or a better constructed ARCA. Alternatively, a community discussion of some caliber with the intent of brainstorming a solution/distilling the problem might be useful.

Part of the difficulty is that ArbCom is a sledgehammer, not a scalpel. We can't intervene in individual content disputes or choose which sources are good or bad (except in a general sense). Further, the connection between the fringe principles and the issues at hand seemed tenuous at best. Part of the issue is that the topics of contentions were not made clear. I know DGG did this with noble intent, hoping not to drag us into a particular topic area. However, what we do is inherently topic specific. So if the problem is with race and intelligence and not Fringe, then it's race and intelligence we need to be amending or revisiting. If there are problematic editors who are citing things they shouldn't be, then for starters they should be taken to AE, and if that can't resolve the matter, then a new case request.

Although I have some interest in making ArbCom more of a mediator, in practice we just aren't. Thus, until an issue has been thoroughly exhausted, it is not generally within our remit. I'm not so sure that this issue has been exhausted. In fact, I think the underlying problem is the issue is unclear. There is some poor source usage, and both fringe and race and intelligence of course remain highly contentious topics. If someone thinks they can provide a concise summary of the underlying issue, we would be better suited to help fix it. But as long as the problem remains vague and nebulous, I don't see what exactly we can do.

This was a long and winding way to ask for more info and input, and to encourage some critical thought :) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll largely echo what Eek said in terms of advice. Personally my wikipedia bucket is full at the moment between WP:RFA2021, extensive writing I have been doing for the UCoC drafting committee, and my "everyday" Arb work. I will admit I simply did not have time to explore the diffs presented and hoped that another colleague of mine would have more capacity to do so. That didn't seem to be the case at that time. However, I agree with Eek that you and DGG shouldn't take this as a refusal to engage at all but that something more focused and more in line with past ArbCom practices and is more likely to at least generate discussion. For this request it became hard to recover from "please amend these old cases" for which there was no appetite on the committee. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. I know this issue hasn't been discussed by the community quite as extensively as is typical before Arbcom will open a case, but that's because everyone involved is aware that any future attempts to discuss it will be futile for the same reason as all of the earlier discussions. It's also very clear that if we make any further attempts to raise the matter of misrepresented sources with the community, there will be attempts to get us topic banned (this was the main discussion about it in my own case). When I initially described this situation to Barkeep49 via email, I referred to this trend as having a "chilling effect" on discussion.

Before someone makes another arbitration request I'd like to hear from DGG, as well as from some of the other arbitrators, about what approach they think would be best. I know that DGG is very reluctant to recommend a case request. So if someone is going to request a case, first I would like to make sure Arbcom considers that the best option, and also clarify what scope it should have.

One thing I'd appreciate Arbcom clarifying about the scope: in his comment on the amendment request, Gardenofaleph raised the issue that lower-quality sources (such as newspaper and magazine articles) are being used as a basis for excluding those of higher quality, such as academic papers and textbooks, and linked to a recent RSN discussion about this issue, which failed to resolve anything. This approach to sourcing is contrary to the article's sourcing restriction, which says that only "peer-reviewed scholarly journals and academically focused books by reputable publishers" may be used. Would this other issue of sourcing be something that Arbcom considers within their remit to address, or would any arbitration request need to be more narrowly focused on misrepresentation of sources? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

The purpose of any dispute-resolution process, including ArbCom, is to support the writing of a collaborative encyclopedia – that is, to ensure that the process of determining and implementing consensus is unencumbered. It is not the purpose of dispute resolution to give a minority viewpoint additional voice, nor to allow a few editors to manipulate a discussion or an article against the wishes of the majority. Therefore, any suggestion that there is an issue that needs resolving should be focused on how this process is being disrupted or impeded. For example, if you are being prevented from implementing an edit that you believe has consensus, that is something I would be interested in helping to address. But if the edits that you want to make are against consensus, no adjustments to rules or restrictions are going to change that. – bradv^🍁 23:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Where does this sourcing restriction actually come from? I can't find any mention of it in the cited case. – Joe (talk) 12:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Race and intelligence is under discretionary sanctions, and going by the history of the editnotice Ferahgo linked, Barkeep added the sourcing restriction to the article last March. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh I see, it's just the edit notice for the article race and intelligence; I mistook it for a general template. Thanks. That seems to also be a point of confusion in the linked RSN discussion. – Joe (talk) 13:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

By the way, I also would be okay with a non-arbitration solution here, if the view of Arbcom is that there's a solution that doesn't require the involvement of the full committee. The most important thing is that there needs to be a way for the sourcing restriction to be enforced, especially the part about misrepresenting sources, however that's accomplished.

@Barkeep49: when we discussed this issue via email, you felt that DGG's upcoming amendment request would be a reasonable way to try to resolve the problem of your restriction not being enforceable. But now that the proposed amendment has been declined, what do you think is the best solution? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 01:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Go to WP:AE and ask that it be repealed. I will explain why I levied it at the time, explain that I am neutral on it today as I have not been keeping abreast of the article, and offer if there is a consensus it should be removed to do so as an individual action (that is it wouldn't necessarily have to get the higher level of consensus necessary to overturn it). Barkeep49 (talk) 01:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I was hoping there could be a solution that actually stops sources from being misrepresented, not one that amounts to accepting this is impossible to prevent. And I think the other editors who've raised similar objections about source misrepresentation (Literaturegeek, Stonkaments, Gardenofaleph, AndewNguyen, Sesquivalent and DGG) were hoping for that, too. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 02:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ferahgo the Assassin: I haven't been following this dispute, but if you believe that a current AE-imposed restriction is not working and have an amendment, alternative and/or additional restriction that you think will work then propose it at AE, AN or other suitable venue. If you think it needs workshopping first, then start a discussion and workshop it. Thryduulf (talk) 12:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: There have already been multiple attempts to raise the issue at noticeboards, but all of them have either been shut down prematurely, or failed to reach a consensus. Ferahgo and I linked to several of these noticeboard discussions in our statements in the recent amendment request. There comes a point where it's apparent an issue can't be resolved at noticeboards, and any further attempts to raise it there will just result in accusations of forum shopping.

Also, nobody has a problem with the current sourcing restrictions themselves. I think they're what the article needs. The problem is that the current restrictions are being totally ignored, and nobody is willing to enforce them. That's what needs addressing. I don't know whether ArbCom can solve that problem, but I hope it'll be solved somehow. Gardenofaleph (talk) 02:25, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I entered the Arb request not with the realistic hope of it having any immediate successful effect--I am not quite so naive as that-- but in order to keep alive the issue of our prejudiced presentation of controvesial topics in general, our tendency to bias article content not on the basis of actual NPOV but on the bases of what we would prefer to be the POV, our biased and unreasonable manipulation of sourcing in orde to pretend to have a NPOV, and the encouragement of these unfortunate tendenccies by multiple arb com decisions going back to the initial ones in the area, and by the increased use of the inherently unfair technique of Discretionary Sanctions. I do hope for change in these areas--I do not expect it to come quickly, because I think the participants in WP, just like people in the world generally, are not actually prepared to follow the evidence wherever it leads, but rather look for evidence to support their own preconceptions. There was the original hope in 2001 that the method of working here would to some extent free us from those common practices--and perhaps it has to some extent, but it breaks down on subjects where we really have strong conviction that it is we who are priviledged to understand correctly--especially when we fear that following the science or the facts more generally may have undesirable social consequences. The method by which I hope change will come is by keeping the issues alive to encourage users not bound by old prejudices, and trying as far as possible to maintain the still substantial amount of open-mindenessand flexibility in our system.

To some extent I was trying to probe the opinions of the arbitrators, but I was not really surprised to find only very few of them with even slight sympathy, almost all remaining convinced that none of these problems actually exist. I know from my own experience there for 5 years that the general predilictions of most of those attracted to serve on the committee is towards a purely formal and legalistic adherence to the technicalities of Wikipedia, while trying to remain oblivious to the actual effect of their decisions. As in all past years, there is the hope that next year's committee will be better. As always, it rarely changes very much.

The problem Ferahgo works on is only one example. In some sense we did work together. She encouraged me to pick this time to try to actually do something; I tried to persuade her to rely upon the slow change of attitudes and to adopt a more general perspective than her only issue. We both seem to have failed, at least in the short run. The key difference, is that I have always been much more interested in the long one, and have never been focussed on a single instance. I cannot tell from the comments above whether there is any chance of a succesful case; the best likely result would be a repetition of the platitudes about our devotion to NPOV that has very little effect on how matters work out. We might get some enlightened statements to use in argument, but this is very distant from the statements actually affecting the outcome of the arguements. As I said several times near the close of the discussion, I intend to return to what I can do best, which is to argue a few selected individual sourcing questions as they arise. DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• There is a related discussion underway at the Village Pump: [1] I think DGG already knows about that discussion, but the arbitrators might be interested in reading it as well.

The statement there that "Editors begin to use the status of a viewpoint as mainstream or fringe as the basis for picking sources and facts to include in the article, rather than using mainstream sources and facts to determine what views are fringe" is a good summary of the issue that was raised in the recent RSN discussion linked above. A specific example I mentioned in DGG's amendment request was the decision to remove most of the material cited to Earl Hunt's textbook as "profringe", despite that book being one of the most highly regarded sources available about human intelligence. But it looks like the discussion at the Village Pump probably isn't going reach any consensus, just as the RSN discussion didn't.

If the Village Pump discussion is unable to reach a consensus about whether this approach to sourcing is compatible with NPOV policy, this is something I'd like to see examined in a "Fringe Science 2" case. Can Arbcom provide any clarify as to whether they would be able to address that question? To clarify the question I asked about this a few days ago, it's impossible to determine whether this approach to sourcing is supported by consensus or opposed by it. There are only a small number of editors who actively support this approach, but every attempt to discuss it with the broader community has been unable to come to any conclusion. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Ferahgo, my earnest suggestion is to drop the stick, because every bit I read from your copious messages just make me think it was a mistake to ever unban you. ArbCom doesn't "fix" discussions among the community that don't result in consensus. It exists to deal with problematic behavior. A case filing without such evidence is a case filing that is going to likely be declined. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Surely editors voting to ignore academic sources because they don't like what they're saying is problematic behavior? Bald Vegetarian (talk) 11:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC) Surely block evading trolls who have been checkuser blocked should have thier comments struck. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Saturday is laundry day. ——Serial 12:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Ferahgo, please pay attention to Wohltemperierte Fuchs comment above. Whether or not we agree on the underlying issues, I agree with his advice. This does not depend on the merits of your case. This does not depend on whether the separation between conduct and content is relevant or realistic. In my personal experience there, Arb com will insist on the distinction when they want to, and they will ignore it when they want to. I have tried many times to make sure you realize the extremely risky nature of deliberately bringing a case to arb com. In the interests of yourself, in the interests of those who may wish to return to the field in the future, and most essentially in the interests of those who want fair rational coverage of sensitive issues, you should be trying to find a way to honourably disengage, rather than look for an excuse for continuing. DGG ( talk ) 01:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I intend to let it go until the end of the year, aside from the current discussion, but I don't know about after that. It seems like a matter of principle to me that when sources are being misrepresented across multiple articles, and at least seven editors have objected to this, it shouldn't be necessary to conclude that in the long term there's nothing that can be done about it.

This case was previously referred to Arbcom by the AE admins in March of last year, [2] [3] [4] and the subsequent arbitration request was declined by Arbcom, so the discussion preceding your amendment request was the second time that a community discussion about this issue concluded that arbitration was necessary. If Arbcom intends to refer it back to the community a second time, this time I think they ought to give some clearer guidance on what they think the community should do to resolve it, that's hasn't already been tried and failed. I would especially like to hear about this from CaptainEek, as he is the arbitrator who previously recommended a new case. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ferahgo the Assassin Well I wasn't inherently suggesting a new case request, merely that it might be one of the avenues. The core problem I still see is: I don't know what the issue is. There is a lot of hubbub but no one can seem to point to an actual underlying cause that ArbCom could step in and fix. So: lets say ArbCom accepts a case. What sort of scope would you want and what remedies would you request? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: If a new case is in order, it should be focused on sourcing and editor behavior on topics related to race and intelligence, particularly on correct and incorrect practices of sourcing, and how sources have been misused in relation to race and intelligence and related topics. As for remedies, the best outcome would be something that addresses the problem that no admin is willing to enforce the article's sourcing restriction, along with the standard behavioral remedies. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm obviously a non-Arb, but I see some of those things as potentially within ArbCom's remit, but others not. The community, not ArbCom, determines correct and incorrect sourcing via consensus, and ArbCom should not be an end-run around a disliked community consensus. On the other hand, ArbCom can potentially act on editor conduct with respect to failing to comply with existing sourcing policies and guidelines, and administrator inability to resolve such disputes. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I’m even more obviously not an Arb but will suggest that the problem here appears to be a conflict between the two categories which Tryptofish mentions. That is, the complainants appear to feel that those of us who are working to keep the topic area in compliance with community consensus are by that very act failing to comply with sourcing policies and guidelines. This view appears to be premised on the notion that the complainants have a privileged understanding of what the sources actually say which the rest of the community is either unaware of or else is collaborating in a bad faith effort to suppress. Generalrelative (talk) 20:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Stop it. If you and NightHeron seriously believed that the community supports your approach to sourcing, the two of you would not have deliberately pre-empted the possibility of opening an RFC to examine it. NightHeron stated that he was opening his RFC to prevent someone else from opening the one that was being planned, which would have been about his and your use of sources: [5] [6]

Or here's another way of looking at it. A person who believed that his approach to sourcing had the support of the broader community would not need to regularly revert edits by various (mostly uninvolved) editors attempting to bring those parts of the articles into line with what their sources say. On the Heritability of IQ article alone you and NightHeron have done this around a dozen times. These other editors don't have your persistence and they don't coordinate with one another, and I have no intention to edit war with you myself, so you'll continue to get your way there for the time being. But for you to assert that the community supports your support to sourcing, against the background of this pattern of behavior over the past year, is truly mind-boggling. Gardenofaleph (talk) 01:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't intend to engage in an argument here, and will simply encourage anyone reading to consider whether NightHeron and I have the power, on our own, to pre-empted the possibility of opening an RFC. Anyone interested in the particulars of this allegation can see my comment in the previous discussion where I address them: [7]. Generalrelative (talk) 03:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Refusing to accept consensus, Ferahgo and a small number of other civil POV-pushers have been going from forum to forum repeating their false claims and forcing countless hours of repetitive debate. At the ArbCom request that DGG made (at Ferahgo's urging [8]) I already refuted the allegation that I acted improperly in starting an RfC at the R&I talk-page. Another example of her false accusations is the claim that the R&I article is unfair to Earl Hunt's work. Nonsense -- he's cited five times, and three of his works are in the page's bibliography. At RSN and at article talk-pages, as Ferahgo admits, they've been unsuccessful in their attempts to convince the community that there's a problem with use of sources at R&I and related pages. Nor have they been able to make a credible case that there was misconduct by the editors who in two RfC's in 2020 and 2021 successfully argued that belief in the genetic inferiority of certain races in intelligence is outside the scientific mainstream and so should be treated in accordance with WP:FRINGE.

The incessant forum-shopping and bludgeoning on this topic by profringe POV-pushers is disruptive and a drain on other editors' time. NightHeron (talk) 04:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

It takes two to tango, though, and in my view, the folks who are fighting the POV pushing are also engaging with the POV pushing way too much. For example, at Talk:The Bell Curve, someone suggests IQ = intelligence, and that prompts walls of text rebutting it. It seems to me that happens every time across all the related pages. There's no need for the walls of text rebutting it; just ignore it. My suggestion is to limit all talk page discussions as much as possible. If someone makes an edit against policy or sources, revert it. They'll need to get consensus on the talk page. If they raise it on the talk page, treat it as an edit request, meaning insist on "Change X to Y cited to source(s) Z" as a proposal. Then !vote on the proposal. If there's consensus, it goes in; if not, then not. If the proponents of the proposal want to escalate to an RFC, let them. Trust that the "bad edits" won't make it in if we go through the usual process (insist on RS, insist on consensus). All the discussion and proving/disproving and argumentation is just a distraction (and discourages new people from engaging). The biggest problem in the topic area, in my view, is WP:NOTFORUM violations. Levivich 17:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

In one fish's opinion, there is no inherent reason that a few editors could really prevent other editors from opening an RfC, and an RfC (not ArbCom) is the way to resolve this dispute. (And then AE or ArbCom if anyone refuses to abide by the RfC result or demonstrably disrupts the RfC). Hold the RfC under the applicable discretionary sanctions. Word the RfC question absolutely neutrally. And then make your best case in the RfC discussion. Make the RfC widely participated in, so that there won't be a problem with too few participating editors. That means holding it at Village Pump: Policy, and listing it on WP:CENT. If possible get a watchlist notice at the beginning and end. And keep it open for 30 days. Absent disruption, that should result in a consensus. And that consensus needs to be accepted by all. Put up or shut up. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

PS: If editors who disagree with those editors who start the RfC believe that the RfC question is flawed, don't try to shut the RfC down (as tempting as that might be). Just explain in the RfC discussion what you think the problem is, and answer the RfC question in a way that reflects what you really think. Lots of other editors will see that, and so will the person who closes the RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) NightHeron, I'll ask you the same question that Generalrelative just dodged: if you seriously believe that the Wikipedia community supports your approach to sourcing, why is it necessary for the two of you to so tightly control every discussion and article related the topic? Aside your from preventing the previously planned RFC from being opened, the two of you also have made more edits to these articles and their talk pages than myself, Ferahgo, Stonkaments, Sesquivalent and Ekpyros put together.

Why not let the, you know, community decide what they think is best for the articles, instead of both of your patterns of dominating every talk page and noticeboard discussion, and reverting dozens of edits by various involved and uninvolved people as "against consensus"? I'm pretty sure I already know the answer to this, but the question isn't rhetorical; I'd like to see how you explain it. Gardenofaleph (talk) 20:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Gardenofaleph, I don't know how to read this besides just "Why are you active editors?" Firefangledfeathers 21:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

No, I mean something more specific. I'll give an example of what I mean:

In June 2020, Generalrelative added content to the Heritability of IQ article that several editors feel misrepresents its sources. [9] (See Ferahgo's summary; all of these sources use qualifiers such as "no direct evidence", and they also don't use the word "consensus" or any similar term when referring to evidence or lack of it, as required by WP:RS/AC.) In the time since then there have been several attempts by various other editors to remove the misrepresentations, or to change this part of the article to something more closely approximating what the sources say, but Generalrelative and NightHeron have consistently reverted these attempts. [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] This is just one of four articles (I think, although there might be more) where they've added the same content, and basically the same sequence of events has played out on the other articles also.

Generalrelative and NightHeron have framed the current dispute as themselves defending the integrity of Wikipedia, with the backing of the broader community, from a small group of determined POV pushers. But the history of articles like that one seems to tell a different story. The people trying to change these articles to be more consistent with what the sources say have not been the so called "POV pushers". They have mostly been editors like SteveCree2, AmazingCosima, and various IP editors who have barely any other edits in this topic area. But these editors aren't really committed to the dispute and they also don't coordinate with one another, so they've never been able to make a difference.

This doesn't look like two editors defending the integrity of Wikipedia with the backing of the broader community. It looks more like two editors determined to prevent any modification to their preferred wording, even though a lot of otherwise uninvolved people evidently disapprove of it. Gardenofaleph (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

The bickering here is increasingly off-topic for this talk page, and is becoming increasingly annoying for... well, at least, me. As I said in my previous comment advising an RfC, put up or shut up. If some editors would rather snipe at one another (believing wrongly that this will convince ArbCom to step in), that probably means that they are not really confident in their position. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd be fine with having a RFC about how sources are being used in this topic, under the condition that I can know ahead of time that the editors on the other side will allow it to happen. When Ferahgo's and AndewNguyen's RFCs were shut down, those editors also were threatened with discretionary sanctions for having opened them. I've been expecting the same thing to happen if I try to start one about this issue myself. But if this time NightHeron and Generalrelative can agree to let someone open a RFC about sourcing and let it proceed unimpeded, it's worth a try. Gardenofaleph (talk) 02:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Definitely not interested in bickering, here or anywhere, but I should probably add for those who didn’t read the diff in my previous comment: It was Mackensen, a widely respected admin from what I understand and OG of the project, who told AndewNguyen that there is a clear consensus of the community that no underlying issue with sourcing exists in the R&I topic area. [15] That seemed pretty definitive to me. However, no one is standing in the way of a new RfC, nor could they. Generalrelative (talk) 03:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I looked at that link. I would suggest that a future RfC be carefully written to make clear what is new, as opposed to just checking whether consensus has suddenly changed. And given the strongly-held views of editors who have concerns about the current consensus, I also suggest that those editors who see no problems with the current consensus should nonetheless try to be generous with letting a new RfC go forward. That way, any legitimate concerns will be able to get a proper hearing and those editors with concerns will not feel like they were shut-out, and the community will be able to reaffirm the current consensus if that should end up as the result. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

ACE2021

As a reminder, for the 2021 ArbCom elections, eligible users are invited to submit a nomination statement for the Arbitration Committee elections at the elections page. There are about 60 hours remaining to self-nominate. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 12:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Map of DS areas

  WP:ARBAP2, WP:ARB9/11

  WP:ARBANEG

  WP:ARBAA2

  WP:ARBEE

  WP:ARBHORN

  WP:ARBIPA

  WP:ARBIRP, WP:ARBKURDS

  WP:ARBKURDS

  WP:ARBPIA

  WP:TROUBLES

Has this been done before? Not sure if it's just a curiosity or might be worth adding to WP:AC/DS or somewhere. Levivich 06:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Levivich Wowza, that's great!! We should put that on the DS page, quite useful at a glance. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Interesting map, although Poland is missing from the EE area and Somaliland from ARBHORN. Georgia seems to be included in the EE area, is that intentional? Difficult to show on this map, but Liancourt Rocks and Senkaku Islands disputes are also geographical (Covid-19 is arguably too, but as it's worldwide it's not helpful to include it here). Thryduulf (talk) 12:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Very cool. Don't forget WP:APL (antisemitism in Poland) and WP:ARBMAC2 (Macedonia 2). I'd also say that ARB9/11, while clearly applying to the US, is a bit hard to call "geographic" enough to put on this map. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd also argue that ARBANEG isn't really "geographic" in the same sense as the others, as DS apply to articles about that specific controversy only. firefly ( t · c ) 14:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

The WP:ARBMAC2 case only reaffirmed the DS authorised by WP:ARBMAC, but that DS authorisation was later merged into WP:ARBEE so the map is correct in that respect. Thryduulf (talk) 15:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Thryduulf, looks like I need to go fix the General Sanctions list then... GeneralNotability (talk) 16:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see what confused me - Macedonia has a 1RR rule still in effect (where naming is concerned) but its DS were superseded by ARBEE. Hooray for convoluted sanctions! GeneralNotability (talk) 16:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I find this map super intersting. But I don't think it's helpful for someone who isn't already somewhat nuanced in the realm of DS. For instance because of Kurds, Turkey shows up as under DS. However generic Erdogan content is not. Fethullah Gulen is basically not. Similarly with Britain the Troubles are covered but most controversial stuff is not covered. Politics is covered under a community imposed GS though. For me illustrations are useful in presenting graphically information that would be difficult to understand otherwise. I think, however, this particular graphic misleads rather than informs in its presentation. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I look at it sort of in the reverse, not that the highlighted countries are entirely covered by DS, but rather that the highlights indicate where the DS are. So UK being blue doesn't mean all of UK is covered by DS, it means that's where WP:TROUBLES is. For me, the most interesting part of the map is the part that is not colored, where there are no DS at all. Like South America apparently. Levivich 18:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Also interesting: the DS areas run along the entire Silk Road (China could be highlighted arguably). Levivich 18:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't disagree with anything you've said. My comments were more to the idea of putting it on WP:AC/DS which I would not support because I don't think it helps people who are not on the "inside" of DS already. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Russia is missing as well--Ymblanter (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I, too, found it very interesting. I tried to think of what might be a common feature among all of these cases, and I think it's that each content area centers on two adversarial groups of people, vying for some kind of control of the geographic area – and consequently the emergence of editors who are adversarial in some aspect of that rivalry. (Of course there are other geographical regions that fit this description, but for which we have not had editorial disputes that led to DS.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Size of this organ

From the members list currently duplicated at WP:ARB, it seems this organ has 14 members, although one is inactive. Is this the usual size of the committee? I haven't found this written anywhere (which means someone will point me to a place where's it in large bold letters on one of the pages I linked). WP:ELECT says "the original size" in 2003 was 12, but now we've already got more than that many active members. What's the maximum and minimum size? And what happens if we elect too few (if that's possible)? — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 23:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

It's not written anywhere in big letters, but it is written. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/History says: The committee initially comprised twelve arbitrators who served terms from one to three years, in three "tranches", so that about a third of the committee was up for reappointment each year. After the 2008 election, Jimbo increased the size of the committee to eighteen. From the 2009 elections onwards, the maximum term was reduced to two years, with two instead of three tranches. In the 2011 elections, the size of the Committee was reduced to a maximum of fifteen members. The size of the committee was further reduced to 13 for the 2018 elections, a decision which was reversed the following year. That page also has a nice chart of the committee over time.

If fewer arbitrators are elected than there are seats available, or an Arbitrator resigns, then the seat(s) remain vacant until the next election. If the Committee feels that they have too few members then they can call a special election before the regular one. The best place I have found that this is all noted is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections/ACERFC decisions to date but there should be somewhere better. Thryduulf (talk) 00:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The size of the committee is decided by the yearly ArbCom RFC. Looks like it's been 15 since the 2011 RFC, except for the 2018 RFC where we dropped to 13 arbs. That turned out to be a bad idea (at one point during the following year we had a total of 8 active arbs), so the following year it was re-raised to 15. The 2011 RFC says it's a reduction from 18 to 15, but I haven't found where 18 came about yet.

The theoretical maximum size is whatever gets consensus from the community, although for practicality reasons this is (IMO) unlikely to ever go above 20. Minimum is a little more interesting. Arbcom procedures use two methods for calculation of votes, "net four" or "absolute majority". Opening a case can be done by net 4 or absolute majority. Motion to close "requires the support of the lesser of" net 4 or absolute majority. So you could hold an entire case with only 3 active arbs, if 2 were in support. Interestingly, passing injunctions and allowing the filing party to withdraw a case requires net 4, so a 3-arb Arbcom would technically be somewhat hampered, although Arbcom can also set their own policies and procedures, so in theory a 3-person Arbcom could adjust those procedures to allow for absolute majority as well. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:08, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you. And naturally, I didn't bother to look at the History page, which turns out to have the most relevant information. (ETA: I also believe I have seen some version of that chart before.) I cannot imagine in what world I would have independently stumbled upon the "ACERFC decisions to date" page; I followed the sidebar links to "Procedures" and "Elections", and would never have guessed to look under Wikipedia:Requests for comment.

It seems like obviously relevant info that is completely hidden (clearly a deliberate move by the cabal, or something), and I think it should be easier to find. And in fact, I have BOLDly added something to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Members with this edit. Reversion or refinement allowed, of course. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 01:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

It's not an organ, it's a committee; calling it an "organ" makes it sound biological, musical, or far more important than it actually is. Your edit made the sentence ungrammatical and awkward. Instead, I've added the link as a reference in Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/History where it belongs. That page is already linked. I'm going to assume that the cabal comment is sarcasm. Risker (talk) 01:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, I didn't call it an organ on the page, and I hope I'm not the only one whose mouth turned up at the corners at the deliberate double entendre. Maybe yours doesn't turn up. Yes, the cabal was intended to be humorous. Tough room.

I don't see, though (in all seriousness) why the current size of the committee needs to be hidden away with other artefacts of the past under "History". It's like we're trying to keep a secret of this basic attribute of the body (not the biological kind) whose members we are to be electing. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 02:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm confused. It's pretty obvious what the current size of the committee is: 14. If another arbitrator quits, there will be 13. And so on. How many seats may hypothetically be available doesn't really have much to do with how many arbitrators there are. And yeah, it's a tough room; the arbitrators get a fair amount of abuse, including being called a cabal with the intention of being insulting. Given that the number of seats is determined by the community completely separate from the committee (i.e., the committee doesn't determine its own size), I'm not persuaded that it should be on this page. Right now there are a certain number of open seats for which candidates are being considered by the community. There is definitely the possibility that the community will not support enough candidates to fill all those seats. Thus, it seems a bit pointless to say it's a 15-seat committee, when only 14 seats are currently held, and nobody knows how many seats will be held at the end of the year. Risker (talk) 02:33, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Its relevance was apparent to me when the first couple of candidates opened their statements with some variant of, "I don't really want to run, but I'm worried there aren't enough candidates". It made me wonder how many we were supposed to have, and I couldn't find the info on my own. And, yes, I could see (as I said above) that there are currently 13+1 arbs. But I didn't know what our target number was nor how many were leaving. The History indeed has that info; I just didn't think to look there for info about the current election. It seemed the wrong place to bother looking.

I'm sorry if the cabal thing hit a nerve; I absolutely would not have thrown that in there if I thought that it applied in any way (or would be taken seriously by any reasonable person here). 'Twere but a witticism, a lark, a folly, with somewhat more butt than wit. — Shakespeare, maybe. Thanks,— JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 02:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Information about the number of seats available in the election is available on the election page: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021#Vacant seats (WP:ACE). Thryduulf (talk) 03:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I was afraid of/expecting. WP:CENT led me to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021, which also purports to be WP:ACE (although the shortcuts are really redirects), and I didn't notice I was looking at a subpage. I was real proud that I found the link to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee hidden in the page title, but I guess pride is a fleeting thing. Anyway, now I've got my answers. Regards,— JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 00:43, 19 November 2021 (UTC)