Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration enforcement

Closed. 08:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee stated in the Eastern European disputes case:

“ Following the conclusion of this case, the Committee will open a general request for comments regarding the arbitration enforcement process, particularly where general sanctions are concerned. Having received such comments, the Committee will consider instituting suitable reforms to the enforcement process. ”

Purpose

• To receive community feedback regarding arbitration enforcement and sanctions requiring the process
• To consider reforms to the arbitration enforcement process

Scope

• To examine the benefits and flaws of the current arbitration enforcement system
• To examine the practical effectiveness of arbitration enforcement
• To examine the utility, effects, and consequences of general and discretionary sanctions, including civility paroles and the biographies of living persons special enforcement
• To develop suggestions regarding sanctions that require the use of arbitration enforcement
• To develop proposed reforms to the arbitration enforcement process

Note. Due to size, some of the topics may be split out into their own sub-RfCs and a summary transcluded into here. An up-to-date list of sub-RfCs can be found here.

Statements about what works well in the current arbitration enforcement process

Views detailing what you specifically feel works well and/or is to the benefit of the commununity under the current status quo.

View by User:SirFozzie

Discretionary sanctions have been a godsend in numerous areas that are constantly problematic (Eastern Europe/Troubles/etcetera). It has done more to resolve these issues then anything bar the cases themselves. I would encourage administrators to be quicker with using discretionary sanctions such as 1RR/0RR, or topic bans in problematic areas

Users who endorse this summary

Cla68 (talk) 00:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC) Based on this [1], I'm striking my endorsement and am reserving judgement for the time being. Cla68 (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Moreschi (talk) 13:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
2. While saying they have been a godsend is perhaps an exaggeration, in some areas, including Eastern Europe, and The Troubles, significant progress has been achieved. In other areas, such as Israel-Palestine, progress appears to have stalled. I agree with SirFozzie's last statement - very often it's preferable not to block a user, and instead just issue a temporary article ban, which allows the user to continue to edit productively in other areas. PhilKnight (talk) 13:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
3. Maybe the topic bans for awhile but I don't think the 1rr or 0rr has been all that useful. The 3rr policy usually causes controversary when sanctions like 1rr or 0rr are placed since editors seem to think the 3rr policy should be good enough. I would also like to see a limitation on administrators that do discretionary sanctions to be limited to just a couple article per type of article. Maybe something like two or three articles, within like 3 months or 6 months to prevent the problems that are now occurring with administrators giving sanctions to multiple editors over multiple articles, which is bringing the question of whether involvement has actually occurred. Some kind of limitations needs to be set for administators who do a major part in the discretionary sanctions for arbcom in my opinion. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
4. I'd agree that they have generally been valuable in most of the the nationalistic and ethnic disputes. They don't appear to be very useful in the pseudoscience disputes due in large part to the partisans there adopting different strategies for dealing with the discretionary sanctions. GRBerry 23:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
5. Strongly endorse. Administrator intervention with discretionary sanctions is a much better way to handle some of these things, than to require a new arb case on each one. Administrators "in the trenches" can make more timely decisions, and can monitor and adjust the sanctions as needed, to help stabilize an article. --Elonka 21:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
6. As someone who has been on the receiving end of such sanctions, I must attest that this sanctions can and do work! They force peace and foster productive discussion. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
7. As with any admin action there is the possibility of misjudgement, but on balance discretionary sanctions have done far more good than harm. Thatcher 12:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
8. I particularly endorse the encouragement of administrators to be quicker with using discretionary sanctions such as 1RR/0RR, or topic bans in problematic areas. Dlabtot (talk) 03:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
9. with the important caveat that the admin should first ponder about Moreschi's caution below. To put it shortly: educated/informed discretionary sanctions by honest and good faith people is a fundamental wheel that keeps WP running. Dc76\^talk 18:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
10. Strong endorsement and encouragement for Admins to use this tool. Standard precautions apply against abuse and excess, but these do not appear systemic, and where found are easily undone, and at worst should be treated as problems with the Admin, not the process. I've had two cases go to arbitration, and both were sufficiently clear-cut for an Admin sanction, which would have saved considerable time and effort. If anything, more such sanctions by Admins would be a good thing, per WP:BURO I guess. / edg ☺ ☭ 20:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

View by Durova

Respectfully expressing reservations about SirFozzie's opinion above. An aggressive AE decision last year of the type he describes caused considerable trouble, even though the decision went in my favor. Not to call out the administrator or the other editors involved, but the basic dimensions were a BLP article with an especially bitter dispute that had already escalated to substantial offsite dimensions. Two people got page banned without warning, and a side effect of that action ruined six months of careful work to earn the trust of both sides. The page banned editors conjectured that I had conspired with the administrator and attempts at retaliation followed. If I had anticipated that result I wouldn't have gone to AE at all. More active intervention is indeed sometimes needed, but not the Dirty Harry solution. Let's not swing this pendulum blindly.

Users who endorse this summary

1. Durova^Charge! 01:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Swinging blind, indeed. I have concerns about admins being too ... authoritarian. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
3. More power to admins? Hell no!!! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
4. We need something more nuanced that saying that any one admin can on his own do whatever he thinks appropriate--especially since any matter that gets this far will inevitably have admins taking different sides on what exactly ought to be sanctioned. DGG (talk) 08:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
5. Sometimes too much power is assumed. There is a need for better balance than there is now per my suggestion above. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
6. Rlendog (talk) 19:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
7. Endorse - Shot info (talk) 23:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
8. TotientDragooned (talk) 00:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
9. Maybe this should really be in the "problems with" section. The AE sanctions as I've seen them implemented have the perhaps unwitting effect of increasing stress on constructive editors while enabling polite fringe pov pushing. . . dave souza, talk 09:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
10. Admins were never created to act as an oligarchy. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 02:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
11. Cautious use of powers is preferable. Davewild (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
12. Give them guns, someone gets shot. We don't want that. Grace Note (talk) 07:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
13. I think we should be encouraging caution and considered judgement from admins in non-urgent/non-obvious situations, not shooting from the hip. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
14. When your a hammer, everything in the (Wiki)world looks like a nail.--Buster7 (talk) 04:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
15. The licence to kill nature of discretionary sanctions concerns me. At the very least, I think there should be limits and controls on this.--Scott Free (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

View by User:Hipocrite

Nothing. Literally nothing about the poorly staffed, poorly managed, poorly thoughtout and badly prioritized AE process works well right now.

Users who endorse this summary

1. Hipocrite (talk) 13:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Hrm... actually, I can support this, because of the qualifier "well". KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
3. Nothing about Wikipedia works well. The amazing thing is that it works at all. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

   Well i have to agree with that--KingRatedRIV (talk) 03:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

4. In theory, it's fine - the dispute resolutions guidelines are good IMO, in practice, what happens after an arb decision needs more explanations and infrastructure --Scott Free (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
5. I would tend to agree it all depends on what admin happens along on whether an editor is blocked or not we get one admin saying one thing and another the oposite a lot more consistency with enforcement is needed. BigDunc^Talk 15:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

View by Moreschi

Perhaps a brief recital of my track record is worth going over here. WP:ARBMAC enforcement has, as you can see by the log, been largely the result of collaboration between myself and Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Enforcement of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 is something I have heavily contributed to. In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying the arbitration committee endorsed the findings of ChrisO (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), FPAS and myself at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Statement re Wikilobby campaign based on the authority of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. I have done as much as I can in the Eastern European wars (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren as well), although with limited impact. I could go on, but it would perhaps become tedious.

This is background to ensure that people understand that I have done vast amounts of arbitration enforcement work (usually related to nationalism). I have, therefore, seen both failures of the process and successes, something that many here have not.

Discretionary sanctions can work. ARBMAC has largely been a success. Ditto for AA2, which has reduced edit-warring and talkpage flaming. They are particularly good at dealing with accounts engaging in particularly poor conduct. They are less good at dealing with VestedContributors who engage in more subtle POV-pushing, as such VestedContributors are likely to have admin friends to overturn any sanctions placed on them, or to lobby for overturning. It is worth nothing that in the Balkans and Armenia-Azeri there are no partisan admins to disrupt the work of the neutral ones. Given good admin judgment and conduct, and the absence of influential partisans, nationalist flaming can be contained very well.

However, the problem is the lack of good judgment (others have noted the lack of admins: I won't go into this: the ultimate basis is the retardation of RFA culture, but that's a side-issue). Lack of good judgment stems from a) adopting the wrong paradigm to begin with and b) lack of experience. The latter is especially damaging when someone dips their toes in the water, gets scalded due to not quite knowing what they are doing, and never comes back to help. One admin more down.

This, however, should be easy to fix if we equip admins entering these forests with greater knowledge in advance. I am currently writing a dossier summarising everything I have learnt during my career dealing with these issues. This, once finished, I intend to circulate privately (no, not publicly. I have no intention of dozens of banned users working out how to avoid being caught from it) to a broad but select circle in the hope that it becomes something of an standard tome for future generations of admins facing similar problems.

"Adopting the wrong paradigm" is, however, more insidious, more damaging, and harder to fix. What I mean by the "wrong paradigm" can be summarised as the following:

1. Everything can be solved by rigid adherence to Wikipedia user conduct policy
2. Violators of user conduct policies must always be automatically sanctioned
3. The content dispute itself is unimportant: what matters is that participants in the dispute adhere to a stringent interpretation of policy.
4. It is almost impossible to objectively tell when someone is violating article policy, and therefore absurd to sanction them for it.

The result is admins who fail to do their research, who cannot understand the background to the dispute, who fail to distinguish trolling from a content dispute, who can make no informed statements on the dispute they are supposed to be helping to solve, and who fail to understand which type of content dispute they are dealing with (see Number 46). This last, I suggest, is where most of the discontent surrounding arbitration enforcement stems from. Suggestions to fix it, anybody?

Users who endorse this summary

1. Moreschi (talk) 14:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
2. PhilKnight (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
3. It makes sense that an admin working on arbitration enforcement should have minimal knowledge of the content dispute at the root of the conflict. Crystal whacker (talk) 15:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
4. This makes good sense to me. --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
5. Yes, exactly. Particular emphasis: discretionary sanctions make it easier to deal with proliferations of obvious agenda accounts (e.g. waterboarding, Barack Obama), but don't really help where the dispute involves numerous vested contributors. MastCell ^Talk 18:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
6. Yes, we need a few more clued-up admins. "Uninvolved" should not mean "completely ignorant of the issues at hand", otherwise you just end up with an admin illustrating the fallacy of middle ground (or "it's always six of one and half a dozen of the other") at great length. Admins are going to perform better if they have a bit of knowledge of the real-life causes behind these disputes: e.g. that almost all the Armenian-Azeri quarrels are about Nagorno-Karabakh in some way or another, or that the great firestorm between Estonian (or Baltic) editors and Russians on Wikipedia in 2007 was caused by the Bronze Soldier of Tallinn affair. We also need to provide an environment in which genuine experts are happy to contribute to these areas without being put off by gangs of warring POV-pushers. --Folantin (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
7. Partly Endorse - although current policy allows admins great powers at the moment, so addtional powers are not needed - just enforcement of the pillars. Also endorse Folatins comments above. So far the civil-POV-pushers are enabled by ignorant admins purely as the admins only make the easy calls rather than actually trying to understand what the actual issues are. Shot info (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
8. Endorse. bibliomaniac15 05:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
9. Endorse Want to highlight my agreement with Moreschi and MastCell that the discretionary sanctions are not accomplishing much in areas with numerous vested contributors that are part of the problem (pseudoscience, Isreal-Palestine). Israel-Palestine also has the most tightly drawn definition of uninvolved admin; in that one any editor that has ever participated in any article content dispute related to the area of conflict is defined as too involved to administer - but because of that tightly drawn definition it has had far fewer drama threads claiming an administrator was too involved to administer the discretionary sanctions than several of the other cases. GRBerry 05:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
10. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC) per Shot Info.
11. Being informed should be a pre-requisite. Having an incredibly civil work environment shouldn't be preferable to getting the content right - we are first and foremost an encyclopedia. Shell ^babelfish 19:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
12. Endorse. This is an accurate appraisal. Mathsci (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
13. Endorse. Since the vanished user case, there's been a chilling effect on any admins with knowledge and experience in a topic area from using admin procedures, and the AE process encourages and gives powerful tools (and immunity to criticism) to an "uninvolved" and uninformed focus on civility to the detriment of concerns about core content policy issues. . dave souza, talk 09:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
14. Generally agree that admins who volunteer for WP:AE need to be experienced and clueful. However, not every enforcement action that results in vigorous complaints and upset editors is the result of uninformed or experienced admins. There are instances of gaming the system and instances where reasonable actions do not get enough support in the face of organized opposition. Thatcher 12:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
15. Endorse §FreeRangeFrog 07:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
16. Endorse. I had to deal with cliquish admins who take criticism of their actions as a personal attack. That's exactly the wrong paradigm discussed above. Xasodfuih (talk) 10:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
17. Partly endorse (except where may disagree below): because have had neutral or somewhat positive experiences so far; however, have remained paranoid about using Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles enforcement remedies because of the fear of tag teaming by partisans complaining my complaints/mistakes are the bigger problem than POV problems that got me frustrated in first place. (And I read below the same thing can happen to truly neutral admins who enforce sanctions!)
18. For reasons Dave Souza pointed out with crystalline clarity. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 02:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
19. Moreschi has got it! I do hope people listen. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
20. So few people bother to do research on the issue... or remember WP:IAR. Too many make hasty decisions, and pile on the bandwagon going through the route of easiest and simplest policy enforcement :( Oh, and of course - too many avoid anything that may be complicated or controversial :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
21. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
22. Endorse That there is arbitration enforcement is better than the alternative. In the grossest sense, ARBMAC /AA2 have gotten it done. However, it has engendered an emerging cultural shift of favoring those who can "game the parent", so to speak. POV trolls aside, there are legitimate content disputes that need a level and clear-cut path to resolution that alienates neither (or any) side more than necessary. Vested contributors are not sacred cows, but do deserve a more responsive and collaborative policy. EBY (talk) 02:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
23. per Shell above. Civility should go hand in hand with being informed about the content. If you don't bother getting informed, how can you hope that the article you help clearing of disputes would deliever information for the genereal reader? There is a proverb: you cannot teach something you don't know. Dc76\^talk 18:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
24. As far as my experience of various Bosnian War-related articles is concerned I would endorse the above. Administrators who have no understanding of the issues or of the significance of specific words and expressions can fuel problems rather than resolve them, particularly when their notionally neutral intervention in fact weighs down more heavily on one side of a dispute than the other. When the administrator is seen to be knowledgeable about the problem they are more likely to be regarded as fair as well and their interventions command respect even when people disagree with them. Opbeith (talk) 18:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
25. I endorse the view but the question is what to do? Are interventions to be limited only to subject knowledgeable administrators? Disputes on historical articles are sometimes only truly decidable by an academic with many years of training. It seems a stretch that Wikipedia could find such an expert in every case, moreover, one willing to get involved in bad-tempered disputes. SpinningSpark 10:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
26. Endorse. Phatom87 ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
27. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

View by GRBerry #1

Article and topic bans have proven a useful tool. GRBerry 17:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary

1. In general, yeah, I agree. MastCell ^Talk 18:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
2. So has 1RR. 0RR I remain much more skeptical about. Moreschi (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
3. I agree to a point I guess, 1RR & 0RR I am very questionable about since biases can be drawn in easier this way. I say stick to the 3RR policy we have. --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
4. Extremely useful tool, yes. --Elonka 21:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
5. When reasonably applied, absolutely! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
6. per CrohnieGal above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
7. partial endorse They have proven useful but a lighter sanction should be used when possible, with this as a fall-back should the lighter sanction fail. Lighter sanctions include things like 0/1RR, mandatory discussion/talk-page-notice before making edits, mentor approval for edits, etc. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
8. Yup --Tznkai (talk) 19:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
9. Yes. (Article and topic bans are lighter sanctions compared to blocking, which was the only remedy available before discretionary sanctions were created.) Thatcher 12:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
10. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 04:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
11. In theory, yes. In practice, I wish I'd see more of then on EE topics, but we get either outright bans or no enforceable rulings at all, on editors who could be a good asset if they would just be prevented from fighting in their favorite mud ring.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
12. with Moreschi's caveat, yes, definitively. Dc76\^talk 18:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
13. per Moreschi. Dlohcierekim 20:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
14. Endorse with hardly any reservation. xRR as needed. This isn't brain surgery—the worst outcome I can imagine is increased drama at ANI. / edg ☺ ☭ 20:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
15. It is good when not wikilawyered to death after enforcement. MBisanz ^talk 12:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
16. Endorse LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
17. --Aude (talk) 01:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
18. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

View by Tznkai #1

I have more thoughts in depth in progress elsewhere, but I wanted to get the main points underway, so here goes.

Discretionary sanctions, topic bans, and the like give admins varied tools and a strong implied threat to try to manage problems. When there are only a few good admins working hard, this is Very Good, gives them procedural cover where in normal disputes, you would expect other admins to step up to the plate. Bottom line: discretionary sanctions are (in the right hands) very helpful.

Users who endorse this summary

1. Agree. Discretionary sanctions serve a useful purpose, and give administrators the additional authority that they need to solve complex disputes. Sometimes when stepping into a dispute, I've been challenged by the editors there, "What gives you the right to impose a revert restriction? That's not the wiki-way," and then I point them at the discretionary sanctions. With authority asserted, often the article can be stabilized without imposing any sanctions at all -- it's simply the implied threat of sanctions which causes the editors to climb out of their rut, and work harder to solve their own problems. --Elonka 04:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Agreed. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
3. Thatcher 12:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
4. Agreed. I have not read "elsewhere" however, so I am not endorsing the depth of that statement here. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

View by Tznkai #2

Related to the above, but broken into a separate section to allow others to endorse specific parts if they wish.

WP:AE has been somewhat effective at containing disputes. It has not been good at solving them, so its important to remember: the primary work of Arbitration Enforcement isn't Dispute Resolution, but dispute management. Within that context, certain things work extremely well: Discretionary sanctions and a dedicated admin corps can contain disputes, usually moving the drama generation away from SPI, AN, ANI, WQA and the articles themselves. Problematic editors are constrained by topic bans from the articles where they are the most disruptive, and behavior is often kept checked - but seldom if ever improves. Essentially, AE keeps warriors from disrupting many articles and tying up extra adminstration hours - at the cost of a few articles becoming battlegrounds and the sanity of the small handful of AE admins.

Users who endorse this summary

1. GRBerry 03:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC) - however, I don't think it does it very well, which I [think?] is the point being made.
3. Regrettably, agreed. I would not be so regretful if something existed would act as Dispute Resolution, but this may not be possible (or by some principles, desired) on Wikipedia, per WP:CCC or something. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
4. Very good points. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
5. Agree. BigDunc^Talk 15:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

View by Tznkai #3

Related to the above, but broken into a separate section to allow others to endorse specific parts if they wish.

Discussions on WP:AE have occasionally developed new creative enforcement techniques. This includes a universal 1RR on troubles articles and a planned special sanction on Naked Short Selling. It should be noted that these remedies are usually born out of admin frustration and are actually outside of AE's mandate. Procedurally, there isn't actually a lot that allows these sanctions to happen except the consensus of those who show up. AE's few admin readers (in contrast to ANI) and the failure of enforcement to contain or solve a situation sometimes leads to brilliant insights. Its a very dysfunctional upside, but its sort of an upside.

Users who endorse this summary

1. True, but this is adequately dysfunctional that it really doesn't belong listed in the things that are "working well". GRBerry 03:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
2. I expect that some will object to "new creative enforcement techniques". I'm all for it. At least one ArbCom member has suggested they refrain from certain sanctions because they are outside of AE's mandate; unless someone has a better idea, I would favor loosening the leash by expanding ArbCom's powers in some (of course carefully considered) ways, including the "creative" sanctions toward which they seem to be already heading. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

View by Telaviv1 (talk) 16:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I edit Israeli related topics and we get a lot of complaints or disputes. I take the view that an article on "Israel" should show empathy to Israel while maintaining adherence to neutrality reliability and truth. An article on Palestine should show empathy to Palestine etc. some articles are no-mans land but in my expereince they are usually fringe issues. This might be described as a post-modern view of the conflict.

1. I suggest keeping a record of disputes leading to intervention thus allowing admins to monitor the history and keep statistics.
2. National pages can't be used for propaganda but some protection from extreme POV editing by "national rivals" would help
3. article and topic bans are necessary. In our corner of the woods we feel strongly about many things and sometimes take offence and lose our cool.

Telaviv1 (talk) 16:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

View by LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs)

AE is the process by which the decisions reached after an ArbCom Request, and following involvement by all interested parties - involved or not, are enforced when they are violated, and can therefore be regarded as the enactment of the communities will. AE should then be the instrument of ultimate (to borrow Tznkai's phrase) dispute management, and remarkably often is. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

1. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Statements about what does not work well in the current arbitration enforcement process

Views detailing what you specifically feel fails, works poorly, and/or is to the detriment of the community under the current status quo.

View by User:SirFozzie

We need more administrators who don't mind getting knee deep in the muck, so to speak, to patrol AE and to assist the admins who bring a number of the cases at AE.

Users who endorse this summary

1. I was going to say that more sitting or former arbitrators need to be willing to jump in and hand out blocks in response to reports to the enforcement noticeboard. Cla68 (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Yes. You don't have to stick around forever, just long enough.--Tznkai (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
3. Yes, with the caveat that we need more administrators with a track record of discretion, good judgment, and community confidence on the board. It's the most demanding area on Wikipedia for an admin, period. The model AE admins were people like Thatcher and GRBerry, both now presumably burnt out. OK, SirFozzie too :) The combination of wide discretionary powers, poor judgment, and lack of self-awareness is a recipe for disaster - the board needs more admins, but it also needs the right sort of admins. MastCell ^Talk 00:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
4. Per Mastcell. Admins should ideally have the confidence, or at least the respect, of both sides in a dispute. PhilKnight (talk) 00:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
5. This is true, but I don't think this is a solution that can be imposed. Perhaps there is a way to empower those admins with a "track record of discretion, good judgment, and community confidence" so that they aren't burned out by the stress? I'd be interested in proposals that explored how the committee or the community could select administrators with good judgment to temporarily give them a wider array of discretion, without causing the problems that sometimes arise with self-selected administrators enforcing discretionary sanction remedies. Avruch ^T 02:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
6. Agree, looking at it from this end. Also having more that are familiar with a particular page means more discussion for borderline situations. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
7. Moreschi (talk) 13:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
8. With the caveat that the only admins needed are those that are percieved as fair-dealers by both sides of the conflict. Hipocrite (talk) 13:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
9. Obviously. rootology (C)(T) 14:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
10. I agree. And we need to be more supportive of those who are prepared to do so. "Show the door to vandals, trolls and those who would waste your time", isn't it? People who are here only to fight external battles should be restricted firmly and early, however polite they may be. Guy (Help!) 17:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
11. We certainly need more involved admins. More good ones would be excellent, but even mediocre efforts would be helpful. I think Hipocrite's dream of having only admins that are perceived as fair dealers is unattainable. Some of the warriors appear to consciously have adopted a tactic of painting anyone that sanctions them as biased. Even when they are wrong, such efforts by partisans will eliminate the perception of fair dealing. GRBerry 18:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
12. --Folantin (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
13. Endorse - Admins! What are they good for? ... - Shot info 00:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
14. Agree per addition by User:MastCell --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
15. Strongly agree. There is more work than there are admins to handle it. --Elonka 21:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
16. Without doubt. The more help the better. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
17. Yes and second GRBerry's comments as well - we need to get away from a culture that allows these warriors to continue throwing claims of "bias" until something sticks. Shell ^babelfish 00:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
18. agree, per Guy and Avruch above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
19. I try to help with this where I can, but I can only do behind the scenes stuff, mediate, try to calm people down, etc, because I lack sysop status at en. Tensions are high because of the small pool and people can easily be singled out. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
20. Agree, depending on definition of "knee deep" and "muck" (so quite possibly I disagree) Xavexgoem (talk) 04:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
21. Per MastCell and Xavexgoem. But in any case, if it's a problem of having few admins that are willing to trudge into these waters, perhaps participants at RFA need to look at users who have a record for going into disputes, and would continue to exert such willingness - pure content contributions are not enough. Opposing candidates due to a few controversies may be the very reason we're in this predicament today. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
22. Although endorsing this statement is like saying starving people need more food. Thatcher 13:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
23. I support more food for starving people, and this. Dlabtot (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
24. Endorse per MastCell. The more involved admins there are, the easier it is to bring in a neutral admin. arimareiji (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
25. Of course. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
26. Many adminships are handed out for being good at editing articles, but we sorely need more admins that are willing to get properly stuck in and enforce policies consistently. --HighKing (talk) 15:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
27. We do. Read here why we don't have them. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
28. Strongly Endorse EBY (talk) 02:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
29. Endorse Per MastCell...we need more administrators with a track record of discretion, good judgment, and community confidence. W/a good History Book (of the articles topic) and Dale Carnigie's "How to Influence People' in their backpocket--Buster7 (talk) 05:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
30. Endorse The "willing to wade in" is as important as the "more admins" part imo. We need admins that will spend time looking at the dispute in more than cursory detail, and apply sanctions where needed, not to all editors involved. This takes dedication and undertanding of policy and a willingness to enforce all policies (not just 3RR or civil)Yobmod (talk) 08:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
31. Endorse: more participants would help, especially neutral, disinterested, and experienced participants. Randomran (talk) 20:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
32. This is true. MBisanz ^talk 12:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
33. Endorse - more admins, along with current and former arbitrators, helping with arbitration enforcement would be good. That said, admins who step in with arbitration enforcement are put at risk of harassment and thus arbitration enforcement duties are not for everyone. --Aude (talk) 01:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

View by Durova

Discretionary sanctions are seldom effective at large disputes. Call it clubbing: people with similar views stand up for each other. And whether or not they mean well the thread soon gets so tangled that it drives away newcomers. Few venture there except those already active. Wikipedia should be a collaborative environment, not gang warfare.

Users who endorse this summary

1. Durova^Charge! 01:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Poor Durova. This is a really good point. I don't agree with the -seldom- part, because I believe that people can persevere past the group mentality. How long do they last? Well, that's another story. Note - I don't know if the club mentality causes the problem, or the problem causes the club mentality. It does seem like the current system promotes the club mentality as a way to protect yourself, as individuals are easily squashed. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
3. --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
4. Thought this was given. Apparently not...? Xavexgoem (talk) 04:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
5. I agree. There are times in the past when editors have shown poor editing practices. Yet, because others agree with their view points, their negative actions are overlooked and the group circles the wagons around them blocking any reasonable discussion or objections. Brothejr (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
6. Just describing human nature, really. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 02:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
7. Indeed. Seems to almost be a given. In the I/P area, unless the grievance is incontestable, the wiki-savvy group (wikilawyering etc) wins out at the expense of NPOV from sheer clubbing not force of argument. Tundrabuggy (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
8. Yeah - I think this shows that more in-depth solutions are required --Scott Free (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
9. Endorse: There is definitely a problem with factionalism at AE discussions. Although I think ArbCom should have some discretion with the sanctions, it is not always clear why a sanction (or no sanction at all) is applied. Even when I agree with ArbCom, I think there is a real vacuum left in their justification. This makes it really hard to predict how ArbCom will react, and thus makes these cases seem arbitrary to people who disagree with them. Randomran (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
10. Contrary to Ottava Rima, I believe many editors will not "persevere past the group mentality", but instead will dig trenches. And increasingly it seems Admin decisions are deferring to "weight", at the expense of NPOV and other core policy—I don't know if this reflects on the quality of a few Admins, or if it is an agreed-upon change in practice. I have not seen ArbCom give in this way, and I doubt it happens much. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

View by Shoemaker's Holiday

One problem with Arbcom enforcement is that it often isn't enforced. Take Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist. Martinphi was put under an editing restriction, "Should they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, they may be banned from any affected page or set of pages."

He was banned from exactly one page in the entire year. Every other time he got an undocumented second chance, even when he admitted that he was editing a policy page in an attempt to make it easier to get ScienceApologist blocked under his civility restriction.[2]. Later, he began reworking NPOV, and I pointed out that someone under a restriction for POV-pushing really shouldn't be the one doing that. His response? He went over to WP:ANI, launched a scathing attack, claimed that "soapboxing" in the Arbcom's finding of fact did not mean the same thing as POV-pushing, and outed me (now oversighted but there's enough left in that I'm not going to link. I'll provide some diffs about the situation to the Arbcom on request. (I could, of course, be wrong about the outing - it's oversighted after all - but I do remember seeing my real name there, and he was banned for repeated outing on his talk page, including me, after an incident where he repeatedly restored outing of Scienceapologist to a wiki-link from his User page.)) He was warned, but nothing further happened. No matter what he did, noone, save that single time by Vassyana, was willing to do anything about it, deciding that, since he hadn't been restricted before, that it was a one-off event. This probably directly led to him becoming bolder and bolder at pushing boundaries, until there was no choice but the recent ban.

The lack of enforcement made the remedy against him essentially meaningless. Arbitration enforcement lacks archive searches, so anything put there is essentially lost, so if a second chance is given, then the problem user's deeds get dropped in the memory hole. One almost wonders if there shouldn't be an expidited Arbcom process for applying enforcement, instead of admins, because at least then everything would be documented, and the Arbcom would know of it.

Users who endorse this summary

1. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Sadly very true in some areas, especially pseudoscience. PhilKnight (talk) 14:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
3. Endorse - Shot info (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
4. Karanacs (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
5. Endorse.--CrohnieGal^Talk 15:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
6. Yes, enforcement is sometimes very difficult, especially in cases where an administrator's actions have been undermined or where there are editors that are quick to file a noticeboard thread on every action by an administrator. So even if an administrator makes 9 out of 10 good calls, if there's even a single overturn, that gets trotted out forever in future efforts to enforce sanctions. Arbitration enforcement is a thankless job, and the admins who try to implement it often take a lot of abuse. --Elonka 21:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
7. Endorse - Would it be possible to keep tabs in the block log on the type of sub-actionable behavior Shoemaker describes, i.e. "XYZ action reviewed by ABC admin with this result (or non-result)"? There would also need to be clear permission for other admins to comment on or remove these entries, though, or it opens the door for the few admins who are abusive to tar anyone they disagree with. arimareiji (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
8. Endorse archive searches being available. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
9. Endorse with the recommendation that admins be given more, narrower guidelines for resolving/sanctioning abuse of articles. For instance, dedicated editors with a long record of substantive disagreements may confound non-expert admins. In such cases, the admin should be encouraged to review the disputing editors' past behavior in edits & on talk pages of related articles as considerations when trying to decide who & how much to sanction. Lethiere (talk) 01:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
10. Endorse Orderinchaos 19:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
11. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
12. Endorse - Arbcom can make the greatest decision ever, but if no one follows it, it's pointless. --Scott Free (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
13. Endorse View by Shoemaker's Holiday and endorse Lethiere's suggestion in this section. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

View by MBisanz

Arbitration enforcement is a bit like the sheriff of an old west town coming into the bar and throwing some loaded handguns on the table. Sometimes a wise person gets the gun first and enforces justice. Other times a cowboy gets the guns and causes more trouble than initially existed. The problem for Arbcom is that it never knows which of the 1,600+ admins will decide to help out in a particular sanctions area. Also, because the sanctions areas are widespread through the wiki, it is difficult for the community to identify problematic enforcement of the sanctions, as is possible with the centralized RFAR pages. Some better method of enforcement of sanctions, outside of the rarely used (compared to all the sanctions being enforced) WP:AE page needs to be found.

Users who endorse this summary

1. MBisanz ^talk 13:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Hipocrite (talk) 13:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
3. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
4. PhilKnight (talk) 14:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
5. Yeah, basically. MastCell ^Talk 18:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
6. Let me put on my boots, pardner. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 21:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
7. Karanacs (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
8. --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
9. Wikipedia is huge.--Tznkai (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
10. Brothejr (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
11. llywrch (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
12. Davewild (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
13. Orderinchaos 19:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
14. The random admin lottery problem. Who will be the first to review the case and set the tone? Maybe we should only have a certified AE subcaste of admins allowed to close them? Like arbcom clerks? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
15. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
16. Perhaps admins should "serve 6-month terms" in desiganted topic areas. They can devote 50%+ of their admin-time (as understood by people in good faith) for the duration of the term to assisting in that topic area. At the end, the admin can receive a short "service card" which would describe whether he/she was useful or not. If at the end of the term they would behave like Cinncinatus, it might be helpful if they receive a degree of card blanche. Dc76\^talk 19:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
17. Endorse --Scott Free (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
18. Endorse: a little less haste would probably help, and a little more discussion/investigation. Randomran (talk) 21:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
19. Endorse: to paraphrase the Washington Post: "Wikipedia's [Arbitration_enforcement] resembles U.S. immigration policy before 9/11: stringent rules, spotty enforcement." (actually discussing another issue on wikipedia) Ikip (talk) 11:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

View by User:Hipocrite

If an admin is viewed by reasonable parties to be more than slightly involved or biased, they should not be implementing sanctions, regardless of their own personal views of their level of involvement or bias.

Users who endorse this summary

1. Hipocrite (talk) 13:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
2. PhilKnight (talk) 14:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
3. Our system of self-selecting recusal in general, from top-down to adminship to RFAR, is a bad idea, as there is no stake or claim for not doing the right thing as in other situations "in the real world" (ethics boards, legal implications, jail time, etc., to keep people hopefully constantly honest). rootology (C)(T) 14:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
4. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
5. RP459 (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
6. Definitely. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 21:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
7. Endorse - Shot info (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
8. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
9. Strongly endorse.--CrohnieGal^Talk 15:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
10. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
11. Endorse in theory but something inside me says implementing this may cause more problems than it solves. All it will take is a few people or undetected sock/meatpuppets bent on admin/forum-shopping to say "I think so is too involved" and he'll be forced to recuse. It's worth a try though. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
12. Endorse in theory, as well. DR-heavy admins will often be more-or-less "involved" in any major dispute -- we've all said Troubles, IP, EE, etc, and many of us have used the tools there -- that it's likely that any admin action seen as "bad" by an editor is likely to make the admin "too involved", causing yet more drama. If that made sense... Xavexgoem (talk) 04:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
13. Semi Endorse If there is a clear evidence that the admin is involved, then yes. However, all too often there is not a clear understanding of what "involved" is and so we continually hear accusations of admins being too involved when there is no clear evidence of it. Brothejr (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
14. Support. When longtime editors on one side of a POV conflict repeatedly claim that an admin is one-sided, s/he should not consider themselves uninvolved.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
15. Of course. Dekimasuよ! 02:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
16. Absolutely Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
17. Support Michael H 34 (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34
18. Support - If the topic is "Applications of vector calculus in civil engineering," "16th-century emperors in Southeast Asia," or somesuch, admins have a reasonable claim to having the necessary expertise to understand the topic. This would mean that it's unlikely another admin could easily step in for them. However, this claim is often used when the topic is one that is easily-comprehensible to laymen, but extremely contentious. In those cases the issues are more likely those of ownership and/or strong POV. arimareiji (talk) 18:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
19. Support - definitely. WP:AE is a very touchy issue and it doesn't help that involved administrators masquerade as uninvolved ones and make unfair decisions which are later difficult to override. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
20. A good Rule of Thumb, though reasonable parties is a crucial phrase and truth is not social. I've seen cases in the past where an uninvolved admin entered and warned a disruptive user; the disruptive insults the admin, continues disrupting, and gets blocked. Then the admin is accused of abusing his/her power. No. This admin is not involved. And if the only folk to turn up at the AN/I review in the first 15 mins are this admin, one other, and 5 of the disruptive user's tendentious friends (one of whom opened it), this should have no impact on the admin's future career in the user's topic area. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
21. Strong support based on personal bitter experience. Mukadderat (talk) 18:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
22. Yes but of course "reasonable parties" is the difficult point. Davewild (talk) 22:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
23. Like judges in court trials, admins should feel confident to recuse themselves when their actions and opinions are disputed by a number of individuals, regardless of the topic or of the admin's position on it. Truthanado (talk) 16:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
24. YES!!! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
25. The problem is that the way things are, that's all of them who are willing to get involved. Grace Note (talk) 07:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
26. Strongly endorse Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
27. Ditto - I Strongly endorse! EBY (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
28. Endorse I don't think it's that hard to find another admin to step in - sure, an editor could be crying wolf, but that would get old real quick --Scott Free (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
29. Endorse, although the key word is "reasonable" editors. Randomran (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
30. Endorse. Karanacs (talk) 20:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
31. Yes, true. MBisanz ^talk 12:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
32. Why would a "reasonable person" be subject to AE in the first place? Perhaps the ideal AE admin would be one distrusted equally by the parties? LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
33. Strong endorse See the blatant case of User:Raul654 an involved editor, in this arbitration enforcement case: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/September_11_conspiracy_theories#Statement_by_User:Inclusionist Ikip (talk) 11:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

View by MastCell

Not all "discretionary" topics are created equal, and admins at WP:AE sometimes fail to recognize this. For instance, in a nationalistic dispute like WP:ARBMAC, it is reasonable to think that Wikipedia should be genuinely "neutral" and not favor the claims of any particular Balkan group. On the other hand, in areas of fringe/pseudoscience, WP:WEIGHT explicitly dictates that positions supported by experts in the field deserve greater representation than those of minoritarian or fringe groups. One size does not fit all, and problems occur when techniques useful in ethnic/nationalistic disputes are imported into areas with different ground rules and content mandates. MastCell ^Talk 20:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary

1. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Hipocrite (talk) 20:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
3. Xasodfuih (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
4. You mean we can't Balkanise all of our articles?  ;) •Jim62sch•^dissera! 21:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
5. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
6. Woonpton (talk) 05:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
7. Karanacs (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
8. Yup. Although even with, say, WP:ARBMAC, it is semi-official policy to enforce the "consensus" of WP:MOSMAC, a page our Greek nationalists take far more issue with than our Macedonian ones do. Plus, nationalism and fringe science overlap with remarkable frequency: see User:Dbachmann/Wikipedia and nationalism/Hindutva and pseudoscience. MastCell's point is more valid than perhaps even he knows...Moreschi (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

   Yup, sometimes it's tough keeping up with just how right I am... :) MastCell ^Talk 22:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

9. Wise words. As always, I'd add in WP:NPOV/FAQ which is explicit that not all views should be given "equal validity". . dave souza, talk 23:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
10. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
11. Strongly endorse.--CrohnieGal^Talk 15:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
12. Mathsci (talk) 04:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
13. Strong endorsement, except: my view is that "problems can/may/sometimes occur when techniques useful in ethnic/nationalistic disputes are imported into areas with different ground rules and content mandates." The current wording which doesn't include any italicised word, imo, implies that problems will (always) occur by default - but I'm uncertain if that effect was deliberate. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
14. Strong endorsement Verbal chat 10:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
15. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
16. Endorse WP:VALID is policy. - Eldereft (cont.) 01:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
17. Endorse One size does not fit all. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
18. Endorse davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
19. Agreed that different topic areas require different enforcement techniques, though I wouldn't limit it to just nationalism v. science. Another factor has to do with the "wiki savvy" of the participants in a dispute. If they've never been to ArbCom before, it is usually much easier for an administrator to impose discretionary sanctions, because the administrator is acting in more of a mentoring role, instructing the editors about how Wikipedia:Dispute resolution works, and helping to get disputes back under control. For example, the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren case applies to all of Eastern Europe, so an admin may deal easily with an EE dispute with editors that never heard of Digwuren or ArbCom in their lives. However, in areas where the participants have been to ArbCom before, the administrator's job sometimes becomes much more difficult, because the disputants are more experienced wikilawyers who may strongly resist any administrator intervention unless they're confident that the administrator is "on their side". This could occur in any type of topic area, though I've personally seen it most often in Israel/Palestine, Armenia/Azerbaijan, and Pseudoscience areas. --Elonka 17:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
20. Brothejr (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
21. Amen! --Ramdrake (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
22. Endorse Cardamon (talk) 09:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
23. Makes excellent sense. Tundrabuggy (talk) 22:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
24. Definitely. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
25. Endorse One should read the article and be familiar with the case --Scott Free (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
26. Endorse. Mike Christie (talk) 01:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
27. Endorse. KeynesJohnMaynard 00:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
28. I'm not quite sure how to solve this, but yes, I agree nationalist disputes and mainstream/fringe science disputes seem to follow different dynamics and may require different treatment. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
29. Strongly endorse. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
30. Endorse --Aude (talk) 02:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

View by GRBerry #2

I'm largely quoting, with an omissions, and then elaborating a statement that Tznkai made on my talk page last month.

"An arbitration enforcer is a thankless incredibly difficult job to begin with - ... Its a hard job to do right, and you do it wrong, and you get blasted for it, you do it right, you get blasted for it - sometimes even worse. That kind of pressure selects very stubborn admins - which leads to its own problems. You need to have the magical triumvirate of stubbornness, adaptability, and measured responsiveness to criticism. What admin has that all the time, let alone at all? Most people (rightfully) wimp out of the difficult problems, and the ones left often become problems in their own right. --Tznkai (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)"

To do the job well, the admin has to be able to, and reliably actually do the work to, look beyond the surface complaints presented, review the history across multiple editors activity on multiple pages, and reach a reasonable opinion about how to address what is often a complex and long standing pattern of behavior. Sockpuppetry is often an issue, so they need to be able to spot it and deal with it, even in cases where the editors have previously been caught in sockpuppetry so have learned rudimentary skills for evading detection. Meatpuppetry is also occasionally an issue. They should be or develop familiarity with the topic area, which sources for it are reliable, and which are partisan or otherwise unreliable. And they often need to be able to boil all this down to one paragraph sound bites for review by a peanut gallery in which partisans will likely be the loudest commentators, while also having a reasonable discussion with other admins who have a different take on the problem(s) and/or a different proposed solution. In all of these skills the level of competence that is called for is above that possesed by the average admin. In addition to the skills, an admin has to be uninvolved in the topic of dispute. Those who are uninvolved often do get blasted as involved simply because they are doing arbitration enforcement in the area.

Ultimately, the skills needed are rarely all possessed by a single individual to the desired level, so every volunteer compromises. For example, my sockpuppetry identification skills would have been best described as nearly non-existent; I'd only catch the most blatant and obvious cases. In short, the community as a whole has made the job too demanding for the average admin to perform it at all, and too unrewarding to keep most of the admins able to perform it competently interested in performing it for long. GRBerry 06:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary

1. Yes. Moreschi (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
2. It feels narcissistic to endorse something quoting myself, but it would be silly not to own up to those statements. That and GRBerry is making excellent points.--Tznkai (talk) 02:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
3. --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
4. GRBerry (and Tznkai) have nailed it. Excellent summary. --Elonka 21:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
5. Well stated! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
6. Qualified endorse, especially the statement That kind of pressure selects very stubborn admins - which leads to its own problems, and even more especially the last sentence. The whole concept of discretionary sanctions is an ill-posed problem. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
7. Incisive. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
8. Davewild (talk) 22:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
9. I think that this is quite true. EBY (talk) 02:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
10. On Point!--Buster7 (talk) 05:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
11. Endorse --Aude (talk) 02:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

View by GRBerry #3

Discretionary sanctions have not yet yielded results from tested creative (i.e. non-standard) sanctions other than topic bans, article bans, and 1RR limits that are worth replicating on a wider scale. Nor have many even been tried. GRBerry 17:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary

1. If I understand this correctly, I add the caveat "yet." I'm holding out hope for the sandbox solution devised for naked short selling, but that is untested.--Tznkai (talk) 03:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC) Agreed and added. GRBerry 21:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

View by Thatcher, part 1

Arbitration enforcement is difficult and the editors who post there are, by definition, the most difficult editors to work with. Arbitrators should not undermine [3] [4] admins who volunteer for this difficult task unless they have found specific errors in judgement. Thatcher 19:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary

1. Question: Do you (Thatcher) intend your comment in general terms or also regarding the specific case? Regarding the general term I support; regarding the specific case I would need to know more. Crystal whacker (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

   Question answered. I support the specific instance too. Crystal whacker (talk) 00:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

   I mean generally, but using the specific case as a timely example. I suspect there are more, if I looked for them. Thatcher 03:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

2. Agree on general principle - decline to opine on any specific incidents.--Tznkai (talk) 02:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
3. Strongly endorse. Arbitration enforcement is already difficult enough without being undermined by arbitrators. The members of the Committee need to understand that the editors who are the targets of sanctions are of course going to complain, and that often they are going to make flat out false charges of bias at the administrators, but it doesn't mean that the charges are true. When an arbitrator accepts these no-evidence charges at face value, and says anything at all negative about the administrator, it can undermine that admin's efforts in multiple ways: Short-term undermining since the admin is probably working in many different topic areas, not just one; Long-term undermining, because the arbitrator's expression of concern is going to be diffed multiple times into the future even if the arbitrator posts a retraction; and lastly, it is extremely demoralizing to the administrator. If an admin doesn't have the backing of the arbitrators, why bother taking on the tough cases at all? Do we really have that many administrators in arbitration enforcement, that we can afford to treat any of them with suspicion and negativity? They already get enough of that from the editors under sanctions, they don't need it from the arbitrators as well. --Elonka 21:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
4. Constructive criticism is helpful, but must be specific if it is to be constructive, and often is better posted away from the current stage for drama. GRBerry 21:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
5. Certainly. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
6. Endorse --Scott Free (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
7. Endorse in principle, without comment on the two linked situations (which I have not research sufficiently to understand). / edg ☺ ☭ 12:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
8. Endorse --Aude (talk) 01:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

View by Thatcher, part 2

Discretionary sanctions have the effect of shifting the burden of managing Wikipedia's most difficult editors off the shoulders of the 15 (or 18) people who were actually elected to do the job and onto the backs of self-appointed volunteer enforcers, sometimes as few as one at any given time. The admins who patrol WP:AE are generally not power-trippers and make good faith attempts to process complaints fairly and knowledgeably, but there is no assurance things will stay that way. I think there are two main problems with discretionary sanctions as presently handled.

1. Used as a cop-out when blocks and bans would be more appropriate. Perhaps "cop-out" is too strong a word. But I get the feeling that discretionary sanctions are sometimes used when a case is large, complex, or has so many parties that Arbcom finds it too challenging to evaluate the behavior of individual editors. Discretionary sanctions are useful to help patrol troubled articles that attract edit warriors. But some of these edit warriors are unredeemable and should probably be topic or site banned by Arbcom rather than leaving the mess for admins to figure out.

2. Admins are too lenient. I have been guilty of this as well, handing out 1RR per week or page bans of only a few days duration. These editors are at WP:AE because Arbcom has already ruled that their behavior is so far outside the expected norms that strong measures are necessary. I have seen WP:AE reports that are longer than the articles the parties are fighting over. The reports need to be long enough so that admins can understand and evaluate the evidence, evaluate mitigating circumstances such as claims of baiting, etc.; then close it down and do something decisive. Thatcher 11:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary

1. I think some editors get many more chances than their behavior warrants. Karanacs (talk) 14:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
2. MastCell ^Talk 19:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
3. GRBerry 20:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC) One change I'd like to see try is to have the committee pass the discretionary sanctions as an injunction early in a complex case, then really spend time digging into individual behavior. At the end of the case, they have addressed the individuals that are party and will also have a good idea whether the discretionary sanctions will be needed even with those individuals addressed. (In places where an ongoing influx of new editors with the same biases or sockpuppets is expected, ongoing discretionary sanctions will likely be appropriate.) I also feel I've been excessively lenient in some cases. The longer an editor has had a pattern of problematic behavior in an area, the less likely a small sanction is to actually make a difference. GRBerry 20:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
4. Regarding item 1, this has occasionally been the case, possibly because of limits on time. Editors can help by proposing realistic sanctions on the workshop page. The problem outlined in item 2 often relates to vested contributors being cut too much slack. PhilKnight (talk) 01:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
5. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
6. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
7. This is first time I realized self-appointed volunteers were the ones doing the enforcement, which may make people assume they are more biased and increase complaints. And I've definitely seen an extremely biased admin or two. Perhaps the solution should be making it easier to recall admins in general, no matter how many buddies they have. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
8. MBisanz ^talk 12:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
9. Agree to all the above, along with public hangings and pointing at genitalia, with discretion and good judgment. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
10. Endorse --Aude (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

View #1 by Elonka

One of the problems with arbitration enforcement is frivolous complaints and attacks against the enforcing administrators. Some sanctioned editors become very efficient in forming tag teams or factions to challenge any administrative action, to try and intimidate away unfriendly administrators. So anything an admin does in the "team's" topic area, may be immediately challenged with repeated admin board threads and ArbCom motions, where multiple members of the faction come in to the related threads to complain about the administrator's bias/POV/instability/incompetence etc. It can be exhausting to an administrator to know that for every simple block or ban they implement, even for something as clearcut as a 3RR block in the topic area, they may then have to deal with several days (or weeks) of attacks and discussion board threads, even if the admin's actions are ultimately upheld. Having some oversight of administrative actions is of course necessary, but something also needs to be done to rein in the time-wasting "insta-challenges" to everything an admin does. --Elonka 17:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary

1. Agree this is a problem in general; no conclusion about any particular case. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Agree on tag teaming problem, as I wrote above, it's discouraged me from using AE, and now find out Admins have to worry about it too! Maybe wikiscanner needs an automated program to pick up tag teaming; one of those "networking" programs that can track inter-relationships. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
3. Clearly comes from experience, and I've seen it. Endorse. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
4. Not an administrator, but I have seen this happen and it was exhausting just to watch! let alone being an admin and having to go through this. There should be a rule that prevents these kinds of retaliatory attacks, even while protecting the editor's right to an appeal. Tundrabuggy (talk) 22:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
5. Yes. The end result: admins afraid to act against certain editors who become close to untouchable.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
6. Agree. It's really pretty obvious when it happens, and patterns are not difficult to discern here if one is technically proficient in Wikipedia history pages. Retaliation against an admin doing their job should be treated as a serious offense against the community, like assaulting a police officer or a judge. They are not literally identical but are quite analogous. Tag teaming compounds the offense (this is not WWF!, or at least should not be). Charges can be brought against an admin if necessary, but retaliation by a group is organized harrassment. U.S. courts deal harshly with frivolous cases brought just for harrassment purposes. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 21:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

View #4 by Tznkai

Arbitration enforcement generally resolves around entrenched disputes. These are disputes that have gone to ArbCom, generally after multiple admin intervention failures, RfCs, mediation, and other processes. In short, entrenched disputes cannot be solved by normal means. If they could, they would've been already. The tools given to AE admins are essentially beefier versions of normal means - thus leading (predictably) to failure in most cases. Sockpuppetry, tendentiousness, and mistrust are common - all of which makes AE disputes depressingly similar to real world entrenched conflicts such Taiwan/China, The Troubles, the Balkans, the Science Wars, and the Arab-Israeli question - just with lower stakes and no one dying.

Users who endorse this summary

1. Strongly agree. Very nicely worded :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 04:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

View #5 by Tznkai

I've already been quoted by GRBerry concerning admin selection pressures, so I'll just expand on admin burnout. A fundamental part of the wiki process, and probably the human brain, is feedback. Feedback can be positive (barnstars) negative (you suck!) and constructive (this works, this doesn't. In AE you usually only get negative feedback, sometimes you get positive feedback from people you don't want to (as one side of editor warriors rejoices when you sanction their opponents) and you get virtually no constructive feedback. In addition to that, there is inherently very little pay off. When an admin manages a dispute on a typical article, helps correct behavior and forge consensus, that admin can feel proud. They have helped improve the article. Something got done - two sides at loggerheads are working together, and content will spring forth as a result. That sort of success brings elation. This does not happen at AE - or if it does, it does so very rarely, and the victories are short lived. Answering AE problems has very little pay off, and as a result is incredibly exhausting. Oh - and you're usually going it alone.

No person can withstand that for long - at least not without some serious damage to judgment. Our best admins get used up - and the admin's stubbornness that allows success in the first place is also dangerous in its own right: admins who are trying hard in good faith often end up creating drama and problems as they desperately try to solve unsolvable situations essentially (psychologically) cut off from any useful feedback mechanism.

Users who endorse this summary

1. Endorsing the first part of this view, which is perfect. I completely disagree with the second paragraph (see also my request for data on the talkpage). I keep hearing about burned out admins, but is it really arb enforcement that's causing it? --Elonka 03:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Even when multiple admins are active at WP:AE, we often specialize. My first inclination on seeing yet another nationalist "report" was to leave it alone, my second was to look at the case, see who has been handling it most, and go ping them. And constructive criticism among the board regulars takes place away from the board - and should because of Tznkai's sixth view. (And yes, Elonka, participating at WP:AE had a lot to do with my burn out.) GRBerry 03:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
3. Endorse out of sympathy (and truth) - I like mediating just for that feeling of getting something done. That AE is almost universally regarded as a pit of despair for the DR community means there is practically no incentive. Yikes. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
4. Endorse vaguely, though not every entire wording. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

View #6 by Tznkai

The primary participants of the Arbitration Enforcement board are warriors, edit or POV, or uncivil jackasses, take your pick, the people doing the complaints are usually part of the problem. Often, the complaints become part of the problem. Problematic editors try to arbitration enforcement - which lessens the ability of the responding admin to get a clear picture of the dispute, drives away uninvolved editors and other admins from adding in, turns AE into a battleground, and finally and most importantly eliminates the deterance value of Arbitration remedies. Instead problematic editors simply sling accusations back and forth until they all get sanctioned. Who loses? Admins, editors, and the reader (cause the articles go to hell or stagnate as a result).

Users who endorse this summary

1. GRBerry 03:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
2. All the views expressed so far can only lead to this result. Not good. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
3. Certainly agree with the part about "the people doing the complaints are usually part of the problem." People who know how to us the system can use their knowledge to "get" users that they are uncomfortable with. Very much like "office politics," those in the know can damage other workers for personal political gain. A truly neutral admin may give a cursory look at a complaint and assume the complainant (and his correspondent compadres) is correct. A ban under these circumstances can tilt the article, and encourages this method of dispute resolution. Admins should get involved in the talk page occasionally, and help guide, not just hand out bans when a complaint shows up at the board. Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
4. Sounds plausible. Here is my own analysis of a process I call "Model of mass radicalization and conflict generation". Perhaps it may be useful to combine both? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Encapsulating view by Tznkai

To start with, I'd like to call attention to this gem from GRBerry on the failures of AE which will help put my comments here into context: arbitration enforcement is a critically flawed paradigm that does not work. Arbitration enforcement passes the buck on difficult disputes to an increasingly shrinking pool of admins who usually come out damaged or useless. AE consumes our best admins, and makes some of our admins into serious problems in their own right. Even if AE was flooded with a large number of high quality admins to mitigate burnout and low participation problems, AE would still be the equivalent of treading water. Nothing is being solved because you can't solve entrenched disputes by detterence and simple solutions - if you could we would've done it already. Disputes end up at AE because of how difficult they are to solve. We need to think more creatively.

Users who endorse this summary

1. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Endorse I think part of the paradigm problem is that things are based on the usually false assumption that an arb decision will restore a normal editing environement to the article (and the assumption that there was one in the first place). --Scott Free (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
3. 'Endorse. Karanacs (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

View by ScienceApologist

One of the biggest problems of AE and other bureacracies surrounding arbitration is that they generally ignore core principles of WP:ENC because there is no system in place to distinguish between good content contributors and those who are either too ignorant, too ideological, or too obsessive to write good content, distinguish between good and bad sources, actively contribute to a collaborative editing environment, or make the mundane editorial decisions necessary when writing an encyclopedia article. Essentially, AE is a giant political game of trying to parse what behaviors of editors are in specific violation of particular incunabula created by the arbcom committee. The "diff" culture at Wikipedia means that a carefully crafted and annotated series of diff-evidence will get positive attention by administrators even if the evidence is cooked or the context is lost. Furthermore, the net effect of a user's presence is completely ignored since the entire endeavor is so ridiculously piddling. Did he swear in the edit summary? Is it okay to block her even though she refactored? Is he forum shopping? Does her activity constitue edit warring if she only reverts once a day? These discussions are stupid: they don't resolve anything because they don't take into account the basic fact that everyone is skirting around: content. Every single dispute at Wikipedia ultimately boils down to content -- and if it doesn't the disputants should be told to take their dispute elsewhere. But arbcom steadfastly refuses to rule on content (except when it igores all rules and does so anyway -- generally with disastrous results). However, just because arbcom doesn't rule on content doesn't mean that administrators must be so tied. Administrators who support decent content on Wikipedia are cowed by a culture of toleration for all users. It's a culture that is, frankly, in stark defiance to WP:ENC. Administrators are forced to treat all users as equals even in the face of evidence that some user is actively harming content.

There is no reason to tolerate users who are the most destructive to Wikipedia content, and the continual insistence that describing someone's actions as being detrimental to Wikipedia content are somehow uncivil or needlessly personal, let alone actively ban or block such users, has stymied progress in many different areas. Administrators who have shown the capability of distinguishing between good content contributors and those who shouldn't be editing a mainstream encyclopedia have told me in private that they feel disenfranchised to act. Editors who are destroying or preventing the creation of good content on Wikipedia are given a free pass as long as their other "behaviors" superficially seem okay (Civil POV-pushing) because there is no acknowledgement that such activity is harmful to the encyclopedia.

Users who endorse this summary

1. I agree that Civil POV-pushers often seem to have an advantage in these disputes, which is a VERY BAD THING. However, I think we do need to have some insistence that those who follow policy and create good content do so in a way that doesn't discourage other people who are willing to follow policy and create good content. Karanacs (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
2. I agree. The rules of engagement are important, but the content is more important. People whose behaviour is a net detriment to content should not have an advantage in disputes regardless of what the rules say. Mike Christie (talk) 13:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
3. Strongly endorse. All too often conflict resolution seems to worry too much about certain people being offended or trying to get people to agree and not on improving the encyclopedia. Some editors here -- often the ones most entrenched in conflict -- have no interest in improving the encyclopedia following our key principles, they just want to use this project to enforce their own agenda. Our number one priority should be improving the encyclopedia, period. If someone consistently adding biased info complains that someone wasn't civil to him, fine, that's not good, but let's keep it in perspective. Way too many people run around making whatever accusations they can come up with to try to get an editor in trouble as a way to game the system. I have had tons of people being rude to me, harassing me, and whatever, but going through the process of filing complaints (or having to respond to them) is not why I am here (to improve the encyclopedia), so I don't bother to get involved with most of that. That means the people here who care more about "winning" than working on an encyclopedia make the most complaints and throw the most accusations -- I've seen it with me and countless other cases. People need to step back and look at the bottom line: what's best for the encyclopedia, not what makes certain online friends happy, what "suts u" someone who says something they disagree with, and so forth. DreamGuy (talk) 14:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
4. Strongly endorse. How can the project function when careful examination of sources is systematically ignored? Or leads to administrative threats (cries of SOAP, BLP in particular)? PR^talk 15:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
5. Endorse. I don't think everyone ignores content, but it is correct that the situation is messed up. Admins enforce disciplinary and pro-numbers policies over quality-control and content policies, and truth is defined as a social rather than intellectual thing. That's so friggin messed up when you think about it. This is indeed supposed to be an encyclopedia. Wikipedia only gets by because some high-quality users have cobbled together in formalised wiki project cabals (counter-productive sometimes) or otherwise have become experienced and bold enough to forcibly reduce the impact of mediocre editors and the social groups they form. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
6. Endorse with the recommendation that admins be given more, narrower guidelines for resolving/sanctioning abuse of articles. Although this is an excellent description of the problem, it does not offer solutions which can be upheld upon review, because it encourages unilateral action. I agree that willingness to grapple with content is central, but the admin who does so needs the cover of clear, specific rules for supporting one side over another. For instance, dedicated editors with a long record of substantive disagreements may confound non-expert admins. In such cases, the admin should be encouraged to review the disputing editors' past behavior in edits & on talk pages of related articles as relevant considerations when trying to decide who & how much to sanction. Lethiere (talk) 01:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
7. Seems quite true. I have analyzed parts of the process in some of my mini-essays: on the problem editors that are hard to touch, on how they spread the "disease", on how it affects even the admins, and on the sad, end result.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
8. Endorse. We try to be civil in order to create an encyclopaedia, we are not creating an encyclopaedia simply as an excuse to be civil. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
9. Endorse In theory, it's possible for an entire dispute resolution process to take place without a single administrator having any knowledge of the content of the article - Ultimately, for dispute resolution, moderators with awareness of content are needed, IMO --Scott Free (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
10. Endorse. Civility and reversion-counting are a game. What matter is content, and there are people who edit here solely to flood articles with bias. These people get a free pass, while those who try to clean up the messes they cause just wind up blocked. Spotfixer (talk) 03:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
11. Strong endorse. Arbitration sometimes seems to place too much weight on giving everyone equal representation in an article, as if it were a forum. There are far more average and weak editors than good editors, and there are far more POV pushers than supporters of science, so occasionally good editors will get frustrated and be uncivil. Corrections may be necessary, but only after thanking the good editors and addressing the source of the problem (namely, the erosion of articles, contrary to WP:ENC principles). --Johnuniq (talk) 07:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
12. Strong endorse. Civil POV-pushers get a free ride; blunt but excellent editors get a block log. Being civil is important, yes: it does NOT trump other behaviors. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
13. Strong endorse. If there is a content issue, it needs to be dealt with. Remember, we are supposed to be writing an encyclopedia here. If there is a civility issue, it should be handled secondarily, after we handle the encyclopedia part. Treedel (talk) 10:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
14. Endorse So many conflicts, especially on the science and history articles I mostly work on, boil down to one side citing NPOV and the other citing UNDUE. The only way to resolve such arguments is with informed judgement based on the content involved. Determining whether a particular idea is a significant viewpoint that requires equal treatment with opposing ideas, a minority viewpoint, which should be treated in the article as such, or a fringe viewpoint that should be excluded from the article altogether requires making an informed judgement about the subject matter. Failure to make such judgements results in history articles filled with conspiracy theories, and science articles cluttered with the ideas of young earth creationists or the folks who don't really understand what Einstein said but are convinced they have a better idea. Rusty Cashman (talk) 02:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
15. Mostly agreeing. Keeping a level of decorum is important, but some editors easily feel "personally" attacked when their contributions or are criticized (too?) harshly. And then endless WP:CIV discussion starts, which is really a proxy war for the actual content. The difference is that in this proxy discussion the most politically skilled and well connected usually wins. Not good for content. Xasodfuih (talk) 02:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
16. Endorse Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not the whole internet. People who do not want to present a fair summary of the entirety of a topic may go play elsewhere. A much stronger insistance on closely following our best sources would be nice - if the quality reviews do not consider a particular aspect or objection relevant, neither should we. Additionally, intentionally and maliciously lying about a source should be a bannable offense. - Eldereft (cont.) 19:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
17. Endorse Verbal chat 19:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments on this proposal from users

Although I agree with Science Apologist that on one level all concerns on Wikipedia arise out of content disputes, I think that may be an over arching definition of content that serves to define "encyclopedia". In fact Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but is also collaborative as SA notes. This means that content has also a more explicit definition in reference to specific articles, and that the decision on what constitutes appropriate information on each article is based on the decision making processes that arise out of a group. Wikipedia was established this way. This can create problems as SA also notes. Making decision as to who are the experts, who are the editors who are harming the articles, who should and should not be allowed to edit are all highly subjective decisions and are impossible to judge in an objective manner. One side in a dispute is no more able to make such decisions objective than is the other. For this to change, a drastic restructuring in the encyclopedia would have to be occur, in that, a neutral, decision making body would have to be established to make neutral decisions. I can't see that happening. In the meantime, although I understand there are concerns with civility being used as excuses for all kinds of misuse, I also see that civility and good editing don't have to be mutually exclusive. I don't see great articles being achieved when stress is introduced into the environment for any reason. Stressful situations aren't side specific, but destroy productive environments for everyone. Fundamentally, incivility is a stress creating mechanism and as such damages whole discussions even if its directed at one user.(olive (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC))

View #2 by Elonka

One problem with arbitration enforcement, is that sometimes administrators become entrenched and start enforcing their own bias. The admin decides for themselves how the articles should be written, and supports those editors that they see as having the "right" view, and rapidly blocks (sometimes indefinitely) those who they see as having the "wrong" view. Bans and blocks may be issued with little or no warning to perceived "bad" editors, even to new editors, with a rationale of, "If they start off bad, they'll always be bad, let's just rid of them quickly." An exacerbating problem with this situation, is that even good and genuinely neutral administrators are frequently attacked with frivolous complaints of bias. So it becomes very difficult to sort out the valid complaints about a biased admin, from the routine noise that always surrounds even the non-biased admins in arbitration enforcement. I'm not sure what the solution is here (ban people who make frivolous complaints, from making further cry wolf complaints?), but I did want to point out the problem. --Elonka 17:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary

1. Endorse with two caveats: first, these admins are sometimes right, which makes the behavior more problematic really. Second, no one can ever agree on who the neutral admins (or editors) for that matter are.--Tznkai (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Endorse with the caveat that it's ironic coming from Elonka, as she and her friends seem to be the worst offenders of taking biased actions and attacking neutral editors -- in fact, one of her main supporters (User:William M. Connolley) just did so in the last 24 hours. The mere idea that she suggests banning people who make frivolous complaints is funny, because she labels any complaint against her and her friends to be frivolous. When she ran for admin the time she finally got through after failing many times for her history of personal conflicts with others and questionable actions she promised to step down if a group of editors raised concerns that she abused her power. Then, when more than her self-set threshold complained, she refused to step down because she just arbitrarily declared the complaints frivolous and in bad faith. If she wants to be taken seriously with her comment above, she ought to step down as an admin immediately and request that User:William M. Connolley and others do so as well. DreamGuy (talk) 13:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
3. Endorse with the identical caveat as DreamGuy PR^talk 15:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
4. Endorse with the idential caveat. As I've said before, it's always helpful when people provide their own evidence. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

   Could I ask you lot to refactor your comments so its a bit less personal? If you want to complain about particular editors ( no comment as to what grounds exist or do not exist) WP:RFC/U is a click away.--Tznkai (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

   I respect you, Tzn, but people have been there, been ignored. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

5. Endorse with the comment that it is disappointing to hear such attacks on the messenger. Since I have been at wiki, I have seen that she has always given those whom she has sanctioned warnings and guidance and even further opportunities to mess up before issuing those sanctions. Would that other admins were as careful, civil, and fair as she. Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
6. Per DreamGuy (with exception of WMC comments). As Elonka is the worst offender, I'm thinking she'll be the first banned if this receives support. Which would be justice, I suppose. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
7. Per KC, DreamGuy (except I think WMC is a great admin), and Arthur Rubin. I'm happy that Elonka finally realizes the error of her ways, and I'm hoping she will resign immediately. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
8. I agree with Elonka here. Doesn't the policy on no personal attacks apply to this RfC as well as the rest of Wikipedia? Aren't the statements above evidence that proves Elonka's first comment about tag-teaming in this RfC? Funny how the same small group of editors seems to crop up together on so many controversies. I think you folks should be ashamed of yourselves for making these comments here. You have just proven Elonka's case for her. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 21:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

View by PalestineRemembered

Arbitration Enforcement at the Israel/Palestine topic has been disastrous (to anyone seeking to write good articles, anyway). The imposition of an "0RR" at some articles has led to dreadful bloggish sources being inserted, and the selective chasing off of editors still attempting to write to policy. At other articles, the problem is the rejection of good sources, and selective enforcement against people trying to include them. Meanwhile, there are newly arrived and seriously deficient editors being encouraged. Details available of all of this and more if interested. (Later - see this discussion for the chaos caused by 0RR, from which the article in question has never recovered). PR^talk 15:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary

View #3 by Elonka

One problem in arbitration enforcement is an echo of a problem in other (non-enforcement) areas of Wikipedia, where our community is still wrestling with the question of how to deal with an editor who may be a valuable academic but also have such poor social skills that they end up antagonizing other editors. Painting with a broad brush, some members of our community seem to classify all editors into two main camps: "smart" (being people who have advanced degrees, or are recognized experts in a subject area, or claim to be), and "dumb" (the hobbyists who pick up their knowledge in a more amateur and casual style). The philosophy being that the "smart" editors should be empowered, and if their social skills are poor, they should be tolerated because of the quality of the articles that they create. The philosophy further says that if there's a dispute between a "dumb" and a "smart" editor, the dumb editor should be rapidly ejected from the dispute, article, and/or Wikipedia entirely. Often an article in dispute seems to boil down to two camps of editors, with the "smart" side saying, "We're academics, we know what we're talking about, stop trying to insert pop culture nonsense," and the "dumb" side saying, "You say you're academics, but you're using limited sources, or garbage sources," which results in counter-charges of, "No, your sources are garbage," and this goes back and forth. In the case of arbitration enforcement, some editors of this "smart v. dumb" philosophy seem to feel that sanctions should be used only to kick out the "dumb" editors, so as to empower the "smart" editors. So when an admin attempts to sort things out, if the admin takes action against someone perceived as an "academic", even if the academic was being disruptive, edit-warring without discussion, issuing personal attacks, etc., then the admin may be attacked for "empowering POV-pushers". Even if the admin is administering warnings equally to both "sides" in the dispute, there is still sometimes a perception that academics should receive fewer (or no) warnings, simply because they're academics. --Elonka 20:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary

View by Deacon of Pndapetzim #1

In the ArbEnforcement-relevant areas wikipedia is a giant game. People in these areas follow the natural human urge to form groups for mutual benefit. The fact that truth on wikipedia is social rather than intellectual, along with number-favoring policies such as WP:Edit war and WP:3RR, and the general preference of discipline over content policies not only forces, but positively recommends that people collaborate off-line. This is as natural as any real world scenario where one person chats about another behind their back, and many theorists believe that the human brain grew its present size mainly for this purpose. Those that resist this because of values derived from elsewhere get more often that not the "Sucker's payoff". These facts, while not particularly nice, are real. Wikipedia's policies on handling such areas don't in any real way take account of this, of what were recently labelled "tag-teams" (formerly called "cabals") who co-ordinate moves by IMs, IRC and email. How could a system possibly work if, through moral blindness, it continued to ignore, as it currently does, one of the forces that shape it most? It obviously couldn't! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 07:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary

1. Cabal exists, however we define them. But are they evil? Or maybe they are forced by editors who cannot figure out how to defend themselves against another cabal accusing them of being a cabal? :) See also my essay. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
2. This tendency is normal IMO, that's why there are policies and guidelines to counteract this, and as such I think they are a sound. --Scott Free (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
3. This problem is most apparent when policies like WP:UNDUE and WP:RS are involved. Contrary to the belief of some, these policies do put the wiki editor in the position of a self-appointed expert that judges sources. Even in areas where WP:RS is better contoured, e.g. WP:MEDRS, for contentious topics the inclusion or exclusion of sources sometimes comes down to a vote. Xasodfuih (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

View by Deacon of Pndapetzim #2

Arbitration committee decisions are often unenforceable on powerful users. On the relevant AE or AN/I thread anyone with enough friends can have the most sensible decision overturned based on a use of WP:CONSENSUS. In this manner Wikipedia often resembles an early medieval court, where you are tried or convicted based on the number and status of the armed friends who turn up at the hearing. Hence, if all you have to worry about is lone admins, and you know you enough friends to prevent any ruling ever being applied, what is the incentive to obey arbcom rulings? Likewise, if you are the lone admin and know user x has enough friends to avoid it being enforced, why waste your time taking the shit for it? That is obviously a serious flaw! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 07:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary

1. Endorse, though I wouldn't use quite the same language. It's a genuine problem though, that sometimes the view of consensus can be distorted by "who has more friends", or even "who has more friends who have more free time to spend on-wiki". I have many times seen discussions de-railed by editors who spend many hours on Wikipedia each day, and post frequent messages to drown out the less frequent posts by those with the smaller support networks. Even on ANI, there have been times that I have been less likely to want to speak up in a busy thread, simply because it would be exhausting to try and keep up with the dozens of posts being inserted by the "sanctionee" and the sanctionee's wiki-friends. --Elonka 23:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
2. Endorse partially. In my experience, the numbers and eloquence of supporters is not that important. It matters more who are they in the world of wikipolitics. Are they nobodies (read: editors who dedicate themselves to creating content and are unknown on AN/I, ArbCom and so on)? Or are they scary wikipoliticians, who can orchestrate long term campaigns against those who they dislike, with much knowledge how to bend the rules and make Wikipedia a living hell for the other side? Editors who have friends in that second group, or belong to it, are the real problems, and we need to find a way to cleanse the project out of those "evolved trolls" who hide behind masks of "experienced editors", when in fact they are not building an encyclopedia, but destroying it while rising their own little empires. See also my mini-essays on problem editors and why admin are afraid to deal with them.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
3. WP:WHEEL makes it hard for a "lone admin" to impose any sanction on an editor who has another admin on his side. The only way to sanction such an editor is some big drama on WP:AN(I). Arbitration Enforcement is supposed to be the exception to the general WP:WHEEL rule, which might be the reason why some hope to "score" a sanction of that kind agains the opposing party, i.e. it's more work to have it overtunred. Xasodfuih (talk) 00:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

View by Mukadderat

Just like any other wikipedia bureaucratic gadget, enforcement of broad topic bans may actually be used as a tool against opponents by ingenuous corner cutting, selective shut-eye, overreacting, etc.

Scenarios involving an opinionated admin teamed with rank-and-file POV-pushers abound, myself being hit swift and hard in one when I occasionally stepped into Prem Rawat zone without any real interest in the topic. Adding insult to injury, user:Jossi was commended by arbcom for alleged "self-imposed restriction" while he continued to orchestrate ousting the opponents of his favorite guru. Mukadderat (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary

1. Endorse I think there needs to be controls to prevent this --Scott Free (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

View by Gurch

Arbitration enforcement is a silly idea in the first place. Administrators should be doing things because they think they're the right thing to do in the circumstances, not because some committee told them to -- Gurch (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

View by Piotrus

AE works in uncontroversial, simple cases. Anything complex (violating rulings on incivility, creating a battleground, wikistalking, bad faith, etc.) risks one of the following problems:

• tag team disruption: an editor might have violated some less clear arbcom rulings, but he has friends (WP:TAGTEAM, or just friendly admins sharing similar POV - or simply following a policy "enemy of my enemy is my friend, so I help to help enemies of my enemies"), who will try to defend that user, either by creating enough confusion to create the impression of no consensus, or at least slander the reputation of the victim (and maybe get him warned/blocked/restricted/etc. in all the confusion).
• random admin lottery: some admins may not see eye to eye with arbcom, and even in best faith, will interpret arbcom rulings differently. This may be influenced by the rulings being unclear (incivility, for example, is in the eye of a beholder), and by tag team confusion. Further, certain behaviors lead to negative admin selection, which overtime may lead to worse and worse decisions on AE, ANI and so on (read my mini-essay on why).

In addition, I'd like to briefly point out two more issues the arbcom should address, which while slightly less related to AE, are quite crucial (as became clear to me in the EE arbcom aftermath):

• we need much more interaction between arbcom members and parties in the case. Specifcally, arbcom members should comment on all proposals in workshop, comment on evidence presented (this would cut down on useless evidence and workshop proposals), and should reply to comments on arbcom talk or their talk pages. EE gave me the impression that most arbcom members did not read most of the evidence, workshops, talk and even ignored direct queries on their talk pages. Current lack of involvement leads to a widespread view that arbcom doesn't care about editors.
• arbcom should not lose the sight of Wikipedia's purpose: we are here to promote behaviors that leads to encyclopedic content creations. One of the questions that arbcom should ask when making rulings is "will this ruling make Wikipedia a better place?" In other words "after this ruling, are good content creators likely to feel they are respected and needed, or will they feel we don't care about them"? Are we creating a heartless bureaucracy and playing wikipolitics games, or do we care about editors? Something to keep in mind.

See also my summary to EE arbcom, and my mini-essay here.

Solution: #Proposal by Piotrus

--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary

1. Endorse --Scott Free (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
2. Endorse And the committee should be clear enough in their wording of cases that admins working AE and editors subject to sanctions don't need to be kremlinologists. While we don't always need to, sometimes we do, and even one time is too many. GRBerry 19:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

View #4 by Elonka

One problem with arbitration enforcement, is that it seems to work backwards from other parts of Wikipedia. For example, bans v. blocks. In some AE areas, if an administrator posts a temporary editing restriction on an editor, this is seen as more controversial than if the administrator had entirely blocked the editor's account access. When an editor is blocked, they are restricted to their talkpage. When an editor is banned from one article, they will often immediately go to ANI to challenge the ban, which results in the usual drama-fest. Another contradiction in the way that arb enforcement works, is that bans are only authorized in very limited areas of the project, such as Eastern Europe, Armenia/Azerbiajan, September 11th, Pseudoscience, Israel/Palestine, etc. If a problem occurs in some other non-AE areas of the project (for example, an article about a religious cult), administrators have fewer tools available to them. To deal with a disruptive editor, an admin's only real option is to warn and block, since the admin is not authorized to place a more limited restriction such as a ban or a revert limitation. As the saying goes, "When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." So the block "hammer" may be used on editors, when a lighter remedy such as a ban from one article might have been all that was needed. This also causes the problem that when an editor is being mildly disruptive, but not so disruptive that a block is warranted, the administrator's hands are tied, since their only options are (1) warn (and see the warning ignored); or (2) Block (and risk the block being overturned as too strict). So the dispute at an article or topic area may just continue to escalate until it lands on ArbCom's doorstep, at which point, ironically, milder bans may finally be authorized. I'd like to see things flipped around, so that uninvolved administrators are authorized to place limited bans in non-AE areas, before a dispute escalates to the level of requiring arbitration. Giving administrators more "tools in the toolbox" when managing complex disputes, will be more likely to nip problems in the bud, and make disputes less likely to rise to the level of RfAr in the first place. --Elonka 21:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary

View by User:Tbrittreid

I agree with User:Cla68 that the case of Martinphi-ScienceApologist (properly linked-in by Shoemaker's Holiday) is worrisome. I disagree thoroughly with the outcome--Ruling 5, that arbitration was not "to settle good-faith content disputes" was irrelevant, given Martin's unrefuted and seemingly well-supported claim that Raul654 abused his authority by protecting a page to keep his own disputed edits in place, rather than engage in discussion of them. I have no doubt that if administrators still had the authority to block editors unilaterally (several talk page discussions I read some time back indicated quite clearly that this had been the case; they included the complaint that once blocked you can't defend your actions because you're blocked [emphasis theirs]; that is what is being suggested here, is it not? If I am wrong, my apologies for misinterpreting the point here) I would have been blocked several times, just for pointing out behavior detrimental to the encyclopedia. Such is clearly Wikipedia business but each time was labelled a "No personal attacks" violation by one or another admin (also each time, the involved admin[s] eventually dropped the matter without comment, presumably recognizing but refusing to admit the legitimacy of the distinction). The regs do in fact acknowledge reporting bad faith behavior as an option, but in what I can interpret only as another instance of this attitude making itself known, all that is said there is a warning against making a false report of such, no description whatsoever as to where and/or how such reports should be made. It is bad enough that such an indefensible resistance to dealing with such behavior is widespread among administration, but for individual admins to possess the authority to act upon it with no checks and balances would probably result in the knowledge, sources, and abilities of many good editors being lost to the project. --Ted Watson (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem in a nutshell by MastCell

Read through this thread. Count the number of bytes contributed by uninvolved admins. Compare that to the volume of noise contributed by various familiar partisans. MastCell ^Talk 04:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

1. Well, this is a general problem with editorial conflicts between highly involved editors. Take for instance the recent kerfuffle on fluoroquinolone toxicity. Who wants to read 2x100Kb talk pages generated in less than a week? Just dealing with a 100Kb article spawned in about a week is time consuming enough. Xasodfuih (talk) 02:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

   zOMG why do we have a POV fork on "fluoroquinolone toxicity"?!? Sigh. You're bumming me out. MastCell ^Talk 04:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

   With the risk of getting another zOMG out of you, this version of the AE page speaks of its (f)utility: mostly involved editors blowing off steam, with no concrete results (other than being told to bugger off via on-page archiving). Xasodfuih (talk) 23:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

View by User:Aude

The arbitration enforcement process is ineffective in dealing with cases where private, sensitive information is involved that cannot be presented onwiki (e.g. personally identifying information of users, some BLP cases, and cases where harassment — including off-wiki or by e-mail — is involved). Such cases are complicated and difficult, and not something that an ordinary admin might want or be able to handle. Yet, the arbitration committee rarely is involved in arbitration enforcement, and prefers letting ordinary admins deal with arbitration enforcement. --Aude (talk) 01:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

View by Deacon of Pndapetzim #3

In many of the AE threads the discussion the issues become opaque because there is no ready way to distinguish between the involved and the uninvolved. For instance, a user posts an AE issue for administrator attention about user x. User x's allies turn up with their perspectives, clouding consensus, or user x' enemy user y and his buddies turn up clouding consensus. When this happens, as it does as often as not, it is often obvious to the admins seasoned in the area; but isn't to everyone else. As well as making it more difficult to arrive at the right decision, it may discourage the wider administrator attention that is needed. In some areas it is a problem that the same administrators supervise the same disputes over and over again; in one area at least I think this has led to bias because the administrators in question have bonded with some of the parties over time by email and elsewhere, and have created their own subculture that some are able to benefit from more than other; the prejudices created consolidate themselves over time by confirmation bias; and when that is the case, it hurts fairness. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary

Proposals for arbitration enforcement

Specific proposals for the improvement of arbitration sanctions and enforcement.

Proposal by User:SirFozzie

In order to encourage discussion on ArbCom enforcement, and to make sure the same "clique" of admins do not exert too much influence on the AE process:

Any Administrator who blocks or places a discretionary sanction on a user per a discussion on WP:AE should post a short summary of the action taken on the administrator's noticeboard, with a link to the discussion in question.

Did you mean Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement subpage or somewhere else? Mukadderat (talk) 19:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I mean WP:AN, IE the Administrator's Noticeboard. That has more eyes, In general, people complain that AE is "too insular". Here, more eyes cannot hurt. (SirFozzie, who is on break) 128.222.37.20 (talk) 20:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this suggestion

1. Cla68 (talk) 00:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
2. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
3. --Barberio (talk) 03:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
4. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
5. Possibly go even further, and require all ArbCom sanctions, even those not reported to WP:AE, to be logged on the admin noticeboard. I guess the reporting could be done by a bot copying the information from the log of sanctions on the individual case pages. PhilKnight (talk) 14:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
6. Support the basic idea: maybe have a bot (as suggested above) or a human clerk do the notification instead, or at least serve as backup if the admin forgets to post the notification. Crystal whacker (talk) 15:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
7. A limited solution, but a good start. I'll have to talk to the other clerks and the Committee, but notification is suitably bland that it could become part of AC/C's job without causing too much of a headache. Block logging isn't done properly either. (I know I don't always remember)--Tznkai (talk) 16:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
8. Not a big change, this is quite common already. As long as it doesn't result in too much bureaucracy, sure, why not? Guy (Help!) 17:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
9. Per Guy, Tznkai. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
10. RP459 (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
11. Indeed, Let's keep everything open. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 21:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
12. Needed and useful, but I'd suggest replacing "should" with "will" or "must". rootology (C)(T) 05:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
13. Yes. More transparency and review. WP is a big place...Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
14. Is not this at least more or less what we are to do already? If not... why not? ++Lar: t/c 22:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
15. I can't think of any reason not to do this. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
16. Endorse as written. If the discussion is already public, centralizing it is a good thing. I do not totally endorse some of the previous comments, such as PhilKnight's, as they seem to apply to private ARBCOM actions as well. In the past and presumably in the future, ARBCOM has taken private action, and they had good reasons to keep it private. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
17. Why not.  Sandstein  16:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
18. Endorse - I was in a situation where I was getting AE request responses that seemed to show a certain subjective stance commonly adopted by the same 4 or 5 interacting admins. So, yeah, this could help establish a more neutral, objective enforcement. --Scott Free (talk) 02:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
19. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 04:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
20. Endorse - should be common sense, but uinfortunately some admins try to take actions without letting others know about it, possibly because they know they don't have consensus to do so and want to do it anyway. DreamGuy (talk) 14:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
21. Endorse - To decrease the amount of paperwork, may be a template, like, {{AEAct}} would be good, say, with 3 params: affected user, link to page with ruling, and link to diff with action. Mukadderat (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
22. Reasonable Davewild (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
23. Can't hurt, but I'd expand it to admins closing threads as unactionable. In my experience, when AE is enforced, it works much better then when it is not enforced, and violators go "free". It is the admins who let the violators go unpunished that need their work reviewed, and themselves, educated better :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
24. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
25. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
26. Strongly Endorse EBY (talk) 02:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
27. Endorse Transparency lessens the squabble...conveys fairness, the ability to be impartial--Buster7 (talk) 05:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
28. endorse, transparency is good.--Cerejota (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
29. Endorse: just as a matter of forcing the admin to think it through. Documenting the incident couldn't hurt either, for ease of review. Randomran (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
30. MBisanz ^talk 12:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
31. Endorse A side effect might be that reviewing sysops at WP:AN may familiarise themselves with AE work and take a few cases themselves (says he, a stranger to that board). LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal by Durova

Administrators can form volunteer task forces to address specific long term problem areas. This would involve a commitment to a specific area, watchlisting pages, and stepping forward foremost with negotiation skills. Talk to people in a friendly way; let them know that policies mean something and that somebody's paying attention. Step forward with short page protections when an edit war starts to break out, occasionally apply short blocks. The full weight of discretionary sanctions would be a last resort. The key is to get a critical mass of neutral admins together. Suggest setting up a volunteer group and selecting one long term trouble spot as a pilot project. Say, 15 administrators sharing a commitment to The Troubles. If the pilot project works, refine the approach and repeat it elsewhere.

Users who endorse this suggestion

1. Durova^Charge! 01:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Yes, provided this is tied in with the existing collaborations such as WP:IPCOLL. Also, in addition to Durova's suggestions, admins should actively encourage cooperative editing, and provide guidance about dispute resolution methods. PhilKnight (talk) 14:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
3. I like this idea and think that at least the pilot project is worth a try. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
4. Limited endorsement. The primary benefits of this method will be the equivalent of injecting a large number of cops into a bad neighborhood. To stretch the analogy a bit, the cops (admins) need to be clean and target the worst offenders (Uncivil POV pushers) and other people making the environment miserable. Whats important, is that cannot be the whole thing. This will only contain or ideally, eliminate behavior problems - but possibly at the cost of eliminating content generation at all. This only will work if it normalizes the editing environment and draws in previously neutral editors - which is not guaranteed or even likely, just as "cleaning up the streets" isn't going to revitalize a neighborhood on its own.--Tznkai (talk) 18:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
5. I can provide an example that has worked pretty well: WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation . Jehochman ^Talk 21:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
6. Agree, with caution expressed by PK and tznkai. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
7. I think this is an excellent idea. As for tying in with existing collabs such as IPCOLL...there is no collaboration there. It is a misnomer. Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
8. It's a big commitment, but a necessary one. In a place that so vehemently defends the principle of assuming good faith, we need to actively foster the notion by guiding users who simply don't grasp the policies, until they "get it". If it is demonstrated over a lengthy period of time that they still don't "get it" after receiving guidance from seasoned editors, further sanctions should be considered. But we will never reach that point of discernment if we don't give them a chance; and if there is no concerted effort to reach that point, encyclopedic value will be compromised over a long period of time. ←Spidern→ 18:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
9. Endorse as long as one cornerstone of the volunteer task force is to shift the mindset of editors from confrontation (the hard-wired kind, the "long history of abuse" kind) to collaboration (perhaps for the first time!)(with the enemy)--Buster7 (talk) 05:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
10. per Philknight and Buster7 Dlohcierekim 20:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
11. I think something along those lines is needed. --Scott Free (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
12. It's worth a try. Karanacs (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal by Avruch

Administrators generally self-select for roles in arbitration enforcement, which has caused difficulty in a number of settings in the past. Not all administrators are cut out for the detailed and difficult work of enforcement arbitration remedies in complex disputes. The best administrators at work in enforcement have no more discretion than the worst, and often get burnt out and leave enforcement altogether. The following proposals are more food for thought than anything I think could gain a serious consensus; they are an attempt to brainstorm methods to spread the burden of enforcement into small teams and to enable skilled administrators to participate while preventing the haphazard participation of administrators whose skills lie elsewhere.

Option one:

• In complex disputes, the committee should request that administrators willing to become involved in discretionary enforcement volunteer to the committee for placement on a panel. Panel members, focusing on a single area of dispute, work collaboratively to enforce special sanctions fairly and evenhandedly. Panel membership should be for a fixed period, and only panel members are allowed to enforce special sanctions in their area.

Option two:

• Administrators willing to work in arbitration enforcement should volunteer for membership in a single enforcement committee, modeled after BAG or MedCom. Members can be appointed by the arbitration committee or request membership on-wiki and receive appointment by the enforcement committee after a short delay for public comments. Appointment terms are for six months, to ensure that all members remain active, and only members of the enforcement committee are permitted to enforce special or discretionary sanctions.

Users who endorse this suggestion

1. Proposed. Avruch ^T 03:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Agree in principle, however, I'd prefer to use the existing collaborations such as WP:IPCOLL, and require admins who want to enforce in this area to join. PhilKnight (talk) 14:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
3. I could support either - either appears more likely to work than the current "lemme grab a gun and shoot me some bad guys!" effect we're seeing. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
4. per KC. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 21:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
5. Per KC except I prefer option 1 more. But see also MBisanz's proposal below. Pick one. ++Lar: t/c 22:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
6. Either would work. I think setting up administrators to work problem areas like this is better than an administrator picking a handful of articles to work. It is difficult for any administator (or editor) to understand everything going on in a dispute never mind multiple disputes. Limiting to one or two disputes at a time for a duration is a good idea. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
7. Option 1 is OK, option 2 opens the door to disaster. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Expanding a bit, the crucial difference is the statement in Option 1, focusing on a single area of dispute. This gives admins time to become familiar with the source of conflict. Contrast with Option 2, which sets up an all-purpose conflict resolution team. I can easily imagine these folks being pulled from one hot area to the next without having time to go in depth into the background of a dispute. The result could well be that they dispense sanctions on the basis of context-free diffs or superficial incivility. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
8. Endorse 1, want to endorse 2 but Short Brigade Harvester Boris's claim is giving me pause. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
9. Endorse option 2. Because I think AE is a special, difficult area and therefore needs a certain infrastructure and guidelines to ensure neutrality and objectiveness and a lucid respect of sanctioned arbcom editors, who are after all, still, unless proven otherwise, voluntarily cooperating with the system and aren't criminals; and to ensure a more transparent, neutral and objective interaction and cooperation with the arbitration committee. --Scott Free (talk) 03:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
10. Endorse. Either is better than self-selection. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
11. Endorse. I actually had an incipient idea along the same lines when I commented above in support of MBisanz's view above [5] (before I scroled down to read this). :) Totally unexpected was to notice that you propose the same term (6 months). I would however disagree with "only members of the enforcement committee are permitted to enforce special or discretionary sanctions". I would replace it with "members of the enforcement committee should constitute the core of admins that enforce special or discretionary sanctions in the particular topic area". I also singled out "enforcement committee" b/c I really don't like this term. Rather, individual admins should be given a service term, and should receive a "record" card at the end (obviously, NOT from the parties in the dispute). The "committee" would be simply the set of admins which serve in the same area. Obvioulsy, they should interact, but not in a formal manner. I don't think that setting up 50 topic ArbComs can help. Except for these minor observations, excellent idea! Dc76\^talk 19:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
12. Broadly. MBisanz ^talk 12:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
13. Endorse option 1. --Aude (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal by Crystal whacker

I notice that the scope of this request for comment explicitly includes WP:BLPSE - special enforcement of biographies of living persons. I noticed a few weeks ago that Barberio asked the committee to consider mitigating or revoking this clause. The most recent section on the policy's talk page is here: Barberio and current committee members were discussing what to do.

There's a lot of discussion on that talk page. I won't read all of it. If I stumble across points that have been made endlessly, please forgive me.

"Special enforcement" should only be necessary if "ordinary enforcement" is not sufficient. If ordinary enforcement of the BLP policy is working, there should be no need to invoke the authority of the committee in undertaking ordinary administrator actions. Let's hypothetically replace BLP with any other policy, for example, that hoax articles should be deleted. Would we consider the absurdity of a "Special enforcement" that an admin may invoke the authority of ArbCom to delete a hoax? I would say the admin is just doing his or her job. It's the same with BLP: it's a policy like any other policy, and people who enforce that policy are just doing their jobs.

It's important that administrators delete defamatory biographical articles and block users who repeatedly insert defamation into articles, but it shouldn't be from a decree on high. If I were an admin, and I felt that the only way to justify an action was by invoking "special enforcement", I would think again and say "maybe the action is not wise." Crystal whacker (talk) 03:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this suggestion

1. --Barberio (talk) 03:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
2. I too never understood the point of BLPSE. Would not finding something defamatory be automatic cause to remove it, per common sense? No need for a special policy (with logging necessary?) for this. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 04:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
3. I agree that it would have a tendency when used to make difficult situations even worse. Anything that really needs drastic action overruling ordinary process can already be dealt with by oversight and OFFICE.DGG (talk) 09:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
4. True but irrelevant. BLPSE virtually never comes up at the arbitration enforcement board. Moreschi (talk) 13:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
5. As far as I know no admin regularly active at WP:AE has ever used WP:BLPSE for its intended purpose. Those regularly active at the time the committee handed it down generally decided it was a tool too dangerous to use. The first time it was used, it was used in an attempt to pull out a bigger club in a wheel war, and such use was not really supported by the committee. The second and third logged uses could have been done identically without this tool. GRBerry 19:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
6. BLPSE is a dangerous tool, no one I trust with it who is also willing to use it.--Tznkai (talk) 18:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
7. I don't know that I'm going to comment elsewhere (not involved much with AE), but I STRONGLY AGREE here. While measures such as blocking and deleting - and occasionally oversighting - are necessary, BLPSE is a bad idea. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
8. My views here have not changed. Davewild (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal by User:Shoemaker's Holiday

WP:BLPSE begins, "Administrators are authorized to use any and all means at their disposal..."

I cannot believe that Arbcom seriously meant that. Are we to believe that Arbcom advocates, say, banning at the drop of a hat, deletion, edit warring, mafia hits - all the harmful things that could be done and which could create massive drama? No, clearly what they actually meant was Well, pretty much, Wikipedia:BLP#Maintaining_biographies_of_living_persons.

The over-the-top statement made in the first sentence is probably a big reason why this policy has seen so little support. It's clear that the arbcom cannot mean what their words say in it, and that any admin who actually did use massive overkill in protecting BLP would soon find himself up before Arbcom for censure.

Bad writing was a particular problem in the 2008 Arbcom. This is another example of the problems it can cause.

If BLPSE is to remain, it needs completely rewritten. However, Wikipedia:BLP#Maintaining_biographies_of_living_persons already includes all or most of the material that could conceivably remain from it. A better plan may be for the Arbcom to simply add any important statements from BLPSE that aren't already there to WP:BLP, and then rescind the rest of that finding.

Users who endorse this suggestion

1. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Basically agrees with what I wrote above. Crystal whacker (talk) 15:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
3. --Barberio (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
4. TotientDragooned (talk) 00:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
5. See my comments above --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
6. Endorse. DreamGuy (talk) 14:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal 2 by User:Shoemaker's Holiday

I have said this numerous times to the 2008 Arbcom: A policy that people aren't aware of isn't policy. Burying, say, a clarifiction of WP:USER in what was already a year-old case when a sitting arbiter asked for it to be reopened particularly to add the WP:USER clarification (WP:Requests for arbitration/Tobias Conradi), only serves to trap users not aware of the extremely-well-hidden Arbcom comments. If Arbcom wants to modify policy, they are trusted, respected users. They can modify policy, say that the changes are recommended by Arbcom, and, the changes will quite likely stick.

There is no need whatsoever for the 2008 Arbcom's creation of policy by fiat, which never was added to the policy pages themselves.

Users who endorse this suggestion

1. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
2. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC) ArbCom's role is not to write policy but to enforce it. Then suddenly ArbCom started writing policy, and we have as a result some admins who are also grabbing more power - and claiming they don't have to listen to anyone if they simply claim their actions fall under AE.
3. --Barberio (talk) 20:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
4. Especially agree with KillerChihuaha's remark above. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
5. Endorse - and endorse KC above. Shot info (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
6. TotientDragooned (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
7. Karanacs (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
8. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
9. Indeed. It's wrong to enact a proposal like this one outside of a formal workshop page, and doubly wrong to put it into an ancient case. If ArbCom find it necessary for the community to explicitly clarify one part of policy, or to even create policy, then they can make a recommendation or proposal like anyone else, so that the community can respond. Sometimes it won't stick in the same way as proposed by an arbitrator because other members of the community don't agree, but that's to be expected. The community determines policy and makes it explicit where necessary - in a wording that reflects the community's view rather than that of arbitrators. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
10. Agree, esp. with KC comments above added. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
11. Agree, tafsir by Arbcom is unnecessary. Policies in wikipedia are set by whole community, not by the best among best. Mukadderat (talk) 19:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
12. I'm sure I have supported this sentiment before. Davewild (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
13. Orderinchaos 19:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
14. Strongly endorse. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
15. Maybe needs to be taken up at the Arb policy rfc --Scott Free (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
16. Support. This makes good sense. -- Fyslee (talk) 03:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
17. +S Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 13:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
18. Endorse I did not follow WP:PSCI from ArbCom to policy, but policy is the right place for it. - Eldereft (cont.) 19:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal by MBisanz

At the conclusion of any arbitration case in which discretionary/general sanctions are placed, the Committee shall appoint a team of five uninvolved administrators to enforce said sanctions. If an uninvolved administrator should find themselves unable to continue in the role, the arbitration committee shall appoint a replacement. Arbitrators may not be uninvolved administrators. Only the appointed administrators may enforce the specific sanction. Appeals of sanctions will be made first informally to the appointed group of five and then to the Arbitration Committee as a Request for Clarification.

Users who endorse this suggestion

1. MBisanz ^talk 14:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
2. 5 is too small a number, otherwise endorse. Hipocrite (talk) 14:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
3. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC) Same as with the Proposal by Avruch, pick one. All involved a team or pool of uninvolved administrators rather than one self-appointed Law Enforcement Agent. IMO 5 should do it - 3 might even do it if they're all active and not doing too many other things.
4. Karanacs (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
5. Agree with Guy about the concerns and yet am not opposed to giving this a try. Having some more formal appointment might broaden the pool of editors who do AE work, which seems key to solving matters. ++Lar: t/c 22:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
6. Agree with the concerns about WP:BURO. But something has to be done to avoid the self-selection of admins for doin' some sherrifin'. Arbcom will only step in when admin conduct has been so hideously abusive that they have no choice, and admins can do a great deal of damage while being careful to stay short of that point. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
7. definitely preferable to self-appointed enforcers Sssoul (talk) 09:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
8. Endorse wholeheartedly. arimareiji (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
9. Endorse Something along those lines, with flexibility --Scott Free (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Counter-opinions

1. This is likely to start well and rapidly tail off. It has the whiff of committees and bureaucracy. Better by far to use WP:AN and have a general presumption that an admin may be asked to step away if they become burned out or too deeply vested, allowing for new admins to step up to the plate. I really don't see how restricting the enforcement of policy - which is, after all, all special restrictions are designed to do - should be so narrowly restricted . It would, however, be of some use if the committee were to give more general narrative guidance as to what is intended, and to oversee the measures taken in enforecement - clerks and arbitrators should proactively monitor what is done in such cases. Guy (Help!) 17:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
2. I think maybe merging the two of these would have to idea of everyone. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
3. IMHO, this is too much too soon. However, the idiological pool from which you selected it is very good! Please see also my comment to Avruch's proposal above [6]. Even better, how about you and him working out a joint proposal, taking into consideration (as much as you find it logical) also the received comments. Dc76\^talk 19:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal by TotientDragooned

Proposal: Arbitration enforcement's scope is strictly limited to parties of the case.

Rationale: I propose the above for several reasons:

Arbitration is not Legislation: Jimbo Wales may overturn the committee, but since he appoints and has a voice on this body, its power is effectively unchecked. Investing the committee with this level of authority makes sense if its role is to arbitrate disputes between specific parties, when community mediation has failed. It does not make sense if it is used to write new policy outside of community consensus.

Practicality: Wikipedia already has an overwhelming number of policy pages that must be learned by new editors. It is not reasonable to also expect them to read four years of case history to realize that, because they are supporters of LaRouche, their editing is subject to extra rules.

No Secret Trials: Editors who do not rigorously monitor open arbitration cases may find their editing privileges curtailed without having a chance to publicly defend their use of those privileges. Jimbo Wales specifically highlighted this problem in his announcement of the results of the last committee elections: "there can be no valid ArbCom action unless the person being sanctioned has had the opportunity for a public defense."

Users who endorse this suggestion

1. TotientDragooned (talk) 00:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
2. --S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
3. arimareiji (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Users who comment on this suggestion

• "No secret trials" should not preclude private trials, where privacy is desired by the person subject to sanction. There are times when a public trial will cause off-wiki harm to real people. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
• When ARBCOM places an article under sanction, it impacts all editors of that article, including future editors. Arbitrators have the same "affects everyone" decision-making power when they semi- or fully-protect an article. As written, this proposal would effectively end article probation as an arbcom sanction. Somehow I don't think that was your intent. Now, if by "parties" you include articles or topics, then please say so. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
• Noting davidwr's comment above, a "private trial" should only be binding on the participants (and their socks), even though an arbcom finding almost always must apply to the article or subject, rather than just the particular named participants. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal by Thatcher

Arbitration enforcement mostly works. Drastic changes are not needed. Absent specific findings that discretionary sanctions have been misused by admins with agendas or poor judgement or too much involvement, additional bureaucracy such as special enforcement panels or committees is not needed. Here are some suggestions for improving WP:AE.

1. Discretionary sanctions are a complement, not a substitute, for individual sanctions. Discretionary sanctions are a good way to handle articles that are constant sources of dispute but only after the main antagonists have been removed. When faced with a difficult sprawling case, Arbcom should make every effort to identify editors who have already been given multiple second chances, who have demonstrated an unwillingness to listen to advice or warnings, who are unlikely to function well under discretionary sanctions, and topic or site ban them. Try to make sure that the mess you hand off to WP:AE is cut down to manageable size first.
2. Gaming the system is not tolerated. Claims that admins are too "involved" because they have been active in too much enforcement are attempts to game the system and should be recognized as such.
3. Do away with the requirement for personalized warnings. I have seen too many disputes flare up over the seemingly minor issue of notifying or warning editors about the possibility of sanctions. These notices are meant to simply apprise new editors to a topic that the topic is placed under special rules so they are aware of them, and do not necessarily imply that the admin has seen behavior that is concerning. So do away with the requirement for personal logged warnings. If someone new comes along to a disputed article and starts reverting 3 times a day to his preferred view, you can warn him if you want, but established editors know where the conflicts are and fighting over notification of the possibility of future sanctions is stupid. Post a notice on the article talk page(s) instead. Compared to site blocks, most discretionary sanctions are relatively mild—topic bans, 1RR per week limits, etc—and most sanctions for first offenses are usually short duration. Assuming some poor sap really does get hit unawares, if he really is a basically good editor who unknowingly stepped in the muck, a short chat with the admin will do a world of good.
4. Don't sweat the small stuff. Admins need to back each other up, not argue over small details. If Smith issues a two-week topic ban and Jones thinks it should be shorter or longer, just let it go. Until site blocks come under discussion, other discretionary sanctions are too mild to get in a twist over. (Reverting is never acceptable editing, there are 2 million other articles, etc.)

   4a. Back off. Admins who are friendly with an editor under sanction, or who are sympathetic to that particular side of a dispute, should not try to unduly influence an admin who issues sanctions under an Arbitration decision. One comment is acceptable, more is inappropriate. Instead, ask truly uninvolved admins for their opinions.

5. Get 'em all. Apply sanctions to both sides and be aware that edit warriors who are polite are still edit warriors. In the situation where the Greens are rude and nasty and the Purples are nice and polite, applying page bans or revert limits to only the Greens cedes control of the article content to the Purples, whether that is your intent or not. Polite smiling edit warriors are still edit warriors. If there has been an edit war going on for the last week on an article, issue a page ban to every editor who touched the article during that week, no matter how much they smiled. Maybe there are other folks who would be interested in working on it if only the environment was healthier.
6. Use page protection more often. Same reasoning as 5. This stops everyone from editing, but sometimes there just aren't non-partisan neutral editors waiting in the wings.
7. Just get on with it. Too many AE complaints are longer than the article being fought over. Admins need not to act hastily, but editors should not be allowed to refight the Spanish Civil War when the dispute is about the origin of paella (for heaven's sake, compare the earlier AE archives with most recent ones). As I noted above, unless a site ban is under consideration, all the other sanctions are mild enough that if they are truly mis-applied, they can be adjusted after calm discussion with no lasting harm. But really, most of these complaints need to be acted on and closed fairly rapidly.

--Thatcher 15:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this suggestion

1. Yes, good advice. I would add 4b: Enforcing admins need be self-aware and know when to back off as well. If I have a lengthy history of bad blood with an editor, then I need to make an extra effort to solicit and listen to outside feedback if I'm considering sanctioning them. But I endorse this as written. MastCell ^Talk 19:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Yes. ++Lar: t/c 22:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
3. Agreed. Regarding item 5, there is obviously the possibility of applying tougher sanctions to the rude and hostile edit warriors. PhilKnight (talk) 01:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
4. Agree, with reservations about 5 and 6 - often one side is right and the other wrong; often we all know which is which. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
5. Agree, especially if MastCell's proviso is added. Strongly agree with 5, especially if it helps deal with civil POV-pushers and the admins who knowingly or unknowingly enable them. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
6. Sounds sensible. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
7. Endorsement with caveats: 4 gives me pause, getting feedback, even over minutiae is important. Maybe a polite word on user talk pages? Furthermore, I'm afraid I fall within the "AE does not work" camp myself. Thatcher's outline here would be enough to bring the problem under heel if the problematic editors were rational scheming troublemakers. In my experience, they just can't help themselves.--Tznkai (talk) 06:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
8. 1 and 2 are fine. 3 is, IMO, based on a misunderstanding. Various admins have taken arbcom's wording to mean that before they sanction anyone they must officially notify them of the case even if said to-be-sanctioned user is obviously aware of the case. This has in turn caused it's own set of problems. In WP:ARBMAC I have issued and logged formal notifications only if and only if an editor was genuinely likely not be aware of the case, which makes much more sense. All the rest I wholeheartedly back, although perhaps adding a slight caveat to number 4 along the lines of "do some basic f***ing research to work out who, if anyone, is right before you start waving around the banhammer...". Moreschi (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
9. Agree with everything except # 3, warnings; and # 6, page protection. I think that warnings should be used more often. Too often I see editors who are blocked without a single warning to their talkpage, and I disagree with this practice. In my experience, a warning to the talkpage is essential, and is often the thing that gets an editor's attention to realize that they are much closer to a block than they may have thought. Warnings are far preferable to issuing a block or ban on an editor and then saying they "should have known" there was a problem. As for #6, I disagree with ever using page protection except when all other efforts have been unsuccessful. When the page is protected, no one can edit it, and often the discussions on the talkpage just turn into endless circular argumentation. At least if the page is open, people can try to come up with compromise wording. If edit-wars are a problem, warn the warriors, and if they don't stop, ban them from editing the page, and restrict them to the talkpage. But let everyone else keep editing in the meantime. --Elonka 03:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
10. Generally agree, especially with 1 (for the committe), 2 &4 a (for everyone), 5 & 7 (for the admins working AE). Disagree with 6, though my experience is different from Elonka's - what I usually see is the talk page become a ghost town until the protection lapses and then the dispute picks back up. GRBerry 21:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
11. Endorse on all points. Regarding #3, warnings should be used often (per Elonka). In the case that warnings are elided, it should not be a means to game the system (#2) if the disciplined editor can be reasonably assumed to understand the applicable policies/sanctions (per Moreschi).--Shunpiker (talk) 08:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
12. Endorse. Regarding #3, I believe that using edit notices can serve in stead of personal warnings. (A similar thing was done with Barack Obama having been out on article probation by the community) עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
13. Orderinchaos 19:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
14. Agree with #1, Disagree with #2, not all claims of administrator involvement is gaming the system. There comes a time when administrators need to also step away from a dispute. I've seen administrators who have long histories in disputes who have claimed gaming and/or tag teaming which is not always the case. An administrator has to know when it's time to back off just like any other editor when disputes arise. Sort of agree with #3, though I think personalized warnings to good faith editors informing them of what the perceived problems are opens the door to communicate. Less threatening warnings at times would open the door to talking about the situation without putting anyone on the defense immediately, which some warnings often start the talks off with defense rather then just communicating. Agree with #4. Oppose #5, Get the disruptors which doesn't always mean equality. No comment of #'s 6 or 7.--CrohnieGal^Talk 11:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
15. Oppose 3 and 5. No oppinion on the others.

• Regarding 3: Some admins have at some times poor judgement of what "personalized warnings" means. It is the duty of the particular admins to understand them well, and have the courrage to undo them when mistaken, not to modify the rules post-factum.
• Regarding 5: sanctions must be fair and have a factual basis. One should not feel obliged to give equal number of sanctions to "both sides", because that encourrages some editors to do more violations in order to force admins to apply sactions to their opposes who might be honest editors. (Remember, that there exist many-many content disputes which get resolved, which never get to any ArbCom, simply b/c the involved editors on both sides had the decency to read and understand the other side. ArbCom only deals with the ugly cases, and might occasionally get the wrong impression that most people editting a controversial topic are edit warriors. Let the problems of WP not blind you that it has been a great success. There exist quite a few stable WP articles about topics that in real life are anything but stable.)
• Regarding "what 'personalized warnings' means": Don't punish someone unless you have something to punish. A "warning" means that a misbehavior was commited, and you are simply giving the editor the last chance or else. That is what a civilized person understands by a warning! If some light-minded editors think that a warning issued to them is not a big deal, we can smell trouble from those editors. Distributing sanctions in a politically neutral fashion (i.e. distributing them to have equal numbers of sanction for all political/ethnic/whatever sides) encourages bad behavior.
• Warnings and sanctions must be factual. And then, they can be swift and strong. One [the wise admin] first thinks a 1,000 times [in practice, 20 is generally enough] to be sure the war he/she wants to start is honest, and only then takes out the weapon, and then "shot to kill", don't "shot to warn".
• Let me remark in the end that Od Mishehu's idea just above me ("edit notices" instead of "personal warnings") is right on! Dc76\^talk 19:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

1. Endorse. Regarding warnings, article talk page notices (e.g. [7]) on the top of the page and/or edit notices that serve as a warning to all parties could be helpful. Though, the best approach for warnings varies from case to case. Common sense and good judgment should be used regarding warnings. --Aude (talk) 02:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
2. Endorse with much the same reasoning as Shunpiker. A formal notification to an editor who obviously is familiar with the relevant case (e.g. has actively participated in discussions of same) serves no purpose, though a friendly reminder to respect the editing norms can help calm a sticky situation. 5 needs to be applied only with due caution (duh); insistance on talkpage consensus and quality sourcing (closely followed - lying and original synthesis need not apply) might be a good step to take first. Double points to Thatcher for the Babylon 5 reference. - Eldereft (cont.) 23:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Response to Thatcher

I think this could work well in cases where neither side has policy to back them, but in cases where one side is clearly warring against policy, e.g. NPOV, these suggestions could be disasterous. For instance, the Greens think that an article on X should reflect the mainstream scientific view. The purples want to remove all criticism of X, and use the article for advocacy. Is the solution really to come down equally hard on the greens?

Similarly, point 2, on gaming the system, is open for abuse. Let's say in the above situation an admin holds purple views, but has never edited the article. People complain about the way he does enforcement, seeing him as too involved, but under the proposal, are accused of gaming the system, and their somewhat subtle points ignored.

In short: Thatcher makes what's on the whole a good proposal, but it definitely needs some work.Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. To be clear, while my comments on point 5 are things I've seen, the comments about the secret purple admin is not meant to apply to anyone. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this suggestion

1. While I agree with Thatcher's observation that "edit warriors who are polite are still edit warriors", I dislike any suggestion of blanket sanctions applied to all involved editors. Smacking every squabbling child might seem fair in the sense that it avoids the perception of favouritism, but if one of the children is the bully and the other is the victim, all one does by an act of collective punishment is add insult to injury. If one wants to impose a penalty, one has the responsibility to look into the problem deeply enough to identify the causative agent. Nor do I like the suggestion to "do away with the requirement for personalized warnings". Users have a right to a formal warning in my view. Gatoclass (talk) 08:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
2. Exactly! And, I also agree "edit warriors who are polite are still edit warriors". But I also know that "not every edittor is a warrior". Politeness is only one of the two sides of any editor. Content is the other. (See very good observations by Moreschi in the 1st section) Dc76\^talk 20:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
3. Endorse I would argue that the nature and quantity of the suggestions actually do point to certain inherent problems with AE --Scott Free (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal #1 by Elonka

This is just brainstorming, but I thought I'd toss it out there: How about "admin rotation"? If a dispute in a particular topic area is dragging on for more than three months, rotate the admins on that dispute out, and rotate new administrators in, by swapping places. So, for example, take the group of admins that are monitoring the 9/11 articles, and swap them with the group that are monitoring the Armenian/Azerbaijani articles. This will bring in fresh eyes to both disputes, and guarantee "uninvolved" status in both topic areas. --Elonka 23:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this suggestion

1. This same idea has been on my mind for a couple of months and I've been selling it to some people. I am, of course, supporting it. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
2. I can see teh merit in this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
3. May be worth a try but implementation will have to be carefully thought out. Often the issues are complex, and the new admins would need time to get up to speed on the problem. Otherwise they could end up making things worse instead of better by meting sanctions on the basis of context-free diffs. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
4. Sympathy more than substance endorsement here - this would work if we were cops- but we're volunteers and we're having trouble making our recruitment goals. If combined with a realistic method of increasing the size (and maintaining the quality) of the AE admin corps, this would make some sense.--Tznkai (talk) 05:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
5. While I don't think we need another bureaucracy to support this idea, rolling out of a conflict is a good way to prevent burn out, and prevent the personalization of disputes. Jehochman ^Talk 21:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
6. This could work, but I can't help feeling like it's overthinking the issue. Why not just ask for feedback from the admins in another AE topic area before implementing a potentially controversial action? Wouldn't that accomplish the same goals (sanity check, fresh eyes, avoid overpersonalization) without the need for new bureaucractic processes? MastCell ^Talk 04:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
7. Worth a shot! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
8. Endorse in principle... with as many admins as we have, there's no reason why any action taken on an article or against a user had to be done by the same admin who had taken previous action. It's clear that some admins currently are participants in continuing disputes instead of trying to rsolve them, and if there's any way for them to claim they are acting neutrally they should not become personally involved with any one case/incident. In actual practice, though, coming up to speed to longstanding controversies would be difficult, though maybe people could write up their thoughts before moving on. DreamGuy (talk) 14:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
9. I think the idea of rotation has merit. See below for a more generalised variant of this. Jayen466 18:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
10. Good idea. Could be like Russian Roulette though depending on who is on rotation when your turn comes up! Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
11. Only if admins volunteer, but I agree Shii (tock) 04:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
12. Best idea yet. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 03:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
13. Support this proposal. Many government agencies rotate top admins between regions to prevent them from getting "too involved" with local politics. This would help admins focus on and become experts in dispute resolution rather than in the topic at issue, which seems desirable.Mervyn Emrys (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
14. This is worth a try. --Aude (talk) 01:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal #1 by Tznkai

This proposal operates under certain premises

1. There are problematic areas with severe conduct problems over what comes down a content disagreement (in my experience the Troubles fits within this category)
2. The goal is to resolve the underlying dispute to return problematic editing areas to "buisness as usual"
3. The majority of editors causing problems are doing so in good faith
4. Establishing trust between admin and the problematic editors is both crucial and time consuming.

This is not a one size fits all solution, but addresses a certain subset of arbitration targeted articles.

The Arbitration Committee, will appoint a special 5 editor mediation panel that is responsible for creating through discussion and whatever internal processes they wish, binding content standards on a set of articles. Of the five editors, 2 editors are to be selected directly by the committee because they are known to be level headed, intelligent, and strongly committed to genuinely neutral, rigorous, and informative content. 2 editors are to be elected to represent the two opposing "sides" of the conflict - if there are more than two sides, the panel size will need to be adjusted suitably. These 2 editors are often going to be problematic editors, and should come recommended by those (purportedly) sharing their viewpoint as credible representatives. Finally, and this is the tricky bit, the fifth member is the chair of the panel - and the sole member allowed to enforce discipline. By necessity, this user must be an administrator, and should come with recommendations by the opposing 2 editors as an admin respected as neutral, ethical and forthright.

The panel, unlike Mediation or Arbitration, covers both conduct and content. The panel will hear complaints about content disputes, the application policy, and establish internal ground rules for voting, and editor conduct issues, and so on. In short - the panel is in charge of apart of the wiki - a binding WikiProject.

I cannot stress how important it is that the panel be selected carefully and intelligently, with respect for all voices involved. If anyone feels disenfranchised, the entire thing will explode. The three neutral parties have to be among our best and brightest.

This solution is radical - it would create a process that creates binding editorial standards and is very unwiki like - I'm not sure if I support it fully myself, but its time to get some ideas.

Users who endorse this suggestion

1. This proposal has merit and could be workable as proposed. Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
2. The details can be worked out, be to me integrating the content factor is key --Scott Free (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal #2 by Tznkai

A major problem with entrenched disputes is the chilling effect. Neutral editors get squeezed out and exasperated quickly, this proposal is an attempt to address that problem

1. Gather a group of anywhere between 5 and 10 volunteer editors. These editors need not be admins, and in fact, probably shouldn't be.
2. This group of editors will be injected into the articles under dispute and asked do their best to clean it up and improve it - even bring it to feature status.
3. Uncivil and disruptive conduct against these volunteers will be strictly managed with quick and violent blocks. This provision is to protect the civvies we're parachuting into a editorial war-zone.
4. The volunteer editors are encouraged to tell the enforcing admins to back off when needed.
5. Admins are encouraged to listen

The primary flaw here is gathering volunteers. Short of raising money wiki-wide through bakesales and custom barnstars, we're going to have to think of something better to encourage participants in a thankless task.

Users who endorse this suggestion

1. This is a partial endorsement. I've done something similar before - revamped articles from the ground up because other editors were arguing incessantly over the content of what was a pretty crummy article. I think this could work on smaller disputes or at an early stage in some disputes, but I don't see it being particularly effective on some of the more entrenched problems. Editors who have become vested in the conflict may not be willing to give up. There is also an issue that the volunteer civilians must be committed to (and have ample experience with) the core policies of neutrality and verifiability, and must be perceived to be neutral to the debate. That may shrink the pool a great deal. Karanacs (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
2. This is good idea. It is directed toward improving the articles rather than punishing users. In many cases the existing article is actually good, but the coming "partisans" can quickly transform it to garbage. Maybe we need some emergency teams to watch for articles in trouble.Biophys (talk) 05:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
3. Endorse everything except the idea that uncivil behavior and so forth should lead to swift and "violent" (!) blocks. Swift blocks tend to be a bad idea in general, and incivility is in the eye of the beholder. I agree outside views are important, but outside views by people who think they can get other people blocked instantly based upon subjective reasoning is a very, very bad idea and would lead to people who think they are more important than normal editors and who will not likely be working in an effectively way to resolve the complaint with as many people happy a possible because they can drop the block hammer at any time on a whim. Consensus and normal editing standards should still prevail, and that may go against what this outside group wants. They need to work within the same system as everyone else. But having a roving group of experienced editors as an enhanced form of third opinion would be good. DreamGuy (talk) 14:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
4. The specifics could use tweaking, but proposal 1 or 2 would be a big help - I think conduct problems can be dealt with with the tools already in place, I don't think it needs special emphasis here --Scott Free (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Counter-opinions

1. How would we ensure that the magnificent ten are not as biased and corruptible as the POV warriors they're supposed to supersede, like the Chicago Crime Commission set up against Al Capone, but empowered with the freedom to do their own bit. It is almost impossible to remain impartial once you familiarize yourself with the issues at stake. --Poeticbent talk 20:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
2. Why not allow admins to volunteer as well, but not perform any of the sactions? Also, build a template for "Pages with edit wars", so that random thick-skinned editors can try to make it truly NPOV. Treedel (talk) 10:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal #2 by Elonka

Another brainstorming idea: How about any time an administrator becomes involved with arbitration enforcement, they be required to keep a log in a subpage of their userspace which tracks each restriction, block, or ban they implement? This provides an easy way to track a specific administrator's activity, for both positive and negative reasons. Negative, since it makes it much easier to see if an administrator is showing a tendency to only take action on one "side" of a particular dispute, or if the admin is focusing too much energy in a single topic area. And positive, because it can build trust with editors in a new dispute, to be able to check the background of an "unknown" administrator, and see where they've worked in arbitration enforcement in the past. This may help the editors in the new dispute to trust that the administrator does know what they're doing, since it'll be easy to see the string of (hopefully) successful accomplishments behind them. With editors, we have other ways of seeing someone's positive history: Good and featured class articles, barnstars, etc. But with administrators, it's more difficult to see their resume. If they maintain a list in their userspace, it's easier to examine their activity. --Elonka 03:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this suggestion

1. Endorse - transparency is always a good thing. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
2. --My proposal below is sort of a take-off from this proposal.brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
3. Transparency good. --Cerejota (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal #1 by Ramdrake

There seems to be issues with AE by admins when an admin's non-involvement or impartiality is called in doubt. I'd like to suggest that, as with mediation, editors retain the privilege to refuse arbitration enforcement if they feel the circumstances justify it. Of course, any one editor's refusal to submoit to a specific AE process can be brought up at a user RfC (or at RfArb) just as is the case for refusing mediation today. It would also help separate those cases where a single or a very few editors refuse AE (which is an indication of a refusal to comply) from those cases where many if not most editors refuse AE (which may be reflective of other issues, maybe having to do with the proposed enforcer). I believe it would also help increase acceptance of AE within the community.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this suggestion

1. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal #1 by GRBerry

We could actively look for experience, willingness to participate in dispute resolution, and the like at WP:RFA. Heck, we could even ask candidates to select a long running dispute and address how they might help with it. Asking can't hurt, and might yield some who actually lend a hand. GRBerry 03:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this suggestion

1. Why not. Probably makes sense to find admins good and willing to do advanced DR/DM.--Tznkai (talk) 04:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Though the number of absolutly idiotic questions in RFA is staggering ("Hey guy, what's the difference between a block and a ban" "If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?" "Upon what circumstances would you close an AFD as "no consensus?"), I will go ahead and ask, and base my !vote soley around the answer to that question and a lack of pledge to be recallable (admin recall - spawn of satan). Hipocrite (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
3. This is a great idea. Right now, such experience is more likely to be a negative (as in "Too much drama!") than a positive. MastCell ^Talk 22:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
4. Strong endorsement. (This is parallel to the point I made earlier [8]). Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
5. Couldn't hurt. --Elonka 16:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
6. endorse A president chooses his (soon her) cabinet but they also choose to serve...and give their reasons why --Buster7 (talk) 05:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
7. A good idea in the context of cohesionating the AE process --Scott Free (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal #1 by Gatoclass

I happened to notice in a recent AE dispute, a user was banned for a month for edit warring over pictures of casualties in a recent conflict. This particular dispute has thus been temporarily resolved, but nothing has been done to address the underlying issue. Thus the potential remains for more edit warring in future over the same issue on that page or other pages.

I would like to see admins taking a more proactive role in preventing disputes by establishing general principles from individual cases, just as is done in a legal system. For example, in the case of this recent dispute about casualty pictures, wouldn't the obvious thing to do to be to establish a general principle that casualty pictures either are or are not acceptable in articles about conflicts? Once that has been done, we no longer have to worry about users edit warring over the issue, or having to resolve such disputes at AE. By establishing general principles from particular cases wherever possible, we should be able to decrease the amount of disputation on the project as a whole, as well as reducing the burden on administrators at AE. Gatoclass (talk) 03:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this suggestion

1. Endorse. Too many established resolution methods are principles are spread out and poorly documented. We should have a master list of general conclusions that admins adhere to in making decisions instead of just making everything up on the fly. It would also be something people could point to when it comes to a conflict in any individual article dispute and hopefully avoid having to revisit the same conflict over and over in different locations until people agree to what was already agred upon elsewhere. If anything gets on the lis that people disagree with, they can then work to overturn it.DreamGuy (talk) 14:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
2. Endorse. This is an excellent idea. And not only make precedents regarding the addition of casualties to ongoing conflicts, but also if they are acceptable then is it required that they be balanced (if so in what way), what type of sources are acceptable for these photos, etc? Does "balance" mean that if one side has 1000 casualties and the other has 10, that the picture ratio reflects the casualty ratio or does it mean that each side of the conflict (assuming there are 2 parties) has 50% (roughly) of the casualty photos? These are the kinds of questions that are still unanswered. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
3. Endorse with caution. Every intervention should lead to learning, and moving from the particular to the general is useful. However there are many cases where 'exceptional cases make bad laws'. It's worth waiting a while, regaining a sense of proportion before making sweeping legislation.Riversider (talk) 19:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal by Allstarecho

Disband ArbComm because it's a waste of time in the first place, a joke in the second place. I know an editor "topic banned" out of the "blue" without any sort of attention paid to the user's edits at the article. Just because he happened along to edit the article at the wrong time, during a lengthy heated BLP/Reliable sources vs. article subject's own published statements tiff, he was topic banned. Shut down ArbComm. RFC is enough and can be enforced by the people that are to enforce rules: ADMINS. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 07:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this suggestion

Proposal by Scott Free

I think that the current block and ban sanction-base approach used by arbcom, while certainly useful and helpful, isn't necessarily the most effective approach in an open, volunteer, horizontal hierarchy. Ultimately people need practical tools to help resolve their content disputes and achieve quality encyclopedic content. The dispute resolution process as it exists is fine by me, I just think it needs to be reinforced at a ground level - thus the following proposals-

• Reduce the number of arbitrators voting on a case to seven. This would speed up and simplify the arb process and lighten the case loads, giving arbitrators more time to work on insightful, thoughtful solutions.

• Double the amount of members on the mediation committee. In general, I think a lot of problems could be solved by simply applying, encourageing, and educating the already existing civility and dispute resolution guidelines. More people with competence and experience in using dispute resolution tools and mediation methods could also be very helpful.

Users who endorse this suggestion

1. Proposed. --Scott Free (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
2. Endorse - arimareiji (talk) 19:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
3. --Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
4. Endorse. Mediation and basic communication that allows the reestablishment of respectful relationships are the key to conflict resolution. Doesn't always work, but its about the only thing that does.Riversider (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal by Benjiboi

Similar to concerns already addressed, I feel some of the problems with the current system are the inequalities in application of topic bans, page bans, temporary and permanent, etc. Currently the blocking systems seem to be universally understood and applied. Sadly, I can speak from personal experience that is not true with bans. There are likely a variety of reasons the current banning system is lacking or unevenly understood and applied, but focusing on potential solutions I propose:

• That topic bans be structured similar to blocks, in execution and escalation; be better explained to both admins and editors; and require advance dialog in hopes that users will understand what behaviours need to be addressed before bans are even needed. We want to encourage civility and improving articles; bans can be helpful towards these goals but they also need to be fairly applied.

Users who endorse this suggestion

1. Proposed. -- Banjeboi 20:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
2. Fairness is paramount. Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
3. "Advance dialog" should be required.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
4. Endorse --Scott Free (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
5. My only disagreement is with your optimistic view of block policy. Spotfixer (talk) 01:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal by Poeticbent

The Arbitration Committee stated in the Eastern European disputes case that it will consider instituting suitable reforms to the enforcement process. Why was it necessary? Because for three months the proverbial mud flew in all directions between some twenty (20) experienced users supplying cooked evidence spiked with white lies in commentaries - which is possible only among users who already know how to work the system. And, what do we have now? No admin would touch this case with a ten-foot pole regardless of need. Everybody's exhausted except for the POV warriors who submit frivolous reports to ArbCom enforcement.[9]

The repeat gaming of the system exemplified in EEd Evidence section was barely acknowledged by the ArbCom in Proposed Decission due to its sheer volume with 648 diffs plus 230 Talk page links impossible to follow. In the real world the examination of such evidence would take years and possibly millions of dollars. So, something else needs to be done.

I hope that the Arbitration Committee can prevent the same manipulation from being repeated in the future, first, by narrowing the definition of what constitutes acceptable evidence. 1). No copy-paste jobs from previous cases, already closed and resolved. 2). No emotive eloquence in commentaries to diffs. 3). No repeat accusations of personal attacks and other character assassinations, simply because ArbCom in itself has a potential for becoming an attack venue against opponents. 4). Evidence provided cannot be labeled with fresh summaries because ArbCom has no clue who's real? 5). No insults (especially racial), with a threat of being barred from further proceedings. That's jest what is needed, from a perspective of a layman like me. --Poeticbent talk 19:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this suggestion

1. Endorse in theory. I think more practical "rules of evidence" are needed, though. arimareiji (talk) 19:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
2. I think the ArbCom promised a clear set of rules that would educate editors what good evidence is. That would be a start. But what's really needed is to see arbitrators involved in early discussion of evidence, commenting on what makes sense, and what is a pile of trash early on, to discourage certain editors from spamming the arbcom evidence page with any imaginable grievance and transforming the evidence pages into a hate-filled mess (same goes for workshop, too).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Counter-opinions

Proposal by Jayen466

In the spirit of brainstorming, and picking up on Elonka's idea of rotation above: how about something akin to a jury duty system for admins? If there are around 1500 admins, at the first of each month, 250 of them – selected by the month they became an admin – would find an automated message on their talk page saying, "You have AE duty this month."

• An admin not "on duty" in the month the complaint was first filed can participate in discussions, but cannot take any enforcement action.
• Any enforcement action should have the support of several on-duty admins, much like the arbcom voting rules (i.e. a specified margin between support and oppose). If there is no clear margin in support, no action is taken.
• A clerk can send out AE duty reminders to all 250 admins if there is a lack of response on the AE page.

Potential benefits:

• No burn-out: every admin is on duty for just one month out of six. They can concentrate on doing AE work then, and can digest and recover from whatever went down in the five months following.
• No clique formation around the AE board.
• Fresh eyes to every dispute.
• Requiring support from multiple admins for an enforcement action ensures that it is not just one hapless admin who gets the flak – it also prevents "fluke decisions".

Users who endorse this suggestion

1. Endorse for the reasons noted above, but with a modification: Split it down much further to avoid diffusion of responsibility, and reduce it to one day every six months. Set a bot (with clerk supervision) to notify 7 admins at least a week ahead of time that they have "jury duty" for one day, and that they'll need to follow up on the incidents from that day for at least a week following. When the day arrives, the bot will also post the names of the other "jurors" for the day to them. Include a caveat that an admin can opt out of their day's selection if they make it up within a month. arimareiji (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Users who oppose this suggestion

1. Oppose, because if you wish to discourage people from becoming admins, this may do that. Mandatory duties drive people away. Do we have too many admins now? Isn't there another way to recruit and reward volunteers? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions/Proposal, Olive

Wikipedia self defines as both collaborative or community driven, and as an encyclopedia - content driven. Although clear delineation is possible and necessary, both of these are also broad categories that can overlap. Neither should be mutually exclusive.

Stress fundamentally is neutral. The effects of stress, though, impact Wikipedia in terms of both editing content and behaviour. Research indicates that stress effects human beings on every level: Based on such research John Medina in his book Brain Rules notes that:

Your body’s defense… is built for immediate response to a serious but passing danger…Chronic stress dangerously deregulates a system built only to deal with short term responses.

and

Under chronic stress, adrenaline creates scars in your blood vessels that can cause a heart attack or stroke and cortisol damages the cells of the hippocampus. Crippling your ability to learn and remember.

and

Emotional stress has huge impacts across society….and on employees’ productivity at work. (Medina, John. Brain Rules. Pear Press, Seattle, Washington, USA, 2008.)

Arbs,. editors and admins. are all affected by incivility. What is uncivil for one and creates stress may not be for another. Civility means creating around you an environment where the other guy can work as well as you can. That includes the arbs. Arbs need to be relieved of stressful situations somewhat, to act in the most effective way possible. No one signed up for anything on Wikipedia to be beaten up.

Remedy: Delegate

1.) Example: On Behaviour

• No admin or arb shall have the power to issue a block or ban for longer than one month.
• If a longer block or ban is deemed necessary, the admin. will advise arbitration of this.
• Arbitration will then delegate to a group of carefully selected admin., editors (3 editors, 4 admins with at least 2 years consistent experience on Wikipedia) who have no known connection to the editor being banned or blocked, the responsibility to conduct a careful review of the case.
• The editor being blocked or banned may and should present a case, open to the community, but in which he or she alone contributes evidence.
• The “mini arbs” will, based on their research and on the users presentation come to a decision. They will agree together on the length of “Wiki break” imposed if any.
• A user may appeal once and may present again to a new set of "mini arbs".
• The job of the arbs is to select the “mini arbs”. From then on they are no longer part of the case. They are not a form of higher appeal.

(As a sideline this may do away with the kind of gang mentality present in some situations as noted by Durova above.)

2.) Example: On Content:

• If and when all other avenues in terms of dealing with content disputes have been tried, Arbitration may be approached and will delegate to a group of experts in the topic area the power to make a final decision on a content ruling.
• Arbitration’s responsibility is to find and carefully select 3-5 such experts for their knowledge and neutrality on that subject. Experts may be admins or editors and must not be editors on that article or have been seen to have a consistent impact on other articles closely related to the topic of the contentious article.
• 4 out of 5 votes are necessary to carry the content inclusion or exclusion.
• An editor may appeal the content inclusion or exclusion after six months if sufficient reason is given and if accepted by arbitration as worthy of another examination

3.) This means:

• Arbitration is now free to deal with more over arching concerns such as cases like Fringe Science where scrutiny of single words and the nuances they present may require special study and much time, and uncomplicated by the added burden and complexity of dealing with user restrictions.

• On all cases arbitrators may be freer to patrol the case so any baiting and incivility is immediately dealt with, on a perhaps “two strikes and you can go somewhere else” basis.

• Not all arbs should be involved in every case but should cycle in and out of cases so periods of activity are followed by periods of rest.

(I apologize if any of this is redundant ... Thought I'd better lay it all out as one thought.)

Users who endorse this suggestion

1. The scecifics can be worked out later, but checks and balances like these would be good --Scott Free (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
2. This will never pass because it prevents administrators from acting arbitrarily. Spotfixer (talk) 01:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal #3 by Elonka

This is a variation from the recommendations from last year's Working Group on cultural and ethnic edit wars: When a case involving a wideranging dispute is addressed by ArbCom, the remedies should focus not just on the specific editors involved, but also the entire topic area. As was done with the Israel-Palestine case, discretionary sanctions should be authorized for any uninvolved administrators in the entire topic area of dispute. --Elonka 19:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this suggestion

1. Yes, with the added benefit of not having to prove sock/meatpuppetry with any editor that is named - certain difficult areas are under general AE sanction (and should be noted when the edit page is opened). LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal #4 by Elonka

Another variation from the recommendations from last year's Working Group on cultural and ethnic edit wars: Discretionary sanctions should be authorized in certain cases, even if a dispute has not yet risen to the point of an action ArbCom case. For example:

1. Articles where the consensus of editors on the talkpage, is that the presence of an uninvolved administrator would help with the dispute.
2. Articles that have been protected due to edit wars, at least 3 times within one year. There are dozens of articles that have devolved into a state of indefinite protection due to edit-warring, which articles could benefit from uninvolved admins being empowered to place discretionary sanctions.
3. Articles where the majority of editors have agreed to mediation, but one or more heavily involved editors have refused mediation. These articles in particular might benefit from administrator intervention, as a halfway step to try and address things before proceeding as far as a full multi-month arbitration case.

--Elonka 19:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this suggestion

Proposal by Carolmooredc

These are three prophylactic suggestions that would help keep things cooler in general, allowing Admins to focus on knottiest problems. Where's best place to push them?

• A. Site map for all policy, dispute resolution, arbitration and enforcement pages since it is too confusing now and easy to forget where important pages where and how they fit into the scheme of things. Help:Contents doesn't seem to do it.
• B. WP:Dispute resolution itself should list admins who will assist. The problem is that contacting editors via Wikipedia:Editor_assistance doesn't always get a relevant response; listing sensitive issues on Wikipedia:Editor_assistance page where anyone can read them can be intimidating too.
• C. Wikipedia create a video or flash presentation editing tutorial that shows the most common problems leading to disputes and how to handle disputes sensibly before arbitration enforcement is necessary; might be fun project for video fans out there. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this suggestion

1. 1. Something along those lines to better inform inexperienced parties --Scott Free (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal by Deacon of Pnpadetzim #1

Let's alleviate the pressure on admins by taking away the seriousness of their own decision. Because of the distorted process of communal consensus formation on forums like AN/I and AE and the unclear and changing nature of WP:WHEEL, I suggest all admins patrolling AE appoint or get appointed a number of other admins who are allowed to reverse their decisions without any accusation of a WP:WHEEL violation. Such individually particular appeal-admins, if they agreed, cwould automatically be assigned power-to-overturn when one of their admins made a decision. AE Admins should be encouraged and trusted to appoint other admins whom they trust but are not close to. If the "community" were unhappy with the appeal-admin's choice they could take it to ArbCom who could motion for or against it. This would free us up to tighten this policy in other regards. I.e. it would allow us to prevent free-for-alls where any admin with another interest can overturn any decision citing "consensus" (and protect such an admin from the temptation) while not overwhelming the time of the small group of arbitrators. I think such a proposal is worth considering, even if it has to be fine-tuned. I think at the very least, AE admins should be encouraged to appoint such appeal-admins voluntarily, if for no other reason than sometimes we all go to bed. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this suggestion

1. Endorse. For quite some time I have a habit to supplement some of my admin's actions with note "any admin is free to overturn my action without consulting me first", especially in the areas where I don't have deep understanding of the history of the conflict or the persons involved. However I would not use the term "appeal" here: I would fear that "appeal-admins", if labeled so will inevitably be bombarded with appeals to "fix the bad". This concept should be more like soul-buddy: "I trust you do what I would have done after some extra thought or time passed". - 7-bubёn >t 19:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal by Rktect

Editors reverting pages for whatever reason should take responsibility that the page be left in a better condition that they found it. Two possible categories of problem arise.

If a good faith editor corrects typos, adds references, attempts to improve the page and then another good faith editor convinced that the edit is OR or not verifiable despite the references and cites, reverts it rather than editing it productively the net effect, may be negative.

I reverted a piece of vandalism the other day and didn't take the time to check the whole article for more. Another editor contacted me and reminded me that by removing one occurence but leaving another I hadn't caught I was in effect embedding it where other editors might not see it. Rktect (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal by Piotrus

It should be clear that editors should from AE should be able to request input by arbcom committee members, when they feel AE thread was improperly reviewed and closed. This should be a relatively easy and painless procedure. But those who cry fire too often should not be allowed to swamp arbcom with their grievances; thus an editor should have a limited number of "tickets" s/he can use to each year for filling RfArb requests (or clarification requests or such). If the request is considered valid, they can keep the ticket, but if not, they should run out of them (in other words, an editor spamming RfArb - or even AE - too often, should find himself unable to do so).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this suggestion

1. In theory, the request for clarification page can be used for that - something to check against one admin quickly closing and archiving an AE request without community awareness. --Scott Free (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal by Brewcrewer

Admins who consider themselves neutral should keep a log of their actions and make sure that their actions aren't disproportionately in favor of one side of a conflict. Admin should also make sure to be split down the middle in terms of his actions within a given conflict. The benefit of this proposal is that sanctioned editors will have a harder time complaining that a sanctioning admin is biased.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

See talk page for further discussion re User:Elonka's response.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this suggestion

1. Although Brewcrewer is usually way off, this is actually a good idea :-)--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
2. I like the idea of admins keeping logs of their actions (I do this currently at User:Elonka/ArbCom log). However, the "split down the middle" option is not always possible. Sometimes a page in conflict might have (for example) 90% consensus-building editors, and 10% rabid fringe "my way or the highway" participants. Or the other way around, 90% wanting to put in original research, and 10% actually using reliable sources. AE admins in these situations should definitely endeavor to deal with both sides fairly, but sometimes the sanctions will be focused more on one side than the other, simply because that's where the policy violations are. --Elonka 00:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
3. Although Brewcrewer is usually way off, this is actually a good idea :-). However, he is advised to WP:AGF, and the reasons he state are not good reasons, as per Elonka: If one "side" misbehaves more than the other, it is natural that enforcement will be equally asymmetric. So keeping logs is transparecy, but should not be a reason to dispute the actions of an admin: transparency is always a good idea, period.--Cerejota (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Plan 9 from Scott Free

I think that there has been enough feedback so far to warrant a general proposal that assumes the need for the formation of something to improve, unify, and clarify the arbitration enforcement process i.e.

The formation of a committee, sub-committee, work group or task force of some sort which, via the creation of community-approved guidelines and policies, aims to –

1- Provide clearer instructions and guidelines to all parties on how to proceed following the arbitration decision and the proper use of arbitration enforcement resources.

2- Give general and consistent guidelines in terms of length and nature of arbitration enforcement sanctions to be applied, with good faith, neutrality, and transparency checks and controls for all parties involved.

3- Encourage good communication and cooperation among all case participants at all levels. (i.e. editors named in case, participating editors, arbitrators, arbitration clerks, and arbitration enforcement administrators)

4- Encourage familiarity with content of articles involved and specific content issues of disputes as well as a reasonably solid knowledge of the history of the case and the nature and specifics of the arb decision.

5- When necessary, allow for the creation of pragmatic, specific, practical solutions for resolving the dispute and encouraging quality articles.

Arbitration Enforcement requests would no longer be open to all administrators, they would only be open to those belonging to this specific new group formed for the purpose of arbitration enforcement. --Scott Free (talk) 01:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

1. Proposed. --Scott Free (talk) 01:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal #2 by Gatoclass

I'm not sure if jumping into all these proposals was the smart thing to do, I think perhaps it would have been better had there been an in depth discussion on the talk page first. However, I guess I had better put this one up before the RFC is closed.

I propose that, for the sake of fairness and to spread the burden of responsibility, we elect a board of three admins to handle AE cases. While anyone can comment on a case and recommend action, sanctions will be left to these three admins. We could have relatively frequent elections to avoid burnout. Gatoclass (talk) 11:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

1. Proposed. Gatoclass (talk) 11:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
2. Huh.... Its Yet Another Election, but the idea has merit. Significant merit. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
3. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
4. A suggestion: rather than an election, why not take the three most senior admins (unless one were recused) for a case? The longer-serving admins are the ones who would have been most likely to have been involved in the original case (and would be familiar with the particulars). Horologium (talk) 11:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
5. Or let admins volunteer, then mechanically select the three most senior admins of that group. Rotate from time t time. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 13:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal by User:Hiding

Sanctions don't work. I think I've heard that somewhere before. My opinion is that arbitration is supposed to be final and binding. There should not be any of these sanctions. Given that arb-com only rules on behaviour, arb-com should be prepared to say that this user's behaviour has been unacceptable, and so the user is blocked from Wikipedia for this period of time. End of story. Admins are free to block users for various reasons at any time, and don't really need the added burden/sheen of arb-com outcomes. When a case comes to arb-com, it is usually because everything else has been tried first and all parties just want arb-com to make a decision one way or the other. Allowing the dispute to continue within a walled garden of "rules of engagement" doesn't end anything; half the time it makes it worse. To me, it's not a difficult idea to swallow. Evidence is presented and reviewed, and then arb-com should decide whose behaviour is unacceptable and block accordingly. That's the be all and end all. There should be no allowances made for outside interpretation. Arbitration should mean the situation has been arbitrated. So I propose:

1. Arbitrators review the evidence brought.
2. Arbitrators review the policies that guide behaviour.
3. Arbitrators decide if any breaches of policies have been made.
4. Arbitrators decide how serious these breaches have been.
5. Arbitrators decide how serious the effects of these breaches have been on Wikipedia.
6. Arbitrators review previous behaviour of users in question.
7. Arbitrators block users accordingly.
8. Arbiotrators close the case as having been dealt with.
9. Blocked users return when their block expires, the situation having been dealt with.
10. People move on.
That's about the sum of it. Hiding T 18:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

1. Proposed Hiding T 18:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
2. Completely support Treedel (talk) 11:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
3. Support Griffinofwales (talk) 16:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Lies we tell ourselves, a proposal by User:Ikip

There are a lot of lies we tell ourselves on wikipedia, "there is no voting", "there are no cabals", "wikipedia is not a social network", etc.

Another fiction is that the Arbcom does not rule on content disputes. The reality is that the Arbcom does rule on content disputes indirectly, they just let other administrators divvy out the enforcement.

1. Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/September_11_conspiracy_theories in which strict restrictions where put in place on these pages
2. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine where a mentor was set up on the page

I suggest that arbitotors get rid of this fiction, and openly state that they decide content disputes, albiet indirectly. This will allow them to use the solutions above more often. Ikip (talk) 12:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

There is another lie. That this is worth our efforts. We should not try to be de facto dictators of articles due to any status. Wikipedia should be an anarchy, by, for and of the people of the world.

We will always have conflict and strife, ban those that cause disruption hard and fast and let those who wish to expound their intellect free reign. This is the ideal, yet while we can never achieve this perfect state we can come close.

The solution to achieving perfection is to give less power to the entrenched interests and let anarchic principles decide the true content of this endeavour. Any less of an effort will be repeating the mistakes of our forebears, and any limitation on the future will make wikipedia a passing phrase in the history books.

Embracing the anarchy is the only way forward, and any organisation in this project with selfish ideals deserves to die.

Regards, Nazlfrag Nazlfrag (talk) 14:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal by Deacon of Pnpadetzim #2

In partial solution to #View_by_Deacon_of_Pndapetzim_3, propose new standard practise of maintaining separate sections for admins and non-admins on AE threads. Preferably, this would be parties and non-parties, but as there would be benefit from ignoring this, this would assuredly be ignored. Admins can discuss action in their section, while the interested non-admins (who'll be far more often than not parties to some extent) can give their advice in their own section. This is similar to the structure of arbcom case workshops. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this suggestion

Users who are not quite sure of this suggestion

1. There is enough off wiki chat from admins already what we need is more transperancy and not less. BigDunc^Talk 14:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

That is assuming correct me if I am wrong that admins only can view the seperate chat room you propose. BigDunc^Talk 14:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

From what Deacon is saying, I don't believe you're correct here Dunc, instead, there would be two sections of discussion in an AE report. One for admins to discuss, and one for other interested parties to discuss. They would both be viewable by all. SirFozzie (talk) 16:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal by Deacon of Pnpadetzim #3

In partial solution to #View_by_Deacon_of_Pndapetzim 2. New discretionary power, whereby uninvolved AE administrators are empowered to designate "tag teams" in restricted topic areas. I.e., for the purposes of 1RR (or whatever numerical restriction is in place), an uninvolded administrator could classify editor 1 and editor 2 (and editor 3, etc) as one editor, based on consistent historical pattern of reverting in concert. The obvious benefit here is that the use of this power, or the threat of use of it, would discourage off-wiki co-ordination and prevent use of numbers stifling cross-party dialogue, as it currently does. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this suggestion

-Users who are not quite sure of this suggestion

1. I think I know where this is coming from, but I really think this is NOT a good idea, it gives too much power to the outlier to disrupt things. If they're proven to using off-wiki coordination then we already have rules against that. This goes too far the other way. SirFozzie (talk) 04:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Not a good idea. SirFozzie is correct on this one. --Domer48_'fenian' 08:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Bad Idea This negates the whole assumption of good faith which is fundamental to wiki. Also how could an uninvolved admin come to such a conclusion if they are uninvolved? Editors agree with each other, are members of the same projects imposible to prove a tag team is at work by edit patterns. ou would need to show that they conspired IMO to prove tag team accusations, which are impossible to defend and impossible to prove. Could it not just be editors agree with each other without the conspiracy. BigDunc^Talk 14:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)