Is there any point why we even have arbcom? They do not seem to be doing much of resolving disputes lately. Granted they accept cases and close them. But by the time case is closed very little of the dispute is been resolved. Often disputes continue as if the RFAR wasn't filed.
They often do not respond to inquires in a timely fashion or at all. They ignore evidence or at least make statements that are directly contradicted by hard evidence. The remedies they pass generally are common-sense statements and nothing more. For example, they will say that meatpupperary is disruptive but they will not pass remedies in prevention of it.
They are not fair. They give a lot of leeway to long term trolls yet they do not give a fraction of that to good standing users. For example they will decline a case if is is not adequately engulfed in disruption. If you want your case to be heard by arbcom you need to be revert waring left right or else you will not be given much attention even if you exhaust dispute resolution.
Maybe it is time to dissolve arbcom.
- White Cat
On 21/03/2008, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Is there any point why we even have arbcom? They do not seem to be doing much of resolving disputes lately. Granted they accept cases and close them. But by the time case is closed very little of the dispute is been resolved. Often disputes continue as if the RFAR wasn't filed.
They often do not respond to inquires in a timely fashion or at all. They ignore evidence or at least make statements that are directly contradicted by hard evidence. The remedies they pass generally are common-sense statements and nothing more. For example, they will say that meatpupperary is disruptive but they will not pass remedies in prevention of it.
They are not fair. They give a lot of leeway to long term trolls yet they do not give a fraction of that to good standing users. For example they will decline a case if is is not adequately engulfed in disruption. If you want your case to be heard by arbcom you need to be revert waring left right or else you will not be given much attention even if you exhaust dispute resolution.
Maybe it is time to dissolve arbcom.
If you wish you make accusations against ArbCom, you're going to need to be specific. Vague, general accusations will just be ignored.
If I used specific examples that would distract you from the underlying problems why arbcom is ineffective in resolving disputes.
- White Cat
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 5:47 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/03/2008, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Is there any point why we even have arbcom? They do not seem to be doing much of resolving disputes lately. Granted they accept cases and close
them.
But by the time case is closed very little of the dispute is been
resolved.
Often disputes continue as if the RFAR wasn't filed.
They often do not respond to inquires in a timely fashion or at all.
They
ignore evidence or at least make statements that are directly
contradicted
by hard evidence. The remedies they pass generally are common-sense statements and nothing more. For example, they will say that
meatpupperary
is disruptive but they will not pass remedies in prevention of it.
They are not fair. They give a lot of leeway to long term trolls yet
they do
not give a fraction of that to good standing users. For example they
will
decline a case if is is not adequately engulfed in disruption. If you
want
your case to be heard by arbcom you need to be revert waring left right
or
else you will not be given much attention even if you exhaust dispute resolution.
Maybe it is time to dissolve arbcom.
If you wish you make accusations against ArbCom, you're going to need to be specific. Vague, general accusations will just be ignored.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Then you will be rightly ignored.
./scream
White Cat wrote:
If I used specific examples that would distract you from the underlying problems why arbcom is ineffective in resolving disputes.
- White CatOn Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 5:47 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/03/2008, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Is there any point why we even have arbcom? They do not seem to be doing much of resolving disputes lately. Granted they accept cases and close
them.
But by the time case is closed very little of the dispute is been
resolved.
Often disputes continue as if the RFAR wasn't filed.
They often do not respond to inquires in a timely fashion or at all.
They
ignore evidence or at least make statements that are directly
contradicted
by hard evidence. The remedies they pass generally are common-sense statements and nothing more. For example, they will say that
meatpupperary
is disruptive but they will not pass remedies in prevention of it.
They are not fair. They give a lot of leeway to long term trolls yet
they do
not give a fraction of that to good standing users. For example they
will
decline a case if is is not adequately engulfed in disruption. If you
want
your case to be heard by arbcom you need to be revert waring left right
or
else you will not be given much attention even if you exhaust dispute resolution.
Maybe it is time to dissolve arbcom.
If you wish you make accusations against ArbCom, you're going to need to be specific. Vague, general accusations will just be ignored.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 21/03/2008, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
If I used specific examples that would distract you from the underlying problems why arbcom is ineffective in resolving disputes.
And if you don't, we have only your word for what these underlying problems are. If you want to make accusations, you have to give evidence to support them.
I want to do that later on. Lets start general and then go to specifics. Is everyone in this thread satisfied with how arbcom runs? How much experience did you have with them?
- White Cat
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 6:21 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/03/2008, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
If I used specific examples that would distract you from the underlying problems why arbcom is ineffective in resolving disputes.
And if you don't, we have only your word for what these underlying problems are. If you want to make accusations, you have to give evidence to support them.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 21/03/2008, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
I want to do that later on. Lets start general and then go to specifics. Is everyone in this thread satisfied with how arbcom runs? How much experience did you have with them?
That's not how it works. You start with specifics and then generalise. Trying to do it backwards doesn't work (what's the point in discussing specific cases once you've already established the general case?). You wish a particular action to take place (disbanding arbcom), so the burden of proof is on you. Present your evidence.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 21/03/2008, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
I want to do that later on. Lets start general and then go to specifics. Is everyone in this thread satisfied with how arbcom runs? How much experience did you have with them?
That's not how it works. You start with specifics and then generalise. Trying to do it backwards doesn't work (what's the point in discussing specific cases once you've already established the general case?). You wish a particular action to take place (disbanding arbcom), so the burden of proof is on you. Present your evidence.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
This whole thread, is there a mod about? O_o
./scream
There's something in what you say, but ArbCom are, when all is said and done, one of very few ways of actually getting anything done on the English Wikipedia.
I take it you object to the fact that "They give a lot of leeway to long term trolls yet they do not give a fraction of that to good standing users." Now, I agree, and they should start banning long-term trolls. Who, I wonder, would be first up against the wall were that to happen?
That apart, the ArbCom is far from perfect, as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dbachmann#on_the_arbcom shows very nicely.
CM
Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 17:32:13 +0200 From: wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Arbitration Committee
Is there any point why we even have arbcom? They do not seem to be doing much of resolving disputes lately. Granted they accept cases and close them. But by the time case is closed very little of the dispute is been resolved. Often disputes continue as if the RFAR wasn't filed.
They often do not respond to inquires in a timely fashion or at all. They ignore evidence or at least make statements that are directly contradicted by hard evidence. The remedies they pass generally are common-sense statements and nothing more. For example, they will say that meatpupperary is disruptive but they will not pass remedies in prevention of it.
They are not fair. They give a lot of leeway to long term trolls yet they do not give a fraction of that to good standing users. For example they will decline a case if is is not adequately engulfed in disruption. If you want your case to be heard by arbcom you need to be revert waring left right or else you will not be given much attention even if you exhaust dispute resolution.
Maybe it is time to dissolve arbcom.
- White Cat
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________ The next generation of Windows Live is here http://www.windowslive.co.uk/get-live
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 8:48 AM, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
I take it you object to the fact that "They give a lot of leeway to long term trolls yet they do not give a fraction of that to good standing users." Now, I agree, and they should start banning long-term trolls. Who, I wonder, would be first up against the wall were that to happen?
I suspect quite a lot of users would agree that we should take a harder line on some people; however, I'm not sure that there is wide agreement on WHICH people. One person's troll is another person's unfairly maligned good user, I find.
Arbcom suffers from the well-known and far from unique problems of committees (slow to decide, cautious). However, being quick and rash isn't necessarily the right thing either.
-Matt
Very true. A committee is an animal with four back legs :)
The real problems with the ArbCom all stem from the fact that they arbitrators refuse to get their hands dirty with questions of content. Very properly, since that's not their job and they would doubtless be less than competent at doing so. We really should get some money together for the ArbCom so they can start hiring academics on a consultancy basis to solve their content problems for them.
That's a somewhat far-out solution, but I've become increasingly convinced something like it is necessary.
CM
Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 08:57:29 -0700 From: morven@gmail.com To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Arbitration Committee
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 8:48 AM, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
I take it you object to the fact that "They give a lot of leeway to long term trolls yet they do not give a fraction of that to good standing users." Now, I agree, and they should start banning long-term trolls. Who, I wonder, would be first up against the wall were that to happen?
I suspect quite a lot of users would agree that we should take a harder line on some people; however, I'm not sure that there is wide agreement on WHICH people. One person's troll is another person's unfairly maligned good user, I find.
Arbcom suffers from the well-known and far from unique problems of committees (slow to decide, cautious). However, being quick and rash isn't necessarily the right thing either.
-Matt
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________ Get Hotmail on your mobile. Text MSN to 63463 now! http://mobile.uk.msn.com/pc/mail.aspx
Arbcom takes a lot of time to make quick and rash decisions. You hardly see extensive discussions by arbitrators on workshops or proposed decisions anymore
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 5:57 PM, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 8:48 AM, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
I take it you object to the fact that "They give a lot of leeway to
long term trolls yet they do
not give a fraction of that to good standing users." Now, I agree, and
they should start banning
long-term trolls. Who, I wonder, would be first up against the wall
were that to happen?
I suspect quite a lot of users would agree that we should take a harder line on some people; however, I'm not sure that there is wide agreement on WHICH people. One person's troll is another person's unfairly maligned good user, I find.
Arbcom suffers from the well-known and far from unique problems of committees (slow to decide, cautious). However, being quick and rash isn't necessarily the right thing either.
-Matt
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
They do have a private mailing list, you know. From what I've heard it's not exactly under-used.
CM
Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 18:08:25 +0200 From: wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Arbitration Committee
Arbcom takes a lot of time to make quick and rash decisions. You hardly see extensive discussions by arbitrators on workshops or proposed decisions anymore
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 5:57 PM, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 8:48 AM, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
I take it you object to the fact that "They give a lot of leeway to
long term trolls yet they do
not give a fraction of that to good standing users." Now, I agree, and
they should start banning
long-term trolls. Who, I wonder, would be first up against the wall
were that to happen?
I suspect quite a lot of users would agree that we should take a harder line on some people; however, I'm not sure that there is wide agreement on WHICH people. One person's troll is another person's unfairly maligned good user, I find.
Arbcom suffers from the well-known and far from unique problems of committees (slow to decide, cautious). However, being quick and rash isn't necessarily the right thing either.
-Matt
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the next generation of Windows Live http://www.windowslive.co.uk/get-live
On 21/03/2008, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
They do have a private mailing list, you know. From what I've heard it's not exactly under-used.
CM
No, not exactly private.
Also very true. Still, one leak is hardly catastrophe, and really quite insignificant compared to the way in which material from WMF's internal, private mailing lists frequently wind up on Kelly Martin's blog.
CM
Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 16:15:12 +0000 From: axel9891@googlemail.com To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Arbitration Committee
On 21/03/2008, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
They do have a private mailing list, you know. From what I've heard it's not exactly under-used.
CM
No, not exactly private.
-- Alex (Majorly)
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Majorly _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the next generation of Windows Live http://www.windowslive.co.uk/get-live
Well, I don't see it. Private enough...
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 6:15 PM, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
On 21/03/2008, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
They do have a private mailing list, you know. From what I've heard it's not exactly under-used.
CM
No, not exactly private.
-- Alex (Majorly)
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Majorly _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I cannot comment on what I cannot see. People would like to know why arbitration committee decided not to pass a remedy or vice versa.
There can indeed be some private communication but not everything should be discussed behind closed doors. The passed remedies are pointless without the logic behind them.
- White Cat
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Christiano Moreschi < moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
They do have a private mailing list, you know. From what I've heard it's not exactly under-used.
CM
Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 18:08:25 +0200 From: wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Arbitration Committee
Arbcom takes a lot of time to make quick and rash decisions. You hardly
see
extensive discussions by arbitrators on workshops or proposed decisions anymore
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 5:57 PM, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 8:48 AM, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
I take it you object to the fact that "They give a lot of leeway to
long term trolls yet they do
not give a fraction of that to good standing users." Now, I agree,
and
they should start banning
long-term trolls. Who, I wonder, would be first up against the wall
were that to happen?
I suspect quite a lot of users would agree that we should take a harder line on some people; however, I'm not sure that there is wide agreement on WHICH people. One person's troll is another person's unfairly maligned good user, I find.
Arbcom suffers from the well-known and far from unique problems of committees (slow to decide, cautious). However, being quick and rash isn't necessarily the right thing either.
-Matt
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Welcome to the next generation of Windows Live http://www.windowslive.co.uk/get-live _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Be fair. If you ask, the arbitrators will usually provide their reasoning, even though it may be bad reasoning. Now and then they provide reasoning without being asked. I don't view this as a major problem as far as ArbCom operations are concerned.
CM
Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 18:18:26 +0200 From: wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Arbitration Committee
I cannot comment on what I cannot see. People would like to know why arbitration committee decided not to pass a remedy or vice versa.
There can indeed be some private communication but not everything should be discussed behind closed doors. The passed remedies are pointless without the logic behind them.
- White CatOn Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Christiano Moreschi < moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
They do have a private mailing list, you know. From what I've heard it's not exactly under-used.
_________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the next generation of Windows Live http://www.windowslive.co.uk/get-live
Some arbitrators have been actively ignoring my inquiries for weeks/months.
- White Cat
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 6:22 PM, Christiano Moreschi < moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
Be fair. If you ask, the arbitrators will usually provide their reasoning, even though it may be bad reasoning. Now and then they provide reasoning without being asked. I don't view this as a major problem as far as ArbCom operations are concerned.
CM
Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 18:18:26 +0200 From: wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Arbitration Committee
I cannot comment on what I cannot see. People would like to know why arbitration committee decided not to pass a remedy or vice versa.
There can indeed be some private communication but not everything should
be
discussed behind closed doors. The passed remedies are pointless without
the
logic behind them.
- White CatOn Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Christiano Moreschi < moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
They do have a private mailing list, you know. From what I've heard
it's
not exactly under-used.
Welcome to the next generation of Windows Live http://www.windowslive.co.uk/get-live _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
White Cat wrote:
Arbcom takes a lot of time to make quick and rash decisions. You hardly see extensive discussions by arbitrators on workshops or proposed decisions anymore
In my experience, this is not true. If there are real problems, then please bring me a specific detailed case in which the ArbCom really got something badly wrong. There is an appeal mechanism, after all. And in my experience, the ArbCom is eager to correct errors, examine everything to see where the evidence leads, etc.
Not all the work is public, and for good reason. There are frank and thoughtful discussions about how to best defuse difficult situations, etc.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
White Cat wrote:
Arbcom takes a lot of time to make quick and rash decisions. You hardly see extensive discussions by arbitrators on workshops or proposed decisions anymore
In my experience, this is not true. If there are real problems, then please bring me a specific detailed case in which the ArbCom really got something badly wrong. There is an appeal mechanism, after all. And in my experience, the ArbCom is eager to correct errors, examine everything to see where the evidence leads, etc.
Not all the work is public, and for good reason. There are frank and thoughtful discussions about how to best defuse difficult situations, etc.
I can't speak for what currently goes on on private lists, but I'd second this, and add that during the time I was on the ArbCom I'd say the opposite of "quick and rash decisions" was true--- the biggest problem was that there was so *much* discussion and worry about making sure all possibilities were considered and nothing got screwed up that things moved extremely slowly, which also encouraged burnout and resignations among arbitrators not able to put in dozens of hours per case on a regular basis. I'm sure there are problems with the setup, but I don't think "needs to be more meticulous and cautious in its deliberations" is one of them.
-Mark
I'm afraid Jimbo that is not my experience of the Arbcom, I regard them as spiteful and vengeful, not qualities needed in an Arb. More interested in maintaining their own status quo than in the encyclopedia. In my opinion many of them need replacing, and even more of them removing from the Arb's mailing list.
Giano
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 11:20 PM, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
White Cat wrote:
Arbcom takes a lot of time to make quick and rash decisions. You hardly
see
extensive discussions by arbitrators on workshops or proposed decisions anymore
In my experience, this is not true. If there are real problems, then please bring me a specific detailed case in which the ArbCom really got something badly wrong. There is an appeal mechanism, after all. And in my experience, the ArbCom is eager to correct errors, examine everything to see where the evidence leads, etc.
Not all the work is public, and for good reason. There are frank and thoughtful discussions about how to best defuse difficult situations, etc.
--Jimbo
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 22/03/2008, Giacomo M-Z solebaciato@googlemail.com wrote:
I'm afraid Jimbo that is not my experience of the Arbcom, I regard them as spiteful and vengeful, not qualities needed in an Arb. More interested in maintaining their own status quo than in the encyclopedia. In my opinion many of them need replacing, and even more of them removing from the Arb's mailing list.
This of course having nothing whatsoever to do with you finally being penalised for your ongoing extensively documented gross abusiveness to other editors; it is of course your considered opinion of all other cases.
- d.
You, David, im my opinion are a great part of the problem. Many editors, rightly or wrongly, do not trust you.
Giano
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 12:03 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/03/2008, Giacomo M-Z solebaciato@googlemail.com wrote:
I'm afraid Jimbo that is not my experience of the Arbcom, I regard them
as
spiteful and vengeful, not qualities needed in an Arb. More interested
in
maintaining their own status quo than in the encyclopedia. In my opinion many of them need replacing, and even more of them removing
from the
Arb's mailing list.
This of course having nothing whatsoever to do with you finally being penalised for your ongoing extensively documented gross abusiveness to other editors; it is of course your considered opinion of all other cases.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Lets stay on topic please.
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 2:56 PM, Giacomo M-Z solebaciato@googlemail.com wrote:
You, David, im my opinion are a great part of the problem. Many editors, rightly or wrongly, do not trust you.
Giano
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 12:03 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/03/2008, Giacomo M-Z solebaciato@googlemail.com wrote:
I'm afraid Jimbo that is not my experience of the Arbcom, I regard
them
as
spiteful and vengeful, not qualities needed in an Arb. More
interested
in
maintaining their own status quo than in the encyclopedia. In my opinion many of them need replacing, and even more of them removing
from the
Arb's mailing list.
This of course having nothing whatsoever to do with you finally being penalised for your ongoing extensively documented gross abusiveness to other editors; it is of course your considered opinion of all other cases.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 22/03/2008, Giacomo M-Z solebaciato@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 12:03 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/03/2008, Giacomo M-Z solebaciato@googlemail.com wrote:
I'm afraid Jimbo that is not my experience of the Arbcom, I regard them
as
spiteful and vengeful, not qualities needed in an Arb. More interested
in
maintaining their own status quo than in the encyclopedia. In my opinion many of them need replacing, and even more of them removing
from the
Arb's mailing list.
This of course having nothing whatsoever to do with you finally being penalised for your ongoing extensively documented gross abusiveness to other editors; it is of course your considered opinion of all other cases.
You, David, im my opinion are a great part of the problem. Many editors, rightly or wrongly, do not trust you.
This does not in fact contradict or indeed address anything I said, nor that you managed to set a new record for the tolerance extended to a good writer with difficulty working with others in a civil manner in the hope of them shaping up.
- d.
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 1:20 AM, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
In my experience, this is not true. If there are real problems, then please bring me a specific detailed case in which the ArbCom really got something badly wrong. There is an appeal mechanism, after all. And in my experience, the ArbCom is eager to correct errors, examine everything to see where the evidence leads, etc.
Not all the work is public, and for good reason. There are frank and thoughtful discussions about how to best defuse difficult situations, etc.
--Jimbo
Since my seemingly ongoing case since 2005 arbcom hasn't managed to come up with a resolution. There were two arbitration cases which only gave friendly warnings. A third one is about to be rejected. You are welcome to review the cases. I have nothing to loose at this point anyway. Aside from my sanity that is. :)
But enough of that...
In my experience arbcom tends to avoid making decisions with teeth most of the time. They give out warnings that any sane person should agree to. You know... decisions that declare meatpuppetary as something not to do. But they do not pass decisions that have a teeth. For instance if people were engaging in meatpuppetry prior to the case and since it is clearly prohibited behaviour perhaps an *enforceable* remedy could be passed to prevent future meatpuppetry on a particular case. If the involved people are not engaged in meatpuppetry they have no reason to object to it anyways.
Appeals are the problem. Appeals supposed to deal with sharp edges that form after the case. Issues that should be solved during the case (as they were after all presented there) are not resolved in the cases and so much time is wasted on appeals.
First E&C arbitration case basically concluded that people should work together of which a lack of it was the very reason people filed the case. There were many proposed remedies that could have been more effective in resolving the dispute but arbcom decided not to pass them. I can only respect arbcoms decisions but I knew it back then that this would not solve anything. I had said so on many instances.
Not surprisingly about a month later the second E&C arbitration case was filed which lasted for about 2 months I think.
Despite outcry from people that the passed remedies on Television related articles would not be able to resolve the dispute at all were not heard. Video game related articles after all are not in the scope of remedies whose scope is limited to television related articles. So the disruptive activity that used to happen on television related articles now happen on video game related articles.
This shift did not start after the arbitration case, it happened during the case after the passing of the temporary induction that halted all activity on television related articles. Don't believe me? How do you explain what happened to multiple Dungeons & Dragons articles? It isn't even a video game mind you; a board game. The disruption is back to television related articles as well as the temporary injunction went kaput since the closure of E&C2.
I see many revert wars happening right now - not as fast paced as before given TTN quit editing. But E&C2 managed to resolve nothing aside from the TTN factor who left on his own probably due to the arbcom temporary injunction. TTN was singled out and the underlying problems were not resolved. People continue TTN's legacy.
People are tired with dealing with such a thing. I know I am. If arbcom will go out of their way failing to address my concerns anyways why should I waste time with appeals? E&C2 was supposed to be an appeal case. In other words less than a month after the conclusion of the first case there were enough issues to warrant a second one. I think there currently are enough issues to start a third case just a week or two after the closure of the first case.
Enough of that...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and...
Private communication is fine. But when "Comment by Arbitrators" section on /Workshop is never used by arbitrators we have a problem. Why should people even post anything at all in workshops anymore? In the above case only thing arbitrators posted was about the temporary injunction (I haven't reread the entire /workshop document so correct me if I am wrong) and even then only a few of them showed up. Same goes for talk pages of the case.
Good proposals from other people on workshop should be voted on on /proposed decisions even if they were discussed privately - say in the arbcom mailing list. Thats what I would do. *People should be told why their proposal was rejected.* This is very important. Otherwise you feel being ignored. You continue to believe you may be right with your proposal but because no one seemingly payed any attention to it they simply did not know about it. Or much worse they intentionally chose to ignore it because of <put random conspiracy theory here>.
Arbcom tends to ignore inconvenient questions weather they are asked such questions on the arbitration case, on their talk page or anywhere else. This is probably to avoid saying anything that may cause problems. They perhaps do this to protect the encyclopedia which is what they are hurting with their method of protecting it. They are in this protective veil.
They should be more open in discussing their rationale without worrying about their or arbcoms reputation. People may actually agree with their rationale should they hear about it.
Arbitrators should probably be available on IRC. There should be unofficial office hours per arbitrator where people can talk with the arbitrator without fearing sanctions and remedies.
- White Cat
White Cat wrote:
Appeals are the problem. Appeals supposed to deal with sharp edges that form after the case. Issues that should be solved during the case (as they were after all presented there) are not resolved in the cases and so much time is wasted on appeals.
Maybe some people are expecting too much from Arbcom.
This shift did not start after the arbitration case, it happened during the case after the passing of the temporary induction that halted all activity on television related articles. Don't believe me? How do you explain what happened to multiple Dungeons & Dragons articles? It isn't even a video game mind you; a board game. The disruption is back to television related articles as well as the temporary injunction went kaput since the closure of E&C2.
People are tired with dealing with such a thing. I know I am. If arbcom will go out of their way failing to address my concerns anyways why should I waste time with appeals? E&C2 was supposed to be an appeal case. In other words less than a month after the conclusion of the first case there were enough issues to warrant a second one. I think there currently are enough issues to start a third case just a week or two after the closure of the first case.
So what, then, should be the scope of Arbcom's authority. They should not be ruling on content. They should not be writing policy. Most cases should have had evidence reviewed and rulings made long before the matter became a case with Arbcom. They would then review the case when asked to determine if there had been any errors in the earlier decision.
Private communication is fine. But when "Comment by Arbitrators" section on /Workshop is never used by arbitrators we have a problem. Why should people even post anything at all in workshops anymore? In the above case only thing arbitrators posted was about the temporary injunction (I haven't reread the entire /workshop document so correct me if I am wrong) and even then only a few of them showed up. Same goes for talk pages of the case.
There must be some reason why you haven't read the entire document. One can only presume that Arbcom members have similar reasons.Scrolling only through the TOC was onerous enough.
Good proposals from other people on workshop should be voted on on /proposed decisions even if they were discussed privately - say in the arbcom mailing list. Thats what I would do. *People should be told why their proposal was rejected.* This is very important. Otherwise you feel being ignored. You continue to believe you may be right with your proposal but because no one seemingly payed any attention to it they simply did not know about it. Or much worse they intentionally chose to ignore it because of <put random conspiracy theory here>.
"Good proposals" itself is a subjective judgement. My guess is that everyone who makes a proposal believes that it is good. Voting on every proposal is absurd. In giving the proposers the benefit of the doubt it is more likely that each has some elements of value, and a straight up or down vote is likely to oversimplify. A single synthesis makes more sense. The pay rate of the arbitrators is not calibrated to giving detailed attention to every proposed solution. Does not having the time to give detailed consideration to every proposal count as random conspiracy? Being ignored is a fact of life that one has to learn to live with. I can't begin to outline the number of times my excellent ideas have been ignored; proceeding in a spirit of forgiveness keeps my feet on the ground.
Arbcom tends to ignore inconvenient questions weather they are asked such questions on the arbitration case, on their talk page or anywhere else. This is probably to avoid saying anything that may cause problems. They perhaps do this to protect the encyclopedia which is what they are hurting with their method of protecting it. They are in this protective veil.
Fair enough.
They should be more open in discussing their rationale without worrying about their or arbcoms reputation. People may actually agree with their rationale should they hear about it.
Arbitrators should probably be available on IRC. There should be unofficial office hours per arbitrator where people can talk with the arbitrator without fearing sanctions and remedies.
It's hard to imagine anything worse for them to do. We don't need for the Arbcom to be trolled into individually compromising expressions of views. The maxim "Don't feed the trolls," There is nothing in the job description asking them to swim in piranha infested waters. Their rationale should accompany their decision.
Ec
So you are saying everything is perfectly fine the way arbcom operates?
I am merely expecting what arbcom exist for from arbcom. The final step of dispute resolution must be resolving disputes. Arbcom should be the final step.
Who said anything about ruling on content? Provided there are no pressing legal issues like WP:BLP or WP:COPYRIGHT violatons, any user who mass removes material w/o consensus inherently is hurting the encyclopedia. Any arbcom ruling over the behaviour of such users has noting to do with content. Arbcom was unable come up with anything enforceable on E&C1. E&C1 served to no purpose.
I am a causal user. I do not have any reason to even glance at the workshop. It is the duty of arbitrators to look at all aspects of the case to make the best judgement calls.
Arbitrators need to objectively read the workshop and pull out anything they feel is worth a vote. Why else is the workshop there? If it has no purpose, abolish it.
Imagine arbitrators actually talking to people. Since trolls may abuse it we must punish everybody as if they were trolls.
- White Cat
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 10:28 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
White Cat wrote:
Appeals are the problem. Appeals supposed to deal with sharp edges that
form
after the case. Issues that should be solved during the case (as they
were
after all presented there) are not resolved in the cases and so much
time is
wasted on appeals.
Maybe some people are expecting too much from Arbcom.
This shift did not start after the arbitration case, it happened during
the
case after the passing of the temporary induction that halted all
activity
on television related articles. Don't believe me? How do you explain
what
happened to multiple Dungeons & Dragons articles? It isn't even a video
game
mind you; a board game. The disruption is back to television related articles as well as the temporary injunction went kaput since the
closure of
E&C2.
People are tired with dealing with such a thing. I know I am. If arbcom
will
go out of their way failing to address my concerns anyways why should I waste time with appeals? E&C2 was supposed to be an appeal case. In
other
words less than a month after the conclusion of the first case there
were
enough issues to warrant a second one. I think there currently are
enough
issues to start a third case just a week or two after the closure of the first case.
So what, then, should be the scope of Arbcom's authority. They should not be ruling on content. They should not be writing policy. Most cases should have had evidence reviewed and rulings made long before the matter became a case with Arbcom. They would then review the case when asked to determine if there had been any errors in the earlier decision.
Private communication is fine. But when "Comment by Arbitrators" section
on
/Workshop is never used by arbitrators we have a problem. Why should
people
even post anything at all in workshops anymore? In the above case only
thing
arbitrators posted was about the temporary injunction (I haven't reread
the
entire /workshop document so correct me if I am wrong) and even then
only a
few of them showed up. Same goes for talk pages of the case.
There must be some reason why you haven't read the entire document. One can only presume that Arbcom members have similar reasons.Scrolling only through the TOC was onerous enough.
Good proposals from other people on workshop should be voted on on
/proposed
decisions even if they were discussed privately - say in the arbcom
mailing
list. Thats what I would do. *People should be told why their proposal
was
rejected.* This is very important. Otherwise you feel being ignored. You continue to believe you may be right with your proposal but because no
one
seemingly payed any attention to it they simply did not know about it.
Or
much worse they intentionally chose to ignore it because of <put random conspiracy theory here>.
"Good proposals" itself is a subjective judgement. My guess is that everyone who makes a proposal believes that it is good. Voting on every proposal is absurd. In giving the proposers the benefit of the doubt it is more likely that each has some elements of value, and a straight up or down vote is likely to oversimplify. A single synthesis makes more sense. The pay rate of the arbitrators is not calibrated to giving detailed attention to every proposed solution. Does not having the time to give detailed consideration to every proposal count as random conspiracy? Being ignored is a fact of life that one has to learn to live with. I can't begin to outline the number of times my excellent ideas have been ignored; proceeding in a spirit of forgiveness keeps my feet on the ground.
Arbcom tends to ignore inconvenient questions weather they are asked
such
questions on the arbitration case, on their talk page or anywhere else.
This
is probably to avoid saying anything that may cause problems. They
perhaps
do this to protect the encyclopedia which is what they are hurting with their method of protecting it. They are in this protective veil.
Fair enough.
They should be more open in discussing their rationale without worrying about their or arbcoms reputation. People may actually agree with their rationale should they hear about it.
Arbitrators should probably be available on IRC. There should be
unofficial
office hours per arbitrator where people can talk with the arbitrator without fearing sanctions and remedies.
It's hard to imagine anything worse for them to do. We don't need for the Arbcom to be trolled into individually compromising expressions of views. The maxim "Don't feed the trolls," There is nothing in the job description asking them to swim in piranha infested waters. Their rationale should accompany their decision.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
White Cat wrote:
So you are saying everything is perfectly fine the way arbcom operates?
Don't impute to me things that I didn't
I am merely expecting what arbcom exist for from arbcom. The final step of dispute resolution must be resolving disputes. Arbcom should be the final step.
OK
Who said anything about ruling on content? Provided there are no pressing legal issues like WP:BLP or WP:COPYRIGHT violatons, any user who mass removes material w/o consensus inherently is hurting the encyclopedia. Any arbcom ruling over the behaviour of such users has noting to do with content. Arbcom was unable come up with anything enforceable on E&C1. E&C1 served to no purpose.
Are we dealing with the Arbcom in general, or your own personal problem with them?
I am a causal user. I do not have any reason to even glance at the workshop.
Then why bother bringing it up. If you had no reason to look at it, why would you have any reason to complain about what is or is not in it..
It is the duty of arbitrators to look at all aspects of the case to make the best judgement calls.
Arbitrators need to objectively read the workshop and pull out anything they feel is worth a vote. Why else is the workshop there? If it has no purpose, abolish it.
Looking at and reading its contents does not imply an obligation to comment on evry drive-by rant. If they find a good idea they use it, and adjust their decision accordingly.
Imagine arbitrators actually talking to people. Since trolls may abuse it we must punish everybody as if they were trolls.
I get the impression that what you mean by talking with them is getting into exchanges with the peanut gallery. It's a an arbitration not a mediation. They can ask questions, and they can issue a decision. Going much beyond that brings their credibility into question.
Ec
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 8:41 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
White Cat wrote: Who said anything about ruling on content? Provided there are no
pressing
legal issues like WP:BLP or WP:COPYRIGHT violatons, any user who mass removes material w/o consensus inherently is hurting the encyclopedia.
Any
arbcom ruling over the behaviour of such users has noting to do with content. Arbcom was unable come up with anything enforceable on E&C1.
E&C1
served to no purpose.
Are we dealing with the Arbcom in general, or your own personal problem with them?
You guys asked me to give an example and I have given you an example that I am most familiar with, cases I had been involved with... This kind of prosecution is exactly why I did not want to give examples. So pull the other leg...
I am a causal user. I do not have any reason to even glance at the
workshop.
Then why bother bringing it up. If you had no reason to look at it, why would you have any reason to complain about what is or is not in it..
Because Arbcom payed very little attention to it that is the complaint on my end, something you do not seem to comment on.
It is the duty of arbitrators to look at all aspects of the case to make
the
best judgement calls.
Arbitrators need to objectively read the workshop and pull out anything
they
feel is worth a vote. Why else is the workshop there? If it has no
purpose,
abolish it.
Looking at and reading its contents does not imply an obligation to comment on evry drive-by rant. If they find a good idea they use it, and adjust their decision accordingly.
Commenting on some of the issues may be necesary. Avoiding each and nearly every workshop entry particularly in complex cases are not helpful. Parties may reach a voluntary compromise in the remedies if arbcom participated in the discussion. Arbcom participation in workshop discussion has no harm and lots of potential benefit. That is exactly why the rfar workshop is divided into 3 parts. One for arbitrators which is typically underused/unused, one for involved parties, and one for everybody else.
Imagine arbitrators actually talking to people. Since trolls may abuse
it we
must punish everybody as if they were trolls.
I get the impression that what you mean by talking with them is getting into exchanges with the peanut gallery. It's a an arbitration not a mediation. They can ask questions, and they can issue a decision. Going much beyond that brings their credibility into question. https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Talking to arbitrators is not a compromise from credibility, on the contrary such a thing reinforces their credibility if anything. They have a responsibility to hear out everyones perspective to help determine the middle ground. Arbitrators are not gods that we cannot reach or interact directly. They do not need such a protective veil. This isn't a legal court system and arbitrators are not judges that need to live in complete solitude from the case they are reviewing.
- White Cat
White Cat wrote:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 8:41 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Are we dealing with the Arbcom in general, or your own personal problem with them?
You guys asked me to give an example and I have given you an example that I am most familiar with, cases I had been involved with... This kind of prosecution is exactly why I did not want to give examples. So pull the other leg...
OK. Maybe some did, but I didn't, so I can let that issue go, on the basis of misunderstanding.
I am a causal user. I do not have any reason to even glance at the workshop.
Then why bother bringing it up. If you had no reason to look at it, why would you have any reason to complain about what is or is not in it..
Because Arbcom payed very little attention to it that is the complaint on my end, something you do not seem to comment on.
I didn't know we were keeping logs of who has only looked at the page.
It is the duty of arbitrators to look at all aspects of the case to make the
best judgement calls.
Arbitrators need to objectively read the workshop and pull out anything they
feel is worth a vote. Why else is the workshop there? If it has no purpose,
abolish it
Looking at and reading its contents does not imply an obligation to comment on evry drive-by rant. If they find a good idea they use it, and adjust their decision accordingly.
Commenting on some of the issues may be necesary. Avoiding each and nearly every workshop entry particularly in complex cases are not helpful. Parties may reach a voluntary compromise in the remedies if arbcom participated in the discussion. Arbcom participation in workshop discussion has no harm and lots of potential benefit. That is exactly why the rfar workshop is divided into 3 parts. One for arbitrators which is typically underused/unused, one for involved parties, and one for everybody else.
Voluntary compromise is the aim of mediation. By the time it gets to Arbcom one assumes that all attempts at mediation have failed.
Imagine arbitrators actually talking to people. Since trolls may abuse it we
must punish everybody as if they were trolls.
I get the impression that what you mean by talking with them is getting into exchanges with the peanut gallery. It's a an arbitration not a mediation. They can ask questions, and they can issue a decision. Going much beyond that brings their credibility into question
Talking to arbitrators is not a compromise from credibility, on the contrary such a thing reinforces their credibility if anything. They have a responsibility to hear out everyones perspective to help determine the middle ground. Arbitrators are not gods that we cannot reach or interact directly. They do not need such a protective veil. This isn't a legal court system and arbitrators are not judges that need to live in complete solitude from the case they are reviewing.
Hearing evryone's perspective is not the same as commenting on every perspective that's expressed. Private obiter is exploitable by those who want to restrict the arbitrator into a particular system of bias. They then have an excuse for arguing that he should recuse himself for bias, when they really mean that he should recuse himself because he won't support their point of view. True it's not a "legal court system"; it's much less than that, but if over the years the courts have developed useful rule of practice there is no problem to adopting them. It isn't talking to the arbitrators that compromises their credibility; the compromises arise when they answer all those comments directly.
Ec.
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 9:48 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Hearing evryone's perspective is not the same as commenting on every perspective that's expressed. Private obiter is exploitable by those who want to restrict the arbitrator into a particular system of bias. They then have an excuse for arguing that he should recuse himself for bias, when they really mean that he should recuse himself because he won't support their point of view.
This is a serious problem, in fact, and one of the reasons why the arbcom are often unwilling to speak as individuals about cases. Opening our mouths only leads to accusations of bias and often extremely hostile behavior.
As to the workshop, it's true that it has not worked out well. Most times it turns into a continuation of the squabble between the warring parties and a morass of incivility and unreadable argument. If we are to keep the workshop pages, they will have to be kept in order a LOT more than they currently are to be at all useful.
-Matthew
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 7:39 PM, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 9:48 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Hearing evryone's perspective is not the same as commenting on every perspective that's expressed. Private obiter is exploitable by those who want to restrict the arbitrator into a particular system of bias. They then have an excuse for arguing that he should recuse himself for bias, when they really mean that he should recuse himself because he won't support their point of view.
This is a serious problem, in fact, and one of the reasons why the arbcom are often unwilling to speak as individuals about cases. Opening our mouths only leads to accusations of bias and often extremely hostile behavior.
As to the workshop, it's true that it has not worked out well. Most times it turns into a continuation of the squabble between the warring parties and a morass of incivility and unreadable argument. If we are to keep the workshop pages, they will have to be kept in order a LOT more than they currently are to be at all useful.
-Matthew https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Right /workshops are entirely unnecesary at the moment. Not talking at all does not save arbitrators from accusations. They will never avoid such a thing as almost always there will be an unsatisfied party or parties.
There should be no excuse why arbcom supposed to play the Almighty.
- White Cat
White Cat wrote:
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 7:39 PM, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 9:48 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Hearing evryone's perspective is not the same as commenting on every perspective that's expressed. Private obiter is exploitable by those who want to restrict the arbitrator into a particular system of bias. They then have an excuse for arguing that he should recuse himself for bias, when they really mean that he should recuse himself because he won't support their point of view.
This is a serious problem, in fact, and one of the reasons why the arbcom are often unwilling to speak as individuals about cases. Opening our mouths only leads to accusations of bias and often extremely hostile behavior.
As to the workshop, it's true that it has not worked out well. Most times it turns into a continuation of the squabble between the warring parties and a morass of incivility and unreadable argument. If we are to keep the workshop pages, they will have to be kept in order a LOT more than they currently are to be at all useful.
-Matthew https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Right /workshops are entirely unnecesary at the moment. Not talking at all does not save arbitrators from accusations. They will never avoid such a thing as almost always there will be an unsatisfied party or parties.
There should be no excuse why arbcom supposed to play the Almighty.
- White Cat
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Oh.
Jon ./scream
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 8:57 AM, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 8:48 AM, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
I take it you object to the fact that "They give a lot of leeway to
long term trolls yet they do
not give a fraction of that to good standing users." Now, I agree, and
they should start banning
long-term trolls. Who, I wonder, would be first up against the wall
were that to happen?
I suspect quite a lot of users would agree that we should take a harder line on some people; however, I'm not sure that there is wide agreement on WHICH people. One person's troll is another person's unfairly maligned good user, I find.
Arbcom suffers from the well-known and far from unique problems of committees (slow to decide, cautious). However, being quick and rash isn't necessarily the right thing either.
There's a dynamic tension between individual admins, the "community consensus" as a whole, the admin community consensus, and Arbcom (and, sometimes, OTRS or the Office or senior staff, but usually not).
These all have different roles that are played.
It's REALLY REALLY GOOD to have checks and balances, more proactive aspects and more deliberative aspects to the overall governance scheme. Of all the online projects I am aware of, this is not only the largest in terms of active participation, but also the best governed in the sense of structurally having adapted relatively rapidly when serious problems show up.
That is not to say that there isn't room for improvement. But a lot of what Arbcom does is a feature, not a bug. Even if it bugs people sometimes.
There was a time when admins individually or collectively imposed "a pox on both your houses" more often in disputes. There was a time when admins tended to take a side in a dispute in a more unipolar manner and other parties would get a short shift, even on legitimate concerns. There's less of that happening now outside glaringly obvious abuse cases, which has slowed down arbitrary admin and admin community consensus responses.
That doesn't mean Arbcom should wield a swifter or harder hammer.
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 8:57 AM, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 8:48 AM, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
I take it you object to the fact that "They give a lot of leeway to long term trolls yet they do not give a fraction of that to good standing users." Now, I agree, and they should start banning long-term trolls. Who, I wonder, would be first up against the wall were that to happen?
I suspect quite a lot of users would agree that we should take a harder line on some people; however, I'm not sure that there is wide agreement on WHICH people. One person's troll is another person's unfairly maligned good user, I find.
In addition to this - I'm sure that for everyone who thinks we're too hard on good standing users, there's another who thinks we're too easy on them. Witness the repeated arbcom cases on IRC issues in which established users on both sides of the dispute were given "final warnings", only to be brought before arbcom again and given final warnings again, and so forth.
I suspect that White Cat is annoyed about lack of decisive action in the Episodes and Characters cases; would I be right? I must note that the committee is divided on several issues involved here, as is the community at large; and furthermore, lots of the dispute is about content, an area we generally try and avoid.
-Matt
To the moderator, please approve this very lengthly post. It will be analyzed slowly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My frustration developed in the past 3 years actually. Whenever I brought up a case on arbcom it was either rejected or accepted but once concluded the end result resolved nothing.
I can for example post my first arbitration case which hurt me more than the person I was complaining against.
All following text is summarized in this graph because I know no one would read all of this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Coolcat%2C_D...
Case lasted betweem 24 July and- 5 October 2005.
My claim was that three users were wiki-stalking/harassing me. Case was filed over this reason.
As a result,
- I was indefinately banned from mediating unless officially appointed to the Mediation Committee. Like Mediation Committee will officially appoint someone sanctioned from mediation... - All my mediation attempts failed thanks to the interference of the people I was accuse of stalking. My usefulness as a mediator aside, arbcom pretty much omitted their involvement on all of the failed mediation cases - Cool Cat is prohibited from moving the comments of others around on the talk page of any article or any user talk page other than his own. Additionally he is not permitted to archive any talk page other than his own. Cool Cat may make no edit to a talk page which is not at the end of a section unless he begins a new section at the bottom of the page. This restriction shall last for one year. - This was because Fadix kept embedding text within my posts for example if I were to post a two paragraph post. Fadix would post in the middle of it. This not only destroyed the meaning but it also created an unsigned paragraph - Cool Cat is, for one year, placed under a mentorship as follows: If Coolcat should disruptively edit articles relating to Turkey or the Kurds (or on mostly-unrelated articles with sections dealing with Turkey or the Kurds, such as the Armenian Holocaust on Holocausthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust), an admin may block him for a short time, up to three days. - I recieved numerous complaints to my mentors. All from the people I accused of stalking me which finally annoyed the mentors after two months.
This was what arbcom threw at me. In return arbcom ruled
"Davenbelle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Davenbelle (talkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Davenbelle *·* contribshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Davenbelle), Stereotek http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Stereotek (talkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stereotek *·* contribs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Stereotek), and Fadix http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fadix (talkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fadix *·* contribs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fadix) are counseled to let other editors and administrators take the lead in monitoring Cool Cathttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Cool_Cat&action=edit&redlink=1 (talk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cool_Cat *·*contribshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Cool_Cat). If subsequent proceedings which involve Cool Cat show that he has been hounded by them, substantial penalties may be imposed."
Basically they kindly ask my stalkers to stop. That did not happen for another two months. Then Davenbelle left wikipedia Fadix and Steriotek (aka Karl Meier) left me alone.
All good right? No. Davenbelle returned with a new username: Moby Dick. After months of stalking. A new arbitration case was filed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Moby_Dick
Case lasted between 16 June and 13 August 2006
- Moby Dick is banned from editing articles which concern Turkey or Kurdish issues - Moby Dick is prohibited from harassing or stalking Cool Cat or Megaman Zero. - Should, in the opinion of any administrator, Moby Dick make any edit which constitutes harassment of Cool Cat or Megaman Zero, he may be briefly blocked, for up to a month in the event of repeat offenses. After five blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick#Log of blocks and banshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Moby_Dick#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. This remedy may be expanded in scope to include harassmennt of any other user if, in the opinion of at least three administrators, it is deemed necessary.
So all I got out of arbcom by 13 August 2006 was a very serious warning to Moby Dick/Davenbelle
Regardless, harassment lasted till 22 August. Then Moby Dick fell into inactivity.
A curious new user (User:Diyarbakir) started editing between 13 September - 4 November. Then he vanished. User pretended being a kurd and made edits that would have been consistent with a "ultra-nationalist kurd". Not that this is a crime but I will tell you why this is significant below.
With an 81 Day gap Moby Dick returned editing stalking some more between 12 december and 18 december. Then he dissapeared again.
On mid January Moby Dick stalked me to commons. Unlike enwiki commons has a level of common sense that awes you average wikipedian. He was shown the door. His harassment campaign ended instantly.
With a 68 day gap Diyarbakir returned stalking and continue to do so with various gaps.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Moby_Di...
Between 26 Apr - 2 May a block discussion on Diyarbakir has started. I filed a checkuser case suspecting he could be a banned user. Checkuser revealed something that came a s a shock to me. Diyarbakir was infact editing from the same IP as Moby Dick. So the person pretending to be a "ultra-nationalist kurd" was in fact Moby Dick/Davenbelle.
The user was FINALY indef blocked. What arguing between 1 July 2005 and 2 May 2007 finaly came to a close or so I thought.
A user Jack Merridew registered a week earlier than the block discussion mentioned above. User registered practically a day after Diyarbakir's last edit.
I had peace and quiet between 2 May and 27 July. This was my first contact with Jack Merridew at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Admiral_%28Star... 27 Jul 2007. The article serries was also an interest to Davenbelle Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparative Ranks and Insignia of Star Trekhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Comparative_Ranks_and_Insignia_of_Star_Trek
He was also present during the Porthos (Star Trek) AFD among other things.
Later on Jack Merridew blanked/redirectified about 100 Oh My Goddess! related articles. Practicaly all of them. Oh My Goddess! related articles used to be the pride of my contribution. Now there isn't much left of them.
Anywho...
The rhetoric continued until 22 November where the E&C arbitration case was finally filed. I was ill prepared for it and was able to present very little evidence but others presented plenty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and...
This case lasted between 22 Nov - 28 Dec 2007
This is the third ever arbitration case I have ever participated. First one without Davenbelle or so I thought. You see, although Jack Merridew wasn't marked as an involved party, he was very involved. More than some involved parties.
Arbcom was only able to rule
"Like many editing guidelines, Wikipedia:Television episodeshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Television_episodesis applied inconsistently. For an example, see List of South Park episodeshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_South_Park_episodesand note that there is an article for each episode. An ideal response to such situations would be broader discussion of the guideline among editors with varying editing interest, with consensus achieved prior to widespread changes."
Kindly asking people to stop mass removal of material. This made the situation worse as some parties thought they had unquestionable consensus or something. It obviously did not work. It was election season and arbitrators were tired.
This rhetoric continued another 21 days and it was again in front of arbcom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and...
Case lasted between 19 January and 10 March 2008
Again Jack Merridew is very active
Arbcom made two remedies.
First remedy banned TTN from TV related related articles for 6th months. TTN for a while shifted his attention from TV related articles to Video game articles effectively obsoleting the arbcom remedy.
Second remedy asked people to work collaboratively.
Arbcom also passed an enforcment clause that banned anyone violating the remedies. Realistically only TTN would have been effected as the second remedy was diplomatically and toothless worded
Nearly all my evidence on meatpuppetary and potential sockpuppetary (of Jack Merridew and Davenbelle/Moby Dick) were disregarded.
I have not been following this dispute but I seriously doubt it had been resolved if the discussions throughout the case were any indication.
Jack Merridew case was too complex seperate issue for the E&C Rfar so on 13 March I filed a case over Jack Merridew.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Jack_Merride...
As of this post 2/4 arbitrators support/oppose hearing this case. Meaning the case could theoraticaly be accepted if minimum 6 arbitrators accept to hear about it (for 4 net support). That would mean 12 out of 15 arbitrators would have voted. Thats quite rare.
So assuming miracle happens and Jack Merridew case gets accepted that would mean I would have spent 5 RfArs dealing with Davenbelle. That is assuming I am right in identifying Jack Merridew as a mere Davenbelle sock. You should review the evidence at the following URL if you care about this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Statement_by...
Checkuser places Jack Merridew, Davenbelle, Moby Dick, and Diyatbakir on the same geographic area. Bali, Indonesia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is my experience with arbcom. This is why I do not believe arbcom serves to have a function.
Don't get me wrong arbitrators are well meaning people and I respect them immensly for the volunteer work they are doing but the way arbcom operates is very ineffective in resolving anything which is why I am very displeased with all of this.
- Moby Dick is banned from editing articles which concern Turkey or
Kurdish issues
- Moby Dick is prohibited from harassing or stalking Cool Cat or
Megaman Zero.
- Should, in the opinion of any administrator, Moby Dick make any edit
which constitutes harassment of Cool Cat or Megaman Zero, he may be briefly blocked, for up to a month in the event of repeat offenses. After five blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick#Log of blocks and banshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Moby_Dick#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. This remedy may be expanded in scope to include harassmennt of any other user if, in the opinion of at least three administrators, it is deemed necessary.
So all I got out of arbcom by 13 August 2006 was a very serious warning to Moby Dick/Davenbelle
Regardless, harassment lasted till 22 August. Then Moby Dick fell into inactivity.
Did you request that he be blocked in accordance with the arbcom ruling? If so, what was the reason given for not blocking him?
His ban was community action backed by an arbitrator acting on his own. It wasn't in accordance with the ruling at all. He was banned for an "impressive amount of stalking" as well as abusive sokcpuppetary. Probably more so due to the latter.
- White Cat
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 11:12 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
- Moby Dick is banned from editing articles which concern Turkey or
Kurdish issues
- Moby Dick is prohibited from harassing or stalking Cool Cat or
Megaman Zero.
- Should, in the opinion of any administrator, Moby Dick make any
edit
which constitutes harassment of Cool Cat or Megaman Zero, he may be
briefly
blocked, for up to a month in the event of repeat offenses. After
five
blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All bans to be
logged
at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick#Log of blocks and bans<
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Moby_Dick#Lo...
. This remedy may be expanded in scope to include harassmennt of any
other
user if, in the opinion of at least three administrators, it is
deemed
necessary.
So all I got out of arbcom by 13 August 2006 was a very serious warning
to
Moby Dick/Davenbelle
Regardless, harassment lasted till 22 August. Then Moby Dick fell into inactivity.
Did you request that he be blocked in accordance with the arbcom ruling? If so, what was the reason given for not blocking him?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
White Cat wrote:
Is there any point why we even have arbcom? They do not seem to be doing much of resolving disputes lately. Granted they accept cases and close them. But by the time case is closed very little of the dispute is been resolved. Often disputes continue as if the RFAR wasn't filed.
They often do not respond to inquires in a timely fashion or at all. They ignore evidence or at least make statements that are directly contradicted by hard evidence. The remedies they pass generally are common-sense statements and nothing more. For example, they will say that meatpupperary is disruptive but they will not pass remedies in prevention of it.
They are not fair. They give a lot of leeway to long term trolls yet they do not give a fraction of that to good standing users. For example they will decline a case if is is not adequately engulfed in disruption. If you want your case to be heard by arbcom you need to be revert waring left right or else you will not be given much attention even if you exhaust dispute resolution.
Maybe it is time to dissolve arbcom.
- White Cat
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
/When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
/Could you please cite an example of *every* example you listed so that a candid world will know. Thanks.
./scream
Maybe I have and it is waiting moderator approval. Patience grasshopper.
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 5:51 PM, Screamer scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
White Cat wrote:
Is there any point why we even have arbcom? They do not seem to be doing much of resolving disputes lately. Granted they accept cases and close
them.
But by the time case is closed very little of the dispute is been
resolved.
Often disputes continue as if the RFAR wasn't filed.
They often do not respond to inquires in a timely fashion or at all.
They
ignore evidence or at least make statements that are directly
contradicted
by hard evidence. The remedies they pass generally are common-sense statements and nothing more. For example, they will say that
meatpupperary
is disruptive but they will not pass remedies in prevention of it.
They are not fair. They give a lot of leeway to long term trolls yet
they do
not give a fraction of that to good standing users. For example they
will
decline a case if is is not adequately engulfed in disruption. If you
want
your case to be heard by arbcom you need to be revert waring left right
or
else you will not be given much attention even if you exhaust dispute resolution.
Maybe it is time to dissolve arbcom.
- White Cat
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
/When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
/Could you please cite an example of *every* example you listed so that a candid world will know. Thanks.
./scream _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
?
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 8:51 PM, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe I have and it is waiting moderator approval. Patience grasshopper.
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 5:51 PM, Screamer scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
White Cat wrote:
Is there any point why we even have arbcom? They do not seem to be
doing
much of resolving disputes lately. Granted they accept cases and close
them.
But by the time case is closed very little of the dispute is been
resolved.
Often disputes continue as if the RFAR wasn't filed.
They often do not respond to inquires in a timely fashion or at all.
They
ignore evidence or at least make statements that are directly
contradicted
by hard evidence. The remedies they pass generally are common-sense statements and nothing more. For example, they will say that
meatpupperary
is disruptive but they will not pass remedies in prevention of it.
They are not fair. They give a lot of leeway to long term trolls yet
they do
not give a fraction of that to good standing users. For example they
will
decline a case if is is not adequately engulfed in disruption. If you
want
your case to be heard by arbcom you need to be revert waring left
right
or
else you will not be given much attention even if you exhaust dispute resolution.
Maybe it is time to dissolve arbcom.
- White Cat
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
/When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
/Could you please cite an example of *every* example you listed so that a candid world will know. Thanks.
./scream _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Hilarious.
I suppose you think the mods would let through your oh-so-scathing evidence, too?
Maybe I have and it is waiting moderator approval. Patience grasshopper.
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 5:51 PM, Screamer scream@datascreamer.com
wrote:
White Cat wrote:
Is there any point why we even have arbcom? They do not seem to be
doing
much of resolving disputes lately. Granted they accept cases and
close
them.
But by the time case is closed very little of the dispute is been
resolved.
Often disputes continue as if the RFAR wasn't filed.
They often do not respond to inquires in a timely fashion or at all.
They
ignore evidence or at least make statements that are directly
contradicted
by hard evidence. The remedies they pass generally are common-sense statements and nothing more. For example, they will say that
meatpupperary
is disruptive but they will not pass remedies in prevention of it.
They are not fair. They give a lot of leeway to long term trolls yet
they do
not give a fraction of that to good standing users. For example they
will
decline a case if is is not adequately engulfed in disruption. If
you
want
your case to be heard by arbcom you need to be revert waring left
right
or
else you will not be given much attention even if you exhaust
dispute
resolution.
Maybe it is time to dissolve arbcom.
- White Cat
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
/When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one
people
to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with
another,
and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
/Could you please cite an example of *every* example you listed so
that
a candid world will know. Thanks.
./scream _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
There is another thread, folks. The e-mail he was referring to is there.
Nathan
On 3/24/08, Alex G g1ggyman@gmail.com wrote:
Hilarious.
I suppose you think the mods would let through your oh-so-scathing evidence, too?
Maybe I have and it is waiting moderator approval. Patience
grasshopper.
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 5:51 PM, Screamer scream@datascreamer.com
wrote:
White Cat wrote:
Is there any point why we even have arbcom? They do not seem to be
doing
much of resolving disputes lately. Granted they accept cases and
close
them.
But by the time case is closed very little of the dispute is been
resolved.
Often disputes continue as if the RFAR wasn't filed.
They often do not respond to inquires in a timely fashion or at
all.
They
ignore evidence or at least make statements that are directly
contradicted
by hard evidence. The remedies they pass generally are
common-sense
statements and nothing more. For example, they will say that
meatpupperary
is disruptive but they will not pass remedies in prevention of it.
They are not fair. They give a lot of leeway to long term trolls
yet
they do
not give a fraction of that to good standing users. For example
they
will
decline a case if is is not adequately engulfed in disruption. If
you
want
your case to be heard by arbcom you need to be revert waring left
right
or
else you will not be given much attention even if you exhaust
dispute
resolution.
Maybe it is time to dissolve arbcom.
- White Cat
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
/When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one
people
to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with
another,
and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law and of Nature's God
entitle
them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
/Could you please cite an example of *every* example you listed so
that
a candid world will know. Thanks.
./scream _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l