Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 36

Proposal

Feedback from the community is requested on the proposal to modify the case naming process. Please leave your comments below. Thank you, ~ Rob13Talk 19:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• I hate it. Do it anyway. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Could you elaborate a bit? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
    • It will be difficult to refer to a case while in process - typos will be easy to commit, and the intended target might not be clear, depending on context. It could also cause issues with case acceptance. Say Editor A has a concern about Editor B, and Editors C, D, and E support those concerns. Then Editors F, G, H, J, and K come in and say "why is A filing a case about B when A has done L, M, N, and O in the past?" Does the case get opened to look at B's behavior on one topic, or A's behavior on a whole mess of unrelated topics?
    • That said, I do understand the concerns of editors who say that naming the case in advance affects the outcome, and I think this is a much fairer way to handle it. I'm also a data geek, so I like meaningless primary keys. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Please, no. This would unnecessarily obfuscate the matter to be arbitrated. If an user is the primary subject of an arbitration case, just name the case with their name. If Arbcom weighs evidence as they should, concerns about bias in the case name should not be a concern at all. Most of us are not that shallow, and certainly not the demigods we elect to Arbcom.- MrX 🖋 19:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

By the way, this proposal would make it very difficult to find declined requests (which are already painfully difficult to find). Declined case requests often contain useful information needed for subsequent requests, sometimes years later.- MrX 🖋 12:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Case subpages are in the pipeline, which would help dramatically. Watchlisting is easy enough. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, we do not get 100 cases per year, and numbering declined cases as well is affordable within the same scheme. This has an advantage that a submitted case can be numbered at the very beginning, not at the moment a case is accepted.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Case subpages would help, and if the numbering scheme is implemented, an index that lists the numbered case request with a very short summary of what the case was about would help. I can't see how watchlisting would help much. At least one of the cases I was heavily involved in had a previous declined case from years earlier, that I was not involved with, so it would have never appeared on my watchlist..- MrX 🖋 13:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• If this proposal should gain favour, perhaps when a case is concluded, a more memorable moniker could be assigned as a redirect? isaacl (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • To be clear, after a case is concluded, it would be named as we currently do now. Under this proposal, we just wouldn't name a case until after it concluded. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I misread the second paragraph in the proposal. isaacl (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
    • @BU Rob13: The proposal states: Case names will reflect the case's scope, content, and resolution. Currently, since case names are decided at the very beginning of a case, it doesn’t state anything about a case’s resolution. How do you think this might change the way we name the cases at the end? My first impression was that a case might be titled, say, Banning of Jimbo Wales, if that was the resolution of the case. Mz7 (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• I think it might be a good idea to implement this only up to the point of case acceptance. In other words, assign nonjudgmental numbers for the request, but once the Evidence page has opened up, there should be a name assigned by the Committee. If the Committee does not want a case name that could bias the case, don't use that case name. But I think that it would be kludgy and potentially confusing to continue to use numbers throughout the hearing of the case. How would members of the community (other than those who participated in the request) know whether they might want to contribute evidence or proposals to a case whose name means nothing? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Perhaps the cases over the past year can be examined for what short descriptors might be suitable starting in the evidence phase? I understand why it may be helpful when there is a concise way to describe the crux of the issue. However, often it's behaviour over multiple issues that is being examined, and I'm not sure what concise description would serve well in these situations. isaacl (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• It is of course a bold statement that the numbering system (and, actually, Wikipedia) would survive until 2100, but otherwise I would say in 201805 the first 20 is redundant.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

  Concerning usability, I was long time ago an arbitrator in the Russian Wikipedia where numbers were used from the very beginning (just started from 1, both accepted and rejected cases); it was not confusing. People remember the numbers of the most significant cases, others can be easily looked up.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Can we at least get a separator of some sort between the year and number? —
  Cryptic
  20:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • We could definitely do that if it aids with readability. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
    • I think it would help with readability. (It would also allow for dropping the dash if, God forbid, you needed a third digit for case requests, without needing to make the field wider.) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
      • 201805 -> 18-05 or even 18|05 --Ymblanter (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Excellent, and no separator thanks. 201805 is clear and embellishments won't improve it. Johnuniq (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• I think that this is a good idea: it's fairer to all involved, will hopefully reduce the level of stress for the involved parties a little bit, and will also hopefully reduce the number of people not involved in cases making drive-by style comments at the RfArb stage. Naming accepted cases should also stop it looking too much like a quasi-legal process. Nick-D (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• This is fine. The Committee isn't a common law court, and our proceedings aren't adversarial. We don't really even need an official case name after cases conclude given they are non-precedential anyway. I think the current case naming practice is just a leftover of extremely early Committee practice where cases actually were somewhat adversarial. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• "In accordance with M32 procedure we propose the code-term Taussig (from the Primary Random Event-Naming List) be used regarding this matter henceforth." Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• I like this idea. See my comments at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88#Statement by Nyttend from when I filed the case request — I was concerned that listing the two editors in that order (rather than "Hijiri88 and Catflap08") would somehow influence the situation, so I specifically had to say that I picked that order because it was alphabetical. And please use a separator; it definitely helps with readability. This is already done in lots of situations where a sequential number follows a number that reflects a year or other long time period, including acts of the U.S. Congress — for a random example, the 48th public law of the 92nd Congress is "Public Law 92-48", not Public Law 9248. My only suggestion — have a clerk name the case once it's accepted, rather than waiting until it's done; the remember-ability advantage of a name is most important when the case is busiest (i.e. when it's still active), and once it's accepted, you know you're going to get a decision and a neutral name at some point, so why wait until afterward? Nyttend (talk) 00:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • As Tryptofish said above, I think having a meaningful moniker for the case starting with the evidence phase is useful for attracting people to comment. However the advantage of having a memorable name, I think, is greater as time goes by. Nowadays, there typically isn't more than a few cases open at the same time and so there isn't much opportunity for confusion. But as the case proceedings recede into the past, it becomes harder to remember the details of a case. isaacl (talk) 03:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Realistically, I think people will just use unofficial titles for cases if they have no official names. I am honestly surprised that people haven't done that before. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Absent official titles, the unregulated use of unofficial titles could lead to significant problems when somebody involved feels aggrieved by an unofficial title. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
        • Then we handle it as we normally do. In Arbitration proceedings decorum is important, so it is likely that calling a case "Mendaliv's Fuckup" would attract a sanction just on decorum grounds. Outside of Arbitration, it would fall under NPA. And if it doesn't, at least outside of Arbitration, then who cares? Inside of Arbitration people should, of course, be strongly discouraged from making clever digs at others, and honestly in most cases it would be at the peril of the person who did so. But again, otherwise, who cares? As long as someone's shorthand name does not have a prejudicial effect on the proceedings, and I believe the Committee itself is the best judge of that, this is something that more or less does not matter. The Committee itself ought to use official designations when referring to cases, but I see no advantage to banning unofficial shorthand names. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• I can see the attraction in this, but I disagree that it will be of a net benefit. By all means don't name requests, but you do need to have a permanent name once the case is accepted, otherwise there will be unofficial names used (possibly multiple ones if there are multiple points of view regarding it) that will accrete mentions and redirects causing confusion and not unlikely defeating the entire point of the change. The best way to avoid any undue bias about the scope of a case is to, upon opening, have a bold statement at the top of each page stating "The scope of this case is: " followed by 1-3 short sentences neutrally defining what you are looking in to. This will also help to keep the evidence page on track and make it easier and less controversial for clerks to determine what is so far off topic it needs hatting or removing. If there is a need to change the scope part way through, then this should be done by a motion on the case in the same way a temporary injunction is. Thryduulf (talk) 11:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oh and if you do go with a numbering system then please use a separator. Thryduulf (talk) 11:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with defining scope; I've been advocating for this for years. It would help make the process more efficient by focusing the submissions for the case. isaacl (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support. This is a long overdue change. Per
  talk
  ) 14:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Two comments 1) Use a separator from year to number. 2) When giving it a name (which I hope references some policy or guideline, in some way), keep the number with the name, to avoid future confusion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support a system like "2018-xx". I think having a four letter year is not really a problem and furthermore, having the year number in front and then the case number should be most intuitive. I do think though that cases should be named when they are accepted, not when they are decided, because once something is under discussion, people should be able to refer to it easily. Regards SoWhy 20:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, numbers are hard to remember and easily confused. Find something else, names of flowers or anything else neutral, but in words. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Gerda's idea is actually brilliant. People remember words, not numbers, and also - importantly - it would make cases far easier to search for if we used flower names from A-Z from each year. Also, it would make ArbCom cases sound less threatening, and even better, in future years, we could refer to "the Gladioli case" and sound like Inspector Poirot. Black Kite (talk) 00:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I refer to my above quote from Excession. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I too would would like to endorse Gerda's suggestion. Thryduulf (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

If that's what happens, Wikipediocracy will have a field day with it. Please at least change it to a real name when the case is accepted. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Or at least consider alternatives to flowers. Perhaps spelling out (in English letters) the Greek alphabet: Alpha-2018, Beta-2018, and so forth. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

The whole point is that you'd have a different set of names each year, so they wouldn't be repeated (like hurricane names). Doesn't have to be flowers, though I do like the idea. Black Kite (talk) 01:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Anyway, only during the Request stage. If it stays with those kinds of names through the case, it will really be very silly. Sorry. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

If you buy into the theory that case names are prejudicial to the outcome - and I'm not convinced one way or the other on that - then naming on acceptance by a clerk who's probably not especially familiar with the situation is no better than naming by the filer, and possibly a lot worse. —

Cryptic

02:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Well if the committee adopt my scope suggestion above then that would help, but I suspect what will happen is that people commenting on the request will say "if this is accepted I suggest it's named 'Cryptic and Thryduulf'" or "this case should be called 'Battle of Flowers'" and the Committee will most likely pick either one of the suggestions or something based on them (clerks wont be the ones deciding, although they'll be able to provide input on the clerks mailing list if they feel it appropriate). Thryduulf (talk) 02:36, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

If actual case names were to be assigned at any stage of the case, then it would be the Committee, not clerks, who would assign the name. Personally, I don't really buy into the idea about case names being prejudicial, and I'm increasingly thinking that the existing procedure should be kept. Calling cases by numbers, or by flower names, or by fish names (hey, I like that one!), or by the names of Snow White's seven dwarfs, until case closure, is a terrible idea. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I like Thryduulf's idea. Actually it might help to defuse tensions if all cases were called Battle of Flowers. They could be further distinguished by year and number, so for example the first arbitration case in 2018 would be called Battle-of-Flowers-2018-01, and the second Battle-of-Flowers-2018-02, and so on. MPS1992 (talk) 02:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Also, there's nothing in Category:Flowers starting with "Q", so 14 cases a year is our limit. Black Kite (talk) 02:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Iridescent

12:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I like Thryduulf's idea, too. And I think it might work best with the current system of naming. But any case name with "battle" in it risks being a self-fulfilling prophecy. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I like the Greek letters idea. Well, actually I like the flowers/dwarves/animals/etc idea, and don't care if it's silly - in fact I actively prefer silly, because the middle of an arbcom case is peak time for people to take everything Way Too Seriously and anything that makes that harder is a step forward, even if it means referring with a straight face to the Blue-Footed Booby Case of 2018. But in terms of "things that people would actually agree to", Greek letters are nicely boring and neutral, and conveniently come in a known sequence so we don't have to make a new list of animals or retire a dwarf after a particularly contentious case. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Iridescent

09:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Facepalm Duh. And I suppose there will inevitably be a User:Blue-Footed Booby who will be really confused about why everyone is complaining about him. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

With the current proposal, the code names only last until a case is closed, so there wouldn't be a need to use the code names afterwards. However for the requests that are not accepted, there could be an advantage to using English words as codewords instead of numbers. isaacl (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow why it would matter for declined requests, which are likely only relevant if the issue later comes back to arbcom. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Iridescent

11:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

In any event, if we use request numbers then all requests get numbers and they really can't get reassigned ever, if only because there will be the equivalent of linkrot should they get reassigned. So... basically whatever numbering system we use has to apply to accepted and declined cases equally, and the number has to be unique and assigned permanently. As to assigning convenience names, that can happen at any point really. But I agree with, I think, what OR was getting at, that there is little value in assigning convenience names to declined requests. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I meant - for most of the circumstances in which you'd want to refer to a declined request, it doesn't really matter if the request is called something boring like "2018-03". Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

For the vast majority of unaccepted requests that never get referred to again, an English code word instead of a numerical identifier would make no difference. However I didn't want to ignore the one advantage I see to using a code word. How much weight this advantage should be given is another matter. isaacl (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

More to the point, if you ever really have to refer to Blue Footed Booby Declined Case or Bluebells Declined Case, instead of say, 'that case you brought', you can just as easily refer to 1944-01 Declined Case. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Emoticons would make good case names (not). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

The issue is not how easy it is to put double brackets around the case name, but how easily one can remember the right case name to use. Of course, anyone can make their own index of declined (and accepted) cases if they wish, using whatever monikers they want. isaacl (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support, especially as it pertains to cases in which the tentative title is the subject's username. I've long been of the opinion that arbitration cases should be given non-specific names as standard practice (e.g. the recent Mister Wiki case, which was originally called "Salvidrim!" after the administrator whose contributions were in focus), with perhaps a bit of leeway for situations where such generalizations are not possible (i.e. it concerns the conduct of a single editor not exclusive to a given area). That way we can minimize the number of cases that are described as being "against" a certain editor. Kurtis ^(talk) 04:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• I do think that instead of numbering, using greek letters as Tryptofish said would be better - there is more to distinguish Gamma 2018 from Beta 2018 than 201803 from 201802, remove possibilities of typos etc. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • psi? isaacl (talk
    ) 22:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• Please for the love of god don't do anything other than numbers or maybe Latin letters and numbers. A docket numbering system, which is what we're talking about here, should be trivial to incorporate into a script (whether for statistical analysis or some maintenance task), and should be absolutely dead obvious for English speakers of any capability. There are people who don't know the Greek alphabet, or that gamma is the third letter, let alone know how to type them quickly. As for birds... You can't easily systematize that, or tell for sure that the "Blue-bellied roller" case is the first request of the month. The goal isn't to make arbitration fun, and while I'm sure the "bearded tit" case would be well known, this is something that will just cause more frustration and confusion.
  Just pick a serial numbering system that works well enough and has no chance of needing to be changed in the future. Make separators optional (20180101 would be equivalent to 2018-01-01 and 2018-1-1). Maybe use letters for the last field in the case designator so it's not confused with a date string (so 2018-01-A is the first request of January 2018, and 2018-11-L is the twelfth request of November 2018). If there's a need to add an extra identifier for the type of case, as most real courts do, that can be appended to the end. For instance, ARCA requests can use the same numbering system; 2018-01-A.CR and 2018-01-B.ARCA would be the first and second requests of January 2018, with request A being a case request, and request B being an ARCA. This sort of serialization might seem like unneeded complexity, but could be advantageous on the Committee mailing lists for keeping discussions straight.
  In short, the goal here should be basic function even at the expense of form. While this is being done to address a concern about prejudice against request parties, it's really more of a clerical matter. And when it comes to clerical things, simpler is better. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support I've been arguing in favor of this for many, many years. Psychological science
  has long held that the issue of cognitive bias in situations like this does taint the outcome and is not avoidable, even by those who are aware they are being biased. What schema we use for numbering cases is less important here than that we need to get away from targeting particular editors with case names. Even if this does not get accepted, we must get out of the practice of allowing editors to name the cases, as this supports a first-to-the-punch-wins environment. --Hammersoft (talk
  ) 18:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support for 4 digits of year, a seperator (hyphen or vertical bar), and anywhere from 2 to 3 digits of sequence numbers (heaven help us if we have 1000 cases accepted in a year) as the transitory case name while the case is open, however at the conclusion of the case the committee should come up with the dispute title (incorporating the case serial number) and any short names as appropriate. Hasteur (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support 2018-001, 2018-002. Etc. If we are going to stick with usernames in cases standardize it to the Filer's username followed by a number like Legacypac1, Legacypac2 etc. Usually there is only one filer and since they started it, there shoild be no issue having their name attached. I 100% agree the present system stacks the deck against the person who is named in the case. Legacypac (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, kind of, sort of. Having followed this discussion so far, I've ended up with the conclusion that most of what has been discussed here will end up being worse than the status quo. First of all, I think all these concerns about confirmation bias have been overblown. I think that most of the users who get elected to ArbCom in the present day (not necessarily so a decade ago) are clueful enough to look at evidence that comes as a surprise to them, and change their minds if need be. If you see someone running for ArbCom who isn't going to do that, don't vote for them. Of course I'm not saying that confirmation bias does not exist: we are talking about human beings here. But it has a smaller effect on case outcomes than some people here believe. And I agree that arbitration isn't supposed to be fun (as much as I would like to see the "Grumpy" and "Sneezy" cases). OK, some of you disagree with me.

But I do agree with many other people that naming cases after individuals is something that should stop. The usernames of parties should not be in case names. Renaming the recent case from "Salvidrim!" to "Conduct of Mister Wiki editors" was the right way to go, and it should be made into formalized practice. It's entirely understandable that someone who sees themselves named in the case title is going to worry about fair treatment. (But no way does "Conduct of Mister Wiki editors" really predetermine a case outcome.)

And I really like Thryduulf's idea about making scope as clear and well-communicated as possible. You should enact that, too.

There's nothing really wrong with using case numbers during the Request stage, and maybe that's a good idea. But once evidence and all the rest are underway, the Committee (not the clerks) should carefully name the case. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• Supportish The points of the opposes and any commitment status quo are overblown - I, for one, having watched the complaints about case-names over the years will be fine with it being addressed with this rather anodyne proposal (I do hope the clerks just change the file at filing, if someone does it 'wrong' and no one ever has to discuss it) - if you are going to be changing names anyway (of at least some cases), this proposal is OK, and as with most everything Arbcom does most Wikipedians will not care, anyway. (I'm only "ish" because no doubt people will find something new to complain about, and it's rather odd that we are 'voting' on this anyway) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • On the topic of "voting", that's somewhat of a puzzle for me as well. If editors feel most comfortable bolding something, go ahead, but we're looking for general community feedback and sentiment, not a vote. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• Regarding syntax of the case name, let's not worry too much about it. Someone can create a redirection template that'll strip out/insert separators as needed, prefix "20" for those who don't want to type a 4-digit year, and so forth. (Even map from greek letters to numbers, if that's what people want.) isaacl (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• I am not sure that I understand fully what is going on here, but I am horrified to see editor
  anchoring bias and self-selection of participation in the case which definitely affected the outcome. --Doncram (talk
  ) 00:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • At the time, the naming in my name ensured that editors who had grudges or ill feelings for whatever reason against me would be more likely to notice the arbitration and participate negatively against me... There are two issues here - one is related to the case naming primairly being discussed, the other relates to the benefits of an explicit statement of scope to avoid the problem of past grievances irrelevant to the case being flung at the wall in the hope they stick (or make something else stick). Thryduulf (talk) 02:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support Seems like a reasonable request, and avoids the first-mover problem. TheValeyard (talk) 00:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't pretend to have read all of the above input but my two main thoughts are: a) suggestions that case naming prejudices the outcome are concerning but speculative. I don't think this has been established to any acceptable degree one way or the other; b) moving to a naming system of a numeric key, or a novel arbitrary naming system of proper nouns (flowers, girls' names etc.) will only serve to make the whole process even more arcane and inaccessible, which is the exact opposite of what Wikipedia needs. If this is implemented it will simply shift the controversy down the line to when the cases are ultimately accepted anyway and there will inevitably be attempts by parties prior to case acceptance to influence the eventual name. The current system of having a consistent, relatable name throughout simplifies the process and makes useful participation easier, and ideas that are simpler and easier to implement are generally better, in my opinion. ElAhrairah ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 20:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • It's funny, I actually completely agree with this. I don't think the first mover or case namer problem is actually a problem (or even if there is an effect, it's a minor effect), and I also think moving to some clever case naming system will just make things more byzantine. Even so, I still support the move towards alphanumeric case identifiers because it does provide clerical advantages for some of the Committee's behind-the-scenes work, and because I think we should have some easier way of tracking and citing declined requests. As I suggested above, I think we should also be assigning these identifiers to ARCA requests, and just differentiating between normal case requests and ARCA requests with a suffix or something like that. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose This will make is super hard to refer to cases and numbers are hard to remember --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
• Mixed I'd oppose having numbered active cases. I'm fine with having numbered case requests that the committee would then assign a name to. This would also be very easy to work into the case request template. For example, a case request filed today would be 20180124 (and if we had multiple requests on the same day it could be 20180124-2, etc.) Once a case has been accepted, however, there will be substantial community interest that having a name that is easily identifiable and easy to remember becomes necessary. The committee should decide the name when accepting a request. This would move it away from the filing party deciding, and also has the positive advantage of framing the case for the arbs in a way that a number would not. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Gerda & Black Kite. The current system is certainly problematic, but I think the title should reflect the issue at stake, even if not the persons. Adding the date in addition is fine. Using a name that is only the date before it is accepted is of course fine, but if accepted, the name needs to use actual words that relate to the case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

  Reading closer, TonyBallioni's idea has real merit: Use the numbers for unaccepted cases, and let the Arbs themselves pick the name if they accept. Put it all on them, which works because they are neutral parties. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• I would prefer 3 digits to indicate the number of the request, and a separator (either a pseudo-subpage dash or a full subpage slash) e.g. 2018-001 or 2018/001 (or just drop the leading zeros in the construction with a slash: 2018/1 on up to 2018/62094 or whatever). While I doubt the committee sees anything close to 100 requests a year, 1000 definitely takes it out of the ballpark of likely. I don't see a reason for a full date, because we still might find ourselves needing to disambiguate. Moving the case after acceptance to a name reflecting the scope, selected by Arbcom, is reasonable to me (but I don't per se support it). --Izno (talk) 23:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • No, don't drop leading zeros, then the cases will sort -1, -10, -100, -11, -2... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose specifics, support the base idea. Naming after a party is wrong, unless it's a one-editor behavior case. Naming it with numeric blather is also a wrong, to everyone, since it will make the case pages all but uncitable. There's great value, however, in naming them after the topic or other locus of dispute, and these are were we get the shortcuts from, like
  WP:ARBINFOBOX, etc. In theory, we can still create memorable shortcuts, but of course if we're going to do that, creating memorable case names in the first place is the logical solution.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢
   😼  16:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

At least two of these most recent 'opposes' are a little difficult to understand - there is not a current proposal to never give the accepted case a name - and it's rather unusual that allot of people would really be referring to an ongoing case, elsewhere than at the case (where they will say 'this case'), other than a very, very few who may elsewhere say, 'that ongoing case' and sometimes, 'that ongoing case about _____' (I recently had a conversation, where we both referred to the "Salvadrim!" case or 'that Admin case', but the case is not even called those things, nonetheless we knew what we were referring to, and it does not matter otherwise -- no one's going to be much of a stickler how people say 'that case' in their regular conversations). As for the declined case, any mnemonic, for whatever few care about a declined case seems rather overblown, the people who care will remember, those who do not will search around (if it ever comes up), exactly like they have to do now. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

As User:BU_Rob13 said, this really isn't a vote—after all, the Arbitration Committee has full purview over what it decides to name the pages, and in any case the community can create as many templates it wants with different naming schemes that redirect to the canonical case pages/archived requests, if there are editors who feel very strongly about it. Personally I think enough voices have spoken up regarding a desire for meaningful names for active cases to establish the weight of this viewpoint, so my suggestion is that we can focus on raising new discussion points. isaacl (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment There are people here who believe bias is avoidable in cases. This is flat wrong. Science has repeatedly shown that even when people are aware of an intent to bias their responses, they STILL can not avoid it. ArbCom possesses no superpower that enables them to defeat bias even when science has shown they can't. I've studied seven years of cases where parties to a case were named in the title. Across those 46 title named parties, only one (TRM) escaped sanction. Title named parties are >11 times more likely to draw a sanction than non-title named parties. Those of you who believe that bias in case naming is avoidable are flatly, completely, and utterly wrong. If you think I'm wrong, prove it. I've got science and wikipedia evidence backing me up. Getting away from title named parties is long, long, long overdue. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I definitely like basing decisions on evidence, and I agree that naming cases after editors, by username, is something that should stop. But I don't think that plain English language names such as "Genetically modified organisms" or "American politics" or "Gamergate" introduce any more bias than number strings would do. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:30, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• I have many comments that I would like to share at some point; for now, I think we could remove a lot of the bias by naming cases (by default) after the filer of the case. Most perceptions of a user "having an arbitration case" would quickly dissipate, and it would still be fairly simple to refer to any specific case. If the Committee chooses not to use numerical case titles, I suggest something along those lines would be helpful; often, it's not possible to come up with any other neutral case name. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

About "often, it's not possible to come up with any other neutral case name", I've been thinking hard about that. I think (but am prepared to be proven wrong by example) that it actually is always possible to come up with neutral non-username case names. At worst, we would have cases like "Wheel-warring I", "Wheel-warring II", and so forth. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure, we could have "Contentious behaviour 1", "Contentious behaviour 2", and so forth, where each would be unrelated. This might be a little better than a simple number, but still difficult to remember. (Is it "Contentious behaviour 5 I'm thinking of, or "Tendentious editing 3"?) isaacl (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

It would have to be more specific than that. All cases deal with contentious or tendentious conduct. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure, that's the key problematic part: sometimes the editor is exhibiting a wide spectrum of undesirable behaviour, and to describe them all in a title would be unwieldy. But even more specific names can be a problem: am I thinking of "Removing infoboxes 3" or "Edit warring 7"? (On a side note, not all cases deal with tendentious conduct.) If I get the chance, I'll try to go through the past few years of cases and see what names could be given to them when the cases were accepted. isaacl (talk) 22:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Hammersoft this is actually pretty weak reasoning. You're ignoring the possibility that more egregious behaviour, which is more likely to lead to (appropriate) sanctions, is also more likely to lead to a case named after the accused. They are two variables which respond the same way to the same stimulus. ElAhrairah ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 00:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• This rebuttal to my statement has been mentioned before. It doesn't hold water. It's circular logic. We have a case named after JohnSmith because the case is about JohnSmith's actions, and therefore we find sanctions against JohnSmith because it's about JohnSmith's actions. It fails on first inspection. I'm sorry. When it is more than 11 times as likely for a title named party to be sanctioned than for a party not named in a title, there is something gravely wrong. Arbitration, by its very definition, is supposed to be impartial. Naming one side of the table in the naming of the cases irrevocably biases the case. In any dispute, there is more than one party that is part of the dispute. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• I have made this comment above, but apparently it did not make much of impact. In Russian Wikipedia, where I was an arb for some time, cases are just plainly numbered. There are typically several active cases at the same time, and everybody knows what ArbCom:673 (a random example) means, this never cause any confusion, and nobody complained it is difficult to memorize. Old cases, when the decision was made a long time ago, but they still need to be referred to, get special redirects with meaningful names; by those standards, WP:ARBPIA would be a meaningful name, and everybody would use it, again, no confusion ever occurred.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

  I find this entirely unsurprising. Thank you for this observation, Ymblanter. There's a lot of hand-wringing about memorability and confusion here that is just downright unrealistic. That said, I also believe the panic over case naming is overblown, and that people are confusing the presence of bias for the presence of prejudice or partiality. In any event, my honest opinion is that a docket numbering system like has been proposed here is of value on its own. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• The presence of bias is enough to pollute a case on its own. There's no need for prejudice or partiality to thoroughly tilt the table away from level and fair. Bias by any other name is still unfair, whether it be by intent or not. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• This is simply not true, and frankly, exactly why I distinguished the mere appearance of bias from bias resulting in prejudice. As I've said, I support the move away from party names in case names, but only because Wikipedia arbitration is neither an adversarial process nor a precedent-setting mechanism. Thus, there isn't the same rationale to refer back to prior cases as there is in common law courts. The evidence-free insistence, however, that naming a case after a party causes an unfair outcome or deprives the named party of an impartial hearing is contrary to more than a decade of Committee experience and close to a thousand years of experience in the common law courts. The Committee should not concern itself with trifles when its purpose is to resolve actual misbehavior. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• How is it not true? As I noted, I have science backing me up on this. If you think I don't, then please rebut
  Anchoring#Difficulty_of_avoiding. Also, your claim of more than a decade of committee experience isn't upheld by any evidence. I have reviewed 46 cases where a party was named in the title of a case spanning 6 years of ArbCom. Title named parties are 11 times more likely to receive sanctions in this "impartial" process. If ArbCom were truly impartial, this would not be the case. They can't avoid it. Some (at least two I'm aware of) have tried to claim that they can avoid such bias. They can't, as science has shown that even if you are aware you are being biased, you can't avoid it. --Hammersoft (talk
  ) 14:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

How do you know this shouldn't be the case? The title named parties are generally the ones that are the most disruptive. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• See my comment earlier where I say "This rebuttal to my statement has been mentioned before. It doesn't hold water. It's circular logic. We have a case named after JohnSmith because the case is about JohnSmith's actions, and therefore we find sanctions against JohnSmith because it's about JohnSmith's actions." Also, you just proved the point. If JohnDoe submits a case request naming it JohnSmith, then JohnDoe has already decided that JohnSmith is the most disruptive. Case is already tilted. Rare is it that a case is accepted with a different name than the request itself. ArbCom accepts case, requests evidence, defines the scope as being the last two years of JohnSmith's editing, and voila...we have a case pointed directly at JohnSmith that ignored JohnDoe's part in the dispute. That's bias. It isn't impartial. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• Short version, you either don't understand anchoring and how it is applied to questions or you are deliberately distorting its effect in order to support a duff argument. Slightly longer version: Anchoring is where when presented with multiple pieces of evidence that lean one way or another, the first presented influences the decision towards that area. Coke vs Pepsi have been doing this for years - by selectively presenting the options they get the result they prefer in a large enough sample. In the Gandhi example, the anchoring is when presented with two numerical amounts the bias leads towards the first provided. It in no way supports "Mohandas Gandhi, terrorist or statesman?" indicating because the question is named after the subject, the negative option will be biased. More people are not going to think Gandhi was a terrorist because the question is named Gandhi. The anchoring aspect of an Arbcom case is based on the presentation of evidence, when presented with lots of evidence indicating bad conduct first, then supportive second, anchoring would lead the bias towards the first evidence presented. What you keep arguing without a shred of evidence and by deliberately distorting examples of research is that the naming of the subject prior to the question of their guilt/innocence invokes bias. Which is laughable. If you had chosen to make an argument that the structure of an arbcom case leads to anchoring, you might have a legitimate argument, but unless you can find out a way for someone accused of bad conduct to not have their bad conduct be the first point of evidence, good luck. But anchoring has nothing to do with the name of the case. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Regarding order of evidence, I once suggested having co-ordinators for each major point of view in the dispute, who would collect submissions from interested parties and put forward a concise presentation. Reducing redundancy will make the case easier to follow, thereby decreasing the amount of time spent by everyone on the case, and thus I think potentially mitigate the issue of the order of presentation. isaacl (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• I don't appreciate your accusations that I am deliberately distorting things. You do not need to attack me to make a point. If you can't make a point without doing so, you have no point to make. For the record, I am not deliberately distorting anything. It's prima facie evident, and no distortion of anything is needed, that naming a case after a person means that people coming to the case will be looking at that person's behavior. I'm sorry we disagree. Our disagreement does not mean you are right and I am wrong or vice versa. Regardless of whether you or I are right in this attribution of bias, the reality is that moving away from title named parties harms nothing. As noted elsewhere in this discussion, other language ArbComs do just fine without title named parties. The world isn't going to come to an end because we do away with people being named in the titles of cases. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment The filing party has no right to choose the case name, they can only chose the request name, and we can change that if we feel the need. Doug Weller talk 16:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Far, far more often than not, the name of the case that is used is the one the filer chose. The filer should never be picking the case name in requesting it, nor in its accepted form. If they have no right to choose the case name, they have no business naming the request either. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:47, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
• Naming an Arbcom case after the accused does possibly create interesting dynamics. Such a named case immediately attracts supporters & opponents of the accused. The outcome of such case, tends to depend on the ratio of the accused's supporting/opposing editors. GoodDay (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
• Weak support I think it's better than the current, but very unwieldy. I'd follow Isaacl's suggestions below naming the case about the issue at hand, or Gerda's above naming the case after flowers. I'll add that there are examples from history of Gerda's idea in action (albeit not of flowers), e.g. Operation Market Garden has nothing to do with gardening or buying things in a market; Operation Barbarossa has nothing to do with red beards, and so on. Banedon (talk) 07:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: Like Gerda, as I grow older, I find numbers harder to remember and more easily confused. My own suggestion is to name cases after Shakespeare's plays – who could resist having a case named "All's well that ends well"? --RexxS (talk) 14:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

You know, I think you're onto something here - The Comedy of Errors and Much Ado About Nothing will, of course, also be snapped up pretty quickly... -- Begoon 14:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

But why just titles like, Love's Labour's Lost and not lines, like Out, out, damn spot; 'To be, or not to be'; 'Brevity is the soul of wit'; and 'Boil, boil, toil and trouble', etc. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

As you may know - because it was on my user page from 2013 to 2015 - I named my case "pride and prejudice", was reminded yesterday by OTD. Back to the flower proposal: the case currently requested should get the name of a high-class flower. Gladioli? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

If anyone is really motivated to use flowers, plays, etc. as aliases for cases, a template can be created, and they can keep a mapping table up to date. We can have as many aliases as people like. isaacl (talk) 15:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support - Either for a case number, or a neutrally named case anchor - that is, NOT EVER a name of editors (and I have no objections against using both). And especially case requests should be plainly numbered (and only be anchored, if needed, upon acceptance of the case, executed by arbitrators or clerks). Again, when the situation of an editor is so bad that they are the sole problem, there is no case, a motion is enough (for which, then I could somewhat support a personally named motion - 'motion on editor X'). In ALL other cases where there is a case, there must be ambiguity whether there is a case on the person or not, and there is no reason to name after the person. To take the open case as an example - the case was initially anchored (and still is) to one editor, while arbitrators commented that there were editors apparently aggravating the named party. The case is now 'X and others', where no others have been identified (there are no other named parties than the filer, who may not be a party, and the initial anchor). Do we need ArbCom to get a result here? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support, with no particular preference on naming conventions. From a quick round-up of cases between 2012 and 2017, while neutrally-named cases don't seem to particularly affect the outcomes for the primary parties, there is a marginally smaller first-mover advantage in neutrally-named cases. As long as arbitration still has any pretense of being a step in dispute resolution rather than a weapon for filers to get rid of their opponents, using neutral case names appear, at least for a small percentage of them, to increase the odds of even-handed outcomes for all over cases named against a single party. That should be enough reason to end the practice of naming cases after single parties. MLauba ^(Talk) 23:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Sample case names

As an exercise, I went through all of the accepted cases back to 2015 that were named after editors (seventeen out of twenty-eight), and based on the information known when the case was accepted, attempted to give the case a name. I tried to choose affirmative names that express desired actions, rather than prohibited ones, but there are some exceptions. You can see the choices I made below. I'm sure better names can be chosen for some cases, but the point of the exercise was not the specific names I came up with, but how hard did I find it to choose a descriptive name that avoids editor names and serves as a useful mnemonic. It was fairly difficult: only for two cases (which were case 1 and case 2 for the same editor) did I find a name related to the type of edits involved. (There are some cases where a name like "April Fool prank" could be used, but as that was not the real issue, I didn't choose that name to try to avoid biasing the scope of the investigation.) For all other cases, the crux of the matter was undesirable behaviour spanning multiple areas. As to be expected for situations serious enough to require a case, the poor behaviour typically fell into multiple categories, making it hard to narrow it down further. Many of the cases are basically "editor X has difficulty interacting positively with other editors when an issue arises" (eight out of the seventeen).

In summary, about 40% of the cases examined already have names describing the area of dispute, and the remaining 60% are related to specific editor behaviour. Given the wide spectrum of problematic behaviour, it is challenging to come up with a short descriptive name that is memorable. isaacl (talk) 05:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, first you would not need ordinal numbers at all, if as I have suggested you always keep the filing number so: Aspersions/Admin Conduct 2018-1 and Aspersions/Admin Conduct 2220-5. Also, it's rather easy to choose something like Harmful automated edits, POV editing/failure to communicate, or Attacks/Consensus disruption, etc as titles, or even more specific, that gets the point across. Besides, in general we are to avoid focusing on who the editor is, we are to focus on what went wrong. --Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree, we can always come up with a name (and that's why I went through the exercise). But like I said, many of the cases have common themes such as failure to communicate adequately to build a consensus (what I called "Working towards consensus"), so the names will have a high degree of similarity. I haven't disagreed with shifting away from editor names; I've simply said it will be tricky to meet the desire to choose a concise memorable name, particularly when the name is chosen at case acceptance time. isaacl (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for preparing this very useful exercise. I agree with Alanscottwalker that it would not be particularly difficult to come up with names that are more specific than the ones in the table. And I really think that there is no situation in which such names would be impossible, which means that there is a very real possibility of doing away with person casenames. I also found it interesting that one of the relatively few examples in which you had to number a "case 1" and a "case 2" was for "Automated cosmetic edits", which were about the same user and occurred rather closely together in time. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe the ones mentioned were significantly more specific than the ones I came up with, but you're welcome to look at the cases yourself and try to think of some names. (The one suggestion that did not have a direct analogue with one in the table is "consensus disruption", and none of the cases really fit this description.) A failure to work well with other editors to reach consensus was the key issue in six of the cases, and admin tool usage in three, so I feel there is a lot of commonality in case names. I am not arguing against using thematic case names; I'm just saying that for better or worse there will likely be a lot of similar names. (In situations where a specific incident triggered the case, a brief description of that could be used and be more memorable, but as I mentioned, since the actual problematic behaviour is usually broader, I generally chose names that focused on the editor behaviour being examined, to avoid limiting the scope of the case.) isaacl (talk) 23:20, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

But I think that it still is workable, and would be an improvement. We need not let the perfect be the enemy of the good enough. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree it is workable, and am a strong champion of trying new changes, evaluating, and then trying something else if desired. isaacl (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• That is a novel and workable solution, imho. No system is perfect but that does make the titles usable for ordinary humans when referring to cases. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:10, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Issac1 - the current proposal is not to assign the name until closing the case. At that point, every arb will have a very good idea (presumably) what the case is about - and can be as specific as language will allow (they will also, be guided, I think, by concepts in our policies and what breaching those policies is). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, I know. Tryptofish (and others) suggested that a meaningful case name be assigned after case acceptance. Accordingly, I gave the idea a test run. isaacl (talk) 01:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Oh, OK, that's why you were hamstrung by trying be very "neutral' in case names - but after the finding is made that there were 'attacks', we can name the case 'attacks' - in general, the name will really be focused on whatever the final decision is and was. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Ugg, no - especially not for administrator reviews - the primary reason a case is needed here is because the community has decided that only arbcom can desysop, the case is about the behavior of a specific editor. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • In the interest of keeping the feedback on the proposal in one location, can you consider moving your comment to the section above? This section is just a side branch. isaacl (talk) 06:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• @Xaosflux: Yes, the community decided that, but if the case is so singular that a person needs desysopping we don't need a case, a motion on the sysop rights is sufficient (arbcom does that regularly). If we need a full case it means there is ambiguity whether the situation is bad enough, and then there is the possibility that there is more a situation at play than an editor (which still may mean that editors get admonished/desysopped, but the focus is whether the situation warrants sanctions on editors, not the editor). In any case, we should NEVER anchor on case requests, that should the earliest be done at case acceptance, and possibly only at case closure (when you know that one editor was indeed the crux of the problem, though I would still hope that we avoid the anchoring for cases where editors did not get a desysop). Moreover, anchoring on cases that do not give a desysop result in a double jeopardy-ish situations ('oh, but we dragged him before ArbCom 5 years ago and he was just admonished, you see, he must be bad') --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment I would go as far as to say that the categories should be taken one level higher. For example, a broad category of "Editor Behaviour" could encompass: collaborative editing, personal attacks, tendentious editing, battleground editing, etc. This primary category could be presented to the filing editor during case creation. The filer would then have the option of adding in a secondary, or even tertiary category, which would be free text. The primary category could be drawn up based on a broad assessment of the most critical issues editors may face. For example, a (not exhaustive nor exact) list could be

1. Editor behaviour
2. Admin tool usage
3. Harassment and/or stalking
4. Bot usage
5. etc etc

The list should be as small as possible and should be viewed as a tool for encouraging the filer to focus on the primary cause of them filing an ArbCom case. For example, the TRM and Gamaliel cases could be, respectively, something along the lines of

1. Editor behaviour and collaborative editing
2. Editor behaviour and working towards consensus

It's a bit bureaucratic but that's what this discussion is heading towards. Blackmane (talk) 01:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Original announcement

Original announcement

@

Kostas20142: The "Original announcement" link goes to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#XY; is this intentional? ansh666

19:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@

talk

) 20:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

International Women's Day: the experienced women on the committee did not support the final decision. "

Hope is precious and great joy is found in living" (received in 2015). --Gerda Arendt (talk

) 10:05, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Original announcement

Ouch, Remedy #5 really cuts into my "Infoboxes should be limited to mostly politicians & sports figures articles" argument :( GoodDay (talk) 13:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if it's necessary to have both the probation and the normal discretionary sanctions at once. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

They argued that one was more for a person, the other for an article. - I hope we'll never need any, one or the other. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

The probation is a discretionary sanction. It is just a predefined one. I think that is better, because as I said on the PD talk page, we already have defined procedures for how to deal with DS. I also agree with Gerda about hoping we won't need either in practice. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I assume the purpose of the Committee's decision was not to encourage

WP:POINT, much? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room}

13:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Wow that is a dickish move. Maybe Volvlogia should also be placed on Infobox probation aswell ? .... Just a suggestion. –Davey2010^Talk 16:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

No need for probation. I'll let things simmer, won't happen again like that. Scout's honor. --Volvlogia (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• It's up there with this delayed reversion of Cass's edit that came only hours after the case closed. - SchroCat (talk) 17:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
• @GoldenRing: you missed the "original announcement" link ;) ansh666 18:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Remedy #4 requires somebody to kick the ball off, so I've created

• Just yesterday someone said "...decision of whether to include an infobox should rely on the judgement of the article's main authors..." (diff not included, lest I be accused of canvassing). In the light of this outcome, what should be the response to that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • This case changed nothing related to that. The response has always been (and likely will always be)
    WP:OWN. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk
    13:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
• ...and how about the comment "Infoboxes are not compulsory, articles are written for people to read, the lead provides a summary if an infobox conveys all that is necessary then the article seems somewhat redundant."? Do not both of my examples fall foul of "editors are reminded... not turn discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Outside of any context, that would appear to be a violation of the "editors are reminded..." warning iff it is a comment made in a discussion about a single infobox. However without the surrounding context it is impossible to know for sure. Thryduulf (talk) 10:34, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
    • It is indeed in the discussion of a single specific artcile's infobox, on the talk page of that article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
      • OK so it's potentially against the reminder, but it's still not possible to be certain without the full context. You're currently skriting close to the spirit of both
        WP:ASPERSIONS - either provide the full context or drop the matter. Thryduulf (talk
        ) 15:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
        • "infoboxes are not compulsory, articles are written for people to read, the lead provides a summary if an infobox conveys all that is necessary then the article seems somewhat redundant." is a perfectly reasonable argument to not have an infobox on an article where an infobox is just duplicating information already present and clear in prose. That the same argument can be applied to many many articles does not make it 'general about infoboxes' it just means the same problem that some editors have with infoboxs is widespread. Its an incredibly badly worded 'reminder'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:06, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
        • What part of "diff not included, lest I be accused of canvassing" are you having trouble understanding? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
          • The bit where you provide context so it can be looked at without your cherry-picked selection. Either pony up a diff or accept you wont get a straight answer. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:45, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
          • Ah I see its good old Talk:Buckingham_Palace where the context is provided that numerous people have *already* made specific note that the information in the infobox in that article is already in the article, the infobox is ugly and adds nothing, and the quoted statement is *directly* below your own post where you want to include an infobox claiming it has info that is not in the lede. So, less an editor wanting to "turn discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general" and more editor "responding to the discussion already in progress". (The 'articles are written for people to read' is probably a direct response to your machine readable argument.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

An arbitration decision cannot constrain community policy-making or guideline-writing, and this one does not purport to. Comments in the RfC cannot violate the decision by their content, though they should be civil, free of personal attacks, etc. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

If anybody isn't certain about the Arb ruling? that's what

I wanted to post this to the case talk page last week, but didn't have time and then case has now closed so posting here to request guidance. An infobox was added on March 26th to Annunciation (Memling). Article inception is here, history is here, FAC is here. I'd prefer not to have the infobox for the following reasons: 1., the article is about an art piece and is better served to show that art piece unadulterated next to the lead; 2., on my monitor the infobox falls into the first body section and shoves down the images there, which were purposely chosen and placed to highlight the accompanying text. Is there recourse based on the current infobox ruling? Apologies in advance that I didn't follow the case closely, nor have I followed any other discussions. Will, however, keep this watched and am interested in feedback. Thanks. Victoriaearle (tk) 18:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

The recently closed case did not rule on content matters. You’ll need to discuss on the article’s talk page and reach a consensus. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

As a personal view, agree that that specific infobox adds little value and the article was better without it. As clarification of the case outcome, agree with BU Rob13 that there was no change to WP:INFOBOXUSE re the requirement for case-by-case consensus on infobox inclusion or exclusion. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:06, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd advise you, Victoria to open a discussion at Talk:Annunciation (Memling) and concentrate on explaining why you and Ceoil chose not to have an infobox when you wrote the article and took it through FAC. As the principal author, you are the expert on the topic and your opinion should be listened to, although it has no special privilege beyond that. If your decision was primarily aesthetic, that's okay, but remember that other viewers are entitled to their own aesthetics. It's important also to understand that on my big monitor (2560 x 1440 px) the lead image even without the infobox pushes down the images below it, and on my phone, it's impossible to see any of the images accompanying text in the way that you do on your monitor. Half of our page views are on mobile, so much of our audience isn't going to see the article as you intend. On the other hand, it can be argued that that the infobox presents its information in a structured manner, making that information easier for third-parties to reuse. The infobox chosen doesn't make much use of microformats, so that aspect will carry less weight than in other articles. The infobox does present more information "at-a-glance" than your preferred version, so you need to address the issue of whether the extra information is likely to be of much value to a reader. Remember that discretionary sanctions will be applicable to edits and discussions surrounding the question of an infobox, and that it's always better to wait for some consensus to emerge before reverting in these cases. HTH --RexxS (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't doubt that you mean well RexxS, but I for one am getting rather tired of this kind of ArbCom sanctioned bullying. Eric Corbett 21:23, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll vouch that RexxS does certainly mean well and is not now nor ever has been a member of arbcom. But its all a bloody mess all the same. What to do. Ceoil (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I've remove it, on the basis that it was a wikidata template, which I dont understand, cannot edit, or control. I often create articles with infoboxes in situ, dont really have a philosophical position one way or the other. But here made an editorial decision. Please infobox warriors, dont make this another test case, that would be most tiresome. Ceoil (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm sorry you see it as bullying, Eric. I have offered my feedback as honestly and openly as I can, without trying to take any side in this. Like Ceoil, I'm tired of perennial battles over what is really a very small issue in the grand scheme of things. I sincerely believe that the issues I've outlined represent the bulk of what ought to be discussed on the talk page, although if you can see anything relevant that I've missed, I'd be delighted to see you add it. --RexxS (talk) 21:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

RexxS, you have your opinions and others have theirs. But the hypocrisy of saying on the one hand, well I am tired of the "perennial battles", while two second later recommending that this instance "ought to be discussed on the talk page", that really goads and paints the pro infobox people as grind-them-down-slowly merchants. WTF a way to treat other fellow decade into wiki colleges? Ceoil (talk) 21:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

You know, that's really unfair, Ceoil. You've no right to call me a hypocrite for advising Victoria to use the talk page. If she simply reverted, why wouldn't someone else re-revert? And so on. You know very well that an ounce of discussion is worth more than a cartload of reverts, so why pick on me for advising discussion? Okay, I've had enough of being pilloried for speaking the truth to you. Sort it out yourselves by reverting back-and-forth if that's your preferred method of dispute resolution. Arbs: just see for yourself how much you've solved with your worthless "All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes." platitudes. --RexxS (talk) 00:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

RexxS the issue I wanted clarified, and that Sarah seems to have provided the answer to below, is whether it's necessary to open a discussion, whether reverting would have triggered the DS alert. So far I've not seen an arb answer that satisfactorily but I'll let it go. I wouldn't have reverted back and forth. Btw - I didn't get your ping earlier. Might not be a bad idea if someone came along and archived this discussion. I think it's illustrative and has served its purpose. Victoriaearle (tk) 01:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

The issue is this and I'd like to have very clear answers. I want to remove it for the reasons Ceoil outlined. I made the decision not to have the infobox, it went to FAC and passed without the infobox, it's not been on the main page yet and I want to know, again in clear language, what my options are as a steward. Do I: 1., undergo strife to present a position, 2., does removing trigger a DS alert to show up on my page and what about the person who added? I've been unwell for most of a year and frankly am not up to a long conversation and think the best option is to ignore, log out, and stop tending all FAs such as these where time and effort have been volunteered but positions are now very unclear. I'd like to hear from other arbs who all voted to some sort of a decision that I don't understand. Victoriaearle (tk) 21:45, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe as a survival mechanism, we aught to let others have their toys? I was never so much enamored by maniacal people, who will never change, so the choices are go mental and incur huge psychiatric bills or move on. Wiki is big, the world is bigger. Ceoil (talk) 21:48, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Victoria, you could have removed that box. The arbcom decision means only that "standard discretionary sanctions are authorized", but certain warnings have to be given first, then there would have to be bad behaviour (assuming everyone was being fair). In addition to that, "any uninvolved administrator may apply infobox probation as a discretionary sanction". I don't know what that means over and above the first remedy; that strikes me as superfluous. But again it would only be triggered by bad behaviour, and that wouldn't include removing a box from an article you had written, so long as you weren't repeatedly reverting. Having said that, I understand the nervousness. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:22, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. I'm very nervous. Thanks, though, for explaining. Victoriaearle (tk) 22:31, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Nervous also. See [29] and note the timestamp and sequence - seconds after I said to Rexx that the wars is of attrition. The talk page is now a mess. Ceoil (talk) 23:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

As a note, sure, you might get a notice, Victoriaearle. It wouldn’t be anything bad though. It just tells you the situation in this topic area, which is that admins have a couple more tools at their disposal than they normally do to try to keep the debate civil and focused on content, not contributors. The point is to make it easier to contribute in this area, not harder. Think of it this way: not only do the notices tell those who might stir trouble to keep it under control, they also tell editors like yourself that there are options to keep discussions from getting out of hand if someone else starts acting poorly. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:53, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I have the feeling that the message might be reworded to show that (good) intention. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:29, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

The second sentence of the message overtly states "It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date." It would be difficult to make it any more clear without being condescending. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Don't tell me, - I received the notice and said thank you, but what do you tell an editor who left because it was obviously not clear enough, not even with two people explaining? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:17, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I deeply regret posting a question here and in my view the thread can be closed. To recap: confused about the recent ruling I presented the case of an article I tend where an infobox was added in the past week. An editor saw this thread, looked at the article, and took the opportunity to change images sizes, which is another matter entirely. No one, except Sarah, provided a clear answer to the infobox question. DS alerts have now been handed out - which is what I'd wondered about but had to push for the answer. BU Rob13, you seem quite invested. May I ask that you place an alert on my page too, for having opened the can of worms. Won't happen again. Victoriaearle (tk) 14:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm invested in the sense that I'd like to make sure the community understands our ruling, sure. And yes, if you'd prefer, I'll hand out a notice your way too. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:14, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

In light of the situation with

1. while notices are given by editors, it is inevitable that some will be offended, especially when the criteria for issuing the notices are variable and arbitrary.
2. trying to convince an editor who has been offended that they shouldn't be is pointless as emotional responses rarely respond to logic.
3. rewording the notice (again) is not going to achieve anything.
4. ArbCom have had these issues raised on numerous occasions and achieved little progress with this problem, which has been known for many years.

As far as I can see, while template warnings are issued in some cases in preparation for an AE report, where wrong-doing is suspected or anticipated, and in other cases they are issued with no allegedly problematic edit precipitating it – and therein lies the problem. I would like to propose a better approach. Hand over all notifications to a bot. The bot would issue notices on some objective criteria (first edit to a DS-active page, first revert, first talk page post, whatever) that was chosen by ArbCom. In that way, it is possible to make it clear to every editor notified that the advice is issued on an ArbCom mandate and only when the criterion or criteria are met. The lack of notifications by other editors would demonstrate that the individual editor was not targeted by the posting editor or that the posting is alleging anything. It would save editors from the need to issue DS alerts at all. As long as editors retain discretion to issue the template and choose who to target (or not target), there is reason for taking a notification as an implied accusation of wrong-doing, no matter what the wording states. EdChem (talk) 01:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that we'd need to specify a list of all pages subject to DS, which is not possible. At some point, we can't worry about offending editors when the offense defies logic and is outweighed by the benefit of discretionary sanctions in an area of issue. We should do everything we can to minimize misunderstandings, but I don't really think there's anything more that can be done. The notice can't be much clearer. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Why can't a bot detect article talk pages with DS notices? EdChem (talk) 02:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with EdChem but submit that it's off topic here. I strongly suggest raising it elsewhere. here's your list of all pages subject to DS: Category:Wikipedia pages under discretionary sanctions. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this is hair brained. Dont template exists for good reason, and now we are thinking of a commissioning a *bot* to run out there issuing warnings? There are practical matters of right of reply, dignity and what have you that need to be considered. I cant see this ending well, though it may seem possible to coders. Ceoil (talk) 02:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

They are not warnings but rather informational alerts. The fact that many editors interpret them as warnings is precisely the point. The alerts are already required to be issued by editors, and the fact that a minority of editors know how to do that is part of the problem. The proposal is to eliminate that part of the problem, ensuring that alerts are always given where needed, while also eliminating the tendency for some editors to perceive the alert as a warning regardless of what it clearly says. Since there is no rationality test (or any other tests) for entry to Wikipedia editing, we need processes that take irrationality into account where possible. And the phrase is "hare brained", referring to the rabbit. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Forgive me Mandruss but your myopic and harsh rules is rules take no prisoners approach as evidenced last night is exactly I would be horrified to trust you to make a bot to go around "warning" people. I predict disaster. Ceoil (talk) 02:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I forgive you. I sincerely believe that you can't help it. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

No worries. But I do fear your mindset, and if you get traction here, urging robo admin warnings, well god help us all. You are obviously trying to bait now. Ceoil (talk) 02:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ceoil, I have edited in an area under DS in the past. I wondered if I would be targeted for templating by someone who disagreed with me (I am a scientist and so think pseudoscience should be called what it is), and I wondered how I would respond. I don't recall it ever happening, but my gut feeling is that if I was suddenly template out of (apparently) nowhere as Sagaciousphil seems to have been, I would have been irked and offended... and likely asking for evidence of some rational reason for implying wrong-doing. I would have felt that way even knowing that the templates are supposedly informational and not a warning because the (unspoken) caveat that comes with them is often "now I can drag you to AE and push for sanctions."

If ArbCom really wants them to be a routine piece of information, issued genuinely without any accusation of misdeeds and as a standard part of participation in a DS area, then my suggestion is (I think) a way to achieve that. I also think that I would not have the emotional reaction to a bot notification posted to all participants in the area that I might have to receiving it from a (potentially partisan) editor in the area. I think the idea of uniform notifications is bad, but less bad than the current situation, less bad than the warnings being only for alleged misconduct (and with the resulting conflict), and (frankly) less bad than the other options I have encountered to date. I would love to hear a better solution to the wider problem, but in the meantime, losing editors as is happening at the moment is something that should be stopped, and I believe that what I am proposing could work.

BU Rob13, another (though bureaucratic) approach would be as follows:

1. A protected page lists all articles under DS and the case under which they apply. The initial list could be created from the existing category noted above.
2. To add a page to within DS, a proposal is made on the article talk page by any editor, open for discussion by all.
3. After seven days, the discussion is closed by an uninvolved admin (perhaps a new WP:AN list for closures of these proposals?) based on the quality of arguments for needing DS and evidence of disruption.
4. The bot then adds the page to the list, adds the DS tag to the article talk page, and begins notifying editors from that point forward.

In this way, new articles could come under DS only with consensus. A parallel strategy could be used to propose removing a page from under the purvery of DS. I am sure that ArbCom can come up with other alternatives. The basic question is, however, would bot-issued notifications based on objective criteria be practical and in line with ArbCom's intent? EdChem (talk) 02:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I cant believe I have to point out the impractical implication if this; deeply invested editors being warned by bots and the problems that might cause. Apart from anything, you are assuming you can reign in SPAs like Mandruss, who will instinctively want to police this. I agree with your over all analysis of the impasse, however. Ceoil (talk) 03:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Here ye go a an example of the licence yer are offering, and how this will fall out. Ceoil (talk) 04:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)