Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:59, 21 January 2018

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Conduct of Mister Wiki editors case closed

Original announcement

It's difficult to say thank you, here -- it's all unfortunate, but the committee's diligence (special mention to drafter(s)) is appreciated. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree, and it should be noted that Euryalus did a particularly large amount of the heavy lifting, and did it very well. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

1000% agreed. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 18:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes. I expressed to Euryalus privately after the case closed about how impressed I was with his handling of it. He really deserves a lot of kudos for keeping engaged with the community, and helping keep the conversation civil and related to the case. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, agree with Alanscottwalker that cases are never a good thing and glad this one wasn't as fraught as some. That was nothing to do with me: everyone with an interest in the case contributed politely and in detail, and that's all it needed.

Workshop engagement was the most useful part, as the only forum in which to test evidence for surprises and make sure everyone gets a say. Compare the level of workshop engagement in this case, with this one. The drafters did fail to post proposals directly in the workshop like we said we would - sorry about that, Christmas and the shortened time frame got in the way. Thankfully most things that ended up in the PD were already posted in the workshop by others, but it would have been best practice for us to post proposals there too. Something for next time. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding discretionary sanctions

Original announcement

The way this is worded, someone who addressed the ctte in a case but was not named in the final, is deemed unaware, that's a stretch -- so, can the clerks please add to their case duties sending an "alert" to everyone who commented at any time in the case, please? Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

First of all, it's worth noting that this motion didn't address the awareness criteria it just added a requirement before someone can be sanctioned for breaching a restriction an admin has placed on a page. Regarding the point you raised, expecting someone who filed a statement before the case was accepted, or who submitted evidence to be aware of the final decision is a stretch. Likewise giving them an alert (if discretionary sanctions where authorised) when they may not have edited in the topic area for weeks also seems to be a bit of a stretch. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Not knowing about a case you know about is basically silly nonsense. And not giving a pro forma alert is just dereliction of diligence. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

So just to be clear, this now says "In the last twelve months, the editor has given and/or received an alert for the area of conflict", yet the yellow box above says that "Editors using mobile devices may not see edit notices. Administrators should consider whether an editor was aware of the page restriction before sanctioning them.". So, all an editor (especially our swathe of lovely new ARBAP2 editors) has to do now is say "I was on my mobile, didn't see that" ... am I missing something? Black Kite (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

To enforce a page restriction (like 1RR or the AP2 consensus required restriction) the editor has to be aware (eg received an alert in the last 12 months) and there has to be an edit notice on the page. If they're using a mobile device, their edit will be tagged with mobile edit, mobile web edit or mobile app edit. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Callanecc, nope. I’m currently editing from mobile and you see no tags. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Using the desktop version on the mobile or the proper mobile version (with "en.m.wikipedia" in the URL). If the former you can still see edit notices, if the later, it's probably something for WP:VPT or phabricator as a bug. In any case it doesn't say that admins can't sanction editors using mobile devices, just that the admin should consider whether the editor was aware of the page restriction. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Desktop, as I find the actual mobile versions impossible to edit in. Thanks for the clarification. Yes, I can still see the notices (confirmed with my alt on my phone just now). This isn't a major concern of mine, but I can see where Black Kite is coming from: "I was on my phone" could become an excuse, even if it isn't explicitly forbidden to sanction off of it. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Callanecc (or anyone else), I'm a bit puzzled at how to apply these modified requirements to WP:ARBMAC, specifically enforcing WP:FYROM. "Macedonia" probably appears in thousands of articles, often incidentally. If I see someone changing it to Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia or any of its abbreviations I'll warn them like this. Do I really now have to go around article to article, adding article and talk page notices, before I can sanction them? --NeilN 00:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: I assume you're talking about the naming conventions 1RR? If so, then it isn't a discretionary sanction (ie something imposed by an admin) so it's not covered by these requirements. Is that what you mean? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Callanecc: I... guess? So editing restrictions directly imposed by a Arbcom decision don't require article/talk page notices before sanctions can occur? --NeilN 00:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: Correct. So as an example, this amendment does not affect WP:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction but does affect any page-level restrictions imposed by an administrator under WP:ARBPIA#Standard discretionary sanctions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Callanecc: Gotcha. Thank you. --NeilN 00:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Broken links

The yellow-box quotes of the Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions policy and modifications contain links that--when the policy page itself is viewed--go to other sections of the page. But these section-links are broken in the quotes on Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard because they are relative links. For example, the first box has "The enforcing administrator must ] page restrictions they place." but that link should instead be "]". DMacks (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Community feedback: Proposal on case naming

Proposal

Feedback from the community is requested on the proposal to modify the case naming process. Please leave your comments below. Thank you, ~ Rob13 19:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• I hate it. Do it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Could you elaborate a bit? ~ Rob₁₃ 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 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 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, Misplaced Pages) 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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//_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 Misplaced Pages: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//_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//_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 Mendaliv’s comment above, ArbCom cases are not criminal cases but more like civil disputes. Reforms like this encourage the idea of neutral and unbiased treatment rather than focusing on memorability (which is fine once it’s been decided). Take the noted case of Donoghue v Stevenson, which is correct but can be more neutrally cited as UKHL 100 (although few people remember that). In contrast, what most people do remember it as is "The Paisley Snail Case". The memorability lies in unofficial names as suggested by Nyttend above. I disagree with the suggestion of a separator because the proposed numbering is pretty clear, but perhaps even a four-digit system might work e.g. 1805 rather than 201805. Consider that the only century involved is the 21st, so it isn’t as though we need to distinguish from 20thC ArbCom cases. This would work for all cases up to and including 2099, by which time there can be a rethink for the 22ndC. Green Giant (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)

​Quamash? Queen Anne's lace? Quaker ladies? Queen-of-the-prairie? Quince? Queen lily? Heretical as the idea may be, Misplaced Pages articles are sometimes inaccurate. ‑ 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)

Opabinia regalis, forgive the Statement Of The Bloody Obvious, but you have the advantage of having been absent during the period in question. Please ask anyone who was following arbcom and ANI during that period why having Arbcom cases called "Beta" and "Delta" is never going to end well. ‑ 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)

​Eh? We refer to declined case requests all the time in all sorts of venues ("You've already made this request five times, please drop it", "I was referred to this noticeboard by Arbcom because they said that I hadn't exhausted all avenues of dispute resolution, see the case request for the previous discussions", "You commented extensively at this case, that case and the other case, don't suddenly pretend you don't know how proceedings work", "This editor was taken to Arbcom last week and they concluded that there was no case to answer, why did you block them today?" etc etc etc). Hell, large parts of both the Signpost archive and your own archives consist of permalinks to declined case requests. ‑ 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//_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 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)
  • pi / phi / 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//_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 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)

Length of sanctions

This may be an easy clarification but if not, I'll ask at WP:ARCA. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Sanctions states that "Any uninvolved administrator is authorised to place: revert and move restrictions, interaction bans, topic bans, and blocks of up to one year in duration." What if there is consensus amongst multiple admins during a sanctions or appeals process that a longer or indefinite sanction is appropriate? --NeilN 16:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• I've always seen it interpreted that the up to one year clause refers to the blocks, not to the other authorized sanctions. The only case from the past year that springs to mind where someone was indef'd at AE was by GoldenRing. In that case, the first year was an AE action, and anything past that was a regular block. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Correct. This is somewhat ambiguous as written, but the "up to one year" refers only to blocks. Indefinite topic bans at AE are not abnormal. ~ Rob₁₃ 17:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks, both of you. --NeilN 17:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Doncram

Original announcement

Thank you. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Wasn't that a bit quick? I was depressed by the arbitration motion and was off for a few days. The situation is unpleasant for me to deal with, as it has to do with past long-running harassment that was truly awful to endure. I didn't respond quickly, sure, but the closure seems abrupt and catches me off guard. I was coming back to ask publicly what are SarekOfVulcan's intentions going forward. And I was inclined to ask publicly why they made the request, so they could answer truly or they could choose to lie and deny that it was their wish to get elected to the Arbitration committee in the future. They ran but then withdrew their nomination the last time around, because they received negative reviews regarding this arbitration case. At this point, I am apprehensive as to their intentions; it is depressing and demoralizing to contemplate their following me around and contending again as they did for a year or two or three before they successfully launched the arbitration case that drove me out of my area of main interest for several years. --Doncram (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)