Dead naming,10920 wrote:I thought they established that after LH exercised her "right to vanish". Any mention of her name after that was thus obviously "outing".mendaliv wrote:So apparently saying "Laura Hale" is verboten now. God almighty.
Mr. Eagle probably has his own ideas on this, but IMO Fram has always been kind of a "lone wolf" - he'll go after people, including other admins, without the benefit of a loyal clique supporting him. I think he's one of the only ones who does this - some might say the only one, period.SLW80 wrote:Eagle: So what are your theories on why they would go after someone so prominent? Fram's apparently not small potatoes. They had to have some idea this would cause a major uproar, right?
If Fram were taken down without a struggle, who would fight back after that?Midsize Jake wrote:Mr. Eagle probably has his own ideas on this, but IMO Fram has always been kind of a "lone wolf" - he'll go after people, including other admins, without the benefit of a loyal clique supporting him. I think he's one of the only ones who does this - some might say the only one, period.SLW80 wrote:Eagle: So what are your theories on why they would go after someone so prominent? Fram's apparently not small potatoes. They had to have some idea this would cause a major uproar, right?
What's happened over the years is that a lot of people have developed a grudging respect for him, so in a way, he's gathered a clique (or something indistinguishable from one) without really trying, but I suspect much of what appears to be people rushing to his aid is actually people just not wanting the same thing to happen to them.
The WMF folks don't spend all day on English Wikipedia, though, so they might have taken a cursory look at his past attacks on other admins, and thought he could be picked off without too much blowback. That's just a theory, though.
If she's vanished, she's no longer a Wikipedia editor so there can't be any prohibition on outing her. or doesn't it work like that?Moral Hazard wrote:Dead naming,10920 wrote:I thought they established that after LH exercised her "right to vanish". Any mention of her name after that was thus obviously "outing".mendaliv wrote:So apparently saying "Laura Hale" is verboten now. God almighty.
Or, naming the intellectually dead
Does she think that this will boost her chances of re-election? Obviously, this will lhave no effect on people unaware of what is happening on ENWP, but quite a lot of people are likely to be aware, even if they don't edit ENWP regularly. I can't see that this will do her any good.eagle wrote:María is up for re-election as WMF Board chair
Isn't the Chair elected by the Board?Poetlister wrote:Does she think that this will boost her chances of re-election? Obviously, this will lhave no effect on people unaware of what is happening on ENWP, but quite a lot of people are likely to be aware, even if they don't edit ENWP regularly. I can't see that this will do her any good.eagle wrote:María is up for re-election as WMF Board chair
According to the Wikimedia Foundation Board Handbook, yes. Presumably the Board will take whatever decision they think will optimise the Foundation's income.Newyorkbrad wrote:Isn't the Chair elected by the Board?Poetlister wrote:Does she think that this will boost her chances of re-election? Obviously, this will lhave no effect on people unaware of what is happening on ENWP, but quite a lot of people are likely to be aware, even if they don't edit ENWP regularly. I can't see that this will do her any good.eagle wrote:María is up for re-election as WMF Board chair
Yes, but only from among its members. If she's voted off the Board, obviously she can't be Chair. Also, "The Trustee officers shall be elected for one year terms of office by majority vote of the Board and such terms shall automatically renew and continue until replaced by a majority vote of the Board or resignation." Thus she remains in office unless the Board takes a positive decision to sack her.Newyorkbrad wrote:Isn't the Chair elected by the Board?Poetlister wrote:Does she think that this will boost her chances of re-election? Obviously, this will lhave no effect on people unaware of what is happening on ENWP, but quite a lot of people are likely to be aware, even if they don't edit ENWP regularly. I can't see that this will do her any good.eagle wrote:María is up for re-election as WMF Board chair
Correct. The WMF Board re-elected Maria for a one year term at Wikimania, and there will be a new election at the next Wikimania. If she resigns or is removed by a vote of the Board (a la Doc James), then there would be a new Chair elected to fill out her current term. Optimally, the Arbcom would make specific findings between the already disclosed complaint filed by Laura Hale and the Fram ban. Otherwise, the only connection between the current crisis and Maria is that Maria recused herself from the Board deliberations on Framgate.Poetlister wrote:Yes, but only from among its members. If she's voted off the Board, obviously she can't be Chair. Also, "The Trustee officers shall be elected for one year terms of office by majority vote of the Board and such terms shall automatically renew and continue until replaced by a majority vote of the Board or resignation." Thus she remains in office unless the Board takes a positive decision to sack her.Newyorkbrad wrote:Isn't the Chair elected by the Board?Poetlister wrote:Does she think that this will boost her chances of re-election? Obviously, this will lhave no effect on people unaware of what is happening on ENWP, but quite a lot of people are likely to be aware, even if they don't edit ENWP regularly. I can't see that this will do her any good.eagle wrote:María is up for re-election as WMF Board chair
You take no part inthe discussions abou tthe complaint, either overtly or behind the scenes. Of course, those involved in the discussion might be biased in favour of the complaiant because of her relationship to you, but you can't do a great deal about that.SLW80 wrote:How do you recuse yourself properly in any way when you're married to the person making the complaint?
It is very poor political judgment to set up a test case of a new policy for one-year, one-project SanFranBans based on a complaint filed by the spouse of the WMF Board Chair when the complaining spouse has a decade long track record of toxic interactions with a significant number of enWP editors. If Fram was alone in having bad interactions with a reasonable Laura Hale, he may have been a good target for a test case. However, Laura Hale has overplayed her "gendergap" hand too many times and too many people have first hand knowledge of her dishonest approach to dealing with colleagues.Poetlister wrote:You take no part inthe discussions abou tthe complaint, either overtly or behind the scenes. Of course, those involved in the discussion might be biased in favour of the complaiant because of her relationship to you, but you can't do a great deal about that.SLW80 wrote:How do you recuse yourself properly in any way when you're married to the person making the complaint?
That is bullshit and will be a nightmare to enforce. I honestly can't wait to see this brought up at AE every day of the week.Fram is indefinitely restricted to posts of 500 words or less in any venue – including AN, ANI, any noticeboard, any article talk page, any user talk page, and any arbitration page – on any single issue. They may appeal this restriction in one year.
Arbcom calls it "borderline harassment," but apparently the WMF thought it was severe enough to drop the ban. Because Arbcom did not endorse the view that the WMF dossier showed clear harassment, I infer that the Laura Hale relationship with the Board Chair, and probably Fram's negative comments about WMF projects, were enough for the WMF to decide on a ban then find evidence that could support it.Evaluation of Office-provided case materials
6) The Office provided case materials to the Arbitration Committee, upon which they based their conduct warnings and ban. The materials were partially redacted, notably removing the initial complaints as well as other information within the file. These unredacted materials show a pattern of borderline harassment against multiple individuals, through hounding the individuals and excessively highlighting their failures. In the period after receiving their second private conduct warning, Fram was abusive towards the Committee as a whole and specific members. The Office subsequently enacted a 1-year ban and desysopped Fram.
Bear in mind that they can still enact an incoherent decision by supporting that FoF and supporting an endorsement of the ban. It's one of the worst parts about this paragraph-by-paragraph voting structure in decisions.MrErnie wrote:This is the only thing that matters:
Arbcom calls it "borderline harassment," but apparently the WMF thought it was severe enough to drop the ban. Because Arbcom did not endorse the view that the WMF dossier showed clear harassment, I infer that the Laura Hale relationship with the Board Chair, and probably Fram's negative comments about WMF projects, were enough for the WMF to decide on a ban then find evidence that could support it.Evaluation of Office-provided case materials
6) The Office provided case materials to the Arbitration Committee, upon which they based their conduct warnings and ban. The materials were partially redacted, notably removing the initial complaints as well as other information within the file. These unredacted materials show a pattern of borderline harassment against multiple individuals, through hounding the individuals and excessively highlighting their failures. In the period after receiving their second private conduct warning, Fram was abusive towards the Committee as a whole and specific members. The Office subsequently enacted a 1-year ban and desysopped Fram.
She needs to abstain from the remedies section if she doesn't think it's appropriate to vote on that FoF.The evidence provided by the community, as summarized on the evidence page, reveals instances of incivility or lack of decorum on Fram's part, but does not reflect any conduct for which a site-ban would be a proportionate response. In addition, the evidence reveals instances in which Fram has made mistakes as an administrator, including the overturned blocks of Martinevans and GorillaWarfare, but does not reflect any conduct for which desysopping would be a proportionate response.
But do you believe that she will? I certainly don't.mendaliv wrote:GW is abstaining from FoF #5:She needs to abstain from the remedies section if she doesn't think it's appropriate to vote on that FoF.The evidence provided by the community, as summarized on the evidence page, reveals instances of incivility or lack of decorum on Fram's part, but does not reflect any conduct for which a site-ban would be a proportionate response. In addition, the evidence reveals instances in which Fram has made mistakes as an administrator, including the overturned blocks of Martinevans and GorillaWarfare, but does not reflect any conduct for which desysopping would be a proportionate response.
As I said recently, GorillaWarfare lacks the maturity and integrity to abstain.She needs to abstain from the remedies section if she doesn't think it's appropriate to vote on that FoF.
Yeah, no chance she recuses or abstains from the remedies section. Pronouncing sentence is why most of these people became arbitrators, not the tedious part of being a factfinder or, heaven help us, interpreting policy.Eric Corbett wrote:But do you believe that she will? I certainly don't.mendaliv wrote:GW is abstaining from FoF #5:She needs to abstain from the remedies section if she doesn't think it's appropriate to vote on that FoF.The evidence provided by the community, as summarized on the evidence page, reveals instances of incivility or lack of decorum on Fram's part, but does not reflect any conduct for which a site-ban would be a proportionate response. In addition, the evidence reveals instances in which Fram has made mistakes as an administrator, including the overturned blocks of Martinevans and GorillaWarfare, but does not reflect any conduct for which desysopping would be a proportionate response.
Her moral compass lots its magnet ages ago.
Nothing wrong with a word limit and it should be applied universally. Opabinia Regalis is major contributor of lengthy, pontificating waffle and should be clamped. If you cannot express an issue in 500 words then you don't need a 1000. "time served" as predicted.mendaliv wrote:The PD is up! https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =914155351
The remedies section is structured to give the appearance of public debate by the arbs. Three of the four possible results envisioned re: the ban are suggested: vacated, time served, and confirmed (the fourth, missing one is "increased"). Something particularly weird I see is this:That is bullshit and will be a nightmare to enforce. I honestly can't wait to see this brought up at AE every day of the week.Fram is indefinitely restricted to posts of 500 words or less in any venue – including AN, ANI, any noticeboard, any article talk page, any user talk page, and any arbitration page – on any single issue. They may appeal this restriction in one year.
And as predicted, the principles section is a travesty. The key principle that should be at the beginning of every single arbitration decision is missing: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
It looks to me like an 11th hour outside-the-box idea conceived by Worm Dave, but I wouldn't bet 25 cents on that coming to fruition.ZettaComposer wrote:I don't recall seeing anything resembling the 500 word count restriction in the workshop. I know that hasn't stopped the arbs before, and they are pretty much controlling the entire case anyway, but I don't think it was a good idea to toss in a random restriction for such a high-visibility case. I suppose we'll know who suggested it after we see the lone support vote.
If a mentally ill woman, who has a recorded history of doing poor work and then screaming harassment when caught, 'feels' they have been 'harassed' then you have to respect that?!The views and feelings of editors who believe in good faith that they are being or have been harassed are to be respected and fully considered, whether or not it is ultimately concluded that harassment actually occurred.
The burden of proof has effectively shifted to the reviewer.See Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding. While the line separating proper from improper behavior in this area may not always be sharply defined, relevant factors include whether the subject editor's contributions are actually viewed as problematic by multiple users or the community; whether the concerned editor raises concerns appropriately on talkpages or noticeboards and explains why the edits are problematic; and ultimately, whether the concerns raised reasonably appear to be motivated by good-faith, substantiated concerns about the quality of the encyclopedia, rather than personal animus against a particular editor.
And if no other person wants to take up the mantle, say the problematic user is politically connected, then the Laura Hale's of the world are free to shit things up. Anybody with a modicum of protection how has a much easier time removing a Fram or Sandstein even after their work has been seen to be garbage, but for the connected, this is a get out of jail free card.Administrators should bear in mind that they have many colleagues. If an administrator finds themself in repeated disagreement with another good-faith but allegedly problematic editor, or if other editors disagree with the administrator's actions regarding that editor, it may be better practice for the administrator to request input or review from others, such as by posting on the appropriate noticeboard, rather than continue to address the issue unilaterally.
'Highlighting failures' explicitly acknowledges that Fram's actions were, in fact, correct.Evaluation of Office-provided case materials
6) The Office provided case materials to the Arbitration Committee, upon which they based their conduct warnings and ban. The materials were partially redacted, notably removing the initial complaints as well as other information within the file. These unredacted materials show a pattern of borderline harassment against multiple individuals, through hounding the individuals and excessively highlighting their failures. In the period after receiving their second private conduct warning, Fram was abusive towards the Committee as a whole and specific members. The Office subsequently enacted a 1-year ban and desysopped Fram.
There are multiple snowflakes that Fram has upset by 'highlighting their failures'?Joe Roe wrote:Fram sometimes takes his criticism of other editors too far, that multiple people have experienced this as harassment
This is clever.Trust of the community (resysop)
2b) The committee declines to reinstate Fram's sysop userright unilaterally and instead refers the matter of their administrator status to WP:Request for adminship to determine if Fram retains the trust of the community as an administrator.
Selective enforcement at its worst.Removal of sysop user-rights
2c) The behaviour shown in the case materials, combined with the overturned decisions mentioned in the community evidence, fall below the standards expected for an administrator. Accordingly, the committee declines to reinstate Fram's sysop userright. Fram may request the user-right through an WP:RfA
Support:
I firmly believe that admins should be held to the highest standard of conduct. Enough doubt has been cast on Fram's conduct in this case that, at the least, another RfA is appropriate. – Joe (talk) 16:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
It's a weakish defense of En-WP autonomy, but a defense nonetheless. Failing to "overturn" the ban merely allows WMF to save face.Arbcom wrote:Fram is a long-time active editor and administrator on the English Wikipedia. They have been a high-profile administrator and a party to various disputes over the years, but had never been blocked prior to the events that prompted this case ([1]). The Arbitration Committee declined several times to accept requests for arbitration filed against them (2018, 2016) and, where they were involved in cases, have not produced findings against them. The WMF Office sent a "conduct warning" to Fram in April 2018, and a reminder of that warning in March 2019. The Committee has seen copies of the warnings sent to Fram, as well as Fram's response.
On June 10, 2019, the WMF Office announced that Fram was banned from the English Wikipedia for a period of one year, effective immediately, as a non-appealable Office action. No detailed public rationale was provided for the action at that time and the Office has explained that a full explanation cannot be provided as non-public information was involved. As part of the same Office action, Fram's administrator status on English Wikipedia was revoked. Unlike almost all "Office action" bans in the past, the ban was limited in duration and did not affect Fram's participation on other Wikimedia Foundation projects such as Commons and Meta.
The Office's one-year ban of Fram led to extensive discussion within the English Wikipedia community. While a variety of views were expressed, a consensus emerged that the English Wikipedia community wishes to retain its role, including the role of the community-elected Arbitration Committee where necessary, in regulating user conduct on this wiki, rather than have the Office undertake that role in cases that can be handled through existing on-wiki or ArbCom processes. In an open letter, the Committee directly expressed to the Office a similar view. In response, the WMF Board and Katherine Maher, on behalf of the Foundation agreed to provide case materials to facilitate the Committee's review of the scope and length of Fram's ban.
In addition to receiving the information provided by the Office on a confidential basis, the Arbitration Committee invited members of the community to submit relevant evidence directly to the Committee by e-mail. On August 19, 2019, the Committee posted a summary of the community-provided evidence, as well as Fram's reply to that evidence. The Committee was not authorized to post, and therefore did not post, the case materials provided by the Office or a summary of that evidence.
The evidence provided by the community, as summarized on the evidence page, reveals instances of incivility or lack of decorum on Fram's part, but does not reflect any conduct for which a site-ban would be a proportionate response. In addition, the evidence reveals instances in which Fram has made mistakes as an administrator, including the overturned blocks of Martinevans and GorillaWarfare, but does not reflect any conduct for which desysopping would be a proportionate response.
The Office provided case materials to the Arbitration Committee, upon which they based their conduct warnings and ban. The materials were partially redacted, notably removing the initial complaints as well as other information within the file. These unredacted materials show a pattern of borderline harassment against multiple individuals, through hounding the individuals and excessively highlighting their failures. In the period after receiving their second private conduct warning, Fram was abusive towards the Committee as a whole and specific members. The Office subsequently enacted a 1-year ban and desysopped Fram.
There was no evidence of off-wiki misconduct in either the Office provided case materials, or the community provided evidence.
Beyond the specifics of Fram's case, there is a broadly shared view that Wikipedia/Wikimedia processes for raising and addressing harassment-related issues warrant continued review and potential improvement. However, there is a consensus that on-wiki issues on English Wikipedia should generally remain within the purview of the English Wikipedia volunteer community, including this Committee, unless there are specific reasons that the Office should address a particular concern or type of concern.
Whilst this case was ongoing, the Office drafted a "Community consultation on partial and temporary office actions". The full consultation is expected in early September 2019.
This is the only section with anything actionable and being mean to ARBCOM isn't a wikicrime.These unredacted materials show a pattern of borderline harassment against multiple individuals, through hounding the individuals and excessively highlighting their failures. In the period after receiving their second private conduct warning, Fram was abusive towards the Committee as a whole and specific members.
That's the only charge here.excessively highlighting their failures
Then why are you voting?I'm not sure about the wording (but I have not been involved in shaping the PD, so unaware of the thinking behind it) as it might be seen as odd to siteban an admin but allow them to keep their admin tools, but regardless of the wording, I think the question of Fram's admin status should be decided by the community when he returns to Wikipedia and is able to respond to questions and assure the community that he will tone down his frustration, and if someone is not responding how he would like, that he gets at least one other admin to look into the issue. SilkTork (talk) 18:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Let the knives come out!Statement by Mr Ernie
Would the Committee explicitly cite the evidence on the basis of which they support the de-sysop of Fram? This can be used as the (incredibly low) new bar for which cases regarding admin behavior can be brought before the committee. I've in mind half a dozen or so admins who should expect to be de-sysop'd quite quickly. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Yeah. This is one of the most important reasons why evidence needs to be public. If you don’t know where the line is, your fingers are likely to get pinched.Vigilant wrote:DING! DING! DING!Let the knives come out!Statement by Mr Ernie
Would the Committee explicitly cite the evidence on the basis of which they support the de-sysop of Fram? This can be used as the (incredibly low) new bar for which cases regarding admin behavior can be brought before the committee. I've in mind half a dozen or so admins who should expect to be de-sysop'd quite quickly. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Let the Black Spot be passed.
Trust and Safety inbound to desysop and siteban C. Fred and Clayoquot !AN/I wrote:Promotion-only account
I have tried taking a no-templates, educational approach with User talk:Airmax617 and look where it's gotten me "Let's get to actionable terms: what do we need to do to get the Laally Bridge concept introduced in the at-breast supplementation section of Wikipedia?" I am out of patience with this guy. Does anyone want to take over? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Potential shared account (they keep referring to themselves in the plural), blatant (potentially paid) COI (per their talk page, My wife...is the inventor of the Bridge, Bridge being the product this account is pushing), promo-only account, there's a lot of potential block reasons here. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 17:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
"Please remember we are not a medical device and don't make medical claims -- latching a baby is not a medical claim and helping moms keep the baby at the breast is also not a medical claim." Actually, "yes" on both counts. Gandydancer (talk) 17:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
By we -- it's my wife (Kate) and I. We're entrepreneurs trying to help parents succeed at breastfeeding. We are behind Laally and we make the product, the Bridge. We are not hiding any of that information. We're not pushing a product, we're engaging in a discussion to try to get the public educated about at-breast supplementation to resolve BF issues using different types of products. The current wiki article on the concept is not complete.
On a similar page on pumping, there are pictures of pumps and company names. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breast_pump. Clayoquot is arguing that we can't be on these pages because of "potential harm" (which is a personal belief) and because we are not in "reputable sources" (which we think we are).
We'd be happy to have a live discussion on this with any moderator or admin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Airmax617 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
@Airmax617: If you're trying to get your product (note the emphasis) added to articles, then even if you call it education, it's promotion. This is exactly why we have the guidelines we do about conflicts of interest and why it is a bad idea for you to try to add your own product anywhere on Wikipedia. —C.Fred (talk) 18:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Then you can't consider that evidence.Joe Roe wrote:We weren't allowed to give Fram anything more than the brief summary of the T&S evidence posted on the evidence page. I believe we've stated this publicly multiple times during the case. They responded to the summary in the evidence phase.
Check WP:ANI every day to find people with the failures being exposed who cry harassment at the people holding them to account.Joe Roe wrote:If your point 3 is referring to me, I don't think the summary is overstated. I think that terms like "harassment" and "abuse" are contextual and subjective. Personally I think they are little too strong in this case, but I can understand why others might see it differently, and more importantly some targets of Fram's behaviour did consider it as harassment. – Joe (talk) 18:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
When Laura Hale was called out by Fram for making repeated garbage edits via terribly broken translations of spanish wikipedia articles into the english wikipedia articles, Maria Sefidari Huici corruptly volunteered to mentor Laura Hale without mentioning her gross Conflict of Interest.Administrators' pursuit of issues
6) Administrators should bear in mind that they have many colleagues. If an administrator finds themself in repeated disagreement with another good-faith but allegedly problematic editor, or if other editors disagree with the administrator's actions regarding that editor, it may be better practice for the administrator to request input or review from others, such as by posting on the appropriate noticeboard, rather than continue to address the issue unilaterally. This can be true even if the administrator may not formally be "involved" in a dispute with that editor. Whether to handle a matter oneself or seek broader input can be a judgment call as in more clear-cut instances, an individual administrator may be justified in addressing the problem decisively on his or her own. The question to be asked can be whether bringing more voices into the discussion will enhance the chances of a fair and well-informed resolution that will be respected as such by the affected editor and by others. A corollary is that this approach can work only if other admins and experienced editors are prepared to invest the time and effort needed to review a situation and provide input when asked to do so.
Hey Future Perfect at Sunrise, I appreciate your concerns about the format. I also saw a comment above by Mendaliv about sectioned discussion, and it's clear that there's some frustration about the change, so I hope I can be somewhat helpful in my explanation.
Proposed decision talk pages are normally sectioned in almost every case. The reason it wasn't before here is that there wasn't a proposed decision. Arbitration pages exist to help the committee reach a fair, well-informed decision; in that process, community comments are highly valuable and deeply appreciated. We also know that these disputes can cause tempers to run hot; almost by definition, arbitration cases are centered on disputes that the community has been unable to resolve. The sole purpose of the PD talk is to provide comments to arbs to help them reach the best resolution possible; true debates serve no good purpose here. Non-arbs aren't your audience – I wager you'd agree that arguing with and convincing non-arbs on this talk page of your positions doesn't do you all that much good, since it's the arbs who'll be voting on this. And over many years of doing this, the committee has found that the most helpful comments for the arbs do not come in the form of threaded discussion. Is it possible to have unproductive heated arguments with sectioned discussion? Sure, but in our experience, it's much harder.
I think I speak for the clerks and the committee when I say that we don't give a damn about "power". It's an internet website, for Pete's sake; you must have a really low opinion of us if you think this is the only way we can get some sort of power rush. The arbitrators and clerks I've had the joy of working with over the last four and a half years have been good people, dedicated people, who do this difficult job because they believe in it. From what I can see, the job of an arbitrator is deeply unpleasant and the members of the committee do it because they think the work is important; anyone who wanted to do it to feel power wouldn't last a moment in the position.
Please know that out of respect for your request, I will not be changing your section title name. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
This just takes the cake: “Please know that out of respect for your request, I will not be changing your section title name.“Vigilant wrote:We have the most delicate of snowflakes working as ARBCOM clerks...Hey Future Perfect at Sunrise, I appreciate your concerns about the format. I also saw a comment above by Mendaliv about sectioned discussion, and it's clear that there's some frustration about the change, so I hope I can be somewhat helpful in my explanation.
Proposed decision talk pages are normally sectioned in almost every case. The reason it wasn't before here is that there wasn't a proposed decision. Arbitration pages exist to help the committee reach a fair, well-informed decision; in that process, community comments are highly valuable and deeply appreciated. We also know that these disputes can cause tempers to run hot; almost by definition, arbitration cases are centered on disputes that the community has been unable to resolve. The sole purpose of the PD talk is to provide comments to arbs to help them reach the best resolution possible; true debates serve no good purpose here. Non-arbs aren't your audience – I wager you'd agree that arguing with and convincing non-arbs on this talk page of your positions doesn't do you all that much good, since it's the arbs who'll be voting on this. And over many years of doing this, the committee has found that the most helpful comments for the arbs do not come in the form of threaded discussion. Is it possible to have unproductive heated arguments with sectioned discussion? Sure, but in our experience, it's much harder.
I think I speak for the clerks and the committee when I say that we don't give a damn about "power". It's an internet website, for Pete's sake; you must have a really low opinion of us if you think this is the only way we can get some sort of power rush. The arbitrators and clerks I've had the joy of working with over the last four and a half years have been good people, dedicated people, who do this difficult job because they believe in it. From what I can see, the job of an arbitrator is deeply unpleasant and the members of the committee do it because they think the work is important; anyone who wanted to do it to feel power wouldn't last a moment in the position.
Please know that out of respect for your request, I will not be changing your section title name. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
You may kiss our ring.mendaliv wrote:This just takes the cake: “Please know that out of respect for your request, I will not be changing your section title name.“Vigilant wrote:We have the most delicate of snowflakes working as ARBCOM clerks...Hey Future Perfect at Sunrise, I appreciate your concerns about the format. I also saw a comment above by Mendaliv about sectioned discussion, and it's clear that there's some frustration about the change, so I hope I can be somewhat helpful in my explanation.
Proposed decision talk pages are normally sectioned in almost every case. The reason it wasn't before here is that there wasn't a proposed decision. Arbitration pages exist to help the committee reach a fair, well-informed decision; in that process, community comments are highly valuable and deeply appreciated. We also know that these disputes can cause tempers to run hot; almost by definition, arbitration cases are centered on disputes that the community has been unable to resolve. The sole purpose of the PD talk is to provide comments to arbs to help them reach the best resolution possible; true debates serve no good purpose here. Non-arbs aren't your audience – I wager you'd agree that arguing with and convincing non-arbs on this talk page of your positions doesn't do you all that much good, since it's the arbs who'll be voting on this. And over many years of doing this, the committee has found that the most helpful comments for the arbs do not come in the form of threaded discussion. Is it possible to have unproductive heated arguments with sectioned discussion? Sure, but in our experience, it's much harder.
I think I speak for the clerks and the committee when I say that we don't give a damn about "power". It's an internet website, for Pete's sake; you must have a really low opinion of us if you think this is the only way we can get some sort of power rush. The arbitrators and clerks I've had the joy of working with over the last four and a half years have been good people, dedicated people, who do this difficult job because they believe in it. From what I can see, the job of an arbitrator is deeply unpleasant and the members of the committee do it because they think the work is important; anyone who wanted to do it to feel power wouldn't last a moment in the position.
Please know that out of respect for your request, I will not be changing your section title name. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Translated: “We aren’t powerhungry and I resent the implication! As a show of our benefaction, we shall reserve our power to change your section title.”
Beeblebrox wrote:It does seem like this forced sectioning without threaded discussion is the new normal on PD talk pages, (although the clerks themselves seem to feel free to do so) which I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking is a terrible idea for vague purposes. It's a talk page, but you can't actually have a conversation on it? Why have it at all then?
true debates serve no good purpose here......... Kevin
What a load of tripe.Jans Hammer wrote:Beeblebrox wrote:It does seem like this forced sectioning without threaded discussion is the new normal on PD talk pages, (although the clerks themselves seem to feel free to do so) which I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking is a terrible idea for vague purposes. It's a talk page, but you can't actually have a conversation on it? Why have it at all then?true debates serve no good purpose here......... Kevin
Which also fits ArbCom's style, so the two are a perfect match.MrErnie wrote:... Arbcom did not endorse the view that the WMF dossier showed clear harassment ... and probably Fram's negative comments about WMF projects, were enough for the WMF to decide on a ban then find evidence that could support it.
Rot13 all of your comments.mendaliv wrote:I'm kind of disappointed that I didn't get the response to the sectioned discussion complaint in my section. I was thinking about collapsing/removing any responses since it's my section.
