Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement

General discussion

I'm not an administrator, but kudos on this idea. I've seen (or even been involved in) various disputes in the I-P conflict topic area, and found that it's very difficult for any neutral party to get involved without being accused of bias in favor of one side or the other (or both!). I think anything that helps better organize administrators to deal with the sorts of problems and noticeboard abuses these conflicts create should be embraced. ← George ^talk 11:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I strongly support this as well. I used to edit I/P articles but have mostly refrained from doing so over the past year, because the process is so excruciating. I agree that it has gotten even worse in the past couple of months. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

This is something that has needed to be done for a long time now, and I give you credit for stepping out there and doing it. What do you think about some kind of project-related system of feedback on Arbitration Enforcement? Something of an ongoing RFC on enforcement actions, much like how ArbCom decisions are immediately posted for discussion after they are made. This is kind of a shaky ground, because the line is always blurry between "positive feedback" and "all-out bitch session", but a continuing discussion on when and how enforcement is acted upon would go a huge way toward alleviating the valid community issues with AE. Trusilver 02:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, community feedback is required for effective AE. I assume that this project's talk pages will in part serve this function. I am not sure that "an ongoing RFC on enforcement action" is necessarily a good thing, though, because as you say it has the potential to become an all-out bitch session run mostly by sanctioned editors who complain about their unjust treatment, continue their fights with each other and generate more disruption in the process. There is a substantial selection bias in such discussions: most "normal editors" really do not care about AE except in that they expect someone to take care of it; only the ADMIN ABUSE!!! editors and holy warriors can be expected to take part in such an ongoing discussion with any consistency. I am not sure that they would generate much useful feedback. Individual RfCs on specific issues may have more success in getting broader community feedback.  Sandstein  05:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what you mean about t he selection bias. Hell, I didn't care a bit about AE until the last month or so. That's a little bit of a myopic view on my part, but AE has never concerned me... I've always seen it as a bureaucratic quagmire that's best left to people more patient than I am. The only way I can think of to undo that bias would be a method in which uninvolved editors review and opine about the enforcement action without the opportunity for it to turn into the usual mess. Our little ArbCom experience was a fantastic example of the way things SHOULDN'T go. There were at least five separate battles going on there, and only one of them was in any way relevant to the actual subject matter; the other four were grudges from other areas of the project migrating over to an area they shouldn't have been. The only way I can think of implementing something like that so far would be another section on the user tracking draft, a third party review section. That's just spur of the moment brainstorming, I haven't really thought that through enough yet to search for how that would be a bad idea... Trusilver 05:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• This idea has obvious merit, what's not clear to me is how we interleave it with the relevant arbitration subpages and how we prevent admin burnout. Also, there probably ought to be some sort of selection process whereby admins volunteering for enforcement duty can be checked and verified to be uninvolved and accepted as such by the warring parties. Also, we should record the start date and make sure people are not in the same area for too long, to avoid burnout and creeping involvement. Guy (Help!) 11:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• The arbitration subpages are under the control of the Committee; they can link to this project in whatever way they consider useful if they wish to do so. I don't think either a selection process (especially one involving the warring users themselves) or a term limit is a good idea. Since arbitration is binding, the agreement of the sanctioned editors to any part of the enforcement process is not required; if they believe the sanctioning administrator is too involved they can make this argument in an appeal. An ex ante formal recusal process would be both process creep and a venue for more disruption. A term limit has some merits, but we already have too few admins on AE duty as it is, and moreover such a term limit would probably need to be provided for by the Committee: as it is, under the terms of the arbitral remedies (which alone are binding) administrators can make AE decisions as long as they want to.  Sandstein  11:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Tracking

I support the tracking idea, but think we shouldn't duplicate the efforts of WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, which maintains some similar listings. PhilKnight (talk) 14:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, though I believe the point is different: that is a project for discussion among involved editors to prevent conflict, this is a project for admins to coordinate responses when conflict occurs. Also that project seems to be mostly inactive since the end of 2009, maybe the reason for the recent flareup.  Sandstein  14:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I've proposed a format for the user issues tracking page at User:Sandstein/WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement/User tracking draft.  Sandstein  15:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Going live

Thanks, everybody, for the feedback! I've moved the draft into project space and thereby, I suppose, officially started the project. Here's an initial todo list off the top of my head:

• Notify WT:ARBCOM (Y done).
• Make announcements on the relevant pages: WP:AN, WP:ANI, WT:RFAR (if there is no negative feedback from ArbCom). (Y, after reading Kirill's positive comments. NW (Talk) 20:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC))
• Discuss and finalize the format of the prototype tracking page, Wikipedia:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement/IP/Users.
• Initialize the other tracking pages.
• Review and discuss Wikipedia:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement/Standards and principles.
• Add helpful notices to the top of talk pages.
• Set up archiving of talk pages.

Anything else?  Sandstein  20:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

An important consideration

There is a small but vociferous group of people who are engaged in the process of what one might term Wikipolitics, for whom the arbitration process is creeping and enforcement part of some kind of power grab. While my personal view is that much of this is motivated by the fact that they don't like the committee ruling in favour of people they hate, or at least refusing to banninate the antichrist du jour, they have a valid point re self-selection. We should ensure that the services of admins volunteering for duty and against whom good faith objections are raised, are respectfully declined. It won't work without a degree of grass-roots consent, and if more than one or two of the usual griefers take against ana dmin then I see likely burnout and even more battles. Guy (Help!) 21:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I assume you mean me, since I'm the only "delete" vote thus far on the MfD. Out of interest, what do you think "the committee ruling in favour of people I hate" was? AFAIK I have a grand total of two comments at RFAR in my entire time here. – iridescent 21:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Guy, you make a good point with respect to declining the services of admins against whom good faith objections are raised. However, doing this in an ex ante discussion might not work well, because of the selection bias of such a discussion: uninvolved editors have little reason to participate in a discussion over the obscure matter of which admins should participate in this project, but we can assume that many people who have ever been sanctioned by any given admin will show up and claim that he is too involved or whatever. Besides, one need not be a member of this project to make AE actions and being a member confers no special authority at all. For these reasons, I believe that the current ex post approach is better: if I sanction somebody, they can make an appeal to the community on WP:AE and argue that I was involved in a conflict with them; then if the community agrees I know that I should not make any more AE actions against that editor.  Sandstein  22:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

@ Iridescent, no I don't mean you.

Sandstein, I hear what you're saying, I am not proposing anything like a lengthy selection process or anything, I think it should be easy for admins to volunteer, others should help them to choose the area i which they are most likely to be seen as an honest broker, and we should all remember that to a large extent perception is reality in this area. I believe that new admin volunteers should be actively recruited and that no admin should work in enforcement of the same area for more than a few months. Guy (Help!) 10:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Tham might be sensible, if we can come up with some non-gameable and non-process-creepy way to implement this, and if it does not lead to us running out of volunteers. On the other hand, administrators will acquire valuable experience by remaining active (if they wish to) for longer periods of time. That's why we do not currently have a time limit on any other volunteer job on Wikipedia either.  Sandstein  13:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I see what Guy is saying here, and while I agree with Sandstein that there shouldn't be any framework that involves a time limit on being in any specific area of enforcement, enforcement admins should be encouraged to move around frequently, if for no other reason than to prevent burnout and prevent the appearance that an admin is no longer an "uninvolved party." Over a period of time, all enforcement admins seem to get the label that they are biased just because they bring enforcement action against the side that is violating the sanctions. Obviously, that doesn't mean that they are biased, but having fresh faces in such high-stress areas will reduce the tension and take away this assumed bias. Trusilver 03:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

That's quite correct. I've been moderately active in I/P enforcement for something like a month and I am already feeling, er, less than entirely happy about that job. The moving around only works if we can convince enough admins to participate, though.  Sandstein  05:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking for clarification

I am trying to better understand what it means that only admins can be members in this project. From what I can tell, membership means that someone can edit these project pages, which mainly aim to codify a set of principles for arbitration enforcement. The main page for that purpose seems to be the subpage, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Arbitration_Enforcement/Standards_and_principles.

If someone can explain this:

1. Is this accurate, that only registered admins can edit any of the project pages, and that this is the only formal privilege of membership?
2. If so, why would admins need an elevated role in deciding the principles on which they would then base their enforcement actions? It seems that other editors would have equally valid input as to what the Arbitration Committee has requested, or as to what the community would like to see in arbitration enforcement.
3. The introductory paragraph says that the project serves to "provid[e] spaces to track recurring and longtime problems, either at the editor or the topic/article level, and to discuss the appropriate enforcement action." Is that intended to happen on the talk page page or on another forum that I have missed?

The project seems like it could be useful, but mainly I am not seeing why one would permanently protect these project pages, or for that matter attempt to exclude input on any page from non-admins. We don't protect pages like WP:BLOCK, for instance, so it isn't clear to me what would justify the difference. Mackan79 (talk) 23:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually I don't envisage that only members or admins would be allowed to edit that page; it was also never protected. Membership currently means nothing more than being an administrator who volunteers to do AE tasks in a certain area and says so by listing their name in the corresponding section. However, to the extent that the standards page has the purpose of documenting the standards that members will normally use, I am not sure what would be the point of nonmembers editing it. That would turn it from a descriptive information page into some sort of community-based prescriptive AE guideline, and such a guideline (if it is desired or at all possible) should not be in project space.

The spaces that you refer to are intended to be the tracking pages (such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement/IP/Users) and the project talk pages.  Sandstein  06:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Well. You say the page is for "documenting the standards that members will normally use," but then you also suggest that there is no significance at all to being able to access that page? That's hard for me to see. I'm sure you know that policies themselves are thought to be "descriptive," but clearly we recognize that if only a certain group could edit them, that would diminish the rest of the community. To address your point, it sounds like the reason to make this a wiki-project rather than put it in Wikipedia space is because of its broad scope. Certainly this doesn't lessen the community's interest in participating. Unless I am missing something, I would strongly suggest that only parts with a formal purpose be set aside, like the log for user warnings. For anything else, I've yet to see what possible purpose such a limitation would serve other than the one that seems to be concerning a lot of people. Mackan79 (talk) 06:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that this is unlike a normal wikiproject in that (a) only admins can make AE actions at all, so I can't imagine how others cannot meaningfully participate, and (b) the system of discretionary sanctions instituted by ArbCom relies on the individual discretion of admins, which means that there is not much scope for any sort of prescriptive guideline, whether it is written by fellow admins or by everybody. So, yes, while non-admins should probably be allowed to edit the standards page, it might not make very much sense for them to do so if they do so with the purpose of influencing how admins go about their AE job. They could probably edit it, just like anybody else, in a descriptive manner to reflect current practice, though.  Sandstein  07:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Certainly I don't know if anyone would need to edit any of the pages. Nevertheless, if you have a page which generally documents how admins enforce the sanctions, I don't think there's actually any reason why one would have to be doing the sanctions to take an interest in what it said. I also question the assumption that ArbCom was encouraging admins to become insular and uninterested in the thoughts of the broader community in this area. Admins should be willing to act, but that doesn't mean they should cordon themselves off. In fact I think only if the page were purely prescriptive could you support the suggestion that the views of admins need to be set apart on this issue ("if only I can sanction, only I can prescribe"); if the page is descriptive, then the interest is exactly the same for all of us. I bet in reality it would be part descriptive and part prescriptive, like all policy, in that such a page has the effect of suggesting consensus and putting people on notice. Mackan79 (talk) 23:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Log for problem users, is this a good thing?

Sandstein links a page in the prior section intended to log problem users, and to summarize the problems that have occurred with them. This seems concerning to me. Generally I have seen pages that document banned users in this way, or perhaps long-term sockpuppeters. The list here seems rather unprecedented, however, if I'm correct that it would have admins writing summaries of the problems they've had with long-term users in good standing. Has this been thought through? I can imagine this being extremely controversial, where we start to keep public files on individual editors, to which any admin can unilaterally contribute absent any formal process. I'm afraid this could be very counter productive. Mackan79 (talk) 07:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

We already have a similar log in the form of the case sanctions logs, e.g.WP:ARBPIA#Log of blocks and bans. The practical problem this page is intended to address is that it is common for certain users to appear over and over again on certain noticeboards in the context of certain topics, but because of the isolated nature of these incidents it is difficult for administrators to get at a clear picture of whether their involvement is a long-term detriment to the project and requires sanctions. This page is intended to help provide that picture. I take your point that it appears unusual for us to have a page in which a group of users appears to sit in judgment over the conduct of others (except for arbitration), but that's essentially the job that admins have been given with Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This page would just help us to do this job in a more transparent and coordinated, less haphazard fashion.  Sandstein  07:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this list is an excellent idea. I think there should also be a list of involved editors and administrators. Many editors who are involved in the topic area in general but not in a certain case that's being discussed on a particular administrative board can influence the perceived consensus, while their opinions are often POV rather than policy based. With such a list uninvolved administrators would have an easier time gauging consensus. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this. I mean, I can see both positives and negatives. The positive is that it will provide admins with an overview of previous problems involving the user. The negative is that frivolous AE cases and threads started against users (and there tends to be quite a few) may end up skewing the picture. At the very least, I think there would have to be clear guidelines about what is and is not legitimate information to be listed here. Gatoclass (talk) 13:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I would assume that in frivolous AE cases, the log will reflect that editor X lodged a complaint that resulted in no action or that the admins found to be frivolous. Several such logs would be good reason to take action against editor X for disruption. This should cut down on the amount of such cases and the Arbs' case load. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) In the draft instructions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement/IP/Users, I have attempted to describe the scope of the log as "incidents that may be relevant for deciding whether AE action is needed with respect to the user." So, for instance, a frivolous AE report would be logged, but not in the section concerning its subject, but in the section concerning the reporter. Does that make sense?  Sandstein  13:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, well that might be feasible, but I think that would need to be spelled out in the guidelines. One wouldn't want admins, per Mackan's concerns, just adding random material. Gatoclass (talk) 14:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I am very unsure about it. If editors are making repeat offenses, then other editors should be able to bring that forward. A specific page with the claimed misbehavior of an individual editor is a pretty serious issue. Normally a sanction speaks for itself, and I agree with logging sanctions, but the potential for controversy over a page with general commentary seems rather immense. There would be controversy over any entry being made, over the wording of the entry, and over the general even-handedness of the process, to add to the controversy that already exists over the decision to sanction. The idea that it could be done by a single administrator without any sort of agreement, or any way of appealing, is also problematic. A minor perceived infraction that doesn't result in a sanction shouldn't result instead in a black mark on the editor, supposedly just for convenience. I agree with logging sanctions themselves, as I said, but logging generalized concerns seems to almost beg for a lot of ugliness. Mackan79 (talk) 22:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

True, but then administrators already have the power to block or (in these areas) topic-ban editors without any sort of agreement, so a maiore ad minus a mere log entry should not be very problematic. See also my comments below with respect to handling disagreement.  Sandstein  07:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you imagine all of what could be drawn from the privileges of adminship, a maiore ad minus? Just sayin'.... Mackan79 (talk) 08:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I can clarify, perhaps: it seems fairly simple that we should have a log for sanctions, and on such a log I assume we would include warnings, advisements, or the like also. Does that suggest there should be a page on individual editors with detailed commentary? Mackan79 (talk) 22:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely believe that the log should have commentary. I think it's a very fine line between constructive criticism and non-stop bitching, but I think it is very important that AE admins are given feedback on the validity of their blocks. I would go a little further and say that commentary should be limited to uninvolved editors, but that poses some of its own problems. Trusilver 03:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure we're addressing the same issue, of an individual page for each user. Perhaps we'll see what happens when someone first attempts to do a write up on the recurrent problems with a particular editor that did not result in any sanctions, warnings, or formal advice, or attempts to provide their own analysis on the sanctions given to a particular user. I believe there would be two major problems: 1.) editors will raise hell about demeaning commentary, and 2.) editors will raise hell when the commentary inevitably won't be even-handed. I think either criticism would likely be valid, but perhaps it will take an actual example to see. Mackan79 (talk) 04:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

In the example, I've attempted to take these problems into account by dividing each page into a "log" and a "discussion" section. While the log should be reasonably objective ("X filed an enforcement request against Y that was closed as unfounded", "X made 10 reverts of Y on numerous pages"), the "discussion" section can contain threaded discussion among members (possibly also other uninvolved editors? difficult to enforce this) about how to assess this and whether to take action.  Sandstein  05:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Right, I think I understand the intention better now than I did at first. I wonder what happens, though, if an editor adds comments that may be seen as demeaning or inflammatory for one reason or another. And would the editor him or herself then not be able to respond on the page under their name? For others it would be difficult to deem who is "involved," as you say, but then sometimes an involved editor will also see a problem where others may not. There are also a lot of new accounts popping up in controversial areas that clearly have a history, but could circumvent definitions of involvement. A few issues to consider. Mackan79 (talk) 06:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

These problems are why I initially envisaged that the page would be fully protected and wrote in the example page: "All entries on this page are the personal opinion of the signing administrator. If you disagree with it, you may say so on the talk page, but administrators will remove overly long posts or attempts to continue the conflict from the talk page." I do not currently see another reasonably workable way to prevent the log page from becoming a continuation of the conflict.  Sandstein  06:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The other possibility remains, of course, that discussion or commentary, beyond the log entries themselves, isn't necessary. I think there's also a point that if the only way to prevent controversy is to limit access, this may suggest a need to keep thinking. Mackan79 (talk) 08:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

I think the sidebar to Arbitration pages is a good idea, but considering that it is there, I believe you should consider something in the lede section which explicity states that this project is not an arm of Arbcom. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, done.  Sandstein  05:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

A question

Is the intent of this that only admins who sign up as members may be allowed to enforce ArbCom decisions? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 04:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

No, and that would not be possible even if that were the intent: the relevant ArbCom remedies do not limit which administrators may make enforcement actions, and so we as members of the community may not overrule this by founding a project. The point of this project, as with any Wikiproject, is only to facilitate communication and coordination among those administrators who regularly do AE, without compelling anybody to join.  Sandstein  05:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 05:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments from an arbitrator

I've had a couple of people email me and the other members of the committee, asking if the Committee were behind this (clandestinely or openly), and if we endorsed this. I can honestly say that I saw the announcement, but that was the first and only way I knew about it. There had been no discussion on the Arbitration Committee lists of this before it was formally brought to the Committee's attention. I don't think we're going to take a formal position on this, but of course, I only speak for myself on this. I know that Kirill has spoken positively of the idea when it was announced on the Arbitration Committee talk page.

Now, as one of the people I communicated with specifically asked for my opinion on this, so I figured I'd at least have my say, as an arbitrator, and someone who has worked in AE previously. I am in favor of anything that standardizes and streamlines ArbCom enforcement. I had one person compare it to Russian Roulette in that you never knew if you were going to get a "hanging judge" when it came to enforcing remedies. I am personally in favor of the project, SPECIFICALLY as it pertains to enhancing communication between administrators working in this area.

I caution however that we not let this become an exclusive club. Members of this WikiProject do not have any extra ability over other administrators when it comes to handling AE requests, and should it ever become as such, I will be one of the first to ask for the project's closure. SirFozzie (talk) 05:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. On the point of it becoming an "exclusive club", one of the great up-sides to AE at present is that the administrators who frequent it have never given the impression of being part of a clique—and are much more welcoming and more communicative than such other community processes as WP:RFA. YMMV. AGK [•] 11:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

venue for smaller issues

There needs to be a venue where editors can bring relatively minor concerns. The big blowups often stem from an accumulation of events. From my pov I find that direct questions or request for policy/source based arguments can sometimes go unheeded, WQA is largely ineffectual, mediation is heavy and noticeboards fall prey to a continuation of the same behavior. We could really use a place where an editor can go: "Is this the way we should be behaving?" without fear of a complaint being marked frivolous and with reasonable expectation that editors will be held to WP standards. Unomi (talk) 08:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

A thought

Not sure the best place to bring this up, but I have a thought as to a better approach at dealing with issues in the I-P conflict. Currently, there is a 1RR sanction on the area, which has been effective at addressing certain issues. Other issues—namely sock puppetry and long-term edit warring, and their negative repercussions—are not well address by the current sanction. I would propose a different approach to dealing with those issues, to be enforced in addition to the 1RR sanction. Specifically what I'm thinking is that instead of (or in addition to) maintaining a blacklist of problem editors, we should maintain a whitelist. Blacklists are just too easy to circumvent, with proxies becoming more common and puppet farms aplenty. Perhaps editors on the whitelist should be restricted to 1RR, while editors not on the whitelist would be restricted to 0RR. Getting on the whitelist would involve some sort of bar, be it based on some statistic (a certain number of edits, or having been an active editor for a certain period of time) or based on a vote (answering the question: "has this editor shown them self to make constructive edits, work well with others in forming consensus, maintaining a NPOV, citing verifiable, reliable sources, etc."). Thoughts? Is this even a good place to discuss the suggestion? ← George ^talk 22:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

See User:Gatoclass/CTDN which proposes a related idea. He will only allow people with 500 mainspace edits to file a complaint. If you are interested he invites comment at User talk:Gatoclass/CTDN. Your idea of having a whitelist is the most controversial part, but I can imagine we might get to that point eventually, for articles in an area of conflict. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I am normally quite consertive when it comes to discretionary sanctions, and so am distrustful of overly-sweeping or novel proposals like this. But I'd rather we came up with something like George's and/or Gatoclass' proposal, than we have to suffer ARBPIA 3. I like this idea. AGK [•] 20:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

My intention is to preempt ARBPIA 3 in a way. Without something like this, ARBPIA 3 is coming, and its outcome will probably be something like my suggestion anyways, so why not nip it in the butt before it comes to a head, I say. ← George ^talk 03:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

That's an interesting concept too, Ed. Will try to read through it and think it over, but any limit on filing frivolous complaints is welcome in my eyes. I might not have the best phraseology with whitelist vs. blacklist too. Maybe greylist vs. blacklist is more accurate, to indicate that even the editors on the greylist are still under the current sanctions (1RR), while those who haven't "proven" themselves to be constructive contributors are under a stricter sanction (0RR). I also think I like the concept of a "voting" system more than I like a flat bar, because I've seen sock puppets do crazy things to avoid detection, editing in the shadows for months to maintain their cover, but who gets to vote may be an issue. Having administrators vote would be my first thought, but I'm not sure if they want the additional hassle of reviewing such requests and voting. ← George ^talk 02:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't remember where or when, but we had a similar discussion a while back. I think the best solution would be an "allowed to edit problematic topics" flag, which editors get automatically after, say, 500 edits. Articles in these topic areas would allow only editors with that flag to edit. So only a very determined sock would be able to edit and topic bans would be easy to enforce, but the hassle of keeping a whitelist would be eliminated.

I don't like the idea of automatic sanctions for "frivolous" reporting. Some stuff is borderline and whether a report is frivolous or not would depend on which admins happen to be around at the time it was submitted. I do think that in egregious cases smacking down editors who report others just to create drama is a good idea though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

A concern I have in mind is that an editor might want to join Wikipedia to edit a number of problematic articles he is well knowledgeable about and this restriction would be a limiting factor. Though perhaps benefits of such restriction are more than the costs. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 16:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikiproject proposal

I'd like to invite members to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Neutral Editors. This group I feel has a unique insight to such a discussion as it has been involved with certain conflicts on WP.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet for Wikiproject Arbitration Enforcement at Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:

Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 17:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Dead project?

Is this project entirely dead? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)