CS Knowledge Base

Hi Iri, Per the recent emails, this is just the official note to let you (and any TPSs) know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 24 January 2026. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 2026, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/January 2026. Please keep an eye on that page, as notifications of copy edits to or queries about the draft blurb may be left there by those who assist the coordinators by reviewing the blurbs. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. I've watchlisted it and will nurse it through the day too. Thanks, and congratulations on your work! – SchroCat (talk) 11:26, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		Io, Saturnalia!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:48, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! The Dream of Saint Joseph (1640s) by Philippe de Champaigne is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 17:36, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!
	Have a great Christmas, and I hope 2026 brings you joy, happiness – and no trolls or vandals! Cheers SchroCat (talk) 09:23, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 15:15, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		Hi Iridescent Season's Greetings and all the best for 2026
		Wherever you are and whatever you believe in (or don't), reach out for peace on this little planet of ours! HAPPY HOLIDAYS 🥳 Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:38, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today for Tarrare, introduced (in 2010): "Probably as close as it's possible to come to Grand Guignol within the NPOV format, this reads like the script for a really bad 1930s movie but to the best of my knowledge is accurate, comprehensive and covers everything that's been written about this singularly odd character. Tarrare was an 18th century soldier with some distinctly unsavoury habits (cat lovers may want to give this one a miss); while not quite forgotten today, he tends to be relegated to a footnote with little or no background context. This one sounds more implausible than most, and is this cited far more heavily than usual despite the inevitable WP:CLUTTER issues, as pretty much every statement is open to question. For any particularly dubious sounding statement I've used double referencing, to both the relevant page of the original London Medical and Physical Journal paper (to show "this is what was thought then") and to Jan Bondeson's 2004 and 2006 books (to show "this is still what's thought now"). Consequently, Bondeson (the only significant modern treatment of the man) looks like he's cited very heavily if one just goes by a reference-count, but I've tried to verify every claim he makes to contemporary sources. (Don't be put off by the sensationalist-sounding book titles; Bondeson's a perfectly respectable medical historian and senior lecturer in rheumatology at Cardiff. Cornell University Press have to pay the bills, and The Two Headed Boy & Other Medical Marvels shifts more copies as a title than A reexamination of 18th and 19th century teratological case studies.)"! - I wanted to come over when I quoted a 2013 DYK mentioning your name ;) - Enjoy the season! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:14, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks – I know it's an inherently ridiculous topic, but I still find it genuinely interesting. (It's also fascinating just how often the pageviews spike whenever another online influencer discovers him; I'm fairly certain that this is the most-read Wikipedia article I ever wrote. ‑ Iridescent 04:36, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking again (Danger, Will Robinson!), and I'm looking for opinions.

ArbCom cases are basically horrible for participants, no matter what the outcome is.

I think that one of the horrible parts is the /Workshop phase, in which your ertswhile colleagues propose various forms of praise for themselves and punishments for you. No matter how the Arbs vote, the end result appears to be providing to each party irrefutable evidence that Eve Editor and Oscar Opponent wanted to see you blocked or banned or de-sysopped or whatever. This is going to sour your working relationship with those editors for years to come, and that can be a big problem if it's a narrow subject area, so you're all encountering each other frequently.

On the other hand, the drafting arbs don't seem to get much value out of it. There seems to be a notion that someone might have a creative idea, so they keep an eye on it, but most of it, most of the time, is boilerplate, recycled from previous cases, or predictable.

So I'm thinking: What if we just ...didn't have a public /Workshop phase at all? Or if we had one, but only uninvolved/non-parties were allowed to propose anything? Or if proposals by parties were limited in some way (e.g., maximum of two proposals per party, only findings of fact, only general statement about what changes they could implement themselves to stop the dispute)?

What do you all think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that the arbitrators have gotten any value at all out of the workshops in the cases I've followed. It's never looked like it from the proposed decisions, so far as I recall.

The cynic in me does wonder, though, how you propose to keep the participants distracted if there's no workshop for them to holler at each other in while the arbs are still reading and digesting evidence. —Cryptic 01:40, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Welll... You might have meant that in jest, but I did think about it. Ultimately, I think the answer is that, if it's omitted entirely, they'll do the same thing as they would do during the /Proposed_decision phase, when the drafting arb doesn't post the proposal quickly. Omission might change the behavior a bit in the /Evidence phase ("Here's some evidence, which I think would support a finding of fact that..."). Restriction (e.g., only non-parties can post) might result in more comments from parties on the talk page or more focus on evidence analysis. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:12, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, the relevant section in the arbitration procedures, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Timetable and case structure, was modified to its current wording as a result of the discussion archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 22 § Case Workshops (February 2021). The impetus was to provide a bit more clarity on the structure of arbitration cases, and the arbitrators agreed on explicitly stating that the structure could be adapted as desired by the arbitration committee for each case on an individual basis (including omitting a workshop phase). isaacl (talk) 02:38, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The existing rules would make it easy to test it out on a couple of cases. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:02, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There's been a long history of questioning the value of the workshop phase, and as Isaacl correctly points out, ArbCom decided a couple of years ago to let the drafting Arbs on each given case decide whether to include or omit a workshop. They have omitted it a couple of times, but mostly they have been continuing to use it. My personal opinion is that workshops do more good than they get credit for. Waay back in the GMO case, where I was the filing party, the workshop did a lot of good in bringing up things suggested by community members, that the Arbs had not thought of, but that ended up, sometimes with some revision, in the final decision. The way I see it, it's inevitable that ArbCom cases are going to be toxic for the named parties, because by the time a dispute gets to ArbCom, it's going to be toxic. The workshop doesn't increase the toxicity – it just localizes it in one place, when it would otherwise be in other places, but would still be there. I think the best workshops are where the drafting Arbs post an early draft of the final decision, and get feedback before anything gets set in stone, which is better than hurried discussion about something ArbCom is about to get wrong, on the PD talk page. It also helps when Arbs take an active role in shutting down unproductive stuff in the workshop, and point to where they would like more input about one thing or another. But I think it can be very helpful for the Arbs to get advice before they start committing to a proposed decision, even if there has to be a lot of separating the grain from the chaff. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about restricting the workshop? For example, would any of these rules be harmful (numbered for your convenience)?

1. Don't bother proposing any "Principles". They're mostly the same from case to case, and we already know what they are. If you have something truly novel to suggest, you can ask for an exemption to this rule on the talk page.
2. If you think that principles from prior cases should be re-used adapted to this one, then just provide a link: "Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Decorum."
3. There is a limit of two proposed "Findings of fact" by any party. ArbCom knows that participants in a case sometimes communicate off wiki. If they discuss or coordinate among themselves who will propose which findings, this coordination must be disclosed on the workshop page or in e-mail to the arbs, but it will not invalidate the proposals. A short e-mail message saying "I talked to Bob about which of us would post which findings of fact" is enough.
4. Each party should propose one "Finding of fact" exclusively about their own role in the dispute. It should not mention any other party. For example, "I feel strongly about this subject area, and this has led me to occasionally make some uncivil remarks, such as link link link" or "I feel I have sometimes pushed the boundaries of the WP:OUTING policy, resulting in extra work for WP:OS". If you believe your behavior does not warrant any sort of sanction, then post that (e.g., "I believe I have done nothing wrong in this dispute" or "No one has submitted evidence specifically about me, so I don't expect ArbCom to have any findings of fact about me").
5. Parties are not allowed to propose "Remedies" about other parties, either individually (e.g., "Alice should be thanked and commended for her service") or collectively (e.g., "All anti-____ editors should be topic banned"). They may propose remedies about themselves (e.g., "I don't think I deserve to be de-syopped, but I would understand if the committee decided to warn me against losing my temper again") and procedures affecting the whole area generically (e.g., "I think the committee should recommend an RFC to clarify the WP:UPPERCASE policy" or "I think the endless war between Eurasia and Oceania should be listed at Wikipedia:Contentious topics").
6. Don't post any boilerplate "Remedies". We already know that we have a standard spectrum of ban, block, de-sysop, top-ban, warn, admonish, and remind, and we already know that any of these could be applied to any party. What we'd like is to hear creative and unusual remedies, especially if they are based on a deep understanding of this specific dispute. For example, if the dispute is about a Wikipedia process, perhaps a creative solution would involve specific ideas for recruiting and training other editors to support that process, or an idea about how parts of the process could be automated.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:01, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, I'd oppose all of them. But I like #6 much more than the others, and would only object to that as WP:CREEP. It's true that the Arbs already know what most of the remedies are and can decide what applies. (Of course there are sometimes non-boilerplate remedies about things like asking the community to develop a policy or RfC about something.)

1. Sometimes, someone can propose a principle that applies in a manner that the Arbs had not thought of. In the GMO case, I proposed a new wording of what is pretty much WP:RGW that became part of the decision, and other editors came up with the idea of aspersions, which is now a widely-accepted idea.
2. Well, OK, but once you provide a link, there's nothing wrong with copy-pasting the content for convenience.
3. If editors need more than two FoFs to explain how the evidence page applies, then they should be allowed as many as they need. I'm good with the idea of disclosing offsite collaboration, but disclosure would be difficult to enforce.
4. Make people confess their own sins? Blech!
5. That won't work, either, in part because not all named parties are combatants in the dispute. Some named parties are administrators who may have filed the case request, or who have been involved in dealing with the conflict and know what is needed; non-admins can help with that too.

The Arbs are perfectly capable of knowing when they should just disregard someone's workshop proposals, so the existence of workshop proposals that don't accomplish anything doesn't really do any harm. What really helps, and there should be more of it than there usually is, is for Arbs to tell someone "stop proposing that, because it doesn't help", and asking the community to "post more ideas about such-and-such, because we'd like more input about it". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

With several of these, I'm trying to reduce pointless bloat to the /Workshop page. Yes, the arbs know these things, but editors who are unfamiliar with the process don't necessarily know that the arbs have a centralized Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles, so they think that looking through old cases and finding the kind of boilerplate "Dear media friends: No, this committee won't be officially determining whether water is wet, or whatever else these folks are fighting over" statement that is listed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles#Role of the Arbitration Committee is helpful rather than pointless. We don't actually need the "convenience" of copy/pasting the content (or, worse, seeming to, but maybe changing just one or two words...), and if we told them that, they could spend their time more productively.

For #3, my thought was to force the parties (but not other editors) to focus on the one or two things that are most important to them.

For #4, my thought was less about forced confession and more about letting the arbs know how you perceive your own role. If the /Evidence page is full of complaints about your behavior, but you think you are practically perfect in every way, then that might inform their choices about an admonishment to do better next time vs a TBAN due to a lack of insight or self-awareness.

I think that when people post "Dear Arbs, please ban all my enemies and vindicate me and all my friends", that post itself that does social damage to the community. I'd rather that parties did not post things like that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:56, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I like the theory of the Workshop. I can't speak for this Arbcom—and I'm given to understand that things are far better than they used to be—but some past iterations had a tendency to approach cases from the perspective of "Which of the parties is most annoying? → trawl through that person's history looking for a pretext to block them → repeat until the argument ends → take credit for ending the dispute". (I wouldn't say Arbcom have ever been unique in this approach, either; the WMF have at times seemed to consider it best practice.) Having the workshop at least provides a structured venue for people to point out that even the most clear-cut cases generally have two sides. It also creates a place for people to get proposals and observations into the formal written record, so the arbs can't claim "we were never made aware" should they become issues in future, without having to comply with the rightly strict rules on what is and isn't appropriate as evidence.

I agree that in practice, 99% of workshops are just shit-flinging arenas which the committee probably doesn't even read. That doesn't mean I think we should get rid of them, as long as we persist with the current process. Think of the workshop as a slightly more structured talk page for discussion of the case, rather than as an actual part of the case. (The real-world equivalent would I guess be the "Public consultation on the proposed building"-type invitations you get bombarded with if you ever find yourself on a local authority mailing list. It's almost certain that the people actually making the decision know considerably more both about the needs of the community and about the relevant zoning laws, but the optics of allowing public input are important, and just occasionally someone will raise a valid point.)

Assuming we're keeping workshops, I'd oppose 1–5 of your (@WhatamIdoing's) proposals above; creating a verbal heatsink where interested parties can get their pet peeves, crank theories and persobal grudges off their chests without clogging up the main case pages is a feature, not a bug. I'd support #6 but weakly; defining "boilerplate" is harder than it sounds, and I can certainly see legitimate grounds for allowing people to say "I think so-and-so should be blocked, here's why".

TL:DR; The Arbs are perfectly capable of knowing when they should just disregard someone's workshop proposals, so the existence of workshop proposals that don't accomplish anything doesn't really do any harm. What really helps, and there should be more of it than there usually is, is for Arbs to tell someone "stop proposing that, because it doesn't help", hits the nail on the head.

Ultimately as with so much on Wikipedia, the problem it that we have a structure designed for a small group of hobbyists, crudely transposed onto a major organisation where decisions can have significant real-world consequences. Trying to run disciplinary processes and major decision making for a global media organization, using an arbitration structure that was designed in 2004 to cool down interpersonal disputes on what was basically a social media site for nerds, stopped being appropriate pretty much before the first Arbcom was even elected.

If you haven't already, you might want to pester @Newyorkbrad for his thoughts. In my experience he was one of the few arbs who really made a point of taking the Workshop pages seriously. ‑ Iridescent 05:26, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back! I can't believe I happened to come across one of your edits tonight. Hope all is well with you and yours. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really back, more periodically poking my head in. I do intend to come back properly at some point, but I can't commit to even the vaguest timescale. Hope all well with you (and your thoughts on the above thread would probably be useful). ‑ Iridescent 05:43, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This response from me may surprise everyone, but at this point I think adjusting the procedures for arbitration cases is not a top priority, because arbitration cases so rarely happen any more. Yes, the atmosphere on the case pages could certainly bear improvement, but as an update to something I've written before, here is a list of how many "cases" ArbCom has resolved each year since its inception (numbers taken from WP:RFAR/C):

2004 - 35 cases

2005 - 102 cases

2006 - 116 cases

2007 - 91 cases

2008 - 39 cases

2009 - 30 cases

2010 - 14 cases

2011 - 16 cases

2012 - 11 cases

2013 - 12 cases

2014 - 11 cases

2015 - 19 cases

2016 - 5 cases

2017 - 4 cases

2018 - 7 cases

2019 - 9 cases

2020 - 8 cases

2021 - 6 cases

2022 - 7 cases

2023 - 6 cases

2024 - 5 cases

2025 - 4 cases

2026 - none so far

The caseload declined precipitously after the first few years as precedents were established—to avoid legalistic framing, perhaps I should say instead, as expectations were clarified—so that issues that would previously have come to ArbCom were now resolved on noticeboards or even by individual administrators. As a result of this and other trends, at this point, the Committee is deciding only a handful of full cases a year—granted, that the ones it does decide are usually significant ones—and now we also have administrator recall available to handle some admin conduct cases that would have become arbitrations until a year or two ago.

Of course, this is not all of the Committee's workload by any means: the "clarifications and amendments" docket continues to expand (which is unsurprising because as time goes on, more and more disputes are related to previous disputes rather than being brand-new ones), ArbCom has ultimate jurisdiction over arbitration enforcement, plus there are other responsibilities such as selecting checkusers and oversighters and liaising with the WMF staff. But questions such as "should we change the formatting of the workshop" are not germane to these.

So, I'd be glad to share my thoughts on arbitration procedures if anyone is still reading—for example, personally, I found the workshops to be a mixed bag, very useful in some cases and close to worthy of G10 deletion in others—but the time might be better invested in evaluating and improving the dispute-resolution procedures that far more editors encounter, such as AN and ANI and I'm sure people can think of others....

Just my tuppence. Best regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today for Musidora: The Bather 'At the Doubtful Breeze Alarmed', introduced (in 2016!): "Another entry in the contest for "most bizarrely named FA", Musidora: The Bather 'At the Doubtful Breeze Alarmed'—and yes, that punctuation is correct—is arguably the example of William Etty's pioneering mixture of literary references, detailed landscape painting and gratuitous nudity which looks least dated to modern eyes, despite illustrating a scene from a poem which is virtually unknown today. This article is slightly more confusing than the rest of this series, as while we know for certain that there are four versions of this, the provenances have been lost so we no longer know which is the prime version. (I've tried to keep the summary of the situation as brief as possible; since three of the four versions are almost indistinguishable, it doesn't actually make a great deal of difference which is from 1843 and which from 1846.) This should hopefully be the last of this Etty series for a while, at least from me."! - Thank you for enlightening us! - As for arbcom workshop phase: in the one and only one I took part in, I made a suggestion (diff) similar to what the writing arb took to the article as the community consensus, just about two years later, and similar to what we see now. Something seems to have worked ;) -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:50, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Iridescent. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 07:19, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]