Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 51

< Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee | Noticeboard
Latest comment: 29 days ago by Tryptofish in topic Resignation of Maxim
Archive 45←Archive 49Archive 50Archive 51Archive 52

Arbitration motion regarding Ireland article names - required location of move discussions rescinded

Latest comment: 11 months ago7 comments5 people in discussion
Original announcement

So.... RMs are allowed at Republic of Ireland & Ireland, etc? GoodDay (talk) 18:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I think this decision was premature. Almost no debate took place on this, and the proposal to rescind the IECOLL Arbcom ruling should at least have been flagged both at IECOLL and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland. I only came across the decision by accident, when I noticed the "Proposals to rename this article must only be discussed at IECOLL" template was up for deletion! Note that this decision effects Ireland as well as Republic of Ireland. I hope I am wrong, but I fear this will just serve to attract those who are attracted to drama, for the sake of it, in addition to the one-to-several good-faith "Hey, why is the article about the state not at Ireland?!" drive-bys from new/inexperienced editors that we get every year. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:49, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@Bastun: The rescinding of the second motion seems like it should've happened a long time ago anyways, given that it empowers a "moderator" to ban someone from an entire subset of articles, and from any participation in consensus around them. It also does not specify who these moderators are, meaning that someone who has not been vetted by the community could have the power to issue bans that could be indirectly enforced by blocks, despite possibly some of these moderators not having passed any wider community process to confirm that they actually know what they're doing. In addition, the first one is correct to be rescinded, because requested moves should be happening at the article talk page. Notifying the WikiProject could've been an alternative, but that generally happens anyways in an RM. Not to mention, if it's really becoming a problem, consensus can be established for a moratorium on a per-article basis, but a blanket restriction about RMs for all articles in the topic area needing to be discussed on a WikiProject of all places, is a problem, especially since WikiProjects can have less visibility and a less clear explanation to newcomers that their contribution to the RM is welcome. This is all not to mention that there are various other options to re-route well-meaning newbies, like notices on the article talk pages, edit notices, and if it's really an occasional problem, maybe a warn-enabled edit filter? The amount of solutions other than a blanket ban on discussion at the article talk page are tremendous. EggRoll97 (talk) 08:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
And yet, at one point in time at least, it was absolutely necessary to centralise discussion, and this was recognised by the Wikiproject participants and Arbcom - despite all the valid points you make also applying then. I mean, I could be entirely wrong, and we won't have more than two or three RMs a year? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm pretty confident you're wrong, and we won't have more than two or three RMs a year. Scolaire (talk) 10:39, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps in 2009, when the encyclopedia was far different than it is today. In the before-times, it was even possible to become an administrator without the dramafests. Obviously that's changed, and so have a lot of other things. We can't keep holding onto remnants of the past just because others thought they would be good decades ago. While there are a few things that have stayed consistently helpful to the encyclopedia, an arcane requirement of putting RMs at a specific WikiProject, under threat of arbitration enforcement no less, is ridiculous. EggRoll97 (talk) 17:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Suspension of Beeblebrox

Latest comment: 11 months ago244 comments69 people in discussion
Original announcement
  • Given that his term ends in December anyway (unless I'm mistaken), why is he suspended for six months, as opposed to removed? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
    Two reasons. The first, and immediately practical, is that this provides a timeline for which he can ask for restoration of his CUOS and/or mailing list access. The second is because we're setting a precedent here if any future committee finds itself needing to discuss removal or suspension (and I hope none do) they can weigh it against the evidence here in deciding an appropriate action. Barkeep49 (talk) 05:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Thanks for being willing to take these steps when necessary. DMacks (talk) 05:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Has an arbitrator ever been successfully removed before? (I know it's been tried before.) Galobtter (talk) 05:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
    Yes, Iridescent was removed due to inactivity in 2011. I'm not aware of any previous times in which an arb was removed for cause, though. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
    Does this count? Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
  • If he's no longer an arbitrator, then he isn't suspended. He's been removed from the position. GoodDay (talk) 06:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
    There is a significant distinction between suspension and removal, both of which are allowed for in WP:ARBCOND: suspension removes from the arbitrator their roles and responsibilities temporarily, removal removes them permanently. Izno (talk) 06:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
    Ok, Beeblebrox is still an arbitrator (just doesn't have the duties), thanks for the clarification. GoodDay (talk) 06:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry guys, I don't think you made the right decision here. I can piece together recent events, and well aware of the long history, and I think it looks like you have been taken advantage of by a troll and Beeblebrox has come out the victim. Look back at the history - how many times has it been all related to this one individual. Pushing buttons, changing their mind, manipulating the facts. I know where I got caught out, and I know I'm glad I'm not on the committee at the moment. WormTT(talk) 06:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
    If this is about what I think it is I have to agree with Worm here. — SamX [talk · contribs] 07:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC) Upon further reflection, I don't know enough about this to have an informed opinion. I wish I hadn't even commented here in the first place. — SamX [talk · contribs] 07:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
    Even if Beeblebrox disclosures had been problematic, I don't see the need for such a public rebuke when this could have been handled with tact in private. BB only has a month on their term and said they are not going to run again. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
    The private tact had been tried in 2021 with the private warning and we only knew Beeblebrox was not planning to run this year. Given the multituple disclosures this year, one of which for me was the most severe disclosure breach of the multiple documented disclosures, it was my opinion that doing nothing or repeating the private warning was not a reasonable response to the conduct. Barkeep49 (talk) 08:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
    I'm curious if the length of time he had remaining impacted your choice to pick suspension over removal. Had this occurred with, say, 10 months to go, would you have done the same? It feels odd to see you say that he made breaches that were "severe in nature and willful in its execution" but to pick an option that would, in other circumstances, let him come right back to the committee to finish out his term. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
    Speaking only for myself I was always against removal here and so yes I believe I'd have done the same 10 months ago. I was against removal in part because of the spread of time involved, in part because of the severity I attached to the disclosures, and in part for factors I'm going to try and avoid saying for essentially BEANS purposes. Barkeep49 (talk) 09:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
    I wavered between the options, but the factors Barkeep mentions here are what ultimately persuaded me towards suspension over removal. I think those considerations still apply if there were more time left in the term, but I agree that coming back after that would be odd at best. Ultimately I was fine punting on the question of reinstatement; let the committee that actually needs to deal with that problem come to the solution. — Wug·a·po·des 10:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
    @PMC. The wording is such that even if Beebs had another year to serve, they could only regain access by appeal to the Committee or the community. They couldn't have automatically returned to the Committee; however, an appeal that showed understanding of the issues and a reassurance that it wouldn't happen again, could have seen them return. And that seems fair to me. SilkTork (talk) 12:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
    To be clear from the outset, I'm not grilling you guys on this because I'm incensed about Beebs in particular. I'm looking at the underlying logic because Barkeep has said this is intended to set a precedent, and the logic feels off to me.
    The wording is such that even if Beebs had another year to serve, they could only regain access by appeal to the Committee or the community. That's not how I read it, and based on Barkeep's comment, I'm not sure that's how he's reading it either (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). The sentence about requesting reinstatement follows the sentence about CU/OS and mailing list being revoked and refers back to those things specifically: "During this period, Beeblebrox's CheckUser and Oversight permissions and his access to applicable mailing lists (including the functionaries' mailing list) are revoked. Following this period, Beeblebrox may request reinstatement of his permissions or mailing list access by applying to the Arbitration Committee." There's nothing there about his actual seat on the committee.
    As I'm reading things, after the six month suspension, my theoretical Beebs-with-10-months-left (call him Theeblebrox) would be back on the Committee with four months left - but without CU/OS and mailing list access. That's wonky, isn't it? What if Theeblebrox didn't bother appealing? Would he serve the remaining time as a lame duck arbitrator who can comment onwiki but not discuss things with the rest of you privately, or would you then initiate removal procedures? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
    The way I see it is that Theeblebrox remains suspended from permissions (such as access to on-Wiki ArbCom only pages, so unable to vote on cases or motions) until such time as those permissions are returned. Like a police officer suspended from duty. Still a police officer, but without the permission to arrest someone or ask them to move along. The downside to the situation (which I don't recall us discussing) is that Theeblebrox would be occupying a seat that could otherwise be filled with an active Arb. SilkTork (talk) 13:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
    I don't think it says that at all. It says CU/OS permissions, and his access to mailing lists. It says nothing about "permissions" to edit arb pages onwiki. That should be clarified one way or another. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
    The way I see things Theeblebrox would have gotten CUOS and list access back at the end of the suspension as he returned to full status. In this case because it goes through the end of the term different wording was used. In reality this conversation means in some future where an arb gets suspended and returns that committee will have to make this call about the details (thieven if a bunch of other arbs show up to clarify their thinking one way or another). Barkeep49 (talk) 14:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
    @Worm That Turned there were two disclosures this year which had not been discussed while you were on the committee. One of them was something which I personally don't think would have raised as many, or even any, eyebrows if it had occurred on wiki and is about the person I believe you're referencing. Not every arb agrees with us on that and perhaps one will say more about why they think differently. The other disclosure this year was for me the most severe in nature and willful in its execution of any of the disclosures. So even if one were to give zero weight to any disclosures about the person I believe you're referring to there were still multiple other instances of complaints about disclosures going back to 2019 and a pattern of concerns expressed to the committee for which no other arb comes close to matching during my 3 years on the committee. I think it significant that 10 out of 11 Arbs voted for this with the remaining arb abstaining (compared to being opposed). Barkeep49 (talk) 08:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
    @Barkeep49 I respect you guys a lot, and with the full information, I may have made the same decision. I don't envy you all there at all - and the decision has been made, unanimously, and that speaks volumes. WormTT(talk) 08:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
    Emotionally rocked, so Ima be a jerk and say, "why the Hell does anyone need to talk about Wikipedia business off-Wiki, especially ArbCom 'private correspondence' business." (sigh) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
    Exactly. Ymblanter (talk) 09:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
    @Worm. For a long while my vote was for a public warning rather than suspension. I felt that jumping from a private warning to a suspension without going via a public warning, for what I felt was a minor and possibly dubious infraction, was too big a leap. I was wavering when the number of instances, which involved more than just the person you are likely thinking of, was being made clear, and finally changed my mind yesterday after putting everything together, including Beeb's own comments to the Committee. SilkTork (talk) 10:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Well, he can't say nobody warned him... – Joe (talk) 10:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Note: As with Opabinia regalis, this will have no impact on WP:ACE2023 as the slot was already scheduled for replacement. — xaosflux Talk 10:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
  • I was in favor of removal, but supported both a removal and suspension equally in the final vote for ease of counting votes and the lack of a meaningful difference at this point in the year. In our discussion before the vote, the rough nose count made it obvious that a removal couldn't command a large enough majority. --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 13:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
    I suppose the edge case would be that the suspension could be reversed by the committee, whereas expulsion could not be. — xaosflux Talk 14:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
    Could you explain to me why this remark, which reveals something we did not know that happened on the mailing list, is ok?I'm not being sarcastic, I didn't know this, and you just let it out like it was no bog deal. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 08:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
    There was an agreement that although some information wasn't going to be included in the announcement, it could be revealed by an arb on the talk page -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 12:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
    Don't you think it's a bit contemptible to prepare this disclosure as a defensive line for expected pushback but not have the courtesy or manners to share this little tidbit with Beebs/JSS first? To me it's unbelievably cynical and disrespectful. Regardless of the motivations for the action this doesn't portray arbcom as honest actors in this event. Shame, shame and thrice shame!
    le to Spartaz Humbug! 17:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
    It's normal for the Committee to announce on its noticeboard only the motion(s) that have passed. It's also normal for arbitrators to discuss where they disagreed with the committee's decision on the ACN talk page. In this case, the Committee specifically considered and agreed that arbitrators may share the details of the vote on the talk page if asked. Would you mind expanding on why in your view that is cynical and disrespectful? Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
    You don’t see that agreeing in advance to reveal information you withheld from Beebs without sharing with him first is selfserving and disrespectful to him as a person? Spartaz Humbug! 18:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
    All the evidence that was considered when making this decision was shared with Beebs/Just Step Sideways in the first email notifying him that removal was being discussed. This happened well before the voting started and between that first email and the voting being finalized, there were multiple rounds of emails with Beeblebrox. So not only was the evidence shared with him ahead of time, but I also had the chance to share with him my reasoning and thinking. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
    That's a very politician like answer and slides right past my point as you full well know. Fact is, you folks planned what information you would release for handing dissent purposes but didn't feel the subject of the discussion had any rights to be told the same information in advance of your releasing. I stand by my description. Contemptible, cynical and disrespectful. Spartaz Humbug! 22:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
    I clearly don't understand the why of this criticism. I understand the anger level, which makes me want to understand the criticism and so I'm sorry that I don't understand. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
    @Spartaz: I wanted to release who vote totals for the options as well as each arb's position on removal in the announcement, but lost. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
    That's irrelevant to my point. You will tell the community to stave off dissent but none of you thought Beebs had a right to the same information in advance. That's frankly shitty Spartaz Humbug! 22:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Don't boo. nableezy - 16:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Of course I knew this was under discussion and did attempt to reply to the concerns raised, but I don't recall anyone mentioning this bizzare idea of suspending me for six months when my term is up in one month anyway. I can't say that makes a whole lot of sense.
Obviously, I think the committee made the wrong decision here. I'll cop to letting a small detail about something out on an external website. And when other committee members raised concerns about it, I asked for the post to be removed, and it was. And then I was told there was a "totality of evidence" of my wrongdoing that I needed to respond to, which I feel I did, just yesterday. I guess my replies didn't cut it. And you know what's funny, what I've just said, right here, contains the same level of detail about "priveledged communications" as the off-site post that led to this vote. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Beeblebrox has done more to hold problematic administrators to account than perhaps any other member of ArbCom past and present, and the fact that this "suspension" comes on the heels of him bringing an arbitration case that ended up with one problematic administrator unmasking themselves as a previously problematic (and banned) administrator raises a lot of questions. Beeblebrox has made no secret of his desire to be transparent, and I have appreciated his willingness to explain baffling or opaque Wikipedia goings-on to skeptical audiences. Of course transparency can be taken too far, and I'm sure the committee has information that we the public don't have about this, but I can say that a lot of the "how dare he speak to the bad people at the bad websites" hand-wringing from some of the committee members over the past few years over perfectly reasonable comments he's made offsite deepens my concern about this decision. As does the timing; he's now been precluded from making his case to the community in the ArbCom election (should he wish to) since the suspension was issued less than a week after the self-nominating deadline has passed. 28bytes (talk) 18:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
    Regarding the timing, the Committee notified Beeblebrox that a removal vote was on the table before the close of self-nominations in the ongoing ArbCom elections. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
    Thanks, Kevin, I’m glad to learn that that is the case. 28bytes (talk) 18:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
    An easy solution would be to abolish the Arbitration Committee. The overwhelming majority of wikis, north of 99%, get along fine without one. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
    +1, at least sometimes. Vox populi, vox dei ——Serial 19:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
    The overwhelming majority of wikis also have significantly less editors and page views than the English Wikipedia. — Frostly (talk) 18:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
    Who wants an example of a big wiki without ArbCom is welcome to look at Commons. Not sure this is what people here want to emulate. Ymblanter (talk) 18:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
    Why is Commons not a project to emulate? --MZMcBride (talk) 19:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
    Because whereas there exists a mechanism of community desysopping, and several admins have been desysopped via this mechanism, before this mechanism is really made to work, an admin should really exhaust the patience of the whole community, no less than that. For example, in not-so-distant past I remember an admin blocking (indef, unless I am mistaken) a checkuser) because they disagree with something. An admin eventually resigned, but the desysop has not even seriously been discussed. Any long-term Commons contributor can recollect dozens of such cases. Imagine I block an arbitrator here because I do not like an ArbCom decision they drafted or an oversight because I disagree with a suppression - how long would I still be an admin? Ymblanter (talk) 20:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
    How, in your mind, are page views relevant? --MZMcBride (talk) 19:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
    28bytes, if you have "a lot of questions" you'd like answered, you can ask me in private or in public, and I'll do my best to answer them. SilkTork (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
    I appreciate that, SilkTork. My main question is, is this a case where the committee received complaints from multiple good-faith users saying that Beeblebrox had shared correspondence that they thought was confidential, or is this mainly a case of him speaking frankly about one particular banned ex-administrator? 28bytes (talk) 20:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
    Not SilkTork, but the committee had over the years received multiple complaints from editors saying Beeblebrox had shared stuff they felt he shouldn't have. One of those complaints I think is baseless and one of them is the most recent one which I've noted my reservations about multiple times on this page already. But even if one were to exclude those complaints, as I do, there remain multiple complaints about multiple different people over the years. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
    Thank you for the clarification. 28bytes (talk) 20:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
    Reading between the lines of what may be your question here, let me address something specifically: no banned ex-administrators reached out to us to request this action or trigger this process. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
    I should certainly hope not! That would take quite the, um, nerve. But thank you for the clarification nonetheless. (And at the risk of sounding cynical, “no banned ex-administrators reached out us, as far as we know” might be a safer bet, all things considered. Lord knows this place is full of surprises.) 28bytes (talk) 20:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
    Transparency and explaining ArbCom is important to me too. It's why I have so many replies in this thread. And yet there have never been private arbcom conversations about me having gone too far. There also haven't been any private conversations for the 4 non-Beeblebrox colleagues I've had over the past 3 years who've posted on "badsites" with regularity. So there is something different about what Beeblebrox did than others.
    A shared commitment to transparency (not to mention fairness) is also why Beeblebrox was told of all the evidence being considered against him in the first email which informed him that removal was on the table. Speaking only for myself it was important that he have a chance in full to respond. But also because of my belief that he'd course correct when presented with direct and honest feedback from his colleagues. At least for me too much of his time was spent defending this last incident - one which I've noted above is something I question if anyone would have been concerned had it happened in a thread on this page - rather than what I saw as a pattern and when he did address the pattern I didn't find his response convincing.
    It is my genuine hope that with some time to reflect, Beeblrbox will re-assess this, be able to articulate how he will maintain his transparency without crossing the lines that others don't seem to and put me in a position where I can vote for him; either by restoring CUOS and functionaries access or at ACE. Because our project can always use someone with Beeblebrox's many skills. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
    Barkeep49, I’m having trouble parsing the sentence that begins “At least for me…” I think you’re saying that a certain conversation (it’s not clear to me which one from the context) would have been fine to have on Wikipedia, but not elsewhere. Or am I misunderstanding? 28bytes (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
    Let me try putting it into multiple sentences and adding a few extra words. At least for me, too much of his time was spent defending this last incident. I've noted above [this last incident] is something I question if anyone would have been concerned had it happened in a thread on this page. Rather [I wish he had spent more time defending] what I saw as a pattern and when he did address the pattern I didn't find his response convincing. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
    OK, I think I have a clearer picture now. I could argue that presenting a spurious accusation (for lack of a better term) to someone kinda comes with the expectation that they’d vigorously defend themselves against it, but ultimately we’d be getting too far into the weeds on conversations I’m not privy to, so I’ll just leave it at that. 28bytes (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
    I agree with all of what 28bytes said, and I echo Hemiauchenia that we should also consider the timing of this as it relates to Beeblebrox's term. The "6 month" suspension is largely moot because his term runs out in a month and he is not running again. ArbCom could have let Beeblebrox finish out his term, but consciously chose to make this public suspension instead. That indicates to me that the intention here was more about sending a message to the community than punishing Beeblebrox, and it's worth considering what kind of message is being sent. Pinguinn 🐧 00:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
  • One thing that I think is getting lost in the hubbub is the fact that Beeblebrox managed to do something problematic enough in 2021 that the rest of the Committee saw fit to issue what proved to be a final warning, and yet the Committee did not see fit to notify the community, even though it was an election year, wherein we were deciding whether to renew our trust in Beeblebrox as an arbitrator, checkuser, and oversighter. I've been making a point this ACE about ArbCom's overuse of private warnings and restrictions, and have been somewhat hamstrung by the fact that, well, because they're private I can't speak to how many there are, other than the ones that I've heard about through on-wiki disclosure or off-wiki scuttlebutt (off the top of my head, at least 5 that I've heard of). Could an arbitrator please clarify, exactly how often does ArbCom issue admins, functionaries, or arbitrators these private warnings or restrictions? (Construed broadly to include anything that could plausibly be a remedy in an ArbCom case.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 22:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
    My memory isn't strong enough to just rattle off the answers off the top of my head. It would require real archival work for me to answer and with-in the limited freedom I have as an Arb I'm not going to volunteer to do it. But I really hope some other arb answers the question because I think it would be a helpful piece of transparency for the community. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
    If we're talking about private conduct warnings issued by motion of the committee, the only other one I can think of off the top of my head is Bbb23. It had a similar result.
    Frankly, I think the 2021 committee (of which I was a part) erred in not making the warning public. I don't have access to all the information anymore, but to the best of my recollection it was intended to be a formal warning, but when the message was drafted it came across more like a word from a concerned colleague than a cease-and-desist order. Perhaps if the committee had been more forceful then, this sad situation could have been avoided. – bradv 22:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
    I also advocated a stronger warning in 2021 and also wonder if we'd be here if that had happened. But the warning that was given was what had support among the arbs at that time. I cannot imagine there having been any support among that group to have made anything public. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
    Then, in my opinion, you should not have made any warning.
    If ArbCom thinks some behavior is bad enough to officially warn another arbitrator about, then that warning should be public, because it's information relevant to arbitrator elections. If the behavior is only bad enough to warn them privately, it's not bad enough for an official warning at all. Loki (talk) 01:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
    The community did know about the general shape of the issue. It was discussed at ACE2021. It didn't know the specifics. And if the warning had been made public it still wouldn't have known the specifics because the specific would have had to be removed to protect the confidentiality of the people involved. I am genuinely not sure what options I had other than resign in protest- and how effective of a protest would it have been because of my own confidentiality obligations - or accept a lesser outcome than what I wanted but which had some chance to stop the problem at hand which I considered serious. There are bright lines for me where I'll resign in protest over something (I gave serious thought to it a few times during the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines process) but that's something you can only do once and I just can't imagine doing it over this issue in 2021. The 2019 and 2020 elections (the ones that elected the 2021 ARBCOM) were fiercely contested and the community got the arbs it decided to trust and that's what, with all the information at hand, that group decided. It boggles my mind that someone is seriously saying doing nothing was the right choice given the way the problem got worse. I can only imagine the criticism the 2021 committee would be facing now in that case. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
    Even just making an announcement that a warning has been issued and summarizing the nature of the issue warned about while maintaining whatever confidentiality is required would be useful. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
    Sure. And I supported a stronger action than what was taken. But Loki is making the claim if the warning could not be made public nothing should have been done. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
    Yes. That I disagree with, given that some issues within ArbCom's remit obviously require confidential handling. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
    I think there needs to be a space between no action and public warning. I'm not saying we got it right here, but I'm not sure I buy the idea that every admonishment we ever give must be cried out in the town square. ArbCom doesn't make many pronouncements, so any that it does make are treated as being damning. But we don't always need some big black mark on a person's record. Sometimes, somebody just needs a gentle reminder to correct their behavior. ArbCom, or individual Arbs, have had conversations with various folks over the years to the effect of what I would call a "quiet word." An email to be nicer, a DM about being careful about certain kinds of sock blocks. I think we've found that people tend to be more receptive when someone they trust privately brings an issue to them. They tend to be less defensive about it, because they don't have to deal with the reputation consequences of having it raised at a noticeboard or something. These quiet words have pushed many folks back onto the straight and narrow. I remain a fan of transparency. But I fear that in trying to disclose every even slightly critical conversation ArbCom has, ArbCom will opt to simply not criticize in those edge cases. I'd rather we retain the ability to say something before it becomes a capital case. But I also acknowledge that ArbCom should be more open about its warnings in general. I think the Committee has gone in the right direction on this; we had several moments in the last few years where we could have passed a private restriction, and opted not to, as we felt that some of ArbCom's worst mistakes have come from private restrictions. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
    I don't disagree with what you've said. I agree that a "quiet word" can remain private, but a formal warning (especially a final warning) should definitely be public. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
    It was not phrased anything like a final warning would be. That was a turn of phrase on Tamzin's part what proved to be a final warning. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
    Thank you for clarifying. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
    I agree with this. Often times a quiet word with a colleague is exactly what is needed, and if the community expects that these conversations should be made public that will simply mean they won't happen at all. In this particular case, of course, there had been many such quiet words spoken. What was needed in 2021 was a formal warning, and I think the criticism is fair that it should have been done publicly. (That said, the cynic in me would point out that there was an election at the time, so a public warning may have been seen by some as interference.) – bradv 03:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
    @Tamzin: My impression is "not that often and not as frequently as in the past". I can't think of five during the three years I've been on the Committee, though my memory is not terrific. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
    @L235: Thanks for the response. Of the five I had in mind, three are in that three-year timespan: the shared-IP disclosure for Mark and Corbie, and a private warning I recall being told about for an admin who violated WP:WHEEL in a fairly low-stakes setting. I believe some arbs also said in the TNT/Lourdes case that they had been initially prepared to handle the matter by private warning, although that doesn't count toward my total. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 23:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
    Five seems way lower than what I would have said. For instance I think there have been a couple of times where we were alerted to an issue with some bad CU checks, an arb was dispatched to have a quiet word about it and then nothing else happened. But if 5 is the correct number, than I think we need to analyze how many of the 5 were successful and whether that success rate augers continued practice. As such I will start a discussion on list where we can actually name things. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
    Yeah. Probably you're right. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
    +1, that was my thought too. I understand the ArbCom members also re-running that year might be reluctant to do something that could be construed as helping their own bid, but the community needs to have this kind of information to make an informed decision about who to vote for. Galobtter (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Maybe don't be a member of a website specifically about being a-holes to anyone and everyone that edits Wikipedia, that defames, outs, and otherwise personally attacks whomever they can get information on? Might be a broader fix to the overall issue. Just a thought. SilverserenC 22:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
  • To expand on my "abstain" vote: I hold Beeblebrox in very high regard and he's influenced me with a lot of what he's said and done over the years. One of the reasons I ran in 2022 was so I could work with him for at least a year, as I predicted he wouldn't run again in 2023. I thought that made me too biased to actually vote on the matter, and informed some other Arbs during the early stages of discussion that I was contemplating abstaining/recusing. Another Arb pointed out that the rules for Arb removal are different from other votes-- it requires a resolution supported by two-thirds of all arbitrators and makes no mention of abstentions/recusals-- so, they're disincentivized. So, it looked like I might have to vote, regradless of my bias, in a bit of cruel irony. I decided to wait as a tiebreaker vote and communicate my thought processes with Beeblebrox in the meantime. Ultimately, the suspension vote passed by a clear margin, so I stuck to my original plan of abstaining-- chiefly, I don't think it's fair to Beeblebrox or the community to have an admittedly biased Arb voting on something they didn't need to. There are some smaller additional motivations for why, but I don't think they are appropriate or fair to expand on publicly for now. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 23:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Hold on. I personally found out about this 30 minutes ago. This is highly relevant to the ongoing ACE, especially as two sitting arbs are also running. For those of us that don't watch the noticeboard, shouldn't some kind of notice be placed on the election pages? Fermiboson (talk) 03:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
    @Fermiboson: Xaosflux says above and I think on one of the talk pages that this doesn't effect the elections because his term was expiring this year. Sennecaster (Chat) 04:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
    I think Fermiboson's point is that this may impact people's trust in the arbs who are running for reelection. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
    Yes, that was my point. Fermiboson (talk) 04:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
    Discussion of candidates is held at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023/Candidates/Discussion, and questions can be posed at their individual question pages, accessible from Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023/Questions. isaacl (talk) 04:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
    I realise that entirely, but for us to ask questions about it, we first have to be aware that this has happened. Fermiboson (talk) 04:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
    Sure; it's up to anyone who thinks others will be interested to start a discussion in the appropriate venues, and then others can see it and join in if desired. isaacl (talk) 04:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
    I have done so. Fermiboson (talk) 04:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
  • I'd like to clear the air just a little bit. This will be slightly tricky, I apparently misjudged where the line between what I am and am not allowed to speak about already, but I'll give it a shot. I'm assuming that the rules here are that I was the subject of an off-wiki arbitration case, and therefore was not acting as an arb once that became clear, and can speak a little more freely, but I'd like to assure one and all that I'm not out to deliberatly thumb my nose at the committee or anything like that.
My now-former colleagues brought this up with me, saying they considered it a "leak". And I guess that's not unreasonable. However, I would consider it a minor leak at most, one that it seems nobody actually even noticed as the post was never responded to and was removed at my request one it bacame clear to me that other arbs saw it as far more serious than I did. (in fact folks over at WPO right now are wondering themselves what this is all about. It's possible that whichever arb brought this up was nearly the only person who even saw the post and actually noted what it said) We had some back-and-forth over the next day or so, then at some point the rest of the committee opted to go over to one of our secondary lists to discuss my actions. I know I was expected to say I screwed up and I knew it. Doing that could have made this whole thing go away and none of you would know a thing about it, but I chose not to do that. I was asked why I thought I had found an exemption to the usual "code of silence" as regards mailing lists, and I replied that I couldn't think of a good reason we wouldn't want people to know the information I had revealed. Again, I was fully aware this was the wrong answer but it is the truth.
other stuff for context regarding the "totality of evidence"
And then I was told there was a "totality of evidence" including the incidents that led to the 2021 sure-doesn't-look-like-a-final-warning-to-me alluded to above. Three things were mentioned in that incident. One was comments I made on another WMF site about a user on that site, along with a parrelell conversation at Wikipediocracy. It had literally nothing to do with the committee or any kind of confidential information, some people just didn't like it. That's it. No actual policy violation. Another was my supposed outing of the troll who is at the center of all of this. There was no outing. Anyone in possession of even half of the facts knows this. No confidentail information of any kind was involved, and again it was utterly unrelated to any arbcom business. The third thing mentioned in there was a remark I did make on one of the mailing lists that I deeply regret. I beilieve what happened was that I thought I was commenting on the ArbCom list when it was in fact the functionaries list and my comment was about a specific member of that team, and not a very positive one. I never intended to insult this user, let alone to do so in front of their peers. It was an error apparenty due to innatention and I apologized to the user and to other functionaries who expressed their dismay about it. So, that's what that is about. I therefore do not agree that the more recent incident was part of a pattern as it was none of the things I was warned about.
There's another thread on Wikipediocracy about a user from another wiki who was blocked and told they could appeal to the en arbcom for some reason, which they did. As a result of this misdirection, I became aware of the reason they had been blocked. Those responsible for the block shared that with us, but were not sharing it with the actual user that had been blocked. So, yeah, when they got close to guessing the correct answer I made a coy comment that basically telegraphed that they had succesfully figured out why they were blocked. So, I let somebody know why they were blocked so that they would have a fair chance at actually appealing it. They did, and they got unblocked. I consider that the correct result and I don't care that I bent the rules a little to help out with it. This was a while ago, but it was finally brought up during the conversation we just had over the last few days. I told the committee that I felt the term "Kafkaesque" actually applied properly for once, as refusing to tell an accused person what they are accused of is the central theme of The Trial as well as In the Penal Colony. If I hadn't come by this information due to the apparent bad advice they received, they would probably still be blocked with no idea why, but I'm ther bad guy in this sceanrio.
So, I stood behind all that, and I still do (except for the one error I detailed in there). I also told them if they really thought the standard they were asking me to adhere to was what would be expected from all functionaries and arbs going forward, they should vote on the removal, and if they were less sure, they should let the 2024 committee take the matter up for clarification next year. You can see which path they chose.
I didn't run for this commitee to just be quiet and follow the rules. That's kinda not who I am. The community knew this when they elected me, and if they didn't, the certainly knew it when they elected me a second time. So, I'm disappointed it ended this way, but I'm not disappointed in myself, so I still call it a win, and I wish all the arbs the best. Truly. If you all did what you belived was right, that's as much as anyone can expect from any of us. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Well. Everyone knows that this action was bound to be controversial obviously and given that everybody is still in good standing and nobody is blocked, I'm sure all arbs acted in good faith and with careful consideration. There are a lot of conversations here to be had about final/private warnings, transparency etc. but to me the immediate concern is that, while under normal circumstances we would have plenty of time to calmly discuss all the issues, let Arbcom sort out its lists etc. we have six days to decide how much of this incident we take into account on our votes for the two arbs running for reelection. I personally, and I'm sure I'm not the only one, would weigh this incident extremely heavily if the version of events presented as above was true, complete and accurate. Leaving aside the institutional questions for more experienced editors to litigate, I'd like to know your take on how much of an issue this election-imposed deadline is. I'm tempted also to ping said two arbs, but I don't know if that would be viewed as circumventing the two-question limit on the candidate question page. Fermiboson (talk) 06:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
While I agree the timing wasn't ideal, life rarely happens when it is convenient. But I guess I'm not seeing the solution here. Would you rather us have waited for the election to pass to reveal the suspension? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't see a solution here either, which is why I'm asking. I'm not necessarily insinuating that the arbcom decision was bad process. Perhaps I will be able to say something more substantial beyond expressing concern once I think on it a little. Fermiboson (talk) 07:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
I know the feeling very well, there are so many things I want to say at certain venues, but can't for similar reasons (sigh). Banedon (talk) 07:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
I was closely following the incident with Loudes at the time. And there was no reason for you to have commented at WPO answering that question. I thought it was bad form. I thought you did it for no better reason than internet points. It is irrelevant that it turned out to be a troll. You did not out the troll. The troll was anonymous, still is anonymous. You outed Russian Red. Yes it was not actually outing because the edit was not suppressed. It should have been suppressed. And you should have known better than to connect an established editor with their real life identity that they had revealed in their very first edits (for all anyone knew at the time). And still I voted for you, because like everyone else, I thought, perhaps still do, that the committee needs a you. Now you say you've let something else slip. You say you think it was a minor leak at most but we have a unanimous consensus from arbcom that they disagree. Knowing of your poor judgement in the Lourdes incident, and now having to guess about the severity of this "leak", I have no choice but to put my trust on arbcom. Afterall, this is what we elect the committee for. I still think arbcom and the community is going to suffer from losing you. Not only is there not another Beeblebrox on arbcom or among the candidates, but I haven't seen a candidate for one in the project. And I sympathise with you. But on available evidence, I can not but sympathise with arbcom also.
And I have to wonder if, it is, again, a poor choice, to narrow down so specifically, the "leak" for the benefit of WPO mods. They have a habit of publicising information for internet points, even information that, in the usual case, users of a site expect to be kept confidential and only used for internal purposes. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
  • This reminds me of petty employers who find ways to get back at you when you hand in your notice. "So you think you are leaving eh? Well take that!". Honestly, after the clownshow that was the Holocaust in Poland case it was difficult to imagine what could drag Arbcom (as an entity) reputation down further. Good job. You have rewarded a manipulative sockmaster who obtained advanced tools by deception, sent the message that ARBCOM is anti-transparency, and worst of all (although from Beebs post above this seems to be a minor concern to you, probably because you have deliberately tried to keep the details quiet) you have now publically endorsed a process that allows people to be punished without being given all the infomation about the accusations against them. After the endorsement of the WMF's treatment of Fram by a previous committee this shouldnt have been a surprise, but you are seriously taking exception to letting someone who has been banned know the exact reason they were banned? That is anti-every single value that underpins fairness in the countries that primarily make up the ENWP community and you should be ashamed for even entertaining the idea that someone should not know in full detail what they are accused of. That would be bad enough by itself, but that you should sanction Beeb for indirectly letting them know their 'crime'? Even after the user then successfully (because they now knew what they were appealing against and could respond accordingly) had their ban lifted? What message are you trying to send? "ARBCOM is a petty vindictive body that values silence over a fair hearing"? Because that's what you have done. If there was any actual fairness in the process, the incoming committee would reverse this and remove all your advanced permissions for being obviously unfit. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
    This was about multiple instances involving multiple editors who had information about them expressed. Saying it's all about a single blocked sock master just isn't true. In fact in one such other instance collapsed in the comment above, Beeblebrox (now renamed Just Step Sideways) admits I don't care that I bent the rules a little to help out. That's not a banned sock master being discussed. As I said to Beebs on Sunday I viewed it as similar to Floq knowingly breaking the rules during FRAM and having to live with the consequences. This is the consequence of knowingly breaking the rules. And like Floq I hope after a period of time to have the chance to vote Beebs/Just Step Sideways back into office. Barkeep49 (talk) 12:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
    If the rules say you have to keep someone in the dark and not help them understand what happened and how to get themselves unblocked, then the rules stink. And those who blindly uphold rules like that, to the detriment of individuals and the project, are the ones who do not deserve to be in office. Not the ones who try to help. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
    It wasn't our information to reveal. I did try to help by talking to the people because I did think the situation wrong. I just decided to do try and help with in the bounds of the rules. Barkeep49 (talk) 13:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
    See my previous response about those who blindly follow rules. I'm disappointed, Barkeep49, as I didn't think you were one of them. (In fact, I still don't think you're one of them, which leaves me puzzled too). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
    Obviously I still respect Beebs/Just Step Sideways. However, if I have options to help respecting rules or not respecting rules I am going to choose the respecting rules route. Barkeep49 (talk) 13:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
    That you would choose to blindly follow rules that stop people doing the morally right thing... well, I really don't think I need to say any more. Other than to stress that I'm disappointed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
    ↑+1. DuncanHill (talk) 13:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
    I don't think this is as black and white as is being made out here. If a user is blocked as a sock of a different user, telling the user the small details, "your <redacted exact private data> is the same as X editor on Y day" might help them clear out their name and get unblocked, but is also a gross violation of basic privacy policy, and not to mention, that now the user gains a understanding about what data the CheckUser tool collects, which they can use to their socking advantage in the future. Sohom (talk) 15:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
    Revealing somebody's own data to them is not a violation of their privacy. In the case you give it would only be a privacy violation if they were not a sock. "We can't give you the evidence we used to find you guilty because we are not confident you actually are guilty" is perhaps not the greatest moral stand is it? DuncanHill (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
    That was not the scenario here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
    1000%, if you are commanded to do something morally bankrupt you should disobey that command. Resign after if your respect of the rules demands it, but certainly dont just follow it. nableezy - 15:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
There no such thing as a "small detail". ArbCom is entrusted with data that must not be made public. There is no exception for releasing data when it is a "small detail". Sometimes a "small detail" is the jigsaw piece that enables finishing the puzzle. That one piece can mean the entire puzzle. Any member of ArbCom releasing data (no matter how small) compromises the integrity of ArbCom. This has happened before, and is why I and several people I am aware of do not trust ArbCom with confidential data. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
I was just gonna say that the confidentiality agreement I signed said that confidential information may not be disclosed to anyone. It did not make an exception for off Wiki sites. Don't know what the one the Arbs sign says. I think disclosure of such information requires removal of CU and Oversight rights. And is unbecoming for an Arb. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
The NDA that we signed with the WMF as part of the checkuser and/or oversight onboarding process refers to the private data that we may (will) encounter. It doesn't include general commentary on internal proceedings. For example, if I were to voice my displeasure on-wiki over a thread on functionaries-en but didn't release personal information, that is allowed by the WMF access to nonpublic data policy. I guess the real question, which only Beeblebrox and ArbCom can answer, is what type of data was released? Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Well, in the case that led to my suspension, it was the very existence of a particular discussion, and the result of that discussion. No details whatsoever regarding who said what in the discussion, no PII, nothing like that. Just "this discussion was had and this was the result." The word "omerta" was part of the discussion that followed. I rephrased that as "snitches get stitches" in one of my replies to the committee. Not sure if I had already lost them before that, but it probably didn't help. And I'd add that I'm not arguing back against the points Barkeep is making, I accept that I violated the code of silence and was shanked for it. I think the code of silence stinks. I could've resigned, but I made it clear to the committee I was not going to do that either and they would have to either accept what I did or kick me out. Clearly they chose option 2. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 17:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
There was no one case that led to your suspension. There were many. There was a most recent case, but for me I didn't give it much or any weight. I feel like I've said pretty much all I've needed to say and absent some major new question which I can clarify I expect to largely let others discuss. However, if I need keep repeating this point I will. I don't want a false narrative that this was about the last case, rather than all the cases, to take hold. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
I want to emphasise this as well. The last incident I regarded as minor, and if that was all it was, a comment along the lines of "That probably wasn't wise, best not do it again" would have been more than sufficient. Mistakes happen. Potentially unsound decisions happen. Lack of clarity regarding boundaries happen. Etc. I voted for suspension when it became clear that there were several incidents, that Beebs had been made aware that these incidents should stop yet had continued, and was pushing back against colleagues who were presenting their concerns regarding this. The last incident wasn't so much a final straw incident, as one that caused some of us to reflect back on previous incidents and realise that it shouldn't have got this far anyway. SilkTork (talk) 19:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
But that begs the question: If the "most recent" incident wasn't noteworthy, why was removal done now? Why was it not done earlier when Beeblebrox actually committed the alleged violations? These non-explanations really don't look good for the existing arbitrators. I'm going to ask again: Did Beeblebrox reveal non-public information as defined in the foundation:Privacy policy and the foundation:Access to nonpublic information policy? If so, why was his access not revoked earlier? If not, what type of information was revealed? This whole thing is starting to stink. Transparency is important, and while obviously some information cannot be made public, the existence of discussions is not.
As of now, Beeblebrox is claiming that he merely mentioned the existence of discussion(s). Other members of arbcom, many of whom I deeply respect, are going around in circles and saying nothing. You need to at least clarify what type of data was released and if people were harmed or could have been harmed by the release of said data. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
To quote SilkTork The last incident wasn't so much a final straw incident, as one that caused some of us to reflect back on previous incidents and realise that it shouldn't have got this far anyway. This reflects my thinking as well. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
I realized while reading Bradv's response below that I hadn't answered all of Reaper's questions (at least what can be answered). I address other parts here. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
while obviously some information cannot be made public, the existence of discussions is not – This is not entirely accurate. Arbitration Policy is actually stricter than the foundation's privacy policy, as it says The Committee treats as private all communications sent to it, or sent by a Committee member in the performance of their duties. It could be argued that ArbCom could do more to make publicize its internal deliberations, but according to policy that can only be done with the consent of its members, and cannot be done unilaterally by any arbitrator. – bradv 20:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
  • When I was before ANI and ArbComm for the first time this year, I found Wikipediocracy to be very useful resource to give me context at a confusing time. And not anything specific to my situation; old discussions helped me get a better sense of the patterns whereas I had trouble parsing through the prior cases I read on Wikipedia. That being said, Wikipediocracy has a wide variety of contributors and it’s an imperfect resource for sure but I hope it's not seen as a bogeyman. If the identical comments had been posted publicly on Wikipedia would that have led to the same sanction here? - RevelationDirect (talk) 22:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
    @RevelationDirect, I've started a follow-up to your comments regarding WO being a useful resource at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests as nobody should have to go elsewhere to find that sort of information, but it's off-topic for this page. Thryduulf (talk) 01:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
    I'm happy to discuss that there. Additionally, I'm still interested in any answers to my question above. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
    @RevelationDirect If the identical comments had been posted publicly on Wikipedia would that have led to the same sanction here? Possibly, but I don't think we're going to come to a clear decision on a situation that didn't happen. There are a variety of opinions in the community on the value of WPO and that is reflected in the variety of views of committee members. The consensus reached was that the conduct did not meet expectations, but different people may have different views on why. Personally, my decision hinged largely (but not completely) on the track record---if an issue is raised and continues, it doesn't really matter if it's on-wiki or not. Indiscretions jeopardize the Committee's ability to do our work because if the community cannot trust us to keep information confidential, then we will be sent less information and will not receive candid answers. That's true regardless of the venue where comments are made. On the other side of the spectrum, where the conduct occurred may be a more important factor---we are elected by and serve the on-Wiki community, so some may view transparency with the on-wiki community as a mitigating factor when compared to providing that same information to some other community. It's not that WPO is some kind of "bogeyman"; if I recall correctly a number of current and former arbitrators contribute there, so it's certainly not impeachment worthy. For me at least, if the only change were that the comments were made on-wiki, but everything else were still the same (prior warnings, impact on trust) then I would have come to the same decision. How widely that's shared, I can't say, but I think it's telling that our statement leans closer to that issue instead of moralizing about where statements were posted. — Wug·a·po·des 02:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
(arbitrary break)
  • I can’t speak for anybody else but I expected the level of transparency that I’ve seen from Beebs when I voted for him, and I can’t really wrap my head around the thought that had he just privately tipped off the person he was coyly but openly prodding in the right direction that this wouldn’t have happened, that it was him doing it in a not underhanded way that caused this, and since your statement references only an off wiki forum I assume that is true for each indiscretion you’re considering. So to my mind it’s ok for an arb to, while they agree that something is *wrong* a. do nothing about it or b. surreptitiously tip somebody off it is not ok to publicly do so. And that’s kind of the opposite of one of the reasons why I voted for Beebs in the first place. Which leaves me feeling disenfranchised, even if only for a month. nableezy - 03:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
    +1 Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
    +2 BilledMammal (talk) 09:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
    I guess I am left asking whether or not I would accept a member of arbcom breaking confidentiality to relay information given in confidence on a public forum. In the end, the answer has to be no. Thus I don't think that this is a choice between a wrong action and a right one, but between two actions which are both, in a sense, wrong, and one of which is incompatible with being a member of the Arbitration Committee. Beebs made their choice, but in making that choice I cannot see how ArbCom could respond differently. - Bilby (talk) 13:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
    To me, the options are they could have acted sooner, more transparently, or just not made a pointless performative sanction the final result. That last one is the thing that I think bothers me the most; different people are going to have different opinions on whether Beeb's conduct is acceptable or not, but if the end result is "with a month to go in his term, let's send him to the time-out corner and make sure to add some superfluous months to the sentence that don't make any sense whatsoever"... it doesn't reflect well on the judgement of the people who decided there should be a sanction in the first place. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
    As Barkeep49 mentioned above, the number of months was considered and not intended to be superfluous. As for your other two options, I think everyone wishes we acted sooner and I agree that it's a real failing that we let this get to this point before we took public action. I'm curious what you'd have liked in terms of acting more transparently. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
    And, just out of curiosity, what portion of your criticism would be different if we had instead said that we were suspending Beeblebrox for the remainder of the term, and that he would be eligible to reapply for CUOS/functionaries list access in six months? I see that as identical to what we did, but just with a few extra words. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
    I guess I am left wondering why I would vote for arbs who seem to have difficulty understanding the basic purpose of our most important pillar, let alone actually demonstrating it in practice. ——Serial 14:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
    I'm guessing this is directed at me? If so, I think I showed appropriate appreciation for all of our pillars. I have repeatedly said that the most recent disclosure didn't bother me, even though it was a disclosure. You know, ignoring the literal wording of the rules in the light of making Wikipedia a better place. Instead I'm getting flack for not ignoring all rules when it comes to a different disclosure where Beebs/Just Step Sideways decided to disclose information told to us in confidence. IAR says If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. So the argument here is that by telling a person information that maybe would help them resolve their situation it was going to help them improve the encyclopedia. A sort of double bank shot, but I get the thinking. I decided instead of leaking information to use my position to advocate for the right thing to be done by that user. This was, of course, invisible to the user. But it happened. I was focused on justice being done in the end, rather than on filling in a gap of knowledge for that user. And this had the added benefit of following the rules. So the choices weren't between IAR and nothing. There were a multitude of options available to people and Beebs/Just Step Sideways chose the rule breaking one. After a day's reflection I still believe the outcome was the right thing to focus rather than the process in that particular situation, I have shown a willingness to not mindlessly enforce the rules when casting the vote I did, and the only reason I've opened myself up to criticism is because I'm attempting to live my own values of being as transparent and responsive to the community as I can. I accept that people can disagree by placing greater priority on other things than I did and I accept that I'll have permanently lessened the opinion some people have of me which I wish weren't the case, but here we are. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
    NO, Barkeep49, it was not personally direct at you, and apologies that I was so tied up in linguistic semantics that I didn't clarify that. If it seems directed to you, it's because you were the only cttee member to have the cajones to say it. Actually, my remarks were directed at every single other member who may not have said it... but clearly approved. To the committee, not the individual. As Lenin might've said  :) ——Serial 15:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
    I have no doubt you did what you thought was right, and I have no doubt you did indeed advocate for the right thing to be done, and I am not trying to dog you as imo you have shown yourself to be an empathetic and thoughtful arb throughout your time on the committee. But. I also have no doubt that Beebs did what he thought was right, and that his sense of justice compelled him to give, or not even, to hint at the person who was stuck in this bewildering and frustrating experience of being unjustly banned by an opaque and apparently corrupted process the answer as to why. And yes, that is part of what I voted for. nableezy - 15:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
    As a general (but related) aside, the frequency with which editors are sanctioned and don't really understand why, but nobody will properly explain and show them any evidence, is one of the stinkiest things about Wikipedia governance these days. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
    The people we trust to hold these positions of power have for the most part never been blocked, much less globally locked, and even if they are caring, empathetic, compassionate, I dont think anybody can really understand how frustrating it can be to be cast aside with nobody willing to explain why or tell you how, or even where, to plead your case if they have never experienced something that approaches that. nableezy - 16:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
    I actually ran the numbers on this a while ago, because I was curious how unique I am. Caveat lector, setting the parameters is a bit subjective. First we have to exclude self-blocks, accidents, tests, and compromised accounts (either blocker or blockee). Then there's setting the time period: I went with since 2010, because before that's it's the Wild West and all blocks are either massive under- or overreactions. Then I made the choice to exclude blocks of people who were already admins, because an admin who's indeffed and isn't promptly desysopped isn't really in the same jeopardy as a non-admin. With those parameters, it's two: myself and one other (who is findable, but I won't name them because I'm not sure if they wear it as a badge of honor like I do). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 20:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
    Way, way back in the mists of time (early 2005) I got caught by an autoblock dealing with the Iasson/Faethon "public accounts" (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iasson). Even though it was swiftly resolved I do remember how frustrating it felt to be blocked. Thryduulf (talk) 00:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
    (Oh, and to pre-empt it, please don't let me hear any nonsense about needing to keep what CheckUser does confidential like it's some sort of super secret thing. It should take no more than about 5 minutes searching to find out, and using such arguments to justify witholding the facts and evidence from sanctioned users is super stinky. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC))
    Serial Number 54129, what for you is "our most important pillar"? I am thinking it is WP:5P4, that we should treat each other with respect, but wanted to clarify with you first as I'm not sure what point you are making. SilkTork (talk) 18:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
    I ignored a rule. That we do that sometimes is one of the five pillars. I don't think it's that hard to parse out. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 20:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
    You say IAR is important. I agree, though I'm definitely on team "5P4 is the most important pillar". But I find that people read the title of "Ignore all rules" without actually paying attention to the page's contents: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it (emphasis mine). The committee reviewed several comments that Beeblebrox has made off-wiki over the past few years that had someone raise a privacy concern about them, and to be honest, I see maybe one of the lot that could be justified as "improving Wikipedia" - and if one wanted to go the IAR route there, it could have been sent in a more private way that wouldn't have shared it with a bunch of other people and wouldn't have had the...taint, for lack of a better term...that comes with WPO. I say this as someone who has taken the IAR approach in order to help somebody who was incorrectly CU-blocked and shared some information with the blocked person which, if they had actually been the blocked person, would have basically given them a get-out-of-jail free card. My point is that IAR isn't a blanket pass to do whatever you like, and sometimes ignoring rules has consequences when you're wrong. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Recent comments here suggest that it would be good for arbs to say whatever they like at other websites provided they believe they are doing good per IAR. Many of us recognize that such a view is not correct. I'll have to leave it there because it's hard to explain ethics and the practical limitations of running something like the Arbitration Committee but the current arbs should be thanked for upholding basic requirements. Johnuniq (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Transparency has always been an enormous problem with ArbCom, and one which no iteration of the committee has adequately resolved in nigh on two decades. The community deserves so much more openness (and perhaps fairness) than any iteration of the committee has ever managed, even with the backdrop of Beebs arguably going somewhat rogue. I don't think many people really truly trust the committee either (could the transparency issue be connected, perhaps...). I certainly don't think there's the level of trust between the community and the committee there should be, and there's always suspicion thanks to the lack of sensible safeguards. The committee shouldn't have been the judge, jury and executioner here with Beebs, for example, and there should be term limits and the like, to minimise any suggestions or perceptions that things are being done to prevent re-election (as has been raised a bit further up-thread, prior to clarification).
    My experience of Wikipedia was soured, maybe permanently in 2021, when a previous iteration of ArbCom thought it sensible to post an appeal on behalf of a banned user who had engaged in targeted harassment, intimidation and threatening behaviour towards a number of users, myself very much included, without making contact with those involved (I was the blocking administrator and had noted in the block log that the user was engaging in harassment of both admins and WMF staff via IRC). There wasn't really any transparency with that - some arbs apologised to me directly for the situation - but there never really was much of an explanation of what exactly happened. I was told, very clearly, that not everybody was on-board with the decisions that were made and there was anger amongst the committee then, so I'm not surprised Beebs (and undoubtedly others, since it won't only be Beebs who has done this now or in the past) feels the need to try and tell other people about what is happening. I'd guess there's an arb or two suffering acute embarrassment at the workings (or non-workings, as the case may be) of the committee at any given point.
    That's not quite the criticism of individual arbs that it might read - almost arbs, Beebs included, have volunteered for a difficult and largely thankless task with very real impacts on real life, with the express interest in helping Wikipedia. That individual nobility doesn't always transfer to a collective nobility and repeatedly, ArbCom as a body, has been a hinderance rather than a help to the community. That's undoubtedly down to differences in opinion, clashes of personality and such, and going back to the transparency issue I raised, I feel ArbCom would be far better understood if more about the decision making was known, helping put differences between arbs in context and showing, I suspect, that decisions aren't as black and white as they may appear. Finally, looking at the candidate selection for ArbCom this year, it's both excellent and not excellent, lots of talent, but lots of talent that has been in and around ArbCom for a while, not much sign of really new candidates coming through again. ArbCom being a mysterious black box doesn't encourage people to get involved, I don't think.
    Anyway, that's my wall of text on the issue. Nick (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
    Transparency has always been an enormous problem with ArbCom, and one which no iteration of the committee has adequately resolved in nigh on two decades. This indicates either that this isn't actually a problem, or that it is a problem that is very difficult to solve (or a combination of the two). Looking at it from the perspective of someone who has been following arbcom for years prior to, during, and after being an arbitrator I've seen a lot of people join the committee promising to make it more transparent, only to realise that for most things it already is as transparent as it can possibly be. That's not to say it gets it right every time, it doesn't, but it does get it at least mostly right the significant majority of the time. Thryduulf (talk) 01:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
    Just commentingon the issue of transparency, not this case in question. Transparency is a great goal and the idea of committees, particularly investigative ones, being a "blackbox" is no doubt frustrating to many. The policies governing Privacy and confidentiality are extremely stringent. Hence transparency comes with caveats and rules. Freedom of Information for example is very hard to come by with governments, and information is usually only released after 75 years. Why that number well everyone affected is likely dead by then. Even people who are privy to some of the information they may not have all of it, therefore they cannot know the implications of releasing it. There is also the issue of who owns the information. If the committee is not the sole owner of any particular information they cannot release it without consent from all parties, otherwise that is called a leak. Be realistic an investigative committee is generally dealing with sensitive information supplied in confidence which is therefore not theirs to share, even if it looks mundane to you, it may not be to all parties. Trust is also a difficult issue here. If you supply information to an investigator will you trust them more if they tell everyone, or if they respect your privacy and keep it to themselves. To a person unaffected by any of the information you trust they will share it all, until its your private information then I expect you will trust them to be not so forthcoming. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 02:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
    For anyone who feels that ArbCom does not meet their standards of how it should function, may I suggest that they run for ArbCom next year. They need to be prepared, though, to devote a significant portion of their life to the functions of the committee, and be prepared to respect all of the restrictions on release of information that are bound up with those functions. I have always had a soft spot in my heart for the idea of anarchism, but Wikipedia without ArbCom or something equivalent would be too anarchic for me. Donald Albury 02:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
    your solution is... running for arbcom??? like any of us would ever be elected. ltbdl (talk) 02:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
    The approval method of elections really allows the community to only elect the people they trust. So my solution is to encourage people to vote for the people they trust and if they don't trust anyone, oppose everyone. A single empty seat (which as never happened) would send a strong message and multiple empty seats would likely shake things up in real ways, both directly by the committee and by different kinds of candidates running in the next election. Alternatively, continuing to regularly re-elect the arbs who run and filling all the seats with two year terms says that at least 60% of the electorate is trusting each arb. It's why I like this system because it really does allow people to vote their values and not just have to settle for the best of the worst or have to not support people because they are limited in their votes. I look forward to seeing who the community chooses to trust (and not) when this year's results come out. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
    Following on from Barkeep49 a little here. As an Ombud and particularly as chair I find myself at some point or another dealing with all the ArbComs across the projects, 11 active in total. For those unsure the OC do some similar work to ArbComs just at the Global rather than Local level. We have had our critics too over the years and I acknowledge some is justified, I have spent the last 2 years trying to turn many of those issues around. What I have noticed though is that those wikis with an ArbCom are generally better off than those without. Not all wikis would qualify for one or need one, but with the larger wikis those with an ArbCom are better off. I will also note not all arbcoms are equal, yours is particularly good from my perspective as an OC member.
    The biggest benefit is the method of selection for CU and OS available to you. Considering the work entailed in those jobs you have an extra level of checks and balances on both the selection and administration of those positions. You should be very grateful for that. Many of these privacy and confidentiality issues in the absence of an ArbCom will be dealt with by either the Stewards or Ombuds, depending on circumstances. Speaking for myself as chair it also gives me a secure, ie NDA signatory, point of contact at the local level. So if a case is within our mandate I can include local functionaries, and I do, so the perspective of the English Wikipedians can be brought to bear. A number of people herehave focussed on issues beyond ArbComs control. Rather than appreciating the advantages you have from their existence. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 03:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
    @Faendalimas, I appreciate that you're trying to defuse tensions here, and I for one certainly don't want to disband ArbCom, but is it really appropriate for the chair of one of the only bodies that supersedes ArbCom to be speaking here, apparently in an official capacity, about the advantages [we] have from [ArbCom's] existence? For that matter, is it appropriate for you to be implying that ArbCom cannot become more transparent without running into NDA issues? Given that you are the person who oversees the revocation of functionary status globally, do you see how that could be read as putting pressure against increased transparency, in an election where 8 out of 10 candidates have signalled interest in ArbCom being more transparent about its private decisionmaking?
    I worry also that you've misstated how freedom of information works when, given your status, many community members will take you as an authoratative source. Rather than it taking 75 years for information to be published in the U.S., the Freedom of Information Act in fact establishes a presumption of openness for all government records. A FOIA-like process for ArbCom would be a great thing to discuss, I think, but it may well be chilled by comments like these coming from someone in a position of such power. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 03:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
    I said personally, it is an opinion, I am not speaking in an official capicity, my implication on transparency is that it is difficult and that should be considered. My FOIA comment was a generalisation and based on numerous countries not just US other countries have this too, there are of course details to this and it's not complately analagous. I am not trying to apply pressure, just trying to get people to see things from multiple angles. However, I note your points. Thanks. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 04:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
    As an Ombud and particularly as chair, from my perspective as an OC member, Speaking for myself as chair — that's not speaking in an official capacity? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 04:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
    I mean "speaking for myself" is pretty clear that that's a personal statement not an official comment. To me it's clear that he's speaking from the perspective of being an ombud, not in capacity as one. Galobtter (talk) 04:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
    I don't really see a distinction when someone is in a position of power, speaking to those over whom they exercise that power, about the area in which they hold that power. If he is invoking his status as chair of the Ombuds Commission, that is sending a message. If I go to a user's talkpage and say "As an admin, this thing you just did is bad", I don't get to say that I was just "speaking from the perspective of being an admin". Might be different if he were sharing insight into how OmbCom works because someone asked, or something like that. But instead he's intervening in a discussion about a body that he partly oversees, repeatedly drawing attention to the fact that he holds that status, and then telling us what to think and giving misleading advice on transparency options. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 04:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
    Well, if you, speaking as an admin, vote say at AfD this does not give more power to your vote - even though if you have the authority to close this AfD (and have lost the authority the moment you pressed the button to make the comment). Ymblanter (talk) 06:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
    @Ymblanter: I think if I went to an AfD and said "As an admin, I think this page does not meet GNG", I'd get a whole lot of shit for that, and rightly so. Besides, this isn't analogous because Scott hasn't lost his own authority here. Despite taking a public position against more transparency on ArbCom, he still is the chair of the body that has the power to revoke any arbitrator's NDA status, and to my knowledge is not recused from hearing enwiki matters. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 06:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
    But that would be a total non-sequitur, because your position as admin doesn't give you any extra insight into what does and does not meet GNG. On the other hand, if there were a proposal to do something to the admin toolset, I would expect lots of admins to say, "Well my perspective as an admin is that ...", because obviously. --JBL (talk) 20:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
    @Barkeep49: The empty seat argument is interesting, but the community doesn't want empty seats on ArbCom. That issue has been solved two ways in recent years. If there are 5 empty seats, people will look through the list of candidates and vote for 5. They may not like 3, 4 and 5, but they don't want empty seats. Experienced editors (frequently former arbs) also look at the list of candidates and have realised there isn't 5 people who should be elected on the list, so have nominated themselves. Last minute nominations from people with 4 or 6 years on the committee isn't how experienced community conscious editors work, if a former arb, an admin with a decade of experience, or a functionary is appearing with 48 hours to go before nominations close, it's almost always because they think there isn't enough experience amongst the spread of existing candidates. The fact people keep filling ArbCom isn't, unfortunately, a reflection of trust, but more out of necessity and perhaps in a few cases, desperation to fill all the spots. Nick (talk) 08:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
    I am not sure how indicative I am but I do not think I ever voted for as many candidates as many seats we had. If I remember correctly last time I voted for four candidates (of which I believe two passed, but I might be wrong). This time I will likely be even less enthusiastic. My take is that if only three abritrators get elected, let it be, but I do not want to have people on ArbCom who are not suitable (in my opinion) for the job. Ymblanter (talk) 10:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
    Speaking as someone for whom this is the first ACE, I doubt this is how the majority of the electorate thinks, even though having read through all of this I now agree that this should be how it works. I think we forget that a lot of the people who actually look at ACE pages and view them don’t participate in discussions, or even have a good understanding of what these seats are all about. I for one was not aware that we could have empty arb seats at all until one week ago, despite having read through a considerable number of arb cases since 2020; and irl, most elections also do not allow vacant seats. I think it is statistically true that voters will tend to change neutrals to supports in a lightly contested election, and there’s not a lot we can really do to change that, like it or not. Fermiboson (talk) 10:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
    Really? I only voted for two candidates this year, and I think it was only three last year. Black Kite (talk) 10:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
    @Thryduulf: The problem I have, re transparency, is that I'm left with the worrying thought that half the people who contact ArbCom expect material to be leaked, so tailor their submissions accordingly, and the other half expect complete discretion, and again, tailor their submissions accordingly, which means I don't really know if ArbCom are getting things right as often as you (and I suppose I) think they are. They're certainly getting things right regularly, on the basis of what is submitted, but given there isn't complete certainty about what happens to what will be submitted, what is submitted isn't always what needs to be submitted for ArbCom to truly reach the correct decision (apologies for the acid trip of thought policing talk there). When I talk about transparency, I'm not thinking 'publish everything that comes into the mailing list' levels of transparency, more around the committee needing to be open and honest about why they can't explain things, and if they do that, and if there was a bit more certainty and a bit more information about the internal workings of the committee, I think what is submitted would improve - people would have more certainty about what happens when they make a private submission to the committee. Nick (talk) 08:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
    I think this is a good point. The major complaint about the transparency buzzword is that there are situations in which it is impossible to be transparent, but a lot of what the community is asking for isn’t even necessarily the right to know, but the right to know when we can’t know. A common intersection point between all these situations where major community noise is made, such as Fram, is not just the lack of transparency but lack of any plausible reason for the lack of transparency, which then leads to rampant speculation. In this specific case, Beeblebrox/JSS has offered a version of events which does explain what can be publicly confirmed, and the committee appears unable to say anything much more substantial than “there actually is something else, which is contained in your version of events, but we can’t say what that something else is in your version of events”. Where anything close to specifics have been provided, the arbs seem to be of the belief that the action is actually fine but just in the wrong venue, which makes it a bit of a stretch to remove an arb (a completely unprecedented action in 22 years of Wikipedia) based on just that, and a “private warning” which at minimum doesn’t seem to have been well communicated, since JSS seems to have taken it just as “having a word” instead of something with any formal force. Everyone clearly agrees that JSS acted in good faith and in the spirit of improving Wikipedia, or I imagine there would be more than just a suspension on the table. So the rest of us are left wondering: what exactly is Arbcom mad about? Under what circumstances would Arbcom (and I realise arbcom is not a uniform body, the composition of which is soon to change) perform such a suspension again? Does Arbcom consider JSS’s actions recklessness or a technical violation of the NDA, and what precisely is the standard that we expect private evidence to be treated with, given it’s apparently ok under IAR to tell someone else in private based on the arb’s judgement, but not ok to exercise that judgement in public? Not many (or at least, I hope not many) people here are accusing Arbcom of any sort of conspiracy, but the reigning mood is clearly confusion. And as an aside, I do appreciate the arbs taking the time to give explanations where they can, and the two standing candidates answering my question on it. I realise fully that I will probably handle the situation much, much worse. The intellectual threshold required, however, for pointing out a problem is less than that required for fixing it. Fermiboson (talk) 11:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
    Those are very qood questions, and I think they're especially puzzling to those of us who have seen and read every Wikipediocracy post Beeblebrox has made since becoming an Arb. Every post bar one is still there, and we've had other Arbs here saying that one was no big deal (and from what I remember of it, it wasn't). Yet there's still supposedly some "totality" of behaviour here, that needed drastic action even though this last straw wasn't a last straw. A totality that I certainly can't see - though it is entirely about those posts on Wikipediocracy. And there are, allegedly, incidents since WTT left that change things, yet the key thing that keeps being brought up (letting an unfairly blocked editor know why they were blocked) happened in WTT's time (Hmm, need to check it it did - but it was a little while ago, and apparently didn't require action at the time). The more we see of these tortuous attempts at justification, the more ludicrous ArbCom is looking. Can they really not see the picture of absurdity they're painting of themselves? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
    a lot of what the community is asking for [is] the right to know when we can’t know. This is a very surprising comment, given that this is abundantly clear - whenever something is asked for and an arb says they cannot answer, it is then. It applies when they would need to share something sent to them in confidence that they do not have the permission to share. It applies when sharing something would violate the NDA they agreed to and/or the WMF's privacy policy. Thryduulf (talk) 11:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
    In a legalistic sense, yes. However I meant more in terms of discernible patterns in what can be disclosed and what not. I presume that the NDA does not simply say “whenever we say so” and instead lays out broad types of situations where disclosure is forbidden. The problem appears to be many members of the community, myself somewhat included, have trouble reconciling the fact that Arbcom has seemingly been unable to tell us or even Beeblebrox what the actual cause of suspension was, only what it was not, and the fact that not only has Beeblebrox all but disclosed everything that could possibly be that cause, but that other arbcom members have seemed to indicate they had personally did what Beeblebrox did, except on a different venue. Fermiboson (talk) 13:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
A question

Here's an open question, for any ArbCom member to answer if they feel they need or want to. (I know I'm not the only one wondering this, and I don't see it clearly asked or answered anywhere above). You suspended Beeblebrox from the committee with only a month of his time left, when you already knew he would not be standing for election again. You were fully aware, I'm sure, that you would open yourselves up to a lot of scrutiny and a lot of criticism for doing it. So, given the key Wikipedia thing about Prevention, not punishment, what what do you think this action is preventing? What is the risk that so urgently needed to be addressed? What do you think Beeblebrox was going to do with access to CU/OS and the Arb mailing lists once his term expired? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

The problem I had with doing nothing or only posting a public censure is that it would not stop the courtesy lifetime assignment of CU/OS at the arb's request. (I think that if a CU/OS had a similar pattern of behavior we would remove their access to private data.) Assigning the rights on 31 Dec and then starting a discussion on 1 Jan to remove them seemed scummy. This situation raises some important questions about if we should continue do lifetime courtesy rights assignments for former arbs and if the community should get a chance to veto. -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 13:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, and that raises an interesting issue about CU/OS rights granted in perpetuity. But I don't think you actually answered my question. In this case, what was removing those rights intended to prevent? What did you think Beeblebrox was going to do with them? And, if it's just the lifetime CU/OS thing, why did you need to remove his Arb mailing lists access? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Through both the past pattern of action and the comments that Beeblebrox made to us, I had reasons to believe that additional disclosures were likely to occur if we allowed continued access to non-public information. -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 13:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Well, it took a second attempt, but thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
We provide the same lifetime rights for anyone who has ever had CUOS not just Arbs. Barkeep49 (talk) 13:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
I want to prevent any more confidential information from being shared and given the track record if we did nothing I believed that further disclosures were a likelihood. And he wouldn't just have access to the past lists he'd have access to ongoing ones as well. There were some other factors but that's the one that most directly answers your question. Barkeep49 (talk) 13:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the straight and honest answer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Now that we've had a couple of honest answers as to why Beeblebrox's Arb rights were removed, can I make a suggestion to ArbCom, via a couple more (rhetorical) questions? Wouldn't it have been better to just be open and honest with us right from the start, and save us the days of obfuscation and charade? Can you really not see why, sometimes, getting the truth out of ArbCom can seem like pulling teeth? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee I thought we did say it with the motion and so that's why no one had asked (something you yourself admit). Barkeep49 (talk) 14:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Fwiw, while I don’t remember if it came with the announcement, I implied it from somewhere or it was stated but buried somewhere within the massive discussion above, I was aware of the preventative reasoning before today. Fermiboson (talk) 14:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
I see nothing at the statement of the motion that says anything about your belief that you thought he would share "more confidential information" once his ArbCom term was over if his rights were not removed. And I can see nothing in the early parts of this discussion here, in response to multiple questions about why you did this, that explains that. If I missed it (which I might have done), can you please quote it to me? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Sorry which mutliple questions that ask about this? Barkeep49 (talk) 14:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Oh, stop nitpicking and evading - just show me where, in this discussion, you explained your belief that you thought Beeblebrox would share more confidential information. Whether it's actually in response to a question, a reply to a statement, whatever... just show me where. Even trying to get *this* out of you is like pulling teeth! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
You said at first said I don't see it clearly asked or answered anywhere above then you said multiple questions about why you did this. You've already rejected my first answer to the question I thought we did say it with the motion and so that's why no one had asked so if you want an answer to why we didn't answer the questions, I'd like to see the questions we (I) didn't answer. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
OK, forget all that, and please instead "just show me where, in this discussion, you explained your belief that you thought Beeblebrox would share more confidential information. Whether it's actually in response to a question, a reply to a statement, whatever... just show me where." As for your "first answer to the question "I thought we did say it with the motion and so that's why no one had asked", you were wrong. So where else did you explain it? Feel free to show me anywhere you did that, with no further conditions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
On a slightly different tack, we cannot preempt the outcomes of other investigations into this matter. When they are concluded JSS may no longer have the access to private info necessary to resume his role as a CU/OS. Cabayi (talk) 14:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
That's clearly a relevant issue, yes. But I still think ArbCom should have been up-front and honest about the real reason they revoked Beeblebrox's access rights, which was clearly that he was nearing the end of his Arb run and you didn't trust him to keep schtum afterwards. That's clearly what this is all about, yet we had to put up with all this obfuscation about the last-straw-that-wasn't-a-last-straw post, the hindsight totality of everything, and all the evasion. Can you at least see why I might feel that way? 15:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
JSS's term as an Arb expires at the end of the month. His CU/OS status does not. The info he leaked was available to all functionaries. It's not just as an arbitrator that he has breached the NDA. Cabayi (talk) 15:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
That does not answer my suggestion that "ArbCom should have been up-front and honest about the real reason they revoked Beeblebrox's access rights, which was clearly that he was nearing the end of his Arb run and you didn't trust him to keep schtum afterwards." But I can see I'm getting nowhere against your collective self-defence mentality, so I will take my leave. Thanks, at least, for responding. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
I am taking some time to consider whether I wish to continue this interaction, given that when I asked for evidence after indirectly accused of obfuscation and directly accused of nitpicking and evading I was not given the evidence nor was anything retracted or apologized for but instead told OK, forget all that. I'm not willing to just forget it but may be willing, after some contemplation, to set it aside given my belief in being transparent and honest with the community. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
With a bit of reflection, I'm happy to apologise and withdraw my accusations of "obfuscation" and "nitpicking and evading" - I was a bit frustrated, it was not the best way to respond to you, and I'm sure you were not trying to do any of that. I appreciate that you're under pressure with all of this, and I do thank you for the clarity that you have added today - and for your ArbCom work in general, which is something I would never have the courage to attempt. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for that apology.
In terms of addressing what you asked first I'd like to note that in general the concern of and questions from the community have been about what already happened, not about going forward, which I see as the crux of your question. The questions I do see (after a skim of the discussion) about going forward, rather than what already happened, have been logistics around how the suspension actually works.
As for why it wasn't just volunteered, beyond what Thryduulf wrote below about why I thought the motion was the answer, I also wrote on this page It is my genuine hope that with some time to reflect, Beeblrbox will re-assess this, be able to articulate how he will maintain his transparency without crossing the lines that others don't seem to and put me in a position where I can vote for him; either by restoring CUOS and functionaries access or at ACE. Because our project can always use someone with Beeblebrox's many skill. Did I say it as plainly as when you asked? No, but I am saying what harm I see going forward and very clearly how Beeblebrox/Just Step Sideways can fix it. There are perhaps other comments I could also quote, but in thinking that was the one that came to mind without having to reread everything I've written on this page.
I'd like to conclude by noting that Arbitration Policy, which is the relevant policy, doesn't say that removal/suspension needs to be preventative. It's our blocking policy which says that about when a block is appropriate. Instead ARBPOL says Any arbitrator who repeatedly or grossly fails to meet the expectations outlined above may be suspended or removed. In other words it's looking back not forward. And I think that is appropriate. There has been at least one time that an arbitrator removed themselves from all email lists without resigning (and I believe, but am not certain, that this happened back in the pre-2010 era a few times). So imagine a scenario where an Arb does this and then leaks the email address of every person who has ever emailed ArbCom. They would have no ability to leak any emails in the future - they're not going to see any new ones - but they have grossly failed to meet the expectations and I'd be furious if ArbCom didn't remove that member. So while I value the idea of preventative and not punitive, and that this has a large impact on how I vote as an arbitrator and certainly mattered in how I voted in this case as a reason that I was against removal and why I ultimately leaned towards suspension rather than censure (though admittedly didn't note this on the list because it wasn't going to make a difference for the outcome) I don't think it's fair to criticize my colleagues for it. And those differing point of views (which we want in a diverse ArbCom) is also probably why in the wording for the motion that got committee consensus, I felt it was covered and you didn't. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for that detailed reply. My view is that you (you, collectively) are very, very, wrong in your fears of what Beeblebrox might have done with privileged information when off the committee - but it was your call, not mine. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Boing! said Zebedee, motions, ArbCom remedies, and similar rarely contain a more than a very high-level "why" in them because that would require everyone to agree on that precise wording, which would lead to us bogging down in wording arguments and nitpicking. Some arbs may feel that this was justified in preventing future disclosures, like Barkeep. For me, my votes were not made with that explicitly in mind; rather, my thinking was more along the lines of "when someone has shown they can't keep a secret, you don't keep telling them secrets". And yes, I think there is a punishment aspect here, whether we like to say it out loud or not. Beeblebrox was a functionary and arb, and those positions come with responsibilities. If you can't uphold the responsibilities (in this case: keep the private information private), and attempts to correct it have failed, there are consequences (you don't get to keep the position of trust). Otherwise, what sort of an example are we setting for the community in general? That privacy rules don't apply to us? If that's the case, nobody is going to trust functs/ArbCom with private information. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Re: "ArbCom remedies, and similar rarely contain a more than a very high-level "why" in them because that would require everyone to agree on that precise wording, which would lead to us bogging down in wording arguments and nitpicking". Well, obviously, yes, I know that. But Barkeep49 specifically said "I thought we did say it with the motion". It's not me asking for specifics in the motion statement, it's Barkeep49 saying they were there! Look, I'm not trying to be hostile here (honestly, I'm not, and I can appreciate you folk get plenty of hostility). I'm not even saying you were wrong to do what you did, and I can see your side of it. All I'm asking for is willing openness and clarity, which we did not get here. Am I really asking too much? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
It is not explicitly stated in the motion, but to me the clear, obvious and unambiguous implication of the wording of the motion is that the reason access to private information was being revoked was because they (the other arbs) no longer trusted him to keep it private, and that the reason for this lack of trust is multiple past instances of not keeping private information private - even after a warning to keep private information private. It is thus perfectly reasonable for Barkeep to say "I thought the motion said this, especially as I don't recall anybody asking us to clarify it before now.". Thryduulf (talk) 15:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm simply following up on my suggestion that it should have been stated explicitly, and that Barkeep49 said they thought it had been. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
PS: "And yes, I think there is a punishment aspect here, whether we like to say it out loud or not." - you certainly have my respect for saying that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I just came to this today, checking out the Ireland discussion and seeing this and thinking WTF, I didn't know Beeblebrox got suspended. I might have accidentally read one or two posts about this before I checked out the motion but I have to say my assumption when reading the motion was that one reason for the removal er suspension was because it was felt Beeblebrox couldn't be trusted to keep the tools (which they would normally keep), because they had already violated confidentiality multiples times and so may violate it again. Reading the comments at the top of this main thread (I don't mean this subthread), also re-affirmed this view.

I have no idea how much of this came from the motion and how much of it came from the fact that to me, it's obvious that when someone has repeatedly violated confidentiality there's really no reason to think they won't do it again, no matter what they say. So it is safer to just prevent them having access, and require them to earn back trust if they so desire. This is after all, also what we do in other far less severe things where editors have lost our trust.

So I can't say whether the motion is clear or not, but it strikes me that if it isn't as clear as it should be, it may be all the draftees also were like me so it seemed clear to them even if it may not be to everyone.

Unfortunately this is IMO always going to be a problem with anything like arbcom statements etc especially those drafted in private. I'm sure many of us have experienced both in writing articles but also writing policies and guidelines or just replies that we write something which seems clear enough to us, but then someone else doesn't understand it the way we did. This is one of the strengths of Wikipedia itself in that overtime we can fix these issues as other people point them out, but this is something that doesn't really work for arbcom motion statements.

Since you feel the motion wasn't as clear it should be on that issue, it's a good thing to point this out so hopefully the committee and learn how to improve, but the snark etc IMO wasn't helpful. I appreciate it's difficult, I realised some parts of this also came across in the same way and I've tried to minimise that.

Nil Einne (talk) 18:23, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

These responses seem to be implying something way more nefarious than what seems to have happened, at least what we peons can piece together of what happened. Did Beeblebrox release any PII gleaned through either CU/OS (tool or mailing list)? Anything covered by the privacy policy? Because that would justify that concern, but that would also have caused more than a suspension and invitation to re-apply too. nableezy - 15:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if PII was released because even giving out hints that don't include PII can still cause harm to the affected parties. It appears that Beeblebrox knowingly (not just accidentally) violated the Non-Disclosure Agreement that all arbitrators must sign. When somebody violates an NDA, their access to confidential information is terminated. I don't understand why access to confidential information would be restored, absent an statement by Beeblebrox that they made an error, and an explanation how they will avoid repeating it. I think it's generally a bad idea for arbitrators to discuss their work on WPO or any public space other than the officially designated Wikipedia pages. Jehochman Talk 15:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Re: It appears that Beeblebrox knowingly (not just accidentally) violated the Non-Disclosure Agreement that all arbitrators must sign". Do you have any evidence for that? Did you see everything he said? Did you compare it with the NDA terms? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Speaking only for myself and not the committee as a whole: I believe that the information disclosed was in something of a gray area and not a bright-line violation of the ANPDP (if it were, I would pushed for stronger sanctions and would have referred this to the Ombudsman commission). It did, however, violate what I consider to be functionary/Arb expectations for keeping information private. I intend to bring this up with WMF for clarification at the next monthly WMF/ArbCom call. GeneralNotability (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
For me, Beeblebrox violated ARBPOL more than the NDA. Given that both documents have expectations of confideniality that difference didn't matter for me in terms of a going forward outcome, but did matter in using being clear with the community about what the issue was. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
In my view, at least one incident here counted as an ANPDP violation, while others were more clearly ARBPOL violations than ANPDP violations. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't think any individual Arb is empowered to answer your question Nableezy. It would take committee consent to answer because it involves confidential discussions and confidential information. In my initial thoughts I waver between STREISAND considerations and value of transparency considerations and so don't know which way I would ultimately lean. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Way too much to read now. Am I correct that a block evading editor was mixed up in this? GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

...probably? this may have to do with the "lourdes" situation (and things beeblebrox said on wikipediocracy about it). honestly, your guess is as good as mine. ltbdl (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
  • This may be a minor point, but for the record I had been on the functionaries team for about thirteen years, predating any involvement with the committee. And no, no PII has ever been leaked by me.
And I sincerely apologize to everyone looking for what that one little thing I did say that got this ball rolling, the evidence of it is gone. I did kind of assume that somebody must have seen it and it would just come right back out, but apparently not. I'd also point out that the reason this is so tightly contained is because I did respond to the concerns raised, even if I didn't fully agree with them, and asked the mods on the external website where this took place to remove the post, which they did. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 17:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
It wasn't a single incident that led to your removal, as I believe we indicated to you privately in the lead-up to the removal vote (in order to give you a chance to respond) and publicly in the removal motion. The incident you refer to was more "straw that broke the camel's back" than "a single incident that was so bad that we had to act". GeneralNotability (talk) 17:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
I didn't mean to imply any of what you read into "got this ball rolling". It was undeniably what started the conversation that led to the suspension, that's all I meant. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 20:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
A question for both you (JSS) and the committee... and apologies for being cryptic about it, but I don't want to get myself or you (or anyone else) in hot water by asking it directly. Would be accurate to say that two of the examples of the "pattern" of behavior the committee used to enact this suspension were (1) you making a joke about someone trying to profit from their Wikipedia/Wikipedia activities, where absolutely no PII or confidential material whatsoever was involved, much less revealed, and (2) you mentioning something that someone publicly claimed about themselves on-wiki, and which is still public on-wiki? I'm not trying to play detective, I'm just trying to understand the nature of "pattern" being discussed here. 28bytes (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
28bytes, not going to play 20 questions over this and narrow it down for everybody. Beeblebrox revealed information on WPO that was expected to be kept private. That's all that I think we can reasonably say on the matter that won't further draw attention to the private information itself. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
And to that end example 1 doesn't describe information that was expected to be private so even though I agree with GN about 20 questions I feel OK saying that. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Barkeep49. I appreciate your response on that. 28bytes (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
GeneralNotability, my concern here is less about specific examples than it is with something I see frequently in AN/ANI submissions and ArbCom case requests, and a scenario I know you've seen countless times: when making the case for stripping tools or sanctioning or banning someone, many times there is a "let's throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" approach. Quantity over quality. The sheer number of diffs posted can seem to be damning until the individual diffs are analyzed. I'm not saying the committee did that here, but in the conversations I've had earlier in this thread, there was a sort of "well, in this example he wasn't doing anything wrong, really, but it's part of a pattern" response and I'm left wondering how many zeroes you have to add up to get a 10. JSS has posted an explanation above about what he did (or what he thinks he did, at least) that the committee objected to, with mea culpas for some things and defenses of other things, and when I compare that to what the committee has publicly described so far, one thing that strikes me is that neither JSS nor the committee is accusing the other of dishonesty: it seems that the facts are broadly agreed upon and that the main issue is a judgment about them. (Which is fairly uncommon and frankly refreshing to see in a high-profile dispute like this.) The fact that almost all of the committee reached a dramatically different conclusion than JSS is certainly not something to dismiss, but the track record of integrity I've seen from Beeblebrox over the past decade or so, combined with his detailed and coherent rundown of what he thinks he did wrong and what he thinks he didn't, isn't really easy for me to dismiss either. 28bytes (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Your above questions accuratelty describe the two prior incidents at WPO, and you are of course correct that neither of those involved confidential information of any kind. The other arbs, some of them anyway, just didn't like it, thought it was unbecoming I suppose would be the word. They are entitled to that opinion but I, like yourself, don't believe it is the same thing as what they suspended me over and therefore shouldn't have been considered part of a "totality of evidence". The committee knows that's how I see it, they do not agree. The main reason I'm not mentioning the names of the two users involved is basically WP:DNFTT. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 20:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Good to know, thank you. 28bytes (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
I disagree with the characterization that the prior incidents didn't involve confidential information. That is exactly why we're here. Now, we are not accusing JSS of doing this in bad faith. Indeed, I think JSS thought he was doing the right thing. But the road to hell, as they say, is paved with good intentions. The fundamental issue is that JSS was warned about making confidential disclosures, kept doing it, and failed to acknowledge that he had done wrong even when confronted. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
I disagree with the characterization that the prior incidents didn't involve confidential information. I honestly don't understand how you could believe that. The comment I made about someone's supposed real life identity was based on edits they had made themselves, that, at that time, and also at this time, are perfectly visible to anyone who cares to look for them. It was only later that they were supressed, well after the cat was out of the bag. (And that's without even bringin up what we all know now, that it was manipulation and lies from a banned troll anyway.)The other comments the committee did not like were just that, comments about a user. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
As I said in one of my emails, the policy at WP:ARBCOND is a higher bar than our NDAs. I agree that the information was confidential not because it was a violation of the NDA (that's the purview of the Ombuds Commission and WMF legal), rather the information was confidential because it was to be Preserve[d] in appropriate confidence. — Wug·a·po·des 23:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
I feel like there is a misunderstanding here. The comments I'm talking about were related to a users' live edits on-wiki and nothing else. I can only assume the both of you are talking about something else as there is no expectation that the content of live WP edits is held in confidence by anyone, anywhere. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 01:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
I said elsewhere in this discussion that, in my consideration, it wasn't merely the content or number of posts but how the how they affected the ways people interacted with our processes. I can't be super specific on that, but one public point to consider is that the community has had somewhat regular discussions on arbitrators participating in off-wiki forums like WPO. There's never been any consensus to prohibit it, but it shows a suspicion that we need to be careful not to play into because it means (1) we would substantiate concerns that anything sent to us is liable to be leaked to off-wiki forums when a member finds it convenient and (2) it jeopardizes those who manage to participate in those forums without backlash should the rest of the community take action as issues mount.
In my first email to Beebs/JSS when we started discussing the issue, I was clear that I didn't really care about the NDA aspect in the way some others might. I just didn't think it was the right way to look at the concerns. From that email: What I do see as an issue for the committee is whether this showed proper discretion and the effect impropriety has on our work. I then discussed how that applied to the specific example under discussion, which I can't go into here obviously. In that email I also stated some forward looking concerns that I can't get into details on because they would give away too many specifics, but the gist is "specific and recent activities will be made harder if editors believed this would continue". As we investigated more, the pattern that emerged to my eyes wasn't merely the severity or number (though that contributed)---it was that they were repeatedly having negative impacts that led to interventions and those interventions didn’t stop the behavior.
I think this starts to get at the issue you point out: the facts aren't in dispute so much as how we judge them. For me, once you put together everything in the prior paragraph, removal seems excessive but public censure seems insufficient. The most recent indiscretion impacts ongoing work and there is evidence that similar problems and impacts have occurred in the past. There is, essentially, some broken trust and a public statement saying "trust was repeatedly broken, we took no concrete steps to stop it from happening again, but keep sending us stuff" would, I fear, have a net negative impact. We'd be acknowledging the liability while doing nothing to prevent it. At the same time, outright removal seemed too strong given the actual content of the statements, the time left in their term, and the precedent it sets for future decisions on similar evidence. I agree with JSS and some other arbs when they point out that not all of the indiscretions were particularly bad, and I think setting a precedent that these were worthy of complete and indefinite removal seemed like a bad example to set. At the same time though, just because an indiscretion wasn’t a gross violation doesn’t mean it was harmless. Suspension was put on the table after I raised these concerns to my colleagues, but as many people have pointed out the difference from removal at this point seems like nitpicking. So what to do?
Given all the issues I described, I thought (and still think) suspension struck the best balance despite its issues: we inform the community of the issues that had so far been private, we take concrete steps to avoid further indiscretion while we handle the stuff it impacted, but we make clear the path back once everyone has had time to absorb and process everything. It’s a shitty position to be in, not least because I agree with you regarding the character of Beebs/JSS. I’ve genuinely enjoyed working with them, and their feedback has consistently led to better decisions and in the long term shifted my perspective on a number of issues. It’s hard to reconcile, and maybe it’s just irreconcilable; sometimes doing what you believe is right totally sucks. Sometimes being responsible means everybody loses, and we just have to take the lumps. Other arbs may see it differently from me; but I don’t feel at liberty to speak to the perspectives of other arbitrators. — Wug·a·po·des 23:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I always thought of Beeblebrox as unfit to be a member of Arbcom. A couple of my reasons: they were happy to taunt me and others at ANI and they were a regular participant on Wikipediocracy sharing questionable material. I considered it unbecoming and unprofessional. I voted against their Arbcom inclusion based on my observations (note that others also had similar concerns) and at that time I said their (Beeblebrox) participation off wiki on a forum with exiles gossiping and pillorying WP editors means they should not be trusted with sensitive information. My comments about Beeblebrox marked one of the rare times that I agreed with Levivich. This is a trust thing and I appreciate Barkeep49, CaptainEk and the other members not doing this in the dark because light is a disinfectant. One other question to consider... if they cannot be trusted, why are they an administrator on the english Wikipedia? Lightburst (talk) 00:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Ironically the person who most agreed with that viewpoint during my time on the committee was Beeblebrox/Just Step Sideways (JSS). My answer to the question is that I have full reason to trust JSS with the admin toolset because there's no hint of ever abusing it. An admin can't really leak confidential materials the way an arb can and even there I believe there's a future where JSS could be trusted again. So at least, for me, that's why he retains my trust as an admin. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:51, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
But isn’t JSS still going to have access to RevDel’ed material he could potentially leak? 166.198.251.69 (talk) 01:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
There's a reason admins don't have to sign any kind of NDA/confidentiality agreement and that's because the risk from revdel is just very different than OS or Arb material. And again there has been no evidence or allegation that information has ever been revealed improperly by him. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for that Barkeep. As he says, the only type of material I let out was information from mailing list discussions. I do think there is a substantial difference between that and letting out CU/OS derived material. On the rare occaisions where I have seen extremely sensitive material that has been revdeleted, I have supressed it myself. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 02:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

And on that note, I believe I'm about done going back over this. If there is still some doubt or confusion as to the series of events, I'd be happy to do what I can to clear it up, but I feel I've said my piece about the meaning of all this. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 02:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I hate that I've seen "said my peace" so many times that "said my piece" looks wrong.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Sometimes there is no good option. Opinions will vary as to which is the least bad. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 17:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Is there anything leak from Checkuser wiki, checkuser information or oversight information? If yes, did Wikimedia Foundation get noticed about that to revoke NDA? I'd like to focus the discussion on this if possible. Thanks? -Lemonaka‎ 09:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
I think this has already been answered:
  • As I said in one of my emails, the policy at WP:ARBCOND is a higher bar than our NDAs. I agree that the information was confidential not because it was a violation of the NDA (that's the purview of the Ombuds Commission and WMF legal), rather the information was confidential because it was to be Preserve[d] in appropriate confidence. — Wug·a·po·des 23:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Speaking only for myself and not the committee as a whole: I believe that the information disclosed was in something of a gray area and not a bright-line violation of the ANPDP (if it were, I would pushed for stronger sanctions and would have referred this to the Ombudsman commission). It did, however, violate what I consider to be functionary/Arb expectations for keeping information private. I intend to bring this up with WMF for clarification at the next monthly WMF/ArbCom call. GeneralNotability (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
  • For me, Beeblebrox violated ARBPOL more than the NDA. Given that both documents have expectations of confideniality that difference didn't matter for me in terms of a going forward outcome, but did matter in using being clear with the community about what the issue was. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
  • In my view, at least one incident here counted as an ANPDP violation, while others were more clearly ARBPOL violations than ANPDP violations. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
This strongly implies that the information was not a leak of CU or Oversighted material (from any source) and so the WMF were not notified (because there was nothing to notify them of). Thryduulf (talk) 12:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Checkuser candidates appointed (December 2023)

Latest comment: 10 months ago6 comments6 people in discussion
Original announcement
Welcome to the both of you. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Congrats both   — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 14:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for taking it on! Valereee (talk) 14:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Next job is we need to teach them the secret (redacted), show them where the (redacted) is, and get those (redacted)s inserted into their (redacted)s. RoySmith (talk) 14:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
No (data expunged)? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 07:27, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Congratulations to you both! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 08:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

MelroseReporter unblocked

Latest comment: 10 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Original announcement

Clarification/update request: Statement on checkuser blocks

Latest comment: 10 months ago11 comments6 people in discussion

I was reviewing an unblock request today, and found myself reading the committee's Statement on checkuser blocks from 2010. There's a link to it at the end of {{Checkuserblock-account}}. Part of it doesn't really match current practice. It instructs admins In most cases, appeals from blocks designated as "Checkuser block" should be referred to the Arbitration Committee, which will address such appeals as promptly as possible. I promise you, the committee does not want this to happen; in general, this would be a waste of your time. There are several admins such as myself with checkuser privilege who regularly monitor CAT:RFU for requests where our use of the tool is needed. (There are enough of us that we occasionally bump into each other processing requests.) Requests by checkuser-blocked users are the main example of this. Admins occasionally deny such requests stating "you have to take this to ArbCom", because of this language. Can we work out a minor amendment to this to reflect current practice? --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 17:21, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, this seems like obsolete wording to me (I'm a CU, but not an arb). If I notice that a CU-block that I've made is being reviewed, I'll often take a look at the case, perhaps run some new checks, and if appropriate, I'll add a note to the appeal that I've done so and explicitly state that any admin who further reviews the block should consider their obligation under WP:CUBL to have been discharged. I think it makes sense to update WP:CUBL and WP:CheckUser#CheckUser blocks (both of which refer to the cite statement) to indicate that you need to consult a CU or ArbCom. Some blocks really will require ArbCom involvement, but your friendly neighborhood CU will be able to figure out if this is one of those times. I'll also note that saying this in multiple different places violates the DRY principle and risks the multiple copies getting out of sync over time. RoySmith (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes please! This is one of the reasons we get so many appeals. I've floated internally before a "do we just need to let admins know that CU blocks don't have to come to us?" but didn't jump on it, so I'm happy to see you asking.
One thing it might be helpful to do would be to make a separate {{checkuser unblock}} which users are advised to use (via advertisement on {{checkuserblock}}/-account) when appealing a CU block, which would also make it easier to find these.
It would be good to make sure that users who appeal a CU block onwiki have other options though, even after a potential decline onwiki. When we discussed this last, there was discussion about making it mandatory to appeal first through UTRS or onwiki ("tier 1") and then only after would users be allowed to appeal to us ("tier 2") (and to make clear when the first layer can be skipped, when there is a real privacy concern -- most CU blocks aren't like that). Obviously not instituted, but this could be a first step (and it would line up in a way with how appeals of contentious topic remedies work now). Izno (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm good with all of that. To be honest I expect a lot of people to skip to us alleging CU malfeasance...but they do that anyway, so no huge change. I guess we could throw together an updated statement on CU blocks and have that be the new guidance? GeneralNotability (talk) 01:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
I really like the idea of having a {{checkuser unblock}} template that blocked people could use and that would be referred to in the block notice. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:26, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't really see the advantage of it. But roll one up and let's see what it might do. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 17:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
A number of Arbs and CU have advocated for having CUs handle more appeals. I've had a number of concerns about doing that. However, with this idea some of the concerns I have are addressed and nothing is made worse than the current system. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Let's take a concrete example which has happened several times that I can remember in the past few years: a CU blocks a bunch of brand new accounts because they're all working on the same article from the exact same IP and the exact same user agents. We get an appeal: "Hey, you just blocked the student computer lab at my school; all those accounts were my students working on a class project". Another recent example would be an indef IP range block applied 10 years ago for reasons which no longer apply. Any CU should be able to handle either of those without arbcom involvement.
On the other hand, "Hey, you just blocked me and my roommate, and we had previously disclosed our shared IP use to arbcom" is one that needs to be kicked upstairs. As would any other block that's annotated in any way that indicates arbcom was involved. Any CU should be able to figure out which of those applies to any particular appeal. RoySmith (talk) 18:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
The distinction between "truly private" and "run of the mill sock and/or school block" are probably something that needs to be adjusted on the block template if anywhere, possibly reiterated on the appeal template (so that preview can catch comments). Izno (talk) 18:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Maybe the summary column in the table of appeals in Category:Requests for unblock is enough to indicate which are CU blocks and which aren't, but having a dedicated template could help normal admins figure out to stop processing these appeals (could also be used for e.g. highlighting as a CU block there, etc etc; having a separate category and/or template generally helps with these kinds of things). I think a note on WP:ACN is probably still needed even in that case of course. Izno (talk) 18:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
This wording is a relic left over from WP:BASC which was established in 2009 and disbanded in 2015. Currently Arbcom actually is supposed to hear these appeals according to their own procedures; this is still "on the books" at WP:AC/P#Handling of ban appeals. @Guerillero: You are the only current arb who also signed the 2015 motion disbanding BASC. Since the wording says "for the time being", do you recall if there was any plan to transition a different process? I know there was also talk of BASC/AUSC reform at the time but nothing came to fruition before it was disbanded. The WordsmithTalk to me 00:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Industrial agriculture closed

Latest comment: 10 months ago50 comments22 people in discussion
Original announcement

Although the 'common English meanings' may seem clear to us, due to the variations in editors' skills in the language, and in the varieties of English used here, definitions would be helpful. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 20:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

  • I'd rather let people look up words they're unfamiliar with and use the standard definitions and instead only define words that have some sort of special meaning to ArbCom. That way we don't end up with a glossary hundreds of words long as I see no reason we'd define "rescinded" but not "case" or "proceedings" or "policy" and so on. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
    Have you ever looked up the word "admonish"? Which of these is the "standard definition": [2] [3]? It's kind of funny to say people can look up words they're unfamiliar with when we're talking about words that have multiple very different meanings. See also: "sanction". And engvar. :-P Levivich (talk) 06:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
  • I suggest you mix it up a bit to get attention. Try out, eg: rebuke, reproach, or chide. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
    I like the fact that the drafters attempted to remind themselves, even though the Committee as a whole decided not to go that way. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
    ArbCom has issued remedies criticising themselves for how cases played out before (the Omnibus Case being an especially prominent example), so that's not completely insane. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 20:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
  • I'd like to make a longer comment, about a different aspect of this case. As someone who gave evidence and commented a lot, what stood out to me was that the case kept being on the brink of going off the rails, but ArbCom was successful in getting it back to where it should have been, in the end. It's no secret that I think that ArbCom overreached in the Polish Holocaust case earlier in the year, and in this more recent case, I repeatedly warned that ArbCom was in danger of going beyond what the community had asked them to do. The community request was for a straightforward administrator accountability case. In expanding it, all that you ultimately achieved was a warning to the editor who had been (badly) blocked. That's not nothing, I recognize. A third party was added without an adequate opportunity for them to learn what they needed to do, but fortunately that did not result in any consequences. A draft FoF was considered, that would have contradicted the community discussion at the XRV, but it didn't pass. Ultimately, I think that ArbCom got it right, so thank you for that, but, as they say, it wasn't pretty watching the sausage getting made. I think a take-home for the future is that ArbCom needs to be very careful about deciding we've been entrusted to do whatever it takes to solve difficult problems and taking that as a license to do... whatever. ArbCom has authority because the community trusts it, but that trust, and the accompanying authority, must always be earned. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
But we have been entrusted to solve problems the community cannot. It's literally the first responsibility the community has given the committee To act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve; Of course ArbCom can, and has, mismanaged cases. I personally think that this case wasn't managed well. I think CorbieVreccan, Mark_Ironie, and Tamzin was handled poorly in several respects. There are other things I don't think this year's committee - including me as individual and part of the collective - handled well. We'll see who ends up getting elected, but nearly all of the candidates either in their statement or in questions have spoken favorably about the approach the committee has taken in recent years. For me the way ArbCom retains the community's trust is by acting transparently as much as possible, listening but not being beholden to feedback (which is often contradictory or is only representative of the people angriest at us), and ultimately making good decisions. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for those comments, and I want to begin by saying that I believe that engaging with what I said, in the way that you did here, is a good thing. I agree with you that transparency is very important. I also think that, overall, ArbCom has been getting better at doing its job, significantly better than when, for example, the original GMO case was heard (by which time it had gotten significantly better than it had been a couple of years before that). So I'm not coming at this in a hostile way (as I'm pretty sure you already know). It's true that the Committee is entrusted to solve problems the rest of us cannot, and I said that. But the distinction I'm making is that ArbCom is still accountable for how it goes about it. In other words, being entrusted to solve those problems is not a license to do just anything at all. I observed that ArbCom got it right in the end, but there were multiple steps along the way where ArbCom pulled back from the brink of making mistakes. A big part of the reason (I assume) that ArbCom always has these talk sections on the noticeboard talk page after a case closes, is to get feedback and perhaps learn from some of it. I'm arguing that this is a learning opportunity to fine tune how to evaluate whether to go beyond a community case request. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. It's rather telling that early cases, in my Big Ol LibreOffice Calc File O' Arbitration Related Effluvia, have notations like "ArbCom is not treating [doxxing/harassment] with the gravitas it deserves" and "ArbCom got into SCP-3000's pen", but anything after ca. 2012 doesn't have anything like that. I think part of it is that ArbCom really started to become more internally consistent over the years, such that they recognise that, barring extenuating or mitigating circumstances, Action X pretty much justifies Remedy Y. There are still times where they screw up and take valid criticism (such as the Ritchie333/Praxidicae situation that happened shortly after Framgate or, to some extent, SCW) but on the whole ArbCom isn't just adjudicating by the seat of their pants anymore. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 20:37, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
In re the "going off the rails" bit - the Omnibus Case wound up as it did because ArbCom did pretty much that, merging in an unrelated matter with similar issues but vastly different MO, which is why they criticised themselves for the length of the case (they wasted a month or so trying to reconcile both matters in vain). ArbCom has been considerably more cautious about joining matters since then, and in fact will split out cases if it's clear there's two distinct issues that can't be addressed in one case (example: C&J/BLPM, COL/AP2). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 21:37, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Proposed motion to create Reliable source consensus-required restriction procedures and add the restriction to the Lithuania topic area

Latest comment: 10 months ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Original announcement

I presume this is basically under the auspices of APL? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 16:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "this" you're referring to is. If it's Lithuania, no it's under EE, which the motion makes clear. The RS restriction is a codified restriction, similar to ECR. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:11, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

The a motion link is broken. It should have a space after the colon in Motion:Reliable. Ian P. Tetriss (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

New arbitrators have been elected

Latest comment: 10 months ago6 comments6 people in discussion

Hello all! Following the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023, new members have been elected to the arbitration committee. The results of the election are available here. For the election commission, — xaosflux Talk 01:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Congrats to the newly elected arbitrators, and thanks to every candidate who put their name forward this year! DanCherek (talk) 02:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
   ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:39, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Congratulations! – DreamRimmer (talk) 05:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding reliable source consensus-required restrictions

Original announcement

Proposed motions on email canvassing

Latest comment: 10 months ago15 comments10 people in discussion
Original announcement
Substantive comments about the motions (not the announcement itself) need to go to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions § Motions: PIA Canvassing, where sectioned discussion is in force. ACN talk isn't the place to go to have non-sectioned discussion about the sectioned topic. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • Should we list other people who might have been canvassed, assuming there's reasonable behavioral evidence? With this list of articles that were all (I assume) canvassed in the same place, it's not difficult to go over them and find either new editors or long-absent editors who suddenly reappeared to weigh in on discussions on this list. Obviously that sort of behavioral analysis has limits (it would make sense for people interested in the topic to suddenly return in October for obvious reasons), but some of these are fairly obscure articles, so it's still pretty indicative when someone suddenly reappears to weigh in on these specific articles on the same date all the other people listed here appeared, having never edited any of them before. Also, as the "new" implies, many of the editors who fit this description gamed the 500/30 restriction to gain access and were caught on that and had it revoked - is it still worth mentioning editors like that for completeness? --Aquillion (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
    @Aquillion as @L235 has stated, if you have evidence of canvassing by other editors we want to hear it. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
  • I've got an extremely minor nitpick with the first motion: in the list of discussions, all of them show the namespace (either Wikipedia:, Talk:, or Template talk: ), except for the fourth item, which is just listed as "Israel#Request for Comment on apartheid charges". The link itself goes to the correct place, but the displayed text is inconsistent with the rest of the list. Could a clerk please fix that? Thanks! --rchard2scout (talk) 07:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
    @Rchard2scout: fixed, thanks! firefly ( t · c ) 08:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Hang on, I must be missing something here. Since when do we ArbComBan people for canvassing or meatpuppetry (of which proxying is a form)!!??? That seems wildly disproportionate. As far as I know, canvassing typically results in warnings, exclusions from discussions, discounting of !votes, and, if it's happening on-wiki, topic bans or blocks if needed. Meatpuppetry or proxying for blocked users typically results in a standard sock block, removable by admin discretion. Why are we talking about issuing the project's most severe penalty (short of a global lock) for these users for allegedly committing routine offenses? Taking Out The Trash (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
    In this case ArbCom alone has the evidence, so nobody else can review the block. As for precedent, see WP:EEML. – bradv 20:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
    The fact pattern here is bothersome. I raised that point on the main page so I don't want to repeat myself, but private evidence provided by a party that results in the party's adversaries being banned, with the evidence kept secret from everybody including the targets, is inherently bothersome. For one thing, it raises a question as to whether Arbcom knows why it is bothersome, and I offered to send an email with my concerns. I don't want to get into them publicly for a host of reasons. Coretheapple (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
    As I follow these discussions, I think I can see that one concern that some editors may have is whether anyone is going to be sanctioned simply for having received a canvassing email. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks to me like the sanctions that ArbCom is considering are, instead, for cases where editors may have acted upon such a canvassing request without having disclosed it. There's a significant difference between simply getting an email and disregarding it, and actively doing what the email instructed, especially when doing that is not transparent to other editors. I recognize, of course, that some editors have other concerns, that I'm not addressing here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
    (Receiving e-mails is indeed not a problem and of course not a ban reason.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
    Personally, I don't feel that going "wait, stop, the person who reported this is their ideological enemy!" is a good way to respond to this (and honestly, with some of the more pugnacious responses of that nature - not yours, but some of the ones on the main page by people more directly involved in the conflict - I would not surprised to later see them introduced as evidence of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality in either extensions of this case or future WP:AE discussions.) The simple fact is that in highly-controversial topic areas, editors who disagree are the ones who are most likely to notice problems; people who agree with or are indifferent to someone's posts and behaviors are unlikely to examine it as closely for flaws. Additionally, bias is a lens we see everything through - we are more likely to "ping" on possible misbehavior by those we're already in a dispute with, yes; but conversely, we are more likely to fail to notice misbehavior from those we agree with or have no strong opinions on. What this means is that there's nothing inherently wrong with someone presenting evidence against people they're in a dispute with - falsifying evidence or distorting or exaggerating it in order to get people you disagree with removed is obviously wrong (and there's some grey area here because naturally we are inclined to interpret things uncharitably when it comes to people we strongly disagree with), but given that ArbCom is unanimously affirming the basic facts it seems like we're well past that; so at this point just going "yeah but the person who reported this is their ENEMY" isn't helpful. --Aquillion (talk) 21:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, they "noticed a problem" --- in a private email? In which they were not a sender or recipient? And that's then presented to arbcom and kept secret from everyone else? Coretheapple (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
    I understand why Checkuser evidence is kept private. But what's happening here raises other issues. They may or may not be obvious, and may or may not be known by Arbcom. I would be happy to share them in an email, as I said previously. Coretheapple (talk) 21:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
    @Coretheapple: You're welcome to email us at Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee. Like with any other email, we can't promise we'll agree. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
    A "standard sock block" and an "ArbComBan" have exactly the same effect on the user's ability to edit; the only difference is who can review such actions on appeal. This is neither wild nor !!??? but rather a necessary distinction, just like a checkuserblock isn't more "severe" than a normal block. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2024 Arbitration Committee

Latest comment: 10 months ago7 comments6 people in discussion
Original announcement
  • For the record I have requested to be unsubscribed from the functionaries' mailing list. SilkTork (talk) 11:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
    @L235: Isn't there an additional arb whose term also technically concludes at the end of December? jp×g🗯️ 22:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
    I, and I'm sure the committee, thank Just Step Sideways/Beeblebrox for his service on the committee and wish him well too. I was going off the list at WP:AC/M. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
    Then the list is wrong, as I was suspended, not actually removed. I think you guys really didn't think through some aspects of what you were doing. None of how this was done makes much sense to me, but I do appreciuate your kind words. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 03:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
    @Just Step Sideways: I bet you can't guess who edited the list to make it wrong... oh, you can? I'm shocked. Actually, I'm not even slightly surprised.

    Having worked with KevinL on ArbCom, you will know him far better than I, but I doubt the sincerity of that the expression of thanks. A bystander might think that using "going off a list" as an excuse, when he himself made the list wrong in the first place, might have generated some expression of regret or apology from KevinL. But no, he chose to imply that your exclusion from the announcement about changes to ArbCom at the end of your term as an Arbitrator (even though suspended) was a genuine mistake caused by someone else's actions. KevinL, you have succeeded in reinforcing my already low opinion of you.

    The rest of the 2023 ArbCom, you should chime in here with a genuine apology to JSS... but I doubt you'll be willing to publicly admit that Beeblebrox's exclusion from the announcement that was made on your behalf was callous, that any suggestion that this was an unintentional omission that simply went unnoticed strains credibility to a remarkable extent (I think that a far more likely explanation is that what should have been a routine announcement went largely unchecked), and that the excuse given by KevinL is both disingenuous and unbelievable. I'm disgusted. 1.141.198.161 (talk) 08:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

    Bloody hard-core stuff, NSW anon! ✊️ ——Serial 11:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
    That KevinL has chosen not to reply is not surprising to me. It's disappointing that he hasn't chosen to say something about the alleged mistaken omission flowing on from his own edit, neither here nor in the current ARCA (where it was raised by Szmenderowiecki), but not surprising. I actually wrote a post for the ARCA but then thought "What's the point?" as KevinL would just revert it in another example of adhering the wording of policy when it suits.

    @ArbCom: I am sure that ArbCom is busy, judging from the ongoing motions relating to canvassing, etc... but surely there is one of you who is willing to admit that KevinL's announcement on your behalf is, in some way, was misleading, inappropriate / unfair to JSS, and deserves correction. Surely one of you can see that KevinL's unbelievable excuse reflects poorly on you all, and on ArbCom itself?

    The whole ARCA shows that there are two issues – one about whether the sanction of JSS was reasonable, or justified, or could / should be modified on its merits, and the other about the process. The consensus on the former appears clear, and on that basis, the latter is being ignored. In my opinion, this is a recurring issue with ArbCom, over years. The desysopping of Fram, for example, looked like it had been pre-decided (even if informally) to get T&S to back off the ban. The fact that one of JSS's actions looks (from the outside) like it was motivated by a larger principle where an editor was being treated unfairly (and which some of you appear to agree was wrong) reflects on your choice to act. And now, the procedural issues are being portrayed at ARCA as trivial, likely a precursor to another opportunity to do something going wasted.

    In the recently closed chemicals case, you emphasised a principle that being right isn't enough to justify or excuse poor behaviour. What a shame that the idea that ArbCom reaching the right conclusion isn't enough to enough to justify or excuse such things as flawed process and disregarded principle is so difficult to admit? Is it difficult for you to believe that events that lead editors to limit their involvement in WP can involved disillusionment with ArbCom from uninvolved observers? 1.141.198.161 (talk) 08:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding GiantSnowman

Latest comment: 9 months ago9 comments7 people in discussion
Original announcement

Does Wikipedia:Editing restrictions need to be updated to reflect the motion? GiantSnowman 22:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman good point - done! firefly ( t · c ) 22:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! GiantSnowman 18:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Interesting that ArbCom thinks that whether GS's decisions are right or not is irrelevant because GS didn't respect procedure... but with JSS, the only thing that matters is whether ArbCom was right, irrespective of procedure. I'm sure there is a term that describes such flexible application of principles... 1.141.198.161 (talk) 04:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

This case is substantially different from the other one. Personally, I think you are comparing apples to hand grenades. Yes, both of them can be used to keep the doctor away, but one of them is significantly different from the other. Sohom (talk) 15:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
That is one of the greatest lines I have ever heard. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Totally. And I don't even know who or what JSS is... El_C 16:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
@El C: Beeblebrox. ——Serial 16:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Oh. Well, that's not Tony Sidaway! I'll show myself out. El_C 16:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding PIA Canvassing

Latest comment: 9 months ago40 comments17 people in discussion
Original announcement

I think the steps taken against these users is a bit excessive. There is no mention of these users having been warned about this behavior and continuing it after said warning; and no amount of disruption in a single topic justifies any more than a topic ban (Aside from specific behavioral or interaction bans which also relate to said disruption)unless either the user has explicitly said they won't abide by it, or it was tried and the user showed unwillingness to abide. Animal lover |666| 16:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Animal lover 666 that the penalties were unnecessarily harsh, and by the conundrum here., It made no logical sense for a banned user to specify precise edit summaries if his purpose was not to provide proof that in fact canvassing had taken place. Instead of saying "please conceal that I have asked you to do this," instead he basically said, "make it crystal clear that I wanted you to do this." Then he sends around his email to a long list of editors, including those on the other "side" of this long-running wiki-warfare. To no great surprise, those emails wind up with arbcom. Coretheapple (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Things don't need to make logical sense.
The sender is a person who has created hundreds of sockpuppet accounts and continues to create them every few days. They are obsessive and dishonest. Ten years ago or so they were a racist ultranationalist extremist who in their spare time off wiki on various forums and media comment sections used to write things like
  • "fucking mohammedan apes and baby-killers", "Fuck you !! stupid Islamofascist terrorist ape dressed in rags. I hope you and all your family of monkeys shall receive what you deserve when Israel kick your coward ass. Asshole! ISRAEL WIN"
  • "Don’t worry bitch, nobody wants your fucking Arab Keffiyeh. Nobody wants to look like an ugly terrorist monkey, except for Purim", "¡¡¡God bless Nakba!!! (Jewish victory over the war of extermination that the Arabs brought upon them 65 years ago). Never in history was a "catastrophe" so well deserved! God bless Israel. Keep strong, united, prepared and brave."
  • ""palestine" does not exist, never did and never will", "Yes, you are in this struggle and you will be defeated like all the enemies of my nation. I'm a Jew from Argentina who soon will make Aliya and join the IDF in order to kick, destroy and fight against bullshit scum like you. Fuck off you fucking marxist. Leave Israel with all your fucking Arab ape friends. We don't want people like you in Medinat Israel. AM ISRAEL CHAI VE KAIAM ISRAEL WIN".
Maybe that was the folly of youth (I doubt it), and of course the people who make edits on their behalf and lie about it wouldn't know that about them. But those editors do know how to be open and honest about what happened and the actions they took. That would be helpful. Other people have done it. It's easy to be open and honest. The sender will continue to sock. They will continue to send canvassing emails from non-extendedconfirmed accounts (unless they can be stopped). They will continue to try to manipulate editors and some of those editors will have their Wiki-hobby ruined (for a while or permanently) because they made some bad decisions. Wikipedia's collaborative model just doesn't seem to work well when there are 2 classes of editors, honest editors who must follow the rules and dishonest editors who do not need to follow the rules (and for interest social insect colonies can face similar social order/internal conflict/deception issues when the workers have mixed paternity). It's disheartening to see editors fall for this guy's transparently exploitative romance scam, suffer the consequences while he continues unaffected, and to see some editors try to minimize it and create all sorts of conspiracy theories rather than help deal with reality. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Things don't need to make logical sense. Except when they do. Who benefits from a sock this crazy? It isn't the editors with whom this account is ostensibly aligned. What you are describing is a serious menace, but not to the cause with which it purports to align. It just claimed three pro-Israel editors. Forgive my cynicism but the "use this edit summary" bit is a mountain I cannot climb. Coretheapple (talk) 14:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm not trying to change anyone's mind about the case. It would be better if ArbCom made the evidence public in my view, but whatever, doing that won't solve anything. There are known facts and decisions have been made based on those facts. Who benefits? The sock benefits because Wikipedia benefits (in their view). They are the good guy. They work hard because the topic area is apparently being destroyed and needs to be saved by their efforts and the efforts of people they reach out to. They're not crazy. They're rational, effective and getting better at what they do. Three casualties probably doesn't matter, they are very focused on the mission. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
I'd certainly like to see evidence that the craziness you describe rationally benefits their "side." This case is a shining example of the opposite. Coretheapple (talk) 17:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Animal lover 666 and Coretheapple that the penalties were unnecessarily harsh. According to WP:PROXYING, proxy editing is permitted (as an exception) if the editor is "able to show that the changes are productive" and "they have independent reasons for making such edits", which is quite a low bar. The users were not accused of acting disruptively and were, in fact, quite prolific and constructive editors with great contributions to Wikipedia, for example, EytanMelech in creating dozens of Hispanic, Slavic, and Jewish topic articles, Homerethegreat in art, and Dovidroth in covering Judaism. It seems to me that the indefinite bans are punitive rather than preventative. The 12-month window for the next appeal is also unnecessarily long. I'm urging the committee to reconsider. I think that you have made your point, and I'm certain after this ordeal, these editors would never, ever engage in anything similar to proxying again. Marokwitz (talk) 21:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

If and when any of the affected editors appeal, then you can support that, meanwhile...Selfstudier (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
None of the editors must wait 12 months to appeal. They must wait at least 12 months after they make their first appeal. The editors could appeal today if they wished. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
The 12-month clause only applies in the event of an unsuccessful appeal. They can make their first appeal whenever they want (which could be right now, it could be in 10 years time, it could be never, it's entirely up to them), if that appeal is successful then time to appeal is irrelevant. Only if their first appeal is unsuccessful does the clause come into play, and it just means there must be at least 12 months between their first appeal and their second appeal (and if that is unsuccessful, between the second and third appeals, etc). Thryduulf (talk) 00:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
In previous cases with more severe precedents, such as WP:EEML, the penalties were considerably milder. These involved blocks spanning only weeks, or simply warnings, for individuals who were actively involved in canvassing (on their own initiative), contributing to a battleground mentality, and manipulating the system. In contrast, the current ruling appears disproportionate and punitive. The severity seems to be based not on their violations of policy per se, but rather on the accused's crime of 'lying to Arbcom'. Marokwitz (talk) 09:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Just speaking personally, I would have found a topic ban to be more than sufficient here, but when called out on being canvassed these editors chose to not come clean. The severity started at a topic ban (per WP:PROXYING and the like); the lying about it bumped it up to the only other available option. Primefac (talk) 10:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Penalties and sanctions in the late 00s were considerably milder in general, so I wouldn't read too much into that. I recall at least one in that era where an admin was desysopped for 3 months and then got the bit back automatically, for behavior that would definitely be a full desysopping today. It was a strange time. The WordsmithTalk to me 17:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
There were 24 hour deysops in a couple of cases then as well. It was a different time with different expectations around adminship. Similarly our expectations around attempts to influence certain topic areas have changed as we've had more sustained attempts, with more organizational heft behind those attempts. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Are you saying that the sock who engaged in the activity at issue here, who appears unhinged according to what Sean quotes above, is believed to be affiliated with a larger organization? Seriously? If so, seems more like the Keystone Cops than Mossad. Coretheapple (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
No. I'm saying that our expectations around attempts to influence certain topic areas have changed as we've had more sustained attempts, with more organizational heft behind those attempts. Which includes this case where there isn't, to my knowledge, any organization. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
But how is that fair to the editors here? The sense I get is that if that same sock was active in some less controversial area the penalty would be different. Coretheapple (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Maybe? Or maybe ArbCom wouldn't have taken any feedback from the community at all in those other areas and would have just quietly blocked the editors. Hypotheticals are hard compared to the real facts in front of us. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
That wouldn't be entirely unexpected, since the introduction to WP:Contentious topics says that When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced. DanCherek (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful if people who receive these canvassing emails

Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

We have been struggling with this disruptive behavior for a long time now by these editors. The steps taken are appropriate and I commend the ArbCom for taking these decisive measures. This mass canvassing, proxy editing, ban evasion, sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry and other types of disruptive behaviors have not affected one or two articles; nor for one or two days; this has been going on for months, if not years or decades; and on so many articles as mentioned in the motion. The least appropriate measure is indeed an indefinite topic ban, if not an outright ban from all of Wikipedia editing. For the upcoming period, I recommend a proactive approach, considering how disruptive AndresHerutJaim has been, more than a decade after they were banned. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Aoidh: Could you please confirm that all of the mentioned users have been topic banned, as I have noticed that one of them still has nothing on their block log? Makeandtoss (talk) 12:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Topic bans get added to Editing restrictions, not the block log. Nobody (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying, Nobody. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Got caught in a few edit conflicts but I wanted to make sure I answered this. 1AmNobody24 is correct; with topic bans they are logged here rather than on a block log. - Aoidh (talk) 12:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Since these motions are independent of any case, AE, or ARCA but still cite WP:CT/AI topic area, should the motions or bans also be logged somewhere like WP:ARBPIA4 or WP:AELOG/2024#PIA? The motions are related to the case and CTOP but not actually part of either, so I'm unsure what the protocol is. The WordsmithTalk to me 17:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
@The Wordsmith: AELOG/etc. is where administrators log enforcement actions taken under delegated authority from ArbCom, not for ArbCom's own original actions. One way to think of it is the log of enforcement for ArbCom decisions, not for ArbCom's decisions themselves. Many thanks for raising it. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Oh, I do have one practical suggestion: Superlinks by Bradv has a "restrictions" link for users that centralizes them all in one interface. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
That seems like a pretty neat script, but unfortunately it doesn't look like it works on Monobook. The WordsmithTalk to me 19:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm surprised some see these sanctions as excessive. I see them as lenient. People who engage in organized off-wiki efforts to spread misinformation on Wikipedia should be globally locked. Levivich (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

They were not accused of efforts to spread "misinformation." You shouldn't equate "misinformation" with "viewpoints I don't like." Marokwitz (talk) 06:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
The fact that they had to run a sockpuppetry network certainly casts doubts on the verifiability of the information they were trying to add. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
The users being sanctioned were not accused of sockpuppetry. And while ArbCom would certainly know if other users created sockpuppetry networks, a newcomer being asked to do an edit wouldn't know this. A TBAN from PIA may be appropriate, but a site ban would clearly not be necessary. Animal lover |666| 18:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
I mean proxy editing has the same effect as sockpuppetry, both are working to put in edits in a way coming from the same person/s. As far as I can tell none of them were newcomers. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
I think the real issue was being dishonest when asked about what they had done. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, which is the most confusing thing about this for me. Why not just be honest? It seems like a clearly better strategy, even for a dishonest person, in this particular scenario given the way Wikipedia works. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately the statement "while ArbCom would certainly know if other users created sockpuppetry networks" is not the case. The community's current ability to detect sockpuppets, let alone sockpuppet networks, is rather limited. And in fact, if non-extendedconfirmed socks are used to cast wide email canvassing nets, as is the case here, there is really no robust and reliable way to detect them at the moment. It is a technically challenging problem. We need people's help by, for example, reporting canvassing emails every time they receive them. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Talking with other people off-wiki, no matter who they are, is not a crime, especially if it helps to improve the content of WP. In such cases one might reasonably invoke WP:IAR. However, in this case, it did not help to improve the project. Quite the opposite. Or at least this is my understanding. My very best wishes (talk) 03:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
"it did not help to improve the project" is subjective. The banned user doing the canvassing would almost certainly strongly disagree with your assessment. Thinking about things like this in a quality-of-edits way seems like the wrong path to take. If we are thinking about how much involvement and influence we should allow banned uses to have over content, deletion discussions, reliable sources discussions etc. we are essentially admitting that the Wikipedia collaborative model is an illusion. I am not clear on how much information editors had about the person doing the canvassing. If an editor chooses to collaborate with a banned user, that seems problematic. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
I agree: banned editors suppose to have zero influence over content, deletion discussions, etc. - per WP:BAN. But some of them do continue creating sockpuppets to edit, as we all know, and not all their edits are so bad to be immediately reverted. This is not an advocacy in their favor. I would not do that. But such is life. I even know one former admin who created a lot of sockpuppets, was site banned, but then officially allowed to return to editing. My very best wishes (talk) 05:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Motion on use of remind, warn, and admonish

Feedback requested for AE's "Information for administrators" section

Latest comment: 9 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Original announcement

Proposed text and feedback can be found at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Consultation: Admin information draft. Z1720 (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding the severity of remedies

Original announcement

Change to the CheckUser team, January 2024

Original announcement

Motions on amending the scope of appeals considered by the Arbitration Committee

Original announcement

List of Level I and Level II desysops

Latest comment: 9 months ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Is there a list or log of Level I and Level II desysops anywhere and/or is there a better way to find them than just trawling through the logs of this page/BN? Thryduulf (talk) 15:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Thryduulf, Please check Wikipedia:Inactive administrators. — DreamRimmer (talk) 16:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, but I'm interested in WP:LEVELI and WP:LEVELII removals for cause/for precaution rather than for inactivity. Thryduulf (talk) 16:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
I think the best bet is WP:FORCAUSE and search for "arbcom". RoySmith (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Though I can see that is incomplete as it doesn't cover some desysops I know happened. I think an archive search is likely the best way to index LEVEL I and II. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
I'll go through the archives then. It should be easy to create a list for future reference as a side effect of what I'm working on. Thryduulf (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Mzajac

Latest comment: 9 months ago22 comments14 people in discussion
Original announcement
  • Note that the matter of misconduct in the RUSUKR topic area was dealt with by ScottishRadishFinnish indefinitely topic-banning Mzajac from the area as Arbitration enforcement. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 22:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
    For me, that's fine. Only ArbCom can address the admin issues, which were the heart of the case. Non-admin-related misconduct as an editor can be handled by the community or individual admins (albeit using an arbitration enforcement process) and I'd rather ArbCom left matters to those processes if they're capable of handling them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
    Individual admins aren't acting individually with an AE action. They are acting on behalf of the Arbitration Committee and under our authority. In any number of situations it would be unfair of ArbCom to foist responsibilities onto individual admins by refusing to take action because some individual admin. I also think it's not ideal for ArbCom to not acknowledge its responsibility and oversight of the extraordinary powers granted to individuals when exercising an AE action. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Briefly: In 2020, I topic banned Mzajac while they were an admin. But it wasn't a unilateral action on my part but a closure of an AE complaint that was filed by an admin and which saw consensus for sanctions among participating admins. And as far as I recall, ARBCOM was aware of this action (or at least a few individual arbitrators were). As noted in my closing summary, Mzajac's unresponsiveness was an aggravating factor — unresponsiveness then and now. In short, I stand by that action then, even if it seems implausible now (i.e. deferral process, etc.). El_C 15:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
    I wasn't an arb in 2020, but during my time on the committee ArbCom often feels constrained about acting when it knows something unless someone formally asks us to act. On the whole I think that constraint/restraint is a good thing. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
    That's an interesting general point. Might be the basis for a question to ask candidates in future arbcom elections. DMacks (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
  • I feel that my colleagues passed the buck by not addressing the POV editing in their motion and, therefore, outsourced their central job as arbs to an AE admin. I hope that this isn't a sign of things to come this term. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 16:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
    That's an interesting take on the outcome, because it doesn't seem that ArbCom nowadays accepts cases to examine the conduct of a single editor, unless it's an administrator, and that's only because ArbCom is the only body which can desysop for cause. If we were presented with a dossier of evidence about POV editing in a contentious topic by one user, surely at least the question of why it didn't go to AE would be posed. That said, I'm sure there is a discussion that could be had regarding what sort of cases we should be accepting; perhaps there are some arbitrators who believe that the Committee has been too conservative in which cases it accepts. Maxim (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
    I think recent committees have been too caught up with waiting for a perfect vehicle to examine the perfect question. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 16:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
    I think it's a waste of the community's time to say "we have this issue in front of us and we have evidence of misconduct but even though we're empowered to act, we're not going to because someone else could act" when it comes to individual sanctions. This is doubly true when it comes to areas under Contentious Topic restrictions, which means it's already an ArbCom problem. I also think, as I noted above, that it can place individual admins in an unfair position. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
    I think a key issue here is that WP:ARBPOL defines Arbcom's scope as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. If the community can or has resolved it, under their own authority or CTOP, then there shouldn't be a need for the Committee to address it. This case was presented as an admin conduct/community trust issue, while the POV editing was a tangent. The existing tools seem sufficient to address the POV editing, so there shouldn't be a need for Arbcom intervention there. The only problem might be that admins are hesitant to act under existing procedures while there's an ongoing case, but adding a statement to WP:CTOP might help that. The WordsmithTalk to me 19:45, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
    CTOP only exists because Arbcom is final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. The topic ban that was enacted in this instance was done under our authority - not the authority of the community. So there already was arbitration intervention here. It's just that we made some individual administrator do it - which not for nothing means that the topic ban is far more transitory than if ArbCom had done it. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:20, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
    I think it's a waste of the community's time to say "we have this issue in front of us and we have evidence of misconduct but even though we're empowered to act, we're not going to because someone else could act" when it comes to individual sanctions. This is doubly true when it comes to areas under Contentious Topic restrictions, which means it's already an ArbCom problem. I generally agree with this take. But it also seemed excessively bureaucratic to vote to issue a TBAN (which I think would have required more consideration and would have delayed the motion significantly) when there was already a TBAN in effect. I'm satisfied with the path we ended up taking. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
    +1 firefly ( t · c ) 20:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
    The need for bureaucracy and horse trading is a crisis of the committee's own making. It would be perfectly reasonable to do something like In light of the evidence presented, ~ is topic banned from Ukraine as long as the case is suspended. We have done topic bans by injunction before and nobody batted an eye. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
    This is a very rare case of an admin who (almost) did not misuse the tools, but whose behavior in discussions (not using the tools) was out of line. This is why ANI was hopeless (at the end, I was accused of personal attacks and got a warning by Lourdes - and it could have been much worse), AE admins would typically say "too bad, but please go to ArbCom if you want to take the flag off" and the ArbCom would only look at the case if there was misuse of the tools. I am glad that the thing was resolved by a topic ban, but generally I do not think we will be often here in this kind of situation. Most, if not all admins who were desysopped in the last few years either had issues with using the tools, or were inactive legacy admins who would come and just say something deemed inacceptable (we had a couple desysopped literally for one diff). Whereas the whole Mzajac situation probably could have been handled better, I do not think any special arrangements or discussions are needed for a potential situation we will have another case like this. Ymblanter (talk) 01:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
  • In the workshop, I had proposed an amendment to ArbCom procedures that would lead to some formal referral to ArbCom (be it a courtesy note somewhere or a full ARC or ARCA request) when, at a minimum, an admin is sanctioned at AE. While suspending the case was the right thing to do procedurally, I do hope arbitrators will consider enacting something along those lines by motion. Based on the feedback I received in the workshop, I think the best approach would be to make referrals discretionary when it's for a logged warning and mandatory for a sanction. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 22:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
    Personally (and I was an AE admin for a lot of years, on and off, before I stood for ArbCom) I don't think that's necessary. If there is a lack of confidence in an admin (which an AE sanction may signify) I'm happy for that to come to ArbCom but in general I'd rather admins were treated like any other editor at AE; we leave our admin status at the door when we work with articles (especially if we do so disruptively). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
    I agree with Harry (and will further note there were 2 pieces of feedback on this proposal at the workshop, one of which was from me saying something along the lines of what Harry did here). Barkeep49 (talk) 00:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) I was intrigued when I saw the proposal at workshop, but I'm personally a little wary that such a procedure would result in unnecessary escalation where lower-level intervention would have sufficed, and would result in more desysops due to a feeling of obligation to accept a case. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
    It's important to keep editing and sysopping activities siloed. One aspect of this is what I talked about in my comments on this case; that it appeared Mzajac was trying to use their status as an admin to influence a content dispute. The other side of the coin is that we shouldn't let somebody's actions as a content editor (even those which are contrary to policy) reflect on their ability to serve as an admin. In fact, I made exactly this point at Tamzin's RfA. So now what we have here is a proposal that somebody's content editing be a trigger for action against them as an admin. Let's not go there. RoySmith (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
    I strongly disagree with "we shouldn't let somebody's actions as a content editor (even those which are contrary to policy) reflect on their ability to serve as an admin". POV pushing is incompatible with adminship -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 15:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding the scope of appeals considered by the Arbitration Committee

Original announcement

Mschwartz1 granted extended confirmed for the purpose of participating in arbitration

Latest comment: 7 months ago196 comments43 people in discussion
Original announcement
  • Sorry, but why has an account created today and with zero edits been given this permission, and why has it been announced publicly like this? GiantSnowman 22:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
    The answer to the second question is almost certainly because people keep demanding as much transparency from arbcom as possible so they are being as transparent about it as possible, to keep discussion of it in one place (here) and to avoid well-meaning but uninformed editors unilaterally removing it. Thryduulf (talk) 23:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
    The Committee was contacted privately by an organisation requesting a case and we told them to go through the on-wiki dispute resolution processes. This is the account their representative created, which needed an exception to the existing restriction in the Palestine–Israel topic area to be able to post it. As Thryduulf says, it was announced publicly to increase transparency and to hopefully reduce issues down the line. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
    Fair enough, but I have more questions than answers now... GiantSnowman 09:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
    @GiantSnowman. It may just be a coincidence that this report (The Bias Against Israel On Wikipedia) was published this week. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
    It may or may not be a coincidence. I can say the conversation with us that led to this grant has been going on since early February. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
    Until such point that the user needs to edit through extended-confirmed protection, it should be sufficient to permit the user to make edits related to the case; if such need is expected, a decision can be made to give the technical right when the need arises. Animal lover |666| 17:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
    By definition non-Extended-Confirmed users are not allowed to post anywhere other than article talk pages to make edit requests related to topics under ECR. Thus, to file a case request they must be granted Extended Confirmed status. It could potentially be reasonable to have a BANEX-type exemption for Arb-specific business such as ARC or ARCA requests, but that is a matter for ARCA/ARM to deal with. Primefac (talk) 17:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
    I may be wrong but my thoughts go straight to POV pushing with this. v/r - Seawolf35 T--C 17:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
    If you are referring to Mschwartz1 suddenly jumping into article editing, that was not the purpose of granting the user right and it would immediately be revoked were that the case. It was granted to post and participate at ARC. Primefac (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
    Not article editing, but given the nature of this topic area there are many groups who have their preferred way of how events are covered. Arbitration seems like a nuclear option to me. I do recognize that there is plenty I don’t know, but this in my instinct, seems like it would just be an attempt to use arbitration to get their preferred picture of events on Wikipedia. v/r - Seawolf35 T--C 17:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
    so if the account is used to edit any ECR articles, can any admins either remove the right or block them from editing in the main space until the stated need for the EC right no longer present? – robertsky (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
    (Speaking in an individual capacity) I suppose, though notifying us or the clerks would be good. I hope that in such a situation, a warning or a nudge would be sufficient for them to stop editing said protected page(s). Sdrqaz (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
    About that article claiming anti-Israel bias on Wikipedia, I don't know whether or not that's something that is influencing ArbCom, but I'm having flashbacks to the paper that influenced the Polish Holocaust case. I don't want us to get in a position where outside advocates learn that they can get a knee-jerk reaction when they have an issue with our content. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
    I mean, while a few people on each side got bans and topic-bans for civility issues (and in one case because it came out mid-case that they were a sock and had been all along), I don't think they did get what they wanted in that case. They didn't understand what ArbCom actually is and does, which is likely the case here as well - it seems like they expected ArbCom to just decide what articles on the subject should say. In fact, the most sweeping actual allegations they made in the paper were barely discussed in the case compared to civility issues. Based on the authors' later commentary, this frustrated them to no end, but that outcome was probably unsurprising to experienced editors - incivility is easy to prove; whereas in a controversial topic area where reputable scholars disagree, proving WP:CIVILPOV and the like is very hard. And the authors' ultimate assertion (that a bunch of scholars they disagreed with were WP:FRINGE and that there was actually an unambiguous scholarly consensus on the underlying dispute that our articles weren't reflecting) was just... very clearly not true, at least not in the way Wikipedia uses the term. By my reading, even many of the experienced editors who broadly agreed with the position their paper took didn't seriously attempt to argue that aspect, since they recognized the impossibility of proving it (and also recognized that, again, proving a case based on WP:CIVIL is comparatively easy.) And if you look at eg. one of the articles at the heart of the case it has barely changed since the case closed. I suspect that this will go the same way - the hard spotlight of an ArbCom case might result in bans for a few people in the topic area whose behavior has been suboptimal, but the sort of seismic "REWRITE ALL THESE ARTICLES!" mandate from ArbCom that they likely want is just not going to happen. --Aquillion (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
    I agree with your assessment of the incorrect expectations of the paper authors from that earlier case, but I also think that should be a lesson to ArbCom about being awfully careful about starting cases based on outside pressure. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
    I see that the new paper actually devotes a section to the paper from the earlier case, and treats that paper very approvingly. No wonder I'm having flashbacks. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
    I still haven't read this new paper so I can say with confidence it's not influenced any of my decision. I also was not aware of the paper before this discussion so if it's influenced others it hasn't been mentioned. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks so much for clarifying that! Because I learned here that ArbCom had received a request from an organization, and because another editor posted a link to the new paper, I was concerned that the new paper might reflect whatever ArbCom had been contacted about. But I'm glad to see your reply. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
    Seeing subsequent discussion below, where it's confirmed that the scope of the pending case request is indeed about Israel-Palestine, and the ongoing mention by various editors of the new paper about that topic on Wikipedia, I'm left wondering whether the outside group that is having someone prepare a case request is also the outside group that published the new paper. That doesn't mean that anyone on ArbCom has read the new paper or was previously aware of it. But it does raise the possibility that the case request is going to reflect a request to ArbCom from that outside group. Of course, such a case request is just that, a request. It might not result in a case. Or it might reveal some legitimate conduct concerns. But I strongly, very strongly, urge ArbCom to keep in mind that a new user representing an outside group has no more standing or credibility in making such a request, than anyone else in the community does. And my concern stated above, that we don't want outside groups to get in the habit of thinking they can skew the POV of our content by framing it as an external criticism of Wikipedia, remains. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
    Noted. Hopefully it does not come down to that. – robertsky (talk) 09:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
    So this is an shared organizational account, and its contributions are not going to be associated with an individual? (c.f. WP:NOSHARING). — xaosflux Talk 18:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
    Sure seems to be the case. v/r - Seawolf35 T--C 18:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
    Fear not. The committee made clear that the account should only be operated by a single individual. So if it does turn into a shared account that can be handled as we handle any account which violates NOSHARING. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you for the note. Is this someone that is expected to only make contributions that reflect their own personal ideas? — xaosflux Talk 00:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
    As I understand it, this person wishes to present some evidence of disruptive editing. The evidence doesn't include private information so we don't want to handle it off-wiki but they don't have standing to make an enforcement request on-wiki so here we are. I for one am curious to see what evidence they want to present and the community response to it so we can get to the bottom of the allegations. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
    As I understand it, this person wishes to present some evidence of disruptive editing. The evidence doesn't include private information so we don't want to handle it off-wiki but they don't have standing to make an enforcement request on-wiki so here we are. I'm glad Arbcom is working on being more transparent. If I might give some feedback: If this plus the first comment above by Sdrqaz were put into the initial explanation, that would be everything I'd look for in a perfectly transparent statement. The WordsmithTalk to me 14:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
    An arb speaking on their own is much easier than ~7 arbs agreeing on wording which is what it takes to post at ACN. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
    That's fair, I'm sure wrangling Arbs into making a statement is no small task. Just offering feedback on what I'd consider the ideal, not necessarily what's feasible every time. The WordsmithTalk to me 14:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
    No it all makes sense. One other element: we see here that there are any number of concerns. Some concerns (and speaking generally not just about this statement) are more predictable than others. So while I think there is a version of this statement that you'd consider ideal, and could have produced that ideal in some situation where we're not dealing with the limitations of a multinational asynchronous 15 member committee with no hierarchy who is still trying to make decisions in a reasonable length of time, I don't think that's the ideal statement for everyone who has had questions here. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
    Why would this organization have any standing at any ArbCom process? Obviously this editor has not attempted any of the usual dispute resolution processes. MarioGom (talk) 22:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
    The organisation does not. We allowed one individual to take responsibility for what they want to present and to post it on-wiki. The subject matter is the Arab-Israeli conflict, which is already the most heavily restricted topic area on the site and has been the subject of four(!) previous arbitration cases so is already within ArbCom's jurisdiction. To me, this route seems like the least dramatic, most transparent way of handling allegations of misconduct. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
    I disagree. There is no community dispute here. No editor escalating anything. Only an external organization that, according to their report, are seeking measures like requiring admins to disclose their identities (in this context, a safety threat for Arabic Wikipedia admins, among others) or get themselves as WMF-sanctioned "bias researchers". Had this come from some other of the external organizations that are currently attempting to influence controversial areas, they would have been shown the door, alerting Trust & Safety to monitor the situation. MarioGom (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
    If that is their goal then their arbitration request will be fruitless for them. However, I think it is better for them to be allowed to actually make the request and present their evidence and reasoning before judging it (in exactly the same way that multiple editors are demanding that arbitrators do not prejudge things in the COI handling case), especially as it hasn't even been confirmed that the organisation writing the report is the same the organisation requesting a hearing at arbitration. Thryduulf (talk) 23:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
    Fair enough, since we (non-Arbs) don't know if it's the same organization. Although it is not comparable to the COI management case though, since all parties there were previously editors who participated in (unsuccesful) dispute resolution. MarioGom (talk) 23:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
    I agree that based on the information available to us at this time, an external organization should not have standing to raise requests relating to editing. Arbitration exists as a way to resolve issues that the community has tried and failed to resolve, not as an office for external complaints about Wikipedia. Perhaps there's some missing evidence we can't yet see that justifies this and I'll reserve more serious judgment until the case is underway, but an explanation of what that would be eludes me. signed, Rosguill talk 15:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
    I don't think a case request will ever be the "least dramatic" option in any context   In all seriousness, I was also confused about this whole thing, for the same reasons as MarioGom. Presumably (just my speculation, obviously) this case request will include grievances with editorial decisions made at specific articles and/or by specific editors. I'm sure I'm not saying anything that arbitrators haven't already thought about, but I think it will be important to consider why a case would be warranted if other processes (such as AE, which regularly deals with the topic area) have not yet been exhausted. And especially important for this unusual instance, if this outside organization does not have any members with previous editing experience – given that they had to register a special new account to participate at all – in which case they are likely unfamiliar with the way dispute resolution works around here. DanCherek (talk) 23:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

  • (Non-sarcastic or anti-committee comment) It is good to see the committee uphold the principal that alternate accounts created for short-term security reasons are welcomed; e.g., in case of discovery by the *checks notes* Islamic Revolutionary Guard, which has been described by the CFR as 'paramilitary'[4], and whose leaders are one of a select global elite liable for CIA assassination[5], whose members have a penchant for mass human rights violations,[6][7] and willingness to manipulate your favorite crowd-sourced enclopedia to those ends.[8][9]. Cheers, ——Serial Number 54129 18:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
    If this is an alternative account it would be a surprise to me. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
    Not quite the salient point. I said the committee has upheld the principal, etc., which it was unable to do officially on another occasion. Whether it's a role account or an individual one for the same purpose of security seems of less consequence than the principal. The cttee should be congratulated on now promulgating this principle. Unlike some editors whose refusal to do so suggests an insularity so behemothic, it's a wonder to behold. ——Serial Number 54129 19:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
    I don't think that any definitive conclusions should be drawn from this grant of extended-confirmed; I don't envisage the Committee routinely doing so again. Maybe I'm missing something, but alternative accounts for privacy are allowed, if discouraged. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
    I know this will end in POV pushing. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 23:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
    How do you know this? Thryduulf (talk) 00:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
    (self-redacted) LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 00:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
    It being "fairly obvious" to you that something published off-wiki, which may or may not be by the same organisation, does not explain how you "know this will end in POV pushing" on wiki. Thryduulf (talk) 02:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
    I mean... even if unrelated, it's still a weird coincidence. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 02:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
  • I'm assuming the committee is aware that granting extended-confirmed to a user before they are otherwise eligible breaks autopromotion of that user when they actually become eligible? stwalkerster (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
    I don't know if the committee is aware but I am after the last time we did this. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
    I was/am aware too. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
  • What of WP:PAID and such? If the account is here to act on behalf of an organisation, surely it would require disclosure? – 2804:F1...60:5FC0 (talk) 00:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
    Possibly, but not necessarily. It will depend the organisation, the relationship between them and that organisation, and in what capacity they are editing. Regardless, given that they haven't made any edits yet, we can be certain they haven't violated that policy up to now. Thryduulf (talk) 00:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
    PAID only applies to editing; any account with 0 edits is, by definition, not in violation. If this account only edits within the ArbCom case, then a prominent statement to that effect within the ArbCom statement is enough (the beginning of the statement, and the end of the primary statement before any replies, are each necessarily prominent enough). And the information that ArbCom gave the community doesn't tell us if this person is actually paid - in some organizations it may be reasonable to volunteer, in which case PAID is irrelevant. I trust that ArbCom knows this person's actual relationship with the organization, and will ensure any disclosure they see necssary, which will certainly be no lower than what PAID requires. Animal lover |666| 09:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
    Though, this aspect makes me mildly uneasy. Certainly WP:PAID itself applies to mainspace edits, but in a more general sense, our normal reaction to anyone spending money to influence Wikipedia (more typically through WP:CANVASSing) would be to push back against them and treat anything they say with skepticism. Even if an outside "hired gun" raises valid policy-based objections to the conduct of individual editors, my concern is that the potential for disproportionate scrutiny could still lead to bias - it raises the specter of eg. a think tank or governmental organization devoting paid staffers to compiling dossers on why editors whose views they disagree with in related topic areas need to be banned. As you say, we don't even know if this is from someone being paid, and if there's a clear violation of our policy that they're pointing out then there's a clear violation, but I do think that if this turns out to come from someone paid to file it (ie. a lawyer, possibly a literal one, sent to argue before ArbCom as if it were an actual court), then we need to step back and consider the lopsided enforcement that could result in if it becomes more common, and think about what steps could be taken to rein that in. --Aquillion (talk) 03:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
    PAID applies to all edits, not just mainspace. In particular, it does apply to projectspace discussions involving content such as AFD, and it does apply to ArbCom pages too. MarioGom (talk) 09:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
    Just a reminder that Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure#How to disclose specifies "They must do this on their main user page, or on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or in edit summaries". I question whether the solution proposed by Animal lover 666 is really compliant with this since even if we're generous and treat the case request page as a talk page, there is also the evidence page which they are likely to edit. And what about if they also get involved in the workshop or proposed decision page? I would strongly suggest that in addition to a declaration in their case request, they should also post about this on their main user page. And we are generally fussy about proper disclose in other cases when it comes up rather than just allowing then to say something somewhere and be done with it. I see no reason to treat this any different. I agree it's a moot point until there's any editing. Nil Einne (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
    Unrelated to the arbcom decisions, but when did IPv6 signatures change to exclude the middle digits?— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 13:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
    I suspect that was not an auto-signature, a more recent one doesn't look like that. If you see more please open a thread at WP:VPT though. — xaosflux Talk 13:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
    I just do that manually by copying the user(talk) part from the reply preview or "show changes" and ending it with 5 ~ chars. I can't ping people if I do that though. 2804:F1...44:311A (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Just to set some expectations: there were multiple weeks between messages from the Arbitration Committee and responses to us. So while I admit it would be somewhat surprising to me given how long it took us to get to this point, it wouldn't be out of character for it to be 2 or 3 weeks before this is filed. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Why isn't this a decision that arbs are voting on on-wiki, and providing explanations for their votes on-wiki? It seems a significant first (unless I'm mistaken?) for arbcom to entertain a case request from a non-editor. I appreciate the arbs who have explained their reasoning and answered questions here, but I'd like to hear from every arb whether they support allowing non-editors to make case requests, and why or why not. I understand I'm not entitled to an explanation from anyone about anything, but tbh I feel like the community kind of is entitled to know how arbs are voting and why, whenever that is possible. Off-wiki decision making should only be done for things involving private evidence, and it doesn't seem like whether to allow a non-editor to make a case request is something that involves any private evidence. Levivich (talk) 04:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
    The biggest reasons I supported this motion rely entirely on private evidence because "The Committee treats as private all communications sent to it" from ARBPOL. I will note that with Jytdog the committee only revealed its private approval afterwards and so we're breaking precedent in order to try and give increased transparency. Barkeep49 (talk) 07:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
    @Barkeep49: you've already received evidence? Of what? Levivich (talk) 15:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
    I can see how my use of the word evidence caused confusion. When I wrote "The biggest reasons I supported this motion rely entirely on private evidence" a better description might have been "The biggest reasons I supported this motion rely entirely on private factors". Barkeep49 (talk) 15:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
    What is a "private factor"? Levivich (talk) 15:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
    From context I can assume material that would implicate WP:OUTING or WP:HNE. Especially the latter, given the immediate suspicion shown by everyone in this thread towards a non-editor who is doing their best to satisfy his boss(es)' wishes in a forum they have zero experience in about a topic that is equally sensitive and prone to attracting aggressive partisans. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 17:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
    What you're describing is what I call "private evidence," which arbcom has already said is NOT the case here, as the evidence can be submitted on-wiki. Levivich (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
    That assumes the material is entirely or partly about on-wiki matters. Which, given the implications that the editor is not experienced with editing Wikipedia, assumes facts not in evidence. While they've almost certainly made an argument that ArbCom agrees needs to be examined further and can be done with on-wiki evidence (per Primefac below) the issue here is the identity and affiliations of the person bringing the complaint, which is not automatically private evidence but would need to be kept obscured for OUTING/HNE reasons. You're conflating private material and private evidence; the latter is material relevant to the case that cannot be discussed openly. Compare/contrast EEML (private evidence - the email contents) and JBA (private material - the identities of those Jytdog spoke to). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 18:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
    In both those cases, arbs deliberated and voted on-wiki. Why is this different?
    The decision to allow somebody to create an account and be XC's so they can post a case request... why is this decision being made off-wiki, is my question. There is lots of precedent for decisions involving "private information" (whether that's "evidence" or "material") to nevertheless be made on wiki. Levivich (talk) 18:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
    I will answer with a very pointed question: When was the last time you spoke to Laura Hale? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 18:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
    I have no idea what that means. Levivich (talk) 18:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
    Then you likewise have no idea why ArbCom would have a vested interest in keeping the identity of this person under wraps until they file their case request. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 18:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
    Right, I have no idea why outing and harassment are linked under "vested interest," either. Too cryptic for me. Levivich (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
    Private communication sent to the committee on which I based my support for granting this user ECR so that they could file a request in this topic area. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks for answering my questions but this answer brings me back to my original question: why is the communication private if it doesn't involve outing or other kinds of off-wiki evidence ("private evidence")?
    The way I see it, if a person has evidence involving outing or the like, evidence that can't be dealt with on-wiki, they can just submit that evidence to arbcom privately and arbcom can act on it, as is the usual procedure with private evidence of this type (right?). There is no need to give someone ECR to post an on wiki case request in that scenario.
    If it doesn't involve private evidence, then why would any part of the process be private? Why not have the person make their request on wiki, have the arbs discuss it on wiki, and vote on it on wiki, like an ordinary WP:ARM?
    In other words, if the evidence is "public" (meaning: suitable to be posted on wiki), then why are arbcom's deliberations and decisions made privately (off wiki)? What is the need for secrecy here? Levivich (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
    Because this particular organization has a bit of leverage in Wikimedia processes. WP:OUTING, etc, so we cannot really discuss the details on-wiki yet. But after the inevitable disclosure during the case request, we'll be able to discuss it. MarioGom (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
    How is it possible that outing is a concern yet arbcom told this person their concerns can be brought up on wiki? Levivich (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
    Because that is how our OUTING policy works. Communication with ArbCom is private, and while the identity will need to be self-disclosed, I think ArbCom cannot do it on its own. Even if you independently figure it out, you are not supposed to bring it up here until they self-disclose. The policy does not have a provisión for this kind of case, where we all know the identity will be self-disclosed, and some people probably figured it out already. So we'll have to pretend OUTING is an issue for a while. MarioGom (talk) 18:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
    There is no pretending about it - disclosing someone's identity on wiki when they haven't done so themselves is outing. Some people think they know who it is, they might be right, but imagine the repercussions if they posted that on wiki but they're wrong - especially given the truly massive assumptions of bad faith flying around this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
    I agree it is OUTING per policy, as I already mentioned. The argument will be moot anyway once the request is posted, and my point is that we should just wait. MarioGom (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
    my point is that we should just wait. I agree completely with this. Indeed given the heat to light ratio, it mightn't be a bad idea to draw a line under this discussion for now. There is almost certainly no more information that arbcom can share according to policy (and probably doesn't know everything some people seem to be wanting them to disclose anyway), and unless and until Mschwartz1 actually does post something, nobody else has any additional relevant, non-speculative information they can share either. Thryduulf (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

  • Did you consider telling them to create an account or two and editing non-controversial areas for a month? The experience they might have gained might have been helpful for their arbitration actions, and all of these special measures and discussions would not have been necessary. We might also have gained a few hundred edits to offset all the time-wasting that allowing non-editors from lobbying groups to seek arbitration will surely bring by itself and as a precedent. Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
    Yeah, how does this not open the doors on "non-user advocacy groups can now waste everyone's time with requests for arbitration"? If the answer is "they made a compelling case, privately", well then the case request took place privately, which is doubly weird. What group do they represent? How do we know this isn't a banned user doing an endrun around the process? I appreciate the transparency, but this seems like an extremely bad precedent to set. Arbcom is for user conduct issues, and a user in good standing should have to raise those. Parabolist (talk) 09:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
  • This has been raised/discussed a few times above, so I am going to post my responses here mainly to avoid duplication. ArbCom received a request for private arbitration; we determined that this was not necessary as it could be handled on-wiki. We have done our due diligence in making sure the request is legitimate. We have done our due diligence in making sure the individual participating in this process understands our expectations for their on-wiki conduct. We discussed the merits of having a case request versus sending this to AE, and here we have landed waiting for Mschwartz1 to finish collating their request. Additionally, nothing in our communications have indicated any connection with the published article being discussed above. Please stop pre-judging Mschwartz1 about their intentions before they have even posted anything. I know I cannot request the same for ArbCom since it comes with the territory, but I should think we would not be so easily hoodwinked as everyone seems to assume; the gaps in disclosure are just private information that we cannot reveal. Primefac (talk) 10:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
    Working on it since February, must be complex. Selfstudier (talk) 14:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
    Drafting a case takes time, especially if you almost never edited a Wikimedia project and are relying on a third party to write it. So I think a delay is understandeable. MarioGom (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
    Especially since case requests have gotten more complex over time, and the specific circumstances of the case can also affect the time it takes to put together a compelling request. It took me a few hours to put together SEE back in 2009, and that was for a relatively straightforward case. A hypothetical PIA5 in this age would take considerably longer. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 18:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
    I think something that might have been helpful would have been to have them ready to post the case when you grant the rights. Given that all we know about this case is that its about to the I-P area, and that it might take them weeks to actually post this, this situation sort of puts a strange sword of damocles over editors in that area. There is an arbcom case coming, that it sounds like will be accepted (On the basis that arbitrators have said that it obviously isn't frivolous, and have gone out of their way to give someone standing to post it), and it could be about anyone. Arbitration cases are lengthy and exhaustive for everyone involved, and I would be stressed out if I was a major editor in that area until it was posted. Parabolist (talk) 20:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
    Considering ths history of the cases related to this topic, you can assume that the preparation for the next ArbCom case starts as soon as the previus case was closed. Until the real world conflict ends (and there's no sign of this happening in the foreseeable future), Wikipedia and ArbCom will still need to struggle to keep this topic under control. Animal lover |666| 07:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
    To your last sentence, Animal lover, I completely agree, and I've said the same myself in a few places. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
    That's pretty much how it is for every ethnopolitical CTOP area (AP2, AA, EE, PIA, IP, TRB). And sometimes, not even then (eyes TRB). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 16:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
  • If this was the type of thing that merited being given a special dispensation to file a case, much less an enforcement request, I have serious concerns that the committee is inviting outside organizations to attempt to drive away editors through specious filings that would normally invite a boomerang at AE (in fact some of the things complained about were brought to AE and already resulted in boomerangs). I would rather yall had no idea what the quality of the complaint was before you granted this permission, but that raises its own question as to why you thought allowing this to go forward was a good idea. nableezy - 18:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
    ArbCom did not "invite" anyone to file. ArbCom is allowing them to file. If this weren't a 500/30 topic area - if it were American Politics for instance - they wouldn't have needed any permission at all. If the request doesn't meet the standards it will be declined or procedurally removed as would any other case request. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
    The inviting is referring to other potential cases that outside parties attempt to file seeing this was allowed. The special dispensation was referring to this allowance here. nableezy - 19:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
    We received a short version, saw nothing private, and told them to make the case publicly. The fact that we granted them ECP does not prevent us from denying their case requests as bad, revoking the permission, or even blocking them if they prove disruptive. Of course, the spurious case requests will waste community time, but a good amount of that wasted time will be, shall we say, unnecessary and self-inflicted? By which I mean "the usual suspects will show up at ARC to remind us that they have opinions!!! and share those opinions because they seem to think that arbs can't read or think for themselves." That sort of time which they could have spent sharing opinions!!! at ANI instead.
    GeneralNotability (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
    Part of why 500/30 exists is to prevent users from wasting everyone's time. Having now read the text of their request, it seems like exactly the sort of thing the restriction was designed to protect everyone from. Normally, I'd be fine with arbcom setting a precedent that they want to inflict wastes of time on themselves, but the reason the "usual suspects" show up to things like these is because even a 1% chance of a good editor being taken to arbcom on spurious reasons is too much. At the very least, by allowing this you've also forced Nishidani to waste his time responding to it.Parabolist (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
    Beyond that, I assumed the standard for any case request not involving tool misuse included that the filing user is also expected to show that prior dispute resolution has already been attempted. How does a user who has never attempted any form of dispute resolution skip right past that requirement? How does a user show that they have engaged in good faith to address any issues with measures short of an arbitration case if their first edit is a case request? nableezy - 20:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
    They are required to show the prior dispute resolution has been attempted, not that they personally have attempted dispute resolution. In a topic area like this a non-ECR editor can attempt very little, and even some of that will be shut down without even looking to see if there is substance to the request. Thryduulf (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
    Do you see substance here? nableezy - 20:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
    No, but that's irrelevant to both the specific question you and the situation in general. You asked how a used could show evidence of prior attempts at dispute resolution when their first edit is a case request, and I answered that question. You did not ask whether this user had done so. Also, there is no standard for case requests, simply a standard for case requests that don't get quickly declined. This case request has been quickly declined, albeit without prejudice to a request posted in the correct place and format. If a request is posted in the correct place and format also shows no substance, it too will be shut down (almost certainly with prejudice). Thryduulf (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
    We forced nobody to do anything, and if you think that the peanut gallery's comments at ARC are going to prevent that 1% that you allude to then you have a vastly overinflated view of the average comment's value. You have yet to say anything that the committee did not consider in some way prior to the grant. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
    Have you read the case that was posted? (In the wrong place, of course, because the user hasn't spent any time on this wiki.) Some fairly vile things are said about Nishidani, so it's hard to take seriously that you think he shouldn't feel compelled to respond to them. Preventing fresh accounts from harassing editors is exactly what 500/30 was designed to do, and it's unclear why arbcom thinks case requests should be exempt from this. Parabolist (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
    I did. And if that is how they intend to approach arbitration, I will be more than happy to block them myself. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
    This is getting more insane by the second. I just offered to do that (do you think it is not how they intend to approach arbitration??!! Based on what?) and was told ArbCom knows more than me. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Do I understand correctly that by giving ECP to Mschwartz1, the committee is signaling that they would likely punish me if I were to block Mschwartz1 right now as "pretty obviously using a throw-away account to harass another editor without allowing scrutiny of their own - possibly blocked - account"? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
    I know the editor's actual identity and am aware of no blocked account for whom that matches to. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
    So that's a "yes"? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
    Given that an arb has told you that they are not "using a throw-away account to harass another editor without allowing scrutiny of their own - possibly blocked - account" blocking them for "using a throw-away account to harass another editor without allowing scrutiny of their own - possibly blocked - account" would be a very dumb thing to do. Thryduulf (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
    I don't have time to get into a whole thing with Barkeep about how they can be positive that this person does not have another account (blocked, or not). I'm sure I'd be told they can't tell me. Suffice it to say that, having seen Mschwartz1's first attempt (more to come, see the thread title) at harassing editors on the other side of the conflict, it is very clear to me that Barkeep is wrong, and this person has been in conflict here before. in any case, ArbCom can be cavalier about wasting their own time, and I kind of see their point about us lowly hoi polloi wasting our own time by choosing to post, but they're not accounting for the stress and pain that the targets of a case request will go thru, whether accepted or not. A case requests that would not happen if ArbCom hadn't granted this dispensation. As a failed Arb myself, I know this is really hard to get right all the time, but I'm surprised and disappointed that Arbcom didn't see thru this. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
    What I understand so far (but can't elaborate until the appropriate disclosure is made) is that it is reasonable to assume that the filer has no prior experience in editing English Wikipedia. There is a more likely explanation to your suspicion that this case is not anyone's first edit ever, and it is that the case text itself has been prepared by another member of the organization who is a Wikipedia editor. Some will contend that my comment is speculation, and yes, there is a lot of guesswork involved here, but this is what we get with having an "organization representative" filing an ArbCom case and whose identity (as individual or as organization) cannot be discussed on wiki. MarioGom (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you, that makes sense. I must have missed it somewhere above. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
    In a current case, we're being criticised for not acting when concerns were raised from outside the editing community and essentially letting Wikipediocracy clean house for us and here editors are criticising us for hearing out a complaint from outside the community. We can't be all things to all people. Speaking for myself, if the complaints are without merit I'd much rather address them publicly and show why they are without merit than leave them to fester in the dark. And if they have merit, all the more reason to hear them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
    And to add - as mentioned by my colleagues elsewhere if the claims do not have merit then all standard processes can be followed. firefly ( t · c ) 21:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
    Those situations are only superficially similar. And what you've done is the equivalent of giving "Eddy Landwehr" ECP. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
    I think the comparison of those two situations was quite apt. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
    They're not, because in the first situation, arbcom received evidence before Wikipediocracy "cleaned house". Levivich (talk) 23:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
    But that was the point. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Worth mentioning that they have violated WP:BATTLEGROUND with their first edit. v/r - Seawolf35 T--C 21:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you, Seawolf35, for providing such an excellent example of what I mean when I refer to people who make comments thinking that arbs can neither read nor think for themselves. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
    No need to be a dick. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
    To put a (slightly) finer point on what Floquenbeam said, there's an ongoing case right now where the community has been advised not to assume that Arbcom is fully aware of something, even if one or more Arbs has already seen it. But yes, both this comment and the one you referenced are uncivil and make assumptions of bad faith. Seawolf35's account is barely a year old, and this discussion is the first time he's ever edited an Arbcom page. Biting him like that is uncalled-for. The WordsmithTalk to me 01:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 3

  • You are going to have to control carefully what you allow. Just note, if the account is participating in discussions about content of any "topic" of any "article" on the pedia to further the purposes of an organization, than under WP:COI they need to WP:DISCLOSE (see also WP:COICAMPAIGN) the COI "whenever and wherever [they] discuss the topic". Wherever and whenever includes the Arbitration pages. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
    Yes. Just like every other arb case in a sensitive topic area. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
    No, not every matter that comes before arbcom, sensitive or not, deals with accounts pleading on behalf of an organization and COI. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
    Apologies, I was replying to the whole "be careful what you allow" and did not make that clear. You are correct about COI concerns, though I note that COI is generally "encouraged to"/"should" disclose rather than "must" (much as I'd like otherwise) GeneralNotability (talk) 21:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
    "Should" means there is consensus to do something at the proper time, if it is not done, it is a violation of the community consensus. (As for your replying to part of my comment out of context, best to not do that kind of thing.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
    Not really. There is a wealth of precedent here. Except in the case of WP:PAID and WP:ADMINCOND, there is no general mandate to disclose COI. Non-UPE COI blocks generally fall under broader rules such as NOTHERE, using Wikipedia for promotional purposes, disruptive editing, etc. On the other hand, I think there are additional circumstances to consider in this particular case: one is that WP:PAID probably applies, the other is that this is not just an editor that happens to have a COI, but someone who is here as an organization representative. MarioGom (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, really. The precedent is people who fail disclose COI are taken to task regularly. There are almost no "mandates" as you imagine them on the pedia, even something crucial to the pedia like violating NPOV does not mean insta-block. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
    Given that there was another massive case where this just came up, and given that highly-experienced editors are weighing in on both sides, perhaps this is something we ought to have an RFC for somewhere in order to settle once and for all. Though it might be worth starting a discussion elsewhere first because it's a complex topic and the exact wording of such an RFC probably requires workshopping. --Aquillion (talk) 03:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Given that the now-EC editor has posted in the wrong place only once, and that was (correctly) closed down—by Primefac playing the Sandstein Gambit of ArbEndgames—how long does the permission remain, or, more to the point, what happens if they choose not to post after all? I will not link to WP:BITE, to maintain the general atmosphere, but. ——Serial Number 54129 16:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
    If they choose not to post at all, does it matter whether they have the permission or not? They can't edit disruptively if they don't edit. Thryduulf (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
    The extendedconfirmed flag was granted solely for the purposes of participating in arbitration. If they don't edit, it doesn't matter so there's no issue. If they do start working on content, there's nothing stopping any uninvolved admin from issuing a topic ban or WP:PBLOCK from Article/Talk namespaces if needed. But I don't think that's a big concern; much of the speculation and what-ifs raised here seem very unlikely to actually happen. If they do, we can handle it at that time with the processes we already have. The best thing for all of us is to just chill and wait for something to happen before wasting time obsessing over worst case scenarios. The WordsmithTalk to me 21:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Let's not prejudge the issue. This is only "Complaint #1". By the time we get to Complaint #17 they might be quite good. It can take years for people to perfect their harassment game, especially if they aren't using disposable sockpuppet accounts for training. Given the complexity and constraints of the wiki-ruleset, I imagine transitioning from an off-wiki advocacy and harassment mindset to an on-wiki advocacy and harassment mindset could present some challenges. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
    .) It took that long to produce complaint 1, complaint x will require non linear time to produce. Selfstudier (talk) 12:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
    It can probably be crowdsourced. I just hope the person was told what to do with the canvassing emails they have probably already started receiving through wiki-mail. I have to say, some of the ARBCOM decisions over the years have had a positive impact on the topic area, especially the EC restrictions, maybe the most effective signal boosting/noise reduction measure so far. But this decision, with the caveat that I'm often wrong, seems like an obviously questionable and risky decision. To quote Harry Hill, "My Dad used to say 'always fight fire with fire', which is probably why he got thrown out of the fire brigade." I suspect nothing is going to improve by inviting people in to essentially advocate/start fires on behalf of a state or a people, regardless of how well meaning they are. The hypotheses upon which these kinds of actions are based are not falsifiable. Any outcome of cases like this can be incorporated into a negative model of Wikipedia without significantly changing it - Wikipedia is anti-Israel, biased against Israel, lousy with antisemites etc. It's a waste of time trying to appease people or change people's minds about it. They can change Wikipedia through participation, collaboration, not by advocacy and targeted killings. It's a complex system they probably don't understand, not a target-rich battlefield. On the other hand, I was glad to see them reference the universal code of conduct, which also forbids 'systematically manipulating content to favour specific interpretations of facts or points of view', so no biased editing and advocacy on behalf of states and people's then. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
    When encouraging editors not to prejudge the issue, it is best practice to refrain from extensively prejudging the issue, assuming bad faith and making borderline personal attacks. Additionally, it has been explained multiple times that nobody has been invited to do anything. Thryduulf (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
    Well, that was sarcasm. Of course I'm going to prejudge the issue, start with priors based on the evidence presented and adjust judgement over time. And regarding "nobody has been invited to do anything", an external party, who is not part of the community, has been given special treatment - I can call it invited, given the opportunity, enabled, facilitated, whatever - with extendedconfirmed privileges no less (a fire prevention tool), to do something that I find difficult to distinguish from harassment (whatever the intent, I don't care about intent), given the history the targeting of this editor. This pre-judgement is based on the quality of the evidence presented, the extent to which the evidence relitigates closed cases, and my knowledge of the history of targeting in the topic area and how Wikipedia routinely addresses content issues when there are concerns about balance. I'm not assuming bad faith at all, I'm pretty confident that from their perspective they are acting completely in good faith, trying to make the world a better place, but as I said above, I don't believe that helps, hence the "regardless of how well meaning they are". And as always, in the topic area, the cost of faulty decision making made in good faith is not paid by the decision makers. Anyway, we shall see. As I said, I am often wrong. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
  • What I don't understand is why ArbCom thinks there is a difference between an outside organization and an individual representative of an outside organization. Is it plausible that this individual received no guidance or assistance in wording the case? Is it plausible that this individual will not confer with the organization during the case? My answer is "not only implausible but impossible" in both cases. ArbCom has granted special status to an outside advocacy organization under all readings I can see. Furthermore (per Alanscottwalker) it seems like this individual representative will be given special exemption from the COI policy, since editing on behalf of an outside organization is an obvious COI. Zerotalk 08:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
    Surely at best it's a COI, if it is assumed that they have a significant degree of personal agency; at worst, if they're just acting as a pure proxy, it's no better than a dressed-up form of direct petitioning from that organisation. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
  • I'd also like to ask whether this individual has undergone a thorough SPI and if not, why not. Zerotalk 08:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
    We don't open SPI cases without having evidence beforehand. I did investigate, to see if an SPI case would be due, and my conclusion so far is that it is very unlikely to be abuse of multiple accounts on English Wikipedia. Whether there is proxying for banned editors is almost imposible for me to know though. Also WP:PAID still needs to be addressed, probably once they post their second case request if it does not come with the disclosure. MarioGom (talk) 09:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
  • I read this page through again. ECR is not the problem. Here is my summary: some external advocacy organisation approached ArbCom asking for a private case against one or more wikipedia editors. ArbCom replies "No, we won't allow that, but if you select a front-person to file the case publicly, we will pretend that it is a case filed by an individual and keep your organisation's identity secret." Barkeep49 says "The committee made clear that the account should only be operated by a single individual" but this doesn't help at all since it is still an operation of the organisation regardless of how many employees have access to the keyboard (for precisely the same reasons we have rules about paid editing). I wonder if such a thing ever happened before in the history of the encyclopedia. Zerotalk 03:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
    I guess a positive spin is perhaps that it's a kind of bold experiment, albeit on a human subject without the proper human subjects protection by an agent who isn't qualified under the normal regulations. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
    On protection of editors, Trust and Safety alerted me several years ago to the existence of a new and vicious website which was dedicated to outing me, Zero, Huldra and Nableezy. On its website a score of prestigious names backed this effort (by an ex-wikipedian who sockpuppeted), a kind of virtual boardroom of senior professional figures in American Jewish life who were willing to lend their names to an endorsement of this shabby project. Daniel Pipes himself assumed a role as patron (just as he gave space on his website to a post excoriating me as a bigot). T&S did a good job, and the site collapsed through mortality and, I gather, a lack of funding that was sought to enable a stronger assault on anyone in wikipedia's I/P area who curated the P side of the equation. This attentive protection of an editor from execrable lobbying, appears to have been dismissed as no longer important.Nishidani (talk) 13:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
    The Committee has told them that they should disclose the organisation. I don't want to make promises, but I think that people's concerns will be alleviated when they see which organisation that is (or at least the wider Community will understand why we didn't dismiss them completely).
    I personally highly doubt that this is a reincarnation of that website. Committee members have fought to address lobbying/canvassing issues in this subject area and it would be inaccurate to say that we are undoing the WMF's work or abandoning editors to be harassed. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Unless it wasn't obvious, let me be absolutely clear on this. I certainly do not believe the present exposition has anything directly to do with, a reincarnation of, the former website. It was laughably incompetent (but, disturbingly obtained strong professional endorsements), whereas the snippet we have now shows far more work, even if it is, in my view, extremely erratic. There is no technical way one can determine whether or not the content provided from a single account comes from the ascribed editor working that account, or from several hands providing that editor with material input. Had MSchwarz registered, done 500 edits (a matter of a month's work) and then asked for this arbitration, I would have been the last person to take exception. (Let me say comically that I think wryly of the strong possibility that I might achieve a minor wiki infamy as the only single account editor twice permabanned, given the 2012 decision. That would leave me with a certain ironical sense of outstanding achievement!). Regards Nishidani (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Off-site activities indistinguishable from harassment and defamation, at least as far as I can tell, have been going on for years. In fact, a currently active editor posted a link to one of the active sites recently, perhaps including archived version of the one you mention Nishidani, I'm not sure, then thought better of it and removed it. I guess that's an advantage of this new approach of using an external party. It moves ineffective off-wiki activities onsite where they perhaps have a non-zero chance of success, or at least producing a chilling effect. This is my perspective, which is likely to be very different from the perspective of the source of the complaint of course. As for knowing the name of the organization making a difference, that seems very optimistic. Appeals to authority seem unlikely to succeed in such a polarized topic area and may make things worse. People can see the quality of the complaint for themselves. It is not great. What they could have written is something like - while we strongly oppose editor X's views, we recognize that in Wikipedia's collaborative model there is strength in diversity and that it is a work in progress. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
While the disclosure of the organization is needed and mandated by policy, it does not dispel my concerns about safety. But at least it will allow us to have a substantive discussion about the (lack of) legitimacy of the organizations involved in this campaign. MarioGom (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Maybe it's the International Committee of the Red Cross... Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
  • I said this to Nishidani on their talk page, but I'll repeat it here: I think the thing to do is, if and when they file their case, for people to push to broaden its scope to encompass broader conflicts in the topic area, including people Nishidani has been in conflict with there (and whoever those people think needs to be added, etc., until we have an outline of an overarching dispute as opposed to just a case focused on one person.) There has been concern in the past about how ArbCom cases named for and focused solely on a single editor tend to assume guilt and strip larger, more complex disputes of context, which ArbCom has generally been receptive to; and I feel that that is a particularly major concern with a case like this brought by an outside party. The biggest risk here, to me, is that of one-sided scrutiny - large organizations can afford to go over the history of every editor they want to remove from a topic area and make dossers arguing for their removal. A broader case avoids these problems, puts the behavior of the editors they're focused on in a larger context, and pushes things back towards our more standard way of doing things, reducing the impact of the initial filing to just the spark that started a broader case as opposed to allowing outside organizations to invoke a more targeted spotlight on specific editors of their choice. --Aquillion (talk) 19:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
I appreciated that observation, and focusing of just the 4/5 people who curate the Palestinian perspective, MSchwarz or whoever has in mind (#1...etc) is plainly flawed. In the earlier case of 2009 which led to my permaban, both behaviours were examined. The result was 4 'pro-Palestinians' permabanned, and 2 'pro-Israel editors' idem. I say 'two', not three, because, unbeknown to Arbcom at that time, every editor on the ground was 99% certain that NoCal and CanadianMonkey were the same person, the latter a sock of the former. That couldn't be proven because it was based on systemic tagteaming and certain stylistic clues that, in those days, were not sufficient to constitute iron-hard evidence for a complaint. Their 'invisible duetting' was one of the major causes for the impression of 'toxic' disruption.
But who would 'dob in' editors associated with the other perspective? I certainly would not, and, at a guess, I should think none of the others in the expected list would either. The area is not 'toxic' but certainly difficult, and most practiced editors on both sides manage to negotiate their differences. I say that because I remember when it was really bad, with scores of sockpuppets and IP blow-ins, something Arbcom measures have sensibly reduced. In short, Arbcome presumably would, were your suggestion adopted, pick through all this material and single out editors with whom the presently to be name gang of four or five often disagree, and draft them in as suspects. I think that would be unfair, indeed indecent.Nishidani (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
There are still scores of sockpuppets, and that's only the blocked socks for the guy doing the canvassing that formed the basis for the previous ArbCom case. The EC restrictions certainly raise the barrier a bit. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
I understand that that's your perspective. But consider the alternative. The case against you is numbered 1, implying that they intend to go down a list of editors, which we can reasonably presume will be selected based on the organization's perspective. Each case will name only that one editor and, if the scope isn't widened, will not allow discussion of anyone else. You may personally feel that you will be able be completely vindicated or even prevent the case from moving forwards, but past history with ArbCom cases makes it clear that it is rare for an accepted case to end with no sanctions; the truth is that few prolific editors look ideal when their worst edits are pulled into the harsh light of an ArbCom case. This means that over the course of however many cases they intend to bring, it is likely many prolific editors will get sanctioned. If we passively allow them to just bring cases against whoever they wish to name and make no attempt to broaden them, the scrutiny involved will be one-sided, the resulting sanctions will also be one-sided, and the result will be lopsided editing in the topic area going forwards. This is bad for Wikipedia and sets a terrible precedent. The only way to avoid this is to have a broader case. To be clear, I am not saying that ArbCom is going to do pick through all the material to figure out which editors in the topic area require scrutiny; I don't even think that that's really their job, they mostly consider cases that are brought to them and can't be expected to know enough details of every single topic wiki-wide to decide who should be added as an initial party. I am saying that we need to do it - the community as a whole. I am sure that ArbCom is tired of comments from the peanut gallery on this, but making sure that a case's initial scope is comprehensive rather than one-sided is one of those places where outside contributions from editors familiar with the topic area are actually important. I would hope that other editors who are active there (on all sides) will participate in putting together a list of what requires scrutiny, since editors who are more active in that area will have a better sense of whose conduct ought to be examined. But if necessary I'll do it myself. My concern here is broader than just this topic area - outside organizations bringing laser-targeted cases like this is potentially harmful for the wiki as a whole (even regular users doing it IMHO isn't great); but at the same time, I understand that ArbCom can't ignore potentially valid concerns. The only solution I can see is to broaden the cases in order to balance them out. --Aquillion (talk) 21:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Actually no. To the contrary, I am sure, and have been since this first came out, that anything I say in my defense won't vindicate me. This perception has nothing to do with the integrity and excellence of those who curate these cases. It simply reflects a very realistic awareness that there is a marked dissonance structurally between what I consider evidence for what the full context of a dispute might suggest (hence my invariable, and unfortunately annoying TLDR mode of replying to what I think are factual disortions of the record through radical simplifications in diffs) and the efficient, functional evaluation of diffs, which form the gravamen of arbitration evidence, in terms of whether or not an editor adheres meticulously to the strongest reading of impeccable courtesy.When the ICOC was being discussed, I said (and many thanked me for it) that some wokeish wording in it was a dangerous recipé for enabling editors to disrupt our priority - mustering the best available scholarship on any topic to compose articles of encyclopedic value - by creating a 'culture of complaint' (Robert Hughes). We're a democracy and some of this was taken on board by a general consensus, and arbs are bound by it. The claim here might strike me as outrageous in its unproven and despicable aspersions about me being a 'Jew-hater' or someone who holds Judaism in contempt, but I know that there are a lot of people out there - certainly even otherwise respectable organizations like the ADL - who or which are extremely sensitive, and feel genuinely offended if what the scholarship I regularly rely on questions their perceptions of 'the truth' of their identity. They won't reply to the scholarship, but certainly will use the fine-print of the UCOC to raise suspicions that a person like myself who uses it has seamy motivations. Nishidani (talk) 09:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
If a case was needed, someone would have filed it? We should not go on an expedition for other parties just because this organization wants a case against those who they brand as "anti-Israel". Such a case would be dysfunctional from the beginning. The filing party is not subject to scrutiny by ArbCom, and they may resort to multiple venues simultaneously, on and off Wikimedia projects, which are not available to all editors. This asymmetry is not going to be made right by dragging even more editors to this. MarioGom (talk) 22:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
To be fair to everyone, ArbCom, editors, the organization that filed the case, nobody knows how to fix the problems in ARBPIA. Apparently, we haven't been smart enough to figure it out yet. I think it might be better for ArbCom cases to focus on process and technical things rather than individuals. That seems more likely to gradually move things in the right direction to me. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The simplest way to fix the problems one encounters is to make the habit of deleting edits using false edit summaries that show the deleter hasn't read the source a serious infraction. And secondly, to hold editors accountable if they raise accusations at AE which are dismissed as frivolous or unproven. These practices are endemic, and are really the only consistent abuses for which the otherwise efficient ARBPIA adjustments have not covered. The area is decidedly easier to work in than it was from 2006 to 2016 or thereabouts.Nishidani (talk) 12:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Well, let's wait to hear what Jewish Voice for Peace, the New Israel Fund, or whoever it is has to say on the matter. It's still not clear to me why the response wasn't more like "This is not your land. You cannot build an outpost here. Illegal outposts will be demolished by the community." Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 4

  • It's been five days now since their first (fairly poor) attempt at having a go at Nishidani, how long is ArbCom going to wait for them to improve their technique? Black Kite (talk) 16:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
    • Hopefully not much longer. We don't need a rerun of Framgate's culmination. It may be that there are some legitimate issues with a pro-<foo> bloc on par with EEML, but what we have right now seems to look more like harassment of Nishidani (and whoever else is on their enemies list) under ArbCom cover. And if the intent is to go down a list of everyone the organisation takes umbrage with in the topic area, then they need to read what happened the last time a pro-Israel organisation tried to slant Wikipedia this way or the last time someone tried to use ArbCom to get rid of an ideological opponent. I agree that if any case comes from this, it MUST be PIA5 - as much as I'm sure that makes ArbCom reach for the nearest bottle of Mad Dog 20/20 - and its scope needs to not only look at the situation on-wiki since the Re'im massacre, but also this organisation's apparent efforts to try and run editors off. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 23:28, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
    • ...how long is ArbCom going to wait... This statement seems to imply that we are doing nothing but sitting on our hands; once again I would ask that people stop assuming things based on a lack of information. To partially reply to comments by Aquillion and Johnuniq, the original malformed/misplaced request is not what we are expecting if/when a proper case request is posted; our desire for a broad-but-shallow case request has been passed along. Primefac (talk) 11:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
      Thank you for keeping us in the loop, Primefac (and every other Arbitrator). I imagine the timescale isn't what we like, but given the circumstances it's the best we can prolly hope for. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 15:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
      Thank you, it wasn't really a criticism as such, more pointing out that leaving certain editors twisting in the wind waiting for MSchwartz1 and company to dig out diffs from decades of interactions in a contentious area isn't really fair. Black Kite (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Aquillion's above suggestion that any case should be broadened is correct. Nishidani's comments might be cherry-picked with assuming-bad-faith interpretations and that could lead to a sanction. Or there might be no sanction. Then the lobby group could pop up a new Mschwartz1 with a case against the next editor on their list. If Arbcom continues with this farce it must be with the written proviso that (barring extreme exception documented in full) there will be no further cases of this nature in the topic area for two years. The off-wiki harassment campaign should get no more than one opportunity per two years. Johnuniq (talk) 04:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
  • At this point is there anything preventing me from just blocking them as NOTHERE? It seems to be a clear-cut case. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
    ScottishFinnishRadish, other administrators have asked the same question, and received the same answer. I suggest you read those threads (specifically from Floq). Primefac (talk) 15:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
    Not afaics, but then I'm not an admin :) Selfstudier (talk) 15:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
    For an editor to be NOTHERE they must be editing the project in a manner that is disruptive because both the purpose and manner of their editing is something other than improving Wikipedia. They are not presently editing at all, so they cannot be editing disruptively and so a block for NOTHERE seems completely unjustifiable. I'm honestly struggling to understand why people are doing anything other than getting on with editing the encyclopaedia at this point. There are basically only five things that Mschwartz1 can do at this point:
    1. Nothing. They never post again, and a whole lot of time and energy spent on this thread has been pointless.
    2. Post a new case request that (for one or more reasons) has no merit. The request will be swiftly declined, Mschwartz1 will have the ECR flag removed and everybody else can move on with improving the encyclopaedia.
    3. Post a new case request that has sufficient merit that it actively considered. Things will then proceed as if a "normal" (for want of a better term) editor had posted the request. It might or might not be accepted, but this will be on the basis of evidence presented.
    4. Attempt to become a Wikipedia editor by contributing to the Israel-Palestine topic area. This will be met with removal of the ECR flag, warnings and, if they don't get the hint sharpish, a block.
    5. Attempt to become a Wikipedia editor by contributing in other topic areas. This will almost certainly result in removal of the ECR flag (assuming this isn't in parallel to a case request that isn't dismissed out of hand), and then being treated like any other editor who makes the same edits.
    However, until one or more of these things happen, then I don't see any benefit in the continued drama here. Thryduulf (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
    Did you read what Mschwartz wrote about Nishidani? Did you see that it's labeled "#1", suggesting there are more complaints like this? You (and some arbs maybe?) suggesting that everyone just ignore this and move on is rather callous. I think you would feel differently if you were in the firing line. And I know it would be treated differently if it had come from an actual editor. Levivich (talk) 16:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Regarding "struggling to understand why people are doing anything other than getting on with editing", there are many reasons, some of which have been already explained by various people. It's probably easier to understand the interest if you consider that it is not about the account. It's about an unusual, possibly unique event involving an unidentified external party. If the external party is non-neutral, and known to be non-neutral on matters related to ARBPIA, then that is very interesting and puzzling, and the nature of the case #1 could have been predicted and avoided. If the organization is a neutral party respected by all I would love to know who they are because it's hard to think of any. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Regardless of how policy fits in (NOTHERE maybe applies, PAID might or might not apply, preventative value is questionable at the moment), it might be good to wait some time. Just to to avoid compounding drama unnecessarily. MarioGom (talk) 15:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't consider this a 'drama' but merely a normal wikipedia airing of views from interested or curious parties about a procedure. I would just note that the editor's first #Nishidani presentation, at least a month's work if this has been ongoing since early February, was admitted to be quite skewed. No doubt it may be reformulated in impeccably classical terms as desired - one doesn't know - but while the plaintiff has 'world enough and time' to find new evidence, those to be indicted (aside from myself) are left sitting around, with a vague notification that they will probably be complained of, sometime in the indefinite future. And that 'state of suspension' in which this hesitation places them certainly does not facilitate in the interim serenity for their editing. I'm in no rush, personally, but formaldehyde is not my favourite working ambiance. It's rather a Kafkian dilemma one is dumped into between ein Zögern vor der Wiedergeburt and ein Zögern vor dem Wiedertod (a hesitation before rebirth or redeath- depending on the outcome in a future case) Nishidani (talk) 16:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Nishidani (talk) 16:15, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I agree. I don't think this organization has any standing here, and the situation you've been put in is unfair. However, a block at this precise moment is likely to generate drama/noise (appeals, admin action review, wheel warring) without addressing the underlying issues. MarioGom (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
This is disgraceful, Arbcom. You’ve made an exception to a hard and fast rule so someone can post a cherry picked attack, using user rights that are normally granted and revoked through community processes. After basically using this exception to attack an editor, you’ve had a line of admins (count me among them) that would be happy to issue a NOTHERE block, but are using your soft powers to prevent that. You have chosen to bend over backwards in the name of transparency for this noneditor that you are subjecting editors (complaint #1?) to abuse. For absolute shame, Arbcom. Courcelles (talk) 17:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
For the sake of transparency, why has this motion been posted without the votes? Courcelles (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm going to have to object there. This is a much more Pinter-esque scenario. A true Waiting for Godot moment. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I've been wondering whether ArbCom might feel that posting the name of the organization would raise issues of "personal information" in terms of the harassment policy, and so were waiting to see if the new account would post it voluntarily. But when I look at the specific circumstances here, I'm just not seeing a policy-based reason for that account to have "privacy" over that. In contrast, the COI/PAID implications point to requiring that disclosure. So I think ArbCom should tell the community which organization this is. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't think the name of the organization is mine to share which is why I've not shared it from the getgo. I take seriously The Committee treats as private all communications sent to it, or sent by a Committee member in the performance of their duties. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I can see your reasoning, but there's an overwhelming imbalance between preserving that bit of privacy, versus the public posting of the "first" accusation. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
FWIW, the organization isn't the only private reason behind my reasoning. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Never mind WP:NOTHERE, there are plenty of other reasons to block; after all, is there seriously an admin here that thinks that the attack on Nishidani that was posted by this account was written by someone who has never edited Wikipedia before? If so, I have a bridge to sell you. Black Kite (talk) 18:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
    My initial reaction was that the person who wrote it was not someone experienced in Wikipedia, but rather some sort of lawyer or similar. It gave the impression that they'd spent quite a bit of time studying our policies and guidelines, and then formulated a detailed document of the sort you might present to a judge, complete with citations to said policies and quoting case law and all the rest of it. Obviously they took the time to learn how to format a diff and all that stuff too. I could be wrong though.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
    My guess is that the substance was prepared by another organization member who is a Wikimedian. But again, there is only so much we can know for sure as long as the organization is not disclosed. Because even if we figured the identity out, we would not be allowed to express it publicly. MarioGom (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
  • It's always a possibility, after all you could simply search through the history of WP:AE and find a lot of accusations (even if those accusations were invalid). But there is some stuff there dredged from obscure corners of Wikipedia which I'd be very surprised if anyone unfamiliar with the place would find. Black Kite (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Even if ArbCom does not yet feel at liberty to disclose who the organization is, I'd like to know how comfortable ArbCom is with whether that account actually does represent the organization that they claim to represent, as opposed to being a false flag? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
    Arbcom can correct me if I'm wrong, but I would assume the communications would have come from email addresses with the organization's actual domain rather than a random personal Gmail account. If there were any doubts about the authenticity, I'm sure they would have checked SPF/DKIM/DMARC to verify it wasn't impersonation or a spoofed address. The WordsmithTalk to me 17:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

A way forward?

I think ArbCom intent here, as expressed by multiple arbs, was well meaning. Moving this from private ArbCom communications, where it does not belong, to a public discussion, was an appropriate movement for transparency, even if I do not agree with the form it took. But it is clear now it did not play well. Arbs thought this particular organization had standing here. I think they do not. And here is probably the core problem: with that organization being undisclosed, even after they posted their (misplaced) case request, the community cannot have a meaningful discussion about standing (unless the position one holds is that any external organization has standing in any case, which I don't think is a popular position, even among arbs). So I'm proposing a way forward to untangle this:

  1. Extended confirmed is removed. This puts an end to the exception status given to this organization, which has been one of the main points of controversy here. They already posted a case request, and it is clear it would have been declined even if it was posted in the right page and with the right format. They had a shot, sorry.
  2. ArbCom determines an appropriate venue where an organization could seek standing before the community (I'm not sure which noticeboard it would be). Then communicates to the organization that they may not post a case request, but they can request the community to be given standing to file a request (again, not the substantive request itself). And that request must start with a disclosure of which organization they represent. That is, basically, what anyone could have attempted (without guaranteed success) without being extended confirmed. Then a community decision might follow, which might lead to a community-granted exception, or not.

What do you think? MarioGom (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

As Thryduulf points out Mschwartz1 has made 1 edit, which was closed down promptly for being out of order. ArbCom has been actively working on this but has also recognized that there is not ongoing disruption, as the feedback we've received here can hardly be called disruptive. So we are trying to make sure the next step forward is made will full knowledge. Something we admittedly failed on initially. So we're not going to repeat that mistake. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
The disruption is the suspense while several editors wait for a case request from an external organization that has gained an exceptional status already. Keep in mind the real world context here. Some of the obvious candidate organizations here cooperate with the IDF, and there may be other factors that pose safety risks (real or perceived, that would probably be a long discussion itself). I'm sure ArbCom has considered some of these factors, but whatever you know that make you think there is no safety issue, the rest of us don't know. I think the bare minimum here would be putting a deadline on the disclosure, such as 2 business days. WP:VOLUNTEER does not apply here, since they are not volunteers, but representatives from an organization that I assume have paid staff, and they can take 2 minutes to disclose this if they have a minimum of good faith. MarioGom (talk) 19:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Mschwartz1 is to my knowledge a volunteer. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Do you really just get to pick and choose what information you disclose from their emails? Seems like it should all be private or none of it should be. Didn't Beebs get kicked off for doing that kind of thing? And it only gets disclosed when it helps justify what you did. Is ArbCom really incapable of looking at that first attempt at harassment, realizing they made a mistake, revoking ec, and making the whole thing go away? "We made a mistake" would go so far to restore my trust in ArbCom, and yet it appears to be so hard to say. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I thought I did say I think it was a failure and a mistake. As that wasn't clear let me say it again. So we are trying to make sure the next step forward is made will full knowledge. Something we admittedly failed on initially. So we're not going to repeat that mistake to which I would slightly revise to "so we're not going to repeat any of our mistakes. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
To be clear, I'm extraordinarily fallible, and can easily imagine making the initial mistake. It's just that after their initial harassment post, I'd have been much quicker to revoke ec and say "oops mea culpa". Maybe I'm a bear of very little brain, but everything here seems so obfuscatedly worded (sorry, spellcheck, but that is either a word or should be), I assume because you're actively talking to one another, and because you don't want to accidentally speak for ArbCom, or say something you'll have to back away from again. I didn't interpret that the way you intended, but now that i understand, thanks for that. I would say the next obvious step is remove the ec, but If I understand that this is one of the actions the committee is considering, I'll wait a while. But this sword of Damocles needs to be removed sooner rather than later. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I am hopeful the wait will be short at this point? Barkeep49 (talk) 20:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Revocation of Mschwartz1's extended-confirmed permission

Latest comment: 7 months ago10 comments10 people in discussion
Original announcement

Resignation

Latest comment: 6 months ago14 comments14 people in discussion
Original announcement

Arbitration motion regarding Armenia-Azerbaijan 3

Original announcement

Arbitration motion regarding Skepticism and coordinated editing

Original announcement

Arbitration motion regarding Sri Lanka

Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Original announcement

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management closed

Latest comment: 6 months ago31 comments15 people in discussion
Original announcement
  • Difficult matter given the users involved, so thanks for settling it. Although not really impacting the the final outcome, it's important to stress that a reason we have COI disclosure is for readers (including editors) sake, so that they may find out if articles are autobiography, views of family, or statements of owners or financial beneficiaries, etc: Wikipedia is a publisher, and responsible writers and publications disclose COI. Wikipedia is providing the type of writing -- general interest encyclopedia -- that is meant to be, and thus presented as "independent[] of the subject" in the words of the guideline. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
  • I have started a related discussion at WT:COI#Should we upgrade this to policy? RoySmith (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
  • I'm glad that Arbcom is taking action on how these cases should be handled in the future. Twice in the past two years, I have reported a COI case to paid-en-wiki via email that I felt was clear as day, but both times it has been ignored or closed without action, with no reason given. The editor continues to contribute and make non-neutral edits. This specific issue has been my biggest disappointment with Wikipedia and I hope that a new VRT queue will allow for better processing of complaints like this. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Note sure that the interpretation at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Resurgence of banned paid editing business is totally what ArbCom meant... 1.141.198.161 (talk) 04:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
  • (VRT admin hat on) At this juncture, I'm not even sure that a queue like that is possible - the VRT admins have several questions to that effect. It would have been very nice to have a discussion about this before a formal announcement came. Arbcom, are you planning on reaching out to the VRT admins about the new queue? If so, when? It's been two days... ~ Matthewrb Talk to me · Changes I've made 15:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
    @Matthewrb thanks for reaching out. Please note I am speaking only for myself and have not consulted with other members of the committee here. We had just begun figure out what our next steps were going to be in regards to making this request and your posting here clarifies at least that point. How is it best for us to communicate with each other? arbcom-en wikimedia.org is an obvious option but if something else work better for the VRT admins I would hope the committee would be flexible. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you. volunteers-vrt wikimedia.org is our queue, if you send emails from arbcom-en to that will work best for us. ~ Matthewrb Talk to me · Changes I've made 16:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
    @Barkeep49: suggest removing COI/PAID from the current VRT mailing list, etc., and repointing the focus back at Arbom, who have been elected by the community precisely because they deemed both trustworthy enough and competent enough not to require another level of bureaucracy to assist them. ——Serial Number 54129 17:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
    How frequently was info-paid-en used? My read of the relevant remedy is that the goal is to get more competent eyes on COI matters (remember, the old queue was CU-only) and to allow for quicker responce to credible claims of mercenary editing. Kicking it to ArbCom would likely defeat that entire purpose; there're more CUs than there are sitting Arbitrators at any given point in time, and even more still CUs, OSes, and willing admins combined. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 17:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
    None of us, as far as I know, was elected for our expertise or interest in rooting out COIs and handling things like this by committee is a terrible idea. It's too easy as it is for things to slip through the cracks or for them to gather dust because we couldn't get a majority of arbs to agree on a course of action. Much better to handle it like CU and OS—trustworthy editors take decisive action without having to jostle a committee but with ArbCom review and supervision when necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
    This does kind of beg the question of who the committee thinks will actually be manning this queue. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 20:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Just curious if the arbs could articulate what effect they hope this VRT queue will have.
    The stated reason is to accept reports of undisclosed conflict-of-interest or paid editing, where reporting such editing on-wiki is in conflict with WP:OUTING. - What reason does anyone have to use this?
    To put a finer point on it, why would anyone use this VRT queue when Kashmiri's approach seems to have been endorsed by arbcom? If you want to out someone, why not just do it directly, have nothing happen other than suppression, add google maps links to a wikipedian's place of work, and then start a thread that includes some of that personally identifying information and telling everyone that more personal information about a user exists and that they should go look for it? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
    If Kashmiri were to repeat 100% what they did in this case - in particular at AfD - I'd anticipate they would be blocked identically to how Fram was blocked. So I am not sure your premise is correct. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
    I would agree with Barkeep entirely here. firefly ( t · c ) 17:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
    Kashmiri's behavior didn't even rise to the level of a reminder in your decision and my reading of the sole FoF about him and the surrounding commentary is that Sdqraz is the only one who didn't find Kashmiri's ANI thread a fine and dandy approach to outing, so pardon my skepticism that anything would be different next time. To the extent you sent a signal, it's that doxing is a misdemeanor at worst compared to COI.
    Fram isn't a great example because (a) Fram just said indelicately what Kashmiri already said in a mix of direct and indirect comments (but to no different effect), so didn't make a good block case to begin with, and (b) if that's supposed to be a real consequence, he was blocked for all of 48 hours. For everyone who thinks COI makes doxing "worth it", a 48 hour block (or a look-the-other-way in Kashmiri's case) isn't discouraging anything. Adding a new, cumbersome process to the equation doesn't seem like it's going to make doing the right thing any more appealing. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
    There are already multiple competing processes. Some of these are onwiki and we're obviously not going to touch. The idea here is to take what is currently multiple blackhole processes that aren't working and unify them in a way that adds enough capacity that they will work. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
    And, to add, if it turns out that this unified process also doesn't work, then that's obviously something we'd want to re-assess and iterate on. firefly ( t · c ) 18:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
    What we need are two things: a process that works, and an understanding that failing to go through that process has serious consequences. The current case doesn't provide evidence that the current processes don't work; it provides evidence of current processes/policy being completely disregarded. It's not like Kashmiri contacted ArbCom, waited for you to do something, and then outed Joe. It's a squarely behavioral, not procedural problem. Yet the only remedy you've offered is the opposite: not to do anything at all about behavior, but to create a new process. When people see this case and realize they can just disregard proper process (VRT now), going about outing just like Kashmiri did (with maybe a temporary block for the direct link at AfD but not so much as a finger wag for the ANI thread), is that evidence of the process not working and the need for yet another one?
    Let me take a step back and ensure an assumption I'm making is sound (I feel quite alone in belaboring this point, so maybe attitudes have changed and I'm out of touch): does the committee view Kashmiri's ANI thread as fine and good with regard to our current policies and guidelines on outing and its relationship to COI? If so, I'll go away to recalibrate how I understand ArbCom. If not, I go back to what I wrote above. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
    Speaking only for myself: Everything I saw that Kashmiri wrote at AN was supported by onwiki diffs of unsuppressed information. The diffs which provoked some of those edits were suppressed which is why I noted that if Kashmiri were to act like he did at AfD again he could find himself blocked. Kashmiri not repeating that mistake at AN is in no small part why I felt nothing beyond the FoF was appropriate. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
    I have to admit that FoF jumped out at me because normally they are expected to lead into a remedy. You have elected to make it part of the committee's permanent record that something happened, but you didn't feel compelled to do anything about it, not even a "reminder". So, what, exactly, was the purpose of the FoF? It just seems odd to me. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 20:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
    For me it's about establishing what the Arbitration Committee feels was the factual record. As we see here it's serving a purpose as people are noting what was found. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, if the purpose was to make it clear to people that as far as arbcom is concerned, outing deserves exactly an acknowledgement that it happened and nothing more. Sorry, Barkeep, you know I generally appreciate what you do around here, but this was a harmful decision. Fine job on the handling COI, I guess, but insofar as arbcom is supposed to be the one community entity that can be counted on to take sensitive issues like user privacy seriously... Anyway, I'm still the only one complaining and have said more than my piece now, so I'll go away. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
    @Rhododendrites: You wrote: add google maps links to a wikipedian's place of work. Let me politely suggest to you not to read external sites about wikipedians (especially That-Which-Must-Not-Be-Named) but instead focus on the actual AfD discussion. You'll then see that the most I wrote was that "the accounts... have been alleged to be affiliated with the company". Nowhere did I mention "employment", "place of work", or added any personally identifying information as you allege. As you will certainly know, affiliation may mean a wide range of professional relationships, incl. working as an off-site contractor or even an external PR agency. So, may I politely request you not to misrepresent what I wrote in the AfD? Thanks. — kashmīrī TALK 21:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
    Let me politely suggest to you not to read external sites about wikipedians [...] the most I wrote was that "the accounts... have been alleged to be affiliated with the company". Nowhere did I mention "employment", [...] As you will certainly know, affiliation may mean a wide range of professional relationships, incl. working as an off-site contractor or even an external PR agency - Is this serious? You nominated an article about a company for deletion, apparently inspired by an external site about Wikipedians. You provided a link in the nomination to that external site about Wikipedians which identifies a Wikipedian working for that company. It was in that same breath that you decided to use the euphemism "affiliated". Now you're pretending that, gee whiz, affiliated could've meant anything. I would link to WP:GAME, but arbcom has already decided it has no problem with your behavior, so what's the point? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
    @Rhododendrites: I mentioned only the existence of allegations of COI ("affiliation") and provided a link in line with sourcing requirements. It was not my words that the said company was any editor's place of work (contrary to your insinuations). If you dislike an editor's personal details or place of work being disclosed publicly, I suggest you make a complaint on the external site, since I had nothing to do with it. — kashmīrī TALK 22:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, the whole case only made things less clear, not more. My remedy is "For posting non-public information about another editor", but when I pointed out that ArbCom posted that Nihonjoe has a COI with Hemelein Publications, which is non-pubic information according to their own rules, they made up all kinds of excuses why that was acceptable, but my posts about the same weren't. The final conclusion I get from all this is that apparently COI is the only part of Wikipedia where you are required to make accusations without providing the necessary evidence, unless you are an ArbCom member of course. Never mind that the basic major crime I committed has been posted (not by me) on Wikidata since February without any issues at all apparently. Fram (talk) 07:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Please tell me, if during the case I had posted that Nihonjoe has a COI with [insert their real name here], how long would it have taken for this to be oversighted and I blocked indefinitely again? No one would be impressed by a defense that stated "but I posted no links and didn't actually state that they are that person, only that they have a COI with them", and rightly so, as it would be hypocritical. Fram (talk) 07:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to lie, when I saw that Finding, it raised my eyebrows a bit. I'm a bit surprised that the FoF wasn't private, given all the concerns early on. I'm not drawing any conclusions (nor agreeing or disagreeing with you), just saying I was a little surprised. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 05:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
No answer from arbs? I guess it is tough having to justify such blatant double standards. Fram (talk) 07:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Fram most editors in this thread haven't gotten a reply for their comments. I haven't replied because getting into a back and forth with a party who just got admonished doesn't strike me as wise. But since I have been thinking about your comments since you first wrote them, I will say I'm entirely open to the possibility that we handled this wrong. In my mind we were continuing a practice set with Tenebrae where we attempt to give the enwiki community information about COI without specifics that would OUT a person. But some Arbs have felt that's a bad precedent and so it's entirely possible that we should abandon that practice. I think the end result of this would be to let people with COIs escape scrutiny and/or cause for ArbCom to have to impose greater sanctions and not answer questions about them. In the abstract that doesn't seem so bad to me but when I've had to deal with specific situations I've wanted to try and find a difference balance between these competing needs. But yeah maybe we're getting them wrong. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. While I often don't agree with you, I respect that you try to listen to what people say and try to answer openly. My issue isn't that you shouldn't mention such things for fear of outing a person, but that you should be more realistic in what is real outing, and what is using "outing" as a screen to hide behind while everyone knows the facts anyway, as the culprit has done very little to hide them previously, adding his presumed real name to articles here (and creating a Wikidata entry for it). When you are openly stating that Nihonjoe has a paid COI with a very small company (three people), then it gets rather ridiculous to draw some line between "what we did is perfactly fine, but adding an actual link to the company website is a deadly sin", never mind the aggressiveness some arbs displayed in making clear how terrible this was and how "hopelessly naïve" others are for taking a more moderated stance. Fram (talk) 07:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Changes to the functionaries team, April 2024

Latest comment: 6 months ago16 comments9 people in discussion
Original announcement
  • I want to thank GeneralNotability for his work as an arbitrator, to express my hope he sticks around as an administrator and checkuser, and to lay down a marker so that when I rail against this as a non-arb I can't be accused of being hypocritical. I dislike when defined thresholds and processes are ignored by Arbs in favor of some new process that does not match what is supposed to happen. I dislike it when arbs say we don't need to act on net 4 to open or close a case and can instead wait for a majority. I dislike it in this instance as well as following Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Arbitrator access to mailing lists and permissions would have resulted in the same outcome only 16 days ago. Arbs can set their own rules, trhough the procedures, but once set I strongly believe Arbs are constrained by them and shouldn't invent new rules on the fly in order to prevent actions from happening that the procedures say should happen. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
    @Barkeep49: I (unsarcastically) admit it's probably my cluelessness, but ... I don't really understand what you're annoyed with here. I get a feeling it's for something that would be clear if one had access to the ArbCom mailing list? Is it that GN had OS access for 16 days, because some Arbs wanted to wait to hear from them before removing? Anyway, a clarification would help me (and possibly others). --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
    Yeah I'm not sure how much I can say about the specifics without getting into confidentiality issues so any lack of understanding is a result of my holding back and thus making things confusing. As I wrote in my comment, and edit summary, I write this so there would be a public diff, rather than just repeated emails, of me saying I think Arbs need to follow the procedures. If a procedure is truly not working and needs to be ignored that probably means it needs to be changed rather than just left to be ignored again in the future. Many things that ArbCom does are not in procedures and so Arbs can make reasonable decisions on those. But for stuff that is in the procedures it is my opinion Arbs need to follow them just as much as anyone else. This has typically come up when I am like "a case has net 4 it we open it" or "a case has net 4 it should be closed" and another arb responds along the lines of "What's the rush? It's not like it has a majority". The circumstances here behind not following the procedure are different - and what I don't feel I can publicly just reveal - but I wanted to take this moment to note that a procedure hadn't been followed and my disagreement with that decision. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
    I'm not sure that's what WT:ACN is for, but meh. I at least understand now why I don't understand. Thanks. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
    @Floquenbeam, I think the framing missing here is that the procedures were recently made to say that users who leave ArbCom ("at the end of their term") lose access to permissions unless they elect to keep them. I think Barkeep is implying that GN did not elect to keep them (where them is OS specifically? or maybe the CU permissions he still retains?) but some quantity of the 14 remaining arbs (excluding Barkeep) did not do the paperwork and/or argued against having his permissions removed. There is maybe a valid argument that "end of the their term" means at the end of the 2 year mark, but I do not think that was necessarily the intention when that motion was passed. ... If this is about the CU permission, I think Barkeep's annoyance is not totally unfounded, but given that GN got his goggles by appointment rather than election... I would not see that as worth raising a bug a bear about. So he will need to clarify whether he is annoyed about the fact it's OS being removed or CU being not removed. :)
    I don't think this case is at all the same kind of case as Barkeep's annoyance with how slow ArbCom is to open cases; the current procedure is framed as "eligible to be opened", so his position that "it must be opened" is not at all how it works. In fact, he was willing to propose a motion to change it to that wording, which is current practice. Izno (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
    By any reasonable reading, "at the end of their term" means 'when they cease to be Arbitrators', whether by the expiry of the 2 year period or by an earlier resignation. Rotary Engine talk 20:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
    That is my recollection also of where the drafting for that motion settled. Izno (talk) 20:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
    What I am getting is that Barkeep is explaining why GN had to request for their OS to be removed (as the statement says) despite procedures saying the default would be a removal and GN would have had to make a request to retain it when they resigned. Without Barkeep's clarification, the public records would imply that GN must have requested to retain OS when resigning and changed their mind later. And more importantly, Barkeep is putting into public record their dissenting opinion that OS should have been removed when GN resigned as per procedure, instead of waiting for GN to request removal which it appears is what arbcom did. Also, Izno, please don't say "annoyed". I don't think CU is relevant here since no one's mentioned it, presumably for reasons that you give. But I would find it interesting (and disagreeable) if appointed functionaries would lose tools that they had before being elected to arbcom. I don't think that was what was intended... as long as they're meeting activity requirements. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:03, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
    FWIW that motion is an example of doing things the "right" way in my opinion. The procedure wasn't working so rather than continuing to ignore it we change the procedure to one that can work. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
    In my opinion, the most important use of this page is to communicate with the wider Community, not to log statements for future use. While I'm speaking as someone who believes pretty strongly in transparency on the Committee, I'm not a fan of this being taken out here because a proper debate on this matter would need to take the full circumstances into account, which we cannot (and arguably should not as a matter of courtesy) publicise.
    However, since the procedure (which passed last year) has been linked to above, I would say that it works as intended when people leave the Committee after ACE because there is a deadline for removal (1 January) and we usually find out who is leaving with reasonable notice. However, with mid-term resignations, the situation is vaguer as resignations are usually with immediate effect. As Barkeep states, we had the ability to handle this sooner. But the human side of this issue makes me think that it didn't need to be so. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
    I genuinely look forward to Barkeep's holding us accountable both during and after his term (in his words, when [he] rail[s] against this as a non-arb), because I think it makes ArbCom function better when it is subject to external scrutiny when possible. I agree with Sdrqaz's observations, both about the purpose of this page and the circumstances here (timing of resignation, etc.). KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
    I did express my concerns about all of this privately, so it shouldn't be a surprise to any Arb that I felt that the committee violated procedure in this matter, in ways intended to consider the human side of things, but which one could argue does the opposite (though I have not because I didn't/don't want to suggest anything but good intentions from my arbitrator colleagues). As for the idea that it works for Jan 1 but not other resignations I'm not sure that's at all true. An arbitrator can just as easily say "I will keep this, not this" in their resignation statement or in some statement to the committee beforehand or immediately after. A resigning Arb in fact has a great deal of control over the timing of the resignation. We see with arbs who've chosen to resign after 1 year on the committee which has in the last few years has been as common as immediate resignations (I count GN and OR as immediate, ST and Donald as timed). That said, I do take on board the idea that this was the wrong venue for me to call out the procedural violations, from both those on and off the committee. In that (hopefully) unlikely situation I will consider more appropriate venues if I need to do so for the limited time I have left on the committee. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
So, where else may one ask if a kind of precedent is now set on how to handle permissions access for midterm resignations differently from end of term? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
There is a precedent that on one occasion ArbCom delayed a low-priority procedural action pending some routine communications for two weeks. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Just to be clear then, the 'rule' is still removal upon end of service and end of term includes resignation? Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Correct, provided the outgoing Arbitrator does not indicate otherwise. Primefac (talk) 12:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

since it was first made public in arbspace....

Latest comment: 6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the interest of continued transparency when possible:

I was informed by the Ombuds Commission today that they do consider even sharing vague details with no personal information of any kind from a volunteer-run mailing list a violation of the access to nonpublic data policy and they have accordingly issued me a "final warning" on the subject for "reckless handling of nonpublic information."

They only considered two parts of the "totality of evidence" that ArbCom used to boot me off as the rest of it was outside of their jurisdiction (and some of it was arguably outside of ArbCom's jurisdiction as well if you ask me but that's another matter for another day) They did also note that they do not consider anything I did to have been done out of malice, so that was nice anyway.

I personally think this is an overreach as the ANPDP does not say a single word about volunteer-run mailing lists, but apparently I was supposed to know better anyway. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Dovidroth unbanned

Latest comment: 6 months ago13 comments6 people in discussion
Original announcement

Changes to the functionaries team, May 2024

Latest comment: 6 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Original announcement
Thank you for your service as an oversighter. – dudhhr talkcontribssheher 17:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for all your hard work, Dreamy Jazz. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
From me too! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mzajac closed

Latest comment: 6 months ago20 comments13 people in discussion
Original announcement

And yet another administrator decides to pull a 172 exit instead of accepting accountability for their actions. I'd hope admins that get dragged to ArbCom actually have the moral fortitude to admit their failings rather than just ragequit. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 03:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

172? – robertsky (talk) 10:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I was wondering about that. All I can come up with for "172 exit" is articles about how to jump out of a Cessna 172 while skydiving :-) RoySmith (talk) 12:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Or it could have to do with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/172 2 :). Lectonar (talk) 12:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Lectonar has it right in one. 172 was the first admin to be deopped as a result of refusing to respond to an Arbitration, and it's 172 2 that lays out the reasoning and rationale for all other "refusal to respond to Arbitration" deops since. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 15:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
I can't say I don't get it. When one is confronted with a list of one's failings, and asked to particate in a process that will almost certainly end with them losing their position, walking away isn't that hard to imagine. Of course they could just resign as an admin and go back to editing, and I am sure I have seen others do that without admitting they ever made a single mistake, but people are people and react differently to things. At least they didn't do like some and just pretend to have some real-life crisis that flares up every time they are under scrutiny, to me that is the most despiciable option. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 17:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Obviously this is circumstance-dependent, but actually engaging with arbitration substantially reduces your chances of getting de-sysopped, while refusing to participate makes it a near-certainty. GiantSnowman (courtesy ping) participated fully in the arb case about him, and in the end was courageous enough to accept that he had made mistakes and to take steps not to repeat them. I was proud to be the deciding vote against de-sysopping him and I would do it again; GS is a net positive to the project and I'm glad he's still around with the mop. I hope other arbs would react similarly to those with the willingness to be so accountable. Had GS refused to engage, it would have been an entirely different case and we would have lost a good admin and a good editor had he chosen to retire. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Having gone through the process, I can empathise somewhat with those who don't engage - but as PMC says, I know that if I hadn't the outcome would have been very different and I would have massively regretted that. Engaging helped me see where I had gone wrong and how to correct it. It was ultimately a useful and cathartic process, even if it didn't seem like it at the time... GiantSnowman 18:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
I find JSS incredibly convincing in any given situation when he argues that any admin with a restriction should not be an admin. But I continue to find it not so compelling in the abstract. I would also just note that besides GS, User:Maxim/ArbCom and desysops shows that admins can participate and not be desyopped (though this is far more likely in a group rather than individual case). Barkeep49 (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
I suspect that if somehow it were me I'd stick and face the case, even knowing the odds are not on my side, but I also get it when they choose to walk away or not present a defense, although leaving the project entirely in the face of a case obviously more or less guarantees a desysop. We've certainly seen the scenario where an admin has a chance to escape being sanctioned but their behavior during the case convinces the committee that they aren't suited for adminship. Despite my hardline stance, I did always remind myself to be open to the possibility that they just made a couple mistakes. We're all (theoretically) humans here after all. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
I would also add, however, that the committee is, in my opinion, sometimes too hesitant to just resolve by motion. Two cases I was a party to were exceedingly obvious cases where the only reasonable decision was a desysop. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder in paticular did not need to be a full case and became a complete circus during the workshop phase. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't know. It wasn't clear to me at the time (from the outside) that Boing wasn't at risk of desysopping which doesn't feel like it could just be resolved by motion. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Boing made one involved admin action and asked the community to review it more or less right away. Fred wheel warred over his own block, twice. Worlds apart. I would add though that the committee and/or the clerks should have reigned in Fred's ridiculous behavior at the workshop. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 00:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
While I can attest from personal experience how difficult it can be to actually do because of committee dynamics and so I am generally reluctant to criticize past committees for inaction, I 100% agree that Fred should have been reigned in at the workshop. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
It's certainly possible that an admin who is the subject of a case doesn't get desysoped, but it's still highly unlikely. For a such a case request to get accepted, the admin must have done something egregiously bad, something pretty bad and not be responsive to feedback at ANI or elsewhere (e.g. user talk), or a series of not-so-great things and not be responsive to multiple instances of feedback. The pattern of not accepting feedback has an unfortunate tendency to continue during the case; the "egregiously bad" cases start approaching LEVEL II territory. If I was on the receiving end of such a case as a primary party, and it was moving towards acceptance, I would strongly contemplate resignation to save everyone the many-week palaver, because it would hopefully be apparent to me that there are very strong differences between myself and Committee (and by extension, community expectations for administrators).
I'm sympathetic to handling such cases more by motion. I find the outcomes of such cases in particular to be fairly predictable, and any surprises to be quite uncommon. The counterpoint is that our arbitration process at the very least rhymes with some elements of legal proceedings, which implies some process of, for example, presenting evidence, rebutting evidence, or a sense of an "accused" and "accusers", and that inevitably leads to more extended proceedings than a motion that sums up findings of fact and suggests a remedy (and an alternative or two as appropriate). My best explanation of why we hold a full case is institutional momentum: we've done it like so for almost 20 years. Maxim (talk) 01:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Both of you... "reined in". In this metaphor the clerks are jockeys, not kings. ;) – bradv 02:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
<joke>I think I'd be better at horse riding than ruling. All that sitting in a big chair must get boring.</joke>  . Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 08:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
I believe the spelling you're looking for is rained in, as in "Told an editor that they're all wet" RoySmith (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for linking that page, it was an interesting read. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 07:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
It's kind of like, pleading no contest. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Venezuelan politics case closed

Original announcement

Conflict of interest VRT queue and call for volunteers

Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Original announcement
Yes, of course I am very much up for some of this. Let's get yon PAID bastids nigh. ——Serial Number 54129 17:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Is that really necessary, sir? Couldn't we just give them a good tongue-lashing and drop them off at m:Steward requests/Global? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

HouseBlaster appointed trainee clerk

Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Original announcement
Congrats! Thanks for volunteering. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, FFF :) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 months ago10 comments7 people in discussion
Original announcement
  • I get the desire to be explicit, but this seems overly complicated. They're banned. But they're not really banned. And here's a bunch of ways that they could be banned if they violate their non-ban. And it all goes away in a year anyway. Wouldn't it have been simpler to just say, "Warned against disruptive use of BLAR"? RoySmith (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
    @RoySmith: There's actually precedent for this sort of remedy. OET included a remedy to this exact effect. (It wound up being unsuspended very shortly after the case.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
    If they were warned against disruptive use of BLAR it would still take a majority vote of the committee to institute a topic ban. The intent here was to make such a topic ban a fairly "low cost" thing to implement should there be further disruption. Admittedly at the cost of some complexity on the motion. And if there is no disruption the threat of sanction goes away in a year which seems fair to TPH. We've passed I think 3 or so of these "suspended bans" in my time on the committee so it's not completely without precedent, though we have made the bar slightly higher than any uninvolved admin which is what I think it was in those cases. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
  • So this is basically parole/a suspended sentence equivalent, right? FortunateSons (talk) 10:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
    Yes. Thryduulf (talk) 10:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
    Makes sense, thank you FortunateSons (talk) 10:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  • I'm curious why y'all didn't go with the standard "any uninvolved admin" that we usually see. Since any admin can usually impose AE sanctions unilaterally, it seems that, as a result of the disruptive BLARing, TPH has just been given more protection against sanction than any other editor. I'm surprised they weren't just banned (rebanned? I'm unclear) from anything to do with deletion, but at the very least, how come the kid gloves? What am I missing here? (and yes, I know this would have been better brought up at the ARCA, sorry) --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
    Because BLARing isn't a contentious topic uninvolved admins wouldn't normally have that authority. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks, Pppery. I won't go so far as to say that makes sense, but that does explain my mistake. I suppose I just assumed that one of the remedies from the deletion arb case where lots of people got tbanned was that the area was also made a CT. Reminder to self: you are not smart enough to get involved with contentious topics or (looks it up) general sanctions. Floquenbeam (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
    As someone who workshopped this idea, my thinking was that in general CT designations prod admin towards action. Which I normally like, just not in this situation. It seems to me that the line between what's considered appropriate and inappropriate BLAR has a wider range of opinion among editors and admins than many other behaviors we sanction editors for. So some form of agreement was an appropriate protection for TPH, ensuring they wouldn't get the topic ban imposed because a single "hardline" admin felt there had been a violation. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding block of Rp2006

Latest comment: 4 months ago15 comments10 people in discussion
Original announcement

For clarification - you mean endorses or takes over the block? I've no idea what "assuming a block" means. Secretlondon (talk) 12:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@Secretlondon: Looking at the block log, the indef was placed as an arbitration enforcement action; my interpretation is that ArbCom took over responsibility for the block. Anyone is free to correct me if I am mistaken, but I believe this also affects the appeals process, meaning that if Rp2006 wishes to appeal the block, then they must appeal directly to ArbCom instead of being able to appeal to AE. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 13:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
That is correct; see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction § Assume too. Sdrqaz (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
I wonder if this is ENVAR as it made no sense to me. Secretlondon (talk) 13:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Fairly sure that the usual syntax is "assumes responsibility for the block". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Assumes is clearly usual enough syntax and confusing enough to many that it made the glossary. Fair point that it ought to have been assumes responsibility rather than just assumes. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Couldn't you just tweak the wording then? "Ought to have been" sounds like it's too late to fix it. But no one could possibly complain if you add "responsibility for" in a half dozen places, and no Arb could possibly complain that that's not what they voted for. Floquenbeam (talk) 23:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
(I'd just do it for you, but ... the Arbs don't scare me, but some of the clerks do...) Floquenbeam (talk) 23:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
These kinds of changes have, in the past, required revotes even when caught quickly. While I'm saying fair point I can't presume that other arbs agree with me and I personally don't think individual arbs are empowered, even with IAR, to change motions. And what's really the harm here? I get that this cuts both ways except that it doesn't cut against the idea that arbs shouldn't be messing around, as individuals, with committee decisions. The biggest thing I dislike about ArbCom is how much individual autonomy I give up, but that's part of the gig. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
I won't pester you too much about something that doesn't matter terribly much, so no need to reply. I'm not even arguing with you so much as with the Machine. I'm just so diametrically opposed to (what I consider to be) this increasingly Wiki-wide Rules over Simplicity approach I see everywhere, and Rules preventing minor but clear good things because the Rules make it too much hassle. IAR seems like it would apply everywhere. I guess lack of individual autonomy is one of the main reasons I couldn't hack ArbCom myself. I wish there were something similar to WP except like a year old and 1/1000th the size.
You could theoretically change it and say, "Any Arb who disagrees can ask me to change it back." Sorry, I'll stop, and either find something useful to do around here, or go read a book. Floquenbeam (talk) 00:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't think it's worth the trouble to change passed/past motions, but perhaps an example could be added to the glossary, to help encourage future drafters to use the entire phrase for clarity: "The arbitration committee assumes/takes over responsibility for the block of User:Example." isaacl (talk) 09:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
  • This is fairly unusual, isn't it? Rp2006 was blocked as an arbitration enforcement action, as the result of a discussion at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. It was already under the authority of the committee. Sanctions under the committee's authority are the committee's remit by definition. What was different about this block that the committee had to resolve by motion to adopt it? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 01:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
    There is private information about COI editing that should probably be addressed before an unblock. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
    Ivan: I explained my vote at the motion. Let me know if you have any questions. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
    Ivanvector, the block was a 1yr + indef block. After one year, the Arbitration privilege of the block would have fallen off if not for this motion. Not to mention there was a block for pretty much the exact same thing in April which ArbCom took over from AE. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

SilverLocust appointed trainee clerk

Latest comment: 4 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Original announcement

Conflict of interest VRT consultations, July 2024

Original announcement

Arbitration motion regarding Suspension of Beeblebrox

Latest comment: 3 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Original announcement
  • I am disappointed that rather than taking a moment to rethink what needed to be confidential and what can be public to get an easy win by providing the community transparency into the 2021 letter by publishing as much of it as is possible, the committee has decided to just close it with the motion. I am curious if the committee will at least release the vote for that decision as I know what it stood at when I resigned but obviously don't know how it shifted after my resignation. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
    I tend to agree, I believe by publishing my response I was able to demonstrate that it could be redacted in such a way as to not release any confidential material, and the community could see for themselves and decide if they thought the committee's characterization of it was accurate. I'm not going to pursue it any further though. It isn't any sort of a secret that I do not fully agree with most arbs regarding what should and should not be held as absolutely confidential. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
    I appreciate you writing this. In some ways I don't think it will do as much as an unredacted version could - for instance I think one of the things listed in the letter is something you 100% didn't do but also was/am in favor of redacting that name none-the-less - but that it will still provide important information now and in the future about what happened here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
    Developments have meant that an update will be posted to this announcement soon. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposed motion on historical elections

Latest comment: 3 months ago16 comments8 people in discussion
Original announcement

Without divulging anything private, is ArbCom able to tell the community what led to this motion? Remembering the HiP case, where ArbCom made themselves the filing party based largely on an offsite publication, I think the community has a legitimate interest in why ArbCom appears to be self-initiating another case. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

As stated in the motion, we received evidence of alleged harassment and canvassing in relation to the topic area. There appeared to be an onwiki axis as well as gradations of conduct alleged, so we felt that a case was a better vehicle to examine the issues than a singular motion. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. With respect to "historical elections", can you say anything about which elections, or even which nation, these were in? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
The evidence that we were given seems to mostly have to do with the results of elections displayed on Wikipedia (tabulations, maps, infoboxes, political parties, etc.) from c. 1800 until present day. There have been no allegations that the dispute involves policy or politics. Some of this overlaps with WP:CT/CID and WP:CT/APL, but not all of it and not in the way those cases bubbled up. AN(I) had a few cracks at the issue and weren't able to resolve things. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Just a note @Guerillero:, WP:CT/APL is a redlink, so the meaning of your comment may be lost. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 15:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
I presume APL refers to "Anti-Semitism in Poland" (per WP:ARBAPL) but there is no contentious topic designation specifically for that topic area as it is encompassed by Eastern Europe (WP:CT/EE). Thryduulf (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
It could also be a fat-fingered WP:CT/AP (American politics); P and L are adjacent to one another on a QWERTY layout. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
I was referring to WP:CT/AP -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
OK, thanks again. It sounds to me like this might be related to this, and there was additionally some private evidence of harassment and canvassing, and I guess it might be awkward for editor(s) who felt harassed to come forward publicly as the filing party. As a generalization, I think ArbCom making yourselves the filing party should be a last resort, but I also want to support ArbCom coming to the aid of editors who feel harassed. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Seconding this. I see ArbCom initiating a case on its own initiative where harassment is a factor as basically a John Doe filing with less likelihood of figuring out just who the Doe is. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
FWIW, while on the outside this certainly looks the same as HJP in terms of ArbCom initiating, I want to underscore the received evidence of [offwiki] alleged harassment and canvassing bit of this all. The parallel I saw from the evidence was much more akin to the Tropical Cyclone case than HJP. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Pleasingly proactive, this. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

agreed. saw this from a mile away, but assumed it'd require a prolonged and annoying case request. thanks committee :) ... sawyer * he/they * talk 18:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
And, amusingly alliterative, that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

FYI, there is a very similarly-named case from 2006: Election (which was focused on the 2004 United States presidential election). You may need to expand the name a bit, to something like Problems with elections articles. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

"Historical elections" works perfectly. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 22:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Conflict of interest VRT appointments, July 2024

Latest comment: 3 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Original announcement

Arbitration motion regarding Durova

Latest comment: 3 months ago17 comments12 people in discussion
Original announcement

This is really digging back deep. Well before my time, though when I first became an admin I read through a lot of old ArbCom cases so I was prepared for AE. No complaint about the modifications, to be sure. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: I'm somewhat curious as to why this even came up. For those interested, it's just a restatement from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2 (which was also an awful mess of a case). Apparently James Forrester authored the version that got agreement within the committee; there were various proposals at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2/Workshop. The principle was much more controversial in the Durova case because of the perception that the committee was shooting the messenger. Mackensen (talk) 01:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
@Mackensen: And I thought I was the retired institutional memory. You do know that by showing up on this page after all these years, you're now required to run for the Committee again? Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Does ArbCom need to file another motion to amend Hkelkar 2 then? Really I think the point of this motion was to send a message that copyrights aren't the primary reason not to disclose private information, and correcting the historical record was a side effect of the way that was done, not the actual point, so no. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
@Newyorkbrad that is flummery! Mackensen (talk) 02:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
The reason that his came up is that the 2007 principle is mentioned at Wikipedia:Harassment. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Citing Wikipedia:Copyrights was always something of a cheat. It is and was legally accurate, but it was standing in for the lack of a policy governing the real issue. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2/Proposed decision#Private correspondence, particularly 2.2. There was certainly a very strong norm that you shouldn't post the contents of a private email (I was guilty of that once, well before that case), separate from the question of outing someone's real name or email address. The committees of that period were cautious about going beyond existing policies, but (as I recall) we didn't want that genie getting out of the bottle, especially since a copy-pasted email wasn't usable as evidence. Mackensen (talk) 02:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Case Closed on 17:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Case amended by motion on 22:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Was this the longest between changes to a case? 16 years and a half could be some kind of record. —⁠andrybak (talk) 09:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
@Andrybak You made me curious, and it is the record holder by just under 5 months from Eastern Europe. See User:Thryduulf/Arbitartion amendments after a decade for the list of 41 cases that have been amended 10 or more years after being closed. Thryduulf (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Wow, you really did the homework there. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 18:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Seriously? You do realise, don't you, that many of our articles quote private correspondence that's been published by third parties through reliable sources, much of it long after the author's death without the possibility of permission? This would forbid us from quoting The Letters of Sacco and Vanzetti (published 1928, so PD-US), because the authors haven't permitted them to be quoted in encyclopedia articles. For an extreme example, see Lachish letters. If something reaches the public domain, it's old enough that permission is almost impossible to obtain (given the most-of-a-century-PMA requirements of most copyright regimes) and old enough that it's basically guaranteed not to matter to anyone, since the author's long dead. Nyttend (talk) 22:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I concur with Nyttend. While we generally shouldn't be the publishing house for private correspondence, there are clearly notable exceptions that need to be clarified. If a US Secretary of State emails a friend that "policy XYZ needs to change. What can you do to help us?". It may have been intended to be private, but that email is subject to public records requests and is indeed in the public domain. It gets dicier when something is emailed to the Secretary of State. Was it private or not? Let's consider the wider implications before we throw the baby out with the bathwater. Buffs (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
From context of the Durova case, the situations described by Nyttend and Buffs are clearly not the target of this motion. At some point, we should probably just say "come on, everyone knows what we mean", and not further fiddle with wording. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
While they are not the target of this motion, we certainly need to specify and be clear so that such rulings can be clearly disseminated and followed. Buffs (talk) 20:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree that this is a contradiction, but bear in mind that ArbCom principles don't create policy, they summarise it. The arbitration archives are full of principles that are completely out of line with current consensus and they are simply ignored, as they should be. The only reason this principle has any relevance (and was therefore worth amending) is that it is cited in Wikipedia:Harassment#Private correspondence. Since that is part of a conduct policy, it doesn't seem likely that anyone will mistake it for a restriction on article content. – Joe (talk) 10:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
What Joe said. Bear in mind, this decision dates from 2007. No one understood it, then or later, to have any bearing on article content. Mackensen (talk) 11:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Release of the 2021 letter to Just Step Sideways

Latest comment: 3 months ago37 comments22 people in discussion
Original announcement
  • I hope that the letter's publication will allow others in the Community to come to their own conclusions regarding the motion passed above. I don't believe that I can be too specific on why the announcements were made separately (I wish that they were together too), but the important thing is that it was published. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
    Well I appreciate the transparency and I imagine I'm not alone in that regard. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 00:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
  • ...I'll be honest, any communication which begins "I'm writing to you on behalf of the rest of the committee" and ends "For the Arbitration Committee" seems fairly formal to me, but what do I know. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
    Can't remember the last time I saw any kind of "formal warning" in any context whose main operating provision was "Can you please be really really careful". That seems like a pretty informal standard to me, and much more of a request than a warning. Maybe if y'all had asked them to be super duper careful, it'd have been more formal? Anyway, the conclusion the release is making me draw here is that I cannot fathom why so much energy was expended fighting against this outcome. Other conclusions too, but pretty sure I'd get in trouble for WP:ASPERSIONS if I stated them.⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 23:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
    Can't remember the last time I saw any kind of "formal warning" in any context whose main operating provision was "Can you please be really really careful" This was my point as well, I mentioned it indirectly at the ARCA thread. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 00:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
    [chuckles] Yeah, I got that same impression when I read this passage as well - Can you please be really really careful, it does sound informal and kinda juvenile, I prefer your "super duper careful", sounds more grown-up. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
    Totes watch yourself, bro! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Thank you to the committee for releasing this. Even with the redactions, it helps with understanding where the committee was coming from and why JSS interpreted the message the way he did. I can understand why some committee members would oppose making it public, but I think better understanding both the (then) committee’s perspective and JSS’s is a good thing. Hopefully this can all be put to rest now. 28bytes (talk) 00:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, the basis of my oppose vote was that the original ARCA thread seemed to have been resolved—as in we had a clearly passing motion. My understanding (which may not have been entirely correct) was that we would post this as part of the ARCA thread, so I was not keen on continuing a thread looked resolved. I have no objection to posting this letter here at ACN in addition to the enacted motion. Maxim (talk) 00:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
    That was also largely the basis for my abstention. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
    I get that too, when I was pressing it for it earlier the matter was not resolved and I thought it would shed some light for the broader community. Doing it now still does that, but only after it would have made an actual difference. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 19:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Not a great look, especially for those who voted for the original motion with the formal warning verbiage and against releasing this correspondence. The best that can be said about the committee enacting the original language was that they were unaware of the elements that constitute a 'formal warning' in employment law or similar contexts. It's harder to excuse the recent hemming and hawing about JSS's formal request. While I still don't think it was the best way forward for JSS, I get the sentiment behind the appeal, and the final release of the redacted text entirely supports JSS's contention that the communication that was construed by the committee as a formal warning, was, in fact, not unequivocally a formal warning. If it was a warning, it was a particularly poor one in that the individual being warned reasonably (in my estimation, of course) did not understand it as such.
Further, If there was no response from the committee to JSS's taking issue with parts of the missive, that would be another failure of the committee: a warning disputed by the recipient need be investigated, considered, and reissued unequivocally, with or without refinement, in order to actually count as a warning; a disputed warning not refined or reiterated implies that the dispute had merit and the matter was dropped without further action pending. All of this perspective is from that of U.S. employment law, under which I have participated as both the sender and recipient of performance feedback. Jclemens (talk) 01:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Even in just the everyday understandings of the word, you'd think that if something was a warning it would mention consequences ("if you do X, then Y might happen") and if it was a formal warning it would include the word "warning". The committee were hamming it up a bit there.
That said, this is the 2024 committee reviewing the wording used by the 2023 committee in citing a message sent by the 2021 committee. I don't know how many members those years have in common but it's understandable that they had difficulty toeing to a consistent line. – Joe (talk) 08:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Well, the message talks about the recipient needing to avoid a "risk" to the committee, so that looks like it is encompassed within the ordinary meaning of warning: "telling somebody that something bad or unpleasant may happen in the future so that they can try to avoid it."[10] -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
The risk thing is kinda ironic given how this whole situation has gone down over the past several months. It is frustrating to see how less than two weeks ago, members of the Committee were telling JSS that it was a clear cut case of a formal warning, only to see the actual email and be baffled about why they were defending it as such. I don't even feel confident that it can be claimed to be a warning. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
As I indicated, it seems to me it is a warning with reference to the risk, nor am I alone in thinking, 'be careful' is also standard part of a warning [11] ("really, really" might not be but its obvious purpose is emphasis on being careful, and "please" may be too much courtesy, but the words of warning are still there). I also view any objection over "formal" as not well made, as the committee adopted and sent the message in its official capacity. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Although the "really really careful" language was a bit... weak, I find the arguments that it wasn't really a warning disingenuous. A common sense reading of the letter seems to me obviously to be something that is not saying "here's what we think, but nobody cares if you do it again", but rather is saying "you should stop doing this". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Well, I don't really appreciate the insinuation that I was lying, so there's that. I never said or implied that anyone said "nobody cares if you do it again" I only said this did not come across to me as a formal warning, and now the committee has said as much as well, along with a number of other people now that they've actually seen it. Are we all liars? Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 00:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm not really finding fault with your desire to have the redacted letter made public, and I'm glad that it was made public, and that ArbCom passed the motion revising how they referred to it. You read the original letter the way that you read it, and I can accept that it came across as informal rather than as formal. My objection is with the other editors who, after reading it, and after reading the subsequent motion that was passed, keep insisting that nobody could have understood it to be a message telling you that this was a problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
I am an outsider on these things, so I don't know how normal this is compared to other formal warnings the Committee has issued. But in my sincere opinion, to use language such as Your plain speaking is appreciated [...] been a couple of occasions [...] Whilst you may not have realised [...] Can you please be really really careful makes it read like a caution to me. Especially the lack of consequences or a requirement to acknowledge the issue.
There is a comment from a Committee member to devote some energy to improving the Wiki. Since the Committee is part of the Wiki, here is my thoughts: Formal warnings should follow an agreed upon template to prevent later confusion and issues. That way we can avoid this issue in the future. Maybe include a sentence that says, you are reminded/warned/admonished based on Cabayi's vote and the glossary. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
I would argue it doesn't even read as a caution. To me, the wording reads as a "hey, we don't like what you're doing, but as it doesn't technically violate any (rules/etc) we are just asking you to please stop it pretty pretty please".
I get that the arbitrators work with each other a lot - whether it's through email, offsite communication, voice calls/telephone... and they may become friends. But it's absurd to call a message that reads like a "please I don't like this please please stop but you technically aren't breaking any rules so I can't actually tell you you have to stop" a warning or even a caution. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 07:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Well, it is not "I", it is "we", in the corporate sense. Since you began with we, it is odd you then went "I". And the risk is to the committee's function so, yes it is about policy, the policy governing the committee. To the committee, in its official capacity, the recipient is acting on a line, a line they apply in any given matter. Such lines are made for caution, and going to the line is, metaphorically, being in danger and is warning. The absurd thing would be to take it as you suggest, that what the recipient is doing is not a risk, a danger, with respect to the committee. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
There is a difference between "we" as in more than one person, and the "corporate we" that you read the letter as. The informal language in the letter, especially during the request to be more careful, lends itself to the confusion over which we is intended. And while I agree that it likely could've been read as a "corporate we"/official "don't do this" notice... it is ambiguous and ultimately in a case like this where arbitrators are attempting to "police" one of their own with a warning, there should be no ambiguity. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
SGV, as you brought up Cabiya, I draw your attention to part of the vote: "not see it as a warning is (imo) obtuse at best and wikilawyering at worst". Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that. At one point I was going to say something about the comments of certain members, but dropped it. I will say that the reason I spoke up this time was because of seeing the last several months of discussions through my notifications and being frustrated with some of the individual responses from the Committee revolving around the suspension and its aftermath. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • One take-away lesson here is that if the "warning" had been written more sternly, it might have actually caused a change in behavior that would have avoided a suspension and multiple appeal requests. By trying to be nice and using kid gloves for one of its own ("Can you please be really really careful"), the 2021 committee failed to prevent disruption, and so here we are, 3 years later, still talking about it. Levivich (talk) 16:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
    I think this is reasonable criticism of both the 2021 and 2023 committees -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 16:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
    I completely concur Buffs (talk) 19:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
    I mean, I agree as well. This went from "please please be more careful" in one conversation to "we formally warned you not to do this and you did it anyway, you violated the absolute ironclad code of complete silence that was clearly explained to you before so now you're fired from the committee and stripped of user rights as well." Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 00:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    I mean, come on man. When you got that email, did you understand it to mean (1) don't do it again or (2) it's ok if you do it again. Because if it was #1, wtf you wasting everyone's time with this? Ok it wasn't a "warning" it was a "request" or "advice" or "admonishment" or "reminder", who cares what you call it, man? They voted on it and told you to knock it off. What more is there to talk about? Levivich (talk) 06:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • I'm not active at the moment and have not been following this, but one thing I'll say is that IMO while the warning could have been clearer and more formal, to my mind it should have been sufficient to tell JSS that their behaviour needs to change or they could expect action against them. Notably the "not compatible" parts seem to me to serve as sufficient warning. I approach this as a "pleb" so to speak. As a regular editor, especially an experienced one, I understand if that if I clearly violate our policies and guidelines, especially ones I should be aware by now, I can expect to be sanctioned even without warning. And especially with warning, I don't expect anyone to explicitly tell me I may be sanctioned. To give a simple example, if someone tells me "this is not compatible with WP:BLP/NPA/whatever, please cut it out", I understand that if I do it again I might be blocked. If I disagree it's a BLP/NPA/whatever violation then I can try to challenge it when blocked. Or better yet, especially if the editor is experienced enough that they should know what they're talking about and even more if it's a committee of the 8 (or whatever) editors who are used to dealing with behavioural issues here, I should ask when they warn me why they think it's a violation since I don't feel it is. If I don't do that and keep at it, I definitely don't expect to get out of it because no one told me I could be sanctioned. The most I might be able to get out of it is because I didn't understand why it was a violation and I now understand and will do better for now one. But that will depend a lot on the circumstances e.g. how serious the violation and especially if I could explain why I didn't seek more feedback when warned. Or in other words, it's on everyone here, and especially arbcom members to seek feedback if they are warned their behaviour is not compatible with what's expected here rather than think because they were not explicitly told sanction might result if they keep at it, then they are fine. So to my mind, despite the deficiencies in the warning, it should have been sufficient. Nil Einne (talk) 11:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    @Nil Einne, I find myself agreeing with you, @Thryduulf, and @Levivich here. All the wikilawyering around whether it's a True Official Warning vs just a friendly note of no actual importance leaves me wondering whether I should laugh or cry. C'mon folks: Go read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy six or eight times. Pay particular attention to the sentence in the middle that says "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without considering their principles."
    This is not a speeding ticket. The English Wikipedia does not have a police force, and there's no such thing as a Police caution here (which – go read the article – would require the offender to admit not just committing a crime, but also to have done so intentionally). Furthermore, the more experienced you are, and the more user rights you have accumulated, the higher the standard you're held to, including already knowing what that standard is. The fact that anyone even had to tell such a senior community member that his treatment of other editors was significantly below the usual standard is a problem.
    We should not be minimizing this. Wikipedia's articles need a functioning community. Having a functioning community requires treating other editors with at least a tiny bit of respect. If you (or me, or any of us) fall so far below our notoriously low standards of collegial behavior and basic human decency as to have a committee write and vote to send a letter to us, that's a problem that the rest of us should not be taking lightly or trying to minimize. Ask yourself: How many basically unpleasant people do we encounter in a given year? We blocked 82,865 registered editors last year. And how many of them got such a letter? We encounter thousands of problematic editors a year, but very, very, very few earn a letter like this. No matter how you feel about the wording, this is not something to dismiss as just a chat between friends. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    You're so focused on "he shouldn't need a formal warning, we're not a bureaucracy" you're ignoring the fact that ArbCom swore up and down they did give a formal warning, and the actual text proves they didn't. They are the current elected people in positions of trust who I have far more concerns with, because rather than simply apologize or admit their mistake plainly, we had to go through this song and dance to get any level of transparency. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    One would think that if that were the case, the motion to amend the original statement would not have passed 11-1. At least from my perspective, that indicates that we might have intended it as a formal warning but it was not taken as one by the party receiving it, and we recognise that fact (even if some of us do not necessarily fully agree with it). Primefac (talk) 23:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    the actual text proves they didn't No it doesn't. You're welcome to that interpretation but for me, the actual text proved it was a warning. It was very clearly "don't do this again," and signed "for the committee." It doesn't need to have the word "warning", nor contain any threats, to be a warning. What the actual text proved to me is that this was a giant waste of time. What is also proved to me is just how different the standards are for different editors. When Beeblebrox voted to sanction me, for example, it was with no warning, on the basis of one diff, and Beeblebrox refused to offer any comment or explanation, even when I asked for it. Other arbs voted against the sanction due to the lack of warning, or explained their position to me in the PD or on the talk page, but not Beeblebrox. I received none of the considerations afforded to him, yet he still wants a vote to change a word in a final decision because this warning wasn't formal enough. And worse is the other editors who think this "proves" that arbs were lying. Puh-lease. Levivich (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
    "the actual text proves they didn't" It "proves" nothing of the kind, quite the opposite as laid-out above, and one arbitrator even suggested in changing the reference that it is either obtuse or wiki lawyering to not see it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  • I wonder if I'm saying a quiet part out loud (or too loudly), but sanctioning or reprimanding a fellow arbitrator is difficult for the rest of the group. To suspend or expel an arbitrator takes a very high bar, so what does the Committee when suspension or expulsion is not justified? We have to do something that gets our concerns across without alienating the subject of such a reprimand—we still have to work together after the fact. A disgruntled arbitrator on the Committee is bad news for everyone else. These occurrences are rare, so it's not like a template we can go off from the past. And maybe something even quieter that's being unsaid is that serving on the Committee, a lot of arbitrators become friends (or in other cases something close to that), and despite those kinds of close associations, recusal isn't really a useful option. Or, maybe I've just described the pitfalls of keeping one's own house in order, when the "house" is a small group of 15 editors... Maxim (talk) 13:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Why does ARBPIA allow userspace as an exception?

Latest comment: 3 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles. Doug Weller talk 10:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

This doesn't answer the question, but there is currently a request to change that at Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b). SilverLocust 💬 18:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
@SilverLocust Thanks. Doug Weller talk 18:49, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Refresh of arbitration policy and procedures

Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Original announcement
  • Regarding To approve and remove access to (i) CheckUser and Oversight tools and (ii) mailing lists maintained by the Arbitration Committee I'd be more generic than "mailing list" because this also applies to IRC, CU wiki, VRTS, and maybe other things I've missed. I'd say something like "the associated private communication channels". RoySmith (talk) 21:08, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
    Roy, the alternative venues you identify do not technically come under our aegis and so we do not control them. I think that if we were to give ourselves authority over VRTS and CheckUser wiki etc, we would be accused of a power grab  . For further comments, I'd advise commenting on the consultation page. Thanks, Sdrqaz (talk) 21:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Arbitration motions regarding My very best wishes

Original announcement

Resignation of Barkeep49 from ArbCom

Latest comment: 3 months ago30 comments28 people in discussion
Original announcement

Changes to the functionaries team, August 2024

Original announcement

Arbitration motion regarding German war effort

Original announcement

EytanMelech unbanned

Latest comment: 2 months ago18 comments10 people in discussion
Original announcement

I am unsure if this is the right venue for clarification, but since User:EytanMelech's topic ban from ARBPIA articles is still in place would that encompass the recently created Jerusalem Archaeological Park? Richard Nevell (talk) 22:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I was told to avoid the Arab-Israeli conflict. The archaeological park is an article about the history of the land, and has nothing to do with the conflict. Listing an archaeological excavation museum has nothing to do with fighting between eitherr side.
I was told to be cautious and make my own judgement, but I was told by arbcom member HJ Mitchell "Speaking for myself, I would not consider articles about Israeli (or Arab/Palestinian) society, culture, or history to be in scope [of the ban] provided they don't touch on the conflict."
Although I found sources relevant to the article about complaints from the waqf and the sensitivity of the excavation near the Temple, I explicitly avoided making edits related to them since my ban because I didn't want to tread on that topic. I believe that J.A.P. falls under "society, culture, and history." EytanMelech (talk) 23:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm not an arb (and I mostly stay away from arb enforcement stuff), but my reading of WP:ARBPIA and WP:ARBPIA4 shows that both of those documents are explicit about only applying to the conflict, and even with the "broadly construed" language, I don't see how this article has anything to do with the conflict. RoySmith (talk) 23:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
After reading some of the comments below, I've stuck part of my statement. RoySmith (talk) 14:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Yeah... I didn't even say a country that Jerusalem belonged to. Only time I recall using the word "Israel" is in the nationality of an excavation team. EytanMelech (talk) 23:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
In view of the academic literature, I think archaeology and related topics in the region are absolutely, closely tied to the conflict (e.g. [12], [13]). The above example from EytanMelech further illustrates the pitfalls of trying to separate archaeology or history from the conflict: a ban scope that compels them to create an article about the archaeology, but not the Waqf's complaints or the site or its sensitivity with relation to other sites of political importance, is essentially a ban scope that exclusively allows for the whitewashing of the topic; such a scope is nonsensical. signed, Rosguill talk 23:45, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
If they want me to refrain from any archaeological articles I will do so, but from what I was personally told via email through my arbcom appeal made think that "history" separated specific articles about disputes from isolated articles about specific archaeological artifacts and the study of them, as long as I did not make any edits that discussed any politics related to the topic.
You can also tie pretty much anything to the Israel-Palestine conflict. I wrote an article about a highway in Israel. That could also fall under the conflict because infrastructure could be argued to be discriminatory towards people who are stuck in the oasises in the West Bank who have to go through checkpoints. Again, if they decide that this is part of the ban, I will abide by that going forward, but I really didn't think it would be an issue. EytanMelech (talk) 23:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
If the "highway in Israel" affects "people who are stuck in the oasises in the West Bank who have to go through checkpoints" then it clearly does come under ARBPIA as you are claiming the West Bank as part of Israel. DuncanHill (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Mine doesn't go through the West Bank I don't think. It is entirely within non-West Bank Israel, but it connects to the Israeli Highway System, which, in some parts, does not give equal access to people living in some Palestinian territories. I'm saying that lots of stuff can be connected to the conflict but it wasn't clear that people had concerns regarding these types of articles and what the topics could 'imply' if one thought about more than what was in the article. If they want me to avoid all of this, I will, but I, as stated above, have quoted what was told to me by ARBCOM. EytanMelech (talk) 00:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
I can see where you are coming from there, though I myself would incline to a stricter interpretation than you do. It would probably be helpful if @User:HJ Mitchell and Arbcom as a whole were to tell us what they actually meant, instead of leaving us all to guess. DuncanHill (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
I can't speak for ArbCom without a vote so I can only give you my personal opinion, which is what I gave EytanMelech when I enacted the motion to unban him. I think an editor with an interest in Israel should be able to write articles about Israeli topics without writing about the conflict. However, if there's honest disagreement over whether an article is in scope, we can go to AE or ARCA for a ruling by a group of uninvolved admins or ArbCom. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm not an arb either, but I was one of the drafters of WP:ARBPIA4 and also an archaeologist of the southern Levant, and I would also say that the history and archaeology of Israel/Palestine is absolutely part of the conflict – even narrowly construed. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with the relevant sources would know this, so the comments above from EytanMelech (who I haven't encountered before this), and the fact that immediately after being unblocked he requested undeletion of a draft on an Israeli-controlled archaeological park in occupied East Jerusalem (funnily enough not mentioned in the article), which was funded and managed by the highly controversial Elad Foundation, should be major red flags. – Joe (talk) 09:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
I requested this draft be undeleted because my work on it had lapsed due to G13 inactivity during my ban. I didn't know anything about the Elad Foundation (googled it, they are apparently the Ir David Foundation now) other than that they used to have control over the park. I only knew about the park because I had been working on an article about the new organization that worked to restore the park and didn't actually find sources or look at any regarding the Ir David foundation.
And again, I know that *some* archaeology can be controversial but the majority of my article is about a road from the Roman-empire period. This article was mostly just me adapting content from the Hebrew Wikipedia in a translation and I didn't even translate all of their article. The only outside research I did was using keyword searches to find articles related to facts that I had written in the article, and if I couldn't verify the uncited claims from the Hebrew article, I deleted them. Was not aware of specific controversy with this park. EytanMelech (talk) 14:14, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Come off it, in what world would an archaeological site slap bang in the middle of Old Jerusalem not be politically sensitive? You're not an innocent road enthusiast that blundered into this topic; you have an ARBPIA topic ban and just came off a site ban. It's your responsibility to see the boundaries of that topic and steer well clear of them. – Joe (talk) 16:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
@EytanMelech I’m happy to chalk this one up to a good-faith lack of understanding on both our parts. I wasn't aware of the political sensitivity of something normally as innocuous as archaeology but I've been educated (thank you, Joe and Selfstudier). I trust that you will take this feedback to mean that you should avoid that article and similar ones. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Absolutely. I will be more cautious with what the definition of broadly-construed means. EytanMelech (talk) 00:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
We have been down this track (trying to split history from conflict) in relation to another Elad venture, the City of David. Follow the disambiguation to see how it ended up. In general tho, Israeli run parks and what not anywhere in the West Bank and not just in East Jerusalem are all literally part of the conflict, broadly construed. Selfstudier (talk) 14:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
To me personally, "does topic ban X encompass Y", when asked with genuine uncertainty, can almost always be answered with "yes; we call this 'broadly construed'". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:42, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Change to the Functionary team

Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Original announcement

Change to the Checkuser team

Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Original announcement

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historical elections closed

Latest comment: 1 month ago29 comments14 people in discussion
Original announcement

What is a "sub-national election"? Does that specifically mean "elections exactly one level down from national", or more generally "any election below national level", which basically means "all elections"? Walter Gladwin includes a discussion of the results of the New York State Assembly elections. Does this mean that Walter Gladwin is now a CT? I would hope not. This could use clarifying. RoySmith (talk) 23:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to agree, the meaning of this should be clarified, to do otherwise invites wiki-lawyering at AE. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
I assume it means all elections (although it begs the question whether supranational elections are in scope). Number 57 01:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
@RoySmith: As worded "the results of any national or sub-national election" would be any election result that is national or below, not just one level below. That would include the results from state, county, and town/municipal elections in the United States or regional, department/canton, and municipal elections in France, as examples. The contentious topic covers election results, so the entirety of Walter Gladwin would not be a contentious topic, though the results of elections he was in would be. @Number 57: The wording of the CT would not cover supranational elections. - Aoidh (talk) 02:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
@Aoidh:, thanks for clarifying that, although the more I think about it the more it seems overly-broad. By my read this means every single election in the history of the human race that was not supranational is now designated as a CT. Now, the case is called Historical elections and 99.99% of Wikipedians have not seen any of the evidence, so maybe this was intentional, but it seems overly broad to me. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
@Just Step Sideways: I agree it is very broad, but unfortunately so was the scope of the disruption, which wasn't limited to the level of government, geography, nationality, or timeframe. Narrowing the scope to one level below national, Western governments, or elections within the last 200 years wouldn't have covered all of the disruption, for example. - Aoidh (talk) 23:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
@Just Step Sideways: Very few articles are entirely under the CT, just the parts on the results of the election. The politics and campaign are CT-free. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 07:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Separately, one matter that wasn't addressed in the outcome – how should we deal with future disruption of this kind, particularly the off-wiki canvassing? One of the now-banned editors has been at it again, resulting in disruption on Georgian election articles (see e.g. here), canvassed talkpage comments and more trolling on my talkpage (including from another editor involved in the off-wiki stuff). Given this is happening off-wiki and taking into consideration outing rules, how can/should it be reported? Can social media posts be linked to to demonstrate what is happening? No criticism of Arbcom members who are volunteers and have real life commitments, but in my experience emails to Arbs often aren't responded to quickly (or at all in some cases), so I think there needs to be a way to report this on-wiki. Cheers, Number 57 01:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    Can't do much to really stop a banned user, but ECP should probably be enough to stop most of the canvassed edits? And if someone is showing up again and again in the topic area in a disruptive way, that's what AE is for. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    @Number 57: Any admin can protect pages as a CT action. CUs can block accounts based on off wiki evidence (per WP:BLOCKEVIDENCE) if they follow the procedure from this 2022 motion. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    I am not sure this is enough – for example, you've protected the Georgian election article, but in the state that the offline canvassers wanted it. IMO action needs to include rollbacking to the pre-canvassing state. Number 57 15:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
  • "Starting in 2026 and checked yearly afterwards, this designation expires on 1 January if no sanctions have been logged in the preceding 2 years." Am I missing something or shouldn't this mean either 2027 or that would it expire in 2026 if no additional sanctions are recorded? (Otherwise, the 2026 check doesn't make sense to me since these four sanctions would be noted.) --Super Goku V (talk) 07:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    If no sanctions are recorded between the close of the case and 1 January 2026, the designation will expire. Primefac (talk) 12:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    Ah, with both replies I now get it. Thank you for the clarification. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) AFAIK, sanctions and restrictions issued by arbcom aren't logged at Wikipedia:AELOG which intended for sanctions and restrictions issues by admins under CTOP. (E.g. Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2022#Conduct in deletion-related editing doesn't have arbcom's sanctions.) So while perhaps the wording could be clarified, to my read, the wording already means that the sanctions would expire in 2026 if no additional/admin sanctions are issued. Although on a related note, does this mean CTOP expires if admins are making new page restrictions but not issuing any editor sanctions? Was this intended? If new page restrictions count as sanctions, can an admin "renew" a page restriction which they feel is still needed for the purpose of keeping CTOP in place? Also does a warning count as a sanction? Nil Einne (talk) 12:16, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    Your read of the timing is correct. As for warnings and page restrictions, I personally think they are included. The intention is that the CT should only be around if it is being used. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    And now it makes sense why the word "logged" is used instead of issued, which I didn't pick up on until now. Thank you for the clarification. I just didn't consider enough that there is a difference between a sanction that comes directly from a case and a sanction that comes from enforcement. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:49, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
  • This explains the bizarreness that was going on at South African general elections in May/June. I was chasing edit wars for days on ~ten articles over an infobox. It was crazy, the level of passionate participation over a not-that-major change at multiple not-that-prominent articles, but the participants seemed plausible, few were brand new, I figured they were all members of some wikiproject who all just happened to have the same opinion that the new infobox was "ugly". And in the end, what I now realize were meatpuppets got consensus ownership. I wonder if that close should be reviewed. Pinging Czello. Also wondering if the editors involved should be notified of this finding, for their own future reference. Valereee (talk) 12:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    • This is part of the issue – the off-wiki campaigning was ultimately successful in changing virtually every article (probably somewhere between 50 and 100) they wanted to, either by edit warring or canvassed talkpage consensuses (one of which overrode a previous RfC). The latest bout has seen several Georgian election articles changed to the canvassers' desired state. While the editors driving it can be blocked, their meatpuppets still succeed. How do we stop this? Number 57 15:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
      ECP maybe? That would cut some of it down, probably. Like this new entry here below. Valereee (talk) 16:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
    • Also, re the last point, numerous editors (some of whom are fairly longstanding) enthusiastically joined in the disruption and have not faced any consequences. I personally don't think this should be tolerated, but again the question is how to deal with them. Number 57 16:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
      Looking at it again, it looks to me like some otherwise levelheaded editors let themselves get swept up into the whole "major change without discussion first" accusations. It wasn't really a major change, it was one infobox template vs. another. Barely even a bold move unless you happen to be someone passionate about infoboxes. But there was so much gnashing of teeth from the meatpuppets that all I can think is it made usually levelheaded editors just kind of get caught up in it. Valereee (talk) 16:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
      There was a large amount of disruption on French election articles that went well beyond the infobox matter and involved blindly reverting a wide range of changes, including properly referencing and correcting election results tables. Number 57 16:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
  • I don't follow arbcom cases that closely so forgive me if the answer to this is obvious but why wasn't Talleyrand6 topic banned? I did look at the proposed decision and didn't see a definite answer. Was it because they were already blocked and it seemed clear they weren't going to be unblocked; but for the other ones the topic-ban was partly there in case there wasn't enough for site ban as happened with DemocraticLuntz? I'm aware that a topic ban could and probably would be part of any successful appeal. Also that all the others who received both technically could appeal them both at the same time (although I suspect doing so would probably harm their chances of the site ban appeal succeeding). Nil Einne (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    Talleyrand6 wasn't topic-banned because their ArbCom-confirmed block (now siteban) made it moot. The others weren't blocked at the time of the case, which is why both topic and sitebans were on the table for them. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    personally i think number 57 should be stripped of his admin privileges Hthompson2000 (talk) 02:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
    @Hthompson2000: Why? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
    It seems we have another partisan. WADroughtOfVowelsP 15:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
    Indeed. That user page, however accurate, is merely trolling, and they should be blocked. SerialNumber54129 14:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Changes to the CheckUser team, September 2024

Original announcement

Resignation of Maxim

Latest comment: 29 days ago9 comments9 people in discussion
Original announcement
  • It was clear that Maxim's ability to serve wasn't the same this year. And that makes me sad because he is a great arb who it was a pleasure to have as a colleague. Our community is better when he's a part of it (as he has been for so many years) and so I hope that he stays connected even as he works through his new personal circumstances. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:42, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your service, Maxim; we are all deeply appreciative for your dedicated contributions and hope we stay in touch in the years to come. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 13:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
  • I am honored to have served with Maxim on the committee, he was always fair, thoughtful, and thorough. This is a loss for sure but also a reminder that arbs are humans with real lives and sometimes that just has to come first. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 20:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Many thanks for your service. Take care and all the best, Miniapolis 22:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
  • I voted for Maxim and was excited to work with them this year. As in previous years, much of Maxim's work was behind the scenes, where they worked to ensure that things did not fall through the cracks and did a lot of the thankless work. Maxim, I'll miss your dedication and perspectives and hope to hear from you in whatever capacity that your real life allows. Best wishes, Sdrqaz (talk) 01:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
  • I was proud to vote for you, Maxim. Thank you for your work over the last ten months, and all the best for whatever life has in the future. I will be happy to support you if you run again :) Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Well this is disappointing, but I'm quite grateful for the work that Maxim has put in. Thanks for everything! Hey man im josh (talk) 16:22, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry to see this, though real life must come first. Maxim was always one of our hardest working arbitrators, keeping us all on top of the workload. He was thoughtful and able to explain himself well. I wish him all the best for the future. WormTT(talk) 13:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Maxim was a real net-plus on the Committee, and he deserves thanks, as well as good wishes for whatever is going on in real life. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_51&oldid=1256401303"