This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This is a request directly to Beeblebrox but also more about the ArbCom's good form behaviour. I am pinging Tryptofish too here. I don't appreciate my name being discussed by an active ArbCom member on external forums during a case, including my supposed intentions for commenting in the case and his take on my RL. I had admins like Ched pointing out to me privately this external discussion during the case. I just got pulled down when I saw Beeblebrox's name in that discussion, commenting on not just me, but other facets of the case, including editors like Tryptofish. If there is a rule that says, "ArbCom members are free to discuss active cases and RL of participants in any external forums", please point the same out to me and I'll consider this discussion closed; alternatively, Beeblebrox should consider better behaviour and not leaving comments like this. Thanks, Lourdes 01:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I've told you I am sorry the remark upset you and said I would not go there again [1]. I don't know what else you want here, except to apparently officially limit what I am allowed to say on external forums? There are limitations of course, but I haven't breached anyone's privacy, including yours. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Beeblebrox thanks for the note on the other page. I appreciate that. I don't accept your haughty statement on this page. It is about breaching privacy and having good sense to not unreasonably trouble editors (this is about you being an ArbCom member; I wouldn't care less if you had been just an editor). Where in Wikipedia have you seen me touting my real life exploits and where outside Wikipedia have you seen me showing off my Wikipedia work? I requested my initial edits to be Oversighted, a request which was refused. Why would I want an active ArbCom member, during an active ArbCom case, to make the connection (of what need not ever have been connected and what should have been deleted/oversighted in the first place when I made the request)? Don't you realise the huge chilling effect this has on editors like me, when I see an ArbCom member making the connection on external forums? Can't you understand? Do you think all I want is a media article that connects my RL to my Wikipedia work, mentioning that the news is confirmed by an ArbCom member? I am sorry, but your response is so demeaning. Lourdes 02:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: You're an arb. Please be discreet about your opinions during a case. I read the Wikipediocracy threads and it made me feel uncomfortable in terms of your your sincerity and integrity both which are important in arbitration cases. For now, while you hold this very serious position perhaps better judgment would be to forgo your Wikipediocracy comments before and during cases. Littleolive oil (talk) 03:11, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I’ve found that when someone does something that upsets me, and I point this out to them, and they apologize and say they won’t do it again, the best response is to let it go and move on. Of course, others may prefer a different approach. 28bytes (talk) 03:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

28bytes, it's clear from the above and below statement of Beeblebrox that he will continue to discuss active ArbCom cases on external forums. Your advise to me that: "the best response is to let it go and move on", is laughable, to say the least. Please point your advise to the right person who needs it in this thread. Lourdes 06:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC) In two words, sorry 28bytes. Shouldn't have lashed out when all you were trying was to help. Lourdes 12:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Lourdes; apology unnecessary but accepted and appreciated. Best, 28bytes (talk) 14:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm kind of disturbed that any arbitrator active in an open case is discussing that case *anywhere* except the case pages or other relevant pages onwiki. If you're openly discussing current cases in the publicly viewable pages on another forum, it raises a lot of questions about what you're saying in the non-public areas. I've no issues about arbitrators participating generally at other sites; for example, talking about technical issues, general policy, and so on. I've openly supported candidates and worked with arbitrators who are members of criticism sites. But not a one of them publicly discussed an open arbcom case or its participants at those sites. I'd encourage you to restrain yourself from participating specific to open cases; it's not like there's nothing else to talk about. So I hope that your promise not to go there encompasses any ongoing case, and not just this specific one. Risker (talk) 03:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

What Risker said. Paul August ☎ 17:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

What Paul August said. I'm no fan of some of the more hyperbolic rhetoric posted elsewhere in this discussion, but I'm really very disappointed with the way this has played out. Considering the exchange that I have had with Beeblebrox at around the middle of WT:ACN#Break 1, I think that ArbCom has lost some good will and trust through this. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Well a short investigation finds there is such a forum, and there are many seemingly WP users (matching usernames, ... - not just Arbs) over there. ArbCom of course is expected to take some decisions in private; and that's fine. Discussions about on-wiki stuff off-wiki in such a public place; though, is very borderline... Though now I've found out even more about the reasons behind this case recently at AN... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• I made about ten comments in the thread in question over the course of 22 days while the case was open, many of them only vaguely related to the actual case, general comments about arbcom proceedings, corrections or observations on other users' posts, and a few general comments about the case itself, the new structure being used, and, as the case was being closed, comments on the most important principles involved (and the post Lourdes objected to, which was intended sarcastically but I do understand the objection). I'm painfully aware that there are quite often incredibly stupid threads there, and even the better threads are subject to people posting their ridiculous conspiracy theories and so on in them. My intent over there is largely to push back against misinformation, to show a perspective that is often missing in discussion there, and to keep an eye out for those times (as has happened twice in the past few months) when a very real problem not being discussed over here is discussed over there. I'm aware there is a lingering perception that all such websites are nothing but doxxing and other malicious trash, and at one time this was mostly true, but I wouldn't comment there at all, about anything, if that were the case now. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• Just to note that I saw the ping, and yes I did inform Lourdes that they were being doxed in that thread. — Ched (talk) 05:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Here’s the thing, Beeblebrox: while I take you at your word that you meant no harm, a comment like “ I've told you I am sorry the remark upset you and said I would not go there again...” has a pretty invalidating tone that suggests the person harmed was just overly touchy. A better apology would be something that acknowledges your own actions and identifies the harm done. Try something along the lines of “I realize that my actions were out of line for a sitting member of ArbCom, particularly on an active case where I am in a quasi-judicial role and thus should keep my mouth shut on any outside forums. I realize my behavior [insert details here] caused you significant discomfort and I most sincerely apologize.” Think that would be possible? Also, being doxxed is almost always upsetting, and sites that get threads going to do little more than gossip and say negative things can have an extremely chilling effect. Montanabw^(talk) 06:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
    • "Doxxed" obviously does not apply here. I don't wish to exacerbate the situation by being more explicit, but using a loaded word like that isn't helpful. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
      • • To clarify, I’m not saying you were the individual who did that. I’m saying that you shouldn’t have been over there in that context in the first place, but given that it’s water under the bridge, a more sincere and less defensive apology would be the best way out of the tangle. Being an Arb is A Big Deal, and with great power comes great responsibility. The outside world calls ArbCom our Supreme Court, and while the analogy is inexact, judicial temperament, discretion, and discernment isn’t a bad idea. Montanabw^(talk) 07:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
          • • Nobody 'did it'. Not unless you extend the definition of 'doxxing' to include something that can be seen by looking at a single diff on a Wikipedia talk page. Wikipediocracy doesn't subscribe to some made-up definition of 'doxxing' that includes pointing out publicly-visible material on Wikipedia that the regulars (or some of them) would prefer they hadn't written. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
              • The fact that Beeblebrox takes it upon himself to reveal information about me on external forums, based on his Wikipedia research of one handful of my edits many years ago – is that not exactly doxxing? Why in heavens should he be connecting my Wikipedia user id to my RL persona on an external website (details which I have never connected anywhere on the Internet), especially when a case is going on? If you don't call that doxxing and giving a chilling effect, then what is doxxing? Please use common sense here. Beeblebrox mentioning on the external forum that "it's no secret" who I am – what the hell does that mean? He has said he won't do it again. That doesn't mean he can escape from what he actually did as an Arb. I don't care about normal editors doing this. But an active Arb?! He now necessarily needs to undertake that he will stop commenting about active Arbcom cases on external websites too. This is very unbecoming of an arbitrator who I presumed knew better. Lourdes 09:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

What Beeblebrox said on Wikipediocracy was true. It was no secret there. And not because of 'his Wikipedia research'. Or apparently of anyone on Wikipediocracy. It was mentioned there some time back after someone else entirely posted the relevant information on another website. And no, it isn't 'doxxing' by any definition except Wikipedia's attempt to redefine a simple concept to mean something else entirely. Your claim that you haven't 'connected' your Wikipedia identity with your real life one is simply untrue. I won't post the diff showing otherwise, since it will achieve no useful purpose, and out of respect for the general principle that privacy should be respected. I could of course provide it privately if you like.

If you want to criticise Beeblebrox for talking about an active case off-Wikipedia, you can. If you want to criticise him for saying something that arguably wasn't necessary about you, you can. But please don't make out that he has done 'research' to 'dox' you. That is demonstrably false. Even under Wikipedia's revisionist definition of 'doxing' that external websites are under no obligation to follow. Websites that, since they aren't subject to such absurd interpretations of 'doxing' are able to discuss thing that actually matter on Wikipedia, like people abusing the rules on 'outing/doxing/whatever' in order to hide their abuse of the encyclopaedia.

I can understand your concerns about privacy. On the whole I feel the same way. But when you've done something yourself which reveals to the outside world a connection you later regret letting be known, the outside world really isn't obliged to 'forget' things, even if Wikipedia pretends to. And I'd be a darned sight more sympathetic to Wikipedians' calls for 'privacy' if their own practices showed a little more respect for the privacy of others. I commented some time back on the way Wikipedia was using passing comments on Twitter to make statements regarding the sexual orientation of individuals featured in Wikipedia biographies. Maybe Wikipedia should think a little harder about how it respects the privacy of those it writes about, before it starts criticising external forums (with a heck of a lot less public visibility) for discussing things that Wikipedians had revealed about themselves. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Andy, please don't claim that I have claimed that on Wikipedia, I have never connected Wikipedia to my RL. That is not something I have said at all. What I have said repeatedly is that nowhere on the Internet have I ever connected my RL to my Wikipedia profile. Beeblebrox, as an active Arbitrator - reviewing a case where I am an active participant – has no business introducing my so claimed RL background on an external website in an active discussion about the ArbCom case using an inference which he could have only obtained from researching Wikipedia – there is no other internet website in the world where he or you can claim I have connected these two identities. So please don't talk off without basis. I care two hoots if other editors have discussed my RL on the same external website in some other discussion. The issue here is Beeblebrox discussing an active Arbcom case and the participants in that case on external websites. Your miles of paragraphs take no credit away from what Beeblebrox, as an active Arbitrator, has cleverly attempted to do. And yes, I have emailed you to give you the opportunity to share the so-called links. Lourdes 11:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Lourdes: I can't speak for AndytheGrump's links—if indeed there are any—but for an on-wiki—non-WP:OUTING—non-doxxing link, you posted this in 2015, which is may be relevant (and still there, FWIW). Best, ——Serial 12:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Having re-read AtG's post, I suspect that our links are very much the same. Apologies for posting what you could have done yourself. Still, it needs to be said, otherwise the doxxing myth might gain further traction. Carry on! ——Serial 12:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Serial Number 54129, once again, and I can say it as many times as Beeblebrox is defended – as an active Arbitrator, Beeblebrox has no business discussing an active ArbCom case and its participants on an external website, sharing RL details of participants gleaned from a handful of edits made many years ago (once again, edits which the oversight team refused to delete). Lourdes 12:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• The default assumption is that editors can fully participate in the English Wikipedia community solely through engagement on this website. I don't know what happens on IRC, beyond knowing that sometimes help is sought there from administrators or other editors, but it's never been essential to be on IRC in order to remain a part of Wikipedia discussions. I feel there is a similar concern in play here: it would be a shift in the default requirements to be a full participant in the community if editors need to engage on a separate site in order to gain insight into ongoing matters. Of course, in the real world, people talk about their activities in all sorts of places, and there's nothing inherently wrong with it. Nonetheless, I feel editors should remain aware of the possibility that they could be inadvertently affecting the default assumption, and this can be a problem for the community. isaacl (talk) 07:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• I personally have a strong opinion on the issue (not triggered by the current situation, and I do not read these sites anyway). I am fully aware of the fact that the opinion is not codified in any policy. I think this is not appropriate for an arbitrator to discuss open cases in public or privately outside of the arbitration cases and closed communications between arbitrators. Not so much because these discussions may influence an opinion of the arbitrator (though they can, especially private non-public discussions), but because the arbitrator will be perceived as possibly having been influenced by off-Wiki public and private discussions, and, overstating it a bit, being made a vehicle for third parties to get the decision they want. Again, I do not think this is a real danger (though several years ago an arb retired over the statement that they were discussing privately some arbitration matter with a third party, to never be seen again), but this is certainly a reputational damage, and not just for one arb or one decision, but for the committee as an institution.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• I agree that it is inappropriate for Beeblebrox to make comments at Wikipediocracy during a case they are involved in. And I am quite shocked about what he wrote about Lourdes. The comment he was responding to wasn't asking who they were in real life, but was just a nasty "Who the heck does this Lourdes editor think they are?" type of remark. I think Beeblebrox thought he was being really "clever" by turning the question around and replying in the way he did. Indeed, his response on the Noticeboard says as much. I agree with Montanabw that Beeblebrox has invalidated his apology by defending himself such that it appears Lourdes is just being over-sensitive. That's not the case at all. Lourdes at that point was being attacked off-wiki, and Beeblebrox thought the sensible thing to do at that point was to disclose their real-life identity. An arb doing that of a female editor? Beelbebox is jolly lucky that the conversation petered out after a few nice comments about music, rather than descend into something even more creepy. -- Colin°^Talk 10:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• At least Beeblebrox edits in both sites under his "real" name. There's a certain hypocrisy in the fact that a number of participants to this thread—not excluding admins—could also, yet can continue discussing BB with impunity. ——Serial 10:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• No idea who is discussing who with impunity (it does not sound like something anyone here should be doing). Nonetheless, the concerns and requests expressed directly to a sitting arbitrator seem legitimate and in good faith, and I join them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• Beeblebrox did nothing wrong. He's been an active contributor to Wikipediocracy since 2016, and ran on a campaign of "transparency". As evidenced by diffs in this discussion Lourdes outed herself years ago and did not ask for it to be retroactively oversighted. That is not "doxxing". Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• Lourdes did request that it be oversighted, but was turned down. - Bilby (talk) 14:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

And what exactly does Beeblebrox have to do with this? Lourdes real issue is with the oversight policy, not Beeblebrox. Anyone sorting her editing history by oldest edits could trivially find the diffs in question, significant digging is not required. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

While I disagree with you - I share the view of others here that discussing an active case as an arbitrator on an external forum was a terrible idea, and that revealing an editor's identity on the same forum (even if it was theoretically possible for someone else to track it down) was highly inappropriate - I was simply pointing out that your comment that "As evidenced by diffs in this discussion Lourdes outed herself years ago and did not ask for it to be retroactively oversighted" was mistaken. - Bilby (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

By creating this thread. Lourdes has publicised the fact that she has outed herself. If she wanted her identity to remain obscure then she should have privately emailed ArbCom to complain, and the complaint could have been dealt with in private. No attempt by Beeblebrox was made to out Lourdes onwiki. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok, so Loudres, as a new editor, made a mistake in their first few edits, requested it to be oversighted, and was turned down. Years later Beeblebrox digs up that old edit to reveal Loudres' actual real life identity in an off-wiki forum known for criticism of WP editors. It is too late for Loudres' identity to remain secret now that it has been posted, whether they complain here or not. Personally, I think Loudres has every right to complain and speak out, and I am loathe to ever say that someone who believes that they have been mistreated should remain silent and only complain quiety in the background. - Bilby (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Few editors read Wikipediocracy, so it was not like this information was widely publicised. By bringing this up here, she inevitably publicises it, whether she likes it or not. "mistreated should remain silent and only complain quiety in the background". Emailing ArbCom is not "complaining quietly in the background", it is something that is done privately in confidence. ArbCom are usually prompt in my experience and this could have been dealt with without publicising Lourdes's real life idenitity. As Obama once said, I think that this discussion "sheds more head than light" and the fact that many the participants of this thread have expressed strong support of RexxS suggests that there are ulterior motives for some of the participants. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:04, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: No, you are definitely wrong here on this specific point. Lourdes has a right to a community review of the situation without giving up her privacy. To think in any other way would mean that people could out others with practical impunity since the victim could never bring it to wider attention even in more serious cases. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Bilby, that is simply factually incorrect. Beeblebrox didn't 'dig up' anything. As I have already stated above, it was already common knowledge on Wikipediocracy. And elsewhere. And would have been obvious to anyone looking at the relevant talk page anyway. The revealing edit is still there, in plain sight. Not even archived. Lourdes' beef is with oversight. Not Beeblebrox. Not Wikipediocracy. I'd avoided pointing this out earlier, out of consideration for Lourdes, but if people are going to start constructing fictitious narratives about Beeblebrox, while ignoring things they can see with their own eyes, I'm going to speak out. And yes, Wikipediocracy is 'known for' criticising Wikipedia. That's its purpose. One that the Tenebrae incident has revealed is entirely necessary. If you don't want to be criticised, don't contribute to one of the world's most-viewed websites. Nobody has a right to be immune from criticism. Criticism is an essential part of civic society. And criticism often requires revealing things that those being criticised don't like. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - but someone has said it probably more effectively. The RL stuff was already on that site, some years ago. I doubt much digging by BB was needed - he's probably got a good memory for such things. As to his contributions there, they were anodyne. Nothing was revealed that was not already public. Conflating the 2 issues doesn't help resolve this. The only thing that might be pursued is whether an Arb. contributing about a live case is ever acceptable. As I say, the particular edits by BB were little more than snippets. Leaky caldron (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm ok with Wikipediocracy as a criticism site. I definitly have my problems with it, but that's not the issue here. Personally - ignoring WIkipediocracy - I'm very careful about revealing people's identities, and if they don't specifically state it on their userpage I figure it is not for me to share. In cases like this, I always regard someone's first few edits when they are learning about Wikipedia as a time when mistakes are made, so I would never use any personal information revealed so early in their time here, as they may simply not have understood the issues yet.

Fundamentally, I have three issues. I strongly feel that someone involved in a process like Arbitration should not be talking publicly about it until it is over. For me it is a simple matter of professionalism. I understand that others - like you - may see things differently, and I respect that, but I don't share that view. Second, I don't think that when someone says, in effect, "why the hell is that person acting that way", that the correct response is "this is who they are in real life" - when it has absolutely no bearing on the discussion, and you have to rely on a five-year old edit to make the absolutely unnecessary connection. Finally, I don't feel that complaining publicly about what you perceive as mistreatment should ever be seen as invalidating what happened. We've had too much of that here and elsewhere, and any view that this could not really have upset Loudres because if it did they should have handled it privately is not one I am willing to accept.

That said, I feel that I probably stepped into somewhere I didn't want to go - I was mostly concerned about an initial error in Hemiauchenia's comment. So I'll drop off this here. - 15:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bilby (talk • contribs)

• The OS policy currently does not allow for the suppression of information, by those over 18, about an editor if was revealed by the same editor. It also does not allow for the suppression of information that was revealed by an editor over the age of majority about themselves that they have come to regret. If the community would like to expand the OS policy to include this information, one might start an RfC at VPP or WT:OVER. I will warn editors that it is very hard to put the genie back in the bottle, removing information has a bad habit of making it more public, and there are ways of recovering suppressed information that is older than a certain point. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• My thanks to Lourdes for starting this discussion. And I hope that Beeblebrox will experience this discussion as constructive feedback, and not as an attack. I reject the contention of some editors that "transparency" is the issue here. I'm in favor of increased transparency from ArbCom when possible (ie, without violating privacy), and have been saying so for years. But that means transparency on-wiki, not at other websites. And the reason that I'm aware of what gets posted at Wikipediocracy is that, of course, I read it. And I read it because I believe that independent criticism of en-wiki is important, and anything that gets as big as en-wiki damn well better be subject to independent criticism (although I'd prefer that the criticism be a lot less sophomoric, and be sans the doxing and score-settling). But I think that Arbs who are currently active on an open case should comment about the case only on-wiki while the case has yet to be closed. Full stop. I don't care whether somebody wrote that down somewhere as policy. It's just common sense. If that common sense is not being followed voluntarily, then the community has less reason to have faith in the Committee and the process. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• Per Wikipedia:Revision deletion#Hiding oversightable material prior to Oversight:
  

Personal information includes almost any material that is (or looks like it might be) actual claims, facts, hints, or allusions to non-public, personal, or private information (see WP:SIGHT and WP:OUTING). It does not matter whether the privacy-breaching material was posted by the user themselves or by a third party, whether in good or bad faith, recently or in the past, whether accurate, whether the target is identifiable to the administrator, nor whether it is a statement, pointed speculation, or implied.

If the oversighter decides suppression was not appropriate, the material (may) be RevisionDeleted instead. I would be happy to RevisionDelete such privacy-breaching material posted by a user themself, upon an email request submitted from their Wikipedia account. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: You are leaving off the operative sentence: If the oversighter decides suppression was not appropriate, the material will be restored or RevisionDeleted instead. If the OS team as decided to do nothing, RD4 isn't an option. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 00:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I parsed that sentence. The material may be either restored _or_ revision-deleted. If it may be revision deleted, then presumably there is some valid "RD-reason".

"We will use our best judgement in applying these criteria to your request. If we deny your request, you can instead request speedy deletion or revision deletion. These processes remove content from public view and leave it visible only to administrators; this is adequate for many cases, and means your content is unavailable to almost every Wikipedia reader. Appeal of our decisions is only to the Arbitration Committee."

– wbm1058 (talk) 00:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

To summarize my understanding:

• OUTING policy allows linking to on-wiki self-published personal information, on wiki.
• OUTING policy allows linking to on-wiki self-published personal information, off wiki.
• But OUTING policy does NOT allow linking to off-wiki links to on-wiki self-published personal information, on wiki. In other words if I link to Brox' acceptable off-wiki !outing then I am OUTING (either Lourdes, Beeblebrox, or both – I'm unclear on which of these applies).

Why the big distinction between the first two and the third, I don't quite understand. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• You're not outing me, I believe I have already verified on-wiki that I am that Beeblebrox, which was checked over there when I first signed up some years ago, so you're not going out on a ledge or anything. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

  That's nice to know wbm1058 (talk) 04:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• Lourdes had every right to feel unhappy here; I think Risker and Bilby summed up my feelings pretty nicely. To take another tack on it, there's frequently a rush here after cases and motions to demand details of evidence and deliberations, ostensibly out of transparency but perhaps more out of salacious interest and a desire to target individual Arbs for their decisions. Discussing even peripheral aspects of ongoing cases in an off-Wiki forum makes it more difficult to resist those demands. When ArbCom members put on their judicial wigs, so to speak, I think it's best they take off their off-wiki lion tamer top hats, and not take them up again until the case is closed. Choess (talk) 16:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Beeblebrox demeaning the office of Arbcom

It seems to me that Beeblebrox is totally unsuited for the position of an Arb because he clearly fails to understand the behaviour necessary to maintain the dignity and respect of that position of trust and responsibility. I was rather surprised to find this post recently on Wikipediocracy. Inciting others to propose and file cases, I would have thought was conduct unbecoming. I won’t post his comments in full (at present), but I fully expect to see him desysopped and removed from the Arccom immediately. For those wishing to research his comments, I refer to his Wikipediocracy Post by Beeblebrox » Mon May 25, 2020 7:40 pm. I think most people will be surprised to see an Arb publicly making such a comment, especially on a site critical of the project. Giano (talk) 13:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• I've removed the hat. It's an Arbcom issue on an Arbcom talk page. It most certainly should not be shut down by a non-Arb. — Ched (talk) 14:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC) (diff — Ched (talk) 15:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• Additional note: WP:DR would seem to be in favor of discussion in attempts to resolve issues prior to filing a case. — Ched (talk) 14:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• No, it was either misplaced or trolling, as I suspect you know. Either Giano wants the committee to take action against Beeblebrox, in which case they must file at WP:ARC like everyone; or they were merely throwing more petrol on an already unnecessarily volatile situation. The latter is, of course, merely a form of trolling. But then, you don't mind that do you, as you've already admitted you approve of similarly WP:POINTy editing. "Very poor indeed, sir" ——Serial 15:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• I am going to say this once and only once. I did not vote for Beeblebrox nor did I give him a favourable review when he ran in 2019. However, many voters that year knew he likes to post on WPO, but they still elected Beeblebrox anyways. The fact that people are now turning around and upset that he posts on WPO at all is quite frankly ridiculous as it regards to the commenting on an active case.
  The outing of Lourdes thing is a bit more sticky, but it honestly seemed to have been a genuine mistake which I don't think he will repeat. Further, it does seem like the exact kind of mistake Beeblebrox could've made onwiki for that matter. If Lourdes wants to hold it against him, then I can't blame her for that. However, a de-sysop and removal from Arbcom is a bit extreme for a first offense behavoir (the outing; not the posting).
  In short, the outing aspect is problematic and an acknowledged mistake; the posting to WPO in general is not a big deal because the voters should've expected that when they promoted Beeblebrox to arb (I did, and that is part of why I didn't vote for him!). (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Not a bad analysis, MJL, thanks. Except: no outing took place. (The fact that a current oversighter has taken it upon themselves to do what none of their colleagues chose to do for five years does not retroactively change that.) ——Serial 15:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I have a more expansive definition of outing than the average user. Either way, I have no way of telling what occurred because I didn't see the WPO thread and didn't see the diffs. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I assume you share a similar definition of outing to that of the overzealous oversighter  :) ——Serial 16:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• I find it very concerning that an Arb, Beeblebrox, can go to Wikipediocracy, attack a Wikipedia editor there and then attempt to incite an Arbcom case with such comments as, “‘’ He's such an abrasive jerk. I expect if someone could formulate a compelling arbcom case it would not go his way. ‘’” Followed coyly by, “‘’Obviously I would absolutely have to recuse from any such case as we really, really don't get along.’’” One doesn’t have to be Einstein to see that the message is, “You dig up the dirt and I’ll lobby my fellow Arbs.” This is what I strongly suspect happened to Rexx. Except there certain Arbs and their sycophants begun it all on IRC. Giano (talk) 16:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• I did not feel lobbied in this case one way or another—just what you see in the case page. I'm grateful for that; I know there were strong feelings on both sides. --BDD (talk) 16:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• The simple fact is that an Arb should not be opining and lobbying on any other sites about Wikipedia editors. Beeblebrox is quite clearly unfit for purpose. Giano (talk) 16:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• To demean something it has to have a sufficiently high/respectable status to start with.... I find it laughable to suggest that someone who consistently tries to be as transparent as possible within their role is somehow demeaning that role compared to some of the reprehensible actions of the body in the past. If anything Beeb is raising the bar. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:03, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure how strict the restriction to clerks and arbs is, so could one of them please add "WP:ARBGS" to the shortcut list at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_and_sexuality? I felt a possible need for something similarly concise as "WP:ARBGG" that does not contain the word "sex" in capital letters. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:39, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

ToBeFree, done. – bradv🍁 20:44, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

RfC opened here. Thanks, Lourdes 06:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Like ToBeFree above, I've created two shortcuts that I thought may be useful: WP:ARBHIST and WP:ARBLIST. I was hoping that a clerk could add them to that page (or delete/change the redirect if inappropriate). Sdrqaz (talk) 21:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• In addition to the above useful shortcuts, there's also WP:ARBREX, if a clerk would like to also add that to the case page. — Ched (talk) 22:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I dunno if I'm just plain unaware or not, but what is the difference between a General Sanctions and a "Wikipedia:Arbritration/Requests/Case/NameOfSubject"? I still wonder why some topics like COVID-19 are not listed under "current areas of conflict" section. And why do some topics got the "stop hand symbol" (i.e. referring to the template that reads "The use of discretionary sanctions has been authorized by the... ... related to...") and their authorizations got different links? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 11:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

The Reader's Digest answer is that the phrase "general sanctions" has historically referred to sanctions authorized by the community after a discussion, while "discretionary sanctions" refers to sanctions authorized by ArbCom as the result of a case. They're functionally the same except for the templates they use for alerts and where you go to request enforcement. Since the Covid general sanctions were enacted by the community, not by ArbCom, they are listed under Wikipedia:General sanctions#Community-authorised sanctions rather than under the WP:ACDS "current areas of conflict". ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah, that is starting to make sense. But what templates are used for the alerts when comparing General Sanctions and Discretionary Sanctions that differ from each other? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 05:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

They don't differ from each other functionally; for a topic area to be under community-authorized sanctions vs arbcom-authorized sanctions means the same thing. It allows for on-the-spot sanctions to be issued to disruptive editors or on pages where disruption has occurred. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

It's making even more sense. So the only difference is about who (community or ArbCom) establishes the need for the specified topic to be run by sanctions of either kind (i.e. general or discretionary)? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 01:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

And some details about enforcement - you would request enforcement of discretionary sanctions at arbitration enforcement, but I think you have to go to AN/ANI for general sanctions (but I could be wrong - I don't hang out at AE) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

So, trying to get myself more up to speed in this whole area, and I see in this page little boxes with things like guide.decor in them. Am I supposed to know what those are or that I'm supposed to do something with them? Sorry for being dense. —valereee (talk) 23:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Those are just page anchors to allow for links to sections, they don't mean anything outside of that. WP:ACDS#guide.decor should link to the "decorum" subsection if I did it right. (And it doesn't need to be said but you're neither dense nor ignorant - I think that's the only place on the project we use little "word.otherword" anchors for subsections rather than the usual WP:XYZ shortcuts.) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I made my own template that I use at User:isaacl/Community consensus, but I used full phrases rather than dot-separated keywords. There is of course no reason why anyone but me would know this :-). isaacl (talk) 00:07, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and I specifically created a new template so the anchors could be displayed with the ((section link)) template, thus making it more evident what the boxes were for. isaacl (talk) 15:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

AC/DS Anchors

Since we're here, just how handy are those anchors? In the revised DS page currently being drafted they've not been included as they always struck me as... a bit much. To the extent they're necessary I would lean towards using ((policy shortcut)). Any thoughts about this? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I've never used the anchors, but I am perennially irritated that WP:DS spits out deletion sorting and not discretionary sanctions. I don't think I've ever seen "DS" written on-wiki to refer to deletion sorting, it's always DS-meaning-discretionary sanctions. Can you please usurp/retarget? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I prefer the anchor links to the typical all-caps redirect links: I like not putting more redirects into the top-level namespace, and like dot-separated labels over all-caps, no space labels. But I would be fine with just using the headings where they are chosen to be adequately concise yet descriptive (or with using short phrases for anchor labels as on my page). isaacl (talk) 00:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not qualified to participate in the anchoring discussion, but I'd certainly back PMC on wanting to retarget DS to discretionary sanctions Nosebagbear (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Compared to Nosebagbear, I'm not even qualified to exist, but I totally agree that WP:DS must mean disc.sanctions to the vast, vast majority of users who encounter it—and as PMC notes, who then have their time wasted perenially by being sent down a rabbit hole to deletion sorting. DS apply to so many areas of the article space that they're effectively universal; deletion sorting is an arcane locale of minutiae not even regulars at WP:AFD devote themselves to with much frequency. ——Serial 15:06, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't disagree that deletion sorting has always struck me as less useful than discretionary sanctions for WP:DS but also maybe don't go rushing off to RfD just yet... Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

No need to delete anything. (or have a protracted discussion IMO) We have WP:DELSORT .. just edit WP:DS to change the target to here/there. change: "#redirect [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting]] ((R from shortcut)) to #redirect [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions]] ((R from shortcut)) .. like this — Ched (talk) 19:20, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ched: I've reverted your bold change. Longstanding shortcut redirects should never be retargetted without verifying that links in discussions, edit summaries, etc. will not become misleading - and even then they can be controversial so need discussion. You hadn't even changed the header at Wikipedia:Deletion sorting so it's clear you've not put any significant thought into consequences. Thryduulf (talk) 11:51, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Again I will just reiterate that a more productive discussion can probably be had about where the DS redirect should point in a few months. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:57, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

whatever Thryduulf, — Ched (talk) 17:33, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Other options

For those of you who want to be specific in linking to specific text (and who use Google), you may like: this app. It comes in hand for things like this — Ched (talk) 19:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

We at UTRS were mulling an almost acceptable request. It then came to my attention that ArbCom had declined two weeks ago and had told them to come back in a year. Is there some way to indicate such declines so we don't inadvertently reverse an ArbCom decision we did not know about? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:54, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

This entirely depends on why they were blocked. Some common scenarios, together with my understanding of how they ought to be handled:

• Regular admin block — appeal on talk page
• Regular admin block with talk page revoked — use UTRS to restore talk page access, then appeal on talk page
• Checkuser/oversight block — appeal either on talk page or to ArbCom (use UTRS only to restore talk page access)
• Checkuser block with three strikes ban — appeal either on talk page or to ArbCom, and then copy to AN for community approval
• Community ban — appeal on talk page, and then copy to AN for community approval before unblocking
• Arbitration enforcement block — appeal to blocking administrator, to AE / AN / ARCA, or directly to ArbCom
• ArbCom block — appeal only to ArbCom
• Global lock — after dealing with any of the above, refer them to the stewards

There are several scenarios in which it's possible to "ask the other parent", which I don't think is a problem that affects the quality of our decisions, but it can occasionally lead to some redundant efforts. If the primary (or only) job of UTRS appeals is to decide whether to restore talk page access, that would help with the duplication of effort.

When ArbCom declines an appeal, they are not saying the person can never return, just that ArbCom isn't willing to unblock them. If ArbCom has private evidence sufficient to mandate that no one should unblock them, then their block should be converted to an ((ArbComBlock)). Otherwise, they should be free to pursue whatever other avenues are available to them. – bradv🍁 19:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Some additional thoughts, tangentially related to the above:

1. If someone is caught socking three or more times using checkuser evidence, their appeal should be granted by both ArbCom and the community. AN on its own cannot unblock them, it can only lift the community three strikes ban. The private checkuser evidence still needs to be reviewed before they can be unblocked. (According to policy, ArbCom does have the right to unilaterally lift any ban anywhere on the English Wikipedia, but in practice this is rarely done.)
2. If, combined with the above, there is also a global lock, then they also need their account unlocked by the stewards. If there is a clear desire on this project to let a person edit, they will usually give their consent, but if there is extensive crosswiki abuse they will take that into account. Nevertheless, an unlock by the stewards does not overrule any local block or ban – the above steps still need to be followed as well.
3. There is one category of blocks that is not listed above: regular admin blocks based on private evidence. Technically, these blocks violate the blocking policy, but in practice blocks tagged as "appealable only to ArbCom" are allowed, provided the evidence is also sent to ArbCom (including via the paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org queue). All blocks based upon private evidence are appealable only to ArbCom.
4. This is all very complicated and we should probably have a flowchart. – bradv🍁 22:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC) edited to add important "not" – bradv🍁 01:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Quite complicated. But what would help me would be if there were some way of indicating that a user had appealed to ArbCom and been turned away. It should not involve confidential information. Just something like the "UTRS closed" notices that Deltaquadbot used to leave when UTRS requests were closed. That would help me see more clearly how to proceed when someone who actually needs to be banned from UTRS is requesting unblock. This would be someone who had been checkuser blocked, lost talk page access, was 3X banned in any event, who had made multiple unsuccessful UTRS requests, had been referred to ArbCom at least once, had already been UTRS banned for six months, and was teetering on the brink of a permanent UTRS ban. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we can commit to keeping an onwiki record of declined unblock appeals. There are far too many of them, and many of them don't come through the Wikipedia email interface so we wouldn't know where to log it (and often can't confirm whether it's really the same person). In addition, ARBPOL contains the line "the Committee treats as private all communications sent to it", so it's unclear to me whether we even could record this publicly without permission.

With regards to UTRS bans, those should be handed out if they're abusing the UTRS process, independent of whether they're abusing any other process. In many cases, UTRS isn't the right venue for their appeal anyway. – bradv🍁 02:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I see what you mean. And UTRS is certainly not the best venue for some. In that respect, we haven't any firm guidelines; it comes down to individual judgement on banning or on when to send them to ArbCom in the first place. A veritable smorgasbord of choices. Thanks. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Gah. I see he tried IRC. I never think of IRC. (sigh) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:31, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• Since ArbCom only considers appears for CU blocks and arbitration enforcement blocks these days, I can't think what kind of block could be appealable to both ArbCom and UTRS anyway? – Joe (talk) 17:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

UTRS gets a ton of checkuser blocks. There's one up right now. GOK what the Arb's are getting. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Earlier this year, an editor originally blocked for abuse of multiple accounts was unblocked following a successful appeal to arbcom. Obviously I have no way of knowing what was said in the appeal that led to the unblock, but I have good reason to believe deceit was involved. Around this time, I filed a sockpuppet investigation with evidence showing the user had been socking under various accounts and IP's as recently as late December - only a few days before they were unblocked. However, since they hadn't made any edits for several years with the account in question at the time of the SPI, it was "stale" and thus couldn't be used to compare the checkuser data against the most recently used sockpuppet account. In the mean time, I closed the SPI with all sockpuppet accounts blocked, aside from the stale one vindicated by arbcom on what I believe to be false pretenses, as it was inactive at the time. Well recently (just within the last month), the account with the successful appeal has now reactivated and is back to editing. Of course the most recent sock, the one that was active in December, is now stale, meaning a request for Checkuser on an SPI wouldn't be much use. How do you go about challenging an already successful block appeal? Help please! Would arbcom be receptive to my case if I cover the details via email, or am I just out of luck? Please advise, and sorry if this is the wrong venue to be asking this....Sro23 (talk) 22:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Sro23, sending us an email is the best course of action here. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:57, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay, email sent. Please let me know when your decision is made. Sro23 (talk) 00:44, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I know almost no details about the current case request. However, reading the accept/decline reasons given by many of the arbitrators makes me genuinely worried as to what the very purpose of Arbcom is. I envisage arbitration as similar to law:

1. Aggrieved party files a case
2. Court listens to plaintiff, and decides if there's enough of a case to ask the defendant to enter their defense
3. Arguments are heard
4. Court comes to a decision

Instead right now we have:

1. Barkeep49 saying "I've been watching [the ANI thread] closely", but is not recusing; Barkeep49 later goes on to say "are you suggesting we make the iban between AAW and BHG 2-way" indicating that he/she has already decided sanctions are necessary, before the evidence is heard, and even has an idea what the sanctions should be.
2. If that's not troubling enough, BBD and L235 say they agree with Barkeep49.
3. So does CaptainEek when they write "The remedy as crafted in the ANI thread does not solve the fundamental problems".
4. And DavidFuchs when he wrote "No party here is covering themselves with glory".
5. And CasLiber when he/she "the vote at ANI does is establish a clear consensus that an editor has a problem and that this needs to be dealt with"
6. And NewYorkBrad when he wrote "It is also clear that BHG was harassed by an interaction-banned and now wholly-banned editor."
7. And Beeblebrox when he/she wrote "I'm not sure [anyone other than BrownedHairedGirl] did anything that rises to the level of needing a committee to deal with it".
8. And BradV when he wrote "The key issue in this case request is BrownHairedGirl's habitual incivility".
9. WormThatTurned wrote "I'm not happy to over-rule the community in this case", which means if the case had been accepted, we already know how WTT is going to vote.

Under these circumstances it shouldn't be surprising that BrownHairedGirl wrote that she will not participate because arbitration is "structurally biased against the person being complained about". Arbcom is giving every indication that it is a kangaroo court that only ever conducts show trials. Aussie Article Writer has it even worse, since he was indef'ed by Arbcom before he could even present arguments in his defense.

Arbcom, I do not understand you. I am legitimately worried because it feels like what should be an impartial 3rd party that can be trusted to act fairly is actually just an extension of ANI. There is no chance of an actual trial, and if ANI says X editor should be sanctioned, one can expect Arbcom to sanction X editor. What even is the point of Arbcom then? It's not the first time I've had this feeling either. [6]

Please tell me I am misreading the situation. Banedon (talk) 07:44, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

You are misreading the situation. Speaking for myself: 1. Arbcom is not a court of law. 2. Watching a situation is not the same as having a predetermined outcome, it's being aware of the community and seeing a problem that might, but in this case did not, fall in our scope, 3. I asked the question about the iban and then said I didn't see evidence for it. The evidence that we're not going to conduct show trials? We declined to hear this case. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 07:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

The evidence that we're not going to conduct show trials? We declined to hear this case If the case had been accepted, I predict based on what you wrote (and knowing virtually nothing about the evidence or the facts of the case, since I have not read the ANI thread) that you will vote for sanctions on AAW and BHG, most probably involving a 2-way interaction ban between the two. That's in spite of the fact that neither of them have actually presented arguments in their own defense (since the case never went to the evidence stage). Am I wrong? Banedon (talk) 02:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't address the issue however - it just changes the argument from "I predict you will vote for a 2-way interaction ban" to "I predict you will vote for a 1-way interaction ban". Banedon (talk) 22:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

The 1-way interaction ban that already existed? You're predicting I would have voted for that? I'm at a bit of a loss at how to respond to this hypothetical that you have constructed for a case that I did not support opening. I don't know how I would have voted but I would have entered into it skeptical of making something ArbCom which had been from the community which has been my philosophy in other places as well.

It's clear from all your interactions here that you are quite disturbed about ArbCom's conduct in this last case, both from arbs who supported opening the case and who didn't. Perhaps it's because you want us to be a court of law and that isn't what we are at the moment and thus not how we're acting. If that is what is upsetting you, I don't know how much satisfaction you're going to get on this page. I think the two approaches I would suggest for trying to make things more like what you want is either a Village Pump type discussion which could perhaps lead to amending ARBPOL and/or trying to get candidates who agree with you on this issue elected. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I will add that, re: "if ANI says X editor should be sanctioned, one can expect Arbcom to sanction X editor", ANI did sanction an editor, and ArbCom did not. --BDD (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Arbcom took over AAW's block, didn't it? Banedon (talk) 02:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I was not optimistic before about y'all not taking the case. More optimistic now. The Community missed the need for escalating sanctions for those who bate/provoke BHG. That might have been a good thing for the Arb's to decide on by motion. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

There's a few things here which I don't agree with. There's the point that Barkeep was making that this isn't a court of law, we're a point of dispute resolution which can make binding decisions. The part who filed the case was not aggrieved, but rather exasperated and did not expect the community to come to consensus.
There is a balance in taking a case request, whether or not arbitration is needed is an important factor - and where the community has made a decision, arbitration should not be needed - i.e. this case (hence my statement that we should not over-rule the community). Of course, we should not pre-judge, but equally, it would be naive to believe that members of the community who are involved enough to be elected on to arbcom are not going to be following whatever is happening in the community. That doesn't mean the committee as a whole cannot make a fair decision. Worm^TT(talk) 15:45, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't mean the committee as a whole cannot make a fair decision. You sure? Judges are expected to recuse if they have personal knowledge of disputed facts. To quote, A judge should consider recusing him or herself if the case concerns a matter upon which the judge has made public statements of firm opinion on the issue before the court. Here's another source: A judge in order to maintain fairness and impartiality in his duty to perform an action should recuse himself ... when the judge is interested in the subject matter or he has a relationship with someone who has an interest in it. Banedon (talk) 02:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Banedon: - I agree, but again, this isn't a legal system. It's a dispute resolution system at the end of a set of dispute resolution systems, all of which are based on community consensus. That's all that happens on Arbcom, a binding representative consensus. Practically, there are ~40k "Active" editors, and 15 arbs. The actual pool of editors who the community would elect is far far smaller, we've seen that it probably needs to be an admin. So depending on your numbers, you're looking at somewhere between 1/4000th and 1/100th of the available pool are taken up. That's before we count the human nature of it, of the type of people who gravitate to Arbcom, the fact that we all have the same base interest (Wikipedia) and so on. (Indeed, generally 1/3 of candidates who stand are elected... an even smaller pool). For comparison in the USA (and people can correct me if I'm wrong) there are ~2k federal judged and ~30k state judges, for 330 million people. That's a 1/10000th of a much more diverse society.
I'm not saying Arbcom is perfect. There are better systems out there, and perhaps a legal based one would be - but to have that, we'd need to bring in people outside the community to stand as these judges - I cannot see another way it would and I also cannot see how that could work. Instead - we have our standards for recusal, we keep our committee large enough that we can manage individuals who are away or need to recuse.
I think it's been said before, but Arbcom is the "least worst" option Worm^TT(talk) 07:55, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't actually understand the point you're trying to make, I'm afraid. Also, arbitrators could, e.g., stop reading ANI once elected (I believe Opabina Regalis said she did that), and consider only the material that is presented at the evidence stage. Current policy even says something to that effect ("Arbitrators do not have time to read and re-read 100 KB evidence pages", but current arbitrators appear to not only be able to read 100 KB worth of evidence, they can do it before the evidence stage is even reached). Banedon (talk) 22:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

My point is that the "pool" of editors who could be arbs is much smaller than the "pool" of people who could be judges, and therefore there will be situations where those long term active community members will have some sort of relationship with at least one party - in this case 4 very long term editors were involved. NB I rarely read ANI (indeed, I don't think I've commented there in years), though if it is highlighted to me in a case request, I will read that. It's important that I do, so that I can decide if other forms of dispute resolution have been attempted fully. Worm^TT(talk) 10:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the accusations of prejudging, the decision to accept or decline a case by the arbs will necessarily involve making some preliminary judgements. Obviously nothing wrong in that. Paul August ☎ 17:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but the judgement should be "there is a complicated dispute that cannot be solved elsewhere". It shouldn't be "X is in the wrong, we need sanctions on X" or anything like that. Banedon (talk) 02:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

My comments were based upon the preliminary statements, the ANI thread linked within the filing, and the previous case we held concerning this editor. The point of the case request stage is to examine the scope and the severity of the problem, which is precisely what I was commenting on. Without compromising transparency or accountability, how would you propose to improve the fairness of this process? – bradv^🍁 17:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Without compromising transparency or accountability, how would you propose to improve the fairness of this process? You should accept the case, listen to the arguments (unblock AAW at least in limited fashion so he can defend himself) and stress that an innocent verdict - in this context meaning no sanctions against the accused editor(s) [presumably AAW/BHG in this case request] is possible. There are a couple of other things for this particular case request as well: first, do not name the case request "BrownHairedGirl" because of anchoring issues (which has been raised in the past [7] [8]), and secondly, clarify who has standing to file requests. It does not look like Ritchie333 has standing, which would make a case impossible if Piotrus were to decline to participate. Banedon (talk) 02:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Banedon, While I did vote for a case, I note that a case is a very time consuming matter, and not something we wish to foist upon the community for no good reason. With regards to AAW, we had no shortage of email contact with him and he had ample opportunity to provide a defense. Also, had the case been accepted, we would not have named it "BrownHairedGirl", we had an internal discussion on a more appropriate name. With regard to standing, I believe that an uninvolved editor ought be able to file a case request, and to my knowledge our current procedures do not prevent that. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:52, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

While cases are time-consuming, it's kind of what you sign up for as an arbitrator, no? The community doesn't have to get involved if they don't want to (I note for example that this is a case with minimal participation outside of the named parties). Arbcom's private communication with AAW is troubling, because whatever AAW wrote, BHG/Piotrus/other parties to the case would not have been able to refute it since they don't know what was said. Finally for standing, allowing an uninvolved editor to file a case request means that any uninvolved editor can waste time if they so desire. For example, I should not be able to file a Drmies vs. Primefac case request. Standing is necessary because otherwise the participants cannot be trusted to fully argue their case (since they might not be interested in it). If it comes to the point where the injured party is the entire encylopedia, then we need a public prosecutor to file the case request. Banedon (talk) 03:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I'll add that I think the fundamental problem here is that Arbcom does not currently look like a place where one can find due process and fairness. It effectively looks like a slightly more structured arm of ANI, and one can expect Arbcom to reach the same conclusions that ANI does (especially since ANI editors will pile on with statements that influence the arbitrators to vote the way they do, even if it's arriving at sanctions before listening to the evidence). I think Arbcom should change to be more like a court of law, where due process and impartiality can be expected, where people are innocent until proven guilty and the burden of proof is on the accuser, and where there actually is a reason to argue one's case because there is a real chance of changing the arbitrators' minds. I am not a lawyer, but we can probably get relevant ideas on how to improve the process from WP:LAW. Banedon (talk) 03:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I am strongly opposed to ArbCom becoming a court of law. We are not WikiLawyers and do not wish to encourage WikiLawyering. Several on the committee are real life lawyers as is, and I think that's as close as we'll get. A full case already takes at least a month. If we were to fully copy over real world legal systems, it could take years to resolve trivial matters. Participants would need lawyers to navigate the bureaucracy. The current system is not perfect, but it strikes a compromise between minimal structure and maximal structure. Courts are complex for good reason: they can deprive people of life, liberty, and property, and thus due process to the extreme is a must. But on Wikipedia, the only thing at stake is whether or not you can edit one website out of billions. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:19, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Beyond Eek's comments - there are other problems with the "court of law" approach. Firstly, there is no "Law" on wikipedia - policies can be contradictory and open to interpretation, they are malleable and can sometimes be ignored all together. So the idea of statute is out the window. That leaves precedent, which also doesn't make sense for the same reasons. I suppose we could switch to a "judge and jury" system, which would mean the most impartial arb to any dispute could step up, but we have a volunteer community who refuse to be compelled to do anything they don't want to, so how would you get people to sit on the jury? Worm^TT(talk) 10:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

We are going to have to disagree then - Arbcom should become more like a court of law. As I wrote Arbcom is currently giving the impression that it is a kangaroo court where the named party's guilt is predetermined, and the only question is what sanctions are going to be applied. As for arguing over trivial matters, there is always rock-paper-scissors (or frivolous litigation which in this context would be WP:BOOMERANG).

@WTT - real life law is also open to interpretation isn't it, that's why judges often split in their decisions. Also, if there are volunteer community members to become arbitrators, why can't there also be volunteer jury members? Banedon (talk) 22:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Another important difference between a court of law and ArbCom, is that a court of law's goal is (ostensibly at least) justice, while ArbCom's goal is what is best for the encyclopeia. Paul August ☎ 23:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Justice is a basic human need. If forced to choose between what is just and what is best for the encyclopedia, I am not confident that most people will choose the latter (although a specific example is probably good, since it's hard for me to imagine a decision which chooses between these two). Banedon (talk) 05:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Equally, "justice" is different in different situations and to different people, but boils down to "getting what you deserve". I can think of situations where justice is not the most easy concept on an community project - some of our most difficult questions have been around what an individual "deserves". For example, we have regularly had users who are considered very problematic by some due to the way they interact with others, but equally they have done massive positive impact on the encyclopedia. I've phrased that carefully, so I can think of dozens of users it applies to in many different walks of project.
The reason that you can't get volunteers to sit on a jury is that those who volunteer are already biased to be the sort of person who would volunteer, and therefore have a leaning. Again, I cite the small available pool of individuals, jurors would not be independent of discussions any more than arbitrators are.
From experience, Banedon, I would say that the outcome of cases is not pre-determined, though I appreciate you are talking about the impression given rather than the reality. You say that the law is also open to interpretation, but that's not what I'm pointing out - I'm point out that the "law" on Wikipedia is fluid - it is not rigid enough to be considered "law". Worm^TT(talk) 09:58, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Well that's why we need people who are not part of the small available pool of individuals to adjudicate, right? I'm sure these people exist - e.g. I am sure there are many editors who simply never had to look at the dispute resolution process, so they can adjudicate and one just has to ask them. Others will have had no meaningful interaction with any of the named parties (e.g. me for this case) and can also adjudicate if asked. Even if nobody can be found, it still might be possible to set up some kind of cross-wiki arrangement with, say, the German Wikipedia.

I agree not all cases are predetermined, but this one (and a few others in the past like the ones that led to the threads linked above) absolutely give the impression they are. Banedon (talk) 22:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@Banedon: Regarding: Even if nobody can be found, it still might be possible to set up some kind of cross-wiki arrangement with, say, the German Wikipedia.
Funny you mention that since something similar is provided for in the UCoC enforcement draft guidelines. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

IMO Arbcom is imperfect, makes mistakes, can (like all other Wikipedia venues) be manipulated by clever people and groups of people, and can act randomly, including with a predisposition to remedies once a case is started. But it is a body of elected highly experienced volunteer Wikipedians who approaches cases with a very substantial, large, methodical structured process and IMO those are the attributes of a best attempt for a place to resolve significant behavioral matters. North8000 (talk) 23:40, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

IMO ArbCom is a last resort, and emergency recourse, to rescue the community from an otherwise impossible situation. In pseudo legality, it holds the reserved powers of an absolute monarch. It is revered for its power by all except those who disagree with what it has done. It has to not lightly engage unneeded, because every action brings the committee back into the community, back down to Earth, and creates aggrieved parties. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:53, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• Banedon has a point (well, nine classic examples actually) , and it is sadly nothing new. Moreover, CaptainEek: on Wikipedia, the only thing at stake is whether or not you can edit one website out of billions - that's a very inappropriate comment and an insult to all those who have dedicated thousands of volunteer hours to building it. Under the guise of being a dispute resolution body which one would assume would examine all sides and enact an appropriate remedy, in fact Arbcom does neither. Arbcom members have claimed they are neither here to examine the merits of the case nor to examine the veracity of the plaintifs and their 'evidence'. Apparently, so it would seem, the function of Arbcom is to simply count the votes in favour of opening a case. It's then followed by a long drawn out token process of so-called 'workshopping' to state their 'findings of fact' which in fact are merely a log of the claims of those clambering for sanctions. If one were to label some Arbcom cases as a show trial, it would not be wholly inaccurate. As per Hammersoft: Due to serious structural and procedural problems with ArbCom, it's effectively impossible for an accused person to get fair treatment in a arbitration case. WADR, arbitrator Barkeep49, new to the job and genuinely full of the intentions for which he was elected, everything is not considered in depth and context - far from it, and in deference to Paul August, unfortunately ArbCom's goal is definitely not always what is best for the encyclopedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:53, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Original discussion

According to Wikipedia:Arbitration, the policy is that "candidates must be adults in their country of residence in order to be appointed." My issue is with the "in their country of residence" part: I don't see any reason for discrimination based on what country a user happens to live in. Wikipedia lists the age of majority as 16 for the United Kingdom, 18 for the United States, and 21 for Singapore. Under the currently-stated policy, if a British 16-year-old is mature enough and has what it takes to be on the Arbitration Committee, they may be appointed, but an equally-qualified American 16-year-old cannot be. Likewise, an American 18-year-old can qualify, but if they move to Singapore, they're no longer eligible.

If the Wikipedia community as a whole is willing to elect someone of a certain age, I don't see any reason why that would change just because they live in a different country. And if the community is not willing to elect someone of a certain age, I doubt that would change just because they move to England or wherever. I personally don't think there should be a hard age requirement, as being elected should count as justification enough. But if the consensus is that a minimum age is necessary, I feel it would make a lot more sense for the community to decide on what minimum age they're okay with, and set that as the policy; where they live should be a moot point.

How does everyone else feel about this? flarn2006 [u t c] time: 19:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I believe the age-of-majority requirement is a Foundation mandate for access to non-public NDA'd material; see m:ANPDP. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Actually it appears I'm mistaken and that requirement (beyond 18 years) was removed. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence. As Kevin notes it's not quite accurate nor does it match what is listed at WP:ACE. Because there is already a link to the elections page, with more detailed and always correct information, people interested in eligibility can still find out. Thanks for bringing this up @Flarn2006. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome! And sorry about the trouble with the redirect earlier. flarn2006 [u t c] time: 22:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

The age of majority is not 16 in the UK. It is 16 in Scotland, 18 in England and Wales, and in Northern Ireland. DuncanHill (talk) 20:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions, neither the "This page in a nutshell" nor "Definitions" actually *defines* the phrase "discretionary sanctions." Furthermore, the word "sanction" is defined as a "sanction, restriction, or remedy", which really isn't clarifying. So far as I can tell, "discretionary sanctions" are "actions to restrict editors made at the personal discretion of administrators on certain pages," (my guess at a definition) and "sanctions" are "actions that restrict editors, such as revert and move restrictions, interaction bans, topic bans, and blocks of up to one year in duration." (drawn from Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Sanctions) --The Cunctator (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@The Cunctator: Thanks for your feedback here. DS is currently undergoing a formal review process (somewhat slowgoing) and this was a concern brought up by several participants that I, speaking for myself, will be paying attention to. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)