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.

Here. He's also interpreting the declining of the case not as an indication that SR's procedural appeal was denied, but as a referral back to the community. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't really read like relitigation to me. It seems like Smokey Joe is giving their opinion on the original ban discussion closure, and then suggesting SashiRolls appeal to the community in 6–12 months. Can you clarify why you're posting here? Are you hoping for ArbCom to intervene in the conversation at this MfD? GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

If nothing else, I was hoping for clarification from ArbCom about the claim being bandied about on that page that SashiRolls never filed "the case he wanted to file", i.e. that the appeal he filed wasn't a case request. Also, to the -- what seems to be to be an indisputable fact -- that the Committee's finding on SR's case request was that there was no procedural error in the original CBAN, so that SR cannot make that claim if and when he appeals to the community in 6 months. This is pertinent to whether his files with data and fault-finding should be deleted or not under POLEMIC's specific wording that such pages should be deleted if they are not going to be "imminently used". Six months is not "imminent". Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

First, I thank BMK for having started the MfD discussion. I'm not an Arb, nor do I play one on TV, but it looked to me like what ArbCom decided, by declining the case request, was that there was no evidence of a sufficient procedural error, such that it would require intervention by the Committee. Some editors at the MfD are making the claim that the consensus of the community discussions about the ban is not a valid consensus, and the burden on those editors is to get a community consensus to agree to that. And ArbCom is leaving that to the community. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

As I commented on the request, I felt this fell within the bounds of admin discretion and therefore did not require a full case. This was neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of the close. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I have never said that there was an endorsement or a condemnation of the close, what I have said -- and I still believe to be the case, unless someone at ArbCom specifically corrects me -- is that the decision not to open a case was a de facto recognition that the procedural errors claimed by SashiRolls either did not exist, or were insufficient to open a case. If that is true, then SashiRolls should be denied the opportunity to open an appeal to the community based on those same claims, which have been determined to be non-existent or insufficient by our community's highest authority. Any appeal they file needs to be on another basis entirely. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it is fair to say that we did find any errors were insufficient to merit a case, but we made no binding ruling beyond that because we didn't take the case, instead kicking the matter back to the broader community. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

That is how I read it too. ArbCom didn't say anything more or less other than that the case wasn't within their jurisdiction. No writ of certiorari so to speak.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 13:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Original announcement

Original announcement

• Today is a good day. ​ Mz7 (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Huzzah! May you perform your queries well. :) —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Welcome back! GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Very glad to see you back. Doug Weller talk 17:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Original announcement

Is the pothole to the remedy supposed to say "Hypocrite topic-banned", or was that an autocorrect typo? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 17:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Looks like a typo, I fixed it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to thank the committee for this. I promise not to waste any more of your time. Hipocrite (talk) 15:27, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Original announcement

Original announcement

• Congrats! SQL^{Query me!} 14:25, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Congrats! Well deserved. :) CThomas³ (talk) 14:51, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Thanks both for the congratulations . Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Original announcement

Thanks to all. Things will continue to be fun and great. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Original announcement

Original announcement

Original announcement

Original announcement

Original announcement

Many thanks to arb-emeritus Risker for leading the charge on this. –xeno^talk 15:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Risker, for your work on this. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, thank you Risker, and also Primefac, Martin Urbanec, AntiCompositeNumber, and Bawolff for helping with the behind-the-scenes work on this. Keeping the requests for oversight flowing during the OTRS upgrade was absolutely essential, and your diligence and creative thinking made the process go very smoothly. – bradv🍁 15:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Aww, thank you everyone. In this case, the cloud does have a silver lining, in that we now have a documented checklist of things to do for the next time. We also identified several issues that can be improved, both to create an easier transition, and to standardize some configurations. I'm hoping that we'll now have lots of time to make those updates. Risker (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Original announcement

Original announcement

Original announcement

I support this. Additionally, the arbitration committee should exercise their duty to transparency: the positions of those given discretionary sanctions should be formally recorded and statistics tabulated, such as "6 banned, 3 antiabortion, 3 abortion rights advocates, and 1 unclear". This would help reduce rumors circulated on media sources that Wikipedia is biased in a particular direction.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:41, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Epiphyllumlover, why would we want to know which side of the debate is more disruptive? What does that add? You're never going to stop evangelicals asserting that we are Satan's own website as long as we reflect scientific consensus on evolution. See also: Conservapedia. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is funded by donations, therefore it has a duty to transparency. This would help fulfill that duty. As you suggest, the information brought to light could be used to answer different questions, such as which side is more disruptive. Yet another side might spin it as to which side the arbitration committee is on. I can accept that everyone has their own questions to answer. C. West Churchman asserted that out-groups, no matter how whacked out, should be seen as reflecting something that those in positions of authority are missing. It is possible that both the out groups are all whacked-out and that those in authority are forgetting something at the same time; the two are not mutually exclusive. That the people running wikipedia are "never going to stop" the garbage completely I accept. This is not an all-or-nothing sort of thing--if we can take the edge off of it, that can still help. Providing basic, verifiable statistics will help direct those who want to argue in a more positive direction.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

In a word: no. This would set a terrible precedent. The committee does not care what "side" of an issue anyone is on, and does not record such information. And the committee itself is not on any side, it's purpose is to stop disruptive behavior regardless of who is doing it and what their motivations are. If this really seems important to you, you are free to try and collect such data yourself and host it somewhere off Wikipedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be good to verify that the committee does not care about sides?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

In the absence of any proof to the contrary I would take it as evident. The only purpose of the committee is to stop disruption. If it were perceived as picking sides in content disputes I fully expect that the community would be rightly outraged. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

It would also be good to verify whether the system as a whole does not care about sides. It might be possible to get statistics on both the decisions of the Committee and also the volume of cases submitted to it. In general absence of outrage is not evidence of absence. It could potentially reflect a lack of transparency.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Epiphyllumlover, every arbitration decision ever enacted is recorded in the archives of WP:ACN, and every arbitration enforcement action ever taken is recorded at WP:AELOG, if that's what you're looking for. See WP:ARB/OLD for more info on case volumes etc. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Each of us has a duty to edit from a neutral point of view. It's generally inappropriate to even declare a "side" in a dispute, and even more inappropriate to ask others to do so. Our articles must reflect the sources, not the individual editors' points of view. – bradv🍁 22:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

L235, That helps. These immense archives are sorted topically, which is even better. Could statistics be made out of them? Has anyone ever done that? Bradv, transparency is how you run a public non-profit, it is definitely appropriate. It helps donors understand that NPOV is followed.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Original announcement

Original announcement

• Congratulations to everyone appointed. —Nnadigoodluck███ 03:31, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
• and thanks to everyone involved. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 03:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
• Congratulations to all appointed! Patient Zero^talk 04:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
• Congrats to all appointed. Hopefully this means more eyes on the CU requests at SPI. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 15:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • And the CU queue at WP:ACC Congrats everyone, and thanks for volunteering for the additional tools! ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
• Welcome to the functionaries team. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
• Welcome to our new functionaries, and thank you to all those who applied. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:41, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
• Congratulations! -- Luk ^talk 10:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
• Congratulations and condolences. Mkdw ^talk 18:35, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you everyone! I'm looking forward to working with everyone on the CheckUser team and I'm looking forward to using the tools in order to make Wikipedia a better place. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The new remedy for WP:APL doesn't have a matching template similar to ((ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement)). The terms (as exactly worded) are as follows:

• 500/30 restriction: All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. This prohibition may be enforced preemptively by use of extended confirmed protection (ECP), or by other methods such as reverts, pending changes protection, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 rule are not considered edit warring.
• Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by the methods mentioned above.
• Standard discretionary sanctions as authorized by the Eastern Europe arbitration case remain in effect for this topic area.

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:33, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

(saw your edit request:) 500/30 is enforced by technical means now (WP:ECP). It wasn't always, thus the notices were helpful. ((ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement))'s main useful purpose now is its 1RR warning (on top of the DS, of course). Admins also do not generally place talk notices for DS page protections either - it's pretty useless to call that a "restriction" in the "need to inform" sense, because it's informed by the software itself. I see really no reason why WP:APL should have a 500/30 talk notice. Just seems like pure banner blindness. In principle anyway, the talk (and, in some cases, edit) notices have a real informative purpose, not just notices for notice's sake. So I don't think anything should be created here, there's already the standard set of notices for the DS of E-E. Non-arb comment, of course. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree there isn't a need for a new kind of DS alert for WP:APL, since ARBEE takes care of that domain. But it wouldn't hurt to enhance the Template:ArbCase so it knows about WP:APL. The page that would need updating is Module:ArbCaseAlias/data. EdJohnston (talk) 17:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what change you have in mind. ((ArbCase)) provides an expedited way to provide a link to an arbitration case or one of its subpages, and so it already works for the case in question: ((ArbCase|Antisemitism in Poland)) results in Antisemitism in Poland. Module:ArbCaseAlias/data is a supporting module to allow for arbitration case aliases starting with year, and currently provides numeric aliases in the form of year-number. Thus ((ArbCase|2019-5)) results in 2019-5, linking to the Antisemitism in Poland case. (The last time I checked, I'm the only one who's ever used the numeric aliases.) isaacl (talk) 00:05, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

My mistake – I didn't notice that Antisemitism in Poland was a 2019 case. Thanks for explanation. EdJohnston (talk) 04:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Original announcement

• This summary seemed a reasonable close. Where changes would involve a shift from current practice (e.g. the clerking methodology), but not necessitate a formal amendment, are those going to be specifically noted? Nosebagbear (talk) 15:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
• That looks like a fair assessment. Regarding "More admin cases should be bought to Arbcom", I think the real problem is that "More structures should be in place to make admins accountable", up to and including blocks if necessary. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

• Kinda wish they would have used the language "More admin cases should be accepted by Arbcom." Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 00:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

It's also worthy of note that lots of comments came in before we'd had all three of the early 3 desysop cases come through, so it's not simply saying "take the current level of acceptance rates, and add even more" Nosebagbear (talk) 07:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The RfC was opened for discussion on June 6, while the most recent arbitration case this year was closed on June 3. isaacl (talk) 22:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

• However, since they were elected to be trusted members of the community, they should do their best knowing that a majority of users supported their term when they were elected (Q1). However, that does not mean they should be entirely absent from ArbCom proceedings - "they" seems to shift here? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  Maybe I'm not seeing it; every "they" or "their" seems to refer to the Committee members. Primefac (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  • I would assume so, though the latter sentence is a bit odd - why would the first sentence even potentially mean they should be entirely absent? Nosebagbear (talk) 08:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Original announcement

Who will scrutinize the scrutineers? (Whatever they are.) Will they endure the exhaustive examination given CU's and OSers? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The scrutineers are Stewards, so they've already gone through a thorough screening in their election process. They are chosen from Stewards whose home wiki is not English Wikipedia, to avoid any perception of a COI based on whom they might prefer to be elected to ArbCom. This procedure was established by the community, not ArbCom, and has been followed for years. The only reason ArbCom is involved in passing this motion is the WMF policy governing how checkusers, including temporary ones, can be appointed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Intrigued. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

This is not a new procedure. NYB or someone else who knows the history could say how long it's been in place but it's been a while. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Just to further clarify, they're already global CUs. This is just a procedural rubber stamping authorizing them to act as CUs on enwiki, within their scope of being a Scrutineer, and that scope has been determined by the community. Regarding scrutiny, they have to be both appointed by the global community and reconfirmed by the global community every year in the annual Steward elections. I'd say the vetting is more than sufficient. Theoretically if there was ever a problem with this system we could change it in any way we want in the pre-election RfC, but AFAIK the role has always been an uncontentious one. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I went back and checked and we've been using this system since around 2011. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, sort of global CU. We can't just look at everything from Meta. We have to grant/remove CU for ourselves when we want to have a look. That being said, while we can always enter enwiki to do CU and/or OS business at our own volition, doing that guarantees the stacking removal votes as soon as the next year's confirmation starts, thus we never do that.

Meanwhile, I think I mentioned this in public or privately to electcom people in the past, but it might be a better idea to grant more blanket-style reservation to include "any reserve members" because... things happen, and motion for the purposes of motion... meh. — regards, Revi 00:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The relevant policy here is WP:GRP#Stewards and, to a lesser extent, WP:CheckUser#Assignment and revocation. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 00:49, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@-revi: I'm toying with the idea of simply pre-authorizing the Scrutineers to use CU privileges within the scope of their position, without the need for approval from Arbcom. Not that Arbcom's doing anything wrong, but to me it only makes sense. The Arbcom elections are supposed to be independent from Arbcom, so it's a bit paradoxical to rely on Arbcom to "approve" high-level election officials. Hopefully it will be discussed in the RfC next year, if I or someone else remembers to propose it. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

No worries, I will remember it for you :). — regards, Revi 01:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @-revi: We've included a reserve (alternate) scrutineer in the motion in the past when the Electoral Commissioners have recommended one, from among the stewards who volunteered to serve in this role. This year, the Commissioners recommended just the three people named in the motion, with no reserve, so that's who we went with.

It bears emphasis that the Arbitration Committee doesn't pick the scrutineers, and in general, doesn't administer the election process at all. As I mentioned above, the only reason ArbCom adopts this motion each year is because of the WMF policy that checkusers on a project can only be selected either by a community-wide vote on that project, or by the project's ArbCom where there is one. (Also, I suppose that if the Electoral Commission picked a steward for scrutineer whom we had reason to believe was grossly suitable, we could say something, but nothing like that has ever happened nor is likely to.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Well yeah, I understand the process, except it might be wise to put the "additional people" even if there is no reserve at hand, because life happens (I suddenly got quite sick back in 2018) and that is usually not really something we can imagine. — regards, Revi 01:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Please feel free to raise this with the electoral commissioners, either this year or for the future. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

For the record - no reserves this year because we received precisely three volunteers. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, for what it’s worth, we did request ArbCom add such language last year and it wasn’t included (if you look in the archives the thread title is “ 2019 Scrutineer CU appointment” sent on 10/23/19). Though I also sent a follow-up email because we switched out a scrutineer since traditionally we don’t have stewards serve back to back, so it easily could have gotten lost in the shuffle. I also suggested to SQL that they try to get it included in the motion this year. It’s not a huge deal and I’m not sure if the email requesting it this year formally requested it, but we did suggest it to the committee last year. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't on the Committee last year so I didn't see that. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Original announcement

List of Wikipedians who miss seeing Yunshui around the place

• Me. I hope you'll be back soon. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
• Second that. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
• Me too. Yunshui is very helpful in hundreds of ways. Hope he takes a break and comes back! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
• Me too! I've been working with him for several years now and he was instrumental in getting me to where I am now. His mentoring and advice in my pre- and post-adminship years was invaluable. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
• SQL^{Query me!} 01:59, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
• Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:35, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
• Me three Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
• +1 Mkdw ^talk 18:35, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
• Me. --bonadea contributions talk 15:38, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
• +1 --Titodutta (talk) 20:27, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

This is a continuation of Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_47#Arbitration_motion_regarding_Abortion.

I came across this study: The left-wing bias of Wikipedia by Shuichi Tezuka and Linda A. Ashtear. About half way through it discusses the abortion related enforcement stats from November 2011 until the end of August 2020.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:00, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Why should anyone take seriously the ravings of a contrarian political rag? jps (talk) 13:35, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

The contrarian political rag it appears in aside, it's actually quite an interesting analysis. But they raise the obvious explanation themselves:

one possible interpretation of some of these results is that Wikipedia’s administrators are apolitical, and that right-leaning editors are sanctioned more often because their behaviour tends to violate Wikipedia’s policies more often

...before hand-waving it away. Also worth noting that their statistics rely entirely on the authors' own classification of whether individual editors are left-leaning or right-leaning. I wonder if others would agree with their data. – Joe (talk) 13:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Joe Roe, those stats are riddled with errors. I explained that somewhere, but my comment was removed because the user dis-invited me from their talk page after I did that. You'll have to dig into my contribution history to find it. Vexations (talk) 22:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Or, in order to be appointed as an administrator, you need a track record of being able to edit in line with Wikipedia's core policies. Therefore, notwithstanding the personal political views of administrators, they are people who can maintain a neutral point of view and recognise deviation from this standard in others... Basically, even if the thesis is correct, there are lots of possible explanations. QuiteUnusual (talk) 13:20, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with the suggestion that admin understand NPOV (or any other policy) better than other editors. Some admin have almost no content creation experience at all. Many admin were made admin years ago, when standards on the site were altogether different. Having the bit doesn't equate to having good judgment or having solid understanding, about content or anything else. Lev!vich 16:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting they understand the policies better, but that they might be better at putting aside their personal views and editing in a neutral way. In any case, I was really simply suggesting that the hypothesis was not proven as there are many other possible causes for the findings of the paper, and giving one example. The probability is that there are multiple reasons and attempts to distill this to a simple answer are in vain. QuiteUnusual (talk) 17:24, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think QuiteUnusual's observation about ability to set one's personal beliefs aside and follow policies is much more plausible than the article's suggestion (or devil's-advocate position) that maybe WP admins are "apolitical". We know that's not true. And the article is clearly correct that WP has a left-wing bias. Anyone who edits anywhere near subjects that intersect with the left–right political axis knows this for a deeply experienced fact. But it's a classic fallacy to assume that because a conclusion is correct that the reasoning that led someone to that conclusion is also correct. (E.g. "The earth must be round because it is God's eyeball, and eyeballs are round" is not a cogent argument, even though we can in fact prove the Earth isn't flat.) So, I don't think this particular piece in The Critic is particularly meaningful. We already have an article for criticism of Wikipedia, and it might make sense to include some mention of it there, in WP:DUE company with other published material. It doesn't have any implications for internal WP policy or decision-making. Our real left-wing bias is an actual problem, and does need to be addressed, but "the ravings of a contrarian political rag" as jps put it are not of importance to that matter.

WP's major bias problem on this particular political axis is the assumption that the majority-progressivist views of urban people in Western democracies is what "most people" think and believe (or even most, say, Americans). The actual fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the world's population is much more conservative in every sense of that term, from fiscal politics, to traditionalist preservation, to religiosity and anti-science and poor education, to reactive social behavior. As a died-in-the-wool centrist from a very mixed family (White, Hispanic, East Asian, Hawaiian native, etc.), with a background in cultural anthropology, who has lived in multiple countries, who has lived also in urban, suburban, and rural communities, and who has surviving close relatives who range from hardcore socialist to raging MAGA loon, I can probably see this a little more easily than the average reader-editor here. But the biases – and perhaps more importantly for this discussion – the administrative tolerance of terrible behavior aimed at perpetuating those biases, can only be ignored through outright willful ignorance and selective blindness. That denialism has to stop.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: I don’t think it's true that this isn’t an issue—you argued that my own topic ban shouldn't be lifted if I had the wrong opinions, after all [1] [2]. @DGG: Do you still [3] agree [4] that an arbitration case on a related set of issues would be useful? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 22:05, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think we need to change our practices with what we perceive as minority viewpoints. Whatever the merits of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience for the physical science concerns that led to that case, it should never be applied to anything dealing with politics or social issues. The majority of WPedians active in such areas usually confuse their own POV with NPOV, and some even think that Wikipedia should be advocating what they consider the correct view of things. Whether another arb case is the appropriate way forward is a question of tactics; for it might lead to the codification of our prejudices. DGG ( talk ) 07:33, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@Ferahgo the Assassin: I did. Though in that case "wrong" didn't mean right-wing, it meant factually wrong, unethical, and the major cause for the disruptive conduct that led to your original bans, so I don't see the direct relevance.

I disagree with DGG that we have a problem distinguishing minority and fringe viewpoints. I think we're actually pretty good at it. But editors with fringe POVs do seem to have a problem accepting that; presumably because being part of those communities tends to come with an inflated idea of how mainstream they are. That does seem to play a role in this study: the author's idiosyncratic definition of "right-leaning" is someone who is pro-Trump, anti-gun control, believes in biological race, and is anti-abortion. One of those (race) isn't a really political view but an issue of objective scientific fact vs. pseudoscientific prejudice. Two (anti-gun control and anti-abortion) are mainstream right-wing positions in the United States but decidedly fringe in the rest of the English-speaking world. And I'm sure I don't need to say more about Trump. So yes, if someone comes to Wikipedia with that particular set of pseudoscientific and (in a global context) extreme views then they're probably going to have a hard time. That doesn't mean we're biased against the right in general. – Joe (talk) 14:27, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

If you look closely at how the analysis defined "pro" or "anti" on these topics, it was not based on editors' personal opinions, but based on the overall balance of their edits. So a person would be classified as "pro-Trump" if they don't like Trump as a person, but were arguing that some of the anti-Trump material in articles did not adequately follow BLP policy.

In my email to ArbCom on Monday, I presented a few examples of editors arguing that misrepresented sources and unsourced statements about living people are acceptable as long as they're in support of the "correct" viewpoint, and not all of those editors were deliberately trolling. The same problem might exist in a lot of topics. If Wikipedia is going to cover topics in an encyclopedic manner, violations of its content policies are a problem regardless of what viewpoint they're supporting. This means that people need to not be discouraged from fixing policy violations that are favorable to the "correct" viewpoint. 2600:1004:B12C:5187:538:4435:5B2A:4300 (talk) 18:32, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• Hang on - in the AP2 section Across these disputes, editors were evaluated for disciplinary action a total of 229 times (including reporting editors, reported editors, and occasionally editors who were disciplined via collateral damage). So in other words, they're evaluating whether the reporting editor at AE was sanctioned as well? Given that it is far more likely that the reported editor than the reporting editor will be sanctioned (especially as a number of AE reports are by long-term editors about new disruptive accounts), all they're effectively saying is that "pro-Trump" editors are more likely to be reported, not that they're more likely to be sanctioned. Black Kite (talk) 15:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I brought up this article in my email to ArbCom that's mentioned here, but now it it seems to be under discussion on several Wikipedia pages. [5] But this discussion seems to be the main one. I think it would be useful to have a discussion in a central place about the points made in this article, whether the trend described in the article is a real problem, and (if so) what could be done about it.

@Atsme: @NedFausa: you've both initiated discussions about this analysis on other pages, so I encourage you to participate in the discussion here. 2600:1004:B12C:5187:538:4435:5B2A:4300 (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't have too much to add but will say that we should not conflate non-neutral news-related political editing (RECENTISM) with nearly completed articles that have actually achieved NPOV over time. It's amazing what the benefit of retrospect can do for an article. WP closely mirrors left-leaning media because media itself has moved from center to center-left and even further in some instances. If you want to see how biased an article is, review the sources that are cited. We tend to forgive CNN & MSNBC for things we did not forgive about FoxNews. Our articles are mirrors of those news publications, including NYTimes & WaPo among many others. Almost all of our popular center-right sources have had their political news demoted to no-consensus, unreliable or depracated and I oppose such a rating system because it conflicts with WP:RS, and there is also WP:POV creep to consider. I'd say my perspective aligns very closely with Jimbo's. I've always been of the mind that we should exercise caution & corroborate with higher quality sources, even primary sources, when citing any news source because of the paradigm shift that came with the internet & clickbait. Media itself has published articles about WP editors scrubbing the articles of left-leaning politicians, so it's not a figment of any editor's imagination. You might also see a bit of POV pushing on a few user pages/subpages who edit heavily in that topic area. As for pseudoscience & medicine - I do believe that simple common sense goes a long way, and most of us know BS when we see it. I've long since learned to depend on WP:MEDRS if I happen to find myself in that topic area, and I'm more inclined to look to the experts when I hit a stumbling block. Atsme 💬 📧 18:11, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Part of our long-term problem is that the kind of rigor MEDRS effectively forces in a particular topic area is needed elsewhere (start with all science topics), but we as yet have no means to impose it. WP is way, way past the stage where we should permit questionable writing and sourcing in the name of growing an encyclopedia. We've already built the most-used one in the world. It's now time to actually make it truly encyclopedic instead of wannabe-encyclopedic.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

The association between right-leaning editors and behavior/enforcement issues could be related to different thought patterns. C. West Churchman's Inquiring Systems and the more recent Cynefin framework provide ways to sort through individual differences in a useful manner. Both methods are similar: "Complicated" is basically a simplified version of the "Hegelian" system in Inquiring Systems. "Obvious" corresponds to Churchman's "Lockean" system of inquiry, and "Complex" is most similar to his "Kantian" or "Leibnizian" systems. "Chaotic" doesn't correspond to any of them as best as I can tell. As Churchman only outlined five different systems, it wasn't intended to be comprehensive. Someone with a philosophy background could come up with more columns.

Wikipedia overall comes out heavier on the "complicated" category of Cynefin or the "Hegelian" column of Inquiring Systems than it does on the Complex category or Kantian & Leibnizian columns. This risks alienating the more science-minded types. And also paleoconservatives, although their presence is not coveted as much as those with scientific expertise.

Some Wikipedia policies seem to be written in a way that reflects more than one thought pattern. It follows from this that a policy or guideline could be read differently by different people. But the bigger issue is with communication-- if one editor ends up talking past another it is more likely to end up as a behavior/enforcement issue. This is similar to how the pointy haired boss and Dilbert talk past each other and escalate their tensions. It should be possible to lead Wikipedia editors to recognize differences in thought patterns and to translate their comments into others' patterns. Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement is already used, and helps. If Cynefin, Inquiring Systems, or some similar alternative could be used in a similar manner it could reduce the "talking past each other" problem.

What if some of the talk page warning banners could have optional modifiers classifying the type of disagreement involved? For example, "Warning: You are in an edit war" could have an optional ad-in saying: You appear to be using the ____ pattern, while others are using the ______ pattern. See this table to get ideas on how to communicate differently."--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this system, which I don't quite understand, would work with the Wikipedia editing community. We have people from dozens of different countries with varying levels of language proficiency and education. I don't think your philosophical model would translate into a system that can be utilized on thousands of different article talk pages. Communication has to be simple, straight-forward and direct and refer to existing Wikipedia policies. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:57, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

It is very similar to language proficiency issues. And modifying an argument to recognize and reflect others' thought pattern is like translating. We can get people to translate between Spanish and English, why not from social-science-background-speak to physical-science-background-speak and vice versa?

I don't propose to instantly change thousands of banners. I mean that certain existing user talk page banners could include modifiers like | user pattern = Kantian | opponent pattern = Hegelian . Most editors would not use the modifiers when placing banners. It would be for when the banner-placer thinks it is appropriate. Behavior related banners aren't used much on article talk pages, so this would be for user talk pages.

For an obviously and severely disruptive user I don't see the point of getting into philosophical nuances. That would be throwing pearls before swine. But when content disputes get heated and people start posting warnings on talk pages, that could be a role for it.

Upon review, some content disputes could be mapped out. Imagine a thoughtful discussion deteriorates in to the bottom three levels of Graham's, which is then followed by labeling the troublemaker. That might get mapped out (using Cynefin) as Complex -- > Chaotic -- > Obvious. If the disciplined user is presented with a flowchart of the dispute upon his or her discipline, he or she could keep it in the back of his or her mind for next time. Understanding the difference between Complex and Chaos could help the editor avoid repeated issues.

Concern about Wikipedia's bias has been around for a long time; I don't expect to eliminate it. But what if we could grease the wheels to help biased people communicate better with people of different biases?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

There is just under 72 hours left until the self-nomination period for the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections ends. At the time I am writing this, only two candidates have nominated themselves. This year, we have seven open seats on the Arbitration Committee (even if there are fewer candidates than seats available, at least 50% support is still required for a one-year term and 60% for a two-year term).

If you are interested in taking on this difficult role, you are invited to nominate yourself. You must transclude your candidate statement to the candidates page by 23:59 UTC on 17 November 2020. Per WP:ACERFC2020#Nomination timing this year this is going to be a hard deadline, so I would avoid waiting until the very last minute to submit your nomination to avoid any technical difficulties. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

It's been like ebay for some years now - nothing happens until 10 minutes before the deadline. Don't worry, candidates are lurking on the sidelines. Johnbod (talk) 05:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Johnbod, I hope they are aware of the new policy. If their candidacy pages are not 100% properly completed and trans lured by the deadline, it will be voided. No exceptions. —CYBERPOWER (Around) 12:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I would nominate myself. But, I would never agree to giving up any personal info. Besides, I'd never be elected anyway. GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

GoodDay (and anyone else who doesn't want to run because they don't want to give out personal information), iirc the current NDA doesn't require you give out any personal information. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 17:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll never get elected anyway, so.... GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

It does require you to give out your real name, doesn't it? Even though they don't ID verify it anymore. Or can you sign with your pseudonym? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

You do not have to use your real name, ever. Here is the policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

For OTRS you are required to supply a "real-sounding" name, but this doesn't have to be your real name. To whom it has to sound real I don't know, but "GoodDay" is unlikely to meet this requirement, something like e.g. George Day would be fine though. Thryduulf (talk) 00:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that you never have to actually use your "real sounding" name. I myself chose Arthur Dent, but I sign everything with my WP name. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

You are required to provide the Foundation with your email address. Which I'm sure is not a big hurdle either. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

It is very likely that a number of candidates will come forward close to the deadline, but there is always the possibility that too few qualified candidates will nominate themselves. We have come close in some years. So, if there are qualified and respected members of the community who are sitting on the fence who have considered running, I encourage them to toss their hat in the ring. If there is a strong field of candidates after nominations have closed, then candidates still have the option to withdraw. Mkdw ^talk 00:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll reconsider, as 3 candidates isn't quite enough for 7 seats. However, I've little knowledge on arbitrator tools (indeed, I'm not an administrator) & it would be highly likely that my candidacy would be a waste of time & space. Note: I don't have a clean past. GoodDay (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

GoodDay, neither do I, but I made it to an administrator. —CYBERPOWER (Around) 19:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I may consider administratorship, but I'm not well read on all the alphabet soup guidelines, rules etc. Nor will I bother to get well read on them. GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@GoodDay: re: "I'm not well read on all the alphabet soup guidelines, rules etc. Nor will I bother to get well read on them." You don't need to make yourself fully aware of all policies and guidelines before you submit your request for adminship, but you should at least commit to becoming well read on the policies and guidelines supporting any particular administrative action before you use your tools to execute that administrative action. If you say that you "won't bother" in your RfA you would be shooting yourself in the foot. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I went to the RFA page this morning. Too many hoops to jump through for me. I'd be better off is someone else nominated me. GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

GoodDay, and good news: there are multiple experienced nominators who specialize in just that. Barkeep49, Ritchie333, MelanieN are some. —valereee (talk) 17:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind on the Arb nomination, too many hoops to jump through. Thought I could just edit in my nomination, but apparently not. Just as well. GoodDay (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I believe that the self-nomination page lists them as "Standing candidates". Perhaps some of them are lying down now, but will get up before the deadline. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

The election will determine which standing candidates will be seated. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

And here I thought that the Committee did not have a chair. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Tryptofish, If more people don't volunteer, wikipedia will be throne into chaos. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

We may need to furnish more candidates. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I used to be a stand-up comedian like you, but then I got older, so I sit down now. QuiteUnusual (talk) 17:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Tryptofish, Yeah, but if they don't want to do it, I'm not going to chaise after them. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I bed that we'll have some more candidates before the nomination period ends. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

As of 17:31 UTC/12:31 EST, we now have 7 candidates, all of which at first glance appear to be qualified admins. IIRC that’s enough to fill every seat up for election, but it would still be nice to have more candidates in case one of the current candidates drops out or something. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 17:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Original announcement

• For anyone who's looking, the actual case page that this is being recorded at is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Horn of Africa. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Original announcement

Original announcement

Original announcement

• Welcome, incoming Committee members! And brace yourselves, bumpy times and all! El_C 02:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• Welcome to all the hardy volunteers! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
• Congrats to all of the unsuccessful candidates just as much as the appointed ones. Every single person achieved a level of support required for appointment. That's a pretty impressive showing. Sadly there were not enough seats to go around, but everyone who didn't make the cut this year should still be proud of the support they received. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I believe every candidate got over 50% support which I don't think I've seen before. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

An embarrassment of riches! Levivich ^harass/_hound 08:23, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed! That was wonderful to see. I hope we'll see some of those same names next year. --BDD (talk) 19:14, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• I'd like to publicly thank the outgoing arbs for their great work this year. This is a hard job but we had a great team this year. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:24, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
• Breathes in congrats to: the successful candidates, the unsuccessful candidates for running and surpassing 50%, the outgoing arbs, the electoral commission, the scrutineers, anyone who helped set up Securepoll, the question askers, the voters, anyone who participated in the ACE2020 RfC, and probably at least one worthy group I forgot! Nosebagbear (talk) 10:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
• Congratulations to all the new arbs. I'd also like to make special note of outgoing arb DGG who, for many of the years I'be been involved in the project, has been one of my guiding lights. On occasion, I've butted heads with him over issues of notability, but he's always been an exemplar of how to disagree without being disagreeable. David, I'm sure you don't remember, but the first time we met was at an edit-a-thon or some such on the Barnard College campus. Had to have been 10 years ago. Looking forward to many more years of working with you at AfC and elsewhere, once you've taken what I imagine is a much-needed breather to decompress from your arb duties. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:47, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
• Congratulations to all the successful candidates. I didn’t meet the eligibility criteria to vote in this latest election so wasn’t able to support you directly, but wanted to wish you the best luck. WJBscribe (talk) 11:24, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
• Congratulations to the new arbs! Thanks to all the candidates, the Electoral Commission, scrutineers, and developers who worked on SecurePoll. And thanks also of course to the outgoing arbs for all your hard work. the wub "?!" 23:38, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
• I'd like to take this opportunity to complain about the new arbitration committee. They haven't done anything all year! GeneralNotability (talk) 00:50, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Hehe. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 01:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

  (for those about to point to the timestamp on the Luxofluxo motion: you know darn well that was the previous ArbCom behind that motion) GeneralNotability (talk) 01:03, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Original announcement

• A SPI was just opened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Euexperttime. Pahunkat (talk) 15:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Original announcement

• Unexpected. GoodDay (talk) 01:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your service so far, and I look forward to your future work in your new role! The global community will be lucky to have your help. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry for your departure, Xeno, but you have equally important work to do. Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Congrats on your new job! :) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Good on you for not accumulating an inordinate number of contemporaneous hats. May the spirit of the community guide you. Samsara 03:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for all your hard work on the Committee, and best of luck with your work with the Foundation! GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
• Massive loss for the committee, but I'm glad there is an individual I trust in that role. Thanks for your service Xeno. Worm^TT(talk) 08:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
• This leaves me both sad that you left the Committee and happy that an editor like you will work with the Foundation on this. Thank you for all you have done while on the Committee and good luck on your future endeavors! Regards SoWhy 09:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
• Best wishes with the new role, and sorry you have to leave the committee in order to accept it! —valereee (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
• Congratulations on your new role, xeno. The Foundation is lucky to have you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
• Now don't forget: it's up to you to disable the security system when we give you the signal—I mean, congrats on the new gig! :-) Levivich ^harass/_hound 04:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Congrats on the new role, good luck.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wishing you only the best, Xeno! I have no doubt that you will be a guiding light in your new role with WMF. Atsme 💬 📧 19:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Thank you very much, Xeno, for taking on this very important role. I have no doubt your new colleagues will greatly appreciate your knowledge, experience, and sensible approach. I know the Arbitration Committee will miss your contributions, but I suspect they'll quickly come to appreciate having a former member who's been through the wars on the new committee. Risker (talk) 05:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• No discussion necessary! Congratulations Xeno, and thanks for being here! Nfitz (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you for all the kind words and well-wishes, they are appreciated =) –xeno^talk 20:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Original announcement

• Just wanted to note that this follows a January 6 self-requested removal of the tools from Ivanvector's account for security reasons, and that this motion and announcement is purely procedural. Best, KevinL (alt of L235 · t · c) 01:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Well this sure went more smoothly than asking for the admin bit back! Glad you're ramping back up, IV. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

  Well you know if there is a group renowned for its speed and efficiency it's ArbCom. I kid, I kid. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC) Barkeep49 (talk) 02:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Original announcement

• I should give a bit more explanation about Berean Hunter, since we usually don't pull the flag so quickly for inactivity. This is a precautionary measure. We have no reason to believe Berean Hunter's account is compromised, but he stopped editing abruptly on 1 October, and no one has been able to reach him since. I myself have emailed him four times. I consider him a friend and I usually get a response from him, so I'm rather worried and so is the committee. If and when he returns to editing and wishes to have the CU permission returned, the request will likely be viewed favorably by the committee. Katie^talk 15:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

  Oh my - something is wrong. That isn't like him at all. As a CU, his real id is known, correct? Can the WMF look into this and let us know something about his well-being? It is simply not in his character to disappear like this. I had correspondence with him on Sept 30, 2020 - he said he was "feeling tired", but it was still early evening. Something is wrong. 😢 Atsme 💬 📧 17:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

  The WMF hasn't required real-world ID in years, and even when they did they supposedly looked at them once to confirm the user was an adult and then deleted. We're all concerned but there's not much of anything we can do. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

  I wouldn't be too alarmed that something nefarious has happened. This by far isn't his first extended absence without warning, in fact from 2013-2017 he took multiple on-and-off breaks to the point where he was even desysopped for inactivity. Sometimes, life happens and Wikipedia needs to take a lower priority. Sometimes it gets crazy at work, or there's a family emergency, or if you're older, you might get arthritis making accessing a device difficult. My point is, there are many, many different reasons why you may want to take a step back. This diff helps give a bit of insight into his view on taking long breaks. He once said Dennis Brown is the only Wikipedian who met him face to face, so maybe we could ask Dennis if he's heard anything. We're all volunteers here and giving notice when you'll be gone for a while is often expected, but not required. Sro23 (talk) 03:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• I didn't get the ping, but I stumbled across this thread. I just emailed him. A few years ago, we used to break bread every now and then, being that he lives relatively close, but we haven't talked much lately. I know he has had a lot going on in real life for some time, so I wouldn't get too worried just yet. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

  22 hours later, no reply. Looked but can't find his number in my new phone. Will search email for it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

  Found the number, talking to him now, he's ok, just really busy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

  Hooray! Thanks for going the extra mile.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

  Dennis Brown, Thank you for that. I'm very glad to hear it. Worm^TT(talk) 09:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  I too am really glad to hear it. Thanks for passing this along. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 10:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  I will admit that I am relieved to hear this news. Thank you for reaching out Dennis Brown Mkdw ^talk 15:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• I hope the best and that he's just busy in this crazy world. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

  Just saw this, (my thanks to Boing! said Zebedee for pointing me back here!) What great news (and a relief)!! Thank you for checking on this, Dennis Brown!! FYI, GorillaWarfare. Whew!! Atsme 💬 📧 21:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

  Oh that's lovely to hear, I'm so glad everything is alright. Thanks for the ping, Atsme! GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Was going to invite him over for barbecue, like we used to do, but with covid, that isn't wise. It's been almost two years since I've seen him, and almost a year since we had talked, so it was nice catching up. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Original announcement

• Incredibly minor, but Dreamy Jazz, isn't it standard to link the word motion to a direct link to the motion? Noting ARCA as the location is nice IMO, but leaving that as just a WP:ARCA link as you did for TRM seems reasonable. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I've added the link in to the motion in the announcement. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 08:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• I've only just noticed this now, but I wonder about the wording of this motion from a clerk/ArbCom procedural point of view. Do correct me if I'm wrong and out of date, but past procedure largely seemed to hat/cross-out superseded/amended remedies and place the new text underneath; this motion, however, appears to mandate retitling of a section and wholesale replacing of the previous text. AFAICT, Dreamy Jazz enacted the motion correctly given those terms, but, from a purely navigational point of view, I'd think it better to do the hat/cross-out and add, rather than retitle/replace. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Amorymeltzer, L235 has added the superseded version in a hatted section underneath. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 08:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Not sure how much of a difference it will even make to go from post-1932 to post-1992. Myself, at least, I'm just not seeing that many AP2 disputes that even involve anything in the 20th Century (though, granted, this could be more a sign of the times). Compare this, for example, with Wikipedia:General sanctions/Post-1978 Iranian politics, where the 20th Century stuff is featured quite prominently. El_C 02:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

  I think the biggest difference would be in topic bans. While this doesn't affect existing sanctions, any future sanctions would be 1992 onwards only and I assume if someone asks with a half decent explanation, they'll likely have their topic ban changed. While there would still be a lot of areas of American politics off limits, and they would need to take care, there would be a wider field of AP related articles anyone who gets a full AP1992 ban could edit. True, we don't know how many people would actually care, but it's also hard to know until it happens. If someone has an AP1932 ban and is compliant, they wouldn't really want to think about those articles. Nil Einne (talk) 20:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

  Nil Einne, of course! How strange that this did not occur to me. Thanks for pointing out the obvious to me. Struck. El_C 14:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• I personally am happy to see a significant reduction in DS coverage, so thanks to proposer and arbs. As the current sanctions remain in force, so it'll take a while to see, one benefit is that individuals can be removed from the most heated aspect while not losing a vast swathe of articles they might otherwise be able to edit productively in. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• I believe the arbitrators chose a date better than the one I originally suggested. Hopefully this will help keep the sanctions as narrow as possible so that the maximum freedom of editing is established on Wikipedia without fear of sanctions. Interstellarity (talk) 12:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Original announcement

Original announcement

• I'm in shock and disbelief.--WaltCip-(talk) 21:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oh god no. Mathglot (talk) 21:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• I commented on Flyer22's talk page hours ago. Will an arbitrator do so, or the committee? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC) - To be clear: I don't think her family will read the arbitrators' noticeboard. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • A notice with a link to the announcement was posted by our bot, but someone reverted it. I'm sure her brother is aware of what has happened to the case. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

    I can't believe it, sorry. I don't mean - at all! - what happeed to the case. I'm waiting for some statement of sympathy by a human being (Mensch) or more. Not a heartless bot-message (which was discussed with L235). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

    Gerda, it is unlikely to go down well if a member of a group of anonymous strangers on the internet, who were just about to sanction the deceased person for their actions, offers their sympathies. Even when sincere its going to come across as callous or hypocritical. Certainly I doubt her family will care. There is no good outcome for what you propose and is more likely to just cause trouble. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

    Exactly this. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

    I must have a language problem (member of a group? no: human being), but someone understood me anyway, see below. I am done here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

    All Arbs are human beings but also members of a group. The highest officials on the project to which Flyer gave so much. It makes sense for Arbs to consider how any expression of sympathy might be perceived from a group perspective; there is a risk of it coming across the way OiD says. It would probably be doing Halo a disservice to assume that's likely though. The Arbs were looking set to only pass a very mild sanction, and were treating all parties with fairness. Flyer was fallible like everyone but generally exceptionally wise, and Halo seems to share much of her quality. Other than Halo, her family are unlikely to recognise an Arb, but at some point may well take comfort from the volume of sympathy & appreciation on Flyer's page. And Halo seems to have enough of Flyers grace that he'd not see any condolence from an Arb as hypocritical or callous, though also would know any Arb who choses to stay silent has still given the matter great thought. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• I don't understand the Arbcom decision. Wasn't the case supposed to also examine the conduct of WanderingWanda & Halo Jerk1? The Proposed Decision certainly had elements dealing with both WanderingWanda & Halo Jerk1. Banedon (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I think if you take a close look at where the proposed decision was at it will be pretty clear there was no point in continuing. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

  • I still do not understand - the proposed remedies, last I saw, included a three-way interaction ban & a proposed block for Halo Jerk1. A two-way interaction ban and/or block ought to still be possible. Banedon (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • To add: the point isn't that WanderingWanda and/or Halo Jerk1 need censure, but rather that if the case is dismissed as moot on Flyer22's death, then it makes it seem like the case was, after all that was said at acceptance, about Flyer22's behavior. Some quotes during acceptance:
    1. "As I said above, we ought to investigate the conduct of all the parties involved in this dispute, and the retirement of one of the parties should not put this investigation on hold." (but the death of one of the parties should?)
    2. "to be clear, I would expect any case to be investigating both WanderingWanda and Flyer22 Frozen - I agree, there is little to distinguish between the behaviour of each"
    3. "Flyer's retirement is unfortunate but unlike other cases, here we have conduct from multiple parties to examine and it wouldn't be fair to those still active to keep this case dangling over their head."

  Banedon (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

  • I will try to break it down so that you may see the reasoning:
    • The only remedy that was going to pass was the three way iban. Flyer was essentially the "pivot" in the middle. This is not to say that she was the whole problem, rather the problem as it existed is gone.
    • HaloJerk just lost a loved one he clearly cares deeply about, I don't think there is any interest on the committee to pursue further sanctions on him at this time.
    • A retirement can be undone any time the person retiring decides to un-retire. Death is rather more permanent.
  • I think we'd all like to believe that this shocking, sad event has taken away any appetite for continuing the conflict the case was trying to end. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

  • A good analogy for this would be members of the U.S. Senate planning to protest the results of the most recent Presidential election. After the 2021 storming of the Capitol which brought with it awful violence and chaos that eventually resulted in several deaths being reported, several of those Senators rescinded their planned protests. Everybody saw the big picture. I think that's what needed to happen here as well. I applaud ARBCOM's restraint, which given the circumstances, really was the only right thing to do. Struck out. In retrospect, the analogy I made was in poor taste and has absolutely no bearing on what transpired in this case. My respect for ARBCOM and their decision to dismiss this case remains in place, as well as my sadness. --WaltCip-(talk) 00:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

    FWIW, some will get it and not be offended or confused. There is no question that excessive polarization (and legalism) in the off-site political sphere have had palpable effects on-site as well, and this very case (involving a false-dichotomy approach to a socio-poltical issue and content-disputing about it) was very symptomatic of that effect.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  I don't think any of those quotes are mine because I wasn't an arb when the case was being accepted.. However, I think you raise a point that I also thought about as we were discussing/voting on this. What follows is my own thinking only, but based on the information we have I don't believe a 2 way iBAN is necessary - partly for reasons expressed in the evidence in terms of Halo/WW's editing and partly because of private evidence I obviously can't discuss. And obviously I voted against the block of Halo. If I thought that continuing with the two remaining parties was going to improve the project and be worth the drama of continuing, I might have suggested we continue even though we'd have been called insensitive (or worse). However, I don't think that bringing the case to resolution with two parties is going to reduce future conflict and I'd rather we try to be sensitive, which despite some criticism I think we're trying to be. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

  I've got mixed feelings. Obviously remedies involving Flyer are not needed, and I don't think that there was any public evidence that justified an iban between Halo and Wanda (and certainly not in the absence of Flyer) so it's right that that aspect of the case is declared moot. However, there were several principles that would have been usefully passed and findings of fact relating to WW and Halo that I'm not sure should be regarded as dismissed. Perhaps describing the case as "discontinued" would have given the better impression. Thryduulf (talk) 02:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  Thryduulf, my largest concern with dismissing the case was the principles - but they can be discussed another day.
  Banedon Nothing on this encyclopedia matters as much as the real life as an individual. We can always have another case, another day, if circumstances demand. Today, we mourn the loss of someone who made a difference. Worm^TT(talk) 09:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  The legal concept of “dismissed without prejudice” might apply here. The person who brought the case to ArbCom will have their behavior towards others under scrutiny by various users. Repeated problems will have this case to look at. Montanabw^(talk) 15:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  Exactly.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  Well if the idea is that "hopefully Halo Jerk1 and WanderingWanda will be able to work together now", why not pass that as a motion or something? Or, in the PD, keep the findings of fact and principles and pass the remedy "hopefully Halo Jerk1 and WanderingWanda ...". Again, if the case is dismissed in its entirety because of Flyer22's death, especially with the wording used right now, it gives the impression that Flyer22 is the one and only editor whose conduct was problematic. Banedon (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  I didn't say "hopefully HaloJerk and Wandering Wanda will be able to work together now" nor did Worm or any other arb. I wrote, and standby If I thought that continuing with the two remaining parties was going to improve the project and be worth the drama of continuing, I might have suggested we continue even though we'd have been called insensitive (or worse). However, I don't think that bringing the case to resolution with two parties is going to reduce future conflict and I'd rather we try to be sensitive, which despite some criticism I think we're trying to be. for why not pass the 2 way.)) except I should have said "substantially reduce future conflict". The minimal future benefit, for me, did not and does not, come close to outweighing the present cost. So, at least for me, that's why I don't think it's correct to state that Flyer is the one and only editor whose conduct was problematic. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Banedon: I wouldn't worry that the case closure "gives th[at] impression", since the very fact that something had to be collapse-boxed in the current discussion dispels any such impression immediately, at least with regard to one party. As for any concerns that Halo_Jerk1 is going to be on some kind of aggrieved warpath (I don't see anyone saying that outright, but I've seen a whole lot of weird stuff on-site and on Wikipediocracy in the wake of all this), the indications I'm seeing in e-mail are that he's unwilling to engage at all with anyone who focused on providing evidence against Flyer22. I wouldn't be surprised if he simply didn't ever return to WP at all (though I am not Nostradamus). He's not even been inspired to add to the obit material at WP:Deceased Wikipedians/2021 or to make a statement in his own userspace (no edits at all since 24 September 2020, and he'd not been involved anywhere near to topic-area of dispute for much longer). I.e., there is no disruption from his quarter, and no indication there will be any. Any further disruption running in the other direction will pretty obviously be shut down rapidly, so there's no good rationale to re-open the case and close it with remedies. As I noted at AE, the fact that the draft mutual I-ban was unanimous among responding Arbs as of the closure of the case (and all those Arbs are uninvolved admins) constitutes multiple admin warnings about behavior, anyway. They don't have to be codified as a formal remedy to be meaningful to community assessment of any later disruption (WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY), with regard to either party, for the same reason that "drive-by" admin warnings/admonitions left at editors' talk pages, rather that coming as formal noticeboard closes, are also actionable.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

  The current announcement says "The Committee has received word that Flyer22 Frozen has passed away. Accordingly, the currently open case is dismissed." If Arbcom wants to say these other things that are being said here, I recommend changing this sentence. Banedon (talk) 23:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

  In addition to what others have said, Halo Jerk1 has barely edited in the past year, and AFAIK prior to this case his last interaction with WanderingWanda (let alone a dispute) was over a year ago. A dispute solely between those two editors would never have been accepted by ArbCom in the first place, and an interaction ban between just the two of them doesn't seem necessary, so it doesn't really make sense to proceed with just them. --Aquillion (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oh no. That's terrible. Loki (talk) 23:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• As someone who was made fully aware of the case not that long before the tragic news came, it's shocking to me in so many ways. GiggityGiggityGoo! 00:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• ARBCOM continues to put its collective foot in its mouth. Good grief. -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 09:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  I think that's a little unfair. Situations like this are, at the core, impossible to resolve in a way that leaves all parties content with the outcome. The human beings on the Arbcom are trying their best in what is a unique and difficult situation. I think we should cut everyone a little slack, and respectfully move on. QuiteUnusual (talk) 10:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  Agree wholeheartedly with QuietUnusual. The sentiment might be justified if arbcom had done something completely wack like still tried to sanction Flyer22. But that wasn't what happened here and whatever people may quibble about whether they should have done X or Y, someone would have always found fault with that decision. Nil Einne (talk) 12:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  Yes. However, there were serious problems in how this case proceeded, especially during Workshop, and also in the Proposed Decision phase. But this is neither the time nor the place to address them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  @SMcCandlish: Even if that is true, how is that "ARBCOM continues to put its collective foot in its mouth. Good grief."? That is the topic of discussion in this particular sub-thread. While Roxy the dog did not, and probably will not, offer further explanation, their comment seems to relate to how this was handled after the they found out. If you have some other issues, I suggest you make it elsewhere in this thread or maybe not at all, not here where specific issues are being discussed, unrelated to the earlier handling of the case . Nil Einne (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  After I say there are things needing to be addressed about this case but at another time and place, you then tell me that they need to be discussed at another time and place. Hmm. I think at least one of us needs a fresh cup of coffee. Well, I know I always do, so "a minimum of one" of us does. >;-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Very sad. Paul August ☎ 13:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• The world and Wikipedia are lesser places without her. Peace to her family and friends. Jip Orlando (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• The timing of this... wow, very sad and unfortunate. Just incredibly sad. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 03:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Terrible, horrible, news. With regard to ARBCOM, I think they took the best of the distinctly poor set of options they were presented with. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• What a horrid, tragic development. Flyer22 was, in so many ways, a remarkable Wikimedian. Yes, she was passionate —you might even say hot-blooded —and it manifested in just how much she cared about this project and its core mission. She will be sorely missed. Kurtis ^(talk) 06:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Not getting into the emotional stuff, but just the case. I looked into the case some, and a spent quite a few hours thinking and writing about it and crafting an entry to the case page.

But I didn't post it. I didn't make the deadline. The rules about what is a principle and what is a statement of fact, whether its necessary to post diffs and stuff at the Evidence page (which was already closed) and point to it, or if you can include it on the main page, and a bunch of other stuff like that. IANAL and it's daunting, and you've got make it punchy and cogent as possible and that takes time, so in the end I didn't quite make the deadline, Got my local time mixed up with UTC and all. Oh well.

Anyway, what I was going to recommend was a topic ban for WanderingWanda, for sex stuff generally. At least. An interaction ban, fine whatever it's moot now, but wasn't going to stop the toxic... editing, which is what is needed here. Anyway it's my understanding that the ArbCom is "on it" in some manner so we don't have to worry about that anymore. Sure hope so.

There's no bad guys here. Everyone involved is or was a good person trying to do their best according to their ability to understand that. I understand why the ArbCom dismissed the case. It's a natural response. Maybe would have done the same myself. No reprimand to ArbCom, OK? You guys work hard, do your best, it's fine. As long as we get a topic ban or de facto equivalent. Right? Herostratus (talk) 13:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure. I don't know of anyone trying to "reprimand" ArbCom. Rather, the process has to change. More like, change back to what it was, when ArbCom actually enforced length limits and evidentiary expectations, so a case doesn't turn into a machine gun of wild accusations and smears. This case highlights why such rules and their enforcement are important, but it is not the cause of why they're important, nor was them not being enforced the cause of this case's off-wiki and final outcome, as it were, just of a lot of entirely unnecessary drama for someone in their last days. It's an example, a case study, of why proper ArbCom process matters. None of this is about "make these individual Arbs feel bad", but rather "this is more broken than we thought, and it needs fixing badly". As for "there's no bad guys here", I'll reiterate that acting in bad faith is not a precondition of someone's behavior being disruptive. I think you get that already, though, given what you say you were going to propose. I'm sure that all the participants in this case subjectively felt righteous and that they were doing something important for Wikipedia and/or the world (and some seem to want to push that angle further and rather too strenuously [6] [7], at their own peril). But they cannot all actually be objectively correct about that, as the community will make very clear to some of them over time. One has to drop Manichean thinking on Wikipedia. Beyond short-terms trolls and vandals, very few objectively bad actors (persons who produce a net-negative result for the project, or a segment thereof such as a topic area) are subjectively bad actors (here with the intent to cause harm or chaos, or to push an inimical agenda).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm working on some ideas, just for myself at the moment, about arbitration reform. I have a question for current and former members of the committee about the workshops. Do you read them, and to what extent, if any, do you find them useful? If anyone is willing to share their views, that would be very helpful. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I read them during my term. Their utility varied pretty widely, depending on whether the author appeared to be exhibiting some bias, their writing ability, and their understanding/interpretation of policy. Some were strong enough that when drafting, I pulled directly from the workshop for the final proposed decision (I don't recall which cases offhand, sorry), but even in cases where I didn't do that, I usually at least found them to be a good sampling of the community's take on a case, and worth looking at for that alone. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I'd echo PMC's points. I read them all, but how much use they are varies. I've seen some excellent suggestions come out, I've seen analysis of evidence change the way I'm thinking. I've seen arbs post an entire PD with good results. However, in more cases than not, I've found little or nothing useful in the workshop. I have considered in the past whether the cathartic element of being able to actually express what you think should happen is a benefit to parties - allowing them to move on.

Those positives being covered, I would say that I do not generally find workshops useful, and were it just my decision, I'd be removing or restructuring the phase. I'll also mention that the committee is actively discussing reforms and I'm sure any ideas you have would be welcome by email. Worm^TT(talk) 08:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Workshops should be better than they are. My preference would be for all cases to be worked up in the Workshop and not in private (either at home or on the Arb website). For cases to be worked up in two different places, with the community (and sometimes the Committee) not seeing what direction the case drafters are taking because they are working in private, and for case drafters and the rest of the Committee not to have a complete picture because suggestions are happening in two different places is a waste of time and resources. Unless there are privacy concerns, the Committee should be using the Workshop, and working with the community. It is not a case of Committee = Good, Community = Bad, so lets keep the community out of it. If there are concerns about personal attacks occurring in the Workshop, then that should be dealt with by dealing with the personal attacks, not by removing the Workshop. If the concern is that the Committee is not using the resource appropriately, then let us as a community encourage the Committee to use that resource appropriately rather than remove it. SilkTork (talk) 10:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

My opinion is that the workshop is a pit to allow the parties to keep on throwing mud at each other away from the building of the encyclopedia. Rarely, someone will write a decent proposed decision there that I could use to build a PD. My opinion has long been that it should be dropped or seriously reformed --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 15:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

So you're saying...you're workshopping some potential improvements? I'll see myself out... ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 15:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

In my limited time on the committee thus far, I found the workshop suggestions from uninvolved parties much more valuable. When an editor presents evidence in one direction and then proposes a remedy that's an obvious extension of that—well, there's nothing wrong with it, but it adds very little. I can see the positives (place to let off steam) and negatives (inflaming existing tensions) to such an approach. I'll also second the invitation to share your thoughts via email. --BDD (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

More or less what Worm said. I read them, but what (limited) value they have are as a place for people to raise issues that are relevant but had for whatever reason not been included in evidence, and as a place for people to engage in discussion with the people involved (both the parties and the arbs) in a moderated environment instead of on talkpages where comments are liable to be jumped on by opponents. As a mechanism for proposed resolutions, which is nominally the official purpose, the workshop phase is a pointless time-sink which as far as I'm aware has never once had the slightest impact on any Arbcom decision. ‑ Iridescent 18:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Also always read the workshops, found them a mixed bag. The best proposals were usually from people familiar with the facts of a dispute but not directly involved. I do like the general concept of separating "what happened" (evidence) from "what should we do about it" (workshop), and think the effect is to make the evidence page much better at the cost of moving a lot of the less-useful things people have on their minds to the workshop. I also wouldn't underestimate the ha-ha-only-serious point that the workshop serves as the temporary Argument Isolation Chamber while the arbs work through the PD - a genuinely intractable dispute isn't going to just disappear in the interim, and at least the workshop and case talk pages help keep it out of the rest of the project. I wouldn't drop the workshop concept entirely but I'd consider replacing the "write a proposed proposed decision" format with a much briefer and more goal-oriented structure - everybody gets a short section to describe what they hope to see as a final outcome, no threaded discussion, no back-and-forthery, you still get a chance to say your piece but you don't get to start or continue arguments. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

SarahSV, being through two arbcases in one year, I have a list started at User:SandyGeorgia/Arbcom processes, setup and instructions for whenever workshopping proposals happens. I have fallen behind because my husband just had surgery; if there are questions about anything I have there, please get my attention via a post to the talk page of that subpage. Two factors are most striking to me: a) most arbcom processes are not nearly as clear as folks think they are, and b) people are able to cast aspersions on arb case pages, based on zero evidence, zero diffs. Also, countering WTT's "the cathartic element of being able to actually express what you think should happen is a benefit to parties - allowing them to move on" ... I see the opposite. The Workshop results in an increase in hard feelings and grudges that may be visited upon one for adding evidence, actually complicating things after the case closes. Another point: historically, there were not word limits on evidence, so there was no need for the extended mudslinging in the less formal environment at Workshop. When participants are constrained in presenting evidence, spillover to workshop occurs. Look at older cases for the differences. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Just to spitball what my experience has been: it's almost always a good thing when the drafting Arbs post an early draft of the PD on the Workshop page, because you can get feedback before you actually post the PD. It's really better to get the blow-back earlier rather than later, because you can get insights from it and make use of it, which is better than everyone complaining after the case is over that you botched it. And Workshops need to be more actively policed by both the Arbs and the Clerks. Please remember: that was a significant part of the feedback that you got from the RfC about harassment etc. There should be less tolerance of last-word-ism, and it's a good place for Arbs to tell participating editors "we could use more about X and less about Y". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. I was thinking of waiting a couple of weeks, then proposing that the workshop stage be abandoned. It significantly increases the stress to the party at the centre of the case, because it means the pressure is relentless: from request to acceptance to evidence to workshop to proposed decision to closure. This means several weeks under the spotlight, with no representation. The argument I've seen from Arbs in the past (I will try to find a recent diff of this) is that no one is forcing us to edit, we can always walk away, but it isn't reasonable to ask that of someone who has spent years helping to build this encyclopaedia. So I would say the workshops need to go, not as the only reform, but as a first step. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

As Worm mentioned we're discussing reforms and one option that we are discussing is abandoning it. Knowing that was your proposal was helpful (as was Iri's comment above to a similar sentiment). If there are editors who really believe in the value of the workshop (as SilkTork/Trypto have indicated) I would love to hear from them too. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Barkeep, thank you for asking. Here is a brief reply. I like Opabinia's idea, just above, about making the Workshop page a place to propose versions of the PD, but not as a place to argue ad infinitum. (But I'd add that it remains valuable to have someplace, somewhere, to analyze evidence, particularly if it can be done sans last-word-ism.) For all the noise that undeniably occurs, the fact is that, sometimes, editors can provide something that the Arbs actually find useful. To go back a few years (and to be entirely self-serving!), when I was the filing party in the GMO case, I suggested language for the Principles that was well-received and ended up in the final decision. An example was a variation on the "Purpose of Wikipedia": link. It would be a net-negative to lose that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Adding a related example from the same case. Kingofaces43 workshopped language about "aspersions" that not only was used in the final decision, but that has evolved into a widely-accepted idea: link. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning that Trypto. As an FYI for others, that was a time where myself and others were dealing with harassment in the GMO topic or editors egging it on in admin boards until we had to go to ArbCom. A lot didn't get done in that case at the time, so the air was already being sucked out of the room with everything else going on. The workshop phase really helped bring the WP:ASPERSIONS issue to the forefront in a more controlled environment (relatively I guess compared to ANI), and I don't think we would have got the principle crafted without it.

It was that principle that ultimately helped to remove other problematic editors from the subject that didn't get handled in the original case, so there is something to be said for workshops, as imperfect as they are, for allowing some key issues to float to the top. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I've thought of another specific example of how Workshops can be useful to the Committee, and this one is relatively recent. In the Medicine case, David Fuchs workshopped some sort-of experimental ideas of how to deal with such a case in ways that hadn't been tried previously: link. The ideas got some negative feedback, and were not pursued further in the PD. I don't know what would have happened if there had not been a Workshop phase at all, nor do I know how the rest of the Committee would have voted on those ideas. But if the ideas had been first proposed on the PD page without having had a Workshop, there would have been a risk that the Committee might have passed them and then regretted having done so. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I should add: sometimes, new and creative ideas are a very good thing, and it is desirable to workshop them in order to bring them to fruition. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Yep, we're having an internal "pre-discussion" discussion on the matter. The workshop phase was just invented out of thin air in 2009. It is not mandated or even defined in any policy or procedure, so all options are on the table. We weren't going to ask for community input just yet, but since we're here, pleas bring it on. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The workshop phase was just invented out of thin air in 2009. huh? I was unceremoniously hauled to a 2008 Arb case (now banned editor) that had a workshop. But what is most noticeable to me in both that case, and a 2009 case in which I participated, is that the workshops were less toxic because full evidence could be presented in the Evidence phase, sans word limits. To be caught in the middle of two now-banned editors, because I tried to mediate was unpleasant enough; I was fortunate that others were able to present thorough evidence without word limits, as I never would have been able to do it all myself. I would have left. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, the earliest workshop I can find was in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alfrem/Workshop, July 2005, although it wasn't used. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe we need a "history of arbcom" page to keep all this stuff straight, I was going by what a more experienced arb had said in our internal discussion. I didn't really even know what arbcom was that long ago. Whatever the date they were not standard practice before 2009. It seems originally they were used for the arbs themselves to workshop their own proposals before formalizing a proposed decision, a function that has largely moved to the closed arb wiki, ushering in the modern free-for-all that workshops are now. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

In theory, I've thought it was a good idea to separate collections of diffs documenting certain actions or classes of actions from interpretation of these actions. In practice, the evidence and workshop pages are not clerked to enforce this separation, and it's not clear to me that the effort to separate it would provide sufficient payoff. So from a participants' perspective, perhaps it would be simpler to have a single page for submissions, with appropriate subsections within each person's section. From the arbitrators' perspective, personally I think it is beneficial for them to be able to workshop ideas, in order to gain more feedback. However, as I believe in letting those doing the work figure out what ways work best for them, I leave it to the arbitration committee to decide if, for example, discussion during the proposed decision phase is sufficient for its needs. isaacl (talk) 21:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

edit conflict

This is important I think. "...it means the pressure is relentless..." I think there is a grave difference between what the arbs find useful and the impact arbitrations have on editors. Perhaps those two issues should be delineated. Editors brought to arbitration are not always guilty and even if they are our community is collaborative and it is not punitive so presumedly our interest should be not in punishment but in integrating editors who have had problems back into the community. Falsely accused editors and those with issues that have been identified should not feel burnt out after an arbitration. Nor should the arbs feel overwhelmed. Our community is much larger than it was when Arbitrations were designed. They have become a means to assess guilt but in fact guilt is hard to identify for many reasons: Diffs the means we have of deciding who has made mistakes are not always accurate. Diffs are by their nature taken out of context and may not mean what they appear to mean. Decisions are being made about behaviors and three dimensional actions are being assessed in a two dimensional format and platform. There is huge pressure as evidence is open to anyone and an editor wonders who will show up next to attack them and the pool of potential editors who can post has grown since arbitration was developed 20 years ago. The whole thing is so overblown that I doubt Arbs even feel they can read everything closely. And because of that mistakes are made. I have had an arb accuse me of something which was a misreading of a word-date for data. I've watched well-meaning editors railroaded and overwhelmed then ready to leave. All this means to me is that the format for arbitrations needs to change, needs to be updated. This doesn't mean that those who have had problems shouldn't have to face their transgressions but I think we can do it so neither arbs or editors are burnt out at the end of the process. Newer editors often have no clue as to what they should do and are at a disadvantage when facing accusations from experienced editors. We have to fix that too if we want to hold on to our editors.

I have ideas about how to adjust arbitration but I'll stay out of that for now until Slim Virgin has a chance to move on her concerns. Littleolive oil (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Littleolive oil, by all means go ahead. I'd be very interested in your ideas. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• I'll quote what I said when this was first raised on a user talk page. The Workshop "seems to accomplish nothing whatsoever except to engender massive amounts of ill-will, to enable dogpile harassment, and to permit circumvention of the evidence word count limits by posting it at the workshop. The Arbs did not need walls of text from the rabble, and never have. This would really streamline the process and make it much less of a hell than it currently is."
  Sure, that's strongly worded, but it's honestly how I feel. It's a mess of endless squabbling that does not help solve the problem but makes it worse. Maybe instead the evidence phase could be slightly expanded to allow 500 words of rebuttal on top of the 500 words of evidence to replace the "analysis of evidence" function, and keep a reasonable limit on it, if that is thought beneficial. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• Beeblebrox, when I said I was planning to propose the abolition of workshops, I meant I was planning to propose it to the community. If the committee is willing to get rid of them first, that's excellent news. Apart from that, I wonder whether we should host a community discussion to gather as many ideas as possible and perhaps even involve the WMF. For example, (a) could we develop a dispute-resolution wiki; (b) could we introduce a notion of "standing" so that it's not a free-for-all; (c) do we even need an arbitration committee? Everything should be on the table. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• As both a former arbitrator and outside observer, I think removing the workshops entirely would be a very serious detriment to the arbitration process. For the cases I've followed (both as an arb and as a normal editor) I read nearly every word of the workshop and every arbitrator active on a case should be doing exactly that. This doesn't mean they should continue exactly as is, but there does need to be somewhere where
  • Evidence can be analysed. Analyses, especially by uninvolved editors, are frequently useful and can evidence gaps in evidence. It can also shed light on differences of opinion/interpretation.
  • Ideas for principles, findings of fact and remedies can be suggested, again those by uninvolved editors are frequently (but not exclusively) the most valuable.
  • Arbs can provide feedback (this is not done anywhere nearly enough)
  • Decisions can be drafted and feedback given before one appears out of thin air, which can be perceived as a fait accomplis (there was one recentish case, although I forget which, where one aspect of the PD indicated that something key had been misinterpreted/misunderstood by the arbitrators). Public drafting used to be the norm and the trend away from that has been one of the worst changes in recent years.

  However, above all it needs to be moderated (by arbs and clerks) much more firmly than it is at present. Aspersions, whataboutism, personal attacks, and similar must be removed promptly. Repetition and off topic discussions need to be closed and hatted. People disrupting the process need to be managed (page blocks from the workshop should be routine for disruption, personal attacks, etc.). And arbitrators need to be actively commenting and managing the case at all stages (i.e. what the majority of people asked for during the harassment rfc). Thryduulf (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with everything Thryduulf said. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Editors can find the policy on how to change things like this at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Ratification and amendment, probably the last sentence. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The community is ultimately in control of this, especially so if a large number were to comment. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually, the workshop falls under procedures, and can be changed by the Committee without community ratification. Primefac (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, unless I've missed something, there is nothing in the policy or the procedures about workshops. The community can change that through the ratification process, but that's a very involved process, whereas the committee can make new procedures by a simple vote. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I didn't mean the committee couldn't change it, and I hope they do. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• Arbitration workshops are like any other part of an arbitration case: they're only as good as the sum total of participants. Cases I've written or co-written have run the gamut from being fully workshopped on-wiki to being drafted off-wiki and posted, depending on the case. Likewise there have been times when I've found the workshop rather useless for useful input to put into a decision, to highly useful, either in running ideas up the flagpole for feedback, or adapting language or suggestions from parties or uninvolved editors. I think the discretion of drafting arbs on whether they think it will be helpful is all that is needed. As a final note to emphasize what has already been pointed out, case procedure is an ArbCom matter. The community hasn't and doesn't decide the form cases take beyond the framework of WP:ARBPOL. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Largely agree with SV here. There's been dozens of studies finding people suffer intense stress from online attacks. Having folk pile on online is "devastating because we've evolved in an environment in which having 20 people pile on you might have been a death sentence" Some of our best editors seems to spend much of their free time here, investing years of effort into Wikipedia, and in some cases likely having more close relationships with fellow editors than anywhere else in their lives. There's all sorts of psychological reasons why it would be impossible for them to walk away even in the face of extreme stress – and even if they could, the risk of loneliness from leaving one of their primary sources of social engagement could be just as dangerous as the stress. Of course, all this is only true for some. Others would be little affected by being a party to even the most fierce Arb case and / or could easily walk away from the project. But if we're serious about retaining a diverse set of editors we should take the need of the more sensitive into account.

That said, as ever there's a balance to be had. It would be disruptive to try too hard to reduce the scope for criticism and rebuke, no matter how distressing some find it. Some direct criticism is essential for community health, otherwise we'd have far more passive aggression and damaging behaviour. And if we solutionise/ bureaucratise too much, it could make it easier for non-hobbyist accounts to influence events. Im of the view that our current structure isn't too far from the best possible setup, and don't agree that clerks should be more heavy handed in restricting discussion, IMO they're largely getting it right. But it would be good to reduce the overall time when parties are under the microscope. Maybe getting rid of the workshop is the best way to achieve that – though if so it may be best if elements of workshop function are allowed in the Evidence phase, including reasonable tolerance of analyses sections on the talk page (all be it with no expectation that Arbs have to read everything posted on talk). Littleolive makes a good point about falsely accused editors, it was great that Arbs exonerated such a party last year, and it might be worthwhile to have Exoneration as a standard remedy.

As others have suggested, in the case of feuds, a simple no fault 2 way iban might be much better than an Arb case. The chance for a fairer and more refined remedy rarely seems worth the stress & community time. Again even ibans aren't something to overdo – some apparent feuds are highly disruptive, some are more accurately seen as productive rivalries. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

About stress, maybe "Arb-stress" should be a subset of "wiki-stress". But I think it's a mistake to pin it on the arbitration procedure. There's stress in having a WP:ANI thread that stays open for days and grows to a wall of text without resolving anything. I can speak from personal experience in saying that there are cases where good faith editors undergo undeserved stress that the community repeatedly fails to resolve. Sometimes, ArbCom just has to rip off the band-aid. It may not feel good, but someone has to do it. But here's a radical suggestion: if editors just worked together peaceably, there wouldn't be any stress in the first place (and, of course, I want a unicorn for my birthday). --Tryptofish (talk) 19:25, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, I have always looked at workshops before coming up with a proposed decision. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Taking Thryduulf's bullets in turn, and viewing the Workshop phase as well-meaning experiment that has turned out poorly:

• Evidence analysis: Could this not be folded into the Evidence phase, where it seemingly belongs? Perhaps this should be done on the Evidence talk page, which I believe is already "anti-threaded", which should reduce the propensity for round-in-circles argument. If one feels a need to rebut, it has to be presented as a clear statement, not an inline reply, since people are not apt to skip back and forth between sections comparing what party A said to what party B is saying in reply. To the extent such a reply would reiterate what party B has already said, and length limits would presumably apply, this should curtail excessive repetition. Alternatively, I suppose this could be done at the Workshop talk page, under similarly restrictive conditions. That might work better if the closure of the Evidence page should also result in closure of its talk page to further input, though that seems more bureaucratic than necessary, really. I get an impression that the Arbs consider this analysis process to be of intrinsic value, but presently kind of wrecked by it turning into an interminable flamewar. That seems fixable. It could even be fixable by keeping at the Workshop page and imposing similar length and anti-threading rules. Though one wonders why it would have a talk page at all, then.
• Ideas for principles, findings, and remedies: This does seem to be the main original point of the Workshop, and is potentially a good reason to retain it in some (very limited) form. I sometimes wonder, though, how often Arbs actually draw from these proposals. Yes, it can happen, as shown by examples above, but on average it doesn't seem to have much effect. Is occasional usefulness worth the cost? In combination with the "endless flaming" problem above this seems to be the cause of what SV (see excellent quote below) described as "intensify[ing] disputes, rather than giving people a rest and allowing time for the strong feelings to die down".
• Arbs' own input/feedback: Well, they can do that anywhere, and yes they should do it more often.
• Decision drafting: This is basically the Arb half of ideas for principles, findings, and remedies. This presently seems to mostly take place on in arbcom-en email and on the Proposed Decision page. I agree that more public drafting is better, and I suppose Arbs can use their section at Workshop to do early versions of this, and that's another reason to keep a bare-bones Workshop, but really the Proposed Decision seems to mostly be the page for this, at least with regard to draft decision stuff that has already had some inter-Arb discussion and is likely to be voted upon without a lot of re-drafting.

Regardless, I'm not opposed to SV's idea of just eliminating the workshop phase. One way or another, I think the most important changes would be an end to non-stop threaded argument, and a re-commitment to not permitting wild aspersions (if someone posts an accusation without evidence, or with "evidence" that doesn't support the accusation, they should be made a party on the spot and considered for findings and remedies themselves). This would also reduce the frequency of drive-by dogpiling behavior. ArbCom should work more like its offshoot, AE, where BOOMERANGs fly with wild abandon. With ArbCom being loosely modeled on a court, consider that random-ass people in a courtroom's peanut gallery are not permitted to interject. Even if someone is a party or witness or counsel, there is order in their presentation, limits to what they may present, and potential serious repercussions for treating the proceedings like a rally or a party or street fight.

A side matter: It should be easier, during the initial Request phase and up to closure of Evidence phase, to add parties. I'm not sure I care how ("you can make yourself a party, then add others as parties", or whatever). It was clear to many of us that "WanderWanda and Flyer22" was just a proxy fight for a much broader dispute involving around a dozen editors (probably 2/3 of whom participated in Evidence and/or Workshop; the rest were "studiously absent" given the probability of having evidence about their behavior presented). This case has done nothing at all to resolve that broader conflict, and may have even exacerbated it, so we're just going to have to do this all over again, next week or next month or next year, depending on how quickly it gets out of hand again (I'll wager 3 months or sooner). This is not the first time that this sort of thing has happened. It may be tempting and seemingly "easy" (how'd what work out for ya?) to accept an "Editor A not getting along with Editor B" case with what clearly appears to have been a pre-determined two-way I-ban result. But it's not often this is the real nature of the case, or it would have already resulted in said I-ban long before reaching ArbCom's collective desk.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, a lot of good ideas here. Right now the Workshop is the Wild West and it needs to stop. It also became a wall of text. It needs to be way pared down or eliminated (preferably the latter, in my view). Crossroads ^-talk- 05:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Previous discussion

I've found the previous exchange I was looking for earlier. It was in March 2019 with Opabinia regalis, Littleolive oil and others. I wrote:

The introduction of the workshop page was one of the worst things to happen to arbitration, in my view. The intentions were good, but the effect was to intensify disputes, rather than giving people a rest and allowing time for the strong feelings to die down between the evidence phase and the decision. Now after the dispute itself and perhaps an AN/I, we have a lengthy RfAr, followed by the evidence phase, followed by the workshop, followed almost immediately by the decision and the lengthy voting. It's too much to expect anyone to tolerate. I think these cases are affecting people's mental and physical health, and that we really ought to sort it out.

Opabinia wrote:

Ultimately, arbcom cases are back-office stuff about people being wrong on the internet. If people's health is being affected by their participation in an internet project, that's as clear a sign as anyone could ask for that it's time to step back, arbcom case or not - nothing here, and certainly not an arbcom case, is worth anyone risking their health to participate.

That seems to say that if, as parties, we find an ArbCom case distressing and that it's making us sick, we should just walk away, despite the years of work we've put into the place. It leaves the consequences of our poor dispute-resolution system entirely at the door of the parties. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't read that at all as "we should just walk away, despite the years of work we've put into the place". From the context, it's clear that what Opabinia was saying is that if involvement in a particular dispute is getting you so upset you feel sick, one ought to back off that particular area. In most situations on Wikipedia this is sound advice; situations where the presence or absence of a single individual is going to have a significant impact on how a given issue is treated are rare. Yes, it has the potential to turn heated disputes on topics about which a few people feel strongly but most people don't care into battles between which side can bully the other side into silence (did somebody say "infobox"?). However, for the overwhelming majority of the situations which come before Arbcom, "just because you feel this is a worthy cause doesn't mean you need to be a martyr, just present your evidence and back off until the dust settles" is good advice. ‑ Iridescent 05:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Opabinia wrote: "If people's health is being affected by their participation in an internet project, that's as clear a sign as anyone could ask for that it's time to step back, arbcom case or not ...". Note "arbcom case or not". You can't "present your evidence and back off until the dust settles" if you're a party and particularly if you're the sole party and you're highly distressed. We can say "don't be distressed", but that's no use either. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

During my two terms I was in favor of starting the draft PD on the workshop and did that myself at times. But there definitely needs to be stricter patrolling by Arbs and clerks. Doug Weller talk 11:16, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

The base line issue is not that there shouldn't be constructive criticism but that overwhelming an editor or arb is not productive both for editors and the community as a whole. Since Sarah asked for thoughts on this issue as a a whole, here we go.

Evidence phase: This phase allows for multiple editors to pile into the arbitration. Single editors have to read the posts and defend themselves against possibly 20-30-40 editors. And yes, editors presenting evidence have to be watched for accurate information.

Solution: Limit editors presenting evidence to a specific number selected by the the defending editor or editors and a specific number selected by the editor who brought the case.

Comment: Much evidence now is redundant and repetitive. We can be more succinct in how we design the arbitration. With fewer posts editors may also be able to present contextual information; arbitrations are two-dimensional, technology-driven situations but we are dealing with real people, their Wikipedia work and their lives; context matters.

Format: Once an arb becomes aware of the evidence and feel they understand the issues they should ask questions. Editors should be allowed to address specific concerns, to even know what the concerns are, to defend themselves. This is especially important with newer editors who are at an arbitration for a first time, who aren't sure what Wikipedia aspects they should address to defend themselves.

Tone of arbitration: Stress levels should be contained as much as possible. Arbs should be treated with respect whether we like what they say or not. Editors should be treated with kindness and respect whether we think they are "guilty" or not. All personal attacks, affronts, in fact what doesn't support a non- damaging atmosphere should be removed. After the first removal and editor can rewrite the content and repost, after the second, content is removed and cannot be rewritten. If there is a third issue the editor should be removed.

Workshop phase. Once again why are multiple editors, anyone off the street, allowed to pile into the arbitration; we don't need every opinion on the site. I would wonder if we control the evidence phase, a workshop would be easier on everyone. I would apply the same criteria to the workshop phase: Limit who can post. I wouldn't be against limiting the workshop to the arbs, or doing away with it. The value of a workshop seems to be for transparency to understand how solutions are reached. Is it possible that a very transparent evidence page would be enough. If not, it seems to me that we are sacrificing editors and perhaps arbs to allow every man/woman and his or her dog to take part. The result is fatigued editors and in some cases productive editors who leave Wikipedia.

Add: Arbs are not judges they're arbitrating situations on behavior between editors. They make mistakes in part because it's not always easy to see a whole picture and they should be able to deal with mistakes with out community attacks. It might be that there should be a question phase where the editor can address the arbs once a decision is drafted. Right now I know of no appeals on Wikipedia that really work or even mean anything. Arbs shouldn't have to reread a case again including an AE case. At the same time, how are potential mistakes addressed, and believe me, mistakes are made, editors are hurt, and those mistakes are responsible for editors leaving Wikipedia. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• I want to be clear that while I know where the problems are I don't have solutions. I like to brainstorm and to see what happens when the collective wikipedia intelligence comes together. Littleolive oil (talk) 02:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

  Back when there was a request for comments on the effects of the arbitration process on editor retention, I suggested having co-ordinators to collect evidence and feedback from all interested parties, and then present the collected information concisely on the case pages. This should help reduce the amount of time individuals need to spend on a case, saving everyone time and making it easier to follow the latest updates. isaacl (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Using "coordinators" or otherwise limiting who submits evidence will in effect be having a form of advocate, would it not? From my limited knowledge of how arbitration works elsewhere, I would think they almost always have advocates and witnesses.
  • While I found the threaded disagreements in this last arbitration to be problematic, I found the workshop to be essential. I believe the arbitrators will need analysis of evidence from those who are experienced with the editors and/or facts in the dispute. I was disappointed that there was not more participation from arbitrators, and I wanted to see commentary on the proposed findings of fact especially. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

    My suggestion was for the supporters of each major viewpoint to select a co-ordinator to represent their point of view. With all of the collected info on a working page, participants would be able to work with each co-ordinator on placing appropriate weight and context for all lines of argument. isaacl (talk) 00:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

    Ok, so in this scenario anyone may participate, but there is an extra step where coordinators work with editors to organize the evidence into one presentation. Would that be the same as if we left the evidence phase as it is but the coordinators followed by workshopping the proposed findings of fact? Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

    One has to be careful not to lose out on input from uninvolved editors who might not be obvious participants, but who have something valuable to offer, and also that editors who have useful input not be shut out by others who have conflicting agendas. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

    Yes, each different significant aspect should have a co-ordinator selected. Because the information is collected on working pages, the effectiveness of the presentations by the co-ordinators can be verified. There could be an option for individual submissions, perhaps upon agreement by the co-ordinators that there is a gap that needs to be covered. isaacl (talk) 02:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

    My suggestion was to avoid the need for everyone to read the working pages, and instead for there to be a concise presentation of a given viewpoint, whether it consists of evidence, analysis, or proposed principles, findings, and remedies. Thus this isn't quite the same as having co-ordinators only involved with a workshop page. isaacl (talk) 02:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes I agree. Where's the middle ground? Littleolive oil (talk) 01:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, you found the workshop essential, but it wasn't about you. How differently might you feel if you were at the centre of such a thing?

A key issue is how long the process lasts. The request for arbitration in Flyer's case was made on 5 December 2020, and she died on 16 January. That's around 40 days of watching yourself be picked apart. It isn't reasonable to expect unpaid volunteers to go through this, especially not without help or representation, and after they've devoted years to Wikipedia. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I certainly hope my position is unique, and that very few other editors have been through what I have ... but considering what I have been exposed to via arbcases, this talk of co-ordinators and such makes me very nervous. I was unceremoniously and completely gratuitously hauled before ArbCom in 2008, to be completely absolved, after I got caught in a jar full of now-banned editors, as I was trying to mediate between them. The things that were said about me in that case were quite horrific, I was equated to a prostitute and more, and the situation was made worse by admins who were after my head for unrelated reasons. My only salvation in that case was the number of other editors who presented evidence on my behalf, as the situation was so shocking and distressing that I was overwhelmed, yet understood the serious need to defend myself by gathering the facts. And second, this year, an arb who first refused to recuse, but later did, put up findings about me on a Workshop page for which not only were no diffs provided-- no such diffs exist, as no such issues have ever occurred. Period. Please don't do anything in this restructuring/workshop that will prevent a vigorous defense when one is overwhelmed and under fire. Do not restrict the ability of others to help. Speaking as a victim of a gratuitous arbcase, where there were no findings about my conduct, but the others are banned, I can say that feedback, whether via Workshop or Evidence, is helpful and a crucial part of the whole messy thing; I could not have done it alone. And finally, the most effective parts of the most recent case were questions from arbs during workshop, where clarification could be provided. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that no one can navigate an arbitration case alone and therein lies a problem for editors with little Wikipedia experience or friends. How do they deal with an arbitration? Sandy, if you an experienced editor had such a horrendous experience what about those with no experience. We need answers here and maybe the answer is we don't need an arbitration committee or arbitrations at all. And your situation is not unique which may be why we're here. Just brainstorming again. Littleolive oil (talk) 02:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I was a relatively new editor then. And the arbs got it right, which ultimately helped, in all cases. And most often, the problem with experienced editors is that their “friends” led them astray. How to make the process easier is the dilemma. I, perhaps, will never fully recover from what was done to me, as I often realize that the experience still affects me, but I also have faith in the arbs and the process which eventually sorts it all out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

ANI, AE, and arbitration all have different structures and none of them work particularly well IMO. Similar to what Sandy said about the arbitration workshop, in my experience at AE, I found the case to be much more productive once administrators asked me questions before stating their conclusions. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The idea is that rather than five people repeating similar evidence from slightly different perspectives, a consolidated statement regarding one particular viewpoint is presented. Hopefully this reduces anxiety as a party doesn't have to read certain complaints over and over, and has a moderating influence on the language used. It wouldn't stop anyone from presenting evidence or from providing assistance; it would just minimize redundancy and avoid unduly antagonistic statements. isaacl (talk) 03:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Friends: Those that help the editor successfully navigate an arbitration, are helpful to the editor in understanding the arbitration. Littleolive oil (talk) 04:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I absolutely agree that the process is slow and difficult - and when I draft cases, I try to overlap the workshop and evidence to reduce the timeline. However, equally we need to be aware that people are not beholden to wikipedia, and may not be available to take part in the case - where their thoughts would be particularly valuable. People regularly ask for time extensions, and I, for one, am generally pretty happy to grant some - real life should take precedence. It also doesn't help that the case was over the holiday period - which slows things down too.

As for representation, I'm loathed to go down the route of wiki-advocates, but alternatives would be no one can advocate for others - or status quo, where it happens ad hoc. Worm^TT(talk) 09:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

WTT, would you say more about how you feel about advocates? (I'm not sure what to think.) Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, I'm trying to think if there is any benefit in a role of someone who is a) familiar with Arbcom processes and b) is willing to help a user facing the process. They would be able to guide that user through the process, hopefully lessening the stress put upon them. What's more, they'll be able to let the committee know if the user is particularly struggling outside the process.

What I'm loathed to do is create more roles, more hats for people to wear that have nothing to do with the important part of creating an encyclopedia. So, it's something that would probably have to fit under an existing role - perhaps an arbitrator could recuse from the case to take it on, or a clerk? I'm also not looking for a "prosecuting or defence lawyer" style role - I don't want to turn Arbcom more into a court - but rather someone who's just looking out for the person in the process.

I've been thinking of the human element in these cases - and actually, when you consider Arbcom a "disciplinary committee", which unfortunately we are for some cases, there's good arguments that we shouldn't be considering those cases in public. Equally, our wiki way is that everything (where possible) should be public for transparency and recording of history. There's no easy answer here. Worm^TT(talk) 11:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

WTT, I wouldn't want to see the case become less public. I'm not familiar with your experience, but I was frustrated with the proposed decision phase where it appeared to me that arbitrators had kept their discussions off-wiki.

I think everyone agrees that we want more civility, which would necessitate more active participation from arbitrators or clerks, and perhaps different standards for threaded discussions. I think it would be a great idea for clerk(s) to support the parties to a case. Users who are less experienced should be able to bring a case to arbitration without struggling with the process. I feel that to better build an encyclopedia we need to improve the working environment here, but I'm not sure what the answer is, and I understand the resistance to creating more bureaucracy.

I am hearing some support for asking questions of the participants. How do you feel about that piece? Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC) add, reformat Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, I could definitely see benefit to restructuring the workshop to be a combination of analysis of evidence and clarifications / questions from arbitrators. Worm^TT(talk) 12:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut, I hear what you're saying but I admit to being skeptical about the sinecure of "Arbs draft the decision in the workshop". First there would have to be a culture of allowing arbs to make mistakes. I'm not sure we have that culture and so the arbs are pressured to refine their ideas off wiki so that they are a certain level of polish and acceptance before they come on wiki. Like there is benefit to an arb writing a statement and then seeing, with the collaboration of the other drafting arb(s) whether that's a good way of interpreting the evidence. If that's not and the it's been drafted offwiki, no harm. If that happens onwiki we've hurt an editor without cause.

But let's presume that would still happen off wiki. So now the Proposed Decision is presented at the workshop. Feedback is offered and taken, the draft is improved. What ends up at the proposed decision is now better. However, that improvement also means that things are that less likely to be changed there. And there are editors, and this was me for some cases pre-arb, who checkout during the workshop and become re-engaged during the PD. So now we have a situation where we're being criticized for proposed decisions that are really final decisions because we don't change the PD all that much. Is that a better status quo? I think not but would be intrigued to hear from those who think the answer is yes. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Barkeep49, I was referring to the drafting of the decision in the proposed decision phase, not the workshop. The proposed decision phase at the last case was not initiated until one hour before that phase was schedule to close.[8] Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understand or am confused. In the Flyer case, the Proposed Decision was drafted and was undergoing discussion when the committee dismissed the case. There is no time limit to the PD phase of the case. I believe you are suggesting that rather than a complete Proposed Decision being posted, that the writing of this should be done as part of the case. I presumed this would be done at the Workshop, as has been suggested by some in this discussion and has been done in some previous cases. But even if it were done at the PD and not the workshop my overall points about our culture around arb mistakes remains. Do I have that right/does my thinking make more sense? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure either. The case pages stated: "Proposed decision to be posted by 20 January 2021". I interpreted that to mean that the only thing that happens after 00:00 21 January is voting. I am not sure if I understand the difference between making mistakes in the drafting process and making mistakes in the final decision? Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I mean voting does happen. But so do changes, amendments, whole new Principles/FoF/remedies. The proposed decision is just that, a proposal, that is then discussed by the arbs and the community. Nothing is final until the case is closed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: I have seen several PDs turn on a dime when additional information comes to ArbCom's attention --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 17:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I have too. But I think that's a feature not a bug. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Barkeep49, I would want to see arbitrators discuss and vote on every proposal made in the workshop. I want to see questioning and analysis of the analysis. From there proposals can be made in the proposed decision phase. If arbitrators are not willing to put themselves at risk by discussing things on-wiki...maybe they shouldn't be arbitrators? I certainly did not feel safe participating in this case. Arbitrators are the ones who have the most power to make us more safe. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think voting on every workshop proposal is an effective mode of decision making. In no venue is every idea an editor puts out there guaranteed to get a response, let alone one as fraught asn ArbCom case. I don't think that gets us to a better outcome and think it's likely to make the process more acrimonious. ((pb))And the point about arb criticism was to show two points. First that arb speech has consequences, so there is a reasonable pressure to not write things that haven't been thought through fully. Second that we need to decide at what point we should be inviting feedback on arb ideas. Ultimately ArbCom is an elected body and by its nature not as democratic or consensus oriented as our general methods.((pb))As for not feeling safe, you're obviously not the only one to express the idea that there needs to be more moderating at the Workshop. Fundamentally I agree with this. However, high quality moderation is very time consuming. Do the positives the Workshop offer make it worth the time it would take to moderate more? And that's not considering the blowback arbs/clerks would face from people who are asked to change their tack and perhaps experience consequences if they don't. No one likes to imagine that they're the problem, it's much easier to imagine the other person is. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it is effective or efficient to require every proposal to be discussed and voted on individually. There is often a lot of redundancy in proposals, and many proposed principles are written more like lines of argument for proposed remedies versus statements of general principles. Those resolving disputes need some liberty to organize their deliberations in a way they find effective, and not be beholden to how information is presented to them. isaacl (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Barkeep49, that being said, what can be done to make it safer for arbitrators to make mistakes? Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Well in some ways I'm not sure it needs to be made safe. Arbs do have power and our words do matter. We should be acting accordingly. That said, Arbs are criticized for "mistakes" that aren't actually mistakes, just a reasonable difference in perspective. So that muddies the water in the first place. That said I think members of the community need to also point out to other members of the community when there's a good faith explanation. I tried to do that a couple times last year and I hope others will do the same for me this year. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I touched on this in Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 21 § Transparency in arbitration deliberations, as well as in Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 19 § Requests to community. I think the community needs to better appreciate that it places contradictory demands on the arbitration committee (and, generally speaking, many English Wikipedia processes), so what takes place is going to be a compromise, and that forbearance is a virtue. It would also be helpful for many editors to realize that not adding another reply to a thread can be the best response (something I sometimes find to be a personal challenge). Once people already know you disagree, it isn't always necessary to underline it again. As I've written elsewhere, we should be designing our procedures to provide incentive for collaborative behaviour, particularly to resolve content disputes more efficiently and effectively, thus forestalling behavioural issues that end up needing interpersonal dispute resolution. isaacl (talk) 20:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Isaacl, I read your post at "Transparency in arbitration deliberations", but I'm not sure what the contradictory demands are, unless you are referring to some editors wanting shorter arbitration. I'm not sure what the concerns are with "messiness". There was a week of silence between the close of the workshop and the initiation of the proposed decision phase. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

In the referenced case, some editors were concerned about discussion taking place in parallel on the principles, findings, and remedies, expecting there to be a smoother progression from one to another. In the referenced discussion (and others that have taken place previously), editors wanted as much on-wiki discussion as possible. If you want to see all discussion on-wiki, you're going to see feedback loops from one discussion thread to another. You're also going to see tentative ideas and positions put forth, with arbitrators trying out wording and revising it. You can't expect working discussions to also be polished, fully consistent presentations.

As another example of contradictory demands, some (probably most) people do think that arbitration cases go on too long. Asking for every submitted proposal to be considered separately adds discussion time. One of the requests I made to the community was to trust that your submissions were considered, even if the arbitrators didn't respond specifically to them. Some people think irrelevant evidence should be clerked, but of course what they consider to be irrelevant differs from what other people think is irrelevant. It's natural for different people to prioritize different objectives, and so they make requests that can't all be mutually satisfied. isaacl (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Isaacl, just for context, are you a former clerk or arbitrator? I would very much like to see the tentative ideas and positions which are put forth. Personally there is no contest between "polished" and transparent; transparency is the priority. What about Ymblanter's comment about the ArbCom of the Russian Wikipedia where they "had all discussion off-wiki, had it recorded, and published the discussion after the decision has been taken? If arbitrators are given a chance to discuss things amongst themselves without interference, and then they post the proposed decisions along with their deliberations, and editors are given a chance to read the deliberations and comment on the proposals, that may please...more people? Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I understand your viewpoint. Others want arbitrators to deliberate on-wiki but in a different manner. A lot of time one way isn't significantly better than the other; they're just different. I have not been an arbitrator or a clerk. Fyi, as I am watching this conversation, using the notification mechanism is unnecessary. isaacl (talk) 00:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll also say that the idea of arbs having to vote on every proposal in the workshop is a non-starter, even though it's coming from a good place. Besides significantly adding to an already significant workload, I'd be concerned with maneuvers like those in real-world legislatures (US Congress, at least) of making someone "take a difficult vote", even when it may have little to no impact on the final decision. Consider also that active arbs don't even have to vote on parts of a formal decision. --BDD (talk) 21:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

To be more specific, I wanted to hear arbitrators' thoughts on my findings of fact, which I felt were straightforwardly accurate, and yet were left out of the proposed decision. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

My position is that findings are only useful if they serve as a "bridge" between the evidence and a specific remedy. In a case where there is only one remedy under serious consideration, a slew of findings are not necessary. This isn't to say we didn't at least look at the workshop proposals, but there were fourteen different workshops going, each with their own premises and conclusions, that's part of the problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with what Beeblebrox wrote. I would add there were multiple arbs who did engage with your proposed remedies, so it's not like we were just ignoring you Kolya and if the case had been seen to conclusion you'd have had a chance to state that you thought some FoF was important to include in the PD talk. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

There were two remedies under nearly equal consideration, and the findings of fact I proposed would have applied to the second remedy. Do you support the idea of posting your discussions publicly at the time when you post your proposed decisions? Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Personally, no I do not. I don't see how that would be productive, part of this whole thing is about improving the signal to noise ratio in arbcom cases. If parties have questions about the formulation of a PD they are always welcome to just ask. To be honest most of what goes on in the off-wiki drafting is pretty dry and boring, discussion about phrasing, being clear about intent, etc. The recent case is not something to look to as a representative example, as it was briefer than most PDs, and we stopped and canceled the case only a day after the PD was first posted. In many other cases, the PD is a much more dynamic process, arbs not involved in the drafting may add their own findings or remedies, and so forth. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Is the text of your deliberations still available? If so I would like to see it. This discussion only reinforces my unease with this case. I will wait until the mourning period is over before discussing the details of what I may read. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, forgive me for saying so but this comes across as grave dancing in a very literal and distasteful sense. What possible value could this serve for the Wiki community? This comes across as trying to validate efforts to cast a shadow over the efforts and frustrations of an editor who will be sorely missed. The case closing was clear that circumstances have made what you seek to review irrelevant. Please have respect and drop this. Springee (talk) 03:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

This discussion is about how to improve the arbitration process. We must understand what works and doesn't work in the existing process in order to improve it. If you are mourning it may be best if you avoided this discussion. I am requesting the text of the deliberations. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom was elected by the community to handle their role, including collaborating in private for these cases. What you seek is none of your business. Your proposals were not so important that you need to see what they said about them. The case is over and you have been warned multiple times about harassing Flyer22. [9][10] You should not be continuing to do so after her passing. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

This is not the forum to discuss my conduct, however I do not want to discuss Flyer22 with you. I am essentially asking Beeblebrox a yes or no question; if they say they will not grant my request to review the deliberation which I am asking for to better understand what happened at arbitration, that will be the end of it, but my request stands. Please let this go and let an arbitrator respond. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, personally I would be against sharing drafting notes. Less about this case, as there are so few comments, but more about the precedent it might set. There are times that we need to discuss users frankly - and that can be damaging to individuals if out in public. I believe I've mentioned elsewhere that sometimes we serve as a "disciplinary committee" and disciplinary discussions should not be public discussions.

What we publish and vote on is the culmination of 1) absorption of evidence and proposals, deciding what needs to be done and 2) how best to say it. Those discussions should be available to those who are considering appeals in the future, to understand the committee's thinking - but as I say could be harmful outside that.

Forcing these sorts of discussions to be published will not stop arbs from drafting away from wiki, but it will stop a record from being available for future committees to scrutinise. Arbs would likely tend to phone calls, direct emails and other off wiki drafting methods, and rather than more transparency we would get less. Worm^TT(talk) 11:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Why should disciplinary discussions not be made public? All right, if this is a consensus opinion then it would just be WP:ADMINACCT which would allow us to ask arbitrators to share their thought processes. Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Wait, records are intentionally kept for future committees to review, but that information is not available to the rest of the community? That doesn't sound right.... Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, public disciplinary is about shaming - and is far more punitive than preventative. I'm far more concerned by the outcome - that any disruption stops. Arbcom sanctions are binding and can often include non-public information, which is discussed off wiki. That needs to be kept somewhere.

And yes, records are kept for future committees to review. Mailing list archives, and the arbcom wiki is available for any future members of the committee as part of institutional knowledge. Worm^TT(talk) 12:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I feel like that doesn't really answer the question. I am asking about deliberations of public evidence. I am asking why the institutional knowledge available to future arbitrators is not available to the community (besides a need-to-know argument). Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: My position is that findings are only useful if they serve as a "bridge" between the evidence and a specific remedy. I both agree and disagree with this. Yes, every remedy should be backed by a finding of fact, and unnecessary findings are not helpful. However I think that it can sometimes be useful and important to present certain facts as background and/or to acknowledge that the acts have been seen and considered. In the RAIB reports I read it is common for items to be presented as causal factors, things which were necessary for the occurrence to happen but which do no need to be addressed by a remedy, either because action has already been taken or because it is a "normal condition" (for example if a rail vehicle runs away because it was left on a slope without the handbrake being applied, both factors are necessary but only the second needs a remedy). In a wikipedia context, an example of "action already taken" might be an editor in a dispute whose actions, while contributory to the overall issue were not horrific and were in large part due to a misunderstanding. If that misunderstanding has been rectified and the user concerned has committed to not repeating their mistakes then there is no need for a remedy regarding them, but it is still useful to document what they did as had they not then the rest of the dispute would not have escalated. An example of the "normal condition" would be real-world disputes or uncertainty. Thryduulf (talk) 15:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• All else aside, I definitely feel it would be useful to have arbs weigh in sooner (definitely during the evidence phase) if they feel they have an understanding of the case and a general idea of what direction it's likely to go in - stuff like "I'm currently not seeing enough evidence for this" or "this proposal seems like too much and probably won't happen" or "this line of discussion is going nowhere, please drop it" are valuable. It tells people when and where more evidence is needed, when they may need to change their tack, when they should avoid wasting time and effort on something that plainly isn't going to go anywhere, and so on. It also means the final decision (if there are people who upset with it) won't feel like it comes out of nowhere quite as much; and I feel people will be more likely to accept decisions they disagree with if they had a clear indicator of "this decision is coming, you need serious evidence that will change our mind" in advance. Of course, it's also more work for arbitrators, but I feel it would be worth it in the long term, especially if it leads to more useful evidence by giving people a better sense of what arbitrators are finding valuable and what aspects of the case or possible outcomes currently have their attention. (I don't think we need to see full deliberations for that, but it would be especially useful to have brief "as I see it, the evidence currently doesn't support this" or "leaning towards this" sorts of statements on proposals.) --Aquillion (talk) 18:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

  I would like to echo this; in the recent case, the lack of arb input left me feeling that the Evidence phase and the Workshop phase were essentially buckets into which facts or interpretations needed to be thrown before deadline - or else they could not possibly come into the decision - but where there was no way if knowing what evidence or principles would be valued by the committee. The only contributions that were clearly dismissed by the arbs while either phase was open consisted of certain obvious irrelevancies, mostly where non-parties were throwing shade at each other, but that exception illustrates how little guidance there actually was for those of us wanting to give relevant witness to the issues raised in the case. Newimpartial (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• Trying to reform the workshop would be wrong-headed. Flyer's workshop began on 30 December and closed on 13 January, by which time 39 editors had made 955 edits amounting to over 80,000 words. This is too much to expect an individual to tolerate. Abolishing the workshop gives everyone a rest. The Arbs can discuss their proposals on the private wiki. People wanting to correct evidence can do so on the evidence talk page; clerks should make sure this is kept to a minimum.
  The basic idea should be that after the evidence phase the accused gets a break until the Arbs return with a decision. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

  It's definitely an interesting idea that merits a detailed discussion. In practice, I'm not sure that it would really be experienced as a break. It has the potential to be a nail-biting extended period with no communication, followed by a decision that emerges as a fait accompli and leaves many editors saying that's a mistake that could have been avoided, and demanding the Arbs' heads on pikes. But that said, I think it would be very worthwhile to have a thoughtful examination by the community and the Committee of how to make the process more humane. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

  I won't hunt down the link to it unless someone needs me to, but I remember that a few years ago there was a lot of discussion about not naming cases after editors. When the case name is the name(s) of editors, that makes it too much like a trial where those named individuals are the defendants. That's certainly something that makes cases needlessly stressful. Somehow, after there being at least some agreement to stop naming cases that way, it seems to have been forgotten. Perhaps that would be worth going back to. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

  In 2018 I enhanced the ((ArbCase)) template to accept numbered cases in the form of year-# (where the hyphen is optional and the number can have leading zeros). For example, ((ArbCase|2021-1)) produces 2021-1. It relies on Module:ArbCaseAlias/data to be kept up-to-date—I've entered the data going back to 2015. So anyone wishing to avoid the case names can use this template to produce the appropriate links. isaacl (talk) 23:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, that's definitely one viable option. Another would be to have a (somewhat) descriptive case name that simply does not involve names. For example, it would have been better if "Flyer22 and Wandering Wanda" had instead been something like "Misgendering" or something like that. I really do think that the mental health impacts of the Arbitration process are a very legitimate matter for review, and there was indeed a lot of discussion a few years back about how having one's user name in the case name is an avoidable cause of stress. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

  In the specific instance in question, though, there was so much disagreement concerning what the case was actually about (among the parties and other editors, at the request stage and the evidence and workshop stages) that I imagine the conflict about the naming of the case could have been of similar magnitude to the conflict over the case itself. Of course, if the arbs were expected to impose a descriptive name when accepting the case, that would at least imply certain boundaries around the scope of the case as it proceded, boundaries that in this instance were never clearly defined. Newimpartial (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

  Those are good points. One way to look at that is to use non-descriptive names as isaacl suggests. Another way it that, as you point out, choosing a name can help define the scope. Also, your comment points out something else I've been thinking about, which is that the kinds of disputes that reach ArbCom are things where some of the participants see things so differently that they are like "irreconcilable differences". I've commented below about optimism versus pessimism, and I want to put in a good word for pessimism here. In my opinion, any reform ideas that depend on the good will of participants are likely to fail, are likely to misread the reality of how cases play out. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

  The arbitration committee has been, in my opinion, selecting case names over the past few years that are based on the key area in question if it is not focused on the overall behaviour of one or more editors (and editors have been helpfully reminding them). As you may recall, when we discussed this three years ago, I went through the exercise of devising some alternate case names for cases from 2015 to 2017. It leads to some lengthy, non-memorable, similar names, which I imagine is why it hasn't gotten a lot of popular support. The aliasing support I added to the ((ArbCase)) template can support any alias that starts with a year prefix, so if there is interest, anyone can devise an unofficial alternate naming scheme now. isaacl (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

  While it does not address the concerns raised, an objective way to name the previous case would have been: "Complaint brought by WanderingWanda about Flyer22 Frozen". Once the case is closed it could be renamed depending on the totality of the case or the decision. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

  Since Halo Jerk1 was also a party to the case (albeit not a participating one unless by email), I am not sure that this suggestion would have reduced the ambiguity around the scope of the case, at least not in a helpful way. Newimpartial (talk) 19:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

  I see, that was my mistake. It would be objective to say that it was a "Complaint brought by WanderingWanda about Flyer22 Frozen and Halo Jerk1". Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

  I agree that ArbCom needs to be more flexible about case names; this came up in earlier discussion, e.g. about renaming the GamerGate case by motion or by amendment request or something, so that it better reflects its amended "human sexuality and gender, broadly construed" scope. And I know it's come up before with regard to cases that started out being named for a particular editor then broadened. Since ArbCom decides how it's going to name cases and whether/how/when/why to rename them, ArbCom is already empower to "just do it". We don't need some big RfC or whatever.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

  Agree that ArbCom should do a quick and easy rename of the DS alerts and any other necessary stuff related to GamerGate. The way the alert is written now is ridiculous and has led to confusion. It'd literally be like if the AP2 alert read, You have shown interest in (a) Barack Obama, (b) any American-politics-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. It's just so weirdly specific, misprioritized, and dated, not to mention confusing. And I'm with you that sexuality not separable from gender in this regard; anything to do with sexuality is inherently gender-related when you think about it, so it should be specified in the DS. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

  Concur with Aquillion and NewImpartial that more feedback sooner from Arbs would be useful.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Advocates

• We used to have an advocate system, the Association of Members' Advocates, which some felt was helpful to inexperienced or vulnerable users; however others felt it was bureaucratic and divisive, and pointed to the Help desk as an alternative. The AMA directly gave advice and assistance to less experienced users who were experiencing disputes with more experienced users or couldn't quite cope with some aspects of our dispute resolution system, such as ArbCom. My memory of it (and I was an advocate for a while, at a time when I myself wasn't that experienced) is that the idea was good, but that not enough experienced quality users became advocates, and that there were some advocates who perhaps got involved in wikilawyering rather than giving simple neutral advice, and others who, like me, rather flapped around amateurishly in a well intentioned but no doubt irritating manner.

There are many ways of grouping people on Wikipedia, though grouping people into experienced and inexperienced reveals one of our tectonic plate points of tension. The inexperienced do things "wrong", and when reverted they question. The experienced are volunteers, have no obligation or time to explain and train, and just wish that something they have spent years working on was left alone. The inexperienced wants help. The experienced has no time or desire to help. We either have the inexperienced giving up in frustration and we lose a potentially good volunteer. Or we have a conflict when the inexperienced user doesn't get the appropriate answers so attempts to reinsert their "wrong" edit.

Shortly after starting at Wikipedia I noted that we have regular users and we have admins; and that the admins don't so much have a helping, advisory role, but more of a dispute resolving role. Essentially, admins often come in when it's already too late. What I thought then, and I'm thinking now, is that there could be a role midway between a user and an admin; or perhaps running side by side in a complimentary manner - a "senior editor" or "instructor" or "advisor" role. Someone who can and is willing to assist and explain to new users how things work, and who has advanced editing tools, but not the blocking tools. This senior editor would be someone who is both experienced at editing articles (has at least one Good Article) and has a calm, helpful manner. So, not quite an advocate, more an instructor. Someone who is able to resolve disputes before they start. Someone who can help both the inexperienced and the experienced by resolving any potential conflict before it starts. Sometimes, as we know, it is not the inexperienced editor who is "wrong" - sometimes the experienced editor has not looked or thought carefully enough about the edit they feel is wrong. The "senior editor" should be able to point this out in a calm and neutral manner, and if the experienced editor disagrees then the matter could be discussed at a senior editors noticeboard, without needing to involve and potentially stress out the inexperienced editor.

So, I don't think we need advocates; we need advisors. SilkTork (talk) 12:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I like the word "counselor", because it could mean someone who advises and mediates (but it could also mean attorney...). My concern with administrators has always been that someone who is great at editing is not necessarily great at handling interpersonal problems; they are very separate skills. Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Something like peer support might be useful for arbitration participants who are experiencing distress, to help navigate and manage the process. They could watch the pages for the participant, and let them know when their responses were required so the participants don’t get stuck in an unhealthy loop of constantly hitting refresh on the arbitration case pages. –xeno^talk 14:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

If admins are coming in when it's already too late, then ArbCom is coming in when it's past due. This, for me, is an essential part of understanding Arbitration and also a real limit on how we can make it feel. I think to the anecdote that Ritchie333 has told a few times about how hard it was to be having a pint with someone who was the center of an ArbCom case and who was feeling bewildered and hurt to be in that position despite the ample evidence of failed attempts outside of ArbCom. Like being told "You've made some mistakes" is hard let alone "You've made some mistakes and these are the consequences for doing a volunteer job which you've done out of the goodness of your heart and genuine desire to make the world better." So I think avenues like this, where we think about ways to be helpful earlier are important and offer greater opportunities for benefit than reforming (or eliminating) Workshops (which we should do too). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm lukewarm on the idea of advocates in the sense of a person speaking instead of the involved party, but I recognize that this is at least in part due to personal bias towards strong communication skills. In the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC, Bilby suggested having neutral advisors to help guide editors when they have some kind of conflict. I agreed that this would be a good approach, and I think it could be helpful for all sorts of issues. (I guess the Wikipedia:Teahouse partially covers some aspect of this.) The trick is, though, what to do when the editor decides to ignore the advisor. After all, there are plenty of cases where quiet words with an editor have not worked out.

I'm not sure how well a "senior editors noticeboard" (shades of Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion) would work out—it feels like a great way to have arguments about who is a senior editor. isaacl (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps some emerging consensus

I think that it's very valuable to spitball lots of ideas, as multiple editors are doing here. But it's starting to look to me like there is something that has emerged as a continuing theme in the discussion, and that seems to be widely agreed-upon. Based upon the existing consensus coming out of one part of the RfC on harassment that ArbCom held recently, as well as what editors have been saying here, it seems to me that there is already WP:Consensus that Clerks and Arbs, and especially Arbs, should take a more hands-on role on Evidence and Workshop pages, and especially Workshop pages.

• If it looks to Arbs like more evidence about some aspect would be helpful, then telling editors that would be useful. And if it looks like there is already enough evidence about some aspect, or that some aspect is unlikely to be worth the Committee's attention, then saying that would also be useful.
• If some editors are making things ugly, do something about it and don't let it just go on and on.
• If an editor appears upset that something they are trying to communicate is not getting heard, confirm that what they posted has been read and try to reassure them that they don't need to keep repeating it.
• Discourage last-word-ism. Encourage formulation of a useful PD.
• When an editor asks a question, answer the question. Promptly.
• It's important to get some back-and-forth about what should or should not be in the PD during the Workshop stage. I've been paying close attention to what some Arbs have been saying about how it can be harmful to people to say certain things in public before those things have been adequately discussed off-line, and that's a good point. But those discussions can happen during the Workshop period, and it would be a positive to find ways to avoid dumping a full-fledged PD out of the blue.
• The Drafting Arbs will probably do a lot of this, but all Arbs who are active on the case should be engaged in it.

Whatever else may or may not end up being changed, I think that these are things the Committee can and should start working on now. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I am just an ordinary editor, and have been following and not participating in this discussion (up to now), but each of these bullets reflects some aspect of what I have been thinking. Newimpartial (talk) 17:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, you were heavily involved in the recently dismissed case which sparked this discussion.

I'm fine with the arbs "dumping a full-fledged decision out of the blue". Not every aspect of the process needs endless commentary from people. The Committee was elected by the community to have authority in these cases; the cases themselves are most assuredly not decided via mob rule or even direct democracy. ArbCom is, instead, akin to representative democracy. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I was indeed involved in the Arb case referenced, although I was not acting on emails from any of the principals as I did so. The discussion in which I had not been participating was this one, about the ArbCom process going forward. Newimpartial (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

So much for my ability to identify consensus! In any case, even if the one bullet point about that gets set aside, that does not reflect on the remainder. And I think there is quite a space between mob rule (or even direct democracy), and getting useful feedback from editors who are not on the Committee. It's worth noting the earlier comments by some of the Arbs about points in a decision turning on a dime in response to feedback. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Had the order of the replies been different, you might have found more consensus. Oops. Newimpartial (talk) 18:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

My original concern and perhaps of others was how arbitrations affected editors. My concern was, there is too much - too much evidence for any single editor to handle (too many editors presenting evidence), too much time spent away from editing and focusing on an arbitration, and maybe just too many steps before a decision is reached. Arbitrations often become massive and unwieldy, and in the mean time single editors are dealing with this, sometimes alone. Advisors are a good idea, but advisors don't lessen the impact of the numbers- those giving evidence. Slim Virgin suggested revising or removing the workshop phase if I remember. I don't think, I can't comment for SV, the workshop lacks value; I just wonder if the value is enough to warrant the negative impact on editors. The suggestion that the evidence phase when wide open can reveal previously unknown evidence is a good point, and true in my experience, but again how does this impact editors and is there enough value when compared to the damage to editors. This is a collaborative community. How do we protect these members of community? How do we reduce impact of sometimes weeks of stress? We've lost valuable editors over our arbitrations. Is this something we have to fix? I suspect the fixes are big rather than smaller. Tweaking the process is good but is it enough. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

As I said at the top of my comment, I think it's very valuable to spitball lots of ideas. What I'm saying, however, is that I think that there is already consensus (with the possible exception of how much or little workshopping of the PD there needs to be) for the basic idea of more hands-on from the Arbs. And I don't want us to get sidetracked away from that. I do think some of the things I described are potentially helpful with making it less stressful for participants. But you are quite right that the things I said should not be the end of the discussion. There's certainly a potential need to do more than that. But there are things that ArbCom can and should do right now, while other things get further discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it's really easy to volunteer other people's time. Effective moderation is an incredibly time consuming activity. Active but ineffective moderation can be done much more quickly but at the cost of generating ill will (and perhaps losing editors, even if only temporarily). What I'm taking from this conversation is that the community, as was indicated in the RfC, supports more active moderation. I will keep that in mind as I read and participate in cases. I am also taking away from this conversation that a number of well respected long standing community members think the Workshop is valuable and could be made even more valuable if Arbs spent more time participating and utilizing it. I am also taking away from this conversation that a number of longstanding respected editors think the Workshop offers little value for the problems it causes and should be severely curtailed or even eliminated. I think that's all important for ArbCom to consider as we continue our discussions about how to reform the Workshop. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I can see how that becomes a time demand. It would be worth troubleshooting how to deal with that. But you should be hearing loud and clear from the community that it's a time demand that somehow needs to be met. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I am hearing that you are saying that loud and clear but how widely that's held - I think there's more of a diversity of opinion here than you're giving credit for - is something I'm less sure about. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

There are certainly editors floating other ideas, and some questioning whether there should be workshops at all. And again, I'm not arguing against doing anything else beside what I describe. But until such time as workshops would be eliminated entirely (which I believe will never get anywhere near consensus, but we'll see), I'm not wrong about what I said. No one has said that we should keep workshops but Arbs should be hands-off. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I care deeply about the community's thinking (and know the other arbs feel the same), but to reiterate something that David Fuchs said early on in this conversation, ultimately the consensus that needs to be reached here is among the committee. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Putting that another way, for at least the first five bullet points in my opening post, if you look back at the consensus of the harassment RfC and through all of the comments by editors here, those five points are pretty much constants throughout. Even when editors have been discussing approaches that are different than this, those five points are consistent with what they have said, and no one has really argued against doing those first five. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

After ec: I fully agree that ArbCom has the final say in this. In fact, I tried to point that out earlier, but got push-back from someone else. But I'm trying to give the Committee something to take out of the discussion so far. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Part of the idea of having co-ordinators manage submissions is that they would essentially help the participants self-moderate, which would alleviate some of the need for arbitrators or clerks to manage the discussion. isaacl (talk) 21:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

One way to look at that is that it's going to take a lot of work to figure out how to have people who would have the coordinator role, and it may be reasonable for Arbs to take some of this on for the short term, as an improvement over the status quo, while leaving the door open to implementing something new after a few months. Unless someone thinks that it's actually bad to have Arbs do these things and that only some sort of coordinator can do it, these things are not mutually exclusive. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

The participants can decide amongst themselves: those supporting one particular view/aspect can select someone to act as a co-ordinator in that area. isaacl (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

What happens when one of those supporting that particular aspect objects to how the coordinator dealt with it, while others disagree with that? What happens when ArbCom rules against something the coordinator advocated, and editors represented by that coordinator feel that they were badly represented? What happens when someone wants to be included in a coordinator's group, but others or the coordinator don't want them? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Same as every other dispute: work it out by consensus. If someone just can't get on board, they can start a new group. The co-ordinators can work together to try to avoid unnecessary overlap. isaacl (talk) 22:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm picturing a case with difficult editors who never reach such a consensus, so they keep breaking out into new groups, until there is simply a "group" of one individual for every participating editor, and they refuse to work together. Which is how it got to ArbCom in the first place, because the community couldn't resolve it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Recent cases have actually had a lot of compatibility in views, to the point where participants deferred covering areas to others. I also envision there being peer pressure to work together to build an effective presentation, which will be more persuasive than many disjointed presentations with varying degrees of overlap. isaacl (talk) 23:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I guess you're an optimist and I'm a pessimist. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm pretty pessimistic, actually. Nonetheless, I think there are fewer storylines than participants, that there is significant overlap in storylines, and there is incentive for everyone to work together to consolidate similar storylines. isaacl (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

To be crystal clear. Tight moderation of arbcom cases means more parties and uninvolved people who want to participate will be shown the door from the case and will be asked to participate only via email. Having done that in a past case, it erupts firestorms. That's fine, but people should know what these sort of things bring about --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 20:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I think any way one does it, cases have things that one person or another perceives as a firestorm. ArbCom by definition deals with the messiest stuff. I think there's been a lot of feedback that making the editors who participate in a case in a civil and good-faith way suffer the fire-makers over and over on the case pages is seen as making Arbitration unpleasant. People who blow up when shown the door will probably blow up over the final decision, too. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I've been thinking hard about what Barkeep said about the amount of Arb time it would take to do this the right way. (I really am trying very hard to engage with issues that others raise.) I can see how a decision to, for example, tell someone that they are henceforth banned from the case pages is something that needs off-site discussion that cannot be rushed. That makes sense. But I think it's reasonable to expect Arbs active on a case, and at a very minimum the Drafting Arbs, to be looking in on the Evidence and Workshop pages while they are in progress, as opposed to looking only after that phase of the case has closed. I don't mean staying locked in on it hour after hour. I just mean that once every 24 hours (at least) one member of the Committee will have looked in on it. I suspect that this has not previously been the practice, but it should be, and that's not really asking all that much. And that should be enough for an Arb to say "Hey (name of editor), you need to tone that down" even if it's not a ban. Or to say "Yes, we are reading what you said", or "I'd like to hear more about that", or "Here is what I think is the answer to your question, although I want to know whether other Arbs would see it differently." You don't have to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. If I'm missing something here, I'm open to being asked to think about that, too. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

This is where my pessimism kicks in. If the community exhibits patience and understanding, then sure, having any arbitrator provide some brief comments once a day might be enough. As it stands now, though, if an arbitrator speaks about personal opinions, typically there will be followup questions addressed specifically to that arbitrator. This quickly escalates to complaints about lack of responsiveness. I am not hopeful that aggrieved editors will be able to moderate their expectations of other volunteers. So while regular updates was part of my requests to arbitrators that I made based on previous discussions in which you were involved, I fear that although it might help with a silent plurality, it may cause further dissatisfaction with some vocal editors. (Which is still kind of a net positive for each individual case and so I would favour it, but it also would likely be treated as a net negative by many who like to discuss these matters, and thus it might not be helpful for the arbitration process as a whole.) isaacl (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I knew that if I tried hard enough, I could ruin your sense of optimism! (joke) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I try to present an optimistic view when making proposals, because if I don't, who will, but be assured behind the scenes I've looked at them from an "assume everyone will try to take personal advantage" point of view, and tried to figure out ways to mitigate the consequences. isaacl (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• When an editor asks a question, answer the question. Promptly. This is important generally but doubly so when the question is about the scope of the case. Keeping the evidence and workshop focused on what the case is about and not dredging up unrelated stuff (and closing discussion of that if it happens) will help reduce stress levels for participants. Thryduulf (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

  I agree that ArbCom providing clarity about the scope of the case is important. This is a place where the fact that no one is authorized to speak for ArbCom causes an issue as it's somewhat time consuming for the committee to reach consensus about this and indeed different arbs giving their opinions (if conflicting) could cause more confusion rather than less. So trying to do that at the outset is best (i.e. before the case opens) and when questions arise during the case to try and get answers as quickly as is feasible and then find a way to make those prominently known. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

  Sometimes, question-answering can be delegated ahead of time to the drafters, so they don't have to run it by the full Committee. Sometimes, a partial but prompt answer is better than a complete but delayed one. It may be enough to say something like "I personally would prefer you to do XYZ, but I want to wait to hear whether other Arbs see that differently." One of the costs of waiting to get everything lined up and in a row is that editors abhor a vacuum, and the longer an answer to a question gets delayed, the more additional fires will have to be put out. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) After reading this statement, my immediate thought was "this is why juries don't run trials - judges do" (at least where I live). If every question of evidence or scope (or whatever) has to be decided by committee consensus, then active moderation and a lot of the proposals here are already doomed to failure. By the time any action can be taken, many issues will have either fizzled out or blown up (which seems to be a pretty good description of the evidence and workshop pages, really). Perhaps we should be looking at something like a "judge" role with some sort of operational control over the proceedings of a case and let the body of the committee sit in more of a jury role. Whether that role could be taken up by the drafting arbs, some sort of coordinating arb, or someone else entirely I don't know. The community elected each individual arbitrator and has placed trust in each of you, both as a whole and individually. Surely there's some level of streamlining that could take place. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 20:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

  And that's a good reason not to get too bound by needing every last jot to be run by the entire Committee. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• I wanted to remind some that this discussion began with Slim Virgin's concern with the mental health of editors during and after arbitration and that one of her suggestions had to do with the workshop phase. I'm have zero interest in consensus here. This is bigger discussion that that and relegating SV's long time concern and mine, for that matter, to lacking consensus, to, second to something else discussed, when she began this discussion seems wrong. Moving on a small aspect of this discussion, if history informs, is that what is left behind will be forgotten. If this will be a decision made by arbs I hope they can look at the the multiple concerns and especially SV's. I think we can move on multiple issues and to use a well worn phrase right now, I think the arbs are smart enough to walk and chew gum at the same time.Littleolive oil (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

As I understand. Arbs aren't judges, they arbitrate. If things fizzle out maybe that's fine. Arbs aren't supposed to be punitive but able to arbitrate positions. If editors self- arbitrate on some issue maybe that's fine. Littleolive oil (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I apologize if I didn't make this clear enough. I am not, repeat not, saying that everything other than what I listed has no consensus and should end at this point. If it sounded that way, let me correct that now. I'm saying that there are five-ish things that I think already have consensus in the community, and that discussion of additional things should continue. I'm not trying to shut anything down. At the same time, I would ask that editors who are, quite rightly, exploring additional aspects not try to shut down the recognition of what has already gotten to the point where the Arbs should be taking a close look at it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Consensus requires patience to establish; I would not consider input from a handful of editors over a few days to be enough to determine a consensus view. That being said, consensus isn't required; only the arbitration committee needs to be persuaded to alter its procedures. (For instance, in parallel to the requests to the community I made a little over two years ago, I also made requests to arbitrators.) I don't have an issue with your making an argument for your proposals; I just it's premature (and unnecessary) to label them as consensus views. For example, I don't think respond to every question promptly has consensus support. Earlier you expressed concern about ensuring all relevant voices get heard; this is what makes it difficult to shut down threads of discussion. The problem is everyone wants someone else's thread to be shut down, but they're also "someone else" to another participant. The unpleasantness of interpersonal dispute resolution is why real-world organizations don't hold an organization-wide meeting to discuss personnel issues, but discuss the matters privately. I understand why this doesn't have consensus support in English Wikipedia, due to both logistics and community ethos. Nonetheless, this underlies why the problem is generally intractable on Wikipedia. isaacl (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

(Sigh.) OK, I said "perhaps some emerging consensus" as opposed to "I am closing this discussion as having achieved the following consensus". In other words, maybe I'm using the wrong words to say it, but I intend this as an attempt to synthesize, so far, what I see emerging from this discussion, so far. And it's not just a few editors here. It's also the community RfC that happened previously. And you are just plain wrong if you think that there has been opposition to answering editor questions; if I'm wrong, show me where. I didn't intend this to be a discussion about the process of this discussion. I think I'm seeing five-ish points that I can identify as having become common themes that have a lot of interest. And for the umpteenth time, I'm not trying to shut anyone else's thread down. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Most (non-arbitrator) editors have not spoken specifically in this discussion about responding to every question promptly. My feeling from past conversations is that a significant portion of the community recognizes the logistic challenges of responding to every question promptly. I personally do not feel comfortable demanding that volunteers respond promptly to every single question that any one asks. Plus, unless the community starts demonstrating a lot more patience and understanding (as I requested in my requests to the community), any answer that doesn't line up with what the questioner wants to hear is going to quickly become a time-sink of debate, recriminations, and more questions. Regarding shutting down threads, I was referring to your bullet point: If some editors are making things ugly, do something about it and don't let it just go on and on. isaacl (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe we misunderstand each other, and agree more than it sounds like. When I said "promptly", I didn't have an exact number of minutes in mind. Are you really seeing sentiment that good-faith questions should be left unanswered for several days when they are not difficult questions? Because that's been happening, and I've been seeing a lot of editor concern about it, as opposed to editors saying yeah that's good. And yes, I think it's been a very consistent theme here and in the previous RfC that when editors are behaving in a toxic way on case pages, that needs more policing. I don't picture that as shutting threads down, but as policing editor conduct. That's even very much related to what editors who have been talking about the mental health problems of arbitration are concerned about. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm actually fairly hardline in some respects, so I don't have a personal issue with shutting down threads and requiring editors to only submit info by email. But I recognize that I'm an outlier. Pretty much anyone getting involved in contentious disputes will get accused of being obstructionist, and thus subject to having their contributions policed. Regarding questions, the problem is that there's not always agreement on what is good-faith. (I do agree on more communication, and that's part of the requests to arbitrators I made.) isaacl (talk) 22:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

To take up a theme that, hey, I wrote about so clearly I agree :-) : I wrote above that it would be helpful if editors would realize that it may be better sometimes not to reply to a thread. The problem is how does this happen? I've often thought about dropping a friendly note on an editor talk page, but most of the time, I don't feel they'll be receptive and that they'll feel antagonized. This hurts when I think someone's arguments are not being well served by their presentation. I think having co-ordinators (selected by the relevant participants themselves) manage submissions could help with this. isaacl (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree enthusiastically that it can often be best not to reply – so here I am replying to you! I was trying to summarize that, whether as expressed in that way by you or in other ways by other editors, when I wrote "Discourage last-word-ism." And yes, I see the irony in my replying that way (wink, wink). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I've been thinking further about the issue of the degree to which Arbs should or should not answer questions. I realize after thinking about it more that there are indeed some questions that don't merit the kind of answer the editor wants, but that there also is a very workable distinction between those, and questions that should get an answer. I can appreciate that the only answer to "Tell me which Arbs voted which way in a private discussion" is "Sorry, but we are not going to tell you that", and I never intended what I wrote to be some kind of rule that ArbCom has to answer those kinds of things.

But I was thinking specifically about the recent Medicine case, where one participating editor in particular was asking appropriate questions along the line of "Is it appropriate for me to post this here, or in that other page section?", and days went by with no answer, even as that phase of the case was about to close. The lack of an answer didn't just mean silence, but instead led to a lot of stressful arguing among editors that was not pleasant and could have been avoided so easily. There was never a good reason for a delay in answering the question, and that's a concrete example of the kinds of fixable things that have been making case pages more unpleasant than they need to be. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think I disagree with any of Thryduulf's draft consensus bullets, but I don't think that all goes far enough. It's just kind of treating some symptoms not the disease. See my post just before this one [22] for the kinds of changes I think are more important from a structural perspective, not just on a "what these Arbs should do better" level. I'm not here to blame sitting Arbs, but to see systemic improvements happen.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
• The draft consensus bullet points seem good from a Community side - obviously they are contingent on available time, as noted. I would disagree with @Tryptofish: on the issue of private votes by the arbs - I generally feel that where an arb decision does impact a user, then a breakdown of votes should be provided, along with a minimum summary of reasoning (e.g. sanction felt unsupported, too light, too severe, etc) Nosebagbear (talk) 11:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Original announcement

Original announcement

• If editors wish to comment on the motions while the motion sections are still open, please go to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions § Case Workshops. If editors wish to discuss this notice, they may do so here. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Original announcement

• Suckup note is already on my talk page here, but I'd still like to publicly thank the Committee for their hard and unusually expedient work. I also am especially thankful that I didn't need to go through arduous and exhausting hoops upon having requested new DS for the topic area. I originally thought I might have to, but there you go. Which I think that speaks for itself. Good stuff![/small suckup] El_C 15:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Seconded. I think from my personal interactions with certain socks that frequent the Kurds and Kurdistan articles that this may help significantly. This was also an impressively expedient case, so cheers to the committee and the clerks for that. :) Perryprog (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
    • I fully agree, from what I had heard from ArbCom (this is my first case that I've had an interest in) they were very slow, but I'm very pleasantly surprised it was quick and easy! Thanks, Sixula^Talk 15:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
      • Following up on self, just as a reminder that we did try getting this passed at AN by way of GS on a couple of occasions, but after an initial limited support, these still just ended up dying with a whimper, possibly due to either lack of interest and/or lack of familiarity by AN reviewers with the topic area. So, I think this case, especially, serves to illustrate how crucial of a role the Committee plays for such requests (i.e. DS), one which often simply cannot be replicated elsewhere on the project. Will try to tone down further on the suckups, though! Yours, El_C (aka Buck Flower) 15:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, as someone who bitterly criticises ArbCom when I believe they've messed up, it would be unfair not to congratulate them for this one - good work all. Black Kite (talk) 16:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
• Wow. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 18:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Original announcement

• Thanks to GeneralNotability for volunteering and I am looking forward to working with him. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• Welcome. I hope you will enjoy the Fez (unfortunately not yet in the budget, so a digital one may have to do ). Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• Congrats, GeneralNotability. Always a good sign to have another clerk of sound mind as a prospective addition to the team (unlike some of us who are more, erm, challenged and challenging). Good ArbCom news day today! El_C 01:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• This is how military coups begin. :-) Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  Well, I have been working my way through the Revolutions podcast the past couple months... GeneralNotability (talk)` GeneralNotability (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  Before long, El_C is going to put your picture on his talk page. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Levivich, image not found. Unless GeneralNotability is actually a magical talking dog. Which prompts me to quote David Eddings (and also gives me an excuse to hurl archaic insults into the ether!):

"My Lord," the great knight said distantly, "I find thy face apelike and thy form misshapen" ... "Is it possible thy mother, siezed by some wild lechery, did dally at some time past with a randy goat?" ... The Baron went livid and spluttered, unable to speak ... "Thou seems wroth, my Lord, or mayhap thine unseemly breeding hath robbed thy tongue of human speech?" [soon followed by a gauntlet slap — ouch!] The young baron staggered backward, spitting teeth and blood. "Thou art no longer a youth, Sir Mandorallen," he raged. "Long hast thou used thy questionable reputation to avoid combat. Methinks it is time time for thee to be truly tried ... "It speaks," Mandorallen said with feigned astonishment. "Behold my Lords and Ladies a talking dog." The court laughed at that. //Preemptive bow. El_C 20:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Wait, we're hurling archaic insults into the ether, thou toad-spotted whey-faced dog-pig? —valereee (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

AND OMG! I just did a fair revision on The Belgariad! I spent several days I should have been studying reading that series lol... —valereee (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Nice, Val! Love (love) all the Books related to The Belgariad and The Malloreon, so much! I have all of them in Hebrew, except for the Demon Lord of Karanda (which for the life of me, I've been unable to obtain). Oh, and I also don't have the The Rivan Codex — though I didn't realize it even existed up until a few minutes ago. //Adding to wishlist. El_C 22:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I've actually been rereading since editing The Belgariad. It's pretty cheesy in retrospect, but I don't care! :D Weird that Demon Lord of Karanda isn't available in Hebrew. Are you happy to read for pleasure in English? —valereee (talk) 22:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Val, no, not really. But with something like, say, the The Iron Heel, I make exceptions (though I did realize fairly recently a Hebrew translation for it has been published, in fact). But, anyway, I, too, totally enjoy Eddings' flair, even though it can read a bit cheesy at times. Also noting that it reads quite differently in English compared to Hebrew, I've found. To that, the above was quoted from the The Seeress of Kell — the only book of his I do actually have in English (got it before I was able to obtain the Hebrew one, because I just had to know how it all ended). Sometimes, I even read both of them somewhat in conjunction. Anyway, I've been wanting to get Demon Lord of Karanda for so long, especially because I've always found demons and the demon realm a really neat feature of Eddings' world building, and this almost certainly should be the book to get into all of that. El_C 22:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

BTW, sorry GeneralNotability, for hijacking your festivities! El_C 23:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure he won't mind, he's busy planning for Phase 2 of the revolution: win the people's hearts and minds by distributing word extensions to all editors. ¡Libera a las palabras! Levivich ^harass/_hound 06:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

What are you getting at? Are you unironically comparing an Arbcom clerk's appointment to a military coup? If this is a harmless joke, I'm not seeing it. A person being appointed to a minor role in governance who will later go on to overthrow the government does not strike me as particularly "funny". So do please clarify what this line of messaging is supposed to be conveying. Because it comes across as an egregious personal attack that is worthy of a block. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:17, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Swarm, the joke (as I understand it) is that I'm "General" Notability. And for what it's worth, I'm entertained by this thread, and would like to note that I already replied earlier in the thread in a way that suggests I get the joke. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Haha, I took it as an attack on your character. If it was a pun about your username containing the word "general", then fair enough. I will concede that it completely went over my head lol. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Is this a promotion from LieutenantGeneralNotability? Heh.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Original announcement

•  Bureaucrat note: -sysop per LEVEL1 request completed. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
• Conversations are at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Compromised sysop account - DYKUpdateBot and Wikipedia talk:Did you know#BOT DOWN. Shubinator (talk) 07:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Original announcement

Access was restored by AmandaNP. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Original announcement

Original announcement

• I still think a month is a long time to decide a case (not counting the couple weeks of "accept/decline" statements) .. but I also wouldn't want to see a rush to judgement. Sometimes a fine line, and I don't have a better answer. Glad this was at least discussed though - thank you. — Ched (talk) 03:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Original announcement

Original announcement

Why is it called "Gender and sexuality" when it appears only to concern gender? DuncanHill (talk) 01:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• I think the motion makes clear the the prior status quo which involves "any gender-related dispute or controversy" is still in full force and that this is primarily a renaming with some minor amendments. The amendments about transgender pronouns and systemic bias on Wikipedia are additions, not restrictions. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

  And they really are just a summation of the last 6 years of clarification requests --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 02:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

  So why is it called "gender and sexuality" when it does not mention sexuality? DuncanHill (talk) 02:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

It's a pertinent question. Gender is related to sexuality, but is not quite the same thing. A person's gender does not define their sexuality, nor does their sexuality define their gender. As far as I'm aware, the cases - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate, were about gender, not sexuality; but I am not closely familiar with them - I was inactive for the Manning case, so perhaps there was concerning behaviour regarding sexuality in those cases. Given that the cases were not named after sexuality, and do not appear to be about sexuality, perhaps the sexuality aspect got appended to one or other of the cases during an amendment at some stage? User:Thryduulf generally has a good knowledge of Arb matters, perhaps they know. SilkTork (talk) 11:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

This motion (and new case) combines the current two cases which refer to the area. However, it doesn't tell the whole story.

• Manning naming dispute - which in turn referenced
  • Sexology
  • Interactions at GGTF
• GamerGate

Now, the Sexology one initially said "all articles dealing with transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g., hebephilia)" but it was rescinded here - with the understanding that it was it was covered by the GamerGate's "any gender-related dispute or controversy"

So - from the looks of things, there was previously a limited Sexuality element to these DS. I'll have to look further to see if it was ever used. We should either rename the new shell case, or tweak the DS to include the Sexology sexuality areas. L235, do you have any thoughts? Worm^TT(talk) 12:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I've been beaten to the answer by WTT, but from what I read the DS authorised in the Sexology case were withdrawn for a combination of two reasons. Firstly, the DS for paraphilia-related topics were no longer needed and secondly the gender-related topics were also covered by the DS authorised in the Manning case. I'm not aware of any current necessity to reinstate DS in the sexology topic area (including paraphilias), so I would suggest not adding that without anyone presenting evidence of need. I have no opinion at present about renaming to remove "sexuality" from the title of the currently authorised sanctions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

That all makes sense. This is a shell case to hold the sum total of everything considered prior, not do anything particularly new. That is, sexuality was once considered and even had some remedies associated with it, so hence the title, even if not currently in force. A case titled Tom and Jerry need not sanction both. It's a little unorthodox, but if the Committee wanted to e.g. authorize some sort of sexuality-based DS in the future, I would imagine they would live here. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I think there are potentially negative cultural and social considerations in simply lumping sexuality with gender. It sort of makes legitimate the notion that some people have that transgender people are gay. While there is a relation between gender and sexuality, it is not such a straightforward one that we can or should easily group them together. People self-identify with a particular gender regardless of sexuality. I understand the usefulness of putting sexuality and gender together, but because of the sensitivity of gender related cases, having a shell case where other sexuality matters such as hebephilia, and bestiality can be thrown in, is perhaps socially and politically not a good idea. If the sexuality aspect is not essential to this shell case, then perhaps it is more appropriate to simply remove it. SilkTork (talk) 14:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd imagine that folks disrupting one area are likely to be disruptive in the other, is that fair? As a former Arb, you'd know better than I. I totally agree with your statement, but presumably that's one reason to keep them together? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I imagine one argument for including gender and sexuality in the name would be that the former DS for sexology would be part of the scope of that case. I'm not sure it has anything to do with the definitions of the words themselves. Perryprog (talk) 14:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah. I think I'm almost certainly being over-sensitive to the sensitivities in these areas; and though it's right that we should consider if gender issues and sexuality issues belong together, there does seem to be an acceptance that sometimes they do, as in LGBT, because they can generate similar biases or reactions as Amory indicates. SilkTork (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Worm That Turned that the shell case should be named to match the appropriate scope. After all, that was the key point to creating it in the first place. I don't agree that the name should have an expansive scope to cover future potential remedies. This defeats the advantage of creating a shell case, which was to make it easier for editors to understand the scope of the existing remedy. isaacl (talk) 18:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

So basically, on pages & talk-pages related to topic-in-general. One has to comply to what certain groups demand or be blocked/banned? GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

In practice you will find that activists tend to get blocked & banned from their chosen cause just as much, if not more so. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

If you interact with the articles, talk pages and other editors in the topic area the way you should be behaving generally anyway then 99% of the time you'll have no issues at all (just remember to be a little more conservative with regards WP:BOLD actions). The remaining 1% of the time the differences from normal will be well-advertised, and you can appeal them if you don't think they're reasonable anyway. DS primarily exist as an expedient way to curtail disruption from those who cannot or will not interact in a collegiate manner. Thryduulf (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

On all of Wikipedia, one must comply with what certain groups demand or be blocked/banned. These demands are listed at WP:PAG. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

As the nerd user who pretends to know things about this DS-regime, I considered pointing this out to Arbcom after I mentioned the Manning thing. Ultimately, I came to the same conclusion as Amory on this. Sexuality as it relates to gender is covered by the DS, but if Arbcom later receives evidence that sexuality in itself is also needing sanctions then they would be able to live at the G&S, too. They're pretty related topics. Of the two though, gender is certainly more contentious, so I doubt this will ever become a problem. Though, who knows.. Maybe in two years I will be violently disagreeing with that statement. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• Sexuality should absolutely stay included. That isn't conflating gender and sexuality, certainly not any more than the acronym "LGBT" or the academic term "gender and sexuality studies". These are inherently related topics. And it's very surprising to me that the sexuality aspect from the Sexology case was just casually dropped from specific mention without any real consideration when folding that into the later cases. (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology#Discretionary sanctions.) For one thing, many sexuality topics like that related to homosexuality/LGB are clearly gender-related because it's about what gender (or sex) someone is attracted to in relation to one's own. In addition to that, the Sexology case had a lot to do with paraphilias and their classification, including topics like hebephilia and pedophilia. Historical disruption on these topics was extreme and extensive, and a recently deceased editor was vital in combating such disruption. It would be naive to think disruptive editors on that topic won't appear in the future; even recently one occasionally appears. Even on harmless paraphilias, like macrophilia, low-level disruption still occurs occasionally to this day. These topics were clearly always meant to be covered by DS, and were understood as included at the time Sexology was superseded by the later cases as noted by Worm above, [23] even though in practice they were overshadowed in peoples' minds by gender issues after Manning and GamerGate. ArbCom never dropped those DS and said they are included when replacing them; therefore they are still in force as part of "gender" even though not specifically stated in the current shell case. This should be rectified. What good reason would there have been to drop them? ArbCom did the right thing by naming the shell case "Gender and sexuality"; now the DS should just be clarified to say "gender and sexuality". Easy fix.
  On that note, the DS alert is now ungrammatical - You have shown interest in any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people. Also, the DS isn't just about "controversies" like GamerGate, so shouldn't it be more in line with the pseudoscience and GMO alerts in just naming the topic itself? Like this: You have shown interest in gender or sexuality, or people associated with a gender- or sexuality-related controversy. Like, if someone is being disruptive at, say, transgender, they are engaging in a gender-related "dispute", but they aren't editing a topic of a gender-related "dispute or controversy". Read literally, it's actually extremely limited.
  Pinging Worm That Turned so at least one arb is aware of my comment here. Sorry I didn't say any of this sooner. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC) Tweaked. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
• "So why is it called 'gender and sexuality'?" Because this is a merged mixed-bag of RFARB cases and ARCA and AE actions going back years, some of which A) did not involve socially-constructed gender, but biological sex for the most part (GamerGate was about women/girls generally, about 99.something % of whom are cis-female, and it's pretty clear that online harassment of women/girls in the gamer community had little if anything to do with trans-women; the three women central to the GamerGate controversy, Quinn, Wu, and Sarkeesian, are all cis-women); or B) were about human sexuality topics without any particular connection to gender, e.g. Sexology (I probably don't need to name usernames here, esp. given that one of these parties was very long-term T-banned, was let back into the subject area for a while, then T-banned again). So, no, do not remove "sexuality" from the case name or scope. The DS have been used to good effect in several sexuality topics that are not gender-related, and this will continue to be the case, especially when it comes to things like hebephilia, ephebophilia, and pedophilia, which are always a wiki-policing challenge due to the continual arrival of (and probable socking by) WP:CIVILPOV advocacy crackpots. Reducing the scope of these consolidated cases and DS would be a WP:Child protection problem, and we would gain absolutely nothing by doing it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

  @SMcCandlish and Crossroads: I think a timeline will be of assistance here:

  • April 2013 discretionary sanctions are authorised under the Sexology case for "all articles dealing with transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g., hebephilia)." (a minor amendment changed "articles" to pages in October 2014)
  • October 2013 the Manning naming dispute case noted that the discretionary sanctions authorised in the Sexology case remained in force and, "for the avoidance of doubt", explicitly stated they apply to "any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender..."
  • October 2014 community general sanctions are enacted for all pages related to the GamerGate controversy.
  • December 2014 the Interactions at GGTF case authorised discretionary sanctions for pages relating to the Gender gap task force.
  • January 2015 the Gamer Gate case replaces the communirt general sanctions with disretionary sanctions for "all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed.".
  • February 2015 the scope of the GGTF discretionary sanctions topic bans is ammended to "any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed."
  • November 2017 the discretionary sanctions authorised under the Sexology case are rescinded. It is explicitly noted that the discretionary sanctions authorised in the GamerGate case continue in force.
  • February 2019
    • the discretionary sanctions authorised under the Interactions at GGTF are rescinded.
    • the Manning naming dispute case is amended to reference the GamerGate discretionary sanctions rather than the (no-longer in force) Sexology discretionary sanctions.
  • February 2021
    • The new Gender and Sexuality shell case authorises discretionary sanctions for "all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people.""
    • The discretionary sanctions authorised under the GamerGate case are rescinded.
    • The note at the Manning naming dispute case referencing the discretionary sanctions authorised under the GamerGate case is rescinded.

  So discretionary sanctions for sexuality were not "casually dropped" when cases were amalgamated - they had been rescinded about two years previously. This also means that there have been no discretionary sanctions related to any aspect of sexuality (other than its interaction with gender), including hebephilia, paedophilia and other paraphilias (the only aspect ever covered) since November 2017. Thryduulf (talk) 02:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

  Fair enough. Now't I think of it, problem editors at sex/sexuality topics have been mostly dealt with at ANI, and the particular party I referred to was re-T-banned for gender-related stuff, not sexuality per se. I think the decision to rescind the DS was a poor one on general principle (why make it easier for people to PoV-push in subject that attract some really noxious people?), but I suppose that in direct practice it hasn't had much effect, and hasn't been much noticed. I've argued before myself that the de minimis approach is that ArbCom should not retain any DS in a topic area in which it is not presently proven to be needed, so I can't entirely complain, I guess. I will certainly concede that the bulk of the disruption in the broad scope, both from newly-arrived PoV pushers and between long-term editors, has been over gender-related matters, not sexuality ones. However, with the combo case renamed and the DS/alert parameter value changes to agree with it, more people will notice that sexology, etc., are not longer covered, so PoV-pushing and other antics in them are likely to increase and eventually generate a new case.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) If you are talking about the editor I think you are, then their topic ban is from "human sexuality and gender" (expanded from the original "human sexuality" in 2019) and exists independently from the discretionary sanctions. However, changes in scope of a DS authorisation do not retroactively affect sanctions placed under the authorisation unless the motion explicitly says it does. For example, if DS is authorised for "Foo and Bar" in 2018, user:Example is topic banned from "Bar" in 2019 under the DS, and the DS authorisation is amended to just "Foo" in 2020, User:Example is still topic banned from "Bar" in 2021 and can be sanctioned for breaches of it (assuming the specific sanction has not expired or been successfully appealed of course). Thryduulf (talk) 03:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

  When I said "casually dropped" I was referring to the November 2017 discussion. [24] Now that I read the whole section in context, though, it does seem that dropping paraphilias was intentional. Very unfortunate IMO; AE is a vastly superior venue than ANI and paraphilias attract disruptive editing just as gender does, but less often as a smaller topic.

  This still leaves the issue of the DS wording which I outlined above. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

  @Crossroads: AE is a vastly superior venue if you want to take a a blockhammer to an editor. It is a terrible venue if you want a more balanced consideration of evidence and level of fault be considered, in both sanction and particularly appeals Nosebagbear (talk) 15:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

  What a weird thing to say. My experience is that endless (no word-limit) AN/ANI free-flowing threads concerning AE matters more often than not become impenetrable to outside reviewers (outside topic area regulars) and end up as timesink dead-ends. I mean, I'm looking at ANI#Paradise_Chronicle_and_justification_of_a_massacre (perm link) after just one day, and whose lack of structure already makes it difficult to follow. Even for me, and I've been involved in that discussion from the outset. El_C 12:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

  Also, unrelated to the ARBAA2/ARBKURDS matter I use an example above, here is another example I've been observing recently at ANI (HORN-related), and which I've just commented on (with this usual), where I also link to my comment above: perm link. El_C 14:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Original announcement

• We just reblocked a user whose problems were beyond socking, who was unblocked by ArbCom. Wtht all due respect, this looks like overreach and opposing the Community. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • @Deepfriedokra: Which user are you referring to? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
    • @Newyorkbrad: Gah! Can't remember the name. Will need to dig for it. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
      • @Deepfriedokra: Not necessary, I just thought you might remember it. As a general statement, ArbCom grants a very small percentage of the appeals taken to us, so it's helpful if we get feedback when one of our relatively rare unblocks doesn't work out. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

        That's correct, even when the community gets it very wrong, you usually uphold the bans or blocks because you don't want to make waves by doing the right thing. (Even when policy clearly says, "or ARBCOM..." you will say ARBCOM has no authority.) Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

        If "not making waves" were at the top of our agenda, we wouldn't grant any appeals at all, and then we wouldn't be accused of "opposing the Community" in threads like this one. How about the possibility that we look at each appeal on its merits and do the best we can with them? Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

      • @Deepfriedokra: Are you referring to Beaneater00? You had mentioned it in the ANI thread. DanCherek (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

        I'm guessing that is who they're referring to because after they were reblocked I asked about what our responsibility was following an ArbCom unblock and was told (convincingly enough to satisfy me) that we didn't have a responsibility any more than any admin who accepts an unblock has. It's not uncommon for people who are unblocked via appeal to act out again to and to be re-blocked and so the same being true for a segment of ArbCom unblocked users shouldn't be surprising. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

        • @DanCherek: Thank you! Yes. That was it. That was an egregious case of needing a siteban. At least, on the other hand, J-Man11 seems contrite. Maybe it will work out. . . . --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• If the checkuser block is over turned, any other issues, such as WP:NOTHERE, should go to WP:AN for consideration. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Actually, if the checkuserblock is overturned, the previous indef block should be reinstated, as ArbCom normally doesn't have the authority to overturn this. Basically, this editor was blocked indef first for editing issues, and then additionally twice checkuser blocked. ArbCom can overturn that checkuser block, but not the other one, per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Ban appeals. They should reblock the user and restore talk page access, and then the editor can appeal their non-checkuser block through standard procedures. Fram (talk) 15:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

    Fram that's not what Ban appeals says. It says we'll only consider appeals from certain categories of users not that we can't unblock other users. For our authority on that we have to go to WP:ARBPOL which says ...hear appeals from blocked, banned, or otherwise restricted users. So this user was block, banned, or otherwise restricted and so we had authority under ARBPOL and the user was checkuser blocked and thus eligible for us to hear (under our procedures, which the committee sets and is responsible for). Thus under both policy and procedure this user was eligible for their block to be considered by ArbCom. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

    (ec)Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures says "The Arbitration Committee will, for the time being, take appeals (i) from editors who are subject to an ((OversightBlock)) or a ((Checkuserblock)); (ii) from editors who are blocked for reasons that are unsuitable for public discussion; and (iii) from editors blocked or banned by Arbitration and Arbitration Enforcement decisions." The block I'm discussing here doesn't match any of the above three categories, it seems (I assume reason ii doesn't come into play). While the editor falls into category "i", the spirit at least of that "law" isn't that you can then also overturn blocks outside these three categories surely? Otherwise an editor would be given an incentive to get checkuserblocked once their normal block appeals are rejected; that way, they get an appeal chance which a "better" (not checkuserblocked) editor doesn't have. It can't be the intention of the above policy quote, nor of ArbCom, to give more avenues to get a non-ArbCom block overturned to editors who are checkuserblocked on top of a a standard indef block, than to editors who don't sock? Fram (talk) 15:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

    I'd go a little further than that and point out that we should not be subjecting individuals to excessive bureaucracy for unblocks. The idea that an individual should have to go through multiple unblock procedures - effectively adding layers of blocks on top, is not conducive.

    That's not to say that the committee shouldn't be talking to the community when we are looking at banned users, in case of wider concerns, but I didn't see an AN ban discussion for this user, I saw block discussion on their talk page (which had it's own issues), before it being upped to indef and then reacting with evasion. As a group, we accepted that the individual should have a chance.

    Per NYB, it is very infrequent that Arbcom does accept appeals and I'm sure we'd appreciate feedback on those that have gone awry. Worm^TT(talk) 15:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

    If editors succeed in getting both a regular indef (appealable through regular procedures) and a checkuserblock afterwards (appealable through ArbCom), then yes, they definitely should go through the unblock procedure twice. Like I said above, otherwise you are giving an incentive to editors who have had their unblock request rejected to become checkuserblocked, as they then can appeal to another authority (aka ask the other parent). Or, obviously, ArbCom could have started a discussion before the unblock, asking the community (or even the blocking admin) if there were objections to an unblock (apart from the checkuser issue, which is outside community discussion). Fram (talk) 15:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

    Fram, Except, a regular indef can be overturned by a single administrator. Moreso by consensus. Given that all the members of arbcom are administrators, and there must be consensus amongst the committee for an unblock, we are following the procedures.

    I have no concerns about asking the other parent because I know that individuals are FAR more likely to be unblocked through normal means than through Arbcom, and this has been true throughout all my terms.

    I've long pushed for Arbcom to take on a few block reviews as possible - since they should absolutely remain in the community's hands - but in the cases where we do review, we should be taking it all the way. In cases where we think there's a likelihood of additional information, or severe disruption, or general community buy in needed, we should request a review - however, I also think we should not be unduly wasting the community's time for simple cases. Worm^TT(talk) 15:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

    "The blocking administrator may be consulted for their comments on your request (this is a common courtesy)." (from Wikipedia:Appealing a block). I hope you at least did this, and contacted User:Lourdes about this? (Better still, all admins who blocked or declined the unblock requests) Because this remonds me too much of how the Den Broeder case was handled (without wanting to make any comparison between the two editors), with an ArbCom then which focused way too much on the socking, didn't search community input, and unblocked with completely inadequate restrictions in place. Of course, this one may end much better than that one, but I fear that the lessons learned then are slowly being forgotten or ignored. Fram (talk) 16:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

    Fram, WTT captures my thinking in response to what you're suggesting. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

  More generally speaking this seems like a reasonable time to announce that the committee has agreed to post some aggregate statistic about appeals. My plan had been to compile those at the end of March (1/4 of the way through the year) which is obviously rapidly approaching and thus I already had plans to begin this work next week. I write this because obviously many ArbCom unblocks (of which there aren't a ton) go unnoticed at community forums because we just unblock. It's only when we pass some sort of restriction (like this) that we note having done so. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

  I hope ArbCom doesn't unblock editors who were blocked outside ArbCom proceedings / checkuser without informing the community of this? I thought there was agreement after the Guido den Broeder fiasco not to do this any more? Fram (talk) 15:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

  Fram, our procedure is not to hear appeals that do not include private information (CU/OS/other) or direct Arbcom control. Worm^TT(talk) 16:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

  Let me rephrase my question then: I hope ArbCom doesn't unblock editors who were also blocked outside ArbCom proceedings / checkuser without informing the community of this? Fram (talk) 16:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

  What if the community gets it wrong, as it often does, especially at ANI? Granted ARBCOM won't take an appeal lightly especially if it will be controversial, but we do need somewhere an editor can appeal the masses. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

  Please post your evidence that the community "often gets it wrong". "Often" requires either statistical evidence, anecdotes about a couple of bad sanctions will not suffice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• Actually, in theory, this editor wasn't blocked by a single admin but was community banned per WP:3X (notice). In a more principles based approach, I agree requiring an editor to submit multiple unblock/unban requests is counter-productive. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with both sides here. Requiring someone to go through multiple requests is not an effective use of our time, and can lead to conflict between community and ArbCom. However, given the community concerns regarding this individual, and that - absent particular circumstances which it appears haven't fully been met in this case, the community and ArbCom have both been moving toward ArbCom not dealing with this sort of unblock request, it might have been appropriate to get some feedback from the community before unblocking. On the surface it did appear that this user was one that ArbCom could unblock without consultation - it just turns out that on closer examination the situation was a bit more complicated. Meh. It's now a done deal, it's a minor point, and it would be inappropriate to require any more of J-Man11; though, in the interests of community harmony, a statement from ArbCom that they will check the little details closer next time might be useful. I note that the unblock statement from ArbCom is that J-Man11 should stick to one account - did the Committee also discuss and get a commitment from J-Man11 that they will follow community guidelines and policies on content creation? As it appears from glancing at the talkpage and the block log that the primary concern was not the sock accounts but the disruptive poor quality editing. Such editing is very time-consuming and demoralising to deal with, and I could well understand and sympathise right now with any editor who has previously dealt with this editor who becomes aware that they have been allowed back in without any restriction on their editing. In the circumstances a restriction on editing British army articles, appealable after six months, would have made sense rather than the account restriction. SilkTork (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• I actually don't see any downside to informing the community about any unblock that ArbCom make. Without wishing this to sound like ArbCom isn't capable of making unblocks (because most of them obviously work out OK), we have had the total shambles that were Guido den Broeder and Beaneater00, neither of whom should have been let anywhere near the encyclopedia again, and if those had been announced here there wouldn't have been an issue because someone would immediately have said "Er ... you might want to think about that one again". I can understand that it's not great for the unblocked editor to be publicised here when they're returning to editing in a great number of cases, but I think the great reduction in drama that could be achieved in the cases like the ones mentioned above make it a sensible idea. Black Kite (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

  The vast majority of the appeals ArbCom gets (I look forward to Barkeep's stats, but at a guess 90+%) are of routine CheckUser blocks, made by a single admin with no broader community input. In the few cases where the appeal is accepted, it would seem pointless and rather unfair to the appellant to post a notice on a page as widely watched as ARBN/AN. – Joe (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

  Just to add on, I'd guestimate that 90% of unblocks are SO/Rope unblocks. As for the stats, the format I've drafted don't go into level of detail about what kind of block. Instead it's going to note the reporting period, how many open appeals there were at the start of the reporting period, how many appeals were declined, how many were accepted, and how many appeals remain open at the end of the reporting period. These are all going to have be manually counted, which is why these reports had fallen by the wayside, and so keeping it simple was a priority. I had been holding off saying anything publicly until I had done the work one time just in case the time was too substantial for it to be sustainable by (the committee agreed to this in principle back in January). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• We get a ton of ban/bloc appeals, new ones nearly every day, and only a tiny percentage are unblocked. Sometimes the unblock turns out to have been a bad idea and they get blocked again. The same thing happens with "regular" unblocks and is an expected part of the unblock process. I do think the committee needs to push back on the apparent perception in some quarters that an arbcom unblock is an inoculation or an endorsement, which it most certainly is not. Users unblocked by the committee have the same status as any other user not currently blocked and are not subject to any special status outside of any unblock conditions imposed. If they start doing the same things that led to them being blocked to begin with, or anything else that would get a user blocked, any admin can block them again on their own authority. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• The reason why I blocked indef was because of continued ignorance (deliberate, or incompetent...) of the disruptive issues. If the user has reached out to ArbCom and they have deemed the unblock to be proper, I don't believe there is any issue with this. Yes, policy is worded in one way. But this is common sense area, and I consider all current ArbCom members to be quite intelligent and considerate about such requests. While I significantly respect the views of my fellow editors, I don't see any reason for this discussion to be moving in the direction that it is. Warmly, Lourdes 05:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
• As this was a regular indef block "beneath" the CUblock, I have no objections to ARBCOM handling both, as any arb is an admin who could review the case normally anyway. I do hold that someone who is both AC-blocked and CBANNED should have to go through both processes, but that's a niche group that does not apply here. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Original announcement

Original announcement

• An Arb requested that we note here that this motion does not prevent any individual administrator from taking regular administrative actions in the future in regards to Tenebrae. Barkeep49 (talk) 12:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Why would an appeal (in six months or whenever) be an option? Like, as some sort of formality? El_C 12:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

    Essentially, yes. Primefac (talk) 13:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

    I mean, it will always be the same person, but okay...? El_C 13:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

    Hooray, bureaucracy? Primefac (talk) 13:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

    I suppose it's technically possible that our policies regarding COI may change. I don't think it at all likely, but I've been wrong before. Thryduulf (talk) 14:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

    I think it's good practice to recognize that things change and change in unexpected ways. Having mechanisms to react to those changes seems appropriate and so it's kind of a standard add-on (well either 6 months or 12 months for a first appeal). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

    I don't see why people think the situation can't change or we need a change of policy. We don't normally permanently (and I mean permanent not indef) block or ban people with a COI from editing an article where they have a strong COI, especially where it's a personal COI rather than a paid one. People are strongly discouraged from editing directly when they have a COI, but it's not forbidden. Indeed somewhat ironic in this case, but as a BLPN regular I would be horrified if we ever implemented such a policy. We may ban or block an editor with a COI if they edit directly and it causes problems which happens a lot, but we need there to be actually an identified problem with their edits not just 'editor has a COI and is editing directly'. If there is such a block or ban it's intended as an indefinite one not a permanent one. In other words, it can be ended if we are convinced the editor will behave going forward. This doesn't mean the editor will never edit directly despite the lack of a ban or block, it only means their editing will be appropriate, mostly stuff already covered by WP:BANEX i.e. stuff they could always do even despite the block or ban albeit needing a sock unless it's a ban without a block. But there could also be perfectly appropriate edits that are technically not covered by BANEX that an editor without a ban or block could make directly despite having a COI. This case is complicated by the fact we can't comment why the editor has a COI, but while I can see how this may prevent us ever lifting the ban, that's not exclusively because of a policy issue. Editors are generally fully entitled to reveal why they have a COI. They are also fully entitled to not reveal. At the moment it's the latter but we don't need a policy change for the former, just the editor to change their mind. It may be that the wrongdoing is so great that it's difficult for the community to ever trust the editor ever again. But I don't see any reason arbcom should prejudge that. And also, I'm unconvinced that 20 or even 10 years from now, we'll definitely still feel the same if the editor has behaved and is otherwise a stellar editor and demonstrates a clear understanding of why their previous editing was wrong and a commitment not to repeat that. TL;DR "always be the same person" in an identity sense maybe. But "always be the same person" in an editor behaviour sense? We should always hope not and under our current policies many editors with a COI don't need a ban. P.S. Even without the editor revealing why they have a COI, I'm not sure this means we need to keep the ban. IMO assuming the other conditions are ever met i.e. we're confident they will behave, it seems fine for the ban to be lifted if there is an acknowledged COI without the precise reasons being revealed. I can understand some may feel different due to the history. Nil Einne (talk) 06:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

    ArbCom tags this onto almost every motion as a matter of course, and it's as much a polite way to say we don't want to hear from you for at least half a year as it is an invitation to appeal. In theory I don't think they could ever bar someone from appealing indefinitely, since ArbCom is supposed to be the last resort for conduct issues and the committee changes every year. – Joe (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Two questions:

(1) Is the material redacted from the Lovece biography and its talk page going to be restored?

(2) Does the conflict of interest also apply also to edits concerning Lovece's employer, Newsday?

AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

In the spirit of clarifying who was wrong and who was less wrong in this whole saga, a note in User:Hemiauchenia's block log might not go amiss either, although I carry my breath in my hand on that one.——Serial 15:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

In the same spirit, an apology to the multiple other individuals who have in the past been sanctioned and/or blocked for drawing attention to this long-running issue wouldn't go amiss, though I suspect that hell will have frozen over (or melted due to infernal warming) long before that happens... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Two answers:

1. ArbCom is not taking any action with respect to the redacted content; if the Oversight team determines this content can be restored, that is their decision to make.
2. This was not part of our deliberations, so at the moment there is no restriction there.

As a reply to some of the comments above: I cannot speak for the Committee as a whole regarding past blocks (recently or otherwise) but this was a rather unusual juxtaposition of COI and OUTING. While I have not really looked into the blocks, I would guess that at the time they were made they were appropriate given our rather strict rules regarding OUTING. That doesn't mean that I won't change my opinion on that topic or the Committee as a whole will not make further statements if/when more information comes to light, though. Primefac (talk) 16:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Primefac: More information than what? Without knowing what the committee based its decision on, how is the community supposed to know what you know and what you don't? Why did the committee choose to investigate this in secret? Mo Billings (talk) 16:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

New information has a funny way of coming to light. Another news article could be written, someone could contact ArbCom directly, the possibilities are quite numerous (and honestly, I'd rather us receive information we already know than miss out on novel info). As far as why we took this case privately, when it first crossed our inboxes it was an outing concern, which meant we couldn't discuss it publicly without spattering said information all over Wikipedia (which would, you must admit, defeat the purpose of keeping said information private). Heck, I'm being intentionally vague with my answers because there is still a potential outing concern, depending on how the redacted information is used. Primefac (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I didn't think that conducting investigations which touch on outing concerns or other sensitive information was unusual for the committee. Isn't there usually a notice of such things with a request to send the information to the committee? Mo Billings (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I cannot speak for past committees or their private cases, but in this instance we were metaphorically flooded with emails from a number of parties all regarding the same issue. Other than follow-up questions and extended conversations with some of those individuals, there was not a lot of extra information that we felt we needed from the community at large in order to make our decision. Primefac (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Good to know. Thanks. Mo Billings (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Given that one of the specific issues raised in the external 'reliable source' [25] which brought this matter to public attention was the excessive number of citations made by Tenebrae to Lovece's material published on Newsday, can I ask why ArbCom didn't include this in their deliberations? WP:COI seems clear enough regarding the potential scope of such transgressions, and if there's a reason why ArbCom wouldn't consider excessively promoting Newsday content etc relevant, I can't think of it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I honestly can't say why it wasn't discussed (something about proving a negative), so all I can really say is that we didn't discuss it. As I said to Praxicidae below, there is nothing preventing future restrictions from being made. Primefac (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Not to contradict with Primefac says (it's all true) but Tenebrae adding a Lovece citation anywhere would fall afoul of their topic ban. I am unaware of any edits where Tenebrae edited Newsday or otherwise edited about it in a way that caused concern, beyond adding links to its reviews. But as noted there is nothing preventing the community from going further or from us going further and indeed our internal discussion about this continues. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Tenebrae has edited the Newsday article many times, under his own account [26]. And there are probably good grounds for asking whether some of the other regular contributors to that article were Tenebrae too, given the circumstances. He has already admitted to editing as an IP in a manner which led to him being blocked, and the Newsday article seems to have been subject to an unusual proportion of IP editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

23 times over 15+ years doesn't strike me as "many times". In fact that is few enough that I was just able to look at all 23 edits. I don't find a whole lot to be objectionable. For instance this is one of the most substantive edits but even so I'm not seeing an issue. There were a couple of Lovece related edits in there but again that would be covered by the topic ban. As for IP editing, if you have specific concerns I know they'll be looked at with interest at WP:SPI as that's how the last IP was identified. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I seem to recall that trying to raise CoI concerns re Tenebrae at WP:SPI was one of the things that previously led to a community member being blocked. Before anyone raises the matter there again, perhaps we can have a statement from ArbCom to the effect that the same thing won't happen.

Meanwhile, if anyone wishes to judge for themselves the degree with to Tenebrae's self-promotion has also involved promotion of his employers, I recommend looking at the history of the Film Journal International article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:51, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

If raising COI concerns about Tenebrae result in blocks it's not present at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tenebrae/Archive which show 2 SPIs. The unsuccessful one was filed by a sock who was blocked 9 months later. The successful one was filed in December by an editor who has not been blocked since 2019. I also don't see any suppressed or deleted edits at the SPI (or the archive) as I would expect in an COI leading to an OUTING block. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:57, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• Given their tendentious editing (and wildly out of policy) of BLPs in general, this seems pretty lenient. VAXIDICAE💉 16:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

  This motion does not preclude future motions or sanctions if necessary, either by the community or ArbCom. Primefac (talk) 16:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

  I know, I'm just pointing out that there's more than just dubious COI editing, but since we can't go into details because of certain policies, I'd say the community is owed a huge apology and a heart felt reassurance that the same extremely unethical and tendentious behavior won't be continued. VAXIDICAE💉 16:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

  I think Arbcom did the right thing here. Their motion deals with the information received privately due to OUTING concerns. Anything else - such as a community ban on editing BLPs or adding information referenced only to certain authors or articles, or any additional block or ban decisions - can be made by the community as a whole. Now that Arbcom has posted its motion, there's no actual or perceived restriction on the community taking additional steps if we wish. Speaking personally, I recused from direct discussion or action on any suppression requests because I don't consider myself impartial on this matter; I will similarly recuse from any similar direct discussions on lifting suppression. Risker (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

  I'm with Risker here. I've been concerned about Tenebrae's editing of BLPs for quite a while. This is because of their tendency to want us to document real name, birth dates etc including of unrelated parties like children. The COI stuff is largely irrelevant to my concerns and I don't think will make a BLP ban much or any easier. Nil Einne (talk) 05:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  Considering the extent to which Tenebrae has been promoting Frank Lovece and Maitland McDonagh (I've just removed one example), I strongly suspect that the community would want to see stronger sanctions if the information known to ArbCom were public (I'd be up for a community ban myself, based on the lengthy years of deception). But we're not allowed to discuss it, so the idea of the community taking things further is somewhat moot. Yes, we could discuss Tenbrae's approach to other BLPs, but only in relative darkness. I'm not suggesting the information should be made public (it obviously shouldn't), I just suggest that the suggestion that the community can take things further if we think the current sanction is insufficient is flawed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  Hmm, then again, maybe we could get further in community discussion based on what is public and can be linked. I'll have a think. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  We've indef'd for less. Anarchyte (talk • work) 14:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I have started a discussion on the conflict of interest noticeboard about Tenebrae's edits. Mo Billings (talk) 21:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

In line with the above, I have started a discussion at WP:OUTING in order to change the policy so this situation does not continue. I say continue rather than 'happen again' because given the use of oversight here that has enabled COI editing, its impossible for ordinary editors or admins to get a clear picture. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I have proposed a community ban at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposed community ban for User:Tenebrae. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Can ArbCom give the community any guidance about how you decided that the existence of the article in the Daily Dot gave rise to a situation in which the community is free to discuss COI issues without falling afoul of the harassment policy? I'm asking this in part to clarify why ArbCom decided that this is OK, but also to clarify what editors should not do in future cases of suspected COI. Obviously, if the information were posted only on a doxing website, ArbCom would not be encouraging discussion of it. But how should the community understand how ArbCom determined that the Daily Dot article was something entirely different than that? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  @Tryptofish: I'll give the reasons behind my vote specifically. I voted to stop suppressing the link, but explicitly not in order to enforce our COI policy. I did so because Lovece is the notable subject of a Wikipedia article, and the article could be considered a reliable source to support statements in his article. The community might well decide to do so, though of course it is not required to do so if it determines otherwise. But in any event, this kind of suppression is essentially using a conduct policy (WP:HARASS/WP:OUTING and WP:OVERSIGHT) to settle a content question (whether we should include the reference in an article). Under the circumstances, I believed that would be inappropriate. I also would hold that the initial suppressions were entirely appropriate until reviewed by ArbCom; oversighters should 100% continue to enforce the oversight policy and the decision not to suppress arguable OUTING should never fall to an individual oversighter. As to the COI question, I have many thoughts on this but it will take sme time before I have them in a concise and articulable form. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks for the reply, but I still have questions. I understand how this applies with respect to the content of a BLP article. But I think that the community still needs guidance about what is, or is not, permitted during COI discussions. Would it be correct to say that, if we have a BLP about a notable person, and that BLP cites a reliable source that identifies that person as the same person who edits here under some other name, and who has not posted their real-life identity here, then that person no longer is covered by the outing policy for purposes of COI discussions? And would it be correct to say that, if an editor is not the subject of a BLP that cites such a source, then linking to an article in a reputable news source that reveals the editor's identity is against policy and subject to oversight? (As I'm sure you can infer, I'm uncomfortable with such a distinction.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  I get it, that what I asked is the kind of question that is a pain in the rear end to answer, and I'm fine with ArbCom taking some time amid a packed schedule to think the issue through and get it right. But I very strongly urge the Committee to give serious thought to the boundary between outing and not-outing as it applied in this specific case, and to communicate your thoughts to the community. It will not be enough to just say that we got it right and there's nothing more to see here, so move along. It's just a matter of time until somebody posts some new thread at COIN and cites the motion here to indicate that it's permissible to link to something, and then gets oversight-blocked for doing so. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  A specific way to think about it is if someone links to a doxing website and says: "but it's common knowledge because anyone can Google it and it's the first Google hit". And while there is an obvious distinction between linking to 8chan and linking to The New York Times, there may be no such clarity between some other online forum, and a relatively obscure online reporting website. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  @Tryptofish: I don't think ArbCom as a whole is going to give an answer on a WT:ACN thread. But I will share some of my thoughts on the matter, not on behalf of the committee:

  • I intentionally did not consider the COI discussions whatsoever when giving my vote on the oversight question. The fact that this article can be discussed in COI discussions is an incidental result of my decision to defer the content question to the community. It was not my intention that the community take this opportunity to reference the article to resolve the COI concern; that the community can do so merely follows logically from the other decisions in this matter. COI concerns involving private evidence should continue to be handled through the standard processes. One underutilized option from another era that fits well is to issue a block appealable only to ArbCom: admins are able to block based on private evidence if they label the block appealable only to ArbCom and immediately submit the evidence motivating the block to ArbCom.
  • This case is not a good vehicle to decide future cases. If this kind of situation comes up again, do not "test the waters" by posting on-wiki and seeing what happens. Instead, follow established processes; if you think the situation might qualify for an exception, email the oversight list or perhaps arbcom-en. Let me be more explicit: it is not generally acceptable to link to material that would be considered OUTING if posted on wiki, and editors who do so do so at their own risk. This isn't just me arbitrarily saying so; this follows from some of our strongest conduct policies, and if you want to change this, you need to change the policy first.
  • Regarding your discomfort with treating editors differently than notable subjects of our articles: the fact is, we do generally treat our editors quite differently from article subjects. We go out of our way to find and publish information on notable people in ways you wouldn't imagine doing on Wikipedia editors, subject to the constraints of WP:BLP. BLP allows for more information to be shared than WP:OUTING, especially if you have reliable sources that supports your contention. When something becomes a plausible content question, the BLP standards control, not OUTING. That's because when we write about Wikipedia in mainspace, or discussing such writing, the same standards apply as if we're writing about any other website. For example, imagine that the Daily Dot article purported to link Lovece with a Wordpress account instead of a Wikipedia account. If the community deems it appropriate, that could be referenced on Lovece's article and talk page, and it would clearly not be an OUTING question. The same standards apply when discussing someone's purported links to Wikipedia. This argument was what motivated my vote not to suppress the article. But again, this is not a decision that is up to any individual editor; editors should not post oversightable content on Wikipedia without obtaining a decision that it is not oversightable. I can easily imagine cases when this analysis would not apply with the same force, and RS-published links between notable subjects and Wikipedia users are suppressable (even under the BLP policy). The decision not to suppress came after weeks of internal discussion in this case.

  To summarize: the oversight decision was not intended to affect COI discussions in any way, and the analysis leading to the decision not to suppress was a fairly narrow exception to a strong general rule, and editors should not attempt to make this analysis themselves without clearing it with the oversight team. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you, that's actually a very helpful answer, even with the necessary caveats that you made. I think it's very important for the community to understand that individual editors should not take the present case as an excuse to act outside of policy without prior clearance from oversighters. Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• The real question here was not, and never was "who is Tenebrae in real life?" It's entirely irrelevant. The question that should have been being asked was "does Tenebrae edit in such a way that it suggests that, for whatever reason, they have a COI with regard to Frank Lovece." Previous discussions were derailed by single-purpose throwaway accounts asking that first question instead of the second one. Without trying to blame anyone in particular, the could have and should have been dealt with some time ago, but the system failed, in part because Tenbrae was skilled at playing the system. That obstacle has now been removed, and the community is taking action, so we're probably more or less done here. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, I have to say I think this was handled well by all concerned - ArbCom did their bit appropriately, and the community is taking it from there. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• With respect to all involved, I'm unhappy with how this was handled, particularly with respect to whatever off-wiki evidence may or may not exist beyond the DailyDot article. If off-wiki evidence was necessary to convince people of the need for action, then ArbCom should have made this a full siteban specifically to avoid OUTING - by imposing a limited TBAN, ArbCom is acknowledging the (apparently quite private) relationship. If off-wiki evidence was not necessary, then this should not have been an in camera decision, or better yet, it should have been remanded to the community based on on-wiki behavior. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  To expand a little further on the source of my irritation: I'm one of the (vanishingly few) admins who works WP:COIN (and I haven't even had the energy to deal with it the past couple of months). There are cases that show up there where someone has made no attempt to hide their identity (user BobSmith writing about XYZCorp, Bob Smith is prominently listed on xyzcorp.com as the company's marketing director) and yet we have to dance around and give hints like "I cannot publicly say why I'm so sure this editor is COI despite their denial, but a quick Google search should tell you why I think that." It's a pain in the rear, but it's what we do to respect the OUTING policy, and anything more detailed than that will usually end up oversighted. And yet here's ArbCom using private evidence to publicly connect an editor with two very specific COI topics. It's not OUTING, but in my eyes it's dangerously close to it, and in particular is too close to the line for a bunch of folks with the +OS bit. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  We are not acknowledging a real-life relationship between Tenebrae and Lovece; in fact, as I understand it, the Arbitration Committee has no opinion on the question. We merely have determined that Tenebrae has an actual or apparent conflict of interest with respect to Lovece, and that is sufficient to justify the action we have taken. We have also determined that it was appropriate to handle the case in private for reasons that we are unable to share. There is a big difference between asserting an actual or apparent conflict of interest and asserting a real-life relationship; the former happens all the time on Wikipedia, and the latter constitutes OUTING. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  Semantics. A COI is inherently a relationship with someone or something. If you have a COI with two specific individual people, you almost certainly have some kind of relationship with them - you work for them, you're a relative, you're being paid to edit about them, you're one of them. I guess if Frank Lovece were selling shares of his estate or created LoveceCoin there might not be a direct real-life relationship, but that's an intentionally absurd hypothetical. Also: Tenebrae has apparently had an apparent COI for ages -- the fact that there is off-wiki evidence and that ArbCom is acting on it with targeted TBANs strongly suggests this is "actual" COI. And that gets to a point I didn't sufficiently address above: whatever ArbCom's official stance is on the matter, most people here know how to read between lines. You obviously can't confirm or deny anything, but what I read from the announcement and early discussion (before reading the DailyDot article) is pretty much exactly what DailyDot was suggesting. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• I'd add here that simply based on a few days' antecedence, this doesn't appear likely to be the first poor decision made by ArbCom in recent history (assuming the current AN discussion continues the way it is). Two phrases to describe the current committee decisions: "out of touch" and "tunnel sighted"... -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

 Question: Although the motion specifically states "banned from any mainspace edits", is it proper for Tenebrae to be participating in an AFD for Maitland McDonagh? I would assume that as a general rule, someone with a COI would not be allowed to participate in AFD discussions, at least not to the extent of voting. I'm not asking for Tenebrae to be blocked for this. I'm just asking for clarification. Mo Billings (talk) 02:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Here is what the notice [27] said, copy-pasted: "The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maitland McDonagh until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion." I acted in good faith based on this notice.--Tenebrae (talk) 02:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

As far as the rules go, I don't think there's anything that prevents Tenebrae from commenting or even !voting at the AfD at this time. As long as the COI is disclosed, which I guess it is now, the closing admin can simply assign their comments whatever weight is appropriate based on the strength of the arguments. Mz7 (talk) 03:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

While it's a moot point now, IMO there's nothing wrong with them participating. But they should declare they have a COI in that discussion rather than relying on either someone else to point it out or for the closing admin to be aware of it. Given the unusual circumstances of this case, personally I'd be fine with Tenebrae simply mentioning that an arbcom motion found they had a COI. But frankly if Tenebrae doesn't wish to declare they have a COI then the best option for them is to simply not participate when they have a COI. To be clear, I'm not saying they have to declare why they have a COI, but they should at least be willing to declare they have one. And it was their only option until recently, an option they unfortunately did not take which is why they're in so much of trouble. (When I made my comments above, I thought there was just some minor COI editing. I wasn't aware how extensive it was. It doesn't significantly change my opinion except that it does seem far harder for them to come back from it. Still, I don't see any reason for arbcom to rule it out, since even if not 10 years, in 30 years who knows? Even the foundation has recognised the problem with having most of their bans being unappealable with a few obvious exceptions like child protect ones. So I'm still not sure why people feel this one needed to be unappealable.) Nil Einne (talk) 12:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Mz7: - on a tangential note - as a member of the Oversight team, could you provide an update to the discussions/decisions of the Oversight team regarding suppressions at Frank Lovece and Talk:Frank Lovece? Note earlier comment by Primefac: ArbCom is not taking any action with respect to the redacted content; if the Oversight team determines this content can be restored, that is their decision to make. starship.paint (exalt) 16:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  Internal deliberations among the OS team are pretty much never discussed on wiki, it's the nature of the work that it's mostly invisible. Even once a decisoon is made it's unlikely there would be any public post about it. If edits that are currently suppressed are suddenly visible again you'll have as much of an answer as anyone is likely to get on-wiki. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Original announcement

• For those who landed here: this is the section to discuss the announcement itself. The actual link to the review process is: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021 review. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Original announcement

• I know it's thin on the details (because it has to be), but I'm very glad we're doing this. Many thanks to Barkeep for taking the initiative here. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• "The figures below do not include appeals dismissed without committee discussion/action" – a reasonable decision, but is there a rough estimation of the percentage of such appeals? For example, I guess if someone was blocked as a normal administrator action and contacts the committee with a hate-filled rant, that belongs to "dismissed without discussion". I curiously wonder how often such formally incorrect appeals happen. Is it 10:1 compared to discussed appeals? Or more like 100:1? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  I would guesstimate that the average is somewhere around once every day. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  I mean if we're including troll appeals that often don't even reach the committee we're probably talking 5/week (1/workday as Beeblebrox estimates). If we're talking other appeals dismissed I'd guess over the quarter we had 5-10. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  Okay, thanks for the quick information; I had somehow overestimated this. It's still a lot, but I was afraid the committee gets 10 of these every day. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• While we're giving plaudits, I need to note that Maxim does a ton of heavy lifting on appeals, including updating ArbWiki and shepherding us towards decisions. Our process and decision making would be much worse without his efforts (and indeed he was the one who provided the counts for appeals open on Jan 1 and March 31). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks to Barkeep49 for compiling the report. And thanks to Barkeep49, Maxim, Primefac, CaptainEek, and Beeblebrox for taking on a great share of all the appeals that ArbCom sees; without your work, we would be carrying forward many times more appeals into this quarter. Most people probably don't know how much behind-the-scenes work goes on; I can attest that the volume of ArbCom email is staggering, and my thanks to every arb for contributing. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Dear Committee members, I have been now apprised that Beeblebrox has started discussing on an off-wiki public forum the private emails I sent to him considering him as a trustworthy ArbCom member who will listen to my pleas. I am not anymore comfortable going to his talk page and requesting him to not discuss on external websites my private discussion with him. I request you to kindly and urgently suggest to him to not go ahead like this before he reveals any thing further. Please, I am not ready to take this any more. Lourdes 01:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if this is true and ArbCom doesn't step in and remove this arbitrator immediately, Jimbo might have to. If Beeble is legitimately discussing private correspondence on an off-wiki forum, that's absolutely unbecoming of an arbitrator. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Correct me if I'm wrong, but to my knowledge there is not, and never has been, any such concept that off-wiki communications must inherently be kept private. Personal identifying information needs to be kept private, of course, but just because you email someone doesn't mean they're required to keep the contents of your email a secret. Clearly at VPP there's no community consensus to support such a notion. Not sure why you would send an email with an understanding that it will be some sort of confidential communication that no one can ever know about, this has never been a thing nor should it be a thing. Secretive communication goes against the spirit of the project, to the extent that I've had the need to write an email policy warning users not to try to negotiate admin actions with me via email. Gotta be honest, you're coming across as a bit desperate, Lourdes. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Swarm: FTR, WP: EMAIL, suggests that unlike messages on the website, messages via email are not subject to Wikipedia's free license and therefore are copyright by their sender, and should not be pasted onto the website in a way that breaches copyright law. HTH. ——Serial 10:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

  That's about posting them on Wikipedia directly (for copyright reasons, as it says). If sharing private correspondence publicly falls under any of our policies it would probably be WP:OWH depending on context, but see WP:EMAILPOST - though in any case the ability to talk privately with an arbitrator is obviously essential. --Aquillion (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

  Correct, that refers to the fact that emails are protected by copyright and thus cannot be copied to Wikipedia. Same concept as any other copyrighted material. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry, but you're legitmizing the publication of an intentionally non-public information by an arbitrator, nonetheless, because "you shoudn't expect it to be private"? What good is email then? Let's just disable it altogether if people are allowed to do what they want with it. Yeah, there's no legal issues, but hell, if someone emails someone something directly, there's an inherent expectation it was designated only for that person and not to be referenced/reposted elsewhere without permission. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

    I'm not "legitimizing" anything, I'm pointing out that it is "legitimate". I.e., it's not a violation of any policy, guideline, consensus, or rule, written or unwritten. I'm not sure where you and Lourdes are even getting this notion that emails are meant to be "confidential" and discussing an email is inherently wrong. This concept doesn't exist in the real world and it's never existed on Wikipedia. If I see the need to discuss an email I received on-wiki I have always done so and will always do so. It's more concerning that an admin is "pleading" with an Arbcom member off-wiki, and then turning around and making a retaliatory complaint that the Arb violated an expectation of privacy that does not exist. If you're going to throw a tantrum because you didn't want your emails discussed, maybe you shouldn't be sending the emails in the first place. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Transparency and confidentiality. ArbCom, please get your house in order. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Swarm, I am requesting ArbCom to suggest to Beeblebrox to not discuss any more of the private discussions I had with him on email, than what he has revealed till now on the external website. Knowing that he is extremely active at the said external website and is posting multiple posts every day, I am truly worried if this is all it comes to. You are right, I am a bit desperate here as I want out of this whole fracas with him. I am ruing that I commented on the ArbCom case in the first place, and then had to send private communication to him. Lourdes 02:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

      Under what behavioral or administrative theory do you request that ArbCom mandate that Beeblebrox cease discussion of emails you sent him? As I said, no such concept seems to exist to my knowledge. I understand why you would be upset that he would talk about an email you thought would be private, but I don't understand why you would expect an email to be private to begin with. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

      I'll let ArbCom decide what's the best practice here with respect to this request about one of their members. Thanks, Lourdes 03:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

      So, just to be clear, you're not complaining of a specific policy or community consensus violation? You're just posting a personal gripe, and hoping Arbcom will come up with a violation against the user? Hmmm... ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not suggesting there are any direct correlations, but Arbcom has discussed email and privacy in the past. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list. — Ched (talk) 02:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• Can Lourdes stop forumshopping please? You already have a village pump proposal open. Here are Beeblebrox's comments on the topic on Wikipediocracy in full. I guess I better say something before I'm tarred and feathered. I discussed the incident leading up to this privately with Lourdes, and although we weren't exactly best friends at the conclusion of that discussion, I thought we had arrived at a basic understanding and the issue was settled. Nothing of the contents of the email were stated. Lourdes really is grasping at straws at this point. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • To be clear, I don't want off-wiki communication being posted here about me. Please don't harass me. After his first post on our private communication that Beeblebrox posted today, I want to ensure he stops, rather than writing anything more. I would appreciate if you remove your message above and also refrain from posting any future off-wiki posts regarding my private communication with Beeblebrox. Thanks, Lourdes 03:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

    No. I am not going to let you get away with misrepresenting what Beeblebrox said. You are wildly lashing out to get back at Beeblebrox both for mentioning your real-life identity off-wiki (which you publicly revealed, though Beeblebrox bring it it up unprompted was uncalled for imo) and for his vote to desysop RexxS, who you are a strong supporter of. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

    There is no misrepresentation Hemiauchenia. And nothing like "I am not going to let you get away...". Beeblebrox has posted a first post describing our private communication (which he need not have), and there is much he can reveal further, if he is not advised otherwise. I am clear about how such discussions go on this off-wiki website, and how easily information can be asked and shared by mistake or otherwise, as earlier. My request to the Committee is to not wait till more is revealed and to ensure that there is at least some assurance he will not reveal contents of my multiple emails and his email; and request to you to stop posting external off-wiki posts here, and to delete the above reference. Thanks, Lourdes 03:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

    No dice. When you put in the title "discuss my private emails" it implies that Beeblebrox divuluged significant detail of your correspondence. As evidenced by the above quote. Beeblebrox did not divulge any of nature of the discussion, but stated that he had felt that he had reached an understanding with you. If I didn't post what the actual comment was, then it would be easy to imagine that they were much worse than they actually are. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:29, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

    Actually, this is exactly what I hope ArbCom suggests to him and I hope this section ensures that he doesn't post anything more related to our private communication. I don't trust his capacity to know where to draw the line and I am thankful that I am coming here at this instant when he has started referring to my private communication with him. To you, I would request again, please don't copy paste material from external websites referring to me. This is harassment. Lourdes 03:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Assuming what Hemiauchenia has posted is correct (and I have no reason to believe it isn't) then I have to agree with them that Beeblebrox has not discussed your (Lourde's) private emails on social media forums. You can of course ask arbcom to advise him not to do it, but as he hasn't done that, has given no indication that he intends to do that, and would be prohibited from doing that by WP:ARBCOND I don't really see the point. Indeed, I think a more useful outcome from this thread would be a prohibition on you discussing Beeblbrox on the English Wikipedia. If you have a complaint about their conduct as an arbitrator, make it privately to an uninvolved arbitrator. If your complaint is about their conduct other than as an arbitrator, make it privately to an uninvolved administrator. In both cases, if that person agrees your complaint has merit then they can take appropriate action, including bringing it up publicly on your behalf if necessary. Thryduulf (talk) 08:24, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Sure Thryduulf. Noted with reservations, but will move ahead from here. Lourdes 08:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • A more useful outcome from this thread would be a prohibition on you discussing Beeblbrox on the English Wikipedia. Are you thinking a one-way I-ban, Thryduulf. ——Serial 15:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

    Hopefully it wont be necessary given Lourdes' response to me, but another thread like this one and I would certainly support a limited one-way iban. Thryduulf (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

    • Mind you, Thryduulf, a similarly limited I-ban between Giano and the whole committee doesn't sound like it would be a bad thing either. ——Serial 16:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

      At this point I am starting to agree as well. PackMecEng (talk) 16:24, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• @ Thryduulf, As only a couple of days ago [[Hemiauchenia was falsely and maliciously accusing RexxS of outing a female user (they have since retracted this lie), I would be inclined to take any assurances they make with a pinch of salt. Looking at Wikipediocracy it seems Beeblebrox and Hemiauchenia work as a double act. Giano (talk) 16:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I think that Thryduulf is overreacting by raising the possibility of any kind of restrictions at this point. For that matter, I think that a lot of people are overreacting in various ways. The way that this conflict is going to be resolved is via the next one or two ArbCom elections. Beeblebrox has made it abundantly clear that he is going to go right ahead and do whatever it is that he wants to do, and no amount of community feedback is going to change that. In the meantime, I strongly advise all the other members of ArbCom to conduct yourselves properly, which basically amounts to using common sense – and resist any temptation to circle the wagons. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:16, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• So a good way to diffuse the situation is to start slapping one way I Bans on folks? Sure, that wouldn't add any fuel to the fire /sarcasm. — Ched (talk) 16:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

  I mean... Yeah, I would expect the fire to die down quickly when the two pouring the most gas on it are removed from the situation. That's how that works. PackMecEng (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

  Well, the proper venue would be that way. Let me know how it all works out for ya. — Ched (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

  I doubt it will—could—be any less productive than your /sarcasm right now, which seems hardly conducive to diffusing anything; but YMMV. ——Serial 17:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

  True, PackMacEng; It's true that the entire thread has been non-productive from the start, with multiple attempts to sanction Beeblebrox wholly failing in multiple arenas, but the continued participation of certain editors is, if possible, verging on the negative. ——Serial 17:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

  Oh dear Serial Number 54129, you are beginning to sound a little rattled. The simple solution is just to admit that Arbs should not be discussing other editors anywhere other than Wikipedia, and then only in a respectful fashion. What hope is there for the rest of us, if we aren’t set a good example by those elected to do so. Giano (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

  As has been explained multiple times in multiple discussions, "should not be discussing other editors anywhere other than Wikipedia" might be a good soundbite it would prohibit many forms of communication that are not at all harmful and indeed can be a significant positive to dispute resolution. Whether Beeblebrox's comments were an example of such or not, the correct response to it is not to cut noses off to spite faces. Thryduulf (talk) 02:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• Can we stop saying "social media forums" already? Everyone knows that the forum in question is Wikipediocracy... it's not outing to simply give the name of the forum without linking to the actual thread. Also, if you (generalized/plural) don't like what is being said on Wikipediocracy, then why are you (generalized/plural) reading it in the first place? 192.196.218.210 (talk) 02:07, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

  While the specific incident that led to this thread (and the previous ones) was Wikipediocracy, I don't think the intent was to limit the applicability to there. Indeed whatever your views on whether what Beeblebrox did was or was not appropriate I can't imagine anyone would have a different view if it happened on Twitter or Facebook or whatever other social media platforms people use to discuss things. Thryduulf (talk) 02:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

  That would be all well and good if the specific incident would correlate with a generalized problem that existed. It appears instead that a user overstepped their bounds because they were embarrassed. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 07:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

  I agree there is no need for any action here, but my point with this comment was that if there was a need then it wouldn't make sense to restrict it to one particular venue. Thryduulf (talk) 10:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• No idea why people are freaking out about Beeb's participation at Wikipediocracy. He's never revealed anything confidential. Carrite (talk) 02:31, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • This whole thread seems more along the lines of harassment than anything Beeblebrox has done. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
    • That's about right, Swarm, and hence the discussion of an i-ban, above. It hasn't been formally moved, of course, but it'll wait until the next occurance, I imagine, if there is one. ——Serial 09:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

      There’s no harassment at all, just genuine concerns over confidentiality. Beeblebrox has shown that he likes to talk about Arbitration matters on Wikipediocracy, questioning how far that talk goes is perfectly reasonable, as is questioning the wisdom of such talk. Giano (talk) 07:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

      There wasn't too much reasoned questioning. More of a lynch mob making rash assumptions and support for unsubstantiated allegations. Leaky caldron (talk) 09:39, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

      I actually don't see any questioning, just statements that what was alleged to have happened was completely unacceptable and requests for actions based on those statements and allegations being correct (despite the allegations not actually being true). Similarly the previous thread (the AN/VP one) started from the premise that 'X happened, X is completely unacceptable, therefore we need these rules to prevent things similar to X happening again', not 'what is it acceptable and reasonable for arbitrators to discuss about (active) arbitration cases and/or other users?'. Thryduulf (talk) 11:01, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

      See, Risker's comment, [28] which was similarly agreed with in multiple other's comments, since Risker made it. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

      That is true, and if that had set a benchmark for the general tone of this overall discussion, then it probably would have achieved more than it has. It certainly would have had a less aggressive atmosphere. Unfortunately, some editors took the opportunity afforded them to troll, and so here we are. But yes, Risker certainly made a reasonable comment. ——Serial 11:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

      I was referring specifically to this thread (which I understood to be the context of Giano's comment) and the AN/VP one, Risker's comment was in the thread before that one. I agree with Serial that Risker's comment was and is of a tone that is both constructive and far superior to the commentary offered by Lourdes and Giano et al. Thryduulf (talk) 14:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

      I too was referring to this thread, and the AV/VP. Comments by multiple users in all these threads and on several sides of propositions, have been in accord with Risker's comment. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• It probably wasn't wise for Beeblebrox to even mention there was an email, but it doesn't seem there was any content shared, so I don't see any policy violation. I understand why Lourdes doesn't like it, but that doesn't make it actionable in any way. And yes, I agree with Risker's assessment that it isn't a good idea, it just isn't a policy violation as of now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

  Risker has it right, it is surprising it needs to be said, and we should hope that arbs won’t wikilawyer over whether breaches of common sense, that affect community trust in the Committee, need to be codified into policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

There's a couple of overlapping threads/issues here that deserve examination:

1. Posting the contents of a private email on Wikipedia is a copyright violation, inasmuch as the copyright of email remains with the sender. It's a technical point but one reaffirmed by the Arbitration Committee any number of times, I think even when I was still on it.
2. Disclosing that you've had private correspondence with a user violates no policy that I'm aware of, but it's poor judgement (I was guilty of this myself once and I consider it a real learning experience). As a social norm, contacting a user privately implies a confidence, though that depends on all manner of social nuances and contexts. If Lourdes had that expectation when contacting Beeblebox, it was apparently unjustified.
3. No policy prohibits users from participating in discussions off-wiki; I spoke against Lourdes' proposal to constrain arbitrators from doing so and I still think it's not the right approach. As a practical matter, WP:PROBLEMLINKS and related guidelines make enforcing such almost impossible. Even now, we're not linking to the offending posts.
4. There is an expectation, as Giano has rightly noted elsewhere (I don't have the diff in front of me), that arbitrators be above the fray and seen as impartial. This is very difficult to achieve when arbitrators are also expected to stay engaged with the community and explain their actions. Arbitrators are still users, who come and go from the committee and have existing relationships with editors.
5. Reconciling that impartiality with participation on external forums may be impossible. This is not a new problem. For some editors, even the fact of participation outside of Wikipedia itself is problematic. For others, more depends on tone and content. There is no approach that will satisfy everyone. A nuanced approach would consider the nature of the forum and what was said. Again, this is difficult because the norms against linking to external forums will complicate any review of the conduct there.

I don't know where we go from here, if anywhere. I don't know what has passed between Lourdes and Beeblebrox, but it's a problem and if they can't address it between themselves then someone else may have to. Looking at this and other discussions it's many of the same people participating, generating more heat than light. I don't blame uninvolved users for staying away. At the very least, I think ARBCOM as a body has to review Beeblebrox's conduct and say something. This won't satisfy most people, but it's a starting point and might at least establish a baseline for future discussions. Mackensen (talk) 17:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Disclosing that you've had private correspondence with a user [is] poor judgement. I disagree that this can be stated in absolute terms. In many, probably most, cases "User:example and I have resolved our disagreements about this via email." is perfectly fine. "I've tried to resolve this matter with user:X privately, but they refuse to engage." and "Despite my requests to keep this on-wiki, user:Y keeps emailing me" could very well be an important part of dispute resolution; and obviously if someone is harassing you off-wiki it is necessary to disclose that somewhere if anything is to happen about it, and that somewhere will be on wiki in some (but not all) cases. In other situations, then yes disclosing the existence and/or subject of private correspondence will be inappropriate, but it is highly context dependent. I do agree that posting the contents of private correspondence is a different matter that should never be done without explicit permission. Thryduulf (talk) 17:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• I'd like to make my position clear on a few things:

• At the time I made the initial remark that so infuriated Lourdes, I did not know she had previously tried to have the material I mentioned suppressed. I only became aware of this after she said as much on-wiki. Had I known that I would not have made that remark at all.
• As to my other remarks about open cases, most of them were of a very general nature, the structure of the case, the sheer number of evidence submissions, that sort of thing. To my thinking that made them harmless. I have heard loud and clear that a significant number of people disagree with that perspective.
• By the same token, I have also heard the arguments that some people think I should not speak my mind on any Wikipedia matter, be it related to an open case or not, on any offsite forum, and that the fact that people who are banned here may be participating in those discussions makes them absolutely off-limits. I reject that line of reasoning utterly. As has been stated a number of times, that I comment on certain offsite forums (only one actually, one is more than enough) was clear when I ran for this position.
• I will however, grant that in this past year, and especially the last several months, my participation there has spiked, becoming something of a substitute for actual socializing, which, like many if not most of you, I've not been doing. Even before this incident I've been making myself go outside and just walk around with no screen in front of my face.
• As to the "revealing the content of email." This was truly an overreach. I've mentioned that someone contacted me by email dozens if not hundreds of times on-wiki, as have many, many other users. There is not, and never was, any absolute code of silence about mentioning the existence and general tone of an off-wiki conversation.

• I hope this clarifies things for people and I expect it to be my last comment about this. Lourdes has backed off, I've listened to the feedback and taken it on board, I don't personally see any need for this discussion to drag on. If all that will satisfy some of you is some sort of formal sanction, propose one at the appropriate forum. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• Seems fair enough; what are we to do wrt the persistent trolling, though? ——Serial 20:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• ”Lourdes has backed off!” You really don’t get it at all do you? Have you no idea how appalling it is that an Arbitrator has to make even such a grudging, half hearted statement as yours? They are rhetorical questions, I don’t think anyone is interested in what will be your undoubtedly self-pitying, self-justifying replies. Giano (talk) 19:58, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• I think this is an amicable end to this debacle for all (except those who are only causing drama for drama's sake). I think the problem seemed to be that in this case, it seemed that you didn't see what was wrong with it. I understand socializing during this time - and I personally have no problem with you participating in sites like that - but you should attempt to "keep the hats separate" in my opinion and not discuss active arbitration there while it is active - the potential chilling effect and "confused loyalty" - even if they don't occur, the potential for them is too great for a sitting arbitrator to not take extreme care when doing so. I do have a remaining issue with the email situation - if Lourdes was commenting on-wiki, then emailed you, the obvious assumption is that they wanted the communication via email to be either non-public, or one-on-one. The least you could've done is send an email to Lourdes asking their permission to say "we resolved the situation amicably" anywhere - but from what I gather, this wasn't done, and you simply opined on it without permission. Sure, "resolving amicably" isn't technically content of emails, but it still suggests what the discussion entailed, which is too much in my opinion without the permission of the other party.

  I thank you, Beeblebrox, for taking the time to consider the errors made by all here, and for apologizing for failing to recognize the amount of disagreement with your actions - and what I see as a promise to try to be better. I see no reason to continue this either assuming that this sort of thing doesn't happen again, and I don't know that a formal sanction is necessary - punishments are to be preventative, and that's not necessary right now as you seem to understand where the (admittedly very fine line) is. I also commend you for, what appears to me, having taken a day or two off from this debate to reflect - and I think that suggests that you actually did reflect and realize where the "light" was that caused all the "heat". Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

  I appreciate Beeblebrox's explanation here. I'm glad that you hear it "loud and clear" that there is community concern over commenting about open cases. I can also appreciate how the past year has been difficult for everyone, and that's certainly something to take into consideration. You did not actually say that you accept as valid those things that you have heard loud and clear, so I want to parse some of the distinctions that you did make. I, personally, do not think that you should be prevented from speaking your mind on WPO at all, nor do I care who else is participating there, for these purposes. What should be understood is that anyone who looks there can see what gets posted, and not everyone here should be obligated to look there – and that means that the kinds of comments an active Arb makes should not be the kinds of things that make any editor participating in ArbCom business question the impartiality of the process, and likewise, that there should be no comments that would have made someone here have doubts about impartiality, had they seen the comments. It's important that every Arb understand those distinctions, and refrain from making any kinds of posts that fail to meet that standard. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Original announcement

I just saw this on meta - I was just wanting to check whether en.wiki ARBCOM decided not to sign it, or is the process of deciding whether to sign it? Nosebagbear (talk) 10:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Neither, more of "how". There are 14 of us, after all. Primefac (talk) 11:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Looks like individual Arbs can sign it. I would hope all the enwp Arbs sign it. If your first priority is the editors and readers of enwp, it would seem you must. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Since it's currently phrased as signing on "behalf", it might be rather problematic if individual arbs were signing on it without a majority motion. While my emotions would like that, it would not be a wise action in either the medium or long-term. I would say something like, if there is a majority arb vote for a motion to sign-it as ArbCom, pick a couple of arbs to sign it and link/note that ArbCom as a whole has agreed to it (or a majority, etc etc) Nosebagbear (talk) 12:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  Primefac, for the "how", if you agree with the wording you could either sign as an individual, altering the wording from "Signing on behalf of the enwiki-arbcom" to "Signing member(s) of the enwiki-arbcom" (or whatever you think is appropriate), or if you prefer a group response, you can have a discussion about it with the rest of the Committee and agree the group response. SilkTork (talk) 13:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  That is what I would expect. The other Arbs don't have that awkward wording, it is just a matter of changing it and signing it as an individual, not on behalf of anyone else. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  That was a good solution SilkTork Nosebagbear (talk) 15:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• I am excited that this is public as enwiki ArbCom helped to shape and write this letter. I am also very excited that the foundation has already moved in some positive directions, most notably in delaying the deadline to the end of the year. I don't know what role Xeno (WMF) had in that but it gives me more hope that the UCoC will be able to live up to its promise. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  I want to add my excitement, as well as my thanks to Barkeep49 specifically as the primary enwiki arb to represent this committee in discussions with the other ArbComs. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Just noting that the above discussion occurred before the announcement was made by ArbCom, and was subsequently merged into this section. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• I appreciate what the letter says, and I thank ArbCom for expressing these important concerns to the WMF. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• I, too, would like to highly commend ARBCOM on the letter, as well as the other ARBCOMs, the multi-community nature give good weight to the high quality points within. Nosebagbear (talk) 00:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• Adding my thanks for ArbCom stepping up on this issue. Governance issues with WMF, an organisation originally created to provide "back office" support to the projects but that now seems to believe it has a leadership and strategy-setting mandate with an ever burgeoning raft of paid staff, are the reason why I not longer contribute to this project. If WMF backs down here and gives the projects and their contributors a meaningful voice in the UCoC drafting and ratification process, that would go a long well towards convincing me that a sensible balance had been achieved. Sadly, I consider it unlikely that the open letter will be accepted and acted upon. @Xeno: Any thoughts, given your new role? WJBscribe (talk) 08:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

  WJBscribe: good to hear from you, hope you're well - thanks for the ping =)

  As I wrote earlier this year when stepping down from the committee: "Strong community governance is paramount to the ongoing health and longevity of our projects. My goal will be to ensure community concerns are clearly communicated and considered by the drafting committee while working to demonstrate that community enforcement mechanisms can adequately handle the additional burdens that may be placed on the Foundation and project volunteers by public policy changes."

  With the shared belief that projects and their contributors need to have a meaningful voice in the process, I accepted the professional role with the understanding my task would be conducting a comprehensive community consultation and review about the enforcement mechanisms. I can confirm this is happening, see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Update to Universal Code of Conduct Timeline.

  To the Open Letter: I am quite impressed with the collaboration - knowing how difficult it is for even single committees to compose shared communications, seeing these signatures is quite significant. In additional to the April consultation (which I'm facilitating as Xeno (WMF)), I know that there are meetings planned for 10 & 11 April for Arbitration Committees and other functionaries being facilitated by Keegan (WMF). –xeno^talk 14:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

  Xeno: Thank you. One of the key elements of the open letter is this statement, "A formal process for ratifying the UCoC enforcement system is necessary." I underline the last word because it is significant. As you say, composition these kind of joint communications is no small effort and the word use isn't accidental. Considerable thought will have gone into choosing each word. They haven't said that a formal ratification process is desirable, they have said necessary. I hope you will explain the significance of this to WMF. Do you think the requirement will be accepted? WJBscribe (talk) 07:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

  @Xeno, Xeno (WMF), and Keegan (WMF): Has the functionary consultation been sent to functionaries yet, or is for only a limited pool of the team? --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 18:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

  My personal understanding is that all functionaries are invited. I'll flag this on functs-en. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

  Apparently, I was mistaken; I've been told that this meeting is only for sitting arbs, stewards, and global sysops. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:11, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

  @L235: Sigh. Global sysops but not the CUs and OSers. Classic --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 15:33, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• I am not sure I recall a time when so many members of cross-project Arbitration Committees have come together on something, but if there was a time to do so this would seem to be it. Thank you for your involvement in this. I notice that CaptainEek is the sole arbitrator who has not signed (or perhaps not yet signed?) If they're comfortable saying, I'd be curious to know the reason. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Would it not be wiser to devise a Code of Conduct for the English Wikipedia’s Arbcom before advising elsewhere? Giano (talk) 18:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

    IMHO, this would best be done as an essay that encompasses existing policy, and once polished, could be sent to RFC to be promoted to a CoC. This would allow the community to participate in the lightweight stages and polish the document until it was fit for purpose. This could easily take a year, but maybe less. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

    @Xeno: I'd like to stress the necessary component - ratification could likely take a couple of different forms, but the majority of the Community and Communities need to agree for something to be able to claim any potential mandate of "universal". Bluntly, if it's supposed to be reasonably acceptable, then 2/3 should in no way be an unreasonable ask. (I also am aware that I've said this elsewhere, but I try to map views onto Wikipedia-proper as the proper forum for proper discussions) Nosebagbear (talk) 12:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

    I agree with the basic idea, which is why I suggested it start with an essay, which is the fastest way to create a document that is likely to have consensus. It's a lightweight system, and there can even be competing essays. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

    @Giano: Are you seriously suggesting arbcom draft a Code of Conduct for itself (a body of 14 people)? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

    Having been the victim of harsh and inconsistent "justice" meted out by successive ArbComs over a period of more than a decade, I think he probably is... WJBscribe (talk) 08:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

    Yes, I am! Members of the Arbcom discussing current Arbcom cases on other websites and criticising editors is deplorable and shows not only a lack of good judgement, but is also indicative of a probable lack of confidentiality. I find it interesting that not one member of the Arbcom has spoken out on this, which suggests they condone such behaviour. Giano (talk) 09:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

    What "confidentiality" was breached? For the millionth time... ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:20, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

    • @MJL: there is a code of conduct for ArbCom located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Conduct_of_arbitrators. However, though the Arbitration Policy has been ratified by the community, ArbCom has violated it on many occasions. Further, even if an arbitrator grossly violated the trust of the community, removing them from office is effectively impossible. Since the policy still requires 2/3rds of the committee to agree, its unlikely enough sitting arbitrators wouldn't recuse in a dispute to enact a motion to remove an arbitrator. As an example, see "Leaks". So, it doesn't really matter if there is a code of conduct or not; it has no meaning. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Perhaps a bit off topic, but not outside the "broadly construed" area. I think it would be helpful if all the arbs were aware of WP:THICK, if not the essay, at least the concept. — Ched (talk) 09:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I think the Arbs have skins like rhonesceri, but sadly less common sense. One would think that not mouthing about current and wished for arbitration cases all over the internet would be obvious good practice. However, this shower clearly support such behaviour amongst their brethren. Giano (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• In honor of April 1, I have found this photo of the members of ArbCom, holding a meeting: photo.^[FBDB] --Tryptofish (talk) 23:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Thank you for the ping Barkeep49. The project team made some comments at Meta, which I've reproduced below for convenience. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from the UCoC Project team

The UCoC Project team read the Open Letter from Arbcoms to the Board of Trustees with interest. We share the belief that large projects with mature community governance systems need to have meaningful input about the application and enforcement section of the Universal Code of Conduct. While we are aware that the Board, to whom the letter was addressed, will be considering and responding after the upcoming ArbComs meeting, we wanted to share some of our own thoughts and expectations.

The current plan calls for Maggie Dennis to select the committee members, and she has confirmed that at least one person with experience as an arbitrator, or similar experience dealing with complex and difficult behavior issues, will be added as a member of the drafting committee, and at least one additional person with this experience, or experience as a Steward. However, this is naturally contingent upon qualified volunteers with the required experience applying for the role. We hope the signing members will consider applying!

The Open Letter also indicated a need for the Universal Code of Conduct to remain a living document subject to an amendment process involving meaningful input from communities and individuals. We agree and had built into the plan a review one year after implementation, following which we believe the UCoC should remain subject to periodic reviews. We understand the position that a community-involved amendment process should be formalized.

The project team wants to thank the signing members for taking the time to provide these thoughts. We would appreciate it if Arbitration Committee members who are able to attend the meetings scheduled 15:00 UTC on 10 & 11 April 2021 make time to do so. If you require language or other accommodation, please let Keegan (WMF) (talk · contribs) know.

We are inviting participants on every interested project with an Arbitration Committee, as well as any and all interested Wikimedia projects in any language to hold discussions starting 5 April 2021. Community members are invited to submit summaries of the discussion by 10 May 2021 for the drafting committee's use in designing proposals that will be brought back to the same communities for a comprehensive community review period later this year.

We will shortly be sending out an an announcement seeking input about these discussion topics (some translations pending) during global consultations. We are working to translate these pages into as many languages as possible and would appreciate any assistance. If anyone is interested in helping to organize local discussions and requires assistance, please post here.

The team is committed to a strong collaborative effort with communities as we move forward together with the Universal Code of Conduct and would like to thank all the signing members for their ongoing community building efforts. We look forward to hearing more of your thoughts in the April 2021 consultations and learning more of the Board’s thoughts in their coming response.

On behalf of the project team, Xeno (WMF) (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Please note: I've added an RFC tag to the local consultation posted at: Wikipedia:Universal Code of Conduct/2021 consultation, and it is open for discussion. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Original announcement

• I feel like there's a difference between how ArbCom handles cases and how the community handles cases (at AN). If some random editor made a personal attack and then slammed ((retired)) on their user page, an AN discussion discussing removal of (now-unbundled) rights, or just banning them, would most likely not just stop with a result of "let's stop here and pick this back up if/when the editor returns". (granted there are some cases where discussion stops after an editor subject to the discussion gets upset about where it's going, but in those cases the AN thread was heading off the rails anyway and it took an editor storming off for everyone else to realise that.) On the surface, is there anything unfair about the Arbitration Committee deciding it wants to spend time diligently investigating the facts? Not really. And allowing a period for everyone to cool off is probably more likely to result in productive outcomes anyway. But it does feel like an unfair double standard, that admin users get the benefit of the Arbitration Committee's measured temper and diligence and everyone else gets the 'wrath' of the relatively fast-paced AN(I). This also seems to be the problem with many of the opposes in DESYSOP2021; admins are 'worried' that a fast-paced ANI discussion might result in their desysopping, but seem to ignore that everyone else can already be subject to that. Overall, it feels like admins have some kind of diamond-plated WP:SUPERMARIO-esque armour that is very difficult to pierce in even the most obvious cases. ProcSock (talk) 03:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  Wait so are you saying Carlos got off easy here, because of some "admin armor"? Did you miss the part where he was desysopped without a case, and has a mere 3 months to "unretire" and be present for a full case? It's not like he got off easy because he retired, he just cut out the drama and went straight to a desysop. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:38, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  No, that's not what I mean. My point is the process not the outcome, and the above isn't a criticism of the Committee, or even support of DESYSOP2021 (I opposed that proposal, for other reasons). I suppose what I mean is that the process is 'different' for admins. If this were a 'normal' editor and we were talking about unbundled rights, this would've been sufficient to pull those, for example (and probably a block discussion would've had a different tone also). Also, Carlos now gets to choose to pick this up in 3 months (if he wishes) once his frustration at the situation, and everyone else's, wears off a bit. Which is not a bad thing if your aim is fair outcomes, but it's not something an editor subject to an AN/ANI would be entitled to. The equivalent tone at ANI for a random editor would be rather more irritated, and the close probably more damning than basically a no-fault time-based desysop. The above is mostly some broken thoughts, but more a criticism of how ANI works than anything else. The downside, I suppose, is that a case is also more high profile. ProcSock (talk) 05:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  I still can't really parse what the "problem" is in your view. Carlos got the hammer dropped on him. His only recourse is to unretire and subscribe to a full case within three months, which will likely uphold his desysop anyway. You seem to be saying that normal editors can't get off easy at ANI, regardless of whether or not they retire, and that Arbcom affords special treatment. But I'm not sure what example of special treatment you're perceiving here. Carlos was desysopped, preemptively, and his only recourse is a three month window to stand trial at ARBCOM, during which the entire community will be able to submit evidence against him. He's not being given a hearing in which people can defend him, but that's to his own detriment. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah, I'm confused, too. You can't compare the desysoping process to a non-admin, there is no equivalent. The hammer was dropped and basically he is receiving the sanction of full "guilty" unless he comes back within 3 months and goes through a case. There is no "easy" here. The worst thing they can do to him was already done. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  Well, clearly I haven't expressed my comment in a lucid manner then. It's based around comments like this and others. If this were a typical non-admin, a topic ban on creations was probable (the "not punishment" argument probably would not have seen the light of day) and the PA/rest of the response perhaps would've resulted in a reasonable chance of a block passing. The retirement after PA would've hastened the desire to come to a strong conclusion, rather than a "temporary" measure with the benefit of a deferred hearing. I'm not saying that outcome would be fair, or that Barkeep et al's comments/approach is unreasonable, just that it's a double standard, a benefit reserved exclusively for admins. I disagree that the case of non-admins is incomparable (AN handles discussions on now-unbundled rights, or site ban discussions). But if this thought still isn't clearly expressed I'm happy to drop the matter. ProcSock (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  You have to remember that there is NOTHING stopping the community from giving him a topic ban or other sanction, the same as any other editor. If he wasn't an admin, he would have lost the autopatrolled bit on the spot, but he doesn't have that bit because it is bundled with the admin bit. The Arb case isn't about sanctions really (it would never have gotten here if he wasn't an admin, the community could have handled it), it's about the admin bit only, something that can't be done at ANI. I've seen cases suspended for non-admin as well, btw, so that part isn't a double standard. It is just rare, for admin and non-admin alike. I think sanctions at ANI (which were likely) were taken off the table only because it because obvious he would be bit stripped, fixing the autopatrolled problem. Plus he retired, which made other sanctions moot. I get what you are saying, but I don't think it is a double standard at all, it is tailoring the situation to the potential punishment. Again, if it had been a non-admin, an Arb case wouldn't have taken place at all (the community all agreed on the problem), which is why you can't compare it to non-admin cases. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  My perception is similar to Liz's below. People that have been around long enough to amass a significant body of work let alone someone who has amassed social capital are generally going to get multiple opportunities before serious efforts at remediation (i.e. taking away a permission) gain traction. The fact that this issue is being dealt with after only one visit to AN is definitely the exception rather than the rule as I think even contemporaneous events show. And that's even before the idea, that I noted during the ARC, that if this were not an administrator we wouldn't be talking about taking away all their permissions, just the one (autopatrol). Now I'm certainly sympathetic to the disconnect between admin and non-admin, and have talked about being dismissed in ways that stopped after I passed RfA, but I think what happened in this case is evidence against, rather than for, the idea that non-admin editors get rougher justice than admin ones. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  The problem here isn't whether arbcom is being too cautious; it's how monstrously broken ANI is. —Cryptic 17:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not too concerned about the super mario effect (related to admins) but I wish Carlossuarez46 had received firm intervention when the problem started in 2009 or maybe even before that. 2601:648:8200:970:0:0:0:1A5F (talk) 05:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  While typically cases are closed with some resolution at AN, I would guess that at least half of the complaints brought to ANI are archived without any action being taken. Sometimes it takes 2, 3 or more visits to ANI before any action is taken on complaints against an editor and some of the cases at the top of the page live there for weeks or even months while the issues are being talked out, often leading to extremely lengthy cases. So, while sometimes a patrolling admin acts swiftly at the noticeboards, I don't think you can claim that is the typical situation unless the case is pretty much open & shut and the editor who is brought to ANI makes their situation worse by acting out or lashing out. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  If he had not had the autopatrolled bit by virtue of the admin bit, then it might have been caught sooner, as all those articles would have had to go through new page patrol. That problem appears to be solved now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• I’m not sure I understand the point of suspension in this case. The rationale is that a full hearing is Carlos’s “right” (as an admin?) and as such he should be given the option of coming back and having one. He clearly gave up this right by retiring - indeed by any reasonable measure gave up his adminship by retiring. The door was open for them for more than a week to unretire and say their piece, but they chose not to. Since I doubt he’ll be back I don’t think it ultimately makes much difference - but if he does come back is having his sysop rights restored actually likely? And if it isn’t at all likely then why suspend? FOARP (talk) 06:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  Sometimes people go off in a huff but come back. Admin or no. Since it is probably not a good idea to have a case in absentia, and the circumstances don't warrant an emergency desysop, this is a reasonable measure that protects his ability to give his side, if he chooses in a timely manner. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  The last admin conduct case was in absentia. However, that case had a lot more details involved,the admin in question did at least offer an initial statement and did not post a retired banner or otherwise indicate on-wiki that they intended to quit forever. It is not an "admin right" it is about not having a month-long discussion that doesn't, in the end, actually change anything. Similar things have been done in the past in cases not involving admins. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• But this went to ARBCOM because that's the route for handling desysops. If you think "but a regular editor would have got a TBAN if it had run through ANI, where they couldn't have retired to dodge it", then that route still is open. You can raise an incident there yourself if you think it appropriate Nosebagbear (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Look at the recent incident involving Tenebrae. The committee basically cleared the community to openly discuss Tenebrae's manifest COI, which was a decision that basically had to be made by the committee, and the community did the rest of the stuff they didn't need arbcom to do, and got it done much faster than a full case would've done. I'd put this in a similar category, only arbcom could remove Carlos as an admin. In a full case that would take a month or so to complete, it might also decide to tban him from article creation or even site ban him, but since there is not a full case as of right now the community is still perfectly free to pursue that if they feel it is needed. Personally, based on the way he decided to go out, I think it is pretty unlikely he will return at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:32, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• I can't exactly say I understand the objection that this is letting him get off easy. Is losing the bit and knowing that if you ever come back to Wikipedia you're at Arbcom's mercy, after a contentious AN thread that could have gotten you blocked, less fear-imposing than the AN thread alone? Vaticidalprophet 09:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Could I politely request anyone else planning to PROD or AfD an article started by Carlos to read User:Ritchie333/Don't template the retirees? It makes his talk page impossible to navigate as it's chock-full of Twinkle messages. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • @Ritchie333: - SDZeroBot is adding those notices now, even if the Twinkle selection is not checked. Is there a way to dissuade SDZeroBot from editing C46's talk page? Hog Farm _Talk 01:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
    • List Carlos at User:SDZeroBot/AfD_notifier#Exclusions. Adding ((nobots)) to the talk page would also work, albeit at the cost of excluding all other bots. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

    Hog Farm, I believe ((nobots|deny=SDZeroBot)) (or just ((nobots)) for a blunter hammer) would do the trick, assuming SDZeroBot is compliant with that template. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

    I just added them to the sdzerobot exclusion link listed above. Hopefully that will work. Hog Farm _Talk 01:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

    Looking at the bot's source code, it only checks for the literal wikitext ((nobots)). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:29, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

    Slapped ((nobots)) on there, for the time being. If Carlos returns and would like bot notifications, he'll be free to get rid of it. Hog Farm _Talk 02:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

  I also added his talk page to Category:Wikipedians who opt out of template messages (via ((not around))) to stop the Twinkle notices. – Joe (talk) 08:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

There was a discussion on Discord a bit ago about privacy/GDPR and data handling. Given discussions elsewhere on CUs/alternate accounts etc it seems a good time to bring this up. I'm curious on the Committee's data handling processes. They don't appear to be documented in full anywhere or in the WMF's privacy policy, but from what I recall of arb comments in passing I can make out the following:

1. The arb mailing list and arbwiki are used for conducting arb business. Both store private information, including data on editors which may include their IPs, alternate accounts, and/or their real identities or information that could easily allow for retrieving an editor's real identity.
2. That information is held indefinitely, the archives are not purged, and all of it becomes available to future arbs. Presumably your mailing list records go back to 2004 or whenever the Committee was setup? Is there any safety valve against a future arb coming and dumping the mailing list archives publicly?
3. Per the Committee's incoming mail procedures, some forms of information (like notifications of alternate accounts and private evidence) are stored (presumably) in a structured format on arbwiki. How long for (or indefinitely)? Is the data removed after a user has been inactive for some period of time?
4. CheckUser information is stored in the tool for 90 days. However, in some circumstances I've seen CUs refer to "checking their archives" for information, particularly after the socks have been inactive for a period of longer than 90 days. It's seems to be especially common for LTAs, where some CUs say they've checked 'historical information'. What's this all about? In what circumstances can data received from the CU tool be stored for longer than 90 days, and where is this stored (in the mailing lists?), and for how long?
5. Oversighted edits may contain private information about editors (WP:OSPOL #1). Is the content of oversighted edits kept indefinitely, or is it removed (even from OSers) after some period of time?

I'm presuming some of the above statements are not entirely (or possibly at all) correct, but I'm just trying to establish examples for the kinds of questions I have. Basically I'm just trying to get a read for the kinds of private data you store, for how long, and who has access to it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I think these questions would be best directed to the WMF. – bradv🍁 12:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I've emailed the above to them. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• These are excellent questions. @ProcrastinatingReader: if you would summarize their response here, that would be great. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)