Archive 45 ← Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51

Contentious topics procedure now in effect

Original announcement

I despair. After helping restore a highly viewed doubly contentious topic to FA standards, I was still struggling to get a handle on how to handle the old DS stuff. And not doing very well at it. Surely the new thingie is better in many ways, but as a non-admin who just has to figure out how to get an admin's attention when someone is disrupting a contentious topic, is it easier for me to understand how to engage? Clearly, I am dumber than the average bear when it comes to adminly stuff, but ((Contentious topics)) leaves me scratching my head. There is too much info there that is not grouped by subject; I can't clearly distinguish why so many different templates.

  1. What is the distinction between active and other restrictions?
  2. If an editor edit wars any area of a contentious-labeled article, even if they don't touch on the contentious parts of the article (gender) per se, do requests for enforcement still go to WP:AE?
    The reason I ask is that submitting a request to AE is quite time consuming; how much easier if I could just post to ANI. And I feel like my AE reports are for relatively trivial matters considering the contentiousness of the topic. And yet it doesn't seem appropriate to go to ANI or AN3 for a CT.
  3. When is it more appropriate to just go to ANI or AN3?
  4. Do I have to jump through the AE hoops all over again when an editor breaches their sanction, or can I just ping the AE admins who issued the sanction? I just had that happen, and as I despair at having to submit yet another AE, I didn't (and am keeping an eye myself instead).
  5. Every time I check an editor talk to see if alerts have already been issued, I get a report that they haven't. Even when I just issued an alert. (Sample.) What am I doing wrong? Or is this because the system just changed so it's not working yet ?

I am lost in more ways than those listed, but that's a start. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

This edit didnt trigger the edit filter, did you substitute the template or did you copy the output of the template wikitext? nableezy - 20:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
My thoughts:
  1. active restrictions are ones that are not expired. I've removed this word to reduce confusion.
  2. You can choose to submit a report to AN even if what they edited was covered by a contentious topic area.
  3. If you feel the outcome of a discussion at ANI or AN3 would fix the problem, then there is probably not the need for using AE (because as you say it's time consuming).
  4. There is no rule (as far as I am aware) against pinging the admin who issued the sanction. As long as they stay uninvolved and are okay with the pings, they can apply further restrictions to deal with the breach of their current sanctions.
  5. Has since been fixed with thanks to Suffusion of Yellow.
Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 21:11, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Nableezy, I always subst them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
@Nableezy and SandyGeorgia: there was a bug with edit filter 602 that was not fixed until around 22:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC). This bug caused invocations of ((contentious topics/alert/first)) to properly trigger the filter, but not ((contentious topics/alert)). That bug has since been fixed and anyone using either the first or non-first template should now get the edit filter warning. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Sandy, to add to what Dreamy has already written, one of the changes with this new system is to make awareness far simpler. Namely if a person has been notified 1 time of that topic area being under CT, there is a presumption that they remain aware in the future. Annual notifications are no more. Hopefully that makes filing at AE a bit easier. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Thx DJ and BK ... all of this helps. Will see if I can do better, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Seconded. All of the effort put into these changes is only going to impede editors if what we need to know isn't explained in one place in plain English. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
@Thebiguglyalien I am not entirely sure what you're seconding? Barkeep49 (talk) 02:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
((Contentious topics)) leaves me scratching my head. There is too much info there that is not grouped by subject; I can't clearly distinguish why so many different templates. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Ahh. Gottcha. That makes a lot of sense and is helpful feedback. Having the documentation for Contentious topics be written in plainer english is no doubt something we can improve on. The potential good news is that Wikipedia:Contentious topics is designed to be the one place in plain English that things are explained. I'm sure the clarity of that page could be improved even further but I think it's a substantial improvement over what was there previously. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
@Thebiguglyalien: Template:Contentious topics/list/single notice might be a little simpler to follow? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:28, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Explicit notices

I would like to see that "CT" notices are always explicitly required at the page level where it is in effect, to ensure there can be no room for interpretation that a given page might be CT because it is somehow related to a CT topic area, and thus a single admin can ban/block an editor on the spot even though there was no banner notice on the page (this has happened to me). I disagree with abolishing the 12-month requirement for awareness alerts, and I believe that admins should be strongly urged to first warn editors before imposing sanctions in their sole discretion, regardless of the editor's awareness. Thank you. soibangla (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Soibangla, what do you mean by "CT" notices? Do you mean ones on the talk page or in an editnotice? Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 00:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
both soibangla (talk) 01:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
While there are practical reasons for why I agree with the current decision around how to make people aware of CT on both the editor and page levels, I actually want to focus on the philosophical reason. With the change from DS to CT we also want to change the mindset. One of the biggest changes is that editing a contentious topic article isn't some radically different proposition than editing some other kind of article. Instead let's look at what's expected when editing a CT. Editors should always be adhering to the purpose of Wikipedia, complying with policies and guidelines, and refrain from gaming the system. This is why large numbers of editors can edit successfully in CT, often without even knowing something called CT exists; it takes a certain kind of elite to know about CT. The other two things to do when editing a CT are to follow best practices and follow page restrictions. Admittedly some best practices are normally optional and with-in CT they are less so, but again this is not some radically different way of editing that we're asking people to do. Finally there is an expectation that people follow page restrictions. This last one is substantially different in many cases and that's why those restrictions do require both an edit notice and mention on the talk page. In the one place CT is different from normal editing we go to extra effort to let people know. "Basically normal editing enforced strictly", which is what CT is designed to be, isn't some system to be afraid of, it's a way for us to continue to produce the articles that have earned Wikipedia its reputation. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't want to go much into an episode that inspired me to comment here. What I'm saying is that if an admin is to ban/block pursuant to CT, it must be irrefutably clear that the page in question is in fact CT, and not arguably related to a CT area, in that admin's sole judgment. There must be no fuzziness about it, it must be a sharp line. If there is no CT notice anywhere on a page, the editor must be taken to "wikicourt" to sanction them. This is more cumbersome for an admin, of course, but it protects editors from being punished for unwittingly violating a policy. Thanks for reading. soibangla (talk) 02:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
The only difficulty I can see with this proposal, is that some CTs cover any edit, on any page relating to their topic, using language like Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to (taken from WP:ARBGSDS, emphasis mine) or Standard Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions are authorised for the area of conflict, namely any edit in any article with biographical content relating to living or recently deceased people or any edit relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles on any page in any namespace (taken from WP:NEWBLPBAN, emphasis mine). This can result in a disruptive editor being sanctioned under a CT, despite the edit in question taking place on a page otherwise unrelated to that CT. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:13, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
There is no new policy that must be followed when editing content related to an identified contentious topic,(*) thus there is no new policy that one might unwittingly violate. What changes is that an editor can be sanctioned on the decision of a single administrator, with specified methods of appeal.
(*) As described by Barkeep49, if a page restriction is put into place based on the contentious topic process, then since this does differ from regular editing, notices are required and whether or not an editor knows about the restriction can be taken into consideration. isaacl (talk) 03:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
despite the edit in question taking place on a page otherwise unrelated to that CT is exactly the problem I have here. An editor cannot possibly have the comprehensive knowledge of the entire encyclopedia to know if an edit might tangentially touch a CT area without them realizing it. The solution is to ensure that the page in question must be marked CT. soibangla (talk) 03:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
You are, I think, confusing page restrictions and individual restrictions:
Page restrictions apply only to a single page, and editors of the page must be advised that they exist.
Individual restrictions cover the entire encyclopaedia and editors are made aware of them individually because they apply only to that editor. While articles can be tangentially related to a contentious topic, the only time that anybody can be sanctioned under the CT regime is if all the following are true:
  • They are aware of the relevant CT restrictions
  • The edit(s) they made were related to the relevant CT
  • The edit(S) they made were problematic in some way
Any sanction applied will be proportionate to the level of disruption caused and can range from nothing more than would happen on any other page up to topic bans and blocks. Higher level sanctions cannot be applied out of the blue - the editor in question will have been warned previously (almost always multiple times) about their editing. Thryduulf (talk) 10:13, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Please consider this scenario:
  • Editor is working on a Talk page of an economics article with no CT notice, no edit notice, and a contentious, heated discussion arises among several editors
  • Editor months earlier received a CT notice for an unrelated CT topic area, in politics, so editor is aware of CT in politics but could not be aware that economics area could be CT. Economics is not politics, it's science.
  • Admin deems editor aware of CT, invokes CT authority to topic ban editor because of disruptive behavior on non-CT page
In this scenario, a simple warning should/would have been sufficient to cool the discussion, rather than invoking CT on a non-CT page to abruptly ban an editor. Alternatively, and preferably, the page should be designated CT to deter the heated discussion from arising in the first place. That way there can be no ambiguity, no grey area open to interpretation, the page either is or isn't CT. If an admin deems in their judgment that edit(s) on a non-CT page touch upon a CT area, a warning should precede any sanction for any subsequent violations. soibangla (talk) 15:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
As discussed, there was no unwitting violation of policy, as disruptive editing is counter to policy for all Wikipedia pages. Areas are identified as contentious topics when the authorizing group decides that on balance, it's better to allow sanctions to be enacted more rapidly than can be done with a community discussion. Warnings remain a useful tool and one that ought to be considered for initial use. For contentious topics, though, admins are empowered to decide that a warning would not be sufficiently effective in a given situation and thus proceed to a sanction. For all situations, editors should strive to avoid disruptive behaviour and not rely on leniency; admins should strive to be understanding of editor missteps and try to apply the mildest remedies they deem to have a reasonable chance to be effective. The system isn't perfect, but this basic dynamic isn't reliant on whether or not the area in question has been labelled in a certain way. isaacl (talk) 17:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
  • disruptive editing is counter to policy for all Wikipedia pages Of course, but how it is handled is the question
  • Areas are identified as contentious topic that is, as CT, which was not the case here
  • it's better to allow sanctions to be enacted more rapidly than can be done with a community discussion And there are police officers who no doubt think it would just be a whole lot easier to throw someone in jail first and ask questions later, rather than follow due process of probable cause; we might consider modeling our policy along such due process concepts
  • Warnings remain a useful tool and one that ought to be considered for initial use Certainly on a non-CT page
  • For contentious topics, though, admins are empowered to decide that a warning would not be sufficiently effective in a given situation and thus proceed to a sanction But this is typically not a contentious topic, hence it was not CT, it just happened that a single, unusual heated debate occurred
  • try to apply the mildest remedies they deem to have a reasonable chance to be effective such as stating on the non-CT Talk page "everybody calm down or I'm gonna start sanctioning"
  • The system isn't perfect, but this basic dynamic isn't reliant on whether or not the area in question has been labelled in a certain way I contend it could be made more perfect it it was less ambiguous and not left to the subjective judgment of one person. Such ambiguity leaves the interpretation wide open such that we might as well just go ahead and make every page CT so admins have carte blanche. If we're going to make errors, they should be of the Type I variety (a guilty man is set free) rather than the more egregious Type II error (an innocent man goes to prison). That's all I have here. Thanks for reading. soibangla (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
    It sounds to me like you have concerns about the contentious topic system as a whole. There are certainly others who feel the same way. Nonetheless, this is a separate (and more fundamental) issue than labelling content as being within the scope of an identified contentious topic, which I don't think will alleviate your base concerns. isaacl (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
    You don't appear to grasp that the scope of contentious topics is defined by topics, not pages. Without that understanding, nothing makes sense. Newimpartial (talk) 22:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
    Well, admittedly I am not a policy wonk here, but in a previous discussion of this, another editor harshly chastised me for not knowing what I was talking about, then soon thereafter acknowledged to someone else that DS policy is a "complete mess" and in need of a major overhaul. So there's that. But if we're talking about topics rather than pages, I think the thrust of my argument is still sound, because (in this scenario) a non-CT economics topic does not fall under the CT politics topic area. But if it did, giving rise to CT authority being invokable, it should be disclosed as such in some clear manner. My general sense of this situation is that over the years a policy has been devised that may seem conceptually sound to those who built it but it is unworkable in practice. I have seen similar situations during my decades in corporate management. Now, I've said about all I know how to say about this, and I'm picking up the same "you just don't get it" vibe as before, and maybe I just don't, so I will exit this now. soibangla (talk) 23:13, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
    As part of the new CT system, it says If the enforcing administrator believes that an editor was not aware that they were editing a designated contentious topic when making inappropriate edits, no editor restrictions (other than a logged warning) should be imposed. This means that if an editor has not been made aware that a particular topic area is covered by CT, then they can only be given a logged warning. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 23:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
The thing about this example is, the only way the editor in question could be sanctioned is if their edit triggering the sanctions was about politics (because those are the sanctions under which they are sanctioned in your example).
If they made a problematic about politics on an Economics Talk page, why should the location of the edit be relevant to the sanction? That isn't the way the DS system ever worked, and I don't see why the CT system should operate differently. Newimpartial (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
@Soibangla Economics is a social science. I can see the problem as it can overlap with politics. Doug Weller talk 20:08, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Doug Weller: Arguably so, but it's a judgment call that should be handled in some way other than an insta-ban: a warning would suffice. The irony is that in this specific instance others were attempting to overtly politicize an economics article, based on stuff they'd heard in viral unreliable sources, while I was attempting to stop that politicization (and ultimately I prevailed by RFC consensus, but only after being topic banned, then blocked for allegedly violating the topic ban by questioning it on my Talk page — smh).
Here might the true test of whether economics falls under politics: does any aspect of the economics category fall under the politics category, as a subcategory, such that the "child" subcategory "inherits" the CT property of the "parent" category? I don't know how to inspect the category hierarchy to check that, or even if there is such a hierarchy. It's far too late for me to appeal these ban/block decisions, and that's not why I came here, I raise this here to ensure it doesn't happen to others going forward. This policy should be tightened to preclude one admin from invoking CT, where CT is not explicitly declared anywhere, to insta-ban an editor based on the admin's personal judgment. I'm willing to accept that maybe I "just don't get it," but I don't know whatever it is that I don't get about this. soibangla (talk) 22:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Your formal hierarchy framing is not at all the way the DS/CT framework works - the domains have always been overlapping by design. For example, BLP is a CT topic, and it quite obviously overlaps with many other topics whenever the arricle text - or Talk discission - makes statements about a living person in relation to a particular other topic.
For another example, one CT topic concerns gender and sexuality, and editors can throw slurs related to that topic on seemingly unrelated Talk pages - and such behaviour is, and should continue to be, sanctionable under DS/CT (this has happened, for instance, at RfA). The idea that CT must be explicitly declared anywhere other than in awareness notices to editors runs contrary to the characteristics of the system that actually make it work, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 23:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
I understand there are unique exceptions like BLP that apply always and everywhere. But beyond those exceptions, how can an editor plausibly know that an edit they make in a non-CT area might encroach into a CT area somewhere in the vast expanse of the encyclopedia, which they could not know but an admin might, in their judgment anyway, thereby invoking CT authority? soibangla (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't think anybody thinks that. But once someone is aware of the sanctions for post-1992 American politics, for example, they should know that those sanctions continue to apply when they discuss American politics on "economics" pages, or on BLP pages, or anywhere else. Nobody is being sanctioned for an edit they make in a non-CT area - they are being sanctioned for an edit they make within a CT area, after having been made aware of that CT area, and the fact that they may have made that edit on a page without a CT notice for that area has nothing to do with the scope of that CT sanction. The notices on pages relate exclusively to page-level sanctions, not editor sanctions. Newimpartial (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
As I noted before in another discussion, it might be reasonable to say you weren't aware CT (or DS) applies the places were politics and economics intersect when you were unaware that it was an intersection. But when by your own admission, you were aware of and trying to stop the "overtly politicize an economics article" then this defence goes out the window. You clearly knew this was an political dispute. I guess you could claim you weren't aware it was post 1992 American politics but instead claim it was the politics of the Australia or something but frankly that's a bit naff. In fact, as SPECIFICO has sort of noted below, if we made it more complicated to apply CT to this case, that would mean it would be harder for us to stop those you feel were trying to "overtly politicize an economics article" which is not helpful to Wikipedia and frankly not helpful to you either. (I'm not sure if anyone else ended up being sanctioned under DS in that particular dispute, but even if no one was, there's still a reasonable chance the recognition they could be helped to moderate their behaviour which is part of the point of DS or CT now.) Nil Einne (talk) 03:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't know that we want to create more and more rules and structure to prevent bad enforcement. In this instance, it was very very bad. Soibangla appears to be knowledgeable about economics and not in an ideological or partisan way. He was instrumental in saving that article from a canvassed onslaught of knowledge-free partisan edits from Reddit or whatever. The situation was actually made worse by an overly solicitous reaction that resulted in a precipitous RfC on the issue without prior discussion and with disregard for both the substance and the politics of the editing dispute. The underlying problem is that we do not have enough of our Admin corps monitoring the CT articles. Doug Weller, you are one of the exceptions, and you are consistently on-point in your comments and occasional interventiouns on complex matters at the intersection of content and conduct. I wish more Admins would be keeping an eye on these articles and develop a sense for how problems arise.
I think one issue that might be further addressed, however, is what to do when mistakes happen. I think the sanctioning Admin in Soibangla's case actually is to be commended for doing what I described above. They just happened to get it backward in this case. It was unfortunate that once Soibangla did not have a ready platform to get the sanction reversed without a lot of work and drama. That's something that was discussed during the Arbcom review process for these CT changes, but I do not see that such concerns were fully addressed. SPECIFICO talk 23:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
The underlying problem is that we do not have enough of our Admin corps monitoring the CT articles. That I would heavily agree with, at least insofar as the areas I'm active and familiar with. Much of how we handle disruption in those CT articles and talk pages is reactionary at the non-admin editor level, and is reliant upon non-admins to make reports to ARE or ANI.
Unfortunately this has two major flaws that enables a specific subset of editors who are able "toe the line" of what is acceptable, while allowing them to make those topic areas particularly heated and hostile. The first is that when any established editor who is active in a CT brings a ARE/ANI case against one of these disruptive editors, they are almost universally cast and sometimes seen as "trying to take out an opponent". This usually, but not universally, results in the disruptive editors being unsanctioned. The second is that the few admins who take a more proactive role in CTs, and are thus able to recognise the disruptive editors for whom they actually are cast as either biased or too involved (or sometimes both) any time they either take an action against one of these editors, or recommend taking action against one of these editors at ARE.
Sadly I don't know of a way to solve this without the serious potential for knock on controversy. Where the disruption I'm frequently encountering overlaps with culture war talking points, any attempt at reducing disruption at the scale required would almost certainly be seen "clearing house" and be cast as "Wikipedia confirming it's bias against ..." both on and off-site. I realise I've thrown out some pretty heavy but generalised aspersions here, and I can if necessary cite examples demonstrating this. And knowing this will probably paint a target on my back, I will say that I would be happy to discuss this at length with ArbCom privately over email if the committee wishes. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
@Sideswipe9th Thanks for these inciteful and useful comments. Doug Weller talk 09:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
I've been told "inciteful" could have negative connotations. When I typed it I wasn't sure, so looked it up. I guess I should have used. Oops. Doug Weller talk 17:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
It's all good. I hadn't even noticed the use of inciteful and instead had read/parsed it as insightful in the context. Thanks for the kind words. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Specifico: I don't think there was consensus input for making it so blocks could be reversed without a lot of work and drama during the process. I do think there was consensus to make it easier to get unblocked and to that end we made the standard of consensus lower and less scary for an admin to implement and also gave clear standards against which appeals should be judged. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:48, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Changes to sanctions?

TLDR: Wondering if it was intentional to modify these sanctions and, if so, pointing out various problems.

Old sanction (A) New sanction description at WP:Contentious topics (B) New sanction on talk page templates (C)
If a change you make to this article is reverted, you may not reinstate that change unless you discuss the issue on the talk page and wait 24 hours (from the time of the original edit). an edit that is challenged by reversion may not be reinstated by the editor who originally made it until the editor (a) posts a talk page message discussing the edit and (b) waits 24 hours from the time of the talk page message. You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted and wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit Template has now been edited to reflect (B) ~Awilley (talk) 05:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

The sanction description at WP:Contenious topics (B) has a minor but important difference from the original sanction (A). Both sanctions have clear bright lines (a wait time and talk page requirement) but (A) is easier for editors to follow (just follow 1RR and discuss) and for admins to track (glancing at time stamps on article edit history). Counting 24 hours between talk page and article edits is an unusual new requirement and introduces yet another mental load for editors of contentious articles.

Sanction (C) is too vague. It seems to imply (A) (24 hours between article edits) but if so that's in conflict with (B). And the admonition to "follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle" invites the user to follow the link to the BRD page, but the BRD page says that BRD is optional and mentions several ways of following it, some of which could lead to misunderstandings between admins and editors of what constitutes "following BRD".

The "Consensus required" sanction has been similarly modified, going from "an edit that is challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page" to "You must discuss your change on the talk page before making it". I personally don't object to that change, but that's a pretty big difference from the "Consensus required" sanction that we all know and love</sarcasm>. If that change was intentional it might be better to rename the sanction from "Consensus required" to "Discuss first" to avoid confusion. ~Awilley (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Awilley, thanks for raising this. The Wikipedia:Contentious topics procedure description (B) has precedence over what is in the template (C). Differences in the meaning of B and C are something that's wrong and will need to be fixed. I'll look to fix those now. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 18:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
For differences between A and B, that is probably best answered by an arbitrator. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 18:10, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Wow, thank you for the quick reply. Would I have to go to ARCA to request a review of the difference between A and B? Do you happen to know if that particular change was discussed already? Sorry for the edit conflict...could you suggest which arbitrator might be best to discuss this with? ~Awilley (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
I can't remember exactly whether this was discussed already, but posting here should be fine for now (as arbitrators will be watching this discussion). If there isn't a reply you can take this to ARCA for clarification, or ask one of CaptainEek, L235, and Wugapodes (who are drafting arbitrators for the new system). Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 18:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Given that the drafter's authority to implement has expired I think we'll need a motion to make any changes to (B). I know Dreamy has identified another change that will require a motion to implement as well. Arbs, clerks, and other designees have ongoing authority now to make changes to templates (C) so that can be fixed whenever. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Happy to explore updates on the enforced BRD. If AE admins prefer "time of the original edit", that seems OK to me. The discrepancy probably got in there from an early 2021 draft – perhaps I was looking at something else that was unclear (or maybe it was a knucklehead moment). @Awilley: Can I get you to clarify the point about "consensus required"? The footnote currently reads: On pages where "consensus required" is in effect, an edit that is challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page. That's not "discuss first"; that's "get consensus to reinstate edits challenged by reversion". Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
My consensus required concern is resolved. The discrepancy was between the footnote you quote and the short description in the template that goes on talk pages. Dreamy Jazz said they'd update the template to agree with the footnote. ~Awilley (talk) 20:41, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
@Awilley, I have updated the templates so it should show with text that better matches the footnotes. If it's not updated, let me know a specific page name and I can take a look. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 20:58, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Jazz, thanks for adjusting that. Not to complicate this further, but the original language was IMO even more clear: "if an edit you make", etc. because it tells editors what they did and must do. The amended language is still in passive voice and not quite instrumental or an instruction. SPECIFICO talk 14:04, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Scope

Maybe WP:ARCA is a better place for this question. But what is the scope of CT? Is one allowed to edit a page that might have something on it, one is topic-banned from? even though their edit has nothing to do with the material they're topic-banned from? Example - correcting a date of birth, which has nothing to do with one's topic-ban. GoodDay (talk) 15:16, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

This isn't specific to ArbCom, it's more a question about WP:TBAN, part of the banning policy. "Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic[...]". My general advice to users affected by such a ban is that if they're unsure whether a restriction affects a specific edit, it probably does. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Arbitrator access to mailing lists and permissions motion passed

Original announcement

Arbitrator access to mailing lists and permissions motion passed

I hope arbitrators etc have considered carefully whether they morally or even legally (depending on the country in which they are located) should agree to be obliged to "Obtain prior written approval from the Wikimedia Foundation if you determine such information should be disclosed to any outside parties, such as law enforcement". Typically one sees NDAs with carve outs that permit reports to law enforcement, rather than a restriction like this one. I would also hope that WMF might pay for the reasonable legal fees of volunteers seeking proper independent advice before signing such an agreement (the bit I highlighted isn't the only potentially problematic one) but I assume it does not... WJBscribe (talk) 14:03, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Signing the ANPDP and its predecessor policies has long been an ArbCom requirement so I just didn't want any misconception about what's changed with that motion. As to the issues you're addressing here, the Ombuds has ruled that disclosure to law enforcement without prior consent is allowed in some instances and there is a program that seems to do what you're suggesting around legal fees. Hope that helps. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:39, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Change to the Functionaries team

Original announcement

Arbitration motion regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing

Original announcement

Well that clearly didn't work, so we probably ought to do an autopsy to see what we can learn from this. Courtesy links: Article Creation at Scale RFC, AfD at scale RFC (which never launched; all interesting discussion is on the talk page.) Should this be taken as a warning against ArbCom requesting such RFCs in the future? Or is was the issue that the RFC was too broad and sweeping? Or was it just a problem with these particular questions lacking consensus? I think, given how the AfD at Scale RFC languished, that assigning the RFC to a few particular people to handle was probably also a mistake - I can understand the desire to have our best people handle the most difficult tasks, but given the scale of the task it's both unfair to them and to the participants (since, inevitably, if everything depends on the throughput of just a few people, no matter how devoted and talented, then the RFC is going to take much longer, and risks stalling out if something happens to them.) I think one takeaway from this is that future RFCs requested by ArbCom should not have specific named people in charge of them or assigned to close them at the start - making a broad general requirement for a close by a panel of admins is fine; naming specific admins seems like a bad idea for numerous reasons. --Aquillion (talk) 05:22, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I supported the motion to ask the community to hold an RFC on the subject when I was on ArbCom last year. I hoped that the community would find a simple, reasonable way to handle the mass creation and deletion of articles. I do not think that the structure of the RFC is responsible for the way it turned out. My impression is that the community is divided on what the problem is, let alone how to deal with it. A lot of Wikipedians think there is a problem, but do not necessarily agree on what the problem is. I think that we need to wait for a decent consensus to be expressed as to what the problem is before we can hold an RFC of how to deal with it. Donald Albury 13:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Exactly that. There is no agreement on what the problem is in general while mostly agreeing that the specific problem existed. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 14:40, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
I've got to be honest, I think your takeaway is completely wrong. Without having specific people to do it, it runs into the "ArbCom recommends the community do this" category. Which has meant that it doesn't actually get done according to large precedent in the past. Now maybe one could make an argument that we didn't need to appoint the admins to close - though the trouble we had finding 3 people shows that this wouldn't have just happened magically without us - but we were delegating a large amount of authority to the moderators and so we absolutely needed to make those selections intentionally. While I disagree with parts of it - namely the part where he agrees with you that we needed more people - I find Wugs post-mortem to better hit the mark. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
It may have been better to direct the community to hold the RFC and solicit uninvolved admins to moderate/close, but without Arbcom directly choosing the people and structure required. The major precedent here for an Arbcom-authorized but Community-run binding RFC is WP:GMORFC, which was initiated by myself as one of the more creative uses of Discretionary Sanctions (though sadly, something like this would not be allowed under the current Contentious Topics rules). The chosen structure and process had some flaws, but overall it did what it was designed to do and has kept that topic quiet for nearly 7 years, where beforehand most people agreed it was destined for another full Arbcom case. Dictating too much of the process in advance and with little community control seems to limit the community's desire to participate. Another alternative would be a multi-stage RFC to tackle smaller parts of the problem like WP:BLPRFC1 (What direction should we go in to fix this), WP:BLPRFC2 (should we move forward with this solution} and WP:BLPRFC3 (a few months later, how is the solution working out?). The WordsmithTalk to me 23:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Hmm. I feel like we actually did most of what you suggest here. The committee said there should be moderators and closers, tis true, but we did solicit volunteers for these roles. I've already noted perhaps we didn't need to appoint the closers but saying that there should be closers wasn't choosing the structure, it was saying that there should be an RfC. And then the Committee allowed the moderators to come to us and say "We want 2 RfCs instead of 1" - as you suggest - and modified the remedy accordingly. ArbCom didn't dictate the question to be asked (something that was considered and rejected). ArbCom didn't dictate the style the rfc should use. GMO and Jerusalem were the two RfCs that the committee really took its cues from in crafting this remedy and so I feel like it's not a coincidence that we actually did (minus perhaps choosing the closing panel) what you suggest? Barkeep49 (talk) 23:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
I did discuss the GMO RfC with Valereee at the start of the process, and we agreed on some similarities and differences. She used some of the RfC language at the top of the draft. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
I was inactive during the initial case and early discussions, so it is likely that when catching up on the issue I didn't see or skimmed over those discussions. If that's the case then I do apologize for being misinformed. Something as broad and with far-reaching consequences like this issue is inherently difficult to organize in contrast with the more tightly-focused Jerusalem and GMORFC, especially after the case was over and tempers seemed to have cooled. The WordsmithTalk to me 18:55, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Barkeep49 that finding volunteers to help guide discussion is one of the key things the arbitration committee can do to ensure a discussion actually ensues. I feel one key factor that increases the likelihood of a productive discussion is having one or more skilled communicators guiding it. I think the committee essentially gave the community free rein to decide on all aspects of the discussion aside from lining up volunteers to support it, and the general topic matter. One significant barrier to finding a middle ground is that often, it's not that one view is always right and others wrong. Different editors just have different assumptions regarding the best way to create and improve articles, and there can be honest disagreement on which assumptions are more realistic, both now and in the future. For better or worse, the only tool we have is to talk about it and try to find agreement. isaacl (talk) 23:37, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

References to discretionary sanctions that haven't been updated

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine#Remedies has since 2019 stated:

The article, now at Great Famine (Ireland), is within the scope of the discretionary sanctions authorised under The Troubles.

The Troubles discretionary sanctions were, along with all the other discretionary sanctions authorisations, converted to contentious topics designations in December 2022 so the wording on the Great Irish Famine case is technically not accurate. I don't think this is a big deal or in need of any action, but I thought I'd flag it up in case other people think an update is required. I haven't looked to see if this is a unique situation (I'd be amazed if it was common though) but will do if requested. Thryduulf (talk) 10:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for flagging this issue Thryduulf. We actually have a fair amount of work left to do on conversion in truth. The two main reasons for this are the large cases we've had to kick off the year - which has diverted the time of both clerks and arbs - and the fact that the arb (L235) who had planned to lead this work has been limited or inactive almost the entire year. It is something we need to fix but hopefully we can muddle through - updating when things are particularly needed - until we have capacity to systematically finish the work. Barkeep49 (talk) 13:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Changes to the functionaries team

Original announcement

Armenia-Azerbaijan 3: Arbitration case closed

Original announcement

Is this the first time "probation" (what reads as a suspended topic ban) been implemented? I can't remember it from my time on ArbCom, though it could have been before or after my time, and I just haven't noticed. -- Amanda (she/her) 20:55, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

It's an older term; you can see it in this search. Izno (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
No. Probation is a remedy that dates back to 2004, and can be seen as a precursor to discretionary sanctions due to how it was implemented back then. Essentially, back in '04-'07, probation allowed uninvolved admins to summarily topic-ban someone from articles they were being disruptive on.
Honestly, the fact they brought it back, albeit in a more limited form, speaks more to the issues that AE has had enforcing AA2 sanctions, considering that was the impetus for this case to begin with. The use here is very unambiguous - cause trouble, and you will be topic-banned from the AA2 area. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 22:31, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
I think in general that probation is a good idea as a "less severe" sanction immediately preceding a topic-ban, and I'm surprised that we don't use it more in the administrative space in general; although it could very well be that those open-shut cases that make it to WP:ANI are well past the point where probation would be considered, much less merited. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your thoughts and sorry for hijacking this AA3 case close announcement (I say as I continue doing so). I was unaware of the amendment Barkeep points to above, but then again winter was a bit of a haze for me (haze!), where even when I was around, I wasn't really around-around. But I do recall the issue coming up when a single admin restricted the timing of an appeal. I remember saying in response that my understanding has always been that that could only be recommended. Only ArbCom or the community could set binding restrictions on appeals.

I still don't think a single admin should have the power to set such limits, singularly, but expanding that to a quorum of uninvolved admins at AE per that amendment — that's a good thing in my view. But it might require a new approach as to what the AE board is, a discussion which is probably beyond the scope of this. But briefly: while AE might continue to serve as a venue for when a actions/evaluation by a single admin fail to materialize, decisions by a quorum of AE admins should, at least in some ways, hold more weight than those made by a single admin. I don't think that's a controversial stance, but defining those 'some ways' is the tricky part.

And then there's the flipside of the pitfalls for when appeals occur much later than the given sanction. So on the one hand, it's a bit much to have a case essentially relitigated via an appeal immediately following a closure. But on the other, it's often difficult to recall all the relevant details months or even years later. Which goes beyond ArbCom-authorized or community-authorized sanctions, extending also to normal admin actions. So whether extreme in its unpleasantness, like this thread from a few days ago on my talk page, or neutral like this one (coincidentally directly above it) — in either instance, I couldn't remember what's what all the same. So it is a double-edge sword. But I ramble, so thanks again for indulging me! El_C 08:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Explanatory supplement mention of first alert

In Awareness of contentious topics I read "Editors no longer need to be alerted every 12 months, as they are presumed to remain aware after their first alert." But is a discretionary sanctions alert issued more than 12 months ago, i.e. expired before the changes, a first alert and therefore no longer expired? If so, would it be clearer to say "first discretionary sanctions alert or first contentious topics alert"? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I am anyway giving the new alert else for sure someone will claim that they were not made aware. Selfstudier (talk) 15:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
I personally think that Template:alert/DS is helpful for these cases, but I can't point to a policy/procedure section explicitly justifying this use. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
I've now found footnote: "An editor who has not received an alert may also be presumed to be aware of a contentious topic if the editor: ... Ever received a discretionary sanctions alert ... for the same topic; ... Has otherwise made edits indicating an awareness of the contentious topic." So that answers my first question. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
There was an intentional effort to not mention discretionary sanctions in the main body of WP:CTOP so I'm not so interested in making that wording tweak myself. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
This is not about WP:CTOP it is about "Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Comparison with discretionary sanctions", the explanatory supplement. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Dbachmann

Original announcement

Media mention

Withdrawn, it looks like people know about this already as the Grabowski article is referenced in the case request and in a Signpost article a while back. I had thought it was new. 2602:243:2007:9990:FC12:23ED:462:65F4 (talk) 19:07, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
On WT:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland in the "This Arbcom case has been mentioned by multiple media organizations" box, could the following link please be added:

The podcast is mostly an interview with Jan Grabowski, the professor who was threatened, and a co-author of this article:

  • Jan Grabowski & Shira Klein (2023) Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust, The Journal of Holocaust Research, doi:10.1080/25785648.2023.2168939.

He blames the threat on the Polish government, and thankfully doesn't indicate that Wikipedia had anything to do with it. In the interview he talks at length about how Wikipedia content in the topic gets distorted. He mentions the arb case. He gets a few details wrong about Wikipedia's internal processes, but it is mostly stuff that has been through the wringer before.

I got the podcast link from Hacker News[4] but the accompanying discussion thread is currently empty.

I'm making the request here since the arbitration talk page where it would normally go is itself semi-protected.

Arbcom might want to take a look at the article, though it looks somewhat like a transplant of the same editing dispute we've seen on Wikipedia seemingly forever. In fact the article link should probably be posted to one of the case pages. I'll leave it to the experts to figure out which one.

If it matters, I have nothing to do with this content area or dispute.

Thanks. 2602:243:2007:9990:FC12:23ED:462:65F4 (talk) 08:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Recent ArbCom blocks

With both of the ArbCom blocks that were recently issued, why was email access revoked when the instructions specifically say to appeal via email? (Hope this is the right place to ask). 73.17.22.205 (talk) 03:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Revoking email removes the ability to use Wikipedia's internal email system, you can still email the committee directly, and the address to send to is right on the block template. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Change to the Checkuser team

Original announcement

ARBPOL proposed amendment live

As the petition for an ARBPOL amendment to remove the right for Jimbo Wales to act as an appeal route for arbcom decisions has received 100 signatures a referendum on the proposal has been opened.

Proposed amendment referendum

It requires a majority in favour with at least 100 supporting editors.

CENT, WLN, WP:AN, user talk:Jimbo Wales and VPP have all been notified. Please feel free to provide neutral notices to other relevant fora. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Feedback on the Evidence Summary Style/Document Mode

One of the clerks is in process of closing World War II and the history of Jews in Poland as I type this and the next section will be the bot created section to discuss that outcome. I want to have, however, a separate place for feedback on the use of an evidence summary page. I have pretty strong feelings against it but think feedback from the community (including parties to the case if they wish) would be useful for ArbCom to consider if/when to use this again in the future. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:16, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm curious why you're against it? I thought it was helpful to figure out what arbcom was interested in, and I thought it helped keep duplicate submissions down. As well as keeping the submissions culled down to avoid useless stuff. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
I found that it made the evidence as a whole much more readable. It is something that definitely improved the signal-to-noise ratio. That said, it seems to me that such an exercise is extremely labour-instensive on the part of the arbitrators who are summarizing the evidence. I'm not sure how sustainable such an approach is; while it may be workable for a particularly high-profile case as a one-off, I'm also imagining trying to keep with, for example, two open cases with a considerable amount of evidence. My recent experience of being a sitting arbitrator was that the behind-the-scenes stuff took up a fair amount of time already (case in point: the main reason why I haven't been really active this year is because I've seized some opportunities to do other things with my free time, now that I'm no longer an arbitrator). Adding something as intensive as promptly (!) summarizing all evidence may stretch a committee too thin. Even with 15 members, there is a number who are inactive or recused, but also, perhaps at the risk of saying a quiet truth too loudly, a notable percentage of remaining active arbitrators aren't up for grunt work, which is a feature of committees year-in year-out. Maxim (talk) 16:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Once upon a time, I suggested having co-ordinators gathering submitted evidence and putting forth a concise presentation. The goal was to reduce redundancy, thus making it easier to follow the case and save everyone time. There are clear difficulties in trying to put this into practice (getting Wikipedia editors to co-ordinate is very hard). However for a refining-of-evidence approach to be sustainable on a larger scale, I think the effort needs to be de-centralized to other community members, in order to spread the workload. isaacl (talk) 17:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
extremely labour-instensive is really the core issue for me. This is, I think, a rare instance where all three drafters were constantly on-call. In previous cases, the whole process was pretty resilient to one (sometimes even two) drafters needing to step back for a few days, but there was far less slack in this process. That's really just not sustainable, and despite the benefits we get when it works, if it winds up breaking everything I think we wind up in a worse position. It was an interesting tool to try, and for very specific reasons worked out well, but multiple factors would need to converge for me to suggest doing it again. I'd rather we figure out what people liked and try to come up with easier ways to achieve those outcomes without having to do this precise procedure again. — Wug·a·po·des 00:06, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
I think it encouraged people to be like "here's a conversation" leaving it to the arbs to figure out what about that conversation needed noting. And conversely when someone did provide context or if arbs noticed something not noted by the submitter, the neutral summary meant we had to strip that context back out for the summary before putting it back in for the PD. It took tons of time to do, at least doubling the amount of time I would have spent as a drafter on processing the evidence and with no clerk feeling comfortable to ever do the summary it fell completely on the drafters. Not to mention the one reasons for it - to let give people more words/diffs while still providing some constraints ended up not completely working simply because the drafters fell behind in summarizing. And on top of all that it created extra work and points of friction between participants and arbs as people would appeal the summaries (sometimes for good reasons, sometimes not). For me it was an experiment worth doing but not one that would be sustainable or advisable again in the future. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
I disliked it, and Barkeep49 just summarized a lot of the reasons why I did. You noted the possibility of friction when someone who posted evidence disagreed with how it was summarized, and (obviously to anyone who followed the case closely) I can raise my hand for that. (Example: I presented evidence of what I thought was some misrepresentation of source material on a case page. Instead of summarizing it, Barkeep49 put a hat on it, and suggested that the other Arbs should just look at it directly. Nothing came of it. I'm fine with ArbCom looking at my evidence and deciding that it just didn't rise to the level of something that required coverage in the final decision, or even deciding that I had misinterpreted what had happened. I have no problem with that. But for all I know, nobody ever even really looked at it.) It's simply an unnecessary extra step to create a curated version of the evidence page, and it puts the drafting Arbs in the strange position of screening what the other Arbs are supposed to look at.
To some extent, the idea of trying this probably arose out of all the other unusual features of this case, including that ArbCom was the "filing party" and that there was an extraordinarily large amount of content and source material that the Arbs had to try to understand. But most cases should not involve that much source material that needs to be digested. (I wonder: did the Bibliography ever really get used for anything in the Final Decision?) I can also imagine that some editors may believe that a good thing about it was that it seemed to reduce the amount of sniping between parties. But I want to point out that this case was also unusual in that many of the parties came to it with the argument that "there's nothing to see here, all the conflict died down a few years ago", which on the whole did not seem to persuade the Committee. But given this dynamic, it was inevitable that the most aggrieved parties would, nonetheless, be reluctant to go after one another. That's what really happened, and it wasn't a result of the case page structure, even though it might superficially look like it.
Here's what I think would be good things for ArbCom to do with this in the future. It's good for drafting Arbs (or any Arbs) to take an active role in saying "this is off-topic, and we are closing it" or "this is useful, and we would like to hear more about it". That's always beneficial to everyone involved. Arbs should feel free to use hatting to turn off unproductive evidence. It's OK for an Arb to say something like "I'm interpreting this evidence to mean X and Y, but not Z, is that a correct interpretation?" But there's no need for editors submitting evidence to have to feel like "does that mean that my evidence did/did not make the cut?" --Tryptofish (talk) 18:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Were the clerks not encouraged to feel comfortable producing the summaries? I didn't participate in the case and have no feelings about the new process under discussion, but it seems like if the primary complaint is drafter workload, improved delegation could help. Folly Mox (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
The clerks were encouraged. In the end we really only had 1 active clerk for this case and he didn't ultimately feel comfortable doing it. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
(Yeah, it wasn't a lack of encouragement that made me avoid summarizing the evidence. I was overwhelmed by the amount of evidence input and the task of compressing it to pure facts about user conduct. And while my perception may well not match reality, I suddenly felt as if I was in a position of judging article content for ArbCom. That didn't feel right.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:09, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
In my opinion, the clerks should not be asked to do this kind of task. It goes beyond what they are normally expected to do. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
I could see it as something I'd be willing to help do for the future if I didn't get a late start on the case (because of an ill-timed unannounced Wikibreak). –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
I think the evidence summarization was somewhat helpful to me as a party, in figuring out what was considered relevant, and I thought BK did a really good job doing it and asked some really pertinent questions. However, if the format is used in future I think the other arbitrators should give greater weight to the opinion of the arbitrator doing the summarizing, otherwise it is a waste of that person's time. I think this would have been a better decision if it had had some relationship to the summarized evidence. Elinruby (talk) 23:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
I found it an interesting innovation that I mildly support. It was very helpful to know which parts of evidence were considered useful and which, not so much, early on (before the PD). I had some issues with appealing the evidence summary process, as in - I felt that some appeals were effectively ignored. I'd sugget formalizing appeals so they are not lost, maybe create a subpage for them or let them be at summary talk page (which here was redirected to the main evidence one I think?), and then have each one officially marked with ((resolved)) or similar templates while pending, so that it is clear which requests are backlogged, or denied. As for backlogged part, well, what were the not-very-active clerks and arbitrators doing? If we run into the perennial backlog-because-volunteers-are-understaffed/overworked issue, we need to recruit more arbitrators and clerks. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:54, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
At the time I write this comment, no one has yet raised the fact that there was no Workshop phase in this case, so I'll raise it in the context of what the experience with Evidence Summary might tell us. Personally, I think Workshops are very beneficial, but I realize that there are lots of differing opinions about that. In my opinion, if ArbCom has a Workshop and really engages with it, including having drafting arbs workshop potential parts of the PD, it can help ArbCom avoid confusion over the wording of the eventual decision – witness all the questions in the talk section below, about the 1-revert remedy. Criticisms of Workshops include editors sniping at one another and extending the stress for named parties. I agree that those are legitimate concerns, but I think the way that ArbCom explored aggressive hatting of evidence in this case suggests an improvement that could be made. In future cases, Arbs might want to have a Workshop, but make aggressive use of hatting to shut down sniping and proposals that are unlikely to be used. I think that would be a good thing (and a lot easier than summarizing evidence). --Tryptofish (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
If the drafting arbs have things they want feedback on, I agree the workshop is useful. But it wouldn't have helped with this 1-revert remedy which was drafted during the PD itself based on discussion among arbs, and feedback from the community. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:10, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland closed

Original announcement
  1. Given the thesis of the G&K paper that prompted the case, I find it remarkable that there was nothing in the final decision (if I'm missing it, please do correct me) about anyone having misrepresented sources. I'm not saying that's a problem with the decision, in fact, quite the opposite. It's entirely proper for ArbCom to have focused on editor conduct as opposed to content, but none of the findings seem to have been about editors systematically misusing source material.
  2. In her published reaction to the case decision, one of the authors of that paper faulted ArbCom for not having asked historians to correct the content: [5]. This is an unjustified criticism of ArbCom. Not only does ArbCom have no mandate to dictate content, but ArbCom made a considered decision to have User:Chapmansh as a named party. That was an explicit invitation for her to participate in the case, and to do so in her capacity as a subject matter expert in history if she chose to. She is of course free not to participate, but then to complain about never having been invited to participate seems like a deliberate wish to find reasons to criticize Wikipedia.
--Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Are there any ethical considerations to their actions in this case? I'm pretty certain at least Klein's postmortem is a major failure to do basic research about the Arbitration Committee's lack of remit as regards disputed article content at large. It's not like there isn't literally over a decade of precedent of ArbCom deferring to community processes for them, and it's not like they're particularly hard to find. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 22:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Are we reading the same thing? She literally says Arbcom is “bound by Wiki policy to steer clear of content. ArbCom was simply the wrong solution to begin with.” 2601:196:4600:5BF0:18E5:B19C:5238:1AC0 (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
But in the exact same paper (hell, the exact same paragraph) she faults ArbCom for not being historians and thus, in her view, being incompetent to address the article content and suggesting they demand historians' input - which is a distinction without a difference as ArbCom would still be directly interfering in article content at that point. Note that several of the content-dispute related remedies above (Mantanmoreland, Scientology, Socionics, GamerGate, War of the Pacific) also request (but do not mandate) knowledgeable users who otherwise have not involved themselves in the on-wiki disputes to get involved to address the articles' content.
Another thing complicating matters with "just ask historians" is the fact that, unlike Gamergate/GenSex and Scientology (the two cases above that were/are contentious topics), the heart of the Eastern Europe issues is not so easy to fix as to be answered with pure facts, something which ArbCom itself has acknowledged multiple times. The contentious topic it's in is one of five (the others being AA2, AP2, IP, and PIA) where the base issues are deeply-entrenched ethnic and nationalistic sentiments that cannot realistically be resolved on Wikipedia short of the suggestion made by User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris here, and which we'd all agree is incredibly extreme. Even if we assumed historians would be free from the bias that permeates the area IRL, that wouldn't stop their words from being used by whatever side to support their position if it can even remotely be used to do so without committing source fraud.—Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 17:35, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
(Addendum: All the cases above, bar Seeyou, are cases that explicitly have a remedy deferring content matters to the community or its content-dispute-resolution processes. It does not include cases (again, except for Seeyou) where ArbCom invokes the "It is not our role to adjudicate good-faith content disputes" principle, which would include far more than just these cases. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 22:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC))
About whether there were ethical considerations, ArbCom examined that and decided that there were not (see: FoF 9). Some members of the community (including me) are not entirely comfortable with that, and there is like to be further discussion (see WT:Harassment#WP:OUTING). --Tryptofish (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Though, it's important to recognize that intentional distortion of a source, or tendentious misuse of a source, is absolutely a conduct issue and does fall within ArbCom's remit... but very little evidence of that was actually presented during the case (even by people who broadly support the overarching thrust of the G&K paper otherwise), which suggests that those aspects were probably reasonable disagreements between sources and not editors outright misrepresenting them. Admittedly, this may also be because most of the evidence was contributed by experienced editors who knew that WP:CIVILPOV and deliberate distortion of sources is hard to prove, whereas edit warring, incivility, and violation of previous restrictions are easy, and therefore devoted their limited time to finding evidence of the latter rather than trying to string together an inevitably more tenuous case for the former... especially given that in the end ArbCom concluded that virtually every major participant in the case except Piotrus had enough of that evidence against them to support a topic-ban on their own, anyway. (Or in GCB's case were a banned sockpuppet so none of the other evidence mattered.) --Aquillion (talk) 07:25, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
The way I read the FoF 6 family is that except in one case attributable to GCB, the evidence characterised as source misrepresentation could be more easily explained as translation variance, but this might be because – as a person who has translated – I find this incredibly plausible.
User:Tryptofish, Principle 9 makes it clear that source misrepresentation is understood as a conduct issue, and FoF 5 explains that not all sources were possible to examine due to availability and language barrier issues. It is still telling that there was apparently only one instance of source misrepresentation that was positively verified.
Klein's press release reads as if she didn't read these bits, or Remedy 2, which is not particularly surprising given that it also impugns ArbCom for not doing a thing it never does, and also mistakes the PD for the closure of the case. As to whether it represents a deliberate wish to find reasons to criticize Wikipedia, the press release does open with a statement about how you can hire her to come criticize Wikipedia, so uh inferences can be drawn. Folly Mox (talk) 10:06, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Folly Mox, I agree that Principle 9 says that, as a principle, but there really were no findings of fact that it happened in the ways that the G&K paper claimed, or in the ways that the case scope appeared to anticipate. From the evidence that I saw, it was mostly a problem in the earlier history of the content dispute, involving editors who were not named parties because they were long gone for one reason or another by the time the case arose. This points to some limitations of basing an ArbCom case on complaints made off-site. And the difficulties in examining sources seems to me to have been a limitation to ArbCom being able to deal with things that are on the boundary between content and conduct. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:11, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Without regard to this case specifically, I do feel that many intractable disputes between experienced editors happen because one or both sides in the dispute dig in and defend an edit or wording that they wouldn't have added themselves (and which may have fundamental problems) because they see themselves as defending articles against the "other side." It's one of the problems with WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct. --Aquillion (talk) 15:30, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Opening a press release with “Chapman University’s Dr. Shira Klein is available to speak to the recent ruling by Wikipedia’s arbitration committee” is a far cry from “hire me to criticize Wikipedia” 2601:196:4600:5BF0:18E5:B19C:5238:1AC0 (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm not tryna hassle her hustle — everybody's got to get paid. But is available to speak is an invitation to engage her as a paid speaker or lecturer, and if the recent ruling by Wikipedia's arbitration committee is in any way represented by the paragraphs that follow, where she says nothing positive about the site or the ruling, saying Wikipedia failed... miserably and even downplaying VM's and MVBW's topic bans with but the ruling is appealable in 12 months instead of celebrating it as a desired outcome, I'd be pretty surprised if she doesn't incorporate a fair amount of Wikipedia criticism into her paid speaking engagements. It's fair play and probably exactly the market niche I'd grab ahold of in her position. I hope she'll also build in some constructive suggestions for her audience members about how to get involved and improve quality and representation of sourcing in historical articles. Folly Mox (talk) 20:26, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
In fairness, I'm not reading "is available to speak" in that way. It's a university newspaper, and it probably just means that this professor made herself available to speak to a student reporter. It doesn't come across to me as an advertisement. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm open to the possibility that I'm being too cynical. I'm noticing some tropaic echoes in this whole situation that are resonating with open emotional wounds, and I think it's making me too salty to express the level of kindness I'd like to. I didn't even participate in the case and don't edit the topic area, so I'm not sure what value I'm adding here. Thanks to the arbs and clerks and evidence submitters for all their volunteer labour. Folly Mox (talk) 20:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
It is a university press release aimed at the press. She wants the press to interview her on the subject. It isn't about paid speaking engagements or aimed at students. Zerotalk 02:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, Zero. I should have seen "Press Release" right there in red letters at the top. That means that Klein/Chapmansh approved all of the text that was published there. She's not looking to make money from it, but she is actively trying to get widespread notice of her perspectives on the case. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
An interesting side-effect of ArbCom initiating the case was that most of the named parties felt less of a need to present evidence of wrongdoing, and more of a motivation to claim that there wasn't really a problem. In most other cases, the filing party and those who agree with the filer lay out a series of accusations, and those accused respond in kind. That was muted here, and I think it made it much harder for ArbCom to find the evidence that it needed. Future ArbComs should keep that in mind, before acting as the filing party.
That ran up against the immense amount of difficult source material that the drafting arbs tried to digest. In the talk section above, I asked somewhat rhetorically whether the Bibliography ended up being used for anything, and I'd actually be curious what the answer would be, but I'm going to guess that it became a huge amount of work that didn't really yield anything useful. I think ArbCom ultimately did a very good job of explaining in the Final Decision what ArbCom does and does not do with content versus conduct. But I think going forward ArbCom should think twice, and then think again, before undertaking a task like this.
And finally, there's the fact that the case was so heavily influenced by the fact that the G&K paper had come out. Arbs have said repeatedly that they made their own evaluations of the facts, and that's good, but the fact remains that a polemic by scholars with a bone to pick had an oversized role in this case. And the complaints by scholars on opposite "sides" of the academic debate as soon as the PD came out ([6], [7]), demonstrate that this really wasn't ever a situation where there was a scholarly consensus that Wikipedia failed to reflect. There is actually an ongoing scholarly dispute, and Wikipedia displeased two scholars on one side of that dispute because Wikipedia doesn't take their side. ArbCom, and Wikipedia in general, are going to have to get used to this kind of external academic criticism, because it's going to become more and more frequent. It's good when we take note of such criticism and look to see if there are things we need to fix. But we shouldn't have a knee-jerk overreaction. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
So, tl;dr, G&K basically intended to try and influence the matter on Wikipedia, but failed utterly because ArbCom wouldn't play ball? Where have I heard this story before? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 17:46, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
A couple of responses. First G&K posit that Lucas' assertions are not with-in the realm of legitimate academic debate and that Wikipedia treating G&K and Lucas as two equally valid sides is itself part of the problem. Second I think a lot of people have over thought things. G&K want our coverage to more closely align with their analysis of history and since that was never going to be an outcome of this case of course it was going to disappoint them. I will say that if their assertions about the state of mainstream scholarship is correct then our coverage should actually more in the direction they wish, but that will be up to other editors in the days, weeks, and months ahead to decide. Hopefully aided by what other historians have to say. Finally, while I agree that a lot of the actors settled on a "nothing to see here" narrative ultimately I flat out disagree that there wasn't sufficient evidence to find. In the end there was sufficient evidence to pass multiple topic bans and nearly the banning of an incredibly longtime editor. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for these thoughts. I need to clarify that I agree with you entirely when you say that there was, in fact, sufficient evidence brought forth to allow ArbCom to have a solid basis for taking decisive action to resolve the conduct issues. I agree with that. But I didn't say (or at least didn't mean to say) that ArbCom failed to find enough evidence. I said: I think it made it much harder for ArbCom to find the evidence that it needed. You found it, but it was harder for you than it needed to be. I think we can agree about that.
As for the first part of what you said, it's certainly G&K's opinion that they are the mainstream academic view. I've been struck throughout the case by the absence of secondary sources that state an academic consensus on the matter. G&K also take the attitude that academics who disagree with them are not only wrong, but engaging in something outrageous, bordering on antisemitism. But I think it's open to debate as to whether Richard C. Lukas is (a) someone who is so far outside of the academic mainstream as to be a WP:FRINGE scholar, or (b) a scholar who holds a minority view within an ongoing academic dispute. I think it's closer to (b). Editors have recently discussed how Wikipedia should position the matter at Talk:The Forgotten Holocaust#Arbitration case, and Legitimizing fringe academics, and I'm not seeing a consensus that Lucas is fringey, although the argument is being made. My sense of where Wikipedia is likely to end up is something more nuanced, not treating Grabowski and Lukas as equal, but not treating one of them as "completely right" and the other as "completely wrong", either. Of course, you and I are not going to decide that here. But I'm uncomfortable when ArbCom flirts with deciding a content matter before the community has. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
According to Worldcat, Lukas' most well known book on the Holocaust is held by 1304 libraries. Grabowski's by 901. Here are Lukas' books prominently featured in a bibliography published by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum: [8]. Similarly here. Just saying. Andreas JN466 05:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
I find it very interesting that the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum recommends Lukas (as well as Grabowski) as an author worth reading. It's pretty hard to reconcile that with Lukas being regarded by Holocaust experts as a fringe figure who is hostile to mainstream views on the subject. This seems to me to be a clear indication of how ArbCom can be the wrong body to attempt to make determinations, unilaterally, of which "side" of an outside academic dispute is right. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
There is a potential "first mover advantage" in this kind of situation, too. Andreas JN466 21:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
@Tryptofish "Lukas being regarded by Holocaust experts as" would be more correct as "Lukas being regarded by some Holocaust experts as". Arguably, isn't he an expert in the same field with differing views on those who regard him as..., etc.? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes, certainly. And all the more reason to regard this as an academic field where there is ongoing disagreement amongst experts. --Tryptofish (talk) 12:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Lukas' other major book, "Out of the Inferno", is held by 1,255 libraries according to Worldcat. Like The Forgotten Holocaust mentioned above, it was published by the University Press of Kentucky, Lexington. This may not be a top university press in the U.S., but it is a long, long way from "fringe".
Let's look at another author, Nechama Tec, who Grabowski and Klein mention approvingly in their essay. Her major work, "When light pierced the darkness", is held by 1,356 libraries according to Worldcat. Her "Dry Tears" come in at 694 libraries, her "Defiance" at 303 libraries.
So Lukas' key works, at 1,304 and 1,255 libraries, are at least as well represented on Worldcat as Nechama Tec's, are they not? Is this compatible with the notion that this author is "fringe"?
Now let's look at Grabowski's other works: In addition to "Hunt for the Jews" (901 libraries), Grabowski has published the Polish-language "Dalej jest noc". This is held by 43 libraries. His other English-language book, "The Polish police: collaboration in the Holocaust", is held by 5 (five) libraries according to Worldcat.
User:Barkeep49, you said above, "G&K posit that Lucas' assertions are not with-in the realm of legitimate academic debate". Were you aware of these numbers? And if not, do they alter your thinking on how much weight to give Grabowski's opinions on Lukas, compared to the weight we should give Lukas' opinions on Grabowski? Andreas JN466 15:48, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
And this book is held by 2,467 libraries according to Worldcat, a much higher number than any of the above. So by Andreas' logic, we must not regard Holocaust denier David Irving as "fringe" either. A good illustration of the quality of some arguments in this debate area. (Andreas' Holocaust Museum argument regarding Lukas has also been questioned by several other users, see the talk page of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-03-09/Recent research and the preceding discussion mentioned there. But of course that doesn't stop him and others from continuing to repeat it.) Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:30, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Good try. Quoting from our lead for David Irving: "By the late 1980s, Irving had placed himself outside the mainstream of the study of history". The book you mention was published in 1977. Contrast its library holdings against those of Irving's later works: Churchill's War (1987), 346 libraries; Goebbels (1996), 192 libraries; Hitler's Army (2011), 9 libraries; True Himmler (2020), 2 libraries. Surely there is at least some correlation between the worth of a book and libraries' decision to purchase it.
And while I concede my argument about the USHMM bibliographies has been "questioned", nobody has explained why in a bibliography on "Polish and Soviet civilians, and Soviet prisoners of war" comprising a total of five (5) works, two of which are about Russia, the USHMM would choose to include two books by Lukas. Apparently we're supposed to believe they rolled dice. Andreas JN466 18:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Irving may not yet have outright denied the holocaust in 1977 yet. But as noted in our article about this book, he was arguing at that time already "that Hitler was against the killings of Jews. He claimed that Hitler even ordered a stop to the extermination of Jews in November 1941 (British historian Hugh Trevor-Roper noted that this admission blatantly contradicted Irving's other claim that Hitler was ignorant about the mass killing of Jews)". See also this RSN discussion about an even earlier (1964) book of Irving where the same argument that Andreas makes here was roundly dismissed.
Instead of engaging in such shaky arguments based on metrics that for good reasons are not used elsewhere to assess scholarly credibility, it might be more productive to address the concrete criticism of Lukas that the paper makes and cites. Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
You can't rely on just one essay that extols Engel. I read most of the back and forth of the "ongoing discussion" in Slavic Review the other day; just the first page of it visible here should disabuse you of the notion that Engel's and G&K's views were generally shared then, thirty years ago, when Lukas' book appeared.
Worldcat holdings are routinely used to judge authors' "fringiness" at RS/N, and I don't see any reference to them in the discussion you link. I think it's pretty clear that today, most libraries no longer touch Irving with a bargepole, and for very good and clear reasons. This is not the case with Lukas: cf. [9]. Are you seriously trying to compare Lukas to Irving? I hope not. Regards, Andreas JN466 21:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm having flashbacks to the arguments during the case over VM's methodology in determining the numbers of AE threads in the case scope year-by-year – which in the end really didn't matter to the results of the case. To my knowledge, Irving hasn't made a public statement about the case decision, so we really don't need to evaluate his fringieness for that purpose. Lukas may be in a minority in his field, but he is not a fringe figure. G&K may, arguably, be more in the majority in that field, but their dismissal of Lukas should not be taken on face value, especially not for labeling editor conduct as disruptive. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
That was a bit eyebrow-raising. The original restriction placed by an admin was done with the rationale that I'd rather cut things off now than risk more severe sanctions - I feel that it probably would have been fine to leave it in the hands of the admin in question, since it was already essentially handled. But I was honestly more surprised by the topic ban for MVBW when the only evidence about him concerned behavior during the ArbCom case. Decorum during ArbCom cases is important, and I guess this answers the question of "how willing is ArbCom to sanction people for violations of that alone", but a topic-ban with no evidence that the user has any larger problems editing the topic area itself seems more punitive than preventative. If there were any problems at all with MVBW's editing in the topic area that needed to be addressed, I could understand ArbCom's problem with them seeming to downplay issues during the case, because it would imply there's no likelihood of improvement; but in the absence of those problems it feels like they're just topic-banning someone for being wrong. And part of the reason decorum during ArbCom cases is so important is because they're stressful - that's a reason to demand best behavior, but if someone only has problems during the case, it's also probably a sign that their issue is specific to that situation and not a general problem requiring a topic ban. (Though, as MVBW said, it may just not matter since they didn't edit the topic area much in the first place.) --Aquillion (talk) 21:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
No one will see the outcome as perfect. It never can be with such a huge, I'd say, impossible, workload taken on to defend the bona fides of wikipedia, a visionary project in progress created by anonymous volunteers that, by its nature, given the immense terrain it covers, can't satisfy everyone. As a formerly permabanned editor who thought the case against himself was flawed, I accepted the ban without comment, and sat out my sentence, until it was drastically truncated after about a year when an appeal, unknown to me, was made on my behalf by two representatives of both sides of the contentious topic area. If sometimes this place fouls up, just quietly taking it on the chin, without grievance, editing elsewhere, and leaving one's future in the hands of fellow- editors is an option, who, after a year, might make a representation for review with admins. There's plenty of evidence that some sanctioned editors on both sides here have wikipedians in good standing who would consider supporting such appeals. If one lesson lies here, it is to be somewhat more tough-skinned when blips of mediocre research pop up, as they always will, to scream 'foul'. If academics (many already do) are unhappy, they can always consider tithing their precious time to do a little collaborative work in improving what tens of thousands of people already do anonymously, i.e., constructive community service. I live in Italy which is perhaps congenitally prone to dysfunctionalism. Grumbling is part and parcel of every other conversation. In the meantime, crises or no, it manages to get by thanks to an extremely high level of participation in voluntary projects, and wikipedia is much the same.Nishidani (talk) 21:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Replying to Aquillion about the MVBW sanction, I know that some of the Arbs have already said that editors should always expect that their demeanor on case pages will come under scrutiny, and should not need to be told. Basically, I accept that as true. It says so in ArbCom's guidance to editors participating in cases. However, it strikes me that, in a case where the drafting arbs were very active in hatting posts on case pages, with explanations of the rationale for the hatting (all of which I like), there wasn't much in any of that, that would have alerted MVBW that the Arbs were concerned about it. I get the feeling that the Arbs felt as though MVBW's case page posts were indicative of a problem that was also happening in main space, but the main space evidence wasn't at hand. This seems to me to be an example of where ArbCom's assuming the role of the filing party, along with the reluctance of some editors to post evidence critical of one another, left ArbCom in the position of simultaneously doing both prosecution and judgment, and the volume of evidence that ArbCom had to sift through, because of the inclusion of so much content and source material, caused ArbCom to cut a few corners. I'm not saying that to criticize the Arbs, so much as to point out how there are things about how the case was accepted that future ArbComs need to be alert to. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
This page is full of criticsm so I'm not sure why you're pretending "caused ArbCom to cut a few corners" isn't a critcism Trypto. I think your analysis doesn't stand up to scrutiny: the committee didn't even mention (let alone sanction) the two editors who were outright sanctioned for their conduct during the case in the final decision. So clearly there was something about MVBW's conduct that struck arbs (including me) differently. And as for why I didn't say anything it's because it's potentially really unfair, for a single arb, or even the three drafting arbs, to say your conduct when taken as a whole (as opposed to some "brightline" issue) is disruptive. Also compare this to my stating during the case (first privately then publicly) that I found Piotrus off-wiki conduct troubling. I wasn't looking to take shortcuts, but by the time that it became clear to me that MVBW's conduct during the case needed more scrutiny we were days away from the 2nd evidence phase/analysis closing. Now I hadn't previously written on this because I think the idea that we could have mishandled MBVW's better is fair and genuinely worth considering (I know I will). But this idea that it was done because Arbs were taking a shortcut feels demonstrably untrue.
And because you keep bringing it up I read you as believing that ArbCom exercising its policy authority to sua sponte open the case was a mistake. I have some real concerns about ArbCom doing this with any sort of regularity but I think ArbCom was right, at the time to open the case (hence why I voted to do it) and having brought the case to conclusion I still think that was the right decision. Whatever shortcomings may have been caused by that choice - and I think we largely agree on what they were - I don't think it makes it the wrong choice. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
By saying my purpose wasn't to criticize, but to give advice for the future, I was trying to cut ArbCom some slack. And I didn't say that the end result was wrong. What I said is pretty much what you say, that you were near the deadline, that you could have handled it differently and should think about it. That's not saying that the end result was wrong. As for sua sponte, I've already said very clearly that "In my opinion, there was nothing about this that went beyond ArbCom's remit according to policy. So ArbCom can do these things. But the question is whether ArbCom should, and what can be learned going forward about things to watch out for if ArbCom does." --Tryptofish (talk) 12:48, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
I think one problem with a FoF and a resulting sanction stemming solely from misconduct during a case, in retrospect, is that it can sometimes seem to come out of nowhere without much time for anyone but arbs to discuss it or for the person in question to try and respond. (Granted that MVBW's responses during the case were the problem so that might have just been WP:ROPE.) For anything other than misconduct during the case, if people realized late into the process there was an issue that hadn't been introduced during the evidence phase or discussed yet, I think it would normally be omitted due to not being raised in a timely manner or the case would need to be extended so it could be examined properly. Misconduct during a case is different because the evidence is already part of the case and because sometimes it can occur after the evidence section is already closed. I think that ideally, though, there would have been an evidence section created for it (which would have alerted MVBW that that aspect of their conduct during the case was a problem and was being examined), and if it had to be added late then the case would have been extended a bit or things would be reopened briefly for that part alone. But I can understand arbs not wanting to extend the case over something like that. ArbCom certainly can resolve things that weren't previously discussed from orbit with no warning during the decision phase, I suppose (the other phases are there to guide them, not some as sort of guaranteed right of response) but I'm not sure that it's ideal. --Aquillion (talk) 00:23, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
As someone who found the evidence summary useful and understood it as "this is the stuff we will focus on" (ditto for the Questions/Requests from Arbitrators section of analysis), I think the summaries regarding Levivich and MVBW should have been expanded, and those editors should have been allowed to post a rebuttal during Phase 2. I know I was asking to "speed things up", but now I feel a bit guilty that perhaps my request to do so resulted in worse experience for others. Ideally, maybe their "cases" should have been split into one or two sparate, smaller proceedings (one looking at VM-Levivich interactions, and one at MVBW behavior?), although this would create more procedural workload for the Committee. In the end, our procedures to handle stuff evolve and generally improve (two steps forward, one step back?), just like our content does. This was a complex case with a record(?) number of parties (or at least close to, I am sure). We need to consider, for the future, how to better handle the issues raised here (including, seriously looking into a system through which subcases can be split off and run at their own speed), which, IMHO, relate to an issue I raised before - the communication between the Committee and the parties need improvement. I am still mulling on that, and maybe I'll write another mini-essay, or such, although I think much of that is related to the tiny mini-essay I wrote a while back ("Advocates needed". The system failed some editors, for example, by not having anyone in authority tell MVBW to consider (refactor/limit...) his talk page behavior until it was too late. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Not a record. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs had more parties. And that's just one I stumbled across a while back. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:40, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
@Pppery: I'll see your manipulation of BLPs and raise you 27 at Gamergate -- Euryalus (talk) 12:05, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Small fry. 45 at WP:ARBSCI. Andreas JN466 18:30, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
FYI, The Jerusalem Post published an article about this case, with the quote “There’s no problem with falsifying the past; just be nice about it.” Animal lover |666| 05:49, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
An other quote from the same person: “This is the seventh-most viewed site in the world, yet the safeguards Wikipedia has in place for battling disinformation are scarily ineffective. If it’s true for the history of the Holocaust, it is probably true for other cases we have yet to discover. With ChatGPT amplifying Wikipedia on an unprecedented scale, this new failure is all the more worrying.” Animal lover |666| 05:51, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
The article seems to put too much trust in Klein and Grabowski's understanding of Wikipedia processes. We absolutely have processes for battling disinformation, and most coverage has said that we're one of the best sites in the world for that - eg. [10][11][12]. If someone believes there's a concerted effort to push a fringe perspective, for instance, they could go to WP:FRINGEN and put together an RFC clearly establishing that perspective as fringe, which would greatly simplify answering it in the future; if someone believes specific sources are unreliable and yet are being pushed repeatedly, there's always WP:RSN. And of course there's WP:NPOVN for general neutrality issues. But AFAIK nobody involved in the dispute has even attempted any large-scale resolution at those places (because, I think, most editors recognize that it's not so clear-cut and that producing the evidence necessary for something like that wouldn't be possible.) --Aquillion (talk) 06:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
If a likely-false statement is sourced to a text, written in a difficult language with few speakers on English Wikipedia by a largely-unnotabme author, and this statement supports the national claims of the language's country (where making opisite claims is actually illegal), how can the community at large judge the claim and the source? The discussion is likely to be dominated by speakers of this language, who - as a group - have a COI in favor of this statement, so it will stay. Get a concensus that it's false, they will wait a few months and try again. Animal lover |666| 08:32, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Mhm. The other side of the coin: Wikipedia:Systemic bias, Racial bias on Wikipedia... and WP:AGF. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:16, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
To take up Aquillion's point about placing too much trust in G&W's article, as though it represented 'scholarship' or the high ground of neutral academic work in that field. It doesn't. To the contrary the paper is wholly out of whack with the detached self-awareness and methodological cautiousness which informs history even in that topic area.: it represents one partisan (and very traditionalist) approach to the issue of Polish and Jewish relations. Scholarship has long recognized two 'camps' here 'Jewish' and (pro)Polish, each with internal disagreements, and each subject to changes in paradigm over decades. And familiarity with, say,
might have helped to clarify the dangers of taking as a point of 'scholarly' departure that particular paper's arraignment of the evidence, and the overall picture. Mendelsohn and Ury's background overview (1930s down to 2018) of the fraught nature of themes, and the infra-academic histories of dispute in this topic area amount to just 29 pages in all, rather than the huge length over months of churning arguments which, necessarily, wikipedia must produce when addressing such challenges to its legitimacy. Perhaps in the future we should evaluate the quality of an external polemic about our credibility before ending up chained to the grindstone of cross-checking several thousand diffs simply because someone out there waves a red flag in public. Editors here have enough time wasted negotiating articles without this order of trivial distraction. The 'bull' metaphor is cogent.Nishidani (talk) 11:57, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
  • If a likely-false statement is sourced to a text... Someone deliberately misrepresenting a source is an extremely serious form of misconduct, and if you could prove that someone has repeatedly said that sources say things they clearly don't, that then it should be easy enough to get them topic-banned or worse, without having to go through RfAr. Unless I missed it there was little effort to even attempt to prove that in this ArbCom case. And in the modern day language isn't the barrier it once was - machine translation is far from perfect, but when someone asserts that a source says something, a machine translation is usually enough to get a general sense of whether that assertion is plausible or not, at least to the point of knowing whether it's worth challenging them or raising the issue at a larger forum. Now, concerns about the laws in specific countries influencing sources are another matter, and are worth raising on WP:RSN (I know there's been significant discussion about China there in that regard.) Most editors are not going to be willing to exclude an entire country unconditionally for systematic bias reasons, but we can absolutely take such laws into account when weighing sources and deciding whether to attribute them. --Aquillion (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
(where making opisite claims is actually illegal), that's not true, please strikethrough this misleading information. Marcelus (talk) 12:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

A part of the problem is inevitable....people will want to tilt an article in a prominent encyclopedia. The other part is systemic.....it is very easy to tilt an article if you are wiki-saavy and wiki-clever. The latter can be improved with changes in policies. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:54, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Sort of. One thing we have to always remember is that our policies require eyes and hands to follow and enforce them; the more people there are working on an article, the less likely it is to become unbalanced or to develop other problems. (This is something that IIRC there is actual academic research supporting.) So the way to solve problems is to call attention to them, raise the profile of articles that have problems in noticeboards, and so on. The other thing we have to keep in mind is that disputes on Wikipedia often reflect unsettled disputes in the real world, which means we're never going to completely settle them just by hashing stuff out here. People who feel strongly about those disputes and who don't agree with what we would call the consensus of reliable sources are always going to feel that articles on those subjects "tilted" and will always arrive to try to "fix" them. While the most egregious WP:NOTHERE or WP:TEND editors can be removed, ultimately that can't be solved using policies or sanctions, both because even if the people challenging our articles are wrong there's just going to be endless more of them and because Cromwell's rule requires that we do consider the possibility we're wrong - sometimes our articles are tilted. And in cases that don't involve obviously WP:FRINGE views, figuring out whether complaints are valid (and who is trying to "tilt" an article as opposed to who is trying ot "fix" it) is intractable. Even academics knowledgeable about the subject won't necessarily be able to do it - after all, as we've seen, they have opinions and biases themselves. --Aquillion (talk) 03:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Hmm; remarkable lack of knowledge about how Wikipedia works -for a Wikipedian, IMO; Huldra (talk) 23:55, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

All these articles (well, they're all the same article with different headlines) say, "Those ideas are baked into Polish law, which since 2018 has criminalized accusing Poland of complicity with the Nazi regime." Surely Klein knows that after international protests against this stupid law the Polish government backtracked within months and decriminalised the matter again (people can still potentially be sued in Poland for claiming that Poland was responsible for the Holocaust, but all the criminal sanctions were dropped and it is now a civil rather than a criminal matter). (BBC report. The Polish ‘Holocaust Law’ revisited. Also see Amendment to the Act on the Institute of National Remembrance#Subsequent amendment.)
So what these articles describe hasn't been the case for five years. Andreas JN466 11:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Also: perhaps our article is not up to date, but there is no indication this law has ever been used... (I could be wrong, and in that case, I invite interested editors to update the relevant article - which interestingly doesn't even have a pl wiki equivalent). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:21, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
I'd be surprised if it ever had been used. The BBC article says, When it was signed by Polish President Andrzej Duda in February there were immediate objections, and he then referred the measures to the Constitutional Tribunal, in effect putting the law on hold. Five months later the law was history. Andreas JN466 13:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Also at least some of the managed to somewhat connect it to the recent small controversy over Noa Kirel words after her Eurovision performance, which I must admit admirable case of mental gymnastic. Marcelus (talk) 12:22, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
About Klein having a "remarkable lack of knowledge about how" we do things, I think it's remarkable because, in fact, she clearly does have that knowledge, which is evident from her years of experience teaching classes through WikiEd. The community should not fool ourselves, nor shortchange her intelligence, by assuming that she simply doesn't know about these things. She knows perfectly well, but she disagrees with it. As she seems to see it, she has bigger fish to fry. It's the same as with her not participating as a named party in the case, and then complaining publicly that ArbCom should have asked for input from historians. She knows what the polices and guidelines say, and she even understands how the inside baseball of Wikipedia is conducted. But she has an agenda, and for Wikipedia that comes with no small amount of WP:RGW. And more broadly, Wikipedia serves her as a useful foil, one that may very well advance her academic career. And, as I've already said repeatedly, the Wikipedia community needs to get used to the fact that more and more ambitious academics (well, actually, that's the only kind of academic) are going to try to use us this way, and we need to learn not to overreact when they do. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
There's also the slim possibility that Klein, a trained professional in Jewish history and the digital humanities, might have a genuine interest in improving the coverage of Jewish history in the world's biggest digital educational resource. Even to the point of suggesting—shock horror—that we could change the way that Wikipedia works. – Joe (talk) 13:45, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
And there's the not-so-slim possibility that she has an option available to her of working with us, through our existing mechanisms for discussing changes in the way we do things, to achieve that goal. I'm sure she does have a genuine interest in improving our coverage of that topic. But she does not get to declare for us, unilaterally, what those improvements will be. The way she has been going about it, she is simply a primary source who complains that we don't treat her as a secondary or tertiary source, and ignores ArbCom's invitation to take part in this case. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Well, this is the other side of the problem I described above. The flip side of "improving Wikipedia coverage of a topic" is that it often amounts to "make Wikipedia's articles on this topic say what I believe is the truth." An argument that we should change or ignore central policies and procedures in order to present an article on a controversial topic in a particular way requires exceedingly strong evidence that the current way is fundimentially wrong, even coming from an expert. Nobody has really made that case convincingly; in fact, to the extent that it was discussed, a major point was that there are mainstream, respected academics who disagree with Klein on the key points that she believes need to be presented essentially one-sidedly. Obviously Klein thinks those academics are dumb and wrong and should be disregarded (and perhaps even that they are, or should be, fringe) but that's not something we can just assume on the say-so of a single scholar. The question of eg. whether Richard C. Lukas is fringe isn't some obscure complex thing that Wikipedia has no policies or procedures to address; it's a straightforward question of the sort we answer all the time, which we have well-established procedures to address. In fact, you can see people using our usual ways to address that question above. The problem isn't that our procedures have broken down, the problem is that (at least in that example) Klein and those agree with her have simply failed to make their case. (Although, perhaps it hasn't been approached in a systematic manner yet - I encouraged everyone involved to take such things to WP:FRINGEN if they haven't already, and still think that would be a good idea. Most of the underlying content / sourcing questions here are simple up-down questions that we have well-established procedures to address, which makes me leery when people argue we should bypass them and just WP:IAR to implement their preferred version.) --Aquillion (talk) 15:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps one should take to RSN Klein's belief as asserted in her book that Primo Levi won the Nobel Prize to discover if it is a fringe view or not? After all, her area of expertise is Italian Jewish history, and she is reliably published.Nishidani (talk) 16:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
@Joe Roe: Isn't it as much Polish history as it is Jewish history – and German history, for that matter?
This is pretty much the point made here by another scholar responding to Engel's criticism of Lukas. With two million of their people systematically murdered (the first victims in the German death camps were Polish gentiles, not Jews), millions deported as slaves, and unrealised German plans for the complete annihilation of their nation, surely the Poles have a right to write about their own people's suffering.
Here is a summary of school kids' skewed perceptions of the Holocaust, from holocausteducation.org.uk – this is the UCL Centre for Holocaust Education, part of IOE, University College London’s Faculty of Education and Society. Their website states that "for eight years in a row, IOE has been rated number one in the world for Education in the QS World University Rankings". The same statement is also in our article, UCL Institute of Education. Here are the current 2022 ranking, they're just above Harvard University. So this is what they are saying (my emphases):
While Jews, Roma and Sinti, gay men and the disabled were all mentioned by large numbers of students as victims of the Nazis, some other groups were rarely mentioned. We can only speculate on why these groups appear to have all but ‘disappeared from view’, but it seems likely that they are considered somehow less ‘relevant’ to contemporary social issues. Many schools are rightly concerned with homophobia, for example, or the attitudes of society today towards disabled people; perhaps other groups persecuted and murdered by the Nazis and their collaborators have less ‘purchase’ on many teachers’ and students’ concerns with modern British society. Whatever the reason, the outcome is that the murder of up to 15,000 gay men appears to receive a lot of attention in the school classroom, whereas the murder of 3.3 million Soviet POWs seems to be forgotten, and the Nazi genocide of Poles (in which at least 1.8 million non-Jewish Poles were murdered) is barely mentioned. The persecution of political opponents also appears largely overlooked, even though the first concentration camps targeted these victims, and an understanding of this initial period of terror is important in understanding the later development of Nazi violence and genocide. It may be that an over-emphasis on the ‘lessons of the Holocaust’, leads to a particular focus on groups that feel ‘relevant’ to today’s issues, but that this leads – unwittingly – to both a distortion of the past and the forgetting of millions of victims.
So much about "distortion". Andreas JN466 16:32, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Indeed, and what is curious that that report is ostensibly a synthesis of the far more detailed study by Stuart Foster, Alice Pettigrew, Andy Pearce, Rebecca Hale Adrian Burgess, Paul Salmons, Ruth-Anne Lenga, 'What do students know and understand about the Holocaust? Evidence from English secondary schools Centre for Holocaust Education, University College London 2016 ISBN 978-0-9933711-0-3, but the point made in the précis of results (p.8) which you cite, is, as far as I can see, absent in the original 2016 paper, which only mentions very briefly (pp.65,135) that students show almost no awareness of Polish and Soviet victims, and does not mention specifically that the Holocaust had some 5.1 million Slavic victims. The answer to the puzzle is that there are two schools, one that defines the holocaust as exclusive, referring only to Jewish victims (dominant) and the inclusivist school, which extends the definition to every people or group subject to racial murder in WW2 (p.9). The figures for both are approximately the same. And this exclusivist bias arguably inflects the G&K polemic.Nishidani (talk) 17:39, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
The Holocaust was the genocide of European Jews during World War II. Between 1941 and 1945, Nazi Germany and its collaborators systematically murdered some six million Jews across German-occupied Europe, around two-thirds of Europe's Jewish population. The murders were carried out primarily in mass shootings and by poison gas in extermination camps, chiefly Auschwitz-Birkenau, Treblinka, Belzec, Sobibor, and Chełmno in occupied Poland.
There were a huge number of other victims in World War II, but the Holocaust was a unique and specific episode within the war that does not refer to these other victims. The "debate" here is like the "debate" between intelligent design and evolution. Jehochman Talk 19:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
From the pdf Nishidani linked:
For the purposes of our discussion here, there are two significant axes along which opposing definitions of the Holocaust may divide. The first concerns the term’s inclusivity or otherwise as regards the identification of variously targeted victim groups. Again, as Chapter 1 has already detailed, most contemporary academic historians use the particular term ‘the Holocaust’ to refer exclusively to the targeting of European Jews (see, for example, Bauer 2002; Cesarani 2004; Hilberg 1993). Here, the experiences of other groups of people persecuted and in many cases murdered by the Nazis and their collaborators are recognised as critically important to an understanding of the Holocaust, but they are not themselves denoted by the use of this specific term. More inclusive definitions might use the term to reference the experiences of other groups, most commonly the Roma and Sinti (Gypsies), disabled people, Poles, Slavs, homosexuals, Jehovah’s witnesses, Soviet prisoners of war, Black people and/or other political or minority ethnic groups (for an expanded discussion of variously articulated definitions of the Holocaust, see Niewyk and Nicosia 2000).
I would hope we can agree that this is a reasonable summary, by one of the most highly qualified academic bodies available to us. Andreas JN466 19:40, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
'but they are not themselves denoted by the use of this specific term.' Since Jehochman appears to misread that, it should be noted that the statement of the 2016 authors here refers to an editorial choice by the writers of that paper, and not an affirmation of a fact reflecting scholarly usage, so much as an historic convention that came to dominate for some time scholarly usage until recent times. Nishidani (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

That's a good definition. For clarity, Wikipedia should follow scholarly usage. We happen to have lots of articles about the other mass killings done by the Nazi. All of them are equally terrible! Aside from Jews (and occasionally overlapping), Nazi attrocities included "the killing of Romani people (Porajmos ), imprisonment and execution of homosexual men, euthanasia of the disabled (Aktion T4), execution of the Poles (Polish decrees), the execution of Soviet prisoners of war, murder of political opponents, and the persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses." (see Names of the Holocaust). The Holocaust, as used in a scholarly context, is about Jews because the sheer number (6 million) and proportion (2/3 of European Jews) is so outrageous, but I agree that it should be presented in context of these other mass killings, some of which have their own specific names as indicated above. Jehochman Talk 19:52, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

No, that is completely wrong. I've supplied on my page some (only halfway through) of the evidence regarding the historical swings between exclusivist (only Jews) vs inclusivist approaches to the concept of a holocaust. The reason you give for semantic restriction to Jews is likewise unhistorical: 5.1 million Slavic victims and 5.1-5.7 million Jews. The term was used broadly once, then began to be used restrictively of Jews in the late 70s, as TV and films spread awareness of the events and Israel in particular lobbied heavily to that end, and, since that time, several major works (Moses, Kiernan, Snyder et al) have insisted on contextualizing it in a larger comparative perspective, over the last two decades. Scholarship is now tending towards the inclusivist apppoach. It is true that in percentive terms, 75% makes the Jews proportionately by far the group that suffered the most devastation, but to translate that into a 'qualitative' categorical difference (the much hallowed but conceptually void use of the word 'unique' to qualify the Holocaust and its Jewish victims) when the racist ideology and its technologies of extermination were applied to many groups begs too many questions, not least of which is the indelicacy of the subtextual drift of such a distinction ('we suffered more, ergo we are in a different category'), which by the way seems to underlie the G&K polemic.Nishidani (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
This debate should really be happening either on Talk:The Holocaust, if people are suggesting changes to that specific article (it was just raised there recently); or on WP:FRINGEN, if people are asserting that the inclusivist perspective is WP:FRINGE. I would strongly urge people who feel that way to actually take the latter step, since it would hopefully move us towards settling one of the underlying disagreements in the topic area. (Remembering that of course a perspective can be the minority and not fringe.) Nothing is going to be settled on this page, but an extended discussion of sources at FRINGEN followed by, if necessary, an RFC could at least put one aspect of the dispute to rest and could help inform how we use the available sources going forwards, and on WP:FRINGEN there are plenty of outside voices who are experienced with the relevant policy and who would look at the available sources in order to weigh in. --Aquillion (talk) 00:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Ignore by all means this final note, a WP:TLDR personal closure.

Aquillion. I agree (but as with this case, I for one have no intention of going there). My notes here only reflect a concern from the outset that this whole case made an assumption, unaware of a Eurocentric/ethnocentric bias which, at least in recent scholarship, is well known, but not reflected in our articles. Editors no doubt read the wiki Jewish-Polish articles and generally took their impressions from those, ignoring the by now extensive meta-critical literature which historicizes knowledge, and teases out the way approaches to any topic are time-bound and reflect a paradigm that might have a decades’ long life as authoritative, but which is always liable to perspectival shifts. Most historians have taken on board the implication of Hayden White's Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-century Europe to exercise a metacritical awareness that our otherwise necessary reliance on an ostensible RS 'co0nsensus' ignores, with notable effects on the quality of our articles.

Our articles as they now stand properly tend to reflect RS consensus and weight. At the same time the consensus, ergo our articles, echo the trend from the late 1970s to the early 2000s that restricts the holocaust refers specifically to Jews, and not to victims in the (numerically) other half (the paradigm that was in place from 1944 onwards). Solidarność and the fall of the Berlin wall finally allowed scholarship in the excluded Eastern European countries to enter into the arena of what was basically a research area dominated by the United States and Jewish scholarship. The G&K article clearly defends the traditional Western consensus, and reads the Polish material as mostly a nationalistic attempt to disrupt an achieved POV consensus by claiming victimhood status recognition in a holocaust industry which accepts the recent premise that the latter by definition can only include Jews (In another context Ian S. Lustick wrote Miltonically of a 'Paradigm Lost', and this happens all the time in scholarship)

One can understand the disgruntlement of both sides here: one feels ‘common sense’ or a ‘consensus’ is being ignored, and stands its exclusivist ground. The other side is intensely annoyed that the prevailing Western model is contemptuous of a stark fact, that of 5 million Polish dead, the 2 million ‘ethnic Poles’ killed by the Nazi machinery are historically a footnote, ‘beyond the pale’, even complicit 'bystanders' to the only real holocaust that counts, the 3 million Poles who were Jewish. As the UK study mentioned above shows, the impact of holocaust reportage and teaching is such that the 15,000 homosexual victims are fairly widely remembered as holocaust victims, while students remain almost totally unaware of the 5 million Poles and Russians who died as a result of Nazi ethnocidal policies. Slavic peoples don’t register as holocaust victims, and our holocaust article, with its selective bias, reflecting the bias of a short but intense phase in the scholarly paradigm, won’t get any help from Wikipedia in grasping that conceptually this split between ‘real victims’ (Jews) and the ‘collateral other(s)’ is known to be analytically awkward.

There was in short a Eurocentric defensiveness at the heart of the G&K polemic that is somewhat dated, since the inclusionist theory, which has as its own assumption that Raphael Lemkin’s thesis – that genocide is the master concept, and the holocaust a subset- which dominated down to the late 60s, is conceptually superior to the exclusivist model grounding a vast amount of scholarship for two decades because it avoids writing history in terms of ethnic priorities. The point was made decades ago by A. Dirk Moses if remembering the holocaust is to serve, as it rightly does, a moral purpose, the ethical lesson loses much of its force if the term is applied restrictively to one group victim, for it implies that our values become particularistic in that they must protectively focus on never allowing anti-Semitism to threaten Jews, rather than teaching that throughout history genocide has brushed or crushed peoples all over the world, and continues to do so, and the example of the holocaust must serve to inculcate that general principle, the defense of any people under threat of extinction or mass slaughter.Nishidani (talk) 12:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

As Horse's Eye Black notes there, since the view is not fringe, an eventual discussion could be more properly opened up at the WP:NPOV board. Nishidani (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
I request arbitrators to look at this discussion Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Scope_of_the_Holocaust. If this is how its going to go so soon after the case, there can't be much hope for progress in the topic area. Jehochman Talk 16:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Contentious topic edit notices

I've searched to find whether using these mean that an editor does not need to have an alert to be considered aware and couldn't find a statement - although I could have missed one, obviously. Just asking to clearify the issue as if they still need an alert I don't see a need for an edit notice. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 08:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

The editnotices fulfill two main purposes:
  • Reminding users to be careful when editing
  • Informing users about article-specific restrictions such as a one revert rule.
They do not remove the need for user talk page alerts. They are additionally required, though, for taking administrative action against editors who breach article-specific restrictions (Wikipedia:Contentious_topics#Enforcement_of_restrictions, point 2). Thus, administrators are required to place such edit notices when creating a page-specific restriction (Wikipedia:Contentious_topics#Restriction_notices). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
@ToBeFree If you read Template:Contentious topics/editnotice it says "This template can be used as a editnotice on pages that are covered under a contentious topic. When using this template you must specify what contentious topic this page is under using one of the decision codes. If the page has active restrictions Template:Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice should be used instead of this template." Note the "If". The only way that I can interpret that is that this edit notice is for pages with no active restrictions. So the edit notice I'm asking about is presumbably just there as a reminder but doesn't satisfy awareness? Even though it says the article is a contentious topic? I'm not sure I follow the logic. It looks to me as though this was missed at the time. Doug Weller talk 11:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
((Contentious topics/editnotice|a-i)) looks as follows: [14]
If none of both is the case, ((Contentious topics/editnotice)) can be used as a friendly reminder, but an edit notice never creates formal awareness by itself. I understand that this may be counter-intuitive. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
@ToBeFree Yes, it's counter-intuitive. I just remembered that I encounter editors who have never responded to anything on their talk page and may not know it exists. Which could be an acceptable excuse for saying they shouldn't be sanctioned. But if the page or pages they were editing did have edit notices .... Doug Weller talk 11:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Assuming that edit notices were sufficient and talk page notifications were not, how would you inform users about a topic ban placed in response to disruption? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:19, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
@ToBeFree Block so they find their talk page seems to be what people do, generally seems to work. Doug Weller talk 18:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Okay, so my point is: There is no way around the user's talk page in the end. I could claim not having seen an editnotice, but "I haven't seen the message on my talk page" is generally not accepted as an excuse. The talk page message, though, informs the user about the existence of page restrictions and their requirement to comply with them. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:27, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
@ToBeFree Definitely. And I know I miss both talk page notices - I usually edit without looking at the talk page - and can miss edit notices. Doug Weller talk 20:52, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
I did suggest at the time that the use of edit notices for pages without page-specific restrictions be discouraged. However the committee chose to keep the status quo: the template is available should any admin choose to make use of it, without guidance on the advisability of doing so. isaacl (talk) 18:32, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
As per Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Awareness of contentious topics, an editor must be alerted once about the contentious topic system using a specific template placed on their talk page. After being made aware of the system, they can be notified through other means about specific areas that have been designated as contentious topics. Footnote m lists some specific circumstances when an editor is presumed to be aware of a specific contentious topic area. I don't know if things have changed, but at one point no area other than COVID-19, across both arbitration committee-designated and community-designated discretionary sanctions topics, had edit notices for articles for which no specific editing restriction has been enacted. (This was before the arbitration committee assumed responsibility for the COVID-19 designation.) To avoid exacerbating the banner blindness issue, personally I feel it is better not to have edit notices simply to identify that an article falls within the scope of a designated contentious topic. Because edit notices are frequently overlooked, and they aren't displayed to editors on mobile devices, in my view (as an ordinary editor) I do not feel that a message in an edit notice should be considered to be adequate notification. isaacl (talk) 11:01, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
@Isaacl I take your point. But in that case maybe it shouldn't be used at all. Doug Weller talk 11:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes, as I said, I agree edit notices for this circumstance shouldn't be used. isaacl (talk) 17:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
@Isaacl I’ve r never used one and don’t intend to. I think I understand the issue as much as is possible now. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 18:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
(Edit notices are displayed to editors on mobile devices.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
I vaguely remembered something was done, but I couldn't remember the details. I've updated Wikipedia:Editnotice with a reference to Wikipedia:Mobile communication bugs. Thanks for the correction. isaacl (talk) 17:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Oh! Thanks for yours too ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Hate speech on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute

I recently revisited this ten-year-old case, and I'm a bit uncomfortable with some of the disparaging comments that are reproduced directly in the case summary and findings of fact marked "Discriminatory speech by 'x'". I don't think reproducing the borderline hate speech is necessary to get the point across that these users have exhibited sanctionable behaviour. Could this be toned down to just a link to the diff in question? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Ritchie333, would you mind terribly posting this at WP:ARCA? Primefac (talk) 13:17, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Okay, I wasn't sure where to put this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Postscript to World War II and the history of Jews in Poland case

Dear arbitrators,

I'm sorry, I know many of you are weary of this topic, but some new information has come to light regarding the above case, and I wonder if at least some of you might like to reflect on it and comment.

Before and during the case proceedings, most or all of you took the view that the essay's authors had no intent to intimidate editors when they decided to name them, and their places of employment, in their essay. Your finding of fact was that Posting information in a peer reviewed academic journal is not 'inappropriate communication, following, or any form of hounding.' Nor is authoring such a paper 'behaviour intended primarily to intimidate, outrage or upset a person or any behaviour where this would reasonably be considered the most likely main outcome or beyond what a reasonable person would be expected to tolerate in a global, intercultural environment.'

Earlier this week, a newsletter was published on the scholarly Wikihistories site. (Klein is on the Wikihistories advisory group and has just presented her Wikipedia paper there.) According to this newsletter, Grabowski and Klein felt they needed to name editors because they were authors of content that was untrue and potentially harmful and they don’t have the confidence of Wikipedia’s ability to obtain redress when its highest body (ArbCom) only enforces conduct rather than truth.

To me this reads like G&K felt publicly "naming and shaming" the editors and their employers might be needed to do what you might not do: stop the editors from contributing further to the topic area, by publicly embarrassing them. If such was their intent, do you still think your finding above did full justice to the situation?

And would you have looked differently at this aspect of the case if the authors – or indeed any other Wikipedian who publishes academic papers – had published this reasoning at the outset? Regards, Andreas JN466 11:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

The finding of fact you quote is the committee interpreting site policy, not a statement on motivation. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:19, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
I'd prefer to treat this new information, and it is new information, as an opportunity for the community as a whole to examine and appreciate where our policies should be, going forward, and not as a way of saying gotcha to ArbCom (not that Jayen actually meant it that way). I'm parsing the cause-and-effect between "don’t have the confidence of Wikipedia’s ability to obtain redress" and "felt they needed to name editors because they were authors of content that was untrue and potentially harmful". On the case Analysis page, I drew upon a source by David M. Douglas, about the philosophy of doxxing: [15]. I quoted a distinction that he made: I argue that doxing may be justified in cases where it reveals wrongdoing (such as deception), but only if the information released is necessary to reveal that such wrongdoing has occurred and if it is in the public interest to reveal such wrongdoing. Revealing additional information, such as that which allows an individual to be targeted for harassment and intimidation, is unjustified. I think it will be useful to the community in evaluating the difference between legitimate academic investigation, and conduct that we on the project would regard as unacceptable harassment.
So when I ask myself here whether revealing editors' names and employers passed or failed Douglas' test in this case, I really do have to conclude that it failed. If the problem was a lack of "confidence" in ArbCom and Wikipedia's dispute resolution mechanisms, along with "content that was untrue and potentially harmful", it seems to me that calling out that content and showing that it needed to be fixed was what was in the public interest. The content problems did not hinge upon the identities of who wrote the content, or efforts to conceal those identities. I don't see what the real-life names and employers of editors would do to further enhance that public interest. So I conclude that the naming was, as Jayen put it, "naming and shaming", which fails Douglas' test of allowing those editors to be "targeted for harassment and intimidation". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:37, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia is different and needs a far tougher doxing/outing standard because.... Without anonymity, Wikipedia is the most privacy-violating major website in the world. It is a public, easily searchable database of every edit that the editor ever made and the exact date, hour, minute and second that they made it. Think what the person at work who doesn't like you could do with that. North8000 (talk) 13:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. Another key factor is that in some countries editing Wikipedia can literally land you in jail for decades, depending on which topics you've edited, and what content you added.
This makes it arguably more difficult but also even more important to come up with a globally consistent standard. From that point of view I actually thought the UCoC's "not without explicit consent" was a good aim to shoot for – at least in cases that do not involve a significant professional conflict of interest on the part of the editor, and where the editors are mere hobbyists like those jailed in Saudi Arabia – or, for that matter, those involved in this arbitration case. Andreas JN466 14:46, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
It's ironic that User:Gitz6666, who was a party to this case, has now been globally locked for a UCoC violation whose technical aspects – a name disclosed on-wiki a decade ago, an employer disclosed in a widely read publication – bear more than a passing resemblance to what happened here.
I am saying this not to criticise either decision. I am saying this to draw attention to the fact that the UCoC as presently conceived creates a huge potential for double standards. Andreas JN466 07:39, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
This isn't your fault as some of it has not been made public but your summary of Gitz's case is incomplete. Barkeep49 (talk) 11:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Are they banned as a result of involvement in this topic area? I am trying to assess the benefits and drawbacks of this case and all that preceded it. (Was the juice worth the squeeze.) Jehochman Talk 01:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
No look at the In the media section of this week's Signpost. And Gitz started a thread on a certain website where Wikipedia is often discussed. Dronkle (talk) 16:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Scottywong closed

Original announcement
I thoroughly agree with Daniel here. I've long argued the scope of a case needs to be outlined else it becomes a free for all. But, though ArbCom has occasionally mentioned scope of cases in setting up a case, there is no formal requirement or structure for this. This is one of the ways in which ArbCom is abusive. Bringing up "evidence" from 12 years ago? Bringing up "evidence" of discriminatory speech that ArbCom itself refused to pass... from 10 years ago? Any administrator on this project who has been an admin for more than a few months is going to have "evidence" against them. I'm quite confident that I could find plenty of "evidence" to censure members of ArbCom. Barkeep49 KevinL, it doesn't matter if none of the arbitrators used this FoF to support a desyop. That it's even included is deeply troubling. How is a person supposed to defend themselves against accusations across 12 years worth of editing? Good freaking Lord this is insane. You might as well desysop me right now, because I've made some missteps in 3.5 years of being an admin. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Hammersoft, I'm not sure why the sentence which contains my name has my name. I said nothing about the use of the FoF to support the desysop. My experience is that FoF fade into memory in a way that remedies do not and to a less extent principles do not. It is also my experience that some editors do a better job than others of avoiding hyperbole when they get furious at arbcom about a decision. That's what I wrote about, none of which you seem to actually be addressing either in the sentence that has my name or the rest of your comment.
As for ArbCom has occasionally mentioned scope of cases in setting up a case every case since sometime in 2021 has included a scope. The incoming arbs that year felt that this should be a standard practice and it has been since then. This should probably be codified into procedures the next time we're making changes. This obviously doesn't address your more substantive concerns about this case. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Barkeep, you are correct about my misattribition. My apologies. I have changed it. To the scope issue for this case (nevermind others); Where was the scope laid out for this case? Did it actually allow for reviewing every edit Scottywong made, even dating back 12 years? A scope isn't much of a scope if it allows edits from 12 years ago. I find some mention of scope on the main case page, but nothing decided. The only thing otherwise I find it "Scope: Conduct of Scottywong". I.e., freeforall. Every edit of Scottywong's was fair game in this case. That's absurd. If you're meaning to say that I am using hyperbole in expressing my severe disappointment in this case, I'm sorry but that's just wrong. The facts speak for themselves here; a case with a limitless scope and ArbCom using Scottywong's statement on the case as evidence against him in the case. There's a reason a lot of administrators don't participate in de-admin case requests against them. This case demonstrating ArbCom's abuses is a clear example of why. What needs to happen is that ArbCom needs to reform. Now. You're part of ArbCom. Do something about it. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't think ArbCom needs to reform (emphasis added) for the reasons I noted in my previous comment but I am certainly very interested in improving how we handle administrator conduct cases because ArbCom should be trying to improve itself and its processes. I think we need to consider scrapping the current case format for admin conduct because I don't think it's working well (and as I read your comments you agree with this). What would take its place? I don't know and so that's what's holding me up from proposing something. Suggestions from you or others would be welcome. However, in a more modest realm there is the conversation in the section below where I have suggested we gauge community consensus about remedies short of desysop and Kevin has proposed what one such remedy could be. You might want to give input on those. You might also want to give input in the discussion above where a different Arb (one who was actually active for this case, unlike me) suggests our current style of handling admin conduct cases is working. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
If ArbCom isn't willing to reform (and the track record over the last 10+ years generally supports that conclusion), then it should be abolished. In so far as admin cases, we have means in place now that the community can manage this. ArbCom is doing a horrible job of it and what little effort there has been to reform has resulted in effectively nothing. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm here trying to figure out how ArbCom can reform and would welcome your help in trying to do that. I also have joined efforts to try and let the community desysop but so far you and I have not found consensus for that. As for abolishing ArbCom, there's certainly a pathway for doing so but I obviously disagree with you on that and have stated my reasons why I think there would not be community consensus for it. But if you're serious about reforming ArbCom I really would welcome ideas you have about changing our case structure for admin conduct cases. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm skeptical of Hammersoft's belief that "the community can manage this", because I remember Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/RfC#Intentions. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Barkeep; I appreciate your willingness to listen. That sets you apart from a great many of your predecessors. If I had easy answers, this would have been easily done. What is clear to me is the status quo is directly harmful to the project. What needs to happen now is an exploratory stage to identify and (hopefully) quantify/objectify the problems. Tryptofish; to be honest, so am I. But, continuing as we have is guaranteed to fail, as opposed to might fail with community efforts. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
At this point, I am a supporter of the "burn it down" approach with ArbCom. The abuse of this case isn't isolated. ArbCom isn't just a net negative to the project. They are an active detriment to the project, far beyond just being a net negative. If ArbCom were a single entity as an editor, they would have been banned from the project a long time ago for their abuse and policy violations. This latest case is just yet another example. This isn't to say Scottywong didn't do anything wrong. It is to say that how ArbCom managed this case and progressed it was deeply wrong. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:10, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
While I very much respect those who feel Arbcom should be burned down (hence why I interact with you regularly about ArbCom Hammersoft), I believe based on the way ACE turns out year after year and the way that RfA doesn't overturn the desysop decisions of ArbCom that most editors like and respect the work ArbCom does on the whole even if they disagree with individual decisions. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
@Hammersoft: Designing systems that produce good results, in addition to being one of my central projects on Wikipedia, is both a personal and professional interest of mine, so I'm genuinely curious what you'd replace ArbCom's vital functions with. Please feel free to reply here if you think it's relevant to this discussion or on my talk page if not, your choice. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
A full answer, if done properly, would take a lot more than could be accomplished on this talk page, nor would it be appropriate to hash this further out here. I'll note this however; ArbCom hasn't been designed. It's a mishmash of original intent, and many years of changes. Beer can and bailing wire, and the beer wasn't all that good to begin with. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Though I'm prone to writing them myself, I also understand why the word jeremiad isn't a compliment. I'm willing to see a proposal, but given my RL job (which involves a lot of dealing with governmental entities) I'm naturally inclined to try to make whatever changes I want within existing structures. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm reminded of the differences that we see in criminal justice between varying countries; how some countries choose to take a rehabilitative and a rebuilding approach with an effort to restore the criminal into a functional member of society, while others take a punitive approach based on addressing victim grief by exacting as much punishment as possible. This is analogous to our culture in the sense that if we see an admin that appears to be behaving like a bad apple, the complainants feel that anything short of a de-sysop would be woefully insufficient and demonstrating that admins operate in a different class from the rest of us.
Personally, I'd like to see a middle ground as well. But I don't know how you would go about instituting cultural change. That may be the sort of thing that calls for a WP:CENT RFC and I seriously doubt you will get that type of buy-in unless it can be clearly explained why it's better to rehabilitate an admin rather than to remove one. However, all of this is assuming that there's a consensus that the retribution for Scottywong was too high, as it has been for other previous admin cases, and one can't really go off of what people read here. People who feel the final decision was correct are likely not going to openly celebrate it on an Arbcom noticeboard. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Is it just me, or is the Super Mario meme not connected to the actual reality of cases in the last 10 years? —Kusma (talk) 13:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't really see its purported effects (admins having a layer of protection) nowadays either, certainly not in any of the recent ArbCom cases. It's more of a specter that seems to lurk over cases involving admins. I occasionally still see people throwing the term around whenever such cases come to the forefront. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
This is just one example, but I created my account like a week and a half after this comment was made by an admin (arguing that Khosian peoples are an entirely seperate species!). I have a feeling that I would've been blocked as WP:NOTHERE if I'd said something similar when I was a new editor. That said, I think that admins are generally held to a higher standard. However, I can be somewhat sympathetic to the super mushroom argument because it seems like a potential desysop is what people focus more on when an an admin does/says something that would prompt a regular editor to just be blocked. I know this doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things, but does someone have a way of showing me other edits from that specific date that have nothing to do with that editor and are good contributions to the enyclopedia? September 3, 2018, was the first time I ever celebated my birthday so I dislike negative associations with that date. I should probably just let it go but it does bother me a little bit. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
IMO there are plenty of recent examples when an admin has gotten off with behaviour that would likely have long resulted in a block, maybe even in an indef if they weren't an admin. Indeed IMO in some cases admins have only lost their tools despite the fact they potentially would have been blocked or cbanned were they not an admin. Nil Einne (talk) 09:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

 Clerk note: Moved from WP:ACN. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 17:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Question

So I think we've all seen threads like the above happen after certain case closures. How often are they merely an opportunity to vent, and not actually doing something about it?

I have an idea of how to deal with/address that "in-between" admonishment and de-sysop. And maybe others do too.

I would welcome ideas for a path forward. - jc37 12:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I suggested the "yellow card" above. Admins (and others) need to be open to feedback short of sanction, and there needs to be a way to convey it. More broadly, people need to practice deescalation, especially when there's an incident involving someone they consider a colleague. Mackensen (talk) 14:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
The yellow card piece struck me as more of a metaphor than an actual proposal. How would you see that actually working @Mackensen? Barkeep49 (talk) 14:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
My thinking is that it's a concrete way to register disapproval on the record without getting bogged down in sanctions. A particular dynamic I've witnessed is people maybe agreeing that the current conduct is bad but being unable to agree on any outcome (e.g. "yes this is bad, but X is too much"). I think it's potentially easier to get people to agree that "X is bad, we've told you so and trust you'll do better", with the understanding that if we're all back at ANI or whatever in another three months the previous yellow card will be held against you. I don't think there should be any bureaucracy around this more than a linked essay which I should get around to writing. Mackensen (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
So giving options for the community to level a "community advisement" or a "community admonishment"? I proposed that as a part of a community de-sysop process awhile back. It presumably wouldn't be difficult to split those out from that for proposing. - jc37 15:07, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
This sounds way too much like WP:RFC/U to me which IMO is nowadays rightfully considered to have been a terrible idea. Perhaps if it's restricted to admins only it would work better but I quite doubt it. Nil Einne (talk) 09:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
I've posted precisely because I am in a position to propose changes. The problem is that I don't think there's support among the committee for my more concrete change (case names) and my broader "I think it would be a good thing to restructure how we do ADMINCOND cases" not only doesn't have support it's not a fully developed idea. Also I think the community having a place to express their strong feelings about hard decisions like this one is itself a useful purpose even if it could also be characterized as "an opportunity to vent". Barkeep49 (talk) 14:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't disagree, but I guess I'm just a proponent of: if I'm going to complain about something, I should try to think of as possible solution. Shouting at the sky may make me feel somewhat better for now, but it may not do much for the future. - jc37 14:46, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
The "yellow card" problem is something I pointed to in my vote on the PD, but as I noted there, my sense (which could be wrong) is that the community doesn't really want us to consider intermediate sanctions: Ultimately, I wish there was an acceptable intermediate sanction for administrators—I would rather vote for, e.g., a remedy suspending his tools for six months. But I understand the community's concern that sysop is a high-trust role, and that if someone needs a suspension, they no longer enjoy the trust of the community for the sysop role.
I wonder, would a re-RfA remedy, or perhaps even a remedy for an advisory RfC on whether someone should retain the tools for ArbCom's consideration, be a reasonable intermediate sanction, lower than a "straight desysop"? The "re-RfA" remedy could feel less like a straight desysop if it happened at a time of the sysop's choosing (say, within a month of the case concluding), and the sysop kept the tools pending the conclusion of the reconfirmation RfA.
Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 15:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
As long as we're spitballing ideas, perhaps ArbCom admonishments should normally be attached to the ability for the community to recall the administrator and require them to undergo a reconfirmation RfA. Maybe the way this works is that going forward, after an administrator is admonished, a certain number of other editors may ask them to stand for a reconfirmation RfA within a certain amount of time. (If nobody asks, then no RfA need be held.) This idea is loosely based off of the UK's recent Recall of MPs Act 2015, which provides that anytime an MP is suspended from Parliament for over 10 days, their constituents may petition for a by-election. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 15:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
I question if the community doesn't really want us to consider intermediate sanctions is actually true or if it just appears to be true because the people who are inclined to participate in a case are likely to be those most upset about the actions of the admin, in the same way that those most inclined to post here are those upset with our decisions. It might very well be true but I think it might be an assumption worth checking. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I could be wrong, but I have a feeling that the reaction of an admin to being required to undergo any sort of reconfirmation would be pretty similar to the reaction to being desysopped. Thinking back to Framgate, Fram's re-RfA was unsuccessful, and I think many admins put in such a position would argue that ArbCom had poisoned the well for the community to give a "fair" RfA. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
@Tryptofish: Yeah, I get that concern too. But I wonder if there's a chicken-and-egg thing going on there: we only desysop people for pretty significant offenses (and kind of imply they aren't suitable to be a sysop), so desysopped folks at RfA again get walloped. If, instead, we allowed reconfirmation petitions after every admonishment, it'd be less of a big deal. Another way to say that is I think a lot of the community trust's ArbCom's judgment and is generally happy to oppose RfAs for desysopped admins because they think ArbCom has judged the sysop unsuitable. If instead ArbCom's remedy was "admonish, and do a reconfirmation if enough people ask", then perhaps the community would feel less like ArbCom has in some sense "recommended" opposing a re-RfA. (Edited to add: if we do this, it shouldn't displace a "straight desysop" in appropriate cases.)
@Barkeep49: You're right about that too. I'd be thrilled if I'm wrong, because I think ultimately the idea that you either have enough trust to be a sysop or not ignores the fact that every active sysop has done things that'd make me question my trust in them on occasion. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 15:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps:
Reconfirmation of admonished administrators

If, within 30 days of an Arbitration Committee decision admonishing an administrator, six editors in good standing and uninvolved with the underlying dispute request that the admonished administrator stand for reconfirmation, the administrator must initiate a reconfirmation RfA. If no reconfirmation RfA is initiated within two weeks of the sixth request for reconfirmation, the administrator is considered to have been desysopped by the Arbitration Committee.

KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
I am having a hard time imagining an accepted case that doesn't have six editors in good standing feeling like someone should be desysopped especially after we advertise that option in the places we would. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
My gut feeling about how the community would process an RfA after an admonishment is that a significant number of editors would treat "well, ArbCom decided to admonish, and we trust ArbCom" the same way as "well, ArbCom decided to desysop, and we trust ArbCom". I don't think it would help. I agree with Barkeep49 about such a procedure, and I'm having flashbacks to WP:CDARFC. The community has never been able to settle on an agreed-upon procedure for the community to conduct any sort of review of whether an admin should retain the permissions. My own thinking evolved over many wiki-years from being a supporter of a community process, to deciding that it's best for ArbCom to handle it. That's because, long ago, ArbCom was ineffective at handling admins who behaved badly, but you are effective now. And I'm disinclined to reinvent the wheel. I still think ArbCom should take full responsibility for these things, and the place for reevaluating and refining should be within how ArbCom handles each case as it comes along. If ArbCom has evolved over time from being ineffective at desysops to, arguably, being too effective (I'm not sure that this is really the case), then that's a matter of recalibration, rather than changing the process. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
It sounds to me, then, that this is in essence akin to a community-initiated reconfirmation vote, with the arbitration committee being a guard against unreasonable requests. An editor would open a request, and the committee would decide if an admonishment is warranted, thus enabling the reconfirmation vote to proceed. isaacl (talk) 17:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
I do like that, rather than trying to extrapolate the community's degree of trust from a limited, self-selected group of commenters in, say, an incidents' noticeboard discussion, more voices are able to weigh in. I think the existing practice works well for egregious issues, but is less able to handle more ambiguous situations. isaacl (talk) 21:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
@L235: I don't think 6 uninvolved editors is enough to realistically support that kind of thing. For one, those editors could just be members of Arbcom (possibly even a voting minority who wanted to de-sysop anyways). Maybe exempt arbs from that decision? Otherwise, maybe raise it to 10? Ten is a round number.
The other issue is who gets to adjudicate whether someone qualifies as uninvolved. If the first suggestion is done, then it could just be arbcom (though I don't know where they would make the decision).
The last thing I could see as a potential problem is that 2 weeks is not a lot of time to get ready for an RFA (much less a re-confirmation RFA). My preference would be to give them at least a month (hopefully when things to cool down a little) and just tell them not to use admin tools in the meantime (or risk an immediate de-sysop). –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
These are helpful comments, and yes, the specifics if we explore this further are very much in the air. 10-15 uninvolved editors and one month respectively I could both be on board with. But I know there are deeper concerns with this proposal and I'd like to explore what they are. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
@L235 (apologies if this is duplicative, and obviously it's very late) - but having to do a re-RfA after you've just had arbcom spend time reviewing you and sanctioning you would be a truly horrific 6-8 weeks. I feel like we'd see the rate of admins resigning rather than face the full process rise significantly Nosebagbear (talk) 20:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, as for me, I have 2 different ideas that I would like to see happen along these lines. One of them is WP:RRA. It's been quite a while. Maybe it's worth trying again. - jc37 17:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

As written, the proposal only covers removal of administrative privileges and not, as you mentioned in your earlier post, in-between steps. Do you envision the proposal being modified to allow for a range of outcomes? isaacl (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
WP:RRA#Determining_consensus - it allows for advising or admonishment as well. - jc37 17:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't want to discourage anyone from trying something new, but based on my extensive experience, it's very unlikely that the community will agree on such a proposal. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
I think I've been there too, lol
But it's been awhile. And WP:CCC, so who knows. It might be worth exploring again. I'm game to try again. - jc37 17:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
I agree but ArbCom deciding to something like what @L235 proposes it as an alternative outcome to a case wouldn't require community consent which is why it's interesting in a way that a community proposal is not. That said I can't help but wonder if the first step should be an advisory RfC about whether the community agrees or disagrees with the statement the community doesn't really want [ArbCom] to consider intermediate sanctions. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't really get the impression of that being a consensus view. There's a vocal group who think administrative privileges should be removed more often, there are others who think long-time editors should be given consideration for their history of contributions, and then there's a less-vocal middle group who aren't particular about the removal of administrative privileges, as long as undesirable behaviour ceases. I think there's a lot of potential support for intermediate approaches; the trick of course is how to make them effective. isaacl (talk) 21:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes that is the trick. Right now I think you have a number of arbs who are philosophically opposed. I think you have a number of arbs who are philosophically supportive. And then there is the biggest group, who are also the swing group, some of whom would want to do it if they knew the community wanted them to (and wouldn't want to do if the community didn't). Establishing that through something more than anecdata could be impactful and from there it would just be up to arbcom to iterate and attempt things until something worked. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
It might be useful for ArbCom to conduct an RfC, asking editors to choose amongst a couple of options, such as something like:
A. ArbCom should generally desysop admins who have been found to misuse their tools.
B. ArbCom should be cautious about desysopping, and should make use of lesser remedies unless the misuse was egregious.
Or something like that, maybe more options. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
My apologies; it's been a while since I read the page and I only re-read the intro now, where the italicized question only seemed to address one outcome. isaacl (talk) 17:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
No worries. It was designed to be a reflection of typical arbcom results. It was a result of the many many discussions over the years and trying to address as many concerns as possible. - jc37 17:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
@Jc37: We also used to have WP:RFC/U as a venue that could deal with that sort of thing. It had a lot of legitimate issues with the structure and inherently being a magnet for drama, but its deprecation left us with no "in-between step" from AN/ANI and Arbcom. I do have a concept I've been tinkering with in my userspace at WP:RFC/AC that might be helpful. I originally only saw it as a community desysop proposal for clear cases, but the scope could be widened a little to cover cases where desysop isn't the only outcome considered. By limiting the scope to admin conduct and making some changes to the format, I think it could keep drama to a minimum and prevent it from becoming the Airing of Grievances again. It needs a bunch more work, but I think there could be interest in getting this problem solved. The WordsmithTalk to me 21:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for posting about this. I looked at it, and got an idea. I see that one of the proposed ways the process could begin would be referral from ArbCom. Given what some of the Arbs have been discussing here, perhaps the proposal could be revised into something that would specifically be invoked by ArbCom, and not by the community. (It would still have the community role in there, being a prior discussion somewhere like AN or ANI, because ArbCom will want to see that before acting, anyway.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
My original goal for it was as a Community Desysop procedure, which could be handled in 2 weeks from start-to-finish without all the hemming and hawing at AN over whether it should be closed because we can't actually do anything without Arbcom, the dithering at Arbcom over whether the case should be rejected, handled by motion, or a full case, and then finally the drama and time sink of a full case. This one was under 2 months, but historically some admin conduct issues have gone much longer from start to desysop and generated much more in the way of anger and hurt feelings. I was picturing workflows of either Noticeboard → "Desysop might be needed, consensus to open RFC", or Noticeboard → RFAr, "This is premature, we reject the arbitration request and remand to RFC for community to decide". I suppose there could be another flow of Arbcom Case/Motion → "Not enough for an Arbcom desysop, open RFC for the community to determine if trust has been lost". It would be mostly the same as the second flow I mentioned, just as a remedy instead of a rejection at RFAr. I'd welcome input in developing my idea if you're interested. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I realize that was your goal. As the primary punching bag proposal writer of an earlier attempt at a community procedure, I've become convinced that the community will never, and probably should never, find consensus in favor of such a procedure. I think the reality is that ArbCom is the place to handle it, and the real focus of improving processes should be to refine how ArbCom does it. In the discussion here, a couple of Arbs have expressed interest in finding better ways for ArbCom to arrive at a result that is less than a desysop, and have also expressed interest in finding better ways of determining whether or not an admin has "lost the confidence of the community". So what occurred to me was that taking something like your draft proposal, and making it something specifically for ArbCom to use, to get community feedback on how serious the community regards the alleged admin misconduct to be, and how the community feels about desysopping versus a lesser sanction, is something the Arbs would find useful as part of how they would process a case request about an admin. I'm curious whether any Arbs find this idea interesting. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:37, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
I mentioned RFC/U above before noticing this. An interesting point IMO is that while RFC/U is dead, AN//I does sometimes effectively even if unintentionally serve a similar purpose. There are at least 4 long threads at ANI very recently, one okay which made it to arbcom which sort of demonstrate this. I'm not convinced we're going to achieve consensus on the two that didn't make it to arbcom for any action, and one of them was already closed without action. So effectively the only thing they may do is tell these editors, hey some editors are concerned about some aspect of your behaviour. (Yes they're far less of free for all than RFC/U, lack any clear indication other than by going through the thread of how many editors feel a certain way etc but at they do ultimately do tell an editor hey a bunch of editors see a problem with your behaviour.) IMO a big reason why these often don't work, and why RFC/U often didn't work, is simply because of the nature of behaviour and the way people interact with wikipedia. In many cases, it's likely even before the AN//I threads, multiple editors have raised concerns with the editor so they already know there are concerns. If there is an AN//I thread with no action but significant concern, they're surely even more aware. The reason they often don't improve or at least not enough is likely dependent on the editor and the behaviour. In some cases, the editor disagrees their behaviour is a problem that needs to change no matter how many others disagree. In other cases the editor may sincerely agree they should change, but probably isn't going to manage that or at least not enough. Sometimes, unfortunately IMO way too rarely, an editor does change enough. Yet even for these rare instances, I think many of them probably don't actually need those AN//I threads since often the talk page approaches will be enough. (To some extent while there are good reasons for how we operate e.g. lacking clear bright lines for most things, in being preventative and not punitive and the lack of a formal system etc, doesn't help since in reality even if the editors recognise they may one day be sanctioned for it, they have no idea when and many of them may think who knows maybe it'll never happen. However for good reason at least in most cases we don't want a system where an editor is fairly sure they'll be sanctioned which as in real life, can be a good incentive to improve.) I've said before that IMO one thing which could help if those who oppose sanction and support the editor, yet recognise there is a problem make this clearer to the editor since often IMO the nature of their defence may lead the editor to think there's nothing wrong with what I'm doing. But even with this, and in at least one of those AN//I cases I do feel this happened a reasonable amount, I expect it'll only help in a small number of cases. For administrators, it's probably true that many experienced editors are far less likely to approach them if they see a problem and not bother to open a thread since they're sure there will be no result and there may even be a (unfair in their opinion) boomerang. It's probably also true that for some willing to do so, they feel a desysop is way too far yet is the only likely result so aren't going to push it for that reason. So yes looking at ways we can deal with this might help. But I do think to recognise that there's a good chance that whatever we do is probably only going to make a difference in a small number of cases and any system is going to be very imperfect. Editors will receive sanction which some regard as unfair, some agree with, others think took too long. Etc etc. In other words we should definitely consider how we can improve, but we need to be realistic on the likely outcome being only a small improvement. Nil Einne (talk) 10:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
I do agree that it would probably only help in a small number of cases. However, Arbcom desysops that aren't part of a wider case are already a small number, and yet we've had 3 in the last 4 months. With Dbachmann it was an obvious desysop, but Scotty and Alison I'm not sure what the community would have done. One or both might have been salvageable and not been blown out of control if there was a "middle path" of a process where the community can choose to give a "yellow card" instead of only having one tool in the toolbox. I'd welcome any input on my idea, the talkpage is open. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:10, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
I wrote Friends don't let friends get sanctioned precisely to address the situation you describe NE. That is a situation where a lot of editors express concern but there isn't enough for some kind of formal sanction/remedy. In these situations I think an editor's friends are best positioned to help the editor change. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
A counterpoint: In some cases, the editor disagrees their behaviour is a problem that needs to change no matter how many others disagree. In some cases, the people vocally accusing are wanting to WP:RGW or are otherwise extremists. Others may be afraid of becoming another target if they publicly support the accused. Sometimes, unfortunately IMO way too rarely, an editor does change enough. Sometimes no amount of change will be enough for some people. In other cases the editor may sincerely agree they should change, but probably isn't going to manage that or at least not enough. Alas, it's still ok to exclude people with certain kinds of disabilities. Anomie⚔ 11:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
As to participation in a case, it is certainly a double-edged sword. If you decline to partipate, you are basically not presenting a defense, but we have also certainly seen admins who made their situaion worse by behaving cluelessly while a case was underway. Frankly, the response that makes the most sense to me is when an admin retires when it is clear the commmittee will accept the case. They haven't actually lost anythng, and a number of former admins have said that they actually find it liberating, but clearly this option is not appealing to some for whatever reason.
As to "admins who need to be sanctioned should not be admins at all": I am one of the people who has been beating this drum failry consistently during my two terms here. Admins are supposed to be helping to solve problems, if they are instead causing problems, to the point where any type of sanction is needed, they have failed at their job, badly. That's actually fine, not everyone is cut out for administrative work, the same way not everyone is going to be able to write a featured article, or maintain a bot or script. They are entirely different skill sets, and we need people who good at each of these things, they don't have to be good at all of them. When someone is unable or unwilling to see that they are not doing their admin job well, the committe is there to correct the situation. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
@Beeblebrox what are your thoughts about the advisory RfC about this topic to see where the community sentiment is? Barkeep49 (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
More input is always good, but I'd want to be very cautious about how the questions are framed. We wouldn't want to paint the committee into a corner, where there are rigid rules that dictate when to remove and when not to. "Loss of trust from the community" is virtually impossible to define specifically, but I think it is a perfectly valid reason nonetheless. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
For me it would be a single question. I agree with you how that question is framed is important but I would see it along the lines of "When should arbcom place a restriction/sanction short of desysop on an admin?" with suggested answers along the lines of "A. Never, B. Only when it does not involve tool misuse (e.g. an iban), C. For misconduct needing formal remedy but whose severity does not rise to the level of needing the tools removed". With A representing your view, B (and apologies in advance that I'm naming specific editors for these next two publicly but I think the benefits of having this conversation publicly outweigh the costs here) being a Ritchie/Praxidicae situation, and C being a Giant Snowman situation. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
And I do have a solution, but I think it would be virtually impossible to implement at this point. I actually suggested this as joke over on Wikipediocracy, but the more I thought about it the more sense it made. Hear me out: put both ends of the process in ArbCom's hands. In other words, admins would be appointed by the committee through the same process that functionaries go through. Nominations are sought out, there is a community comment period, but not a vote, and the committee appoints qualified candidates. The removal process works the same as well, no need for a full, month-long painful case about one person's behavior, an email discussion and a simple motion are all that would be required to remove an admin. The two worst things about being an admin are RFA and admin conduct ArbCom cases, this eliminates both. I know, it's crazy and we'd never get the community to approve it, but I think it actually would be kinder to everyone involved to do it this way. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
In times gone by, I suggested removing the "support" section from RfA. So that only issues/concerns to prevent may be brought up and discussed. And then a bureacrat assesses the discussion to determine if there is anything preventing adminship. Substantial policy-concerned opposes, and no tools. A pretty clean page of few to no concerns, and congratulations. Needless to say, there is very little chance that that is going to happen. Everyone wants to drop their "feelgood" support vote : ) - jc37 17:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
I think that would be a surefire way to stop people from running. RfA already feels pretty awful; I can't imagine wanting to spend an entire week having people only tell you about how you've failed. Like, I had a somewhat rough RfA, but having people support me made it easier to bear; it was still one of the most stressful weeks of my life. We have to remember that RfA candidates are very much human beings. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
I haven't even gone through RfA and I've had actual nightmares about the process. I also don't think "oppose-only" RfAs are a good idea. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
I understand. Someone looking at this with the filter of thinking about the current battleground process of support vs oppose likely sees this as removing the positive and leaving only the negative.
But consider that without labelling the sections support/oppose, and set the standard as merely discussing diffs, you remove that battleground. A similar comparison might be an arbcom evidence page. Except of course, that (presumably) the editor in question hasn't done stuff to need an arbcom case, so there could actually be RfAs that are blank. And with discussion limited by evidence, a lot of the nonsense should evaporate. One simple question: Are there good reasons to not grant the tools? If no, then here ya go. But like I said, for the reasons above, among other things, I don't see it likely to happen. - jc37 23:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
RfA voters do not just look for evidence of potential for tool abuse, but also for evidence of experience and cluefulness (which is harder to convey by diffs). While I have no love for many of the edit count / "data" based opposes ("only here for five years", "only 5000 edits", "only 30 AfDs, and only 70% 'correct'") they do serve as a proxy for expectations of general experience that may be not as easy to convey in a purely "oppose for cause" system. I mean, I full agree RfA is totally broken, but I would like us to spend less time publicly discussing and dissecting every single potential character flaw. (My preferred system at the moment would be a structured and moderated vote-free discussion coupled with a discussion-free vote with a hard threshold and no bureaucrat chats). —Kusma (talk) 08:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Actually examples of cluefullness typically come hand-in-hand with activity. If you go through someone's edits and don't see anything concerning, but see good stuff, there's no reason for you to need to post. What you're talking about is catering to what I consider the "lazy" voter who just wants to scan the rfa page and drop a vote based upon that. I'd like to move as far away from that as we can. If someone wants to form a judgement upon someone else, they should put in the work. - jc37 16:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
The problem is your process suggests that 50 valid opposes would always be equally strong. But opposes can be either rebutted or diluted. For example, Tamzin's RfA's opposes would have been grounds to declining in almost any other case, but here were offset by a huge number of supports - while the presence of an unprecedented number of weak supports would not be easily replicated in an oppose-only system. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Timeline and remedy only Admin cases?

I've noted above I don't think our current case structure is serving us when it comes to administrator conduct cases. This is my best attempt to provide a fix. I'm not sure it's even a good atempt, but it's the best one I've come up with so far. In really thinking through the issue I see, I don't think the case format is doing us well when it comes to the type of cases we've heard recently. If you go back to 2020 and 2021 admin conduct cases, I think the format worked reasonably well where you had a wide variety of facts that needed summarizing across a fairly spread out period of time. That is even in a case like RexxS where the desysop was controversial and the facts weren't, it's clear how Arbs got from those facts to their support (or not) of the desysop. But in the admin cases we've heard over the past 2 years it's mostly been "single incident with maybe a little extra backstory" and arb judgement from there.

And so I wonder if rather than having a whole FoF section if all that was needed was a neutrally worded timeline of events. For Scotty that timeline could stretch back to include the Manning stuff, for instance, but could still exist as a neutrally worded timeline. This format could work at ARC or in a longer 2-3 week timeline similar to a case depending on what the arbs needed for a given circumstance. It could by dynamically updated, ala the summarized evidence in WP:HJP rather than released all at the end. And then it places the burden of interpretation and explanation on individual arbs in their remedy votes which kind of happens already anyway. It's my sense that this could have worked for every admin conduct case post-RexxS, including the stranger two (Stephen and Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block).

As I noted up top I'm not sure it's a good idea (even if it would have "worked") but since it's my best idea so far I thought I'd throw it out there for comment, questions, refinement, and other feedback. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

We've had timelines in cases before, so why not just - as an intermediary step - just automatically have "Timeline" at the top of the FoF section for admin cases. And then FoF is there if it needs to be, but doesn't have to get filled out if it's unnecessary.
I don't think that locking these pages into rigidity is doing anyone any favours. - jc37 19:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
What the drafters/arbs are writing towards matters. Right now the drafters are locked into a certain FoF format and it's my hunch that it's not a good box for them to be in. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
I feel like, if the issue is that some evidence was so old that it should not have been considered, presenting it in a timeline does not address the problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Writing AlisonW I didn't feel locked into a format, much less any certain one. You might need to explain what you're thinking about. Izno (talk) 19:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
I've perhaps framed it wrong @Izno. In our discussion above, I noted that cases that get accepted basically lead to a single outcome. You noted that you liked having time to think things through clearly. This was my attempt to square those things. Did a full evidence phase really provide evidence that got used for Scotty and Allison that wasn't already present at the case request? My impression is only marginally so. I don't think Scotty, Allsion, or the broader community were particularly well served by the multi-week process that transpired, but you are suggested arbs are well served. So this was my attempt to create a process that serves the non-arb stakeholders better without taking away the chance for arbs to act in a deliberate manner. It's hard for me to really sell an idea that I'm not sure is a good one myself but it was my hope that by getting something down there could be something iterative that might go somewhere. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Wherever it goes I think this is a conversation worth having. I don't think we are necesarily locked in to any one format, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Format of decisions says "Decisions are written in clear, concise standard English and usually(emphasis added): (i) outline the salient principles, (ii) make findings of fact, (iii) set out remedies and rulings, and (iv) specify any enforcement arrangements. Where the meaning of any provision is unclear to any arbitrator, the parties, or other interested editors, it will be clarified upon request. "Usually" gives the wiggle room we need to adjust for certain types of cases if it seems better for everyone, like we have already done by eliminating the workshop in some cases. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Beeblebrox that the arbitration policy allows for the arbitrators to decide the exact format they think best serves any given case. In cases like this one, perhaps it would be helpful for the arbitrators to decide what specific questions they would like to have answered by the end of the evidence and workshop phases, and thus how to narrow the scope of submissions that will be accepted. For example, if the primary question is does the community continue to trust a given editor to hold administrative privileges, then the scope of the evidence phase could be limited to examples of specific situations that led an editor to lose trust. A workshop phase might be limited to statements of continued trust or the absence of trust, to help arbitrators evaluate the community's viewpoint. isaacl (talk) 01:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
If the/a question is "does this admin still hold the trust of the community to make good administrative decisions" then there should logically be (a) some place for the community to provide evidence of that admin making good and/or bad decisions and/or expressing views/making other edits that give cause for either confidence or concern; and (b) some indication that the committee desires to see evidence of this nature. Thryduulf (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes, if the arbitrators want to get input from the community on X, then specifying this in its scope for accepted submissions will satisfy (b). isaacl (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
I attempted to raise this exact point a few weeks ago but it kind of got lost in the shuffle. I'll also note that while arbcom solicits public comments, I sense an undercurrent of not really wanting the input provided. RoySmith (talk) 16:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
I personally don't sense that input isn't wanted in general. However I do sometimes feel that some arbitrators are looking for input in a specific area to help them answer a specific question. I appreciate that for many cases, different arbitrators may be seeking information on different aspects, and so overall the scope is fairly wide. If there are cases, though, where there is agreement on having some specific questions answered, then I think delineating a narrow scope may help the process be more effective. isaacl (talk) 16:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Stuff does get lost in the shuffle and not replied to by the committee. This is not deliberate. We've just closed a case, are closing a second one now, we have ... at least five open appeals we're discussing, and three or four more random issues. And we have this quite long conversation here. It's hard to keep up with everything. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
A few years ago, I made some requests to the community regarding arbitration cases, including a request to understand that [d]ue to the wide number of commenters and limits on available time, it's highly likely some comments will not get addressed directly by the arbitrators, even if you thought they were deserving of a response. I appreciate it can be disappointing not to get a response, and not know why; I agree though that constraints make it difficult for it to be otherwise. isaacl (talk) 21:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
If an admin has not used their tools obviously detrimental to the project, I believe the admin is supposed to stay. We lose a lot of admin know-how if we desysop editors for a (perceived) 'personal attack' or some comment in a discussion.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW closed

Original announcement
I'm not going to second that. It amounts to "ignore complaints". Sorry, but there's serious problems with both the Scottywong case and this one. Sweeping it under the rug as cries from the 'losers' (not quoting anyone with that; but "winning" was mentioned) and nothing to worry about it flat wrong. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
+1 w/Hammersoft. I do not doubt that all committee members have hearts of compassion, but I'm not sure it's helpful to wish them a collective one. The Holy Roman and Universal Church—servus servorum dei—may proffer grace over justice to the fallen; intractable behavioural problems and/or misuse of the admin toolkit that cannot be addressed at ANI does not require such a quality. SN54129 17:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
In reading over the proposed decision page, I kept asking myself if it ever occurred to anyone on the committee that AlisonW was under an enormous amount of emotional distress due to her mother's declining health and ultimate passing, and that this might have factored into her misuse of the tools. It also feels like no real consideration was given to NYB's suggestion that the case be put on hold to give Alison the opportunity to grieve. Kurtis (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
@Kurtis I understand where you're coming from. I will confirm that the committee did seriously consider that the case be put on hold, indeed I would have preferred that myself. However, ultimately, the committee decision was that the evidence phase had closed and the best thing to do would be to finish the case as quickly as possible, rather than leaving a pending decision hanging over her. WormTT(talk) 09:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
@Kurtis, if that had been a part of evidence (private or public) and/or AlisonW had indicated that her real-life situation was influencing her editing, then yes, I suspect that we would have had a different outcome. As WTT says, though, the only notice we received was after the Evidence closed, and it did not give any indication that what you are suggesting may have been the case. Primefac (talk) 11:44, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

ToBeFree promoted to full clerk

Original announcement
Thanks to you, my main mentor. :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:24, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 18:55, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Paradise Chronicle

Original announcement

Concerned

My understanding is that, per WP:BAN, bans are to the person, not to the account.

So the link above would appear concerning.

Due to the behind-the-scenes that apparently went on with this editor, I thought I'd ask here before leaping to any conclusions. - jc37 08:49, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

jc37, genuinely out of curiosity, why do you find it concerning? The edit itself is undoing the previous edit, which (some would argue inappropriately) blanked part of the user page. Primefac (talk) 09:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Ok, so I feel dumb now. My apologies. I did not see that it was a reversion. It looked like an addition. Thank you for looking into this. - jc37 09:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Change to the Functionary team

Original announcement

This is a nice contrast to the welcome Brad initially got upon his return to activity here. Welcome back. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Welcome back to the “Brad cabal”! Courcelles (talk) 22:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Welcome back! Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 03:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Hmm It's August. Are we nearing the time to start the "bradv for Arbcom" campaign, yet? : ) - jc37 05:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the warm welcome. @Jc37, let me save you and anyone else who might be thinking this some time: No. :) – bradv 13:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Ah well. There's always next year...  : ) - jc37 13:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
I might as well say in public what I've said in private. I have absolutely no doubt that bradv would be a good arb (again). On the other hand, I think it's more important, for the long-term health of the project, to be identifying, grooming, and recruiting new blood into leadership positions rather than recycling the old guard. RoySmith (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Cool. It's nice to see a well-respected user return. Nice to meet you, and welcome back. Pecopteris (talk) 18:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Change to the Checkuser team

Original announcement

2023 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: announcement

Original announcement

Arbritration Requests Buddy

I have asked User:Bellezzasolo about their script, but just noticed they haven't edited four months. Hoping all is well with them of course. But how/where is it getting maintained? Thanks! SN54129 16:10, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Would be nice to get that integrated with Twinkle someday. I have some notes on what that would take over at Twinkle Ticket #1806. Edit filter #602 throwing a warning that stops attempted edits, plus inconsistency between the three CT alert templates such as some adding a heading and others not, creates many challenges from a programming perspective. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Novem Linguae, interesting. Oddly I already thought it was part of Twinkle, but that's because it's in the same tab, I guess. SN54129 17:07, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
The Bellezzasolo script uses Wikipedia:Morebits for its front end, which is what Twinkle uses, so it has the exact same look. But yeah, it's not technically part of Twinkle (is installed and maintained separately). –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:18, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Change to the Functionary team

Original announcement

Arbitration motion regarding WikiProject Tropical Cyclones

Original announcement

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute closed

Original announcement

This is a very sad occasion, speaking as somebody who has seen BHG around for almost two decades, and almost always agreed with her on substance. A very high and substantial edit count, from a person who was key in forming many of our early editorial principals. I do understand what happened and why, but its still hard to take. Wish BHG, who always had very, very impressive energy and insight, all the best for future projects, and wish to thank her for her countless hours / years of voluntary work which has significantly aided our project. It seems like the end of an era. Ceoil (talk) 03:37, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

@Ceoil: This might be a weird thing for the filing party of that ArbComm case to say, but I agree with every word of that. - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:40, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Seems like the end of a 3 year long downward spiral.I think Wiki was stressing her and this is certainly time for her to think of her actions through.I hope she comes back better that ever.--88.240.152.194 (talk) 08:24, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

She has closed to 3M edits, the second-highest only behind Ser Amantio di Nicolao. Just a random Wikipedian(talk) 09:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes, and 88.240's point is well made...that level of work and commitment has to lead to a certain level of burn out. I do see a way back for her also, after time out, as 88.240 says. Ceoil (talk) 13:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
  • I'm glad it is over
  • I think we came to the correct result
  • I do not think BHG is the sort of person who would resort to socking in this situation.

I'd genuinely like to know which part of that is "talking shit" about BHG. It is also funny to me how many times peiople have said that they don't approve of my participation there while at the same time making it clear that they read it religiously. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:57, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your attempt to make participation on the site an equivalent act to reading it. I make no secret that I read it; this is how I could say that I also found the charge of talking shit baseless. I read it because it's helpful to understand the full context when some WPO bugaboo makes the leap and becomes an onwiki thing (though I do think this happens less than when I started 5 years ago) and secondarily because I want to consider many viewpoints in order to make the best decision I can because there are some good faith critics whose POV deserves consideration even if I have to wade through admitted trolls and banned editors to get it. On top of that your participation as an arb colleague of mine makes it more important to read it than it would be otherwise. If you and a few other people who I like and think well of, outside of your WPO participation, weren't lending that crowd legitimacy I'd have a lot less motivation to read it. But you do participate and the community tolerates it, so here we are. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:07, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
For what it's worth I didn't mean you or any of the arbs. You said you tolerate it, which I know, and which is far more ... tolerant... than a lot of other feedback I've gotten on this subject. On that point, I am also very aware that a decent segment of the community thinks it is crazy/scandalous/should be against policy/etc. That's fine too. I don't require everyone to "get" what my own personal agenda is in this regard. I don't know that I've ever even tried to explain what it is to anyone here or there. It's probably better that way. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
On the broader point raised above by isaacl, yes, if you want to read my candid comments about WP, that's where they are. That is where I have personally chosen to have just one off-wiki venue for discussion of WP-related things. I don't have any desire to use IRC or Discord for that, but I have no issue with others who make that choice. It's a mixed bag to be sure, but so is WP itself. We wouldn't need an Arbitration Committee at all if it wasn't. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Sorry for intruding, but the true test is if Beeblebrox is voted in by the community. Check. Any intra-arb disagreements should be taken off-line. Ceoil (talk) 03:52, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Which is the point that Barkeep made. Izno (talk) 04:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
I've posted a note at VPP to get the community's pulse on this... Thanks, Lourdes 15:16, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Noting that the VPR discussion has been closed. Folly Mox (talk) 17:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Linking the closed discussion's permanent link here for reference. Thanks, Lourdes 09:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Break

The notion that any participant in this case was treated more harshly based on their gender is utterly groundless. WaggersTALK 20:31, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Talk page access

The site ban policy allows for an exception allowing editors to keep their talk page access.

Fellow top-ten editors with lengthy block histories Koavf and Rich Farmbrough have never had their talk page access revoked, but Lugnuts had theirs revoked on August 2, 2022, a day after their last edit.

Her talk page access was previously revoked at 18:12, 9 October 2022, but only for a matter of hours, not days (expiration time was 01:11, 10 October 2022) - "talk page access while blocked is for appealing the block, not for posting extended diatribes" Community sanction enforcement: Violation of the civility probation imposed at Special:Diff/1039021442, per WP:ANI#Uncivil behavior by BrownHairedGirl. Calling editors "sneaky" and "nasty"; accusations of "anti-intellectual bullying".

A finding of fact in the Small-cat case noted the previous block from her talk, but the vote to ban her did not explicitly vote to revoke her talk page access. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

It is standard procedure for Arbcom bans to revoke talk page access. So when the Lugnuts block became an ArbCom ban TPA was revoked and BHGs was done as part of the block. The other two editors named were not blocked by Arbcom. Barkeep49 (talk) 13:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
See also the note at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Procedures § Enacting bans and editing restrictions (The banning policy states that talk page access is "usually not allowed" and may only be used for appeals. As ArbCom only accepts appeals (for their site bans) by email there is no reason to depart from the "usually not allowed" given that the user in question wouldn't be able to use their talk page anyway.). KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. That text, which appears on the first line in the table Wikipedia:Banning policy § Difference between bans and blocks, was changed from "Usually not allowed" to "No, except for some appeals" by a couple of December 2020 edits. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:25, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm a little disturbed at the mention of "top ten editors" as if they are some special class and not just editors who make heavy use of automated tools to make tens of thousands of minor edits. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:53, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Indeed they are a special class of editors who make heavy use of automated tools to make tens of thousands of minor edits. Are you disturbed because they get disproportionate attention from the Wikimedia Foundation and the press? (I'll never join this club because I program bots to make such edits, which takes a lot more time, and my bots' edits are counted separately) – wbm1058 (talk) 03:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
If you were to combine edit counts from you and all three of your bots that would get about 1.6 million, or currently 8th in the list behind Rich Farmbrough. But that's unfair since you would have to include every other bot operator in the list, knocking you down to somewhere between 30 and 40. By comparison you are at position 199 not counting bots. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Standard procedure? There is no standard procedure. Looking at site bans emplaced by ArbCom over the last 10 years, only 4 out of 16 had email ability revoked. Only 10 of 16 had talk page access revoked. I'm not advocating for/against BHG's restrictions, but to say this is "standard" practice is false. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
It has been standard procedure for my time on the committee. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:06, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The small number of historic cases makes this complicated, still I find it interesting that something that a bunch of things that have AFAIK gone unremarked before when there has been a site ban (removing talk access, 1 year between appeals, posting the standard notice on the editor's talk page including the discuss here element), have each drawn some attention in this case. Nil Einne (talk) 11:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

SmallCat guideline discussion

As I would guess everyone watching this is at least "aware" of the WP:SMALLCAT guideline. I'm noting that I started an RfC on whether to mark it historical. - that's my neutral note.

My "opinion" (stated in the RfC) is that I think the rest of categorization policy/guidelines cover this well enough, WP:NARROWCAT, in particular, and so it can probably be deprecated. And I also wonder if perhaps the consistent controversy concerning it might indicate that there is not consensus that it should be a guideline. But whatever the case, I think we should have a community discussion about this. I'd like to hear what others think, and see if we all can talk this out and come to a consensus. - jc37 20:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Typo

The announcement says "The following remedies has been enacted:" That should be corrected to "have". (I see that an editor tried to correct it, but was reverted as a clerk action, so I'm pointing it out in talk.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

ToBeFree have, I mean has, fixed it. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Heh ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
If our WP (or ArbCom) culture is such that this typo fix was reverted, there’s something wrong with our WP (or ArbCom) culture. Floquenbeam (talk) 00:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
(Mostly in response to your edit summary, "what a weird site this is",) to be fair, few websites allow users to edit others' messages, and doing so is almost always inappropriate. That's neither ArbCom- nor Wikipedia-specific. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
I would also say that the notices on ACN are cross-posted, so editing just the copy here brings an inconsistency between the notices placed on multiple pages. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 09:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Note in particular that editing someone's signed message can and has resulted in major blowups even where the editor thought they were fixing a typo. There is always a risk someone will misunderstand and what they think is a typo, in fact isn't. ENGVAR issues, neologisms and memes, less familiar words, etc. These notices are more complicated since they are effectively group signed as part of a committee so there's less personal feeling, still I think we should always remember there are very good reasons why people might not like their signed comment to be edited by someone even if that editor genuinely thinks they're being helpful. (One case in particular that I remember was someone changing automagically to automatically.) Nil Einne (talk) 10:56, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
I stand corrected, and will stipulate that it is not at all silly to revert someone who is fixing a typo, quote a guideline at them to make sure they know what they did was wrong, and then redo the same thing yourself, only after the proper forms have been filled out. In my ideal world, the reaction would have just been “thanks”, but I acknowledge that’s crazy talk. Indeed, one of the biggest benefits of Wikipedia is the constant reminder that I do not live in my ideal world. Floquenbeam (talk) 12:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
The proper forms, for those who missed it. —Cryptic 15:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
I think some of the inconsistent reaction was that I made my revert before talking to the arbitrators and other clerks (as the "no editing this page" rule is well enforced on ACN). So to be clear (in case there was doubt), it wasn't my intention for that revert and then undo-revert process to have been followed. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 12:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Also, to be clear, thanks to JPxG for finding the typo. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 12:44, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
I guess in my ideal world, a person who finds an error of this nature just asks for it to be changed, and someone changes it with thanks (and in this case perhaps changes it in the multiple places it needed changing). And I would say that of any "officialish" writing, including things like closes. But also I'm pretty live and let live and so I just acknowledged how Wikipedia-like it is for the person who recently changed something officialish I wrote that is quite stale and will probably only be read a handful of times in the rest of Wikipedia history. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Just as an intellectual exercise, I was looking at this and trying to think which guideline or essay might cover this (besides WP:TPO, which apparently allows for "minor changes" like typo-fixing). At first I thought of WP:CREEP (and m:Instruction creep is an interesting read); then I looked at WP:AJR and WP:SENIORITY; and looked at WP:UCS, and WP:DBI, too; but in the end, I guess it's probably just Wikipedia:The rules are principles. It's interesting to go through and (re-)read the essays once in awhile. - jc37 13:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
So JPxG found something that was unambiguously a trivial typo. Just a typo, not some sacred revelation from on high. After a procedural (and unnecessary) revert, I decided to do things "by the book", and post in this section. And ToBeFree promptly fixed what needed to be fixed, and the world was back to normal. And now, there has been all this additional discussion, which is just so Wikipedia. I agree with Floq that there is something incredibly bizarre about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:11, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
This was tame. What would have been so Wikipedia would be a revert war, and an ANI thread culminating in JPxG being topic banned from fixing typos in project space. RoySmith (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Now I feel so much better. ;) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith don't forget the edit war over whether it should be listed at WP:LAME or not... Thryduulf (talk) 21:54, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Superclerk Bishzilla always fix typos on ArbCom pages when seen. Little arbs and clerks never dared revert her yet (cordially invited to try, bwahaha). Unfortunately missed this typo, sorry. (Bishzilla waves at young Floquenbeam and their sock.) bishzilla ROARR!! pocket 22:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC).
If anyone wants to see something really lame, just see Talk:Barbenheimer, my personal prediction for the next Contentious Topic. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
My offer there to enter that on LAME still stands. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:32, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Mark Ironie and CorbieVreccan

Original announcement

I'm guessing this is a WP:MEAT situation, at the very least? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 15:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

context. —Cryptic 21:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I understand the motion as passed. It's clear. I was wondering if I needed to display the motion somewhere on my user page? I have the IP declaration there now. Is that sufficient? This is all a bit new to me and I haven't been very mentally acute the last few days. So a bit stupid in my reasoning. Thank you. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 22:14, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

@Mark Ironie the IP declaration is indeed all you need. Barkeep49 (talk) 10:35, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: Thank you. I'll probably keep the motion box on my user talk for a while. I have little desire to sweep this whole thing under the rug and disappear the notice. Some might consider this unbelieveable given this last week of discussion but I'm an honest editor. I'm not going to gloss over these events. I prefer to be forthright and acknowledge my culpability. I've spent a little too much time acknowledging it in my edits the last few days. I'd prefer to just get on with editing and such. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

2023 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Community consultation phase open

Original announcement

Worm That Turned stepping down

Original announcement

Resignation of SilkTork

Original announcement

2023 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: candidate appointed

Original announcement

Wellington Bay unblocked

Original announcement

Bkbray unblocked

Original announcement

Arbitration motion regarding the Prem Rawat case

Original announcement

Out of curiosity, would the topic overall still fall into the IP area (in much the same way TPM was rescinded due to AP2 existing) or is it distinct enough that there's no connexion? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 20:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I think Courcelles' comment at the ARCA is reasonable. Izno (talk) 20:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
To me personally, as there is no extended-confirmed restriction in this area and WP:BLPCT offers the same tools, the easiest approach would be relying on BLPCT. If edits about Prem Rawat lead to a need for a topic ban from WP:ARBIPA instead, these edits will likely answer the question too. Regarding existing restrictions, I like to explain "broadly construed" as meaning "when in doubt, yes". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the DS tag that was bundled with Template:WikiProject Prem Rawat. Category:Pages using an unknown contentious topics code should be empty soon. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

All the manually encoded tags have been removed by myself and Extraordinary Writ (talk · contribs). This maintenance category is now empty. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Thank you :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Proposed motions on rescinding old topic-wide remedies

Original announcement
As for rescinding due to inactivity, I don't have a problem with that, and indeed there are several DS/CT remedies I've never heard of, or if I did, only in passing (recent example). But there is also a misconception that activity could be solely gleaned from WP:AEL entries. I've probably stopped more infobox conflicts by simply telling disputants that WP:ARBINFOBOX exists, than I did with logged actions for, say, Macedonia (see wp:balkans). Which were just the odd protection that could otherwise easily be encompassed within the broader WP:ARBEE (see WP:BALKANS).
Ultimately, the sanction regimes listed seem (mostly) unimportant for the present day, and likely nothing much will be lost by having them rescinded (in whole or part). But I'm not sure such an omnibus of motions was the best way to address their inactivity. Especially as tautologically nothing happens when nothing happens. But in order to find out what's actually what, in consultation with the community, spacing out the process benefit from better optics, at the least. And possibly beyond that, with any potential gains additional scrutiny and focus might bring. Sorry, I might not be available for follow up before the voting ends. Still, foregone conclusion as all this might be, I thought I'd at least get this commentary out before rather than after the fact. El_C 18:00, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
I agree that it's probably better to not put together all of the old sanctions together in terms of giving an opportunity for, and getting, useful comments from the community. The counterpoint is that this work, from the committee perspective, is neither pressing nor particularly interesting, and thus difficult to execute. (Note that DS reform started to take shape from several candidate statements in ACE2020.) I found over three years that the kind of matters that will get the promptest attention are any of, or a combination of, a case request and some non-public drama. The non-public stuff really should lean towards the 'drama' end versus the ordinary non-public matter, in order to be promptly addressed. The rest of the work would tend to rely on one or two arbs really herding their fellow cats to do something. I would be shocked if this pattern changed in the past year that I've not been on the committee. All this to say is that anything but an omnibus motion is likely to be impractical. Maxim (talk) 20:11, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
I see things pretty differently from El C. ArbCom is elected for two year terms. This idea that once ACE comes around ArbCom is supposed to just wait for next year's committee has always struck me as strange and the longer I serve on ArbCom the stranger I find it. It suggests that arbs are actually elected for some kind of dual 9-month terms with a couple of 3-month lame duck/caretaker periods which just makes no sense to me. Further I think omnibus motions are more respectful of the community's time than "we're going to do these once a month for 6 months" or whatever spread out regime is being suggested. It lets the community focus its attention for a short period of time on this maintenance task rather than having to return to it constantly. I think it's far more in-line with what people frustrated at this RfC are asking for. Finally, for me, the status quo is always that a topic area is operating under normal Wikipedia administrative rules. We should only be making extraordinary grants of power to admins when extraordinary circumstances call for it. When it's no longer called for we should be going back to the status quo, not keeping a regime that grants more power than the community is normally comfortable giving to individual admins. I didn't drive this omnibus - frankly I thought momentum was gathering for a different set of cleanup based on feedback from multiple arbs and wish we had been more strategic as a committee rather than moving forward with what was easier - but I see nothing wrong with it happening. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
I wanted to move the ball on another round of retiring old sanctions after voting on the Prem Rawat motion. So, I spent an afternoon in the archives and drafted 11 motions. I asked for feedback from the rest of the committee for about a week and with those comments came to the text at A/R/M. 8 are incredibly mundane returns of power to the community, 1 is less so.
If you take a look, you would notice the minimal cat hearding that I signed myself up for. That was intentional. I didn't want a project to balloon from a week to 6 months to come to a conclusion. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 23:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Briefly: I can see the logic of an omnibus in this instance being better than splitting (spacing out). That said, maybe I'm overthinking it, but it still feels like that doesn't need to happen in either 6 days or 6 months, as there are weeks-rather-than-months durations in between. The inert nature of power that isn't being exercised (bureaucracy on paper only) makes that rather risk free and likely even outside WP:ACE2023. Still, I can't really disagree that besides WP:ARBINFOBOX—notably, the only motion where the nays exceed the yays—there's probably not much to discuss.

Anyway, it's all very niche, but I just wanted to make sure potentially interested parties are informed; have enough time to be informed, since a week and it's done. I was gonna suggest that clerks make such notifications, but in a roundabout way, I found out that's already happening. So kudos, as always, to the clerks. I'll leave you all in peace now. El_C 13:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

That was not an official clerk action! I knew Gerda Arendt might be interested in this, so I notified her. I'll happily send more notifications if I'm asked to and if there's any algorithm I can use to determine whom. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
El_C, are there any other CT areas where you think the existence of the sanctions on their own is sufficient to ensure good behavior? I personally tend to be skeptical of these claims (as I've expressed in the past about the community-authorized "units of measurement in the UK).
To me, the fact that the existence of sanctions keeps people in line suggests that there are a limited number of people that are causing the problem, all familiar with the "back office" parts of Wikipedia, and so more tailored restrictions on those specific people might be just as effectiveo I'm curious what your thoughts are - what topics are like this, and would narrower targeted restrictions potentially be effective in place of the GS/CT toolkit. GeneralNotability (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
A small nitpick: I'm not sure omnibus is the best word to use here. An omnibus bill implies that a bunch of things are being packaged together and voted on with one vote. All or nothing. In this case, each motion is getting its own vote, which seems fair enough. Sounds like the concerns are more about information overload and/or moving too fast. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut unblocked

Original announcement
Slightly odd wording, all things considered. Serial 19:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Serial. This is very odd wording when you consider all things. The very specific thing I am reminded to consider is this ARBCOM statement which I found by following links from Kolya's talk page to this background discussion on Abecedare's page about SandyGeorgia apparently sending some private information to Barkeep49. The complaint I have is not just simply with odd wording, but with different standards being applied that seem to be at odds with each other as well. In the former "Flyer22" statement, ARBCOM seems to be taking the very strong position that it is not at all any of ARBCOM's business to go nosing around outside of Wikipedia/Wikimedia SPI's, even going so far as to print it in bold that it isn't within their purview to do so. Yet, in the case of dishing out restrictions, they feel it is well within their power/purview to monitor/restrict the activities of an editor for their online activities outside of Wikipedia/Wikimedia. I would like to know why ARBCOM is not being consistent or why it appears rules are only being applied arbitrarily. ARBCOM isn't supposed to be a denotation for the Arbitrary Committee. I would also like ARBCOM to reconsider the restriction being placed on Kolya. If it is not appropriate for ARBCOM for "conducting forensic investigations off of the site" and "Our authority and responsibilities do not include" such things, then I think that It would not be appropriate for the Arbitration Committee or anyone else to do these things. When ARBCOM says, "we have not and will not do so", they should be held to what they themselves have said. Any restrictions should strictly apply within Wikipedia. The power of ARBCOM does not and should not stretch across the internet especially if that power is only being used one sided to control users, but not in other cases just because of potential liability. Huggums537 (talk) 16:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom can, and has, regularly blocked people for their off-wiki activities. These blocks for off-wiki activities are authorized by WP:ARBPOL as they are matters unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal, or similar reasons. ArbCom does so when behavioral policies are violated in a way that harms individual users or the community as a whole. I don't doubt Sandy provided evidence for this editor but it doesn't stand out because we had no shortage of evidence that spurred the block. I, for one, am glad that Koyla has agreed to the conditions - odd wording or not - and has been able to rejoin the community. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Agreed, there's nothing unusual here, the committee has sanctioned users for off-wiki conduct on numerous occasions. We never said it was not the committee's business to be aware of off-wiki activity, what is not the committee's business is investigating a users personal life, which is what we were being asked to do. I don't think it is in anyone's best interest to dredge that matter back up and sincerely hope this is the final chapter in the whole saga. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
The private evidence I submitted was during WP:ARBMED and had nothing to do with Koyla; it was about a third individual's evidence related to Flyer in that arbcase, and my concerns about who had written that evidence were unrelated to Koyla. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
PS, as I am on a roadtrip and iPad/Hospot editing with spotty access, I may be mixing up the two arbcases, but the basic facts hold. And I did not submit that evidence to Barkeep; I emailed it to arbcom general. Other than that, I can't decipher what Huggums is implying; the evidence I submitted was a tangential matter, unrelated to conclusions in the Koyla matter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
I can't say I recall with any specificty exactly who contacted us about what, and I don't really feel compelled to go through hundreds of emails trying to figure it out, but "Sandy sent Barkeep a smoking gun that prompted the committee to issue the block" is for sure not a memory I have at all. There is a tendency in siutuations where some material has to be handled off-wiki for people to engage in speculation about exactly what prompted what, and I belive that is what we're seeing here. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
If that is the claim being made, it's wrong on every count. I didn't email Barkeep; I emailed the committee when I was instructed to do so on a case talk page. Second, the matter I raised was wholly unrelated to Koyla. Third, while I am not on a real computer right now and can't check exact words, it is firmly entrenched in my memory that the response I got was not out of line or irregular in any way and supports what is stated here by arbs -- my memory is that basically that my evidence had no material bearing on anything, as who had written evidence was immaterial and secondary to what the evidence was, and whether I was right or wrong in the longrun had no effect on any outcome. So, I remain uncertain what Huggums is trying to say, but I hope that others will be reminded to let Koyla go about her business subject to the restrictions rather than trying to stir things up again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
I have checked the history and as Sandy indicated her evidence had no bearing on the discussion about whether or not to block Koyla. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:02, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for doing that as my access is restricted right now. If Huggums is in fact saying that I had something to do with Koyla's block, I find that very ... troubling ... and firmly reject any such claim. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
I merely stated that in the discussion you sent some private information to Arbs. It appeared that it was received by Barkeep, but apparently you only mentioned them because of their knowledge of it. I never said it was related to Kolya. These are connections you all made up your imaginations. If you people are making it this difficult to reason with, then I'll happily go back to pursuing other passions and avoid all this drama. Huggums537 (talk) 09:34, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
P.S. I take this as a sign you are no longer interested in advocating for the case you had brought up in that discussion? Because I would have been a good ally in standing up for the rights of users sending credible information [equal application of the rules] had you not suggested I gag myself here... Huggums537 (talk) 09:57, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Huggums, in your post above, I had no idea what you were trying to get at, but my original post you referenced was rather clearly only about the bookkeeping at the Deceased page and subpages, I pinged Barkeep as they are an arb I trust and wanted someone on Arbcom to know of the subpage issue, and my own experience in submitting evidence relative to that. That I believe I was muzzled in an arbcase and that a third party and others were affected -- something that ultimately made no difference to any outcome -- is unrelated to anything about Koyla, and I don't believe it in Koyla's best interest for this pot to continue to be stirred. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:27, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Okay, well thanks for clarifying that. However, my thoughts were differing along the lines of thinking that not only was it in the best interest of Kolya, but of all Wikipedians that ARBCOM and everyone in our administration should start thinking about an equal application of rules to all Wikipedians because I see no functional difference between "investigating a users personal life" and "to be aware of off-wiki activity" since the latter requires either some form of personal investigation to be "aware" or else it requires the acceptance of the credible evidence of some form of personal investigation to be aware. The statements being made now are contradictory to the previous statement I linked to. Essentially, it boils down to being told the exact opposite of what was said before; It is appropriate for ARBCOM to investigate users. ARBCOM always has and always will do so when users are suspected of fraudulent or "behavioral activity off wiki in a way that harms individual users or the community as a whole".
I just wish our administration would make up their minds one way or the other, and I don't care which. Either we can investigate users and our power stretches across the internet, or it stops at Wikipedia. Not, sometimes we let it go, and sometimes we don't depending on who we want to control and what's in it for us or what the potential liability might be. If we don't do that to our users, then that means we don't do it for any user no matter if they broke a Wikipedia rule or one of the 10 commandments or some other law. If we do it for blocked/restricted users, then that means we do it for all users suspected of any fraudulent activity or behavioral issue, and in fact should do it for any user period. There is no reason at all to have special spy rules just for rulebreakers. Please make up your minds one way or the other. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 14:32, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
I thought I was done replying to this thread, but this latest reply is really helpful Huggums because it gives me greater insight into what you're troubled by. If an editor goes onto the Wikipedia Discord server (to name something that did not happen in this case) and says something which is then reported to ArbCom, there is no investigation into someone's personal life. It will be confirmed, or not, if it was said so there will be an investigation into the veracity but finding the comment itself required no investigation. This would be equally true if one Wikipedian happened to be on an unrelated to Wikipedia discord server with other Wikipedians (as I am in one tech related discord) and reported something to ArbCom. An example of an investigation into personal information, staying in the realm of Discord, would be if an editor knew a Wikipedian's real name, used that name to find their Discord username, then used the Discord API to find servers they're in, and a bot to log everything they've said in those servers. I hope that helps clarify this. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Of course. I understand the difference between what constitutes a personal investigation, and what doesn't. However, the issue with the "odd wording" of the unblock is that it effectively gives ARBCOM or anyone else who cares to do a personal investigation a free pass to do so. When you forbid someone to speak of something "anywhere" including "any other online location" that is an extremely broad power to be granting yourselves to examine the contents of someone's snail mail, eavesdrop on spoken conversations, and it doesn't in any way exclude anything you were talking about in either of your Discord examples. So, while you have explained what is personal, and what isn't - the issue of a user being potentially violated in the same way Flyer might have been still remains. Huggums537 (talk) 15:26, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Arbcom isn't going to be attempting to find Koyla violating the ban. I feel confident saying Arbcom would look unfavorably on anyone who made it their mission to investigate Koyla in an attempt to find a topic ban violation. And in many countries someone opening Koylas mail would be a crime so I don't think we need to worry about that. Arbcom didn't launch some personal investigation into Koyla before making the block in the first place - which I belive was a criticism you made at the time of the block. And all of that supposes there will be a violation. I sincerely belive there won't be which is why I supported the appeal and am excited to have Koyla back in the community. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:35, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Okay, then. I have said more than my share. If nobody else has anything to add to the discussion, then there is nothing left to do except welcome Kolya back to the community as you have suggested. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 15:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
P.S. I hail from the U.S. where it is legal to read mail after it has been discarded since it is then considered abandoned property. Cops can search without a warrant depending on the location of the garbage meaning that if it was in a secured location there was some expectation of privacy, but if it was out in the street, then any citizen would have access to it. Huggums537 (talk) 16:08, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
P.S.S. I understand that none of the worries I mentioned here are a very likely probability of happening, but the very possibility that they do exist in this case, but were not allowed to exist in the Flyer case is what bothers me. It seems rather unjust to this user to give Flyer that kind of benefit to privacy and deprive them of it. Huggums537 (talk) 17:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
OK, I get it, but don't want to get involved in that meta-discussion. I was mistreated on a user talk page by non-arbs because I raised credible evidence in the right place, and that was my personal issue. I don't necessarily think the arbs made the wrong decision wrt my evidence, which speaks quite well for itself three years after the fact, so my own issue is resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Understood. Huggums537 (talk) 15:32, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Temporary checkuser privileges for election scrutineers

Original announcement

I know, very pedantic, but I think it's Mykola7 not just Mykola. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed, thanks. Primefac (talk) 07:50, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
@Primefac: The error is still up at the AN post. – dudhhr talkcontribssheher 18:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
You are welcome to fix it there. These notices go to a half-dozen places, and honestly I do not remember them all. The link itself is correct, just the piped name is missing the 7. Primefac (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Ok, I just didn't want to mess with arb notices without asking first. Thanks :) – dudhhr talkcontribssheher 19:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Unused Contentious Topics

Original announcement

Should remedies 2 and 3 in E-cigs be marked as repealed too, or do they in some way remain in force? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 05:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

If we did not explicitly remove them, then they remain in force in some way. :) I think remedy 3 does not need repealing as it is just a reminder, but I don't see harm in removal either. I think remedy 2 probably does need removal. @Guerillero Izno (talk) 16:23, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
2 should probably be removed and 3 could maybe be amended to remove the DS language. — Frostly (talk) 05:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
I will whip up a motion -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 09:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Hey Guerillero, any updates? :) — Frostly (talk) 03:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Most of my time has been following Industrial agriculture and working on the draft PD -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Re WP:ARBMED, at last, and thank you; time reveals what many knew three years ago. It was always wacky that an entire content area (drug pricing) was labeled because of the agenda of two people, and it is no surprise that the issue never recurred. I do hope this example will be kept in mind in future arbcases, as it is unfortunately all too typical for just one editor to make an entire topic area unbearable for the majority of policy-compliant editors and cause the impression of a topic-wide problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Should the line items for the removed CTOPs be removed or struck out at Template:Contentious topics/alert/first and Template:Alert? Schazjmd (talk) 13:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I've done these tables now. Category:Pages using an unknown contentious topics code now has pages filtering into it that will need further adjustment (either removal or replacement with a correct code). Izno (talk) 17:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Wasn't the idea (a while back) to make "legacy" codes that could be used in cases like this? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 15:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
What's the idea with legacy codes? Please feel free to write a sandbox implementation and we can get those in. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 15:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I remember y'all signed off on it at ARCA like a year ago, I just haven't gotten around to writing something up. I'll try to soon but am spread fairly thin at the moment. If someone else is interested, I sketched out how it would work at Template talk:Ds/Archive 3 § Finally handling "legacy topic areas". -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 15:51, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Not sure how to deal with Template:Liancourt Rocks probation (currently on Talk:Liancourt Rocks and Talk:Liancourt Rocks dispute, which both need the DS/talk notice removed), which is framed as suggestion but then has "must dos" in it that seem extraordinary relative to normal behavioral guidelines. From a glance through the CTLOG these are not logged page restrictions, so I think it is reasonable to remove this template from those pages (and/or TFD it since it appears to be used in an edit notice). Anyone disagree? Izno (talk) 17:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Go for it, I say. In any event page restrictions can be removed by uninvolved administrators after one year unless they were imposed by AE consensus. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
If I understand the history correctly, the guidelines discussed at Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 17 § New Rule of Conduct box were added to the article shortly after the arbitration committee enacted Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks § Liancourt Rocks article probation. In 2015 this was standardized to an authorization for discretionary sanctions, but it seems logging the legacy restrictions got missed. In any case, if the contentious topic designation has been removed, then it is reasonable to remove any special restrictions that were preserved from article probation under the scope of contentious topics. isaacl (talk) 19:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Proposed motion to modify the extended confirmed restriction provisions

Original announcement

I'd like to suggest adding the word "only": 1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests.... (Bolded to show what I mean, not to imply that it should be bolded in the actual text.) If I understand correctly, the intent of the motion is to eliminate confusion over whether non-EC users can do anything else on talk pages, and "only" makes that intention clearer (as opposed to saying that making edit requests is one of the things they can do). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Excellent idea. Doug Weller talk 09:37, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Makes sense. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
This motion passed, and the change was enacted. One aspect of the motion was that "edit requests" was linked to WP:EDITXY. Can this link, approved by motion, please be added to WP:ARBECR? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:04, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 Done Barkeep49 (talk) 20:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Call for Checkusers and Oversighters

Original announcement
Good idea! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 22:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
+1 Clyde [trout needed] 23:07, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Is this related to the lack of candidates in this year's election? Galobtter (talk) 02:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 Highly likely - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 03:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Good change that benefits Wikipedia. I see no reason to limit qualified candidates from applying for the perms at any given time. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Seems like an OK starting point, would much rather just devolve CUOS from arbcom to the community (change from appointments to !elections) - there are drawbacks to that as well though (see 2019 VPI thread on the topic). — xaosflux Talk 14:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for that link because I'm pleased to see that I had concerns about this idea even before I became an admin (let alone arb). Barkeep49 (talk) 15:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Yep, not trying to bury the lede that it would be far from a trivial change. Some other large community managed CU's include dewiki, ptwiki, and eswiki. — xaosflux Talk 15:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't know about ptwiki, but I do know that dewiki's and eswiki's culture around admin appointments is healthier than ours. Having seen how the last CUOS appointment that really put the emphasis on the community played out (2018) I don't consider the benefits of outweighing the drawbacks. And I'm genuinely thankful and relieved to know that I had these concerns before becoming a person making those decisions as it tells me that I've come to those concerns honestly rather than because I trust myself (and my colleagues). Barkeep49 (talk) 15:52, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Just for a bit of wiki-history: I was a candidate the last time we did CUOS by election, 2010 if I recall. I feel like there were around eleven applicants. Not one person got elected, at a time when we actually needed new functionaries, and we got literally zero feedback as to why none of the candidates were elcted. That's when the committee developed the process we have been using since then. And I do think it makes sense for the committee to oversee the functionaries, for the simple reason that they can see what the functs are doing, whereas the broader community, by design, cannot. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Beeblebrox, wasn't CUOS2018 a community process too? A few were elected there. ——Serial 15:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Those weren't elections; like every CUOS round in many years, community consultation was advisory. See WP:CUOS (The May 2010 elections were conducted using SecurePoll instead of public voting. Only one candidate was successful, which was deemed insufficient given the demand. Following a request for comment, the committee announced that until there was a strong consensus for an alternative approach, the committee would resume making the final selection after seeking input from the community concerning potential candidates.). The Committee's role in making "the final selection" has remained the same since its 2010 announcement. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 15:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. Incredible! A total opposefest! I guess its testament to allowing admins to be judged by those they might have sanctioned previously. Pretty much an object lesson in what happen at reconfirmation RfAs, too. ——Serial 15:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm glad to see this dropping out of annual cycle, regardless of the current process it's in. -- Amanda (she/her) 03:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Alalch E.'s topic ban rescinded

Original announcement

Opabinia regalis resignation

Original announcement
Thank you for your service. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 07:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your service! Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Noting, this has no impact on WP:ACE2023. Best wishes with your next efforts OR. — xaosflux Talk 16:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your service. #prodraxis connect 17:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your service. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 04:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding the extended confirmed restriction

Original announcement

When the committee says Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required does that mean speedy deletion by a single admin? Or is the discretion of an administrator when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations limited to keeping or nominating for deletion or moving to Draft space? nableezy - 18:56, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

This motion didn't change that provision. However, as for the original provision, it's speedy deletion under WP:G5. The remedy is an equivalent to a topic ban for all non-EC editors from the topic. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:57, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Does anything at WP:PIA need updating? –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Good question; I think Special:Diff/1133756797 removed a need for updates there. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
I see ((ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement)) has been updated; ((Contentious topics/Arab-Israeli talk notice)) has not. (Do we really need both? And same question for ((ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice))/((Contentious topics/Arab-Israeli editnotice))?) —Cryptic 22:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

The change in ECP restrictions at [17] has been discussed here:[18] I've had problems understanding it and having just run across this AE case see that I'm not the only one. User:Selfstudier, User:Zero0000, User:El C any comments or have I misunderstood you? Doug Weller talk 14:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

The only thing they can do is make edit requests. There is no longer any discussion option. FWIW the old version prohibited participation in RFCs also. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
No, Barkeep49, that is not responsive to the criticism about how the wording is unclear. El_C 15:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
You're right it's not responsive to the criticism because I didn't understand it as criticism I understood it as confusion which I attempted to clarify. Let me make some comments and see if any/all of these answer the criticism. I think reading only that sentence in isolation is at the heart of this confusion. The key sentence in this part is not this talk page one but The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed, with the following exceptions:. So that is an absolute prohibition. Everything that follows starts from non EC can edit nothing. Beyond that the confusion seems to be over the word only. That was added after voting had started based on an editor suggestion in order to clarify things. I didn't throw up a roadblock to that change but also didn't think it needed so if that's the word that's the problem I'm the wrong person to ask. I hope somewhere in here I answered the criticism that you wanted a response to. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
The confusion can be eliminated by taking out the word "only." Then it will read:
A. The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed, with the following exceptions:
1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Which is clear, whether you read (A) and (1) together, or just read (1) in isolation. Levivich (talk) 17:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No, not really. I also don't think it would be productive to get bogged down in the semantics of criticism of confusion due to unclear wording. The issue is about potential edit requests via the talk pages of AfDs, DRVs, etc., onto those project pages themselves. I think it's best to make it expressly clear: that non-EC users are only allowed to file edit requests to pertinent articles (content templates?) in contradistinction to internal project pages and processes. Hope this clarifies mine and others' confusion/criticism/lack of clarity. El_C 17:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Since KevinL offered to consider tweaks at his talk, I suggested something there. Selfstudier (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
I would write it like this:

A. The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed, with the following exceptions:

1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace to make article edit requests, provided they are not disruptive.
Levivich (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
👍 Like. El_C 17:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
I would go with "provided they are constructive" rather than "not disruptive". Also I opened a discussion that relates to this over at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 76#Welcome message for new editors editing ARBPIA topics that I would appreciate feedback on. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
"Constructive" would be holding non-EC editors to a higher standard than EC editors. There's a lot of space between constructive and non-disruptive. WP:DISRUPT is a guideline but "constructive" is in the eye of the beholder. Levivich (talk) 17:57, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
To shorten it further, Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace to make non-disruptive article edit requests. Levivich (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't think the real confusion at AE was over the word "only", for which the reasoning was given in the talk section right above this one. Rather, I think the confusion is over whether edit requests are permitted throughout the "Talk:" namespace, or whether they are permitted only on the talk pages of EC-protected mainspace articles. And I kinda think the answer to that is up to ArbCom.
The IP who opened the AE did indeed have confusion over "only", but if one looks at what the IP said, the contention was that "in the "Talk:" namespace, nothing other than an edit request may be made or edit requests may not be made anywhere else than in the "Talk:" namespace" are contradictions. As long as there is clarity over what is meant by the "Talk:" namespace, it's clear that the first interpretation is the correct (intended) one, while the second is actually a true statement that does not contradict anything (that I can see). Instead, it's just kind of irrelevant, and maybe wikilawyering that other talk page contributions are permitted, so long as edit requests aren't put in the wrong place.
I think that this can be cleared up by saying:
A. The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed, with the following exceptions:
1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the talk pages of articles within the topic area, but only to make non-disruptive edit requests.
--Tryptofish (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I have problems with the use of WP:EDITXY as the indicator of what "making an edit-request" means.
(a) The paragraph at WP:Edit requests that introduces EDITXY says to establish consensus before adding an edit-request template. This is now impossible, as discussion is forbidden, so actually non-EC editors cannot follow WP:Edit requests as it is written.
(b) EDITXY requires that editors not only see a problem but also know exactly how to fix it. However, new editors often don't know how to fix problems that they see, and if they are total newbies they might not know the first thing about editing policy and practice. So, for example, "Ref [12] does not contain the information sourced to it." or "The link in ref [12] is dead." are comments we should welcome from anyone but they don't match EDITXY and so now seem to be forbidden. (Editors who use the edit-request template to make such comments commonly get a templated response "Not done. Make your request in a 'change X to Y' format.")
(c) If someone making an edit-request is asked to justify it, are they forbidden from replying?
Much of this comment can be seen as a complaint against EDITXY, which has annoyed me for a long time. I propose first that the link to EDITXY be removed, and second that a revised wording to make the rule self-contained be constructed. As a 0-th attempt: "Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace to point out explicit problems in an article and suggest ways to fix them." Zerotalk 03:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

This is actually the main problem with the new wording, which I forgot about yesterday. But I remember thinking about it a week ago when I first seen the motion (seen it, mind you, briefly and in passing). Namely, what do you with WP:ER follow ups. What limits should be set for these, and how does it not become merely a normal discussion? Because indeed, sometimes solutions and resolutions only materialize after several iterations of dialogue within a single edit request. So how many edit requests does a non-EC user get per talk page, per subject matter inquiry, and how many follow ups? I realize a lot of it falls on admin discretion and a broad sense of reasonableness, but the absence of clear guidelines could make this model quite problematic. I get the wish to impose greater limits on non-EC participation, which I'm not inherently opposed to, but applying it in practice may prove to be a whole other animal (in a whole other galaxy). El_C 08:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Is there any template we can use to inform editors of the current restrictions on them participating in discussions? I don't mean a generic contentious topics one, rather I'm wondering if there's a template I could have used to inform these IP editors [19] why I deleted their posting. (As I understand it, it was reasonable for me to delete their comments since they weren't allowed to post them and no one had commented who could.) Nil Einne (talk) 07:17, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
I threw together ((welcome-arbpia)). ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
SFR, I'd suggest changing the template background color to something like Template:Contentious topics/alert/first. The current lime green color makes it look like a warning instead of an introduction. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
I thought green was a non-threatening color, and it won't disappear if the alert/first template is given at the same time. The hope is that the plain language explanation of the most important thing will stand out. I opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 76#Welcome message for new editors editing ARBPIA topics. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I know its too late for a reconsideration, but thinking about it I think you all are creating an Emergency law in Egypt situation, where one event (Sadat's assassination) led to an indefinite "state of emergency" that banned what would have already been limited rights. Right now, this second, we have a sub-topic of an already contentious topic that has reached this fever pitch, and we have an influx of users, new or returning but it doesnt matter, drawn to WP because of a real world event. And I agree the level of disruption does indeed warrant emergency actions, but for the scope and duration of the emergency. Think you would all be much better off making this apply only to articles related to the 2023 Israel-Hamas war, and for a limited duration of time. Do we really need to ban any non-ec participation outside of edit-requests to the wider topic area indefinitely? That strikes me as an overreaction to a problem that is limited in scope, and, likely, also limited in time. And for that emergency just simplify it and say no non-EC participation period for these articles/talk pages for war+n months. nableezy - 00:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

KevinL has a suggested rewrite Selfstudier (talk) 11:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

LGTM. If this doesn't work, maybe try "a whistle." Levivich (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
If you and others would also comment at KevinL talk, we can try and put this to bed. Selfstudier (talk) 14:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Appeal from Ethan2345678

Original announcement

How does an Arbcom appeal of a globally locked user work? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus great question. We consult with the Stewards about whether an unlock is possible if we wanted to grant an unblock. They either tell us it is (in which case we consider the appeal) or it isn't (in which case we don't). Barkeep49 (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Is ArbCom able to share the contents of Ethan's appeal, or at least a summary of it? If I were looking at this in CAT:UNBLOCK, I'd mostly care about their understanding of what went wrong before, and what they plan to edit going forward. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 16:07, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Deepfriedokra. I wasn't sure how all that worked. --ARoseWolf 12:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Patient Zero, I think this is an excellent idea and I was going to suggest mentoring. I don't mind lending you a hand if it gives a committed editor another opportunity. I don't view it a waste of time for the community to work together to assist an editor that has potential and a willingness to do what right. Just need to see that they are committed to it. --ARoseWolf 12:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Deepfriedokra and Barkeep49 - any update? Patient Zerotalk 01:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
AFAIK, ArbCom has not given us further info . . . . . -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
It's stuck waiting to hear back from Ethan. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
@Barkeep49 wait what? The question we're asking is if this is or isn't a checkuser block, how would anything the blocked party says impact the current state of the block? — xaosflux Talk 02:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
That's not what I was asking.😛 AFAIK, not a CU block. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
I didn't mean to put words in your mouth there DFO, this was more along what Extraordinary Writ was also asking - why is this situation being handled by our final dispute resolution body? Has the ability for the community to deal with this unblock appeal been exhausted? — xaosflux Talk 02:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Xaosflux, I left out important information. What limited discussion there has not brought evidence that this was a CU block. The question was asked to Ethan about posting his appeal on wiki either for feedback (if it turns out to be CU) or for community handling (if it wasn't). Barkeep49 (talk) 02:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
I will try to take some time tomorrow to dig up/explain the history behind this account appealing. Izno (talk) 07:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
I went back and actually read through UTRS appeal #55809. User had had a sock, definitelyduke255 (talk · contribs) that was/is/'ere shall be checkuser blocked. I'd been instructed, it seems, to ask them to email ArbCom for that. Just to be sure. At the time, I was hoping to clear a path to an unblock. So Xasoflux was right that there was a potential CU issue. (sigh) Anyway, unless something hideous arises, endorse unblock. Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Definitelyduke255 is not checkuser-blocked: it's just a regular sockpuppetry block. That's the reason several of us were confused here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Well, that's just spiffy.😢 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

History dig up and who's responsible

(This is one of the couple long poles we get each year for appeals, and in this case is probably why we don't have a statement from Ethan about whether we can provide you either what we got or could get for a community review.)

I think at least from the March 2022 appeal it's safe to say we had scope to review here. I know internally I've suggested that CUs when making comments based on CU results at unblock reviews that they upgrade the block to indicate clearly who is responsible for at least some portion of future appeals. Such practice would have prevented any line of this questioning about who should have this specific one. (I suspect it would be more work for what I think is like 3 CUs who actually review appeals here and UTRS, but maybe hitting the TW CU block button isn't that hard. YMMV)

I have tried to make sure we keep to our line about whether a block is a CU block or not since becoming the present coordinator of appeals in mid 2022 (post Juneish). I think most of the other members do as well, but sometimes an appellant slips through the cracks or it isn't otherwise clear. Locks in general make appeals hard since users have two options for appealing our blocks, either UTRS or ArbCom, and they don't always get the UTRS choice. Izno (talk) 23:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

UTRS did not do stewards then. It does now. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't see why the locked account is an issue if there's already a process in place between ArbCom and the stewards. Seems like this is a straightforward case of the community deciding whether to unblock, and then the stewards will do their thing. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
quo vadimis? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Functionary candidates: December 2023 community consultation open

Original announcement
More