Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

Behaviour on this page: This page is for discussing announcements relating to the Arbitration Committee. Editors commenting here are required to act with appropriate decorum. While grievances, complaints, or criticism of arbitration decisions are frequently posted here, you are expected to present them without being rude or hostile. Comments that are uncivil may be removed without warning. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Does anything at WP:PIA need updating? –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good question; I think Special:Diff/1133756797 removed a need for updates there. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The change in ECP restrictions at [1] has been discussed here:[2] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

No, Barkeep49, that is not responsive to the criticism about how the wording is unclear. El_C 15:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

Since KevinL offered to consider tweaks at his talk, I suggested something there. Selfstudier (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Like. El_C 17:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)#Welcome message for new editors editing ARBPIA topics that I would appreciate feedback on. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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." Zero^talk 03:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [3] 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)[reply]

I threw together {{welcome-arbpia}}. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)#Welcome message for new editors editing ARBPIA topics. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

LGTM. If this doesn't work, maybe try "a whistle." Levivich (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Original announcement

Good idea! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 22:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Clyde _{[trout needed]} 23:07, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is this related to the lack of candidates in this year's election? Galobtter (talk) 02:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Highly likely - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 03:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Beeblebrox, wasn't CUOS2018 a community process too? A few were elected there. ——Serial 15:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Original announcement

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

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• To clarify, are you requesting input from the community on an appeal that we don't have access to and which, due to the global lock, may not be possible to proceed with if granted? Also, as a question of process, was it the consensus of Arbs that this was the best way to move forward with this specific appeal?-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This has proven to be a difficult appeal for any number of reasons and so yes coming to the community for feedback was seen as a way of helping ArbCom reach a decision about what to do; speaking only for myself I'm inclined to accept the appeal but felt uneasy about doing it without community feedback given what happened with this user and because of the lock a straight "remove the CU element of this block" wasn't an option. It was absolutely a mistake to not get something substantive to post here and we're working behind the scenes to correct that now. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:39, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Barkeep49 where is the "CU element" of this block? While there appears to be socking for evasion, it seems to be simple socking and seems to have been admitted to (c.f. User_talk:Definitelyduke255). I don't see any of the blocks on either of these accounts listed as CU blocks, or ArbCom blocks. Is the committee escalating one or both of these blocks to checkuser or committee blocks - preventing this from following the standard unblock appeal process? — xaosflux ^Talk 13:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Want to acknowledge I've seen this and will be coming back to you with an answer after talking with my colleagues. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  With my steward hat on, I can say that unblocking is certainly possible while locked - however the user still won't be able to log on and contribute. Ultimately the unlock decision will be handled by stewards, but yes arbcom does ask if it is possible so as not to waste time (generally locks are for reasons in excess of a local block). Being unblocked by a project that a locked user has a significant connection to is generally viewed as favorable during unlock decisions. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I think Tamzin and Ponyo's points are valid. How can the community to give feedback on a appeal we have little to no information about and no summary of? My first inclination is the Ethan had issues with understanding English, something I understand completely as English isn't my first language. It seemed there may have a general lack of knowledge in the area of vandalism patrolling which is also understandable even with the filters and tools patrollers have at the disposal. In their overexuberance to remove vandalism they made mistakes, repeated mistakes. This led to them being blocked. Were they globally locked as the result of the alleged Sockpuppeting? --ARoseWolf 17:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @ARoseWolf: I believe the global lock came about when they were blocked on three Wikipedias. The one on THAIWKI expired after the lock. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:41, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Deepfriedokra. I wasn't sure how all that worked. --ARoseWolf 12:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm curious how this ended up on ArbCom's plate. The global lock is an issue for the stewards, and the underlying blocks (both Ethan2345678's and Definitelyduke255's) seem to be non-CU actions that the community would typically be able to review on its own. Is there some non-public reason that this needs to go through the Committee? (If so, I'm happy to take your word for it, of course.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• FWIW, user has UTRS access. Back in May, 2022 I proposed some unblock conditions. User was emailing ArbCom. (If memory serves, it was his idea.) UTRS appeal #55809 is available to admins for context. Thanks, -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Patient Zero: was willing at that time to mentor. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Still happy to mentor if Ethan is unblocked - thank you for reminding me of the matter, Deepfriedokra. Could someone please email me what Ethan has said in his appeal, just so that I can gain an understanding of whether he has committed to change the editing patterns and disruption that led to his block, and so that I know, in theory, what we will need to work on? Thank you in advance, but no worries if this isn’t possible due to confidentiality. Patient Zero^talk 00:39, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• As the original blocking admin, I'll say that the block was not for any kind of nefarious behavior, but for an impressive lack of competence. I'd say ArbCom is probably capable of judging whether the user's competence and maturity have improved 2+ years later, just based on interacting with them. I can imagine that the competence may have been age-related, so 2+ years is a long time. If yes, it seems like unblocking would be fine, especially with a mentor and/or with conditions. If no, then please don't subject other editors to having to clean up their mess. But I will note that this doesn't seem like a high-stakes unblock; if it turns out to be a mistake, it's easy to reblock for 2 more years or something. It wasn't borderline harassment or a controversial block or bad faith or anything, just exuberance combined with cluelessness and immunity to feedback. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Assuming this is really a "normal" block (see above) - seems like a possible WP:ROPE candidate - if we had some sort of statement from the user. Do they acknowledge their disruption? How do they plan to act differently now? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deepfriedokra and Barkeep49 - any update? Patient Zero^talk 01:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, ArbCom has not given us further info . . . . . -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's stuck waiting to hear back from Ethan. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

That's not what I was asking.😛 AFAIK, not a CU block. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Well, that's just spiffy.😢 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• July 2021: Floq blocks for non-sock reasons. User makes both a talk page and later a UTRS appeal. Both declined for non-sock reasons.
• August 2021: Bbb23 blocks Definitelyduke255 account. That account appeals multiple times onwiki and a separate UTRS appeal. Multiple declines, the first of which is from Jpgordon (a then and current CU) who notes a recently created new account by the user. I don't see what caused Bbb23 to issue the block (some sock hunters are magical and just come up with a master name, some contact a CU beforehand offwiki, etc. etc.). Bbb23 points out here that Ethan2345678 is locked for crosswiki abuse. This account admits to being a sock.
• October 2021: User made an ArbCom appeal. It was noted they were locked and had admitted to the sock in August. That ArbCom declined under net 4 procedure, and appears to have treated the case as routine.
• March 2022: User makes a UTRS appeal. DFO posts the set of unblock conditions. A CU indicates data is stale. UTRS expires. DFO refers the case to us based on 'offwiki' comms with an ArbCom member. ArbCom gets an appeal at this time.
• May 2022: User makes another UTRS appeal. Admin tells them to make it onwiki. Clearly an incorrect result given their lock. (Does UTRS surface locks to reviewers?)
• June 2022: Appeal with us is still open. It gets bumped internally because stewards have an appeal email to them for the lock. We declined that month (under net 4 procedure) with varying reasons, also mostly unrelated to socking. Can't speak to the lock appeal (because we don't have the final result).
• July 2023: Another ArbCom appeal. Using a then-new-fangled process we devised with the stewards about block+lock cases, we check for unlock-worthiness with them. We get told it's a go, provided we come to a consensus to unblock.
• August 2023: We get to an outcome of downgrade so that the community can review for goodness. We try to resolve what this means in the context of that new-fangled process since that wasn't accounted for in the original discussions.
• October 2023: We reach out to stewards about the implications of downgrade. Stewards say "no, you need to do either a block or unblock consensus". We consider our potential options (there are a few: 1) actually come to consensus, 2) directly proxy an appeal onwiki, 2a) solicit advice from the community without doing the back and forth, and 3) totally punt to the stewards to sort out the lock directly with them and then return to figuring it out ourselves).
• November 2023: This notice gets posted.

(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)[reply]

UTRS did not do stewards then. It does now. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Original announcement

Thank you for your service. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 07:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your service! Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noting, this has no impact on WP:ACE2023. Best wishes with your next efforts OR. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your service. #prodraxis ^connect 17:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your service. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 04:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Original announcement

Original announcement

• Given that his term ends in December anyway (unless I'm mistaken), why is he suspended for six months, as opposed to removed? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Two reasons. The first, and immediately practical, is that this provides a timeline for which he can ask for restoration of his CUOS and/or mailing list access. The second is because we're setting a precedent here if any future committee finds itself needing to discuss removal or suspension (and I hope none do) they can weigh it against the evidence here in deciding an appropriate action. Barkeep49 (talk) 05:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for being willing to take these steps when necessary. DMacks (talk) 05:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Has an arbitrator ever been successfully removed before? (I know it's been tried before.) Galobtter (talk) 05:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, Iridescent was removed due to inactivity in 2011. I'm not aware of any previous times in which an arb was removed for cause, though. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Does this count? Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• If he's no longer an arbitrator, then he isn't suspended. He's been removed from the position. GoodDay (talk) 06:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There is a significant distinction between suspension and removal, both of which are allowed for in WP:ARBCOND: suspension removes from the arbitrator their roles and responsibilities temporarily, removal removes them permanently. Izno (talk) 06:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, Beeblebrox is still an arbitrator (just doesn't have the duties), thanks for the clarification. GoodDay (talk) 06:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry guys, I don't think you made the right decision here. I can piece together recent events, and well aware of the long history, and I think it looks like you have been taken advantage of by a troll and Beeblebrox has come out the victim. Look back at the history - how many times has it been all related to this one individual. Pushing buttons, changing their mind, manipulating the facts. I know where I got caught out, and I know I'm glad I'm not on the committee at the moment. Worm^TT(talk) 06:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If this is about what I think it is I have to agree with Worm here. — SamX [talk · contribs] 07:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC) Upon further reflection, I don't know enough about this to have an informed opinion. I wish I hadn't even commented here in the first place. — SamX [talk · contribs] 07:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Even if Beeblebrox disclosures had been problematic, I don't see the need for such a public rebuke when this could have been handled with tact in private. BB only has a month on their term and said they are not going to run again. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The private tact had been tried in 2021 with the private warning and we only knew Beeblebrox was not planning to run this year. Given the multituple disclosures this year, one of which for me was the most severe disclosure breach of the multiple documented disclosures, it was my opinion that doing nothing or repeating the private warning was not a reasonable response to the conduct. Barkeep49 (talk) 08:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm curious if the length of time he had remaining impacted your choice to pick suspension over removal. Had this occurred with, say, 10 months to go, would you have done the same? It feels odd to see you say that he made breaches that were "severe in nature and willful in its execution" but to pick an option that would, in other circumstances, let him come right back to the committee to finish out his term. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Speaking only for myself I was always against removal here and so yes I believe I'd have done the same 10 months ago. I was against removal in part because of the spread of time involved, in part because of the severity I attached to the disclosures, and in part for factors I'm going to try and avoid saying for essentially BEANS purposes. Barkeep49 (talk) 09:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I wavered between the options, but the factors Barkeep mentions here are what ultimately persuaded me towards suspension over removal. I think those considerations still apply if there were more time left in the term, but I agree that coming back after that would be odd at best. Ultimately I was fine punting on the question of reinstatement; let the committee that actually needs to deal with that problem come to the solution. — Wug·a·po·des 10:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @PMC. The wording is such that even if Beebs had another year to serve, they could only regain access by appeal to the Committee or the community. They couldn't have automatically returned to the Committee; however, an appeal that showed understanding of the issues and a reassurance that it wouldn't happen again, could have seen them return. And that seems fair to me. SilkTork (talk) 12:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  To be clear from the outset, I'm not grilling you guys on this because I'm incensed about Beebs in particular. I'm looking at the underlying logic because Barkeep has said this is intended to set a precedent, and the logic feels off to me.

  The wording is such that even if Beebs had another year to serve, they could only regain access by appeal to the Committee or the community. That's not how I read it, and based on Barkeep's comment, I'm not sure that's how he's reading it either (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). The sentence about requesting reinstatement follows the sentence about CU/OS and mailing list being revoked and refers back to those things specifically: "During this period, Beeblebrox's CheckUser and Oversight permissions and his access to applicable mailing lists (including the functionaries' mailing list) are revoked. Following this period, Beeblebrox may request reinstatement of his permissions or mailing list access by applying to the Arbitration Committee." There's nothing there about his actual seat on the committee.

  As I'm reading things, after the six month suspension, my theoretical Beebs-with-10-months-left (call him Theeblebrox) would be back on the Committee with four months left - but without CU/OS and mailing list access. That's wonky, isn't it? What if Theeblebrox didn't bother appealing? Would he serve the remaining time as a lame duck arbitrator who can comment onwiki but not discuss things with the rest of you privately, or would you then initiate removal procedures? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The way I see it is that Theeblebrox remains suspended from permissions (such as access to on-Wiki ArbCom only pages, so unable to vote on cases or motions) until such time as those permissions are returned. Like a police officer suspended from duty. Still a police officer, but without the permission to arrest someone or ask them to move along. The downside to the situation (which I don't recall us discussing) is that Theeblebrox would be occupying a seat that could otherwise be filled with an active Arb. SilkTork (talk) 13:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think it says that at all. It says CU/OS permissions, and his access to mailing lists. It says nothing about "permissions" to edit arb pages onwiki. That should be clarified one way or another. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The way I see things Theeblebrox would have gotten CUOS and list access back at the end of the suspension as he returned to full status. In this case because it goes through the end of the term different wording was used. In reality this conversation means in some future where an arb gets suspended and returns that committee will have to make this call about the details (thieven if a bunch of other arbs show up to clarify their thinking one way or another). Barkeep49 (talk) 14:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Worm That Turned there were two disclosures this year which had not been discussed while you were on the committee. One of them was something which I personally don't think would have raised as many, or even any, eyebrows if it had occurred on wiki and is about the person I believe you're referencing. Not every arb agrees with us on that and perhaps one will say more about why they think differently. The other disclosure this year was for me the most severe in nature and willful in its execution of any of the disclosures. So even if one were to give zero weight to any disclosures about the person I believe you're referring to there were still multiple other instances of complaints about disclosures going back to 2019 and a pattern of concerns expressed to the committee for which no other arb comes close to matching during my 3 years on the committee. I think it significant that 10 out of 11 Arbs voted for this with the remaining arb abstaining (compared to being opposed). Barkeep49 (talk) 08:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Barkeep49 I respect you guys a lot, and with the full information, I may have made the same decision. I don't envy you all there at all - and the decision has been made, unanimously, and that speaks volumes. Worm^TT(talk) 08:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Emotionally rocked, so Ima be a jerk and say, "why the Hell does anyone need to talk about Wikipedia business off-Wiki, especially ArbCom 'private correspondence' business." (sigh) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Exactly. Ymblanter (talk) 09:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Worm. For a long while my vote was for a public warning rather than suspension. I felt that jumping from a private warning to a suspension without going via a public warning, for what I felt was a minor and possibly dubious infraction, was too big a leap. I was wavering when the number of instances, which involved more than just the person you are likely thinking of, was being made clear, and finally changed my mind yesterday after putting everything together, including Beeb's own comments to the Committee. SilkTork (talk) 10:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, he can't say nobody warned him... – Joe (talk) 10:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: As with Opabinia regalis, this will have no impact on WP:ACE2023 as the slot was already scheduled for replacement. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I was in favor of removal, but supported both a removal and suspension equally in the final vote for ease of counting votes and the lack of a meaningful difference at this point in the year. In our discussion before the vote, the rough nose count made it obvious that a removal couldn't command a large enough majority. --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 13:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I suppose the edge case would be that the suspension could be reversed by the committee, whereas expulsion could not be. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you explain to me why this remark, which reveals something we did not know that happened on the mailing list, is ok?I'm not being sarcastic, I didn't know this, and you just let it out like it was no bog deal. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 08:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't boo. nableezy - 16:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Of course I knew this was under discussion and did attempt to reply to the concerns raised, but I don't recall anyone mentioning this bizzare idea of suspending me for six months when my term is up in one month anyway. I can't say that makes a whole lot of sense.

Obviously, I think the committee made the wrong decision here. I'll cop to letting a small detail about something out on an external website. And when other committee members raised concerns about it, I asked for the post to be removed, and it was. And then I was told there was a "totality of evidence" of my wrongdoing that I needed to respond to, which I feel I did, just yesterday. I guess my replies didn't cut it. And you know what's funny, what I've just said, right here, contains the same level of detail about "priveledged communications" as the off-site post that led to this vote. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Beeblebrox has done more to hold problematic administrators to account than perhaps any other member of ArbCom past and present, and the fact that this "suspension" comes on the heels of him bringing an arbitration case that ended up with one problematic administrator unmasking themselves as a previously problematic (and banned) administrator raises a lot of questions. Beeblebrox has made no secret of his desire to be transparent, and I have appreciated his willingness to explain baffling or opaque Wikipedia goings-on to skeptical audiences. Of course transparency can be taken too far, and I'm sure the committee has information that we the public don't have about this, but I can say that a lot of the "how dare he speak to the bad people at the bad websites" hand-wringing from some of the committee members over the past few years over perfectly reasonable comments he's made offsite deepens my concern about this decision. As does the timing; he's now been precluded from making his case to the community in the ArbCom election (should he wish to) since the suspension was issued less than a week after the self-nominating deadline has passed. 28bytes (talk) 18:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Regarding the timing, the Committee notified Beeblebrox that a removal vote was on the table before the close of self-nominations in the ongoing ArbCom elections. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, Kevin, I’m glad to learn that that is the case. 28bytes (talk) 18:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  An easy solution would be to abolish the Arbitration Committee. The overwhelming majority of wikis, north of 99%, get along fine without one. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  +1, at least sometimes. Vox populi, vox dei ——Serial 19:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  28bytes, if you have "a lot of questions" you'd like answered, you can ask me in private or in public, and I'll do my best to answer them. SilkTork (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I appreciate that, SilkTork. My main question is, is this a case where the committee received complaints from multiple good-faith users saying that Beeblebrox had shared correspondence that they thought was confidential, or is this mainly a case of him speaking frankly about one particular banned ex-administrator? 28bytes (talk) 20:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Not SilkTork, but the committee had over the years received multiple complaints from editors saying Beeblebrox had shared stuff they felt he shouldn't have. One of those complaints I think is baseless and one of them is the most recent one which I've noted my reservations about multiple times on this page already. But even if one were to exclude those complaints, as I do, there remain multiple complaints about multiple different people over the years. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for the clarification. 28bytes (talk) 20:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Reading between the lines of what may be your question here, let me address something specifically: no banned ex-administrators reached out to us to request this action or trigger this process. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I should certainly hope not! That would take quite the, um, nerve. But thank you for the clarification nonetheless. (And at the risk of sounding cynical, “no banned ex-administrators reached out us, as far as we know” might be a safer bet, all things considered. Lord knows this place is full of surprises.) 28bytes (talk) 20:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Transparency and explaining ArbCom is important to me too. It's why I have so many replies in this thread. And yet there have never been private arbcom conversations about me having gone too far. There also haven't been any private conversations for the 4 non-Beeblebrox colleagues I've had over the past 3 years who've posted on "badsites" with regularity. So there is something different about what Beeblebrox did than others.

  A shared commitment to transparency (not to mention fairness) is also why Beeblebrox was told of all the evidence being considered against him in the first email which informed him that removal was on the table. Speaking only for myself it was important that he have a chance in full to respond. But also because of my belief that he'd course correct when presented with direct and honest feedback from his colleagues. At least for me too much of his time was spent defending this last incident - one which I've noted above is something I question if anyone would have been concerned had it happened in a thread on this page - rather than what I saw as a pattern and when he did address the pattern I didn't find his response convincing.

  It is my genuine hope that with some time to reflect, Beeblrbox will re-assess this, be able to articulate how he will maintain his transparency without crossing the lines that others don't seem to and put me in a position where I can vote for him; either by restoring CUOS and functionaries access or at ACE. Because our project can always use someone with Beeblebrox's many skills. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Barkeep49, I’m having trouble parsing the sentence that begins “At least for me…” I think you’re saying that a certain conversation (it’s not clear to me which one from the context) would have been fine to have on Wikipedia, but not elsewhere. Or am I misunderstanding? 28bytes (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Let me try putting it into multiple sentences and adding a few extra words. At least for me, too much of his time was spent defending this last incident. I've noted above [this last incident] is something I question if anyone would have been concerned had it happened in a thread on this page. Rather [I wish he had spent more time defending] what I saw as a pattern and when he did address the pattern I didn't find his response convincing. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, I think I have a clearer picture now. I could argue that presenting a spurious accusation (for lack of a better term) to someone kinda comes with the expectation that they’d vigorously defend themselves against it, but ultimately we’d be getting too far into the weeds on conversations I’m not privy to, so I’ll just leave it at that. 28bytes (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with all of what 28bytes said, and I echo Hemiauchenia that we should also consider the timing of this as it relates to Beeblebrox's term. The "6 month" suspension is largely moot because his term runs out in a month and he is not running again. ArbCom could have let Beeblebrox finish out his term, but consciously chose to make this public suspension instead. That indicates to me that the intention here was more about sending a message to the community than punishing Beeblebrox, and it's worth considering what kind of message is being sent. Pinguinn 🐧 00:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• One thing that I think is getting lost in the hubbub is the fact that Beeblebrox managed to do something problematic enough in 2021 that the rest of the Committee saw fit to issue what proved to be a final warning, and yet the Committee did not see fit to notify the community, even though it was an election year, wherein we were deciding whether to renew our trust in Beeblebrox as an arbitrator, checkuser, and oversighter. I've been making a point this ACE about ArbCom's overuse of private warnings and restrictions, and have been somewhat hamstrung by the fact that, well, because they're private I can't speak to how many there are, other than the ones that I've heard about through on-wiki disclosure or off-wiki scuttlebutt (off the top of my head, at least 5 that I've heard of). Could an arbitrator please clarify, exactly how often does ArbCom issue admins, functionaries, or arbitrators these private warnings or restrictions? (Construed broadly to include anything that could plausibly be a remedy in an ArbCom case.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 22:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  My memory isn't strong enough to just rattle off the answers off the top of my head. It would require real archival work for me to answer and with-in the limited freedom I have as an Arb I'm not going to volunteer to do it. But I really hope some other arb answers the question because I think it would be a helpful piece of transparency for the community. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If we're talking about private conduct warnings issued by motion of the committee, the only other one I can think of off the top of my head is Bbb23. It had a similar result.

  Frankly, I think the 2021 committee (of which I was a part) erred in not making the warning public. I don't have access to all the information anymore, but to the best of my recollection it was intended to be a formal warning, but when the message was drafted it came across more like a word from a concerned colleague than a cease-and-desist order. Perhaps if the committee had been more forceful then, this sad situation could have been avoided. – bradv 22:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I also advocated a stronger warning in 2021 and also wonder if we'd be here if that had happened. But the warning that was given was what had support among the arbs at that time. I cannot imagine there having been any support among that group to have made anything public. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Then, in my opinion, you should not have made any warning.

  If ArbCom thinks some behavior is bad enough to officially warn another arbitrator about, then that warning should be public, because it's information relevant to arbitrator elections. If the behavior is only bad enough to warn them privately, it's not bad enough for an official warning at all. Loki (talk) 01:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The community did know about the general shape of the issue. It was discussed at ACE2021. It didn't know the specifics. And if the warning had been made public it still wouldn't have known the specifics because the specific would have had to be removed to protect the confidentiality of the people involved. I am genuinely not sure what options I had other than resign in protest- and how effective of a protest would it have been because of my own confidentiality obligations - or accept a lesser outcome than what I wanted but which had some chance to stop the problem at hand which I considered serious. There are bright lines for me where I'll resign in protest over something (I gave serious thought to it a few times during the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines process) but that's something you can only do once and I just can't imagine doing it over this issue in 2021. The 2019 and 2020 elections (the ones that elected the 2021 ARBCOM) were fiercely contested and the community got the arbs it decided to trust and that's what, with all the information at hand, that group decided. It boggles my mind that someone is seriously saying doing nothing was the right choice given the way the problem got worse. I can only imagine the criticism the 2021 committee would be facing now in that case. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Even just making an announcement that a warning has been issued and summarizing the nature of the issue warned about while maintaining whatever confidentiality is required would be useful. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure. And I supported a stronger action than what was taken. But Loki is making the claim if the warning could not be made public nothing should have been done. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. That I disagree with, given that some issues within ArbCom's remit obviously require confidential handling. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think there needs to be a space between no action and public warning. I'm not saying we got it right here, but I'm not sure I buy the idea that every admonishment we ever give must be cried out in the town square. ArbCom doesn't make many pronouncements, so any that it does make are treated as being damning. But we don't always need some big black mark on a person's record. Sometimes, somebody just needs a gentle reminder to correct their behavior. ArbCom, or individual Arbs, have had conversations with various folks over the years to the effect of what I would call a "quiet word." An email to be nicer, a DM about being careful about certain kinds of sock blocks. I think we've found that people tend to be more receptive when someone they trust privately brings an issue to them. They tend to be less defensive about it, because they don't have to deal with the reputation consequences of having it raised at a noticeboard or something. These quiet words have pushed many folks back onto the straight and narrow. I remain a fan of transparency. But I fear that in trying to disclose every even slightly critical conversation ArbCom has, ArbCom will opt to simply not criticize in those edge cases. I'd rather we retain the ability to say something before it becomes a capital case. But I also acknowledge that ArbCom should be more open about its warnings in general. I think the Committee has gone in the right direction on this; we had several moments in the last few years where we could have passed a private restriction, and opted not to, as we felt that some of ArbCom's worst mistakes have come from private restrictions. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't disagree with what you've said. I agree that a "quiet word" can remain private, but a formal warning (especially a final warning) should definitely be public. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It was not phrased anything like a final warning would be. That was a turn of phrase on Tamzin's part what proved to be a final warning. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for clarifying. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with this. Often times a quiet word with a colleague is exactly what is needed, and if the community expects that these conversations should be made public that will simply mean they won't happen at all. In this particular case, of course, there had been many such quiet words spoken. What was needed in 2021 was a formal warning, and I think the criticism is fair that it should have been done publicly. (That said, the cynic in me would point out that there was an election at the time, so a public warning may have been seen by some as interference.) – bradv 03:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Tamzin: My impression is "not that often and not as frequently as in the past". I can't think of five during the three years I've been on the Committee, though my memory is not terrific. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @L235: Thanks for the response. Of the five I had in mind, three are in that three-year timespan: the shared-IP disclosure for Mark and Corbie, and a private warning I recall being told about for an admin who violated WP:WHEEL in a fairly low-stakes setting. I believe some arbs also said in the TNT/Lourdes case that they had been initially prepared to handle the matter by private warning, although that doesn't count toward my total. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 23:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Five seems way lower than what I would have said. For instance I think there have been a couple of times where we were alerted to an issue with some bad CU checks, an arb was dispatched to have a quiet word about it and then nothing else happened. But if 5 is the correct number, than I think we need to analyze how many of the 5 were successful and whether that success rate augers continued practice. As such I will start a discussion on list where we can actually name things. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah. Probably you're right. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  +1, that was my thought too. I understand the ArbCom members also re-running that year might be reluctant to do something that could be construed as helping their own bid, but the community needs to have this kind of information to make an informed decision about who to vote for. Galobtter (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe don't be a member of a website specifically about being a-holes to anyone and everyone that edits Wikipedia, that defames, outs, and otherwise personally attacks whomever they can get information on? Might be a broader fix to the overall issue. Just a thought. Silverseren^C 22:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • That could be considered a personal attack on all the editors who participate there without defaming, etc. Like, say, Newyorkbrad. Would you care to rephrase? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • No? The purpose of the website (as has been shown repeatedly in the past) is to attack editors they dislike and has resulted in multiple outings and harassment campaigns. Those are just the facts. Maybe way back in the beginning it was about constructive criticism of Wikipedia, but that is years in the past and hasn't been like that in a long time. Now it's common just to see long threads about insulting and making fun of editors and any personal information that can be collected about them. Silverseren^C 23:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      I've occasionally commented over there. Maybe I missed something, but aside from one or two dickheads, it's mostly just bog-standard critique. I certainly haven't seen "long threads about insulting [and outing] editors". Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      @Reaper Eternal I certainly recall one during my and others' RfA.

      I wish people would stop this coded speak nonsense. It took me a minute to realize this was about w-cracy. But who's the nefarious ex admin, IceWhiz? And I hate to say it but there's so much time wasted on internal intrigue on Wikipedia that should be much better spent at SPI, DRN, or the Teahouse. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      Sorry, are you complaining about "Wikipedia internal intrigue"... ON AC/N ?? Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 08:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      I'm pretty sure it's Lourdes. Icewhiz was never an admin. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Obviously, it would help if editors could stick to only making constructive commentary, Bradv, but I suppose in Silver seren's case we can make an exception. ——Serial 23:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      @Serial Number 54129, what did I do? – bradv 23:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• To expand on my "abstain" vote: I hold Beeblebrox in very high regard and he's influenced me with a lot of what he's said and done over the years. One of the reasons I ran in 2022 was so I could work with him for at least a year, as I predicted he wouldn't run again in 2023. I thought that made me too biased to actually vote on the matter, and informed some other Arbs during the early stages of discussion that I was contemplating abstaining/recusing. Another Arb pointed out that the rules for Arb removal are different from other votes-- it requires a resolution supported by two-thirds of all arbitrators and makes no mention of abstentions/recusals-- so, they're disincentivized. So, it looked like I might have to vote, regradless of my bias, in a bit of cruel irony. I decided to wait as a tiebreaker vote and communicate my thought processes with Beeblebrox in the meantime. Ultimately, the suspension vote passed by a clear margin, so I stuck to my original plan of abstaining-- chiefly, I don't think it's fair to Beeblebrox or the community to have an admittedly biased Arb voting on something they didn't need to. There are some smaller additional motivations for why, but I don't think they are appropriate or fair to expand on publicly for now. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 23:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Hold on. I personally found out about this 30 minutes ago. This is highly relevant to the ongoing ACE, especially as two sitting arbs are also running. For those of us that don't watch the noticeboard, shouldn't some kind of notice be placed on the election pages? Fermiboson (talk) 03:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Fermiboson: Xaosflux says above and I think on one of the talk pages that this doesn't effect the elections because his term was expiring this year. Sennecaster (Chat) 04:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think Fermiboson's point is that this may impact people's trust in the arbs who are running for reelection. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, that was my point. Fermiboson (talk) 04:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Discussion of candidates is held at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023/Candidates/Discussion, and questions can be posed at their individual question pages, accessible from Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023/Questions. isaacl (talk) 04:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I realise that entirely, but for us to ask questions about it, we first have to be aware that this has happened. Fermiboson (talk) 04:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure; it's up to anyone who thinks others will be interested to start a discussion in the appropriate venues, and then others can see it and join in if desired. isaacl (talk) 04:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I have done so. Fermiboson (talk) 04:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd like to clear the air just a little bit. This will be slightly tricky, I apparently misjudged where the line between what I am and am not allowed to speak about already, but I'll give it a shot. I'm assuming that the rules here are that I was the subject of an off-wiki arbitration case, and therefore was not acting as an arb once that became clear, and can speak a little more freely, but I'd like to assure one and all that I'm not out to deliberatly thumb my nose at the committee or anything like that.

My now-former colleagues brought this up with me, saying they considered it a "leak". And I guess that's not unreasonable. However, I would consider it a minor leak at most, one that it seems nobody actually even noticed as the post was never responded to and was removed at my request one it bacame clear to me that other arbs saw it as far more serious than I did. (in fact folks over at WPO right now are wondering themselves what this is all about. It's possible that whichever arb brought this up was nearly the only person who even saw the post and actually noted what it said) We had some back-and-forth over the next day or so, then at some point the rest of the committee opted to go over to one of our secondary lists to discuss my actions. I know I was expected to say I screwed up and I knew it. Doing that could have made this whole thing go away and none of you would know a thing about it, but I chose not to do that. I was asked why I thought I had found an exemption to the usual "code of silence" as regards mailing lists, and I replied that I couldn't think of a good reason we wouldn't want people to know the information I had revealed. Again, I was fully aware this was the wrong answer but it is the truth.

So, I stood behind all that, and I still do (except for the one error I detailed in there). I also told them if they really thought the standard they were asking me to adhere to was what would be expected from all functionaries and arbs going forward, they should vote on the removal, and if they were less sure, they should let the 2024 committee take the matter up for clarification next year. You can see which path they chose.

I didn't run for this commitee to just be quiet and follow the rules. That's kinda not who I am. The community knew this when they elected me, and if they didn't, the certainly knew it when they elected me a second time. So, I'm disappointed it ended this way, but I'm not disappointed in myself, so I still call it a win, and I wish all the arbs the best. Truly. If you all did what you belived was right, that's as much as anyone can expect from any of us. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well. Everyone knows that this action was bound to be controversial obviously and given that everybody is still in good standing and nobody is blocked, I'm sure all arbs acted in good faith and with careful consideration. There are a lot of conversations here to be had about final/private warnings, transparency etc. but to me the immediate concern is that, while under normal circumstances we would have plenty of time to calmly discuss all the issues, let Arbcom sort out its lists etc. we have six days to decide how much of this incident we take into account on our votes for the two arbs running for reelection. I personally, and I'm sure I'm not the only one, would weigh this incident extremely heavily if the version of events presented as above was true, complete and accurate. Leaving aside the institutional questions for more experienced editors to litigate, I'd like to know your take on how much of an issue this election-imposed deadline is. I'm tempted also to ping said two arbs, but I don't know if that would be viewed as circumventing the two-question limit on the candidate question page. Fermiboson (talk) 06:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree the timing wasn't ideal, life rarely happens when it is convenient. But I guess I'm not seeing the solution here. Would you rather us have waited for the election to pass to reveal the suspension? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a solution here either, which is why I'm asking. I'm not necessarily insinuating that the arbcom decision was bad process. Perhaps I will be able to say something more substantial beyond expressing concern once I think on it a little. Fermiboson (talk) 07:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know the feeling very well, there are so many things I want to say at certain venues, but can't for similar reasons (sigh). Banedon (talk) 07:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was closely following the incident with Loudes at the time. And there was no reason for you to have commented at WPO answering that question. I thought it was bad form. I thought you did it for no better reason than internet points. It is irrelevant that it turned out to be a troll. You did not out the troll. The troll was anonymous, still is anonymous. You outed Russian Red. Yes it was not actually outing because the edit was not suppressed. It should have been suppressed. And you should have known better than to connect an established editor with their real life identity that they had revealed in their very first edits (for all anyone knew at the time). And still I voted for you, because like everyone else, I thought, perhaps still do, that the committee needs a you. Now you say you've let something else slip. You say you think it was a minor leak at most but we have a unanimous consensus from arbcom that they disagree. Knowing of your poor judgement in the Lourdes incident, and now having to guess about the severity of this "leak", I have no choice but to put my trust on arbcom. Afterall, this is what we elect the committee for. I still think arbcom and the community is going to suffer from losing you. Not only is there not another Beeblebrox on arbcom or among the candidates, but I haven't seen a candidate for one in the project. And I sympathise with you. But on available evidence, I can not but sympathise with arbcom also.

And I have to wonder if, it is, again, a poor choice, to narrow down so specifically, the "leak" for the benefit of WPO mods. They have a habit of publicising information for internet points, even information that, in the usual case, users of a site expect to be kept confidential and only used for internal purposes. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• This reminds me of petty employers who find ways to get back at you when you hand in your notice. "So you think you are leaving eh? Well take that!". Honestly, after the clownshow that was the Holocaust in Poland case it was difficult to imagine what could drag Arbcom (as an entity) reputation down further. Good job. You have rewarded a manipulative sockmaster who obtained advanced tools by deception, sent the message that ARBCOM is anti-transparency, and worst of all (although from Beebs post above this seems to be a minor concern to you, probably because you have deliberately tried to keep the details quiet) you have now publically endorsed a process that allows people to be punished without being given all the infomation about the accusations against them. After the endorsement of the WMF's treatment of Fram by a previous committee this shouldnt have been a surprise, but you are seriously taking exception to letting someone who has been banned know the exact reason they were banned? That is anti-every single value that underpins fairness in the countries that primarily make up the ENWP community and you should be ashamed for even entertaining the idea that someone should not know in full detail what they are accused of. That would be bad enough by itself, but that you should sanction Beeb for indirectly letting them know their 'crime'? Even after the user then successfully (because they now knew what they were appealing against and could respond accordingly) had their ban lifted? What message are you trying to send? "ARBCOM is a petty vindictive body that values silence over a fair hearing"? Because that's what you have done. If there was any actual fairness in the process, the incoming committee would reverse this and remove all your advanced permissions for being obviously unfit. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Out of interest, do you endorse WP:SPI? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This was about multiple instances involving multiple editors who had information about them expressed. Saying it's all about a single blocked sock master just isn't true. In fact in one such other instance collapsed in the comment above, Beeblebrox (now renamed Just Step Sideways) admits I don't care that I bent the rules a little to help out. That's not a banned sock master being discussed. As I said to Beebs on Sunday I viewed it as similar to Floq knowingly breaking the rules during FRAM and having to live with the consequences. This is the consequence of knowingly breaking the rules. And like Floq I hope after a period of time to have the chance to vote Beebs/Just Step Sideways back into office. Barkeep49 (talk) 12:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If the rules say you have to keep someone in the dark and not help them understand what happened and how to get themselves unblocked, then the rules stink. And those who blindly uphold rules like that, to the detriment of individuals and the project, are the ones who do not deserve to be in office. Not the ones who try to help. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]