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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To summarize my understanding:

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

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

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

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

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

Beeblebrox demeaning the office of Arbcom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AC/DS Anchors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other options

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some additional thoughts, tangentially related to the above:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Instead right now we have:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Original discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As a reminder, for the 2021 ArbCom elections, eligible users are invited to submit a nomination statement for the Arbitration Committee elections at the elections page. There are about 60 hours remaining to self-nominate. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 12:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

From the members list currently duplicated at WP:ARB, it seems this organ has 14 members, although one is inactive. Is this the usual size of the committee? I haven't found this written anywhere (which means someone will point me to a place where's it in large bold letters on one of the pages I linked). WP:ELECT says "the original size" in 2003 was 12, but now we've already got more than that many active members. What's the maximum and minimum size? And what happens if we elect too few (if that's possible)? — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 23:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

It's not written anywhere in big letters, but it is written. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/History says: The committee initially comprised twelve arbitrators who served terms from one to three years, in three "tranches", so that about a third of the committee was up for reappointment each year. After the 2008 election, Jimbo increased the size of the committee to eighteen. From the 2009 elections onwards, the maximum term was reduced to two years, with two instead of three tranches. In the 2011 elections, the size of the Committee was reduced to a maximum of fifteen members. The size of the committee was further reduced to 13 for the 2018 elections, a decision which was reversed the following year. That page also has a nice chart of the committee over time.

If fewer arbitrators are elected than there are seats available, or an Arbitrator resigns, then the seat(s) remain vacant until the next election. If the Committee feels that they have too few members then they can call a special election before the regular one. The best place I have found that this is all noted is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections/ACERFC decisions to date but there should be somewhere better. Thryduulf (talk) 00:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The size of the committee is decided by the yearly ArbCom RFC. Looks like it's been 15 since the 2011 RFC, except for the 2018 RFC where we dropped to 13 arbs. That turned out to be a bad idea (at one point during the following year we had a total of 8 active arbs), so the following year it was re-raised to 15. The 2011 RFC says it's a reduction from 18 to 15, but I haven't found where 18 came about yet.

The theoretical maximum size is whatever gets consensus from the community, although for practicality reasons this is (IMO) unlikely to ever go above 20. Minimum is a little more interesting. Arbcom procedures use two methods for calculation of votes, "net four" or "absolute majority". Opening a case can be done by net 4 or absolute majority. Motion to close "requires the support of the lesser of" net 4 or absolute majority. So you could hold an entire case with only 3 active arbs, if 2 were in support. Interestingly, passing injunctions and allowing the filing party to withdraw a case requires net 4, so a 3-arb Arbcom would technically be somewhat hampered, although Arbcom can also set their own policies and procedures, so in theory a 3-person Arbcom could adjust those procedures to allow for absolute majority as well. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:08, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you. And naturally, I didn't bother to look at the History page, which turns out to have the most relevant information. (ETA: I also believe I have seen some version of that chart before.) I cannot imagine in what world I would have independently stumbled upon the "ACERFC decisions to date" page; I followed the sidebar links to "Procedures" and "Elections", and would never have guessed to look under Wikipedia:Requests for comment.

It seems like obviously relevant info that is completely hidden (clearly a deliberate move by the cabal, or something), and I think it should be easier to find. And in fact, I have BOLDly added something to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Members with this edit. Reversion or refinement allowed, of course. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 01:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

It's not an organ, it's a committee; calling it an "organ" makes it sound biological, musical, or far more important than it actually is. Your edit made the sentence ungrammatical and awkward. Instead, I've added the link as a reference in Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/History where it belongs. That page is already linked. I'm going to assume that the cabal comment is sarcasm. Risker (talk) 01:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, I didn't call it an organ on the page, and I hope I'm not the only one whose mouth turned up at the corners at the deliberate double entendre. Maybe yours doesn't turn up. Yes, the cabal was intended to be humorous. Tough room.

I don't see, though (in all seriousness) why the current size of the committee needs to be hidden away with other artefacts of the past under "History". It's like we're trying to keep a secret of this basic attribute of the body (not the biological kind) whose members we are to be electing. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 02:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm confused. It's pretty obvious what the current size of the committee is: 14. If another arbitrator quits, there will be 13. And so on. How many seats may hypothetically be available doesn't really have much to do with how many arbitrators there are. And yeah, it's a tough room; the arbitrators get a fair amount of abuse, including being called a cabal with the intention of being insulting. Given that the number of seats is determined by the community completely separate from the committee (i.e., the committee doesn't determine its own size), I'm not persuaded that it should be on this page. Right now there are a certain number of open seats for which candidates are being considered by the community. There is definitely the possibility that the community will not support enough candidates to fill all those seats. Thus, it seems a bit pointless to say it's a 15-seat committee, when only 14 seats are currently held, and nobody knows how many seats will be held at the end of the year. Risker (talk) 02:33, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Its relevance was apparent to me when the first couple of candidates opened their statements with some variant of, "I don't really want to run, but I'm worried there aren't enough candidates". It made me wonder how many we were supposed to have, and I couldn't find the info on my own. And, yes, I could see (as I said above) that there are currently 13+1 arbs. But I didn't know what our target number was nor how many were leaving. The History indeed has that info; I just didn't think to look there for info about the current election. It seemed the wrong place to bother looking.

I'm sorry if the cabal thing hit a nerve; I absolutely would not have thrown that in there if I thought that it applied in any way (or would be taken seriously by any reasonable person here). 'Twere but a witticism, a lark, a folly, with somewhat more butt than wit. — Shakespeare, maybe. Thanks,— JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 02:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Information about the number of seats available in the election is available on the election page: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021#Vacant seats (WP:ACE). Thryduulf (talk) 03:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I was afraid of/expecting. WP:CENT led me to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021, which also purports to be WP:ACE (although the shortcuts are really redirects), and I didn't notice I was looking at a subpage. I was real proud that I found the link to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee hidden in the page title, but I guess pride is a fleeting thing. Anyway, now I've got my answers. Regards,— JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 00:43, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.

Has this been done before? Not sure if it's just a curiosity or might be worth adding to WP:AC/DS or somewhere. Levivich 06:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Levivich Wowza, that's great!! We should put that on the DS page, quite useful at a glance. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Interesting map, although Poland is missing from the EE area and Somaliland from ARBHORN. Georgia seems to be included in the EE area, is that intentional? Difficult to show on this map, but Liancourt Rocks and Senkaku Islands disputes are also geographical (Covid-19 is arguably too, but as it's worldwide it's not helpful to include it here). Thryduulf (talk) 12:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Very cool. Don't forget WP:APL (antisemitism in Poland) and WP:ARBMAC2 (Macedonia 2). I'd also say that ARB9/11, while clearly applying to the US, is a bit hard to call "geographic" enough to put on this map. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd also argue that ARBANEG isn't really "geographic" in the same sense as the others, as DS apply to articles about that specific controversy only. firefly ( t · c ) 14:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

The WP:ARBMAC2 case only reaffirmed the DS authorised by WP:ARBMAC, but that DS authorisation was later merged into WP:ARBEE so the map is correct in that respect. Thryduulf (talk) 15:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Thryduulf, looks like I need to go fix the General Sanctions list then... GeneralNotability (talk) 16:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see what confused me - Macedonia has a 1RR rule still in effect (where naming is concerned) but its DS were superseded by ARBEE. Hooray for convoluted sanctions! GeneralNotability (talk) 16:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I find this map super intersting. But I don't think it's helpful for someone who isn't already somewhat nuanced in the realm of DS. For instance because of Kurds, Turkey shows up as under DS. However generic Erdogan content is not. Fethullah Gulen is basically not. Similarly with Britain the Troubles are covered but most controversial stuff is not covered. Politics is covered under a community imposed GS though. For me illustrations are useful in presenting graphically information that would be difficult to understand otherwise. I think, however, this particular graphic misleads rather than informs in its presentation. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I look at it sort of in the reverse, not that the highlighted countries are entirely covered by DS, but rather that the highlights indicate where the DS are. So UK being blue doesn't mean all of UK is covered by DS, it means that's where WP:TROUBLES is. For me, the most interesting part of the map is the part that is not colored, where there are no DS at all. Like South America apparently. Levivich 18:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Also interesting: the DS areas run along the entire Silk Road (China could be highlighted arguably). Levivich 18:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't disagree with anything you've said. My comments were more to the idea of putting it on WP:AC/DS which I would not support because I don't think it helps people who are not on the "inside" of DS already. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Russia is missing as well--Ymblanter (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I, too, found it very interesting. I tried to think of what might be a common feature among all of these cases, and I think it's that each content area centers on two adversarial groups of people, vying for some kind of control of the geographic area – and consequently the emergence of editors who are adversarial in some aspect of that rivalry. (Of course there are other geographical regions that fit this description, but for which we have not had editorial disputes that led to DS.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Once enough people are here at enWP from those areas, we will. DGG ( talk ) 07:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

In DGG's recently closed amendment request, CaptainEek and Barkeep49 both said that they were going to look into the issue of editors misrepresenting sources (and the persistent inability of talk pages and noticeboards to resolve that issue), and have a discussion about how it could be addressed. However, the amendment request was closed by the clerks before that discussion could happen.

Could either of you please clarify the status of that planned discussion, and how you think this issue ought to be addressed? As I said in my last comment there, if someone is going to request another amendment or a full case, I think first there needs to be more clarity about what Arbcom considers to be within their remit in this respect, and which case (Fringe science or Race and intelligence) it should be filed under. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 14:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Ferahgo the Assassin I say this with the caveat that the committee might not agree with me. I think the answer needs to be either a new case request, i.e. "Race and Intelligence 2", "Fringe 2", or a better constructed ARCA. Alternatively, a community discussion of some caliber with the intent of brainstorming a solution/distilling the problem might be useful.

Part of the difficulty is that ArbCom is a sledgehammer, not a scalpel. We can't intervene in individual content disputes or choose which sources are good or bad (except in a general sense). Further, the connection between the fringe principles and the issues at hand seemed tenuous at best. Part of the issue is that the topics of contentions were not made clear. I know DGG did this with noble intent, hoping not to drag us into a particular topic area. However, what we do is inherently topic specific. So if the problem is with race and intelligence and not Fringe, then it's race and intelligence we need to be amending or revisiting. If there are problematic editors who are citing things they shouldn't be, then for starters they should be taken to AE, and if that can't resolve the matter, then a new case request.

Although I have some interest in making ArbCom more of a mediator, in practice we just aren't. Thus, until an issue has been thoroughly exhausted, it is not generally within our remit. I'm not so sure that this issue has been exhausted. In fact, I think the underlying problem is the issue is unclear. There is some poor source usage, and both fringe and race and intelligence of course remain highly contentious topics. If someone thinks they can provide a concise summary of the underlying issue, we would be better suited to help fix it. But as long as the problem remains vague and nebulous, I don't see what exactly we can do.

This was a long and winding way to ask for more info and input, and to encourage some critical thought :) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll largely echo what Eek said in terms of advice. Personally my wikipedia bucket is full at the moment between WP:RFA2021, extensive writing I have been doing for the UCoC drafting committee, and my "everyday" Arb work. I will admit I simply did not have time to explore the diffs presented and hoped that another colleague of mine would have more capacity to do so. That didn't seem to be the case at that time. However, I agree with Eek that you and DGG shouldn't take this as a refusal to engage at all but that something more focused and more in line with past ArbCom practices and is more likely to at least generate discussion. For this request it became hard to recover from "please amend these old cases" for which there was no appetite on the committee. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. I know this issue hasn't been discussed by the community quite as extensively as is typical before Arbcom will open a case, but that's because everyone involved is aware that any future attempts to discuss it will be futile for the same reason as all of the earlier discussions. It's also very clear that if we make any further attempts to raise the matter of misrepresented sources with the community, there will be attempts to get us topic banned (this was the main discussion about it in my own case). When I initially described this situation to Barkeep49 via email, I referred to this trend as having a "chilling effect" on discussion.

Before someone makes another arbitration request I'd like to hear from DGG, as well as from some of the other arbitrators, about what approach they think would be best. I know that DGG is very reluctant to recommend a case request. So if someone is going to request a case, first I would like to make sure Arbcom considers that the best option, and also clarify what scope it should have.

One thing I'd appreciate Arbcom clarifying about the scope: in his comment on the amendment request, Gardenofaleph raised the issue that lower-quality sources (such as newspaper and magazine articles) are being used as a basis for excluding those of higher quality, such as academic papers and textbooks, and linked to a recent RSN discussion about this issue, which failed to resolve anything. This approach to sourcing is contrary to the article's sourcing restriction, which says that only "peer-reviewed scholarly journals and academically focused books by reputable publishers" may be used. Would this other issue of sourcing be something that Arbcom considers within their remit to address, or would any arbitration request need to be more narrowly focused on misrepresentation of sources? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

The purpose of any dispute-resolution process, including ArbCom, is to support the writing of a collaborative encyclopedia – that is, to ensure that the process of determining and implementing consensus is unencumbered. It is not the purpose of dispute resolution to give a minority viewpoint additional voice, nor to allow a few editors to manipulate a discussion or an article against the wishes of the majority. Therefore, any suggestion that there is an issue that needs resolving should be focused on how this process is being disrupted or impeded. For example, if you are being prevented from implementing an edit that you believe has consensus, that is something I would be interested in helping to address. But if the edits that you want to make are against consensus, no adjustments to rules or restrictions are going to change that. – bradv^🍁 23:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Where does this sourcing restriction actually come from? I can't find any mention of it in the cited case. – Joe (talk) 12:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Race and intelligence is under discretionary sanctions, and going by the history of the editnotice Ferahgo linked, Barkeep added the sourcing restriction to the article last March. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh I see, it's just the edit notice for the article race and intelligence; I mistook it for a general template. Thanks. That seems to also be a point of confusion in the linked RSN discussion. – Joe (talk) 13:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

By the way, I also would be okay with a non-arbitration solution here, if the view of Arbcom is that there's a solution that doesn't require the involvement of the full committee. The most important thing is that there needs to be a way for the sourcing restriction to be enforced, especially the part about misrepresenting sources, however that's accomplished.

@Barkeep49: when we discussed this issue via email, you felt that DGG's upcoming amendment request would be a reasonable way to try to resolve the problem of your restriction not being enforceable. But now that the proposed amendment has been declined, what do you think is the best solution? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 01:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Go to WP:AE and ask that it be repealed. I will explain why I levied it at the time, explain that I am neutral on it today as I have not been keeping abreast of the article, and offer if there is a consensus it should be removed to do so as an individual action (that is it wouldn't necessarily have to get the higher level of consensus necessary to overturn it). Barkeep49 (talk) 01:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I was hoping there could be a solution that actually stops sources from being misrepresented, not one that amounts to accepting this is impossible to prevent. And I think the other editors who've raised similar objections about source misrepresentation (Literaturegeek, Stonkaments, Gardenofaleph, AndewNguyen, Sesquivalent and DGG) were hoping for that, too. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 02:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ferahgo the Assassin: I haven't been following this dispute, but if you believe that a current AE-imposed restriction is not working and have an amendment, alternative and/or additional restriction that you think will work then propose it at AE, AN or other suitable venue. If you think it needs workshopping first, then start a discussion and workshop it. Thryduulf (talk) 12:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: There have already been multiple attempts to raise the issue at noticeboards, but all of them have either been shut down prematurely, or failed to reach a consensus. Ferahgo and I linked to several of these noticeboard discussions in our statements in the recent amendment request. There comes a point where it's apparent an issue can't be resolved at noticeboards, and any further attempts to raise it there will just result in accusations of forum shopping.

Also, nobody has a problem with the current sourcing restrictions themselves. I think they're what the article needs. The problem is that the current restrictions are being totally ignored, and nobody is willing to enforce them. That's what needs addressing. I don't know whether ArbCom can solve that problem, but I hope it'll be solved somehow. Gardenofaleph (talk) 02:25, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I entered the Arb request not with the realistic hope of it having any immediate successful effect--I am not quite so naive as that-- but in order to keep alive the issue of our prejudiced presentation of controvesial topics in general, our tendency to bias article content not on the basis of actual NPOV but on the bases of what we would prefer to be the POV, our biased and unreasonable manipulation of sourcing in orde to pretend to have a NPOV, and the encouragement of these unfortunate tendenccies by multiple arb com decisions going back to the initial ones in the area, and by the increased use of the inherently unfair technique of Discretionary Sanctions. I do hope for change in these areas--I do not expect it to come quickly, because I think the participants in WP, just like people in the world generally, are not actually prepared to follow the evidence wherever it leads, but rather look for evidence to support their own preconceptions. There was the original hope in 2001 that the method of working here would to some extent free us from those common practices--and perhaps it has to some extent, but it breaks down on subjects where we really have strong conviction that it is we who are priviledged to understand correctly--especially when we fear that following the science or the facts more generally may have undesirable social consequences. The method by which I hope change will come is by keeping the issues alive to encourage users not bound by old prejudices, and trying as far as possible to maintain the still substantial amount of open-mindenessand flexibility in our system.

To some extent I was trying to probe the opinions of the arbitrators, but I was not really surprised to find only very few of them with even slight sympathy, almost all remaining convinced that none of these problems actually exist. I know from my own experience there for 5 years that the general predilictions of most of those attracted to serve on the committee is towards a purely formal and legalistic adherence to the technicalities of Wikipedia, while trying to remain oblivious to the actual effect of their decisions. As in all past years, there is the hope that next year's committee will be better. As always, it rarely changes very much.

The problem Ferahgo works on is only one example. In some sense we did work together. She encouraged me to pick this time to try to actually do something; I tried to persuade her to rely upon the slow change of attitudes and to adopt a more general perspective than her only issue. We both seem to have failed, at least in the short run. The key difference, is that I have always been much more interested in the long one, and have never been focussed on a single instance. I cannot tell from the comments above whether there is any chance of a succesful case; the best likely result would be a repetition of the platitudes about our devotion to NPOV that has very little effect on how matters work out. We might get some enlightened statements to use in argument, but this is very distant from the statements actually affecting the outcome of the arguements. As I said several times near the close of the discussion, I intend to return to what I can do best, which is to argue a few selected individual sourcing questions as they arise. DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

There is a related discussion underway at the Village Pump: [9] I think DGG already knows about that discussion, but the arbitrators might be interested in reading it as well.

The statement there that "Editors begin to use the status of a viewpoint as mainstream or fringe as the basis for picking sources and facts to include in the article, rather than using mainstream sources and facts to determine what views are fringe" is a good summary of the issue that was raised in the recent RSN discussion linked above. A specific example I mentioned in DGG's amendment request was the decision to remove most of the material cited to Earl Hunt's textbook as "profringe", despite that book being one of the most highly regarded sources available about human intelligence. But it looks like the discussion at the Village Pump probably isn't going reach any consensus, just as the RSN discussion didn't.

If the Village Pump discussion is unable to reach a consensus about whether this approach to sourcing is compatible with NPOV policy, this is something I'd like to see examined in a "Fringe Science 2" case. Can Arbcom provide any clarify as to whether they would be able to address that question? To clarify the question I asked about this a few days ago, it's impossible to determine whether this approach to sourcing is supported by consensus or opposed by it. There are only a small number of editors who actively support this approach, but every attempt to discuss it with the broader community has been unable to come to any conclusion. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Ferahgo, my earnest suggestion is to drop the stick, because every bit I read from your copious messages just make me think it was a mistake to ever unban you. ArbCom doesn't "fix" discussions among the community that don't result in consensus. It exists to deal with problematic behavior. A case filing without such evidence is a case filing that is going to likely be declined. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Surely editors voting to ignore academic sources because they don't like what they're saying is problematic behavior? Bald Vegetarian (talk) 11:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC) Surely block evading trolls who have been checkuser blocked should have thier comments struck. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Saturday is laundry day. ——Serial 12:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Ferahgo, please pay attention to Wohltemperierte Fuchs comment above. Whether or not we agree on the underlying issues, I agree with his advice. This does not depend on the merits of your case. This does not depend on whether the separation between conduct and content is relevant or realistic. In my personal experience there, Arb com will insist on the distinction when they want to, and they will ignore it when they want to. I have tried many times to make sure you realize the extremely risky nature of deliberately bringing a case to arb com. In the interests of yourself, in the interests of those who may wish to return to the field in the future, and most essentially in the interests of those who want fair rational coverage of sensitive issues, you should be trying to find a way to honourably disengage, rather than look for an excuse for continuing. DGG ( talk ) 01:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I intend to let it go until the end of the year, aside from the current discussion, but I don't know about after that. It seems like a matter of principle to me that when sources are being misrepresented across multiple articles, and at least seven editors have objected to this, it shouldn't be necessary to conclude that in the long term there's nothing that can be done about it.

This case was previously referred to Arbcom by the AE admins in March of last year, [10] [11] [12] and the subsequent arbitration request was declined by Arbcom, so the discussion preceding your amendment request was the second time that a community discussion about this issue concluded that arbitration was necessary. If Arbcom intends to refer it back to the community a second time, this time I think they ought to give some clearer guidance on what they think the community should do to resolve it, that's hasn't already been tried and failed. I would especially like to hear about this from CaptainEek, as he is the arbitrator who previously recommended a new case. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ferahgo the Assassin Well I wasn't inherently suggesting a new case request, merely that it might be one of the avenues. The core problem I still see is: I don't know what the issue is. There is a lot of hubbub but no one can seem to point to an actual underlying cause that ArbCom could step in and fix. So: lets say ArbCom accepts a case. What sort of scope would you want and what remedies would you request? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: If a new case is in order, it should be focused on sourcing and editor behavior on topics related to race and intelligence, particularly on correct and incorrect practices of sourcing, and how sources have been misused in relation to race and intelligence and related topics. As for remedies, the best outcome would be something that addresses the problem that no admin is willing to enforce the article's sourcing restriction, along with the standard behavioral remedies. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm obviously a non-Arb, but I see some of those things as potentially within ArbCom's remit, but others not. The community, not ArbCom, determines correct and incorrect sourcing via consensus, and ArbCom should not be an end-run around a disliked community consensus. On the other hand, ArbCom can potentially act on editor conduct with respect to failing to comply with existing sourcing policies and guidelines, and administrator inability to resolve such disputes. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I’m even more obviously not an Arb but will suggest that the problem here appears to be a conflict between the two categories which Tryptofish mentions. That is, the complainants appear to feel that those of us who are working to keep the topic area in compliance with community consensus are by that very act failing to comply with sourcing policies and guidelines. This view appears to be premised on the notion that the complainants have a privileged understanding of what the sources actually say which the rest of the community is either unaware of or else is collaborating in a bad faith effort to suppress. Generalrelative (talk) 20:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Stop it. If you and NightHeron seriously believed that the community supports your approach to sourcing, the two of you would not have deliberately pre-empted the possibility of opening an RFC to examine it. NightHeron stated that he was opening his RFC to prevent someone else from opening the one that was being planned, which would have been about his and your use of sources: [13] [14]

Or here's another way of looking at it. A person who believed that his approach to sourcing had the support of the broader community would not need to regularly revert edits by various (mostly uninvolved) editors attempting to bring those parts of the articles into line with what their sources say. On the Heritability of IQ article alone you and NightHeron have done this around a dozen times. These other editors don't have your persistence and they don't coordinate with one another, and I have no intention to edit war with you myself, so you'll continue to get your way there for the time being. But for you to assert that the community supports your support to sourcing, against the background of this pattern of behavior over the past year, is truly mind-boggling. Gardenofaleph (talk) 01:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't intend to engage in an argument here, and will simply encourage anyone reading to consider whether NightHeron and I have the power, on our own, to pre-empted the possibility of opening an RFC. Anyone interested in the particulars of this allegation can see my comment in the previous discussion where I address them: [15]. Generalrelative (talk) 03:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Refusing to accept consensus, Ferahgo and a small number of other civil POV-pushers have been going from forum to forum repeating their false claims and forcing countless hours of repetitive debate. At the ArbCom request that DGG made (at Ferahgo's urging [16]) I already refuted the allegation that I acted improperly in starting an RfC at the R&I talk-page. Another example of her false accusations is the claim that the R&I article is unfair to Earl Hunt's work. Nonsense -- he's cited five times, and three of his works are in the page's bibliography. At RSN and at article talk-pages, as Ferahgo admits, they've been unsuccessful in their attempts to convince the community that there's a problem with use of sources at R&I and related pages. Nor have they been able to make a credible case that there was misconduct by the editors who in two RfC's in 2020 and 2021 successfully argued that belief in the genetic inferiority of certain races in intelligence is outside the scientific mainstream and so should be treated in accordance with WP:FRINGE.

The incessant forum-shopping and bludgeoning on this topic by profringe POV-pushers is disruptive and a drain on other editors' time. NightHeron (talk) 04:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

It takes two to tango, though, and in my view, the folks who are fighting the POV pushing are also engaging with the POV pushing way too much. For example, at Talk:The Bell Curve, someone suggests IQ = intelligence, and that prompts walls of text rebutting it. It seems to me that happens every time across all the related pages. There's no need for the walls of text rebutting it; just ignore it. My suggestion is to limit all talk page discussions as much as possible. If someone makes an edit against policy or sources, revert it. They'll need to get consensus on the talk page. If they raise it on the talk page, treat it as an edit request, meaning insist on "Change X to Y cited to source(s) Z" as a proposal. Then !vote on the proposal. If there's consensus, it goes in; if not, then not. If the proponents of the proposal want to escalate to an RFC, let them. Trust that the "bad edits" won't make it in if we go through the usual process (insist on RS, insist on consensus). All the discussion and proving/disproving and argumentation is just a distraction (and discourages new people from engaging). The biggest problem in the topic area, in my view, is WP:NOTFORUM violations. Levivich 17:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

In one fish's opinion, there is no inherent reason that a few editors could really prevent other editors from opening an RfC, and an RfC (not ArbCom) is the way to resolve this dispute. (And then AE or ArbCom if anyone refuses to abide by the RfC result or demonstrably disrupts the RfC). Hold the RfC under the applicable discretionary sanctions. Word the RfC question absolutely neutrally. And then make your best case in the RfC discussion. Make the RfC widely participated in, so that there won't be a problem with too few participating editors. That means holding it at Village Pump: Policy, and listing it on WP:CENT. If possible get a watchlist notice at the beginning and end. And keep it open for 30 days. Absent disruption, that should result in a consensus. And that consensus needs to be accepted by all. Put up or shut up. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

PS: If editors who disagree with those editors who start the RfC believe that the RfC question is flawed, don't try to shut the RfC down (as tempting as that might be). Just explain in the RfC discussion what you think the problem is, and answer the RfC question in a way that reflects what you really think. Lots of other editors will see that, and so will the person who closes the RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) NightHeron, I'll ask you the same question that Generalrelative just dodged: if you seriously believe that the Wikipedia community supports your approach to sourcing, why is it necessary for the two of you to so tightly control every discussion and article related the topic? Aside your from preventing the previously planned RFC from being opened, the two of you also have made more edits to these articles and their talk pages than myself, Ferahgo, Stonkaments, Sesquivalent and Ekpyros put together.

Why not let the, you know, community decide what they think is best for the articles, instead of both of your patterns of dominating every talk page and noticeboard discussion, and reverting dozens of edits by various involved and uninvolved people as "against consensus"? I'm pretty sure I already know the answer to this, but the question isn't rhetorical; I'd like to see how you explain it. Gardenofaleph (talk) 20:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Gardenofaleph, I don't know how to read this besides just "Why are you active editors?" Firefangledfeathers 21:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

No, I mean something more specific. I'll give an example of what I mean:

In June 2020, Generalrelative added content to the Heritability of IQ article that several editors feel misrepresents its sources. [17] (See Ferahgo's summary; all of these sources use qualifiers such as "no direct evidence", and they also don't use the word "consensus" or any similar term when referring to evidence or lack of it, as required by WP:RS/AC.) In the time since then there have been several attempts by various other editors to remove the misrepresentations, or to change this part of the article to something more closely approximating what the sources say, but Generalrelative and NightHeron have consistently reverted these attempts. [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] This is just one of four articles (I think, although there might be more) where they've added the same content, and basically the same sequence of events has played out on the other articles also.

Generalrelative and NightHeron have framed the current dispute as themselves defending the integrity of Wikipedia, with the backing of the broader community, from a small group of determined POV pushers. But the history of articles like that one seems to tell a different story. The people trying to change these articles to be more consistent with what the sources say have not been the so called "POV pushers". They have mostly been editors like SteveCree2, AmazingCosima, and various IP editors who have barely any other edits in this topic area. But these editors aren't really committed to the dispute and they also don't coordinate with one another, so they've never been able to make a difference.

This doesn't look like two editors defending the integrity of Wikipedia with the backing of the broader community. It looks more like two editors determined to prevent any modification to their preferred wording, even though a lot of otherwise uninvolved people evidently disapprove of it. Gardenofaleph (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

The bickering here is increasingly off-topic for this talk page, and is becoming increasingly annoying for... well, at least, me. As I said in my previous comment advising an RfC, put up or shut up. If some editors would rather snipe at one another (believing wrongly that this will convince ArbCom to step in), that probably means that they are not really confident in their position. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd be fine with having a RFC about how sources are being used in this topic, under the condition that I can know ahead of time that the editors on the other side will allow it to happen. When Ferahgo's and AndewNguyen's RFCs were shut down, those editors also were threatened with discretionary sanctions for having opened them. I've been expecting the same thing to happen if I try to start one about this issue myself. But if this time NightHeron and Generalrelative can agree to let someone open a RFC about sourcing and let it proceed unimpeded, it's worth a try. Gardenofaleph (talk) 02:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Definitely not interested in bickering, here or anywhere, but I should probably add for those who didn’t read the diff in my previous comment: It was Mackensen, a widely respected admin from what I understand and OG of the project, who told AndewNguyen that there is a clear consensus of the community that no underlying issue with sourcing exists in the R&I topic area. [23] That seemed pretty definitive to me. However, no one is standing in the way of a new RfC, nor could they. Generalrelative (talk) 03:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I looked at that link. I would suggest that a future RfC be carefully written to make clear what is new, as opposed to just checking whether consensus has suddenly changed. And given the strongly-held views of editors who have concerns about the current consensus, I also suggest that those editors who see no problems with the current consensus should nonetheless try to be generous with letting a new RfC go forward. That way, any legitimate concerns will be able to get a proper hearing and those editors with concerns will not feel like they were shut-out, and the community will be able to reaffirm the current consensus if that should end up as the result. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Generalrelative (talk) 16:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

(ec) Sure. But being "generous" does not include ignoring blatant violation of the Wikipedia policy that says that RfC's must be neutrally worded, short and simple. Also, it would be good if any new RfC were opened on a page that has EC-protection, so as to avoid socks, SPAs, and off-wiki canvassing that have been a problem in R&I discussions in the past. NightHeron (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

If you can get an admin to agree to setting up a dedicated RfC page with EC-protection, as a discretionary sanction, that would certainly be one approach. Otherwise, it is perfectly acceptable to tag drive-by RfC comments with Template:spa. In the event that you feel that the new RfC question blatantly violates neutral language, the best approach at this time would be to let the RfC go ahead, and explain clearly what your concerns are in your RfC comments. As I said earlier, uninvolved editors and whoever closes the RfC will see what you said and be able to evaluate it for themselves. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

EC protection would be a blatant exclusion of well qualified commenters who in the past have contributed sources and other pertinent content to these discussions. If some IP2600 SPA's mysteriously appear and produce convincing citations to academic literature that happens to settle important aspects of the RfC, that is good, and nothing stops anyone from putting SPA templates on their posts. Pre-empting that, and the participation of lower edit count users such as (if I am remembering the counts at the time correctly) GardenofAleph and myself as happened the last round, as well as trying to restrict what can be said in the RfC after the liberties taken in the ridiculous first one, would be the same game as before of trying to tilt the field in advance. I did not vote in the first R&I RfC as I considered it improper, would not (IIRC) have been able to post in the second which was perhaps worse, and in my opinion the only reasonable response to setting it up again to rig the participation in an "approved" direction would be for those who can to post a !vote saying "BOYCOTT". As I just posted, I oppose any RfC until the literature is surveyed first, because past experience shows it will not and maybe cannot happen during the RfC itself with all the distractions that may arise. Sesquivalent (talk) 08:07, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

There are good reasons for the Wikipedia policies that require a brief and neutral statement of an RfC and that disallow off-wiki canvassing to bring in SPA's. A lengthy and tendentiously worded RfC, such as Ferahgo's a few months ago, discourages participation and leads to debates not about the issue but about the poor formulation of the RfC. It's a waste of time and a cause for acrimony by the POV-pushers when the RfC is closed early, as happened in Ferahgo's case. If socks and SPA's play a major role, that also introduces the extraneous issue of how much they affected the perceived division of opinion, that is, whether or not there would have been a different outcome without them. That's a counterfactual question that is hard for a closer to determine and is likely to be another matter of dispute (this was an issue in an AfD for R&I two years ago). I think it would be a bad idea to deviate from these two Wikipedia policies in an area that's as contentious as R&I, where the POV-pushers seem inclined toward endless debate on procedural as well as substantive matters. Most likely the racial hereditarians realize that they're in a small minority among Wikipedia editors, and the ones in ISIR realize that they're in a small minority among scientists, so their only chance of success is if they resort to such tactics as misleading RfC's and off-wiki canvassing. NightHeron (talk) 11:50, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

If we're going to talk about tendentiously worded RFCs, let's remember that NightHeron's RFC question literally referred to the sources he didn't like as "white supremacist sources", and said that the editors trying to include these sources were "promoting scientific racism and white supremacist views". After having done this (and then having the RFC remain open for a full month, and then having rewritten the article based on the resulting consensus) there was a lot of hypocrisy in his subsequent request for Ferahgo's RFC to be shut down as not neutrally worded.

It's very difficult to assume good faith about someone who applies this blatant of a double standard to others' behaviors compared to their own. There also is another reason it's difficult for me to assume good faith in this case, that I mentioned in my first few comments here, but this probably is not the correct place to give a detailed explanation about that. Gardenofaleph (talk) 15:17, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Please desist from accusing other editors of bad faith, per WP:NPA. The words you quote are not from the statement of the RfC, but rather from my explanation of my yes vote as OP. In that explanation of my vote it was certainly reasonable to characterize the racial pseudoscience of Jensen, Piffer, etc. as white supremacist. The statement of the RfC, on the other hand, was neutrally worded and brief. NightHeron (talk) 21:06, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

No, you're misremembering. As originally formulated, that entire post (around 7 KB of text) was your RFC question. A few days later, in response to a complaint from the 2600 IP in his user talk, Barkeep49 moved your statements accusing other editors of supporting white supremacism into a separate section. [24] By moving those statements into another section instead of shutting down the RFC entirely, Barkeep49 was showing a lot of patience towards you, but you haven't shown the same to other editors.

Also, let's be clear about something. As I said in Stonkaments' user talk, I was present for one of the off-Wiki discussions about your actual reason for becoming involved involved in this topic at both RationalWiki and Wikipedia, and for your repeated accusations of white supremacism. I am showing you a lot of goodwill by still treating you as a good-faith editor despite knowing about that. Gardenofaleph (talk) 22:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

The RFC statement is the text between the RFC tag and the first signature. In the RFC in question, the entirety of the RFC statement was 'Is the claim that there are genetic differences in intelligence along racial lines a fringe viewpoint?' You can see that's what the bot listed here - MrOllie (talk) 03:53, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

In response to Gardenofaleph's second paragraph, I'd like to ask Gardenofaleph and like-minded editors to please stop the innuendos, personal attacks, and the conspiracy theory directed against me. I was the OP on both RfC's that concluded that the racial hereditarian belief about intelligence is a fringe POV, and this apparently explains the anger directed against me. The theory about my supposed "actual reason for becoming involved" in R&I that Gardenofaleph refers to was first advanced by an IP editor during AndewNguyen's appeal to ArbCom following the first RfC (see Section 26 Amendment request: Race and intelligence (June 2020)#Statement by IP editor 2600:1004:b100::/40 at [25]). The IP was later sanctioned for that. I next heard of the theory when an IP editor (possibly the same one) came to Stonkaments' user talk-page to tell Stonkaments about it and initiate a discussion of tactics (see [26]). Let me state for the record that I have never edited RationalWiki, I do not have an account there, and I have no connection with the efforts described by the IP editor to discredit RationalWiki. Nor am I a right-winger disguised as a left-winger in order to discredit Wikipedia. My contribution history is here [27] for anyone to examine. These attempts by the racial hereditarian POV-pushers to portray me as part of a conspiracy against Wikipedia are disruptive. NightHeron (talk) 10:44, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

If some of the other individuals who were present for these off-Wiki discussions, who have not been parties to the current dispute, eventually come forward to confirm what I and the IP have said, will that be enough for you to stop accusing us of making this up to support our viewpoint on the articles? Gardenofaleph (talk) 02:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

It's astounding that this level of conspiracy theorizing is allowed to happen anywhere on Wikipedia, let alone on the ArbCom talk page. --JBL (talk) 12:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Gardenofaleph, I just want to be completely clear as to what you're confessing to here (and this is, if I understand right, a confession; I'm baffled as to why you think it implicates NightHeron.) According to what you and the IP said here, you, that editor, and a few other editors who you and the IP consider broadly sympathetic to your cause participated in, or were at least aware of, a coordinated effort to add false information and hoaxes to RationalWiki, intending for the additions to be a parody of left-wing views introduced across multiple articles there with the intention of discrediting the site; the IP confessed their part in this hoax, and you roughly agreed with their account, in order to... accuse other people, who you disagree with, of off-wiki coordination as well? It seems like the things you are revealing and the points you are making discredit you more than anything else; while a history of posting coordinated hoaxes on RationalWiki with the goal of lampooning your ideological enemies is not, obviously, something that is sanctionable on Wikipedia, it is hardly the kind of thing that you want to reveal when trying to argue that you have approached the subject in a neutral fashion or when trying to accuse other editors of off-wiki coordination. --Aquillion (talk) 06:28, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I was aware of the hoax material because I was present in the RationalWiki Discord (a.k.a. "The Treehouse") when it was discussed there. I mostly just kept quiet and listened to what others were saying. Also, this was a discussion about similar material at both RationalWiki and Wikipedia, and how both sites could be undermined by exploiting their users' opposition to anything they perceived as racist.

One of the individuals on Discord bragged about how he was rewriting Wikipedia's Race and intelligence article to turn it into a subtle parody. This discussion happened around the end of April or the beginning of May 2020. IIRC he did not mention a specific Wikipedia username, but this was the point in time when a large portion of that article was being rewritten by NightHeron, and the Discord user's description of his edits to that article also matched, so it was evident from the context what Wikipedia account he was using (or wanted the other people there to believe he was using).

I'm not clear on what you think I should have done differently. Surely being present in a Discord server when a topic was discussed there is not enough to implicate me in off-Wiki coordination. If your suggestion is that I should have spoken up about this sooner than I did, I spoke up when I felt it was safe for me to do so, but I was in no hurry to support the IP user about this after he was topic banned for bringing it up.

Before this case goes to arbitration (which I predict it eventually will), I thought it was important for me to try to confront NightHeron about it directly. I've fulfilled that obligation now, and we aren't accomplishing anything by continuing to talk about this here. I'm only replying again because you asked me a question, and now that I've answered it I'd like to drop this now, at least until there's an arbitration case. It's evident that other editors would like me to drop it also. So please, let's not keep prolonging this discussion further. Gardenofaleph (talk) 14:49, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

The notion that the work that I and other editors did to bring R&I into compliance with WP:FRINGE and WP:FALSEBALANCE would somehow discredit Wikipedia is absurd and doesn't need a response.

For the record, I have never participated in any discussion on Discord, ever.

@Gardenofaleph: Your false accusation that I have made edits for the purpose of discrediting Wikipedia is an insulting personal attack. Please retract it immediately. NightHeron (talk) 20:12, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

One thing that might help is to have R&I be covered by 30/500. Levivich 15:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

To RfC or not to RfC

I'll belatedly weigh in here, as it was my objections to the draft R&I talk FAQ that lit the fuse on all this, the powder having been accumulating for the past 2 years.

I think RfC(s) or other talk or administrative activity would eventually, under some conditions yet to be satisfied, be useful. But an RfC now on anything closely tied to the running R&I disputes on fringe/sourcing/NPOV/verifiability would be a total disaster that exacerbates the problems and forms (or intensifies existing) enmities between camps and editors for no net benefit to the encyclopedia. I predict that fallout would include a lot of serious and expert contributors dropping out in disgust, whatever the outcome; again, for no benefit.

There are real problems with the handling of FRINGE and NPOV especially in areas such as DGG mentioned. There are also behavioral problems specific to R&I, as people have started to elaborate here, including the formulation and conduct of the two RfCs and the use to which those RfCs have been put since then. If I have time and it's relevant here I can post more about that, there are various things that should be done that may or (more likely) may not be ArbCom relevant that would mitigate those problems, but I actually think that for the R&I associated issues that are bubbling, those matters are all secondary to a different question that is not itself ready for an RfC but can inform one later.

The core problem here is that despite 2 RfCs ostensibly about the subject, the question of the "is it fringe" RfC on R&I hereditarianism was never substantively "litigated" in the first place. Through vagueness, heroic BLUDGEONing, endless digressions and confusions, emotionally charged histrionics and the accidental or strategic chaos resulting from all of that, the first RfC somehow passed, without any attempt to survey what is the expert academic literature and what does it say on this in works establishing current consensus (i.e., postgraduate textbooks up to the present date, review articles considered to consolidate the mainstream view by demonstrating its empirical correctness, by systematically refuting other views, or judging rival theories against each other). Sources presented in favor of the RfC were few, discredited, ancient, irrelevant, nonexpert, or cursory. The relentless BLUDGEON stopped discussion of much else besides accusations of racism and the like.

The second RfC was cursory, excluded (even by threats if I remember their timing correctly) a number of knowledgeable editors who could have contributed, did not inform many interested parties from earlier discussions, and in any case again did not survey the literature. The result was to take a subset of the previous voters who were more strongly disposed toward the first RfC, who predictably reaffirmed it, again circumventing analysis of the actual state of things.

I believe that Ferahgo, the 2600 IP or IPs, other users expert in the topic, or searches of library catalogs could quickly generate a relatively complete list of graduate textbooks on intelligence (as psychometric or neuro science, not philosophy/humanities or something without equations) since 1970 that discuss these questions in depth. There have not been many serious reviews of this topic so finding and adding those should not be so difficult. I have gathered maybe 20 (did not count) such sources of either kind from my own research. I would gladly contribute to the next step, taking a census of what these experts say. Also their scientific orientation (hereditarian, antihereditarian, unknown) should be identified. Seeing a list of a few dozen quotations from the sources would do wonders for bringing closure to this matter. At that point, it will be clear what to do in an RfC, and RfCs on related questions such as sourcing, verifiability concerns, NPOV etc will have a highly relevant and convincing case study to work with.

That is my suggestion and request to Ferahgo et al. To not push an RfC right now but post a list of as many sources as you consider relevant at some editable location where people can contribute their own sources (of the consensus establishng type) and collaboratively add quotations giving the position of all the sources thus found. Until that picture of the literature is clear, and I think it will support the direction you are trying to go, it is premature to go forward, and any problems you are trying to solve will be made worse on many dimensions, including the ability to fix them for areas other than R&I. Or maybe the literature search will confirm the current status quo, but with better sources for the articles, which is also fine if that's what the experts really say. Either way the core problem is to untangle the real or perceived dissonance between Wiki world and the expert literature. Sesquivalent (talk) 07:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I think the proposed course of action above makes good sense; I agree that another RfC at this point about R&I would not be as helpful as more general discussion . Argumentation is a poor substitute for examination of sources and evidence But some of the problem, as is frequently the case at WP, comes from our desire for sharp classification such as reliable/not reliable, and fringe/not fringe. There are degrees of fringiness even in science. Further, I'm not sure the entire concept of fringe as we use it makes sense in any field where human emotions are a factor, because once they are, we are likely to decide questions by what we want to be true. DGG ( talk ) 07:57, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@Sesquivalent: I agree with DGG that this proposal sounds like a good idea. Where do you think this list of sources ought to be compiled? The Arbcom talk page presumably is not the best location for that.

I would advise against hosting the list in the userspace of any of the major parties to the dispute, as that could lead to accusations that the list is "owned" by one particular person. The goal of creating such a list would be to more accurately analyze the balance of viewpoints that exists in the source literature, not to advance the viewpoint of any individual editor. My suggestion would be to create the list of sources as a subpage of Talk:Race and intelligence, but I'm open to other ideas.

I'd also like to discuss some possible criteria for sources to be included on the list, but first I think we should make a decision about the location. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there is so much risk either way, since all that would happen is crowdsourced accumulation of data that can be used by different people in different ways, rather than construction of a Unique Official Version. Anyone interested can archive or fork the collection as they wish. A non user page such as a specially created subpage of Talk has its own risk, e.g. if admins on their own or under pressure from interested parties freeze or delete the page, or artificially impose a deadline or other restriction.

Criteria for sources is a matter of clarifying what "consensus establishing (or consensus revealing) source" can mean. For a decades old and extremely contentious academic debate, in any field the size of psychology or its implicated subdisciplines, it is inconceivable that the debate was settled without a specific type of paper trail having been deposited in the academic literature. In science, consensus is pretty much always created and consolidated by:

1. what is widely taught to doctoral students specializing in the subdiscipline, usually recorded in postgraduate level textbooks or treatises rather than the potted summaries provided to undergrads;

2. review articles, rebuttable by replies, affirmatively demonstrating with data and arguments that one position is correct, or that data/arguments for competing positions are invalid, or that the weight of evidence (if not yet proof) for one position is much stronger than for others

3. multiple later citations of the reviews or treatises, by independent (i.e., not associated with any side of the controversy) expert third parties, stating that the current consensus is the position argued in those sources.

Absence of this type of evidence is in fact evidence of absence of a consensus. For instance, people here have cited blog posts for a popular audience, and advocacy pieces in mass media, as supposed indication of a scientific consensus. But those pieces are mysteriously lacking in citations to books and reviews that give those arguments in depth to an audience of peers in a position to debate and rebut, much less independent corroborations. Finally,

4. Material published for a general audience does count as negative evidence when it is an admission against interest by a partisan in the debate. If a leading proponent of position X says on TV that current evidence for X is insufficient to draw conclusions, that tells you there is no consensus in favor of X.

The other issue is, in which disciplines are we interested in determining the state of opinion. Hereditarianism has been argued on the basis of data from psychometrics, behavior genetics (which is not really genetics in the biologists' sense despite the name), and to a lesser extent brain/neuro science. The opinions of anthropologists, lawyers, historians, real geneticists, gender studies specialists, etc are relevant only to the extent they can affirm or refute the empirical data and arguments provided by hereditarians (or their opponents), and are published in places where relevant experts can evaluate and debate them. The mere existence of professors with an opinion is not surprising or pertinent unless they directly impinge on the empirical science debate. It is great to collect and utilize those outside opinions, to whatever extent people are interested in doing so, as long as that is clearly distinguished from anything to do with the empirical scientific debate and not used to obfuscate the "scientific consensus". Sesquivalent (talk) 14:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Several years ago, another editor who was active on these articles created his own list of sources in his userspace. But most other users understood this was his own personal list of sources that had been cherry-picked to support his point of view, and I don't think that list was used by anyone else. If we're going to create a list of sources, it should be a communal list of sources that anyone can contribute to. As such, I think it should be a subpage of the article talk page, not in someone's userspace.

This also means we should make the list as exhaustive as possible, and try to include all sources that satisfy our criteria for inclusion, regardless of their viewpoint, so as to best avoid the sort of cherry-picking that was done on the earlier list.

I mostly agree with the criteria you've proposed for what sources to include, but I have a few others to suggest:

1. I suggest that we limit the list sources that satisfy the requirements of the article's sourcing restriction: "peer-reviewed scholarly journals and academically focused books by reputable publishers". As you said, this means no newspaper articles, blog posts, or books from non-academic publishers. It also means no papers from non-reputable journals such as Mankind Quarterly.
2. We should make it explicit that when adding sources to the list, there won't be any of this business of declaring sources unreliable or inadmissible because they present "fringe" views or because the author has published other, separate papers in unreliable journals. The entire point of the list is to more rigorously evaluate what is or isn't fringe or NPOV, so the only a priori assumptions about what sources are admissible on the list should be the article's sourcing restriction, and the criteria for reliability that are explicitly stated by RS policy.
3. I agree that we should limit it to empirically-oriented sources, and I think it would be good to develop a very clear set of criteria for inclusion. Here’s one suggestion: during the 2010 R&I mediation, a decision was made to mostly limit the Race and intelligence article to discussion of the contemporary scientific debate, while the historical and political aspects of the topic were split into the History of the race and intelligence controversy article. In accordance with that decision, I suggest that the list be limited to sources that are primarily about the current scientific (rather than historical and political) aspects of the controversy.
4. Trying to list every major secondary source about the scientific aspect of this topic published since the 1970s may prove to be an impossible task. I can think of at least a dozen such sources published in the past decade alone, and older sources also tend to be less valuable in terms of establishing the current consensus. I would suggest choosing a more recent cutoff date, preferably something within the past twenty years. Since the advent of genetic technology represents a major paradigm shift in psychology, perhaps 2003--the date that the Human Genome Project was completed--would make a good hardline cutoff.
5. Finally, whatever criteria we decide on should be mentioned on the source list itself. Otherwise they're likely to be ignored in the same way that the sourcing restriction for the article itself has been ignored, with editors adding citations to newspapers and blogs even though the restriction prohibits that (examples: [28], [29]).

Everyone else, feel free to chime in about what Sesquivalent and I have proposed here. I would particularly like to hear from Stonkaments, as he is the only major party to the dispute on these articles who hasn't commented in this discussion yet. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 00:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

This might be my only comment here and I've noticed that some editors rightly consider that there is no need or point to participate. It's not WP's role to survey a high number of disparate sources and attempt to evaluate a consensus, it is more important to find reliable independent sources that speak about such a consensus. Not being a journal or magazine, it's also normal for Wikipedia to be conservative, as such on a number of topics it's indeed acceptable to use textbooks and in other cases WP:PARITY even applies (especially sources that just recall of a consensus when claims are widely refuted by the scientific community). It is possible that the particular views of some psychologists have some place in Wikipedia, the most plausible place for such would be their own BLP article, especially if it's views that have been noticed and analysed by others (making WP:DUE and WP:NPOV coverage possible using independent WP:RS). I was tempted to enumerate a number of clues about why plausible genetic links between actual or latent intelligence and groups are considered unlikely, but that's been done before, there are articles with citations about it, a decent essay also exists, so it's not necessary. WP is also not the place for endless repetitive teach-the-controversy-style debates (WP:SOAPBOX also relevant)... —PaleoNeonate – 16:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Ferahgo and the others she's recruiting to work on such a source list have been relentlessly trying to reverse or circumvent the R&I consensus for almost two years, and it's reasonable to assume that that's also the purpose of this latest proposal. A source list drawn up primarily by advocates of racial hereditarianism will inevitably be skewed toward legitimizing sources that support that POV. Such sources have been discussed many times in different forums, and consensus has found them to be promoting fringe and unreliable -- for example, articles in the ISIR journal Intelligence that claim evidence for genetic differences in intelligence between races, and Heiner Rindermann's so-called "survey" of opinion on the subject. If the racial hereditarian editors create such a source list, other editors will have to get involved in disputing it. That means relitigating the same issues again, and this will be an unnecessary drain on editors' time. All of this is just a case of a small group of POV-pushing editors refusing to accept consensus. NightHeron (talk) 18:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ferahgo the Assassin: Thanks for the ping. I'm a bit torn on the value of compiling an extensive list of source material. On the one hand I doubt that it will be very valuable, as it will inevitably be dismissed as cherry-picked and unreliable/fringe sources. And as User:PaleoNeonate noted, any claims about the scientific consensus in wikivoice should come from reliable review articles that discuss such consensus, not editors' own synthesis of sources. On the other hand, apart from the question of scientific consensus, there is the separate question of WP:FRINGE; i.e. whether a genetic component to racial differences in intelligence is a fringe view in the scientific community. And in answering that question, it does seem to me that an expansive compilation of reliable sources addressing the hereditarian view would be quite relevant—in theory at least. However, based on my reading of the room, I suspect that even if the perfect compilation of all relevant and reliable sources could be assembled, and even if it clearly showed that a genetic component has significant scientific support, I suspect that convincing a majority here to change their minds on the fringe determination may be about as successful as trying to convince a cat it wants to go swimming. As such, I've decided to turn my focus off-wiki.

[Focusing your efforts elsewhere may feel like giving up or admitting defeat, but 1) Wikipedia isn't a WP:BATTLEGROUND; and 2) you can actually have much higher leverage/impact elsewhere, in genuinely collaborative spaces where you don't face a giant uphill battle to make even the smallest of improvements. I'm holding out hope that the climate here will change to become less one-sided someday—luckily it should be self-correcting to some extent, where if Wikipedia becomes too biased it will lose credibility and another more based project will fill the void.] Stonkaments (talk) 00:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

:::::The sources you used in your RfC were absurdly cherry picked and included newspaper articles, pop-sci books and blogposts. This alone invalidates the RfC. A new one should be held with a comprehensive source list. And I'm sure you'd be welcome to at least attempt to include your favorite sources. DuskDuck (talk) 10:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC) — DuskDuck (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please feel free to have this conversation in a location where other interested editors are watching and may participate. isaacl (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I've CU blocked DustDock, almost certainly a Mikemikev sock, definitely an Alan B. Samuels sock — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 16:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with isaacl that we're getting beyond discussion of the Arbitration Committee here. Further discussion should probably take place elsewhere. --BDD (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

The 20 June 2021 version of WP:AC/DS, section 'Awareness': Special:PermaLink/1029570204#aware.aware, the one but last item of the numbered list seems to lack '; or' at the end. --CiaPan (talk) 10:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Good spot. I will update the page as a clerk action as this is a minor uncontroversial change. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 15:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Dreamy Jazz: Glad to help CiaPan (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Role of Jimmy Wales has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Colonestarrice (talk) 11:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Julian Assange is under discretionary sanctions, quite strong ones. However I notice it is not listed here nor do I see a heading under which it would anaturaly appear. Should all instances be listed here? NadVolum (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@NadVolum it is covered under WP:ARBAPDS as detailed on Talk:Julian Assange. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The way that the WP:ARBAPDS get applied to a particular page, such as the one about Assange, is described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Page restrictions. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I recently opened a discussion at WT:SPI § Effect of username change on past SPI reports, the contents of which might be of specific interest to visitors and administrators at RFAR too. I wish to invite any interested editor to the discussion. Thank you. ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 06:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Unless the case request is solely about an administrator or in other limited circumstances, case names for the last couple of years will generally not contain the username of any involved user. This means for nearly all users involved in arbitration cases there will be a redlink, regardless of whether the party was also later sanctioned in a remedy (such as block, topic ban, etc). As such for the ((rfplinks)) template, this link probably won't be a bluelink for anyone mentioned via this template even before they are renamed. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 10:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I was contacted off-wiki by an Arb who said not to edit the page, since I'm not a clerk. I didn't realize this was a rule, but I'm perfectly fine to abide by it, so here's an edit request for the members section:

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Please move WormThatTurned from inactive to active (see: this edit, in which the arb voted to accept a case). — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mhawk10: No offence, but it's none of our business. Let clerk-l dictate these matters. Nor, by the way, do I think WP:BOLD applies; WTT may have many reasons for being active on this case, but not another (for example) as of course Primefac will confirm. Cheers, SN54129 20:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

If this is something that is best handled internally among ArbCom, I'm more than happy to avoid any making requests like this in the future and I apologize for causing a kerfluffle. Primefac seems to have already made the edit just before I made the request, so I'm going to withdraw my edit request. — Mhawk10 (talk) 20:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

An excellent choice. Particularly as you, err, don't actually seem to have had a conflict-of-interest  :) SN54129 20:12, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, the template was not the best. To be honest, I didn't really know which edit template to make a request with, since there isn't one (that I know of) to request a clerk to do something. Now I understand that it's that way for a reason :) — Mhawk10 (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any edit notices or hidden text on Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee or its subpage to tell users that only the Committee should edit it. How was Mhawk10 supposed to know that? Maybe the Committee should add something to tell people that? And why are they reprimanding Mhawk10 for a non-existent rule off-wiki when it could easily be said on-wiki? Modulus12 (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

That's a fair point, I added another hidden comment. [30]. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Modulus12, for bringing this up and thank you, Beeblebrox, for implementing the solution on the members subpage. Just so that another editor doesn't get reprimanded for doing something similar to what I did without a real way of knowing that their actions are not kosher, would it be possible to add an editnotice or a comment to the main arbitration committee page as well? — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, where could I find the list of DS notice templates that could be issued to users? I'm specifically looking for the notice alerting editors to WP:ARBEE. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Template:Ds/alert#Codes is the list of areas covered. Izno (talk) 17:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

For a list of areas that are, or were previously, covered by discretionary sanctions with an unabbreviated description of the scope, see WP:DSTOPICS.

This is probably not what you (K.e.coffman) are looking for specifically this time, but it is probably what some other people reading this (now or in the future) will be searching for. Thryduulf (talk) 23:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Original discussion

Original discussion

Original discussion

Original discussion

Is it okay to add the shortcut WP:ARBGUNS to the shortcut box at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a notice placed on the User:Igor B. user page relating to an ARBCOM case – WP:BOGDANOV. As Igor Bogdanov is now deceased, there is no relevance for that notice to appear on that editor's user page now. Can it be removed please? Mjroots (talk) 17:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee is currently discussing the matter, as precipitated by this AN thread about the same issue. Primefac (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Primefac. Seems to be the right thing to do, but didn't want to tread on ARBCOM's toes by being bold. Mjroots (talk) 05:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I have been requested to redirect WP:ARBDEL to a specific case. Should I accept it? Thanks. NotReallySoroka (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

( Peanut gallery comment) I don't recall a logical WP:ARB... shortcut redirect to an arbcom case being controversial, but if it was then it could be dealt with in the usual way (informal discussion, RfD, etc). Thryduulf (talk) 20:06, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't really think we need a shortcut for every case.... Izno (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I feel like the shortcuts are generally for cases that are widely cited after they are complete, usually in the context of WP:ACDS. As this is a case about the actions of individual editors it doesn't seem needed, but since it has already been created... meh. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Beeblebrox Yeah. I saw WP:ARBEURO, that’s why. Do you want me to ask for U1? NotReallySoroka (talk) 00:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Since it already exists, we might as well just leave it be. Primefac (talk) 10:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

There is also this discussion about shortcuts in general and for this specific case where L235 and I have weighed in. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)