Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

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

Arbitration motion regarding the extended confirmed restriction

Original announcement

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

This motion didn't change that provision. However, as for the original provision, it's speedy deletion under WP:G5. The remedy is an equivalent to a topic ban for all non-EC editors from the topic. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:57, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

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

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

I see {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement}} has been updated; {{Contentious topics/Arab-Israeli talk notice}} has not. (Do we really need both? And same question for {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice}}/{{Contentious topics/Arab-Israeli editnotice}}?) —Cryptic 22:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

The change in ECP restrictions at [1] has been discussed here:[2] I've had problems understanding it and having just run across this AE case see that I'm not the only one. User:Selfstudier, User:Zero0000, User:El C any comments or have I misunderstood you? Doug Weller talk 14:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

The only thing they can do is make edit requests. There is no longer any discussion option. FWIW the old version prohibited participation in RFCs also. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

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

You're right it's not responsive to the criticism because I didn't understand it as criticism I understood it as confusion which I attempted to clarify. Let me make some comments and see if any/all of these answer the criticism. I think reading only that sentence in isolation is at the heart of this confusion. The key sentence in this part is not this talk page one but The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed, with the following exceptions:. So that is an absolute prohibition. Everything that follows starts from non EC can edit nothing. Beyond that the confusion seems to be over the word only. That was added after voting had started based on an editor suggestion in order to clarify things. I didn't throw up a roadblock to that change but also didn't think it needed so if that's the word that's the problem I'm the wrong person to ask. I hope somewhere in here I answered the criticism that you wanted a response to. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

The confusion can be eliminated by taking out the word "only." Then it will read:

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

1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.

Which is clear, whether you read (A) and (1) together, or just read (1) in isolation. Levivich (talk) 17:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, not really. I also don't think it would be productive to get bogged down in the semantics of criticism of confusion due to unclear wording. The issue is about potential edit requests via the talk pages of AfDs, DRVs, etc., onto those project pages themselves. I think it's best to make it expressly clear: that non-EC users are only allowed to file edit requests to pertinent articles (content templates?) in contradistinction to internal project pages and processes. Hope this clarifies mine and others' confusion/criticism/lack of clarity. El_C 17:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

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

I would write it like this:

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

1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace to make article edit requests, provided they are not disruptive.

Levivich (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

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

I would go with "provided they are constructive" rather than "not disruptive". Also I opened a discussion that relates to this over at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Welcome message for new editors editing ARBPIA topics that I would appreciate feedback on. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

"Constructive" would be holding non-EC editors to a higher standard than EC editors. There's a lot of space between constructive and non-disruptive. WP:DISRUPT is a guideline but "constructive" is in the eye of the beholder. Levivich (talk) 17:57, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

To shorten it further, Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace to make non-disruptive article edit requests. Levivich (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the real confusion at AE was over the word "only", for which the reasoning was given in the talk section right above this one. Rather, I think the confusion is over whether edit requests are permitted throughout the "Talk:" namespace, or whether they are permitted only on the talk pages of EC-protected mainspace articles. And I kinda think the answer to that is up to ArbCom.

The IP who opened the AE did indeed have confusion over "only", but if one looks at what the IP said, the contention was that "in the "Talk:" namespace, nothing other than an edit request may be made or edit requests may not be made anywhere else than in the "Talk:" namespace" are contradictions. As long as there is clarity over what is meant by the "Talk:" namespace, it's clear that the first interpretation is the correct (intended) one, while the second is actually a true statement that does not contradict anything (that I can see). Instead, it's just kind of irrelevant, and maybe wikilawyering that other talk page contributions are permitted, so long as edit requests aren't put in the wrong place.

I think that this can be cleared up by saying:

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

1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the talk pages of articles within the topic area, but only to make non-disruptive edit requests.

--Tryptofish (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

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

This is actually the main problem with the new wording, which I forgot about yesterday. But I remember thinking about it a week ago when I first seen the motion (seen it, mind you, briefly and in passing). Namely, what do you with WP:ER follow ups. What limits should be set for these, and how does it not become merely a normal discussion? Because indeed, sometimes solutions and resolutions only materialize after several iterations of dialogue within a single edit request. So how many edit requests does a non-EC user get per talk page, per subject matter inquiry, and how many follow ups? I realize a lot of it falls on admin discretion and a broad sense of reasonableness, but the absence of clear guidelines could make this model quite problematic. I get the wish to impose greater limits on non-EC participation, which I'm not inherently opposed to, but applying it in practice may prove to be a whole other animal (in a whole other galaxy). El_C 08:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Is there any template we can use to inform editors of the current restrictions on them participating in discussions? I don't mean a generic contentious topics one, rather I'm wondering if there's a template I could have used to inform these IP editors [3] why I deleted their posting. (As I understand it, it was reasonable for me to delete their comments since they weren't allowed to post them and no one had commented who could.) Nil Einne (talk) 07:17, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

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

SFR, I'd suggest changing the template background color to something like Template:Contentious topics/alert/first. The current lime green color makes it look like a warning instead of an introduction. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I thought green was a non-threatening color, and it won't disappear if the alert/first template is given at the same time. The hope is that the plain language explanation of the most important thing will stand out. I opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Welcome message for new editors editing ARBPIA topics. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

If you and others would also comment at KevinL talk, we can try and put this to bed. Selfstudier (talk) 14:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Appeal from Ethan2345678

Original announcement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patient Zero, I think this is an excellent idea and I was going to suggest mentoring. I don't mind lending you a hand if it gives a committed editor another opportunity. I don't view it a waste of time for the community to work together to assist an editor that has potential and a willingness to do what right. Just need to see that they are committed to it. --ARoseWolf 12:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

@Barkeep49 wait what? The question we're asking is if this is or isn't a checkuser block, how would anything the blocked party says impact the current state of the block? — xaosflux ^Talk 02:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

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

I didn't mean to put words in your mouth there DFO, this was more along what Extraordinary Writ was also asking - why is this situation being handled by our final dispute resolution body? Has the ability for the community to deal with this unblock appeal been exhausted? — xaosflux ^Talk 02:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Xaosflux, I left out important information. What limited discussion there has not brought evidence that this was a CU block. The question was asked to Ethan about posting his appeal on wiki either for feedback (if it turns out to be CU) or for community handling (if it wasn't). Barkeep49 (talk) 02:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I will try to take some time tomorrow to dig up/explain the history behind this account appealing. Izno (talk) 07:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I went back and actually read through UTRS appeal #55809. User had had a sock, definitelyduke255 (talk · contribs) that was/is/'ere shall be checkuser blocked. I'd been instructed, it seems, to ask them to email ArbCom for that. Just to be sure. At the time, I was hoping to clear a path to an unblock. So Xasoflux was right that there was a potential CU issue. (sigh) Anyway, unless something hideous arises, endorse unblock. Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Definitelyduke255 is not checkuser-blocked: it's just a regular sockpuppetry block. That's the reason several of us were confused here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

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

History dig up and who's responsible

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

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

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

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

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

I don't see why the locked account is an issue if there's already a process in place between ArbCom and the stewards. Seems like this is a straightforward case of the community deciding whether to unblock, and then the stewards will do their thing. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

quo vadimis? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Opabinia regalis resignation

Original announcement

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

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

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

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

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

Alalch E.'s topic ban rescinded

Original announcement

Suspension of Beeblebrox

Original announcement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  There was an agreement that although some information wasn't going to be included in the announcement, it could be revealed by an arb on the talk page -- In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 12:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

  Don't you think it's a bit contemptible to prepare this disclosure as a defensive line for expected pushback but not have the courtesy or manners to share this little tidbit with Beebs/JSS first? To me it's unbelievably cynical and disrespectful. Regardless of the motivations for the action this doesn't portray arbcom as honest actors in this event. Shame, shame and thrice shame!

  le to Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

  It's normal for the Committee to announce on its noticeboard only the motion(s) that have passed. It's also normal for arbitrators to discuss where they disagreed with the committee's decision on the ACN talk page. In this case, the Committee specifically considered and agreed that arbitrators may share the details of the vote on the talk page if asked. Would you mind expanding on why in your view that is cynical and disrespectful? Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

  You don’t see that agreeing in advance to reveal information you withheld from Beebs without sharing with him first is selfserving and disrespectful to him as a person? Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

  All the evidence that was considered when making this decision was shared with Beebs/Just Step Sideways in the first email notifying him that removal was being discussed. This happened well before the voting started and between that first email and the voting being finalized, there were multiple rounds of emails with Beeblebrox. So not only was the evidence shared with him ahead of time, but I also had the chance to share with him my reasoning and thinking. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

  That's a very politician like answer and slides right past my point as you full well know. Fact is, you folks planned what information you would release for handing dissent purposes but didn't feel the subject of the discussion had any rights to be told the same information in advance of your releasing. I stand by my description. Contemptible, cynical and disrespectful. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

  I clearly don't understand the why of this criticism. I understand the anger level, which makes me want to understand the criticism and so I'm sorry that I don't understand. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Spartaz: I wanted to release who vote totals for the options as well as each arb's position on removal in the announcement, but lost. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

  That's irrelevant to my point. You will tell the community to stave off dissent but none of you thought Beebs had a right to the same information in advance. That's frankly shitty Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  The overwhelming majority of wikis also have significantly less editors and page views than the English Wikipedia. — Frostly (talk) 18:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

  Who wants an example of a big wiki without ArbCom is welcome to look at Commons. Not sure this is what people here want to emulate. Ymblanter (talk) 18:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

  Why is Commons not a project to emulate? --MZMcBride (talk) 19:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

  Because whereas there exists a mechanism of community desysopping, and several admins have been desysopped via this mechanism, before this mechanism is really made to work, an admin should really exhaust the patience of the whole community, no less than that. For example, in not-so-distant past I remember an admin blocking (indef, unless I am mistaken) a checkuser) because they disagree with something. An admin eventually resigned, but the desysop has not even seriously been discussed. Any long-term Commons contributor can recollect dozens of such cases. Imagine I block an arbitrator here because I do not like an ArbCom decision they drafted or an oversight because I disagree with a suppression - how long would I still be an admin? Ymblanter (talk) 20:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

  How, in your mind, are page views relevant? --MZMcBride (talk) 19:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      @Salvidrim! Oui! De plus mon commentaire n'est pas une intrigue EvergreenFir (talk) 23:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

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

      Icewhiz was the one who ran for adminship but who was discovered to be a sock during their RfA (which probably would've succeeded if they weren't found out). Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 18:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

      Nope, as it turns out, Icewhiz was a person who got ArbCom blocked (and now sanfranbanned) whose sock, Eostrix, did the adminship thing. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 21:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

other stuff for context regarding the "totality of evidence"

And then I was told there was a "totality of evidence" including the incidents that led to the 2021 sure-doesn't-look-like-a-final-warning-to-me alluded to above. Three things were mentioned in that incident. One was comments I made on another WMF site about a user on that site, along with a parrelell conversation at Wikipediocracy. It had literally nothing to do with the committee or any kind of confidential information, some people just didn't like it. That's it. No actual policy violation. Another was my supposed outing of the troll who is at the center of all of this. There was no outing. Anyone in possession of even half of the facts knows this. No confidentail information of any kind was involved, and again it was utterly unrelated to any arbcom business. The third thing mentioned in there was a remark I did make on one of the mailing lists that I deeply regret. I beilieve what happened was that I thought I was commenting on the ArbCom list when it was in fact the functionaries list and my comment was about a specific member of that team, and not a very positive one. I never intended to insult this user, let alone to do so in front of their peers. It was an error apparenty due to innatention and I apologized to the user and to other functionaries who expressed their dismay about it. So, that's what that is about. I therefore do not agree that the more recent incident was part of a pattern as it was none of the things I was warned about. There's another thread on Wikipediocracy about a user from another wiki who was blocked and told they could appeal to the en arbcom for some reason, which they did. As a result of this misdirection, I became aware of the reason they had been blocked. Those responsible for the block shared that with us, but were not sharing it with the actual user that had been blocked. So, yeah, when they got close to guessing the correct answer I made a coy comment that basically telegraphed that they had succesfully figured out why they were blocked. So, I let somebody know why they were blocked so that they would have a fair chance at actually appealing it. They did, and they got unblocked. I consider that the correct result and I don't care that I bent the rules a little to help out with it. This was a while ago, but it was finally brought up during the conversation we just had over the last few days. I told the committee that I felt the term "Kafkaesque" actually applied properly for once, as refusing to tell an accused person what they are accused of is the central theme of The Trial as well as In the Penal Colony. If I hadn't come by this information due to the apparent bad advice they received, they would probably still be blocked with no idea why, but I'm ther bad guy in this sceanrio.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  It wasn't our information to reveal. I did try to help by talking to the people because I did think the situation wrong. I just decided to do try and help with in the bounds of the rules. Barkeep49 (talk) 13:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

  See my previous response about those who blindly follow rules. I'm disappointed, Barkeep49, as I didn't think you were one of them. (In fact, I still don't think you're one of them, which leaves me puzzled too). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

  Obviously I still respect Beebs/Just Step Sideways. However, if I have options to help respecting rules or not respecting rules I am going to choose the respecting rules route. Barkeep49 (talk) 13:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

  That you would choose to blindly follow rules that stop people doing the morally right thing... well, I really don't think I need to say any more. Other than to stress that I'm disappointed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

  ↑+1. DuncanHill (talk) 13:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think this is as black and white as is being made out here. If a user is blocked as a sock of a different user, telling the user the small details, "your <redacted exact private data> is the same as X editor on Y day" might help them clear out their name and get unblocked, but is also a gross violation of basic privacy policy, and not to mention, that now the user gains a understanding about what data the CheckUser tool collects, which they can use to their socking advantage in the future. Sohom (talk) 15:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

  Revealing somebody's own data to them is not a violation of their privacy. In the case you give it would only be a privacy violation if they were not a sock. "We can't give you the evidence we used to find you guilty because we are not confident you actually are guilty" is perhaps not the greatest moral stand is it? DuncanHill (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

  That was not the scenario here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

  1000%, if you are commanded to do something morally bankrupt you should disobey that command. Resign after if your respect of the rules demands it, but certainly dont just follow it. nableezy - 15:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

There no such thing as a "small detail". ArbCom is entrusted with data that must not be made public. There is no exception for releasing data when it is a "small detail". Sometimes a "small detail" is the jigsaw piece that enables finishing the puzzle. That one piece can mean the entire puzzle. Any member of ArbCom releasing data (no matter how small) compromises the integrity of ArbCom. This has happened before, and is why I and several people I am aware of do not trust ArbCom with confidential data. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I was just gonna say that the confidentiality agreement I signed said that confidential information may not be disclosed to anyone. It did not make an exception for off Wiki sites. Don't know what the one the Arbs sign says. I think disclosure of such information requires removal of CU and Oversight rights. And is unbecoming for an Arb. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The NDA that we signed with the WMF as part of the checkuser and/or oversight onboarding process refers to the private data that we may (will) encounter. It doesn't include general commentary on internal proceedings. For example, if I were to voice my displeasure on-wiki over a thread on functionaries-en but didn't release personal information, that is allowed by the WMF access to nonpublic data policy. I guess the real question, which only Beeblebrox and ArbCom can answer, is what type of data was released? Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, in the case that led to my suspension, it was the very existence of a particular discussion, and the result of that discussion. No details whatsoever regarding who said what in the discussion, no PII, nothing like that. Just "this discussion was had and this was the result." The word "omerta" was part of the discussion that followed. I rephrased that as "snitches get stitches" in one of my replies to the committee. Not sure if I had already lost them before that, but it probably didn't help. And I'd add that I'm not arguing back against the points Barkeep is making, I accept that I violated the code of silence and was shanked for it. I think the code of silence stinks. I could've resigned, but I made it clear to the committee I was not going to do that either and they would have to either accept what I did or kick me out. Clearly they chose option 2. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 17:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

There was no one case that led to your suspension. There were many. There was a most recent case, but for me I didn't give it much or any weight. I feel like I've said pretty much all I've needed to say and absent some major new question which I can clarify I expect to largely let others discuss. However, if I need keep repeating this point I will. I don't want a false narrative that this was about the last case, rather than all the cases, to take hold. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I want to emphasise this as well. The last incident I regarded as minor, and if that was all it was, a comment along the lines of "That probably wasn't wise, best not do it again" would have been more than sufficient. Mistakes happen. Potentially unsound decisions happen. Lack of clarity regarding boundaries happen. Etc. I voted for suspension when it became clear that there were several incidents, that Beebs had been made aware that these incidents should stop yet had continued, and was pushing back against colleagues who were presenting their concerns regarding this. The last incident wasn't so much a final straw incident, as one that caused some of us to reflect back on previous incidents and realise that it shouldn't have got this far anyway. SilkTork (talk) 19:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

But that begs the question: If the "most recent" incident wasn't noteworthy, why was removal done now? Why was it not done earlier when Beeblebrox actually committed the alleged violations? These non-explanations really don't look good for the existing arbitrators. I'm going to ask again: Did Beeblebrox reveal non-public information as defined in the foundation:Privacy policy and the foundation:Access to nonpublic information policy? If so, why was his access not revoked earlier? If not, what type of information was revealed? This whole thing is starting to stink. Transparency is important, and while obviously some information cannot be made public, the existence of discussions is not.

As of now, Beeblebrox is claiming that he merely mentioned the existence of discussion(s). Other members of arbcom, many of whom I deeply respect, are going around in circles and saying nothing. You need to at least clarify what type of data was released and if people were harmed or could have been harmed by the release of said data. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

To quote SilkTork The last incident wasn't so much a final straw incident, as one that caused some of us to reflect back on previous incidents and realise that it shouldn't have got this far anyway. This reflects my thinking as well. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I realized while reading Bradv's response below that I hadn't answered all of Reaper's questions (at least what can be answered). I address other parts here. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

while obviously some information cannot be made public, the existence of discussions is not – This is not entirely accurate. Arbitration Policy is actually stricter than the foundation's privacy policy, as it says The Committee treats as private all communications sent to it, or sent by a Committee member in the performance of their duties. It could be argued that ArbCom could do more to make publicize its internal deliberations, but according to policy that can only be done with the consent of its members, and cannot be done unilaterally by any arbitrator. – bradv 20:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

• When I was before ANI and ArbComm for the first time this year, I found Wikipediocracy to be very useful resource to give me context at a confusing time. And not anything specific to my situation; old discussions helped me get a better sense of the patterns whereas I had trouble parsing through the prior cases I read on Wikipedia. That being said, Wikipediocracy has a wide variety of contributors and it’s an imperfect resource for sure but I hope it's not seen as a bogeyman. If the identical comments had been posted publicly on Wikipedia would that have led to the same sanction here? - RevelationDirect (talk) 22:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

  @RevelationDirect, I've started a follow-up to your comments regarding WO being a useful resource at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests as nobody should have to go elsewhere to find that sort of information, but it's off-topic for this page. Thryduulf (talk) 01:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

  I'm happy to discuss that there. Additionally, I'm still interested in any answers to my question above. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

  @RevelationDirect If the identical comments had been posted publicly on Wikipedia would that have led to the same sanction here? Possibly, but I don't think we're going to come to a clear decision on a situation that didn't happen. There are a variety of opinions in the community on the value of WPO and that is reflected in the variety of views of committee members. The consensus reached was that the conduct did not meet expectations, but different people may have different views on why. Personally, my decision hinged largely (but not completely) on the track record---if an issue is raised and continues, it doesn't really matter if it's on-wiki or not. Indiscretions jeopardize the Committee's ability to do our work because if the community cannot trust us to keep information confidential, then we will be sent less information and will not receive candid answers. That's true regardless of the venue where comments are made. On the other side of the spectrum, where the conduct occurred may be a more important factor---we are elected by and serve the on-Wiki community, so some may view transparency with the on-wiki community as a mitigating factor when compared to providing that same information to some other community. It's not that WPO is some kind of "bogeyman"; if I recall correctly a number of current and former arbitrators contribute there, so it's certainly not impeachment worthy. For me at least, if the only change were that the comments were made on-wiki, but everything else were still the same (prior warnings, impact on trust) then I would have come to the same decision. How widely that's shared, I can't say, but I think it's telling that our statement leans closer to that issue instead of moralizing about where statements were posted. — Wug·a·po·des 02:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

(arbitrary break)

• I can’t speak for anybody else but I expected the level of transparency that I’ve seen from Beebs when I voted for him, and I can’t really wrap my head around the thought that had he just privately tipped off the person he was coyly but openly prodding in the right direction that this wouldn’t have happened, that it was him doing it in a not underhanded way that caused this, and since your statement references only an off wiki forum I assume that is true for each indiscretion you’re considering. So to my mind it’s ok for an arb to, while they agree that something is *wrong* a. do nothing about it or b. surreptitiously tip somebody off it is not ok to publicly do so. And that’s kind of the opposite of one of the reasons why I voted for Beebs in the first place. Which leaves me feeling disenfranchised, even if only for a month. nableezy - 03:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

  +1 Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

  +2 BilledMammal (talk) 09:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

  I guess I am left asking whether or not I would accept a member of arbcom breaking confidentiality to relay information given in confidence on a public forum. In the end, the answer has to be no. Thus I don't think that this is a choice between a wrong action and a right one, but between two actions which are both, in a sense, wrong, and one of which is incompatible with being a member of the Arbitration Committee. Beebs made their choice, but in making that choice I cannot see how ArbCom could respond differently. - Bilby (talk) 13:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

  To me, the options are they could have acted sooner, more transparently, or just not made a pointless performative sanction the final result. That last one is the thing that I think bothers me the most; different people are going to have different opinions on whether Beeb's conduct is acceptable or not, but if the end result is "with a month to go in his term, let's send him to the time-out corner and make sure to add some superfluous months to the sentence that don't make any sense whatsoever"... it doesn't reflect well on the judgement of the people who decided there should be a sanction in the first place. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

  As Barkeep49 mentioned above, the number of months was considered and not intended to be superfluous. As for your other two options, I think everyone wishes we acted sooner and I agree that it's a real failing that we let this get to this point before we took public action. I'm curious what you'd have liked in terms of acting more transparently. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

  And, just out of curiosity, what portion of your criticism would be different if we had instead said that we were suspending Beeblebrox for the remainder of the term, and that he would be eligible to reapply for CUOS/functionaries list access in six months? I see that as identical to what we did, but just with a few extra words. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

  I guess I am left wondering why I would vote for arbs who seem to have difficulty understanding the basic purpose of our most important pillar, let alone actually demonstrating it in practice. ——Serial 14:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

  I'm guessing this is directed at me? If so, I think I showed appropriate appreciation for all of our pillars. I have repeatedly said that the most recent disclosure didn't bother me, even though it was a disclosure. You know, ignoring the literal wording of the rules in the light of making Wikipedia a better place. Instead I'm getting flack for not ignoring all rules when it comes to a different disclosure where Beebs/Just Step Sideways decided to disclose information told to us in confidence. IAR says If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. So the argument here is that by telling a person information that maybe would help them resolve their situation it was going to help them improve the encyclopedia. A sort of double bank shot, but I get the thinking. I decided instead of leaking information to use my position to advocate for the right thing to be done by that user. This was, of course, invisible to the user. But it happened. I was focused on justice being done in the end, rather than on filling in a gap of knowledge for that user. And this had the added benefit of following the rules. So the choices weren't between IAR and nothing. There were a multitude of options available to people and Beebs/Just Step Sideways chose the rule breaking one. After a day's reflection I still believe the outcome was the right thing to focus rather than the process in that particular situation, I have shown a willingness to not mindlessly enforce the rules when casting the vote I did, and the only reason I've opened myself up to criticism is because I'm attempting to live my own values of being as transparent and responsive to the community as I can. I accept that people can disagree by placing greater priority on other things than I did and I accept that I'll have permanently lessened the opinion some people have of me which I wish weren't the case, but here we are. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

  NO, Barkeep49, it was not personally direct at you, and apologies that I was so tied up in linguistic semantics that I didn't clarify that. If it seems directed to you, it's because you were the only cttee member to have the cajones to say it. Actually, my remarks were directed at every single other member who may not have said it... but clearly approved. To the committee, not the individual. As Lenin might've said  :) ——Serial 15:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

  I have no doubt you did what you thought was right, and I have no doubt you did indeed advocate for the right thing to be done, and I am not trying to dog you as imo you have shown yourself to be an empathetic and thoughtful arb throughout your time on the committee. But. I also have no doubt that Beebs did what he thought was right, and that his sense of justice compelled him to give, or not even, to hint at the person who was stuck in this bewildering and frustrating experience of being unjustly banned by an opaque and apparently corrupted process the answer as to why. And yes, that is part of what I voted for. nableezy - 15:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

  As a general (but related) aside, the frequency with which editors are sanctioned and don't really understand why, but nobody will properly explain and show them any evidence, is one of the stinkiest things about Wikipedia governance these days. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

  The people we trust to hold these positions of power have for the most part never been blocked, much less globally locked, and even if they are caring, empathetic, compassionate, I dont think anybody can really understand how frustrating it can be to be cast aside with nobody willing to explain why or tell you how, or even where, to plead your case if they have never experienced something that approaches that. nableezy - 16:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

  I actually ran the numbers on this a while ago, because I was curious how unique I am. Caveat lector, setting the parameters is a bit subjective. First we have to exclude self-blocks, accidents, tests, and compromised accounts (either blocker or blockee). Then there's setting the time period: I went with since 2010, because before that's it's the Wild West and all blocks are either massive under- or overreactions. Then I made the choice to exclude blocks of people who were already admins, because an admin who's indeffed and isn't promptly desysopped isn't really in the same jeopardy as a non-admin. With those parameters, it's two: myself and one other (who is findable, but I won't name them because I'm not sure if they wear it as a badge of honor like I do). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 20:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

  Way, way back in the mists of time (early 2005) I got caught by an autoblock dealing with the Iasson/Faethon "public accounts" (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iasson). Even though it was swiftly resolved I do remember how frustrating it felt to be blocked. Thryduulf (talk) 00:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

  (Oh, and to pre-empt it, please don't let me hear any nonsense about needing to keep what CheckUser does confidential like it's some sort of super secret thing. It should take no more than about 5 minutes searching to find out, and using such arguments to justify witholding the facts and evidence from sanctioned users is super stinky. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC))

  Serial Number 54129, what for you is "our most important pillar"? I am thinking it is WP:5P4, that we should treat each other with respect, but wanted to clarify with you first as I'm not sure what point you are making. SilkTork (talk) 18:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

  I ignored a rule. That we do that sometimes is one of the five pillars. I don't think it's that hard to parse out. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

  You say IAR is important. I agree, though I'm definitely on team "5P4 is the most important pillar". But I find that people read the title of "Ignore all rules" without actually paying attention to the page's contents: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it (emphasis mine). The committee reviewed several comments that Beeblebrox has made off-wiki over the past few years that had someone raise a privacy concern about them, and to be honest, I see maybe one of the lot that could be justified as "improving Wikipedia" - and if one wanted to go the IAR route there, it could have been sent in a more private way that wouldn't have shared it with a bunch of other people and wouldn't have had the...taint, for lack of a better term...that comes with WPO. I say this as someone who has taken the IAR approach in order to help somebody who was incorrectly CU-blocked and shared some information with the blocked person which, if they had actually been the blocked person, would have basically given them a get-out-of-jail free card. My point is that IAR isn't a blanket pass to do whatever you like, and sometimes ignoring rules has consequences when you're wrong. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• Recent comments here suggest that it would be good for arbs to say whatever they like at other websites provided they believe they are doing good per IAR. Many of us recognize that such a view is not correct. I'll have to leave it there because it's hard to explain ethics and the practical limitations of running something like the Arbitration Committee but the current arbs should be thanked for upholding basic requirements. Johnuniq (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

• Transparency has always been an enormous problem with ArbCom, and one which no iteration of the committee has adequately resolved in nigh on two decades. The community deserves so much more openness (and perhaps fairness) than any iteration of the committee has ever managed, even with the backdrop of Beebs arguably going somewhat rogue. I don't think many people really truly trust the committee either (could the transparency issue be connected, perhaps...). I certainly don't think there's the level of trust between the community and the committee there should be, and there's always suspicion thanks to the lack of sensible safeguards. The committee shouldn't have been the judge, jury and executioner here with Beebs, for example, and there should be term limits and the like, to minimise any suggestions or perceptions that things are being done to prevent re-election (as has been raised a bit further up-thread, prior to clarification).
  My experience of Wikipedia was soured, maybe permanently in 2021, when a previous iteration of ArbCom thought it sensible to post an appeal on behalf of a banned user who had engaged in targeted harassment, intimidation and threatening behaviour towards a number of users, myself very much included, without making contact with those involved (I was the blocking administrator and had noted in the block log that the user was engaging in harassment of both admins and WMF staff via IRC). There wasn't really any transparency with that - some arbs apologised to me directly for the situation - but there never really was much of an explanation of what exactly happened. I was told, very clearly, that not everybody was on-board with the decisions that were made and there was anger amongst the committee then, so I'm not surprised Beebs (and undoubtedly others, since it won't only be Beebs who has done this now or in the past) feels the need to try and tell other people about what is happening. I'd guess there's an arb or two suffering acute embarrassment at the workings (or non-workings, as the case may be) of the committee at any given point.
  That's not quite the criticism of individual arbs that it might read - almost arbs, Beebs included, have volunteered for a difficult and largely thankless task with very real impacts on real life, with the express interest in helping Wikipedia. That individual nobility doesn't always transfer to a collective nobility and repeatedly, ArbCom as a body, has been a hinderance rather than a help to the community. That's undoubtedly down to differences in opinion, clashes of personality and such, and going back to the transparency issue I raised, I feel ArbCom would be far better understood if more about the decision making was known, helping put differences between arbs in context and showing, I suspect, that decisions aren't as black and white as they may appear. Finally, looking at the candidate selection for ArbCom this year, it's both excellent and not excellent, lots of talent, but lots of talent that has been in and around ArbCom for a while, not much sign of really new candidates coming through again. ArbCom being a mysterious black box doesn't encourage people to get involved, I don't think.
  Anyway, that's my wall of text on the issue. Nick (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

  Transparency has always been an enormous problem with ArbCom, and one which no iteration of the committee has adequately resolved in nigh on two decades. This indicates either that this isn't actually a problem, or that it is a problem that is very difficult to solve (or a combination of the two). Looking at it from the perspective of someone who has been following arbcom for years prior to, during, and after being an arbitrator I've seen a lot of people join the committee promising to make it more transparent, only to realise that for most things it already is as transparent as it can possibly be. That's not to say it gets it right every time, it doesn't, but it does get it at least mostly right the significant majority of the time. Thryduulf (talk) 01:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  Just commentingon the issue of transparency, not this case in question. Transparency is a great goal and the idea of committees, particularly investigative ones, being a "blackbox" is no doubt frustrating to many. The policies governing Privacy and confidentiality are extremely stringent. Hence transparency comes with caveats and rules. Freedom of Information for example is very hard to come by with governments, and information is usually only released after 75 years. Why that number well everyone affected is likely dead by then. Even people who are privy to some of the information they may not have all of it, therefore they cannot know the implications of releasing it. There is also the issue of who owns the information. If the committee is not the sole owner of any particular information they cannot release it without consent from all parties, otherwise that is called a leak. Be realistic an investigative committee is generally dealing with sensitive information supplied in confidence which is therefore not theirs to share, even if it looks mundane to you, it may not be to all parties. Trust is also a difficult issue here. If you supply information to an investigator will you trust them more if they tell everyone, or if they respect your privacy and keep it to themselves. To a person unaffected by any of the information you trust they will share it all, until its your private information then I expect you will trust them to be not so forthcoming. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 02:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  For anyone who feels that ArbCom does not meet their standards of how it should function, may I suggest that they run for ArbCom next year. They need to be prepared, though, to devote a significant portion of their life to the functions of the committee, and be prepared to respect all of the restrictions on release of information that are bound up with those functions. I have always had a soft spot in my heart for the idea of anarchism, but Wikipedia without ArbCom or something equivalent would be too anarchic for me. Donald Albury 02:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  your solution is... running for arbcom??? like any of us would ever be elected. ltbdl (talk) 02:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  The approval method of elections really allows the community to only elect the people they trust. So my solution is to encourage people to vote for the people they trust and if they don't trust anyone, oppose everyone. A single empty seat (which as never happened) would send a strong message and multiple empty seats would likely shake things up in real ways, both directly by the committee and by different kinds of candidates running in the next election. Alternatively, continuing to regularly re-elect the arbs who run and filling all the seats with two year terms says that at least 60% of the electorate is trusting each arb. It's why I like this system because it really does allow people to vote their values and not just have to settle for the best of the worst or have to not support people because they are limited in their votes. I look forward to seeing who the community chooses to trust (and not) when this year's results come out. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  Following on from Barkeep49 a little here. As an Ombud and particularly as chair I find myself at some point or another dealing with all the ArbComs across the projects, 11 active in total. For those unsure the OC do some similar work to ArbComs just at the Global rather than Local level. We have had our critics too over the years and I acknowledge some is justified, I have spent the last 2 years trying to turn many of those issues around. What I have noticed though is that those wikis with an ArbCom are generally better off than those without. Not all wikis would qualify for one or need one, but with the larger wikis those with an ArbCom are better off. I will also note not all arbcoms are equal, yours is particularly good from my perspective as an OC member.

  The biggest benefit is the method of selection for CU and OS available to you. Considering the work entailed in those jobs you have an extra level of checks and balances on both the selection and administration of those positions. You should be very grateful for that. Many of these privacy and confidentiality issues in the absence of an ArbCom will be dealt with by either the Stewards or Ombuds, depending on circumstances. Speaking for myself as chair it also gives me a secure, ie NDA signatory, point of contact at the local level. So if a case is within our mandate I can include local functionaries, and I do, so the perspective of the English Wikipedians can be brought to bear. A number of people herehave focussed on issues beyond ArbComs control. Rather than appreciating the advantages you have from their existence. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 03:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Faendalimas, I appreciate that you're trying to defuse tensions here, and I for one certainly don't want to disband ArbCom, but is it really appropriate for the chair of one of the only bodies that supersedes ArbCom to be speaking here, apparently in an official capacity, about the advantages [we] have from [ArbCom's] existence? For that matter, is it appropriate for you to be implying that ArbCom cannot become more transparent without running into NDA issues? Given that you are the person who oversees the revocation of functionary status globally, do you see how that could be read as putting pressure against increased transparency, in an election where 8 out of 10 candidates have signalled interest in ArbCom being more transparent about its private decisionmaking?

  I worry also that you've misstated how freedom of information works when, given your status, many community members will take you as an authoratative source. Rather than it taking 75 years for information to be published in the U.S., the Freedom of Information Act in fact establishes a presumption of openness for all government records. A FOIA-like process for ArbCom would be a great thing to discuss, I think, but it may well be chilled by comments like these coming from someone in a position of such power. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 03:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  I said personally, it is an opinion, I am not speaking in an official capicity, my implication on transparency is that it is difficult and that should be considered. My FOIA comment was a generalisation and based on numerous countries not just US other countries have this too, there are of course details to this and it's not complately analagous. I am not trying to apply pressure, just trying to get people to see things from multiple angles. However, I note your points. Thanks. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 04:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  As an Ombud and particularly as chair, from my perspective as an OC member, Speaking for myself as chair — that's not speaking in an official capacity? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 04:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  I mean "speaking for myself" is pretty clear that that's a personal statement not an official comment. To me it's clear that he's speaking from the perspective of being an ombud, not in capacity as one. Galobtter (talk) 04:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  I don't really see a distinction when someone is in a position of power, speaking to those over whom they exercise that power, about the area in which they hold that power. If he is invoking his status as chair of the Ombuds Commission, that is sending a message. If I go to a user's talkpage and say "As an admin, this thing you just did is bad", I don't get to say that I was just "speaking from the perspective of being an admin". Might be different if he were sharing insight into how OmbCom works because someone asked, or something like that. But instead he's intervening in a discussion about a body that he partly oversees, repeatedly drawing attention to the fact that he holds that status, and then telling us what to think and giving misleading advice on transparency options. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 04:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  Well, if you, speaking as an admin, vote say at AfD this does not give more power to your vote - even though if you have the authority to close this AfD (and have lost the authority the moment you pressed the button to make the comment). Ymblanter (talk) 06:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Ymblanter: I think if I went to an AfD and said "As an admin, I think this page does not meet GNG", I'd get a whole lot of shit for that, and rightly so. Besides, this isn't analogous because Scott hasn't lost his own authority here. Despite taking a public position against more transparency on ArbCom, he still is the chair of the body that has the power to revoke any arbitrator's NDA status, and to my knowledge is not recused from hearing enwiki matters. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 06:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Barkeep49: The empty seat argument is interesting, but the community doesn't want empty seats on ArbCom. That issue has been solved two ways in recent years. If there are 5 empty seats, people will look through the list of candidates and vote for 5. They may not like 3, 4 and 5, but they don't want empty seats. Experienced editors (frequently former arbs) also look at the list of candidates and have realised there isn't 5 people who should be elected on the list, so have nominated themselves. Last minute nominations from people with 4 or 6 years on the committee isn't how experienced community conscious editors work, if a former arb, an admin with a decade of experience, or a functionary is appearing with 48 hours to go before nominations close, it's almost always because they think there isn't enough experience amongst the spread of existing candidates. The fact people keep filling ArbCom isn't, unfortunately, a reflection of trust, but more out of necessity and perhaps in a few cases, desperation to fill all the spots. Nick (talk) 08:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  I am not sure how indicative I am but I do not think I ever voted for as many candidates as many seats we had. If I remember correctly last time I voted for four candidates (of which I believe two passed, but I might be wrong). This time I will likely be even less enthusiastic. My take is that if only three abritrators get elected, let it be, but I do not want to have people on ArbCom who are not suitable (in my opinion) for the job. Ymblanter (talk) 10:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  Speaking as someone for whom this is the first ACE, I doubt this is how the majority of the electorate thinks, even though having read through all of this I now agree that this should be how it works. I think we forget that a lot of the people who actually look at ACE pages and view them don’t participate in discussions, or even have a good understanding of what these seats are all about. I for one was not aware that we could have empty arb seats at all until one week ago, despite having read through a considerable number of arb cases since 2020; and irl, most elections also do not allow vacant seats. I think it is statistically true that voters will tend to change neutrals to supports in a lightly contested election, and there’s not a lot we can really do to change that, like it or not. Fermiboson (talk) 10:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  Really? I only voted for two candidates this year, and I think it was only three last year. Black Kite (talk) 10:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Thryduulf: The problem I have, re transparency, is that I'm left with the worrying thought that half the people who contact ArbCom expect material to be leaked, so tailor their submissions accordingly, and the other half expect complete discretion, and again, tailor their submissions accordingly, which means I don't really know if ArbCom are getting things right as often as you (and I suppose I) think they are. They're certainly getting things right regularly, on the basis of what is submitted, but given there isn't complete certainty about what happens to what will be submitted, what is submitted isn't always what needs to be submitted for ArbCom to truly reach the correct decision (apologies for the acid trip of thought policing talk there). When I talk about transparency, I'm not thinking 'publish everything that comes into the mailing list' levels of transparency, more around the committee needing to be open and honest about why they can't explain things, and if they do that, and if there was a bit more certainty and a bit more information about the internal workings of the committee, I think what is submitted would improve - people would have more certainty about what happens when they make a private submission to the committee. Nick (talk) 08:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  I think this is a good point. The major complaint about the transparency buzzword is that there are situations in which it is impossible to be transparent, but a lot of what the community is asking for isn’t even necessarily the right to know, but the right to know when we can’t know. A common intersection point between all these situations where major community noise is made, such as Fram, is not just the lack of transparency but lack of any plausible reason for the lack of transparency, which then leads to rampant speculation. In this specific case, Beeblebrox/JSS has offered a version of events which does explain what can be publicly confirmed, and the committee appears unable to say anything much more substantial than “there actually is something else, which is contained in your version of events, but we can’t say what that something else is in your version of events”. Where anything close to specifics have been provided, the arbs seem to be of the belief that the action is actually fine but just in the wrong venue, which makes it a bit of a stretch to remove an arb (a completely unprecedented action in 22 years of Wikipedia) based on just that, and a “private warning” which at minimum doesn’t seem to have been well communicated, since JSS seems to have taken it just as “having a word” instead of something with any formal force. Everyone clearly agrees that JSS acted in good faith and in the spirit of improving Wikipedia, or I imagine there would be more than just a suspension on the table. So the rest of us are left wondering: what exactly is Arbcom mad about? Under what circumstances would Arbcom (and I realise arbcom is not a uniform body, the composition of which is soon to change) perform such a suspension again? Does Arbcom consider JSS’s actions recklessness or a technical violation of the NDA, and what precisely is the standard that we expect private evidence to be treated with, given it’s apparently ok under IAR to tell someone else in private based on the arb’s judgement, but not ok to exercise that judgement in public? Not many (or at least, I hope not many) people here are accusing Arbcom of any sort of conspiracy, but the reigning mood is clearly confusion. And as an aside, I do appreciate the arbs taking the time to give explanations where they can, and the two standing candidates answering my question on it. I realise fully that I will probably handle the situation much, much worse. The intellectual threshold required, however, for pointing out a problem is less than that required for fixing it. Fermiboson (talk) 11:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  Those are very qood questions, and I think they're especially puzzling to those of us who have seen and read every Wikipediocracy post Beeblebrox has made since becoming an Arb. Every post bar one is still there, and we've had other Arbs here saying that one was no big deal (and from what I remember of it, it wasn't). Yet there's still supposedly some "totality" of behaviour here, that needed drastic action even though this last straw wasn't a last straw. A totality that I certainly can't see - though it is entirely about those posts on Wikipediocracy. And there are, allegedly, incidents since WTT left that change things, yet the key thing that keeps being brought up (letting an unfairly blocked editor know why they were blocked) happened in WTT's time (Hmm, need to check it it did - but it was a little while ago, and apparently didn't require action at the time). The more we see of these tortuous attempts at justification, the more ludicrous ArbCom is looking. Can they really not see the picture of absurdity they're painting of themselves? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  a lot of what the community is asking for [is] the right to know when we can’t know. This is a very surprising comment, given that this is abundantly clear - whenever something is asked for and an arb says they cannot answer, it is then. It applies when they would need to share something sent to them in confidence that they do not have the permission to share. It applies when sharing something would violate the NDA they agreed to and/or the WMF's privacy policy. Thryduulf (talk) 11:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  In a legalistic sense, yes. However I meant more in terms of discernible patterns in what can be disclosed and what not. I presume that the NDA does not simply say “whenever we say so” and instead lays out broad types of situations where disclosure is forbidden. The problem appears to be many members of the community, myself somewhat included, have trouble reconciling the fact that Arbcom has seemingly been unable to tell us or even Beeblebrox what the actual cause of suspension was, only what it was not, and the fact that not only has Beeblebrox all but disclosed everything that could possibly be that cause, but that other arbcom members have seemed to indicate they had personally did what Beeblebrox did, except on a different venue. Fermiboson (talk) 13:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

A question

Here's an open question, for any ArbCom member to answer if they feel they need or want to. (I know I'm not the only one wondering this, and I don't see it clearly asked or answered anywhere above). You suspended Beeblebrox from the committee with only a month of his time left, when you already knew he would not be standing for election again. You were fully aware, I'm sure, that you would open yourselves up to a lot of scrutiny and a lot of criticism for doing it. So, given the key Wikipedia thing about Prevention, not punishment, what what do you think this action is preventing? What is the risk that so urgently needed to be addressed? What do you think Beeblebrox was going to do with access to CU/OS and the Arb mailing lists once his term expired? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

The problem I had with doing nothing or only posting a public censure is that it would not stop the courtesy lifetime assignment of CU/OS at the arb's request. (I think that if a CU/OS had a similar pattern of behavior we would remove their access to private data.) Assigning the rights on 31 Dec and then starting a discussion on 1 Jan to remove them seemed scummy. This situation raises some important questions about if we should continue do lifetime courtesy rights assignments for former arbs and if the community should get a chance to veto. -- In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 13:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, and that raises an interesting issue about CU/OS rights granted in perpetuity. But I don't think you actually answered my question. In this case, what was removing those rights intended to prevent? What did you think Beeblebrox was going to do with them? And, if it's just the lifetime CU/OS thing, why did you need to remove his Arb mailing lists access? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Through both the past pattern of action and the comments that Beeblebrox made to us, I had reasons to believe that additional disclosures were likely to occur if we allowed continued access to non-public information. -- In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 13:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, it took a second attempt, but thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

We provide the same lifetime rights for anyone who has ever had CUOS not just Arbs. Barkeep49 (talk) 13:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I want to prevent any more confidential information from being shared and given the track record if we did nothing I believed that further disclosures were a likelihood. And he wouldn't just have access to the past lists he'd have access to ongoing ones as well. There were some other factors but that's the one that most directly answers your question. Barkeep49 (talk) 13:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the straight and honest answer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Now that we've had a couple of honest answers as to why Beeblebrox's Arb rights were removed, can I make a suggestion to ArbCom, via a couple more (rhetorical) questions? Wouldn't it have been better to just be open and honest with us right from the start, and save us the days of obfuscation and charade? Can you really not see why, sometimes, getting the truth out of ArbCom can seem like pulling teeth? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee I thought we did say it with the motion and so that's why no one had asked (something you yourself admit). Barkeep49 (talk) 14:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Fwiw, while I don’t remember if it came with the announcement, I implied it from somewhere or it was stated but buried somewhere within the massive discussion above, I was aware of the preventative reasoning before today. Fermiboson (talk) 14:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I see nothing at the statement of the motion that says anything about your belief that you thought he would share "more confidential information" once his ArbCom term was over if his rights were not removed. And I can see nothing in the early parts of this discussion here, in response to multiple questions about why you did this, that explains that. If I missed it (which I might have done), can you please quote it to me? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry which mutliple questions that ask about this? Barkeep49 (talk) 14:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh, stop nitpicking and evading - just show me where, in this discussion, you explained your belief that you thought Beeblebrox would share more confidential information. Whether it's actually in response to a question, a reply to a statement, whatever... just show me where. Even trying to get *this* out of you is like pulling teeth! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

You said at first said I don't see it clearly asked or answered anywhere above then you said multiple questions about why you did this. You've already rejected my first answer to the question I thought we did say it with the motion and so that's why no one had asked so if you want an answer to why we didn't answer the questions, I'd like to see the questions we (I) didn't answer. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

OK, forget all that, and please instead "just show me where, in this discussion, you explained your belief that you thought Beeblebrox would share more confidential information. Whether it's actually in response to a question, a reply to a statement, whatever... just show me where." As for your "first answer to the question "I thought we did say it with the motion and so that's why no one had asked", you were wrong. So where else did you explain it? Feel free to show me anywhere you did that, with no further conditions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

On a slightly different tack, we cannot preempt the outcomes of other investigations into this matter. When they are concluded JSS may no longer have the access to private info necessary to resume his role as a CU/OS. Cabayi (talk) 14:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

That's clearly a relevant issue, yes. But I still think ArbCom should have been up-front and honest about the real reason they revoked Beeblebrox's access rights, which was clearly that he was nearing the end of his Arb run and you didn't trust him to keep schtum afterwards. That's clearly what this is all about, yet we had to put up with all this obfuscation about the last-straw-that-wasn't-a-last-straw post, the hindsight totality of everything, and all the evasion. Can you at least see why I might feel that way? 15:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

JSS's term as an Arb expires at the end of the month. His CU/OS status does not. The info he leaked was available to all functionaries. It's not just as an arbitrator that he has breached the NDA. Cabayi (talk) 15:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

That does not answer my suggestion that "ArbCom should have been up-front and honest about the real reason they revoked Beeblebrox's access rights, which was clearly that he was nearing the end of his Arb run and you didn't trust him to keep schtum afterwards." But I can see I'm getting nowhere against your collective self-defence mentality, so I will take my leave. Thanks, at least, for responding. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I am taking some time to consider whether I wish to continue this interaction, given that when I asked for evidence after indirectly accused of obfuscation and directly accused of nitpicking and evading I was not given the evidence nor was anything retracted or apologized for but instead told OK, forget all that. I'm not willing to just forget it but may be willing, after some contemplation, to set it aside given my belief in being transparent and honest with the community. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

With a bit of reflection, I'm happy to apologise and withdraw my accusations of "obfuscation" and "nitpicking and evading" - I was a bit frustrated, it was not the best way to respond to you, and I'm sure you were not trying to do any of that. I appreciate that you're under pressure with all of this, and I do thank you for the clarity that you have added today - and for your ArbCom work in general, which is something I would never have the courage to attempt. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that apology.

In terms of addressing what you asked first I'd like to note that in general the concern of and questions from the community have been about what already happened, not about going forward, which I see as the crux of your question. The questions I do see (after a skim of the discussion) about going forward, rather than what already happened, have been logistics around how the suspension actually works.

As for why it wasn't just volunteered, beyond what Thryduulf wrote below about why I thought the motion was the answer, I also wrote on this page It is my genuine hope that with some time to reflect, Beeblrbox will re-assess this, be able to articulate how he will maintain his transparency without crossing the lines that others don't seem to and put me in a position where I can vote for him; either by restoring CUOS and functionaries access or at ACE. Because our project can always use someone with Beeblebrox's many skill. Did I say it as plainly as when you asked? No, but I am saying what harm I see going forward and very clearly how Beeblebrox/Just Step Sideways can fix it. There are perhaps other comments I could also quote, but in thinking that was the one that came to mind without having to reread everything I've written on this page.

I'd like to conclude by noting that Arbitration Policy, which is the relevant policy, doesn't say that removal/suspension needs to be preventative. It's our blocking policy which says that about when a block is appropriate. Instead ARBPOL says Any arbitrator who repeatedly or grossly fails to meet the expectations outlined above may be suspended or removed. In other words it's looking back not forward. And I think that is appropriate. There has been at least one time that an arbitrator removed themselves from all email lists without resigning (and I believe, but am not certain, that this happened back in the pre-2010 era a few times). So imagine a scenario where an Arb does this and then leaks the email address of every person who has ever emailed ArbCom. They would have no ability to leak any emails in the future - they're not going to see any new ones - but they have grossly failed to meet the expectations and I'd be furious if ArbCom didn't remove that member. So while I value the idea of preventative and not punitive, and that this has a large impact on how I vote as an arbitrator and certainly mattered in how I voted in this case as a reason that I was against removal and why I ultimately leaned towards suspension rather than censure (though admittedly didn't note this on the list because it wasn't going to make a difference for the outcome) I don't think it's fair to criticize my colleagues for it. And those differing point of views (which we want in a diverse ArbCom) is also probably why in the wording for the motion that got committee consensus, I felt it was covered and you didn't. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for that detailed reply. My view is that you (you, collectively) are very, very, wrong in your fears of what Beeblebrox might have done with privileged information when off the committee - but it was your call, not mine. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee, motions, ArbCom remedies, and similar rarely contain a more than a very high-level "why" in them because that would require everyone to agree on that precise wording, which would lead to us bogging down in wording arguments and nitpicking. Some arbs may feel that this was justified in preventing future disclosures, like Barkeep. For me, my votes were not made with that explicitly in mind; rather, my thinking was more along the lines of "when someone has shown they can't keep a secret, you don't keep telling them secrets". And yes, I think there is a punishment aspect here, whether we like to say it out loud or not. Beeblebrox was a functionary and arb, and those positions come with responsibilities. If you can't uphold the responsibilities (in this case: keep the private information private), and attempts to correct it have failed, there are consequences (you don't get to keep the position of trust). Otherwise, what sort of an example are we setting for the community in general? That privacy rules don't apply to us? If that's the case, nobody is going to trust functs/ArbCom with private information. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Re: "ArbCom remedies, and similar rarely contain a more than a very high-level "why" in them because that would require everyone to agree on that precise wording, which would lead to us bogging down in wording arguments and nitpicking". Well, obviously, yes, I know that. But Barkeep49 specifically said "I thought we did say it with the motion". It's not me asking for specifics in the motion statement, it's Barkeep49 saying they were there! Look, I'm not trying to be hostile here (honestly, I'm not, and I can appreciate you folk get plenty of hostility). I'm not even saying you were wrong to do what you did, and I can see your side of it. All I'm asking for is willing openness and clarity, which we did not get here. Am I really asking too much? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

It is not explicitly stated in the motion, but to me the clear, obvious and unambiguous implication of the wording of the motion is that the reason access to private information was being revoked was because they (the other arbs) no longer trusted him to keep it private, and that the reason for this lack of trust is multiple past instances of not keeping private information private - even after a warning to keep private information private. It is thus perfectly reasonable for Barkeep to say "I thought the motion said this, especially as I don't recall anybody asking us to clarify it before now.". Thryduulf (talk) 15:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm simply following up on my suggestion that it should have been stated explicitly, and that Barkeep49 said they thought it had been. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

PS: "And yes, I think there is a punishment aspect here, whether we like to say it out loud or not." - you certainly have my respect for saying that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I just came to this today, checking out the Ireland discussion and seeing this and thinking WTF, I didn't know Beeblebrox got suspended. I might have accidentally read one or two posts about this before I checked out the motion but I have to say my assumption when reading the motion was that one reason for the removal er suspension was because it was felt Beeblebrox couldn't be trusted to keep the tools (which they would normally keep), because they had already violated confidentiality multiples times and so may violate it again. Reading the comments at the top of this main thread (I don't mean this subthread), also re-affirmed this view.

I have no idea how much of this came from the motion and how much of it came from the fact that to me, it's obvious that when someone has repeatedly violated confidentiality there's really no reason to think they won't do it again, no matter what they say. So it is safer to just prevent them having access, and require them to earn back trust if they so desire. This is after all, also what we do in other far less severe things where editors have lost our trust.

So I can't say whether the motion is clear or not, but it strikes me that if it isn't as clear as it should be, it may be all the draftees also were like me so it seemed clear to them even if it may not be to everyone.

Unfortunately this is IMO always going to be a problem with anything like arbcom statements etc especially those drafted in private. I'm sure many of us have experienced both in writing articles but also writing policies and guidelines or just replies that we write something which seems clear enough to us, but then someone else doesn't understand it the way we did. This is one of the strengths of Wikipedia itself in that overtime we can fix these issues as other people point them out, but this is something that doesn't really work for arbcom motion statements.

Since you feel the motion wasn't as clear it should be on that issue, it's a good thing to point this out so hopefully the committee and learn how to improve, but the snark etc IMO wasn't helpful. I appreciate it's difficult, I realised some parts of this also came across in the same way and I've tried to minimise that.

Nil Einne (talk) 18:23, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

These responses seem to be implying something way more nefarious than what seems to have happened, at least what we peons can piece together of what happened. Did Beeblebrox release any PII gleaned through either CU/OS (tool or mailing list)? Anything covered by the privacy policy? Because that would justify that concern, but that would also have caused more than a suspension and invitation to re-apply too. nableezy - 15:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if PII was released because even giving out hints that don't include PII can still cause harm to the affected parties. It appears that Beeblebrox knowingly (not just accidentally) violated the Non-Disclosure Agreement that all arbitrators must sign. When somebody violates an NDA, their access to confidential information is terminated. I don't understand why access to confidential information would be restored, absent an statement by Beeblebrox that they made an error, and an explanation how they will avoid repeating it. I think it's generally a bad idea for arbitrators to discuss their work on WPO or any public space other than the officially designated Wikipedia pages. Jehochman ^Talk 15:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Re: It appears that Beeblebrox knowingly (not just accidentally) violated the Non-Disclosure Agreement that all arbitrators must sign". Do you have any evidence for that? Did you see everything he said? Did you compare it with the NDA terms? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself and not the committee as a whole: I believe that the information disclosed was in something of a gray area and not a bright-line violation of the ANPDP (if it were, I would pushed for stronger sanctions and would have referred this to the Ombudsman commission). It did, however, violate what I consider to be functionary/Arb expectations for keeping information private. I intend to bring this up with WMF for clarification at the next monthly WMF/ArbCom call. GeneralNotability (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

For me, Beeblebrox violated ARBPOL more than the NDA. Given that both documents have expectations of confideniality that difference didn't matter for me in terms of a going forward outcome, but did matter in using being clear with the community about what the issue was. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

In my view, at least one incident here counted as an ANPDP violation, while others were more clearly ARBPOL violations than ANPDP violations. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think any individual Arb is empowered to answer your question Nableezy. It would take committee consent to answer because it involves confidential discussions and confidential information. In my initial thoughts I waver between STREISAND considerations and value of transparency considerations and so don't know which way I would ultimately lean. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Way too much to read now. Am I correct that a block evading editor was mixed up in this? GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

...probably? this may have to do with the "lourdes" situation (and things beeblebrox said on wikipediocracy about it). honestly, your guess is as good as mine. ltbdl (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• This may be a minor point, but for the record I had been on the functionaries team for about thirteen years, predating any involvement with the committee. And no, no PII has ever been leaked by me.

And I sincerely apologize to everyone looking for what that one little thing I did say that got this ball rolling, the evidence of it is gone. I did kind of assume that somebody must have seen it and it would just come right back out, but apparently not. I'd also point out that the reason this is so tightly contained is because I did respond to the concerns raised, even if I didn't fully agree with them, and asked the mods on the external website where this took place to remove the post, which they did. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 17:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

It wasn't a single incident that led to your removal, as I believe we indicated to you privately in the lead-up to the removal vote (in order to give you a chance to respond) and publicly in the removal motion. The incident you refer to was more "straw that broke the camel's back" than "a single incident that was so bad that we had to act". GeneralNotability (talk) 17:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply any of what you read into "got this ball rolling". It was undeniably what started the conversation that led to the suspension, that's all I meant. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

A question for both you (JSS) and the committee... and apologies for being cryptic about it, but I don't want to get myself or you (or anyone else) in hot water by asking it directly. Would be accurate to say that two of the examples of the "pattern" of behavior the committee used to enact this suspension were (1) you making a joke about someone trying to profit from their Wikipedia/Wikipedia activities, where absolutely no PII or confidential material whatsoever was involved, much less revealed, and (2) you mentioning something that someone publicly claimed about themselves on-wiki, and which is still public on-wiki? I'm not trying to play detective, I'm just trying to understand the nature of "pattern" being discussed here. 28bytes (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

28bytes, not going to play 20 questions over this and narrow it down for everybody. Beeblebrox revealed information on WPO that was expected to be kept private. That's all that I think we can reasonably say on the matter that won't further draw attention to the private information itself. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

And to that end example 1 doesn't describe information that was expected to be private so even though I agree with GN about 20 questions I feel OK saying that. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Barkeep49. I appreciate your response on that. 28bytes (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

GeneralNotability, my concern here is less about specific examples than it is with something I see frequently in AN/ANI submissions and ArbCom case requests, and a scenario I know you've seen countless times: when making the case for stripping tools or sanctioning or banning someone, many times there is a "let's throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" approach. Quantity over quality. The sheer number of diffs posted can seem to be damning until the individual diffs are analyzed. I'm not saying the committee did that here, but in the conversations I've had earlier in this thread, there was a sort of "well, in this example he wasn't doing anything wrong, really, but it's part of a pattern" response and I'm left wondering how many zeroes you have to add up to get a 10. JSS has posted an explanation above about what he did (or what he thinks he did, at least) that the committee objected to, with mea culpas for some things and defenses of other things, and when I compare that to what the committee has publicly described so far, one thing that strikes me is that neither JSS nor the committee is accusing the other of dishonesty: it seems that the facts are broadly agreed upon and that the main issue is a judgment about them. (Which is fairly uncommon and frankly refreshing to see in a high-profile dispute like this.) The fact that almost all of the committee reached a dramatically different conclusion than JSS is certainly not something to dismiss, but the track record of integrity I've seen from Beeblebrox over the past decade or so, combined with his detailed and coherent rundown of what he thinks he did wrong and what he thinks he didn't, isn't really easy for me to dismiss either. 28bytes (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Your above questions accuratelty describe the two prior incidents at WPO, and you are of course correct that neither of those involved confidential information of any kind. The other arbs, some of them anyway, just didn't like it, thought it was unbecoming I suppose would be the word. They are entitled to that opinion but I, like yourself, don't believe it is the same thing as what they suspended me over and therefore shouldn't have been considered part of a "totality of evidence". The committee knows that's how I see it, they do not agree. The main reason I'm not mentioning the names of the two users involved is basically WP:DNFTT. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Good to know, thank you. 28bytes (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with the characterization that the prior incidents didn't involve confidential information. That is exactly why we're here. Now, we are not accusing JSS of doing this in bad faith. Indeed, I think JSS thought he was doing the right thing. But the road to hell, as they say, is paved with good intentions. The fundamental issue is that JSS was warned about making confidential disclosures, kept doing it, and failed to acknowledge that he had done wrong even when confronted. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with the characterization that the prior incidents didn't involve confidential information. I honestly don't understand how you could believe that. The comment I made about someone's supposed real life identity was based on edits they had made themselves, that, at that time, and also at this time, are perfectly visible to anyone who cares to look for them. It was only later that they were supressed, well after the cat was out of the bag. (And that's without even bringin up what we all know now, that it was manipulation and lies from a banned troll anyway.)The other comments the committee did not like were just that, comments about a user. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

As I said in one of my emails, the policy at WP:ARBCOND is a higher bar than our NDAs. I agree that the information was confidential not because it was a violation of the NDA (that's the purview of the Ombuds Commission and WMF legal), rather the information was confidential because it was to be Preserve[d] in appropriate confidence. — Wug·a·po·des 23:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I feel like there is a misunderstanding here. The comments I'm talking about were related to a users' live edits on-wiki and nothing else. I can only assume the both of you are talking about something else as there is no expectation that the content of live WP edits is held in confidence by anyone, anywhere. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 01:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I said elsewhere in this discussion that, in my consideration, it wasn't merely the content or number of posts but how the how they affected the ways people interacted with our processes. I can't be super specific on that, but one public point to consider is that the community has had somewhat regular discussions on arbitrators participating in off-wiki forums like WPO. There's never been any consensus to prohibit it, but it shows a suspicion that we need to be careful not to play into because it means (1) we would substantiate concerns that anything sent to us is liable to be leaked to off-wiki forums when a member finds it convenient and (2) it jeopardizes those who manage to participate in those forums without backlash should the rest of the community take action as issues mount.

In my first email to Beebs/JSS when we started discussing the issue, I was clear that I didn't really care about the NDA aspect in the way some others might. I just didn't think it was the right way to look at the concerns. From that email: What I do see as an issue for the committee is whether this showed proper discretion and the effect impropriety has on our work. I then discussed how that applied to the specific example under discussion, which I can't go into here obviously. In that email I also stated some forward looking concerns that I can't get into details on because they would give away too many specifics, but the gist is "specific and recent activities will be made harder if editors believed this would continue". As we investigated more, the pattern that emerged to my eyes wasn't merely the severity or number (though that contributed)---it was that they were repeatedly having negative impacts that led to interventions and those interventions didn’t stop the behavior.

I think this starts to get at the issue you point out: the facts aren't in dispute so much as how we judge them. For me, once you put together everything in the prior paragraph, removal seems excessive but public censure seems insufficient. The most recent indiscretion impacts ongoing work and there is evidence that similar problems and impacts have occurred in the past. There is, essentially, some broken trust and a public statement saying "trust was repeatedly broken, we took no concrete steps to stop it from happening again, but keep sending us stuff" would, I fear, have a net negative impact. We'd be acknowledging the liability while doing nothing to prevent it. At the same time, outright removal seemed too strong given the actual content of the statements, the time left in their term, and the precedent it sets for future decisions on similar evidence. I agree with JSS and some other arbs when they point out that not all of the indiscretions were particularly bad, and I think setting a precedent that these were worthy of complete and indefinite removal seemed like a bad example to set. At the same time though, just because an indiscretion wasn’t a gross violation doesn’t mean it was harmless. Suspension was put on the table after I raised these concerns to my colleagues, but as many people have pointed out the difference from removal at this point seems like nitpicking. So what to do?

Given all the issues I described, I thought (and still think) suspension struck the best balance despite its issues: we inform the community of the issues that had so far been private, we take concrete steps to avoid further indiscretion while we handle the stuff it impacted, but we make clear the path back once everyone has had time to absorb and process everything. It’s a shitty position to be in, not least because I agree with you regarding the character of Beebs/JSS. I’ve genuinely enjoyed working with them, and their feedback has consistently led to better decisions and in the long term shifted my perspective on a number of issues. It’s hard to reconcile, and maybe it’s just irreconcilable; sometimes doing what you believe is right totally sucks. Sometimes being responsible means everybody loses, and we just have to take the lumps. Other arbs may see it differently from me; but I don’t feel at liberty to speak to the perspectives of other arbitrators. — Wug·a·po·des 23:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I always thought of Beeblebrox as unfit to be a member of Arbcom. A couple of my reasons: they were happy to taunt me and others at ANI and they were a regular participant on Wikipediocracy sharing questionable material. I considered it unbecoming and unprofessional. I voted against their Arbcom inclusion based on my observations (note that others also had similar concerns) and at that time I said their (Beeblebrox) participation off wiki on a forum with exiles gossiping and pillorying WP editors means they should not be trusted with sensitive information. My comments about Beeblebrox marked one of the rare times that I agreed with Levivich. This is a trust thing and I appreciate Barkeep49, CaptainEk and the other members not doing this in the dark because light is a disinfectant. One other question to consider... if they cannot be trusted, why are they an administrator on the english Wikipedia? Lightburst (talk) 00:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Ironically the person who most agreed with that viewpoint during my time on the committee was Beeblebrox/Just Step Sideways (JSS). My answer to the question is that I have full reason to trust JSS with the admin toolset because there's no hint of ever abusing it. An admin can't really leak confidential materials the way an arb can and even there I believe there's a future where JSS could be trusted again. So at least, for me, that's why he retains my trust as an admin. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:51, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

But isn’t JSS still going to have access to RevDel’ed material he could potentially leak? 166.198.251.69 (talk) 01:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

There's a reason admins don't have to sign any kind of NDA/confidentiality agreement and that's because the risk from revdel is just very different than OS or Arb material. And again there has been no evidence or allegation that information has ever been revealed improperly by him. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that Barkeep. As he says, the only type of material I let out was information from mailing list discussions. I do think there is a substantial difference between that and letting out CU/OS derived material. On the rare occaisions where I have seen extremely sensitive material that has been revdeleted, I have supressed it myself. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 02:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

And on that note, I believe I'm about done going back over this. If there is still some doubt or confusion as to the series of events, I'd be happy to do what I can to clear it up, but I feel I've said my piece about the meaning of all this. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 02:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Functionary candidates: December 2023 community consultation open

Original announcement

• 👍 for both. Kurtis ^(talk) 17:48, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Ireland article names - required location of move discussions rescinded

Original announcement

So.... RMs are allowed at Republic of Ireland & Ireland, etc? GoodDay (talk) 18:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I think this decision was premature. Almost no debate took place on this, and the proposal to rescind the IECOLL Arbcom ruling should at least have been flagged both at IECOLL and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland. I only came across the decision by accident, when I noticed the "Proposals to rename this article must only be discussed at IECOLL" template was up for deletion! Note that this decision effects Ireland as well as Republic of Ireland. I hope I am wrong, but I fear this will just serve to attract those who are attracted to drama, for the sake of it, in addition to the one-to-several good-faith "Hey, why is the article about the state not at Ireland?!" drive-bys from new/inexperienced editors that we get every year. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:49, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@Bastun: The rescinding of the second motion seems like it should've happened a long time ago anyways, given that it empowers a "moderator" to ban someone from an entire subset of articles, and from any participation in consensus around them. It also does not specify who these moderators are, meaning that someone who has not been vetted by the community could have the power to issue bans that could be indirectly enforced by blocks, despite possibly some of these moderators not having passed any wider community process to confirm that they actually know what they're doing. In addition, the first one is correct to be rescinded, because requested moves should be happening at the article talk page. Notifying the WikiProject could've been an alternative, but that generally happens anyways in an RM. Not to mention, if it's really becoming a problem, consensus can be established for a moratorium on a per-article basis, but a blanket restriction about RMs for all articles in the topic area needing to be discussed on a WikiProject of all places, is a problem, especially since WikiProjects can have less visibility and a less clear explanation to newcomers that their contribution to the RM is welcome. This is all not to mention that there are various other options to re-route well-meaning newbies, like notices on the article talk pages, edit notices, and if it's really an occasional problem, maybe a warn-enabled edit filter? The amount of solutions other than a blanket ban on discussion at the article talk page are tremendous. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 08:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)