Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
| Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amendment request: suspension of Beeblebrox | none | none | 3 January 2024 |
No arbitrator motions are currently open.
Requests for clarification and amendment
Use this section to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
- Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
- Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).
To file a clarification or amendment request: (you must use this format!)
- Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
- Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
- Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
- Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
- If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use
{{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}}to do this. - Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
This is not a discussion. Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.
Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.
Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups. There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section. Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:
Amendment request: suspension of Beeblebrox
Initiated by Just Step Sideways (formerly User:Beeblebrox) at 20:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- 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.
- List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
- Just Step Sideways (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator) (formerly known as Beeblebrox)
- Information about amendment request
- 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.
- I would like this clause stricken from the decision and my oversight and VRT permissions returned.
Statement by Just Step Sideways
This not an appeal or an application, this is a request that the decision be ammended.
I am requesting this decision be ammended to strike out the part about revocation of my oversight rights for the following reasons:
- The 2023 committee suspended me as an arbitrator for six months even though my term was up in one month.That's fine. I totally did exactly what they say I did.
- They also stripped me of my functionary tools, without even telling me they were even considering that. I had no idea whatsoever that was even on the table.
- I am not asking for CU permisssions back as I did initially get that access as a result of my previous stint on the committee and I was never very active with it and don't really have any interest in sock hunting.
- Oversight is another matter. I have been a memeber of that team, indepentently of being an arbitrator, for thirteen years. To have the right stripped away without even being told revocation was being discussed seems unfair, arbitrary, and punitive rather than preventative.
- I have no idea if this distinction was known and considered in any way during the arbitrator discussion, but I feel it should have been.
- Revocation of an advanced permisssion should have a clear cause behind it, either inactivity or abuse. I don't think it should just be tacked on to a decision related to status as an arbitrator.
- I am not aware of any circumstance except for extreme abuse of the tool or extreme reveals of information covered by the access to nonpublic personal data policy which would result in revocation without even discussing the matter with the oversighter in question first, yet this is what happened in my case.
- I am not aware of what arguments were made in favor of revoking the permission, as, again, I was not even told this was being considered, so I can't even attempt to refute or even appeal in six months because I was not made aware of the existence of the possibilty of such a sanction, let alone the specific arguments in favor of it. The case presented to me that I was asked to respond to was entirely about me saying things off-wiki that I knew about because I was on ArbCom's mailing list. I was not asked anything about my tool access as a functionary.
- I don't think loose talk off-wiki about some ArbCom business is the same thing as violating the access to nonpublic personal data policy, which I am still (under my old username) a signatory to [1] and have respected. If there have ever been any serious accusations of misuse of this tool or actual violations of that policy, I am unaware of them.
So it is my position that this unexpected ancillary revocation of a user right without any stated cause or prior notice is patently unfair and unjustified. I therefore ask that it be stricken from the decison and my oversight rights and VRT permisssions returned to me. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 20:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Barkeep, I really appreciate how open and communicative you have generally been throughout this whole thing, both on and off-wiki, but that ends at "why was I not told this was even an option?" You guys knew I couldn't read your discussion, was I just supposed to intuit that you were going to go way further than I was actually told? Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Ivanvector:
Beeblebrox has breached that legal document directly, by their own admission:
That is not an accurate description of anything I said. In fact it is the exact opposite of what I said, as anyone can plainly see. The access to nonpublic data agreement covers personal information a user finds while using these tools, such as information that needs to be supressed, or checkuser data. It doesn't say anything about email lists. This distinction was also initially lost on some of the arbs, but they seem to have come to the same conclusion as the notice of the suspension does not mention the document you refer to, instead only mentioning ARBPOL. This is a fairly important distinction, so unless you can show me where it says in that document that it covers the ArbCom mailing list, I would ask that you strike this false accusation. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 01:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC) - I'm not sure how much more clear I can make this point, but yes, not being told revocation of my oversight rights was even being discussed seems pretty unfair. I don't think this is a case of "in an ideal world we would have" it is more a case of being decent and just. I was ready to be told I was kicked off the committee. I wasn't sure you all would actually go through with it but I accepted it was a possibility. Then I check my email and find I've been removed from everything,not just the arbcoim list but OS, CU, and VRT, all areas where I never breached any confidentiality. It's not the same thing and I do take it seriously.
- I was told this was about my fitness to be on the committee, nobody gave me the slightest hint it was going anywhere beyond that. Its starting to feel like the committee didn't even think about telling me and assumed I would expect additional revocations, which I find ridiculous.
- And it's not just that I have hurt feelings over it, I find it manifestly unjust. My sense of fairness and blunt approach to situations I feel are unjust are what got me elected to the committee in the first place, and I feel like if the coin had been flipped I would have made sure the commnittee at least told the person about to be sanctioned what the arguments were to justify further revocations, and would allow them a chance to reply. Instead this was rushed through much faster than most other arbcom proceedings and I was kept totally ignorant of an important aspect of it. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 02:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- I'm rather shocked by Kevin's revelation that the Ombuds, possibly for the first time ever, have approved a public statement about an ongoing investigation that has not reached any conclusions. I cannot recall a time when anyone not on the commission knew what they were doing before they actually made a reccomendation to the office. I seem to be the subject of an ever-increasing number of exceptions to the normal rules, in every regard except for the rules I broke. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 02:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Having slept on it, let me clarify: I may have overstated my case in saying tool use has to be involved for the ANPDP to apply. It would obviosuly apply to any sort of personal information that was shared on a mailing list as well. I would not and have not shared any such information. In addition, no actual quotes from eny emails were shared. No names of other participants in weither discussion were shared. Nothing that actually needed to be secret was shared.
- You may ask who I think I am to just be deciding what to share and what not to share. I was trying to be a different kind of arbitrator, in fact I ran on that principle, and was elected, twice. People seem to think I was reckless but I was actually very careful on the very rare occassions when I gave out certain details. No personal information that was non-public was ever invovled. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 19:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- I know I'm probably past my word limit, but please bear with me. The question of what would have changed if I had known is not entirely academic. If I had been asked what I thought was expected of me were I to retain the tool, I could have made the point that PII or CU data was never the issue here. We could have at least discussed the subject. Would I have swayed anyone? Maybe, maybe not, but I wasn't given the chance, so we can only guess. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- I'm rather shocked by Kevin's revelation that the Ombuds, possibly for the first time ever, have approved a public statement about an ongoing investigation that has not reached any conclusions. I cannot recall a time when anyone not on the commission knew what they were doing before they actually made a reccomendation to the office. I seem to be the subject of an ever-increasing number of exceptions to the normal rules, in every regard except for the rules I broke. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 02:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Ivanvector:
Statement by Ivanvector (Beeblebrox suspension)
The arbitration policy, under the subheading "Transparency and privacy", says that "[t]he Committee treats as private all communications sent to it, or sent by a Committee member in the performance of their duties." My understanding of what has been revealed about the decision is that Beeblebrox was suspended from the Committee as a result of publicly sharing information that is explicitly non-public. If that's not correct then ignore the rest of my comment.
Just Step Sideways attempts to pass off their advanced permissions as mere "userrights" as though their granting and revocation is equivalent to, say, pagemover or even administrator, but they are not the same. The holders of these advanced permissions are trusted editors charged with handling confidential and often highly-sensitive non-public information; that's why access to and use of it is governed by a formal legal document. Beeblebrox has breached that legal document directly, by their own admission: they have stated plainly (above) that they publicly shared information from a non-public mailing list. The fact that they don't believe that losing access to the tools is a fair consequence of this serious breach of trust only further demonstrates their unsuitability to hold these advanced permissions.
The oversight policy says that oversight access is "generally" only revoked for cause, not "exclusively", and says in plain English that permission may be revoked at any time. There clearly was cause for its removal in this case. Just Step Sideways can't be trusted with and should not have access to non-public information, not just for six months but ever again. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Responding to Szmenderowiecki's point about due process: functionary appointments are at the sole discretion of Arbcom, not the community. The procedural policy which you yourself quoted says "Oversighter status may be revoked by the Arbitration Committee at any time." That is a complete sentence: the entire procedure for Arbcom revoking access is the Committee's decision to do so. In fact the Committee can "do whatever it wants" with these permissions, and ought to when privacy is at stake.
- @Just Step Sideways: as you said, the notice of suspension refers only to ARBPOL, and ARBPOL gives the Committee full and universal discretion to assign or revoke functionary permissions, and that is really the end of the story here. But to expand anyway: the access to non-public personal data policy requires agreement to the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information, which describes nonpublic personal data as "private information, including private user information, which you receive either through the use of tools provided to you as an authorized Wikimedia community member or from other such members." The access policy also includes agreement to the WMF Privacy Policy, which under "Examples of What This Privacy Policy Covers" includes "Emails, SMS, and notifications from [the Foundation] or sent to [the Foundation] from [users]." Since the Arbcom mailing lists are WMF email lists and are defined as private by ARBPOL, all information available from that mailing list is private information covered by these policies. The access policy defines a complete list of the five ways that we are permitted to disclose information covered by the policy (under "Disclosure of nonpublic information"), and "posting on a public forum" is not one of those five definitions. The fact that you did obtain information from a private mailing list covered by these policies in your capacity as a privileged user and disclosed this information in a way not permitted by the policies is a breach of those policies, and so I will not retract anything in my statement. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Statement from The ed17
I fully endorse Ivanvector's statement above. Even if you ignore the legal aspects here, two of oversight's fundamental purposes are protecting people's privacy and ensuring they aren't defamed. Given the gravity of those issues, we as a community put trust in oversighters to hold the information they view in strict confidence. If this incident means that there is even a sliver of a doubt that Just Step Sideways/Beeblebrox cannot be completely trusted with private information, they should not and cannot have access to the oversight tools. Full stop. Ed [talk] [OMT] 23:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Statement from Bradv
The access to nonpublic data agreement covers personal information a user finds while using these tools, such as information that needs to be supressed, or checkuser data. It doesn't say anything about email lists.
This argument is beyond disingenuous. If someone emails the oversighters to ask that their real name be deleted from a page, the contents of the email are obviously to be treated with the same secrecy as the contents of the edits that need to be oversighted. Claiming that email lists aren't protected information would fly in the face of years of precedent, and would completely undermine all of our arbitration, checkuser, and oversight processes. Moreover, anyone who argues this point should absolutely not be allowed access to the oversight tools, as the proper functioning of this system relies on community trust that information sent to oversighters will be treated as confidential.
I urge the committee to reject this request now, and not to wait for the ombuddies to reach a decision. – bradv 02:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Szmenderowiecki (Beeblebrox/JSS appeal)
I understand the case is on hold, but I still want to register my dissatisfaction with the whole process. This reeks of judicial misconduct.
- Beeblebrox, in their capacity as an arb, drops a hint at an adjacent forum to an it.wiki editor (here) by using non-public knowledge from the ArbCom mailing list. OP is suspended for six months from ArbCom, and apparently the hint (even if it was "the last straw") was worse than the obvious violation of basic due process that caused the user to be glocked without really knowing why (the appeal succeeded). He's not removed for procedural reasons.
- In a private hearing, ArbCom removes CU, oversight and VRT allegedly without making clear this was on the table. WP:ARBPOL guarantees that
parties will be notified of [a] private hearing and be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to what is said about them before a decision is made
. But not only does ArbCom not deny that allegation, it doubles down on the (dubious) validity of its approach. I wonder how this squares with your statements back in 2022 that due process applies to sitting arbs. - WP:OVERSIGHT says that ArbCom may revoke the oversight permission
at any time [but generally] only "for cause", such as abuse of suppression to remove items that do not qualify under the stated policy, or for unauthorized release of suppressed information
(emphasis mine). The issue is misuse of private ArbCom communications. The connection to suppress tool misuse/abuse is at best tenuous.
ArbCom says they had no input into VRT removal - collapsing this point
|
|---|
ArbCom exceeds its authority when revoking VRT access because, as WP:VRT notes, membership in the volunteer response team is [...] purely determined by the VRTS administrators, not by ArbCom or the community. There's no indication ArbCom asked VRTS admins to remove access to VRT. |
- L235 on behalf of ArbCom strikes OP's username from ArbCom list in late November but a month later conveniently leaves out the suspended ArbCom member even though the distinction between "removed" and "suspended" had been discussed.
To be clear, the argument OP uses is a bit WP:WIKILAWYERy. Private communications should remain confidential. The breach was justifiable ethics-wise, though (see point 1). (We don't know about other breaches, it's OK, but because ArbCom didn't suspend Beeblebrox back then I don't assume they were severe).
I'd want to assume good faith and say these are innocent mistakes, but there's too much of them.
To all editors who say that "if a person is untrustworthy, we can remove them from all positions requiring trust, good that ArbCom just did it", I get your point and I would've normally supported it but procedural policies are there for a reason. "The ends justify the means" is not what ARBPOL says, and the community will also disagree with that notion. Just because ArbCom has full control over closed proceedings doesn't mean you can do whatever you want on the theory no one will know. Good the Ombuds Commission are investigating.
I ask the Committee to grant the OP's request and apologise to him. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 03:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Ivanvector, "at any time" means there are no fixed terms for oversighters, not that ArbCom can dismiss anyone arbitrarily, on a caprice, without explanation and/or at least the minimal due process. I guess that's where our interpretations differ.
- Barkeep49, thank you for the courtesy, and sorry for the frequent changes, I just wanted to make sure my statement did not have logical inconsistencies or incomprehensible shorthands. I have nothing more of substance to say. Again, I appreciate your accomodation. If you notice what I said is factually incorrect, let me know. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Statement by SMcCandlish (on JSS/Beeblebrox request)
All this focus on "I should have been told", looking into the past and what might have been a better process, is a lot of noise about water that has long since passed under the bridge. It is unlikely that the actual results would have been any different in any way had Beeblebrox been notified in advance of all the pending revocations and even been given a whole month to prepare an objection. He's had much longer than that to prepare the objection presented here now, and it appears unconvincing to much of anyone. I'm reminded of a certain MoS disruptor's years-long pursuit of "vindication" in the name of "justice" with a long string of revisit-the-past appeals which were all rejected and sometimes resulted in even more restrictions for failing to drop the stick. These sorts of "I must defend my personal honor and sense of fairness at all costs" antics tend to backfire badly in this environment, because our disciplinary processes are never about who is technically right about some nit-pick, but about protecting the project as a whole. In particular, the "fruit of the poisonous tree" principle of US jurisdrudence (i.e. that a regulatory action taken must be invalidated if the procedure used to reach that result was improper in any way, regardless of overwhelming evidence that the result was justified) does not operate on Wikipedia. ArbCom routinely reaches sanctioning conclusions that were not entirely what the sanctioned party was previously alerted might be part of the outcome; this is not evidence of any procedural impropriety in the first place.
I agree with the gist of others' comments here that a serious breach of confidentiality rules about one set of sensitive data automatically necessitates preclusion of that party having access to tools which require confidentiality about other sensitive data. This is a no-brainer, and ArbCom should reject this request immediately, regardless of any WMF-level examination of such a question from the corporate perspective. Which I think is also virtually guaranteed to come to the same conclusion anyway. But even if it didn't, it is already crystal clear that the en.WP community isn't going to buy an argument like "I broke confidentiality in this particular box, but can be trusted not to in these other boxes over here." ArbCom has no reason to wait for, or even care about the outcome of, a WMF Ombuds Commission discussion. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Thryduulf (re Beeblebrox/JSS)
I find myself largely in agreement with SMcCandlish. The only relevant question is: Would the outcome have been any different if JSS had been explicitly told that their OS/CU tools were being considered for removal? As the answer is "no", that should be the end of the matter. The Committee has already noted that making it explicit is something that could be done better in future, and apologised for not doing so this time, so there truly is nothing more to do here. Thryduulf (talk) 12:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Robert McClenon (Beeblebrox)
I will make one change to a statement that Beeblebrox (JSS) has made, and that will make all the difference. He writes: Revocation of an advanced permisssion should have a clear cause behind it, either inactivity or abuse.
I would revise that to say "Revocation of an advanced permission should have a clear cause behind it, either inactivity, abuse, or loss of trust." It is my understanding that the issue that has resulted in JSS's suspension from the ArbCom was a loss of trust, in particular of trust in the ability to keep secret details that needed to be kept secret. JSS appears to be arguing that the information that they disclosed that has resulted in their suspension was a different type of privileged information than Oversighters use and maintain. That is not important. If a government employee has access to two types of privileged information, such as DoD information that is classified Confidential and Secret (one type of sensitive information) and medical data that is protected by HIPAA (another type of sensitive information), and was found to have failed to secure classified information in a safe at the end of the day, they could lose their access to both classified information and HIPAA information, for having shown a lack of care or lack of trust. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
suspension of Beeblebrox: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
- @Szmenderowiecki: you need to stop substantively changing your remarks at this point. In fact, other than striking something, you needed to have done that once someone substantively replied to you. If you have new comments to make I'm granting you a 250 word extension to make new comments, including (if you'd like) your most recent change, which I'm reverting. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Suspension of Beeblebrox: Arbitrator views and discussion
- I very much intended to say Beeblebrox/Just Step Sidweways should not have access to any confidential information for six months. That this was an appropriate response to the conduct in question because my loss of trust was a general one rather than a tool misuse. So for me how he got Checkuser and Oversight and access to the functionaries list is irrelevant. What's not irrelevant for me is that we have a bunch of new arbitrators. So while I am of the opinion that it should be all his permissions back or nothing, I am eager to hear from my new colleagues - and I've already privately expressed this to some of them so it shouldn't be a shock - if we got our sanction wrong in the first place. And so despite JSS saying it's not appeal, I'm willing given these unusual circumstances, to entertain one. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Just Step Sideways just so I'm clear, your issue is with not being told what was an option? Barkeep49 (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- So after having given this some thought, reading the comments from others (arbs and other editors), and sleeping on it, here are my thoughts, which largely echo what several others have said.
- ArbCom should have done better at presenting what was being considered to JSS and JSS should have known removal of CUOS and/or functionary was a possibility because they understood removal as an Arb was a possibility (we've also been accused by one editor of taking away VRT, but that action was done by the people responsible for VRT and we did not direct it to happen publicly or privately). JSS has been the lead proponent of the concept of "admonish or remove sysop, but don't partially sanction" and taking away all the functionary bits is the equivalent action for this case (if people want to argue that suspension is a partial sanction, have at it, but that doesn't change my belief that based on his experience and beliefs towards others that JSS should have known this was a possibility, just as ArbCom should have done better at presenting what was being considered).
- However, JSS is still entitled to appeal any/all of the outcome. In fact I worked hard to make sure the outcome would allow that to happen right away in January because it was important to me as a matter of fairness, with a group of new arbs coming in, that he would have that chance. So regardless of how we end up here, I take serious any new information that we have gained during this appeal that we didn't have at the time of our original discussions with JSS.
- The oversight specific information and related thinking was not shared with us and is the new information I am considering here. I would summarize the information not previously presented as "JSS feels his use of oversight is independent from anything that he did as an arb, there is no evidence of misuse of the Oversight tool, so he can still be trusted to be an oversighter even if there are concerns about him as an Arbitrator." I do not find that compelling. My vote was primarily about preventing future occurrences of the kinds that had already happened. Future issues could just as easily happen from information gained as an Oversighter or from being present on the functionary's list. To quote JSS from the TNT case where he wrote, in voting to remove TNT's Oversight bit despite the lack of misconduct with that tool,
Being a functionary is a position of the utmost trust, and I simply do not trust their judgement anymore.
The only part of that I'd change is "anymore" to "at this time".
- I'm therefore a decline on this appeal absent some movement from my colleagues saying the decision itself was wrong (which I don't expect to be forthcoming at this time). JSS has a lot of hurt at what happened and it pains me to know that I could have done better to stop some of that hurt. I like JSS as a person and think, outside of this one flaw, he is an excellent arbitrator and thoughtful functionary. I hope JSS takes the time away he's said he was going to take and comes back in May/June with an appeal that addresses the core issues which led to my vote and which I wrote to JSS about and I produce below. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Excerpt from an email from Barkeep49 to Just Step Sideways (then named Beeblebrox)
|
|---|
|
I've been thinking about the largeness of the breaches and what I consider your overall very good to excellent record as an arb. But also part of that thinking was the presumption you would be able to course correct when presented with this direct feedback from the rest of your colleagues. The fact that in these emails you're [text removed because it's not been said publicly that I recall by JSS and so it is not mine to share] in general not sounding contrite is making me rethink that presumption. The only reason I'm not reconsidering my vote is because I do get the sense in that last paragraph that you're getting there. And it's in that spirit and with that hope I'm writing you this direct email in the hopes that it helps push you further. |
- @Just Step Sideways: What I'm hearing is that you think we should have told you we were considering revoking CUOS, in addition to our telling you that removal from the committee was on the table. In an ideal world, I think you're right: we should try to be as communicative about the possible range of options as possible. But in this case "not ideal" is as far as it gets — I don't think it slipped to the level of "unfair". Removal (or suspension) from the committee in this case would necessarily have involved a decision that you're not currently suitable to access sensitive information, and I don't think it should have been a surprise that such removal (or suspension) would also involve removal of functionary-level access to sensitive information.
Like Barkeep49, I'm more than willing to take the time to reexamine the decision so that the new arbitrators are able to review the decision and decide whether we were wrong on the substance. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)- In response to our email (after JSS submitted this ARCA), the Ombuds Commission informed us that we may publicly inform the community that yesterday, the Ombuds Commission told ArbCom that it intends to make a decision in its own case on Just Step Sideways (Beeblebrox) soon, subject to Legal review. "Soon" is a relative statement when it comes to global governance processes with complex cases, but in any event it may make sense to hold off on this ARCA request until the Ombuds Commission completes its review. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Just to be clear this is a summary, not a direct quote from anyone on the Ombuds. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Edited to make this more clear. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Just Step Sideways: regarding
I cannot recall a time when anyone not on the commission knew what they were doing before they actually made a reccomendation to the office.
– I don't think this is true. I have found at least one time during your most recent term on ArbCom that ArbCom was informed about the status of a case before the Ombuds Commission before legal review was concluded. And, as my colleagues have noted, neither ArbCom as a body nor any arbitrator acting individually directed or requested the VRTS account closure (other than, implicitly, the removal of the "arbcom-en-wp" group on VRTS).
On the merits, like my colleagues, I would decline this request. I would also be open to a compelling request on the substance after the suspension period has elapsed. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Just Step Sideways: regarding
- Edited to make this more clear. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Just to be clear this is a summary, not a direct quote from anyone on the Ombuds. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- In response to our email (after JSS submitted this ARCA), the Ombuds Commission informed us that we may publicly inform the community that yesterday, the Ombuds Commission told ArbCom that it intends to make a decision in its own case on Just Step Sideways (Beeblebrox) soon, subject to Legal review. "Soon" is a relative statement when it comes to global governance processes with complex cases, but in any event it may make sense to hold off on this ARCA request until the Ombuds Commission completes its review. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Note that Szmenderowiecki did some retooling of their statement --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 10:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- The warnings JSS has received in the past included both arb confidentiality issues and functionary confidentiality issues, though as I've said both privately and publicly, I do not believe there were any bright line ANPDP violations (and so I would consider removal of ANPDP to be excessive). For me at least, removal of functionary status was always going to accompany suspension as an arb. JSS, I say this as someone who has argued against an ANPDP yank: I do not trust you with functionary access right now, neither tool access nor list access. Maybe that will change in the future, I genuinely hope you'll give us a good appeal someday. But right now, I cannot and will not support restoration of any funct status. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- I have a few comments to make—some general and some specific to this incident. I'll start with the general ones. I've gotten the impression from similar situations involving a functionary and ArbCom, that the functionary at one point or another appeared blindsided by the result. There may be multiple explanations for this occurrence. The less-charitable explanation from the functionary's perspective is that when ArbCom is considering sanctioning, or has sanctioned a functionary, there is already wide gap between ArbCom and said functionary. Such a result comes as a surprise directly because of this wide gap in mutual understanding. The less-charitable explanation from ArbCom's perspective is that we're collectively not good at handling such cases. With a normal arbitration case, there's at least some evidence phase, followed by a public proposed decision; thus, the subject of a remedy is aware of what is under consideration, and can make comments on the proposed decision talk to attempt to sway the decision. Something that involves functionary conduct doesn't lend itself to such a format. One solution is to circulate the actual proposed motion with the affected party prior to voting on it, which I don't think is presently done. As far as this specific case goes, having reviewing the discussions and evidence that led to the suspension, I don't find the outcome to be unreasonable. Considering the principle on functionary status passed in 2022, I think that removing functionary status in light of a suspension or removal from ArbCom is a logical step as well. In hindsight, the potential outcome could have been better communicated, but the end-result of loss of functionary status is not unreasonable. I agree with GN that there do not appear to be any bright-line ANPDP issues. In the context of regaining oversight access, there is nothing to me that suggests that there may be a risk of release of, for example, suppressed material. That's all to say I'm not a "never" on restoring oversight access, but I could entertain it at a later point, no earlier than when the suspension runs out. Maxim (talk) 14:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- JSS, the ArbCom had some information, we consulted with the functionaries on that information. Your argument appears to be that you leaked that information as an Arb but did not do so as a functionary. That is complete nonsense.At present I'm not comfortable sharing confidential information with you under either role.As for the revelation that the Ombuds are conducting their own case, what is your preference, that we tell you why we're not moving forward on this, or that we prevaricate for weeks or months until they reach an end? Cabayi (talk) 15:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- User rights were badly named because they are not rights: they are privileges given to editors. No one has to have these tools and it is up to the community and Wikimedia organisation to determine who is given this access. Beebs/JSS states they did not know that removal of Oversight (OS) access was a possibility while the case was being discussed. ArbCom could have informed Beebs/JSS of this possibility, but I am not convinced it was necessary as sanctions can always involve removing user rights and, to emphasise, no one has the right to any tools. Regardless, this lack of knowledge does not stop Beebs/JSS from appealing that decision, which is what is happening here (even if in their statement they are calling their appeal an amendment, I still consider this an appeal).
- For functionary roles like OS, the community and Wikimedia organisation decided that ArbCom could determine this access. One of the criteria for OS is trust: ArbCom and the community have to trust that all functionaries will not disclose non-public information. I believe this trust has been broken multiple times. Therefore, I am not willing to return the privilege of OS tools to Beebs/JSS at this time, regardless of the Ombud's results in this case. There are many areas of Wikipedia that Beebs/JSS can contribute to without the OS tools; I encourage them to pick some of these areas and start working to rebuild ArbCom’s trust, and by extension the community’s trust, for OS access at a later date. Z1720 (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- I have taken the time to review the private evidence and process around this, and broadly agree with my colleagues' comments above. The Committee could've done better at ensuring that JSS knew about and understood what was being considered, and the underlying reasoning. However, that doesn't in any way change the fact that there has been a critical loss of trust around private information. Precisely where that private information came from does not seem particularly relevant, merely that it is indeed private to roughly the same degree, and I believe here that it was. I am also not a "never" on restoring Oversight access, but any appeal would have to substantively address the issues that led to revocation for me to be swayed. As such, I would decline this amendment request. firefly ( t · c ) 17:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Much has been said above, so I will try to be brief. As mentioned by my colleagues, suspension of CUOS access is a natural result of suspension from the Committee, and I do not see any way around that connection. I see no issue with Just Step Sideways re-requesting VRTS access, specifically for the info-en and related queues, as those queues as mentioned are not strictly governed by enWiki or ArbCom. Primefac (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- I am very sympathetic to the fact that someone should be aware of and have a reasonable chance to defend themselves against certain actions being considered, such as the removal of permissions. My opinion is that this oppportunity absolutely should have been afforded to them. However, I do not think that is enough to warrant amending the decision. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight#Removals says that
The Arbitration Committee may request that Stewards withdraw advanced permissions if they lose confidence in an editor's ability to serve as a functionary
(that revocation was requested here). The loss of confidence is a valid reason for that removal, and for that reason I have to decline the request for amendment. - Aoidh (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC) - I am abstaining from voting on this issue. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- I'm deeply conflicted on this but ultimately I come down as a decline. I consider JSS a friend, especially after we met at Wikimania in 2012, and if it came down to it I would trust him with my personal information. He was an excellent oversighter and Wikipedia is a better, safer place because of his contributions in that field. But nobody disputes that he disclosed information that came into his possession because he was an arbitrator or functionary and more than once. That caused enough concern for last year's committee to remove him, and removal of advanced permissions is a reasonable and foreseeable measure along with that. Ultimately, oversight absolutely depends on trust and discretion—we need people to report things to us, and someone considering reporting something needs to have confidence that not only the reported material but the report itself and any ancillary information or discussion will be handled discretely. I think there's at least a significant minority of the community that does not have that confidence, so it would not be appropriate to restore permissions at this point. But time heals all wounds and trust can be rebuilt; this is explicitly not "never again". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- This is a request for the Oversight permission; the description at WP:CUOS is helpful for making the decision. A high level of trust within the committee and the larger community is required for receiving the permission, and even if I don't judge whether the lack of trust is justified or not, a lack of trust currently exists. There is no other option to me than a decline for now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2024 (UTC)