This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I see where it says at WP:ACDS#Page restrictions that admins can impose protection, restrictions, and so on, but where does it say who gets to place a notice at an article Talk page identifying the topic as potentially subject to such restrictions, even if they have not been placed yet? There are any number of such ACDS notices on pages that don't (yet?) have any logged restrictions, and it's helpful to know when pages are subject to ACDS.
For example: Talk:Conversion therapy contains {{ArbComPseudoscience}}, which displays the Pseudo-science banner. This was placed in September 2013 (diff) and that seems right to me; the user who added it is not an admin (at least, not now). I see nothing on the ACDS page stating who can place such a TP banner, and under what conditions. I believe that Talk:Conversion therapy should also have {{Ds/talk notice|gg}} placed, and so, probably, should Talk:John Money (and a lot of other pages I'm aware of). Where do I go to see what the requirements are for placing the Ds talk notice, and whether as a non-admin I can place it? Did I miss part of the page that describes this? If not, can we add some text about this? Is it just a matter of any editor making a BOLD edit to add a Ds talk notice of their choice, and then it's up to consensus? Somehow, that seems too loosey-goosey as far as subjecting something to ArbCom sanctions that didn't pass through ArbCom, but otoh, ArbCom isn't going to review 6.7M pages, either. So, what's the procedure here? Mathglot (talk) 06:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Template:Ds/talk notice says "Anyone may place a discretionary sanctions talk page notice." It links to this prior discussion, similar but not identical, with an OP that I respect a lot. There's a good case to be made for more clear guidance at WP:ACDS, but this does mean you can go ahead and tag those two pages, both of which are definitely in the GG/GAS topic area. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
The talk notice is purely informational in nature, so unlike other parts of DS, it does not carry a sanction or action that only an admin is allowed to take. I would support any editor adding it to the talk page of an article covered under the DS, as long as it's being done in good faith (i.e. no edit warring over whether to add it). I think using WP:BRD would be a good process to add the banner. Whether an article is covered is more difficult to ascertain in edge cases, but in cases where there is disagreement that cannot be resolved ARCA can be used to resolve this as described on the template documentation page. Hopefully that answers your question. Other clerks / the arbs may have other opinions, and this is just my thoughts (not a statement from the committee). Dreamy Jazztalk to me | my contributions 13:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I would largely agree with this advice. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
What Dreamy says is also my understanding. Best, KevinL (aka L235·t·c) 15:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
As I mentioned in the last discussion you started (see link from Firefangledfeathers), as per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions § aware.alert, anyone can place notices on pages that fall within a topic area for which the use of discretionary sanctions has been authorized. If someone contests a decision whether a page falls within scope of a topic area, the interested participants should have a discussion. If it can't be resolved within the community, a request for clarification from the arbitration committee can be made. isaacl (talk) 15:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
The section you link to refers to "alerts" placed on editor talk pages, not notices placed on article talk pages. As far as I can tell, Mathglot is correct that the ACDS page does not comment on who can place article talk page notices. I think the only section that comes close to the topic is §Page restrictions, which just says that admins must place a notice when adding a page restriction (e.g. 1RR). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Although the name of the section is "Alerts", the first sentence is Any editor may advise any other editor that discretionary sanctions are in force for an area of conflict. (The subsequent sentence describes what qualifies as a formal notification to a specific editor.) I discussed page restrictions in the previous discussion; however a page in a topic area for which discretionary sanctions has been authorized is not yet under an editing restriction, until an administrator actually imposes one at their discretion. isaacl (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I'll add (but please correct me if I'm wrong) that deciding to enact a page-specific restriction under DS is something that can only be done by admins. So anyone (with the caveats above) may put a DS notice on a talk page, but only an admin can, for example, declare that 1RR applies to the page as a DS. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
The second half was clear; it was the first part I was asking about, which now appears to be answered in a way agreeing with your assumption. Thanks, all! (And particularly to Firefangledfeathers, for pointing out that forgetful OP .) Mathglot (talk) 20:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Awareness and alerts
If an editor acknowledges on a talk page the awareness of discretionary sanctions why would that not suffice for being aware sanctions exist? If that makes sense it would seem that an addition to the "Awareness and alerts" section might seem logical,
"#7)- An editor is deemed aware of discretionary sanctions if the editor mentions this on any talk page comments." -- Otr500 (talk) 04:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
@Otr500 yeah awareness is a mess. I've talked more about what I think awareness should be here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: I 100% agree with the comments you mentioned especially as being a "system that needs change". I typically just do not edit in such areas and rarely even comment. I am less worried about specifically mentioned restrictions but generally stay clear of subjects that are under the added "broadly construed", or other such vague wording, that has at least two issues that I would just rather leave alone. Hopefully, at some point the template issue can be looked at. -- Otr500 (talk) 00:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Edit notices
Can template editors or page movers use {{ds/editnotice}} to place an editnotice on pages within a conflict area? If yes, would it fulfil the There was an editnotice ({{ds/editnotice}}) on the restricted page which specified the page restriction?) criterion? Thanks. NotReallySoroka (talk) 10:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary sanctions#sanctions.page says Any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict [restrictions] or any other reasonable measure [...]. The enforcing administrator must log page restrictions they place. Enforcing administrators must add an editnotice to restricted pages, using the standard template ({{ds/editnotice}}), and should add a notice to the talk page of restricted pages.
So, only administrators can place a page under editing restrictions and they should be placing the template when doing so. However, if they didn't for whatever reason then I (as a non-arb) see no reason why someone else shouldn't be able to add it. Thryduulf (talk) 14:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
There are provisions elsewhere that essentially say if an admin doesn't fill out the paperwork correctly someone else can help them. I would see this as part of that. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
@Tryptofish the previous thread was about placing a notice on the talk page, this one is about placing an edit notice on the article. Thryduulf (talk) 18:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Ok, thanks, Thryduulf. I was genuinely confused about that. But now that leads me to a procedural question. If it's just "helping" for a non-admin to put an edit notice (for 1RR) on a page, isn't it still the case that enacting a 1RR-type page sanction can be initiated only by an uninvolved administrator? If ArbCom had already enacted a remedy applying 1RR for the topic area, then I can see how a non-admin would not need permission from an admin to post the edit notice, but that's not the same thing as enacting a page-specific sanction under the authority of DS. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
That's correct; as Thryduulf stated, only administrators can place a page (for which discretionary sanctions has been authorized) under editing restrictions. isaacl (talk) 20:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
The previous discussion was on who can place a notice on the talk page saying that the page falls within an area for which administrators have been authorized to enact sanctions at their sole discretion. This discussion is on who can add an edit notice to a page, which typically is done in conjunction with there being an actual restriction imposed on the page. (At one point, some Covid-related articles were the only ones with edit notices simply noting the authorization for discretionary sanctions, without any actual sanctions imposed. I don't know if that's changed.) isaacl (talk) 20:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Covid restrictions are general sanctions (community-authorised) rather than discretionary sanctions (arb com-authorised) but they are very similar. I think the following table is correct regarding these matters:
Table of restriction types
Regime
Authorised for topic area by
Who can place restrictions on pages?
Who can place restrictions on editors?
Who can inform editors about authorisations and/or restrictions?
@Thryduulf the committee assumed responsibility for COVID last year and so it is now DS. That table looks correct to me - it's good stuff. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
the committee assumed responsibility for COVID last year and so it is now DS ah, I forgot about that, sorry. Thryduulf (talk) Thryduulf (talk) 21:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
The language around this gets used by different people in different ways. As described at Wikipedia:General sanctions, General sanctions are a type of Wikipedia sanctions that apply to all editors working in a particular topic area. These contrast with editing restrictions, also called "personal sanctions", which apply only to individual editors. General sanctions are measures used by the community or the Arbitration Committee ("ArbCom") to improve the editing atmosphere of an article or topic area. Under the "Discretionary sanctions" section, Use of such tools can be authorized by the Arbitration Committee, usually as part of an arbitration case. In addition, community discussions can authorize sanctions that generally echo those established by the Arbitration Committee. So technically, general sanctions are ones that apply to all editors, and the use of discretionary sanctions can be authorized by either the arbitration committee or the community.
Regarding Covid-19, I only was noting it as an outlier with respect to having edit notices for articles without specific restrictions, regardless of who authorized the use of discretionary sanctions. isaacl (talk) 22:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks all, I understand all of that, and I agree with all of that. What was previously unclear to my reading of this discussion was that it sounded as though someone who is not an admin could decide that an edit notice could be placed on a page, and that it would be regarded as being helpful. Prior to Thryduulf's table, no one had made a clear distinction between the table column about "who can inform" and the "can place" columns. (Re-reading the discussion, I realize that Thryduulf actually did say this in his first reply to the opening question, but I missed that before. My bad.) I think that distinction was intended and assumed, but it didn't seem to me like it had been made clear. (Picture an additional table column, verbosely headed "Once ArbCom has established DS in a topic area but has not specified what rules are in place on a given page, who can place restrictions on a given page under the authority of DS?" Only an uninvolved admin belongs in the column under that heading, but anyone can inform other editors once such a choice has been made.) I was confused about it, and I could easily imagine other users being confused. For me, the takeaway is that the opening question here was about informing editors via an edit notice and was never intended to be about the rest. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Target dates and times
The current format for target dates is Evidence closes 9 July 2022. This is confusing for two reasons; it doesn't say whether the evidence phase closes at the start of end of the 9th, and it doesn't say in what time zone - the confusion this latter aspect causes can be seen in 7&6=thirteen's evidence submission.
For future cases, I would recommend using the format: Evidence closes 23:59 UTC 9 July 2022. BilledMammal (talk) 02:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Assuming evidence closes in your local time zone instead of UTC isn't credible for anyone but the newest of new editors, but I'll admit I thought it was due to close at the start of the 9th. —Cryptic 05:14, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Media coverage of Fringe Science arbitration request
This article from a few days ago mentions the arbitration request [1] that was made under the "Fringe Science" case last October, so ArbCom ought to take notice of the article if they haven't seen it already. It also mentions the editors Stonkaments, Literaturegeek, and Ferahgo the Assassin, so they should be made aware of it.
In that arbitration request, two of the last three arbitrator comments said that there was a problem that needed to be addressed. [2][3] But then the arbitration request was closed right afterwards. In light of the recent media attention this issue has gotten, the concern expressed by CaptainEek that if it wasn't addressed it would "go and simmer more" was very prescient. Can ArbCom explain why they declined to make any decision in that request? --AndewNguyen (talk) 11:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
For the record, this was an amendment request, not a full case request. In that ARCA, we were asked to change principles and findings of fact (FoF) from the 2009 Fringe Science case; we declined to make those changes, with one of the reasons being that Principles and FoF are not Remedies, and thus are statements about the case and Wikipedia at the time they were written and should not be used as Gospel Truth. Primefac (talk) 11:55, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Okay, I also see that CaptainEek commented on the request [4] saying "While the use of sources in the topic area is concerning, the link between the problems and the case seem tenuous at best." It sounds as though the sourcing issue that he and Barkeep49 commented on wasn't addressed there because, for a few reasons, the proposed amendment was not an appropriate solution to that particular problem. And for ArbCom to possibly address it, someone would have to propose a different amendment focused more narrowly on that issue. Is that correct? --AndewNguyen (talk) 13:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
That appears to be an accurate assessment of the situation. Primefac (talk) 13:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. The Quillette article gave the impression that ArbCom was reluctant to deal with this issue, and from the outcome of the request in October it did somewhat appear that way, but I understand their desire to make sure any solution is well-suited to the problem it's addressing. --AndewNguyen (talk) 14:19, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
It is probably worth noting that this Quillette article was published under a pseudonym that has been used elsewhere ([5], [6]) to advocate that race has a genetic basis and that race and intelligence are linked. Quilette itself has a House POV on this issue. MrOllie (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
The link you provide lights up as unreliable using the Headbomb script. I don't think it's worth entertaining for any meaningful discussion. Izno (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't think a libertarian website posing as objective journalism is something we need really concern ourselves with. If Reuters or AP pick it up call me back. --Beeblebrox (talk) 17:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Last-second submissions
"Strategically" waiting to participate in arbitration until just before a phase closes so that nobody has the opportunity to rebut you is a crock. Is there any way we can discourage this? All I can think of is to automatically extend 24 hours or something after the last edit, but that just encourages more back-and-forthism. —Cryptic 05:18, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Analysis of evidence can continue to take place during the workshop. Historically speaking, I don't believe there has been any issues with last-minute workshop submissions (and discussion for any exceptional situations can continue on the talk page). isaacl (talk) 06:14, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Where clearly useful dialog is happening on the workshop page at the scheduled time of closure, arbcom have in the past allowed that to continue until it reached a natural conclusion. Whether that is relevant to this case is obviously not for me to judge. Thryduulf (talk) 10:14, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
To some degree, the question depends on whether it is last-minute evidence, or last-minute workshop proposals/comments. Last-minute evidence is, indeed, tricky. I'll admit to having done it strategically myself on a few occasions. Once I got yelled at by a party who didn't like it, but with the workshop-stage analysis of evidence, I don't think it's the end of the world. From what I've seen, ArbCom tends to take the position that back-and-forth rebuttals are not that useful and are not taken on face value by the Arbs anyway; one diff is worth a thousand paragraphs of complaining, as it were. I've also seen ArbCom grant a brief extension of the phase deadline for named parties who have been accused of something via new evidence and have a legitimate reason to present new rebuttal evidence. Last-minute workshop proposals don't strike me as a big deal, because ArbCom only uses proposal ideas that ArbCom likes, which are typically very few of the overall population of proposals. I've long thought, though, that ArbCom could productively have the deadline for the evidence and workshop talk pages be one day later than the evidence and workshop pages themselves. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
I know I'm late on this, but I will note that (a) the talk pages never really close and (b) this was part of the reason I like "analysis of evidence" on the workshop page instead of the evidence page – it builds in an extra week to respond by default. Best, KevinL (aka L235·t·c) 02:15, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
People work towards deadlines. So last minute anything is to be expected. Since 2020 - when my memory of arbcom is the sharpest - the committee has responded in a few ways to last minute evidence, including extensions, saying "talk about it on the workshop", and doing nothing. Ultimately my view is that ArbCom is not designed as an adversarial process - and indeed people who engage in Battleground mentality often get called out for it - and so the last minute evidence of one person doesn't guarantee that someone else needs a rebuttal. But sometimes a rebuttal is appropriate and the drafters for a case have the authority to make such decisions on behalf of the committee which I think is a good thing. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:27, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
In a case I became a named party to a few years back, somebody submitted evidence just a few hours before the deadline that wasn't evidence at all, it was riddled with inaccurate statements and half-truths, some about me specifically. I was annoyed by it, and I pointed out the numerous inaccurate parts on the talk page. i knew it would've actually affect the case since it was so obviously wrong, but I don't like falsehoods referring to specific individuals being preserved forever without being refuted. Since the evidence phase was closed by the time a discussion was had, the false statements remain on that page to this day. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
I wonder if it would be worth allowing editors to request the clerks strike or remove inaccurate and polemic evidence that wasn't referenced by the arbs in the final decision? BilledMammal (talk) 11:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
I like where your head is at, but I don't think it is the clerk's job to determine what is and is not in scope, it is, mostly, the drafting arbs job, and more broadly, any arb. I would support the idea that the drafters ask the clerks to remove or collapse/hide any irrelevant out-of-scope content. In the current case, there are "evidence" submissions without supporting diffs, that are basically statements of opinion. That's not evidence and we are not obligated to pretend that it is. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Clarification request
WP:ARBDEL - Lugnuts topic banned: This remedy supersedes his December 2021 community topic ban. - Should the Arbcom imposed topic ban ever be lifted, is the community topic ban immediately reinstated, or does it lapse? This is not clear from the ruling. IMvHO, it should be immediately reinstated. This is because the community imposed it, and the community should decide on its lifting. Were it to lapse, in effect ARBCOM is overriding a community decision, which I'm sure is not its intention. Can we have some written ruling on this issue please? Mjroots (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Appeals of arbcom sanctions are done at WP:ARCA and very much include community input. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
We're also talking 2 appeals from now. Lugnuts would need to get unbanned before, realistically, they could ask to have their topic ban repealed. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
@Beeblebrox: I'm not appealing the sanction imposed. I'm sure ARBCOM made the correct decision and I have no wish to oppose any decision reached in the case. I'll post at ARCA if that is what is really needed, but I think a clarification can be made pretty easily, maybe by replacing "supercedes" with "suspends"? Mjroots (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
If you do I will vote against it. I think it's unfair to ask an appellant to jump through two hoops. So there are times where ArbCom will say "let's ask the community" instead of deciding which is fine while other times ArbCom makes its own decision. If the community thinks ArbCom got it wrong at that moment it can reimpose something but I have a hard time believing that ArbCom would accept an appeal that had so much opposition that consensus to re-impose it could happen. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:10, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
To be clear, I was not suggesting that this discussion needs to go to ARCA, rather that if and when Lugnuts was in a position to appeal the topic ban, that is where the discussion would take place and there would be community input, therefore there is no danger of the committee blindly overriding the community's will or consensus. This is not a new or novel thing for the committee to do, established processes have handled it fine and I see no need to change the language of the decision. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
I've made my concerns known, and ARBCOM is aware of them. We'll let the matter rest there. Mjroots (talk) 08:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
ARB Shortcuts
Prompted by Jehochman's removal of a proposal for a "gravedancing" shortcut yesterday I have replaced and deleted all ARB shortcuts which target individuals. Those remaining should (if I haven't missed any) all point to :
an ArbCom procedure, policy, or administrative page; or
a topic area or article which has been the subject of arbitration.
Articles within scope of multiple discretionary sanction topics
Where articles are within the scope of two or more discretionary sanction topics, they get multiple separate and largely duplicative banners. See for example Talk:Alex Jones which has DS banners for BLP, US Politics and Covid-19. This wastes space, contributes to banner overload and (based on my reaction to that talk page) less likely to read. Would the committee have any objection to a single template listing multiple topics for situations like this?
I don't have the skill to develop one myself, but there is no point anybody who does spending any time working doing so if you aren't happy with the idea. Thryduulf (talk) 17:47, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
I will likely have some thoughts when it's executed - particularly with the design if there is a page restriction - but I have no problem with the concept. Curious what other arbs say. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
This is a great idea. A lot of our templates and documentation needs updates. KevinL (aka L235·t·c) 18:05, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
I think this is a useful idea. As an admin looking for a current status when I see some disruption, it's more efficient to see "just one box, with a list of details" as opposed to seeing one box and then having to keep looking to see if there are more. It also intrinsically keeps all such details together (automatic organization) even when there are lots of other boxes. We already do this for wikiproject-tags ({{WikiProject banner shell}}) and afd-history ({{Old XfD multi}}) on talkpages and cleanup-tags ({{Multiple issues}}) on articles. DMacks (talk) 18:07, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Good idea! Avoiding repetition of the boilerplate part of the messages to ensure the meat of the messages is less concealed can only be for the good. Cabayi (talk) 15:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
To help prompt interested editors to think about volunteering to run for an arbitrator seat, are any arbitrators interested in writing up some notes on how you spend your time as an arbitrator? I presume there are tasks you do on different schedules, some perhaps daily, some less frequently, perhaps some on days where you have more time to spend on Wikipedia. Any observations, recommendations, or other comments on the role are welcome, such as aspects you find rewarding, and tasks which are a bother. I appreciate some might say "I never want to do this again", which is fine feedback, too; if you could expand on your reasons why and whether or not you felt your decision to run was, in the overall picture, still a good one, I think it will help others decide if the role would be a good fit. I know other statements have been written before; I think updating them with the latest info will provide additional insight. isaacl (talk) 22:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Several sitting members put things like this together last year, specifically me, David Fuchs, and Maxim. You can find them in Category:User essays on arbitration where it looks like there are one or two older essays as well on the topic. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the links (and saving me the work of digging them up). My initial thought was to have something similar to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Debriefs: a chronologically ordered page that links to individual statements (or has them inline, if the writer prefers), so it will be easy to find the latest views. I welcome more views from other arbitrators, such as the first-timers from the last election! isaacl (talk) 22:55, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Since I was in that sort of mood today.. I thought I'd drop my thoughts on being an arbitrator. Hardly a first timer though, I've just realised I've spent 7 of the last 10 years on the commmittee. Yikes! WormTT(talk) 15:18, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Ought to get that checked out, might be a sign of something worrying. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk 18:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Continuing to serve into 2023
With the pre-election request for comment discussion winding up, this may be a good time for the mid-term arbitrators to consider if they continue to be interested in serving into 2023. As discussed at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2022#Arb step down, a resignation can be announced in advance to take effect on January 1, thereby allowing the seat to be eligible to be filled in this year's election. For those arbitrators whose terms are ending, I encourage them to let the community know as soon as possible if they plan to run again, to help others make their decisions. Either way, I thank the arbitrators for their dedication in serving the community. isaacl (talk) 22:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Unnecessary verbiage ("words") in the text
Under sanctions.log, which is the section titled Logging, we find (third paragraph)...
A central log ("log") of all page restrictions and sanctions...
Who exactly is that ("log") for? What's the target audience there, retired legal clerks feeling nostalgic for the days they used to spend mired in legalese? FeRDNYC (talk) 04:47, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback. We'll keep it in mind in WP:DS2022. Best, KevinL (aka L235·t·c) 05:38, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
how do i get unbanned from editing
my school ip was banned due to some people.
i would like to get it unblocked from editing pages. 79.161.95.131 (talk) 11:06, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
This page is not for communication with ArbCom. You refer to a block, not a ban(the two words have different meanings here). This is not an ArbCom matter, see WP:AAB for how to appeal the block, which will need to be done at school. 331dot (talk) 11:09, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång you are correct. What current list did you see it on because I did attempt to update pages. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:24, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Sure enough. That page says its generated from {{Ds/topics}} which does have it moved to previous. So I'm not sure what the technical glitch is so I've posted for the clerks. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:30, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
There may be more in that list, afaict for example Cold fusion and Homeopathy were rescinded too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you are meaning. The Muhammad images DS is listed in the previous authorisations section. There is no other mention of the word "Muhammad" on that page. Dreamy Jazztalk to me | my contributions 20:16, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
i.e. it is one of the bullet points underneath the text Discretionary sanctions with the wording listed on this page were previously authorised for the following topic areas, which have since been rescinded or superseded by later cases (the italicised link after each topic names the associated arbitration decision)Dreamy Jazztalk to me | my contributions 20:19, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
I see now that I missed the "previously" heading. Apologies. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Maybe the section could be better done where the Ds/topics list could be split into two parts so that you could have wikitext headers of "Current areas of conflict" and separately "Previous areas of conflict". Dreamy Jazztalk to me | my contributions 20:23, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
The "Current areas of conflict" heading can be seen as a little misleading, yes. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:25, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
AELOG loading problems due to lengthy transcluded content
WP:AELOG has become so long due to transcluding the past six years that I have trouble loading this page on my browser. At time of writing, there are over 3,200 logged actions from this timeframe. Maybe show only the one or two most recent years instead of six, and defer to the archives for previous years? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:47, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
For the current revision of the subpages (preserved fork), I measured a size of about 827 KB. That's larger than any Wikipedia article, at time of writing. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:59, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
I can't see any immediately obvious downsides to transcluding just the most recent 2 years, given the quick links to other years and how often decisions older than that need to be referred to. Thryduulf (talk) 15:46, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
This seems sensible to me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:55, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1. The initiating arbitrator will contact the account via e-mail asking the account to contact arbcom-en and leave a message on the account's talk page alerting the account to the email. If email contact is not possible, the initiating arbitrator will leave a message on the account's talk page asking the account to contact arbcom-en.
For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.
As proposer. The goal of this change is to cut some of the red-tape and stigma around contacting Admins. In general the past couple of committees have been moving away from leaving "Please email the committee" talk page messages because of the attention they receive and the impression that they can give that someone has done something wrong. This is not always true. Instead the practice has shifted to either mailing the person in question directly (if the committee has their email) or sending them an email and then following either of these steps by leaving a {{ygm}} type of message on their talk. Direct emails can also be done from the arbcom-en email address which means that replying only to a single arb becomes less of an issue since the reply to email is the committee. As the person who recently had to initate a level 2, this felt uncomfortable in a way that some previous talk page messages didn't. This amendment would allow this current practice to be used for Level 2 proceedings when the committee has an email address already or the admin has email enabled on their account. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:31, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Sensible. — Wug·a·po·des 23:03, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Barkeep49, just to ask the obvious question, does this mean we are essentially just swapping parts (a) and (b) in the existing first step (which currently reads The initiating arbitrator will (a) leave a message on the account's talk page, asking the account to contact arbcom-en, and (b) send a similar message to the account by Wikipedia e-mail, if enabled.) to encourage an email first rather than just "contact us"? Primefac (talk) 11:23, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
That is the core, yes. I think the wording requires some adjustments when flipping them. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:46, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Second question: do any of the arbs mind if the proposed language is split into two sentences to avoid a glut of commas? It would put a full stop before "if email contact is not possible". Primefac (talk) 11:24, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Sounds great to me. KevinL (aka L235·t·c) 13:16, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
No objections from me. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:44, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Done. Primefac (talk) 14:48, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Community discussion (Level 2 contacting admins)
Seeing that message on an admin's talk page immediately makes you think "uh oh, what have they done?" Well it does for me, anyway. Emailing first is definitely the better way to go. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:24, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not sure where to put this: minor question that a clerk or arb can probably answer easily
On AE archives, I notice that many of the requests are closed with a collapser, but many are not. At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive310, for example, the sections Gillcv and MrLag525 are collapsed, but Trickipaedia isn't. Why could this be? It seems like the answer is probably because no action was taken on the request -- but there are some sections that get collapsed with "No action taken". Is this simply inconsistent logging, or is there a reason for this? jp×g 08:21, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A rough consensus has been reached among arbitrators participating in the request; and
The rough consensus does not require a vote to implement (e.g. modifying the remedy to a case).
The closing arbitrator should include a summary of the rough consensus when closing the request for clarification or amendment.
Enacted - KevinL (aka L235·t·c) 20:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Arbitrator voting (Closing Clarification and Amendment Requests)
Support
As I discussed in my platform in the just completed ACE, I think an issue with many ARCAs lingering is that many of them close with a small handful of arbs having weighed in and given the clarification sought or stating that they are not interested in doing an amendment but beyond which no vote is going to happen. So they just sit there until some Arb gets on the clerks mailing list and says "If no one objects we should close this ARCA". This change would instead make ARCA more similar to AE, where everything gets a close and a note of what consensus (or more likely rough consensus) has been reached. There's no need for most ARCAs to sit as long as they do and this gives individual Arbs the ability to act in the same way we let uninvolved admins act at AE under our new CT procedures. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
This is a reasonable solution. Primefac (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
I support this idea. My comment below was just to look into bringing some ease and clarity into when a request should be closed, though the comment hasn't gained traction. SilkTork (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Arbitrator discussion (Closing Clarification and Amendment Requests)
I like this, though given that the Committee has a limited number of participants who are often busy, I'd like some minimums put in place to allow a range of opinions and time to consider them. Perhaps something like: "3. A close is eligible to take place when at least a third of active non-recused arbitrators have commented or at least seven days have passed." SilkTork (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
I think of something like the recently closed BLP clarification as a reason why I'd prefer to not codify that. I would suggest that was ready for close after Primefac's comment, was clear that it was ready for close then, and yet it hadn't been 7 days or 1/3 of Arbs participating. If your proposed version had been in place I suspect rather than having been promptly closed then, it would have sat for longer than 7 days until some arb thought of it and did the close. It's that exact situation I'd prefer to avoid and why it was worded the way that it was. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm not seeing why the proposed method would encourage an Arb to close that discussion quicker than it was. There is still a judgement to be made as to when to make that call, and there is nothing in the proposal to suggest when that call should be made, only that it can be made by an Arb without requesting a Clerk to close it. With my suggested amendment, there would have been more confidence to make that call two days earlier as the seven days would have been up. I also suspect that with a known time limit more Arbs would comment on a request earlier and so complete the request quicker. SilkTork (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Community discussion (Closing Clarification and Amendment Requests)
I agree that amendment requests for which discussion has ended long ago often remain open and seemingly unresolved for too long, leaving the proposer hanging. I think it's a good idea to alter procedure to facilitate timely closures. isaacl (talk) 17:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
As Barkeep49 notes, this is pretty similar to how things are handled at AE, and that's seemed to work pretty well for quite some time. Even if no action will be taken, a "No action" close gives a clear resolution to the matter. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 23:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Seems reasonable, lingering discussions are unhelpful and prone to mis- or uninterpretation by the rest of us. Having something closed allows there to be a bit of a line in the sand so something can be referred to with clarity. Should make things easier for the clerks, too, as it's obvious when to act. ~ Amory(u • t • c) 00:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Per everyone above, I think this is a sensible idea that should help and is unlikely to cause any problems. Thryduulf (talk) 12:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removal is protective, intended to prevent harm to the encyclopedia while investigations take place, and the advanced permissions will normally be reinstated if a satisfactory explanation is provided orand the issues are satisfactorily resolved. If the editor in question requests it, or If the Committee determines that a routine reinstatement of permissions is not appropriate, normal arbitration proceedings shall be opened to examine the removal of permissions and any surrounding circumstances.
In cases where an administrator account was compromised, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" and whether the account has been appropriately secured before restoring permissions. Factors used to make this determination include: whether the administrator used a strong password on both their Wikipedia account and associated email account (such as by using a password manager); whether the administrator had reused passwords across Wikipedia or the associated email account and other systems; and how the account was compromised; and whether two factor authentication is being used. If the Committee determines the administrator failed to secure their account adequately or is failing to take reasonable measures to secure their account going forward, the administrator will not be resysopped automatically. In particular, the Arbitration Committee generally will not resysop administrators who failed to use adequate password security practices, such as by reusing their Wikipedia or associated email account passwords on other websites.
Unless otherwise provided by the committee, the administrator may regain their administrative permissions through a successful request for adminship.
Furthermore, the Level II procedure is amended to add:
6. If the Committee determines that a routine reinstatement of permissions is not appropriate, normal arbitration proceedings shall be opened to examine the removal of permissions and any surrounding circumstances, provided that the editor in question requests it; failing that, the removal is final. As with a Level I desysop, an administrator desysopped in this manner may still run for adminship again.
For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 1 arbitrator abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Motion withdrawn. Primefac (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Arbitrator voting
Support
As proposer, with thanks to Barkeep, Salvio, and Kevin for wording. See my comment below for a full explanation of the changes, which serves as my reasoning as well. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:59, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
On balance, I think this is a positive step. Sysop tools have the potential to be quite harmful in the wrong hands, and editors with these tools should take all reasonable measures to secure themselves. I think it's reasonable that we tighten the wording here, and in the process give more guidance on what not to do. — Wug·a·po·des 22:25, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Oppose
I cannot support this change simply because of this line "In particular, the Arbitration Committee generally will not resysop administrators who failed to use adequate password security practices, such as by reusing their Wikipedia or associated email account passwords on other websites." I have seen a lot of account compromised over the years, leading to emergency desysops - and by and large, I have felt that the administrator in question has simply not realised the security mistakes they have made. I am all for education and improving our administrator account security, but I am not for setting out a guideline stating that we will "generally" be punishing individuals who make mistakes. I would much rather review on a case by case basis. If the individual cannot recognise and will not learn from the mistake, then sure, but if they accept their mistake and update their security, I have no issue with "generally" returning the tools. On a wider note, we have hundreds of administrators, all with different levels of technical online ability, each of which has dedicated a large portion of their lives to the encyclopedia. I will not be part of a culture who black balls these hard workers simply for not understanding what they're doing wrong. WormTT(talk) 08:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
The current language already gives leeway to deal with extraordinary cases where an admin is especially sloppy or repeatedly hacked. BEANS is really a factor here, but I'll also add that we don't need any more incentives for admins to be targeted by bad actors (i.e., if you pull it off, maybe you can get them desysopped too!). --BDD (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm generally in agreement with Worm That Turned. I don't think less-than-ideal security practices ought to be a bright-line offense; there's too much nuance involved, and a rule that we would generally not resysop is draconian. Maxim(talk) 13:28, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Three big changes: first, I've implemented Salvio's suggestion with some elaboration, and have moved that clause to the Level II procedure instead. The sentence seemed to imply that we open a case to review a compromised account. But we don't, that is just way too much bureaucracy. The discussions have to be private anyway, so the structure of a case isn't necessary. Current practice is that we talk to the compromised admin via email, get their story, do our fact finding, then vote on a private motion. That's how we do basically all private stuff, so no need to specify the modus operandi there. Second, I have clarified that we will still open cases for Level II desysops by simply adding that as point 6. I have used the wording "final", rather than Salvio's "permanent", since one may still RfA again. Third, I have added a clause noting that the Committee will generally not resysop for password security failures. To me, that is key. This in my mind is basically our final warning to admins to get their passwords in order. We raised the issue years ago, and things still haven't been solved. But in the interest of fairness, I think we need to put the admins on notice before we just start pulling hacked permissions. I am also open to sending some sort of mass message to communicate this change. As much as I wish there was a technical solution, the WMF is not known for its speed in implementing technical fixes. Thus we need a social solution. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't have any strong feelings about this topic. If the arbs whose concerns were the impetus to start this discussion like this I stand prepared to support it. if this isn't it, I am prepared to support something else. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:17, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
I can support the general direction that we're going. I would like to make it much more explicit that the major issue we are seeing is password reuse and that we will treat that differently going forward – either through ArbCom action or by community action saying we need to take it more seriously (my preferred route). I do not think the removal of the safety valve of a full case is wise; it's not causing any problems and if a desysopped user really does think they want a full case I would support holding one. I do not think we need to add 2FA to this list. I do not think we need to add "or is failing to take reasonable measures to secure their account going forward" to the procedure; that's not what's broken. Best, KevinL (aka L235·t·c) 20:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
That's not what was broken here though 2FA would have stopped the last compromise we had. I don't feel strongly on this but I think a reasonable assurance that measures are being taken to secure the account going forward is entirely compatiable with Admin policy of Wikipedia's policy on password strength requirements requires administrators to have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices (emphasis added). Barkeep49 (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Sure. I just think that's implied. Best, KevinL (aka L235·t·c) 21:03, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Return of permissions (alternate draft; not yet open to voting)
The Arbitration Committee's procedure titled "Return of permissions" is amended by appending the second paragraph with the following sentence: In particular, the Arbitration Committee generally will not resysop administrators who reused their Wikipedia or associated email account passwords on other websites.
Arbitrator discussion
This is my attempt to capture some behind the scenes discussion about this procedure. I'm not precious about any of it so if I've missed the mark in some way from arbs who'd like to see it changed, I hope they will refine the motion or offer their own. I will note that the motion I've proposed does include 2-factor authentication, but it is one criteria among many for whether or not to restore, which is a substantial difference from the previous committee communication that was later walked back. In other words no admin is being forced to use it, but if they choose to use it that decision will factor (positively) in the decision about returning tools. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
I'll add some detail here. A good portion of the Committee, me included, is unthrilled that administrator accounts keep getting breached because of lax password practices. The Committee has historically erred on the side of returning administrator tools to compromised accounts once administrators are confirmed to be in control of their account. But at least for me, going forward I intend to oppose restoration of permissions (absent compelling community input) on the basis that admins have had ample warning about password practices. Whatever we pass here, I want to make sure we're loud and clear about our changing approach, so that admins have one last chance to make sure they have a strong password, that they're not reusing, and that otherwise conforms to best password security practices. I'm particularly interested in what the community thinks here, especially as to what extent we should weigh password security practices, and in what general situations the community believes we should not return the administrator toolkit, thus forcing the editor to run for adminship again if they want the tools back. Please remember WP:BEANS in your answers, since we're not trying to create an instructional guide for our trolls. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:05, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't want this discussion to be about 2FA, but understand that it probably will. The Committee has not forgotten the opposition to 2FA expressed in 2019, and is not requiring 2FA, nor do I want to. Even without using 2FA, your account can be uncrackable. However, if you don't use 2FA, you better be conforming to best password security practices. That, in my view, is the bare minimum. The admin tools are more powerful in the wrong hands than people give them credit for (WP:BEANS). CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't think this motion is "loud and clear" about the change you're outlining Eek. I would suggest if that's the goal - and I suspect you're not the only arb to feel this way - that we would need another motion - perhaps as a complement, perhaps as an alternative - that would communicate the Committee's new view on this topic. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
As a note, the present wording of WP:RETURN is as a result of a 2019 motion that came after some 6 administrator accounts were compromised (see footnote therein). While any one compromise from an administrator might be a single for that administrator, that administrators continue not to secure their accounts is basically a failure to uphold WP:SECUREADMIN. --Izno (talk) 18:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
@Legoktm, the current policy is 10 characters for certain permissions holders. Which, to be honest, is also an abysmal minimum. (I am also not particularly certain how that is enforced? When the administrator right is added, how does MediaWiki check? :)
I am not sure how an audit would be run except at the login step, seeing as the storage of passwords is industry standard (salt + hash). This only (to me) feasibly catches the short passwords and the most common passwords. We might get lucky catching others on the pwned lists, but since we require a user name and not an email to login, I foresee this as being minimal. Still, better something than nothing?
The RFC TNT mentions is WP:Security review RfC, from 2015. There is an earlier one from 2011, Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Account security. Gosh, do the beginnings of those RFCs look familiar. That makes 4 times this has come up, including 2019 (when Arbcom last modified WP:RETURN) and 2022 (now). While I agree that it would be draconian for Arbcom to desysop someone for the first time, our continuing issues with it indicate to me that might be necessary. It's been over a decade, folks. Izno (talk) 04:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Just throwing some spaghetti at the wall: what if there were a rule saying "if an admin gets compromised and there's public evidence of password reuse, they have to re-RfA"? Enterprisey (talk!) 01:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
That is what the alternative motion that we voted on said. Desysop, and the community can decide whether Staxringold deserves to retain the permissions. Izno (talk) 04:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
The case in hand was covered by the existing wording. There's little point changing the wording unless the committee is willing to enforce its own stated position which has been in place for years. I'm still thinking on the change but the wording "appropriate personal security practices" says what needs to be said in an enduring way. Specifying what those practices are sets a fairly short "best before" date to the advice. Cabayi (talk) 08:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Follow up to TNT's pointer to HIBP. The site has a NotifyMe option so you'll be informed if it's found that your email is caught in a data breach in the future. Cabayi (talk) 08:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
I do think we need to leave 2FA out of this. While I use 2FA on my email accounts associated with WP, I will not ask anybody to use the 2FA method currently implemented by WMF, and do not use it on WP, except where explicitly required by WMF. Consistent with my position in the recent restoration discussion, I support the strictist enforcement of conditions for restoration of admin status after an account compromise that the committee will endorse. - Donald Albury 22:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
I am not aware of any changes to the 2FA system, meaning that it is not robust with regards to lost tokens. In those cases, manual intervention by T&S (I think?) and they were not in a position for all admins to flip that bit. Given that not all admins trust WMF either, I believe pushing for 2FA is a non-starter. Regarding strengthening of passwords, that's something I support and have supported for a long time. Yes, password re-use is the biggest problem, but our password requirements are pitiful and should be updated as a technical change. WormTT(talk) 08:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- I am worried we haven't addressed the concerns that led to split opinions on the last compromised account. From my general read of the situation it feels like we have some arbs who feel like existing policy is sufficient to deny re-sysop to some compromised accounts (in particular the case of re-used passwords), some arbs who feel we do not have that in existing policy, and some arbs who would like to more forcefully suggest that use of things like 2FA be considered. I think the fact that we have a few different groups is part of what is making it hard for us to find consensus. I'm pretty open to a range of solutions personally so I'm hoping that we can find a way to get to a solution that works for this committee. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
I would prefer making some easy progress by seeing where we stand on the alternative proposal above (about reusing passwords on other websites). @L235, would you be OK with proposing it? Enterprisey (talk!) 22:46, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Without going into too much detail about Staxringold specifically, the major issue I see is that we basically ignored the wording of the current procedures because we did not want community backlash. I find the second/draft proposal to be ideal, because it states clearly our stance, but I am concerned that if we encounter this type of situation again the majority will still vote to overrule it simply because they do not want to make an example of someone (again). If we are going to say "what leads up to a compromise is important" in our policies, then we need to stick to that. If all we care about is what the user does after regaining control of the account, then we should not have any statements about what led up to the compromise. Primefac (talk) 09:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
I think I'd be OK with proceeding to a vote on the alt, yeah. Best, KevinL (aka L235·t·c) 22:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
In an ideal world, 2FA would be a requirement for all administrators. I appreciate that many do not agree, and given the current implementation of two-factor authentication perhaps this is for the best. I would however urge ArbCom to make enabling 2FA a requirement for returning sysop permissions to a previously compromised account — I think this would be a fair middle ground. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 18:05, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. We cannot audit passwords or password manager use - we can check that 2FA is on. For restoring tools to a previously compromised account we absolutely should be doing this. firefly ( t · c ) 18:09, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
@Firefly: - I thought that it could only be known if they had a 2FA userright. Actual knowing if 2FA was being utilised/enabled was limited to Steward sight and not able to be shared? Nosebagbear (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
@Nosebagbear ahhh yes that is I believe true. Whether we want to go there (asking stews to check) is another matter I suppose. firefly ( t · c ) 18:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
@Firefly - they'd probably have to get a position from WMF Legal to adjudge whether they could hand it over. It would certainly count as private information (although not especially sensitive private data). There might be more to be said for having CUOS rights tied to it, with that information taken and handled purely privately. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
@Firefly: iirc password strength can be audited — T121186 ("Implement results of enwiki Security review RfC") was meant to regularly audit administrator passwords. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 18:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
phab:T265726 would be required to allow crats to audit if 2FA is on or not, currently only stewards and WMF may do so. — xaosfluxTalk 18:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
@TheresNoTime Ah my apologies I’d forgotten about that task. It seems however that password audits for admins has yet to be implemented(?). firefly ( t · c ) 20:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
@Izno: agreed — compromises do happen, and given enough time and technical ability no account is entirely secure, but the unfortunate reality is that, for the majority of compromises, WP:SECUREADMIN is not being followed. It seems to be somewhat of an unenforced policy at this point — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 18:51, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
While I am confident that I meet the password criteria for admins, I am very reticent in Eek's position. I don't believe that a single failure there is adjudged by community standards to be a failing on an equivalent standard to the other single-failures that would get the admin userright removed even where the admin apologised and acted to correct the issue going forwards. With regards to Tamzin's TNT's proposal, it's not unreasonable, but I would want it generally limited to cases where it is known that either the admin had not been meeting the minimum criteria, or had met them, and was compromised in a way that 2FA would have stopped (certain limited categories of keyloggers, password dumps etc) Nosebagbear (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The most common compromise vector we've seen would indeed be stopped by 2FA (though in the most recent case, perhaps not) — it's certainly not the "be all and end all" of account security, and has its own fairly significant drawbacks. It is, however, another layer to the account security best practices. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 18:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The motion seems fine as written. Eek, I'll agree to bite my tongue about 2FA (especially this implementation), but it's going to be difficult to hold steady if others are still lobbying for it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
I agree the motion as written is good. Regarding 2FA, I use it* but I am opposed to requiring it until there are no technical, legal or economic barriers to every admin being able to use it. In the last discussion I was part of extant technical and economic barriers were noted that prevented some admins in wealthy countries in the global north from using 2FA, let alone those from less online parts of the world. I don't recall what the state of play is regarding legality. *Although I have had to temporarily disable it twice in the last few years, first for about 10 days when my second device was away being repaired and then for about a day when I replaced that device earlier this year. Thryduulf (talk) 01:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Having your account be compromised is embarrassing enough (I speak from personal experience on this), I don't see value in doubling down and then punishing the person for their bad luck. Rather, if we're going to enforce password policies (e.g. must be 8 characters or longer), then we should enforce them equally. It would be relatively straightforward to have MediaWiki desysop any admin who logs in with a less-than-eight-character password, if that's what we want. Legoktm (talk) 01:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
I do hope that if an admin account was compromised multiple times that they would lose adminship for good. --Rschen7754 01:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
I also hope that a higher standard would be applied to users with rights beyond admin, especially those that can access private data. --Rschen7754 02:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
In an ideal world (such as the one TNT refers to), the WMF would fully support 2FA software properly, and the software would be up to international standards. Asking an admin to say they have 2FA enabled is security theatre of the worst kind: absent being confirmed by a steward that it is, in fact, turned on, nobody on this project would be able to verify. (Stewards for whom this is the home wiki aren't supposed to carry out tasks related to this wiki.) And even if they verified at that time, it's just a step or two to turn it off. I'd much rather ask for a longer mandatory password that is enforced on all admin accounts, and regularly verified, with mandatory desysop if the account fails the verification, as Legoktm suggests. It's entirely reasonable to ask that an annual verification that admin accounts meet minimal password standards be carried out. But let's not go down the security theatre rabbit hole. Risker (talk) 02:57, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
My point is poorly made without spilling some beans, so here goes — the vast majority of account compromises we see are the result of password reuse. This occurs when you use the same email and password here as you do at some other poorly secured website which then goes and gets hacked. Often, these credentials are leaked/sold/otherwise made available and attackers will just try the lot of them — sometimes they're lucky and get an admin account. 2FA in this case would prevent them from logging in. Something I suggested in the above task was routine auditing of passwords against known leaked credentials (something which https://haveibeenpwned.com offers), which would let us combat some of these common compromise vectors without using 2FA. I don't want to derail this discussion, but this feels like the enwiki security review RfC all over again — deciding to not take reasonable precautions to protect your account is not a valid excuse, yet it's quite clear we've made it one as our policy is unenforceable — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 03:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Hard cases make bad law; I would not see a compelling reason to have a blanket policy that you might not find makes sense later. That said, anyone getting compromised twice probably needs to go back to RFA. Stifle (talk) 08:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
We'd achieve a lot more security by implementing technical best practices (many suggested above) rather than trying to regulate human behavior: long minimum lengths, checking against password breaches, throttling failed login attempts, disallowing reused passwords and common words/patterns, etc., and of course that includes 2FA. For example, see the NIST standards (summary); there are others, too. We don't need to create rules and then monitor humans for compliance with those rules, we can make compliance a technical requirement: as in, if your password isn't good enough, you can't log in at all. That'll save volunteers a lot of compliance/enforcement work. Whatever our password policies are, I support arbcom in sanctioning admins who repeatedly fail to comply, e.g. by desysop. Levivich (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Without spilling the beans (and tell me if there's no plausible way to answer this question without spilling) - what's the worst case scenario for an admin account compromised by a competent attacker who is hostile or indifferent to Wikipedia's integrity? Feel free to answer vaguely or qualitatively so as to not advertise a method. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
[...] there are plenty of things that +sysop allows that are irreparable, either in a PR sense, or unrepairable without a truly stupefying amount of work, or in a few cases literally so. Most of them we don't talk about. One of the most obvious, and one that we can talk about because it's already happened (before we had cascading protection, so it didn't require being an admin at the time), is to put a shock image on the main page disguised in such a way that it takes a long time to remove. [...] — Cryptic 16:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC), Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Accusing someone of being a sock in an RfA?
I think I know some of the details involved, but don't feel like it would be a good idea to share more. See also mw:User:MZMcBride/Attacks#Privileged account, although that was written years ago so is somewhat outdated. * Pppery *it has begun... 18:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
@Tazerdadog: I don't really think there is a way of answering that without potentially saying too much — I suppose if you consider what a rogue admin could carefully do without drawing attention to themselves, that's going to put you on the right track. The bottom line is a fair bit of damage to content, reputation, and the community. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 18:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
@Tazerdadog worst case is probably along the lines of an identify takeover - compromising an admin account of a really-not-here admin, becoming "active" again - and then doing things that drive away readers or editors. The actual account owner might not even know this has occurred. There are certainly some annoying-to-fix technical BEANSy things, but I'm not going to go in to those - they can be fixed and are mostly a time-sink for other admins. — xaosfluxTalk 18:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) We know from experience that most admin compromisers either use the tools to cause easily-undoable chaos or don't use them at all, so "what's the worst thing a compromised or rouge admin can do" may not be the right thing to think about. * Pppery *it has begun... 18:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Imo, the worst case scenario is very bad. We've honestly been quite lucky so far. But luck is no basis for security. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
There is no excuse in 2022 for an administrator having a weak password and not using 2FA and other basic security tools. I would consider a person who does not use proper modern security on an account granted advanced permissions (with access to all kinds of potentially damaging info) to be unworthy of the community's trust. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 20:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
It's not exactly what you are asking, but I would like to ask you to consider amending this clause: If the editor in question requests it, or if the Committee determines that a routine reinstatement of permissions is not appropriate, normal arbitration proceedings shall be opened to examine the removal of permissions and any surrounding circumstances. This is not what happens in most cases, especially when people are desysopped under level II procedures. It's a case where for a long time the letter of the law has not kept up with current practices. If I had to make a proposal, I'd put forth this one: If the editor in question requests it, or If the Committee determines that a routine reinstatement of permissions is not appropriate normal arbitration proceedings shall be opened to examine the removal of permissions and any surrounding circumstances, provided that the editor in question requests it; failing that, the removal is permanent.Salvio 20:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
I like the idea of having the system require various features of strong passwords, a minimum number of characters, mixed case and or special characters. It doesn't directly address the reuse issue, except that someone who has been reusing passwords might now need a stronger one for Wikipedia. If we can set rules that require specific accounts to have 2FA, then I'm OK with doing so as a condition for return of userrights. If your account gets compromised then you have to deploy 2FA to get back the same level of trust. Most of our admins are not active as admins, it would be sensible to add a rule inactive and semi active admins whose accounts are compromised can request return of tools three months after regaining control of their account and returning to a fairly active status (100 edits per month). This removes the need to discuss reinstating tools for compromised semi active accounts until and unless they return to an active status. ϢereSpielChequers 04:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
I like this idea, but instead of listing the requirements here I'd reference the standard provisions for admin activity so that they are always in sync. Thryduulf (talk) 10:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
On one hand, I think admins should be expected to keep their account secure (including using 2FA as mandatory, or at the very least being permanently desysopped if they don't use 2FA and their account gets compromised), and using strong passwords. On the other, even the most conscientious admin could be hit by a zero day attack and compromised, and of course we shouldn't hold that against them. So, require admins to take reasonable measures for account security, but do realize those will never be perfect. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 03:35, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
While 2FA is fine in concept (and I use it on my important email accounts), I will not support requiring the use of the current implementation of 2FA on English Wikipedia. I do have 2FA enabled where required on Wikimedia accounts, but the first such account I had was bricked within a month. If the current implementation of 2FA is ever required for English Wikipedia admin accounts, I will resign my adminship rather than risk losing access to my 17-year-old account. - Donald Albury 13:16, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree the current implementation is lacking — I'd quite like to understand (not just from you, but 'across the board') what the primary concerns are, so that we can get them addressed. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 13:29, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
@TheresNoTime from the back of my head - my biggest concern was around the fallback issue. If a user loses access to their token (and scratch codes) they cannot get access to their account without going through T&S and T&S are not set up for a significant volume of these. WormTT(talk) 13:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree with that, though I would also say that this is the same for a lot of 2FA implementations (i.e., if you forget your scratch codes for your Google account, you're going to have to go through Google support to recover your account — admittedly, Google support is pretty well set up to handle an influx of such requests, but there's a fairly good chance they can't prove your ownership of the account..) — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 13:50, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
My experience was that my password and/or transmitted code didn't work, nor did the codes from the scratch pad. I have no idea what went wrong, although I suspect I made a mistake somewhere along the way. There was no problem establishing my identity through other channels, but I was issued a new account rather than restoring my access to the original account. Losing access to that original account was not a big issue, but losing access to my primary user/en-admin account on Wikipedia would be. In my experience, I have never had an account hacked, but I have lost one to 2FA, whatever the cause. A very poor sample, but all I have. I do use a unique, complexly constructed password for my WP account, and do change it ocassionally. I also have 2FA implemented on the email account linked from my WP account. Donald Albury 14:31, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
I already said this back in March but I suppose I'll say it again. We can probably assume that those who seek to hack another editor's account are those who're already within the wiki community ("Would anyone else try to track down random stranger's login and password on some random forum?" Probably not). As much as we put in stringent password requirements or making 2FA mandatory, there is no accountability or punishment for any editors to attempt hacking another's account. To repeat my analogy, the current community and ArbCom approach is to punish those who have weak doors (passwords), not the thief that's studying the kind of lock on the door (trawling through haveibeenpwned and other leaked password sites) and picking the locks for these doors. It should be standard practice to run a CU the moment an account is compromised and check if there's any associated accounts. If there is, sure the compromised account is at fault and needs to be desysoped at level 1, but the hacking person revealed through CU should also be banned. Until we see some accountability and actions that punish the hacker, the hacking will continue because there's no consequence for the hacker to stop. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:48, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
@OhanaUnited: it is standard practice to, as you wisely suggest, attempt to determine who compromised an account. Best, KevinL (aka L235·t·c) 04:27, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Good to hear that it's now standard practice. Cause it didn't seem like it back in 2015 when my account was compromised (or at least the findings weren't communicated to me, even if it's "sorry we don't have any result") OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:00, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Require 2FA for administrator and above accounts. A prerequisite is that WMF needs to provide technical support to resolve the inevitable lockouts. Having to chase down a developer to recover from a lost authenticator device is far from ideal. JehochmanTalk 19:51, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Even though it wouldn't strictly be necessary, any requirement of 2fa for Admin accounts should probably go through a well-publicized RFC, to address community concerns.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
That might be a way to show WMF the importance of supporting users who lose their authenticator device (loss, theft, electronic failure). JehochmanTalk 01:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
NIST guidelines quoted above by Levivich are, if you look closely, Active Directory specific. More thorough discussion of current best practices is here. While back-end checking the hashed passwords against dictionaries of known compromised and easy to crack passwords is popular and appropriately cinematic, in my experience the best countermeasure against password hacking (once the hashed passwords are secure against observation) is failed login notification and limited login attempts--10 before being locked out per the above link, for example. Secure login methods reduce availability, as comments above have noted, and hard limits on failed logins create an opportunity to disable known accounts, so some automatic unblocking is a necessary relief valve. One novel method recently implemented in one of my university accounts is an image-based "something ELSE you know" that picks one of three user-selected images and shuffles it in amongst ~40 others, requiring no other hardware or communication channel. I cannot emphasize enough how simple a 2FA solution really needs to be in order to be effective. Microsoft and Apple pushing 2FA everywhere clearly provide a help-desk full employment program for organizations following their recommendations. Jclemens (talk) 06:14, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Limited login attempts can cause a denial of service for the account who a bad actor attempted to compromise, which you note. My understanding is that WMF has declined to implement that option accordingly. I suppose it would be possible to implement on some sort of IP basis, but that's easy enough to get around for the motivated bad actor.
As for images, that is essentially a CAPTCHA, which is already known to be an issue, so I'm not sure it's meaningful to chase that. Izno (talk) 21:36, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
It's not really a captcha, because only the editor knows which image is the one they selected. I've used a similar system before, and you get a panel of six images and you select from that panel the image you've already chosen. You then have to identify the image with the label you've provided for it. You log in as normal, with your name and password and if successful you see a panel of images, one of which you've chosen and labeled as your 2fa. The panel contains a train, a duck, a walrus, a table, a hat, and a telephone. You select the duck, which is the image you've chosen prior, and enter the label you've signed to it, e.g. Donald. Then you're successfully logged in. An attacker would then need your password, knowledge of which image you've selected, and the label you've applied to the image. Locking out an account with multiple failed logins at the image selection avoids the problem of using failed logins as a dos attack, since if they've gotten that far the password is already compromised and the account should be locked.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
This does not solve almost all of the accessibility issues with captchas for those who are unable to see images for whatever reason, e.g. a disability. Thryduulf (talk) 10:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
It's an anti-phishing mechanism that works equally well with a pre-selected phrase. Note, though, it's a knowledge-based authentication mechanism, so it can't be combined with a password to implement a two-factor authentication system. isaacl (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Limited login attempts can cause a denial of service for the account who a bad actor attempted to compromise, which you note. My understanding is that WMF has declined to implement that option accordingly. Given the choice, I'd choose a locked-out admin account over a breached admin account every time. The WMF chose wrong here. Levivich (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
No, the WMF chose correctly. Some abusive character (as is common these days at WP:RFA, for a specific and already-known example) would lock out every account that participates there. That sure sounds like fun for both the WMF and each and every one of those people. And that doesn't even end the disruption. There may be a world in which a lockout is a feasible end-state, but it's not today's with such a naive approach. Izno (talk) 22:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
As Izno alludes to, the lockout would have to apply for all accounts, to avoid information leaking. So while it could be done, it potentially has far-reaching effects: someone could lock out large swaths of editors. isaacl (talk) 22:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Nah, because security software would prevent all accounts from being locked, or even many accounts from being locked within a short time. Just like security software would alert if there were many login failures across many accounts. There's DOS and there's also DOS protection. It ain't the 90s internet anymore, and this is one of the world's busiest websites, I'm sure our $3M/yr hosting includes some firewall protection stuff. We can lock accounts for too many failed passwords without risking locking out all (or even many) accounts in a lockout attack. Levivich (talk) 22:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Sure; the point is that it's not a choice between a locked-out admin account and a breached admin account. All accounts would be affected, and as you point out, measures other than locking out the account could be used to diminish the chances of a compromised account. isaacl (talk) 22:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
All accounts would not be affected. It's quite possible to have extra security measures (such as auto-lockout after a certain number of failed login attempts) that only apply to some accounts (such as those with advanced permissions). Levivich (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
In general, it's not desirable to leak information in that manner about what accounts have advanced permissions. In the specific case of Wikipedia, though, true enough that the information is already publicly visible. isaacl (talk) 23:43, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
If you lock out accounts then you need to have a process by which those who have been locked out through no fault of their own can get back in to their accounts without letting back in those who should not be, and this process needs to be resilient enough and resourced enough to deal with the maximum number concurrent requests in a timely manner with the minimum possible number of false positives and false negatives. Neither MediaWiki nor the WMF have a process that can reliably deal with the current tiny numbers of 2FA lockouts, let alone anything greater than that. Thryduulf (talk) 13:19, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
I suspect this is much closer to the real reason why the WMF chose not to have failed-login lockouts: ultimately, they'd need to spend $$$ on account recovery. The usual recovery procedure (click "forgot my password," optionally answer a security question, get emailed a password reset link) would require requiring users to provide an email address (which seems to me to be a good idea anyway for certain advanced-permission accounts, like admins and functionaries). But meh, this is instance #23408957 of me being perplexed as to why the usual method that the rest of the world uses is not good enough for the WMF. Although I think the explanation, as always, is that they just don't want to spend the money (even though they have the money to spend). Levivich (talk) 17:09, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Have the potential returning admin clearly and explicitly confirm that their password is at least 10 characters and not used anywhere else and explicitly agree to continue that practice. Maybe add a few more things like it's not on a sticky note on their monitor. Heck, it would be good & needed preventive medicine and very reasonable to have all admins confirm that. I don't think that people are going to lie about that. 2FA schemes have lots that can go wrong or impair things. Sending to RFA sounds like a bad idea....sounds like it would only be deterrence/punishment. RFA is structured for other things, not community judgement on password issues. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 22:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
An admin can claim his/her password meets certain criteria; unless either he/she is stupid enough to use an obvious password, or tells ArbCom what the new password is (the latter certainly shouldn't be encouraged), it's impossible to enforce. Unless ArbCom know the password, it's impossible to check out the admin's statement that the same password isn't currently being used elsewhere. A password manager can be used on a private computer, but not on a shared one (even shared only by family). Most users who use 2FA probably do it on a device they leave logged in to their Wikipedia email, and stealing or hacking the device may allow them to break into an account. These are all issues a former admin can lie about, and probably will if they believe that is the only way to get their adminship back. Animal lover|666| 19:33, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
This is obviously an issue, but if (for example) there is a database dump (I think "Have I Been Pwned" has been mentioned above) and a username matching a compromised admin account appears on such a list, then it is reasonably likely that the password was reused. Yes, the admin could lie, but we do take evidence like that into consideration when looking at the possibility of a resysop. Primefac (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Documenting transition procedures
The Arbitration Committee procedures are amended to include the following section:
Arbitrator access to mailing lists and permissions
Arbitrators-elect must sign the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information and any other non-disclosure agreements required for access to privileged communications before assuming office. All arbitrators are:
Enacted. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Arbitrator voting (transition procedures)
Support
As proposer. During this year's transition, the committee realized that our transition procedures are not well documented, so when our internal documentation and institutional memories are ambiguous, we're left without much guidance. For example, CheckUser and Oversight are assigned to incoming arbitrators and outgoing arbitrators may request to retain access. This relatively well-known fact is not mentioned in the Arbitration Policy, the Arbitration Procedures, or the CU/OS appointment procedures. In my search of Arbitration-related documentation pages, I only found mention of the assignment in Wikipedia:5-minute guide to ArbCom elections which is not very useful as a procedural document. Beyond internal problems, the lack of documentation is also a disservice to the community because it is not obvious what tools arbitrators have access to or for how long. The goal of this motion is to increase transparency and consistency by documenting in broad strokes what arbitrators and former arbitrators have access to. — Wug·a·po·des 19:33, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
I strongly support something that systematizes these processes. For instance an arb declining CUOS would create some issues for the functioning of the committee in our current context and so rather than give a choice that isn't really a choice just make it automatic. Same thing at the end of a term - make things automatic with the option to ask otherwise. I will note that even if an outgoing arb gives up CUOS they would be entitled under our current procedure to ask for it back in the future. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
I could write a few paragraphs about why I agree with Barkeep49's substantive analysis, but I really think the "arb insists on not receiving CUOS despite not being required to use them" edge case is not worth spending the effort debating. Best, KevinL (aka L235·t·c) 02:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Something of a moral oppose due to the below comments.
I'm a bit late, but perhaps my comment will persuade someone to jump ship.
My read of what has actually been published on meta (ANPDP/confidentiality agreement/global CU policy/even local CU policy; I didn't check relevant OS policies), does not jive with the statements made by some Arbs here that Legal has said such and such. The relevant policies and agreements seem to be careful not to tie access to the information to access to the named CU permission but instead to what the relevant social group has permitted the user to access. And even in the case that we consider such a CUOS-less arb as a "third party", that appears to fall under section "Use and disclosure of nonpublic information" part b.i.
Even if we take ad argumentum that indeed those documents do say you must have the technical permission to have access to the data, that then begs the question of what an ArbCom must do if an arbitrator does want to resign the CUOS tools i.e. we are still in the "too much work is created" frame. A valid response might be "he must be removed from ArbCom under standing rules for dereliction of duties", but I think that's a ludicrous outcome. I can think of no other valid response besides "ArbCom separates all the private data into another pile".
I do recognize these objections are edge cases and that this moves the procedure forward, but I can just imagine a future Floquenbeam testing, and a future ArbCom forgetting, this discussion.
While I have used the tools, and accept the risks attached to doing so, I don't get involved in appointing CUOS or discussing issues arising as I'm not entirely confident I know enough of the legal distinction between the IP addresses of IP editors and the IP addresses of anonymous accounts, so I'd prefer to abstain. SilkTork (talk) 10:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Arbitrator discussion (transition procedures)
I just want to note and expand here on something I said in-line below. If an arb were to decline the permissions - perhaps because they campaigned on a pledge to do so - it would require large procedural changes to how ArbCom works. This is because data covered by the CU and/or OS permission cannot be discussed with someone who doesn't hold that permission according to WMF Legal. This is true even if they could be granted the permission. Newyorkbrad, for instance, never uses CUOS, but he holds them while on the committee. When he steps off he gives them up and so right now I could not discuss any CUOS information with him. Were he to ask to have either of those granted to him I feel pretty confident the committee would quickly do so, but that doesn't change the fact that right now I can't discuss that data under the m:ANPDP.So if there were an arb who refused CUOS, I agree with those who say they could ultimately be seated. To make it truly mandatory would require an ARBPOL change and that's clearly not what's happening here. However, if this no-CUOS campaigning arb were to be elected it would require the committee during the 10 or so days of the transition to completely change how it manages mail to ensure that new CUOS appeals came into a different address than general committee business. Likewise they would be unable to have access to the archives of the lists because there would be CUOS information and arbwiki would have to be completely scrubbed of CUOS related information and a new user group would have to be setup on arbwiki so they couldn't see the content that was deleted. This would have impacts on the other arbs to function as well.For these reasons, I think it completely reasonable to put into procedures an expectation that someone will take CUOS when stepping onto the committee. We don't need to write the procedure for what is now be an edge case precisely because, as Donald points out, those who might initially be inclined to do so realize there's not any harm in taking them and not using them. Crucially none of this would get in the way of a different unusual situation - a non-admin arb being elected. A non-admin arb could be granted CUOS without the rest of the sysop toolset. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Is "for use in office" a restriction or an explanation? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
There was a fair amount of discussion about that and whether it's more an "ex-officio" situation or an alternative pathway to appointment. It's definitely not a restriction. I think, as it's used in the motion, explanation is an accurate description. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:18, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Agree with Barkeep that it's meant as an explanation rather than a restriction. The point of assigning CUOS to arbs is that it's needed to do our jobs of auditing use of those tools, but if an arb is willing and competent no one's going to stop them from doing some CUOS work on the side. So "for use in office" is meant to explain the first part, but not restrict the second part. — Wug·a·po·des 21:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
In my short time as an Arb, back in the mists of time, I resigned the CU tool while still an Arb* because I felt 100% incompetent to use it, and didn't want anyone to think I was either using it, or was available to be asked to use it. It sounds like you're saying this wouldn't be allowed anymore? i.e. part of being an Arb is to be a CU. Is this the intent? Or should there be some wordsmithing? I realize this is fairly low stakes; being required to keep the CU bit while not using wouldn't be a huge ask, I suppose. But I can imagine someone winning on a platform that included "I won't accept the CU tool" for some principled reason, and I'm curious if you're saying they wouldn't be accepted on ArbCom. (*Only an Arb for a few weeks after that, but I didn't know it at the time) --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Current guidance from legal is that we could not discuss any CU related information with someone who doesn't hold the user-right. So if an Arb were not to hold the user right we'd have to figure out how to use the B or C list on an ongoing basis in order to separate discussions that the non-CU arb could have and discussions they couldn't. So yes this is worded in a way that takes away that choice. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
To be clear, I'm not blaming you, but... does "You must technically have the CU permission, even though the CU permission is automatically given to all Arbs without question" sound silly to anyone else? I suppose it's easier to just shake one's head than it is to push back against the silliness. But that does have the side effect of allowing layers of silliness to accumulate over time. Still, consider my question answered. The rest is just venting of the "in my day, we had to walk 2 miles in the snow" variety. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
You must technically be an edit filter manager to edit filters, even though the edit filter bit is self-granted by administrators without question ;) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Not sure whether to say "touché", or "another good example of silliness!" :) --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
The latter is fine with me, and I realized after sending that I'm not necessarily providing an argument against yours, perhaps just one more example of what you described. :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
I legit have to agree with Floq. This seems silly. We have had how many arbs in the past without CU or OS because it was offered as an option...like...Arbs still having access upon request is essentially access to the tool & relevant information. The actual text in ANPDP doesn't say it has to be the same access, but be permitted to have the access, to fulfill their duties under relevant policies. This seems like Legal being legally legalistic about a legal issue, and it wouldn't be the first time recently. I mean at the end of the day if lawyers say we gotta do it, fine, but I think a bit of logical pushback is ideal here. -- Amanda (she/her) 03:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
As I noted, I agree in theory that meeting the requirements for having checkuser privilege should be enough. I just think it's practical to be able to know when someone had access to checkuser data by looking at the logs and seeing when the checkuser privilege was assigned or removed. isaacl (talk) 04:35, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
If someone has met all the criteria to receive the checkuser privilege (signed appropriate non-disclosure agreements and has been elected to the arbitration committee "with the support of at least 25–30 members of the local community", as per m:CheckUser policy), then theoretically I don't think it should matter if the arbitrator opts out of actually having the privilege assigned. But as a matter of practicality, I think it's simpler to have the privilege assigned to track the eligibility and the arbitrator can choose not to use the tool. isaacl (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
(after EC with above) Floq has a point: there's no requirement to be an admin to become an arb (although the community de facto bundle the two) but there is a requirement to be an admin in order to be a CU. I would be happy to see arb-admin becoming de jure after the community comes to a consensus on this, which should be easy to get. But this is an accidental back-door to that outcome, no? — Trey Maturin™ 20:21, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
"there is a requirement to be an admin in order to be a CU"? For most or all of the appointments, such as WP:CUOS2022, but not as a strict rule as far as I know. Neither policy-wise nor legally (dewiki allows non-admin CU elections, for example). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
TBF is correct, the primary requirement is that the appropriate NDAs are signed (and from WP:CHECK for example, While there is no formal requirement that checkusers also be administrators...). Primefac (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
It is a de facto "strict" rule and this would make that de facto strict rule into a de facto 100% solid requirement. It would, I'd hazard, be better to not rely on case law for something so obviously a bright-line requirement and instead make it a de jure requirement. I can't see the community refusing that in a !vote. Otherwise, it accidentally looks like Arbcom is making its own rules about who can and cannot be on Arbom, which would be troubling if it were actually the case! — Trey Maturin™ 20:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Not to mention that there was a non-administrator who was appointed to WP:AUSC ages ago (bahamut0013, who, to be fair, passed an RFA shortly after being appointed). That said, it's the only case. No other non-administrator has ever been elected to WP:ARBCOM (even though many have run) or appointed to WP:AUSC. Salviogiuliano 21:49, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
But again, just to reiterate the point Primefac made above, there is nothing stopping a non-admin from being granted CUOS. It would just be a matter of ArbCom appointing one or the community electing one. If the community elected a non-admin arb they could get CUOS in the same way any other new arb who has signed the ANPDP would get it. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
The bar should not be raised here, currently the existing arbcom normally grants CUOS to its new members, but is not required to - this appears to make it required. — xaosfluxTalk 21:32, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
When I was elected to ArbCom last year, I initially declined CU and OS, but relented with a little prodding. I unfortunately missed the CU training offered, and never used it (I used OS once). An ArbCom member does not need to use either if they do not want to, so I see no problem in requiring that all ArbCom members hold those appointments for the duration. - Donald Albury 22:08, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
We should never force a user to have access they don't want. Is arbcom prepared to evict elected members simply because they don't want this access? — xaosfluxTalk 22:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
They have to acknowledge their compliance with the m:Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information in any case. If arbitrators are being trusted with nonpublic data, they should be able to refrain from using tools they aren't interested in using. isaacl (talk) 22:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Can I flip the question on you Xaosflux? Is the community happy for appeals of CU blocks to be considered by arbitrators who refuse access to the CU evidence? Cabayi (talk) 15:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
@Cabayi I'd be fine with that - I have no issues with arbitrators privately discussing private things and don't expect that every committee member dealing with something to performs their own complete independent investigation. If someone requests an unblock, I don't think needing 15 more checkuser queries to be run is necessary. — xaosfluxTalk 15:37, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
To expand: the "evidence" can certainly be provided testimonially by other checkusers, and yes I'd expect them to access that testimony - just don't think they need to perform a new personal investigation. — xaosfluxTalk 15:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
While grateful to the Committee for codifying its procedure for departing members (previously at WT:ACN), I'm very much intrigued by the stated complications and the idea that it's an edge case when an incoming member does not want one or both of CU/OS. Keilana was on the Committee for the 2016–2017 term and did not hold CheckUser. Did those complications exist then, or do they now exist due to requirements since introduced? Given that it is not an edge case, like Xaos above I'm disappointed that the Committee is making it compulsory. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
The "use in office" part seems also wrong, following from the complaints I raised above -- seemingly raising the bar that these volunteers are expected to also use these tools. I'd rather that line be changed perhaps
From
...assigned the CheckUser and Oversight permissions for use in office; and
To
assigned the CheckUser and Oversight permissions for use in officeunless the incoming arbitrator requests to decline one or both of them; and
The "use in office" definitely sounds like a restriction, and isn't necessary for any reason. The community has already deferred who may or may not have CU/OS to arbcom, there is no "reason" needed to be associated with it (at least no more reason needed than to convince 50%+1 of the committee members who could vote on the granting motion). — xaosfluxTalk 23:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is there a list of Contentious Topics?
I would have put this on Wikipedia talk:Contentious topics, but that talk page redirects to this page. I spent a few minutes scanning the materials (thanks to the monthly admin newsletter notifying me of this), and heartily approve, but I could not find a list of the topics themselves, or how to determine which ones are, absent a list. Is the thinking that such a list would be hard to maintain or defeat the purpose? I guess as long as the pages themselves have warnings, perhaps a list is counterproductive... apologies if this was covered elsewhere. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 07:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks both of you! Wondering if a link to one or both of these lists might be appropriate on the Wikipedia:Contentious topics page itself. Because that's where I expected to find it. Normally I'd be bold, but that seems too high traffic a page for a mostly uninvolved editor to change... ++Lar: t/c 14:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
If you look at the lede section, there's a parenthetical that links directly (well, not directly, through a redirect via the old Ds name) to Template:Contentious topics/table. ~ Amory(u • t • c) 14:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
I've updated the WP:DSTOPICS and WP:DS TOPICS shortcuts to point there, even though they're no longer the most intuitive. Thryduulf (talk) 12:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
3X ban appeal for locked user?
I doubt this is the correct place to ask, but I'm not sure there is one. Recently, Yamla posted a ban appeal at AN on behalf of Raymondskie99, a 3X banned editor. That discussion brought to light that this editor is also globally locked for cross-wiki vandalism, and the discussion subsequently stalled and was closed as stale at least in part because nobody was entirely sure how to proceed. So I asked over at Meta what would be necessary for him to get his account unlocked, and Ruslik0 suggested that the Stewards would consider unlocking if ArbCom "deems their appeal credible." I'm not sure whether this is something you would ordinarily consider within your scope, and if you do want to handle it as Ruslik suggested, whether you would prefer to directly decide whether or not to grant the appeal or just whether the appeal presented at AN is prima facie viable. But I did want you all to be aware. I imagine it's unusual that I'm acting as an advocate for him here, but all the interwiki policy issues have me confused, and if I'm confused, I reckon an outsider like Raymond's chances of figuring it by himself are poor, so I'm trying to cut through as much of the bureaucracy for him as possible. —Compassionate727(T·C) 13:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee also took note of this situation and emailed the Stewards on February 2 asking them about it. They, like us, are busy and get lots of emails so we haven't yet heard back. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:06, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Follow-up: the stewards didn't receive our email before. I'm working on the issue with them now after which we'll hopefully be able to get to the reason for the email in the first place. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
AfD effort
Based on communications I'm getting in private, I believe I am not the best person to continue this process. Thank you for the opportunity to try to help, and apologies that I let everyone down. Valereee (talk) 12:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
@Valereee, thanks for letting us know; we're discussing steps forward now. @ArbCom:
ping for visibility. Best, KevinL (aka L235·t·c) 16:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Central page for logging topic bans?
Wikipedia:Editing restrictions lists individual editors subject to editing restrictions (also called personal sanctions), which includes bans. I see many editors listed there with topic bans and assumed that page was the "go to" place for determining whether or not a specific editor was currently under any topic bans. Which one might want to check, for example, before inviting an editor to participate in a page move or deletion discussion for a page where they had previously been active.
But Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, a huge page that's a resource-intensive load, also is a place where all page restrictions and sanctions (including bans) placed as arbitration enforcement (including contentious topic restrictions) are logged. Does that mean we need to look at two different pages to find out whether a specific editor has topic bans?
Contrary to the AELOG, adding entries to the editing restrictions page is not mandatory. The Arbitration Committee does so for their restrictions (through WP:AC/C/P's Enacting bans and editing restrictions procedure), but neither WP:CTOPICS nor WP:CONDUNBLOCK nor even WP:CBAN contain a strict requirement to use that page for logging. The strongest wording we seem to have is at WP:IBAN, which says "Interaction bans are listed at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions", followed by CBAN's "should be logged [...] if necessary". It is not even clear if that part of the "Community bans and restrictions" section applies to Arbitration Enforcement actions.
ArbCom could add a requirement to the Contentious Topics policy at #Logging, but this would solve only a part of the problem. The larger community could clarify in the banning policy that an entry at WP:Editing restrictions is required for all future bans that are not sitebans, including those issued or authorized by ArbCom, and including unblock conditions.
The answer to "Does that mean we need to look at two different pages" currently is "not only there; check the block log and the user's talk page history too". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:01, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
The broader issue is that it is very difficult for uninvolved editors to know when an editor is subject to a topic ban; even if there was a central logging location, uninvolved editors are not going to check it for every editor they are interacting with.
For example, Lugnuts was regularly reverting editors correcting lint errors in his signature, in violation of one of his topic bans (Regardless of the editing method (i.e. manual, semi-automatic, or automatic; from any account), Lugnuts is indefinitely prohibited from making cosmetic changes to wikicode that have no effect on the rendered page), but the editors correcting those lint errors were unaware of the topic ban and thus unable to request that it be enforced.
One solution that may solve this is to create a central logging location, and page ban any editor with a topic ban from that page, with the ban reason being a description of their topic ban. This will allow editors who have selected "Strike out usernames that have been blocked" to easy see any topic bans that an editor has been subject to. BilledMammal (talk) 03:46, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
The procedure at the editing restrictions page is general and thus applies to all editing restrictions, including those imposed as a remedy in an arbitration case... except presumably to manage scale, arbitration enforcement actions are only incorporated by reference, by pointing to Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log. We should update any instructions to be clear on the requirement to log editing restrictions in one of these two central locations. isaacl (talk) 04:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Those categories are in separate sections as they are distinct. Editing restrictions placed by the arbitration committee are imposed as remedies in an arbitration case. Community-imposed restrictions are imposed by community consensus. Arbitration enforcement actions are placed by administrators in order to enforce arbitration remedies, including taking actions authorized by virtue of the committee identifying a Contentious Topic (or under the predecessor system, discretionary sanctions). isaacl (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
There is no such "requirement" at the moment, as described in detail above; WP:RESTRICTIONS is an information page or a noticeboard at best and the relevant policies don't refer to it as required. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
It does seem to be necessary for interaction bans, and it seems to be only necessary for interaction bans at the moment. The section about topic bans doesn't mention any log. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
The editing restrictions page is part of the implementation of imposing editing restrictions. There is no requirement in the sense that forgetting to log the restriction doesn't invalidate the restriction: if the editor was made aware of it, it still applies, though its absence in the central log can affect future evaluation of one's awareness of the restriction. Nonetheless, the procedure is to log restrictions centrally. isaacl (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Possible vandalism deterrent?
Hi. I have visited a few celebrity film/tv tables recently and noticed an uncontrolled amount of IP user vandalism and edit wars with registered users in those articles. The table cells were a mess! Is there a way that wikipedia could be turned into a "registered user edit only" system? I believe that doing so would save time and energy from having to revert large amounts of IP vandalism. And the "indefinite page protections" don't seem to be enough to deter the IP vandalism currently. Wikipedia could become even more enjoyable if that time and energy was spent actually progressing those articles, instead of taking 50 steps backwards. Besides, IP users don't have a long-lasting Talk page for discussions of any kind.
Could the "registered user edit only" topic be turned into a website vote? Lots of wikipedia topics have a voting system (especially for this Arbitration Committee). Why not this topic? CYAce01 (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
@CYAce01, this isn't really an appropriate question for this talk page. This question would be better discussed at WP:VPI.
However, there have been many discussions on whether IP editing is appropriate, which is enshrined in WP:PEREN. I would encourage you to search for them in the archives of the various village pumps. Izno (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
@Izno: Thanks for your timely response. I thought that a wikipedia-wide IP editing dispute was best handled by an Arbitration Committee by definition. Sorry I wasted your time. CYAce01 (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
We will be posting a motion shortly on the point. Izno (talk) 17:38, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Reply - Some time in February 2023 I assume? --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
The Committee has been working on a motion about this topic this week. Is there a particular reason you're concerned about this being done some time in February 20223? Barkeep49 (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Reply - Nah, just trying to get at least some type of time frame. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
The motion is now posted at WP:ARM. Community feedback is permitted. Izno (talk) 18:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
RfC: Should Signpost Articles on Open ArbCom Cases be NPOV?
Recently, a good-faith request for page protection was made at WP:RFPP to apply extended confirmed protection to an AfD page for an Israel/Palestine article (diff). I took a quick look through WP:CTOP to see if there is any guidance given about the scope of namespaces that might be included in a contentious topic. My assumption was that contentious topic restrictions can only be applied to articles, and perhaps article talk pages in extreme cases. However, I didn't find any language on the page that made it clear. Anyway, I declined the protection request, since the AfD isn't actively being disrupted, and since any experienced closing admin shouldn't have much trouble weeding out SPA votes and other nonsense when the time comes. But, I thought it might be good to start a discussion here about whether pages in the WP namespace and other namespaces could reasonably have contentious topic restrictions applied to them, and whether or not WP:CTOP should be modified to make the namespace scope more clear. —ScottyWong— 23:46, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Sorry if I'm telling you something you already know. Per WP:ARBECR:
Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive ... However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions.
The procedure page goes on to say "If a page (other than a "Talk:" page) mostly or entirely relates to the topic area, broadly construed, this restriction is preferably enforced through extended confirmed protection, though this is not required." So, you don't have to approve such requests, but it'd be nice. The topic area is plagued with socks that do not always present as obviously disruptive or as SPAs. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) in the days of discretionary sanctions, the authorisations explicitly said "pages" rather than "articles" because disruption is not necessarily limited to the mainspace. I would be surprised if this was intentionally changed by the change to contentious topics. Thryduulf (talk) 23:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarifications. I don't wade into contentious topics all that often, so I'm not familiar with all the minutiae. Guess I was looking on the wrong policy page for this info. I went ahead and protected the AfD, since it seems clear from WP:ARBECR that that's the preferred way of doing things. —ScottyWong— 02:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Organizing archived case requests
I think this suggestion by Thryduulf is a good idea. [7] I think one of the main reasons someone would search through declined archived case requests would be to find something that has been resolved by motion. I'm starting a discussion here to find out if there is a wider consensus for this sort of change. Clovermoss🍀(talk) 18:09, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
You may want to summarize the proposal here, for easier reading. E.g. what page affected, and the proposed change. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:14, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't really have a fully-fleshed out proposal or anything. I just read what's quoted in that diff and I thought it was a good idea:
Some cases are declined and resolved by motion, others are accepted and resolved by motion. Perhaps it would be better to organise the archive into three sections - full case accepted, resolved by motion, declined - rather than just the two?
As someone whose not very familar with ArbCom processes, this is a bit confusing. A casual observer likely wouldn't think that anything in declined would have more long-term ramifications. Since motions aren't restricted to whether or not a case is accepted/declined, I think it makes sense to make it easier to find past decisions where some sort of action was taken because people are less likely to reference ones where nothing really happened. Clovermoss🍀(talk) 18:20, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Would having three sets of archives to search really be less confusing than having one set of archives? Donald Albury 18:38, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
We currently have all sorts of archives and searches - see WP:Arbitration/Index. Although "motions" is one of the headings there, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions does not include all motions that happened in lieu of a case. Indeed quite how anyone not very familiar with arbitration is expected to make sense of that index I'm not sure. Thryduulf (talk) 18:48, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm not so sure I'm seeing the benefit? Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Declined_requests already describes declined requests, such as noting "Resolved by motion". Plus, with less than a dozen cases a year for years, its not very difficult to navigate. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:57, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
That's fairly convincing, honestly. I've changed what prompted this discussion to make it more consistent with previous situations like it [8]. For visibilitie's sake, how exactly is the average person expected to navigate there? There's no mention of it at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. Clovermoss🍀(talk) 19:23, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Never mind, it's in the big red box. I blame banner blindness? I was also somewhat careless in just not seeing that. So, things are probably okay the way they are. Clovermoss🍀(talk) 19:43, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
I appreciate Clovermoss bringing this up. I think given the small number of case requests the committee receives now that we probably don't need separate pages for accepted and declined anymore and on a forward going basis could just do a single archive. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Open proceedings vs requested cases
The #Organizing archived case requests thread immediately above here got me thinking about a mis-direction I had recently. I was looking for the Dbachmann discussion. I couldn't remember exactly which page it was on, so I went to WP:AC and was stumped where to go after that. The right answer was to click the "Open proceedings" link in the nav box, but I (in my best Agent K voice) "knew" the case hadn't been opened yet, so it wasn't an "open proceeding". Maybe that "Open proceedings" link should be changed to "Current proceedings" or "Ongoing proceedings" or something like that? -- RoySmith(talk) 02:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out Roy. That has peeved me for years! Even as an Arb, I'll go to WP:AC and be like...huh, so if I want to get to ARC...what button do I click. I'd honestly be a fan of adding Template:ArbComOpenTasks to WP:AC, for ease of navigation. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:39, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
The lead sentence for Wikipedia:Arbitration/Current (the destination page when selecting "Open proceedings") states The main box below shows current arbitration cases, requests and proposed motions. Thus "Current proceedings" seems appropriate. (I always go to the Requests subpage, which transcludes all of the pages for the current proceedings. However I can imagine some users might prefer to just get the navigation box to save on loading the whole page, if they're looking for something specific.) isaacl (talk) 05:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Passing of user:DGG, David Goodman, former Arbitrator
I share the news that David Goodman, user:DGG, passed away on Thursday April 6, 2023.
One of the real greats. He will be missed. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:29, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Page Protection Enforcement
Being unfamiliar with Wikipedia's rules, I'm not sure where to post this: I came across this recent page protection, that mentions an arbitration enforcement in its edit summary. I however can't find any arbitration proceeding involving this article, whereas judging by his profile picture the administrator isn't particularly impartial. Nonetheless, is there a rule that this page protection is based on and should it be removed?
I also noticed that the responsible administrator is very generously distributing page protections to multiple articles a day for things that look like very limited disruptions (e.g. Satellite Program Network, Vladlen Tatarsky, Arabic coffee). I'm not sure how much this trigger happiness to summarily exclude the wider public from any contribution over a few albeit annoying yet minor nuisances is keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia. --89.206.112.11 (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
The general question of these protections is offtopic and would be more suited for that administrator's talk page firstly and WP:AN secondly. The particulars to me:
Actually, I protected many pages as covered by general sanctions imposed by the community. There is no item for general sanctions in the dropdown menu, so I typically choose arbitration enforcement and in the comment field write "general sanctions". I log the protections under general sanctions, not under arbitration enforcement. It might be indeed confusing and I would welcome suggestions how to improve the workflow. Ymblanter (talk) 05:48, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
May be a better approach would be to not choose anything from the dropdown menu and give a link to general sanctions in the comment field. But the protection dropdown menu is anyway outdated (e.g. it lists ARBPIA but not other similar sanctions, and does not list GS) and need to be reworked. I am not even sure who is the owner of that menu. Ymblanter (talk) 06:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Looks like you're not using Twinkle? I think the dropdown you're picking "Arbitration enforcement" from is located at MediaWiki:Protect-dropdown. One option might be to add "General sanctions" to that. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
No, indeed I am not using Twinkle for this. Sure, I can edit the module, but I do not think I should be doing this unilaterally without discussion. Unless the arbs claim the ownership to the enforcement part of the module, I will start a discussion somewhere in a couple of days. Ymblanter (talk) 10:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't see any Twinkle tags on the edits of your most recent protections, so I suspect you're using "More -> Change Protection" (non-Twinkle) rather than "TW -> PP" (Twinkle). Example without a Twinkle tag.Example with a Twinkle tag. If I'm wrong let me know your workflow and I can file a bug report for Twinkle to start including the Twinkle tag on those edits. Good idea on starting a discussion to ensure consensus. Happy editing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
@Novem Linguae I don't think they're using Twinkle at all, so changes to Twinkle wont make any difference at all and changing the dropdown will be sufficient. Changing the dropdown to include general sanctions does seem like a very sensible thing to do. Thryduulf (talk) 16:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
I am using Twinkle for nominating articles for deletion but not for actual deletion or protection.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
I added it. That aside, I endorse the use of TW for protection. Izno (talk) 16:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Great, thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Appeals to Jimbo
Putting this here since it isn't directly relevant to the case request. I hope ArbCom will consider proposing that Remedies may be appealed to, and amended by, Jimbo Wales, unless the case involves Jimbo Wales's own actions be removed from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Appeal of decisions. I'm aware that the ARBPOL amendment process is fairly tedious, but it's much better to deal with these things now than when they turn into a "constitutional crisis", which is almost certainly what would happen if Jimbo ever invoked this provision. The argument in support of this sentence has always been that it's a check in case ArbCom ever goes off the rails, but that unlikely scenario doesn't warrant giving so much unchecked power to a single person, particularly a person whose judgment has been consistently called into question over the years. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I think it's far more likely he overrules in error than ArbCom collectively makes such an error that we need him to do something. Although if ArbCom is not willing to do so I think the community should start the petition process. Galobtter (talk) 04:08, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
I think the community can start that discussion today, as the amendment section notes. Izno (talk) 05:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
An ArbCom motion would be easier than getting a 100 people to sign petition, but yes. Galobtter (talk) 05:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
You have to do both either way. Izno (talk) 05:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
From my reading of the policy, people would first have to sign the petition and then separately vote on ratification. And an ArbCom motion isn't needed to ratify. Galobtter (talk) 05:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with your reading that people would first have to sign the petition and then separately vote on ratification. And an ArbCom motion isn't needed to ratify after a second look is a second entire way to amend the policy. Regardless, an ArbCom motion alone cannot make the amendment, so whether or not we're interested in making the change, you still have to get 100 people in the room (and potentially in one room with a divider between "we want to do this" and "we really want to do this"). The latter seems like less work ultimately.... Izno (talk) 05:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
And yet all the modifications of Arbpol have come via the committee route. Barkeep49 (talk) 05:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
I like to think it's a clear sign of need when ArbCom says "can we make this change?". But I'm sure there are detractors along WP:CREEPy lines.
Anyway, the community was split as of 7 years ago on the particular change suggested in this section, and I don't think ArbCom saying "please make this change" would change that.... Izno (talk) 06:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Ah. So your suggestion was really opposition to the proposal. Fair enough I suppose. Barkeep49 (talk) 06:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
No? If I had wanted to say "I don't think this change should be made", I would say that. Izno (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Reading the opposes, a number of them was concerned about having some additional avenue of appeal. Based on what has happened on other language Wikipedias since then, and considering the governance changes the WMF has been putting into place, it seems clear that the WMF has established itself as a safeguard against communties running amok. Thus I think the community may be willing to reach a consensus on formally dropping a theoretical legacy appeal route which has been supplanted. isaacl (talk) 06:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I think if something genuinely serious happens, the WMF would step in and make sure that doesn't occur; and despite its flaws an office action is a much better measure of last resort than a Jimbo action. I also note that for changing ARBPOL majority support of the community is enough (no need for a consensus). Galobtter (talk) 07:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Just to anticipate an obvious question, I don't believe that Jimbo Wales has ever overruled an ArbCom decision, although he has been asked to do so a few times. In one instance more than ten years ago he made a minor modification, clarifying the terms on which an editor who just been banned could potentially seek permission to return later on. This history doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't have this conversation, but for what it's worth, we are not discussing a procedure that has been in active use. Of course that cuts both ways on the question of whether it would be best to delete the provision. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Quite separately from the case request, I think it is past time that the community look into deprecating these "reserve powers." This situation was born out of the early days, when Wikipedia was a much smaller endeavor, and the ombuds and WMF Trust and Safety did not even exist. We have the necessary checks and balances now, the need for a benevolent dictator waiting in the wings to right great wrongs is long past. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Also relevant to consider are how often arbcom actions to Jimbo are appealed, and how often he expends any effort considering those appeals. This is a list of all the appeals I could find in Jimbo's talk page archives from the last 10 years. The lack of any appeals between April 2016 and September 2019 makes me think I've missed some, so I encourage someone to check. Not included are that large numbers of comments regarding WP:FRAMGATE in 2019, but as far as I could tell nobody appealed ArbCom's actions to Jimbo (although just about everybody else's were).
March 2015 User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 184#Arbitration topic ban appeal — is sexual assault a "gender-related controversy"? - implicitly declined but offered advice/opinion ("I think you are right to request clarification of where the limits of your topic ban lie, but I think it obvious that the two articles you mention first, sexual assault and campus rape are squarely within the topic ban. [...] This guideline may not be perfect, but should help you steer clear of trouble.", "It is abundantly obvious that Lena Dunham is precisely the sort of article that you must not edit")
September-October 2019 User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 238#Icewiz blocked indefinitely - declined ("In this case, as with all cases, I'm not going to hear an appeal or second guess ArbCom unless there is some very significant reason to do so. Having briefly reviewed the evidence here, and having consulted with ArbCom, I was advised by a member of ArbCom to post my thoughts, which are that I'm completely persuaded by the reasons for this indefinite block and I don't intend to intervene.")[9]
So of the 12 appeals listed here, Jimbo responded to 7 of them, most recently in 2019. None of the appeals were clearly successful, although 1 was unclear (but apparently unsuccessful) and 1 possibly moot. Thryduulf (talk) 18:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks to all for your comments. Would any arbitrators be interested in heading over to WP:ARM and proposing a motion (à la [10]) at some point? Just want to get a sense of whether that's on the table: obviously we can start thinking about going down the petition route, but I don't want to do that as long as Committee action (which I do think is more efficient just in terms of how much of the community's time it consumes) remains a possibility. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:12, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Jimbo has just stated, in his statement on the pending request for arbitration, that to avoid controversy he is giving up all his remaining advanced positions and technical rights on this and other projects, except for the nominal "founder" title. If asked, he might very well agree that he should no longer have this vestigial appellate role either. I suggest that someone just ask him, although perhaps it would be courteous to wait a few days. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Despite the recent issue, about which I have been quite vocal, I do think he has been very sensible in declining to really hear appeals of arbcom decisions. So, it already is not a viable route of appeal, and therefore not something we should be advising anyone to pursue, and I agree that the easiest path is probably to just ask. @Newyorkbrad:, I can't think of anyone more likely to come up with the a near-perfect phrasing for such a request than you... Beeblebrox (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
As I recall, Jimbo Wales had said a long time ago that he was planning to cede this role once he figured out an appropriate replacement. I think with the various WMF processes in place that could now step in, there are other appeal routes available (and as a board member, Jimmy has been involved in the enactment of at least some of them). Thus on this basis, I feel it is reasonable to inquire about transitioning away from this last point of oversight exercised by a single person. isaacl (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
I believe this may need to be updated as well. I think the wording should be changed to "Remedies may be appealed to, and amended by, the Wikimedia Foundation, unless if the case involves the Wikimedia Foundation's own actions". In this case, an appeal would likely need to be submitted to cawikimedia.org, which may result in modification or removal of the remedy, or endorsement or broadening of the remedy. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 01:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
It's not part of the arbitration policy itself. Accordingly I think it would be better documented elsewhere, making it clear that is is not subject to the amendment process for the arbitration policy. isaacl (talk) 01:57, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Remedies may be appealed to, and amended by, the Wikimedia Foundation, unless if the case involves the Wikimedia Foundation's own actions. Giving Jimbo's powers to the WMF doesn't sound like a good idea to me. There are not very many situations where I'd trust WMF more than enwiki arbcom. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The WMF flowchart detailing what should happen before contacting T&S.Unfortunately WMF already has broad discretion to override community consensus or any arbitration decision per WP:CONEXEMPT. What happened with WP:FRAM was unprecedented, but then at the time, no move was made to activate ArbCom until the community really pressured WMF to do so. Now WMF has made clear that they will only hear cases where concerns are not addressed or cannot be resolved through all available community processes.
I like WMF being able to amend decisions as an alternative to WMF just completely disregarding them. There are some places where WMF, not the community, knows best, and there are some that is the other way around.
Something feels missing as it feels like ArbCom decisions should be appealable to somebody, but where on that hierarchy it should go is anyone's guess. ArbCom should have the final say with regards to Wikipedia user conduct and disputes. However, I have seen people banned by ArbCom getting their ban stepped up by the WMF Office to a global ban. Before any office sanction can go into effect, there are multiple hoops that need to be jumped through, and WMF only does office actions as an absolute last resort. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 03:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
A criticism reasonably levied at the UCOC is that ArbCom works precisely because it is the last stop and moreover that it is quite directly accountable to the English Wikipedia community.
Based on what the UCOC enforcement guidelines say today, the UCOC enforcement body will be a finaler stop, not the WMF, otherwise, and only for some cases (Systemic failure to follow the UCoC). Izno (talk) 03:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
If that is the case then that is what the text should be changed to: "Remedies may be appealed to, and amended by, the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee, unless if the case involves the Committee's own actions". Until then we should work on an interim solution. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 15:22, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't think the WMF needs to have an explicit power to take ArbCom appeals. I don't think it makes sense for a last-stop body to have its decisions changed for a "they might've gotten it wrong" reason which this would allow - rather the WMF can act a safeguard and use it's already existing OFFICE powers in case of egregious issues with ArbCom (which is very very unlikely to happen here on enwiki, but major issues have definitely happened on other wikis). Galobtter (talk) 04:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Building an RfC
I think I see there is some level of consensus for formally striking the line giving Jimbo the ability to overturn bans. Now it is a matter to see whether a motion striking that line passes. If so, then it is on to an RfC with at least 100 editors supporting by a majority. If not, then we will need to get a petition started with at least 100 signatures from 100 different editors. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 23:26, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Has anyone asked Jimbo whether he still wants this power, as @Newyorkbrad suggested above? Thryduulf (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
I can follow up on my suggestion if desired, but was waiting for a consensus whether people agreed with the suggestion above of substituting someone else (such as the WMF) for Jimbo in the appeal provision, as opposed to simply dropping the provision as was originally suggested. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
In limited circumstances the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee will be able to hear appeals. That's not quite the same as what Jimbo did but thought it worth noting here. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, please do, NYB. Personally I find it very hard to see the community signing off on anything that would be perceived, rightly or wrongly, as giving more power to the WMF, so it's probably best to focus on the less controversial task of removing the provision, I think. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
The rule of servers will always hold (whoever owns the servers makes the rules) so I think it's better not to couple the two suggestions together. isaacl (talk) 23:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
I agree with keeping them separate. The community can always add the WMF as a layer above the arbitration committee if and when it desires (and the WMF agree, which is likely but not guaranteed), and this is not contingent on Jimbo having or not having any power of appeal (if he does, the WMF could be above, below or an alternative to him). However, like Extraordinary Writ, I think the very vocal segment of the community that (rightly or wrongly) holds the WMF in very low regard means it is a proposal that is unlikely to gain consensus at the present time. Thryduulf (talk) 15:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
For now let's just focus on striking this line, and leave the appealability of ArbCom decisions to ArbCom discretion. That means if ArbCom decides by motion that sanctions can be appealed to Meta or UCOC or whatever, then so be it. The ratification process could also potentially be used to amend ArbCom decisions that a large number of community members deem unfair, but that is for a different discussion. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 17:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Of course the first step is to get ArbCom to resolve by motion that the amendment can even be considered, or the signatures of 100 editors interested in considering this matter. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 18:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
It is also worth pointing out that if ArbCom ever did do something the community found completely untenable, the community could simply assign itself the authority to override them (specifically, via the amendment process, which has a path that allows amendments to be introduced and then voted on by the community even if ArbCom objects) - we don't currently have the capability to override ArbCom bans directly, but the policies that decide this are not among the few placed above consensus, so they can be changed. I think that this situation is actually ideal - we do not want every decision ArbCom makes to be subject to community review, that would defeat the purpose of having an ArbCom. But having a nuclear option in case eg. sleeper agents from Mars seize control of ArbCom or something is a good thing and serves as a check against abuse, while having it clearly labeled as a "push this to blow up ArbCom" nuclear option avoids the instability we would have if every single decision ArbCom made was subject to individual review. And I think that this is better than having one person holding that power (or even the WMF, though as noted above it's sort of inevitable that they can do so as a matter of practical fact) - the extreme level of consensus that would be required to de-legitimize ArbCom ensures that it is not an option that can be invoked frivolously or in situations where people think ArbCom is just "wrong"; it's for situations where they are so egregiously wrong on something of such importance that it threatens Wikipedia as a whole. I'm not convinced that we need another venue of appeals for anything less than that, since the existing ones have AFAIK never been used (the important thing is just that the option exists, which discourages abuse.) That is to say, in other words - I don't think we need to assign a specific venue for appeals, since we don't really want appeals from ArbCom to be a normal thing; it is enough that we could change those rules in an emergency if necessary. --Aquillion (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Actually, where does it say that restrictions placed by ArbCom cannot be appealed by the community? It seems inherent in the broad description of their role as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve, but it should probably be stated more clearly on relevant policy pages. The relevant policy says where you can appeal them and only lists a few options, but doesn't specifically place them above consensus (and obviously things being subject to consensus is the default.) WP:APPEAL says there are only limited situations where you can appeal to ArbCom, but doesn't specifically exclude blocks placed by ArbCom from the usual appeal process. I don't think we actually want someone who was blocked by ArbCom running to ANI to appeal by default, but perhaps we should think about what we do want if we're going to be discussing this, and make sure that those two policy pages state it clearly. --Aquillion (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't see how anyone with {{ArbComBlock}} on their talk page could possibly appeal at ANI. There may be some policy contradictions here that need to be rectified. It has been my understanding that, appeals to Jimbo notwithstanding, ArbCom blocks can only be appealed by contacting the committee. If someone is arbcom blocked and it is not as a result of a full case, there is almost certainly some private aspect to the block that cannot be discussed on-wiki, and without his advanced permissions, can no longer be properly investigated by Jimbo either. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
That's clearly current practice; my second post is mostly just about how WP:APPEAL and Policy#Appeal_of_decisions should maybe be more clear about that. But my first post's point is that (hypothetically) if a future ArbCom steps on a landmine on the level of WP:FRAM, or if we find out the majority of it has been accepting bribes or something, and they completely refuse to bow to community consensus, we do have the option of invoking the amendment process to limit ArbCom's authority, to completely remove it, or to directly remove sitting arbs, force an immediate ArbCom election, etc. These would all be massive nuclear options (at a bare minimum 100 people would be needed just to start the process) but I think that it's a good thing that they exist because it would be bad for ArbCom to be a single point of failure - and I think that having that massive and incredibly hard-to-invoke (but also hard to completely prevent) option as our "escape hatch" is better than assigning someone like Jimbo to that role, who then just becomes another single point of failure. --Aquillion (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Me neither. I was always under the impression that ArbCom is given power by the community to make specific decisions on behalf of the community when the community at large is unable to handle disputes. This is very rare, and it usually involves stuff very contentious like WP:FRAM. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 19:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
If we are going to replace Jimmy with something, may I suggest we replace it with a triumvirate of highly-trusted former arbs who spent more that 5 years (2 old terms, 3 new terms) on the committee. Pulling out of a hat Newyorkbrad, GorillaWarfare, and David Fuchs seem like reasonable options. If you can get all three of agree we fucked up, we probably did. I would also accept AGK, Casliber, Roger Davies, Risker, and Courcelles as possible panel members joined by SilkTork, Worm That Turned, and Beeblebrox when they cycle off. --In actu (Guerillero)Parlez Moi 08:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
If WMF had its own enwiki "community liaison" (I am not sure if they do) then that would be a good place to give appeals. Many other wiki sites have community liaisons, including Fandom wikis (called "wiki representatives" there) and another wiki I edit wikiHow. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 14:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Another option would be, per @Aquillion, to allow community to amend any arbitration decision if the votes get a supermajority. That would also help with preventing repeats of WP:FRAM. Although that would probably be reserved for the most contentious of contentious decisions. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 14:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Not quite sure what you mean there Aasim... FRAM was an Office Action, which neither ArbCom nor the community have any control over. Primefac (talk) 17:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
They're referring to, above, how I talked about what we would do if (hypothetically) a future ArbCom steps on a landmine on the level of WP:FRAM, ie. if an ArbCom made a decision as bad as the Foundation did back then and refused to back down on it, and how we do have options right now (which would make it different than FRAM, yes.) Well, options beyond just waiting for the next ArbCom elections, ofc, which is also always an option but might not always be enough if things go truly pear-shaped. --Aquillion (talk) 17:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
It's important to point out that my point is that the community can already amend the policies that govern ArbCom - it's extremely difficult, but then again, it ought to be. I think that the notional option to do that is itself enough of a safety valve; I don't think we should actually amend them right now, just note that that option exists for if a future ArbCom were to go completely sideways in some way. The point of ArbCom is to handle things the community can't, after all, so sending things back to the community should be a last-ditch "something has gone so clearly wrong with ArbCom itself that it puts all of Wikipedia in danger", not a casual route of appeal to be used whenever someone dislikes a result. Besides, if we create a Super ArbCom or whatever, what do we do if Super Arbcom goes rogue? --Aquillion (talk) 17:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Arbitration policy specifies that ArbCom can develop its own internal policies and procedures that are not subject to community consensus. What would that entail? Final decisions? Motions? Or are those just community consensus assessed based on evidence submitted? Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 19:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Unless I am misunderstanding what you are referring to, ArbCom can develop its own internal policies and procedures means that we can decide how we want to do our own things: cases, CUOS appointments, unblock appeals, email list management, etc. I do suppose it is theoretically possible to have an ArbCom be elected over two successive years that is somehow able to make said procedures totally unworkable and/or detrimental to the community as a whole, but that would require 15 people over two successive elections to all hold wildly radical ideologies without anyone realising it through the first year of half of their terms. Primefac (talk) 14:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Sure, but those are public. Primefac (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
If things go seriously wrong to that extent, the community isn't going to wait for a hundred editors to comment. As per the rule of servers, someone will contact the WMF, and it will determine if an office action is desirable. isaacl (talk) 22:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
I think that the "rule of servers" should be a final resort - we should encourage every possible community option first. My big concern there is that that could conceivably (and, in fact, should it ever happen, is quite likely to be) invoked to overrule ArbCom in a situation where the community is not in agreement that it should actually be overruled, or even in situations where the community broadly agrees with ArbCom, which could have catastrophic consequences for Wikipedia and its culture. Overriding ArbCom via amendment would be drastic, but would ultimately adhere to community control and would be something we could reasonably recover from (the point would be that we'd ended up with some crazies in ArbCom and fixed the situation.) Having both ArbCom and the community overridden by an Office action on something of importance would be something I don't think the site could recover from in anything resembling its current form; and until the last possible moment where such intercession becomes inevitable, every effort should be made to convey to the WMF, via every possible channel, that such intercession is unnecessary, unwelcome, and unwanted. For this reason I would strenuously argue against suggesting the WMF as a possible vector of appeal on any page except WP:OFFICE itself, and would strenuously oppose acknowledging it as a legitimate channel of appeal. If Wikipedia were being unambiguously run by the "rule of the server" on matters of importance, I suspect that many experienced editors would simply leave, and that fact needs to be constantly and consistently communicated to the WMF This was part of the takeaway from WP:FRAM - that sort of intercession simply doesn't work and will generally just make things worse. The only time it would make sense is when Wikipedia as a whole is so broken that there's nothing left to save, community-wise, and if we're capable of overriding a hypothetical rogue ArbCom via amendment then that isn't the case. Someone who would invoke that simply because they are impatient probably should have no involvement in policy at all, and certainly I - and I hope most other experienced editors - would make every attempt to shout down their "appeal" and make it clear how catastrophic it would be to listen to them. (I also don't think it would take as long as you think, in a situation where it was obvious that something had gone wrong.) --Aquillion (talk) 03:28, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Sure, earlier I said I didn't think this route should be documented as an appeal mechanism for the arbitration policy. It's an out-of-process, extraordinary avenue available for dire circumstances. Getting back to the original purpose for this discussion, it's an existing safety net that has been used for other Wikipedias, making a direct founder appeal route unnecessary.
Regarding a rogue arbitration committee: they have no special powers to do anything beyond what anyone in the same user groups can do. If they start issuing untenable rulings, I agree the community will react quickly to stop any immediate harm. isaacl (talk) 04:38, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Unless the input here changes, I'll post a note to JW later today. As for Guerillero's suggestion just above, I'm not sure whether to think of The Godfather Part III or "Hotel California". Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:35, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Might even be Roach Motel. (Not calling anyone a roach, I hasten to add.) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Hopefully this is a case where it's Jimbo's choice and not the communities. He was asked to give up power recently and did so. Now this seems like piling on. We may need him at some point, even ten to fifteen years down the road, to have the power to place some sanity into a bad or societal-pressured decision. This discussion should be closed and filed away as is without action on the part of anyone but Wales himself. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
This is not the same thing as the recent case request, it is not a rebuke of Mr. Wales in any way. There certainly is not cause to forcibly close and hide it. This clause is a relic from an different time on this project, it simply is not necessary anymore. The fact that Mr. Wales has never actually overturned even the most unpopular decisions by the committee is evidence enough that it is not a viable route of appeal. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
I disagree. Jimbo's final appellate power made sense when Wikipedia was smaller. Now Wikipedia has over five million articles, hundreds of active admins, thousands more active editors, and much more distance from Jimbo especially as a few WMF staff attempt the difficult task of bridging enwiki community with WMF needs. It might not need be explicitly stated that WMF can overrule ArbCom in extreme cases, but that is usually because WMF does not overrule except in extreme cases. And the few times they overruled that was controversial, they were sure to refer the matter to ArbCom where possible. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 00:19, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
I read your post as all the more reason that Wales should hold on to this power, in case he ever wants to use it. This discussion has nothing to do with WMF, staff or otherwise, but with Wikipedia, where the founder should still have a thing or two to say about how the place runs if and when he feels that someone has called upon him with a decent case. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
You do know that Mr. Wales deliberately created Wikipedia to be a community, not a dictatorship, right? Mr. Wales has a permanent, unelected seat on the WMF Board of Trustees. The Board oversees all WMF projects, not just EN.WP. That's more power to guide and influence this movement than you or I will ever have, and as far as I know nobody is asking him to give that up, just some local authority that appears redundant, and that he can't really use in many if not most cases anymore anyway due to voluntarily giving up CU and OS. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Why would Jimbo be a dictator by retaining a veto power that he may never use but has always had, one that nobody has really complained about it before now, just after he gave up most of his powers. Seems like piling on here, for no reason. I think much of the confusion comes, as shown by your response, in thinking this has anything to do with the foundation. These are Wikipedia issues. They concern Jimbo Wales ("Mr." is his father) as the site's founder and active editor, not as a board member of WMF (i.e., the foundation has been mentioned way too many times in this discussion if separation-of-powers is taken into account). As a summary, it's too bad this entire discussion has taken place, as now with the kind of language being used (the D word has been introduced) and considering the recent piling on, Mr. Wales looks like he's got a son with a personal reason and not an understandable community-minded motivation to hold on to this logical power for a founder. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
We may need him at some point, even ten to fifteen years down the road, to have the power to place some sanity into a bad or societal-pressured decision - and what keeps him from, ten or fifteen years down the road, introducing some insanity? What makes you think he is immune to bad decisions or to social pressure himself? There is no perfect system totally immune to all bad decisions; the best we can do is to distribute power widely to avoid a single point-of-failure, minimizing the potential damage if one person flies off the handle and ensuring that things can only go wrong if there's a catastrophic failure on multiple levels across huge numbers of people. Why on earth would we willingly leave any one individual with the ability to introduce potentially insane decisions or to force us to yield to social pressure simply because he is a founder? Would you want to give the same power to Larry Sanger, who has been openly critical of basically everything about our current structure and would certainly leap at the chance to dynamite the entire thing? Our goal is to write an encyclopedia, not to preserve some sort of sacred founder-status for Jimbo; and the best way to write an encyclopedia is to have a stable system with checks and balances that avoids a situation where one dude might (eg.) feel socially-pressured by some group who dislikes an ArbCom decision and decide to override it. Making it easier for one dude to potentially toss our entire decision-making process in the trash and override it leaves us more vulnerable to catastrophic failure, not less; while Wales has, to date, never used this power, ultimately the site will be more stable if we remove gonzo legacy things like that. --Aquillion (talk) 23:47, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Jimbo is never going to use this power. Arbcom sometimes does go awry but then either time or sanity will fix that. Jimbo isn't going to overrule it in the meantime. But it contributes to his soft power which I think that is very very important to retain. Our fundamentally flawed "constitution" when basically makes WWF a self-appointed ivory tower is inevitably going to result in a gigantic mess and I think that Jimbo would be a key in the recovery process. North8000 (talk) 00:24, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
I long ago learned to fly airplanes, but I couldn't do it often enough to be confident of my ability, so I gave up that hobby. The same principle applies here. JehochmanTalk 03:17, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Well said North8000, wise words. As for this plane hobby of yours Jehochman, in this case Jimbo imagined the concept of flight, built the airplane, and has taken it to the Moon and back, so his "hobby" may contain some additional learning-curve-intensity and applicable knowledge. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Well Jimbo said no, so that well-intentioned effort to avoid the drama seems to not have had its intended result. To the point, I do like the idea of a safety valve for an arbcom gone dictatorial, but Id prefer it be built in to some community policy that say if 75% of the number of largest vote getter from the last election votes to have an immediate ArbCom election all cases are suspended and a new election is set up as immediately as possible. Idk, safety valve yes, one dude who isnt really all that involved in the modern en.Wikipedia community anyway having veto power no. nableezy - 10:43, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
While Jimbo didn't say a straight yes, he didn't say a straight no either. If my interpretation is correct (see my reply there) then he doesn't see the need to have appeal power over individual decisions, but does see benefit in having the power to call new elections to replace the committee if they are ignoring the clearly and properly expressed will of the community and in being able to give an answer in the case of a constitutional crisis. I see these as three separate things that should be considered separately. Thryduulf (talk) 11:28, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
My thoughts on this:
I think the possibility of the entire committee going completely off the rails and just ignoring the community is incredibly unlikely at this point (that's an important distinction from say, pre-2007, when the project was much, much smaller)
If we do think we need some sort of ultimate "safety valve" to stop an entire fifteen-person elected committee that has somehow lost its collective mind, I absolutely do not believe that the solution is that one person who was not elected by the community is appointed for life to be able to dissolve the committee and call for new elections. We can talk about what might replace this idea, but it is clearly a relic of an earlier era for this project.
Let's say Mr. Wales feels there is such a situation, where he needs to review the committee's decisions and consider dissolving the committee. In this scenario, the committee, every last member of it, has seemingly refused to acknowledge community consensus on an important topic. What does that even look like? How is he supposed to investigate it? He does not have access to CU or OS material, deleted revisions, ArbCom emails, or the private ArbWiki.
In short, I do not believe this is something the project realistically needs, but since we are apparently going to have to go the hard route and change WP:ARBPOL, we can come up with a process for recalling or dissolving the entire committee. It needs to be a process that is based, like everything else, on the will of the broader community, not on one person's interpretation of it.
A community-based dissolution process (or more accurately a second community-based dissolution process: we already have one) opens up a whole other can of worms, I think, namely a lot of unnecessary drama every time someone is dissatisfied with the Committee's most recent decision. And I worry that anything more complicated than "the last sentence of WP:ARBPOL#Appeal of decisions is stricken" is going to draw so many additional opposes that we'll end up stuck with the status quo. So my main question for Beeblebrox (or any other arbitrator) is: now that we have to go down the ARBPOL route, should we expect that one of you is going to initiate the process yourself by making an WP:ARM motion like this one, or should we start working on a petition? As I said above, I don't want to do the latter unless the former is off the table. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
I would be excited for the committee to do it in part because I would also like to fix what I see as an issue with the community ratification (namely that "with at least one hundred editors voting in favour of adopting it" isn't as meaningful as it was when adopted because we could also have "at least one hundred editors voting against adopting it" which the current policy doesn't account for at all). Barkeep49 (talk) 18:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes, as long as it's proposed separately so that people can support one and oppose the other (to prevent rider issues), that'd be a great idea: as it stands, ARBPOL is probably easier to amend than most other policies. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't think we should put those two things in the same bucket at all. No-one has (recently) discussed what a replacement process to change ARBPOL would look like, so I expect a significant time just to do that before putting up some amendment. This other change discussed for some 80ish comments in this section is otherwise pretty clear-cut: remove Jimmy's override. Izno (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
I agree, the next step should only be to remove Jimbo's power to hear appeals of individual decision. This is supported by (nearly?) everyone here and Jimbo himself, so it should be uncontroversial.
The other two, now three, things (dismissal of the committee, resolution of constitution crises, change to ARBPOL ratification procedures) are independent of the first change, and all need more thought and discussion about what (if anything*) they should be replaced with (so it's impossible to gauge how controversial they will or will not be). These are also independent of each other and so can proceed at their own pace.
*Personally, I support changing arbcom ratification, think the constitutional crises provision should remain and am presently neutral regarding the dismissal of arbcom in extremis). Thryduulf (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
The hundred editors thing is slightly odd today but isn't the real problem (you still need a majority; that was just an attempt to avoid weirdness where a tiny group tries to overthrow ArbCom in the dead of night or something. If there's a ton of support and also ton of opposition, it's probably necessary to actually run the process and figure out where consensus lies.) The real problem is that once you have 100 people calling for a referendum, you only need a majority on the referendum itself - it is a literal, straightforward vote, not a "!vote." To be fair, so are ArbCom elections, but something as nuanced as rewriting ArbCom's charter should probably require actual consensus rather than a majority vote. I would probably also make a close by a panel of three uninvolved admins a requirement. We do not need people arguing over whether something was a WP:SUPERVOTE for something as central as rewriting ArbCom. If things have broken down to the point where even that doesn't save us, then there's nothing to be done. --Aquillion (talk) 22:39, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
At the same time, for a such a widely participated discussion, it only seems natural that what most of the community wants should happen. And since the process and policy is so formal, I'd rather not have ambiguities in the process. Galobtter (talk) 07:53, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't think it's off the table, but I don't really think it's on the table. If some group doesn't think it should be there, they should go for removing it themselves. The draft that Aasim linked above seems as good a start as any. Izno (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
The community already has the power to amend ArbPol without ArbCom's support, which could even extend to disbanding the committee itself. The process is outlined in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Ratification and amendment:
Create a petition to amend the policy, signed by at least 100 editors in good standing.
Ratify the amendment by referendum, by simple majority with a minimum of 100 editors in support.
While the wording or this section could be improved, this is the main safety valve in the case of a rogue committee. I don't think we need another one, especially if that safety valve is in the hands of just one person. – bradv 23:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
The situation I think Jimbo is envisioning is not one where the community wishes to amend the arbitration policy, but one where they vehemently disagree with a decision the committee has made and has demonstrated that this is truly the will of the community not just a vocal minority (e.g. by a well-attended RFC), but the committee is unbending.
For example, assume the following scenario:
A case has been brought and accepted regarding the actions of User:Example and User:Foo. The committee considers the evidence presented, none of which is private, and the/a remedy enacted is to ban User:Example. Everything is in accordance with arbitration policy, there are no procedural irregularities. However the community is furious about this as they see User:Example as an innocent victim of User:Foo. They are so displeased that an RFC supporting the unbanning of user:Example easily passes. An admin unblocks User:Example after several days of the Committee refusing to do so. That administrator is promptly desysopped. The committee declares they will do the same to anyone else who unblocks, even if the community changes policy to explicitly require arbcom to unban user:Example.
This scenario (or one like) it is extremely unlikely to happen, but it is theoretically possible. My understanding is that, in a scenario like that, Jimbo wishes to gain/retain (depending on your view) the power to (on request from the community) dissolve that arbcom and call fresh elections. Whether we the community think it desirable for Jimbo to have that power or not is up for discussion (and I'm not prepared to come down on either side right now, although that may change) but I feel it is important for that discussion to focus on what is being requested rather than on something tangential. Thryduulf (talk) 01:03, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
I agree with you that such a situation is extremely unlikely, but if it were to happen, the community would be calling for more than just overturning the ban. They would be calling either for a fresh election or to burn the whole institution to the ground. Jimbo would be unable to help with that, as the only power he currently has is to overturn the ban (which, let's be honest, would make the situation even worse). The real safety valve is the ARBPOL ratification procedure, whereby the community could implement the structural changes that it deems necessary. – bradv 01:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Except in that scenario there are no structural changes necessary. The community doesn't want to replace the institution of arbcom, and it doesn't see that arbitration policy is flawed - it just wants to overturn the ban and (probably) elect a different set of people as arbitrators. Jimbo currently does have the power to overturn the ban (but likely soon won't) and I agree doing so would not be helpful.
Whether Jimbo has the power to dissolve the committee and call fresh elections is disputed (some people think he does, others think he doesn't), the relevant question is whether he should have that power. Thryduulf (talk) 01:27, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
He may have said he has the power to dissolve the community committee once upon a time, but it's not written in policy anywhere. I think it's clear from my comments that I think the community alone should have that power, and currently does. – bradv 01:35, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
@Bradv: I presume you mean "dissolve the committee," not "dissolve the community." :) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
I sure did! Good catch. :) – bradv 01:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
The bureaucrats are the counterbalance in that situation, since they would be the ones removing the administrative privileges, as well as the stewards. The community would ask the stewards for an emergency removal of the bureaucrat privilege from any arbitrator who was also a bureaucrat, and the bureaucrats for an emergency removal of the administrative privilege from the arbitrators. isaacl (talk) 01:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Some Arbitrary Break
Wow this is a lot of comments. There are other reasons why I believe it may not be a good idea to keep Jimbo Wales' appellate power, and it largely has to do with single point of failure. Wikipedia has a way to handle WMF if they do not believe that they are acting in their interests, and that is to fork the project and move on somewhere else. Granted, any Wikipedia fork would be destroyed by SEO, but it can still be worth a shot in case of rogue WMF.
Having Jimbo in this appellate power creates a single point of failure. Sure, any bad decision by Jimbo would likely get him ousted by the other Board members, but it can still do significant damage to the project. It is not that Jimbo doesn't make good decisions; he has, but he is human like everyone else, and about a few weeks ago he made a mistake that if anyone else were doing it would likely result in an immediate block. We should consider less about whether Jimbo is a suitable appeal role or not and more about whether an individual who is among the other 11 or so at the top is a suitable appeal role. WMF T&S and WMF Board of Trustees seem like okay (not perfect, nor terrible) appeal roles, and that is better than nothing. Any individual, including Jimbo or any individual member of the Board of Trustees, any individual in the WMF Office, any individual steward, any individual arbitrator, and any individual administrator is not a good appeal role. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 03:34, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
It might be well to specify, in whatever form, that Jimbo has no formal powers specific to the English Wikipedia. From reading Jimbo's comments on his own talk relative to his claimed ability to dissolve ArbCom (whatever hedgings he placed on that), it seems like he still has some belief in his "reserve powers" that survive his desysoping and removal of other user rights. Wehwalt (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that'd be good to specify, though not sure if ARBPOL is the best place for a statement of that. Vague, undefined reserve powers that would thus engender massive drama if used is not good IMO. Galobtter (talk) 07:55, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
It's also unclear to me why the better solution in a crisis isn't simply for the community to use the ARBPOL amendment process to require a new election. If there really is such a big issue, we should be very easily be able to get the support and votes needed to do so. Galobtter (talk) 07:57, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
WP:ROJW states that "He retains the authority to overrule or dissolve the Committee". While the authority to overrule is in fact in WP:ARBPOL, the authority to dissolve is not. It might be good to reaffirm that if we remove the authority to overrule, and update the information page. Galobtter (talk) 08:09, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
The community can amend the policy to say whatever it wants, including removing all current arbitrators and calling for a new election (or some other interim process before the next election). The key people to convince that a consensus has been reached are the administrators and bureaucrats, in order to avoid a last-block-standing war of attrition. isaacl (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
I think a simple (yeah, so freakin' simple) ammendment to the policy to explicitly state that Mr. Wales does not in fact have the authority to overturn ArbCom decisions seems to be what is needed here, given that, apparently, the source for the claim that he can dissolve the committee is just Mr. Wales himself. If it isn't in policy, it isn't a policy, that seems pretty easy to follow for everyone, so we don't even need to address the whole "dissolve the committee"thing. We stopped having him ceremonially appoint the committee quite some time ago and nobody has complained about that, so I think it is already clear that he does not in any way control who is or is not on the committee. I really wish he would have just said "screw it, I'm obviously never going to actually do that so let's just get rid of it" but that is not what happened so we need to amend out this other, actual loophole regarding overturning decisions unilaterally. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:56, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
As the petition for an ARBPOL amendment to remove the right for Jimbo Wales to act as an appeal route for arbcom decisions has received 100 signatures a referendum on the proposal has been opened.
It requires a majority in favour with at least 100 supporting editors.
I'll also apologise for the rather duplicative double posting here and WT:ACN. It was requested on the petition page, so I've gone for "when in doubt, spread broadly".
CENT, WLN, WP:AN, user talk:Jimbo Wales and VPP have all been notified. Please feel free to provide neutral notices to other relevant fora. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:33, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
What is going on with the WP:ACN archives?
I was looking through one of the archives of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard when I noticed something a bit out of the ordinary, and with the help of some magic incantations I have sussed out that something strange is indeed going on.
Why are the last four archives so damn big? Archive 13, for example, has a hundred and fifty sections, and goes all the way back to September 2020. It looks like User:Lowercase sigmabot III is the one who moves threads from ACN to the archives (indeed,WP:ACN is configured to make archives sized at an eye-watering 200k). Huh??? Can someone fix this? I would do it myself, but all of the pages in ArbCom space are plastered with stern warnings not to dick around with them unless you are a clerk or arbitrator, so I leave this in your hands. jp×g 20:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Note: if there is some other talk page where this is more appropriate, feel free to move it there, as I'm not sure I have come to the right place for this. jp×g 20:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't see an issue with 200k as the archive size. Izno (talk) 20:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Izno beat me to it but there are other community forums that have a much larger archive amount than ACN. Why is 200k something that needs fixing? Barkeep49 (talk) 20:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
It seems kind of unwieldly to me. But looking at a few other archives of pages, they seem pretty big too: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_249 is 361,339, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1120 is 711,465, IncidentArchive1121 is 741,388, and IncidentArchive 1122 is 814,496. I have a strong recollection of reading some arcane policy page a while ago to the effect that we should try not to let pages get much larger than 100kb if it can be avoided. I can't find it now, so perhaps I am merely a fool. jp×g 00:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
I am pretty sure you are thinking about the MOS guidance WP:TOOBIG which only is meant to apply to articles. It offers no guidance about talk pages or talk page archives. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
200K is what the backfilled WP:ARCA archives use. While not small, taking a random archive such as Archive 120 there are 7 sections/archived ARCAs. Limiting such archives to 100K would mean there would be 3 discussions on that archive page, which is probably too few discussions to have per archive. Therefore, I would suggest that a general rule on no more than 100K would be an issue for high traffic noticeboards.
WP:ARBPOL states that any interested editor may add statements to case pages, yet all pages are extended-confirmed protected. How is this consistent with the plain language of the policy? Best, CandyScythe (talk) 05:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
I assume this is in reference to the currently open case? It's a bit late in the day to be bringing this up, but the logged reason protection was added is "Opening analysis phase; EC only given standing restriction in the topic area". The pahse we are in now, the proposed decision, is the final phase of a case and the PD is only directly edited by arbitrators or clerks. The rest of the case sections are closed at this point, and have been since before you created this account. You are still free to post comments on the talk page at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Proposed decisionBeeblebrox (talk) 17:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
I was really just reading the PD talk page and thought of maybe making an observation but noticed it was EC protected. CandyScythe (talk) 17:59, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
I see you edited your message. The problem is I can't. (it's EC protected) Best, CandyScythe (talk) 18:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
@Barkeep49:, did we mean to have ECP on the talk page as well? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Respectfully, the committee does not have the authority to override WP:ARBPOL by passing a motion. Best, CandyScythe (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
I would say this a matter better discussed at WP:ARCA. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:13, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
This sounds like something that just needs a simple copyedit by ArbCom. The phrase "any interested editor" was almost certainly written without intending to create this misinterpretation. (In other words, it seems pretty obviously intended to mean "open to the community", not "it is forbidden to enact page protection".) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that any interested editoractually means any interested editor fulfilling criteria set by ArbCom and to think otherwise is a pretty obvious misinterpretation? And that ArbCom should correct this mistake by unilaterally amending copyediting WP:ARBPOL? CandyScythe (talk) 23:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
WP:Protection policy allows me as an individual admin to protect pages I believe are or could be subject to disruption. A motion passed by ArbCom seems like a valid reason to believe a case talk page in the same area as the motion was made could be subject to disruption. Are you suggesting I cannot employ such policy in protecting a case talk page because ARBPOL says "any interested editor" despite that I have the individual power to protect the page under community policy? (WP:Wikilawyering might be something for you to read.) I agree with Beeblebrox then: If you think there is a policy issue that must be resolved, I invite you to WP:ARCA.
A different member of ArbCom than those who have already left comments here suggested that you leave your statement here if you would prefer, or perhaps WT:Arbitration/Requests, where the original question would have been more appropriate. I do not have a particular issue with that myself, and perhaps it will make you feel like you have been heard meaningfully. But the restriction exists for the reason that this area has been subjected to rather precocious sockpuppets, and that your account has the hallmarks of such an account. Not, mind you, to say that you are one. Izno (talk) 23:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom talk page might not be the best place to invoke wikilawyering, and in any case, I would suggest you are more "guilty" of that given that it requires quite extensive mental gymnastics to turn "everyone can comment" into something else. I fully understand the arguments why protecting is desirable, but to quote Barkeep: we all shouldn't pretend it (the ARBPOL) says something it doesn't because what it does say isn't the way we want it to work. [11] I appreciate the invitations to ARCA, but given how things appear to be heading in the PD page, I think this issue will be moot before the committee would be able to dispose of anything there. Best, CandyScythe (talk) 15:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
question regarding CT awareness
Is an editor considered to be aware of a contentious topic if they request protection of an article falling inside the topic? e.g. User:Example (who knows that ARBPIA is under 500/30 but nothing else about its CT restrictions, and has not been alerted) sees repeated disruption on an article related to Palestine/Isreal, and requests indef ECP at WP:RPP. Would User:Example be considered aware after requesting page protection? – dudhhrtalkcontribs (he/they) 16:01, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Disclaimer: I am not an arbitrator
The relevant info from WP:AWARE is that editors can be presumed to be aware without receiving an alert based on a number of situations, including:
Has otherwise made edits indicating an awareness of the contentious topic.
I guess in this example you give, it depends on other specifics. For example, is the indefinite ECP request made using the contentious topic procedure? If so, then the second bullet point could be used to indicate awareness (as it's a request related to the contentious topic). However, if the ECP request was made using the justification along the lines of "semi-protection isn't working as autoconfirmed editors are being disruptive" without a mention to the contentious topics procedure, this wouldn't meet any of the points as the user could just be making the request with the understanding that ECP protection exists.
As with all of these assumptions of awareness, an administrator who believes a user was not aware should impose no editor restrictions (other than a logged warning). Therefore, there likely is no bright line and it depends on a more case-by-case basis when considering situations such as this.
The arbitrators or other users may of course disagree with how I see this, so a user should not rely on this distinction to avoid being considered aware. Dreamy Jazztalk to me | my contributions 14:57, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
More jimbo cleanup?
Under Wikipedia:Arbitration#Prior dispute resolution, we still list "Arbitrate a dispute directly referred to the Arbitration Committee by Jimbo Wales". I assume that's obsolete at this point and it's OK if I remove it? -- RoySmith(talk) 19:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
That seems like a valid removal, as WP:ARBPOL says nothing of a sort. It being an information page in this space means it needs nothing other than WP:BOLD action to remove it to start. Izno (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Wiki seems constitutionally unable to stay DRY. -- RoySmith(talk) 20:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Templating banned users
At WT:BAN, there are some lengthy discussions going on about the community policy for putting visible templates on the user pages of editors who have been community-banned. During these discussions, I've been hearing that ArbCom follows a procedure in which the user page (not talking about the user talk page) of someone banned by ArbCom gets put in a category, but there is not a visible notice shown on the user page. First, is that accurate? Second, if that's true, could someone please point me to where it says that in ArbCom's policies or procedures or motions, as well as to any discussions about the reasoning behind it? It would be helpful if I could see what ArbCom says about that. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Incidentally, it has an odd note about only accepting site bans by email. Izno (talk) 21:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, Izno. That answers my question. It certainly sounds like I was told something incorrect. The language there is quite clear about always using the "banned user" template, which is indeed a displaying template, and the same one commonly used by the community. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
When the |by= parameter of the {{banned user}} template is set to "the Arbitration Committee" (and looking at the code, I think also "Arbitration Committee"), the template puts the page in the Category:Wikipedia users banned by the Arbitration Committee category, which is a hidden category, and the banner is not displayed. isaacl (talk) 21:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Oh, that explains it! Thanks so much for correcting that. Does anyone know where there was a discussion that led to setting that property for the "by" setting? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
The change was implemented in 2016 by Opabinia regalis (with the following two edits making some adjustments), with an edit summary referring to the sandbox. Still looking if I can find a discussion... isaacl (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Note that Category:Banned Wikipedia users is also a hidden category; the template puts all banned users into it (including those banned by the arbitration committee). isaacl (talk) 21:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Reading the "take 2" discussion to which you linked, the two comments at the end, by KevinL and by Opabinia, do explain what sounds like the rationale. Both Arbs say that they would prefer always making it non-displaying, per the "badge of shame" concern, but that this would be strictly contingent upon always having a reliable log of the action. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
KevinL (L235) wasn't an arbitrator in 2016. Opabinia regalis expressed their personal preference without explaining why the change was made for site bans enacted by the arbitration committee. I imagine though there was an off-wiki discussion by the arbitrators at the time, and it was deemed unnecessary. isaacl (talk) 22:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes, it sounds that way to me too. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
There was. It has the "badge of shame" motivation but keeps the template to "ensure we have a list of banned users somewhere and this template/category is the only list" particularly for SPI uses (paraphrasing marks).
I do have to say that it is very useful to have a banner for sock-chasing/checking work. We do have formerly-good-faith-banned users turn bad and fundamentally don't find the "badge of shame" argument to have much if any merit. "Banned means banned", to borrow a phrase. ... not to split the discussion. Izno (talk) 22:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
I appreciate and agree with those observations. I've been trying to make the case that there are some situations where it's a net benefit to have a visible notice, because the situation is clearly a bad one that needs to be easily tracked, but that this is not the case universally for all banning situations. And it's better to have someone with admin permissions or higher make an informed judgment about whether to visibly tag or not, than simply to insist on a one-size-fits-all policy. But there is clearly some significant pushback from editors who feel it is very important to always tag, no matter what. I agree that it's important to always track, as with that list, but that doesn't have to mean a visible tag. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Losing the trust or confidence of the community?
There's a motion at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW which talks about losing the trust or confidence of the community. I'm curious what that really means. I totally get that arbcom can desysop somebody because of the admin's actions: "Admin A did something which we, arbcom, find is in violation of policy and thus revoke their bit". WP:ADMINACCT includes the "lost the trust or confidence of the community" wording, but all the examples of why a desysop might happen, are all of the form "Arbcom finds they did X, and desysops them for it". They socked, they were uncivil, they did bad stuff off-site, they failed to communicate, etc.
But I don't quite get how it works to say, "We, arbcom, find that you, the community, no longer trust this person, and therefore we'll implement your consensus to remove their bit". Kind of like any admin closing a RfC is just implementing the consensus of the community members who took part in the discussion. Except that arbcom decisions never actually work that way. The votes on motions are always arbs saying, "I've looked at the evidence and based on that my judgement is we should do X". It's never, "I've read all the comments from the community and my judgement is that most of them want us to do X, so let's do that." RoySmith(talk) 17:35, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
I think that it's shorthand for the community deciding that that the person does not have the admin-area competence to serve as an admin. This inherently means that they can't be depended upon (="trusted") to execute that role and should not be entrusted with those powers. Or at least that they feel enough regarding that so say that arbcom should review the situation in that respect. And, since arbcom is the only one who can make a desysop decision, that arbcom is the place for that even if the situation is not not of the more common "review of misbehavior" type. To emphasize, the individual can still be highly trusted on other respects. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:51, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Heads up
Hopefully, you won't need to become involved in this matter but, based on past experience with the other party involved, I doubt if there will be a satisfactory resolution. Please see this message as a "heads up" but, as I have said, it is only fair to give him until the weekend to rectify. I am no longer part of your "community" but I left a lot of work on this site which was based on my own research and I strongly object to it being hi-jacked. Thank you. 2.99.208.127 (talk) 05:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
This appears on the surface to be a content dispute, so you should attempt the other methods of dispute resolution first. Primefac (talk) 09:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Primefac. I have fully explained the issue to the other party and have given him until Monday to resolve it. If he does not do so, I will escalate it. I suggest you tell Mather to mind his own business because a breach of WP:COPY is far more serious than the sort of nitpicking trivialities he indulges in, to the site's detriment. 2.99.208.127 (talk) 12:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
That is fine, but per WP:DR ArbCom is not the next point for escalation, which was my original point. Primefac (talk) 12:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Okay, I'll leave things alone until Monday morning and then I'll use WP:DR if necessary. Thanks for your help. 2.99.208.127 (talk) 12:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
I've added copied tags to the talk pages of both articles that the IP editor is concerned about. If I need to do anything else perhaps someone could let me know. Thanks. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Does rapid archival constitute CTopics "awareness"?
From time to time, I run across an editor who appears to prefer a blank user Talk page, and has bot archival set on a short timer. What if someone places an Alert/first, and it disappears into the archives quickly, i.e., maybe the user never saw it? Should archive bots be taught some new exception, and extend a very short archival period past some threshold in the case of CTopics/alert? Can such an editor be held to be "aware", if some apparent Ctopics violation occurs later? (Note: this page is the redirect target of Wikipedia talk:Contentious topics.)) Mathglot (talk) 01:51, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Myself, I think they can be counted as aware. Someone who prefers a blank user talk is kind of at the mercy of their own decisions, IMO. Valereee (talk) 01:59, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
If an editor has an absurdly short archiver, and they miss something, that's on them, imo. Live by the archive, die by the archive. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:06, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
I agree. If you use archiving bots on your talk page it is your responsibility to ensure you don't miss anything, regardless of what the settings are. It probably wouldn't go amiss to explicitly say something like this at WP:OWNTALK and Help:Archiving a talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 09:12, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
"Awareness" is a about fairness, and how it's fundamentally unfair to sanction someone about something they may not have known about. We do this through a belt and braces approach, combining talk page alerts with the warnings on edit notices and page headers. However, there's only so much we can do proactively.
If a user pleads ignorance based on rapid archiving and not noticing every other message to that effect elsewhere, we can consider their appeal, but I expect it would have an outcome of wilful ignorance. Long story short, we don't need to change anything here. WormTT(talk) 09:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for all the feedback. I'm subscribed and will continue to monitor, but that sounds like consensus to me. Mathglot (talk) 09:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
I'd think of as a parallel to AWB's cautionary note - "You are responsible for every edit made. You are expected to review every edit, just as if you were making an edit using Wikipedia's edit form when editing by hand." - Cabayi (talk) 09:54, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
.) Mathglot (talk) 20:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Like Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 12:35, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:ElfCom and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 4#Wikipedia:ElfCom until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 03:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
wikimedia.org, which may result in modification or removal of the remedy, or endorsement or broadening of the remedy. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 01:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
