Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

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

Changes to functionary team

Original announcement

• I should give a bit more explanation about Berean Hunter, since we usually don't pull the flag so quickly for inactivity. This is a precautionary measure. We have no reason to believe Berean Hunter's account is compromised, but he stopped editing abruptly on 1 October, and no one has been able to reach him since. I myself have emailed him four times. I consider him a friend and I usually get a response from him, so I'm rather worried and so is the committee. If and when he returns to editing and wishes to have the CU permission returned, the request will likely be viewed favorably by the committee. Katie^talk 15:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

  Oh my - something is wrong. That isn't like him at all. As a CU, his real id is known, correct? Can the WMF look into this and let us know something about his well-being? It is simply not in his character to disappear like this. I had correspondence with him on Sept 30, 2020 - he said he was "feeling tired", but it was still early evening. Something is wrong. 😢 Atsme 💬 📧 17:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

  The WMF hasn't required real-world ID in years, and even when they did they supposedly looked at them once to confirm the user was an adult and then deleted. We're all concerned but there's not much of anything we can do. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

  I wouldn't be too alarmed that something nefarious has happened. This by far isn't his first extended absence without warning, in fact from 2013-2017 he took multiple on-and-off breaks to the point where he was even desysopped for inactivity. Sometimes, life happens and Wikipedia needs to take a lower priority. Sometimes it gets crazy at work, or there's a family emergency, or if you're older, you might get arthritis making accessing a device difficult. My point is, there are many, many different reasons why you may want to take a step back. This diff helps give a bit of insight into his view on taking long breaks. He once said Dennis Brown is the only Wikipedian who met him face to face, so maybe we could ask Dennis if he's heard anything. We're all volunteers here and giving notice when you'll be gone for a while is often expected, but not required. Sro23 (talk) 03:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• I didn't get the ping, but I stumbled across this thread. I just emailed him. A few years ago, we used to break bread every now and then, being that he lives relatively close, but we haven't talked much lately. I know he has had a lot going on in real life for some time, so I wouldn't get too worried just yet. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

  22 hours later, no reply. Looked but can't find his number in my new phone. Will search email for it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

  Found the number, talking to him now, he's ok, just really busy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

  Hooray! Thanks for going the extra mile.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

  Dennis Brown, Thank you for that. I'm very glad to hear it. Worm^TT(talk) 09:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  I too am really glad to hear it. Thanks for passing this along. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 10:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  I will admit that I am relieved to hear this news. Thank you for reaching out Dennis Brown Mkdw ^talk 15:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• I hope the best and that he's just busy in this crazy world. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

  Just saw this, (my thanks to Boing! said Zebedee for pointing me back here!) What great news (and a relief)!! Thank you for checking on this, Dennis Brown!! FYI, GorillaWarfare. Whew!! Atsme 💬 📧 21:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

  Oh that's lovely to hear, I'm so glad everything is alright. Thanks for the ping, Atsme! GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Was going to invite him over for barbecue, like we used to do, but with covid, that isn't wise. It's been almost two years since I've seen him, and almost a year since we had talked, so it was nice catching up. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Change to the Checkuser team

Original announcement

• Just wanted to note that this follows a January 6 self-requested removal of the tools from Ivanvector's account for security reasons, and that this motion and announcement is purely procedural. Best, KevinL (alt of L235 · t · c) 01:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Well this sure went more smoothly than asking for the admin bit back! Glad you're ramping back up, IV. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

  Well you know if there is a group renowned for its speed and efficiency it's ArbCom. I kid, I kid. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC) Barkeep49 (talk) 02:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Motion: American politics 2 (1992 cutoff) enacted

Original announcement

• Incredibly minor, but Dreamy Jazz, isn't it standard to link the word motion to a direct link to the motion? Noting ARCA as the location is nice IMO, but leaving that as just a WP:ARCA link as you did for TRM seems reasonable. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I've added the link in to the motion in the announcement. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 08:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• I've only just noticed this now, but I wonder about the wording of this motion from a clerk/ArbCom procedural point of view. Do correct me if I'm wrong and out of date, but past procedure largely seemed to hat/cross-out superseded/amended remedies and place the new text underneath; this motion, however, appears to mandate retitling of a section and wholesale replacing of the previous text. AFAICT, Dreamy Jazz enacted the motion correctly given those terms, but, from a purely navigational point of view, I'd think it better to do the hat/cross-out and add, rather than retitle/replace. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Amorymeltzer, L235 has added the superseded version in a hatted section underneath. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 08:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Not sure how much of a difference it will even make to go from post-1932 to post-1992. Myself, at least, I'm just not seeing that many AP2 disputes that even involve anything in the 20th Century (though, granted, this could be more a sign of the times). Compare this, for example, with Wikipedia:General sanctions/Post-1978 Iranian politics, where the 20th Century stuff is featured quite prominently. El_C 02:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

  I think the biggest difference would be in topic bans. While this doesn't affect existing sanctions, any future sanctions would be 1992 onwards only and I assume if someone asks with a half decent explanation, they'll likely have their topic ban changed. While there would still be a lot of areas of American politics off limits, and they would need to take care, there would be a wider field of AP related articles anyone who gets a full AP1992 ban could edit. True, we don't know how many people would actually care, but it's also hard to know until it happens. If someone has an AP1932 ban and is compliant, they wouldn't really want to think about those articles. Nil Einne (talk) 20:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

  Nil Einne, of course! How strange that this did not occur to me. Thanks for pointing out the obvious to me. Struck. El_C 14:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• I personally am happy to see a significant reduction in DS coverage, so thanks to proposer and arbs. As the current sanctions remain in force, so it'll take a while to see, one benefit is that individuals can be removed from the most heated aspect while not losing a vast swathe of articles they might otherwise be able to edit productively in. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• I believe the arbitrators chose a date better than the one I originally suggested. Hopefully this will help keep the sanctions as narrow as possible so that the maximum freedom of editing is established on Wikipedia without fear of sanctions. Interstellarity (talk) 12:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Flyer22 and WanderingWanda case dismissed

Original announcement

• I'm in shock and disbelief.--WaltCip-(talk) 21:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oh god no. Mathglot (talk) 21:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• I commented on Flyer22's talk page hours ago. Will an arbitrator do so, or the committee? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC) - To be clear: I don't think her family will read the arbitrators' noticeboard. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • A notice with a link to the announcement was posted by our bot, but someone reverted it. I'm sure her brother is aware of what has happened to the case. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

    I can't believe it, sorry. I don't mean - at all! - what happeed to the case. I'm waiting for some statement of sympathy by a human being (Mensch) or more. Not a heartless bot-message (which was discussed with L235). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

    Gerda, it is unlikely to go down well if a member of a group of anonymous strangers on the internet, who were just about to sanction the deceased person for their actions, offers their sympathies. Even when sincere its going to come across as callous or hypocritical. Certainly I doubt her family will care. There is no good outcome for what you propose and is more likely to just cause trouble. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

    Exactly this. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

    I must have a language problem (member of a group? no: human being), but someone understood me anyway, see below. I am done here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

    All Arbs are human beings but also members of a group. The highest officials on the project to which Flyer gave so much. It makes sense for Arbs to consider how any expression of sympathy might be perceived from a group perspective; there is a risk of it coming across the way OiD says. It would probably be doing Halo a disservice to assume that's likely though. The Arbs were looking set to only pass a very mild sanction, and were treating all parties with fairness. Flyer was fallible like everyone but generally exceptionally wise, and Halo seems to share much of her quality. Other than Halo, her family are unlikely to recognise an Arb, but at some point may well take comfort from the volume of sympathy & appreciation on Flyer's page. And Halo seems to have enough of Flyers grace that he'd not see any condolence from an Arb as hypocritical or callous, though also would know any Arb who choses to stay silent has still given the matter great thought. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• I don't understand the Arbcom decision. Wasn't the case supposed to also examine the conduct of WanderingWanda & Halo Jerk1? The Proposed Decision certainly had elements dealing with both WanderingWanda & Halo Jerk1. Banedon (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I think if you take a close look at where the proposed decision was at it will be pretty clear there was no point in continuing. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

  • I still do not understand - the proposed remedies, last I saw, included a three-way interaction ban & a proposed block for Halo Jerk1. A two-way interaction ban and/or block ought to still be possible. Banedon (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • To add: the point isn't that WanderingWanda and/or Halo Jerk1 need censure, but rather that if the case is dismissed as moot on Flyer22's death, then it makes it seem like the case was, after all that was said at acceptance, about Flyer22's behavior. Some quotes during acceptance:
    1. "As I said above, we ought to investigate the conduct of all the parties involved in this dispute, and the retirement of one of the parties should not put this investigation on hold." (but the death of one of the parties should?)
    2. "to be clear, I would expect any case to be investigating both WanderingWanda and Flyer22 Frozen - I agree, there is little to distinguish between the behaviour of each"
    3. "Flyer's retirement is unfortunate but unlike other cases, here we have conduct from multiple parties to examine and it wouldn't be fair to those still active to keep this case dangling over their head."

  Banedon (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

  • I will try to break it down so that you may see the reasoning:
    • The only remedy that was going to pass was the three way iban. Flyer was essentially the "pivot" in the middle. This is not to say that she was the whole problem, rather the problem as it existed is gone.
    • HaloJerk just lost a loved one he clearly cares deeply about, I don't think there is any interest on the committee to pursue further sanctions on him at this time.
    • A retirement can be undone any time the person retiring decides to un-retire. Death is rather more permanent.
  • I think we'd all like to believe that this shocking, sad event has taken away any appetite for continuing the conflict the case was trying to end. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

  • A good analogy for this would be members of the U.S. Senate planning to protest the results of the most recent Presidential election. After the 2021 storming of the Capitol which brought with it awful violence and chaos that eventually resulted in several deaths being reported, several of those Senators rescinded their planned protests. Everybody saw the big picture. I think that's what needed to happen here as well. I applaud ARBCOM's restraint, which given the circumstances, really was the only right thing to do. Struck out. In retrospect, the analogy I made was in poor taste and has absolutely no bearing on what transpired in this case. My respect for ARBCOM and their decision to dismiss this case remains in place, as well as my sadness. --WaltCip-(talk) 00:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

    FWIW, some will get it and not be offended or confused. There is no question that excessive polarization (and legalism) in the off-site political sphere have had palpable effects on-site as well, and this very case (involving a false-dichotomy approach to a socio-poltical issue and content-disputing about it) was very symptomatic of that effect.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  I don't think any of those quotes are mine because I wasn't an arb when the case was being accepted.. However, I think you raise a point that I also thought about as we were discussing/voting on this. What follows is my own thinking only, but based on the information we have I don't believe a 2 way iBAN is necessary - partly for reasons expressed in the evidence in terms of Halo/WW's editing and partly because of private evidence I obviously can't discuss. And obviously I voted against the block of Halo. If I thought that continuing with the two remaining parties was going to improve the project and be worth the drama of continuing, I might have suggested we continue even though we'd have been called insensitive (or worse). However, I don't think that bringing the case to resolution with two parties is going to reduce future conflict and I'd rather we try to be sensitive, which despite some criticism I think we're trying to be. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

  I've got mixed feelings. Obviously remedies involving Flyer are not needed, and I don't think that there was any public evidence that justified an iban between Halo and Wanda (and certainly not in the absence of Flyer) so it's right that that aspect of the case is declared moot. However, there were several principles that would have been usefully passed and findings of fact relating to WW and Halo that I'm not sure should be regarded as dismissed. Perhaps describing the case as "discontinued" would have given the better impression. Thryduulf (talk) 02:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  Thryduulf, my largest concern with dismissing the case was the principles - but they can be discussed another day.
  Banedon Nothing on this encyclopedia matters as much as the real life as an individual. We can always have another case, another day, if circumstances demand. Today, we mourn the loss of someone who made a difference. Worm^TT(talk) 09:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  The legal concept of “dismissed without prejudice” might apply here. The person who brought the case to ArbCom will have their behavior towards others under scrutiny by various users. Repeated problems will have this case to look at. Montanabw^(talk) 15:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  Exactly.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  In addition to what others have said, Halo Jerk1 has barely edited in the past year, and AFAIK prior to this case his last interaction with WanderingWanda (let alone a dispute) was over a year ago. A dispute solely between those two editors would never have been accepted by ArbCom in the first place, and an interaction ban between just the two of them doesn't seem necessary, so it doesn't really make sense to proceed with just them. --Aquillion (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oh no. That's terrible. Loki (talk) 23:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• As someone who was made fully aware of the case not that long before the tragic news came, it's shocking to me in so many ways. GiggityGiggityGoo! 00:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• ARBCOM continues to put its collective foot in its mouth. Good grief. -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 09:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  I think that's a little unfair. Situations like this are, at the core, impossible to resolve in a way that leaves all parties content with the outcome. The human beings on the Arbcom are trying their best in what is a unique and difficult situation. I think we should cut everyone a little slack, and respectfully move on. QuiteUnusual (talk) 10:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  Agree wholeheartedly with QuietUnusual. The sentiment might be justified if arbcom had done something completely wack like still tried to sanction Flyer22. But that wasn't what happened here and whatever people may quibble about whether they should have done X or Y, someone would have always found fault with that decision. Nil Einne (talk) 12:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  Yes. However, there were serious problems in how this case proceeded, especially during Workshop, and also in the Proposed Decision phase. But this is neither the time nor the place to address them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  @SMcCandlish: Even if that is true, how is that "ARBCOM continues to put its collective foot in its mouth. Good grief."? That is the topic of discussion in this particular sub-thread. While Roxy the dog did not, and probably will not, offer further explanation, their comment seems to relate to how this was handled after the they found out. If you have some other issues, I suggest you make it elsewhere in this thread or maybe not at all, not here where specific issues are being discussed, unrelated to the earlier handling of the case . Nil Einne (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  After I say there are things needing to be addressed about this case but at another time and place, you then tell me that they need to be discussed at another time and place. Hmm. I think at least one of us needs a fresh cup of coffee. Well, I know I always do, so "a minimum of one" of us does. >;-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Very sad. Paul August ☎ 13:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• The world and Wikipedia are lesser places without her. Peace to her family and friends. Jip Orlando (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• The timing of this... wow, very sad and unfortunate. Just incredibly sad. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 03:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• [Content by WanderingWanda removed]
  • WanderingWanda, given that one of the passing remedies of the case was an iBan between you and Flyer, I think in the circumstances it really is inappropriate to be making these comments. In the interest of keeping things calm, it would be best for you to revert yourself and commit to following the intention of the case which is that you do not comment anywhere on Wikipedia about Flyer. SilkTork (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
    • And in the same vein, we should remember a three-way iBan was passing; that is, it also applies to Halo commenting on Flyer other parties. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
      • • • Rephrased. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Yes. Indeed, it would be more helpful to all concerned if the Committee simply finished the case. I understand the sensitivities involved, but completing the case and putting the remedies in place which included "Parties to the case are reminded to avoid enflaming discussions with flippant or dismissive commentary, and to focus on content, rather than contributors" would be more respectful to Flyer, and potentially prevent problems down the line. SilkTork (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
        • On the one hand, I am beginning to agree with that (see my talk), but on the other hand, I think enough anger has already been directed at the arbs, in spite of their sincere attempt to show compassion here (see SMcCandlish's talk), and that they have been put in a lose-lose situation over a predicament that the community failed to address. So I am in the unclear camp on what they might do next, but do know that the thing needs to not continue to spread to veiled threats because one offered evidence in an arbcase. And usually, when one doesn't know what is best, doing nothing for the time being is best. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
        • I'm not going to fight about the removal of my comment, especially since some people found parts of it insensitive, which wasn't my intent. But I will note that no remedy received the required votes, the case was dismissed, and therefore, by design, no party to the case is under any kind of interaction ban. WanderingWanda (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)