Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Audit Subcommittee vacancies: Call for applications (2014)

Original announcement

Audit Subcommittee vacancies: last call for applications

Original announcement

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions at GGTF closed

Original announcement

Hi. I'm not sure this is the right page to discuss the case (if no could somebody please move my post to the right place). I have this question please: the only info Neotarf provided was taken either from English Wikipedia or from gmane.org.wikimedia.mediawiki.bugs. According to Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation: "It's complicated. While gmane.org does not belong to us, it is a mirror of a mailing list and/or bug reports that are hosted on systems that do belong to us." So, if the site belongs to WMF why Neotarf is blocked/banned for outing? Thanks. 222.187.222.118 (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I would consider this more or less moot as she is now banned by arbcom. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Since I placed this block, you are welcome to discuss it with me, but first, please login to your Wikipedia account. Jehochman ^Talk 02:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I cannot even begin to fathom the reasons behind the egregious sanction disparity exhibited in this case. The Findings of Fact regarding Carolmooredc seem ridiculously overblown compared to the included links, and even if we accept the findings of fact at face value, the justification for an indefinite ban appears to be completely absent. Meanwhile, the Findings of Fact regarding Eric Corbett clearly demonstrate a repeated pattern of non-civil behavior, including a finding that the user has completely disclaimed one of the site's five pillars, but no indefinite ban is forthcoming. This disparity is so baffling that I simply cannot comprehend how it came about. I hate to accuse the ArbCom of gender-based bias, but given the context of the case and the inexplicability of the sanctions, they've made such accusations very difficult to avoid. Powers ^T 13:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

If you hate to accuse, then don't. Wikipedia isn't about quotas, counting how many supposed men and how many supposed women get sanctioned in a case. For pseudonymous editors we don't really know who's who anyways. This is a wrong, battleground mentality to think that an editor's sexual identity should affect how cases are decided. This was a long case with a lot of evidence and these arbitrators did their best to decide it. If you think you could be a better arbitrator than the ones we have, you can run in the election next year or you can at least vote for the arbitrator candidates you would prefer between now and Dec 7. Jehochman ^Talk 14:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about the quantity of editors of either gender being sanctioned; you may be ascribing to me comments you've read elsewhere. What I'm saying is simply that it appears that the behavior leading to an indefinite ban was significantly less damaging to the project than the behavior that led to mere admonishment and the threat of possible future sanctions. I also do point out that given the context of the case, one would expect the Committee to take extra care to avoid the appearance of gender bias, but the results belie that assumption.

Furthermore, do I correctly take your comments to indicate that the only acceptable method of providing feedback to the ArbCom is via annual elections?

-- Powers ^T 19:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

+1 on sanction disparity, based on many off-wiki comments.

This is a smart time for Arbcom to consider a grant request for independent advice and a public report on its possible systemic bias, especially considering the new batch of candidates show the committee is going to continue being mostly composed of heterosexual white men. As the gender gap has been top of the Foundation's agenda for the last few years, it is a safe bet that a grant request would be successful and a positive step.

As with recent new Arbcom candidate statements, defending the status quo by repeating that as private individuals you do not feel biased and that many of your friends are women, gays or other minorities, does not stop there being a concern; especially when Arbcom candidates wish to avoid being open about their gender, sexuality or their personal views about related issues, preferring to state that it is irrelevant to the committee. "Don't ask, don't tell" has not worked out very well everywhere it has been tried. Were you to reflect on the legal history of the last 40 years, a key lesson is that no matter how fair your company/committee/jury might feel themselves to be to the viewpoint of minority groups, if they fail to ensure fair representation of these groups, then systemic bias and a public perception of systemic bias has always been impossible to avoid.

This case has been a PR failure regardless of whether it was literally correct against policies. It might be wise for some committee members to offer interviews to the Signpost or similar on their views for the future of Arbcom, how it might be improved, and its ability to be seen to fairly address gender gap. In the wider context, the priority should be on how Wikipedia can become more welcoming (and in the short term seem less hostile) to new editors with an obvious or declared interest in improving minority group topics.

P.S. A general point, just because someone is openly a woman or LGBT, does not mean they have a conflict of interest every time they touch related encyclopaedia articles. --Fæ (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Seems to have strayed from the case somewhat. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed by an arbitration clerk. Please do not modify or continue it.
A key component of Wikipedia is anonymity. Are you suggesting ArbCom candidates should have to disclose their race, sex or gender? And if so, how could we know they're being truthful anyway? Here's the only metric that should matter: their past activities and interactions on Wikipedia. That should be enough for one to discern if they should support or oppose them. Everything else you state is utterly unfeasible on the internet and will be gamed to no end no matter the original good intent. Capeo (talk) 15:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Arbcom are elected positions and candidates should be capable of handling the politics and public perceptions that are increasingly important to the future of Wikipedia. The new batch of Arbcom candidates are free to refuse to say much or anything about their values, views or identity (and the majority have done exactly that, but not all), however if by their own actions the top most level of bureaucracy of the English Wikipedia is seen to support a default position that new editors should stay in the closet about being born a woman, gay, or a racial minority, then the public perception of whether this project is welcoming to minorities will be exactly as you would logically expect. I speak as a founder of Wikimedia LGBT, so I am clearly against a damaging "don't ask don't tell" policy on gender or sexual identity for any Wikimedia project. By the way, I'll be voting for the one candidate who is openly a woman and the one Arbcom candidate who is openly gay. I applaud them for even standing. --Fæ (talk) 15:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC) There is no "don't ask don't tell" policy anywhere on Wikipedia. Everyone is free to have their own identities and beliefs. Just don't let that affect your editing. If someone is Mormon, for example, they shouldn't go around pushing a Mormon POV. That will get them blocked. If they don't push a POV, the fact that they're Mormon is nice, buit it doesn't mean anything with regards to their editing here, and editors who use that against them can be blocked per NPA. Also, stop me if I'm wrong here, but are you seriously suggesting affirmative action for ArbCom? KonveyorBelt 16:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Yeah, I'm kind of having a hard time believing what I'm reading there too. It entirely flies in the face of actions speak louder than words. Especially since you don't even truly know if either of said candidates are who they say they are. Or anyone for that matter. And wikipedia has had some pretty high profile blow-outs over people lying about all sorts of things. Again, on the internet, the only thing that should matter is the editors history here. That tells you all you need to know.Capeo (talk) 16:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC) (edit conflict)Fæ, will you oppose people because they are male, or because they aren't openly gay? What if somebody is gay but just doesn't like talking about their sexuality? Demographics are a poor reason to vote for somebody. Choose the people who are fair to editors, who have good dispute resolution skills. Their race, sexual attractions, chromosomes, hair color, religion and other characteristics are immaterial. The question should be, "How well can they do the job?" As for "Don't ask, don't tell", I agree that would be a bad policy, but fortunately it isn't policy. I favor "Don't ask, but tell if you want to without fear of repercussions." Each person should decide how much they want to share. Their identity and their privacy should be respected. Jehochman Talk 16:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC) The only action I have suggested above is to have a review to ensure that an Arbcom that is going to remain almost entirely of heterosexual white men is not accidentally resulting in systemic bias for the English Wikipedia, especially with regard to cases where the case 'locus' is a related issue of bias such as gender gap. I suggest people take time to read my first paragraph above, before jumping to conclusions based on what others may assert about what I am looking for here, rather than what I have stated in writing above that I am looking for. Jehochman, yes I'm still going to vote for the one woman and the one gay man standing; with regard to "without fear of repercussions" this is not how things appear today for those of us who have experienced targeted harassment on the English Wikipedia project. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC) A noble cause, but this review should make sure that they are not just judging the arbs for being "heterosexual white men", but actually looking at them as editors, just like everyone else. And that's the crux of the matter. No matter who you are, gay, straight, bi, white, black, Hispanic, Asian, we all have something in common here. We are all editors. And even if some have more in common with each other than others, since editing is the only thing in common between all of us, it should be the only thing we should all be judged by, or else the report is doomed from the start. KonveyorBelt 16:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Correction Having double checked candidate replies to questions today, there are no open women candidates, though it is correct that one openly LGBT candidate is standing. My previous assumption was based on a comment made away from the candidate Q&A area and so probably should be considered irrelevant to any assessment of this type of openness. --Fæ (talk) 13:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

For completeness, and the hope that a future Arbcom may review the archive of this thread and consider the wider public perception of possible systemic bias, Slate has a detailed article about this case and how it may be interpreted. It is rare that an Arbcom case gets noticed by the external press. --Fæ (talk) 20:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

That seems to be the writer Ryulong had a dispute with over GamerGamergate --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 20:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Seems like there may be a mistake in the announcement regarding Specifico. One of the FoFs for him is cited instead of the remedy. Iselilja (talk) 17:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@Iselilja: Whoops, that was my bad. I've fixed it here, and I'll notify Specifico momentarily. Thanks for pointing it out. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 19:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@Ks0stm: and @Iselilja: It's even more my bad, because I checked it through after you'd drafted it, missed the glitch, and signed it off. Apologies,  Roger Davies ^talk 19:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• Just to note: This decision is discussed in Slate (magazine).[1] Since he is mentioned by name, pinging Eric Corbett. Risker (talk) 23:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Risker for posting that. It certainly makes for a, um, provocative read. And I don't entirely agree with the author. But it's interesting to see one example of how someone outside views the situation. Now I'm about to say something that I know will get me flamed. But I remember that, a while back, Jimmy Wales gave a speech in which he talked about showing some longtime editors the door, and he came into a lot of criticism for it. (I want to make clear at this point that I'm not implying anything about any specific editors, but instead, speaking in general.) Maybe Jimmy was making a better point than some editors have given him credit for. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The author of that article seems unaware of the proposed decision page, in which several arbitrators explained the reasons for their various votes in some detail. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Yea, Tech Review already said that. At least he had the decency to quote them. Otherwise, the number of factual errors is pretty high ... for example, describing those slackers on the committee as "overbooked" wait, I have a case open Wales as head of WMF. NE Ent 00:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Technically, Jimbo is not "head of WMF", however considering that neither he nor the WMF do much to change the current set up where any time there is a news programme or headline to be made they are positively encouraged to get quotes from Jimbo, in practice he may as well be the official spokesman. In "real life", such as academic editathons, I find that few people have heard of Jimmy Wales, even if they know quite a bit about Wikipedia. There is no chance that non-Wikipedians know who the current CEO is, let alone others in the empire, or be interested in buying a newspaper (or the e-equivalent) to read their opinions in an editorial. --Fæ (talk) 11:35, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

After a brief review of that page, NYB, I'm still confused. The Arbs seem to be bending over backward to give Eric "one more chance" while jumping immediately to a siteban of Carol because she's a tendentious editor. I don't see any justification presented for why one is considered irredeemably tendentious while the other deserves "one more chance", but maybe I'm not looking in the right place. Powers ^T 12:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, Risker. I became aware of the article when browsing through the archives of the gendergap mailing list. Some of what is said there (on the gendergap mailing list) concerns me enough that I'm going to point out my concerns here. I'd like to join that mailing list (some very interesting things are being discussed there), but I'm a bit wary of doing so until things have calmed down a bit, or the moderators get a grip on some of the things being said there. Among other things, I noticed a posting about legal repercussions, someone suggesting doxxing/opposition research, and plans to block vote at ArbCom elections with new editors recruited at editathons. Why would anyone go anywhere near that mailing list with that sort of thing going on? Going back to the Slate article, I think it is important to put on the record that the author of the article didn't approach us (ArbCom) for comments or a response. Carcharoth (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I understand entirely what you're saying about the gender gap mailing list, Carcharoth. I've given serious consideration, especially in recent weeks, to unsubscribing; however, I ultimately decided to stick it out at least for now because it needs some more moderate voices. Not unlike some other places connected to this project. :-) Risker (talk) 01:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Adding to Risker's comments - you can of course read any Wikimedia mailing list (or worse, IRC channel) and find silly things being posted. Generally they are very lightly moderated and have a poor signal-to-noise ratio. All that said, I'm not sure that anything that's said on that list is any more concerning than things that are often posted on-Wiki: and it is virtually the only place where people who want to work on solving the gender gap problem get together. The Land (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Several Arbcom members have chosen to contribute to forums with a long history of aggressive, offensive and even defamatory content against Wikimedians. In comparison seeing some venting on the GenderGap list after this case is fairly minor stuff. Personally I find it refreshing to read frank views there and bouncing around ideas of how change might be encouraged to happen on this project without the participants being too worried that any word they say might be taken by some passing admin as a reason to block their ability to edit this project.

The choice of an admin today to protect User talk:Carolmooredc so that only admins can edit there, is a good example of why contributors are having their discussions and making plans about this project everywhere else but on this project. The history of free speech shows us that stamping on dissenting voices rarely turns out to be healthy in the long term, some Arbom members seem to hold this viewpoint, but the majority of today's admins seem to not get it. --Fæ (talk) 11:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

"Free speech" does not apply to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and the projectsapce and all the rest of the things that aren't part of the encyclopaedia exist to support the encyclopaedia. They are not soapboxes or fora to promote one's agenda. Editors who spend more time on wikipolitics than in the mainspace are a problem—in my opinion one of the biggest problems Wikipedia has. And sine the arbs are all too polite to say so, I'll spell out the reason for he apparent disparity: both side severely misconducted themselves, behaved tedentiously, and caused a great deal of damage to the project with their bickering. The difference is that one side has a lengthy track record of high-quality contributions to the mainspace and of helping other editors improve the encyclopaedia; the other had almost no record of anything on Wikipedia except disrupting the projectspace. Had both parties had the same track record (pro and con), I'm sure the result would have been the same. It is grossly insulting to suggest that gender even entered the equation. Keep an eye on the Gamergate case if you want to see a case where both sides are more-or-less evenly matched. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I have nowhere here challenged the outcome of this Arbcom case, nor the actions resulting from it. I have suggested a managed approach to handling the perceptions of a case like this, and NYB has responded to that below.

I understand your logical viewpoint Harry, however I do disagree with "grossly insulting". Extreme interpretations such as "grossly insulting" result in non-hat wearing Wikipedians fearing to ask about possible and unintentional systemic bias in the way things currently work, as they are likely to be slapped back by being marginalized; once they carry the label of "tendentious disruption" or "troll", there is no way back, folks tend to just dig a deeper hole. I'm afraid the often used tactics of labelling simple governance questions as disruption, harassment or insults are themselves unhelpful, compared to the drama free alternative of taking reasonable questions seriously, and taking the opportunity to resolve them in a calm collaborative and evidence-based way that can convince almost everyone. Were the next Arbcom to seek representation by members of the GGTF to assist with a review of potential systemic bias, this would be seen as positive efforts to address the perception problem, without resorting to dismissing it as without any merit whatsoever, nor having to confess that anything is truly wrong with the way things work right now. The potential for improvement is either embraced or we just wait for the systems to break and then we have put up with hassle of running and screaming (to quote Dr. Ian Malcolm). --Fæ (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

By the way, this is a bit off-topic here, but in response to a comment from Fae above, I'd be glad to give an interview to the Signpost or some other forum about my thoughts concerning ArbCom and other aspects of the project. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

In response to your earlier comment about the proposed decision page and comments made on it, it becomes fairly theoretical by the time the decision is published though; when a final decision is handed down, it ought to be able to almost entirely stand up by itself in effect and reason - particularly when other committees or panels manage to achieve the same, especially when they interact far less frequently. Of course, this could be more a reflection on a line of decisions which go back a very long time, than a reflection on how this specific one turned out - in which case, no one individual current or former arbitrator can be held responsible for it. Then again, I am not certain any one of them can really be given the credit for taking steps to significantly reduce a number of such adverse perceptions from so easily arising about this decision, other decisions, or the 'governance system'. Whether it's new users, the general public, or even a number of the users who bother to hang around, there is little doubt that there is at least some concern expressed in that article about Wikipedia's "system" which others have felt before too. Some users here appear to have taken offence to what was published in that article or some of the comments which are made in the aftermath, which I think are in some ways understandable. But, in saying that, I also think it's in some ways understandable why dismissive comments that are abruptly/abrasively made towards expressed concerns (even those which are felt to be unjustified) have probably contributed to these types of views arising - and consequently being publicised too. I wonder what can be done about it now though. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Carch. I've responded to your post after it was brought up on gendergap here. The tl;dr version of my response - health issues prevented me from being active as a moderator for most of the last month and we currently only have one other mod, but I don't see any hugely significant problems with the threads you linked. I don't agree with all of the threads and would have at least spoken to the author of one of the posts off-list had I seen it when it happened, but even though I wasn't around to do so the problematic line of discussion was promptly called out by other list members as being problematic and did not continue. If you start a discussion about gendergap moderation, please ping either Leigh or myself; otherwise there's no guarantee we'll notice it or be able to action anything we missed that needs action. FWIW: our list of banned or +modded users is at least six or seven people longer than it was five weeks ago, we just don't typically announce publicly when we action something. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Related claim of harassment

It has been highlighted to me that the retirement notice at User:Goodwinsands makes a claim about this case that appears unfounded. This appears to be use of a personal user page to make a claim of harassment against User:Carolmooredc that I do not believe has been proven. Could an administrator or clerk either point me to where the case does support this harassment claim, or blank the text as it is appears to inappropriately attempt to support a claim of harassment by using this Arbcom case, or advise me that this is not the right forum and it is better to take this to ANI or elsewhere? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:35, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Removed as unhelpful per WP:POLEMIC -- Euryalus (talk) 13:43, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement (Xenophrenic)

Original announcement