Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Arbitration motion regarding Ritchie333 and Praxidicae

Original announcement

• Odd. Ritchie doesn't strike me as the sort of person who would need to be told not to interact with another editor. But I suppose if there's bad blood between himself and Praxidicae, it's probably for the best that they go their separate ways. Kurtis ^(talk) 03:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive304#User:Ritchie333_doubling_down_on_personal_attacks is background. Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• Quite the amount of busy beavers we have in the Arbitration Committee.. [0_0] –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• Any hint on why Arbcom has chosen to do this now, which assuming Galobtter is correct is nine months after the incident in question, and why it's been done in secret? I certainly haven't always agreed with Ritchie333, but forcing a long-standing editor—whom I don't think anyone wouldn't accept was a net positive—into a position where they feel they have no alternative but to retire, and not even giving a hint as to why, is at minimum a discourtesy to everyone else since without giving any indication as to what conduct the committee felt was unacceptable, every editor who wants to avoid becoming the victim of another Night & Fog disappearance in future has no idea what to avoid. I understand why secret cases are on rare occasions necessary, but I find it hard to believe Ritchie333 falls into any of the "serious abuse with potential real-world consequences if we disclose any details" use cases. ‑ Iridescent 08:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  That's old background; this and the back and forth which followed is recent. ——SerialNumber54129 08:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  Framgate II. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 09:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  Who's next. Could be any of us, it seems. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  Given the comments from one arb at the current ARCA, it's me. So get in line. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 09:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• Why are there no public findings of fact? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  Other than the announcement, I don't see any public anything. Am I missing it, or was this a bolt from the blue? Jonathunder (talk) 14:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• Any watching admins might want to do something about the edit I reverted here - with typo, RC should be RV. (Apols, Leaky caldron, for reverting your reply too.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• No case, no evidence, no right to reply? We are very much into First they came ... territory. ArbCom has been called a star chamber before, but that really does not mean that you have to suddenly make people disappear in the middle of the night without a case. These are becoming increasingly dangerous times to be an editor around here. - SchroCat (talk) 11:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  SchroCat, The first five words of the announcement, After discussion with both parties seem to indicate that both parties were given the opportunity to reply in private? SQL^{Query me!} 14:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  Actually, the meaning of "discussion" from Arbcom can simply mean they have provided information in a one-way sense. I have been subject to such discussion. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 14:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  Why don't we stick with the english definition for now, and not assume bad faith. SQL^{Query me!} 14:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  I'm not going to stick with the definition, given how things are being uncovered, and I was right to question the point in the first place. - SchroCat (talk) 21:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• Wow, this looks really, really bad. I can think of few other editors or administrators who have given so much to Wikipedia, and with such goodwill and alacrity, as Ritchie333, and now you've driven him to retire, with zero transparency or accountability or appeal. I agree with TRM that this looks like Framgate II. At least you had the guts to let us know who supported this sanction. Softlavender (talk) 11:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• This place is starting to get really creepy. It might be time to start considering a fork.—Chowbok ☠ 11:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• This isn't the first time ArbCom have done this. Last year, they imposed a 2-way IBAN on James J. Lambden and Volunteer Marek by motion. Iffy★Chat -- 12:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  But in that case they didn't state that one side was guilty. —Kusma (t·c) 12:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• This is terrible.--WaltCip (talk) 13:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• Wholly echo the statement above by Softlavender. This really is very worrying. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• Coming across this, from Iri's comment over Ritchie's t/p. Not surprised given that AN thread long ago, recent user-page-kerfuffle and that their interactions have been perpetually a net-negative. ∯WBG^converse 13:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  Between them, perhaps, but not individually. The ruling clearly shows Ritchie as the guilty party. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 13:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  But there is just one with a policy mandated higher conduct expectation. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  But none of that explains the secrecy and the clandestine one-way IBAN, regardless. I guess this is an over-reaction to being told by T&S that they can't be trusted to deal with their own problems, so they're really dealing with them now. Arbcom knows 100% what kind of reaction this in camera hearing, decision, and subsequent retirement is going to have. If there was any question of failure to meet policy, then Arbcom would have de-sysopped Ritchie. Try again. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 13:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  I make no comments on the merits of the (practically) one-way-IBan but greater transparency is welcome. And, as always, ends shall not ever justify the means in any manner. ∯WBG^converse 14:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  Oh, make no mistake, it's a one-way IBAN, designed to single Ritchie out as the only guilty party. Utterly unjustified and yes, a completely dangerous precedent where now we just watch as we and our colleagues are picked off in secret. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 14:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• I understand the secrecy surrounding the Fram case (since evidence was submitted confidentially), but can't help wondering if a dangerous precedent has been set of increasing secrecy in other proceedings. Sucks to be here lately. Miniapolis 13:48, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• Very alarming, per Iri and others. Johnbod (talk) 13:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• I'm not a huge fan of non-transparent cases, but remember this is just an interaction ban. The similarities with the Fram fiasco are really pretty minimal. I don’t know what happened, and I feel badly for Ritchie because I generally like him, and am surprised it came to this. Who knows; if I knew the background maybe I’d think this didn’t go far enough, or maybe I’d think it was too heavy handed. I'm really hopeful that Ritchie, who - with all his rough edges - is a real talent, a decent human, and someone who cares about the encyclopedia, will come back after the sting subsides.
  Just thinking out loud here, not sure if this would make things better or worse. In cases like this, where the result is just an interaction ban and it was negotiated off-wiki, would it be better not to announce it? Biggest pro I can think of is that it's less a public rebuke, and more a mutually agreed outcome. Biggest con I can think of is that it puts monitoring for compliance in the hands of the two parties. But it seems like usually, reports of non-compliance are made by one of the two parties anyway. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  As far as we know, T&S have issued interaction bans (or something similar) and not announced them publicly. I am not a fan of such secret restrictions, mostly because of the enforcement issues. When a secret restriction is broken, we will then end up with blocks or desysoppings for "violated a secret restriction", which is likely going to cause a great amount of noise and may Streisand out the original complainant. So it is a bit of a gamble: if the secret restriction is honored, it may work better than a humiliating public sanction, but if it isn't honored, the secrecy may become a problem in the future when you need to enforce it. —Kusma (t·c) 14:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  It's fundamentally obvious that the one-way IBAN was not mutually accepted, and that this case should have been heard more publicly. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 14:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• Huh? Was there some actual case going on somewhere, or is this just a sudden declaration that Fram Ritchie333 is ibanned, out of the blue? (edit conflict × 2) Κσυπ Cyp   14:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• If anyone is looking for precedent Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_11#Arbitration_motion_regarding_The_Rambling_Man is probably the closest thing. I generally agree with WBG and Floq. I think of both Ritchie and Praxidicae as friends, and I'm very saddened by this since they are both excellent contributors. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  And I can assure you that the content of that motion did require off-wiki comms. This one, however, certainly did not. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 14:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  At least in that case there was some clarification from a member of the Committee who pointed out that ibans are designed to enable continued productive editing from affected parties without necessarily attributing right or wrong. It would be helpful if others did not now seek to attribute that right or wrong either. I would hope that the same applies in this case.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  Too little too late, as Arbcom have certainly attributed blame. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 14:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Sure. I'm not fully aware of all the details of that one, but I take your word on it. I think it would be helpful if a member of the committee could comment as to if they felt this needed to be private or whether it could have been handled in public (@AGK, Premeditated Chaos, and Worm That Turned: ping to a random assortment of recently active members I have positive working relationships with.) TonyBallioni (talk) 14:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• Ritchie is the last person I expected to be IBANNED so I'm rather saddened to see this, Whilst I'm not all for secrets etc I do feel this shouldn't of been announced publicly. (Admittedly I do wonder if a case would've been better but that would've been more drama I guess). –Davey2010^Talk 14:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• Two observations:
  1. Like it or not, our friends at WMF T&S have forced a new normal on the community in the wake ofthe FramBan, and I suspect this is just ArbCom responding to that. Effectively they have told us that we must now take off-the-record complaints seriously, and that ArbCom was napping in failing to process such things hitherto. I'm not particularly comfortable with this, and I think some high-level board–Jimbo–Arbcom–WMF negotiations should be held urgently, with community input too, to avoid the ever-increasing feeling that there is a secret police now watching us all. And
  2. IMHO on a more pragmatic level, and per Floq, this shouldn't really be a big deal - Ritchie is a particular friend of mine, both on-wiki and at the meet-ups, so I am bemused that he has been singled out as the aggressor in the Praxidiciae IBAN, but ultimately if the two of them really don't get along then it's actually better for all concerned if they don't interact anyway. No sanction is supposed to be a punishment, and arguably the IBAN is the least punishing of all, since it merely mandates a way forward that should be beneficial to all. I would urge the community not to do Bonkers v2 over this. I can certainly understand that Ritchie is hurt and upset by this, I would be too. But I hope that at some point, whenever he is ready, he is able to come back and contribute because we sure as hell need him here.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

     "No sanction is supposed to be a punishment" irony! But sadly a one-way IBAN is a clear indication to the whole community from Arbcom who they believe was entirely at fault here, and I don't believe that to be the case, but with no evidence or discussion, there's nothing that can be done. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 14:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

     Ha yes, cue the sardonic laughter. You never can predict what will happen if you give people the power to be vindictive... But it's right there in black-and-white on the Wikipedia:Sanctions page. The sanctions are "to resolve disputes and curtail disruptive behaviour". Certainly concur on the second part of your comment as well. Per Pawnkingthree I would be very happy if ArbCom clarified that they are not pinning any blame on Ritchie here. We may be holding our breaths for that one though.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

     No, they absolutely are pinning the blame on Ritchie. Why do you think the wording of the motion is such, and why do you think Ritchie has retired? Because he's been singled out now as the first subject of the new regime of clandestine disappearances. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 14:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• Agree with others. There is no punishment here. (And the lesser remedy is functionally two-way, apparently one person agreed and one person did not but if the one person did not agree, we do not know what would have happened). And as earlier noted, the admin is required to operate under a higher conduct expectation, but not required to be desysopped for every failure. Also, the matter was as easy to determine as possible, with not a single experienced Wikipedian in the administrative function on the committee in descent dissent and every single one (beside inactive or recused) in support. There are naturally and reasonably going to be times when the parties discuss such things by e-mail with the committee and the committee will use its judgement about how much to publicly drag persons out. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC) (struck part out. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC))

  not a single experienced Wikipedian in the administrative function on the committee in descent - what does that mean? ∯WBG^converse 14:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  Corrected, thanks. Also, I was about to add to my comment, 'the parties might also discuss it by e-mail with each other.' Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• Just my personal thoughts, since I've been pinged. Having heard from both Ritchie and Praxdicae, it was clear that both wanted to stop interacting with the other. I'm not overly keen on the wording (which did have majority support), but intention to actually implement a two way iban was unanimous. Tony has asked if it "needed" to be private, I'll respond that it is better that it was private, meaning both sides could be candid. I certainly hope Ritchie will return, as he is an asset to the encyclopedia. Worm^TT(talk) 15:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  I don't really the follow the bit where you say "intention to actually implement a two way iban was unanimous", and yet it wasn't implemented? It was just down to the other user agreeing to do so? The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 15:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  @Worm That Turned: echo 100% what TRM just said. If the "unanimous intention" was to impose a 2-way IBAN, please could I urge and request the committee to go back and amend the wording so that it actually says that? I think that would go a massive way to alleviating the community's concern and annoyance over this. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  It is a full enforceable interaction ban on both parties. Worm^TT(talk) 15:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  That's how I read it. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  Who drafted this? I implore upon him to improve his skills at writing. ∯WBG^converse 15:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  At best its ambiguous. Per "Praxidicae has agreed to abide by a mutual interaction ban for the same duration" what happens if they choose to withdraw that agreement? And did Ritchie not "agree" in the same fashion as Praxi? I have no idea now if the committee was trying to make the sanction asymmetric or not. Maybe it doesn't matter on a practical level, but I feel like it would be better to have clarity.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  Praxidicae cannot withdraw their agreement, that has been made clear to them. Worm^TT(talk) 15:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Winged Blades of Godric I drafted it, and as WTT said, it was approved with majority support. He's already stated what I was going to about the privacy aspect - I believe it was best handled in private to reduce distress for both parties. Since both of them had made a mutual request for the other to stay away from them (see the discussion here), this was essentially formalizing what they'd already publicly stated they wanted so they had recourse if the issue flared up again. Amakuru, Prax's mutual IBAN runs while Ritchie's does - no take backs. Both parties were specifically advised that the IBAN was equally enforceable on both sides, so Prax is no less restricted than Ritchie is. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  Ritchie just got named first because he's an Admin? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  Premeditated Chaos, thank you for clarifying. OK, so in practice, the IBAN is two-way. But it is very easy to understand the wording as "Ritchie333 is banned from interacting with Praxicidae, and we note that Praxicidae voluntarily won't interact with Ritchie333", which is a much more asymmetrical situation, and clearly looks as if one editor needs to be restrained and the other honourably chooses not to take advantage of that. If you don't want this to be understood as a one-way ban by non-insiders, you need to communicate it more clearly. —Kusma (t·c) 15:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  Premeditated Chaos, your wording does not remotely correspond with the committees' explanations and asymmetric nature of a statement is not very difficult to grasp. Either go per Vermont that Ritchie was the aggressor/more guilty of bad behavior and then, stand by your current wording or change it to be more neutral towards both parties. ∯WBG^converse 16:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  Those things are not mutually exclusive. As SilkTork said, we did find that Ritchie was the aggressor and felt that implementing an IBAN was the best way to keep the peace. Rather than leave Ritchie with a one-way IBAN, which historically have been difficult to enforce, we asked Prax to abide by an identical IBAN, with identical force. Since they had both requested the other to leave them alone, we felt this would be minimally objectionable to both parties. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  The amount of arbs and time that took you to say this in a clear-enough manner is abysmal. ∯WBG^converse 07:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

  @Worm That Turned: was there a determination that the community at large was unable to handle this, requiring the final step in dispute resolution to be engaged? IBans are routinely handled at AN(/I). — xaosflux ^Talk 15:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  Or was there a determination that this was a matter "unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal, or similar reasons". I think the tension here is coming from a sanction being declared without the policy foundation to support it being included. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  We kept the situation private to protect the privacy of both parties, both of whom were more candid in their discussions with us than I believe they would have been comfortable with in public. I don't feel comfortable disclosing any further details of what was said. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, this was determined to be a private matter unsuitable for public discussion. Ironically, when announcing it, it is no longer a private matter, and it has public consequences. Personally I would have preferred a public case (there is evidence of Richie having been outspoken with several users), but that was seen as inappropriate from various angles, including procedure and public exposure; and, as PMC says, both parties were able to open up in a manner they could not in public. I think there is much still to be learned in how to deal appropriately with potential harassment. I am firmly behind the notion that we need to be aware of incivility and harassment, but there seems to be a difficulty in hearing harassment cases publicly because of concerns that people complaining about popular figures will experience abuse. Yet if cases are heard privately there are concerns about lack of transparency. I am firmly in favour of transparency. I dislike that ArbCom does so much via email rather than here on enwiki. However, if asked to choose between dealing appropriately with harassment, listening carefully to what people have to say, and transparency, then I will choose dealing appropriately with harassment every time. Ideally I would like there to be transparency in dealing with harassment, but until someone comes up with a workable solution, then I will accept, for the greater good of the project, that sometimes we have to deal with harassment in an opaque manner - that being the lesser of two evils, if you will. SilkTork (talk) 16:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  @SilkTork and Premeditated Chaos: thank you for the reply, perhaps including some sort of statement of why the standard dispute resolution was unavailable (not looking for details here, just some policy based reason such as that the matter was "unsuitable for public discussion for privacy" reasons) for future motions would head off some of the confusion. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  I think that is good advice. SilkTork (talk) 18:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• Does the timing suck? Yeah, kinda. Does this have anything to do with Fram? No. Really, no. Two people who don't like each other and have made that clear on-wiki have, after some private discussion, been asked to make it official. That's it. I certainly hope Ritchie decides in time to return to the project, he's someone I've always liked and whose input I've always appreciated. Opabinia regalis (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• The issue was discussed privately with both users. Both users indicated they wanted to stop interacting. A two-way i-ban was seen as appropriate. It was made clear that the ban would be enforceable with block sanctions for both parties. There was a consensus on the Committee for wording which indicated that the i-ban on Richie was imposed by ArbCom as it was felt he had over-stepped the mark. SilkTork (talk) 15:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  This wording appears to have been disagreeable to one party, Ritchie, did the second party (perhaps blameless) prefer the weighted determination over simpler "stay out of each others way". cygnis insignis 16:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  And once Ritchie saw that wording, he retired. Great.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  If he hadn't retired, would the wording have been acceptable? From what I've seen, Ritchie has been the aggressor in this, and I do not see an issue with the wording, which most definitely cannot be blamed for his subsequent reaction. Vermont (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  Vermont, the current wording is acceptable from your stance but the ArbCom needs to tell that. ∯WBG^converse 16:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  I think SilkTork's comment is quite clear on that: "There was a consensus on the Committee for wording which indicated that the i-ban on Richie was imposed by ArbCom as it was felt he had over-stepped the mark." [1]. – Ammarpad (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• This is a poster child case of why deliberations and evidence must be in the open as much as possible. I can understand why some types of information must be kept confidential, but otherwise deliberations must be public. We have a number of people here rightfully noting how scary this is. ArbCom, take notice. We are volunteers, not employees. Taking action against someone via a private deliberation means the rest of us end up wondering what in hell went wrong and whether or not it would apply to us. Just ibanning someone is woefully insufficient. You're not leaving any direction to other people about what to do in the future. If this is the pathway going forward to handling troublesome behavior, you're going to cause a lot more volunteers to leave the project. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  Based upon the personal information disclosed to ArbCom by both parties, which ArbCom is bound by confidentiality to keep private, I would say this was actually the poster case for why confidentiality remains an important option for the community to resolve disputes. I doubt it would have been the best interests of either party for their statements to be made in public. As far as direction to "other people", our policies on conduct and interaction are all public. No new standards of conduct were imposed on either party when this IBAN was implemented. Mkdw ^talk 18:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  • The point remains; the secrecy here has a lot of people concerned, and legitimately so. The case could have been held publicly, with evidence that needed to be held private held as such. Without a case declared, even to say it was going to be held privately, we just get an announcement and one of the two people involved ups and retires from the project. It's quite chilling. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:43, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
    • This. There's not even a statement in this announcement that a proceeding was held, that a private proceeding was held, or that evidence was reviewed that needed to be kept private. The Committee can't keep playing fast and loose like this. You can absolutely hold cases privately if need be, provided the Arbitration Policy permits it, the secrecy is kept to the absolute minimum necessary to protect a legitimate private interest, and there is an announcement on the record of the determination reached, when it was reached, and whether (and what) evidence was considered. Announcements like these are functionally indistinguishable from arbitrary and capricious decisions. Announcing remedies without anything else through this questionable motion-in-lieu-of-case proceeding that someone made up years ago is as clear a misuse of the Arbitration process as I have ever seen. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• I'm twisting myself into contortions, trying to see this from ArbCom's perspective, and I'm having an awful lot of trouble doing so. Knowing Ritchie333 as well as I do, something here does not add up. I strongly urge the Committee to rewrite the ban announcement per multiple other editors above. The current 1.5-way wording is a mistake. I doubt that there is any downside to simply making it 2-way, and there is no good reason for you to dig in your heels over this. Please, just change it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  I'll copy what I said above, as I understand the concerns about lack of transparency, but this was felt to be a matter best handled in private:

  Yes, this was determined to be a private matter unsuitable for public discussion. Ironically, when announcing it, it is no longer a private matter, and it has public consequences. Personally I would have preferred a public case (there is evidence of Richie having been outspoken with several users), but that was seen as inappropriate from various angles, including procedure and public exposure; and, as PMC says, both parties were able to open up in a manner they could not in public. I think there is much still to be learned in how to deal appropriately with potential harassment. I am firmly behind the notion that we need to be aware of incivility and harassment, but there seems to be a difficulty in hearing harassment cases publicly because of concerns that people complaining about popular figures will experience abuse. Yet if cases are heard privately there are concerns about lack of transparency. I am firmly in favour of transparency. I dislike that ArbCom does so much via email rather than here on enwiki. However, if asked to choose between dealing appropriately with harassment, listening carefully to what people have to say, and transparency, then I will choose dealing appropriately with harassment every time. Ideally I would like there to be transparency in dealing with harassment, but until someone comes up with a workable solution, then I will accept, for the greater good of the project, that sometimes we have to deal with harassment in an opaque manner - that being the lesser of two evils, if you will. SilkTork (talk) 5:49 pm, Today (UTC+1)

  I hope that is helpful in moving toward understanding our thinking. As pointed out by xaosflux, we could have made clearer in the announcement that this was done "to resolve matters unsuitable for public discussion for privacy ... reasons". SilkTork (talk) 18:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  If, per the indenting, that was specifically a reply to me, then I can confirm that I carefully read it and appreciated it the first time. But nothing there negates what I said about rewriting the announcement from 1-way-sort-of to 2-way. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  It is a two-way. Enforceable by blocking. The wording that was agreed was intended to underline that of the two parties, though both wanted an iban, Richie had no choice in the matter as it was felt that he had behaved inappropriately. The more this conversation goes on the less helpful it is to either party. ArbCom acted within agreed scope. If the community wish to change that scope then a general discussion can be started (without referencing any individuals). If people are concerned about Richie, then perhaps reach out to him in private. I think that would be more helpful to him right now than continuing to dig publicly into why he was ibanned. I hope that makes sense. SilkTork (talk) 18:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  Indeed some of us already have, and it would appear that the account being given here by some is not accurate at all, but considering we have no way of discussing any of it, it's rather a moot and disappointing point really. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 19:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  To clarify and correct my wording. Both clearly told us they did not wish to interact with the other, which is not quite the same as saying they wanted an iban, so that aspect was slightly inaccurate. My mistake. SilkTork (talk) 22:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) It's not a one-way. They are both banned from interacting with one another under the standard IBAN terms. Praxidicae's IBAN persists as long as Ritchie's does; she cannot change her mind and choose not to be IBANned. The enforcement is equal - should either side violate it, it is enforceable with blocks via normal channels. Rewriting would imply that we found Praxidicae equally at fault for the situation, and the consensus we came to after looking into the situation and the history was that that was not the case. I am strongly opposed to any wording which implies that someone who came to us as the victim of harassment is equally at fault: hence the asymmetry. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  It does not sound like it was 2-way, despite the intended meaning. I understand what you (collectively) intended to communicate, but the way it ended up being written didn't so much settle the dispute, as prolong it. And I do get it, that 2-way IBANS can be misunderstood as implying either "no-fault" or "equal fault", and that there were valid private reasons for wanting to prevent a misreading as "equal fault". But if It is two-way and It's not one-way, the fact remains that members of the Committee have had to do a lot of explaining here, to get that across, and it should have been clear from the original wording. There would actually have been nothing wrong with saying, instead, that it is a two-way IBAN and that Praxidicae had already agreed to it.--Tryptofish (talk) 19:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  Premeditated Chaos, if the reason for the asymmetry is a finding of fact that Ritchie333 harassed Praxidicae, you could have said so. But that should have been in context and with a clear explanation (or a full case), including an explanation why there were no harsher sanctions. If you want to protect victims of harassment, it is also unclear to me how posting on a public noticeboard stating "this person came to us as a victim of harassment" is an effective way of doing so. A no-fault decision might not look fair to someone who knows the details behind the case, but could have been the better outcome overall. —Kusma (t·c) 06:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• Can we dial it way back on this page, please? I have the utmost respect for Ritchie, and I don't like his getting sanctioned either, but we're talking about an IBAN here, not a one-year siteban; and coming from the entity that is actually empowered by the community to deal with this sort of thing. This is our mildest possible sanction. Comparisons to framgate are way off the mark. There's certainly a few comments that seem to be more about dumping on ARBCOM, the one body that everyone can criticize without consequence, than about saying anything rational about this. Do y'all realize this is an appealable sanction, unlike that from T&S? Has anyone even asked Ritchie and Praxidicae whether they would have wanted to have this out in public? I thought not. One of the many admirable qualities about Ritchie is is abhorrence of drama, so for that reason if none other, try to discuss this rationally. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: I think we are at a place of needing to determine what ArbCom's actual remit is. In my view, its remit is not imposing what is worded as (an apparently unappealable) one-way IBan on an administrator in good standing, without either a very clear and detailed explanation plus findings of fact, or a full case. If ArbCom believes this is within its remit, then I am sorely deceived, and I would like a full community agreement/survey that this is within its remit. Softlavender (talk) 00:43, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

  This looks like a kneejerk from Arbcom to being told by T&S they need to do more when someone says "harassment", but the continued inability for anyone to understand how or what has been considered so heinous to necessitate such privacy (and a poorly worded motion) is really troubling. Moreover I don't understand if the harassment had risen to such a level that it required an in camera examination and resulted in Arbs using terms like "aggressor", how Ritchie, in the eyes of Arbcom, can continue as an admin? The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 06:40, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

  I'm honestly very close to trying to round up a group of experts to rewrite the entire arbitration policy in order firmly to anchor this body back where it belongs: In the adjudication of conduct disputes with a presumption that the proceedings will be public. The misuse of this Committee has gone on far too long. Fortunately, there's a straightforward means for amending the arbitration policy. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

  By all means please do. We can't have ArbCom making out-of-process unexplained unappealable secretive power grabs any more than we can have WMF/T&S making out-of-process unexplained unappealable secretive power grabs. Softlavender (talk) 09:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Ritchie333 and Praxidicae (arbitrary break 1)

Comments and Questions: I'm seeing some "between the lines" commentary from Arbs here.

WTT says: It is a full enforceable interaction ban on both parties. Ok, that's a bog standard two-way IBAN. That's not, however, what ArbCom has written. The wording of ArbComs statement is clearly geared against Ritchie, and with Praxidicae "agreeing" to leave Ritchie alone.

PMC says: Prax's mutual IBAN runs while Ritchie's does - no take backs. Re-affirming the "mutual two-way IBAN" story WTT gave, but carefully crafted to imply that Praxidicae had a choice. Did they?

SilkTork says both [a] two-way i-ban was seen as appropriate, but then (in the same post) [t]here was a consensus on the Committee for wording which indicated that the i-ban on Richie was imposed by ArbCom as it was felt he had over-stepped the mark. This means one of a few things:

1) Praxidicae's IBAN was not imposed by ArbCom, in which case by whom was it imposed? (Self-imposed seems likely from PMC's statement, but, potentially, with the threat of it being enforced).

2) ArbCom are not comfortable saying they've imposed an IBAN on Praxidicae. This'd beg the question as to why?

3) This IBAN is really a one-way IBAN with the two-way (1.5 way as someone above called it) writing being a facade. In this case, either ArbCom doesn't think Praxidicae would violate the IBAN and so wrote this to lessen the impact of a one-way sanction on Ritchie, or, they did it to lessen the risk of intrusion from concerned community members – Y'all failed miserable if that was your goal.

Presuming that there's really nothing more to this and that this really is a two-way IBAN, per this statement from PMC: They are both banned from interacting with one another under the standard IBAN terms. Why in the ever-loving hell is the wording of the IBAN imposed not just a simple, readable, easy-to-understand, unambiguous, crystal clear, etc, etc: After discussion with both parties, the Committee resolves that Ritchie333 and Praxidicae be indefinitely banned from interacting with, or commenting on each other anywhere on the English Wikipedia. How fucking difficult is it to write plain English? Why does ArbCom need to write in pseudo-legalese riddled with bullet-holes of confusion? Mr rnddude (talk) 06:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Has there ever been an attempt to propose a vote of no confidence in the ArbCom, outside of the usual election procedure? What would happen, given the issue of consensus in RfCs vs actual voting in elections? And how would it affect the next election? Or would that lead to T&S taking over? I ask not just because of this and the Fram debacle but because I think we've even had arbs themselves resigning, claiming dis-satisfaction with what goes on. This isn't the sole seemingly poorly-phrased announcement by the current committee, who seem to spend an inordinate amount of time having to explain what it what they intended to convey. - Sitush (talk) 07:21, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Sitush: I've thought about doing it over the last couple months. I would've done it as an amendment to the Arbitration Policy, phrased as follows: Effective immediately upon the ratification of this Amendment, all members of the Arbitration Committee are hereby dismissed. All pending cases and case requests shall be held in abeyance until elections are completed. Elections are to be held as soon as practicable upon the ratification of this Amendment, and will follow the pattern for normal elections, except that no person who has been an Arbitrator within the past one (1) year shall be eligible to stand for election to the Committee in this election. Any person who is purported to be appointed to the Committee by any process between the ratification of this Amendment and the conclusion of the new elections shall immediately be removed from office. Per WP:ARBPOL, all that's needed to force a referendum on an amendment to the policy is a petition approved by 100 editors in good standing, and then a referendum on ratification will be held. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Sitush: Theoretically by the letter of the law, a majority of Arbcom would need to ratify any vote of no confidence. The lack of a mechanism for the community to remove sitting arbs is by design not by accident, otherwise any well-organised lobby group could in theory keep removing arbs until the committee reached their preferred composition. On paper, the abolition of the committee would lead to direct rule by Jimmy Wales, but in practice I assume he'd be certain to refuse to pick up that poisoned chalice and T&S would hold the fort until a fresh election could be arranged. You may disagree with the current committee, but the alternatives would be a disaster. (Bear in mind that the infrastructure doesn't exist to hold a fresh election, even if we wanted one; we'd need to go cap-in-hand to Jan Eissfeldt asking him to give us temporary access to SecurePoll.)

Talk of votes of no confidence is way premature, given that we haven't heard from either party. For all we know Ritchie333 will say "they caught me bang to rights"; my issue here is with the poor communications from the current committee, not necessarily with their actions. ‑ Iridescent 07:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Iridescent: No, read the arbitration policy: All that's needed to force a referendum is 100 signatures on a petition. Ratification referenda pass if the following conditions are met: (1) A simple majority of votes and (2) at least 100 supports. The moment it crosses that threshold, the amendment is ratified. The Committee itself has no role in it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Iridescent, I totally agree. I have no reason to question the Committee's intentions here, just their communication methods do not work. —Kusma (t·c) 07:40, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I was asking a question. I certainly wouldn't do it. - Sitush (talk) 08:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Kusma: I have no reason to question their intentions either. But I have no confidence in their ability to arbitrate in conformance either with the arbitration policy or the expectations of the community. Intentions don't even enter into it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I have confidence in the Committee but will urge them to proactively look into the issue of improving communication. Earlier it seemed to be AGK alone (Admin Security circular + GSM) but now, it seems to be affecting other members too. ∯WBG^converse 07:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Anyone wanting the current committee disbanded should listen to Iridescent's wise words - and be mindful both of what you ask for and of what you're likely to get. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there'd be any harm at all in opening up a site-wide discussion covering all current events, including this, Framgate, the various retirements and inactive individuals, leading to a skeleton committee etc. And if the community didn't "get they ask for" then I suppose that community would move on or take Wikipedia's content elsewhere. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 09:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

The idea of a fork to take Wikipedia's content elsewhere is one that keeps coming up, but it's just a fantasy that's got no chance of happening. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:40, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but it's always good to get a handle on these things. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I guess the more it gets talked about the more likely it is to happen. It's good to talk. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 10:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, this has been a major problem with the current ArbCom. Remember the "admins must enable 2FA, oh no, you misunderstood us" disaster? This tends to be a lot worse with in camera decisions, and unclear wording often gets fixed during open cases. Arbcom should probably either (a) run all communications by some trusted people (clerks, functionaries, ex-arbs) to doublecheck they say what they mean or (b) rely on this "wiki" technology some more, I have heard it works great. —Kusma (t·c) 07:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I would be curious to know if the circumstances of this case bear on the resignation of RickinBaltimore.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I note that Ritchie333 was active just an hour before the announcement, then retired after it. This does seem consistent with something about the announcement itself being surprising in some way. Κσυπ Cyp   07:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Just noting that I'm pretty disgusted by a whole bunch of elements of this mess. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comments about poor communication noted. I can't speak for the others, but I am rather tired and demotivated by events this year. Under the circumstances it is difficult to give your best. I don't think we communicated enough with Richie about this. There was an intention, but it seems it got missed. And we struggled to articulate promptly and clearly our thinking to the community. I am attempting to keep motivated on the Committee, but it is very difficult. The expectation that we don't just do the job, but that we do it perfectly and accept abuse and insults with a shrug of the shoulder can be a bit much to take when you are tired and dispirited, as such, to avoid disappointing any more members of the community by struggling on when tired I am going to take a break for a while. I do intend to come back, and when I do I will endeavour to communicate more clearly and with a more stoic attitude in the face of the usual ArbCom criticism. SilkTork (talk) 11:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

  @SilkTork: A thoroughly understandable reaction. You folk simply don't deserve the shit that's increasingly being thrown at you. You've volunteered for a role that I wouldn't do even for significant cash, and I want you to know that at least one of us is grateful to you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

  I don't think we communicated enough with Richie about this. There was an intention, but it seems it got missed. and as a consequence we have now lost a fine contributor who has been dismissed by some Arbs as an aggressor and who clearly feels that the situation has been misrepresented and who has no public right of reply, even if he did decide to return, which is very unlikely at this point. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 11:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

  SilkTork, I wholly understand that you are feeling tired and demotivated. You volunteered for a terrible job and are still doing it, which is admirable in itself. Every time I do criticise ArbCom, I do feel a slight amount of guilt for not being willing to do the job myself. But I think some of the criticism is people trying to help you by saying what you could do better, and you might be more successful by including the community more in your deliberations. Anyway, enjoy your break! —Kusma (t·c) 12:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

  SilkTork, It is ridiculous, the (usually after action) demands put on the volunteer committee. And they are often put as different multiple demands, in the most wikilawerly, or just poor way. There seems to be insistence what we need is both law and bureaucracy, when both are fundamentally inimical to the project and to the project's consensus. Here the ctte acted both in its remit and relative to the issue in decent order. Some seem convinced they would always do everything perfectly with perfect communication, but such a thing is a false god (or a lie). Here, what you had is evidently two editors (one an admin, who is required to know and act better) whose interaction needed addressing and the committee addressed it in a relatively restrained way, limiting dragging anyone through the public mud. Perfect, no, but it will never be, and can never be perfect. (And all of us have to decide every day to either live with the imperfections here or leave.) People just have to forgive lack of perfection, and we will always need to forgive ourselves, too. People also need to realize that when they are not elected to sit in the decision making role, it's not their decision and it won't be done the way they would do it, and reach the conclusion they would always reach.

  But really enjoy your time away, that's the thing to do. Good for you. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

  I'm not seeing anyone here claiming that decision made wasn't correct, but I am seeing plenty of criticism (mostly constructive) of the manner in which it was conducted and the manner in which is has been (mis)communicated. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 12:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

  In any RL scenario, the acceptable botch-up-rate is inversely proportional to the amount of power, vested in them. This was an easily justifiable decision but that you failed to communicate enough with one of the recipients is quite fatal, irrespective of the merits and on the top of that, it took 4 arbitrators to clarify that it was indeed meant to be an asymmetric sanction, in its spirits. This edition of the committee seems to be performing awfully; in the last ~4 years I don't recall such consistent pattern of mistakes and blowouts. ∯WBG^converse 12:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Here are just two of my difficulties here.

1. A case heard in secret that comes up with a resolution of an interaction ban has by definition not uncovered any intolerable behaviour. If it had, you'd have desysopped Ritchie and/or banned one or both of the parties. As such, I cannot understand why you would decide not to post more information about this case. As you have just seen from the Fram case, in-camera proceedings are detested by the community and you should not commit to them for anything less than the most serious cases.
2. - and this one's the bigger one. Having come to an offwiki decision about this case, the rights and wrongs of which are arguable (and being argued above), the way you worded the interaction bans was totally unnecessary. You could have just announced a two-way iBan, given that is the result. If you wanted to admonish Ritchie, you should have admonished him. This was like a sly dig. A wink to those in the know.

Just horrible. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Disagree not 'horrible', which also seems like drama fueling word. The committee's statement basically has all the information, and while they can anticipate some questions, if they did not anticipate your question, just ask, but if you want all the damning details just know you are not likely to get it out of reasonable and wise propriety and well placed, policy empowered, elected to perform, discretion.

We know from the statement: 1) there was interaction; 2) one of the parties is an administrator; 3) the ctte decided it was in their bailiwick; 4) the ctte decided that e-mail evidence was in order; 5) the ctte decided to reveal that there was email evidence, which together with the prior interaction was sufficient to act; 6) the ctte decided it needed to be two-way (it is written as two way -- it even has the word "mutual" -- even though some seem to argue its not two-way enough). So no, not horrible in the least.Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:43, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Dweller, noting that a simple two-way iBan with a separate admonishment for Ritchie would have been a much better way (In my opinion) to handle this, and I am kicking myself for not thinking of it. Worm^TT(talk) 13:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Worm That Turned: the lack of an admonishment or any other statement setting aside a concern has left a cloud of doubt of if the committee even considered if Ritchie333 has breached the behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others component of the administrator policy, and if that itself is in need of remedy - of which ArbCom has scope to review. Will someone need to file an actual case request to get an answer to this, referring to the secret evidence you already have? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

What doubt? The committee decided in their protective function that the way to protect was the "mutual" interaction remedy, nothing more. That's not doubt about anything. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: IBans are certainly useful remedies for editor:editor issues, the separate issue of "did this administrator violate the administrator policy" and if so , does that itself require a remedy isn't clear to me for sure. A "no they didn't" or "they did, remedy is warning" would. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

But there is no reason to do so. I certainly don't doubt R as an admin (And the IBAN does not lead me to doubt) although I fully acknowledge that although R voluntarily took on heightened expectations, R is an imperfect human being, like we all are, and can fall into error. Nothing in the committee's statement says he can't function as an admin (where uninvolved of course), so there is no doubt from the quarter either. If some lone person is really in doubt about such a thing and it matters, they could begin steps of dispute resolution (which begins with more discussion) if R ever returns (as we hope) but again, I see no reason for that, and predict it would not go anywhere. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

If the committee actually reviewed this component, transparently communicating determinations (while respecting that the evidence is private) is really part of what we elect them to do. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Better than saying it, they have showed it, permission remains, even when in error, as sometimes occurs. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

A lack of that specific remedy, does not show that the matter was considered in the first place - if it wasn't considered there would also be a lack of remedy. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

No. There was an admin who is before the committee, the host of remedies exist, the proper one is selected, no other remedy was needed to protect the pedia. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Not a response to anyone just thoughts.

I don't understand how we cannot disagree with the arbs and yet support the work they are trying to do. Arbs like all people on this project have to be treated with a fundamental level of respect. Our civility policy refers to them too. At the same time, they make mistakes. Dealing with mistakes, having a forum for truly appealing a mistake might go a long way to making the community feel the issues are being respected and met. But none of this gives any of us permission to treat the arbs badly. When we vote them into place we expect we have voted for people who are doing their best. Unloading our anger, frustration on the arbs whether we agree with them or not is self-indulgent. I may guilty of this too whatever my best efforts. Of course they wear out as would any of us. Very few people are truly and long–term productive in negative environments. I'd add it's our system that does not work well. To truly understand a case the entire context must be first displayed and understood and this is not easy in a two dimensional format when what we are dealing with is the multi dimensional aspects of behaviour–editors and arbs both are disadvantaged. The arbs have to be able to do their jobs without burn out and editors have to be able to receive fair treatment which may take a revamp or relook at the the system. I too feel great frustration; we've lost some excellent editors and the arbs are wearing out. Something has to change. Littleolive oil (talk) 12:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

There seems to be a sentiment that I am supporting either the arbs or Ritchie in this statement. I am doing both. I won't judge either side; I don't know enough and I will not speculate. What I am saying is we are dealing with people working in a system that probably does not work. Our civility policy does not just refer to the more superficial use of foul language; it's far deeper than that. It guides this community to an environment which can and will foster collaboration. Attacks on anyone won't support that kind of environment. And what is hardest perhaps is to admit to mistakes and correct them and as a community to foster a culture that admits to multiple viewpoints. It takes a far bigger person to admit to a mistake than to not; I wish we could honour that fact. Littleolive oil (talk) 14:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

a minority viewpoint

ArbCom did the right thing, it is not in the same universe to what T&S pulled with Fram, and the committee does not deserve the intense criticism it's receiving here. I am sorry the decision upset Ritchie and I hope he will return, but sometimes, for the good of both the encyclopedia and the individual editors it's necessary to ask two editors to leave each other alone. Multiple people asked nicely, but the message was not received. Ultimately this was a failure of the community to fix the problem, and when the community fails to fix a problem with editor/admin behavior, it falls to ArbCom to fix it. Well, this is ArbCom trying to fix what the community didn't or couldn't fix it. If you don't like the way they handled it, then get it fixed before ArbCom has to. Because if you let problematic behavior fester and then yell at the committee when they try to address it, the committee is going to be more likely to avoid fixing it, and if the committee doesn't fix it, the WMF will have no choice but do it themselves, and I for one don't want them in that role. Let ArbCom do its job, and yes, this is one of their jobs. 28bytes (talk) 13:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• If one was Assuming Good Faith here, you could excuse it as merely a horribly botched operation, performed in camera for no apparent reason, and communicated appallingly badly. If one wasn't Assuming Good Faith, however ... well, @Dweller:'s "This was like a sly dig. A wink to those in the know" might be closer to the truth. Black Kite (talk) 13:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

  If it were merely a horribly botched operation they would have fixed the botched announcement and included an apology to Ritchie. That they haven't speaks volumes. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• What Littleoliveoil said (added post (edit conflict): and 28bytes). We need to treat ARBCOM members as potentially fallible colleagues, not like the representatives of a tinpot dictatorship. They're volunteers trying to do the most thankless job on Wikipedia, and all they're receiving for it at the moment is quantities of snark and bad faith.
  There's several ways to explain the wording of the ban in its entirety that don't involve any conspiracy theories. Here's one; ARBCOM receives a complaint about this dustup; they talk to both editors about it, and receive frank opinions about each; they decide Ritchie was getting more heated than was appropriate, and that a one-way IBAN was necessary; they decided that Praxidicae did not require a sanction, but to make life a little fairer for Ritchie, because one-way IBANs tend to be messy, they asked Praxidicae to accept an IBAN too. Hence the wording that was posted.
  I don't know that this was what went down, or if it was even the right decision; but until I see evidence to the contrary, I can't buy theories about ill intent. Incidentally, this very page illustrates why proceedings may have been carried out in secret; because when someone dares to say that the behavior of a positive contributor was sub-par, it attracts howls of protest from the peanut gallery, most of whom have never attempted to resolve conflicts themselves.
  There aren't many editors with the experience, judgement, and motivation to do the job of arbitration well. There's probably not more than three dozen editors I'd trust in this position (Ritchie would have been one). If we burn them out we're left with a less competent ARBCOM, or with none at all: and if that situation would please you, you haven't got Wikipedia's best interests at heart. SilkTork, enjoy your break, and I hope to see you return. Vanamonde (Talk) 13:50, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

  Well said. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

  Vanamonde93, .... when someone dares to say that the behavior of a positive contributor was sub-par, it attracts howls of protest from the peanut gallery, most of whom have never attempted to resolve conflicts themselves .... is absolutely false.

  I, TRM, Kusma et al have consistently held that this is not about the merits of Ritchie getting sanctioned ( I even wrote of the sanction being fairly expected!) but rather about ArbCom's communication problems about the reasons behind an asymmetrically worded sanction. ∯WBG^converse 14:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

  That's terrible logic, WBG. I made a generalization about responses to this incident, framgate, and a few other notable cases. You claim that I'm wrong because three editors didn't fit the pattern in one case? Vanamonde (Talk) 16:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

  Vanamonde93, how am I supposed to understand that you were making a generalization? You have devoted an entire paragraph to this very case and have additionally mentioned nothing 'bout Framgate or any other circumstances.

  Also add Iri, RdNdude, Dweller, Amakuru and Tryp as another five, who are much more concerned about the language and other aspects of communication, than the merits of the IBan. ∯WBG^converse 17:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, I am. I also agree very much with what Dweller has been saying. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• I see two possibilities, either the ArbCom acted knowing the firestorm its decision would cause among a community sensitive because of similar actions by T&S, or the community's reaction caught it by surprise. Either is reasonably the subject of discussion by the community.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
• Vanamonde, your scenario seems possible/probable except that a) there's no need for secret proceedings for someone getting "more heated than was appropriate" and b) "howls of protest" are x100 for secret proceedings. I don't know what others want by posting here, but I'm not looking for anyone's burnout. I'm looking for Ritchie to get an apology, if one's due (and it seems it is) but more importantly, the principle must be that proceedings are in public and the nature of what Arbcom have told us, implictly and explicitly, is that this case should not have been held in secret. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

  No, matters are usually in public and that is what has happened with this committee, but they are not always and never have been. And it would be bad for Wikipedia and for the poor publicly pilloried Wikipedians, if the committee did not have the discretionary power they do now. And no the committee should most definitely not turn from their obligations to exercise reasoned discretion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

  In principle, proceedings should be in public. If there's a burning need they can be handled in private. It's plainly evident from the committee's responses to it that this case did not need to be handled in secrecy. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

  No. The committee's responses are not evidence of any such thing. In principle, can you accept that it's not your decision and until you are elected to face the choice to drag someone out in public it won't be your decision, and that the principles of Wikipedia are to grant the ctte has acted in reasoned good faith -- so, that no you are wrong about this case. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

  @Dweller: Are you suggesting that the two parties here should have been put through a full, public case to get an IBAN in place? If not, what other public process could have been used? GoldenRing (talk) 15:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

  @Dweller: That all proceedings should be public is a good principle, in principle. It's not always possible in practice, and Tony explains why more eloquently than I could. There's an assumption in your statement that I cannot get behind; that only private evidence allows for a private case. I think there's other legitimate reasons; the ability to be completely frank with a trusted set of arbiters is one; the desire to not deal with the peanut gallery is another. Why should individuals desire public proceedings, when a lot of what the public brings to them is abuse? Vanamonde (Talk) 16:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• Where's the evidence that one-way IBANs are messy? I'm under one right now and beside the then-committee handled it, the ban itself has been absolutely without issue, quite nice actually. No, this is 100% to do with secret proceedings and pointed wording. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 14:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

  Your one-way IBAN is likely the exception that proves the rule. One-way IBANs are easy to game; they are ideal solutions only where the user who isn't sanctioned can be trusted not to game them, or to accidentally make them difficult to abide by. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

  Nonsense. Demonstrate the fact that IBANs are messy. Otherwise your input on this is not required. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 23:07, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

  Oh please. The evidence is strewn over the ANI archives, and objections on these grounds are brought up every time a one-way IBAN on an experienced editor is concerned; including at the discussion of your IBAN, where I don't see you objecting. And I will leave it up to those users who do not continually disparage me to decide when my input is unhelpful. Last I checked several users thanked me for the above statements, so your diagnosis isn't shared by many. Karellen93 (talk) (Vanamonde93's alternative account) 00:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with Vanamonde93’s statement, and particularly emphasize that the response on this page demonstrates why secret proceedings were chosen. The community had a chance to deal with this unfortunate issue 9 months ago, and the solution was, and I’m not even joking “Can’t we all just get along?”. I like and respect Ritchie a lot. He and I have worked closing together and I have substantial respect for him. One of the reasons I have that respect for him is that he would never have taken part in anything like we’re seeing here: he understood that sometimes things needed to be handled discreetly and there were countless times where he would work behind the scenes to resolve disputes. While I don’t think he likes the outcome here, we have no evidence he even wanted a public case. On the flip side, why would anyone who wants an IBAN from a popular administrator file a public case if this is the response they’d get. The huge irony here is that in responding this way, those who oppose the secrecy are making it more likely because no one in their right mind would open a public case request after seeing this response.
  There can be legitimate critiques of ArbCom, but acting when the community has refused to act is squarely within its remit. Maybe the wording could have been better, but I think the sanction itself will be for the best of both Ritchie and Praxidicae if Ritchie returns, which I really hope he does. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:50, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

  @TonyBallioni: I see from the original discussion that you and I both !voted in favour of the IBAN, which would have definitely been a sensible outcome even then. But a number of editors felt it was premature or unnecessary punishment. If the same issue had been raised at ANI again in the nine months since, we might well have seen consensus for the IBAN without need for ArbCom involvement and without the drama we're seeing here, as people are more likely to act on a clear repeated pattern. As an aside, I personally think we should try to get around this stigma regarding IBANs, and remove any association with "punishment" or wrongdoing, simply acknowledging that in a world of 7 billion people, and the 25 quintillion two-way relationships that come with that, not every pair of individuals gets along. If one party is actually engaging in personal attacks, and the other is not, then apply a separate sanction on that user only, but keep the IBAN as a blame-free two-way sanction. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:09, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• 28bytes, I personally have no problem with the decision itself, and I don't think you're necessarily in a minority over that - both Ritchie and Praxi seem to have long-agreed that they needed to stay away from each other. I'm also perfectly happy to assume good faith in ArbCom over this. I just think the communication was poor, in reducing what was essentially a mutual-benefit IBAN into a blame-game where it looked like a punishment imposed on Ritchie, and based on in camera proceedings which are opaque to all.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Planning ahead

Three quick comments, without commenting on this specific case:

1. There are some times when ArbCom really does need to handle a matter discreetly and just announce the result. I can think of more than one such situation that arose during my tenure. If the Committee were prohibited from taking any action without an on-wiki case or a full public explanation, then either urgent problems would go unresolved, or ironically it would be necessary for the Committee to forward them to Trust & Safety to resolve them. So a flat prohibition against ArbCom's doing anything without a case is a really bad idea.
2. There is no time for a special election to pick additional arbitrators (unless we wanted to go with a sharply truncated election process, which has its own drawbacks). It is already August. By the time we collectively decided to proceed with a special election it would be later in August. We typically take a few weeks to organize the election and invite people to run, and then another few weeks for the candidate question period, and then a couple of weeks to vote. By the time the new arbitrators were selected it would be October in the most optimistic scenario—just when we'd be gearing up for the regular annual election.
3. As I opined in last year's RfC, I don't think it makes a lot of difference whether there are 13 or 15 arbitrators, but I anticipate a decision to return to 15 this year. That means there will be 9 vacancies to fill in this year's election, many of which do not have incumbents; I hope there will be a robust pool of candidates. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

This section has gone far enough. Ritchie, I presume you felt this area was covered by WP:BANEX as it was an arbitration page, or perhaps you are looking for "martyrdom", either way, I am certain that any further breaches here will be met with swift escalating blocks. This iBan was the correct decision, there is bad blood between you and Praxidicae, and neither can interact well with the other. WormTT(talk) 21:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Response Since Arbcom didn't or couldn't discuss anything with me in private, I'm posting my main email to them here in the hope somebody else can understand what I'm talking about. The opening email from Arbcom basically said, neutrally and politely "Can you give some background behind these diffs?" So I did. The email, verbatim, is as follows: 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Manifestation&diff=905954108&oldid=905951738 Praxidicae tagged an article for copyright violation. I agreed with their analysis, and redacted the parts of the article in question. Manifestation later pointed out I had incorrectly redacted the lead, which was not a copyvio, so I restored it. 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Homewood&diff=next&oldid=906557291 I saw Bill Homewood's article tagged for G11 on my usual rounds at CAT:CSD. I didn't think it met the criteria, so removed it. I didn't think Praxidicae's tagging of the article with a summary "gutting all the unsourced promotional trash" (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Homewood&diff=906557254&oldid=906556535) was civil and polite, and referring to a new editor's good-faith creation on a (presumably) notable person as "promotional trash" falls below the standard of respect we should treat fellow editors, in my view. 3. (discussion about Bill Homewood generally) I thought Praxidicae's conduct in the thread, starting "Since my removal of a bunch of totally unsourced puffery on a BLP is challenged" was confrontational and unlikely to lead to a satisfactory conclusion. After one comment, where I pointed out that they really should try and improve the article instead of leaving aggressive messages, I questioned why, if they had retired from the project (per the polemic on their user page "I have no interest in helping a project that willfully allows and condones harassment, intimidation and stalking."), why were they arguing with me here? I then disengaged from the discussion as it clearly was not going anywhere. 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Praxidicae&diff=906842782&oldid=903930334 This follows on from 3, though it is more me getting cross generally with editors who put "This editor has retired due to Framgate" and then carry on editing. While editors are free to quit the project, if they carry on editing regardless then nobody will take their retirement seriously. I think I have called The Rambling Man out for similar behaviour. Anyway, blanking their user page was a stupid and idiotic thing to do, and I took the view if it was reverted (as it was) I would leave it be. 5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ritchie333&diff=907073626&oldid=907073075 This is my personal opinion of Praxidicae following an unsolicited message they left on my talk page. I think it is civil and polite, if blunt and forthright. From my point of view, I feel like I have been bullied by Praxidicae. I feel hurt and upset about how somebody can be so spiteful and malicious simply by somebody disagreeing with them and thinking that articles should be improved and not deleted, and how nobody else seems to understand my point of view. I don't want to interact them again and as you have probably seen, I have asked Praxidicae to stay off my talk page and not edit there. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ritchie333&diff=next&oldid=907109464). I apologise for rising to the bait on occasion and responding in kind to an argument; however, more often than not I agree with their deletion tags and delete the pages as requested. If you think my level of conduct falls below the expected standard of administrators, I'll draw your attention to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ritchie333/Recall - if two editors on that list tell me to resign, I will do so "under a cloud" and would not be able to-regain the tools without a fresh RfA. As you can also see from this message (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vermont&diff=prev&oldid=907130397) I have semi-retired from the project. I have a GA review to finish; but beyond that I don't feel like participating for a while. Not wishing to gather a sympathy vote, (Redacted) I come onto WP to learn about new things, write articles and research topics, and if it gets to the stage where I feel harassed and bullied by another editor with no obvious course of appeal, I am completely unmotivated to participate. In the wider world, I feel it's impossible for a man to claim they're being bullied by a woman and for it to be taken seriously. As I said, I will admit fault for responding in kind in a heated discussion; administrators are expected to set a good example and calm down discussions and become trustworthy. However, to give you an example of where the conflict is, I have reviewed a couple of Praxidicae's edits from today and can give the following example: At 12:42, the user Malik774 added a link to a Pakistani blog / news site that documented Imran Khan's speech at the Capital Centre, Landover, Maryland (https://www.newpakweb.com/imran-khan-speech-capital-one-arena-wc/) (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Capital_Centre&diff=prev&oldid=907665285). While I do not recognise NewPakWeb as a traditional reliable source, I am aware that the standard for online journalism in Pakistan is not as established as in the West, and consequently sites like this are left to fill the gap. Therefore, the editor is of low value and seems to be only here to cite from their favourite news site, this sounds like a good faith edit. At 13:38, Praxidicae reverts without comment, using the rollback tool (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Capital_Centre&diff=next&oldid=907665285) with no edit summary or messages on Malik774's talk page. In my opinion, Malik774 is simply an inexperienced user attempt to add an event to an article and supplying a source. It does not look like vandalism, the account is not blocked, and none of the other exceptions for rollback appear to apply. Other editors do not agree with this view and would dismiss the edits as "SPAM" without a further comment. In my opinion, a discussion is required; it may require escalation to ANI as a single-purpose editor case, but we are not at that stage yet. Additional: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Specht Under normal circumstances I would decline the G11 tag and add citations to the Broadway World and Los Angles Times that I discovered via a quick Google News search. This just happened to be the first article I look at at CAT:CSD just now; experience has told me that biographies of women are far more likely to be incorrectly tagged for deletion than just about any other subject. I got a "thanks for your feedback" pro-forma email from Arbcom and nothing else whatsoever. I don't know what the problem is from their end, or even if they understand what the problem is at my end, which is simply - don't tag new users' articles for deletion with mild insults and don't abuse the rollback tool. Since this view cuts right to the heart of my views as expressed at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ritchie333, if Arbcom don't want me doing it - then there is no point me editing here and I'll get on with my family, kids, paid work and whatever else brings me happiness in life. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC) Without any comments about the diffs and the merits, the last paragraph is just awful. If it is indeed true that Ritchie and ArbCom had exchanged no more mails, some of the arbs were flatly lying. ∯WBGconverse 17:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC) In fact, I would call the whole motion, which states there was "discussion" with Ritchie, patently false in light of this revelation. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC) And now a portion of Ritchie's statement here has been revdel'd, ostensibly for "privacy" reasons, but the bit removed only implicates Ritchie's privacy. This is a highly experienced editor who posted this thoughtful, intelligent piece, and you're treating this like it's some teenager posting his home address for no good reason. Ritchie knows exactly what he's doing. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC) Sorry but that's just stupid. Even smart, 'highly experienced' people fuck up all the time. Since the statement was evidently just a copy of an email, it's entirely plausible that Ritchie333 forgot or didn't consider the implications of what they were posting. Especially since they seem to be distressed or unhappy about the situation so may not be in the right frame of mind. If Ritchie333 really wants this info to be public and you are correct it only affects their privacy, I'd support them being able to add it back. But this is the internet. It may already be too late to stop it being easy to find with a 30 seconds search. But maybe it's not and the longer it stays up the more likely it will be. It's entirely reasonable to remove the info, while seeking clarification from the editor whether they're sure. If that happened, and I'm hoping it did, it should have happened in private since making a big deal over it like you did just increases the chance people are going to be hunting for it. And yes for this reason I considered not posting this, but decided the harm was already done with your post. Of course the rev-deletion is always going to be visible in the logs, but there's nothing like someone yelling at us that 'hey there's a secret you should hunt down' to ensure we notice. Nil Einne (talk) 18:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC) P.S. I'm assuming that the rev-deletion was the part that is marked redacted and so solely in the original email. If I'm wrong, apologies, of course that's the nature of rev-deletion others can't know what you're talking about so you can expect them to be able to easily understand or accept your point. Nil Einne (talk) 18:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC) Ah perfect, someone that posted a "fire-and-forget" message like this, being retired, who clearly only came back to share this e-mail is expected to come back and re-share something. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC) Wow. Not only has my opinion of User:Praxidicae been rather considerably lowered, but so has my estimation of ArbCom. That explanation from Ritchie looks completely reasonable. And the result was an IBAN? That's quite a shock. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC) Out of respect for the folks involved I don't want to comment substantively until I read through all the histories; but until then, since it's obvious that I've seen this, I want to thank you for being so upfront, and say that this doesn't alter the respect I have for you as an editor, no matter what I may think of specific diffs. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 17:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC) So why was this all conducted in secret? Nothing needed to be secret. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 18:00, 7 August 2019 (UTC) This. Even if private evidence needed to be considered, this should have been handled as public case request. What an absolute shambles. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC) For some reasons, (not relevant to the dispute but I can't specify), I think that a private case was indeed the best way out; only if the committee had proceeded with due competence .... ∯WBGconverse 18:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC) Perhaps, perhaps not. There should be a justification on the record of why the case is being handled in this fashion. All it has to be is something like "A private proceeding having been requested and duly considered, the Committee concludes that an arbitration case involving the following parties will be held by e-mail: A.B., C.D. The reason for this is to protect the privacy of individuals participating and due to the fact that most if not all of the relevant evidence is anticipated to be off-wiki or otherwise highly sensitive." It doesn't need to disclose the specifics in such a way as to nullify the reasons for a private hearing, but there needs to be an explanation, and it should be done before the case is held. This is both so stakeholders can come forward and also so there can be an accounting of these cases. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC) That sounds very sensible. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:21, 7 August 2019 (UTC) Could a member of ArbCom respond to state whether this was the extent of the "discussion"? Within the confines of hiding behind your little 'privacy' shield, a little openness is now required from you. (And if it wasn't blindingly obvious beforehand, this is a good example of why the secret trial system is a fundamentally bad idea). - SchroCat (talk) 18:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC) Someone should probably go through User:Praxidicae's use of the rollback tool: it's the single most effective means non-admins have of driving new editors away, and diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff would seem to be some distance from being obvious vandalism and other edits where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear. I'm sure there are good reasons, but, as the behavioural guideline implies, if a reason has to be asked for...it wasn't obvious. R333—like all administrators should be and I'm sure am—has demonstrated himself perfectly willing to revoke the tool when misuse demanded it. I assume any mis/use of the tool was considered and contextualised by the committee? ——SerialNumber54129 19:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC) Someone should probably go through User:Praxidicae's use of the rollback tool Why bother with that, just tell her that for complaining about the behaviour of Ritchie333, she should fuck off. That's what you want to say, isn't it ? Why not just say it. Why not just tell people who have suffered unpleasant behaviour that if they have the sheer fucking audacity to complain, someone will come and dissect every edit, find or invent some issue, and find a new way to make their involvement with Wikipedia a sheer living hell. Nick (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2019 (UTC) Yeah, thanks Nick for the showboating. If you think your approach does anything for editor retention, or protection, then you need to go retune. And re-read WP:RB while you're at it. ——SerialNumber54129 19:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC) (edit conflict) After reviewing the diffs you provided, my conclusion is that all of them are obvious external link spamming or vandalism and that the reason for reverting is absolutely clear upon cursory inspection of the diffs. I have not reviewed any other diffs beyond the ones that you provided, and I would also advise that if anyone wishes to request removal of Praxidicae's rollback rights that they do so at an appropriate venue. This is not the correct place, especially as Praxidicae would likely be blocked for participating in it. Mz7 (talk) 19:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC) Serial Number 54129. WP:RB or did you mean WP:RBK? — Ched :  ?  — 20:07, 7 August 2019 (UTC) They're the same thing, but I saved the servers a byte there. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 20:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC) I can't tell due to the indent, but if that's to me, then no, not really. Perhaps not germane to this conversation - but they are actually 2 completely different pages. But I guess it really matters little in the whole scheme of things. — Ched :  ?  — 21:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC) Mz7, Special:Diff/909622126 is not obvious linkspamming, especially in context of the other contributions of this person. I agree that the other rollbacks are absolutely fine. But we should have been discussing this at the ArbCom case that was never initiated, or maybe at the recent ANI that didn't happen. —Kusma (t·c) 20:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC) No. We actually don't need this discussion at all. It's already caused someone to reveal personal tragedy of the most delicate and dangerous kind. Whether you agree with the reached minor remedy or not just know it is well within the bounds of reason and just stop, and if you can't accept that it might possibly be within reason, try to assume that the people who made it are good people, who did their reasonable best. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC) I do agree that this needs to stop. It's clear after reviewing all the diffs in this thread that Praxicidae and Ritchie333 don't get along. This is nothing new on Wikipedia and IBANs are a perfectly normal remedy, yet this seems to be blowing out of all proportion. ArbCom has implemented a 2-way IBAN to address the issue (all the quibbling about specific wordings aside). I'm not sure why any more diffs or evidence other than what has been provided here in this discussion are even necessary to establish this (please look at the top of this discussion for more diffs than what Ritchie provided to see some context). Both editors appear to be suffering here (though Praxicidae is silent here, presumably not wanting to violate the IBAN), and the last thing either of these editors need right now is for people to make a witch hunt out of this one way or another. Thank you. Waggie (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC) "I got a "thanks for your feedback" pro-forma email from Arbcom and nothing else whatsoever." - Strange how the motion states "After discussion with both parties," .... doesn't seem like there was any discussion with both parties or atleast not with one party anyway. –Davey2010Talk 20:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC) No, so they used the word discussion instead of 'e-mailing'. That's not even close to being strange. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC) Nonsense. That's an email each. If that was the extent of things, the term "discussion" is utterly misleading. I have asked for a member of ArbCom to clarify, but none have taken up that offer s far. - SchroCat (talk) 20:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC) The only nonsense is yours, the idea that anyone would flay someone over 'discussion' or 'e-mailing' is extremely silly or worse. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC) Get a dictionary and look up discussion then. It's fine backing ArbCom or being an apologist for them, but try and keep your mind open and flexible to differentiate the situation and the bullshit. At the moment, you don't seem to be spotting it well enough. - SchroCat (talk) 21:07, 7 August 2019 (UTC) No. If ArbCom didn't communicate with Ritchie from Ritchie's e-mail to the posting of the IBAN notice at AN, then ArbCom's characterization of a "discussion with both parties" is dishonest. That last word is key, because it's the dishonesty that is going to get ArbCom flayed, not using a different word. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC) Alanscottwalker A discussion is a continued conversation between 2 or more parties correct ? ... One email IMHO isn't a discussion and doesn't come close to being one, I'm not bothered over the terminology (ie emailing or discussion) - I'm bothered that there wasn't an actual discussion between Ritchie & Arbcom. –Davey2010Talk 21:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC) Would someone clarify — is what Richie333 said above true? If so, was the iban mainly based on the above diffs, or is it based on worse ones than listed above? Κσυπ Cyp   20:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC) Two people saying in no uncertain terms that they want absolutely nothing to do with each other is more than enough. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Necessary break after the attempt to shut down valid discussion

• WTT, I'm sorry, but there are some fundamental points here that need to be answered by ArbCom. You can't just shut it down and try to ignore it. Even one of predecessors (NYB) has commented here. It's now time for a current member of the committee to clarify things, not shove your collective heads in the sand. - SchroCat (talk) 21:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

  The section contains violations of an iBan and needs to be shut down, which I have done. As to your question regarding the amount of discussion with Ritchie, we asked for his opinion, he gave it. We were also aware of previous threads between the two, and this issue was brought to our attention in the past (I will have to check on what level of contact we had with Ritchie at the time). This was not a bolt from the blue for him and the above was a breach of the completely necessary interaction ban. Worm^TT(talk) 21:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

  • This is absolutely correct. For those not following in the "shadow docket" of this page's history, WTT {{hat}}ted this section with the outrageous claim that posting this information is a violation of Ritchie's Committee-imposed IBAN. I have no words for how disgusting this behavior is. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • So no discussion then? - SchroCat (talk) 21:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
    • We still have the nuclear option. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Section above was closed. In turn, I will hat my comments so as not to inadvertently re-open the discussion. Mkdw talk 21:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(edit conflict) I would not exactly call the above "verbatim". There are some parts omitted but I would say the substance of the emails are represented less the now redacted paragraph. The above was three separate emails sent to the committee, two of which were received by the Arbitration Committee after we sent acknowledgement that we received his response to our questions. We also clearly stated our initial email that we had been made aware of concerns about [Ritchie's] behaviour towards Praxidicae and that it was a continuation of issues brought to our attention previously in October 2018. We sent Praxidicae and Ritchie inquiry emails, they both responded, and we acknowledged receipt of their responses. If "discussion" does not accurately describe it, criticism noted. While I appreciate Ritchie's willingness to disclose his emails despite containing some deeply personal information, presumably to demonstrate the communication extent between him and ArbCom, it, my opinion, violates his IBAN. Ritchie has effectively publicized his entire opinion and criticisms about Praxidicae. Now, Praxidicae has no option to defend herself from these opinions or accusations, or offer her side of the dispute, without also violating the IBAN. Further, comments like this are exactly the reason why editors come to the Arbitration Committee privately rather than opening a public case. Failing to protect the privacy of individuals who felt they were the victims of harassment and failing to protect them from further repercussions and harassment was the entire basis for why the Wikimedia Foundation interceded. In reading this discussion and others like it, we have very little proof to show that we are capable of doing so locally. I am sure this discussion and others like it will be used against those who want local governance on matters related to long-term abuse, harassment, and incivility. (Note: I wrote this before the emails were hatted) Mkdw talk 21:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• I guess this is a position where it is appropriate for me to post the following. I want to begin by pointing out that I have repeatedly defended ArbCom when it was criticized during the Fram debacle, and called for editors who were crying for heads on spikes to dial it down and give ArbCom some breathing space. And I think that some of the comments above, about calling a vote of no confidence and so forth, to be completely over-the-top. But, that said, I'm not seeing a violation of the IBAN by Ritchie. Two arbs, both of them people whom I respect very much, have said that it was. But it seems to me to be the kind of information that Ritchie would normally be expected to post as a rebuttal to evidence against him in a case. And it seems to me that it was reasonable for him to post it here, because it sure sounds like he wasn't given enough of an opportunity to communicate it to ArbCom before ArbCom posted a public announcement that found him at fault for what may not actually have been sufficient grounds for such a finding. The worst thing that the Committee can do right now is to circle the wagons. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

  The three emails Ritchie sent to us were received between July 22 and July 24. We reviewed everything sent to us by both Praxidicae and Ritchie and reached our decision after a lengthy internal discussion (some 93 emails) and thirteen days later. Ritchie's statement was given due consideration as was the evidence and statements provided by Praxidicae. By re-posting his emails here weeks later, it only accomplishes two things: (1) places a considerable amount of pressure Praxidicae to make their statement and evidence public; (2) it forces a private dispute resolution process to become public without the consent of the others involved. It sends the message that anyone who comes to the Arbitration Committee with privacy concerns should expect the other party to go public with anything they receive if they do not like the outcome. It also says you can continue to potentially talk about another person with whom you have an IBAN as long as you're continuing to litigate your case even if a final decision has been reached. Mkdw ^talk 22:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

  I think that a great deal more pressure was unfairly put on Praxidicae by the Streisanding that resulted from the very poorly worded initial announcement from ArbCom. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

  I am sure there is some truth in that fact, but stating it as a justification and endorsement to increase the amount of potential harassment someone receives, I am pretty shocked. Mkdw ^talk 22:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

  I think a lot of us have felt shocked by the past 24 hours, as a matter of fact. I certainly do not want to argue that two wrongs make a right, so I'm with you insofar as that goes. But really, there is a serious and as-yet unrectified problem with the original announcement, and everything else that has happened originates from that. I'm reasonably sure that a simple "two-way" announcement would not have caused Ritchie to retire and would not have led to the wall of text here and would not have led to Ritchie's post here. I really do urge the Committee to revise the announcement. It will save a lot of further anger and angst. There is a take-away from this: when something that involves a complaint of harassment requires a private evaluation of evidence, a lot of care needs to go into the eventual public announcement. Otherwise, the result will be what happened here, which has benefited no one. A public announcement should not leave room for the community to see reasons to put it under a microscope. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:43, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

  I am not sure if it would be helpful or not, but I will say that the wording of the announcement was subject to internal debate and three arbitrators, including Worm That Turned and myself, wanted a neutral IBAN only statement. At the end of the day, we all signed our name to it so we all take responsibility for it. Dweller and WTT discussed exchanged replies about the possibility of a neutral IBAN statement and a separate admonishment. At this point, I do not think a correction to that would change the situation. Mkdw ^talk 22:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

  Just noting that Mkdw seems to have confused me with Doug Weller. As the header in my userspace suggests, this is a common mistake. I'm not an Arb. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

  @Dweller: neither am I anymorel. @Mkdw: who did you mean? Doug Weller talk 14:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

  No, I am not confused. I meant Dweller. I am referring to above: [2] [3]. As Doug Weller points out, he is not an Arb either and as far as I am aware, has never discussed a neutral IBAN and separate admonishment before. Mkdw ^talk 15:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

  I do think it would help – a lot. Of course, what has already happened is water under the bridge and cannot be rewound. But I think that a revision to a neutral statement would be easy, and would be very well-received by the community. It's never too late to fix a mistake. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

  Bravo. Please tell us which Arbs voted in which way for which wording. That is certainly open material. And then we can discuss matters further. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 23:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

  To be honest, I don't think that would have made a difference - if we'd done as Dweller suggested and implemented an iban + admonishment, people would be demanding to know why there would need to be a separate admonishment, and there'd be one strain of comments wondering why an iban wasn't sanction enough, and one arguing that admonishments are toothless and useless and if we wanted a separate sanction it should've been something of substance. And if we'd done an iban alone, people would be demanding to know why the admin involved wasn't held to a higher standard (which they should!).

  I don't think the specific form of the wording matters very much - what seems to really matter to people is that they feel like they've had their say and got an opportunity to influence the outcome. That's important, but the challenge in all private actions by arbcom is that that feeling of community investment only really happens with proceedings that happen in public, and public proceedings sometimes come at a cost - it means asking people who already feel stressed and uncomfortable, and who've articulated to the committee a reasonable basis for those feelings, to subject themselves to further unpleasantness without much expectation of support or of an outcome they feel is workable. Also, because whatever we do is not just 'public' to the community, but public to the whole internet, forever - it's quite possible for the Wikipedia community to behave perfectly and yet we can still have problems going on off-site. It's kind of the whole point of private decisions that it's fine to criticize arbcom, or arbs individually, but some of the dynamic here of picking at the users involved - which always happens with this kind of thing - isn't really helpful. I don't think it's reasonable to say that if anyone wants a private discussion about a potentially public outcome, they need to be prepared to make their complaint publicly and put up with whatever anyone may choose to say about them, including in off-site venues. We need to be better than that when it comes to protecting all of our community members.

  As I said above, this really isn't related to the Fram situation at all, but I do think it underscores the need for us to launch an RfC on what the community is comfortable with in terms of private proceedings and what's realistic to actually implement - with the understandings that those processes should be sufficient to convince people who feel that they've been mistreated to use our local processes and approach our elected bodies rather than using other venues, and reasonably expect they'll get fair treatment. I expect that'll happen as we progress on the Fram case. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks Worm that turned, you did fine, and with the IBAN too, Mkdw is right on. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:09, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

  Private complaints and communication with the Committee have their place, and I wish to retain the English Wikipedia's right to solve its own problems autonomously through an elected ArbCom, but we did not elect the Committee to secretly circumvent our existing dispute resolution methods, without any notice that a situation that had been previously found by those methods not to be insoluble by normal means was being considered by the committee. Moreover, legitimate criticism has been raised here with respect to both the fairness of the announcement and the procedures the Committee followed. Now we are not to be allowed to discuss in the one venue available to us. This is Star Chamber stuff. Injustice, whether real or merely perceived, in responding to a claim of harassment cheapens all claims of harassment, and it is an administrator's job to raise issues with editors who may in their view be behaving in a problematic way. I've lost confidence in the Committee not to damage the project by faulty and high-handed exercise of their authority. I support Mendaliv's call for recall of all current Committee members and expedited elections to replace them, with one suggested change to the proposal: to exclude from eligibility all editors who have served on ArbCom within the current calendar year, rather than within the past year. @Newyorkbrad: you seem to be responding to a different proposal, simply to expedite the next round of elections. Personally, I don't see any great importance in the size of the Committee: some will always be inactive, and I expect them to recuse scrupulously. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

  And I do not support a recall. This was not a Star Chamber. It was a series of mistakes. There is a difference. But the mistakes need to be corrected.--Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, it has now become a series of mistakes, as Yngvadottir points out above, that have seriously damaged the credibility of ArbCom. Black Kite (talk) 22:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, I said it was a series of mistakes. But I want to push back against the "seriously damaged" part of what you say. It's not too late to correct these mistakes. And nobody gains from demonizing anyone. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

  This is why I've not yet formalized a recall petition. I don't think we're quite there yet, but with every mistake this Committee makes, we inch progressively closer to it being appropriate and necessary to restore this community's trust in the Committee. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

  Good, thanks. But FYI I'll oppose such a recall. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

  I... really don't see why that's relevant? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:17, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

  Well, I guess it's just relevant to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

  To be clear, it's not that general discussion is unwelcome or disallowed in some way. WTT hatted an iban violation and what flowed from it - that's it. As I said above, I think a broad, non-situation-specific discussion about private hearings needs to happen - but I think we need to be really thoughtful about what that means, and what risks we might be asking people to take on by raising their issues in public. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Necessary break after the attempt to shut down valid discussion (break 1)

• If this is what the secret proceedings will look like, then good luck Fram! Did nobody think that the standard 2 way Iban text would be sufficient, given that’s what multiple arbs have said was the point? Mr Ernie (talk) 03:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  Given that apparently one side complained about harassment and the other side about bullying, that would have been the right thing to do (in the absence of a finding of fact about which complaints, if any, were justified). —Kusma (t·c) 05:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  It would probably be best if ArbCom did not conduct proceedings in private where each side has a good-faith colorable claim against the other, as seems to be the case here. Instead, arbs in isolation are deciding who is the "aggressor", something about which the community would have something to say, and are applying their own personal beliefs and views.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  That is an excellent point, one which is not getting enough attention: The idea of who gets to determine who the "aggressor" is. At present there are no standards that I know of on Wikipedia, and there is no evidence that the Committee are applying any standards that exist (i.e., rather than imposing policy by fiat, which would be a bright-line violation of the arbitration policy). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  There isn't really any such thing as a status of "aggressor", and this doesn't really have anything to do with "personal beliefs and views" (at least, not any more than a decision by a group of humans ever does). Two people who both don't like each were told they need to make their desire for non-interaction official. That's pretty much it. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  @Opabinia regalis: but that's not pretty much it at all. If it were just a simple IBAN, I don't think anyone would mind. I'm fully supportive of the 2-way IBAN, it's overdue really and for the benefit of all concerned. But Arbs have also gone on record above as saying that Ritchie "overstepped the mark" and that Praxi did not. And the sanction is clearly worded asymmetrically to reflect that. Of course, I'm perfectly prepared to accept that maybe Ritchie did overstep the mark and that some sort of warning was appropriate, I haven't looked at all the evidence and presumably you have. But let's not pretend that there is no issue here, or that there aren't legitimate questions on whether Arbcom should have considered and concluded on such a conduct issue behind closed doors rather than as a normal vanilla case. If nothign else, the fact that Ritchie is deeply upset about what happened shows that the case wasn't the cosy and open fireside chat that is implied above. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  There isn't really any such thing as a status of "aggressor" well then perhaps members of Arbcom shouldn't use such terms when referring to Ritchie. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 08:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  @Opabinia regalis:, We did find that Ritchie was the aggressor is a direct quote, not just some strawman a disgruntled editor has made up. ‑ Iridescent 08:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  And on that point, I think we have an example of the Committee's problem. In responding to this matter, a whole lot of things have been said publicly by Committee members and repeatedly Committee members have contradicted one another, suggesting that there's a poor understanding of what exactly was determined and why a particular action was taken. This is why I believe there should be a formal set of FoFs associated with these sorts of cases, even if portions need to rely on private evidence. At this point the only official decision the Committee has made is that there is an IBAN. There shouldn't be this level of disagreement as to what the findings were so quickly after a decision. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  @Opabinia: I hope that you know me as someone who is not going to go ballistic about wanting ArbCom put up in front of a firing squad, and that I at least try to see things from both sides. So please hear me that I am doing all that I can not to be sputtering in anger. I'm going to reply to all three of the Arbs who have commented most recently, and I'm going to try to be very specific in what I say to each of you. Opabinia: you said "Two people who both don't like each were told they need to make their desire for non-interaction official." Insofar as I can tell, that is what ArbCom have been trying to communicate here, as the conclusion that you, collectively, reached. If what you communicated to the community had actually reflected that, then I think the only griping you would have received would have been the garden-variety type that accompanies pretty much any decision. I personally would have been OK with that. But what happened here was a clearly asymmetric announcement that did, indeed, portray Ritchie as the "aggressor". You deny that ArbCom regarded him as such, but there is no getting around the mixed messaging that has happened. I simply cannot believe that you and your fellow Arbs do not see how some of the comments by Arbs on this talk page do in fact portray Ritchie as the aggressor and Praxicidae as the victim. You cannot have it both ways. I'm not talking about the IBAN remedy as such, so much as about the messaging about it. From what I can see, it was entirely understandable for Ritchie to feel like ArbCom took sides against him, and it's entirely appropriate for me and a great many other editors to be baffled by the absolute resistance of ArbCom to fixing the communication failures. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  I've commented before on the poor wording in messages from the arbitration committee, so I absolutely agree that a better job should be done. Nonetheless, regarding "garden-variety" griping: various vociferous objectors are raising questions of process, not just communications. Trying to review decisions by consensus is always going to be problematic, because beyond a small group, you're never going to get complete agreement, and the larger the group, the more likely there'll be some loudly vocal opposition to any action. isaacl (talk) 18:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• What a clusterfuck, and it's a prime example of why 'going star chamber' is a bad idea. You can conduct an open case and recieve some evidence from either or both party in secret - you've done it in most cases you've conducted, and this was no different. One editor thought they were being harrassed, one thought they were being bullied: from what we've seen, that looks a justifiable position, and one that would merit a neutral two-way IBAN, but as you've decided to hold the whole thing in camera you'll have to put up with us annoying proles pointing out your inadequacies in the way you've dealt with this matter. I hope Fram has another hobby he can take up for the next 10 or 11 months, as I'm not sure you're up to dealing with partially redacted information, stripped of context and without the rather valid and valuable input-by-way-of-response from Fram. I'm not sure when I've ever seen such a poor show from an ArbCom - and that's up against a fairly strong history of inadequacy! - SchroCat (talk) 07:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  Excellently put. The Committee's inadequacies and incompetences have been on full display here. This is now the most dysfunctional organ on English Wikipedia, even more so than AN/ANI is, and even more so than RfA ever was. This discussion has exposed a culture of gross negligence in the Committee. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• I am incredibly disappointed by the community's reaction to this situation. This kind of public circus of speculation was the exact kind of thing we were trying to prevent by handling this situation privately. The response here has now confirmed for anyone who wishes to report any kind of harassment that they will receive nothing but scorn and scrutiny until they are driven away entirely.
  For anyone who made the argument at the FRAMBAN discussion that the WMF should leave en.wiki alone to solve its own problems, this is conclusive evidence that we not only cannot constructively handle complaints of harassment and misbehavior, but that we, as a community, actively choose not to. Instead, we nitpick over the meaning of common-sense wording, complain that the behavior can't possibly have been that bad, and dredge up everything negative we can find to make involved parties look as bad as possible. This could have been a good opportunity to show the WMF that we are mature adults who can handle our own problems; this discussion has demonstrated exactly the opposite.
  As a community, we failed here today, and there is no doubt in my mind that the WMF will take this situation into account when making decisions about the future governance of the English Wikipedia. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • This kind of public circus of speculation was the exact kind of thing we were trying to prevent by handling this situation privately. Then stop handling these things like this. The response here has now confirmed for anyone who wishes to report any kind of harassment that they will receive nothing but scorn and scrutiny until they are driven away entirely. Not in the least. I see no calling for the alleged victim's head here. For anyone who made the argument at the FRAMBAN discussion that the WMF should leave en.wiki alone to solve its own problems, this is conclusive evidence that we not only cannot constructively handle complaints of harassment and misbehavior, but that we, as a community, actively choose not to. A false dichotomy: This argument improperly presumes that the alternative to T&S rule is "this and only this". If the Committee has been instructed by WMF that "this and only this" is the way allegations of harassment may be handled, I demand that you state as such. If they have not, state as such. This could have been a good opportunity to show the WMF that we are mature adults who can handle our own problems; this discussion has demonstrated exactly the opposite. On the contrary, it has shown that the Committee is utterly incapable of managing a basic dispute between two people in thoughtful manner reflective of the experience of its members and the institutional knowledge of the Committee as an organization. As a community, we failed here today, and there is no doubt in my mind that the WMF will take this situation into account when making decisions about the future governance of the English Wikipedia. Spreading gloom, doom, and FUD is unbecoming of a member of the Arbitration Committee. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • +Just that. Don’t blame the community for your mishandling of a matter. It’s ArbCom who dropped the ball with a bad approach, poor wording and the decision to go full star chamber. Don’t blame us when you get things wrong. - SchroCat (talk) 08:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Indeed, I find that outburst a little unseemly really. The community were heavily focused on the way in which Arbcom handled this, I don't recall anyone going after either party. Ritchie posted what Ritchie posted, and that led to further discussion because it was clear that the community had many unanswered questions. Going full tilt and accusing the community of poor behaviour is ... well, ironic. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 08:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Honestly, if you had wanted to avoid the "public circus of speculation" you shouldn't have posted a decision inviting speculation (if you couldn't tell, you should have your communications double checked by someone more familiar with the typical reactions of this community). A symmetric IBAN here would be absolutely fine (at least as a temporary solution that avoids disruption), but assigning blame without any explanation is not. You seem to currently be making up your own process for "dealing with claims of harassment", but if you want that to work, you need to take the community on board so we trust this process. If your response to our criticism is to circle the wagons and claim we are a community of petulant children, you are unlikely to succeed in de-escalating anything. As to protecting the victims, as far as I can tell, you were the first person to state that Prax had complained about harassment. I am not aware that there had even been public speculation about that before. —Kusma (t·c) 08:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
    • You seem to currently be making up your own process for "dealing with claims of harassment", but if you want that to work, you need to take the community on board so we trust this process. Moreover, and this is key, the Committee cannot be the origin of the substantive aspects of how we define "harassment". This is baked into the arbitration policy. You are free to come up with procedure as appropriate and necessary, and within certain limitations, but you are not free to create substantive policy. But as a prudential matter, you should be consulting people who actually have the knowledge and education in how this stuff works (i.e., not so-called "community safety" experts). It may surprise you to know, but there are ways of balancing the community's interest in transparency with the legitimate privacy interests of parties, and moreover, there are ways of systematizing the analysis of those privacy interests. Actually ask lawyers (i.e., plural, and not just old committee insiders who happen to have legal educations). We work with far thornier things on a daily basis. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • +1. As far as I can see the only person here who has received nothing but scorn and scrutiny until they are driven away entirely is the person that you have driven away entirely with your scorn and scrutiny. ‑ Iridescent 08:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • +1. I agree with every comment above, worded better than I could, by us "circus". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • That's quite enough, Premeditated Chaos. I would like to be able to acknowledge the self-sacrifice that Wikipedians make when volunteering for the committee. But that role comes with a level of responsibility and expectation above and beyond mere editors, mere admins, or mere bureaucrats. There is no concern regarding Praxidicae, Ritchie333, or an IBAN here. There is a small contingent of aware editors who are concerned about your communication and handling of the matter.
    Your wording, PMC, was inadequate. Instead of hiding behind a false facade of moral concern, own up to it. The common-sense definition of "agreed" is "had a choice". You say Praxidicae didn't have a choice. Well which is it? Cause it can't be both. If it's the former, say it. If it's the latter, fix it. Don't whine at us for questioning you about it. The common-sense definition of "discussion" is "spoke with". Ritchie asserts that you (ArbCom), have not spoken with him in any meaningful capacity since his reply e-mails. You say you had a discussion with both parties. Well which is it? Cause it can't be both. If it's the former, apologize. If it's the latter, then say that Ritchie's wrong.
    It is you who are being scrutinized. It is you evading that, apparent, threat. You have failed. You screwed this up. If you lack the constitution to handle the criticism for it, please, do everyone a favour, and quit. Drop the Fram case. Because if this is how you handle a simple matter, than whatever stunt you pull with Fram is going to end in disaster. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Obviously you are a part of the community and failed for your lack of competence coupled with a total inability to recognise your own errors and remedy them. And, looking at your own circus, wherein each fucking member is directly contradicting one another but yet unanimously voted on a dubious piece of text, may be a more worthful exercise. ∯WBG^converse 09:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • PMC, you say we "cannot constructively handle complaints of harassment and misbehavior", yet neither harassment nor misbehavior are mentioned in the remedy. The committee for some reason deliberately chose to use wording that implies some guilt on Ritchie's part, but without explicitly saying so, or stating what he's guilty of. I can accept that as a good faith mistake, but it should be clear to you by now that it was a mistake. Vague sanctions which are subject to multiple interpretations, even by those who wrote them, do not represent the community getting its house in order. My advice for you is to stop attacking us, go back to your mailing list today, and do the following:
    1. Reword the IBAN so that it states simply "After discussion with both parties, the Committee resolves that Ritchie333 and Praxidicae are indefinitely banned from interacting with each other, anywhere on the English Wikipedia. This is subject to the usual exceptions."
    2. If the committee has found that Ritchie has done something wrong, announce that in a separate announcement, with its own Support/Oppose votes. Preferably also say what he's guilty of, subject to any privacy concerns.

    The Worm That Turns says above that they wish the committee had handled it in this manner, so is there any reason why you can't change it now? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

    • neither harassment nor misbehavior are mentioned in the remedy This times a thousand! This is far more important and central to this whole issue than anybody seems to understand. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

      @PMC: I want to be very specific in how I reply to what you have said. First of all, I agree with pretty much everything that the editors above me have said. But addressing you, PMC, directly, I take note of your saying that "This kind of public circus of speculation was the exact kind of thing we were trying to prevent by handling this situation privately." You need to understand that communication matters, that choice of words matters. The editing community is not acting like some kind of public circus because we are a bunch of internet trolls. We are responding rationally to what you, yourself, wrote. If any lesson is to be learned from what happened here, it is that it matters very much how ArbCom announces decisions that were, appropriately it seems, handled in private, because a flawed announcement will result in a community reaction that Streisands the problem in a way that does, indeed, serve the interests of preventing harassment very badly. You said earlier that you crafted the wording of the announcement, and other Arbs have said that there was initially some discussion of alternative ways of saying it but that your wording ended up being agreed to. You have said earlier that you feel very strongly that you do not want to create the appearance of a false equivalence when in fact one party was primarily at fault and the other party was primarily a victim. In principle, I agree with that. But please understand that your wording is at the very core of what has caused all the unpleasantness here. That is fixable, but you have to be willing to fix it. I'm going to say something very harsh now, and I know that it is harsh. Your comment above shows a lack of maturity. You need to get over it, and take some ownership of what has gone wrong. If you endorse a sensible revision of the announcement, I'm confident that your colleagues will support it. You have a serious responsibility right now. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• I want to be clear that I support PMC's statement. I believe the mutual interaction ban and separate admonishment would have been a better solution, but that doesn't mean the editors who were subject to the motion should then be subject to the sorts of attacks they have received here and off wiki. I don't believe I've ever used the word "toxic" on wiki before, since I remember the word itself becoming toxic after a certain 2014 Wikimania speech, but toxicity is what I'm seeing here. Ritchie and Praxidicae are toxic towards one another - and by that I mean that their interaction do not end productively. There are members of the community who have decided that Arbcom can do no right, their criticism has stopped being productive.
  In our quest for transparency, I believe the Wikimedia community has fallen into the hole of being invasive. Arbcom is not equipped to handle these issues but is trying to do so because no one else in the community can. We, as a community, need to work out a solution for that issue. Worm^TT(talk) 10:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "There are members of the community who have decided that Arbcom can do no right, their criticism has stopped being productive". Has it not crossed your collective minds that it is not us who is at fault, but ArbCom? Have you not considered that you are the ones who have been in error here, not the bloody proles? Have you considered that it is ArbCom that is bucking the norm here, not us? That it is ArbCom who have been at fault in method, approach and wording, not us? The mix of arrogance and incompetence I'm getting from this is laughable.
    Again, there was nothing to stop this case being held as normal, but with the committe considering some informtion from each party in private. There has been nothing demonstrated by any of you that this needed to be held as a star chamber. - SchroCat (talk) 11:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Has it crossed your mind that you are wrong? The use of "proles" to describe oneself, surely suggests having a silly chip on the shoulder. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
      • "a silly chip"? Nope. Have I considered I am wrong? I constantly do, and I find it refreshing to challenge myself. I hope you do the same sometime. - SchroCat (talk) 11:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
        • Well good, because you are wrong. And WTT is right. Certainly, there is no reason to question whether he is also self-reflective. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
          • (edit conflict) Ever thought you may be wrong? And I've not questioned whether WTT himself has self-reflected: I asked if you did (please feel free to read again and question yourself if you've just jumped to an erroneous conclusion). I also asked if the committee as a whole did. Now, if you've had enough having a go at me, then please focus on the role of ArbCom, which is what this thread is actually about. - SchroCat (talk) 11:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

    SchroCat, Of course I am aware of failings on the part of the committee. But when I'm also aware of places of what's gone on behind the scenes and what led to the conclusion. I don't think any of us are claiming to be infallible, and in about 3 months, you'll be able to have a say in the individuals who will be taking the these questions forward. As NYB points out above, there will be probably be 9 seats available - it is going to be a very different commmittee. Worm^TT(talk) 11:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

    Was there any reason why the case could not have been held largely in public, as normal, with some information seen in private? Can you see that it's this star chamber approach that riles people most? It makes it worse when the announcement appears to be flawed, and the Arbs cannot give a co-ordinated response to explain things. - SchroCat (talk) 11:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

    Of course I am aware of failings on the part of the committee. Those are good words to use, but when there are no actions to match those words, they lose a great deal of value, as does the Committee, on whose behalf you speak. Please stop devaluing the Committee. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  • There are members of the community who have decided that Arbcom can do no right, their criticism has stopped being productive. Have you ever stopped to actually read the stuff I type? I'm not pulling this stuff out of my hat. Issues of jurisdiction, of actually following the arbitration policy, of actually holding hearings and keeping organized records, of publishing things that are appropriate to publish, and so on. I'm trying to give this Committee, in reasonable chunks, the benefit of someone who is involved in functional dispute resolution processes for a living. It is shameful and downright depressing to have a member of the Committee be this dismissive of valid, reasoned, nuanced words from experienced people. In our quest for transparency, I believe the Wikimedia community has fallen into the hole of being invasive. This is quite possibly the worst thing you could be saying right now. What quest for transparency are you on? Because the Committee is clearly holding the map upside-down if that's where they're going. And like PMC's shambles of a comment above, you make the same fallacy of drawing a false dichotomy, between privacy and invasiveness. The Committee, as an official body, is not entitled to privacy. It is required to be transparent. If you look at the last dozen or so posts on this page, the only people really even talking about the parties anymore are arbitrators. The Committee, in continually bringing this back to the need to protect one of the parties (despite repeatedly drawing more and more attention to that party) has all the appearances of having utterly lost the plot. Arbcom is not equipped to handle these issues but is trying to do so because no one else in the community can. We've been doing everything we can to help you handle it in a thoughtful, appropriate manner. The problem is you aren't listening. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

    Mendaliv, Regarding my "quest for transparency" comment, I was referring to the goal of the wikipedia community. I don't think I'm wrong in saying that we (the community) want transparency, freedom of information and so on, it's tied into the very nature of the project. However, Arbcom deals with the stuff that can't be transparent in the same way. If you believe you're simply trying to help with process, I'm certainly willing to listen, though it is getting lost in the noise here. Can I recommend a detour to my talk page? Worm^TT(talk) 11:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

    I'll organize some thoughts and come over there later. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

    Mendaliv Please remember, few of us a lawyers. From what I have seen, you are. Many of the communication issues appear to be due to well meaning attempts by Arbcom to cover every possible avenue and so making simple matters complicated. Don't make this a place where only lawyers (real and wiki) are the only people who can contribute. Keep It Simple! Leaky caldron (talk) 13:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

    @Leaky caldron: I'm no lawyer, but it seems trivially obvious to me that the Arbcom statement is ambiguous and unclear in its scope. The very fact that individual Arbcom members have given different accounts of what it means on this page (some say it's an IBAN only, others say there's a rebuke of Ritchie contained therein) demonstrate that it's unclear. For me at least, and I suspect for many others, that ambiguity is the biggest reason why I'm annoyed about this. I don't mind Arbcom rebuking Ritchie, if they feel there's sound reason for it. I don't mind them imposing an IBAN. Nobody expects Arbcom statements to be written in legalese, or only accessible to those with law skills, but surely it's not too much to ask that the statements be clear and unambiguous? While I appreciate PMC and WTT's continuing engagement on this page, and I condemn anyone who may have launched personal attacks against them, I still remain disappointed that they have not grasped the fundamental problem here despite numerous community veterans and admins saying there's an issue. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

    @WormTT: I want to be very specific in what I say to you. I agree with the concept that ArbCom, and not T&S, should be the controlling body here, and I agree with the concept that there are things that ArbCom should handle in private. And in being blunt in what I say here, my intention is to make those very things work better, because this is something where some serious constructive criticism is grievously needed. For me, this isn't about taking away ArbCom's authority to handle cases privately, and it isn't about voting anyone out of office. It's about the right way and the wrong way to communicate findings to the community. What you describe as your initial feelings about the right way to announce it were correct. We would all be a lot better off if your preferred approach had been used instead of PMC's. I've been thinking hard about this, and I have a feeling that one of the more meta problems that the community will have to discuss and deal with is the gendering of how people perceive these kinds of editor conflicts. And I'm not saying that in a one-side-is-wrong-and-the-other-side-is-right way: it's really something where we all need to be on the same team. But in this individual instance, ArbCom needs to stop circling the wagons. Circling the wagons is what I really am seeing here. I've seen it before (including the stink-fest that erupted during the GMO case after I got blocked), and it always ends badly for ArbCom. The best way for ArbCom to take control from T&S is to show a willingness to course-correct right now. Circling the wagons does not show strength. Fixing what is broken does. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Worm That Turned, What the committee has done, here, is within reason. (although, yes, everything can always be improved). And yes, you will always have detractors. I have been watching this ctte since I was dragged to it in a minor way years ago, and this may be apocryphal but I don't think a year has gone by without 'this year is the worst committee ever' from someone. --Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Probably, but when my football team loses a match I don't say "you are the worst team ever", though I may say "You played like crap today, do better next time". Indeed, compared to ArbComs of the past, this one is mostly comprised of people I actually respect, rather than ones that make me roll my eyes. But without stretching the analogy too far, this has been like the team losing 5-0 and the manager blaming the fans for not being supportive enough. Black Kite (talk) 11:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• I am sad that right after Framapalooza, Arbcom have collectively decided the absolute best way to resolve the next interaction issue that came along was to change their own processes and do this one on the downlow and promptly fuck it up. The fact Ritchie and Prax are both high-volume editors (and one an admin) increases the volume of opinions that will be thrown in, and the scrutiny, and the potential fallout should things be handled poorly. Were Ritchie and Praxicadae's interactions toxic? Absolutely. That is clear to see from just the diffs above. Neither party covered themselves in glory. Was an interaction ban necessary? Maybe, although I would expect an administrator to be able to talk to anyone civilly and if there's sufficient evidence that they can't do so, they probably shouldn't be an admin. Importantly, was an Arbcom-imposed formal interaction ban necessary? Before Framorama, probably not. Certainly not at this point; before May 2019, Arbcom would have bounced this back to ANI or AN and tell both users to explore less formal dispute resolution measures first, such as a standard two-way interaction ban, or just act like real adults do, avoid one another and pretend nothing is wrong. The fact that they did not do any of these things and went immediately to Code Red is, I suspect, because after Framageddon, the collective editors of Arbcom feel a need to prove to the WMF that they are competent and can manage disputes without creating megabytes of drama and causing more hurt and damage than if they had done nothing. Well done on that count guys. And did this need to be done in private? I really can't see why, at least based on what Ritchie has shared. It's all on-wiki diffs, there's no outing, the "privacy" thing should be used where someone's privacy is actually an issue. On a further note, perhaps you need to look at which of your team has the ability to write sensitive, evenly-worded statements, and get them to write you some sensitive, evenly-worded statements. Whatever text generator is producing the statements at the moment is not functioning correctly. Fish+Karate 11:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Given that one message that came through from the Frama-superlative-X was, "We would have been okay with this if our local ArbCom had done it; it might have been done in secret but at least it would be our local ArbCom who are accountable to us that had done it," I'm not all that surprised that the next time something like it came along, ArbCom tried to handle it locally, with a process that mixed private hearings with as much transparency as they felt they could give. Some people on this thread need to recognise that if they harangue the committee to the point where none of them want to deal with this stuff, it will go straight back to T&S. GoldenRing (talk) 12:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • (e/c) Fish and karate, Not sure if that is a reply to me but it appears indented that way, so, according to the ctte they have been made aware of this disruptive interaction well before May. And the Arbcom policy does empower them to look at the e-mails and decide the case involves private information to be decided privately. (I read all of Ricthie's unredacted statements unfortunately and there is no doubt that privacy was a good and cogent decision). We should all be glad that we have a committee that prioritizes protecting people to the greatest extent in their power. (Even if some people will in the end refuse protection) On the countervailing end there is comparatively basically nothing: whether someone has permissions on a website completely pail in comparison to giving whatever protection is possible; and interest on the internet is just invasive, sometimes prurient. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
    • @Alanscottwalker: The above was not a specific response to you. I disagree, based on the information made available by Ritchie, that there were privacy issues that necessitated a hearing in private. There may well be other issues of which we are not aware that would justify a closed court, but I am starting to doubt this. @GoldenRing: While I understand that the committee do not enjoy receiving negative feedback - who of us does? - I remain hopeful they will look internally at the reasons for the negative feedback and work to improve and address concerns, rather than give up. Fish+Karate 12:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

      Yes, you disagree, but it remains that holding it private was reasonable, and the serious responsibility to decide was in a specific group, not you or I. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

      Groups of people are frequently dumber than their constituent parts. Fish+Karate 13:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

      So than large groups of those not responsible are particularly dumber. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Up until now, I was optimistic about how Arbcom would wind up handling the Fram case. Now I'm nervous. - Dank (push to talk) 13:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Next steps

So, now we've got two instances of ArbCom handling cases which seem to have all their evidence and communication on-wiki in private. I was willing to accept that Fram was a one-off due to the exceptional circumstances, but I'm not willing to accept backchanneling as a new normal. Perhaps we need to amend ARBPOL to clarify that if no off-wiki communications or otherwise private evidence needs consideration, the case is required to be handled transparently and publicly, period. But we clearly need to do something which is not this. This is exactly why we strongly discourage handling things behind closed doors; it breeds suspicion and distrust. Closed-door handling should only occur when there is private information which must remain so, and even then only for that particular information. We saw that with FRAM, we saw it here, and we need to not see it again. I have no interest in this site becoming one where "moderation" is faceless, unaccountable, and does not explain why they made the decisions they did. Too many sites are like that already. We do things differently, and we should continue to do it differently. (I would not support any motion to remove all the current arbitrators, and this isn't to get after them; they've been confronted with an unprecedented situation. But any changes to the way we do things must be ratified by consensus of the community. Period.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Well it's good then that we already have all that. 1) These people on the committee are known. 2) These people are accountable. 3) And anyone of any reason knows what was done here and why. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Anyone of any reason --?? Also, what do we already have? ∯WBG^converse 16:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand your questions. The comment I was responding to said they don't want this site to not have three things, and I responded we already have those three things (and all are present in the present case). And one has to have a modicum of ability to reason to understand things. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually, Alanscottwalker, what I don't want is unneeded private handling, and any case in which all the information is already public does not require private handling. When the ArbCom lays out things like findings of fact and statements in remedies, they are specifying exactly why they came to the decision they did. In this instance, sure, we can guess why they came to that decision, but as we saw in FRAM, such speculation is often harmful and has bad consequences. With a public decision, we can point to that decision and say "That is the exact reason why they decided to implement the remedies they did", and that is the only way we know why the decision was made, because the discussion and decision is transparent and open. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry that is just not the way it is. It has basically always been the case, some people no matter what Arbcom writes will say they did not write it right, and they did not state their reasoning correctly, and they did not actually do what they are saying. Here, I noted earlier we know from the statement: 1) there was interaction; 2) one of the parties is an administrator; 3) the ctte decided it was in their bailiwick; 4) the ctte decided that e-mail evidence was in order; 5) the ctte decided to reveal that there was email evidence, which together with the prior interaction was sufficient to act; 6) the ctte decided it needed to be two-way (it is written as two way -- it even has the word "mutual" -- even though some seem to argue its not two-way enough). So we know what and why it was done. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

To respond to the claim that "any case in which all the information is already public does not require private handling": Until you have examined the infinite set of all possible cases, you can not know that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom: I'm sure it's very frustrating, feeling attacked both by the community outrage, and by T&S. You're in an unpleasant place where you feel compelled to action. The WMF have expressed that they don't feel the community is capable of handling our own policing. And certainly, you should take note of this. However, the solution is not to become more like T&S. You'll only get the same response from the community that they did. It's easy to become jaded, or feel backed into a corner. We certainly don't expect perfection from you - or at least, we shouldn't. But as others have said here, you should be willing to learn and adjust. Do I think the IBAN was a bad idea? No, although I can't say I'm overly familiar with the particulars beyond reading through a couple diffs. But the communication of it has become a problem, as has the inconsistency of the clarifications. In particular, indicating things like discussion and consent in the initial statement, while then later clarifying that there was no discussion with at least one party, and no consent by the other is a problem. Please, don't continue to double-down like Jan. We can be better. ^LetUs_NotLose^HearT 16:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Exactly :-- ... the communication of it has become a problem, as has the inconsistency of the clarifications. In particular, indicating things like discussion and consent in the initial statement, while then later clarifying that there was no discussion with at least one party ... ∯WBG^converse 16:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree, there were some fundamental issues with the wording of the motion that required a number of Arbs to "clarify" which then demonstrated that the Arbs didn't have a consistent understanding of the motion's wording and intent. The proceedings here have been somewhat diverted from the main purposes, namely (a) why wasn't the majority of this conducted in public (b) why was the motion so poorly worded (c) why the inconsistent understanding of the Arbs and (d) why are Arbs resorting to using terms like "aggressor" and attempting to blame the community for this? If I recall correctly, there was significant support for Arbcom following their well-thought-out statement to T&S following Framgate. Indeed, I seem to recall supporting it myself. Yet the handling of this event is unfortunately well below any standards we have come to expect from any committee. If cases are now, by default, to be held in camera, please let us all know, because so far, there's very little about this case that necessitated such secrecy. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 16:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• OK, my thoughts. I think there are two key questions. 1) Do we want ArbCom to be allowed to handle problems brought privately? 2) Who decides whether a case qualifies for being private? If the answer to 1 is no, that's easy - T&S get the job. If the answer to 1 is yes, then we have to answer question 2. If we make very restrictive hard-and-fast rules as suggested by Seraphimblade, which removes the ability of ArbCom to judge on a case-by-case basis, then there will be complaints that people wish to make privately to ArbCom but which the rules do not allow (as it is simply not possible to codify all possible future cases into universal rules while ensuring fairness). That means one of two things. Either the case can not be held and the complainant has to just suck it up, or such cases would have to be handled by T&S. That, really, is the choice that has to be made - whether to have ArbCom handle sensitive cases according to their judgment, or have T&S do it according to their judgment. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• @Seraphimblade: I see the desire for a clarification of ARBPOL such as you have outlined, but the problem that Boing! said Zebedee outlines is not going to go away. Setting aside my own feelings about harassment complaints for a moment; a) Wikipedia has a reputation, deserved or otherwise, for being a hostile environment, b) given this environment, we have to take harassment complaints seriously (either because we feel we should as a matter of principle, or because if we don't the WMF will take their handling away from us), and c) there is decades of information, from academia, corporate culture, and other places, showing that dealing with harassment requires a private complaints process. So. We can allow ARBCOM to privately handle cases brought privately even if the evidence is public, and then hold them accountable every December via elections, and via discussion of their decisions if necessary; or we can legislate against ARBCOM holding private cases in the absence of non-public evidence, have those complaints go to T&S, and have no accountability at all. There isn't a third option. We cannot legislate away private dispute resolution, because we can take it away from ARBCOM, but not from T&S, and you can be sure that both genuine victims and drama queens will use one or the other. We're perilously close to the second situation as it is. I, for one, have considerably more trust in the people I voted for. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Boing! said Zebedee and Vanamonde93, T&S already backed down. Karen Brown of the WMF, at the Framgate discussion, stated that they would consult with the community before doing anything like this again, and the outcome of that consultation could well be "We should never do this at all." She also stated that it's possible they would offer their help to smaller communities without bodies like an ArbCom, to help deal with something like the az.wikipedia fiasco, but leave larger ones with established processes well enough alone. We absolutely can say no to T&S, and we did, by simply threatening to walk out the door. They can't maintain this site on their own. If that didn't concern them and get their attention, you know they would not have reversed course. So, no, T&S is not the bogeyman, and we can choose how we run our project. We do not need to go to behind-closed-doors type handling just because T&S might like it if we did. As to holding them accountable, hold them accountable for what, and how, if we do not know why they made the decisions they did? It may be that they had a perfectly good reason for something they did, but not knowing it, we "hold them accountable" for something not deserving that; or conversely, it may be that they had terrible reasons for something else, but not knowing them, we can't hold them accountable there either. ArbCom has handled harassment cases before; no private complaints process is necessary for that, as clearly evidenced by the fact that it's been handled without that. (That said, if the community wants to establish a mechanism for such private complaints, that's a totally different story. But only on genuine consensus, not T&S bullying.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
    • @Seraphimblade: Sure, they backed down as far as Fram was concerned, and tossed the hot potato to ARBCOM. But I'm not seeing the degree of wiggle room in those statements that you are: both by reading between the lines, and by stepping back and being realistic, I see our self-governance being entirely conditional on our ability to deal with complaints of harassment (justified or otherwise. I want to emphasize that, because I'm not accusing Ritchie or Fram of anything). If our response to this is to prohibit ARBCOM from holding private cases except where off-wiki evidence exists, I think it's a virtual certainty that the WMF will provide for these complaints to go to T&S, because the need for a private process is taken as a given among institutions that deal with harassment complaints. Also, to be clear, I think there's several arguments of principle for having a private process; my statement was directed at those people, obviously considerable in number, who don't believe in them. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
    • If you think we can choose to arrive at a situation where there is no private complaints process for dealing with, for example, harassment, and that WMF/T&S will sit back and let that happen, I think you're living a fantasy. They have compromised over Fram, but only part way, and the Fram case is still being handled privately. The same goes for "threatening to walk out the door" - go walk out the door if you wish and see what happens, and see how many of the thousands of everyday editors will follow you. You should not overestimate the power of what is actually a very small (and very unrepresentative) minority of the community here. There will be a private complaints process for dealing with harassment, and there's nothing we can do to stop it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
      • False dichotomy. Unless WMF has stated explicit terms upon which the Committee will continue to have jurisdiction over these cases, there is no need to adhere to some extreme level of secrecy. (and if they have stated such strict terms, we should be told about this, so we can go back to WP:FRAM and resume protesting) Rather, we should be crafting standards by which each request for a private case will be decided. And yes, there should be cases where the complainant is denied a private case. If WMF doesn't like that, we're back to protesting at WP:FRAM as we were a month ago, and WMF has egg on its face again. I see nothing wrong with this as a step in the negotiation process. In the meantime, we can and should develop and ratify an editor bill of rights. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
        • I never said anything about any "extreme level of secrecy", and I largely agree that "we should be crafting standards by which each request for a private case will be decided." My position is that those standards have to include discretion on the part of those who make the decisions, and that strict qualification rules can not work (as they can not anticipate everything). And yes, of course there should be provision for denying a private case - I'm certainly not suggesting that anyone should be entitled to a private case on demand. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
          • Exactly right. There is no right to an arbcom case in private, and arbcom members are elected for their discretion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Oh, and the fact that ArbCom has handled some cases of harassment without a private process is not evidence that no case ever needs a private process. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure anyone said we would never need a private process. I just think the majority here believe it should be the last resort to hang, draw, and quarter accused "aggressors" in camera. It's abundantly clear that the large majority of evidence in this case did not need to be private at all. But more importantly, answers to the questions below from Cyp are far more interesting than this repetitiveness. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 17:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
        • Well, Seraphimblade proposed what sound to me like strict rules that private cases should be disallowed when the evidence itself is public - and I don't see any exceptions being mentioned. And, maybe the large majority of evidence in the R v P case did not need to be private, but I'm not trying to judge that case. My comments are purely meant to address what procedures we put in place for future cases, as I think that's by far the most important aspect of all of this. Do we allow ArbCom the discretion to accept/decline/judge private requests, or do we hand that power to T&S? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
        • The Rambling Man, while I mostly agree, we should put things a bit into perspective: the ArbCom did not mean to "hang, draw and quarter" Ritchie. They wanted him to stay away from Prax, and some Arbs wanted to label him as the more guilty party, and then they made a very clumsy announcement, made worse by further Arb statements contradicting each other. I hope this can be a learning experience for the next in camera case: do them only if absolutely necessary, be clear in your findings of fact, use the minimal remedy that is effective, and clearly state what you are doing, why you are doing it and why you can't tell us more about your reasons. Consider alternatives like private warnings or brokering voluntary interaction bans. And if your approach fails and results in an epic clusterfuck instead of instant peace, try to find out what went wrong and learn from it for the next time. —Kusma (t·c) 18:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
        • I agree with Boing! said Zebedee that in the end, someone will decide what situations are better handled in private. The community can try to decide who will do it on its part; if it empowers no one, then the WMF will assume this role. In the interim, the community could insist that all complaints be held in abeyance, but this would leave the affected persons in limbo for an indefinite period. On a side note, ArbCom has handled harassment cases before; no private complaints process is necessary for that implies that handling complaints privately is never needed for the main type of interpersonal interaction issue being discussed. But I agree this does not appear to be a majority view. isaacl (talk) 18:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
          • It's inductive reasoning, which has its flaws. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Saraphimblade, First, the present case is wholly within current policy. Second, the only ethical and right thing to do is protect people where possible. The effect of what you suggest is that no matter what, we must have a system of public spectacle damaging to individuals because Wikipedia is so deficient and broken that some people here cannot trust even 15 members of the website, nor can they assume good faith about them. And why do we need this always must be a public spectacle? For comparatively nothing: permissions in a website. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
      • First, the present case is wholly within current policy. It really isn't, but I'm not going to waste my breath arguing that with you. Second, the only ethical and right thing to do is protect people where possible. Hypersimplistic and lacking any semblance of awareness of what the statement even means. Protect people, yes. That includes the accused and that includes the greater community. Moreover, secrecy, as we have seen from the Fram case, is harmful to the complainant as well. The rest of your comment is bordering on nonsensical, and I see no purpose in even responding to it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
        • Stop. You just said basically nothing except to demonstrate poor temper or your lack of grasp of issues, and more importantly illustrated an assumption that 15 "good a true" Arbcom members cannot and do not exist in English Wikipedia who would work to protect everyone before them, under the existing privacy provisions of Arbcom policy. If you have not noticed, in almost all Arbcom cases, all parties stand accused in some way. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
          • Why don't you stop? At least stop telling other people just how wrong they are, when you have only a passing grasp of the situation. Every post you have made so far is flawed, including the last one. You don't have to bludgeon everyone who disagrees with ArbCom. - SchroCat (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
            • Are you not paying attention? I was responding to someone who was responding to me. Nothing in what you just said has any value, here, whatsoever. It can't be that hard to understand the policy has privacy hearings and that 15 good Arbcom people would work to protect those accused and those making accusations.-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
              • Of course I'm paying attention, but many of your comments have been downright bloody rude. Just knock it off and telling people to stop. Aside from the crap in your above statement, some of the nonsense you've come up with in this discussion is: "No. We actually don't need this discussion at all", "just know it is well within the bounds of reason and just stop"; "The only nonsense is yours"; "extremely silly or worse"; "a silly chip on the shoulder"; "you are wrong"; " large groups of those not responsible are particularly dumber"; "Sorry that is just not the way it is". I'm sorry to break it to you that you are not the font of all knowledge, not are you someone who should be telling people to stop, or demeaning their motives in posting here. We get you disagree - and that's fine - but stop treating everyone else as something on the sole of your shoe. - SchroCat (talk) 19:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
                • Your lecture in that comment is again of no value, here. You wasted time to take a bunch of stuff out of context. Getting back on topic, Arbcom has policy sanctioned discretion to protect people and that is what they want to do, and will do to the best of their ability. And there is no reason to assume otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanscottwalker (talk • contribs) 20:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
                  • And your posts are not helping when they are clearly only geared to insult people. You have said the things above, and you are being uncivil to a heap of people, so knock it off and tone it down. And learn how to sign your posts properly. - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
                    • What you just said is false. Arbcom's discretion is right on topic, and they have discretion to hold hearings that seek to protect the pedia, the accused and the accuser in private. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
                      • Yes, because obviously this hearing has done all of those things, hasn't it? Black Kite (talk) 20:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
                        • The Committee has been entrusted, and are good people who tried to be fair to the best of their ability to all parties, and at least some focus seems to be shifted away from either party so they may escape some injury from dragging it all out. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
                      • (edit conflict) "What you just said is entirely false" oh ffs.... - 20:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• Just to clarify the almost-obvious, would someone confirm that R was clearly informed that there was a full evidence/workshop phase of a secret case going on, and not just some preliminary questions to e.g. decide if a case was needed? Also, I assume all involved parties agreed on a private/secret case? Κσυπ Cyp   17:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  My understanding, actually, is that when a "motion" is had, it means that a summary proceeding is being carried out—that is, without evidence or workshop, and without articulating principles or FoFs (I consider this last portion illegitimate even in cases where there are no material facts in dispute but that's for another discussion). In other words, I don't think it's likely there was a formal... anything in this case. Merely a pronouncement from on high. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Actually, on reviewing this further, I don't even see how this is within the current wording of ARBPOL. It currently states that ... the Committee will make public detailed rationales for decisions related to cases, unless the matter is unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal or similar reasons. Now, "or similar" might be a bit of weasel wording, but I see nothing "similar" here. There's been no indication there's anything legal involved (and if there is anything legal involved in a case, ArbCom ought to pass that off to Legal before you can say "hot potato"), and there is no indication there are any privacy implications as everything happened publicly. So, it appears our current ARBPOL is actually fine, and the problem is that it appears not to have been followed. If ArbCom would like to change the scope of what does and does not require transparency, I think that requires discussion with the community, not attempting a fait accompli by just starting to do it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  The policy is written broadly to give the committee discretion, and yes, the non-public e-mail exchange, and the revelations there, caused the committee to see 'privacy, legal or similar reasons'. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• As far as I am concerned, it would be catastrophic if the result here were to take away ArbCom's role in private processes, because that would indeed hand that over to T&S. And I'm seeing a truly Kafkaesque turnaround here: just a few weeks ago, many editors were praising, rightly, ArbCom's response to WMF. And look at how far things have fallen in so short a time. So in one fish's opinion, I'm against changing policy, and I'm against recalling anyone. But I think there is a very significant next step that has to happen, and it comes down to how those necessarily private cases are dealt with. Some of it is making very, very sure that experienced and valued members of the community are given adequate opportunity to not only present their side of the case, but also be given adequate opportunity to rebut accusations made against them. As far as I can tell from the outside, Ritchie didn't get that here. But I also think that's something where the community will really have little ability to monitor it, by the very reason of privacy. But what is very much a public matter is the announcement that is made – and that needs some serious thought. I get it, that some editors are arguing that this is largely a matter of process. But I personally disagree. I think it's very much a matter of communication. And the basic concept is that when a case is intended not to Streisand something that happened to someone, then the announcement had better not cause just that to happen. Announcements should not be crafted to settle scores, which is what happened here. They should be crafted to provide the community with information that reassures the community that the outcome was a reasonable one. And that clearly did not happen here. Don't assume that the community will just shrug and say that we need to trust you. Think a few steps ahead, and anticipate how any given announcement will be received. Don't put things out that will needlessly raise red flags. Please understand: I don't mean any of that in an Orwellian way of how to soothe the masses. What I mean is to be honest and truthful, but also to think about repercussions for the involved parties. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• Absolutely, but let's face it, the sequence
  • "Hi, there's a complaint about you, would you like to respond to it?"
  • "Yes, here's my response".
  • "Thanks for that, we've thought about it in private, you're the aggressor, here's a ban"
    • is exactly what ArbCom said wasn't acceptable from T&S... Black Kite (talk) 20:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

      That's quite true; I agree. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

      I am by no means suggesting taking away ArbCom's role in private cases. I am suggesting that ArbCom handle cases privately only when there is something private about them to start with. If the entire case revolves around on-wiki spats between editors, there is no reason to handle it privately, because there is nothing private about it to begin with. And realistically, this kind of outcome is going to encourage Streisanding and digging, whereas holding a regular old case...well, when's the last time you read through an entire ArbCom case just because you wanted to? I can tell you the answer for me is "never", and I suspect that's true of most of us. The case gets held, the decision gets made, and after that people largely forget it ever happened (if they ever noticed in the first place). There are indeed cases where ArbCom needs to handle things partly or totally in private, but this particular case does not in any way appear to be one of those instances. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

      Yes, yes and yes again: "If the entire case revolves around on-wiki spats between editors, there is no reason to handle it privately". ArbCom, please note that. Have it engraved on your monitors, chant it as a mantra,have it in your standing orders, but this is so much the key of what you got wrong here. You can have a half open case with some evidence provided privately be either/both party. (That's still not ideal, but given the nature of the internet, it's probably the best pathway you can take). There was no real reason to hold the entire case in camera here, and no reason why certain parts of normal procedure are not openly discussed if the announcement is made so publically. Who voted which way, who agreed and disagreed: no private evidence has to be provided, it can be referred to as "given the circumstances in email 6 from party X, I cannot agree to this finding", etc. We all know RL with all it entails impacts on behaviour here, which is why we've always accepted some private evidence: I do not see the difference here, and there is no need for ArbCom to automatically run scared just because one party has used the H word. - SchroCat (talk) 20:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

      Seraphimblade: I should clarify that I didn't think you were suggesting that, but I observe that some other editors are. And I agree with both of you. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

      Seraphimblade, Boing and I both are referring not to generic private cases but to private cases without private evidence. Indeed we said that specifically, so I'm not sure why it was misunderstood. I'm repeating this because a bunch of people seem to have missed this point; given the thinking in the wider world about how to deal with harassment, there is no way in hell the WMF is going to let us dispense with that category of cases. Just no way. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

      Vanamonde93, my reply was to Tryptofish's statement, which explicitly said there was some intent to take away ArbCom's role in private processes. I wanted to clarify that this was not what I was proposing. Now, if you, or Boing, or anyone, would like to argue that ArbCom should handle some cases privately despite all the evidence being public, feel free to start an RfC and argue that. Depending on exactly what you're proposing, I might even agree with you. But as it stands today, the expectation is that public evidence = public case, and I do not give a tenth of a damn what the "wider world" thinks about the benefits of secret proceedings. On this project, we decide things like that by consensus of editors, not fait accompli. If you think you can gain such a consensus, by all means attempt to do it, but until and unless someone does, what was done here is not permitted by ARBPOL or years of common practice. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

      @Seraphimblade:, I'm not trying to change ARBPOL, or advocate for a fait accompli. Arguing to change it without already having broad support is a waste of time. I'm not even certain it needs to be changed, because "matters unsuitable for public discussion for privacy [...] or similar reasons" has a lot of wiggle room, and we will probably have to clarify the interpretation of that language sometime soon. I'm trying to persuade you, and others, that I believe to be rational individuals, that we need ARBCOM to be able to handle cases of the sort that I just outlined. The weight you or I give to attitudes in the wider world doesn't matter; the people who own our servers do. If we don't provide an outlet for private hearings of on-wiki evidence, the WMF will do so. If the community decides that ARBPOL doesn't allow for that and we're uninterested in changing it, well, that's the community's prerogative; and we'll just have to live with the consequences. I think I've my opinion on what those consequences are fairly clear several times; if you still disagree, that's your prerogative. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 21:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

      • As I said, I want us to maintain our autonomy by having matters dealt with by our own elected Arbitration Committee. But I have lost all trust in this lot. This was not just a mistake, or even a series of mistakes. It was and remains a travesty that has apparently done a deep injustice to a valued admin—one of the admins who endeavored to find a way forward from the WP:FRAM disaster, and not incidentally, an admin who continued to write and improve content. While harassment is a serious issue, and so is the aggressive environment on the project, I know my list of off-puttingly aggressive editors is different from others'; I suspect there are many, many different responses to different ways of interacting. And this is not social media; we are working together to produce an encyclopedia, and it is to protect that encyclopedia and the joint endeavor of writing it and keeping it up that we select admins. This Committee is guilty of driving away a good editor and a good admin, and whatever the intentions may have been, that is more than an oopsie or even a series of oopsies. It's a betrayal of the trust placed in them, particularly since they bypassed normal methods of community dispute resolution that had not been exhausted, thereby exceeding what they were elected to do. I don't trust these people as committee members any more, and part of our self-governance has to be that we get to withdraw our recognition and replace them. In fact it's in the Arbcom rules. As a beginning, we are owed not just contrition about the not just conflicting but less than fully truthful statements above concerning "discussion" with R and P, but a straight answer to the question above concerning whether Ritchie333 was fully informed that that would be his only opportunity to explain his perceptions of the situation and the basis for his actions. I will also add this question: Was the decision to carry out this investigation entirely in secret taken because of instructions or guidelines from WMF Trust & Safety? If so, that would be a small mitigating factor; but the community deserves to know, and I believe absolutely that it deserves an Arbcom that will stand up to the WMF, not one that will act as its tool. For one thing, if the invocation of the word "harassment" automatically leads to punishment of the editor accused of it, there will be irreparable damage to the project. It would place at risk not only all active admins but all experienced and active editors (vandal fighters, those active in contentious political and BLP areas, those who often debate "fringe" issues, those who watch for copyvio, and yes, those active at AfD and in anti-COI/spam efforts). We've been told "We kept the situation private to protect the privacy of both parties, both of whom were more candid in their discussions with us than I believe they would have been comfortable with in public" (Premeditated Chaos) and "this was determined to be a private matter unsuitable for public discussion" (SilkTork, endorsing PMC's statement). Yet as others have noted, the Committee has in the past dealt with disputes with some private evidence. Was it entirely the Committee's decision to do this in total secrecy, or was there arm-twisting from the WMF? We deserve to know before we lose any more editors, whatever the personal opinions of individual committee members may be about what P and R may have thought. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

        Actually, I can agree with everything you said, and I also would like clear answers to those questions – except that I do not share the opinion of having lost trust in them. People can make mistakes. Hey, rumor has it that I've made some. What is most important to me is to get the mistakes corrected. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

        Thanks for your willingness to listen. I don't see any way they can be corrected. We've lost Ritchie, we've lost any reason to trust these arbs will be fair or even straightforward. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I haven't posted much here mainly because I don't want T&S sticking their nose in our business, and because an iBan doesn't remove abilities other than interacting with an individual. One suggestion I have is warnings (we have 5 different ones for vandals, we should be able to allow our registered members as much.) I don't mind it if you feel the 'in camera' stuff is needed, but first warn whoever you feel deserves sanction. I think I only saw this mentioned once above (Kusma I think). First email a private warning (similar to being called into the office and informed behind closed doors), if something more occurs - POST A WARNING ON THE USERS TALK PAGE. A bit difficult to get too upset if you can see it coming. Be willing to discuss the issue, not one reply - and you didn't convince us - you're sanctioned. ty for your time — Ched :  ?  — 20:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I'm not going to take any particular stance on ArbCom's choices on this case (I think everything I would have said there has been said anyway). My suggestions for a better approach for next time:
  • Always post some case content. If something needs to be hidden, say why - "the identities of people making complaints in this case will not be made public due to concerns of retaliation," "the various parties' arguments involve very personal information, and so they were emailed to ArbCom rather than posted." If at all possible, post an anonymized version of the complaint/information with the sender's consent - "anonymous party A was repeatedly harassed for what they believed to be good-faith edits," "(non-anonymous) party B's evidence showed a repeated pattern of abuse of administrative tools," something like that.
  • I alluded to it in the first bullet, but if something has to be hidden, please post as much rationale as you can - again, "fear of retaliation," "personal information/concerns of outing," things like that.
  • Keep all of the procedural parts - public declarations by arbs of accepting/recusing/turning down a case, principles, (anonymized) findings of fact ("based on the evidence presented in private by the parties, SteveFoo has behaved abusively to other editors"), remedies, and enforcement provisions. Again, I recognize that there may be cases where not all of these things are possible, but even just summarizing the off-wiki Arb discussion would go a long way toward improving this.
  • If a case is largely based on private evidence, I'd suggest closing preliminary statements.
• Separate from the above, I think it might be worthwhile to adopt a resolution providing for sanctions for outing private information/party identities in these cases (I'm not super well-versed in ArbCom procedure, so that might not be the right way to go about it, but I do think it's necessary for somebody to specifically call that out as a Bad Thing which can lead to sanctions). If someone wanted their identity hidden, the last thing anyone needs is for people conducting a witch hunt to try to identify or retaliate against the complainant, as we've seen both at "Framgate" and in this very discussion (I seem to recall someone suggesting careful review of Praxidicae's use of rollback, which I read as implicit threat of retaliation). That behavior needs to stop and needs to be dealt with if anybody does it. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 20:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Creffett, I agree with pretty much everything you've said. As to "sanctions for outing private information/party identities": I think we have those anyway in any circumstances (per WP:OUTING). If offwiki identity/behaviour is pertinant to a case, this is exactly the information that should be sent privately to ArbCom and discussed internally between them. - SchroCat (talk) 20:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
    • SchroCat, that's true, but given that it's happened anyway (again, I'll cite the "detective work" that happened during Framgate), I think that something is needed - ArbCom resolution, community RfC, something to unquestionably state that if people start digging for complainant identities/specific incidents/etc. there will be significant consequences...and then, you know, we need to actually enforce those consequences. I'm sure people have their justifications for digging, but it needs to be made clear from the start, otherwise it'll just get muddled up with "I didn't know that counted as outing" and "but I found something I'm sure is relevant to the case, so it's okay" creffett (talk) 00:04, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Creffett, ah, you were thinking of the Fram case with that, rather than this one. Yes. Definitely. I was uncomfortable seeing some of the information posted there, and I wished it hadn't have happened. The 'Framgate' case was so far out of Wiki normality that lots of things happened that shouldn't (including the case itself). You may be right: a strong reminder about something serious is never a problem if it stops the accidental infringement, and ArbCom cases and decisions do have an effect of heightening emotions and tensions all round. - SchroCat (talk) 00:12, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
        • Yes, ArbCom pages aren't usually the best atmosphere for anything... but Creffett, speaking only for myself, I would consider outing identities on an ArbCom case page to be covered by the intent of the oversight policy, since that is not public information, and if it continued after a warning would be willing to make an {{OversightBlock}}. I can't speak for the other members of the team, but typically we interpret "non-public information" pretty broadly, and the policy explicitly states that suppression is a tool of first resort, so if there's a question, we suppress and then discuss on the list to see if reversal is needed​. I haven't been following the Fram drama, but if something of that sort happens, please contact the oversight team via the list, and someone will review it. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
          • TonyBallioni, thanks for the reminder about oversighting. My concerns/rationales for a statement are twofold: first, in the case of the Fram drama, I would hesitate to call it outing, it was more rampant speculation like "WMF Member so-and-so had lots of bad interactions with Fram, what if they pulled WMF strings to bring the Fram ban" (paraphrasing from month-old memory of the incident). It was inappropriate, it was mob mentality, but to me that doesn't cross the line into outing. If you or the other Oversighters think it does, great, that's one fewer concern. My second reason is less practical and more PR: making such a statement reminds people of the rules and clearly sets a standard, and I think that would be worthwhile. creffett (talk) 01:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
            • It obviously depends on the context, but en.wiki interprets the oversight policy fairly liberally and Suppression is a tool of first resort in removing this information is very much true, so if something were close to the line, we'd review it fairly closely. I can't give a specific answer now because there are obviously no edits to review. Speculation as to whether or not something constitutes outing should be left to oversighters on the list. If something looks like it may qualify for suppression, under any of the criteria, the best response is always to notify an oversighter. This is something that is often misunderstood, which is why I'm clarifying it here more generally. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
• How long will it take the committee to understand the reasons behind the largely-unanimous response by the community concerning the multitude of flaws and procedural lapses whilst dealing with this issue? And, then issue some concrete statement excluding the myriad of self-contradictions and self-victimization-narratives, that we have seen till now ? ∯WBG^converse 13:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't think that is accurate. Only a small percentage of editors will pay attention to this board but certainly those who do pay attention to WP:AN will have seen the notice and have not commented here. The silent majority haven't complained and of those that have, they are only doing so because Ritchie has posted a retirement notice. If he would have carried on with editing, the thread above would be considerably smaller with fewer complainants. He wasn't desysoped nor was he blocked at the time. It is a two-way IBAN and that is all. Many of the reactions above are blown well out of proportion leading to over-the-top griefing of the committee that isn't deserved.
  • The committee didn't twist Ritchie's arm to retire and they are not to blame for his reaction. It was his choice. He can continue to discuss with the committee via email if further discussion is desired and this is more likely to be productive than this thread which for some has devolved into badgering and harassing.
  • Ritchie will be back.
  • If anything, this thread may produce some process improvements - likely from Seraphimblade's or Tryptofish's comments. Boing's also. Constructive dialog is being impeded by the haranguing, hostility and extra noise though. I do not think that the responses above accurately reflect the overall community's opinions as the majority aren't complaining.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Berean Hunter, please resign all of your bits because tens of thousands of active editors did not support you and then, I will pay heed to your concerns about silent majority.
    • Ritchie retired due to out-of-blue nature of the sanction, which went contrary to the committee's impressions of the sanction being well-discussed with both parties and thus, I don't see why I am going to consider any hypothetical situations that might have taken place, if he had not retired. That's sheer nonsense logic.
    • I (also) don't generally engage with people who can predict the future so confidently but will note that you had previously proposed for Ritchie to be banned from unblocking, which went on to fail. ∯WBG^converse 16:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

      Like Godric I have conerns about the logic there Bearian. It would be extraordinary if the majority complained even if most privately felt the Arb's actions were blatantly unjust. While our Wikipedia community seems relatively virtuous , it's still likely that many are motivated partly by self interest, and won't be keen to speak out against Wiki's most powerful body over a matter that doesn't directly concern them.

      I doubt Ritchie will be returning to editing any time soon, unless there's some sort of the clarification from the Arbs. Let this be understood – being accused of Harassment can be extremely serious, even life changing. For some , a harasser may be similar to the worst types of abuser such as a rapist. Its only half the story to suggest it was Ritchie's choice how to react. He's a social person and so can't help be impacted by suggestions that he's a harasser, which is antithetical to his values. Ritchie's as pro–woman & progressive as they come. That comes across even from his wiki contributions, & perhaps even more so to those who have met him in RL.

      There seems no reason to believe the iban was un-warranted, and as the current Arbs seem an excellent bunch of people I'd trust the Arbs probably even had good reason for their suggestion that Ritchie was the one more at fault. But they should have issued a clear statement that any potentially sanctionable behaviour by Ritchie was 'un-collegial editing', not the far more serious 'Harassment'. If the Arbs would make such a statement then the project might indeed be lucky enough to see Ritchie return. Similar logic applies to Fram, who I know less well, but also seems someone who would never harass anyone in the more egregious sense of the word.FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• I somewhat agree with Berean Hunter (though not on the "silent majority" bit; we do not pass an RfA with 20 opposes and 2 supports because "Well surely more people than that saw it and didn't object". If you want to be counted, speak up, and some have spoken up in support of the action taken here). But I think we certainly do need to, perhaps, codify when private handling is enough. I do, however, have a question for the Committee, and I realized why it had been tickling at the back of my mind. Premeditated Chaos indicated that the Committee had indeed found Ritchie to be the "aggressor", but the evidence in the email Ritchie cited shows both parties bickering, not one being the aggressor and the other the victim. (I do not, for clarity's sake, endorse the conduct of either party shown there; both had their share of nasty remarks and snark that we could well do without.) Worm That Turned indicated that this was, indeed, the extent of the "communication" with Ritchie. So, one of two things. Either the Committee decided that an unprecedented private case was necessary due to some run-of-the-mill bickering, while not even telling Ritchie that sanctions were under consideration (which would be a very poor decision, especially in view of the reaction to Framgate, but well, arbs are human and like anyone will make some errors.) But the other possibility is that additional evidence against Ritchie was presented and considered by the Committee, and Ritchie was neither informed of it nor given an opportunity to respond. If that's the case, that is substantially more concerning, and that's beyond a simple "Oops". That, whether in a private or public case, must never happen. So, I would appreciate from the Committee if you would clarify whether Ritchie was, indeed, given an opportunity to view and respond to all the evidence against him. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

  Seraphimblade 2 questions: does your question assume that "evidence" is limited to what people write in the past, as opposed to what statements they make in the present? Also isn't Arbcom the only conduct ctte we have with all the powers of permission binding, so when any experienced person is presented with such communication by Arbcom, they know what's what, right? Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

  Also, are not all experienced people generally aware how Arbcom gets private evidence? Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

  How are either of those two "statements" relevant to the questions that Seraphimblade was asking? Only members of ArbCom would be able to answer them. Black Kite (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

  What? No, the committee would not know what assumptions Seraphimblade is making. That's why the three questions are asked. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

  Alanscottwalker, I am afraid neither your questions nor your last statement make a bit of sense. I took what two arbitrators actually said, and drew the only two possible conclusions based upon those statements: First, that ArbCom somehow saw, in the evidence presented to Ritchie, him (and only him) being an "aggressor", while somehow not noticing Praxidicae's similar rude behavior in return. That wasn't an "aggressor" so much as mutual combat. Or, alternatively, they had more evidence against Ritchie than that, but (per WTT's statement that there was no communication with Ritchie other than that), if such evidence purportedly exists and was considered, they did not advise Ritchie of it or give him an opportunity to respond to it. Either one is a bad outcome, but the first is a simple error, and we all make those. The second would be a fundamental failure to treat someone fairly at all, and be substantially more concerning. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:51, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

  Seraphimblade, Thanks. OK, let me explain. I get that you disagree with whatever aggressor conclusion is put on anyone. (But that's not what my questions are about.)

  What I was trying to understand is if you agree (apart from any conclusion you would draw were it your job), would you understand Ritchie's email itself, and anyone else's email is also evidence, through non-public means?-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

  • @Seraphimblade:, I believe that some have taken my silent majority comment to infer that I meant that members of the majority may have tacitly approved of the Arbcom action by their silence but this was not my intent. I believe that many aren't commenting in either a support or oppose fashion here because they don't have all of the facts and aren't privy to the private communications. Without all of the evidence, most of us do not know the entirety of the situation. I only broke my silence because there was a poor portrayal that those who have replied represent a "largely-unanimous response by the community" which I believe to be incorrect. I believe that many of those who have responded, particularly many right after Ritchie posted (all oversighted now), have been too quick to judge and take sides without having all of the evidence. I don't believe that accurately represents the community. Many of us are still watching and believe that speaking up to either support or oppose or demand evidence looks premature. Sensible silence is a legitimate position for the majority, yes? The RfA analogy falls short because people have the necessary evidence to evaluate that. I am appreciating your constructive efforts along with a few others though.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:20, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Berean Hunter, I certainly cannot find fault with your kind comment about my earlier comments, but I think it misses the point to look at this in terms of what all the rest of the community might think. The same issue was raised about the page where the discussion of the Fram case has been happening. It was wrong there, and it's wrong here. Any consensus on en-wiki is based on the exchange of ideas among the editors who actually participated in the discussion, not on trying to extrapolate what editors who did not take part might or might not think. The fact is, that there is clear consensus here that there have been serious problems, and not that everything is peachy-keen. Also, I agree with everything that Seraphimblade said. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
      • I disagree with you that's how things ever work on wikipedia. If you start some discussion on some random wikiproject that we should allow any admin to appoint indef block one editor a month with no right of appeal, no reason required, and no other admin allowed to overturn and you get one random IP saying it's a good idea, then you start to implement that because you're an admin, well welcome to level 2 de-sysop. Point being it's well established here that while you can sometimes take silence as consensus in some instances and accept local consensus in others, it really depends what's being discussed, how well it was advertised etc. In this case, this is the discussion about an announcement so it's the right place to offer commentary. And arbitrators and others should take those comments on board. However there's never been any precedent that comments offered here are intended to establish consensus on the decisions. So if there is any any plans to establish consensus for anything, it would need to be properly advertised probably as an RFC and made clear to others that the plan since it goes against the norms of how this noticeboard work. Otherwise what people say here shouldn't be ignored, but it also shouldn't be considered consensus since that's simply not how things work here. I didn't agree with the majority in many areas of the Fram case, but at least the whole thing was well advertised and it was generally made clear when there was some attempt to establish consensus. I read parts of this case at the beginning but have mostly been ignoring it, in part because it I did not expect anyone would have the audacity to claim my silence indicated my views could be ignored and frankly I'm tired of what I consider an overreaction to maybe some minor mistakes. If anyone had ever made it clear there was a consensus process intended here I may very well have taken part. But this was never done and I fully expected it to be treated like other discussion on arbcom decisions where views will hopefully be taken onboard and considered, but where it's recognised that they don't establish consensus, since there is no need to establish consensus on everything. Especially not on decisions already made which are simply being noted and not offered for review. Nil Einne (talk) 14:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
        • I guess I should clarify what I said, to indicate that it applies to situations in which there has been adequate announcement and adequate opportunity for participation. Certainly, if I held a discussion on my user talk page along with two other editors who are regular watchers of my talk page, that would not establish anything near to community consensus. But what we are talking about here is something that got a huge amount of the kinds of things that make editors aware of a discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Do we get answers?

Starting with Iridescent, at least four of us have now raised the issue of why the committee decided to conduct this matter in total secrecy. All I see here is two members of the committee saying it was thought best. I don't consider that sufficient response, and I added the question of whether that decision was taken because of instructions or guidelines from WMF Trust & Safety. Seraphimblade has also asked whether R was given the opportunity to view and respond to all the evidence against him. When do the committee plan to answer these questions? Yngvadottir (talk) 20:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I want answers to those questions, too. I want to add that I'm having a lot of trouble making something closely related add up: Arbs have said that the private discussion was very helpful in providing frank discussion through which both editors agreed that they wanted to avoid one another – and yet Ritchie's subsequent actions are completely at odds with him feeling that he had been in a productive discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• There appears to be a misconception that we held a full case against Ritchie in private. That's not what happened. The history between Praxidicae and Ritchie was highlighted to the committee, for a second time (in the past year). On the previous occasion, a single arbitrator dealt with the issue off list. This time, we followed the WP:LEVEL2 process for desysop. Ritchie was asked for his point of view, and the committee deliberated over whether it was appropriate to remove his sysop user-right. There was consensus that Ritchie's behaviour did not warrant removal of permissions at this time, however, we decided to implement the interaction ban that was considered at AN previously. Under ArbPol, I would consider this to meet our criteria of scope (request to remove tools & final binding decision on issues the community could not resolve). The wording may have conflated the issues that we had considered, but the underlying decision to interaction ban and not to remove tools was agreed by the majority of the committee. Worm^TT(talk) 10:02, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

  Worm That Turned, can you disclose the final ballot-count of the proposed LEVEL2 desysop? Say, 2-7-1 or 1-9 or .... Also, I am interested in the raw count and not in the names on each side. ∯WBG^converse 11:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

  Winged Blades of Godric, there wasn't a formal ballot as we were in deliberations. WIthout a formal vote I can't tell you the count, because some arbs did not declare their final positions. Worm^TT(talk) 12:08, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks. Who was the initiating arbitrator and how many supported a desysop, (even amidst the deliberations)? ∯WBG^converse 12:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

  I would guess this was Premeditated Chaos as per WP:LEVEL2 [t]he initiating arbitrator will (a) leave a message on the account's talk page which appears to be this notice. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:14, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

  AFBorchert, nice observation :-) ∯WBG^converse 14:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

  I initiated the level 2 process because it was brought up in the thread, but I opposed de-sysopping Ritchie. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• The Houdiniesque attempts of Arbcom to justify their poor wording—with no comment on the decision itself which may or may not have been as poor—are adventurous, to be sure. On the one hand, we have an admin whose behaviour was so egregious that the committee deliberated over whether it was appropriate to remove his sysop user-right, but, conversely, the interaction ban is mutual. So the committee are saying that a non-admin editor did something as bad that which could have seen the removal of admin editor's bit, and thus they were treated the same in the committee's statement. Interesting. ——SerialNumber54129

  I'm not prepared to answer that question, more than I have already said. It did not pass. Worm^TT(talk) 20:51, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

  @Worm That Turned: It was not a question. I was merely clarifying the committee's position for you. ——SerialNumber54129 09:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

  Worm That Turned, thanks for the explanation. I still think that leaves several questions unanswered:

  Why did ArbCom find Ritchie to be the "aggressor" and indicate that in its statement, when both Ritchie and Praxidicae were behaving badly toward one another?

  If Ritchie had been L2 desysopped and objected to that decision, he would have had the right to demand that formal proceedings be initiated to examine that decision. Does he have that right in this instance? It is certainly clear he objects.

  Why was Praxidicae offered the option to voluntarily agree to the IBAN, but Ritchie was not made that offer? (If the announcement had said "Due to a history of issues, Ritchie and Praxidicae mutually agree to an interaction ban and asked the Arbitration Committee to formalize it, and the Committee agreed to do so", don't you think that would be much better and would have barely occasioned any notice at all?)

  Why, after the L2 desysop was denied, was the complainant not directed to file a case on-wiki, given that all the evidence, to the best of anyone's knowledge, is on-wiki? Or was there off-wiki behavior considered (aside from communication with ArbCom by email or the like)? There is no "L2 IBAN" procedure, and doing that off-wiki is extraordinary and generally unacceptable.

  We still need answers to those, too. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

  Some very good questions, and I don't actually have the answers to them. I will go back to the committee to discuss on them. Worm^TT(talk) 20:51, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

  @Worm That Turned: Yes. I recommend, notwithstanding what we are not, the Fifth world certainly appear to be yours and Arbcom's best bet. ——SerialNumber54129 21:38, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Worm, that seems to me to be an answer to a different question or two. Scratching my head ... thanks for being forthcoming with that answer, but it seems rather to raise new questions, such as why the committee felt it necessary to respond not once but twice to a complaint by circumventing the noticeboard processes? Maybe that's the same question after all: why such secrecy? Moreover, I've been Level 2 desysopped. At least I knew what it was for. Did Ritchie333 know he was being considered for Level 2 desysopping, and for what? Because if not, it probably didn't feel like leniency, and he might have mounted a different kind of defence, and, well, basic fairness 'n all. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Furthermore, it seems to me that the fact that the initial discussion was about Level 2 has nothing to do with Ritchie still being entitled to due process. I don't think anyone had believed that it was really a full ArbCom case held in private. Even in a more expedited procedure, Ritchie was clearly entitled to more of an opportunity to be aware of, and be able to respond to, the charges against him and the contemplated actions to be taken against him. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Exactly. I just don't see the relevance, unless there's some implied claim of mercy. So again: was it purely the Committee's decision to handle these complaints in this manner, or was there any level of WMF instruction? And again, I second the questions about what Ritchie was told and whether he was given full opportunity to defend himself. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

    As for the first time, it is not unusual for this to happen on the committee. If someone comes to us with an issue, which does not meet our criteria, we will explain why we cannot help, but one individual arbitrator may take further action individually. However, as to the Level 2, we did not let Ritchie know that we were considering it. Oddly, it's not a requirement of the procedures - largely because after a a successful L2, they have the option of a case, and after an unsuccessful L2, we generally move on with nothing further done. Were I not embroiled in the Fram stuff, I would be focused on some deep questions on the L2 procedures - I may well pick up this issue in the future. Worm^TT(talk) 20:51, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

    WTT, thank you for the honest answer, and I hope that other editors will not jump on you for it. But it is very clear that if Ritchie never knew that an L2 was being considered, he never really knew what he was up against. And we all have to realize that this was a grievous failure of due process, no matter what the existing policy on L2 says. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

    That the L2 procedures don't require notification, whether on- or off-wiki, is... less than ideal. I think a change would be well received. Wug·a·po·des​ 00:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

    It would be interesting to know if the initiating arbitrator also dealt with the email correspondence and/or drafted the decision.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

    This was dealt with by the committee as a whole, and the arbitrators who did the public / private facing communications did so on behalf of the committee. Worm^TT(talk) 07:42, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

    Thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

    @Worm That Turned: That's really pretty shabby, and I've informed Ritchie on his user talk. A previous Arbcom gave me more consideration than that, and this Arbcom has recognized R's offense was less than mine by not desysopping him. I'm also noting shabbiness in the continuing failure to answer my question regarding WMF influence in the matter. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

    Yngvadottir, I missed the question, sorry. The WMF did not influence us on this matter, there was no instruction from them, indeed no contact on it at all before the announcement. Worm^TT(talk) 14:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

    Thank you for your answer. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

It's all about communication, even if off-wiki

• Whatever constraints get put on it, there are always going to be offwiki cases. Excellent arguments can be made for variances in that level, so I want to instead cover the fact that one of the big issues was how communication took place (or didn't) with Richie. With the loss of transparency of being onwiki, being fair should be taken even more seriously. I've a few thoughts:

1. Individuals must be notified, both on-wiki and by email, that they are subject to an off-wiki ARBCOM motion or case and, if relevant, the process (e.g. lvl 2 desysopping) being utilised
2. Even in a non full case set-up, an email with the accusations, evidence for them and whatever requests are being made (explanations, reasoning, conceding problems etc) needs to be sent.
3. An explanation needs to be provided, as to why this is an offwiki discussion. A version of this also needs to be provided onwiki, either then or at the conclusion of the case
4. Email discussion with the ARBs needs to continue until either both/all sides feel they have nothing more to say, or the ARBs agree that the communication has become duplicative, with nothing new being said
5. Accused parties need to be notified of potential sanctions - while working out who is guilty is important, letting them submit reasoning/mitigation about specific punishment is also important.
6. Given some confusion above, I'm inclined to think that the final sanction suggestions, at least, should be polled, with names provided onwiki - there seems no reason not to (afaict).

Nosebagbear (talk) 12:13, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I support all of the above suggestions. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:40, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding The Rambling Man

Original announcement

Thank you, - it's a baby step, but better than no step forward. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I marked 11 nominations by User:The Rambling Man is welcome to review, including one for the "so-called left-radical wind band" which seems to match the occasion. Also a US$ 24 million painting, and two "recent" deaths in German literature (nominated in July). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:53, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you to the Committee for supporting this motion and digging through the extensive discussion surrounding it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:11, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
• A quick request for clarification from the committee (but not one worth opening a fresh formal request about): does he may review any DYK nomination at the direct request of the nominator only apply to when he's been explicitly invited to a specific discussion, or is an editor able to post some kind of "I explicitly authorize TRM to comment on any nomination I make" statement? (Asking not for me—all the DYK nominations I've made could fit on the back of a stamp—but I can confidently predict that this will arise). ‑ Iridescent 19:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

  It has actually already: I believe Gerda has given a blanket authorization to TRM. I really don't see the problem with this as long as the rest of the topic ban is followed. After all, it says TRM can't engage in subsequent discussion. If he's just to pop in, give his input on problems with a nom, and then vanish, I don't see the problem. On the other hand, you might read "direct request" to mean actually asking TRM "Can you look at this DYK of mine?" rather than "You can look at this DYK of mine." Of course, if that is the issue, it would be the same for "Can you look at all DYKs I submit in the future?" instead of "You can look at all DYKs I submit in the future." —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

  Which is even more reason this needs to be formally clarified. If you don't believe there's someone hovering over Gerda's contributions as we speak, waiting for the instant TRM comments on a DYK that doesn't have a written invitation, to indefblock him on the grounds that "the conditions say he needs to be directly invited to the discussion", you don't understand the arbcom-sycophant mindset. We've literally just seen someone blocked on the grounds that mentioning the existence of a topic ban constitutes a breach of that topic ban, after all. ‑ Iridescent 20:11, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

  @Iridescent: who was the user? -- RoySmith (talk) 00:21, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

  Well said. I guess this needs a clarification request already. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:20, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

  Blocked for mentioning a topic ban, is that what happened? Jeez. FWIW, my approach was that people would either do what Gerda has done and explicitly tagged any review she's happy for me to do, or to pop a note on my talkpage pointing me to a nomination. I wouldn't consider any other approach. But you're right about the circling hawks... The ARCA demonstrated that perfectly. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 20:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

  I also authorise TRM to look at all DYKs I submit. Not that I ever submitted any nor currently plan to submit any, but anyway… Κσυπ Cyp   22:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

  Knowing about the formalistic approach of some when it comes to AE (named enFORCEment for a reason), I marked each individual nomination. Thanks to TRM, I got another GA today, Vespro della Beata Vergine, and plan to take it to FA, so everybody is welcome to go over it informally for further improvements. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:08, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

It strikes me that this announcement isn't hugely approachable by anyone who's not familiar with the case, and the same is true of all other remedy-replacement announcements. Adding new remedies is easy to understand, and removing them also isn't hard to understand because the whole thing's gone, but understanding an amendment requires you to know both the old and the new. In the future, would you be willing to include the old version of the remedy as well as the new, or provide a before-and-after inline (e.g. User:1 is prohibited from interacting with User:2 editing articles about X), so at a glance one can see the effect? Nyttend (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for the feedback, Nyttend. We've been working on making arbitration processes more intuitive and understandable and I'll be sure to suggest better-worded announcements in the future. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Wording improvement? The wording for the new edition of this remedy is fine; the problem is that we're not given anything of what the old wording was. Nyttend (talk) 22:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

    Actually, nothing was deleted, so there was nothing to strike. The change was solely the underlined sentence, which was added. Typically you can use <del></del> to designate deletions and <ins></ins> to designate insertions. These just make strikes/underlinings. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

    • Ah, okay. Since underlining can be used for emphasis, I didn't realise that it was the new addition. So with this announcement, a simple "newly added text is underlined" would have worked. Maybe all amendment announcements could say "removed text is stricken and added text is underlined", regardless of whether both situations occurred in a specific announcement. Nyttend (talk) 22:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

      I think that’s a reasonable idea. I would put inside the {{ivmbox}}, in small print underneath the new text (which is indented and in a {{tq}}), “Additions are <ins>underlined</ins>. Deletions are <del>stricken</del>.”. Simple and pretty unobtrusive, I think. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

      • Yes, to me that sounds ideal. Nyttend (talk) 23:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
        • Good suggestion I'll forward this onto the clerks team. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:29, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
          • FYI to those interested, see Ramseyer Rule or Cordon Rule. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I haven't broken Wikipedia yet (or unduly insulted anyone, for a change). Despite some tricky edge cases, things are looking up for Wikipedia and its readers! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Astounding!  — Amakuru (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I for one would like to thank TRM for his work at unbreaking Wikipedia. As a relative newcomer to the GA process, I was slightly hesitant about approaching TRM for a GA review - given the sanctions in place, and the commentary I have been vaguely aware of on the various drama boards, I was half-expecting a good old-fashioned tongue-lashing for an improperly placed apostrophe or the wrong sort of dash. Instead (and perhaps somewhat anti-climactically), all my interactions with him have been instructive, encouraging, and entirely positive. Have I been doing something wrong? GirthSummit _(blether) 23:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Plus with TRM we're assured The Boat Race will always be updated in a timely manner for posting at ITN :) --Masem (t) 00:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding the Arab–Israel conflict

Original announcement

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Proposed decision#Discretionary sanctions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:20, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Resignation of Callanecc

Original announcement

Very sorry to see this as I particularly enjoyed working with Callanecc last year. Good luck for the future, and I look forward to you coming back! Worm^TT(talk) 10:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

• Sad; you seemed to be one of the good folks .... Wish you the best for all your future endeavors and hope to see you back in the not-so-remote future :-) ∯WBG^converse 11:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
• Huh, the fourth resignation from that election batch (out of 8). Based on the Antisemitism in Poland PD being over a month late, Arbs unable to vote even on the temporary injunctions there, things seem pretty dysfunctional. Callanecc cited lack of time for the resignation. Perhaps some real fixes need to be implemented here, especially to move away from the obsolete email list work format. --Pudeo (talk) 12:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm curious what options you think would be better to replace the mailing list? Personally I never really found the mailing list to be the time sink versus reading through evidence and drafting, but this is an unseasonable amount of retirements at this point and it's got to be critically affecting things at this point. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
    • When I was aboard, the mailing list was a timesink. Not that people's requests were not important, but if you were to go through and personally action/comment/opine in any detail on all the email that came in, you wouldn't have time for anything else or at least I wouldn't. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Ban all mailing list usage except for cases where privacy is necessary. Pretty sure the process would speed up if all arb comments/discussion were public - probably due to the reduction in opining. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
        • I'm sure this isn't a new idea, but have you folks considered doing business on a private wiki? I've had a lot of work discussions by email, and the fact that people have short memories and are unwilling/find it difficult to search through email for previous discussions causes a lot of trouble. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

          That sounds a very sensible idea. The concept of a mailing list has been obsolete for around 20 years as far as I'm concerned. Obviously the requests themselves would still have to be via email, but an appropriate process could transclude the comments for further discussion on the wiki. I don't know if there would be security issues around unauthorised access to the wiki, and sensitive discussions, but worth thinking about.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

          There is already an Arbcom-wiki, actually. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

          Why not a forum? SMF, phpBB, [insert brand of choice here] - surely one could be setup and customized to ArbCom's needs relatively quick Dax Bane 11:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

          • • Do the clerks have access to the mailing list? Could this work like OTRS, where trusted volunteer clerks handle the email and can move the real hard cases to a specific queue for the arbs? Guy (Help!) 16:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
              • The clerks don't have access to the private mailing list or wiki because at present they are not required to identify to the Wikimedia Foundation. I've discussed potential changes in the role of the clerks, but I suspect that the community would not be on board with any system where unelected clerks can make dispositive rulings on most cases or have access to the type of highly-sensitive information that the arbs routinely deal with. I do agree that ArbCom needs some trusted underlings to help deal with the cases, but I think the clerks don't have the right institutional role for that. Some sort of actual paid employee might work better. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
                • Subcommittees have been tried and shuttered. (WP:BASC / WP:AUSC). –xeno^talk 17:04, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
              • Changes from today's practice can of course be made, but community approval would be required first. Clerks are not currently elected by the community; I imagine that the community would require a change to the clerk selection process before empowering them to handle community issues on their own initiative. isaacl (talk) 17:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
                • Indeed, asking clerks (or any other group) to decide on the unblocks/ appeals would require a new policy. However, asking clerks or some other group - obviously, with the privacy requirements etc - for example, to prepare incoming unblock / appeal requests in such a form that handling it will take much less time (I do not know, collecting relevant diffs or smth) might save some time to Arbs. However, this is up to Arbs to decide in the first instance.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
                  • I imagine to be allowed access to this type of private information, the community will still require a change to the clerk selection process. Although of course theoretically possible, it would mean gaining a consensus for a new process, and if it were to involve elections, for example, a willingness to participate regularly in these elections. isaacl (talk) 17:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Either a semi-private wiki with different content visibility levels for different users or Phabricator, but instead of bugs you'd have reports/inquiries. --Pudeo (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Pudeo, MediaWiki is not suitable for such "different content visibility levels" per mw:Manual:Preventing_access#Restrict_viewing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
        • @Pudeo and ToBeFree: This is btw phab:T230668, with a few earlier tasks merged into that one possibly worth reading (I haven't read them myself). --Izno (talk) 03:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
      • What about something like Slack? Always a possibility (although not open source, sadly)... -- Rockstonetalk to me! 21:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • The mailing list is mainly time consuming because of block appeals, which we can't simply stop answering. It works fine for discussions between arbs. – Joe (talk) 10:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

    Could some of the block appeal business be shifted to clerks?--Ymblanter (talk) 10:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

    I doubt it, at least as the Committee is currently constituted. I mean, there are all sorts of ways to reform the Committee to make it more efficient, particularly such that there are fewer redundancies. But as it stands, as long as everything has to be heard by the whole Committee, there's really not much that can be done. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

At what point do we have too few Arbs to handle the complex and diverse cases we usually see? I believe we're now down to a total of EIGHT active Arbs? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I have never seen any real benefit to adding more cooks to the kitchen... Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, let's just vote for a single benevolent dictator cook. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Except this isn't a kitchen. It's a group charged with evaluating behavior for an international group of users. I want a wide range of perspectives and thinking. Too few people can lead to decision making that doesn't think of some potential issues with a possible action. ArbCom is going to be deliberative by its nature. That's good. Let's lean into that where we can. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Well true, a kitchen routinely has to deal with more complicated issues than Arbcom's usual glut of 'person said bad thing about me but they are protected' and the obvious Israel government stooges. But professional arbitration in far more complicated cases is routinely handled the world over by Arbiters acting alone or up to 3. SCOTUS - which for better or worse ARBCOM is modelled on - has 9 to handle cases of wide-ranging importance in the US, with the associated complexity. The point of arbitration is to resolve the dispute. Not to make everyone happy. 12 people are not going to substantially improve the ability to resolve disputes over 8, when dealing with simple disputes. Unless of course you are accepting that the popularity contest that elects them in the first place is bound to include a few duds, so you need the numbers to increase your chances of getting an intelligent one. In which case, yes, thats a reasonable argument for having a lot. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Professional arbitrators are not anonymous and so can be chosen on the basis of their credentials, and can work full-time on the matters at hand. If the English Wikipedia community wants to expedite conduct dispute resolution, perhaps it should consider hiring full-time personnel. isaacl (talk) 10:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

This has been suggested multiple times by the community, or at least asking the WMF to hire some people with experience in conflict resolution. It always seems to come to naught unsurprisingly - while the WMF seems to prioritise hiring people experienced in conflict escalation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I haven't seen these requests; whenever I've seen proposals for community-hired staff raised for discussion, the main response is editors disclaiming an interest in having paid personnel be involved in English Wikipedia matters. isaacl (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I've talked about it recently. I'm of the opinion that it's something that's actually needful in some way. One of the reformed Committee structures I've thought up is one resembling a professional licensing board: The board (Committee) itself is made up of members of the profession and other stakeholders (here, editors from enwiki) rather than lawyers and judges. Factfinding proceedings, such as ones that determine whether misconduct has occurred and how severe the misconduct is, are conducted by a professional administrative law judge (or ALJ; we could call this a "case manager" or "referee" or similar), who knows how to handle evidence, knows the relevant procedure, can make principled rulings on whether something needs to be confidential, etc. The ALJ, at the end of the proceeding, makes a report containing findings of fact and conclusions of law to the licensing board, perhaps with a recommendation of sanction. The board then will meet and consider whether to accept the report (some systems permit the board to make changes, others require the board to either accept it or request reconsideration), and what (if any) sanction to levy based on the report. Basically, a structure like this would take all the case management and handling of evidence out of the individual arbs' hands and permit everything to be winnowed down to keep it simple. As I discussed below, the Committee is fairly unusual in that it permits FoFs, etc. to be decided by all arbitrators rather than a panel or an individual arbitrator. The result of this is some rather severe inefficiencies, delays, and other problems that you really don't see much in real adjudicative systems. Anyway, that's just one of the ideas I've had. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I have too, in the past and recently. I haven't seen any actual requests to the WMF to hire anyone for the purpose of dispute resolution, as I'm not aware of any consensus agreement on the part of the community to proceed, but of course it may have happened somewhere I wasn't paying attention. If anyone can point me towards any requests, I'd appreciate it! isaacl (talk) 23:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

SCOTUS - which for better or worse ARBCOM is modelled on If this is the case, and I question whether it is, it's probably only true in the sense that all the arbitrators participate in every case. In every other important sense, the Committee functions nothing like the Supreme Court. The Committee only really has original jurisdiction, not appellate jurisdiction, while SCOTUS's jurisdiction is almost exclusively appellate—in other words, it doesn't usually do factfinding; facts are part of the record that come from the trial court, and in the extremely uncommon original jurisdiction case, the modern practice is for SCOTUS to assign these aspects to a special master, who presents a report upon which SCOTUS may rule. The result is that you don't get 9 people voting on every single sentence and paragraph and creating a mishmosh judicial decision, you get a small number of opinions on a narrow question of law. The differences flowing from this single distinction are enormous. I don't mention this simply to nitpick either, but to make clear that in many cases the presumed legal origin of Committee procedure is incorrect, irrelevant, or not properly understood. Handling trial proceedings, which is essentially what a Committee case is, as a panel of this many arbitrators is not only impractical but extremely inefficient. There's a reason why three-judge panels are the standard when a panel is to be used, and really, thought should be given to appointing a subset of arbs to handle cases once they're accepted, just as they already theoretically do by assigning the drafting of decisions.
Unfortunately, getting meaningful reform to the Committee that actually takes into account the lessons of professional dispute resolution systems seems inevitably to wind up vulnerable to WP:NOTLAW/WP:NOTBURO and similar dismissals. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

The resignation of an Arbitrator who has been inactive for most of their term does not change the number of active arbitrators. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Sure, so we're good to go with eight "active" Arbs? With the existing (and vitally important caseload). Brilliant. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

That is why a vital question to be answered when considering an ArbCom candidate is: "Will you be able to devote adequate time to the position?" I have not reviewed the "rules" but unforeseen issues cannot be helped. If an ArbCom member becomes inactive for a long duration there should be provisions to examine this and not have a long-term inactive member. Whatever number as is currently accepted should be maintained by either a special election or some use of an alternate position. This becomes more important when the plate is full, and does not include that some extra-unforeseen event could shorten the number to 7. Otr500 (talk) 00:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Because a candidate doesn't have to honor what they say. Here's a good example - Courcelles wrote in their candidate statement SO I've been back to full activity all this year, and am fully prepared for the workload and e-mail volume if I get elected again. If you look at their contribs they've made maybe a dozen edits on Wiki since becoming elected. I think they are active on the mailing list, but no idea if just passively (ie. voting on things someone else proposes). Mr Ernie (talk) 07:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, don't worry, we're only 2-3 months from a large election... Indeed, the RfC is scheduled to start in a little over a week. Worm^TT(talk) 09:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

In my view we had too few arbs from the beginning of this term, and of course the resignations have made that worse, to the point that we're having to suspend cases just to stay on top of things. If you're worried about that, please consider supporting expanding the committee in the upcoming RfC. – Joe (talk) 10:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, I am worried because Wikipedia is currently undergoing its most dangerous crisis since it began and yet those charged with seeing our way through the mire are dropping like flies. We can't wait. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey! -- Someone ping me if they don't see me. I think there are, and have been, too few. I do not understand a mentality I see sometimes. Some push for a reduction in Arbcom or Admin numbers and then complain when there is a crisis and a shortage. I cannot imagine, in this world, why there would be a clear opinion from the WMF that there are things lacking, and that we would want to be caught with our proverbial pants down. I know a specific fiasco created issues, and an Exodus of sorts, and I do not think this has been given the attention it deserves. Very few like or want too much bureaucracy but we have to have appropriate representation to handle issues that arise. I just wonder why (in the US) we have Vice Presidents, Lt. Governors, contingencies for replacing members of Congress or the Senate, and all around the world companies can have emergency meetings to replace a CEO, other organizations have such plans to ensure a smooth operation, and Wikipedia suspends cases, because somehow some form of alternates or special elections are not deemed important. This year we wait until December, and the next time we can wait longer. I suppose some here are a lot smarter than I am and consider these positions like US Federal judges, just do without until someone gets around to it, but ---what if the crap hits the fan --- or did that already happen? Otr500 (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

We should consider in the Rfc enabling the runners-up to automatically step up for the original term if an arb resigns, subject to some level of support in the election. Johnbod (talk) 02:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Meh. The real issue is when you look at the candidates, both successful and unsuccessful. Looking at the 2018 results, there was only one successful candidate (Joe Roe) who was new to the committee, and every other candidate over 60% support was a former arb; 2017 was slightly better, but those "new" people have mostly stepped down already. We are not renewing the committee; in other words, we are not growing new leadership. This is a significant failure on the part of the community. (Yes, it's on us, not on them. At least these individuals are trying to keep things going by standing for election.) I'm trying to figure out who our next generation of people willing to take on complicated roles will be, since I'm seeing fewer and fewer people willing to stand up. Arbcom's problems are only a symptom of the problems endemic to the community as a whole. Risker (talk) 03:03, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Changes to functionary team

Original announcement

Happy to have served. All the best to the rest of the team. :) — 🦊 08:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Antisemitism in Poland (temporary injunction)

Original announcement

• In case there were any questions here, I wanted to confirm that this is a temporary measure that will automatically cease to have effect when the Antisemitism in Poland case is closed. Pinging Volunteer Marek and Icewhiz to make sure you got this. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @L235: - lest I run foul of this inadvertently - in what manner may I "submit (directly to the committee) responses to a proposed decision in these proceedings" ? Icewhiz (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
    • @Icewhiz: I don't have more information from the Committee than what's publicly available, but I would do so by email. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)