Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Karellen93 (talk | contribs) at 00:40, 8 August 2019 (→‎Arbitration motion regarding Ritchie333 and Praxidicae: Re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Motion: India-Pakistan

Original announcement

Fram case opened

Original announcement

So it's the star chamber after all? Well at least we know who the judges are. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 12:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • It does say "Evidence submitted will be summarised, anonymised and presented to Fram and to the community here." on the Evidence subpage, which I read as the case not being completely private. —Kusma (t·c) 12:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and there is one thing that may require clarification: The case page says "The committee accepts that it should open a full case to investigate the interactions of Fram with other editors over this time period." without specifying what "this time period" is. —Kusma (t·c) 12:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right. The time period is the last three years, I'll sort that. WormTT(talk) 13:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well now hold on a sec, SilkTork indicated that this is to be a Fram case and not a case on the T&S document. It would stand to reason that his whole record is relevant, if not in terms of wrongdoing, in terms of mitigating factors. If it's just going back to 2016, when the T&S record starts, then it's just a case on the T&S record, with outside evidence supporting its complaints, isn't it? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 13:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Mendaliv, This is a case on Fram, not the T&S document. I believe we are treating the document as "submitted evidence", though I personally intend to weigh community evidence higher than the T&S document. Three years is a reasonable period to go back in establishing a pattern of behaviour, which is what we're supposedly looking at. WormTT(talk) 14:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's honestly confusing, then, that the T&S document has the same time scope as this case. Presuming this case gets to a remedy phase, will mitigating evidence (e.g., character evidence, evidence of rehabilitation or potential therefor, etc.) be accepted outside of that scope? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Brief background material is fine, but it's like any other "pattern of behavior" case - there's a balance between prioritizing recent events and looking back far enough to see any recurring patterns. Two to three years is usually a good timeframe to see both angles. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could the committee start by posting a brief, anonymized summary of what they received from WMF? We shouldn’t be left guessing what the case is about. How can we present relevant evidence if we don’t know which incidents to examine? I think all the cloak and dagger is just theatre. Many editors have already figured out what this was about. You may as well confirm, correct or clarify because facts are preferable to rumors. Jehochman Talk 12:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

+1 if sensitive material has been redacted, there's no reason not to share a synopsis of the evidence. This should have been prepared and presented straight away. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 12:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Well, SilkTork above seems to have leaked who it wasn't. What I want to know is (1) whether the records T&S submitted are all the records, (2) whether the records were produced in anticipation of this process, and (3) whether the records were maintained in the ordinary course of business. As to what is "relevant evidence", they seem to be going for a "full Fram" case, so everything bad you can find about Fram is relevant. Of course, there's no way to refute anything since it's all going to be kept secret. So if you're interested in defending Fram you should find everything he's done that could be called bad and then find exculpatory evidence to respond to all of those instances. And really, for his defenders, it's probably a good idea to dig up everything exculpatory you can find at all. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 12:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is something we have been discussing. Anything with respect to the T&S report will need to be cleared by WMF Legal. It is important to note that the report was redacted for release to the Arbitration Committee (a committee of individuals who have signed multiple confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements with the WMF); the report was not redacted for public release. We are effectively dealing with layers of confidentiality both within the WMF and with those who are covered under NDAs. To reduce the report or summarize it to where it can be released to the public will be a much more complicated process which we are exploring. Mkdw talk 16:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another question: Who is recused? The use of the "b" mailing list makes it appear that there are recusals. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 12:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a star chamber charade, a horrible precedent allowing poison-pen anonymous attack and denying elementary rights of the accused to hear evidence against him and to present potentially exculpatory counter-evidence. The community has been lead into a cul-de-sac by WMF intervention; this secretive process is in no way a satisfactory outcome to their external incursion. Carrite (talk) 12:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I agree 100%. Everyone needs to be looking over their shoulders now. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 12:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see evidence that any procedural rights are being violated. I assume that, despite the evidence being confidential, the parties still have access to it? Sandstein 19:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I got the impression that Fram won’t see anything until the Committee has anonymized everything, which I expect they’ll do once they close the phases. The idea that the public would be able to participate in a workshop phase via e-mail is frankly ridiculous anyway. How are we supposed to constructively suggest principles and sanctions when we can’t see any evidence?? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Mendaliv, I hope that is not the case. If they don't update the evidence page as emails come in, they are likely to get the same evidence over and over again. I'm lazy and don't want to compile evidence, so I'd like to know whether someone else will say what I might say. —Kusma (t·c) 21:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just in case I have posted in the wrong place, please note this comment of mine. - Sitush (talk) 12:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amid all the (to be expected) criticism, I'd personally like to thank the committee for taking on this issue and opening the case. My respects to you all, and my best wishes - you're going to need them. Rest assured that at the end of the case(s), you will all be receiving "My community went through FRAMGATE, and all I got was this lousy t-shirt" gifts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Please make sure to submit all shirts to arbcom-en-tee@wikimedia.org Barkeep49 (talk) 15:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You'll be fine. Write a summary of the essential points to consider. What are the issues to be decided? Write that up and get it cleared by WMF, and then proceed with the case. Fram said he would be absent from July 15-30, so you have about a week to do this without losing any time at all. Jehochman Talk 16:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Write that up and get it cleared by WMF, and then proceed with the case. I hope you're joking. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference, at least in theory, between saying "complaints were received from Users A, B, and C" (which I understand the WMF would have an issue with) and "we are looking at Fram's interactions with Users A, B, and C" (which should be okay, at least as to editors who were not among the complainants— and we shouldn't make assumptions or speculate as to who complained about what). I realize that saying the latter might lead to the former, and hence it might not be permitted to identify every A, B, and C, but I'm not sure of that and so I raise the question for the arbitrators to consider. I also echo the point made above that it would be worthwhile for the Committee to specify the time-frame on which their review of Fram's conduct is focused. Setting a time-frame presumably wouldn't preclude reference to earlier events as background information, but it would help everyone involved in the process, including Fram, to focus their efforts on the most relevant evidence. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would even be useful to identify venues and date ranges, without naming specific editors. Jehochman Talk 22:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is smart. I certainly hope the Committee takes this sensible step. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A set of questions: without naming any specific editors, have the committee as a whole (or individual arbitrators) been proactively contacting interested parties by email to ask them to submit (or consider submitting) evidence? Related to that, has it been decided yet whether any evidence submitted previously or in the future by vanished or renamed users will be accepted as part of the case? Carcharoth (talk) 22:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, we have not solicited any specific persons on-wiki or off to provide evidence, and there are no plans to. Frankly, I don't expect that we will receive any evidence from vanished/renamed users. Leaving the project by way of a hard vanish is a pretty serious step, and I doubt anyone who felt that way would be hanging around waiting for us to open a case so they could submit evidence. I could be wrong; if I am, I expect we'll weigh such a submission based on the quality of the evidence, but it's not something we've already made a decision on. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you (the reason I asked in the first place was noticing this and wondering what was going on there - courtesy ping to KrakatoaKatie). Couple more questions: will you be accepting evidence submissions from anyone who may have a conflict of interest (and will you be proactively on the lookout for any potential COI given that the community will be less able to scrutinise such matters)? Will you accept evidence submissions from members of the WMF Board or WMF employees? Will you accept evidence submissions from groups (e.g. Wikimedia chapters who have expressed concern, such as WM-DC mentioned in the section above) or will you only accept evidence from individuals? Of course, T&S should also have asked themselves such questions, but who knows if they did? ArbCom can hopefully be a bit less of a black box in that regard. And thank you (all of you) again for being responsive here - it is much appreciated. Carcharoth (talk) 22:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Those emails were regarding CU/OS activity IIRC. I'm not sure how you'd define a conflict of interest with regards to this situation - does anyone who feels Fram has negatively affected them have a COI? What about anyone who feels Fram has positively affected them, is that also a COI? Where do you draw the line? As for board members or employees, I very much doubt they would submit any evidence in this matter (aside from the T&S report that we already have), given that it was specifically handed to us so we could judge it independently. If it comes up (say if an employee submits new evidence as an individual) I imagine we would handle it as we would handle any submission of evidence, by weighing its merits and making a decision as to its relevance. As for evidence submitted by entire an Wikimedia chapter collectively - as far as I know that's never been done. Aside from the above-noted statement of general concern, AFAIK WM-DC hasn't had any other as-a-chapter involvement in the situation, so I don't exactly anticipate any collective submissions from them. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those are about functionary activity. Nothing to do with the Fram case at all. Katietalk 00:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for explaining that those emails were to do with functionary activity. I should have realised that was a common factor there. My suggestion, as far as it is possible, regarding evidence that needs to be weighed (or even rejected) due to context, is to make as clear as possible that you have done this. e.g. If a set of evidence is completely rejected, then say that this happened. Give people some idea of the volume of evidence submitted and the number of people who email you. That small amount of information will satisfy most people. Carcharoth (talk) 09:47, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fram once provided evidence at arbitration against an editor. If that user or a friend from WM DC turn up bearing evidence, the possibility of retribution needs to be considered. I mention the possibility because two such users had a go at me after I deleted that problematic Signpost article which was arguably slandering Fram. It felt like I was caught in the crossfire of an old feud. The thing is that they didn’t disclose the history of their conflict or their collusion. Jehochman Talk 00:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
People submit evidence with the intention of getting people they're in conflict with sanctioned all the time in arbitration cases. It's practically a given; a case is basically a structured way of saying "ok, everybody tell us what you think about who's at fault in this conflict and what we should do about it." The probability that we will get submissions of evidence from people who think Fram is terrible is a solid 100% - but I'm also 100% sure we'll get plenty of submissions from people who think Fram is the bee's knees. Our job as arbs is to take the totality of the submissions and read them, consider the source and the context, weigh their actual relevance and significance, and render a decision on the basis of all of the evidence. That's what we do in any case we get and that's what we intend to do here, full stop. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but (a) we know that at least one significant group of people, several high-ranking members of which have extremely close connections to WMF, are colluders, politicised and determined to change en-WP; and (b) the arbs get "help" in weighing-up matters from evidence submitters who point out discrepancies etc when things are done in the open and that cannot happen in the proposed structure of this case. As I have said before, arbitrators make mistakes just as much as anyone else but the chances of mistakes happening reduce when scrutiny of evidence etc is spread wider. - Sitush (talk) 01:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, our eyes are wide open here, and we are not stupid. We're well aware of the history. We're relatively savvy people, for all our pomposity, and we will deal with those who have agendas. But there is some evidence in that report that we cannot disclose. I wish we could, but we can't. We will give Fram his due. We're determined to. In the end, half of the community will likely be angry and the other half will be angry about something else. It's the way this gig works. All we can promise is that we'll do the best we can, because we realize how important it is to Fram, to the people who contacted T&S, and to our community. Katietalk 01:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I admire your self-confidence but I never mentioned the report, nor did Carcharoth or Jehochman. That's at least two arbs making mis-statements regarding the case in the last 12 or so hours (see this). It happens but, well, QED? - Sitush (talk) 01:53, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this seems like a bit of a farce. You're only accepting privately submitted evidence? How can there be any rebuttals of claims of malfeasance? You're only going to get evidence of problematic edits by Fram this way because you can't submit evidence to prove a negative unless you're responding to something. Is the for public, redacted version of the evidence that ARBCOM got going to be presented to Fram and the public soon? That will, at least, be a starting point to submit evidence that Fram was correct in his editing (assuming that is the case, of course). Valeince (talk) 01:07, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I missed out on getting the first comment in because I don't have many administrator-related pages in my watchlist, but I do want to thank Arbcom for going with this compromise proceedings that seems to address the majority of the original concerns imo. It really means a lot to me that you guys put all this work in. I'm actually teary eyed about it. I am just really really happy with these proceedings is all. It must've taken an awful lot of work and discussing to come up with. I can't stop crying! It goes a long way to helping ensure this we have an open process that is still safe for folks to discuss things anonymously. :') –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fram case opened (Arbitrary break 1)

While I don't doubt the integrity of this ArbCom in the slightest, I can acknowledge that this is a test in which ArbCom has something to prove to the Foundation, and that this investigation will likely come to the obvious conclusion that Fram was an asshole to too many people for too long, and that his sanction will be largely or wholly upheld. I presume there is a mutual understanding, if unspoken, that this meant to be a chance for Arbcom to legitimize this ban, not to overrule the Foundation, and that Arbcom's hands are largely tied. I expect no surprises in this regard. I do however vehemently request that Arbcom provide a conclusive finding of fact to the community as to whether Fram was banned in a direct response to one of the specified behaviors listed in the ToU clause that he was banned under (i.e. harassment, threats, stalking, spamming, vandalism; Transmitting chain mail, junk mail, or spam to other users.) No, the Foundation simply citing that clause is not evidence of a violation, and beyond that nobody has been able to answer this simple question with a simple secondary confirmation that it was not merely a civility shadowban, as many of us believe it was. A definitive answer to this fundamental question needs to be on the record. ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Swarm: In all fairness, many arbs are on record saying (1) the T&S report was rather nuanced and somewhat compelling, but (2) it will not be weighted as heavily community evidence throughout this process. I suspect that this conclusion is not as predetermined as you may have implied here.
Either way, I would also like to see the specific TOU clause cited. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, it doesn't matter which TOU clause in particular this falls under. The TOU gives the WMF broad powers to ban users that are not limited to the list in Section 4. ("These activities include..." "Manage otherwise the Project websites in a manner designed to facilitate their proper functioning and protect the rights, property, and safety of ourselves and our users, licensors, partners, and the public." "In certain (hopefully unlikely) circumstances it may be necessary for [us] ... to ... block your account or access, or ban you as a user.") And even if ArbCom concludes this is not "harassment" it may be that T&S has a different understanding of the word "harassment" rather than that they were trying to deceive us about the motivation for the ban. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think an important principle in this case will be how (and if) "harassment" is defined in enwiki policy. – Joe (talk) 08:52, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But the community evidence is likely to be skewed by proxies for the WMF who work in tandem with each other, such as WM-DC, and because without sight of the evidence by the community in general (anonymised, if necessary) it is inevitable that complaints will be encouraged. That, indeed, was part of the apparent rationale for approaching T&S in the first place, ie: to bypass established on-wiki procedures. We're creating a monstrous situation here that will have severe future ramifications. - Sitush (talk) 07:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this should flush out some alleged misdeeds. But anything cited in public can then be examined and either Fram can be sanctioned, but in an efficient effective way where they can only return if they know what to do differently in the future. Or we can remind the evidence submitters that if you want to change policy the way to do it is to propose a change to policy, not to harass those who are enforcing an agreed policy. ϢereSpielChequers 08:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but the evidence and workshop phases are being rolled into one here and any publication will happen after the phases are over - it is this for which I sought clarification yesterday. So there won't actually be anything for the community to comment on prior to ArbCom making a decision. Yes, Fram will be given the opportunity to comment prior to that stage but it really will be Fram vs The World and, bearing in mind that two arbs have already made mis-statements/have misunderstood in the conduct of this case, I really do think it needs extra eyes as far as is practicable. - Sitush (talk) 09:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware that the AC is all that stands between us and the arbitrary whim of T&S, but I'm not quite clear on the rationale for the public-submitted evidence to be confidential. Could that be explained? The public has no idea who the complainant(s) might be and so could not out them.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the committee should reflect on being as open as it can be. Wehwalt is right - most onwiki evidence can surely be presented without revealing who complained about it. The community provides a valuable scrutiny role in these proceedings, which they cannot do when prevented from seeing it. Of course, offwiki activity like emails and other sites might need to be presented more delicately or not at all. But of a 70 page dossier, it must be possible to share much of it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:18, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even go that far. I'm just asking why the evidence submitted by members of the community cannot be public.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Minor question: the 'drafting arbitrator' has been designated as 'committee as a whole' - is this to avoid undue pressure being brought to bear on individuals, or is it a genuine desire for all arbitrators to actually participate in drafting? (There will surely be some arbs that won't have the time or inclination to do the heavy lifting there, and sometimes too many people makes it difficult to do that.) After the fact, maybe it should be stated if the process (presumably the drafting will be done on the arbwiki) was driven by one or two arbitrators, as that is information that is needed to judge the performance of arbitrators. May I also suggest that you anonymise submissions as they are received, so minimising the potential sources of leaks (i.e. don't transfer identifying information from emails to the arbwiki). I am quite sure you have thought of this already, so I won't make many more suggestions like this, but that is the sort of thing that is hopefully being considered. Carcharoth (talk) 12:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Colleagues can correct me, but I do not think the prospect of pressure upon drafting arbitrators came up at all. Appointing drafters is a workflow tool for the committee. We seem to have, independently, agreed without discussing that such a tool is not appropriate in this case. In other words, this matter required closer participation from the start by all arbitrators. AGK ■ 20:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When I was an Arb I always felt that the more Arbitrators who participated in the workshop and PD drafting phase the better, Doug Weller talk 07:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. It was frustrating to workshop stuff and only when the PD was posted did arbs read through everything and result in a very messy and protracted PD phase. More involvement by everyone earlier results in faster, better results. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This absolutely isn't how I see it. I wouldn't have voted to take a case if we were constrained in what conclusions we could reach, and we've been assured by Jimmy and others that we can overturn T&S' sanctions if that's what we decide. I know at least several other arbs share the view that we should treat this as a new case from as blank a slate as possible. The T&S document (or more precisely, the reports from editors it contains) is one piece of evidence and won't carry any more weight than anything else we receive. – Joe (talk) 08:52, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Joe Roe, I wonder that you need to consider it at all, given that the community will likely supply the same or equivalent information.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wehwalt: if the scope of review is years, that report may contain evidence submissions from editors that are not currently available to re-submit their evidence. — xaosflux Talk 18:18, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a reasonable guess, but I'm hoping for the straight dope.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - I think I know the answer, but given all the secret stuff I thought I'd ask. Can User:A submit evidence that User:B and User:C had issues (even if User:A was not involved in the least)? — Ched :  ?  — 23:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have logged in to WP after a long absence because this case is important. Fram is one of the reasons why I gave up my prolific editing of WP. See User_talk:Alan_Liefting/Archive_21#Categories for a bit of background. Fram was one of a number of irrational editors who were more interested in punitive actions against other editors instead of concentrating on building a high quality encyclopaedia. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:24, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • And if that background you refer to is representative of the wider issue at that time then, yep, it would seem Fram was correct. If anything, your comment here rather reinforces my belief that submitted evidence needs to be made public in so far as possible. The correct course of action would have been to appeal your topic ban, surely? - Sitush (talk) 01:41, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering how long it was going to take to go from ArbCom being the heroes of the day to ArbCom returning to being villains in the eyes of many editors. About this long seems to be the answer. While I'm somewhat sceptical about ArbCom's ability to handle cases which involve allegations of harassment against high profile editors given its track record on the issue, I'm happy to give them the benefit of the doubt and wish them well in this case. Given the background to the case and the vast amount of drama which has taken place, I'm struggling to see an alternative to holding the case in private given that it involves information provided to the WMF under conditions of confidentiality and there's a 100% likelihood that anyone who posts a serious accusation against Fram will be severely hounded (at least one of the people who many editors believed submitted a report to T&S has left after being hounded - given this, imagine what would happen to those who are known to have made a complaint?). I note that Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram/Evidence states that "Evidence submitted will be summarised, anonymised and presented to Fram and to the community here", which seems to address some of the concerns above. Nick-D (talk) 04:16, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
+1. I am stunned disappointed but not surprised to see the very same criticisms that were directed at the WMF directed at ArbCom (everything is a star chamber), despite the number of people who said teh real source of their complaint was that the WMF was handling it instead of the locally-elected ArbCom. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:31, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
+2. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I rather am too. I realize that I worked during my own time on the ArbCom with some of the current members, and that may change my own perspective somewhat, but I will say that, of those who I did share my time there with, I would fully trust them to make an impartial and fair decision, and that they would absolutely not tolerate being used as a rubber stamp for WMF. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if these questions were already addressed but:

  • Will there be a public PD or will we only find out the final decision?
  • Did the T&S report contain allegations of Fram acting improperly offwiki or was it all contained to onwiki actions and associated commentary? --Rschen7754 22:47, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fram case opened (Arbitrary break 2)

In case anyone has missed it, see here. I think you (ArbCom) may have to decide what to do going forward, as Fram clearly wants to participate in public and speak up in their own defence, and is doing so at meta. I don't envy you making a decision on what to do here. Carcharoth (talk) 13:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is meta's policy on using usertalk to comment extensively on enwiki proceedings? –dlthewave ☎ 13:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, Fram originally was asked (by Iridescent) to comment at their Commons user talk page, see here onwards, and then was asked (by admins on Commons) to decamp to meta, see here. The whole posting on behalf of banned users thing is tricky to handle at the best of times, doubly so here... I think ArbCom need to be sensible here, but also firm. Carcharoth (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dlthewave, m:WM:NOT #10, #11, #13 comes into my mind. However I think nobody would mind as long as he stays within the boundary of m:Meta:Urbanity. (My personal opinion) — regards, Revi 14:53, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oversight permission restored to Beeblebrox

Original announcement
Welcome back! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why did this have to get an official announcement? No objections to the process or to the restoration; I'm simply curious. Nyttend (talk) 03:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Functionaries cannot simply request back their advanced permissions. They have to be officially appointed anew by ArbCom. Stewards will not grant +oversight or +checkuser without evidence of local discussion/appointment. In practice, any functionary who resigns in good standing or who wishes to return after inactivity is usually granted their permissions back, but technically arbcom has to officially re-appoint. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As TonyBallioni said. Only AC has authority to appoint local CUOS on this wiki and thus AC statement is required for (re)grant of CUOS permission. Stewards don't do 'Restoration of voluntarily relinquished permissions' so new discussion/statement is always required. — regards, Revi 12:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Beeblebrox: I'm working on making this happen. I note that Beeblebrox had both oversight and check user. This announcement refers only to oversight. Is that intentional or (dare I say it?) was there an oversight? In other words is this explicitly not including checkuser?--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Beeblebrox said that they don't use checkuser anyway, and they didn't request it. —Kusma (t·c) 14:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kusma, Thanks S Philbrick(Talk) 14:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know he'd lost his 'oversight' tools. I don't even know if I have 'oversight' tools. GoodDay (talk) 14:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
GoodDay, I don't believe you do. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. GoodDay (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The oversighters are listed here.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. GoodDay (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Liz reappointed full clerk

Original announcement
Good news. Congrats Liz. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Back to work! Liz Read! Talk! 02:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
hands Liz the special mop, broom, extra bucket, washcloth, gloves, protective goggles, decorative hat, and favored caffeine delivery system - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 20:17, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Resignation of RickInBaltimore

Original announcement
Sad. I hope all is well, Rick. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have nothing whatsoever against RickInBaltimore, and I wish him well, but it would be nice, generally speaking, if these resignation announcements came with a least a tiny bit of information. Without that, they all look like a WP:DIVA exit. Even a note that says: "I'll explain later on my talk page" or "Sorry I can't explain right now, but I hope to do so in the future" would make the announcement appear a little less naked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rick: It's a tough job, thanks much for doing it. BMK: Diva quits without any explanation aren't really diva quits. In my personal experience, an integral part of the diva quit is explaining to everyone exactly how they've let you down. Just alter your default assumption from "Diva quit" to "Too busy in real life", and the problem goes away. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • BMK, believe me I'm not one to quit. I saw this in my alerts and I wanted to clear it up before I go. I have some things in my personal life that need to take priority and I will not be able to devote the time to the Committee, much less Wikipedia for a while and it's unfair for me to sit on the Committee to do so. It's part of the reason I've been so silent recently as well. Again to the community, I apologize to leave when things seemingly are in flux, however real life needs to take precedent. See you all down the road I'm sure. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Rick, as far as I'm concerned you have nothing to apologize for. As important as this project is, the needs of your personal life completely outweigh it. I hope everything works out well for you, and that we'll see you back here in full swing at some time inthe near future. All my best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the best to you with your real life issues, Rick, and we look forward to hopefully seeing you back here before too long.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not impressed with this round of the committee. I recognize it’s a volunteer position but if you aren’t able to honor your commitment then reconsider running. With Rob and Rick resigning, and Courcelles almost completely inactive for his entire term to date (despite assurances to the community during elections that he would be here, and despite narrowly edging out 2 other active and respected former Arbs), the committee is short handed during such a time when we need that leadership the most. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • As they say, "shit happens". The only thing I would say is that it indicates that the decision to shrink the committee was perhaps not the best idea. Maybe we should consider electing alternates, non-voting replacement arbs who can observe all deliberations, and step in when arbitrators are forced to leave, or the number of active arbs falls below a certain number. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Beyond My Ken, I read Worm's response to Mt Ernie before I read your response, and I got up walked around, and formulated a response, then came back to see that you proposed exactly what I was thinking about. I fully support the notion of alternates who can step in when needed. Some important details and procedures to be worked out, but nothing insurmountable. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If you look at the history of the committee, you'll see that there is at least one resignation every year. It's typical. My guess is that being an arbitrator is MUCH more work than candidates expect. It's not like being an editor or admin where you can adjust your schedule to accommodate work and vacations. What I've gathered as an arb clerk is that there is a deluge of email every day--from case considerations, to motion discussions to ban appeals--that never really stops. That's why I'm grateful for anyone who wants to take the job on. Liz Read! Talk! 01:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Ernie, I take extraordinary exception to that comment. This is a website, built around a community. It pales into comparison of any real world issue. What's more, it's built around crowdsourcing - the entire point is that no one individual is indispensable. This is volunteer work, there is no pay. In fact, there is damn little reward in any sense, because sitting on the Arbitration Committee basically elevates you to the status of "community punching bag".If any arb wishes to focus on something more important to them, then I fully support them. It's easy to criticise from the armchair - how about you run for arbcom yourself? WormTT(talk) 23:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So we can't say we're disappointed with the current Arbcom? Well, that rather makes it impossible for anyone who does think they can do better to say so. And the "It's easy to criticise from the armchair - how about you run for arbcom yourself?" comment is frankly rather unhelpful. I can recognise shoddy workmanship on a car, but I wouldn't pretend to be able to build one myself. Now, the current Arbcom does seem to have been shat on by WMF, and to have been needlessly ensmallened from the start, but it isn't satisfactory to see it shrinking even more. One can, I think, say that without it being about any individual member who decides to quit. DuncanHill (talk) 23:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DuncanHill, By all means say that you're disappointed in the current Arbcom. Say it especially loudly at election time. Complain about the actions taken by individuals, or the group, directly to us or here. My concerns are around criticizing individuals for taking the decision to step away from a volunteer project with few rewards. WormTT(talk) 07:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DuncanHill, I don't see sense in your comment. You are suggesting that an arbitrator is obliged to serve for a full term (like a mechanic is obliged to fix their car after they promise to do so). We are volunteers. The election is not conducted on the basis of volunteering for an irrevocable commitment of 2 years. What you should be saying is "do we need more members?” or "can we make individual matters easier to handle?". You should not be persisting with this line that it is appropriate or even sensible to criticise the individual members whose circumstances change. That was always going to happen. (And it's a really shitty thing to do.) AGK ■ 07:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting that anyone is obliged to serve a full term, I don't know why you say I am. For that matter, I feel it's not at all shitty to be disappointed that someone is leaving - such disappointment does rather strongly imply that one appreciated their presence. Again, you have misrepresented (I'm sure not deliberately, but carelessly) what I said - I didn't criticise individuals, indeed I made the point that it wasn't about any individual. God help us all if you're that careless reading evidence in Arbcom cases. I don't think it's unreasonable to be disappointed either when someone does volunteer to do something for two years and then, for whatever reason, doesn't do it. I know I would be disappointed in myself if I did such a thing. Now, some of the comments on this page suggest that Arbs didn't know what they were getting themselves into when they stood. Perhaps the Committee should do a better job of communicating just what it does so that highly experienced editors who presumably have followed Arbcom proceedings in the past don't get such a shock. Again, if the Committee were better at communicating what it actually does, others might be able to make suggestions about how you could improve efficiency and reduce stress on individual members. Jumping down our throats when we do actually say something other than unqualified praise don't help. DuncanHill (talk) 14:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DuncanHill: You are trying to change your argument. Mr Ernie literally said the words if you aren’t able to honor your commitment then reconsider running. Worm That Turned explained that every committee suffers from inactive members, and that blaming the individual members is both uncouth and pointless. You responded with a long and aimless message, but the effect of it was to side with Mr Ernie's position. I am telling you again that I think your comment contained no proposals for reform or future improvement of the committee, and that the position you took about volunteer retirements is the sort of thing Wikipedia's community can do without. AGK ■ 20:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Worm That Turned, no I won’t run because I don’t have the time. I’m more upset with Courcelles who dare I say misled the community into thinking he would be more active with his 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.”). It’s no secret how much work there is, and certainly RL obligations arise, but look at last years election results. There were good choices who didn’t make the cut because someone said they could be active but weren’t. Just don’t run if you don’t have the time - it’s very simple. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Ernie, Your comment that you "recognize it’s a volunteer position but if you aren’t able to honor your commitment then reconsider running" appeared to be aimed at the individuals who have left the committee this year. If you are actually more concerned with Courcelles, then you should make that clear to him on his talk page. Personally, I had concerns about Courcelles activity both on this and the last term that he was on the committee, but what he has said to me explained his situation and I accept why he is and was less active - but it is up to him to reassure you, not me.
I'll also point out that sitting on Arbcom is a sizeable role, and nigh on impossible to understand what you are getting yourself in for. My wikipedia mailbox currently sits at 5.65 Gb - that's almost exclusively text. It's hard to appreciate what the feels like on a day to day level. The type of messages that come in, the regular lack of ability to fully explain your decisions, the amount of people who get the wrong end of the stick - it's draining. There are a few numpty's who sit for multiple terms, they know what they are getting themselves in for - but those who are on their first term? They deserve all the empathy they can get - and that's before the idea that real life can get in the way, personal circumstances do change, 2 years is a long time to forsee. WormTT(talk) 07:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Worm That Turned, if the mail traffic is really so large, why did we reduce the amount of arbs? A sitting arbitrator has repeatedly said that mail-traffic now-a-days is low and easily manageable, in response to Iri's now-iconic picture. Whom do I believe? FWIW, I do not intend to criticise Rick in any manner and have my sympathies and best wishes for him:-) This's about the broader aspects.∯WBGconverse 07:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Winged Blades of Godric, My mailbox does include mail from my last term, I seem to remember that was 3.9Gb, so it's about halved since then. What's more, it includes a lot of spam, which goes into a list moderation folder so that I can search for copies of mails that may get lost. I've not had a 644 email day, however, I've also not had a day where my real life work email outstrips my arbcom emails. WormTT(talk) 07:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, your previous figure is largely irrelevant as to measuring workload. How many mails (minus spam) do you receive each day on-an-average? ∯WBGconverse 07:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Winged Blades of Godric, it is not about workload at all. (I mean, it could be. Ask whatever questions you like, but separately.) We are responding to Mr Ernie, who suggested some arbs ran for election with a promise that they would be active – when they misjudged the workload. That is not what happened. Each arb had a significant change of circumstances that could not have been foreseen at the time of the election. Whether the workload was 9 emails a day or 11 is irrelevant. (Appeals swing the answer, but I would put it at around 15-30 threads per day. Some threads have several new emails.) AGK ■ 07:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. A lot of "real life" can happen in two years.
Arbcom may have been ensmallened, but we can be embiggened again if you remember to show up at this year's election RfC! (Alternatively, send cookies? With real butter and lots of chocolate? :) I really didn't expect it would matter too much, and thought there might be something to the idea that a smaller group would have less communications overhead, but I think that hasn't been the case in practice.
I'm probably the one you mean about the email stats, and it's true that the email volume is down from its peak in 2009. Last time I looked on the old list it was around 30 emails a day, and Google Groups tells me it's still the same range. Whether that's manageable or not really depends how much spare time you have to read it, and even more so, how much spare memory you have to keep track of it all. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I second worm's comments above. I've often thought about ways I could be more useful to the project. One idea is running for arbcom, but every time I think about that, I realize just how miserable and punishing a job it must be, and run in the opposite direction. I have nothing but respect for the folks who are willing to devote that much effort and accept that much abuse. And nobody can predict with certainty what demands will be placed on their time in the future. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) DuncanHill, Mr Ernie's comment specifically referenced both Rick and Rob with "if you aren’t able to honor your commitment then reconsider running". The whole reason for Rick's resignation was that unexpected real-life circumstances arose and reduced his ability to devote time to Wikipedia. Emergency circumstances are not something he, or anyone else, could have foreseen when running. Stepping back to take care of actual real-life commitments is hardly indicative of being unable to honor one's commitment and I fully agree with WTT's response the comment. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    ArbCom are in the midst of a very unprecedented, difficult, and important situation. Criticizing the Committee because some members have had personal problems is essentially criticizing the current members, who are still at work, for the absences of other people. Anyone who really wants the Fram thing worked out should be willing to give the Arbs some breathing room. If you are dissatisfied with someone's work and they run again, vote against them. And it would clearly be a good idea to undo the decrease in the Committee size. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Premeditated Chaos: (ec) I think you're reading rather more into Mr Ernie's comment than it actually contained, and the "if you aren't" bit wasn't, as I read it, directed at any named individuals. But whatever your take on that, it's not helpful to tell us not to criticise Arbcom. By not helpful I mean positively unhelpful. DuncanHill (talk) 00:02, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    By all means criticise ArbCom. Neither my comment nor WTT's implies that you shouldn't. But I am strongly opposed to criticizing individual members for resigning from ArbCom because unforeseen real-life circumstances made contributing to a volunteer project on the internet difficult. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:06, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s respectable when Arb members recognize they don’t have the time to commit and resign. You guys should be adding arbitrators to fill the roster back up. I made a similar comment weeks ago, to a tepid reaction. You are not able to meet deadlines in a timely manner at the moment. This is probably the most watched time there’s ever been. Don’t let low numbers or inactivity stop you from doing things in a timely manner. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Mr Ernie, Arbcom is slow by nature. At the moment, we're very slow. However, that is due to complexity of the issues, rather than number of Arbs. In addition, the arbs who are available are focused on the complex stuff. If we were to add more arbs, they would be wanting to join in the complex stuff, and still the other day to day work would suffer. What's more, additional voices at the complex stuff may well have the opposite intended effect - slowing things down. WormTT(talk) 07:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree with that. AGK ■ 20:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sad, he seemed to be one of the good guys. On a side-note, can we conduct the next elections earlier than usual or fill up the vacancies with those who just-failed to make the cut (DGG et al) in the last elections? With Courcelles and Calanecc been perpetually silent and three resignations, it's looking bleak from outside. ∯WBGconverse 07:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Winged Blades of Godric, from WP:ARBPOL#Selection and appointment: In exceptional circumstances, the Committee may call interim elections, in a format similar to that of the regular annual elections, if it determines that arbitrator resignations or inactivity have created an immediate need for additional arbitrators. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 00:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Best of luck to you Rick. Life is unpredictable. Thank you for your service and I hope everything turns out for the best for you. Softlavender (talk) 08:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rick is absolutely right to prioritise Real Life emergencies. Likewise, the word "emergencies" means they couldn't be predicted when he ran as an Arb. It is praiseworthy that he chose to resign rather than just be inactive as an Arb for the remainder of his term. We probably should return to the previous number of Arbs when the next election comes round. Rick - thank you for your service and I hope you can handle whatever you're facing. We look forward to seeing you both around and back, whenever is right for you. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your service, Rick. Good luck with the RW stuff. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:56, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know you Rick (outside of seeing some of your posts here and there) - but I wish you the best. IRL is what's really important - always glad to see people acknowledge that. — Ched :  ?  — 12:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your service Rick, I hope everything is okay IRL, Take care, Dave. 00:15, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you so much for your service to the encylopedia, RickInBaltimore. As for those editors who have chosen to complain, please ponder the existence of catastrophic car crashes, heart attacks, houses burning down, sudden job loss, unexpected and disruptive job reassignments, cancer diagnoses and arrests of or sudden deaths of children. I have experienced several of these things myself, along with those I love. My sister's sudden brain aneurysm was like a sledgehammer blow to the back of her head. I certainly did not expect her to fulfill her volunteer commitments in the wake of that. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Replacement of retiring arbs discussion

Without any reflection on those who have left ArbCom recently, there does seem to be something of a structural flaw when someone leaves. If a judge or cabinet minister retires or resigns, they are replaced; a politician leaving their constituency triggers a by-election. Could there be a case for a mechanism to replace 'lost' Arbs? At the very least, if Arb numbers are 'topped-up' when one leaves, it takes the pressure off those remaining.

It would not necessarily have to be a new (by-)election, but could a mechanism be introduced whereby those who stood for election but narrowly missed out be co-opted onto the committee to finish the term of an Arb who left? (If they agreed, of course). I appreciate this would require an RfC to cover future elections, so may not be applicable now, but it would be something worth considering for the future. – SchroCat (talk) 11:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We'd probably have to put some criteria on it (minimum positive %, and potentially a "if an Arb resigns, and there are fewer than 11 active Arbs" etc) Nosebagbear (talk) 11:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That would be beneficial. The numbers to be added could also be limited, if deemed wise, so that only the top two or three were on a reserve list. - SchroCat (talk) 11:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While it's clear that the current size of the active committee is inadequate, we need to be cautious that opinions on anyone listed on the "reserves" list may have changed markedly in light of force majeure events like Framgate. E.g. if a reserve-list Arb gave very strong opinions one way or the other, that may need the community to re-affirm that they still have confidence in such individuals to operate on the committee. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 11:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily, if there is something written in that they would recuse from any situation that they have voiced strong opinions about. (So in the current situation, while they may have to recuse from dealing with the Fram case, they would take up a stronger role in other matters). - SchroCat (talk) 12:06, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's relatively simple for cases, but not necessarily for other opinions voiced between the last Arbcom election and the next. There would probably need to be a period of discussion to allow any new information to be brought to light. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 12:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I'd be keen on coming 9th for 8 places (which happened to me in 2012), then having to be ready at a moment's notice to join the committee at any point in the following 12 months. I took on different projects once I knew I had not succeeded and had a productive year, I'm not sure I would have taken them on if I'd been told I was actually understudy for any arb that might leave. I'll also point out that only 2 out of the past 10 years have had no resignations... WormTT(talk) 12:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I said if they agreed to it: we can't force anyone to do it, we can only ask. Anyway, those who just missed out may also have their own pressing matters in RL or other reason why they wouldn't want to join. I'm just trying to find a mechanism whereby a couple of positions may be filled with least disruption to ensure there is a sufficient number on the committee. - SchroCat (talk) 12:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And also why you'd want to put a minimum number of retired arbs and/or a retirement coupled with a number of inactive arbs before it triggered Nosebagbear (talk) 12:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and I know real life is priority of course, but some Arbs were voted in after such a massively protracted process only to set themselves as "inactive" and not really participate. It seems like such a waste. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 12:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At the last election we reduced the size of the Arbitration Committee, and I think a good few of us are now convinced that was a mistake. I supported a reduction myself (part of my thinking was that with fewer cases each year there's not so much to do - but just look at what's happened recently!), but I'll be supporting an expansion again when it inevitably comes up this year. I think that will help with the resignation problem. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:43, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, the current arbitration policy allows for the calling of interim elections if there is "an immediate need for additional arbitrators". There was some discussion of this during the recent successful proposal to amend the arbitration policy: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 20 § Discussion and comments. isaacl (talk) 14:57, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And the Committee could just make a resolution stating that there's an immediate need. Of course I get the feeling that the prevailing attitude will be that new arbs won't help things; that they'll just be more voices in the e-mail chains. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:02, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that an interim (or early) election is worth discussing. I will raise the question with my colleagues. AGK ■ 20:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@AGK: Having served with the election coordination team multiple times, keep in mind that the election process is far from trivial if the "standard" process is to be used - it takes a few months to "run the election" so a true "immediate need" situation is important. Temporary emergency election procedures may be needed depending on how dire the situation is. — xaosflux Talk 01:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
AGK did indeed bring this up on the list, thanks. I wanted to say here what I said there, which is in line with Xaosflux's comment - I think this would be a timesink. This is not a "nobody left to drive the bus" situation, it's just that there's a lot of stuff to do and a few less hands than usual to help out. Remember arbcom has never been very speedy, and even better "staffed" committees have had similar delays on things like decisions and appeals because of ordinary boring things like bad timing, distractions, unexpected personal responsibilities, technical difficulties, and on and on. The best thing we can do at this point is stay focused on our core responsibilities and avoid getting distracted. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, OR. My sense is that we're worried what the WMF will get up to next, and we're wondering if we have the resources to cope. If I'm reading the room right, then my preferred solution would be: if another crisis is precipitated before the next Arbcom elections, and if Arbcom feels overburdened, then you guys should tell us that. Hopefully the community will come together to ask the WMF to back off until we have the proper resources to cope. - Dank (push to talk) 12:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think a co-option approach (with some parameters, per Nosebagbear) would be a good backstop. A by-election would be a massive timesink and distraction. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The more I think about it, just a re-embiggening (thanks OP) of the committee would go a long way to solving this (in the longer term). I thought BMK's suggestion of a group of alternates made sense as well, but I came to the conclusion that if we are going to have fully qualified individuals totally vested in the process from the beginning, why not just have them be full participants rather than mere observers? I don't think that the ensmallened committee has produced any measurable efficiencies, and having the extra hands on deck already would obviate the need for mid-cycle elections, emergency or not. Granted this doesn't help us for this particular cycle, of course. Perhaps we could also tweak the quorum rules as well to allow for inactive-but-not-resigned arbitrators to not affect the ability of the committee to take a case (e.g., not requiring a full absolute majority of non-recused arbitrators). CThomas3 (talk) 03:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's worth noting that while amount of work is one factor, there's also the factors of "community representation" (more people helps more views represented) and "decision-making" (slightly more people might make a decision take longer, but aids overall quality). Nosebagbear (talk)

RFC on the interpretation of WP:ARBPOL

Please see here and comment. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive304#User:Ritchie333_doubling_down_on_personal_attacks is background. Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite the amount of busy beavers we have in the Arbitration Committee.. [0_0] –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    That's old background; this and the back and forth which followed is recent. ——SerialNumber54129 08:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Framgate II. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 09:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Who's next. Could be any of us, it seems. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • Why are there no public findings of fact? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 10:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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? SQLQuery me! 14:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Why don't we stick with the english definition for now, and not assume bad faith. SQLQuery me! 14:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • This place is starting to get really creepy. It might be time to start considering a fork.—Chowbok ☠ 11:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    But in that case they didn't state that one side was guilty. —Kusma (t·c) 12:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is terrible.--WaltCip (talk) 13:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wholly echo the statement above by Softlavender. This really is very worrying. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. ∯WBGconverse 13:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    But there is just one with a policy mandated higher conduct expectation. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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. ∯WBGconverse 14:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Very alarming, per Iri and others. Johnbod (talk) 13:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Too little too late, as Arbcom have certainly attributed blame. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 14:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (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)[reply]
  • 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). –Davey2010Talk 14:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
      "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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
  • 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))[reply]
    not a single experienced Wikipedian in the administrative function on the committee in descent - what does that mean? ∯WBGconverse 14:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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. WormTT(talk) 15:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    It is a full enforceable interaction ban on both parties. WormTT(talk) 15:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's how I read it. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Who drafted this? I implore upon him to improve his skills at writing. ∯WBGconverse 15:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Praxidicae cannot withdraw their agreement, that has been made clear to them. WormTT(talk) 15:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (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)[reply]
    Ritchie just got named first because he's an Admin? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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. ∯WBGconverse 16:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    The amount of arbs and time that took you to say this in a clear-enough manner is abysmal. ∯WBGconverse 07:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    I think that is good advice. SilkTork (talk) 18:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    And once Ritchie saw that wording, he retired. Great.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Vermont, the current wording is acceptable from your stance but the ArbCom needs to tell that. ∯WBGconverse 16:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    (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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I was asking a question. I certainly wouldn't do it. - Sitush (talk) 08:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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. ∯WBGconverse 07:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yes, but it's always good to get a handle on these things. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC) [reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]


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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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. ∯WBGconverse 12:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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. WormTT(talk) 13:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Well said. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. ∯WBGconverse 14:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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. ∯WBGconverse 17:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I am. I also agree very much with what Dweller has been saying. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]
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:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
So why was this all conducted in secret? Nothing needed to be secret. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 18:00, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
That sounds very sensible. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:21, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • (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)[reply]
Serial Number 54129. WP:RB or did you mean WP:RBK? — Ched :  ?  — 20:07, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They're the same thing, but I saved the servers a byte there. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 20:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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) [reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
    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. WormTT(talk) 21:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Good, thanks. But FYI I'll oppose such a recall. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I... really don't see why that's relevant? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:17, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess it's just relevant to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&oldid=909849776"