Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

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

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine closed

Original announcement

Feedback

I left some feedback to ArbCom here on the PD talk page: [1], but I think it's worth repeating two points here. First, the decision to eliminate word count and diff count limits was an experiment that should not be repeated. (No problem with the normal practice of extending limits on individual request, case-by-case.) Some editors just threw everything at the wall to see what would stick, and there was too much tit-for-tat. Also, too many editors used the evidence page to post opinion essays instead of evidence with diffs. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

yep--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Topic continued in #Bookkeeping, below. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Adminship and sanctions

I agree with Beeblebrox's concern mentioned under "Comments:" at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Proposed_decision#Doc_James_restricted. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely agree (although I think it's more of a comment than a concern). No prejudice on regaining at RfA, but I firmly believe that any sysop who "needs" an editing restriction should be reevaluated for community trust. I imagine this would make ArbCom less likely to place editing restrictions on sysops, which is not a good outcome, so I can't quite square those two beliefs, but I do agree. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I would actually prefer that ARBCOM be willing to sanction admins without desysopping them. It's critical to remember that admins are humans and are not perfect; certainly, there have been administrators who've made misjudgements severe enough to require a desysop, but there's been others who have exhibited a single blind spot where their judgement is impaired. We should be willing to recognize that those folks can still be a net positive with the tools. Desysopping any admin for behavior worthy of a sanction risks further inflating our standards for adminship. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

+1, Vanamonde. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm also with Vanamonde on this - there have been a number of complaints that three sysops were recently removed by this ARBCOM when a lesser sanction might have worked. That was partly refuted by many on the basis that significant sanction and desysops are exclusive. However that basically leaves ARBCOM no flexibility, and a "you're screwed" set of options in any case involving an Admin which isn't egregious. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Has the community ever endorsed someone at RfA who had an active editing restriction? I suspect we have different standards at RfA than we do at ArbCom about whether someone should be an admin, and like Amorymeltzer, I don't know how to resolve that. It may start with lowering our standards at RfA, which, somewhat ironically, may start with demonstrating a willingness to hold administrators to account. – bradv🍁 14:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The only one I can think of offhand is from way back in 2009 and was for a prior sysop (removed and restricted by ArbCom), so it may not be particularly informative (fwiw, I supported the RfA at the time). To (somewhat) clarify my above comment (cc Vanamonde93), I'm not necessarily saying that a sysop that needs restricting by ArbCom shouldn't be a sysop, but rather that the community should have an opportunity to redecide for itself; there is no other process through which the community can do so. It could be a matter-of-fact/automatic thing where if a sysop is restricted another remedy requires them to start a reconfirmation RfA within one month! Maybe it's only if restrictions are for longer than 1/3/6/12 months! Absolutely folks can still be a net positive with the tools, I just think it should be ratified by the community. I do think that if this sort of thing happened, it would lower rather than raise, since we'd see more folks with some dirty hands and a track record. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I think community deadminship with a 50% threshold is a great idea. It's worked fine at Commons for years. But for some reason it will never pass at enwiki... -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Too many admins would vote against it. ——Serial ^# 18:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

True. I don't have the link handy, but I remember counting the votes in the last RFC for community desysop, and IIRC it was like 80% of non-admins in favor and 80% of admins opposed. However, that may be changing: many if not all RFA candidates in the last year have added themselves to WP:RECALL, which is an indication that community desysop may be gaining favor even within the admin corps. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bradv: I looked into something similar (but not exactly this) earlier this year, User:Thryduulf/What happened after a desysop and the discussions where it is linked. Between 2015 and January 2020, only 3 editors desysopped by arbcom have run for re-RfA so there is really too little evidence to make any general statements about standards in this regard. Those three editors were: 1 (Rich Farmbrough) was unsuccessful because the issues that resulted in the desysop were continuing, 1 (Hawkeye7) was unsuccessful (twice) because of new issues since the desysop and 1 (Fram) was unsuccessful immediately after the case closed. Nobody who has taken the time to demonstrably resolve the issues that led to the desysop and has not done anything (else) that would prevent a successful first RFA since has stood. I would guess that very few people with arbcom editing restrictions stand for RFA so it will be difficult to provide any meaningful generalisations. Thryduulf (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I agree that any admin who is sanctioned should be desysoped. However, if I routinely ignored ONUS and BRD and edit-warred, I'd be blocked for it. If I ignored an RFC outcome and kept adding the same content anyway, I'd be blocked. If I did it while an Arbcom case was open, I'd be blocked. It would not take an Arbcom case to get me sanctioned for this behavior. Think of the editor resources that went into addressing DJ's behavior: we're probably talking hundreds of labor hour by dozens of editors over the course of a year (maybe longer). All spent just to get DJ to stop adding prices from a database to pharmaceutical articles. An admin should be much more cooperative than that; it shouldn't take an Arbcom case to get an admin to follow ordinary editing process. (And a WMF trustee, even more so.) Privilege comes with responsibility, and following the rules the rest of us follow is the least that we should expect from all of our administrators. Maybe I do agree that any admin who is sanction should be desysoped, after all. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Not really sure who I'm replying too, but more generally I've never actually seen any evidence that holding administrators more accountable (which is usually pretty undefined when said) or easier desysoping has any impact on RfA. It's a commonly repeated thing, but I don't think it has had any impact on actual RfA trends. The last few years we've arguably been better at desysoping people than we've ever been, and RfA, while having a higher pass rate also has probably has more stringent requirements than we've ever had. 3 years ago when I passed RfA 12 months of active editing was considered golden to pass, and you could get away with 8-10 months if you were an "all-star". Now we have opposes over "not long enough" for editors who have been here 18 months.
  Additionally, the last 6 months or so RfA has probably been the most brutal its been in a while in terms of climate. This while we have three very high-profile long-term administrators who have been desysoped this year. If easier desysoping in addition to the sanctioning of Doc James that is being discussed here had an impact, you'd expect standard to be lowering instead of being raised. If more accountability and easier desysoping are what is needed to improve RfA, that actually hasn't materialized in the voting at RfA. If anything our standards now are the highest they've ever been with a more hostile environment than we've seen since probably 2015 when the new RfA reforms were implemented. If people want to have more admins get lesser sanctions than desysops, that argument might have merit, but I would consider it on its own merits rather than looking at RfA standards. There doesn't appear to be any clear correlation between standards used by voters and how we deal with admin conduct issues. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  It's not clear to me if there will be a correlation in practice, but if there is one, I expect there will be a lag time for any change in RfA standards. However I suspect there are too many confounding factors to draw a clear conclusion. Seeing the long timeline required to impose sanctions on administrators might just confirm to some people that it's an arduous process, and so standards should continue to be high. isaacl (talk) 00:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  @TonyBallioni, you passed RFA in 2017, and I cannot recall ever having encountered you before my extended absence from Wikipedia after the cult of corruption overtook the area I most edit. (My sincere apologies if we "met" previously and I forgot, but 15 years is a long time :) But my point is that I am not sure you are in a position to judge long-term standards at RFA, which I believe to be at an all-time low. We have way too many admins passing who have never engaged the encyclopedia adequately, and we today have even arbs who haven't built enough content to understand the first thing about dispute resolution, respected editors, and respect for policy. I hope we will return to the days when one was expected to have an FA to pass RFA. At the simplest core of this case is non-policy-based, POV, UNDUE, original research editing from editors we expect to understand how to use sources, and yet have come to realize they may not. This is a serious problem when it affects content that has to do with one's health, and it has become more serious because ArbCom did not take it seriously. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  I was discussing the basic “before we even look at other things” standards like number of articles created, number of edits, number of months active, etc. You’re right that I wasn’t particularly active before 2016, my point was that if someone had opposed my RfA in 2017 with “only 14 months of active editing” they’d likely get laughed out of the RfA. Stuff like “only 18 months editing” has popped up recently and not as a fringe position. That’s an easily measured increase in “standards” more so than the more subjective ones. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  (ec) As I see it, there are three major eras in RfA history: 2001-2005 (anyone remotely competent who asked for the tools got them, not many applicants because Wikipedia was small), 2006-2009 (prime time for admin promotion, standards were gradually raised during this period), 2010-present (consistently low promotion rate and high standards). Trust me, admin standards have never again returned to their pre-2010 lows. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  You are correct-- the all-time lows occurred before I was active (but the work was also less challenging back then, as wikipedia was not so highly trafficced), and I should have said all-time low during my time, by which I mean understanding of content building is no longer a requirement, to the extent that the content contributions of some (not all) of the arbs are shocking, particularly when they are !voting on other editors' futures based on personalities rather than policy-based evidence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

QuackGuru's topic ban

• The evidence[2] does not match the remedy.[3] User:Bluerasberry pointed out there is an evidence-remedy mismatch. See Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Proposed_decision#Comments_by_bluerasberry. No editor or admin responded to the concerns. QuackGuru (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• (Is it all right to do subsections here? Please just remove my header if it's not.) QuackGuru's topic ban from "articles relating to medicine, broadly construed" seems very broad. The finding of fact concerns drug pricing and e-cigs (and, glancingly, Judeo-Christian articles, but those are obviously not in question here). He's surely a useful editor in medicine-related articles generally. See also this comment by Bluerasberry. Would any arb like to indicate why the ban isn't from drug pricing and e-cigs rather than medicine generally? @Newyorkbrad:? Bishonen | tålk 11:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC).

  Speaking for myself: the narrower a topic ban is the harder it is to enforce. Since the work of enforcing it is almost never actually done by ArbCom, I try to avoid burdening AE-patrolling admins and the community in general with the responsibility of micromanaging another editor's conduct. The evidence showed that QuackGuru has been disruptive within the medicine topic and that similar conduct in other topics was enough to get him topic banned and blocked. A topic ban from medicine is therefore proportional because no editor is irreplaceable. – Joe (talk) 11:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  I agree with the premise behind WP:YANI but I never thought I would ever see an arbitrator cite that as a supporting tenet for an imposed remedy. No opinion either way about it, just a bit surprised.--WaltCip (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  Well, yeah; WP:YANI gets on average one view a week. And I'm not of the ilk that says "That's just an essay so can be ignored": some essays are treated almost as de facto policy, after all. ——Serial ^# 12:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Serial Number 54129, you're miscounting; WP:YANI averages around 50 views per week and its sister page WP:WDNNY averages around 110 views per week. When you're counting the views of pages in WP space, you need to ensure "include redirects" is checked, as in most cases the overwhelming majority of incoming traffic is from WP:TLAs shortcuts rather than from people typing the full title into the search bar. ‑ Iridescent 15:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  I think it's an excellent essay, and is often in my mind when we're asked to weigh the productivity of an editor against disruption they cause (which is often). A similar sentiment is expressed in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine#Sanctions_and_circumstances, which has been part of many previous ArbCom decisions. – Joe (talk) 12:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Bishonen: I was recused in this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  As someone who patrols AE, a very wide topic ban actually makes it more difficult for admins at AE. To use this example, it is very obvious to work out if an editor is breaking a topic ban on e-cigs or drug pricing, whereas a ban from a really vague area like "medicine" means there are going to be thousands of edge cases. And in this case, whilst something like Positions of medical organizations on electronic cigarettes is obviously covered by a medicine topic ban, one could argue that the main Electronic cigarette article actually isn't. And certainly e-cig related articles like Vape shop or Flavored tobacco? Not covered, as far as I can see. Given that one of the loci of the dispute was e-cigarettes, this seems like a shoddy remedy. Black Kite (talk) 12:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  The broad topic ban was because QuackGuru keep demonstrating themselves unable to edit and collaborate constructively in contentious topics, and as such medical articles are best done without him. The argument in the workshop against removing him entirely from these topics is "but those are the only topics QuackGuru edits", which seems to me the entire problem right there. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  For years, QuackGuru was a net positive for Wikipedia in the general area of medicine. Cardamon (talk) 06:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  My point was though that by only imposing the broad topic ban on medicine, ArbCom has actually failed to topic ban QG from many of the articles related to the the actual dispute that was being dealt with, because they're not covered by it. In just QG's last 100 edits, I see Cloud-chasing (electronic cigarette), Construction of electronic cigarettes, Pax Labs, Juul, Heated tobacco product and so on. These are not medical topics. One could even argue that large parts of articles like Nicotine aren't even covered. Black Kite (talk) 13:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  It's not unlike any other controversial topic area ranging from GG to GMO to AP2. I'm well aware of indef t-bans that were issued for much less, and the decision was made to make it broadly construed because it becomes too difficult to unravel the complexities of what applies to the t-ban and what doesn't. Like politics, medicine is everywhere. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  There's already sanctions in the e-cigs area. If Quack runs afoul of those again, he'll be blocked (again). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Didn't QuackGuru completely abstain from the case despite being unblocked so he could participate? More than anything, he could have shown he can actually listen and work with other editors. Now it's spilt milk. --Pudeo (talk) 15:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• When I spent time to really examined QG's history I was surprised at what I found. I feel like if a case had been brought against QG specifically, and I would argue such a case would have been likely to be accepted had it been brought given the numerous efforts stretching back years to address disruptive behavior, that a single topic ban would have been among the mildest outcomes ArbCom could have imposed. I think QG benefitted from being a small part of a larger case and also from their tactical decision to not participate in the case despite being unblocked in order to do so. I didn't comment about this at the PD phase despite thinking about doing so because this topic ban seemed, again, the mildest such remedy for QG and I am not "out for blood" against an editor who has given so much and done a lot in fighting "woo" on Wikipedia. So I have no issue with this remedy, as I'd have had no issue with more severe remedies, and hope QG can find productive ways to edit going forward. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with Barkeep here, and add that what is unfortunate here is that ArbCom simply dealt via remedy with the most obvious, indisputable low-hanging fruit-- yet did not even summarize that entirely in a useful way for arb enforcement. That CFCF cast egregious aspersions was an easy finding. That QuackGuru was "drinking at the last chance saloon since forever" was another easy finding. That DJ editwarred was indisputable-- and yet ArbCom only found him to be edit warring on drug prices, in spite of a long-term history of editwarring on many topics, many issues, and with many editors, including other physician experts, with multiple examples that admins would not block or enforce. And then, the fourth remedy was discretionary sanctions in a very limited area, which will accomplish zero in the matters affecting medical editing. (We already had an RFC that said those prices could be deleted, so no effect here.) So, we basically engaged in six months of good-faith dispute resolution to accomplish what could have been done in a couple dozen diffs, and went backwards on the actual disputes in the drug pricing area, where consensus on the RFC and enforceable remedies on the two parties responsible for drug pricing advocacy were not enacted. Why would any sensible editor again engage dispute resolution, which can simply be ignored, rather than walk away from the content area? Every reliable ArbCom follower I know advised me that the arbs would never enact serious remedies in this case, and I didn't expect realistically or practically that would happen; but neither did I expect to see us move backwards after months of dispute resolution, to end up with not even findings of fact that can be acted upon by admins should the behaviors continue, or that will address the entire suite of issues impacting medical editing. When the arbs agreed to accept the full case (Medicine rather than drug pricing) and relax the word limits, hope was raised that they did intend to pay attention, and yet there are numerous indications on the case pages that most of the arbs weren't even reading. This is a sad misuse of editor time, as expressed elsewhere on this page by Levivich. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Bookkeeping

• FoF 4 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine#CFCF specifically links to my evidence at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence#CFCF. That section contains a faulty link. I asked on talk if that link could be corrected at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Proposed decision#Comments by SandyGeorgia-- before the case closed-- and received no answer. Could someone advise if the link can or will be corrected (and why no answer was given on case talk pages)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• FoF 5 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Proposed decision#Colin, Joe Roe cast the deciding vote, and specifically mentioned Bluerasberry's evidence, which-- as explained by WAID here-- are words extracted from a page by a computer program without context, using a well-rejected methodology known as tone policing. There were multiple examples of such diffless "evidence". And yet Joe Roe later indicated that he wasn't aware what was being referenced, when his vote was a deciding point in a finding about a productive editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

This isn't quite an accurate summary. Tryptofish asked me a question about a specific piece of "information about automated word recognition". Since there was no link I asked him to clarify what information that was. The case was closed before he could respond, but we followed up at User talk:Joe Roe#Your question to me. In retrospect I don't think I misunderstood anything about Bluerasberry's comment and wouldn't change my vote. To reiterate that vote, the only conclusion I drew from the cited evidence was that Colin has at times commented on the contributor rather than the content of a dispute. Is that in any way in doubt? – Joe (talk) 12:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Continued below at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Bookkeeping continued (as I am still hoping for some answers to these four questions, and don't want to sideline the entire section). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• FoF 6 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine#Doc James states that "Doc James (talk · contribs) has repeatedly edit-warred[53][54] to add or retain pricing information in articles", but the diffs point to evidence of edit warring that goes well beyond "pricing information".[4] Could the arbs please explain why evidence of extensive edit warring was diffed in the finding, and yet the finding was restricted to only drug pricing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• At Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence#Referred pages, no clerk or arb responded directly to my question about referred pages in userspace, although David Fuchs did say that referred pages did not need to be moved. I entered several referred pages as evidence, and now am being requested to delete them.[5] It would have been helpful to have been told I needed to subst the evidence at the time the question was asked on talk. Is the old finding referenced by Jo-Jo on my talk still accurate, and considering that I did not receive an answer from a clerk or arb about referred pages, is a courtesy blanking necessary? Deleting the pages will remove evidence, which seems counter-productive and not helpful, particularly after no arb or clerk answered my question about referred pages, and David Fuchs' answer to Colin left the clear impression they were not a problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The sum of these questions is that communication could be improved, and there were multiple indications that not all arbs were reading the pages or the evidence. Perhaps ArbCom will review its procedures relating to necessary recusals, so that editors asking for recusal do not risk becoming the target of reprisal.

There were around a dozen indications that arbs had not read the evidence or the case pages. Can we expect some internal ArbCom reckoning? If so, I will post my list of the astounding instances of statements made on case pages that clearly indicate parties were not reading the case pages.

Is there an explanation for there not being more active clerking of the case pages, including answers to queries on talk, and removal of diffless allegations? In this ArbCase, a finding about an editor is entered with the arb casting the deciding vote clearly stating they were not aware of the problems with the evidence.

An Arbcase should help end or contain extended disputes that the community cannot resolve, but there are so many loose ends here that I fear that just the opposite will occur. The Principles are not reflected in Findings of Fact or remedies (like reminders), the basic bookkeeping has inconsistencies, and problems may fester as a result. Could the arbs explicitly let me know-- since I did not receive an answer when I asked six weeks ago-- what is the consensus now on referred pages? And since the impression six weeks ago was that they were fine, should the text now be retroactively inserted so the evidence is not blanked? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Regarding linking to other pages, did you link to a specific version? If so, the link will continue to point to the text you were referring to at that time. isaacl (talk) 20:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Which is what I was told at the time, but now I am being asked to delete those pages. Which means diffless aspersions which were cast at me get to remain on the page, while I am expected to delete my response. I would like for the arbs to help resolve this dilemma, since they apparently were not responding to talk page queries during the case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

In the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence#Referred pages, you asked about linking to subpages of Colin's user page as evidence. If you had asked about analysis that you documented in subpages of your own user page, then I would have advised including it directly on the workshop page, as per standard practice. (Evidence of things that happened can be pointed to; analysis is new and should be part of the case pages.) isaacl (talk) 00:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Not really; Colin asked about his pages. I asked "what happens in the future vis-a-vis arb archives, when evidence is stored in user space?" and indicated that "I also need to build some lengthy evidence in my user space (if I can ever get the WMFLabs tools to cooperate)". I got NO answer from any arb or clerk. End result is that aspersions that were cast at me get to stand on the page, multiple pages, multiple instances, no diffs, but now it appears that my responses may be deleted, along with a lot of evidence in the case (that was possibly never read). If arbs did not even read User:SandyGeorgia/Dyslexia GA diffs, it is no wonder they did not have an FoF of coordinated editing. Reading the evidence helps, and it appears they may not have. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I went back and looked at the Dyslexia GA page in this context. What I think is of little importance, but I can imagine a scenario in which Arbs did read it, and were just not persuaded. So I'd also be interested in having a direct reply from Arbs about Sandy's points. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

That page in isolation says little, but one expected (quite unrealistically, I now see) that all of the arbs would be reading all of the evidence, and that is only a small part of the evidence on that topic. We have multiple instances of Ozzie following James to disputes,[6] (even if he doesn't fully understand those disputes or core medical issues), then we have Ozzie basically acknowledging on arbcase pages that he does follow James to disputes because he is an "elite editor",[7] and then we have an astounding GA pass of an Ozzie article with James claiming it is a poorly researched area (demonstrably false) and using marginal sources like student theses that contain information disputed by secondary reviews, and now two unresolved (yet archived) issues on article talk at Dyslexia. Yet somehow the 2009 ArbCom made a finding of coordinated editing on evidence much thinner than this. The Dyslexia diffs are only significant when viewed in the context of the big picture, and if most of the arbs weren't actually reading the evidence, it is not surprising that one stand-alone page (sans context) shows nothing.

Separately, Tryptofish, I am going to wait another day to respond to the rest of the Bookkeeping issues, in the hopes that some arb will actually read this page and respond; I hope you realize I am not ignoring your request, but allowing time for arbs to engage. Which they have not after more than two days ... meanwhile, the lake and the woods at the cabin are good for the soul. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Further, I think it's just the way that arbitration works, that case pages end up having negative assertions about editors on them, not all of which are true. If ArbCom does not include those assertions in the final decision as findings of fact, then there is a presumption that the editors who were criticized may not really have been at fault. There is no assumed need for it all to be refuted. And it would be rather strange to go back and scrub all the case pages of every negative assertion that was made. But pages in userspace that specifically focus on assertions of editor wrongdoing really do fall under WP:POLEMIC and WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity#Deletion of evidence sub-pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Although I think a temporary exception would be made if there is still going to be dispute resolution about the content of those pages, along the lines of "ArbCom got it wrong", per what WP:POLEMIC says about timely use. But not beyond that. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I re-read that conversation too quickly. Yeah, the development of new text on a user subpage should just be a place to draft; standard practice is to put all new text on the case pages. I suggest to the arbitrators and clerks that the text be moved appropriately. isaacl (talk) 01:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• So, we probably need to talk about this. In this arbitration case, the committee decided to try something new and lift word limits entirely. What we hoped by doing that was that people would present evidence more clearly, and that diffs would be accompanied by context, quotations, and analysis to make it easier to understand. While that certainly happened, we also ended up with vast quantities of evidence that was less relevant to the actual substance of the case. Even more problematic was the fact that so much evidence was submitted that it was overwhelming to even read it all. All told, this case had over 52,000 words on the evidence page and 86,000 words on the workshop. Both of these pages are longer than ANI at the time I write this. For further context on just how much information this represents, Moby Dick is about 95,000 words, and takes about 8 hours to read.
  Suffice it to say, this is an experiment that should not be repeated. 1000 words is clearly not enough – I believe we all agree on that – but unlimited is clearly not the right approach. SandyGeorgia, I'm sorry we weren't able to answer all of your questions. I am confident that we got the final decision right at the end of the day, but the process was harder than it should have been, and there may still be details that were missed. I will draw the rest of the committee's attention to your comments and questions above. – bradv🍁 21:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks for answering, Bradv (and for your attempts during the case to encourage others to actually engage the facts); however, I still need answers to many of my main questions above (the specific ones I asked).
    Separately, that the Committee decided not to engage or act on an abundance of evidence of the type that would result in sanctions for most regular editors is a different thing than "we also ended up with vast quantities of evidence that was less relevant to the actual substance of the case". That those who decided to make it not relevant had not fully digested the evidence, or decided to ignore it, is why we are left with no workable remedies. This case achieved not one single thing except to remind CFCF not to cast aspersions. Curiously, the Omnibus Case of 2008 was much longer, and those arbs managed to understand Coordinated Editing, digest the big picture, and put up reasonable findings that ended the problem, for good. Perhaps it was because we had a smaller committee in those days, so the arbs had to actually pay attention-- and now with a larger committee, attention is disperse and we end up in this sort of problem, which past committees were able to deal with. Or perhaps the problem is that modern ArbComs are passing their work off on to admins via AE-- and yet in a case this big and with this much misbehavior, how do we expect AE to get their arms around something when ArbCom did not even provide any workable remedies for them to deal with ? We don't have solutions in this case-- just minimal hard-to-understand read-between-the-lines remedies, that don't address a single problem and won't solve a single problem. I suggest that taking more time to digest and understand the full picture would have been better than overlooking evidence, and leaving the clear impression of a marked double standard applied to different kinds of editors.
    Also, what is the reason for clerks and arbs not keeping up with diffless casting of aspersions? Bluerasberry's type of evidence should never have been used for a finding, particularly not one that prejudiced an editor simply trying to uphold policy, while the fait accompli of those not respecting policy was solidified by the findings and remedies here. I appreciate that you allowed full evidence to be presented, but considering the time available to all of you to read and digest it, saying it was overwhelming (yes, try editing in that environment) so as to avoid addressing the serious problems is not a good way to do business. It is a big problem-- one affecting content that matters-- the community expects and deserves for the Arb Committee to sift through a big problem enough to grasp the nature of just how serious it is. Most editors would be banned from Wikipedia for one-tenth of what is going on here, and yet we end up with a series of non-remedies, combined with a series of uncorrected diffless casting of aspersions on Arb pages. It's just not right for the Arb Committee to punt a case because they couldn't digest it, and yet to lodge a finding based on spurious evidence that was not even read by the arb member who cast the deciding vote. No, I don't think "too much evidence" is a valid excuse for not getting some job-- any job-- done here. Even some minimal remedies or findings of fact that actually relate to the principals-- which the arbs acknowledged-- could help in enforcement. As it stands, this committee left AE nothing workable to enforce that will affect the problem in any meaningful way-- all you did was enshrine five years of fait accompli. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Bookkeeping continued

I asked Joe Roe some questions about Blue's evidence at Joe's talk page, and there is an interesting discussion there. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Joe Roe said, In those cases, I'm minded to give more weight on the assessment of a sensible and respected editor like Bluerasberry than to isolated diffs. – Joe (talk) 11:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC). [8] And that is just astounding. Personalities over facts and diffs? This merely confirms-- in black and white-- exactly what was seen throughout this case. The evidence was not difficult to follow or overwhelming-- it just didn't lead where some wanted to go, so we are left with an unsolved problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

More fully, I said, It's extremely difficult to point to a set of diffs when the problem is sustained incivility rather than bright-line instances of misconduct. In those cases, I'm minded to give more weight on the assessment of a sensible and respected editor like Bluerasberry than to isolated diffs. – Joe (talk) 12:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

That is still astounding, Joe. You're saying out loud that you're choosing favoritism (giving more weight to a sensible and respected editor) over evidence (isolated diffs). To me, being an impartial arbitrator means you don't treat some editors as more sensible than others. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

After two days in the woods at the lake, I still find this too astounding for a collegial response, so I will try tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Tryptofish, I hope you don't mind that I sub-head this portion, as I still haven't gotten answers (above) to my bookkeeping questions, so don't want to fill up that section with this response. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Joe Roe I have been known to miss obvious humor, so kudos to you for the best edit summary ever-- "Please don't quote me out of context"-- in a discussion about you voting in favor of a Finding of fact on Colin based on him being quoted out of context.

You also said, "To reiterate that vote, the only conclusion I drew from the cited evidence was that Colin has at times commented on the contributor rather than the content of a dispute"; while this is what you stated, what you voted on was an FoF that said Colin "has degraded discussions by baseless accusations of bad faith and needless antagonism, and which explicitly cited Bluerasberry's "non-evidence" in support of that. If "commenting on the contributor rather than the content" is to be judged out of context instead of with specific diffs, let's have a diffless look at how an unidentified arb's actual posts would hold up to the Bluerasberry tone policing methodology:

Unidentified arb's misconduct is the continuous use of negative tone.

Unidentified arb X routinely speaks with a negative tone. In WikiProject talk pages, this arb says (names masked):

• No, please, let's not encourage this absurd escalation of X's WP:IDHT behaviour
• He has invented this anally retentive "academic standard"
• endless, tedious debate
• just another example of ---'s disruptive insistence
• his own, "logical" criteria rather than sources
• Please, User:X, drop this disruptive and tendentious crusade, or at least try writing an article about Y so you can express an informed opinion.
• this becoming seriously disruptive
• does not come across as a good faith effort to build consensus.
• I think it's your mindset that was the problem there.
• to which you responded with even more hostility.
• it's absurd to describe
• you made serious accusations
• or even the courtesy of
• based on incorrect assumptions and mischaracterisations
• collegiality goes both ways
• this kind of "us against them" mentality
• all you achieve is to annoy good-faith editors
• you are being extremely harsh
• using this talk page as a quasi-forum for rants

If that is "evidence", we have arbs (and countless editors) who will fare much worse than Colin under this discredited methodology, and yet Colin has an FoF based on it. It's entirely possible that multiple arbs did not understand the methodological issue, and I note that even Tryptofish (who followed the case closely) was not aware and acknowledged that "Had I known that before the workshop phase had closed, I would have removed my reference to that evidence from my own workshop proposals, but I only realized it after". (A similar recognition by DGG or Joe Roe would not be remiss for the baseless casting of aspersions that remain on the Workshop pages and FoF5 in the final decision.)

The inclusion of Bluerasberry's post as a diff in a proposed FOF raises multiple questions about ArbCom functioning in this case:

1. How many of the arbs actually read the evidence? Do the arbs typically rely on only the diffs given in the Proposal, or do they read the actual evidence and case pages?
2. Is it standard for only the drafting arbs to read the evidence?
3. Why did clerks or arbs not intervene with non-diffed "evidence", which were followed by non-diffed casting of aspersions, multiple times?[9] (Related to why aren't my four questions above being answered by arbs so that I can resolve the matter with Tryptofish?)
4. Were you (Joe Roe) or the drafting arbs aware of WAID's post explaining Bluerasberry's methodology? If you weren't following the case pages, and didn't read the ANI, you might have missed it.
5. How many arbs read the ANI, where they would have been aware of the poor methodology in tone policing even if they missed WAID's later post on talk?

Joe Roe, while you added "it is hard to draw a conclusion about a pattern of behaviour from the evidence we have", you nonetheless cast a deciding vote that explicitly singled out Bluerasberry's evidence, and then expressed an opinion about an involved party (Bluerasberry-- who altered established redirects that pointed to a policy page to point instead to a false statement in an essay he wrote[10]) as a "sensible and respected editor". Generally, if an arb is unable to make a decision based on evidence, or holds strong opinions about involved parties, they should recuse; deciding an FoF without basing it on diffs and evidence is a failure to do the job expected of ArbCom. Isn't the role of an arb to take the opinions of involved parties with a grain of salt, and strictly evaluate the evidence via diffs? One hopes that ArbCom is reviewing its recusal policies after observing these incidents, and the unretracted aspersions cast by DGG in this case. Why do we bother with evidence at all, if arbs are going to decide a finding based on opinions over diffed evidence?

The minimum the community should expect from ArbCom is that evidence will be read, diffs will be used, and arbs and clerks will communicate on and read the case pages; this does not appear to have happened throughout this case, and there are still four questions above that go mostly unanswered three days after I asked them here, and six weeks after I asked them on case talk pages. Thankfully, Isaacl and Paul August (along with Bradv) have offered an opinion; we still need overall resolution of this, considering the communication failures and the number of referred pages in the case evidence. (I used referred pages to spare you all from my endless stream of typo corrections, and had I been informed they would later be deleted, I would have transcluded them.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Specifically, to resolve

We have contradictory or incomplete input from case talk pages (Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence#Referred pages), feedback from a former arb, feedback from two uninvolved editors, and yet a threat from Tryptofish on my talk about evidence lodged on case pages.[11]. Some resolution is needed because when I asked on case talk, the impression was left that referred pages were acceptable for evidence. Remember-- an Arbcase is supposed to resolve conflict, yet here we have a new conflict, that is directly a result of poor communication on the arbcase. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Wow, just wow. Maybe this should be a request for clarification, so please tell me or Sandy if it is. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, it used to be standard practice for ArbCom to mandate the deletion of evidence subpages once the case is over (example). Even though we did not pass such a remedy here, I would encourage you to follow that precedent. You'll also recall that I substed a few of your evidence subpages onto the actual case once the evidence phase closed, so there shouldn't be a need for these anymore. – bradv🍁 22:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bradv: that is precisely part of my confusion. Because you decidedly replaced my subst'd pages with the actual text-- while leaving the others intact-- I took that as additional feedback that the referred pages were allowed (as expressed on the case talk pages). Could we hear from more of the committee on this? If we have to delete all the referred pages (I think there are about a dozen), then the case evidence is gutted, and this is a bad precedent to set based on a lack of communication on case pages when the question was first raised. I am quite concerned that you are often the only arb responding and would like to see some Committee functioning, as there will be a lot of confusion just like this as a result of how this case was handled. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, are there others that are substed transcluded? I thought I got them all. – bradv🍁 23:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I think the only one where there is any dispute is the one that has me named in the pagename. The ones about drug prices and so forth are fine. If Sandy wants a discussion from the full Committee, ARCA is probably the place to go. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Changing my mind about that. Rather, I think that pages with data about drug prices and so forth are fine, but pages that assert wrongdoing by editors, particularly when the final decision did not treat that as having been wrongdoing, should all be deleted. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

But likewise, what happens (in the context of Arbs not answering the questions when they were asked, and considering alternate views from Paul August and Isaac) when someone else asks for more evidence to be deleted? I care less about what happens with this specific page of evidence, than what happens with all the referred pages, and what we must to do to get the Committee to engage on Arbcom pages. Also, since you want deletion of that which "the final decision did not treat as having been wrongdoing", do I get to request that DGG's casting of aspersions at me on Workshop pages are also deleted? Or that Bluerasberry's false allegations about me are also deleted? Or that DJ's claim that I "harassed" him with pinging is also deleted? We have a big problem here if we start deleting evidence upon which no findings were based ... and it would be nice for the arbs to answer my four "bookkeeping" questions, particularly when the consensus so far is two independent editors (including a former arb) opining differently than the one arb who has deigned to answer. Considering false charges of harassment via pinging, what must I do here to get an answer ... start pinging arbs, submit a request for clarification as you suggested, send the page to MFD to see what the community says? I cannot figure out the lack of engagement of arbs on this case ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bradv:, sometimes I know just enough to be dangerous; I hope I am using the term Subst'd correctly. I subst'd transcluded some evidence pages, and linked others. You replaced the subst'd pages with exact text, but left the linked pages as links, which I interpreted to mean the links would stand, consistent with the responses on the Evidence talk page. To my knowledge, there are at least these pages-- there may be others. I am quite concerned that we hear from more of the committee on this, as if we have to delete all of the linked pages, the case evidence is gutted, and we would be doing that because the arbs failed to answer the question when it was directly raised at the talk page of the Evidence page. Could we see more of the arbs engaging on this matter? I am concerned about the lack of engagement throughout this case, and that you seem to be doing all the reading and heavy lifting; that is not optimal ArbCom functioning. Is it the intent of the committee that linked evidence-- which was allowed to stand per talk page queries-- should now be deleted? (I will be making the six-hour drive to my cabin in the morning, and need to load the car now-- I can read and make limited posts from iPhone hotpot on iPad, but nothing significant, so please allow time.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

With the case done, I would agree with Brad that as much material should be aggregated as possible. Deleted pages aren't a real issue as administrators can view the contents at any time. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 22:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks David, but dumber than I look ... what do you mean with "aggregated"? Bradv asked if there were more transclusions that he missed, and I gave him the list (linked some rather than transcluding, and did all of this to avoid subjecting all of you to my ten-for-one typos), and both Paul August and Isaacl say the evidence should be added to the case pages, so I can delete them from user space. I would like to get this settled in a way that the entire list of evidence pages won't be subject to later deletion. Is that what you mean by "aggregated"? Also, do you have any suggestions as to how I can get answers to my other questions in Bookkeeping? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I mean that the content from those pages should be transferred to the evidence pages and then the pages can be deleted. Are [12] these the remaining pages? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

David, thanks. If we do exactly that for User:SandyGeorgia/Response to Trypto diffs (put it in Sandy's section of the evidence page; may also have to fix a few red links on case pages after), I'll be fully satisfied, and I would have no need to discuss this any more. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the transfer is done in a single edit by putting:

{{subst:User:SandyGeorgia/Response to Trypto diffs}}

at the intended place on the evidence page, possibly under a section header. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes,David, that's everything (with an indication of the three that Bradv already transferred in).[13] I hate leaving you with the work; let me know if I can help or if you want me to do it myself. Also, there is an outstanding faulty link (that is included in the final case decision) described here in case you want to fix it as well. Thanks for responding at what must be a very busy time for ye arbs. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Sandy, I hope this will work. There is no need to do anything with the page about FAC, and no need to do anything with Colin's pages that compile drug pricing and sourcing. The only ones to consider moving are ones that assert wrongdoing by named editors. (And you might not even need to do the rest of those unless someone else complains, or unless you want to.) Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Sandy and I agree: she should get timely answers to her questions. I'm going to give this another day or so, and if we still have crickets, I'll start a formal request for clarification. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I am at a loss for what to do next. Perhaps I am really stupid, or willfully obtuse, or too tired from painting the cabin for days, but I don't know what "aggregated" means. And with the false charges of "harassment" over pinging, I don't want to start pinging all the arbs. I would like to be done with this page and move on, but need to resolve all the referred links. I will be again driving back home for six hours tomorrow, and if there is still no answer the following day, I will post to each arbs' talk page to see if I can get an answer that way. Sorry for the delay, Trypto, but it's not for not trying. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

That's OK, I don't want to hurry you – and both of us are very eager to be done and move on. (I'm guessing that "aggregated" means some sort of transclusion followed by deletion, but I'm probably wrong.) I think that a clarification request can be better than individual discussions on each user talk page, because it gets everyone in the same place and reduces the problems with contradictory individual answers. In my experience, they feel (understandably) done by the end of a case and tend to pay only passing attention here, but they feel more of a responsibility to respond to a new "request". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, typing from the computer and connection I have at the cabin is miserable. If there is no answer by the time I am home, I will coordinate with you to develop a clarification request. I have no experience or idea about how that is done or where, will figure it out with you if nothing has changed by Wednesday ... cleaning, closing up cabin, and driving all day Tuesday. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

PS, by coordinate, I mean that I need to go through and figure out which referred links were already transcluded ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:59, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

That's fine with me. Personally, I'm only looking to ask about the one page that focuses on me. If other editors want to complain about any of the other pages, they will have to do it themselves, because I'm not going to do it for them. I'll make a draft of the request in my user space, and run it past you before I actually post it, so we can more or less agree on what to ask and how to say it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

But remember that I am much less concerned about that one page, than I am about what happens if all the referred links must be deleted, which completely guts the page evidence. If we were only talking about your page, the quickest/easiest solution would be to just delete it ... I am worried about the communication problem, and the precedent, and the contradictory answers, and what will happen if all the other referred links must be removed. That is, I would not want to initiate a request for clarification about only one link ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

In that case, if you would just CSD:U1 the one page about me (my original request on your talk page), I'll drop the entire issue, no muss, no fuss. I don't care about doing anything about the other pages and am fine with leaving them alone. If other editors want to raise more issues, they will have to do it themselves. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

We may be talking past each other; I am concerned that the arbs should answer the query, and that I not delete one page which would set a precedent for deleting the rest. I have now reviewed those that Bradv subst'd after the Evidence page closed, and updated the list of referred pages at User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox2#Arb data. If we must file a clarification request, I would be asking about all of those pages, which are linked in evidence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that, and thank you for putting together that compilation of the user pages that you want to ask about. I can see that we have different views and different questions that we want answered, so I think it's best if we each write what we want to write, separately, instead of trying to make a joint statement. The clarification request format makes that easy to do. I'll get it started within the next day or so, and of course I'll notify you right away. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Resolved, thanks everyone. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Editing culture post Framgate

Noting, with some sadness, that CFCF has not edited since May 25 and Doc James has not edited since May 30, I want to expand on some things that are in part directed at editors who are sympathetic to them, and in part directed at ArbCom. As it happens, some of this overlaps with the RfC about harassment, but I want to focus more on this specific case.

In the final decision, we have very similar findings of fact about two editors, one of whom received a "reminder", and the other of whom received... a finding of fact. I think that from whatever side one looks at that, it doesn't make for a reassuring result. Some editors will feel that the editor who received no remedy should not have been subjected to a finding either, and others will feel that it was a double standard to only "remind" one of the two editors. It is to the second of those editor groups that I want to offer some advice. (And doesn't a finding of fact, in itself, remind the editor it's about? And yet one editor supposedly needed a further reminder, whereas the other did not.)

First of all, even if you don't like what happened with CFCF and Doc James, it's important that you don't ignore the feelings of editors on the other "side". Don't re-litigate what has already been looked at in this case. What's done is done, and it's time for everyone to move on. And don't fail to engage meaningfully in future discussions. Don't ignore discussions, and don't WP:IDHT. Try to avoid "per"-another-editor comments, and instead say it in your own words. This is important. You don't have to keep repeating what you said, no matter what else is going on, but just say it once.

Call it "bludgeoning" or "filibustering" or "not dropping the stick" or whatever you want, I think it's a failure of this case that it did not get addressed in the final decision. But that doesn't mean that you have to put up with it. There is a finding of fact, and you can cite that at WP:AE under the discretionary sanctions. Maybe AE will deal with it effectively, even if ArbCom didn't (that was the pattern after the GMO case, by the way). Or maybe they won't.

Remember also that ArbCom answers to a higher power. No, I'm not going all biblical on you, but I'm kinda going Walter White. I'm talking about the WMF. (And look at who is on their board of trustees!) There's something going on there that you should find, um, interesting, and you should start paying attention to. It's located here and being discussed at various places, including here. They are taking the position that there is a problem across multiple wikis of "harassment, toxic behavior, and incivility", and they are thinking about ways of doing something about it. En-wiki already has structures in place for dealing with actual harassment. But, in one fish's opinion, en-wiki needs to get better at dealing with incivility and "toxicity" (or whatever one wants to call it). A lot better. And I think that "bludgeoning" and "toxicity" have a lot of overlap. (I'm not saying that anyone should send a super-secret message to T&S if AE disappoints. But Walter White might be.)

As ArbCom knows very well, after the Framgate fiasco ArbCom has firmly and properly taken over responsibility for that stuff here at en-wiki, from WMF T&S, who had proven themselves, um, bad at doing it. But ArbCom, you need to be good at dealing with more than just clear-cut stuff like harassment and obvious personal attacks. I think you should look upon what WMF is doing as something where we all are stakeholders, and you should look hard at reflecting the spirit of what they are talking about, here. And if you don't, I would regard that as a kind of institutional failure that just might require intervention from "above".

Or, here's a novel idea: how about, going forward, editors on all "sides" put the past in the past and just play nice together? That would be the best outcome of all.

And by the way, if anyone ever becomes interested in having a community RfC that actually will resolve the content dispute, User:Tryptofish/Drug prices RfC draft 2 is available under CC by SA for anyone who wants to use it as a starting point, to restart discussions about what such an RfC might be. Just sayin. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Tryptofish, Seriously, I do not think any of that is going to get fixed in the absence of a binding mechanism for settling content disputes. Right now the problem seems to be that the only way a long-running content dispute gets definitively resolved is when one or more participants either flames out or quits out of frustration. Guy (help!) 22:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you. (Remember that during the case request, I recommended declining the case!) I hoped that the definitive resolution you refer to would come out of the decision here, but, no. I'm about as frustrated as one can get, and have pretty much decided to give up on content contribution: why should I donate volunteer time and effort to a project where I feel bad about doing it? I "came back" from "retirement" in the hopes of getting something good to come out of this case, but I still plan to go back to being largely absent once I tie up some loose ends here. It's not for nothing that I talk about institutional failure. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Tryptofish, I completely understand. Heads against brick walls, with both sides differing as to which is which. I hoped that a managed RfC would work but that got derailed within minutes by the same circular arguments. And it's no more fixed now. Guy (help!) 20:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Anti-harassment RfC open

Original announcement

• This year has just been massive event and case after case after case (Portals, Rhawoth, Kudpung, Jytdog, Bbb23, Medicine, and now the rfc) thank you arbs for being on time and consistent- especially with the virus going around. Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 02:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• The RfC is here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Account restriction (User:Therapyisgood)

Original announcement

It's not overly important and I feel confident I can figure it out for myself, but isn't there typically a "Not voting" section? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 09:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

If you look back through the ACN archive, we're not consistent about it. But for clarity, all the arbs not listed didn't vote on this motion. – Joe (talk) 12:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• I just looked over the contributions of the two alternate accounts, as well as some of the Wikipedia-space edits of Therapyisgood in the lead-up to Guerillero's checkuser blocks. I'm confused as to why he felt it necessary to create new accounts for those posts. Was it meant to evade scrutiny? Also, are these two accounts the only instance of such misconduct taking place? I feel like this is a pretty mild first offence to merit a full-blown ArbCom restriction, let alone a full month after he had already been blocked on his main account. Kurtis ^(talk) 12:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Kurtis: It is highly likely that there is more to things than the average user can see. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

  @MJL: I had assumed as much. Even so, I'm still not sure if a public announcement of this sanction was warranted. I feel as though it might have been more prudent to privately notify Therapyisgood, particularly as the decision seems to be based on private evidence. Just my $0.02, so I encourage anyone reading this to take it with a grain of salt. Kurtis ^(talk) 07:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

  Our procedure is that motions that aren't purely internal should be announced here. And bureaucracy aside, an editing restriction like this needs to be known to the community if it's to be effectively enforced. – Joe (talk) 07:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

  Understood. Thank you very much for the explanation. :) Kurtis ^(talk) 07:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Revocation of CheckUser access for Bbb23

Original announcement

• Thanks to Bbb23 for your long and distinguished service as a checkuser. Thanks also to Arbcom. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• It's disappointing but not unexpected. I trust the various arbitrators involved in making this decision will now step up and undertake more routine SPI work. Nick (talk) 08:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Ahaha, no. They don't care. Reyk _YO! 09:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• It can be tempting to use the CU tool to fish when something doesn't make sense and I know that some editors believe Checkusers act without oversight. Thanks Arbcom for showing that the review process can work and thank you Bbb23 for your precious help over the last 5 years. -- Luk ^talk 08:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• If Bb23 "continued to run similar questionable checks, and refused to explain these checks on request" as ArbCom has concluded, why on earth are they still an admin? Someone who's been misusing one set of advanced permissions despite an ArbCom warning should not hold other advanced permissions. Nick-D (talk) 09:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I assume it means that Bbb23 can still block sockpuppets; they just now have to make their reason extra-clearer or get a second opinion for it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• Well, shit. Hopefully the other non-arb CUs share this position. Not being able to see the communications I don't really know which side is right - but CU and SPI are going to take massive hits in the meantime. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:28, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Bbb23 did a huge amount of great work using the CU tool defending the integrity of the project. It's sad to see it end this way, but I respect that we have strict CU policies that must to be enforced. - MrX 🖋 11:28, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• +1 "Not being able to see the communications I don't really know which side is right"...the non-Arb checkusers would be in that boat because we don't have all the pieces either. We have seen some communications but not privy to all. I haven't seen enough meaningful dialog between the parties...I've seen a lack of it. Maybe more will come to light on wiki now.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• A lot of people took up Bbb23's defense when the restriction was handed down in April, but Bbb23 never answered to the community at that time or since their return. Regardless of the amount of work an admin does, they are still accountable for all of their actions. A continuation of the problematic behavior in combination with a refusal to explain their actions rendered this outcome necessary. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 12:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Lepricavark, "with a refusal to explain their actions rendered this outcome necessary" is NOT true. He wrote an extended explanation and posted on cu-l a few days ago. Arbcom have stripped his cu bit without replying to it and he has valid points.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Berean Hunter, Bbb23 was asked to explain 3 checks, with the knowledge that he had been restricted as part of the warning in April, which had been posted in full to the CU list (and in part here). In response, he attacked of members of the CU team based on their comments in April - and stated quite clearly "At the same time, I decided I would not comply with the unfair restrictions."
It is regretful that this is the outcome, as Bbb23 was clearly a hard worker and did a lot of good, especially in training, but I cannot see what other options we had available to us. Worm^TT(talk) 12:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I did not "attack" anyone, let alone CUs. I was attacked in the initial CU-l thread in early April and never responded. Given the latest events, I decided to respond this time. With one exception, all of my comments about specific people were to members of ArbCom, not "real" members of the CU team.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

What I wrote above isn't quite right. Most of my comments about specific people were indeed about members of ArbCom. Another was directed at someone who is not a CU on en.wiki (they apologized after my comment), and one was about someone who is ostensibly a member of the CU team.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Berean Hunter: Do you think Bbb23's chosen methods of response: first re-publishing ^{responding to} our email to his talk page and semi-retiring without substantive response to the committee, and now posting_copying a response to CU-L rather than responding to the committee directly _privately, is part of the reason "meaningful dialog" between the committee and Bbb23 is lacking? –xeno^talk 12:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC) ^{13:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)} _{14:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)}

I never republished ArbCom's e-mail on my Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

You're quite right Bbb23, sorry for that mistake. –xeno^talk 13:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

You summarized it sufficiently for people to gain the context. You didn't have to do this; you could have kept the discussion with Arbcom private instead of broadcasting it to the peanut gallery. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Bbb23 never republished an e-mail, although he discussed it. But let's just say he had--so what? Why is that being brought up? What does his sharing that e-mail, or its contents, have to do with his checkuser-related behavior or his direct communication with the Arbs? In fact, why was it brought up just now at all? Because that stinks of an implication that the removal of the CU was at least in part a retaliatory measure, because ArbCom was butthurt that their own poorly-considered communication and shaky awareness of CU procedures and policies was exposed to the larger community. Please clarify now why Bbb23's talkpage is being brought up in terms of what is supposed to be a decision based on CU behavior and ArbCom-directed communication. Because right now it stinks, and any ArbCom member who based even part of their decision on Bbb23's talkpage, should step down now. I'd like to believe, given the unanimous vote, that this isn't the case, but this is a pretty petty mention of a completely unrelated, unsanctionable action on Bbb23's part. Grandpallama (talk) 13:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Grandpallama, I think Xeno was just commenting on the reasons why meaningful dialogue between Bbb23 and the committee was difficult, not saying that Bbb23 making things public was part of the rationale for this decision. I would reject the idea that this was in any way retaliatory – it was based on a lengthy investigation that spanned at least two committees, and it was clear at this point that there was no further progress to be made. – bradv🍁 13:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Bradv, why meaningful dialogue between Bbb23 and the committee was difficult is a problematic explanation. Because whether or not Bbb23 responded to ArbCom directly is allegedly the problem. Blaming that poor communication, in part, on his decision to share what was going on with the community is ugly and wrongheaded. Even though you put it in a clearer fashion here, the fact that Bbb23 did what he did on his talkpage should in no way have impacted ArbCom's attempts to contact him, and suggesting that its sharing impacted his attempts to communicate with ArbCom is pure speculation and, again, irrelevant to the decision. It has an absolute chilling effect on the idea that CUs or admins can be transparent with the community, because their actions might be held against them, whether directly or indirectly (as apparently is the case here). Do you understand why bringing this up as any part a contribution to ArbCom's thinking is not okay? Grandpallama (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Grandpallama We did contact Bbb23, again, privately. Bbb23 did not respond to the committee directly_privately, instead choosing to reply via _cc: CU-L. We also contact other checkusers privately from time-to-time, none of whom refuse to justify their checks upon request as required by policy. –xeno^talk 13:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC) _{14:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)}

First, it was clear that I was responding to the Committee as well as through CU-l. Second, I did address the latest three checks brought up by the Committee. I said that they were knowing "violations" of the restrictions that the Committee had imposed on me. I have not sought to expand CU policy. The Committee has narrowed it.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I have changed "directly" to "privately". My apologies. –xeno^talk 14:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The flip side, which the community really should scrutinise, is just how much ArbCom is at fault for the "communication breakdown" here. It is time we started to understand how good and how bad each of the individual arbitrators are in this respect. We're really rather limited in how we can decide on individual arbitrator performance, particularly away from case pages. Nick (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Grandpallama, I do understand and appreciate your concern, but Bbb23 bringing our email up onwiki did not weigh in on our decision. When he emailed us a few days ago to say that he would not comply with the restrictions, nor would he justify the checks we had questions about – that left us in a tough spot. – bradv🍁 13:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Bradv, then it should never have been mentioned. Because what you've done is taken a potentially unpopular but understood decision, that I and most others probably would have accepted at face value, and introduced a cloud of doubt where none needed to be. I don't doubt at all that Bbb23 failed to respond to Arbcom, as Xeno repeats above, and if you'd all just left it there, fine. Bringing up unrelated stuff, frankly, convinces people that unrelated stuff was considered in addition to the relevant stuff. I'm now bothered by this decision in a way that I was not at first, and I suspect I'm not the only person. Grandpallama (talk) 14:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

And, for the record, there's a big difference between what the committee discussed and officially used to base its decision, and what individual arbitrators may have been thinking about; I now have an uncomfortable feeling that may have been at play here. Like I said, if any arbitrator was thinking about Bbb23's decision to discuss sanctions at his talkpage as part of their vote, whether they revealed it or not, they should step down. Grandpallama (talk) 14:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

My decision was based on the fact that Bbb23 knowingly violated the additional restrictions placed upon him. –xeno^talk 14:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Grandpallama, It was a factor in my decision making. Not because I felt in any way aggrieved by his decision to reply on-wiki - I felt it it was his right to do so and stand by the email that was sent to him. The reason it was a factor is that it was clear to me that we would not be able to have an "unofficial" dialogue with Bbb23 - there would be no possibility of the "quiet word" style feedback. No opportunity for him to course correct.
Even so, the committee still attempted to contact him privately, for the quiet word - I sent that email myself. Bbb23 responded in a similar manner to before, upping the ante. So, yes, his communication style has been a factor in my decision, responding on wiki exemplifying that. While I am unwilling to step down for that at the moment, I offer you a route to show me that I am wrong in that thought process Worm^TT(talk) 14:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I am, of course, unaware of anything that Bbb23 has posted to the private mailing list in question. As such, I took the arbs statement at face value when they said he had refused to explain his checks. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 12:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

You've been around long enough, why would you take anything the Arbitration Committee ever says at face value ? Nick (talk) 13:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Because I have no reason to believe they are lying. In this particular case, ArbCom extensively discussed this matter with the community when it first arose in April. Bbb23 didn't. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I don't quite understand this situation. I do appreciate ArbCom - they have made some very difficult decisions and I commend them for it. I'm just perplexed about the decision with Bbb23. He never doxxed anyone; rather, he simply did his job to stop disruption the best way he knew how, and was quite successful at it, which was a positive for the community. A quote by President Obama comes to mind and serves as a good analogy for how I view sockpuppetry: The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide. Suspicion is as good as guilt in that the suspect is not trusted. Anonymity itself brings a level of distrust when there is disruption and obvious ill-will. Socks who are really good at hiding tend to create disruption in our community, and I can only imagine how difficult they are to track down. Did we not just desysop an admin for having multiple socks? I wonder if the type of anonymity that permits such protection for socks is truly a positive for the project? Bbb23 was one of our best sock hunters, and he will surely be missed. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

  Atsme: Editors are guaranteed a certain level of privacy, and assurances are made to editors of this project that those with access to advanced permissions will not access their personally identifying information without good and justifiable reasons. We asked Bbb23 to justify some of the checks he ran upon his return, and Bbb23 refused to explain those checks (instead pleading their case to CU-L as to why they intended to not comply with the Arbitration Committee's guidance on the subject). A checkuser who is unwilling to comply with the local and global policies for use as interpreted by the body responsible for the same, and unwilling to follow guidance from that overseeing body, is not one that can be sustained - no matter their popularity, efficacy, or volume of work. Some have expressed that they believe the criteria for checking users should be expanded, however the correct way to go about this is by a widely advertised and well-attended RfC (keeping in mind that the global checkuser policy will still reign), not by disregarding the policy as it exists today. –xeno^talk 13:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• Can anyone give a cogent explanation as to what is legitimate suspicion of sockpuppetry and what is "fishing"? And how do you draw the line? Bbb23 clearly believed he was acting within his discretion, and according to his talk page updates is angry and upset that the Committee have taken a different view. P-K3 (talk) 12:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

  Pawnkingthree, Bradv helpfully explained in April here, which may help answer your question. Worm^TT(talk) 13:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Closing off topic discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As a Starter for 10 I'd like to ask Bbb23 to expand on why they used rollback here on what appears to be a good faith (if flowery and unsourced) edit per WP:ROLLBACKUSE. Of course, this is minor nit-picking and I have no opinion on the actual substance of the revert at all, except we might pillory an RfA candidate for doing this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC) Is there anything RfA candidates don't get pilloried over? Reyk YO! 13:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC) (e/c) This isn't ANI; it has clerks. Surely one of them will try to prevent this from becoming a "list of things I don't like about Bbb23" thread. He's got a talk page, you know. You should remove it yourself before then, though. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC) He gave an explanation in the edit summary so complied with ROLLBACKUSE (whether or not you agree he was rolling back a "disruptive" edit). Quite what this has to do with the revoking of his CU permission I'm not sure.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC) Discussion regarding Bbb23 unrelated to CU should be held elsewhere WormTT(talk) 13:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

When are we going to be provided with the necessary supplementary statistics concerning Bbb23's CU tool usage, so we can see the total number of actions which fall outside of policy and which blocks have been made as a result of that tool usage outside of policy. We need to know how many of those blocks, if any, are erroneous and how many of those blocks, if any, are correct. We also need to know what does the committee propose to do in the case of sockpuppets which have been blocked as a result of tool misuse by Bbb23, will it be endorsing all of the CU blocks made by Bbb23 resulting from improper tool usage ? Nick (talk) 13:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree that the supplementary statistics are necessary, the committee has made it clear that it has found a portion of Bbb23's checks to be "fishing", and Bbb23 unwilling to stop making those sorts of checks. As usual, CU blocks can be appealed to the committee, and if we find the block to be wanting, we will overturn it as we have done in the past. In an ideal world, every check would be reviewed proactively, however pragmatically, this is not possible. Worm^TT(talk) 14:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I find this answer deeply unsatisfactory. Bbb23, as a checkuser, is answerable to the committee, acting on behalf of the community. That arrangement exists because checkusers cannot be directly answerable to the community. You, as an arbitrator, are acting as our proxy in this matter. The maximum amount of relevant information, including the statistics I've asked for, should be provided so the community can make an informed judgement about what has happened here and to possibly pursue further sanctions. I asked about and I'm specifically interested in the number of blocks (if any) which are a result of tool misuse but which have identified a user or users failing to abide by our policies here. Nick (talk) 14:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• It sucks, Bbb was a great checkuser and IMHO we'll be worse off without him ... but on the other hand policies etc have to be respected, It's a shame it had to end this way, –Davey2010^Talk 14:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• One thing that's clear to me from all this is that no matter how carefully ArbCom might work to enforce policies, no matter how delicate they might try to be in addressing an issue like this, and no matter how much they might try to clarify what happened - they'll still always get shit thrown at them. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)