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.

J-Man11 unblocked

Original announcement

• We just reblocked a user whose problems were beyond socking, who was unblocked by ArbCom. Wtht all due respect, this looks like overreach and opposing the Community. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • @Deepfriedokra: Which user are you referring to? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
    • @Newyorkbrad: Gah! Can't remember the name. Will need to dig for it. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
      • @Deepfriedokra: Not necessary, I just thought you might remember it. As a general statement, ArbCom grants a very small percentage of the appeals taken to us, so it's helpful if we get feedback when one of our relatively rare unblocks doesn't work out. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

        That's correct, even when the community gets it very wrong, you usually uphold the bans or blocks because you don't want to make waves by doing the right thing. (Even when policy clearly says, "or ARBCOM..." you will say ARBCOM has no authority.) Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

        If "not making waves" were at the top of our agenda, we wouldn't grant any appeals at all, and then we wouldn't be accused of "opposing the Community" in threads like this one. How about the possibility that we look at each appeal on its merits and do the best we can with them? Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

      • @Deepfriedokra: Are you referring to Beaneater00? You had mentioned it in the ANI thread. DanCherek (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

        I'm guessing that is who they're referring to because after they were reblocked I asked about what our responsibility was following an ArbCom unblock and was told (convincingly enough to satisfy me) that we didn't have a responsibility any more than any admin who accepts an unblock has. It's not uncommon for people who are unblocked via appeal to act out again to and to be re-blocked and so the same being true for a segment of ArbCom unblocked users shouldn't be surprising. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

        • @DanCherek: Thank you! Yes. That was it. That was an egregious case of needing a siteban. At least, on the other hand, J-Man11 seems contrite. Maybe it will work out. . . . --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• If the checkuser block is over turned, any other issues, such as WP:NOTHERE, should go to WP:AN for consideration. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Actually, if the checkuserblock is overturned, the previous indef block should be reinstated, as ArbCom normally doesn't have the authority to overturn this. Basically, this editor was blocked indef first for editing issues, and then additionally twice checkuser blocked. ArbCom can overturn that checkuser block, but not the other one, per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Ban appeals. They should reblock the user and restore talk page access, and then the editor can appeal their non-checkuser block through standard procedures. Fram (talk) 15:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

    Fram that's not what Ban appeals says. It says we'll only consider appeals from certain categories of users not that we can't unblock other users. For our authority on that we have to go to WP:ARBPOL which says ...hear appeals from blocked, banned, or otherwise restricted users. So this user was block, banned, or otherwise restricted and so we had authority under ARBPOL and the user was checkuser blocked and thus eligible for us to hear (under our procedures, which the committee sets and is responsible for). Thus under both policy and procedure this user was eligible for their block to be considered by ArbCom. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

    (ec)Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures says "The Arbitration Committee will, for the time being, take appeals (i) from editors who are subject to an {{OversightBlock}} or a {{Checkuserblock}}; (ii) from editors who are blocked for reasons that are unsuitable for public discussion; and (iii) from editors blocked or banned by Arbitration and Arbitration Enforcement decisions." The block I'm discussing here doesn't match any of the above three categories, it seems (I assume reason ii doesn't come into play). While the editor falls into category "i", the spirit at least of that "law" isn't that you can then also overturn blocks outside these three categories surely? Otherwise an editor would be given an incentive to get checkuserblocked once their normal block appeals are rejected; that way, they get an appeal chance which a "better" (not checkuserblocked) editor doesn't have. It can't be the intention of the above policy quote, nor of ArbCom, to give more avenues to get a non-ArbCom block overturned to editors who are checkuserblocked on top of a a standard indef block, than to editors who don't sock? Fram (talk) 15:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

    I'd go a little further than that and point out that we should not be subjecting individuals to excessive bureaucracy for unblocks. The idea that an individual should have to go through multiple unblock procedures - effectively adding layers of blocks on top, is not conducive.

    That's not to say that the committee shouldn't be talking to the community when we are looking at banned users, in case of wider concerns, but I didn't see an AN ban discussion for this user, I saw block discussion on their talk page (which had it's own issues), before it being upped to indef and then reacting with evasion. As a group, we accepted that the individual should have a chance.

    Per NYB, it is very infrequent that Arbcom does accept appeals and I'm sure we'd appreciate feedback on those that have gone awry. Worm^TT(talk) 15:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

    If editors succeed in getting both a regular indef (appealable through regular procedures) and a checkuserblock afterwards (appealable through ArbCom), then yes, they definitely should go through the unblock procedure twice. Like I said above, otherwise you are giving an incentive to editors who have had their unblock request rejected to become checkuserblocked, as they then can appeal to another authority (aka ask the other parent). Or, obviously, ArbCom could have started a discussion before the unblock, asking the community (or even the blocking admin) if there were objections to an unblock (apart from the checkuser issue, which is outside community discussion). Fram (talk) 15:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

    Fram, Except, a regular indef can be overturned by a single administrator. Moreso by consensus. Given that all the members of arbcom are administrators, and there must be consensus amongst the committee for an unblock, we are following the procedures.

    I have no concerns about asking the other parent because I know that individuals are FAR more likely to be unblocked through normal means than through Arbcom, and this has been true throughout all my terms.

    I've long pushed for Arbcom to take on a few block reviews as possible - since they should absolutely remain in the community's hands - but in the cases where we do review, we should be taking it all the way. In cases where we think there's a likelihood of additional information, or severe disruption, or general community buy in needed, we should request a review - however, I also think we should not be unduly wasting the community's time for simple cases. Worm^TT(talk) 15:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

    "The blocking administrator may be consulted for their comments on your request (this is a common courtesy)." (from Wikipedia:Appealing a block). I hope you at least did this, and contacted User:Lourdes about this? (Better still, all admins who blocked or declined the unblock requests) Because this remonds me too much of how the Den Broeder case was handled (without wanting to make any comparison between the two editors), with an ArbCom then which focused way too much on the socking, didn't search community input, and unblocked with completely inadequate restrictions in place. Of course, this one may end much better than that one, but I fear that the lessons learned then are slowly being forgotten or ignored. Fram (talk) 16:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

    Fram, WTT captures my thinking in response to what you're suggesting. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

  More generally speaking this seems like a reasonable time to announce that the committee has agreed to post some aggregate statistic about appeals. My plan had been to compile those at the end of March (1/4 of the way through the year) which is obviously rapidly approaching and thus I already had plans to begin this work next week. I write this because obviously many ArbCom unblocks (of which there aren't a ton) go unnoticed at community forums because we just unblock. It's only when we pass some sort of restriction (like this) that we note having done so. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

  I hope ArbCom doesn't unblock editors who were blocked outside ArbCom proceedings / checkuser without informing the community of this? I thought there was agreement after the Guido den Broeder fiasco not to do this any more? Fram (talk) 15:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

  Fram, our procedure is not to hear appeals that do not include private information (CU/OS/other) or direct Arbcom control. Worm^TT(talk) 16:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

  Let me rephrase my question then: I hope ArbCom doesn't unblock editors who were also blocked outside ArbCom proceedings / checkuser without informing the community of this? Fram (talk) 16:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

  What if the community gets it wrong, as it often does, especially at ANI? Granted ARBCOM won't take an appeal lightly especially if it will be controversial, but we do need somewhere an editor can appeal the masses. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

  Please post your evidence that the community "often gets it wrong". "Often" requires either statistical evidence, anecdotes about a couple of bad sanctions will not suffice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• Actually, in theory, this editor wasn't blocked by a single admin but was community banned per WP:3X (notice). In a more principles based approach, I agree requiring an editor to submit multiple unblock/unban requests is counter-productive. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with both sides here. Requiring someone to go through multiple requests is not an effective use of our time, and can lead to conflict between community and ArbCom. However, given the community concerns regarding this individual, and that - absent particular circumstances which it appears haven't fully been met in this case, the community and ArbCom have both been moving toward ArbCom not dealing with this sort of unblock request, it might have been appropriate to get some feedback from the community before unblocking. On the surface it did appear that this user was one that ArbCom could unblock without consultation - it just turns out that on closer examination the situation was a bit more complicated. Meh. It's now a done deal, it's a minor point, and it would be inappropriate to require any more of J-Man11; though, in the interests of community harmony, a statement from ArbCom that they will check the little details closer next time might be useful. I note that the unblock statement from ArbCom is that J-Man11 should stick to one account - did the Committee also discuss and get a commitment from J-Man11 that they will follow community guidelines and policies on content creation? As it appears from glancing at the talkpage and the block log that the primary concern was not the sock accounts but the disruptive poor quality editing. Such editing is very time-consuming and demoralising to deal with, and I could well understand and sympathise right now with any editor who has previously dealt with this editor who becomes aware that they have been allowed back in without any restriction on their editing. In the circumstances a restriction on editing British army articles, appealable after six months, would have made sense rather than the account restriction. SilkTork (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• I actually don't see any downside to informing the community about any unblock that ArbCom make. Without wishing this to sound like ArbCom isn't capable of making unblocks (because most of them obviously work out OK), we have had the total shambles that were Guido den Broeder and Beaneater00, neither of whom should have been let anywhere near the encyclopedia again, and if those had been announced here there wouldn't have been an issue because someone would immediately have said "Er ... you might want to think about that one again". I can understand that it's not great for the unblocked editor to be publicised here when they're returning to editing in a great number of cases, but I think the great reduction in drama that could be achieved in the cases like the ones mentioned above make it a sensible idea. Black Kite (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

  The vast majority of the appeals ArbCom gets (I look forward to Barkeep's stats, but at a guess 90+%) are of routine CheckUser blocks, made by a single admin with no broader community input. In the few cases where the appeal is accepted, it would seem pointless and rather unfair to the appellant to post a notice on a page as widely watched as ARBN/AN. – Joe (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

  Just to add on, I'd guestimate that 90% of unblocks are SO/Rope unblocks. As for the stats, the format I've drafted don't go into level of detail about what kind of block. Instead it's going to note the reporting period, how many open appeals there were at the start of the reporting period, how many appeals were declined, how many were accepted, and how many appeals remain open at the end of the reporting period. These are all going to have be manually counted, which is why these reports had fallen by the wayside, and so keeping it simple was a priority. I had been holding off saying anything publicly until I had done the work one time just in case the time was too substantial for it to be sustainable by (the committee agreed to this in principle back in January). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• We get a ton of ban/bloc appeals, new ones nearly every day, and only a tiny percentage are unblocked. Sometimes the unblock turns out to have been a bad idea and they get blocked again. The same thing happens with "regular" unblocks and is an expected part of the unblock process. I do think the committee needs to push back on the apparent perception in some quarters that an arbcom unblock is an inoculation or an endorsement, which it most certainly is not. Users unblocked by the committee have the same status as any other user not currently blocked and are not subject to any special status outside of any unblock conditions imposed. If they start doing the same things that led to them being blocked to begin with, or anything else that would get a user blocked, any admin can block them again on their own authority. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• The reason why I blocked indef was because of continued ignorance (deliberate, or incompetent...) of the disruptive issues. If the user has reached out to ArbCom and they have deemed the unblock to be proper, I don't believe there is any issue with this. Yes, policy is worded in one way. But this is common sense area, and I consider all current ArbCom members to be quite intelligent and considerate about such requests. While I significantly respect the views of my fellow editors, I don't see any reason for this discussion to be moving in the direction that it is. Warmly, Lourdes 05:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
• As this was a regular indef block "beneath" the CUblock, I have no objections to ARBCOM handling both, as any arb is an admin who could review the case normally anyway. I do hold that someone who is both AC-blocked and CBANNED should have to go through both processes, but that's a niche group that does not apply here. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Motion regarding Tenebrae

Original announcement

• An Arb requested that we note here that this motion does not prevent any individual administrator from taking regular administrative actions in the future in regards to Tenebrae. Barkeep49 (talk) 12:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Why would an appeal (in six months or whenever) be an option? Like, as some sort of formality? El_C 12:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

    Essentially, yes. Primefac (talk) 13:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

    I mean, it will always be the same person, but okay...? El_C 13:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

    Hooray, bureaucracy? Primefac (talk) 13:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

    I suppose it's technically possible that our policies regarding COI may change. I don't think it at all likely, but I've been wrong before. Thryduulf (talk) 14:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

    I think it's good practice to recognize that things change and change in unexpected ways. Having mechanisms to react to those changes seems appropriate and so it's kind of a standard add-on (well either 6 months or 12 months for a first appeal). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

    I don't see why people think the situation can't change or we need a change of policy. We don't normally permanently (and I mean permanent not indef) block or ban people with a COI from editing an article where they have a strong COI, especially where it's a personal COI rather than a paid one. People are strongly discouraged from editing directly when they have a COI, but it's not forbidden. Indeed somewhat ironic in this case, but as a BLPN regular I would be horrified if we ever implemented such a policy. We may ban or block an editor with a COI if they edit directly and it causes problems which happens a lot, but we need there to be actually an identified problem with their edits not just 'editor has a COI and is editing directly'. If there is such a block or ban it's intended as an indefinite one not a permanent one. In other words, it can be ended if we are convinced the editor will behave going forward. This doesn't mean the editor will never edit directly despite the lack of a ban or block, it only means their editing will be appropriate, mostly stuff already covered by WP:BANEX i.e. stuff they could always do even despite the block or ban albeit needing a sock unless it's a ban without a block. But there could also be perfectly appropriate edits that are technically not covered by BANEX that an editor without a ban or block could make directly despite having a COI. This case is complicated by the fact we can't comment why the editor has a COI, but while I can see how this may prevent us ever lifting the ban, that's not exclusively because of a policy issue. Editors are generally fully entitled to reveal why they have a COI. They are also fully entitled to not reveal. At the moment it's the latter but we don't need a policy change for the former, just the editor to change their mind. It may be that the wrongdoing is so great that it's difficult for the community to ever trust the editor ever again. But I don't see any reason arbcom should prejudge that. And also, I'm unconvinced that 20 or even 10 years from now, we'll definitely still feel the same if the editor has behaved and is otherwise a stellar editor and demonstrates a clear understanding of why their previous editing was wrong and a commitment not to repeat that. TL;DR "always be the same person" in an identity sense maybe. But "always be the same person" in an editor behaviour sense? We should always hope not and under our current policies many editors with a COI don't need a ban. P.S. Even without the editor revealing why they have a COI, I'm not sure this means we need to keep the ban. IMO assuming the other conditions are ever met i.e. we're confident they will behave, it seems fine for the ban to be lifted if there is an acknowledged COI without the precise reasons being revealed. I can understand some may feel different due to the history. Nil Einne (talk) 06:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

    ArbCom tags this onto almost every motion as a matter of course, and it's as much a polite way to say we don't want to hear from you for at least half a year as it is an invitation to appeal. In theory I don't think they could ever bar someone from appealing indefinitely, since ArbCom is supposed to be the last resort for conduct issues and the committee changes every year. – Joe (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Two questions:

(1) Is the material redacted from the Lovece biography and its talk page going to be restored?

(2) Does the conflict of interest also apply also to edits concerning Lovece's employer, Newsday?

AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

In the spirit of clarifying who was wrong and who was less wrong in this whole saga, a note in User:Hemiauchenia's block log might not go amiss either, although I carry my breath in my hand on that one.——Serial 15:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

In the same spirit, an apology to the multiple other individuals who have in the past been sanctioned and/or blocked for drawing attention to this long-running issue wouldn't go amiss, though I suspect that hell will have frozen over (or melted due to infernal warming) long before that happens... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Two answers:

1. ArbCom is not taking any action with respect to the redacted content; if the Oversight team determines this content can be restored, that is their decision to make.
2. This was not part of our deliberations, so at the moment there is no restriction there.

As a reply to some of the comments above: I cannot speak for the Committee as a whole regarding past blocks (recently or otherwise) but this was a rather unusual juxtaposition of COI and OUTING. While I have not really looked into the blocks, I would guess that at the time they were made they were appropriate given our rather strict rules regarding OUTING. That doesn't mean that I won't change my opinion on that topic or the Committee as a whole will not make further statements if/when more information comes to light, though. Primefac (talk) 16:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Primefac: More information than what? Without knowing what the committee based its decision on, how is the community supposed to know what you know and what you don't? Why did the committee choose to investigate this in secret? Mo Billings (talk) 16:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

New information has a funny way of coming to light. Another news article could be written, someone could contact ArbCom directly, the possibilities are quite numerous (and honestly, I'd rather us receive information we already know than miss out on novel info). As far as why we took this case privately, when it first crossed our inboxes it was an outing concern, which meant we couldn't discuss it publicly without spattering said information all over Wikipedia (which would, you must admit, defeat the purpose of keeping said information private). Heck, I'm being intentionally vague with my answers because there is still a potential outing concern, depending on how the redacted information is used. Primefac (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I didn't think that conducting investigations which touch on outing concerns or other sensitive information was unusual for the committee. Isn't there usually a notice of such things with a request to send the information to the committee? Mo Billings (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I cannot speak for past committees or their private cases, but in this instance we were metaphorically flooded with emails from a number of parties all regarding the same issue. Other than follow-up questions and extended conversations with some of those individuals, there was not a lot of extra information that we felt we needed from the community at large in order to make our decision. Primefac (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Good to know. Thanks. Mo Billings (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Given that one of the specific issues raised in the external 'reliable source' [1] which brought this matter to public attention was the excessive number of citations made by Tenebrae to Lovece's material published on Newsday, can I ask why ArbCom didn't include this in their deliberations? WP:COI seems clear enough regarding the potential scope of such transgressions, and if there's a reason why ArbCom wouldn't consider excessively promoting Newsday content etc relevant, I can't think of it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I honestly can't say why it wasn't discussed (something about proving a negative), so all I can really say is that we didn't discuss it. As I said to Praxicidae below, there is nothing preventing future restrictions from being made. Primefac (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Not to contradict with Primefac says (it's all true) but Tenebrae adding a Lovece citation anywhere would fall afoul of their topic ban. I am unaware of any edits where Tenebrae edited Newsday or otherwise edited about it in a way that caused concern, beyond adding links to its reviews. But as noted there is nothing preventing the community from going further or from us going further and indeed our internal discussion about this continues. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Tenebrae has edited the Newsday article many times, under his own account [2]. And there are probably good grounds for asking whether some of the other regular contributors to that article were Tenebrae too, given the circumstances. He has already admitted to editing as an IP in a manner which led to him being blocked, and the Newsday article seems to have been subject to an unusual proportion of IP editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

23 times over 15+ years doesn't strike me as "many times". In fact that is few enough that I was just able to look at all 23 edits. I don't find a whole lot to be objectionable. For instance this is one of the most substantive edits but even so I'm not seeing an issue. There were a couple of Lovece related edits in there but again that would be covered by the topic ban. As for IP editing, if you have specific concerns I know they'll be looked at with interest at WP:SPI as that's how the last IP was identified. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I seem to recall that trying to raise CoI concerns re Tenebrae at WP:SPI was one of the things that previously led to a community member being blocked. Before anyone raises the matter there again, perhaps we can have a statement from ArbCom to the effect that the same thing won't happen.

Meanwhile, if anyone wishes to judge for themselves the degree with to Tenebrae's self-promotion has also involved promotion of his employers, I recommend looking at the history of the Film Journal International article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:51, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

If raising COI concerns about Tenebrae result in blocks it's not present at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tenebrae/Archive which show 2 SPIs. The unsuccessful one was filed by a sock who was blocked 9 months later. The successful one was filed in December by an editor who has not been blocked since 2019. I also don't see any suppressed or deleted edits at the SPI (or the archive) as I would expect in an COI leading to an OUTING block. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:57, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• Given their tendentious editing (and wildly out of policy) of BLPs in general, this seems pretty lenient. VAXIDICAE💉 16:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

  This motion does not preclude future motions or sanctions if necessary, either by the community or ArbCom. Primefac (talk) 16:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

  I know, I'm just pointing out that there's more than just dubious COI editing, but since we can't go into details because of certain policies, I'd say the community is owed a huge apology and a heart felt reassurance that the same extremely unethical and tendentious behavior won't be continued. VAXIDICAE💉 16:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

  I think Arbcom did the right thing here. Their motion deals with the information received privately due to OUTING concerns. Anything else - such as a community ban on editing BLPs or adding information referenced only to certain authors or articles, or any additional block or ban decisions - can be made by the community as a whole. Now that Arbcom has posted its motion, there's no actual or perceived restriction on the community taking additional steps if we wish. Speaking personally, I recused from direct discussion or action on any suppression requests because I don't consider myself impartial on this matter; I will similarly recuse from any similar direct discussions on lifting suppression. Risker (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

  I'm with Risker here. I've been concerned about Tenebrae's editing of BLPs for quite a while. This is because of their tendency to want us to document real name, birth dates etc including of unrelated parties like children. The COI stuff is largely irrelevant to my concerns and I don't think will make a BLP ban much or any easier. Nil Einne (talk) 05:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  Considering the extent to which Tenebrae has been promoting Frank Lovece and Maitland McDonagh (I've just removed one example), I strongly suspect that the community would want to see stronger sanctions if the information known to ArbCom were public (I'd be up for a community ban myself, based on the lengthy years of deception). But we're not allowed to discuss it, so the idea of the community taking things further is somewhat moot. Yes, we could discuss Tenbrae's approach to other BLPs, but only in relative darkness. I'm not suggesting the information should be made public (it obviously shouldn't), I just suggest that the suggestion that the community can take things further if we think the current sanction is insufficient is flawed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  Hmm, then again, maybe we could get further in community discussion based on what is public and can be linked. I'll have a think. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  We've indef'd for less. Anarchyte (talk • work) 14:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I have started a discussion on the conflict of interest noticeboard about Tenebrae's edits. Mo Billings (talk) 21:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

In line with the above, I have started a discussion at WP:OUTING in order to change the policy so this situation does not continue. I say continue rather than 'happen again' because given the use of oversight here that has enabled COI editing, its impossible for ordinary editors or admins to get a clear picture. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I have proposed a community ban at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposed community ban for User:Tenebrae. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Can ArbCom give the community any guidance about how you decided that the existence of the article in the Daily Dot gave rise to a situation in which the community is free to discuss COI issues without falling afoul of the harassment policy? I'm asking this in part to clarify why ArbCom decided that this is OK, but also to clarify what editors should not do in future cases of suspected COI. Obviously, if the information were posted only on a doxing website, ArbCom would not be encouraging discussion of it. But how should the community understand how ArbCom determined that the Daily Dot article was something entirely different than that? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  @Tryptofish: I'll give the reasons behind my vote specifically. I voted to stop suppressing the link, but explicitly not in order to enforce our COI policy. I did so because Lovece is the notable subject of a Wikipedia article, and the article could be considered a reliable source to support statements in his article. The community might well decide to do so, though of course it is not required to do so if it determines otherwise. But in any event, this kind of suppression is essentially using a conduct policy (WP:HARASS/WP:OUTING and WP:OVERSIGHT) to settle a content question (whether we should include the reference in an article). Under the circumstances, I believed that would be inappropriate. I also would hold that the initial suppressions were entirely appropriate until reviewed by ArbCom; oversighters should 100% continue to enforce the oversight policy and the decision not to suppress arguable OUTING should never fall to an individual oversighter. As to the COI question, I have many thoughts on this but it will take sme time before I have them in a concise and articulable form. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks for the reply, but I still have questions. I understand how this applies with respect to the content of a BLP article. But I think that the community still needs guidance about what is, or is not, permitted during COI discussions. Would it be correct to say that, if we have a BLP about a notable person, and that BLP cites a reliable source that identifies that person as the same person who edits here under some other name, and who has not posted their real-life identity here, then that person no longer is covered by the outing policy for purposes of COI discussions? And would it be correct to say that, if an editor is not the subject of a BLP that cites such a source, then linking to an article in a reputable news source that reveals the editor's identity is against policy and subject to oversight? (As I'm sure you can infer, I'm uncomfortable with such a distinction.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  I get it, that what I asked is the kind of question that is a pain in the rear end to answer, and I'm fine with ArbCom taking some time amid a packed schedule to think the issue through and get it right. But I very strongly urge the Committee to give serious thought to the boundary between outing and not-outing as it applied in this specific case, and to communicate your thoughts to the community. It will not be enough to just say that we got it right and there's nothing more to see here, so move along. It's just a matter of time until somebody posts some new thread at COIN and cites the motion here to indicate that it's permissible to link to something, and then gets oversight-blocked for doing so. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  A specific way to think about it is if someone links to a doxing website and says: "but it's common knowledge because anyone can Google it and it's the first Google hit". And while there is an obvious distinction between linking to 8chan and linking to The New York Times, there may be no such clarity between some other online forum, and a relatively obscure online reporting website. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  @Tryptofish: I don't think ArbCom as a whole is going to give an answer on a WT:ACN thread. But I will share some of my thoughts on the matter, not on behalf of the committee:

  • I intentionally did not consider the COI discussions whatsoever when giving my vote on the oversight question. The fact that this article can be discussed in COI discussions is an incidental result of my decision to defer the content question to the community. It was not my intention that the community take this opportunity to reference the article to resolve the COI concern; that the community can do so merely follows logically from the other decisions in this matter. COI concerns involving private evidence should continue to be handled through the standard processes. One underutilized option from another era that fits well is to issue a block appealable only to ArbCom: admins are able to block based on private evidence if they label the block appealable only to ArbCom and immediately submit the evidence motivating the block to ArbCom.
  • This case is not a good vehicle to decide future cases. If this kind of situation comes up again, do not "test the waters" by posting on-wiki and seeing what happens. Instead, follow established processes; if you think the situation might qualify for an exception, email the oversight list or perhaps arbcom-en. Let me be more explicit: it is not generally acceptable to link to material that would be considered OUTING if posted on wiki, and editors who do so do so at their own risk. This isn't just me arbitrarily saying so; this follows from some of our strongest conduct policies, and if you want to change this, you need to change the policy first.
  • Regarding your discomfort with treating editors differently than notable subjects of our articles: the fact is, we do generally treat our editors quite differently from article subjects. We go out of our way to find and publish information on notable people in ways you wouldn't imagine doing on Wikipedia editors, subject to the constraints of WP:BLP. BLP allows for more information to be shared than WP:OUTING, especially if you have reliable sources that supports your contention. When something becomes a plausible content question, the BLP standards control, not OUTING. That's because when we write about Wikipedia in mainspace, or discussing such writing, the same standards apply as if we're writing about any other website. For example, imagine that the Daily Dot article purported to link Lovece with a Wordpress account instead of a Wikipedia account. If the community deems it appropriate, that could be referenced on Lovece's article and talk page, and it would clearly not be an OUTING question. The same standards apply when discussing someone's purported links to Wikipedia. This argument was what motivated my vote not to suppress the article. But again, this is not a decision that is up to any individual editor; editors should not post oversightable content on Wikipedia without obtaining a decision that it is not oversightable. I can easily imagine cases when this analysis would not apply with the same force, and RS-published links between notable subjects and Wikipedia users are suppressable (even under the BLP policy). The decision not to suppress came after weeks of internal discussion in this case.

  To summarize: the oversight decision was not intended to affect COI discussions in any way, and the analysis leading to the decision not to suppress was a fairly narrow exception to a strong general rule, and editors should not attempt to make this analysis themselves without clearing it with the oversight team. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you, that's actually a very helpful answer, even with the necessary caveats that you made. I think it's very important for the community to understand that individual editors should not take the present case as an excuse to act outside of policy without prior clearance from oversighters. Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• The real question here was not, and never was "who is Tenebrae in real life?" It's entirely irrelevant. The question that should have been being asked was "does Tenebrae edit in such a way that it suggests that, for whatever reason, they have a COI with regard to Frank Lovece." Previous discussions were derailed by single-purpose throwaway accounts asking that first question instead of the second one. Without trying to blame anyone in particular, the could have and should have been dealt with some time ago, but the system failed, in part because Tenbrae was skilled at playing the system. That obstacle has now been removed, and the community is taking action, so we're probably more or less done here. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, I have to say I think this was handled well by all concerned - ArbCom did their bit appropriately, and the community is taking it from there. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• With respect to all involved, I'm unhappy with how this was handled, particularly with respect to whatever off-wiki evidence may or may not exist beyond the DailyDot article. If off-wiki evidence was necessary to convince people of the need for action, then ArbCom should have made this a full siteban specifically to avoid OUTING - by imposing a limited TBAN, ArbCom is acknowledging the (apparently quite private) relationship. If off-wiki evidence was not necessary, then this should not have been an in camera decision, or better yet, it should have been remanded to the community based on on-wiki behavior. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  To expand a little further on the source of my irritation: I'm one of the (vanishingly few) admins who works WP:COIN (and I haven't even had the energy to deal with it the past couple of months). There are cases that show up there where someone has made no attempt to hide their identity (user BobSmith writing about XYZCorp, Bob Smith is prominently listed on xyzcorp.com as the company's marketing director) and yet we have to dance around and give hints like "I cannot publicly say why I'm so sure this editor is COI despite their denial, but a quick Google search should tell you why I think that." It's a pain in the rear, but it's what we do to respect the OUTING policy, and anything more detailed than that will usually end up oversighted. And yet here's ArbCom using private evidence to publicly connect an editor with two very specific COI topics. It's not OUTING, but in my eyes it's dangerously close to it, and in particular is too close to the line for a bunch of folks with the +OS bit. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  We are not acknowledging a real-life relationship between Tenebrae and Lovece; in fact, as I understand it, the Arbitration Committee has no opinion on the question. We merely have determined that Tenebrae has an actual or apparent conflict of interest with respect to Lovece, and that is sufficient to justify the action we have taken. We have also determined that it was appropriate to handle the case in private for reasons that we are unable to share. There is a big difference between asserting an actual or apparent conflict of interest and asserting a real-life relationship; the former happens all the time on Wikipedia, and the latter constitutes OUTING. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  Semantics. A COI is inherently a relationship with someone or something. If you have a COI with two specific individual people, you almost certainly have some kind of relationship with them - you work for them, you're a relative, you're being paid to edit about them, you're one of them. I guess if Frank Lovece were selling shares of his estate or created LoveceCoin there might not be a direct real-life relationship, but that's an intentionally absurd hypothetical. Also: Tenebrae has apparently had an apparent COI for ages -- the fact that there is off-wiki evidence and that ArbCom is acting on it with targeted TBANs strongly suggests this is "actual" COI. And that gets to a point I didn't sufficiently address above: whatever ArbCom's official stance is on the matter, most people here know how to read between lines. You obviously can't confirm or deny anything, but what I read from the announcement and early discussion (before reading the DailyDot article) is pretty much exactly what DailyDot was suggesting. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• I'd add here that simply based on a few days' antecedence, this doesn't appear likely to be the first poor decision made by ArbCom in recent history (assuming the current AN discussion continues the way it is). Two phrases to describe the current committee decisions: "out of touch" and "tunnel sighted"... -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

 Question: Although the motion specifically states "banned from any mainspace edits", is it proper for Tenebrae to be participating in an AFD for Maitland McDonagh? I would assume that as a general rule, someone with a COI would not be allowed to participate in AFD discussions, at least not to the extent of voting. I'm not asking for Tenebrae to be blocked for this. I'm just asking for clarification. Mo Billings (talk) 02:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Here is what the notice [3] said, copy-pasted: "The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maitland McDonagh until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion." I acted in good faith based on this notice.--Tenebrae (talk) 02:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

As far as the rules go, I don't think there's anything that prevents Tenebrae from commenting or even !voting at the AfD at this time. As long as the COI is disclosed, which I guess it is now, the closing admin can simply assign their comments whatever weight is appropriate based on the strength of the arguments. Mz7 (talk) 03:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

While it's a moot point now, IMO there's nothing wrong with them participating. But they should declare they have a COI in that discussion rather than relying on either someone else to point it out or for the closing admin to be aware of it. Given the unusual circumstances of this case, personally I'd be fine with Tenebrae simply mentioning that an arbcom motion found they had a COI. But frankly if Tenebrae doesn't wish to declare they have a COI then the best option for them is to simply not participate when they have a COI. To be clear, I'm not saying they have to declare why they have a COI, but they should at least be willing to declare they have one. And it was their only option until recently, an option they unfortunately did not take which is why they're in so much of trouble. (When I made my comments above, I thought there was just some minor COI editing. I wasn't aware how extensive it was. It doesn't significantly change my opinion except that it does seem far harder for them to come back from it. Still, I don't see any reason for arbcom to rule it out, since even if not 10 years, in 30 years who knows? Even the foundation has recognised the problem with having most of their bans being unappealable with a few obvious exceptions like child protect ones. So I'm still not sure why people feel this one needed to be unappealable.) Nil Einne (talk) 12:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Mz7: - on a tangential note - as a member of the Oversight team, could you provide an update to the discussions/decisions of the Oversight team regarding suppressions at Frank Lovece and Talk:Frank Lovece? Note earlier comment by Primefac: ArbCom is not taking any action with respect to the redacted content; if the Oversight team determines this content can be restored, that is their decision to make. starship.paint (exalt) 16:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  Internal deliberations among the OS team are pretty much never discussed on wiki, it's the nature of the work that it's mostly invisible. Even once a decisoon is made it's unlikely there would be any public post about it. If edits that are currently suppressed are suddenly visible again you'll have as much of an answer as anyone is likely to get on-wiki. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Jessiemay1984 unblocked

Original announcement

2021 discretionary sanctions review: community consultation

Original announcement

• For those who landed here: this is the section to discuss the announcement itself. The actual link to the review process is: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021 review. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS closed

Original announcement

• Ugh. What a downer. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 23:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• Yet another ArbCom witch hunt ending with the only possible result from such hunts. One arbitrator opined on the talk page that very few of these cases end in anything but a deadminning. That's obvious when you see how this case was carefully crafted to be a witch hunt. The end result is a good editor leaving, and those who actually abused advanced permissions are let off without even being examined by ArbCom. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
  • An arbitrator is casting unfounded aspersions and denigrating RexxS here on this page, but nothing will be done about it I can almost guarantee. Now, I can't know for sure, but I'd bet a decent sum that RexxS left because ArbCom crafted this case like they do almost all other "admincond" cases - a witch hunt. Why would any editor willfully subject themselves to a witch hunt, watch people who are worse get off without even being looked at, and then come back to edit? If any arbitrator was treated the way they have treated RexxS through this process, then I guarantee they'd be leaving the project too. I encourage any arbitrator who feels they wouldn't to spend days meticulously gathering every negative thing they've ever done - including the times it was "justified" in the larger scope of things, and then post it all without any sort of explanations for the actions. Furthermore, to fully understand the position RexxS was in, any blocks others received for antagonizing you need to be undone - because according to the arbitrators, others' behavior doesn't matter whatsoever. Finally, they must hand up their administrator bit against their will - and they won't be allowed to have it back. Until arbitrators have actually experienced one of their own witch hunts (or something substantially similar), none of you are qualified to speak as to RexxS leaving because of "power" and any arbitrator commenting as such deserves a block just like it should be blockable for any other editor to do such. Multiple arbitrators have spoken since the election about "reform" - the biggest reform necessary is stopping these witch hunts and examine everyone's behavior involved - including at a minimum whoever filed the case, but also any actions that led to the actions in the case. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 14:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

    Berchanhimez, I don't see how this is a "witch hunt". I'm having trouble understanding your reaction. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 14:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

    As this is about RexxS, who cared greatly about accessibility, I'm fixing MOS:LISTGAP issues on this talk page in the name thereof. The arbitrators explicitly ignored behavior by a user with advanced permissions (who filed the case) because they wanted to frame it only about RexxS - and they removed all parties to the case other than RexxS, and they ignored mitigating factors in each instance referenced in the findings, and furthermore, they called RexxS involved for acting in an administrative capacity only with respect to PR - investigating the abuse of TE permissions is an administrative function, thus does not make him involved. All in all, this case was carefully crafted from the beginning to be a witch hunt with only one possible outcome - a desysop. Had PR simply remained a party as the case filer, it's almost certain that enough evidence would've been presented and considered to prevent a desysop being necessary - but when the case is designed at its core to be one sided like this, a desysop is the only viable outcome regardless of if it's right in the grand scheme of things. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 14:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

    • It's quite true. In this case we have only one involved party; RexxS. It's quite obvious from this case that RexxS was using his admin tools against himself while involved in a dispute with himself. He also edit warred against himself while being very insulting towards himself in the process. You know, if I were edit warring against myself while casting aspersions against me, I'd block myself too! <facepalm> Wiktionary defines arbitration as "A process through which TWO OR MORE PARTIES^{(emphasis mine)} use an arbitrator or arbiter in order to resolve a dispute." The very basic definition of what arbitration is supposed to be is completely lost on this committee. The committee apparently wanted a fair outcome to this trial? If there wasn't a real person who was victimized by this joke of a trial, I'd be dying of laughter, incapable of breathing due to the absurdity of it all. Instead, I am disgusted and revolted. Not that it makes a damn bit of difference, but I will remember this in the next election cycle. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

    Some questions I posed multiple times on the PD talk page and no arbitrator ever answered: Is it acceptable for arbitrators to use "participation" (or lack thereof) in their opinion making? The finding of fact didn't pass - suggesting it shouldn't have been used in decision making by any arbs, but yet multiple of them explicitly said they voted to desysop because RexxS didn't participate (at least in part). So which is it? If it's okay to use that, then a finding needs to be passed for it. If it's not, then those arbitrators should've recused/abstained from the desysop as they obviously are unable to control their outside thoughts making it into the case. Furthermore, an arbitrator made (now struck) comments about, in a gist, "editors who leave when they're being witch hunted must've only ever been here for the power". The fact that an arbitrator thinks that - not even related to this case - much less that they choose to state that as their opinion during discussion of this case where it's obviously the opposite is... Let me just say that that comment is going to have a big part if that arbitrator runs for re-election, because that's absurd the level of bad faith that arbitrator is assuming in people. Lastly, the fact that an arbitrator pranced around on an off-wikipedia site known for harassing Wikipedia editors... wouldn't surprise me if that played in to RexxS' decision to just leave altogether. If a judge in a courtroom did this, even if it wasn't any "private information", in their local bar/pub, they'd be asked to recuse the second someone found out about it. The fact that the arbitrator is still defending their actions in going and discussing offsite in forums known for harassment of Wikipedians is just laughable to me. And note that these three questions are all examples of poor arbitrator conduct - not to even get into the fact that this case was (intentionally?) crafted as a witch hunt, as are most other admin conduct cases, and then another arbitrator (fourth one here) makes a comment somewhere along the lines of "we can't be doing anything wrong, it's just that most admin conduct cases end in a desysop" - well duh, when ArbCom's over the years have been crafting them as witch hunts, then of course the only possible result is a desysop. I find it amazing that one arbitrator is blind to the details of the crafting of cases, one finds it appropriate to assume massive amounts of bad faith about other editors (gravedancing?), one is discussing the case on a website known for harassment of Wikipedians, and yet another explicitly stated they used evidence in their decision but then voted against including that evidence (RexxS lack of participation) as a finding of fact. That's at least four examples of misconduct and/or poor case management - and there's been no response yet as to why or what's being done about it. So yeah, User:Hammersoft, there's a lot here to remember the next election cycle - maybe the community will, now that we can see these examples of misconduct and/or (intentional?) crafting of cases to be witch hunts then being all "insert surprised pikachu meme here" when they end like all witch hunts do... maybe the community will remember this. I know I'm keeping track and intend to bring this up if any of the four arbitrators I've called out here run when their terms are up - because only one of them tried to explain any of this and they basically said "we gave reasons before" - that doesn't mean those reasons were or are right. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 16:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

    Berchanhimez: I almost did answer in your section, but thought it would largely duplicate my response in Ched's section. My apologies. To summarize: I didn't see RexxS's lack of participation as a bad thing in and of itself, or a strike against him. But input from him would have been the most effective evidence in his defense, and might have allowed some third option besides desysopping or nothing. Now, I'm not ignorant as to why one would be less than enthusiastic to participate in a case, and others have noted that speaking in one's defense can backfire too, but here, I only think it could have helped mitigate. --BDD (talk) 16:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

    User:BDD - Other arbitrators went farther than you, with multiple strongly hinting (if not outright saying) that the lack of response factored into their decision making. Arbitration remedies are supposed to be based on the findings of fact - and if a finding of fact is being considered by multiple arbitrators, including yourself by your own admission (saying that anything he said likely would've mitigated) indirectly, then it needs to be mentioned so. I think part of the reason is that nobody on ArbCom wanted to answer the burning question - is participation in arbitration beyond an initial response required by ADMINCOND? I think nobody wanted to answer because no, it's not - and thus arbitrators that openly admit to their votes being influenced by this "didn't participate" fact are doing so outside of their remit as arbitrators - who are supposed to follow policy and evidence, and not supervote their own opinions on top of things. I'm not sure that would change the end result (requiring arbs that clearly used "didn't participate" to vote yes on the finding of fact thereof), but it is an odd occurrence that's occurred where ArbCom allowed a remedy to pass by the hair of its teeth when multiple arbitrators (on both sides, but more on supporting) based their vote in (decently sized) part on something that there is no principle or finding addressing. Two ways to fix this - both motions - either add a finding of fact (even if it's mentioned as an extraordinary one) that addresses the lack of participation, or move to "clarify" the vote to desysop to make clear that the vote was at least partially based on a lack of participation. While I doubt anything's going to be done about these witch hunts (an arbitrator themselves showed that these cases are virtually always witch hunts), the least you can do is be honest with others and bluntly tell them that you not participating can and will be used against you - if not by all arbitrators, by at least enough of them to make it unfair and arbitrary. Note that this is only one of the problems with this case - while you did answer somewhat in another section this part of it, there are multiple other issues here that need addressed. It would be prudent, in my opinion, to initiate a community consultation/survey to attempt to find out why ADMINCOND cases almost always end up one-sided against the admin and almost always end with desysop. It may be found that ArbCom simply isn't accepting enough of them before they reach the desysop point... but I suspect just based on what I saw in a couple I reviewed that it'll actually be found that ArbCom, for whatever reason(s), is unintentionally crafting such cases in such a way that there is no other outcome possible - by excluding others' conduct which is always relevant and by allowing people to request a case based on flat out misleading information, then they never have to participate more because they are no longer a party. To put it bluntly, anyone wondering why administrators leave after ADMINCOND cases should realize that if this is how "uninvolved" people feel about the result of this, how must the party feel when treated like this? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

    While I obviously don't agree with your characterization of "witch hunt", I fervently agree it would be constructive to have one or more agreed-upon sanctions that can be applied to administrators (by the community writ large or ArbCom) short of desysopping. Many of us are of the opinion that a suite of restrictions upon the use of admin tools ipso facto shows a lack of community trust... but if the community told us otherwise, I, for one, would be more than happy to have that available.

    Past experiences shape our perspectives, of course, but it would be best to explore these options with clear eyes in order to find something that will work in the longer term—it should not be round II of this case, or any other case for that matter. --BDD (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• Per Moneytrees and Berchanhimez, I'm afraid. Hopefully someday we can look back at this as a blip in the history of a long-time respected editor still with us, and not the moment someone was driven away. Vaticidalprophet 00:01, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• Disappointing that RexxS got desysopped, but not surprising. Also, I would appreciate it if CaptainEek would tell us how they would have voted on the Desysop if the case hadn't closed before they voted, if they don't mind. I hope he runs in another RFA in the future to get adminship back once he can slightly reform the behavior that led to his Desysop. I think it's interesting that there's no time limit on when he can have another RFA, but it probably wouldn't be the best idea this very moment. Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  Jackattack1597, Well in this matter, even if I had voted, it would not have changed the outcome. You will note that I voted on almost all other items in the case, but was torn on the matter of a desysop. I chose not to vote. I do not like the idea that ADMINCOND cases are forgone desysopping conversations.

  I too hope to see Rexx continue as a productive contributor, and perhaps even RfA again in some years. I understand if they wish to take a break too; this was no doubt a stressful process and I am striving for ways to reduce that drama. If they wish to leave, that is their business; though I must say I am not impressed by ex-admins who leave the project. To me, that shows that they were there more for the power than our mission, among other failings. I don't think its our business to say when someone can or can't RfA, he could run again tomorrow if he wanted, and the community could rebuke ArbCom if it so felt. But that seems unlikely, and I imagine Rexx might wait some time. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:43, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  CaptainEek, I think saying that retirement shows that they were there more for the power than our mission is a really unfair way to characterize things. As much as we claim adminship is not a big deal, in a basic social sense, it's a huge deal. Passing RfA shows that you have the respect of one's peers. Having that status forcibly taken from you (deserved or not, I'm not getting into the merits of this or any other de-adminship) feels like a big loss of social standing, even if one still has friends and supporters here. Most people can't help feeling upset and embarrassed when they lose standing, so it's no wonder many choose to retire after being de-sysopped - it has everything to do with a perfectly natural feeling of loss, not that they only care about power. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  I see my comment has been not helpful, and have struck it. I am always sad to see contributors go, and have no idea if Rexx will stay or go, and hope that he sticks around. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 15:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  Furthermore, I do not at all think Rexx was just here for the power, I think Rexx is a well intentioned and positive contributor. I was speaking in an abstract capacity and did not choose my words very carefully, and frankly my words were not relevant to the question at hand. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 15:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  I too would like to see RexxS back at RFA at some point, but for everyone's sake I hope that before he does do, he takes the feedback about his behaviour onboard and leaves it sufficiently length of time to demonstrate that he has done so. Since 2015 only 3 editors desysopped by arbcom have stood for RFA, not one of them did this and not one of them passed (in one case the behaviour was essentially unchanged; in another it was debatable whether the behaviour had changed and there was different behaviour that would also have sunk a first RFA; in the third there was insufficient time between the desysop and RFA to know whether behaviour had changed or not). Especially given how close his first RFA was, I would bet a significant amount on an immediate re-RFA being unsuccessful, and that would be a bad thing for Rexx and, at best, of absolutely no benefit to the community whatsoever. Thryduulf (talk) 03:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Disappointing. Can't really criticise the Arbs, but I've never been a fan of retaliatory ArbCom filings leading to others diff-digging and producing the somewhat ramshackle evidence they had to work with. Black Kite (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• It is quite unfortunate, but reading the decision, I am convinced the Bureaucrats set him up two years ago. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:12, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  If you are seriously suggesting that a group of 17 bureaucrats would be able to know that two years after a crat chat that the admin in question would be desysoped, and intentionally promoted them knowing this would be the case, then I need to start buying lotto tickets or something because that's some impressive foresight. Primefac (talk) 01:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  If I am seriously suggesting what? I am not suggesting anything, I am flat out saying, I think that bare half-supported decision and the issues raised then, set him up for this type of fall. (see also, failure of WP:CONSENSUS) --Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  You might want to check your language. "Set him up" means a deliberate action was taken to create conditions which would result in their being desysopped down the road, which is highly unlikely, since if the 'crats didn't want him as an admin, all they had to do was not promote him. If you mean instead that the divided 'crat chat just happened to create the conditions that led to the desysop, that's a more defensible statement. whether it's true or not is impossible to know, and not very useful at that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  Setting up to fail can be intentional or unintentional -- e.g., "in hindsight, I was setting myself up to fail" is a perfectly sensible thing to say, and does not imply intentionality. (I mean, I understand the initial misunderstanding, but after it was clarified?) --JBL (talk) 03:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  Agreed. Obviously Alan doesn't mean the Crats maliciously plotted a conspiracy to approve his RfA knowing that he would be desysopped, that doesn't even make sense. "Set him up to fail by giving him a break" was clearly the intended meaning. As I said in the case request, I think the crats got it right, but I also completely agree with the argument that the decision played a part in his eventual desysop. If he didn't pass, he would have had to face a hard consequence for his behavior, and make adjustments prior to gaining the tools. Technically he passed below the bare minimum threshold set by the community and the crats passed him anyway. This is on the crats, and I'm sure they will learn from it. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  Indeed, it is not that they intended the end. Set up does not require such intent -- it's that the community was divided, and the crats were divided. That was the predicate set up and the wisdom of policy then is to check the motion, go back, and build consensus by addressing concerns in order to move forward -- in RfA process, in the 2nd consensus gathering, or the 3rd, or 4th. Listening for consensus building still remains useful. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  I'll add, not only was the community and crat division itself evident, but in the middle of that chat, RexxS expressed his own doubts that it was the best way forward - again, listening is more than useful. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  @Alanscottwalker: I think "set him up" is completely unfair. RexxS is not a 5 year old. We don't let 5 year olds be admins. They saw all the comments and concerns from others. They saw the public comments from bureaucrats. At any stage, even after the final decision, they had the choice to reject being made admin if they didn't feel they could adequately address the concerns people had raised going forward. The bureaucrats recognised things were borderline and decided after discussion to give RexxS the chance. RexxS failed to take that chance. That's almost entirely on them. They are the ones who despite being given almost 2 years, failed to improve their behaviour. They are the ones who failed, despite surely knowing themselves better than anyone else, and despite plenty of people explaining to them what was expected, to recognise that they weren't going to be able to bring themselves up to the standards we require from admins. (I'm obviously AGFing this is what happened rather than RexxS recognising they couldn't but hoping they could escape without it.) RexxS is not a newbie. They are not someone who should have need handholding. As I said, I'm sure they're not a kid. We need to stop blaming others because some highly experience editor failed, despite us giving them lots of opportunities and chances. Maybe there are some minor things we could have done better, but we don't have the time and resources to mollycoddle each editor especially not admin candidates. At some level, they need to decide whether they can make it as an admin. It wouldn't work anyway. There are always going to be borderline cases and there always needs to be a decision. Either we are very strict and seriously limit the number of admins, or we relax and risk appointing editors who aren't suited for adminship. From what I've seen our borderline at the moment probably isn't that bad. Maybe this decision means the borderline should be slightly tougher, maybe not. I trust bureaucrats to make that decision based on all they've seen and don't think they are setting people up whatever they decide. Just like with any WP:ROPE like decision, some admins at the borderline will make it, some won't. Those who aren't made it aren't being "set up". Note that I have no personal animosity towards RexxS. I've barely read the case. I did see some concerns on the boards about RexxS at times, and did partly agree with these but I don't really have much of an opinion either way. I'm willing to trust arbcom here, since most of the time their decisions have been reasonable and I haven't see anything in this discussion to suggest to me this one wasn't. Suggestions others set up RexxS because they were given a chance, but RexxS failed to take it is just wrong. Also this isn't a comment on any other aspect of RexxS's editing. RexxS may very well be a brilliant editor in general and a great asset to this project. They just aren't currently suited to be an admin, and it's very unfortunate they never recognised this but that is on them. (The problems which lead to the de-adming aren't ideal for a regular editor either, so improvement would be great, but it's entirely reasonable as I indicated below, it's not sufficient for a long term block.) Nil Einne (talk) 01:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

  P.S. When I wrote the above reply, I wasn't aware that RexxS didn't actually meet the minimum threshold. This pushes me much more towards the side that bureaucrats made a mistake, but I'm still strongly opposed to the idea they set RexxS up. Rexxs is the only one who set themselves up. Again, people need to take personal responsibility for the stuff they do here. The primary problem when we too readily give rope to people and they fail is not the negative consequence for the person who took the rope and failed, it's for the community dealing with it while they're failing. I.E. yes maybe the bureaucrats made a serious boo-boo, but the main cost by far was for us having to deal with this rather than because maybe if things had been different and RexxS had been rejected they would have eventually improved. They always had that choice and were provided with the information they need to make it. Nil Einne (talk) 01:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, the cost is to RexxS and the cost is to us, they are not mutually exclusive. But what makes you think, I am giving RexxS a pass on his behavior or his responsibility, whatever it was? Not once have I criticized having him pay his part of the cost (but him paying is not the only cost, nor is it that hermetically sealed, him paying is evidently painful for (some) others in the community, too). It remains the Crats set him up, in the face of an evident divide in the community and in the Crats. There is nothing unfair about recognizing that. Especially in a project that holds to consensus, because we believe optimal outcomes tend to arise from working to consensus (but that involves work). We all know there was absolutely no requirement that RexxS be put in (or put up to) the position the Crats put him in, right that minute. To use your rope trope, if you are going to spin rope and hand it to someone and they exact a cost on the rest of us with that rope, that rope dealing is on you - take responsibility (and that's assuming it's your job to spin rope at all for handing out responsibilities that exact costs on others). Unless one holds that the Crats are perfect, there is certainly no reason not to look askance at what happened there. Crats, it is hoped, continue to learn, as we all must in doing our chosen work, here. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• This is just an unpleasant misfortune all around. I'm not the biggest civility wonk of all time but it was clear to me at the RfA that enough people had legitimate concerns over it that the RfA should not have succeeded; I think those who opposed over civility and had their concerns contemptuously flicked aside in the crat chat might feel a bit vindicated now but that's not a noble sentiment really. Although I agree with Black Kite that these proceedings often just turn into a shopping list of gripes and grumbles, and I'm not really too concerned about many of the peccadillos presented, ultimately you can't go around deleting peoples' posts and accusing them of deliberately persecuting the vision impaired just because they didn't indent their posts "properly" and expect to hold advanced permission here. That was just unbelievably nasty and the event that convinced me RexxS isn't fit to wield the mop. Reyk _YO! 07:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• Mind boggling: To decide that an admin leaves Wikipedia because power means more than the community and the work, presupposes that the arbs are always right in their determination. Are they? Really? Or are the arbs making the best determination possible given who they are and the information they have? Is that information always completely accurate or sometimes incorrect, slanted or false? The idea that 10 or so people on the project have always determined "the truth" is frightening and speaks to a level of arrogance that should be leveled. But in fact, I don't think that's what arbs believe. I think they know they are human, capable of errors in judgement, and if they aren't should they be part of a collaborative community-driven project where supposedly everyone is human. If they are human, capable of mistakes allow that editors possibly falsely accused, judged and punished in this not so, non-punitive situation feel that the highest order in the land has not served them fairly and so perhaps they have a right to leave. Arbs selected, although this will never happen, should be those who have suffered through an arbitration and been sanctioned, perhaps wrongly. I think insights into what happens to someone accused in an arbitration would be quite different than what we see now. Arbs get it wrong. I respect those arbs I've seen in the past who know and have admitted to this fact. Littleolive oil (talk) 07:43, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• CaptainEek You must say you're not impressed by ex-admins who leave the project because it shows they were here more for the power than our mission?[4] Why must you? Do you feel an urge to disgrace yourself? Because that's a despicable thing to say in the context of desysoping RexxS. RexxS was an asset to Wikipedia for 11 years before he requested adminship two years ago, and you suggest his departure after this humiliation shows he was here for the hat-collecting? I think your election to ArbCom (a mere seven months after becoming an admin, if we're going to talk about being here for the power) has gone to your head. Among other failings, e.g. of imagination. You should be ashamed. Bishonen | tålk 10:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC).

  CaptainEek, editing Wikipedia is a volunteer activity, whether as an admin or not. The assumption that an editor is interested in everything about Wikipedia is a false premise. I have zero interest in DYK or ITN or copyright investigations. If you kick an editor out of their niche activity you don't get to dictate that the next item on their list of interests should also be Wiki-based rather than trying out for a cheerleader spot at the Kansas City Chiefs, launching their own brand of ice-cream, installing solar panels on their roof, or any one of a million options. Assuming they were on a power-trip, just because the niche from which you ejected them made use of the mop, is (imho) bad faith. Cabayi (talk) 11:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  I'm gladdened to see CaptainEek has struck the comment. Cabayi (talk) 12:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

  Agree with Bishonen here - I think this one comment is more than enough to suggest that this was a horribly crafted case (a witch hunt) from the beginning, and that at least one arbitrator wasn't voting in good faith as they were making wildly incorrect assumptions about others (and are now casting aspersions against the same). That an arbitrator felt it would be acceptable to say this after a case like this is absolutely absurd - and should end with their resignation as that's an attitude completely unfit to be an arbitrator. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 14:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• RexxS, at his RFA wrote:

  Just as I think adminship is no big deal, I don't think lack of adminship is a big deal either. If the community decide to trust me with the tools, that's fine; if the community doesn't, that's fine as well. I certainly won't be planning to "try again another day" (although I will take on board all of the criticisms, constructive or not). --RexxS (talk) 13:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

He repeated those words, five days later, and an hour before he got the badge. Today, RexxS has eight user rights (I have five, FWIW). RexxS wasn't blocked, or banned or had his article editing restricted in any way. Nobody demanded that he should be, or that Wikipedia would be better of without him. Quite the opposite, in fact. None of his friends turned their back on him. The arbs have a difficult job and imo made the right decision. Experience of "retirement" and RexxS's own words at the RFA would suggest he has not left the project, despite how he may be feeling about it right now. A break to contemplate things and get over any ego bruising is normal. Blaming the arbs for his "loss" is not only premature, but a dangerous path. Are all arbs to worry that desysopping an admin is effectively a siteban and leads to the person leaving the project, for which they will be blamed? No. It is an extra right, and in RexxS's very own words, should be no big deal to not have it. -- Colin°^Talk 11:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• A single, bad decision by a 'crat. set this entire thing into play. A bad and wholly avoidable decision. That 'crat is now on the committee. The community can hardly complain - it gets what it votes for. And the preceding comment by Bishonen regarding another AC member is spot on. That said, the decision was a correct one. Just avoidable and almost predictable. Leaky caldron (talk) 11:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• For what it's worth, and that is very little, I feel this was the correct decision by the Committee based on the evidence presented; there appeared to be a distinct pattern of "conduct unbecoming". I do however agree entirely with Premeditated Chaos that former admins who leave the project are probably not doing so because they've lost their power, but because being the subject of an ArbCom case and having your behaviour examined in minute detail is almost certainly exhaustingly uncomfortable on its own, to say nothing of being found wanting at the end of it. That is not a criticism of the Arbitration procedure, merely a statement of fact (although I am pleased to see that some steps are being taken to reduce the stress). ƒirefly ( t · c ) 14:06, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• I'm amazed that an Arbitrator would say that leaving the project "shows that they were there more for the power than our mission, among other failings." I think I agree with all the comments above. @CaptainEek:, at the very least you should recuse from any case where the accused party is no longer editing, and I'll go further and ask you to retract your comment and apologise. Doug Weller talk 15:00, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• This may be a good time to remind ourselves that Wikipedia is a volunteer organization, and people are free to leave at any time, for any reason, without any explanation. Deciding that the stress of a pending ArbCom case is not worth the time or energy (or pay!) is a perfectly understandable reaction, and not one to which we should be ascribing any particular motives or character flaws. – bradv🍁 15:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Yeah? Then pray tell, why did we have this introduced in the PD? Why did it come so close to passing? But for vote changes, it would have passed. It should never have made it to the PD in the first place. Deeply chilling attempt by ArbCom in a volunteer organization. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• I've only interacted with RexxS once over the many years that we've been active on here and have not followed this case -- and am not commenting on the merits (or lack thereof) of it -- but to see a sitting arbitrator make a comment (now struck) as above is sufficient reason for me to think that this project is a waste of my time and I should try to shake off this "drug addiction" sooner rather than later. If anyone wanted to be the subject of moral judgement they'd go to a religious house of their choice, they should not have to spend their time and effort on a voluntary project for that. —SpacemanSpiff 16:43, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• There is a very difficult issue that both ArbCom and the community will have to come to terms with, and it has no easy answers. In theory, accepting a case that ends in desysopping should lead to the desysopped admin staying on as a regular editor who is valued by the community for things other than the use of the admin privileges. Yeah, right. We know from it happening over and over and over again that we end up losing users entirely. And that's not what the Committee intended. I expect to get answers along the lines of "no, we wish it did not end up that way, and we really hope that RexxS will come back, but we cannot just decline case requests for fear that the user will retire, because that will allow accused users in the future to effectively blackmail the process." Maybe that's true, but I find it unsatisfactory. We cannot wish away what is empirical fact, observed with overwhelming frequency. We know that accepting an admin conduct case means the same thing as a self-imposed site ban. We cannot pretend otherwise. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• In this case, ArbCom experimented with a variety of process changes in how the case was carried out. I think that the more active monitoring of case pages was a success, that can be built upon. In particular, I want to thank Barkeep49 and Primefac (as well as L235 who was recused but who has been very active in responding to community comments elsewhere) for being so active and helpful in replying on case pages. I also notice a divide in this regard between Arbs who were just elected last year, and those who have been on the Committee for many years. In fact, some veteran Arbs mostly just posted comments reacting defensively to criticism of the Committee, which I found disappointing.

I think it was a mistake to close the Workshop the same time as the Evidence. I also think that Analysis of Evidence should extend a while after the Evidence itself closes. Whether to have Analysis of Evidence on the Evidence page or the Workshop page is a tough call, but it's worth remembering that for a very long time having it on the Workshop page meant that participating editors tended not to find it and utilize it. But in any case, evidence often needs to be analyzed, even when the evidence is posted at the last minute before the deadline.

Because multiple things were changed at the same time, I'd advise caution in determining whether things like the Workshop should or should not be eliminated based on just this one case. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

These are good points. I haven't followed this case as closely as I've followed some others, but from what I've seen I certainly agree regarding closing the analysis at the same time as the evidence. Closing the workshop at the same time as the analysis of evidence, but later than the evidence, would imo be preferable to closing them all together. Thryduulf (talk) 11:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• Closing the workshop at the same time as the evidence was a bad, bad move. I also feel the construct of forbidding parties to the case from responding to evidence after the evidence closes is abusive. People can submit evidence right up to the very end of the evidence phase, and the named parties have no opportunity to respond. Not that RexxS participated in this latest sham of a trial, but evidence on this case was coming in on the last day of the trial. Parties have no opportunity to defend themselves. This can hardly lead to a fair conclusion. If in the real world a defendant was not legally able to defend themselves against accusations, we would consider such legal systems abusive. But here on Wikipedia, it's fair and just. Unreal. Absolutely unreal. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• Beeblebrox, please consider posting less about a case, when the case is in progress, at the Wikipediocracy forums. I'm all in favor of transparency, but that means transparency here, not there. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  The short answer would be that I completely disagree with you. I can comment wherever I choose. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  Then I will elaborate on why I feel that way. Although ArbCom is obviously not a court of law, there are reasons why the appearance of impartiality matters here as well. For example, I posted a suggestion on the Workshop talk page, and you posted at Wikipediocracy that you thought my suggestion was, essentially, ridiculous. It's OK if you and other Arbs reject my suggestion; that's fine and I understand that. But posting about it externally, but where people here are still going to see it if we look there, is an unbecoming way to go about it. And this goes beyond just one thing that I suggested. When an ArbCom case is in progress, it's just not a good look for Arbs who are actively judging the case to be posting a running commentary about it while the decisions are being made. I'm not disputing that you can comment wherever you choose, but I'm saying that you should choose otherwise. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  Beeblebrox, Trypto is right. You have been commenting about me also on external forums during this case. I am not mentioning negative or positive, but to deliberately bring my RL background into external forum discussions when the case is going on, is uncalled for and not at all required – because you are an arbitrator deciding on a case. As an Arbitrator, please push yourself to a higher standard. You want to comment on external forums during a case, please leave my real life and the case out of the discussion. Lourdes 01:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Tryptofish, I'm afraid I'm not really clear on what specific post you are referring to. I don't recall any such post about you related to this case. I just looked through my recent posts on that thread over there and I still don't see it. Lourdes, I'm sorry if that made you feel uncomfortable, such was not my intention. As you saw, someone asked who you were, which I frankly thought was a dumb question, I don't think they were genuinely asking who you are in real life, so my response deliberately was not an actual answer to their question, and led to a number of people commenting on how much they enjoy your work instead of engaging on whatever unstated point that person was trying to make. I do that sometimes over there when I think a thread is going somewhere stupid, try to just throw it off-topic, which happens a lot there. But I will leave your real life career out of it should the subject come up again. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, I'd rather not hunt it down and post a link to it, but although you never mentioned me by username, you commented in a forum discussion about the desysop proposal that what I posted about here was something that you felt very negatively about. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Looking back at WPO, I see that a reliable source has pointed you to it there, and reminded me that you called what I wrote "harebrained". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I commented on your policy proposal. On the proposal itself,as you proposed it, well outside of arbitration space. I'm perfectly comfortable saying the same thing here too, it was a terrible idea that made no sense. the goalposts have moved pretty quickly if now I can't even do that. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, I realize that people are directing a lot of negativity at you at various places, and that it's no fun. But let's take a factual look at goalposts. I said, just above, and you posted at Wikipediocracy that you thought my suggestion was, essentially, ridiculous. It's OK if you and other Arbs reject my suggestion; that's fine and I understand that. So I've made it very clear that I understand that you said it about the proposal, and not about me personally, and that I have no problem with you or anyone else disagreeing emphatically with the proposal. So don't move the goalposts as to what I actually said. But I had linked to the discussion, made outside of arbitration space, from the Workshop talk page. I had made it part of the discussion about the case, on a case page. And you could have, entirely appropriately, responded negatively about it on the Workshop talk page. But instead, you took a shot at it at an external website, while maintaining an appearance of being silent about it on-wiki. It seems to me that you would be better served by acknowledging how that was sub-optimal and saying that you will try to do better in the future. Instead, you are doubling down. Which is what you held against RexxS when you voted to desysop him. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

If you're going to make such accusations, it may behoove you to get your facts straight. WO has timestamps on posts, just like we do here, and it's patently obvious I made that comment three days before you posted about it on the workshop talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion is continued here. Lourdes 02:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• @CaptainEek: I am not impressed by ex-admins who leave the project. To me, that shows that they were there more for the power than our mission, among other failings: was an extremely ill-considered thing to say, showing a complete lack of human understanding. So thanks for striking the second sentence. You should consider also striking the first. Paul August ☎ 18:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  Now struck, thanks. Paul August ☎ 18:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  I wish RexxS's friends had been this keen to remark on "extremely ill-considered" comments posted by RexxS over the years. Plenty examples on both this case and the medical case of language and bad-faith attitude I don't wish to see coming from any editor, let alone an admin. RexxS might have learned to moderate things, if his friends has had a wee word with him about it from time to time, and ask him to strike some things like we see here, or apologise. When RexxS edit warred, showed persistent hostility to those he disagreed with, or threatened or engaged in the use of his administrator tools while INVOLVED, those actions hurt other editors, real people, who are what Wikipedia is just as much as article content. The arbs have to consider those people too. -- Colin°^Talk 19:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Looking at the last few desysops for cause there are a couple of patterns emerging, and neither looks positive. I'd like to remind the Arbs that there is more than one tool available to them. As for the geography of these decisions, this means that the last four desysops for cause have come from one Atlantic Archipeligo. ϢereSpielChequers 19:49, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  Obviously in the end, I didn't support desysop. But how many tools in ArbCom's toolbox? There's some form of reminder/warning/admonishment sure but beyond that we run into Beeblebrox's very legitimate point that restrictions is an uneasy fit with our admin policy. Personally I'm open to other ideas, and if there had been a set of restrictions that made sense given these facts I'd have likely proposed them, but I somewhat question just how many tools we actually have available to us because I count two (with 1 of them having a few different sizes we can use depending on the circumstances). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  The tool you could have used is a pre-arbitration one. The editor said he'd take criticism on board when NY Brad talked to him. Give it a month after pre-arbitration discussion and see what happens. The next arbitration if there is one will be a whole lot easier and straightforward. I doubt there would have been a need for one in this case. Littleolive oil (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  That is not my experience with how Wikipedia or ArbCom works. My experience is that once an action is declined after major discussion there is little appetite to revisit in the medium term. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  The simple solution if you were concerned the case wouldn't be accepted in the "medium term" if you declined it would have been to accept the case, and suspend it by motion - or even suspend it by motion as a "final decision", basically resulting in a "probation" period where ArbCom could reopen the case if behavior worsens or doesn't begin to improve. But that would've required actually admitting that RexxS' behavior doesn't happen in a vacuum and when considered in the circumstances much of it doesn't seem near as bad as the findings seem to make it sound. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:06, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  Your edit summary for this reply said the fact that an arbitrator thinks that "accept and desysop" or "decline and don't accept a case for months/years after doing so" are the only two options... Let's be clear I explicitly said I think there are at least two options. And I voted not to desysop so clearly I think "Accept and don't desysop" is an option. I think if we had suspended a case people would have criticized us for hanging a sword over Rexx's head and it wouldn't have been seen as some act of justice at all. But I could be wrong. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  @WereSpielChequers: I'd like to add that people from different parts of the world have different standards. Canadians for example are very self deprecating and laugh at themselves all the time, Americans I found when I moved here do not laugh at themselves readily or at all. Australians don't tolerate any kind uppity, and Brits have language and mannerisms that Americans might find abrasive but which are appropriate there. I would never call anyone an ass in the US but my son-in-law who is from the northern UK uses it what our meaning anything by it. If you're being daft that means very little and is no great insult but in the US someone could take offense. In addition, I doubt very much if most arbs or even admins have dealt with highly contentious articles and if not its hard too understand the frustration that one can feel there. This is such a waste, such a loss. If Rexx returns I would be very, very surprised.

  @Colin:. I worked on some of the articles Rexx was working on and was ready to tear my hair out with the obstruction and convolutions. I had the luxury of walking away because I knew someone better than me would stay the course. And frankly, the words "Rexx's friends" I getting really old. It implies that these people are incapable of neutrality, and that those who voted to implicate Rexx are neutral which is hog wash. If I feel I cannot be impartial in an arbitration in my own mind, I don't talk part. One recent controversial arbitration comes to mind. As well, arbitrations are stressful, time sinks and I don't like to take part unless I have a very good reason to. I could take some very well respected admins and string together a series of diffs and the result would be someone who looked just like Rexx did in this arbitration. Littleolive oil (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  @Littleolive oil: there's no culture difference between RexxS and me and I'm as happy to describe things as bullshit or bollocks as the next Brit. I didn't misunderstand his open and explicit hatred. When he said he assumed bad faith about me, and about other editors he disagreed with, I didn't misunderstand his British humour. The lack of neutrality displayed here is not an implication, it is a hard fact, and a bit embarrassing to watch. That RexxS is not editing has added some chilli pepper to the argument about the arb decision, but might seem a bit silly in a few weeks time. If you regard RexxS as a friend who you want to see editing again, you'd emphasise the "no big deal" aspect of this rather than continue with the amateur dramatics and claims about arb bias. -- Colin°^Talk 22:36, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  Since I've been in discussions where you and Rexx were both present, I'd say this is a case of pot and kettle. My comments about culture were a general response about culture to another editor's comments. Your comment here is so vitriolic and yet you claim to be innocent in all of this. I don't and haven't claimed arb bias, Colin, and I don't believe they are biased, in fact or at least I hope not. I dislike others extrapolating from what I've said. I don't believe the system works and I have written about this in many formats over many years. I have also said multiple times during this arbitration that I believe the abs are doing the best they can and are not to blame because a system doesn't work. Any embarrassment is yours. If I and others don't speak up the system won't change. This is the second long term editor who has left Wikipedia in few years. I have hopes that we can all do better. Littleolive oil (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  To make a point: I wrote this four years ago. Littleolive oil (talk) 23:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  @Littleolive oil given that sandbox you might be interested in participating in this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  I saw the late DrChrissy in that discussion, and it made me miss them. (Sorry to go off-topic.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  @Littleolive oil: That may be the case, but Colin isn't an admin. It's entirely reasonable our conduct standards are higher and conduct which a non admin can get away with is not something we'll allow from an admin. They'll be told to stop, and if they don't be de-sysoped. Nil Einne (talk) 01:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

  I've struck that last clause as the first half wasn't de-escalating things, which is what is needed. The second half, I'm responding to "that those who voted to implicate Rexx are neutral which is hog wash" comment. The only people who vote in an arbcom are the arbs. Perhaps you meant those participants who posted evidence or proposed sanctions. -- Colin°^Talk 09:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not particularly surprised by the outcome of this case, nor particularly bothered - RexxS is an absolutely stellar content editor, and you do not need the admin toolset to be an excellent content editor. Arbcom desysops are not permanent. If the community seriously believes that RexxS should remain an administrator, the community has tools for that - there is no reason that a group of editors could not take RexxS right back to RfA; call it a reconfirmation, or something. I would support the filing of that RfA (but I have no idea how I'd !vote). I do know that if I were in RexxS' position, and there was a history of concern about my behaviour that the Arbs decided to take the tremendlously unpopular decision of desysopping me, I would maybe attempt some public, on-wiki introspection about perhaps why there's a history of concern about my behaviour. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 21:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Arbcom desysops are not permanent -- if I recall correctly, the last time someone got the bit back after a for-cause was 2010. I may not recall correctly. I also dislike using precedent as rule, and I would enthusiastically cast my support for RexxS 2 (or a couple other under-a-cloud administrators emeriti). But, de facto and with a small sample size, for-cause desysoppings are now treated as a closed door. Vaticidalprophet 13:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

    @Vaticidalprophet: As explained at least once in this thread already, there is simply no evidence to say that "for-cause desysoppings are now treated as a closed door." See user:Thryduulf/What happened after a desysop for more detail, but in summary, since 2015 only three editors desysopped for cause have stood for RFA and not one of them did so after demonstrating that led to the desysop were resolved (in one case the behaviour that got them desysopped was still continuing; in one it was debatably still continuing and there was also new, equally serious issues; the third was immediately after the desysop and there was no opportunity to demonstrate anything). Given that first time nominees are expected to demonstrate that they have put any past issues behind them if they want to be successful, the true figures for people who had a realistic potential to be resysopped that were actually resysopped are 0 out of 0. Thryduulf (talk) 23:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• The comments from arbitrators in and about this case stand strong testament to why we need a recall capability for ArbCom. Just saying you can vote them out of office in two years is woefully insufficient. Given the lack of options, we now have months if not years worth of horrible decision making to look forward to. ArbCom is victimizing real people, and laying wreck to policies the community established in part to control their behavior in the process. I am disgusted. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I am no stranger to being critical of ArbCom, but I actually think this tranche is one of the better ones we've had in recent years. Let's face it, it's not too many years ago since we had arbs who failed to recuse on cases including their on-and-off-wiki friends and blatantly voted to support them regardless of the evidence. It's been even fewer years since we've had arbs who basically didn't edit the encyclopedia at all, or whose ability to write a proposed decision could fit on the back of a postage stamp. IMO, the only horrifically bad decision they've made in the last 15 months was the BHG case, and that's just my opinion. So I don't think we're doing too badly. Black Kite (talk) 14:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Hammersoft, you stated that the opening of this Arbcom case was a "lynching" diff. Would you like to retract that? Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
    • No, I would not like to retract it. I see no reason to do so. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Hammersoft, shouldn't you add yourself to recall, then? Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
    • I already did. I created User:Hammersoft/Recall one minute before my RfA went live this past December, and I added it to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall when my RfA completed as successful. If you think I should be recalled, you are welcome to use that process. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
      • My bad, I was looking for it on your user page. Levivich ^harass/_hound 06:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

    There is no Wikipedia law that says if you don't agree with an arbitration, even strongly, you are liable to recall. That's just absurd. The arbs are not infallible; they are part of a community and are just editors with more responsibility than the rest of us. They aren't gods and not being labelled a god should be a given... and a relief. Littleolive oil (talk) 03:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Hammersoft, By using the term "lynching" you are implicity invoking the historical practice of lynching of black people in the United States. To implicitly compare the arbcom case against RexxS to racially motivated murder and mob justice, when this was a carefully considered case, is frankly disgusting. Your total disrespect and derision of Arbcom is unbecoming of an administrator. I think you should consider your position. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

    Lynching was also a technique used during the un policed development of the so called wild-west. It's probably best not to use it in the US these days where it has become appropriated to the horrific history of African America people in the US, but this is not its only meaning. Might be better to use something different but an attack isn't necessary is it? Littleolive oil (talk) 03:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Some of the language discussing this case ("lynching", "witch-hunt", etc) fall under Godwin's law. An author's limited vocabulary prevents them accurately describing the negative aspects of an event or situation, and so they reach out for something suitably damning, even if ridiculous and offensive. It doesn't reflect at all well on them. Like Godwin's law, it effectively puts an end to hope of reasonable and intelligent debate with that party. The correct behaviour at this point is to stop digging, to strike the words, and offer a proper apology (i.e. not a "sorry if you were offended, but..." but more of a "sorry I was a complete ...." variety). -- Colin°^Talk 08:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Colin, no, the answer is to take that for what it is. Arbitration is completely unfair, there is no chance that someone can defend themselves against 10, 20 or more editors piling up evidence against that person. You want to be able to say 'it was a fair trial, the defendant had a chance to defend himself'. No, they do not. Closing your eyes and not wanting to see what Arbitration is akin to does not make it go away. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
      • The "for what it is" is nothing more than "I am so extremly upset about this that I have lost the ability for coherent rational argument, and have resorted to hand gestures, raspberries and sprinkling offensive terms into whatever I write". I don't need lessons on what arbitration is like; I was a party in a two-month medical one that was unpleasant and unfair in ways I wish people would examine and learn from. I'm not quite sure what you are hoping for when you write "Arbitration is completely unfair" other than a "I stopped reading at that point" reaction. -- Colin°^Talk 09:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
        • Colin, I get your point in the first post, Colin, and I do not disagree with that that effect. And yes, I have indeed reached a point that arguing against ArbCom is futile, I can reiterate my arguments ('there is no way that you can defend yourself against 10, 20, or more editors piling up', 'anchoring results in a default state of guilty until proven differently', 'accepting a case makes the arbitrators biased' and probably more) but I know what then the standard answer is going to be. Sugarcoating the system is not going to work either. We all 'yell' at the system for some time (or try to use coherent arguments), and then, silently, invoke another logical fallacy to go on (and repeat ad nauseam). (and I do hope that you do read a sentence in full, not just stopping at the first argument you dislike). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
          • Beetstra, have you actually read the case, when you claim one has to defend oneself "against 10, 20, or more editors piling up". There were 14 editors who supplied evidence and I see four of them offered evidence that was critical of RexxS. The remainder were supportive of RexxS though most stretched the dictionary definition of "evidence" somewhat, with many being just "He's a great guy, RexxS is" kinda comments. Unlike a real world trial, with circumstantial evidence, with evidence that is a statistical likelyhood at best, with evidence that is someone's vague recollection of what the guy looked like, and where what actually ocurred had no observers other than the victim/perpetrator, we have a big advantage here on Wikipedia. What RexxS wrote, and the surrounding discussion, and timeline of events, is all completely and accurately present for all to see. Sure, people can disagree as to how serious the issues are and what to do about them, but we aren't in a position of "I didn't say that" or "He didn't do that" or "You just planted that evidence". The FoF against RexxS were unanimous or nearly unanimous. That you disagree with the decision made is apparent, but is isn't entirely unreasonable. -- Colin°^Talk 11:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
            • I've gone through it, and have been (more actively sometimes) following other cases. Believe me, whenever there is a (named) single admin party that is being brought before ArbCom, then there are no other outcomes than 'desysop' (or even worse). I have sometimes tried to be on the defense side, but, even with 4 counter parties, there is no end to it. Even with 2 parties against, you have a committee that accepted the case because there is a problem, and who get a 2:1 amount of evidence against rebuttal (well, rebuttal, the 'counter evidence' stage stops at the same time as the evidence stage) on a named case 'against X' is a near sure-fire way to get to the point of 'we need to do something about X'. Even if I agree with the decision out of a case (yes, ArbCom does have it right as well), I do not see that as a fair trial. I am sorry, when I see ArbCom cases I do not think about modern, open, judicial systems where one can expect a fair trial (even if also those make mistakes). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
              • I'm not sure why you think a ratio of "amount of evidence" is relevant. One can't numerically offset one thing against another. There are cases "brought before ArbCom" that they don't take. If you are right, I don't know, that nearly all accepted cases go this way, then this is kind of like looking at cases once the Crown Prosecution Service has determined there's a reasonable chance of a prosecution. One would expect a reasonable rate of conviction at that point, but also as I said, real life has more uncertainties and unknowns. Comparisons with "trials" isn't really a great analogy as WAID has explained elsewhere. And beyond vague complaints about how the thing is structured, I don't see any specifics about what was "unfair". Was there vital evidence overlooked? Was there any evidence that was disputed? Did any of the arbcom members "have it in for him"? What I saw, and I'm not unbiased here, was the arbs trying desperately to find some reason to conclude that an admonishment/warning/whatever would be effective at resolving the problems, in order to allow RexxS to continue admining and editing. They appeared acutely aware of the added complication that RexxS had "retired". They fell over themselves to dismiss WP:ADMINACCT policy which clearly says "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions, especially during community discussions on noticeboards or during Arbitration Committee proceedings." (my bold). Even those arbs who did not vote for desysop respected their colleagues who did. -- Colin°^Talk 14:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
                • I'll take your post in another order. Indeed, comparing this to a trial is indeed not a great analogy, this is far from a trial, I totally agree. You see it as 'arbs trying desperately to find some reason to conclude that an admonishment/warning/whatever would be effective at resolving the problems', the problem there is always that you never know whether an admonishment would have been enough or not, maybe that would have worked (and here, it certainly has not been tried, where are the AN/Is and so on?). Problem remains, if you have 2 editors coming with evidence 'they did this, they did that, they .. ', you have a hard time rebutting that all. Volume is not necessarily a factor, but when one side overwhelms the other it certainly is - resistance is futile, there will be things that 'stick', and since the case is named after you, all we are looking for is a problem with .. you. After all, it has been 'decided' that 'there is a problem worth looking at'. Maybe with 2 editors giving evidence you stand a chance to explain yourself, when it become more the volumes become massive (I think Hammersoft was talking about 100 printed pages worth of documentation?). I'm sorry, I am looking at ArbCom cases now for more than 10 years, I have for long argued against anchoring, I have for long argued that there is nothing 'fair' here. I am absolutely not surprised to see the comparisons to witch hunt, lynching being drawn here so soon (second post in this thread, Godwin's law is generally a result of long-drawn discussions that do not 'go anywhere'). (we're drifting away, this discussion is more general, not specifically this case. This will just slowly go away, something needed to be done, it is done, so all is good.) --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
                  • I don't think you are really arguing about this case on the basis of actual facts and first-hand examination. Information overload or one side overwheming another was not remotely a factor here. Whereas it was a problem on the medical arbcom, to the extent that I suspect many of the arbs only seriously read the PD page and the diffs presented there. -- Colin°^Talk 16:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I would caution, shouts of witch hunt, and lynching are ridiculous, and make the critique sound at the very least silly or insincere (at very most much worse than silly or insincere). Especially if you even barely know what a witch hunt or a lynching are. There is nothing super-natural nor imaginary (not even an imaginary political threat nor thought) being sussed out, nor is there a murder. There is no crowd or vigilante administering a sentencing, there is no sentence at all (well, there are reams of senetnces, but not in the putative crime sense). And there is no legal right in issue. There is a movement (as I recall in an open RfC that I have opposed) in the project to get a crowd involved in desysopping, but there will still be no murder and no legal right in issue. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• Over the last few days, an awfully high number of the members of ArbCom have been criticized for doing various things that are not particularly ideal, insofar as use of admin privileges and conduct as members of ArbCom. The common thread in these incidents is editing or adminning while pissed off. I'm not talking here about the usual peanut-gallery criticism of decisions, but about actual incidences of actions or postings by Arbs. And I, personally, am not asking for anyone to be desysopped, resign, be boiled in oil, or anything else like that. I think people make mistakes. I think RexxS made mistakes. I think that doesn't always mean that ArbCom has to accept a case request and Wikipedia has to lose a valued contributor. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • It's a pity that the following stuff wasted so much oxygen, but I do hope that my original comment will be taken seriously. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: RexxS outed and harassed LaMona} LaMona a female Wikipedian, felt that she was outed and harassed by RexxS in 2016, causing her to leave Wikipedia for good. RexxS long term incivillity has had serious consequences. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous non-answer. What you say never appeared on the Evidence page. And it also is unrelated to what I said. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

That off-topic nonsense is about Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive931#Damage done by declining AFC. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia I've just read Tryptofish's link and it indeed does not back up your claim, which of course could be taken as a personal attack. If you have other evidence, it would be much appreciated; if you do not, I invite you to strike your post. Black Kite (talk) 19:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The full story is on Genderdesk, but I won't link to it directly because it contains other information that has recently been suppressed. The outing was apparently made by ORCID and RexxS made a post on her talkpage about it, which was subsequently oversighted. The diffs appear to have been entirely removed from her talk page history, but the fact that an outing occurred is confirmed by a suppressed diff in her edit history on @SlimVirgin:'s talk page entitled "Outing". Harassed is maybe a strong word, but RexxS was very belligerent towards LaMona and failed to take reasonable steps to resolve the dispute before ANI, and she clearly felt she had been harassed, per her parting userpage. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

She also noted that as a result of being outed, she had experienced harassment on her personal twitter account. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

How could ORCID out somebody? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm far too involved to revert anything, but I'd like to suggest that ArbCom or clerks revdel everything from Hemiauchenia"s first reply to me, to here, and instruct Hemiauchenia to submit anything privately. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, RexxS didn't out or harass anyone. I think you've misinterpreted or misremembered. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@SarahSV: What was the actual context then? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, my recollection is that La Mona outed herself on WP, then someone (not RexxS) mentioned that name on Twitter, to which she objected. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• I'd like to note that the edit summary "striking through the "outing" parts, as this aspect cannot be definitively proven with present information" is the most pathetic alternative to "Oh my God, I'm so sorry, I accused someone of OUTING when they didn't actually out anyone" I can imagine. Now I feel so stupid for advising others to calm down and stop threatening blocks on a related thread elsewhere. I'm assuming an Arb is going to see this and block User:Hemiauchenia for not fully retracting and apologizing for unsubstantiated personal attacks? Or do personal attacks on this page only result in blocks when they're directed at Arbs? This culture of being able to say anything you fucking want to, and when called on it, leaving it there but just striking it out with no further comment, is sick. Hemiauchenia and all his neo-Nazi sockpuppets should be blocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Universal Code of Conduct open letter

Original announcement

I just saw this on meta - I was just wanting to check whether en.wiki ARBCOM decided not to sign it, or is the process of deciding whether to sign it? Nosebagbear (talk) 10:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Neither, more of "how". There are 14 of us, after all. Primefac (talk) 11:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Looks like individual Arbs can sign it. I would hope all the enwp Arbs sign it. If your first priority is the editors and readers of enwp, it would seem you must. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Since it's currently phrased as signing on "behalf", it might be rather problematic if individual arbs were signing on it without a majority motion. While my emotions would like that, it would not be a wise action in either the medium or long-term. I would say something like, if there is a majority arb vote for a motion to sign-it as ArbCom, pick a couple of arbs to sign it and link/note that ArbCom as a whole has agreed to it (or a majority, etc etc) Nosebagbear (talk) 12:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  Primefac, for the "how", if you agree with the wording you could either sign as an individual, altering the wording from "Signing on behalf of the enwiki-arbcom" to "Signing member(s) of the enwiki-arbcom" (or whatever you think is appropriate), or if you prefer a group response, you can have a discussion about it with the rest of the Committee and agree the group response. SilkTork (talk) 13:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  That is what I would expect. The other Arbs don't have that awkward wording, it is just a matter of changing it and signing it as an individual, not on behalf of anyone else. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  That was a good solution SilkTork Nosebagbear (talk) 15:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• I am excited that this is public as enwiki ArbCom helped to shape and write this letter. I am also very excited that the foundation has already moved in some positive directions, most notably in delaying the deadline to the end of the year. I don't know what role Xeno (WMF) had in that but it gives me more hope that the UCoC will be able to live up to its promise. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  I want to add my excitement, as well as my thanks to Barkeep49 specifically as the primary enwiki arb to represent this committee in discussions with the other ArbComs. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Just noting that the above discussion occurred before the announcement was made by ArbCom, and was subsequently merged into this section. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• I appreciate what the letter says, and I thank ArbCom for expressing these important concerns to the WMF. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• I, too, would like to highly commend ARBCOM on the letter, as well as the other ARBCOMs, the multi-community nature give good weight to the high quality points within. Nosebagbear (talk) 00:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• Adding my thanks for ArbCom stepping up on this issue. Governance issues with WMF, an organisation originally created to provide "back office" support to the projects but that now seems to believe it has a leadership and strategy-setting mandate with an ever burgeoning raft of paid staff, are the reason why I not longer contribute to this project. If WMF backs down here and gives the projects and their contributors a meaningful voice in the UCoC drafting and ratification process, that would go a long well towards convincing me that a sensible balance had been achieved. Sadly, I consider it unlikely that the open letter will be accepted and acted upon. @Xeno: Any thoughts, given your new role? WJBscribe (talk) 08:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

  WJBscribe: good to hear from you, hope you're well - thanks for the ping =)

  As I wrote earlier this year when stepping down from the committee: "Strong community governance is paramount to the ongoing health and longevity of our projects. My goal will be to ensure community concerns are clearly communicated and considered by the drafting committee while working to demonstrate that community enforcement mechanisms can adequately handle the additional burdens that may be placed on the Foundation and project volunteers by public policy changes."

  With the shared belief that projects and their contributors need to have a meaningful voice in the process, I accepted the professional role with the understanding my task would be conducting a comprehensive community consultation and review about the enforcement mechanisms. I can confirm this is happening, see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Update to Universal Code of Conduct Timeline.

  To the Open Letter: I am quite impressed with the collaboration - knowing how difficult it is for even single committees to compose shared communications, seeing these signatures is quite significant. In additional to the April consultation (which I'm facilitating as Xeno (WMF)), I know that there are meetings planned for 10 & 11 April for Arbitration Committees and other functionaries being facilitated by Keegan (WMF). –xeno^talk 14:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

  @Xeno, Xeno (WMF), and Keegan (WMF): Has the functionary consultation been sent to functionaries yet, or is for only a limited pool of the team? --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 18:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

  My personal understanding is that all functionaries are invited. I'll flag this on functs-en. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• I am not sure I recall a time when so many members of cross-project Arbitration Committees have come together on something, but if there was a time to do so this would seem to be it. Thank you for your involvement in this. I notice that CaptainEek is the sole arbitrator who has not signed (or perhaps not yet signed?) If they're comfortable saying, I'd be curious to know the reason. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• Would it not be wiser to devise a Code of Conduct for the English Wikipedia’s Arbcom before advising elsewhere? Giano (talk) 18:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)