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.

Arbitration motion regarding Jonathunder

Original announcement

Such a pity that ArbCom believes that editing as an IP means that contributions to official processes are disallowed. In evaluating a case on using tools to win a content war, many Arbitrators appear so concerned (only concerned?) with the sysop's tools that the very idea of emphasising that involved actions to win content disputes is unacceptable is avoided, even when specifically asked to consider this perspective by a talk page request.

• Opabinia regalis, disappointingly, declares those concerned about the tool misuse are "traffic" that cause drama while viewing that non-editing by the sysop creates a drama-free non-emergency. OR, you are far better than to adopt the absurd position that misusing tools doesn't cause disruption but pointing it out does.
• L235, you may want those contributing uninvolved statements to shut up but those statements are made in part out of concern that ArbCom might not act appropriately. You may genuinely believe that ArbCom's is infallible, but plenty of editors don't subscribe to that view. To me, your offensive dismissal of anything I might say, based on my posting openly as an IP and disillusioned former editor, echoes a previous Arbitrator who believed in Wikipedians who are not Wikipedians. That none of your colleagues challenged this is disappointing and, ominously, a bad sign for the future of this ArbCom.
• Primefac apparently favoured doing nothing so as not to prejudice any defense in a future case... but what signal does doing nothing about misuse of tools in the meantime send about ArbCom's priorities. You could have included that Jonathunder be resysopped at the start of a case to avoid prejudice (and so the decision was desysop or not rather than resysop or not) but leaving him with the tools while a case is suspended for his benefit is not reasonable and it shows the tools are viewed as far more important than the policy against their misuse in content disputes.
• Worm That Turned actually did my the courtesy of offering a substantive response, and for that I say thank you... but I am still disappointed that none of your colleagues could express themselves on indirect harm to the community. It leaves ArbCom appearing that such matters are unimportant or beneath their consideration – and certainly not as important as retention of the tools by a sysop unwilling or unable to address their actions.

I posted originally in the hope of triggering some reflection, and was dismissed as unworthy to even have my comments included in the proceeding. Maybe Bishzilla might be able to get some Arbitrators to pause for long enough to think about how they might be viewed from the perspective of members of the community – even including ants like IP editors – as it is clear to me that some of you see the disruption to the community caused by tool misuse in content disputes and the harm from a sysop being able to ignoring accountability requests for extended periods without consequence as trivial when weighed against the disruption cause to that same sysop by tool-removal following obviously unacceptable conduct, even if only until the sysop chooses to engage with ArbCom. 172.195.96.244 (talk) 04:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I've been commenting on these kinds of processes from IP addresses for many years and haven't had serious issues. WP has too much bureaucracy as it is. Best to not ratchet it down even further I'm not commenting on other topics in the above post for now, since I haven't read through the filings carefully. I do hope to read them and post a general comment or two about the underlying dispute later, if I get around to it. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:C115 (talk) 02:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@172.195.96.244: No one is excluding you from making contributions to official processes, you're excluding yourself. You're demanding justice and equal rights and a whole lot of other things, but you can't even bother to register an account here. Why should anyone bother to put any energy into your requests when you can't be bothered to make a minimal commitment to this place? You're treated as a second-class citizen because you are one. You have no permanent presence here. You're a jumble of numbers. Today you're 172.195.96.244, tomorrow you could be 172.195.95.173, and the next day you could be 2001:8004:812:ba66:55e2:c:0:2854. It's not easy to interact with a shape-shifter that has no permanent presence here. You can't form a relationship or build trust with someone that doesn't have a stable persona. Not to mention the fact that the vast majority of vandalism is committed by IP editors, and a large portion of IP editors that are highly knowledgeable about how WP works are block-evading sockpuppets. To be clear, I'm not accusing you of either of these things (because I don't know anything about your editing history here (because you don't have a stable presence here (because you edit as an IP))), but the likelihood is relatively high.

Registering an account takes seconds, and doesn't require you to provide any identifiable information about yourself. You don't even have to provide an email address. Editing as a logged-in user is far more anonymous than editing as an IP, because your IP reveals that you're located on the east coast of Australia, among other things. Logged-in editors don't get caught in the crossfire of rangeblocks, which it appears you've recently been affected by. Logged-in editors have more privileges to edit protected articles. The list goes on and on. Hell, if you're so concerned about the use of admin tools, as a logged-in editor you could nominate yourself for adminship or run for ArbCom. Editing as a registered user means that anyone can look through your editing history to determine what you're all about. Editing as an IP means that your editing history is strewn among piles of random, unconnected numbers, and it's too easy to assume that you have something to hide in your editing history (especially considering that you've admitted to having an account here, but you prefer to edit anonymously).

You obviously know all of this already, and I'm preaching to the choir. WP is still the place that anyone can edit, and therefore you're welcome to continue contributing as an IP, to the extent that you can. But there is no policy on WP that guarantees IP editors the same rights and access levels as registered editors. So, in that sense, you should expect to continue to be excluded from certain parts of WP, and treated as a second class citizen in some respects. If you want to be treated seriously here, make the minimum commitment required to be more than a jumble of numbers. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)