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.

Change to the Functionary team

Original announcement

This is a nice contrast to the welcome Brad initially got upon his return to activity here. Welcome back. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Welcome back to the “Brad cabal”! Courcelles (talk) 22:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Welcome back! Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 03:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Hmm It's August. Are we nearing the time to start the "bradv for Arbcom" campaign, yet? : ) - jc37 05:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the warm welcome. @Jc37, let me save you and anyone else who might be thinking this some time: No. :) – bradv 13:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Ah well. There's always next year...  : ) - jc37 13:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I might as well say in public what I've said in private. I have absolutely no doubt that bradv would be a good arb (again). On the other hand, I think it's more important, for the long-term health of the project, to be identifying, grooming, and recruiting new blood into leadership positions rather than recycling the old guard. RoySmith (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Cool. It's nice to see a well-respected user return. Nice to meet you, and welcome back. Pecopteris (talk) 18:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute closed

Original announcement

This is a very sad occasion, speaking as somebody who has seen BHG around for almost two decades, and almost always agreed with her on substance. A very high and substantial edit count, from a person who was key in forming many of our early editorial principals. I do understand what happened and why, but its still hard to take. Wish BHG, who always had very, very impressive energy and insight, all the best for future projects, and wish to thank her for her countless hours / years of voluntary work which has significantly aided our project. It seems like the end of an era. Ceoil (talk) 03:37, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Seems like the end of a 3 year long downward spiral.I think Wiki was stressing her and this is certainly time for her to think of her actions through.I hope she comes back better that ever.--88.240.152.194 (talk) 08:24, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

She has closed to 3M edits, the second-highest only behind Ser Amantio di Nicolao. Just a random Wikipedian^(talk) 09:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and 88.240's point is well made...that level of work and commitment has to lead to a certain level of burn out. I do see a way back for her also, after time out, as 88.240 says. Ceoil (talk) 13:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

• I thank the Arbitration Committee for making the difficult but ultimately correct decision for enwiki. I truly wish it didn't have to come to this but years of intractable disputes take a toll on editors, and the community in general (Barkeep's vote on the matter comes to mind, it is quite well-written and conveys the point much better than I have). That said, I wish the parting editors the best, and I hope to see them participating positively to the wiki in the future. --qedk (t 愛 c) 12:29, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
• For those ArbCom members who patrol these discussions, you might want to look at WP:AN#Request to delete some taunts from a userpage.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:10, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  Personally I think the community gets to decide this. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:03, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  I agree that this a community issue, and as a member of this community I have removed the worst bit. Further discussion at the AN thread. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:41, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  I can't believe you're on WPO talking shit about about someone you just sitebanned. Ugh. Personally I think that's actually worse than what BHG did, and she was also very uncivil. But as least she didn't use her tools on people and then talk shit about them on other websites. And then on top of that, removing stuff from her userpage? The only thing worse is that everyone else here tolerates this. Levivich (talk) 16:09, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  I tolerate it, in the sense of the second definition on wiktionary, because the community, through ACE, has decided it tolerates it (in which definition of the word I don't know) in an otherwise really good arb. I have on more than one occasion said something to Beeblebrox when I thought he posted something which went too far on WPO. Truthfully, and he knows this, I would prefer he stop posting to WPO altogether. Failing that I wish would cut it back to participation of the sort Newyorkbrad and Worm That Turned do. And yet I cannot say that I think anything posted there about BHG was too far or even talk "shit". Barkeep49 (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think he made the right call, and have revered Levivich on the basis that the diff would hamper any future block appeal. Re WPO, generally Beeblebrox holds back, and from the trenches its good to see an arb being open on another form, it gives insight and makes the gods seem more human :) Incidentally Barkeep I think you went above and beyond on this. Ceoil (talk) 16:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  I try to be really open here, on wiki, with the people who've trusted me and are a current part of the community I serve, rather than being open with people who have, in many circumstance, been banned from the community. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  Am well aware and glad of you being really open here, in case you thought I was saying otherwise. Frankly I think the current generation of arbs is one of the best yet. Ceoil (talk) 16:40, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  I'll admit to being ignorant of virtually everything that happens on WPO, but I think it's unseemly for an arb to be discussing cases on outside forums. If it's confidential, do it on arbcom's private channels. If it's not confidential, do it on the public case pages. RoySmith (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  I have to disagree, editors should be able to discuss cases wherever they want. It's a position of responsibility, as long as they are not misusing the powers of their given responsibility, I don't see a problem. Let's not forget that committee members are community members first and arbitrators second. qedk (t 愛 c) 22:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  As a matter of practicality, people will discuss aspects of one part of their lives in other places outside of that part, and it's not feasible to try to have some kind of blanket rule. But as I wrote before when this came up, the issue is expanding the minimum requirements to be able to engage fully in Wikipedia's community. I understand why it's attractive for editors to make comments off-wiki, allowing them to make statements beyond what Wikipedia's etiquette and guidance would permit. But if editors make a habit of this, and it becomes necessary to participate in venues other than Wikipedia in order to gain a full understanding of people's reasoning and actions, then participation on this site alone is no longer the minimum requirement for editors to fully engage with others. I think editors need to bear this in mind and strive not to set up different cliques of users with differing levels of access and knowledge. (Or the community should be upfront and state that participation in venues X, Y, and Z is necessary to be a full participant.) isaacl (talk) 22:29, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Isaacl that's at least part of where I was going. There's off-wiki channels (IRC and mailing lists) that I participate in where stuff relevant to my admin work is discussed. Some of them are access controlled, some are (mostly) public. None are technically required, but if I didn't participate, I'd be totally out of the loop on many things. But at least those channels are advertised on-wiki as appropriate and suggested places to communicate.

  WPO is not. So, consider the situation here. We have an accusation that one of our arbs has acted inappropriately. And a counter-claim that he hasn't. Since this occurred in a forum I don't participate in, I'm at a loss to evaluate for myself which of those are true. Multiply that by Discord, Mastodon, and who knows what else, and this becomes a real problem.

  @QEDK I agree that our policies don't forbid participating in WPO. But, there's a gap between "not misusing the powers of their given responsibility" and "best practices". RoySmith (talk) 23:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  Just to clarify, by "access" I meant that, for example, those participating on IRC with you have access to you and your statements through that channel, while others do not. This can create different categories of users unless care is taken to avoid this. isaacl (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  @RoySmith sure - like others I'd rather he didn't, but like you note policy doesn't prohibit it. As such, the correct way to try and square that circle is firstly to make your views known (and Beeblebrox is aware of various concerns), then to bring it up at ACE questions, and (as needed) in your votes for candidates. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:04, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

• I'd just note here, because I know that some folks won't even look at WPO that I said nothing substantive about the case while it was underway, and my comments since then have been as follows:

• I'm glad it is over
• I think we came to the correct result
• I do not think BHG is the sort of person who would resort to socking in this situation.

I'd genuinely like to know which part of that is "talking shit" about BHG. It is also funny to me how many times peiople have said that they don't approve of my participation there while at the same time making it clear that they read it religiously. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:57, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your attempt to make participation on the site an equivalent act to reading it. I make no secret that I read it; this is how I could say that I also found the charge of talking shit baseless. I read it because it's helpful to understand the full context when some WPO bugaboo makes the leap and becomes an onwiki thing (though I do think this happens less than when I started 5 years ago) and secondarily because I want to consider many viewpoints in order to make the best decision I can because there are some good faith critics whose POV deserves consideration even if I have to wade through admitted trolls and banned editors to get it. On top of that your participation as an arb colleague of mine makes it more important to read it than it would be otherwise. If you and a few other people who I like and think well of, outside of your WPO participation, weren't lending that crowd legitimacy I'd have a lot less motivation to read it. But you do participate and the community tolerates it, so here we are. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:07, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth I didn't mean you or any of the arbs. You said you tolerate it, which I know, and which is far more ... tolerant... than a lot of other feedback I've gotten on this subject. On that point, I am also very aware that a decent segment of the community thinks it is crazy/scandalous/should be against policy/etc. That's fine too. I don't require everyone to "get" what my own personal agenda is in this regard. I don't know that I've ever even tried to explain what it is to anyone here or there. It's probably better that way. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

On the broader point raised above by isaacl, yes, if you want to read my candid comments about WP, that's where they are. That is where I have personally chosen to have just one off-wiki venue for discussion of WP-related things. I don't have any desire to use IRC or Discord for that, but I have no issue with others who make that choice. It's a mixed bag to be sure, but so is WP itself. We wouldn't need an Arbitration Committee at all if it wasn't. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for intruding, but the true test is if Beeblebrox is voted in by the community. Check. Any intra-arb disagreements should be taken off-line. Ceoil (talk) 03:52, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Which is the point that Barkeep made. Izno (talk) 04:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Talk page access

The site ban policy allows for an exception allowing editors to keep their talk page access.

Fellow top-ten editors with lengthy block histories Koavf and Rich Farmbrough have never had their talk page access revoked, but Lugnuts had theirs revoked on August 2, 2022, a day after their last edit.

Her talk page access was previously revoked at 18:12, 9 October 2022, but only for a matter of hours, not days (expiration time was 01:11, 10 October 2022) - "talk page access while blocked is for appealing the block, not for posting extended diatribes" Community sanction enforcement: Violation of the civility probation imposed at Special:Diff/1039021442, per WP:ANI#Uncivil behavior by BrownHairedGirl. Calling editors "sneaky" and "nasty"; accusations of "anti-intellectual bullying".

A finding of fact in the Small-cat case noted the previous block from her talk, but the vote to ban her did not explicitly vote to revoke her talk page access. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC)