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.

Mschwartz1 granted extended confirmed for the purpose of participating in arbitration

Original announcement

• Sorry, but why has an account created today and with zero edits been given this permission, and why has it been announced publicly like this? GiantSnowman 22:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  The answer to the second question is almost certainly because people keep demanding as much transparency from arbcom as possible so they are being as transparent about it as possible, to keep discussion of it in one place (here) and to avoid well-meaning but uninformed editors unilaterally removing it. Thryduulf (talk) 23:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  The Committee was contacted privately by an organisation requesting a case and we told them to go through the on-wiki dispute resolution processes. This is the account their representative created, which needed an exception to the existing restriction in the Palestine–Israel topic area to be able to post it. As Thryduulf says, it was announced publicly to increase transparency and to hopefully reduce issues down the line. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  Fair enough, but I have more questions than answers now... GiantSnowman 09:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  @GiantSnowman. It may just be a coincidence that this report (The Bias Against Israel On Wikipedia) was published this week. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  It may or may not be a coincidence. I can say the conversation with us that led to this grant has been going on since early February. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  Until such point that the user needs to edit through extended-confirmed protection, it should be sufficient to permit the user to make edits related to the case; if such need is expected, a decision can be made to give the technical right when the need arises. Animal lover |666| 17:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  By definition non-Extended-Confirmed users are not allowed to post anywhere other than article talk pages to make edit requests related to topics under ECR. Thus, to file a case request they must be granted Extended Confirmed status. It could potentially be reasonable to have a BANEX-type exemption for Arb-specific business such as ARC or ARCA requests, but that is a matter for ARCA/ARM to deal with. Primefac (talk) 17:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  I may be wrong but my thoughts go straight to POV pushing with this. v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 17:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  If you are referring to Mschwartz1 suddenly jumping into article editing, that was not the purpose of granting the user right and it would immediately be revoked were that the case. It was granted to post and participate at ARC. Primefac (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  Not article editing, but given the nature of this topic area there are many groups who have their preferred way of how events are covered. Arbitration seems like a nuclear option to me. I do recognize that there is plenty I don’t know, but this in my instinct, seems like it would just be an attempt to use arbitration to get their preferred picture of events on Wikipedia. v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 17:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  so if the account is used to edit any ECR articles, can any admins either remove the right or block them from editing in the main space until the stated need for the EC right no longer present? – robertsky (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  (Speaking in an individual capacity) I suppose, though notifying us or the clerks would be good. I hope that in such a situation, a warning or a nudge would be sufficient for them to stop editing said protected page(s). Sdrqaz (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  About that article claiming anti-Israel bias on Wikipedia, I don't know whether or not that's something that is influencing ArbCom, but I'm having flashbacks to the paper that influenced the Polish Holocaust case. I don't want us to get in a position where outside advocates learn that they can get a knee-jerk reaction when they have an issue with our content. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  I mean, while a few people on each side got bans and topic-bans for civility issues (and in one case because it came out mid-case that they were a sock and had been all along), I don't think they did get what they wanted in that case. They didn't understand what ArbCom actually is and does, which is likely the case here as well - it seems like they expected ArbCom to just decide what articles on the subject should say. In fact, the most sweeping actual allegations they made in the paper were barely discussed in the case compared to civility issues. Based on the authors' later commentary, this frustrated them to no end, but that outcome was probably unsurprising to experienced editors - incivility is easy to prove; whereas in a controversial topic area where reputable scholars disagree, proving WP:CIVILPOV and the like is very hard. And the authors' ultimate assertion (that a bunch of scholars they disagreed with were WP:FRINGE and that there was actually an unambiguous scholarly consensus on the underlying dispute that our articles weren't reflecting) was just... very clearly not true, at least not in the way Wikipedia uses the term. By my reading, even many of the experienced editors who broadly agreed with the position their paper took didn't seriously attempt to argue that aspect, since they recognized the impossibility of proving it (and also recognized that, again, proving a case based on WP:CIVIL is comparatively easy.) And if you look at eg. one of the articles at the heart of the case it has barely changed since the case closed. I suspect that this will go the same way - the hard spotlight of an ArbCom case might result in bans for a few people in the topic area whose behavior has been suboptimal, but the sort of seismic "REWRITE ALL THESE ARTICLES!" mandate from ArbCom that they likely want is just not going to happen. --Aquillion (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with your assessment of the incorrect expectations of the paper authors from that earlier case, but I also think that should be a lesson to ArbCom about being awfully careful about starting cases based on outside pressure. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  I see that the new paper actually devotes a section to the paper from the earlier case, and treats that paper very approvingly. No wonder I'm having flashbacks. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  I still haven't read this new paper so I can say with confidence it's not influenced any of my decision. I also was not aware of the paper before this discussion so if it's influenced others it hasn't been mentioned. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks so much for clarifying that! Because I learned here that ArbCom had received a request from an organization, and because another editor posted a link to the new paper, I was concerned that the new paper might reflect whatever ArbCom had been contacted about. But I'm glad to see your reply. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  Seeing subsequent discussion below, where it's confirmed that the scope of the pending case request is indeed about Israel-Palestine, and the ongoing mention by various editors of the new paper about that topic on Wikipedia, I'm left wondering whether the outside group that is having someone prepare a case request is also the outside group that published the new paper. That doesn't mean that anyone on ArbCom has read the new paper or was previously aware of it. But it does raise the possibility that the case request is going to reflect a request to ArbCom from that outside group. Of course, such a case request is just that, a request. It might not result in a case. Or it might reveal some legitimate conduct concerns. But I strongly, very strongly, urge ArbCom to keep in mind that a new user representing an outside group has no more standing or credibility in making such a request, than anyone else in the community does. And my concern stated above, that we don't want outside groups to get in the habit of thinking they can skew the POV of our content by framing it as an external criticism of Wikipedia, remains. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  Noted. Hopefully it does not come down to that. – robertsky (talk) 09:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  So this is an shared organizational account, and its contributions are not going to be associated with an individual? (c.f. WP:NOSHARING). — xaosflux ^Talk 18:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  Sure seems to be the case. v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 18:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  Fear not. The committee made clear that the account should only be operated by a single individual. So if it does turn into a shared account that can be handled as we handle any account which violates NOSHARING. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for the note. Is this someone that is expected to only make contributions that reflect their own personal ideas? — xaosflux ^Talk 00:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  As I understand it, this person wishes to present some evidence of disruptive editing. The evidence doesn't include private information so we don't want to handle it off-wiki but they don't have standing to make an enforcement request on-wiki so here we are. I for one am curious to see what evidence they want to present and the community response to it so we can get to the bottom of the allegations. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  As I understand it, this person wishes to present some evidence of disruptive editing. The evidence doesn't include private information so we don't want to handle it off-wiki but they don't have standing to make an enforcement request on-wiki so here we are. I'm glad Arbcom is working on being more transparent. If I might give some feedback: If this plus the first comment above by Sdrqaz were put into the initial explanation, that would be everything I'd look for in a perfectly transparent statement. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  An arb speaking on their own is much easier than ~7 arbs agreeing on wording which is what it takes to post at ACN. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  That's fair, I'm sure wrangling Arbs into making a statement is no small task. Just offering feedback on what I'd consider the ideal, not necessarily what's feasible every time. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  No it all makes sense. One other element: we see here that there are any number of concerns. Some concerns (and speaking generally not just about this statement) are more predictable than others. So while I think there is a version of this statement that you'd consider ideal, and could have produced that ideal in some situation where we're not dealing with the limitations of a multinational asynchronous 15 member committee with no hierarchy who is still trying to make decisions in a reasonable length of time, I don't think that's the ideal statement for everyone who has had questions here. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  Why would this organization have any standing at any ArbCom process? Obviously this editor has not attempted any of the usual dispute resolution processes. MarioGom (talk) 22:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  The organisation does not. We allowed one individual to take responsibility for what they want to present and to post it on-wiki. The subject matter is the Arab-Israeli conflict, which is already the most heavily restricted topic area on the site and has been the subject of four(!) previous arbitration cases so is already within ArbCom's jurisdiction. To me, this route seems like the least dramatic, most transparent way of handling allegations of misconduct. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  I disagree. There is no community dispute here. No editor escalating anything. Only an external organization that, according to their report, are seeking measures like requiring admins to disclose their identities (in this context, a safety threat for Arabic Wikipedia admins, among others) or get themselves as WMF-sanctioned "bias researchers". Had this come from some other of the external organizations that are currently attempting to influence controversial areas, they would have been shown the door, alerting Trust & Safety to monitor the situation. MarioGom (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  If that is their goal then their arbitration request will be fruitless for them. However, I think it is better for them to be allowed to actually make the request and present their evidence and reasoning before judging it (in exactly the same way that multiple editors are demanding that arbitrators do not prejudge things in the COI handling case), especially as it hasn't even been confirmed that the organisation writing the report is the same the organisation requesting a hearing at arbitration. Thryduulf (talk) 23:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  Fair enough, since we (non-Arbs) don't know if it's the same organization. Although it is not comparable to the COI management case though, since all parties there were previously editors who participated in (unsuccesful) dispute resolution. MarioGom (talk) 23:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  I agree that based on the information available to us at this time, an external organization should not have standing to raise requests relating to editing. Arbitration exists as a way to resolve issues that the community has tried and failed to resolve, not as an office for external complaints about Wikipedia. Perhaps there's some missing evidence we can't yet see that justifies this and I'll reserve more serious judgment until the case is underway, but an explanation of what that would be eludes me. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think a case request will ever be the "least dramatic" option in any context In all seriousness, I was also confused about this whole thing, for the same reasons as MarioGom. Presumably (just my speculation, obviously) this case request will include grievances with editorial decisions made at specific articles and/or by specific editors. I'm sure I'm not saying anything that arbitrators haven't already thought about, but I think it will be important to consider why a case would be warranted if other processes (such as AE, which regularly deals with the topic area) have not yet been exhausted. And especially important for this unusual instance, if this outside organization does not have any members with previous editing experience – given that they had to register a special new account to participate at all – in which case they are likely unfamiliar with the way dispute resolution works around here. DanCherek (talk) 23:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

• (Non-sarcastic or anti-committee comment) It is good to see the committee uphold the principal that alternate accounts created for short-term security reasons are welcomed; e.g., in case of discovery by the *checks notes* Islamic Revolutionary Guard, which has been described by the CFR as 'paramilitary'[1], and whose leaders are one of a select global elite liable for CIA assassination[2], whose members have a penchant for mass human rights violations,[3][4] and willingness to manipulate your favorite crowd-sourced enclopedia to those ends.[5][6]. Cheers, ——Serial Number 54129 18:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  If this is an alternative account it would be a surprise to me. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  Not quite the salient point. I said the committee has upheld the principal, etc., which it was unable to do officially on another occasion. Whether it's a role account or an individual one for the same purpose of security seems of less consequence than the principal. The cttee should be congratulated on now promulgating this principle. Unlike some editors whose refusal to do so suggests an insularity so behemothic, it's a wonder to behold. ——Serial Number 54129 19:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think that any definitive conclusions should be drawn from this grant of extended-confirmed; I don't envisage the Committee routinely doing so again. Maybe I'm missing something, but alternative accounts for privacy are allowed, if discouraged. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  I know this will end in POV pushing. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  How do you know this? Thryduulf (talk) 00:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  (self-redacted) LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  It being "fairly obvious" to you that something published off-wiki, which may or may not be by the same organisation, does not explain how you "know this will end in POV pushing" on wiki. Thryduulf (talk) 02:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  I mean... even if unrelated, it's still a weird coincidence. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• I'm assuming the committee is aware that granting extended-confirmed to a user before they are otherwise eligible breaks autopromotion of that user when they actually become eligible? stwalkerster (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  I don't know if the committee is aware but I am after the last time we did this. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  I was/am aware too. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

• What of WP:PAID and such? If the account is here to act on behalf of an organisation, surely it would require disclosure? – 2804:F1...60:5FC0 (talk) 00:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  Possibly, but not necessarily. It will depend the organisation, the relationship between them and that organisation, and in what capacity they are editing. Regardless, given that they haven't made any edits yet, we can be certain they haven't violated that policy up to now. Thryduulf (talk) 00:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  PAID only applies to editing; any account with 0 edits is, by definition, not in violation. If this account only edits within the ArbCom case, then a prominent statement to that effect within the ArbCom statement is enough (the beginning of the statement, and the end of the primary statement before any replies, are each necessarily prominent enough). And the information that ArbCom gave the community doesn't tell us if this person is actually paid - in some organizations it may be reasonable to volunteer, in which case PAID is irrelevant. I trust that ArbCom knows this person's actual relationship with the organization, and will ensure any disclosure they see necssary, which will certainly be no lower than what PAID requires. Animal lover |666| 09:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  Though, this aspect makes me mildly uneasy. Certainly WP:PAID itself applies to mainspace edits, but in a more general sense, our normal reaction to anyone spending money to influence Wikipedia (more typically through WP:CANVASSing) would be to push back against them and treat anything they say with skepticism. Even if an outside "hired gun" raises valid policy-based objections to the conduct of individual editors, my concern is that the potential for disproportionate scrutiny could still lead to bias - it raises the specter of eg. a think tank or governmental organization devoting paid staffers to compiling dossers on why editors whose views they disagree with in related topic areas need to be banned. As you say, we don't even know if this is from someone being paid, and if there's a clear violation of our policy that they're pointing out then there's a clear violation, but I do think that if this turns out to come from someone paid to file it (ie. a lawyer, possibly a literal one, sent to argue before ArbCom as if it were an actual court), then we need to step back and consider the lopsided enforcement that could result in if it becomes more common, and think about what steps could be taken to rein that in. --Aquillion (talk) 03:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  PAID applies to all edits, not just mainspace. In particular, it does apply to projectspace discussions involving content such as AFD, and it does apply to ArbCom pages too. MarioGom (talk) 09:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  Just a reminder that Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure#How to disclose specifies "They must do this on their main user page, or on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or in edit summaries". I question whether the solution proposed by Animal lover 666 is really compliant with this since even if we're generous and treat the case request page as a talk page, there is also the evidence page which they are likely to edit. And what about if they also get involved in the workshop or proposed decision page? I would strongly suggest that in addition to a declaration in their case request, they should also post about this on their main user page. And we are generally fussy about proper disclose in other cases when it comes up rather than just allowing then to say something somewhere and be done with it. I see no reason to treat this any different. I agree it's a moot point until there's any editing. Nil Einne (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

  Unrelated to the arbcom decisions, but when did IPv6 signatures change to exclude the middle digits?— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 13:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  I suspect that was not an auto-signature, a more recent one doesn't look like that. If you see more please open a thread at WP:VPT though. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  I just do that manually by copying the user(talk) part from the reply preview or "show changes" and ending it with 5 ~ chars. I can't ping people if I do that though. 2804:F1...44:311A (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

• Just to set some expectations: there were multiple weeks between messages from the Arbitration Committee and responses to us. So while I admit it would be somewhat surprising to me given how long it took us to get to this point, it wouldn't be out of character for it to be 2 or 3 weeks before this is filed. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• Why isn't this a decision that arbs are voting on on-wiki, and providing explanations for their votes on-wiki? It seems a significant first (unless I'm mistaken?) for arbcom to entertain a case request from a non-editor. I appreciate the arbs who have explained their reasoning and answered questions here, but I'd like to hear from every arb whether they support allowing non-editors to make case requests, and why or why not. I understand I'm not entitled to an explanation from anyone about anything, but tbh I feel like the community kind of is entitled to know how arbs are voting and why, whenever that is possible. Off-wiki decision making should only be done for things involving private evidence, and it doesn't seem like whether to allow a non-editor to make a case request is something that involves any private evidence. Levivich (talk) 04:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  The biggest reasons I supported this motion rely entirely on private evidence because "The Committee treats as private all communications sent to it" from ARBPOL. I will note that with Jytdog the committee only revealed its private approval afterwards and so we're breaking precedent in order to try and give increased transparency. Barkeep49 (talk) 07:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Barkeep49: you've already received evidence? Of what? Levivich (talk) 15:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  I can see how my use of the word evidence caused confusion. When I wrote "The biggest reasons I supported this motion rely entirely on private evidence" a better description might have been "The biggest reasons I supported this motion rely entirely on private factors". Barkeep49 (talk) 15:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  What is a "private factor"? Levivich (talk) 15:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  From context I can assume material that would implicate WP:OUTING or WP:HNE. Especially the latter, given the immediate suspicion shown by everyone in this thread towards a non-editor who is doing their best to satisfy his boss(es)' wishes in a forum they have zero experience in about a topic that is equally sensitive and prone to attracting aggressive partisans. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 17:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  What you're describing is what I call "private evidence," which arbcom has already said is NOT the case here, as the evidence can be submitted on-wiki. Levivich (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  That assumes the material is entirely or partly about on-wiki matters. Which, given the implications that the editor is not experienced with editing Wikipedia, assumes facts not in evidence. While they've almost certainly made an argument that ArbCom agrees needs to be examined further and can be done with on-wiki evidence (per Primefac below) the issue here is the identity and affiliations of the person bringing the complaint, which is not automatically private evidence but would need to be kept obscured for OUTING/HNE reasons. You're conflating private material and private evidence; the latter is material relevant to the case that cannot be discussed openly. Compare/contrast EEML (private evidence - the email contents) and JBA (private material - the identities of those Jytdog spoke to). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 18:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  In both those cases, arbs deliberated and voted on-wiki. Why is this different?

  The decision to allow somebody to create an account and be XC's so they can post a case request... why is this decision being made off-wiki, is my question. There is lots of precedent for decisions involving "private information" (whether that's "evidence" or "material") to nevertheless be made on wiki. Levivich (talk) 18:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  I will answer with a very pointed question: When was the last time you spoke to Laura Hale? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 18:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  I have no idea what that means. Levivich (talk) 18:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  Then you likewise have no idea why ArbCom would have a vested interest in keeping the identity of this person under wraps until they file their case request. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 18:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  Right, I have no idea why outing and harassment are linked under "vested interest," either. Too cryptic for me. Levivich (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  Private communication sent to the committee on which I based my support for granting this user ECR so that they could file a request in this topic area. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for answering my questions but this answer brings me back to my original question: why is the communication private if it doesn't involve outing or other kinds of off-wiki evidence ("private evidence")?

  The way I see it, if a person has evidence involving outing or the like, evidence that can't be dealt with on-wiki, they can just submit that evidence to arbcom privately and arbcom can act on it, as is the usual procedure with private evidence of this type (right?). There is no need to give someone ECR to post an on wiki case request in that scenario.

  If it doesn't involve private evidence, then why would any part of the process be private? Why not have the person make their request on wiki, have the arbs discuss it on wiki, and vote on it on wiki, like an ordinary WP:ARM?

  In other words, if the evidence is "public" (meaning: suitable to be posted on wiki), then why are arbcom's deliberations and decisions made privately (off wiki)? What is the need for secrecy here? Levivich (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  Because this particular organization has a bit of leverage in Wikimedia processes. WP:OUTING, etc, so we cannot really discuss the details on-wiki yet. But after the inevitable disclosure during the case request, we'll be able to discuss it. MarioGom (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  How is it possible that outing is a concern yet arbcom told this person their concerns can be brought up on wiki? Levivich (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  Because that is how our OUTING policy works. Communication with ArbCom is private, and while the identity will need to be self-disclosed, I think ArbCom cannot do it on its own. Even if you independently figure it out, you are not supposed to bring it up here until they self-disclose. The policy does not have a provisión for this kind of case, where we all know the identity will be self-disclosed, and some people probably figured it out already. So we'll have to pretend OUTING is an issue for a while. MarioGom (talk) 18:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  There is no pretending about it - disclosing someone's identity on wiki when they haven't done so themselves is outing. Some people think they know who it is, they might be right, but imagine the repercussions if they posted that on wiki but they're wrong - especially given the truly massive assumptions of bad faith flying around this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  I agree it is OUTING per policy, as I already mentioned. The argument will be moot anyway once the request is posted, and my point is that we should just wait. MarioGom (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  my point is that we should just wait. I agree completely with this. Indeed given the heat to light ratio, it mightn't be a bad idea to draw a line under this discussion for now. There is almost certainly no more information that arbcom can share according to policy (and probably doesn't know everything some people seem to be wanting them to disclose anyway), and unless and until Mschwartz1 actually does post something, nobody else has any additional relevant, non-speculative information they can share either. Thryduulf (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• Did you consider telling them to create an account or two and editing non-controversial areas for a month? The experience they might have gained might have been helpful for their arbitration actions, and all of these special measures and discussions would not have been necessary. We might also have gained a few hundred edits to offset all the time-wasting that allowing non-editors from lobbying groups to seek arbitration will surely bring by itself and as a precedent. Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, how does this not open the doors on "non-user advocacy groups can now waste everyone's time with requests for arbitration"? If the answer is "they made a compelling case, privately", well then the case request took place privately, which is doubly weird. What group do they represent? How do we know this isn't a banned user doing an endrun around the process? I appreciate the transparency, but this seems like an extremely bad precedent to set. Arbcom is for user conduct issues, and a user in good standing should have to raise those. Parabolist (talk) 09:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• This has been raised/discussed a few times above, so I am going to post my responses here mainly to avoid duplication. ArbCom received a request for private arbitration; we determined that this was not necessary as it could be handled on-wiki. We have done our due diligence in making sure the request is legitimate. We have done our due diligence in making sure the individual participating in this process understands our expectations for their on-wiki conduct. We discussed the merits of having a case request versus sending this to AE, and here we have landed waiting for Mschwartz1 to finish collating their request. Additionally, nothing in our communications have indicated any connection with the published article being discussed above. Please stop pre-judging Mschwartz1 about their intentions before they have even posted anything. I know I cannot request the same for ArbCom since it comes with the territory, but I should think we would not be so easily hoodwinked as everyone seems to assume; the gaps in disclosure are just private information that we cannot reveal. Primefac (talk) 10:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  Working on it since February, must be complex. Selfstudier (talk) 14:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  Drafting a case takes time, especially if you almost never edited a Wikimedia project and are relying on a third party to write it. So I think a delay is understandeable. MarioGom (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  Especially since case requests have gotten more complex over time, and the specific circumstances of the case can also affect the time it takes to put together a compelling request. It took me a few hours to put together SEE back in 2009, and that was for a relatively straightforward case. A hypothetical PIA5 in this age would take considerably longer. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 18:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  I think something that might have been helpful would have been to have them ready to post the case when you grant the rights. Given that all we know about this case is that its about to the I-P area, and that it might take them weeks to actually post this, this situation sort of puts a strange sword of damocles over editors in that area. There is an arbcom case coming, that it sounds like will be accepted (On the basis that arbitrators have said that it obviously isn't frivolous, and have gone out of their way to give someone standing to post it), and it could be about anyone. Arbitration cases are lengthy and exhaustive for everyone involved, and I would be stressed out if I was a major editor in that area until it was posted. Parabolist (talk) 20:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  Considering ths history of the cases related to this topic, you can assume that the preparation for the next ArbCom case starts as soon as the previus case was closed. Until the real world conflict ends (and there's no sign of this happening in the foreseeable future), Wikipedia and ArbCom will still need to struggle to keep this topic under control. Animal lover |666| 07:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

  To your last sentence, Animal lover, I completely agree, and I've said the same myself in a few places. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

  That's pretty much how it is for every ethnopolitical CTOP area (AP2, AA, EE, PIA, IP, TRB). And sometimes, not even then (eyes TRB). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 16:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• If this was the type of thing that merited being given a special dispensation to file a case, much less an enforcement request, I have serious concerns that the committee is inviting outside organizations to attempt to drive away editors through specious filings that would normally invite a boomerang at AE (in fact some of the things complained about were brought to AE and already resulted in boomerangs). I would rather yall had no idea what the quality of the complaint was before you granted this permission, but that raises its own question as to why you thought allowing this to go forward was a good idea. nableezy - 18:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  ArbCom did not "invite" anyone to file. ArbCom is allowing them to file. If this weren't a 500/30 topic area - if it were American Politics for instance - they wouldn't have needed any permission at all. If the request doesn't meet the standards it will be declined or procedurally removed as would any other case request. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  We received a short version, saw nothing private, and told them to make the case publicly. The fact that we granted them ECP does not prevent us from denying their case requests as bad, revoking the permission, or even blocking them if they prove disruptive. Of course, the spurious case requests will waste community time, but a good amount of that wasted time will be, shall we say, unnecessary and self-inflicted? By which I mean "the usual suspects will show up at ARC to remind us that they have opinions!!! and share those opinions because they seem to think that arbs can't read or think for themselves." That sort of time which they could have spent sharing opinions!!! at ANI instead.

  GeneralNotability (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)