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.

pre-RfC mass-article creation discussion has begun

Original announcement

• Yeesh... did I miss the principle that abolished WP:NOTBURO? And what is the basis for enforcing these onerous rules when this isn't even the RfC requested in the remedies (which was "how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion")? This seems like a bit of an overreach... – Joe (talk) 08:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• If it stops the obvious bludgeoning that has, at times, so obviously impacted past discussions around notability, I'll accept whatever rules are deemed necessary. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:11, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  I am more worried by the combination of declaring a) that only two people are allowed to close this mega-RfC (valereee and xeno) and b) their decision can only appealed to ArbCom. Essentially that's locking the wider community out of a very important part of policy-making (closing and challenging closes), and now the 'moderators' have decided that their ArbCom-granted authority extends to a 'pre-RfC' on a completely different topic, it feels like we're on a slippery slope. – Joe (talk) 12:57, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• I can understand your concern, but have very little experience in this part of the project - honestly, I'm only involved to try to get some sort of balance and to watch for bludgeoning again. I'll defer to your opinion on this. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:07, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Multiple arbcom members told us they considered it definitely within scope to include both deletion and creation and multiple editors told us they believed the two questions were inextricably tied together and that it was necessary to address creation at minimum concurrently and ideally as a precursor. The pre-RfC is workshopping both issues and is intended in part to decide the question of whether we can run them as a single RfC or should split them up. Valereee (talk) 13:51, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

ETA: Xeno and I aren't closing the RfC. We're only developing (in process now) and then moderating it; a panel of three is being appointed for closing it. We'll only be closing the workshop phase. Valereee (talk) 14:38, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• Shouldn't that be "mass-article deletion" instead of "mass-article creation"? Risker (talk) 08:44, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  pre-pre-RFC discussion expressed opinions that it was simply not possible to deal with mass deletion without first dealing with mass creation. I disagreed with this, expressing the view that it all needs to be dealt with together, but did so too late. Thryduulf (talk) 08:57, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  We're actually dealing with them together right now. Valereee (talk) 13:28, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  ETA: (sorry, hadn't had enough coffee to be clear enough) Part of what the current pre-RfC workshop is to do for us is help determine whether it's feasible to run this as a single RfC or whether we'll have to run them separately. Valereee (talk) 14:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• Current opinions on mass deletion are directly based on problems associated with mass creation. I support figuring out where mass creation stands first to avoid skewing the debate about mass deletion. i.e. if people think our rules about mass creation are weak or ambiguous, they're going to support making it easier to delete things because of the time it takes to deal with large numbers of bad articles, so it would be good to have a clear picture of what sort of mass creation is allowed when opining on what sort of mass deletion is reasonable. As for bureaucracy, for topics that have taken a huge amount of time, tend to attract the heat of current disputes and controversial personalities, pose the risk of codifying rules with far-reaching effects based on narrower problems, haven't had much forward progress for a long time, repeatedly come up all over the project, and have a tendency to sprawl, it is reasonable to try something new (like structure and moderation). I don't know if it's the best way, but it's a path worth exploring IMO. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• Moderated discussions are not new nor unprecedented in English Wikipedia (see, eg. 2012 moderated RfC construction, 2012 moderated RFC discussion). RfC has always been discussion, moderated by structure and procedure, and closers of an RfC find community consensus or not. Nothing new. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• Valereee was too kind to blame the rules on me, but I had suggested using rules similar to those previously used at WP:GMORFC. As stated just above, nothing new. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  The objection seems to be mostly to the fact appealing moderator decisions and the panel closing is limited to a request at ArbCom, a rule which was set in place by ArbCom in the original decision, not by me or Xeno or the GMORFC rules. And I think those GMORFC rules are a great template for any RfC that has the potential for tempers running high! Very helpful, IMO.

  At any rate, unless that appeals restriction was overreach by ArbCom, it wasn't overreach. Valereee (talk) 12:38, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

  It was, to me, overreach by ArbCom - I specifically raised the appeal aspect on the talk page during proposed decisions, but alas it still made it in. I like the designated mods, and many of other rules, but that is poor. I also really dislike non-threaded discussion. As it means if someone makes a point, and another person makes a rebuttal it's vastly less likely that all other readers will pair up that comment and that rebuttal. As such, rebuttals to points become vastly less efficacious. The same holds true for clarifications and expansions - it's impossible to mentally hold up the various threads within a discussion when they're spread across so many sections. More aggressive modding should reduce the negatives of threaded discussion, so to me, we should have stuck with the norm for RfCs. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

  The GMO rules were set for something that was an extreme battlefield, with polarized sides and people expressing outright hatred, so they were very necessary then. I have a feeling that the present RfC will not be nearly as bad, or at least I certainly hope not, so the rules may end up being too much, although that's probably better than too little. As for threaded discussions, I see those as being like ANI, whereas separate sections are like AE – and let's just say that I think ANI is problematic. Having less replying to replies can be a feature, not a bug. It can be even harder to mentally hold up a back-and-forth that gets tl;dr. Combining separate sections with word count limits forces editors to say what really matters, and let the rest go. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh man. The last time I saw multiple people closing an RfC, it was at SCHOOLOUTCOMES, and it was total cockup. Oh well. So, where are some examples of mass article creation and deletion? I can't really say much until l see some examples. Also a statement of the actual problem we are supposed to solve here? Too many articles being mass created, or too few? Too many articles being deleted, or too few? Too many articles being created and then deleted and its a waste of time? Or what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herostratus (talk • contribs) 08:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

It's the appeal only to ArbCom bit that I was suggesting was an overreach, since it gives ArbCom the final say on what policy should be. It might help if they clarified that while your close can only be "appealed" to ArbCom, the community can modify it later in the usual way.

Whether or not you like your discussions to take place under 500 words of rules is a matter of taste, I suppose. Though I would say that the more complicated you make the format, the more the discussion is going to favour 'insiders' who are used to it. That's one thing if we're talking about specific niche topics that have already proved contentious, quite another if we're considering restricting the ability of all editors to create articles. – Joe (talk) 13:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

About the appeals to ArbCom, if I read it correctly, that applies only to decisions made by the moderators during the course of the RfC – things like p-blocking a disruptive user from further participation in the RfC. The moderators and the closers are two different groups. It has nothing to do with the closing consensus or any policies or page contents. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC) Woops, thanks Valereee. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

They said both at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing#Request_for_Comment: Any appeals of a moderator decision or of the panel close may only be made to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA. Valereee (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Actually, at the pre-RfC talk page it does just say moderators, which is what I saw when I made that comment, but it's true that the ArbCom decision says both. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Correct! I had edited that for the workshop phase because there was no "panel close" there, apologies for making things less clear! Valereee (talk) 19:41, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Thinking (again) about what we did with the GMO case, something ArbCom could consider with respect to appeals of the RfC close, particularly if there is a shift in community consensus over time, would be to also allow going to (1) WP:AE, for a consensus of participating AE administrators, or (2) to another community-wide RfC, with publication, participation, and moderation and closing similar to the original. (See closers' statement, second sentence of second paragraph.) Allowing these alternatives, in addition to going to ArbCom, would take it out of the situation of ArbCom taking for itself an exclusive role in a content decision. That might help with the concerns expressed here, without making it easy to end-run the consensus. (In the GMO situation, there was only one rather trivial request for a change, filed by me, that was simply to correct Linter errors in the text. It went to AE, and was dealt with easily.) If that sounds like something ArbCom might want to do, I'd be willing to file an amendment request. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@Tryptofish, I'm following this discussion and the other feedback from the deletion case, as well as the pre-RfC discussion. If we receive an ArbCom appeal, I would be open to considering delegating the decision of that appeal to AE. Also, note that unlike GMO or Jerusalem, the results of the close are not "final"  – they are not irrevocable by the community, and the community can amend them at any time through a new RfC. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 05:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Kevin, I'll sit tight on any action about that for now. However, I'm now confused about what you say about the community being free to amend through a new RfC. The remedy in the ArbCom decision says that the close may only be appealed to ArbCom, but nothing one way or the other about it subsequently being changed by the community without ArbCom consultation. I suppose I could parse it to mean that only ArbCom can overturn the close of the RfC, but a new RfC, not questioning the previous RfC consensus but just seeking a new consensus, is permitted. However, that's not clear. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

only ArbCom can overturn the close of the RfC, but a new RfC, not questioning the previous RfC consensus but just seeking a new consensus, is permitted. This is the correct interpretation. Unlike prior ArbCom-mandated RfCs, there is no period during which this RfC is "binding" in that it is unamendable; we speak clearly when we mandate otherwise. For example, in WP:RFC/J (Special:Permalink/531640266#Arbitration_motion_regarding_Jerusalem), we decided that the closure will be binding for three years from the adoption of this motion. If this is a point of active disagreement, I would be happy to so clarify at ARCA, but I didn't realize anyone had a different interpretation so I would hold off from ARCAing unless others took the incorrect interpretation. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:54, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

OK by me. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with Kevin that the consensus that comes out of the RfC will be no different than any other consensus and so the community may change its outcome at any time through normal processes. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

• Noting that I volunteered to help close this before I proceed. With that out of the way, I agree with Hammersoft (words you won't hear too often). ArbCom screwed this up IMO. By claiming the entire process, including appeals, they have created a process where they could act in a dictoritorial way. While I trust the people involved and know that wasn't their intent, that isn't really the point. Valereee's clarification and some folks from ArbCom agreeing with it (above) helps with this, but I still believe the process is broken and sets a horrid precedent. I believe that this process is likely to end in a good place for the specific RfC, but that none-the-less the precedent so problematic as a power grab that we shouldn't go forward as we are. My suggestion would be that ArbCom acknowledge the problem and promise to never do it again. In general, suggesting an RfC be opened is fine. But if you control who does all the parts, you control the whole thing. And that's outside of ArbCom's remit. Hobit (talk) 22:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
  • As precedent, ArbCom previously held an RfC for the Jerusalem case. It's fine for ArbCom to find in a case that there is an issue that needs to be resolved by the community, and to call upon the community to decide whatever the community decides about it. It's not right for ArbCom to reserve for themselves an exclusive role in ruling on concerns about the RfC consensus, which is why a clarification is needed. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
    • I think asking for the RfC to be held is reasonable. Selecting the moderators and closers is not. Hobit (talk) 17:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Level 1 desysop of Staxringold

Original announcement

• Man, I wish I knew what the account wrote that was bad enough to get reverted and removed from the edit history. Hopefully this gets sorted out quickly! --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  To the extent that there is run of the mill OSable material this was that. In other words nothing particularly exciting when I pressed the OS buttons. But I certainly recall my interest before I had the buttons so I understand the statement. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:38, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) To be honest what was written is not anything that is particularly interesting. Just self promotion and vandalism by the compromiser, none of which really needed to stay around. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:39, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  For whatever my opinion is worth, I support deleting and even oversighting (a more thorough form of deletion) any material, whether good or bad, where authorship is misattributed to an account because that account was compromised. Jehochman ^Talk 22:09, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Jehochman: To be clear, that's not why any of this was revdelled/oversighted. The edit summaries were RD2s, the edit content was RD3 (with a dash of DENY), one new page was deleted by the compromiser, and another new page was deleted under CSD A7. I requested oversight on the latter two sets of edits for, as Barkeep says, very boring reasons. Automatically deleting or OSing compromised accounts' edits would require changes to the applicable policies, and isn't what happened here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:02, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  I think that edits after an account takeover should be deleted no matter what because they are misattributed. Our system is designed to attribute each edit to an author. If somebody breaks into my account and makes edits, those edits should not be attributed to me because I am not the author. (If my understanding is wrong, please let me know.) If you requested oversight for other reasons, then those reasons are further justification. Jehochman ^Talk 13:23, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Jehochman: I don't necessarily disagree with that (would have to think further), but if you want that to be policy, you should propose it at WT:REVDEL or WT:OS, because it's not currently what happens (in an era where we're averaging 5 compromises per week). My instinct is that there wouldn't be consensus to add it to the OS criteria, but might be to add it to CRD. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:18, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  Thinking about this further, I think I would support this on the request of the compromisee. If we made it the default action, the problem we'd run into is that it's not always clear when an account is compromised. I've made several compromise blocks where a CU later told me that nope, the person had just suddenly gone {{not a typo|rouge}}, e.g. Wrugtrab. I've also made ones where a CU told me they honestly couldn't tell whether the account was a compromised 0-edit account or a sleeper. And given how many compromises are of 0-edit or <10-edit accounts, there's rarely someone whose good name needs to be restored—in many cases the original owner has probably forgotten that the account exists. So it's only the much rarer scenario like this, where an established user is compromised, where revdelling is likely to matter, and I think that could be differentiated easily enough by allowing revdel but only at the user's requst. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:31, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

• An admin who, apart from deleting some images that they had uploaded themselves, hadn't made an admin action for NINE years. Our inactivity criteria are still worse than useless, aren't they? Black Kite (talk) 14:47, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  Please wait until February 2023 before pulling out that old chestnut, as the process was overhauled specifically for cases like this; bemoaning something that has already been fixed (albeit with a delay) is a bit of a waste of time. Primefac (talk) 14:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  I thought it was decided that January 1, 2023, was the date? :) Izno (talk) 21:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  Give the new rules a chance for a month, before proclaiming their shortcomings... isaacl (talk) 21:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  Staxringold was within 31 edits of meeting the new minimums just before his edits on September 10, and the initial notifications to admins not meeting those minimums aren't set to go out until October 1. The chances that he would've been in the first group to be desysopped on January 1 (currently down to 175) seem... slim. —Cryptic 22:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  My recollection of the last discussion is that it was something like, "We know this isn't really where we want to be, but it's a step in the right direction so let's do that and revisit this when we see how well it is working". -- RoySmith (talk) 22:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

• Hello all. This is the real Staxringold (no, I promise, it really is, sending the appropriate email/messages to get unblocked). This is a rather frightening thing to discover. I did receive the notification about admin inactivity and fully admit to having gone hardcore inactive for some time. Thus, I fully understand if I end up losing those powers. However, as Cryptic suggested, I was intending to meet at least those minimal requirements to maintain them, for whatever that's worth. 75.150.91.37 (talk) 16:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  Staxingrold acknowledged using this IP in 2014. So either a very very elaborate impersonation, or, much more likely, the real deal. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  Can't a CU verify the above post with older Staxingrold edits? or is this situation outside of CU's actions? - FlightTime (open channel) 21:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  @FlightTime: Hi. ArbCom is in communication with who we believe to be Staxringold. The standard procedure is for WMF to verify that Staxringold is back in control of their account and for WMF to unlock the account. That's good news: no detective work or sleuthing by the community is required on this one. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) CUs are unwilling to connect IP addresses and accounts. That aside, is there any reason whatsoever to doubt the identity of this IP? Presumably when WMF Trust & Safety re-establishes Staxringold's access to their account, Staxringold can confirm the IP was them to clear any lingering shadows of doubt and there would be no good reason for a checkuser even if one were allowed. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  I was considering points made by you both, that's why I asked. For what it's worth, I also think the IP post is "the real deal" Thanks for your replies. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Wasn't trying to get into all of the logistics of account reclamation here, as it's a pretty well-established, smoothly-run process at this point. Was just trying to use some SPI clerk skills to head off any questions about whether the IP above is legit. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• I attempted the password reset procedure, but I still receive the same message upon logging in with the temporary password "This account is globally locked. You will not be able to log in to any Wikimedia wikis. Please contact the stewards if you have any questions." I have messaged the stewards, per the link that message directs me to, so I will await their response. Thanks! 75.150.91.37 (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  You will not be able to password reset or log in until you are no longer globally locked. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:26, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  You need to follow the instructions at meta:Help:Compromised accounts and email cawikimedia.org to regain access to your account. When an account is locked it is impossible to log into it. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  I did so yesterday, I'll await their reply. Thanks! 75.150.91.37 (talk) 18:37, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

• Non-arb update: Staxringold is now unblocked. No user permission changes as of yet. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 02:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

  We are in communication with Staxringold. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:36, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

• FYI I can confirm those anonymous IP edits above were me. Apologies to everybody, this was a strange one. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:52, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Request for comment closers appointed

Original announcement

• Excellent choices, thanks to all three! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Could someone please explain to the idiot signing this post why ArbCom has invested itself in deciding process modifications on the project? Near as I can tell, this RfC could result in changes to how the project manages AfD. Any consensus evaluated by the ArbCom appointed overseers of this RfC can not be appealed without ArbCom. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Scope_and_responsibilities clearly lays out ArbCom's scope. Deciding changes in processes is not covered by this scope. The community never devolved this responsibility to ArbCom. From my chair, it appears anything ArbCom decides on this is outside their scope and therefore void. I don't see a reason to follow it. It appears to be no different than ArbCom attempting to modify anything at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, and only allowing appeals to those changes to go through them. This is not their responsibility. ArbCom was never elected to decide procedures, guidelines, policy, or any consensus bounded decisions on the project. Such concepts are entirely outside their remit. Nobody voted them into office on the understanding that this would be their role, and thus nobody has considered whether any of the current consist of ArbCom is capable of managing this. Thoughts? --Hammersoft (talk) 00:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  I'd encourage you to read through the case evidence or at least the findings of fact to see why the elected arbitrators, on the whole, felt that this was a solution to To act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. An RfC has been a part of previous cases, including around Jerusalem, which formed the basis for this RfC wording, and GMO. You will notice that the committee has not even set the questions for discussion and the any changes which gain consensus will do so through a typical RfC process that is used to modify policies and guidelines. I hope that answers your question. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:36, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  I do recall a number of times when RfCs were generated because of ArbCom decisions (examples; 1, 2). So far as I can recall, such RfCs have never been controlled by ArbCom, and overturning their conclusions via any new consensus garnering mechanism has always been left to the community, not ArbCom. This is new. I was not previously aware of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem, but that RfC was to resolve a dispute (which is within the remit of ArbCom). It was not to decide how any process on Wikipedia is to be run, which is what this RfC seems to cover. I would like to note that I'm not the only one who has raised concerns about ArbCom's scope with regards to RfCs. One of ArbCom's own has done this in the past; see this comment. And now we have an opposition to this RfC based on remit grounds as well from Worm [1]. Worm is right. This is not within ArbCom's scope of responsibilities. Any decision made by ArbCom with regards to the RfC is void. No process run by ArbCom, much less one where it can't be appealed except through ArbCom, is going to modify Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and thus will not modify Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, which is descendant from that policy. Such modifications are clearly outside of ArbCom's remit. ArbCom does not set guideline or policy here; the community does. If ArbCom can't modify either of those, such an RfC will be meaningless as it will result in no changes that are enforceable. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  I'm looking at WT:ACAS, and the discussion there is raising questions about WP:SIGCOV, what constitutes a valid stub, what shouldn't be allowed as a stub, whether an editor should be allowed to create a stub, etc. These are operational issues. This isn't a dispute between parties. This RfC can not and must not go forward. ArbCom is about to embark on controlling article development. What concludes from this RfC can not be changed without appealing to ArbCom. This is unequivocally wrong. This is about as far outside of ArbCom's remit as you can possibly get. If ArbCom claims some right to do this, then they can wave the "DISPUTE!" banner at anything on Wikipedia and claim jurisdictional right over it. There have been disputes on probably every policy and guideline on the project. Are we just to hand the reigns of policy and guideline management over to ArbCom? If ArbCom wants to provide a "friend of the court" sort of brief to help inform the community in regards to an RfC, fine. But, ArbCom has no valid right to dictate the RfC by way of appointing people to control it and preventing appeals except through them. The power for this unequivocally lies with the community. If ArbCom (or its appointed delegates) dares to modify WP:DP, WP:AFD, or WP:AFC the community is going to blow sky high over it. There will be hell to pay. Alternatively, if a well meaning editor attempts to modify any of those based on the conclusions of this RfC, there will be hell to pay when people find out they can't change those pages because ArbCom said so. ArbCom, you can NOT do this. You are completely out of line. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  I'll point out that's actually just an argument -- much of which appears to be rhetorical -- among several editors, which I've unsubscribed from and will be archiving when the RfC starts. It is not an actual part of any phase of this process. Valereee (talk) 15:49, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  I've gone ahead and just closed it and asked the editors involved to discuss elsewhere. Valereee (talk) 15:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  I understand that "appeal only to ArbCom" provision looks heavy handed, but think of any other large-scale RfC where you or another editor doesn't like the outcome. What's your recourse? There isn't much, since with that level of scrutiny, you're very unlikely to see an egregious close that doesn't accurately summarize consensus. Here, there's a built-in appeal mechanism--and after a while, it would probably be appropriate to consider the new situation to be settled, and for ArbCom to relinquish that control. --BDD (talk) 15:53, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  ArbCom shouldn't have that control to begin with. They don't have that privilege. Only the community does. The way to overturn an RfC is to start a new one that gains consensus. We can't approach this with the philosophy that everything will be ok in the long run. This sort of action sets a precedent of allowing ArbCom to dictate policy and guideline. This simply isn't in their remit to do. To be blunt BDD, if you or anyone else from ArbCom or its delegates attempts to change policy or guideline as a result of this RfC, it will almost certainly be reverted by someone in the community as a result of jurisdictional isssues. What's the next step after that? ArbCom starts threatening people who change policy against ArbCom's wishes? Do you really want that fiasco on ArbCom's hands? ArbCom is creating a serious issue here, not solving one. Stop it NOW, I urge you. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not sure if you're WP:WIKILAWYERING or confused about what's happening here. No one is giving ArbCom authority over policy issues. They have previously responded to another conduct dispute, as is ArbCom's responsibility. They also identified a root cause of one conflict as "there is no community consensus on how to handle the consideration of mass nominations of articles at Articles for Deletion. This has created conflict in the community about how to respond to Lugnuts' article creation". Recognizing that it's the community's responsibility to define our best practices, they invited us to have an RFC and start figuring that out. There are editors who have tried to push that process off track, either trying to expand the RFC to something outside of the issue of mass creation/deletion actions, or trying to shut down the discussion entirely. But RFCs necessarily involve a consensus building process. ArbCom has no role there other than to be a forum of last resort for any conduct issues. In the meantime, the moderators / closers are as good as any other volunteer for guaranteeing a collaborative approach to problem solving. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:32, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  Two points. First, unlike the Jerusalem RfC, the one about GMOs was not initiated by ArbCom, although it arose out of the ArbCom case. I asked that there be an RfC, ArbCom declined to initiate it, and an administrator agreed to take it on as a generous reading of DS. Second, although I strongly support having the RfC in this case, ArbCom could (as I suggested in another discussion thread) decrease the appearance of ArbCom overstepping by saying explicitly that the close by the RfC closers could not only be appealed to ArbCom, but also to AE or to a new RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think it's anywhere near as dire as you think, though if an individual tried to ignore consensus from the RfC citing "jurisdictional issues", I'd be shocked if community sentiment wouldn't be strongly against that person. If a second RfC strongly rejected the outcome of the first, then yes, there should be a recognition that consensus has changed. If that means the formality of an ARCA to validate that second RfC, I don't see that as a big deal (and if the ArbCom at that point chose not to do so because of "jurisdictional issues", they would be wrong to do so). --BDD (talk) 21:01, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  Perhaps I haven't been clear. Allow me to explain this again. There isn't a subjective analysis of how bad this is or isn't. It's an either/or situation, 100% one way or the other. There is no middle ground. Either ArbCom is overstepping their scope and remit, or they are not. It's blatantly clear they are. What will come of that, who knows. The implications to the project could be quite damaging. People have faith in this project because the will of the community controls it, NOT ArbCom. I sincerely hope you are well aware of the consequences that happened when the Wikimedia Foundation tried to overstep their bounds on this project. If ArbCom tries a similar tack, there IS going to be hell to pay. I think at a minimum if ArbCom tries to pull this stunt and take over administration of Wikipedia:Deletion policy (which is a likely outcome of this RfC) I will initiate an RfC at the same time to determine community consensus on whether ArbCom has the authority to do so, and if the ArbCom RfC is therefore void. I think it is crystal clear that ArbCom does not have the power to set policy on this project. ArbCom can avoid a lot of this controversy by taking Tryptofish's excellent advice above. What is ArbCom afraid of? --Hammersoft (talk) 23:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  Hi @Hammersoft, I hear your concern. Does this comment above – which confirms that the community is of course free to modify the results of this moderated RfC at any point in the future through a new RfC – alleviate your concerns? It seemed to be acceptable to Tryptofish. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  That isn't made clear in any respect at the decision. Change the decision such that it reads that the consensus of the RfC can be overturned by the community through a new consensus mechanism at any time, then you'll have something. ArbCom would still be putting their noses under the tent of policy making (which is completely out of line) but at least the community can undo the damage. As written, there's no possibility of that, and ArbCom will be administering policy. If the wording isn't changed, I maintain my position. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  Got it. Thanks for your input, much appreciated. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:18, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

  Kevin, in that comment above ([2]), you told me that you figured that it would be self-evident that the community could hold a new RfC any time, and that you wouldn't want to take the step of clarifying the point unless other editors beside me interpreted the language to mean that ArbCom was reserving an exclusive role for itself. Well, in the discussion here, you have an abundance of evidence that I wasn't the only person who read it that way. I think it's becoming very clear that ArbCom needs to change the language in the case remedy. As I said above, the change should be from saying that the only way to challenge the result of the RfC is by going to ArbCom, to saying it can be challenged either at ArbCom, AE, or through a new RfC. I'd advise ArbCom against ignoring this concern. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Tryptofish: I hear you. Thanks for the explicit note. On the merits, I don't know why we would allow an appeal to AE – ultimately AE is also an extension of ArbCom's authority and anything AE decides can later be reversed by ArbCom, so it seems faster and simpler to just skip to ArbCom. I'm curious to hear whether the following language works: Any appeals of a moderator decision or of the panel close may only be made to the Arbitration Committee at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. The outcome of the RfC may also be amended by the community through a new RfC at any time. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:10, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks, Kevin. For that language, you should drop "or of the panel close" from the part about what can only be taken to ARCA, because otherwise it partially contradicts the new language. And including AE serves some useful purposes. Although AE is an extension of ArbCom, it isn't ArbCom. And it can be an ideal place to efficiently deal with simple proposals. As I said somewhere above, in the GMO RfC there was only one request for change, and it was made by me. It was simply to make a trivial correction of linter errors, and it was dealt with easily at AE. Not the kind of thing where you would want an RfC (or ARCA, for that matter). Trivial things can come up, and one would still want some sort of defined mechanism to deal with them, so that you don't have some random user changing the result because "it was trivial". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh gosh, Hammersoft is correct. Looking at the mechanics of this RfC, we all seem to be sleepwalking into an inadvertent over-reach by ArbCom. It may be worth looking into the consequences of the mechanics of this RfC. Whose RfC is this? Is it an ArbCom RfC, or a community RfC? ArbCom have appointed moderators and closers, and as written only ArbCom can hear appeals about the outcome. This appears to be an ArbCom RfC in which the community will be allowed to take part, but essential features are under the control of ArbCom. I'm not clear where this RfC falls under ArbCom's remit, as this is pushing in the area of governance of content creation and deletion rather than dealing with either private matters or misconduct. As work has started on the RfC, and there is some movement, I don't think it would be appropriate to stop the RfC, simply to rework the mechanics to ensure this is a community RfC, and to allow ArbCom to step back. This can probably be quickly resolved by a short seven day RfC for the community to take over the RfC, confirming the existing moderators and closers; and a motion to amend the wording of Remedy 11 so that it is clear that the RfC is owned by the community, and the closure can be challenged and amended as per normal procedures. SilkTork (talk) 14:59, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Hammersoft's point, which I think Joe Roe also raised somewhere recently. At first blush, the notion that Arbcom is going to order a policy-changing RFC, appoint the moderators (who decide the question), appoint the closers, and hear the appeal... you gotta be kidding me, right? Why don't you just edit the PAG directly if you're going to control every aspect of the decision-making process? And holding RFCs, appointing moderators and closers, and hearing appeals of RFCs are nowhere in WP:ARBPOL. It's just not a power that Arbcom has.

So here comes the "but"... three buts actually:

1. But WP:IAR. This creation/deletion thing is a serious mess; we all know this is true; we all know we've been trying without success for years to bring some kind of stability to this area. What the hell, let's try this out and see if it works. There is some precedent for some parts of this (prior Arbcom RFCs have worked, although they were a long time ago and very rare). We're a wiki after all, let's be bold and experiment. Who knows, it just might work!
2. But who cares anyway. Let's say Arbcom didn't "order" or "require" any of these things. Suppose they were all suggestions: they suggest having an RFC, they suggest who the moderators are, they suggest who the closers are, and they'll take a first crack at reviewing any appeals and suggesting an outcome. None of these "suggestions" would stick without the community's ratification. That is: if everyone hates Arbcom's suggestions, no one will participate, and the whole thing will die. So who cares if Arbcom wants to suggest a very specific RFC procedure that involves a huge role for Arbcom? If other editors think it's a good idea and want to try it out, let's let them. There is little risk of harm because of "but #3":
3. But it's harmless because it's all ultimately governed by the community anyway. Arbcom might say the outcome can only be appealed to Arbcom, but we can ignore that. We could hear the appeal at AN. What are the arbs going to do, block the participants? Alternatively, we could let Arbcom hear an appeal, and if we don't like what they say, the community can just overturn it. We could launch another RFC right afterwards to overturn the prior RFC. We could modify WP:ARBPOL to specifically prohibit Arbcom from doing this. We can make these changes apply retroactively. We could disband Arbcom altogether. "Consensus can do whatever the hell it damn well pleases" and the community is always the ultimate last stop appeal authority, even when it delegates some of that authority to a body like Arbcom, we can always take it back. Arbcom has no actual enforcement powers over the community writ large. We have all the power over Arbcom, so there's little risk to trying this experiment. If it doesn't work, or if it ends in a bad result, we have the power to "undo" it just like any other edit.

So in sum, I agree it's outside of policy, but I think it's a low-risk proposition to IAR and try it out anyway. Levivich (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that there is no bad intent here, and that having a discussion to resolve a known problem is an obvious positive; however, allowing ArbCom so much control in an area where long standing consensus says they should not have control, merely because we feel it's a good idea that something is being done, is - unfortunately - setting a precedent, and without firm and clear push-back, will be accepted as establishing consensus to do such a thing again. Now, if that is deliberately what we want: for ArbCom to have control over deciding content related issues, because we want ArbCom to have that authority, then we need to make that clear to the community and hold a RfC on that. Essentially, we either deliberately make this RfC a community issue (or deliberately make this an ArbCom issue - whichever the community prefers), or we quietly allow it to happen without awareness or protest so it becomes both precedent and consensus. Essentially, this is the time to protest and sort this, not the next time it happens, because once something has happened and nobody objected it has both precedent and consensus (see Wikipedia:Silence and consensus), and it becomes more difficult to overturn, especially if this particular RfC is successful. Now, whichever the community wants is fair by me (ArbCom can not decide content matters, or ArbCom can decide content matters and can order the community to make changes to content matters, which can then only be appealed to them), but we shouldn't allow this shift in ArbCom's remit and authority to occur blindly because nobody - except it seems Joe and Hammersoft, noticed the implications of what is happening here. If we are going to put this down to an IAR situation, then that in itself should be made clear in writing, so it is clear that this is a one-off. But, even then, let us at least retain community control over content matters and have the wording changed that concerns regarding the outcome of this RfC can only be appealed to ArbCom. SilkTork (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I am pleased to report that the community is not quietly allowing it to happen without awareness or protest :-) See Nosebagbear's PD comment, Joe's comment at the top of this page from two weeks ago that I referred to earlier, and of course Hammersoft's comment in this thread.

The concerns you raise, and that they raised, are legitimate and I share them. But the number of editors participating in this outweighs the number of editors protesting it by a healthy margin, and I take that as a sign that the community seems willing to give it a shot. (Which surprises me, I was expecting there to be far more pushback than there has been.)

Personally, I think the most efficient way to handle it is to have an RFC about this RFC after this RFC is done, to analyze how it went and decide what changes to ARBPOL we want to make as a result (either explicitly authorizing Arbcom to do this sort of thing in the future, or restricting it). I feel that if we were to have an RFC about this RFC now, we would also end up having a second one later, after the RFC closed. So I see this as a 'test case' in essence. But I fundamentally agree about deciding this issue (whether/how Arbcom can run RFCs) explicitly (with an RFC) rather than implicitly (by just allowing it to happen and saying nothing). Levivich (talk) 19:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

These are quite important "buts". Thanks for keeping an open mind. While I suspect it's mostly rhetorical, as for "Why don't you just edit the PAG directly", I think you've (inadvertently?) hit the nail on the head: I'm not going to declare what PAG should or shouldn't say,* much less the committee as a whole. The mandate here, such as it is, is a question. The answers, up to and including "that's the wrong question" remains in the community's hands.

*Subject to the usual caveats. I could make such declarations, but they wouldn't be ex arbcom, just my own position, no more or less important than any other editor's. --BDD (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Except, it isn't. The decision makes clear that the ArbCom appointed moderators will decide what questions will be presented. That, ultimately, also controls the answers. Thus, the questions and answers are being controlled (even if by proxy) by ArbCom. Further, whatever decisions the moderators make can only be appealed to ArbCom. ArbCom's really thrown up their dinner on the carpet on this one and expected the community to eat it whole, while telling us it will all work out in the end. Sorry, I don't accept that. I would also like to note that precedent doesn't make something right. I can allow, as SilkTork has noted, that ArbCom has headed into this inadvertently and created a total wreck situation by accident. I can't allow from this point forward that there is no bad intent on ArbCom's part now that the issue is clearly on the table and clearly laid out. If ArbCom presses forward with this they are directly and willfully involved in a massive disruption to the project, all the while willfully violating WP:ARBPOL. ArbCom can not modify that policy without going through a formal amendment process. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@Hammersoft, additional questions (those not developed from the workshop phase) can be added by anyone for the first seven days of the RfC with no interference from moderators, and after that by requesting the moderators to present further additional suggested questions. There is a rough draft of the RfC at User:Valereee/rfc draft which you or anyone else can comment on at that page's talk until the RfC start is finalized. Valereee (talk) 19:33, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I've been watching the development of the discussion, and I can confirm that, per Valereee, the moderators are in no way dictating to the community what questions will or will not be asked. It's been a very open and collaborative process. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:42, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I should add: what the moderators will have the authority to do, appealable only to ArbCom, is to enforce conduct matters during the RfC, such as page-blocking someone who disrupts the discussion. I think that's entirely appropriate. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

So this draft is in userspace? And the community has been made aware of it how? Sounds like it's in an out of service bathroom in a basement, locked in a filing cabinet with a warning sign about large cats on it. Good lord. I'd tried to find this draft RfC before and thought it would be at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale. You know, where the community might actually see it? The only thing that seems to have come from that is a discussion about division of labor being shut down, even though such a discussion is central to the core issue. Ummmm...what? If ArbCom wants this to be transparent and non-confusing as possible, they sure are doing a bang up job of doing the opposite. Valeree, why did you shut down this discussion? Why is the draft in your userspace? You're not a member of ArbCom, nor a clerk with ArbCom, and are not one of the appointed moderators of the RfC. Even more confusing. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:14, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@Hammersoft, Valereee is indeed a moderator. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:17, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I stand corrected. My apologies. Striking that portion of my comment. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

You appear to have missed the archives at that workshop, @Hammersoft. I shut down the most recent discussion because you were describing it right here in this discussion as something it wasn't. It was a stray after-discussion that wasn't even being included in the draft for the RfC. Scroll up two days and you'll see my response to you; my next response was that I'd asked the editors to go discuss somewhere else, as I'd told them the workshop phase was over and I was now working on the draft and that further proposals could be added once the draft was published. Pinging you since you apparently aren't keeping up with the discussion here and must not be seeing my responses to your not-so-veiled accusations of my general sly wrongdoings that I think I'm hiding but, oops, gosh, can everyone actually see that? @Hammersoft Valereee (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I didn't "miss" it. One shouldn't be required to read every scrap of everything that went into the recent ArbCom case in order to find fault with the outcome of it. If there is a problem with how this decision is framed, and how the announcements are being made about it, the issue is not with me, but with ArbCom for failing to be clear and candid with what it is they are doing. As of now, they are failing quite miserably in this regard. I am not the only one to feel this way. Accusations? No, Valeree, no. Things being developed outside of where they should be? Absolutely. I fail to understand why this is being done in userspace and not in Wikipedia space. I did look around, and did not find your userspace draft. Please kindly drop your stick and back away. Finding fault with this process does not mean I am attacking you nor any other person in an individual manner. I do find grave fault with ArbCom. I am not criticizng any one person's role in this. It would be illogical to do so; the entire thing is a catastrophic failure, too big for any one person to be responsible for it. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Tryptofish, per the decision, the moderators will also have the power to close the RfC and decide consensus. There function isn't just clerking and trying to ensure the RfC stays on point. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:14, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Hammersoft, you misread what it says. (Yes, I know, this stuff needs a scorecard to keep track of.) The moderators do not close the RfC. There is a separate panel of three closers who do that. And, per the top of this discussion section, those three closers (none of whom is one of the moderators) were recently named. Just to make this clear: the moderators are Valereee and Xeno, whereas the closers are KrakatoaKatie, RoySmith, and TheSandDoctor. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Wow. You're right, I did misread it. The same problem sustains though. It doesn't change anything. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@Hammersoft, you've misread, misinterpreted, and misstated a lot here, and much of it has been in a way that vilifies me personally. Valereee (talk) 18:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh good grief. I did nothing of the sort. Yet, here YOU are attacking me as having misread, misinterpreted, and misstated a lot. Drop the stick Valereee. This isn't a war to be won. I'm after ArbCom's dramatically poor decision making process in this and trying to prevent significant damage to the project. I'm not after anyone. I was asking questions which were pertinent to you as the draft is in your userspace. If asking why it is in your userspace counts as an attack, then you or anyone else might as well just indefinitely block me now because I fully intend to keep asking people asking pertinent questions. If you continue to insist I am somehow attacking you, you are quite welcome to make a report at WP:AN/I. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:00, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

@Hammersoft, you said

1. Valeree, why did you shut down this discussion? Why is the draft in your userspace? You're not a member of ArbCom, nor a clerk with ArbCom, and are not one of the appointed moderators of the RfC. Even more confusing. That is an accusation of overstepping on my part.
2. Now looking at the (very oddly placed, seemingly unannounced) draft of the RfC at User:Valereee/rfc_draft,. That is an accusation that I've somehow tried to hide it.
3. So this draft is in userspace? And the community has been made aware of it how? Sounds like it's in an out of service bathroom in a basement, locked in a filing cabinet with a warning sign about large cats on it. Good lord. Again an accusation I'm hiding something.

Valereee (talk) 19:20, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Accusation of overstepping? No. Question? yes. Accusation of trying to hide it? No. Questioning its placement where it should be more in the public eye? Yes. There is a difference Valereee. You might think I'm not using WP:AGF here, but if that's really the case...neither are you. Please, there's no further point in having a meta discussion reading between lines about true intent, etc. I wasn't attacking you. Let's AGF both ways and move on. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Because questions can't be accusations. They're just questions, forgodssake! Valereee (talk) 19:26, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Then after the fact you were misreading, misstating, misinterpreting was point out to you:

1. I stand corrected.
2. Wow. You're right, I did misread it.

I'm not the one holding the stick here. Valereee (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok. I hope you have a nice day. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Hammersoft, you've made accusations and I've objected. If you want to claim that stating those accusations as questions means they weren't accusations, there's not much I'm willing to do about it. Taking people to ANI isn't something I really do on my own behalf. But you're in the wrong w/re me and my actions, here. I would have accepted a sincere apology, FWIW. Valereee (talk) 20:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Taking it to talk. This is well, well beyond the bounds of this conversation. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:35, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't actually think dealing with accusations made in this discussion and not retracted in this discussion is beyond this discussion. However, in the interests of the rest of the world I'll just unequivocally state that the accusations made by Hammersoft are absolutely untrue and I'm more than happy to answer any questions at my user. Valereee (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Now looking at the (very oddly placed, seemingly unannounced) draft of the RfC at User:Valereee/rfc_draft, it only took to the section proposed question to come up with something that would come out of this RfC that would change guideline. See User:Valereee/rfc_draft#Question_2:_Should_we_require_(a)_source(s)_that_plausibly_contribute(s)_to_WP:GNG?. Modify the General notability guideline (GNG)/Subject-specific notability guidelines (SNG) at WP:Notability...". So these guidelines would be modified by this RfC and the only way to change it again would be appealing to ArbCom. I.e., if this question reaches consensus, ArbCom will now be in control of Wikipedia:Notability and descendant notability guidelines. Could someone please point me to where there was a consensus decision to devolve community control of the Wikipedia:Notability guideline to ArbCom? Please? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@Hammersoft, I am curious to hear whether an amendment in the form I mentioned here would resolve this concern. ArbCom certainly doesn't want to own the policy. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

It's half way better, but not all. As I noted elsewhere above, this is still putting the nose of ArbCom under the tent of the community's role of administering policy and guideline. I still think the best way forward is to have ArbCom act as a friend of the court sort of situation, not be the ones in charge of this. This proposal would be enough to muddy the picture in such a way that ArbCom can plausibly deny controlling policy and guideline, but it's still wrong. ArbCom needs to get out of this business entirely. I don't know why it's necessary for ArbCom to appoint moderators, and I don't know why it's necessary that ArbCom appoint closers with the sole power to evaluate and close the RfC. ArbCom's role needs to be one of assisting in preventing disruption and misconduct on the project. That's ArbCom's scope and remit, not administering RfCs. Allowing the community to overturn the result is just a bandaid on the problem. Nevermind that ArbCom doesn't have the power to "allow" the community to overturn it. The community already has that power, and such power was never devolved to ArbCom. Don't believe this? Imagine an RfC started a couple of months after ArbCom's RfC was implemented and found to be a collosal mess. Imagine that RfC overwhelmingly agreed that ArbCom's RfC was wrong, and overturned it. What's ArbCom going to do, block the people who supported overturning it? Block the people who changed ArbCom's modifications to WP:NOTABILITY? Maybe (maybe) ArbCom has the theoretical power to do something like this, but if ArbCom tried it the damage to the project would be worse than framgate. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:32, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@Hammersoft, re your accusations at Now looking at the (very oddly placed, seemingly unannounced) draft of the RfC at User:Valereee/rfc_draft, that is a working draft, placed where I can work on it to try to distill the proposals brought up in the workshop phase -- which was announced in several prominent places -- before I move it to WP:ACAS and where it will indeed again be announced. I do not know why you'd think there was anything weird about me drafting in my user space or why such a draft, which is clearly labelled as such, is "oddly placed" there.

I understand you are treating this as me 'not dropping the stick'. The person making accusations isn't in charge of deciding who needs to drop the stick. The person being accused gets to keep defending until the person making the accusations rescinds them or proves them true. You picked up that stick. You're holding that stick. I'm just trying to make sure it's clear I didn't kill the horse. Valereee (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Any chance of an answer here? Valereee (talk) 20:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I guess that's a no. Valereee (talk) 09:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I think it would behoove the Arbitration Committee to carefully read ArbCom's open letter to the WMF regarding Fram. Read it with abstractly (not word for word, but as roles) substituting themselves in for the WMF and the community in for ArbCom as appropriate. The letter effectively reads the same. ArbCom needs to get out of the policy and guideline administering business now, BEFORE this blows up. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

As we discuss this RFC, I think it's important to bear in mind the significant difference between a theoretical or abstract question of policy, and a risk of actual harm to the project. In theory, by selecting moderators, selecting closers, and/or deciding close appeals, arbcom could, if it wanted to, attempt to influence the outcome via its decisions about moderators, closers, and/or appeals. But in reality, there is actually zero chance of this happening; there is no real risk of harm. This is because the theoretical harm contemplates a conspiracy amongst 20 or 25 editors, some of whom would get themselves elected in two election cycles so as to be on arbcom, one of whom would then file a mass-creation/mass-deletion-related case request, so that the conspirators could vote to have an RFC and appoint their co-conspirators as moderators and closers, so that they could then influence the choice of RFC questions and the assessment of consensus, and guarantee the outcome of any appeals, in order to make a change to our policies about mass creation and mass deletion that, presumably, the community would not otherwise adopt. Being familiar with the editors on arbcom, and the moderators, and the closers, I believe that if they all shared the same agenda regarding mass creation and mass deletion, they have been doing an amazing job of keeping it secret all these years. I have no idea what it could possibly be, and if I'm wrong and there is a non-zero chance of such a conspiracy actually being afoot, I would like us to let it play out just so I can find out what the ending is. If I'm right and this is a purely theoretical issue, having to do with jurisdictional lines in our consensus and arbcom policies, then I am happy to try out this practical test and see what happens, which I think will greatly inform our subsequent decision resolving these theoretical questions. Levivich (talk) 21:22, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

One doesn't need to imagine a conspiracy theory in order to consider the serious negative potential of this plan. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:09, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I think it's entirely possible that the right thing to do is amend the remedy so the close can be appealed to the community. As Kevin noted above, the community was already free to change the consensus reached anytime it wanted (and we don't even really know what the topic that's going to be considered is because that too is being set by the community with only one current Arb, Donald Albury participating substantively in those discussions and he's clearly participating as an individual).

But I'm actually having a hard time weighing all that because I'm also being told that this ArbCom is about to commit a FRAM level mistake. And I joined the committee ready to evaluate decisions of ArbCom and the WMF to ensure it didn't happen. The first question I ask is has been done in private that the community wasn't reasonably aware of and the reasoning for it can't be understood because it's a secret? No. The case was public. The discussion about the remedy was public. The feedback about the remedy discussion was public. The vote was public. This specific remedy has been posted or linked at least 4 times to AN and ACN since August when it closed so ArbCom has clearly been announcing that it exists. We don't have the secrecy and surprise aspects of FRAM and so already we don't have a FRAM situation. But do we have a policy overreach? This is the heart of what Hammersoft is allegeding. As noted I am absolutely willing to consider that we need to amend parts, but while the demands have changed (which in fairness is somewhat like FRAM) at various points in the discussion I don't think this is the clear cut overreach that they do otherwise I wouldn't have voted for it in the first place. And one reason I think that is because of my last question: is there nearly universal concern about what has happened? The answer to this is no. Dozens of editors have talked about the remedy and/or participated in the RfC process to date and they are not overwhelmingly united that something is wrong. There are definitely concerns, and I am taking those concerns seriously hence this reply. But I also need to note that what i see are a handful of editors upset at ACN. There are often a handful of editors upset at ACN and those people are often disappointed to see that they don't have quite the same support off this page as they do on it. This far more closely resembles that normal situation than it resembles FRAM or say WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU in terms of how united passionate enwiki editor's opinions are about the topic. Again I take all concerns seriously but I look at things far differently when I see clear community consensus than when I see a range of opinions (as is the Wikipedia norm).

I think the FRAM comparison, therefore, does a disservice to the ideas expressed here which is why I'm at the point of saying "maybe we should amend it." But if the people most advocating for the change are telling me that the reason we should amend it is because we're about to start FRAM2 then then I can feel with confidence that "there's no reason to amend" because I don't think we're at risk of that. But if I'm being asked instead whether ArbCom got the remedy perfect or if there is a way to improve it in ways that will reassure members of the community who I respect, well that's a different question altogether and one I am likely to reach a different answer about. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:04, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

For the record, I am in the just-need-to-make-it-clearer camp. I don't think for a second that anyone on ArbCom was overreaching, even unintentionally. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:14, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom taking over the administration of any portion of policy or guideline on this project would be a fundamental shift in the nature of how this project is managed. That's what makes this so deeply disturbing on the level of framgate, regardless of how public or not public this was (and, to be clear, being public doesn't mean controlled by the community). If consensus is achieved on this RfC on any question that affects policy or guideline (this, is just one potential example), then ArbCom is taking over administration of that policy/guideline. This crosses a bridge that has never been crossed before, and one that is clearly outside the scope and responsibilities of ArbCom as confirmed by the community. If ArbCom attempts to change policy or guideline as a result of this RfC, any editor in good standing would have the authority to undo that change, as ArbCom does not have this power. "Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are developed by the community..." (Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines). Nowhere in that policy does the community devolve power to create or change policy to ArbCom. I see no motivating reason why ArbCom has to create an RfC, appoint moderators to the RfC, control the outcome of the RfC, and handle appeals of this RfC. So, ArbCom is inducing this crisis....why? --Hammersoft (talk) 22:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I look around for the signs of a crisis and I don't see it. I don't see a FRAM type crisis, I don't see an Eostrix type crisis, I don't see the elements I saw once in 2021 and once this year from the WMF that through partnership never turned into a crisis. You feel that ArbCom is taking over the administration of a policy and guideline. I feel that ArbCom is facilitating a community process so the community can decide how it wants to handle the policies and guidelines because the community was unable to handle editor conduct about the policies and guidelines which is what ARBPOL tells ArbCom to do. You're telling me that because we view this differently we're about to have a crisis and I have explained at length above, and more briefly here, why that's not true for me and it remains that way despite you insisting it's so. That doesn't mean I don't take you seriously. If we can make a change that assuages you and others with concerns without undermining something that will potentially help stop serious conduct disputes that community has been unable to resolve I believe in doing that even if I don't think your passion of feeling is shared by the community. My question is whether it would actually assuage you and others with concerns. When you continue to tell me it's inducing a crisis it tells me you wouldn't be assuaged so why go through the effort of trying because it wouldn't stop you from taking the next steps you feel are necessary. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

For the record, I did support the case remedy to have an RfC. I have not participated in any discussion or action by the ArbCom regarding the RfC since then. I did not have anything to do with the choice or designation of the moderators or closers. I have not been in communication with any member of ArbCom, or any other Wikipedian, about this RfC, except on the public pages. I will recuse from any future discussion in or action by ArbCom regarding or arising from this RfC. I am participating purely as an editor. Donald Albury 23:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

• FWIW, my assumption had been that ArbCom, having ordered an RfC specifically so that the community could solve this problem instead of ArbCom solving it for us, didn't want to have handed down what amounted to an unfunded mandate. So they appointed panels of moderators and closers, set aside a location, ordered broad announcement.

I personally have no problem with appeals of my decisions being handled somewhere else. If anyone's got a problem with anything I've done so far, I await the notification on my user talk. Uh, I'll be travelling from the 18th-27th, checking in as frequently as I can but not as available as usual, so don't nobody accuse me of ANI or XRV or whatever flu.

I also have zero problem with anyone else who wants to take over as moderator because they think I'm some sort of shill for or puppet of ArbCom. Step right up. Hammersoft, I await your owl. I have notes I can give you. :D Valereee (talk) 15:58, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Valereee, I appreciate the smiley face as it adds levity here! I most certainly have never thought of you as a shill or puppet. Sorry, no owls. Somebody cast an avada kedavra and missed, hitting my owl by accident. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

• Regarding appeals, the text in question is: Any appeals of a moderator decision or of the panel close may only be made to the Arbitration Committee at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. The extent to which the RfC will be binding is the same as any other RfC. If you want to challenge the closure, you have to go to ArbCom, but nothing prevents a subsequent RfC from asking whether consensus has changed on the matter. In other words, the statement above doesn't say that that policies, guidelines, etc. affected by the RfC cannot be changed in the future. It's a statement about how this RfC is to be conducted, not indefinitely protecting its outcomes. There would be nothing preventing another RfC in the future from effectively overturning the RfC without challenging the closure of this RfC. That said, I don't know how much benefit the line really adds. Do we really have a lot of trouble with challenges/wikilawyering of coordinated panel-closed RfCs such that their decision needs an additional layer of protection? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:26, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I think this should be clarified. In ArbCom proceedings where a desysop happens, it is common for there to be phrasing that says "They may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful RfA". Similar wording should be added here, something along the lines of "The consensus results of this RfC may be changed by another consensus." I too see no reason why ArbCom has to be the only place where the decisions of the closers can be appealed. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:12, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I've added that, seems completely uncontroversial. Valereee (talk) 09:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Change to the CheckUser team

Original announcement

• I'd echo the thanks in this announcement. Happy editing, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:04, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
• Likewise here. GorillaWarfare has been one of my exemplars of how to be a good checkuser and I will miss her from the team. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:19, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

RoySmith what are you talking about? GorillaWarfare wasn’t active at all as a checkuser I never saw her around at SPI ever. 2402:3A80:198F:BD27:E4E6:CE6F:3D3:9A4F (talk) 11:21, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Different things surely. How to be an "exemplar.. how to be a good CheckUser" could mean communicating well, being excellent at technical investigation, discrete and helpful in guiding other CheckUsers. None of that would be visible at SPI, and SPI is not the only place a CheckUser can be active. MarcGarver (talk) 15:22, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing

Original announcement

Excellent, thank you! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks for clarifying this. – Joe (talk) 03:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Lightbreather

Original announcement

We all deserve a second chance. Welcome back Lightbreather. GoodDay (talk) 23:23, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• Welcome back, Lightbreather! GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:26, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Staxringold restoration of permissions

Original announcement

• Access restored following request at WP:BN. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
• I am curious to know why some arbitrators opposed the motion. --Rschen7754 18:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  Probably due to the discussion currently going on at WP:ARM about tightening the account security expectations for administrators. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:18, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Rschen7754: Thank you for asking. Some arbitrators, myself included, were not impressed by the account's pre-breach security practices. Ultimately, there was a split about the best way to address it going forward: whether withholding restoration of permissions and/or policy development on account security would be advisable going forward. I personally supported the motion because I thought public discussion about account security in a general sense (independent of this specific instance) would be best, but I also think that it was reasonable for arbitrators to vote to not restore sysop status. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  WP:RETURN presently frames our assessment in terms of the password security before the compromise, not after. If you go and review the legislative history in the context of WP:RETURN's last amendment, both onwiki and on arbcom-en-l, it's pretty clear that the 2019 ARBCOM was sick of admins not taking WP:SECUREADMIN seriously.

  As a note, the motion posted had several second choices voting in support. An alternative motion not to resysop Staxringold was a split at 5-5-1 (though the 1 was more in opposition to the motion than not). Izno (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  The alternative to not resysop was at 5-4-1 (in favor of not resysopping). The motion to straight resysop was 5-5. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  True. I thought it made sense to elide that the arb who didn't ultimately vote on the not-resysop motion was ideologically opposed to it based on their comment in the context of the posted motion, but sure. :) Izno (talk) 18:47, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

• So you went through all of that trouble to return the bit to an administrator who hadn't made a useful admin actions for nine years. I have to say, I wouldn't have bothered. Black Kite (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  Inactivity of the administrator in question was commented on by one arb, but I personally (and I would assume the majority of arbs) did not think it was within our remit to consider their activity as part of an assessment of the security of their account. If you think it should be, the ARM discussion is available to you. Izno (talk) 18:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  No, I don't think its worth derailing the discussion there, which may be useful, especially as it's become clear recently that enforcing any sort of useful inactivity criteria is going to be a very long process. Black Kite (talk) 19:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  Out of curiosity, will Straxingold re-gaining the bit affect how they might be impacted by the admin activity requirements that come into force in January? I tried to find him on WTT's activity page but couldn't find an entry for him when searching. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:34, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  Admins are impacted by WP:INACTIVITY whether or not they are listed in a certain place. :) Izno (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

• I thank everyone for their efforts on this and do not take the somewhat ignoble honor of my resysopping generating this much discussion lightly. Now that I have the privileges reinstated, I just turned on two-factor authentication. I hope that, as a result, this is the last you will be hearing from me (re: account security) and (as I'd previously mentioned) the activity requirements were a bit of a kick in my butt to get a little active again. Best, Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Staxringold I'm glad to have another inactive admin come back and get more involved. We need all the help we can get. I would, however, caution you to go slowly. Things have changed in the time since you were last active, both in terms of policies and community sentiment about how things are supposed to work. So, read up on the policy docs and ask questions if you're not sure about something. I think the one big take-away from the past year is that people are willing to forgive mistakes, but are intolerant of admins who don't take WP:ADMINACCT seriously. So if somebody asks you a question about something you did, be quick to respond. If it turns out you did something incorrectly, as long as you're quick to fix the problem, you'll be OK. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:19, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  Sounds like a plan, thanks RoySmith! Staxringold _talk^contribs 12:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)