Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

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.

Resignation of Firefly; effective Dec 31, 2024

[edit]
Original announcement

Arbitration motion regarding Marine 69-71

[edit]
Original announcement
It's a shame? Are you serious? The motion to desysop went from proposal [1] to passed [2] in 4.1 days. Over the last two years, Tony's average gap in editing has been 4.9 days. He's has 52 gaps in that same time period of 5 days or more. ArbCom was in a damned rush to desysop him and, given his low editing rate, never gave him a chance to respond in the way they wanted. Please, don't sit there and tell us what a damned shame it is he didn't respond when ArbCom had to have known (or if they didn't, exercised a high level of incompetence) how inactive he is. I'm so glad ArbCom stepped in to avert utter catastrophe here. There was obvious imminent danger to the project given Tony hadn't used admin privileges in 17 months. Please, enough with creating a steaming pile of filth and feeding it to us while telling us it's ambrosia. The utter disrespect and contempt shown for an editor who has contributed so much to this project is absolutely appalling. ArbCom should be thoroughly embarrassed in their behavior, but of course will defend it tooth and nail. Whether or not Tony should have been desysopped is an utterly minuscule issue to the contempt ArbCom has shown. The shame here is ArbCom. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Words fail me. You literally told him not to participate. – bradv 16:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And words fail me. Tony never acknowledged that advice nor gave any indication they were following it. As I've already previously noted [3], it is patently obvious that I can encourage Marine 69-71 to not participate and still call out ArbCom for acting in the manner they have. I'm sure you can understand the difference. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, you have been giving arbitration participants this bad advice for years, and none of them has ever benefitted from listening to it. And yet you continue to criticize ArbCom rather than reevaluate the usefulness of your advice. You know that ArbCom has a tendency to desysop those who do not participate, so why do you keep telling people not to participate? – bradv 17:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me suggest a different approach. @Hammersoft, you clearly disagree with how arbcom has been running things. If you want to improve the situation, put your name down at WP:ACE2024/C and help fix the problem. RoySmith (talk) 18:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bradv; simple. Outside of a handful of cases, defending oneself at ArbCom cases has no benefit. It is a waste of time. If you don't respond, you're desysopped. If you do respond, but don't defend at the case, you're desysopped. If you do respond and you do defend, you're desysopped. In almost every case spending time to respond/defend yields being desysopped. So please explain what benefit spending hours upon hours reading everything in the case against you and then spending hours and hours trying to defend yourself is of some benefit? I consider my advice to be excellent advice; it is an utter waste of time to defend yourself, as case after case after case after case has shown. I see no reason to change it. I'd be happy to change it if evidence spoke otherwise; but it doesn't. You were on ArbCom for two years. What did you do to try to reform ArbCom in that time? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hammersoft: Oh, really? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:32, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh really? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith; so the only way in which I should attempt to fix ArbCom is by running for it? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only way? No. But probably the most effective way. RoySmith (talk) 19:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hammersoft: The diff that prompted the deop motion to gain steam shows behaviour that, in a real-life workplace, would result in getting one written-up or fired for sexual harassment. You telling him not to engage with ArbCom was essentially telling him not to bother defending himself or offering a mea culpa. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have not commented on that diff anywhere. I will say this about it; if it was so bad that he would be fired for sexual harassment, why isn't he banned from the project? (and before anyone starts calling for my head on a platter; no I am not defending what Marine 69-71 said) --Hammersoft (talk) 16:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would I block for this relatively minor instance? No. Should he be an admin though? Definitely no. - CaptainEek, discussing the motion to desysop. I personally don't accept the position that this is "minor", but so far as I'm aware this was a one-off instance that was still egregiously beyond the pale. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does appear to be a one-off instance, but had we received a reply that might have been assurance enough to stay the desysop. Personally speaking, if he returns and asks for further discussion on the issue, I would be willing to listen; ArbCom can reverse any decision it makes if necessary given changing circumstances. Primefac (talk) 17:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that the case request was opened a full week before the motions were presented. Marine also made multiple edits after Arbitrator pings were made asking questions or for clarification prior to the motions being posted, which might be why some Arbitrators felt that further interaction was unlikely. Primefac (talk) 17:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What was the emergency that he had to be desysopped by motion? If it was a one-off instance, why not start a case to gather evidence to conclude enough evidence existed to desysop? If it was a one-off instance, then desysopping by motion appears more to be retribution because he hasn't been active rather than acting in the interests of the project. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we need to have an emergency to act expediently? Primefac (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You indicate that it might have been one-off and not enough on its own to desysop if he responded, but were unwilling to wait an appropriate time given Tony's inactivity. So since he was inactive it was enough to desysop. In the past, ArbCom has suspended cases pending activity on the part of one of their victims. Why not now? What was the emergency that he had to be desysopped right now? You can't have it both ways. So what was the emergency? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I debated bringing up a motion for a suspended case, but by the time I made the decision to do so the new evidence came out and the motion to desysop was rapidly approaching majority; it did not make sense to me at that point to propose a secondary motion that would — based on past precedent — have the same effect. Primefac (talk) 19:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom can pass motions in lieu of a full case in the event that a full case would either be of no benefit to any party or where the only reasonable course of action is obvious and a full case would only delay the inevitable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hammersoft: "Enough with creating a steaming pile of filth"
Also Hammersoft: "Please treat editors more respectfully".
Sigh. SerialNumber54129 17:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh all you want. I speak the truth. I also speak of ArbCom, not of anyone personally. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that is as much of a distinction are you probably mean it to be because we know which individuals that are part of ArbCom supported the action you don't like. Beyond that, it has been my experience that you often have valuable criticism of ArbCom that needs to be considered and taken on board. But also in my personal experience, figuring out what is of value and what is hyperbole can be a challenge and, because of the rhetoric used, was sometimes unpleasant for me as a person. An example (besides this discussion) of where there was both hyperbole and real value for ArbCom to think about doing things differently would be this discussion which resulted in real changes. I would also draw both of those examples in contrast to this discussion from earlier this week where you actually named specific arbs while offering criticism, but it (at least for me) read rather differently. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In criticizing ArbCom, it is not my intent to criticize any particular member of ArbCom, but ArbCom as a body. Hyperbole? Maybe. Sometimes making change happen requires calling out the absurd. That makes some people uncomfortable, but it isn't targeted. For the discussion you noted last about inactivity, I was stating fact, not criticizing beyond saying "I find it slightly bothersome". Slightly. That's not much of a rebuke. Regardless, I probably should have worded it to be more abstract and make a distinction that I wasn't calling out individual editors. Thanks for the constructive criticism. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think arbcom is being too kind to Tony. I don't think any reassurances about it being a one off should be sufficient to allow them to keep their admin bit. We should remember that although those of us in the know may understand someone being an admin doesn't really give them much power over us; many new editors will not understand this and if made to feel uncomfortable in that way will just bear it or leave since they don't know better. We should remember there is a reason why sexual harassment is such a problem, something often missed by those in power guilty of it. Even if they are great people who can magically put aside their personal feelings and would never cause anyone harm by being rejected or confronted over their inappropriate language, very often their victims will have no idea this is the case, and even if they believe it may be the case, they might not want to risk being wrong; therefore they are forced to tolerate stuff they never should. Even for those who do have some understanding that having the admin bit doesn't mean they can do much, many will feel if that's something we tolerate with admins, it's not a community I ever want to be part of and rightfully so. I supported recalls but have felt the process has so far been a bit of a disaster in many ways. But if arbcom had allowed them to keep that bit, I would have brought a recall as soon as possible if no one else did. Besides losing the admin bit, IMO they should have been indeffed until and unless they satisfactorily reassure at least an admin if not the community that it will never be repeated. Yes they've done a lot of great work but we should never tolerate stuff which is beyond the pale just because of great work. I don't feel it's worth being up a cban discussion for many reasons including that this will undoubtedly bring too much focus on Tony's victim which is clearly unfair but always happens. But the idea Tony was hard done by is laughable. BTW I saw this earlier but decided not to comment, what's done is done and as said I'm not suggesting to do anything different and as much as I am horrified by what they said, I don't support any sort of public shaming or struggle session. But with User:Hammersoft's comments I've decided to speak up. Tony got off extremely lightly given how terrible what they did was. Nil Einne (talk) 04:34, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To add what @Nil Einne said above:
  • Searching for someone on Google and then commenting on their appearance is incredibly creepy, and not becoming of admin-like conduct. "Sexual harassment" is certainly a formal and accurate way of describing said creepy behavior.
  • There is an unequal power dynamic between an admin and non-admin (an admin can block anyone, a non-admin can't return the favor, among other things). This power dynamic is kept in check, in part by ArbCom, but a new user may not be aware of that.
  • Harassers tend to have multiple victims, and harassment victims who believe they have no other option (rightfully or not) have a tendency to leave the environment where they are being harassed.
I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 04:47, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@I dream of horses: while I don't really disagree with anything you say, I'll mention that searching on Google is possibly or even probably not what happened here. This was discussed in the case request but basically the victim has a Google Scholar link on their user page and this profile has photo. So "on Google" probably just means that Tony followed that link. That said, while it's not quite as bad, commenting even on an on Wikipedia photo would still be highly inappropriate. And even when an editor has voluntarily linked to some offsite profile it's even more inappropriate when it's offsite.

Also while I agree with the general point on multiple victims, in this case without further evidence and considering if it's on wiki it's not something that is likely to be hidden I'm personally fine with saying it's we should treat it as the only time this happened in a long career.

I still feel this is enough to justify an indef since it's well accepted that there are certain things which are bad enough that even one case is enough that the editor can be indeffed and needs to convince someone to allow them back depending on the type of ban or block. In the case of a community ban discussion, it may be that the editor is able to convince us that it won't be repeated before the cban discussion ends and so is never cbanned. But the point is in some cases we don't just say, well the editor hasn't commented but it also hasn't repeated so we'll just let it slide unless there's evidence for more.

While we apply this less to regular editors, even regular editors will sometimes find themselves indefed until they are able to convince someone to allow them back. Perhaps it's true this is very rarely applied to editors with a very high level of great contributions (WP:UNBLOCKABLES) but I don't think that's right. If the behaviour is severe enough we should treat them the same. Rather than just assuming it won't be repeated, require the editor to convince someone.

I didn't comment on the timing but IMO while it's been a while it's not so long that it's something we should just ignore given the severity. And it's also within their 40 most recent contributions so it's not like they've done a lot more since then. I can understand that this might be the tail end of a long series of great contributions, but we are where we are.

Also to clarify my comments I also became aware of the case request a while before it close but after the comment was part of the mix. I considered but ultimately didn't comment there either since while I wasn't sure I entirely agreed with the approach I decided it wasn't bad enough that it was worth getting involved in.

And to be clear, I'm not saying any action is neded against Hammersoft over what they said. I do think they should appreciate that if they're going to effectively defend what some may find very wrong; then it's likely others will push back on that even if it means calling out the editor when we felt it better to just let it be as an acceptable outcome of highly problematic situation. In other words, they should consider what they say affects not just arbcom or them, but it might also affect the person they are trying to defend.

P.S. I'll mention that when thinking about this more, there is two things I can think of where I feel it was fine for Tony to keep the arbcom bit. One is if they were on some sort of medication or something that seriously impaired their judgment and they could provide sufficient reassurances it won't be repeated. Two is if it was a case of someone else using their computer. Both of these are sufficiently unlikely that I sitll don't think arbcom needed to wait.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne Thank you for the explanation. I also agree with you. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 07:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I avoided commenting further at Arbcom because I didn't want to distract from the issues, however there are a couple of points that I wish to make/reinforce:
  • Marine 69-71 had every opportunity to participate in the discussion, he knew this was a serious matter but clearly chose not to after his statement on 27 October. So @Hammersoft all your comments about his editing history (above, at Arbcom and on his Talk Page) are completely irrelevant. Whether or not he followed your repeated advice not to participate is anyone's guess until he chooses to comment. If he had chosen to engage and recognized and addressed the issues then it seems likely that he could have got away with admonishment, at least until his inappropriate comment came to light, but that then swung Arbcom to desysop.
  • Various comments were made about Marine 69-71 being an inactive admin, doing little harm to the project and that the Arbcom and desysopping somehow was disrespectful to his contributions over the years. If an Admin isn't active they should voluntarily give up the mop, several users recommended that Marine do just that at Arbcom and on his Talk Page and its not like its the first time someone had said it to him: [4], but he did nothing for whatever reason(s). He has only misused the tools for his own benefit and ignored many of the most basic rules and requirements that would be expected of any user let alone an Admin. Admin is a position of responsibility to protect and advance the project, its not a knighthood or lifetime appointment, if you misuse the position you lose it. Marine 69-71's actions led to the Arbcom and his desysopping, he had many opportunities to defend himself and mitigate the fallout but didn't take any of them. Mztourist (talk) 08:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Early on in this, I was hoping to talk with him to convince him to step down. I didn't want to discuss it in public, which is why I asked him to email me (his email is not enabled) [5]. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this; I even started writing up a CBAN proposal for ANI before I decided against it. We've already got a significant gender disparity among editors; things like this make it worse. BilledMammal (talk) 08:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nil Einne: You're claiming that I effectively defended what Marine 69-71 said. I specifically stated above that I was not. See [6]. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano 117.20.113.66 (talk) 14:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why the ping? I haven't insinuated that Hammersoft is defending Marine's statement. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hammersoft: I read that before I replied and stand by my comment. Indeed I specifically worded my reply to take into account what you said. The simple fact is, whatever you want to call it, you clearly do not think Marine's 69-71's disgusting comment was as severe as it was. As I said, even the committee did not treat it severely enough IMO, but they did not downplay it as much as you did. Given the level you downplayed it, I felt it fully justified to speak my mind on how bad their comment was and how much it made them completely unfit to be an admin, whatever they may have said (with a very few odd exceptions which I said were very unlikely). As I said, in fact it's at the level where they really should have been indeffed until we can be assured it isn't happening again, simply the lack of any previous history is not sufficient for something that bad. As I also said, I felt this from the get go, but didn't say it because it just came across as unnecessarily attacking Tony when I wasn't planning to do anything further. But since you chose to say what you said, I felt compelled so speak up as I did. Nil Einne (talk) 06:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, as to how this plays into what arbcom did, while they apparently did imagine a scenario where Tony could keep the bit, it seems fair to them that they also felt given the severity, it was very far from guaranteed and if Tony wanted to keep it it was incumbent on them to pay attention to the case. There's no reason why arbcom should go out of their way for someone who has said something so terrible even if they could envisage a scenario where if the person said the right things perhaps it would be enough to sway them. Ultimately Tony made the comment and while it may be 4 months ago, and I'm sure the problem is they didn't understand why what they did was so wrong, the harms what they do with their weight as an admin don't follow Tony's schedule. In fact, since it's likely Tony didn't even understand that this is a scenario where they would need to be available ASAP when they made the comment, and probably didn't even understand why them being an admin was actually a real big deal when it seemed like a simple comment to another editor; there's all the more reason to say, 'while we have sympathies for them not possibly being unavailable, since even in a case where they had some reason to be available (the arbcom case) but still weren't available, this adds to the need to act'. (Of course this assume that it was simply that they weren't available. For all we know they chose to do what you suggested whether by your suggestion or their own volition and decided not take further part in the case. Which is their choice but means it was entirely fair for arbcom to act.) Incidentally, while I personally probably would have just left it be, I wouldn't be surprised if it was several weeks later and arbcom hadn't done anything waiting for a response from Tony, that someone else would have started either a recall or a cban proposal so there was urgency for arbcom to act decisively on that front too. Nil Einne (talk) 06:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to insist that I was somehow defending what Marine 69-71 said, that's your business. But, I will not ever give the slightest quarter on the fact that I wasn't. I specifically stated I wasn't [7]. You have a problem with that? Tough. I am offended you would think I would defend it. This accusation on your part is nothing short of a personal attack on me as a person, that I would somehow think what he said was appropriate. I would never defend what he said. The point I was trying to make was that desyopping Marine 69-71 does absolutely nothing to address the comment. They are still on the project, can still edit, can still say lots and lots and lots of bad things if they so choose. ArbCom did absolutely nothing to stop that. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given all the replies above about this, I think it would have been better at recall had that process been around for at least a year. Maybe next year some of the problems above can be avoided or reduced. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser and conflict of interest VRT appointments, November 2024

[edit]
Original announcement
Very happy to see this—looking forward to working with the new COIVRT-ers. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your advice will be much appreciated. – robertsky (talk) 04:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that advice will be appreciated, thanks 331dot (talk) 08:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t want to intrude too much on congratulating 331dot and Robertsky. And I know as a mere mortal the reasons are none of my business. But can I say I think the committee made a mistake not including Bish too? As far as I know, you weren’t limited to 2 people, and all 3 would have made fine additions; many hands make light work. I hope she volunteers again next time, and gets selected. 331dot and Robertsky are good choices; you missed out on a third good choice. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Floq. I respect our decision, but I was really surprised the Committee didn't approve Bish, who is one of our very best contributors. I really hope Bish applies again, because she has my vote. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't often second guess ArbCom decisions, but yeah, I was very surprised at this one. RoySmith (talk) 17:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, guys. But as for me volunteering again, Floquenbeam and CaptainEek, no, that won't happen. I don't even know what the problem/problems was/were this time round, because nobody's told me. Nobody likes being hanged in silence, and once is definitely enough. Bishonen | tålk 18:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]
I'll add myself to the voices surprised by this decision. The only reason I can think of is that you do not trust Bish to look at the information in the tickets and keep it confidential, but I don't myself recall any sort of reason for you all to think that. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 18:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's nowhere near the issue that was pivotal here JSS. I'll hold back on further comment while the committee thrashes out what will be said in public. Cabayi (talk) 19:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You let them through the pre-vetting, they got positive feedback in the community phase, and now you are hinting that there is some reason you can't speak about publicly that the committee didn't pass them anyway. WTF is wrong with this committee? Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 19:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To my knowledge, all iterations of the Arbitration Committee since 2016 have not provided public reasons for first-time functionary candidates not passing (note that COIVRT was mirrored on the CU/OS process). Given that you were part of those committees, I am really struggling to understand how this is an issue confined to the 2024 one. I think that it would be unfair to candidates to publicise reasons for not passing – that doesn't mean that there is a conspiracy afoot – though as I say to Barkeep below we are working to get a more detailed rationale to Bishonen very soon. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe I said there was a consipracy, but if no feedback at all is provided to applicants beyond "nope" they have no way of even knowing what the problem is or if there is any point to applying again in the future, and I do belive previous committees have at least tried to give some hints, if nto explicit reasons, when emailing applicants to let them know they did not make it through. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 20:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever limitations there might be about sharing things publicly, I would hope no such limitations would not apply to communicating directly with Bishonen, even if it needs to be something along the lines of "There was a privately expressed concern about <general topic>" rather than "There was a privately expressed concern about <specific issues>". Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and am working on it with the rest of the Committee. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The alacrity with which this committee digs itself holes makes it somewhat surprising that it's not currently operating out of South Australia. No offence, and congratulations of course, to those appointed, but while they both had a supporting comment in their support, Bishonen had five. Of course it's not a popularity contest, but the editors who work with Bishonen on a daily basis are most likely to know her strengths. And by the way, Cabayi, I know you didn't mean it like this, but "while the committee thrashes out what will be said in public" could easily be... misconstrued, by a cynic, as "while the committee works out how to get out of this one". SerialNumber54129 19:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking for myself, not ArbCom: I do not think it's appropriate to give feedback on an application in public, especially when this is ultimately a private application process (unlike RfA or ACE, which are public application processes). All candidates, Bish included, are welcome and encouraged to email the committee or individual arbs to get feedback, whether successful or not successful. I am always willing to give my own thoughts on an application if emailed. Z1720 (talk) 19:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I personally would applaud the committee taking a firm stance against giving public feedback. That decision feels respectful of volunteers who are applying. However, to put the burden of seeking feedback on the volunteer who has already spent substantial time applying doesn't feel respectful. That's something I think arbcom should be doing proactively and with as much specificity as possible (as noted above). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that,I do not think applicants should, generally, be named and shamed, but they should nbe given reasonable feedback, which was a courtesy we extended even to some applicants that, in retrospect, should never have even been in serious consideration. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 20:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am always willing to give my own thoughts on an application if emailed, per Z1720. Really? I tried that, in replying to the one email I've had from the committee, which invited me to "please let us know if you would like to hear a more detailed rationale for the declination, as individual Committee members may wish to reach out". I said, some 10 hours ago, that I would indeed like that. No soap so far. I'm surprised you sound as if you're not aware I've asked for clarification, Z1720. Are you saying I should have e-mailed you individually in order to receive that? And perhaps all the other arbs individually, then, as I have no particular relation or acquaintance with you? Bishonen | tålk 20:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]
The email you were sent on Thu 10 Oct, 04:47 (by the timestamp in my mailbox), 2nd paragraph, details what was probably the point that put the passing percentage just out of reach. Cabayi (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thanks for the information. But you knew that on, well, Thu 10 Oct. Really early. Was there any point in the whole Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Conflict of interest reports/October 2024 appointments dance, which was opened more than two weeks later? Maybe these things should be done in a different order. Just a suggestion. Bishonen | tålk 21:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]
As indicated in the first paragraph of that email Bishonen, it was ONE arbitrator's opinion. And not one that I agree with. But in a very narrow decision it was a viewpoint which weighed on some arbitrators' votes which could have swung the decision.
It was not a committee decision until voting closed a couple of days ago. Ping AirshipJungleman29 who seems to be relying on Bish's misreading of one arb's opinion as a committee decision. Cabayi (talk) 16:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Conflict of interest reports indicates that "very clear consensus from the Committee is needed for a candidate to be presented for consideration to the Community". However, you are apparently saying that "voting closed a couple of days ago". Can you explain this apparent contradiction? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29 There are multiple arbcom discussions about candidates. The first is to determine, based on their own knowledge and the quality of the application, which candidates are presented to the Functionaries for comment.
The second considers the feedback from the Functionaries and determines which candidates are put forward for feedback from the community.
The third, which will be the one that concluded a couple of days ago, considers all the feedback, including public and private feedback received from the community, and determines whether the candidate is successful or not. Thryduulf (talk) 17:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I wasn't asking for a public explanation. I'm just telling the committee, as potentially useful feedback for the future, that I know Bish, and I know the anti-COI and anti-spam work she does, and I know her technical abilities, and her professional approach to this stuff, and dedication to the project, and how much time she donates to us here, and regardless of your deliberations, you got this one wrong. It now appears you also get potentially useful feedback about how to say "no thanks" without needlessly pissing someone off. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This resonates. Seriously not sure what the reason could possibly be not to trust Bishonen with extra permissions: she's one of our finest, and technically also our platinum goddess (although that position doesn't come with its own hat). I'm not interested in knowing what the reason was, but I can tell without looking that the eventual decision was incorrect. Folly Mox (talk) 18:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just observe that discussions among ArbCom members are slow. Everything is done on the ArbCom wiki or by group email, and Arbs have different schedules and are not always immediately available. A proposal, a response, a counter-proposal, further responses, etc. can take several days before a majority of active Arbs can reach agreement. Donald Albury 20:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course. I was just surprised Z1720, who was at least clearly awake and involved in this discussion a short while ago, seemed to think I hadn't told the committee I was interested in their reasons. But you know what, all of ArbCom? Please forget about thrashing out anything for a joint either public or private statement; just leave it. The notion that "individual Committee members may wish to reach out" that I was told about seems to have fallen by the wayside, and I definitely don't want to make the committee waste any more time on, you know, proposals, responses, counter-proposals, further responses, etc. Also, I've changed my mind; I'm no longer interested in the reasons for my candidacy not being favoured, since I don't in any case plan to apply again. Bishonen | tålk 21:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]
@Bishonen: My comment was not directed at anyone in particular, it was a general statement. I did not want to disclose who, if anyone, had reached out for feedback, as that is not my business to share. If I applied for a volunteer position in a private application, and the group I applied to posted feedback publically, I would be very upset. Also, when I ask for feedback I would ask that the members take their time crafting it so that it is informative, helpful, and professional; every candidate deserves that. I have had employers give rushed feedback on applications, and it was not helpful. I am happy to give feedback to anyone who asks in an individual capacity, and candidates can also reach out for feedback from ArbCom as a collective. If anyone reaches out and I don't respond, please email me again as sometimes things get lost in my inbox. Z1720 (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Announcing the appointments without first giving clear feedback to the ones who weren't/won't be appointed, is a mistake by the committee. Nobody (talk) 08:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me add to the choir here: highly surprised that Bish didn't get appointed, and dismayed she didn't get feedback automatically. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That she wasn't appointed is I decision I voted against but collective responsibility means I have to grin and bear it in public or resign. That the appointments were announced publicly before an unsuccessful candidate was told the reasons for their failure is disgraceful. This all happened while I was asleep. It's worth noting that Bish actually had a majority for appointment but the threshold was 70%. I've proposed to lower this for future appointments. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just personally commenting that, as a functionary, I'm not sure that there's much point in us commenting on candidacies, since they don't seem to have much weight with Arbcom. Risker (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Seconded. Katietalk 21:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thirded.-- Ponyobons mots 22:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Me too. RoySmith (talk) 22:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly my thoughts. – Joe (talk) 04:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm saddened by this list of people I really respect who feel this way. I know I wasn't there this year, but every year previously that I was there, I felt the comments of the functionaries to be absolutely essential, absolutely fundamental to my choices. I can think of times that the functionary opinion was not the way we ended up going, but even in those scenarios, the functionary commentary was important.
    I will absolutely be prioritising how this feeling can be rectified in the future, should I return to the committee. WormTT(talk) 09:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, this is sad to see. When functionaries and former arbs, the keepers of our institutional memory, don't feel their voices are heard, that's a serious problem. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I know this is late, but, as a former Arb, and a current functionary, I agree with the sense of disillusionment, being expressed here, by many of the editors I most respect. I understand that the collective functionary opinion cannot be determinative. But given what I remember as the overwhelming support received by Bishonen, it is hard to believe that our opinions matter. Paul August ☎ 18:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's be real. The Committee screwed up here. We seemed to have consensus to give Bish a list of reasons for why we were declining her, but that didn't happen. I think it was a mistake of haste, not malice, but that's hardly much better. We've hurt Bish, who is an excellent contributor and a real person. I'm not gonna throw anyone under the bus or disclaim responsibility either. All of us, myself included, should have been more on top of the ball when it became apparent that we were not going to pass Bish as we had initially expected.
    To Risker's point, this outcome surprised me even more because we Arbs took a strawpoll before functionary consults to weed out any obvious nos. I think we need to be more rigorous with that process in the future, which may mean formal voting not only at the end, but also to advance people to the funcs consult. Though I do think the funcs input is very valuable, it has changed our mind on candidates before, and surfaced issues we weren't aware of. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In terms of takeaways for the future I think it would be best to have feedback for each candidate prepared and agreed before the decision is announced. That way if a candidate does ask for the feedback the first arb to see the request can just copy it from arbwiki (or wherever) into a reply there and then. This might delay the decision being posted by a few days, but I think that is preferable to that time being spent dealing with the speculation without evidence that Wikipedians are so prone to doing. Thryduulf (talk) 22:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Or even better, provide the feedback to the candidate in the decision email, rather than make them ask for it. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, exactly. A number of people emailed me to suggest I should stand for ArbCom this year and I replied to them saying that I didn't want to be part of something that is currently so dysfunctional, and here we go again. Black Kite (talk) 22:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been following ArbCom for a long time, and I'm straining to remember a year when people were not saying that it was dysfunctional. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is certainly true, and I've generally dismissed it as sour grapes. However, looking at the sheer length of time this committee has taken with one issue after another, the poor communication Bish, myself, and others have experienced, and things like not immediately asking for aspersions to be stricken or removed from a public case, arbs not particpating while still marked as acive, etc, I think there is something to it. I'm not trying to blame any particular person or persons for it, but there are clearly some issues. It's difficult to know as an outsider what specificlly the issues are, but the effects are observable. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 04:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    True, and my comment certainly wasn't a reflection on all of the arbitrators, but there just seems to be problems this year with communication and general speed of response (look at the ARBPIA5 motion at ARCA - it's taken over a month for enough arbs to even vote on it and reach a decision - how long is such a complex case going to actually take?). Or look at this editor asking for important information, for example. Black Kite (talk) 08:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I too am surprised by the decision not to include Bishonen, given her two decades of dedication to the project and all the positive feedback about her that I have seen. After my terms on the Committee I am fully empathetic to the arbitrators' dilemma of being unable to disclose the non-public reasons for decisions, and I know so are many of the others, including ex-arbs, who have commented above; but in this instance, I am hard-pressed to imagine what that information might possibly be. (I am frankly glad that this decision was posted today rather than yesterday, as if I'd seen it yesterday, it might well have led me to become an ArbCom candidate again this year, which would have been a mistake.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Chiming in from outside the admin corps, but honestly just, wow. I'm sure there's reasons to not include Bishonen in those appointed, but frankly I'm going to echo a comment above that it feels like the community's consultation on the candidates is sort of...not well-represented. The committee determined that Bishonen was good to go until the end of consultations, during which Bishonen received a heavy showing of support (comparatively, but these also don't get that much participation in the first place), so presumably should have been appointed. I, personally, would expect the committee to have vetted those they're putting up for community consultations already, and to have gotten through any concerns by that point. EggRoll97 (talk) 06:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree it seems weird that arbcom would put someone up for consultation if they already knew something which was likely enough to keep them from the role. And if it was something they found by themselves barring the odd exception they really should have found whatever it was already. However it is possible that this happened because community consultations worked as they should. I assume arbcom does consider private feedback if there's some reason why it should be private, I mean the decision is private. I guess it's also possible that arbcom expected some thing the community said could reassure them about their concerns but the feedback wasn't quite it. Which does seem a bit weird here but might still be possible if it's something specific. But I can also understand that since I guess the final deliberations are much more detailed; there might be those odd cases where they felt there's enough chance the person would pass final deliberations especially with good positive feedback, that it was worth putting them up. But in the end they didn't pass. I do agree it might be worth arbcom preparing feedback which they can send on request even if this does mean work which might be unnecessary. Barring that, being clearer in their rejection something like, 'we can provide feedback on why we made this decision, if you wish; but please understand it may take a week or more as it's not prepared and would need the further discussion by the committee on what we send'? Nil Einne (talk) 06:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The process is posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Conflict of interest reports. It says very clear consensus from the Committee is needed for a candidate to be presented for consideration to the Community, so Bish was good to go before the community consultation. So that means private comments or other relevant factors made the Committee overturn a very clear consensus. So either there are some serious concerns about Bish or Arbcom did not follow the process? In either case the communication surrounding it is not very confidence-inspiring. —Kusma (talk) 06:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kusma, this might not be documented very well, but a second “clear” consensus is needed to actually promote the candidate; just because a candidate goes to the community doesn’t mean they’ll get the bit. Disclaimer that I supported Bishonen. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 12:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that, but you still leave us to read the tea leaves what it means that there was clear consensus that Bishonen was a good candidate before the consultation but no longer such a clear consensus after the consultation. The most plausible explanation I see at this point is that there was private evidence that some arbitrators found convincing enough to change their mind, while others seem to have found it of no concern at all (or perhaps did not even see). —Kusma (talk) 12:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This comment from Cabayi above seems to indicate that Bishonen was not seen as a good candidate two weeks before the consultation. Am I the only one who is completely baffled here? Or is the answer simply that ArbCom forgot their own procedures, or that they had decided one candidate wasn't suitable? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If that is the case, this is disrespectful (by ArbCom) not only of Bishonen, but also of the community who were supposed to be consulted only on candidates who can pass. —Kusma (talk) 14:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly, a plain lack of courtesy to everyone involved. If that is true, I'd ask that ArbCom issue a formal apology (not to be confused with an informal apology—these things are easily confused). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect the real reason for all this mess is that there was a fear of giving Bishonen this much power when they are obviously close with Bishzilla. This fear of Bishzilla would also explain their reluctance to give their actual reasons to her. Bishzilla might find out. The more I think about it, the more this makes sense. Bishzilla may need to incinerate an arb or two pour encourager les autres. Floquenbeam (talk) 16:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a problem we've had multiple times on the committee, not giving feedback to individuals when they really ought to be given feedback. I'm sorry that this has happened to you Bishonen, I cannot fathom any reason you would not be appointed after your many, many years of good work, so I'd be curious to see how those discussions went and where things could have been handled better. WormTT(talk) 10:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I voted for her -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On another note (not due to anything in particular), I hope that ArbCom will include COIVRT admins in the private consultation process the next time there's a candidate for that role. We may not have a fancy mailing list, but I think it'd be sensible to get our feedback when an addition to our ranks is being considered. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to take a second to thank the committee and the community for my reappointment as a checkuser — I understand and appreciate the significant level of trust and forgiveness it took. I'd welcome both any advice or concerns folx may have, and my talk page/emails are always open. Congratulations to the new COIVRT-ers, though I am also a little surprised at Bish not being appointed. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 12:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • So re: COIVRT in general - is this really something that needs to be run be arbcom? VRT agent's are already NDA'd. While only CU's can actually run checks, couldn't processing this be expanded to any admin that wants to nda for VRT (i.e. take this out of arbcom exclusivity and make it a community process). — xaosflux Talk 14:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Xaosflux I see no reason the community can't do this instead of arbcom. Doug Weller talk 15:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is ArbCom's VRT queue in the eyes of the VRT Admins. Further WP:BLOCKEVIDENCE restricts blocks based on private evidence to people who have been vetted by ArbCom. The VRT NDA is not the same as the functionary NDA --Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh sure, but that is the easiest thing to change, move the email reports from checkuser::checkuser-en-wp::paid to info-en::coi or the like. — xaosflux Talk 15:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And yup, it would be a change to the blocking policy. But if we want "anything private" to be only within the arbitration committee, well then that's it. It is also trivial to get someone to sign another ANPDP/NDA. — xaosflux Talk 15:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    is this really something that needs to be run be arbcom? is really the wrong question. Is this best run by ArbCom? would be the question I'd ask. I think you're going to still argue no but I think the answer is yes in the same way that the community tries to have General Sanctions but ArbCom does a much better job of managing it. This queue is still incredibly new and if it's run identically in 18-24 months to how it was run at inception I'll be surprised. It is much easier for ArbCom to make those shifts and changes. Once it's a mature piece of things, I think it becomes much easier to answer "no" to is this best run by ArbCom (or yes to the inverse question Is this best run by the community?) Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    GS isn't a great comparison. GS fails because the community largely sucks at procedure (and GS is highly procedural), and because there are no persons in the community actually taking stewardship of the system, or having any real interest in it.
    I'm confident a community process for COIVRT that has a couple admin stewards taking ownership of the thing would function and adapt fine. I think consensus-based processes tend to make "individuals taking stewardship/leadership" quite difficult, but where it does happen (eg Novem's leadership of AELECT) it has good results. So IMO, there's not really any reason why the queue *needs* ArbCom to run, or even best runs under ArbCom's management. It's just processes, especially new processes, will flourish and be more adaptable when under any kind of semi-competent management. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why in the world should we outsource this to the stewards? I think this also ignores the point Roy makes below. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for confusion, I meant the dictionary definition of stewardship and not the wiki-definition (ie meta:stewards) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On a minor terminology note, although I appreciate nearly all of the current community-approved general sanctions are authorizations for discretionary sanctions, the two aren't synonymous. Other types of general sanctions aren't necessarily highly procedural (such as the various one-revert rule sanctions that had been enacted in the past). isaacl (talk) 23:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I intentionally stated that arbcom does a better job of GS than the community precisely because I understand CT restrictions are one kind of it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that was my understanding. My comments were with respect to ProcrastinatingReader's statement that general sanctions is highly procedural. isaacl (talk) 01:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not entirely opposed to that, but one problem I see is that most of the community is not in a good position to evaluate somebody's fitness to work at VRT simply because most people have never been exposed to it. Everybody can see what admins do; the blocks, protections, deletions, etc they perform are all public actions which people frequently witness, so they understand how they work. Which means they're in a good position to say, "I trust (or don't trust) this person to do those things". Much less so with VRT. RoySmith (talk) 15:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guerillero, regarding The VRT NDA is not the same as the functionary NDA yeah it is. I once sat down and compared the two documents (VRTS Users Confidentiality Agreement/L45 and General Confidentiality Agreemen/L37) in detail to see how they differ. Except for truly trivial changes like whitespace and upper/lower case, here's the entirely of the diffs: 

V: "at least 16 years of age"
G: "at least 18 years of age"

V: "promise to give WMF at least 10 days advance notice of your anticipated disclosure and to comply"
G: "promise to give WMF prompt notice of such legal requirement and comply"

V: "You agree not to disclose data without the written permission of WMF."
G: ""

V: "You agree not to disclose data without the written permission of WMF."
G: ""

To be sure, they're not fungible; each one applies to a different set of permissions, but as far as the gist of the agreements is concerned, yeah, they're identical in every significant way except for the age bound. My personal opinion is that it's silly that they exist as distinct documents, but the decision to do that was apparently made by the lawyers, so whatever. RoySmith (talk) 15:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be quite the thing with the WMF. In the past 3 years, I have signed off on at least three additional NDAs just to be on the MCDC, and only one of them was really different from anything I've signed before. It's like they have a boilerplate and then make a few switches (such as name of committee or similar), just so they can file them in different folders. Always gives me the feeling that we're not seen as individuals, but instead as widgets. Over the past 15 years, I think I've signed at least 12 NDAs. The irony is that only one of them would likely be considered legally binding; the rest are polite promises. Risker (talk) 18:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how any of the NDAs we sign as Wikimedians could be considered legally binding since we're not required to provide literally any of the information that would be needed to hold us legally accountable. Not even a real name or country of residence. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's kind of like when you get an update on your OS and agree to the terms of use that nobody reads. It's a CYA-as-a-first-line-of-defense strategy. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only one of the many WMF NDA's I've done required me to actually sign something and provide ID (and it certainly wasn't one of these ones). — xaosflux Talk 00:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect it's not so much which document you signed, but when. A long time ago, there was a requirement to provide ID. Somewhere along the way, that got dropped. RoySmith (talk) 00:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was after most of them were dropped, but it was for a very niche thing. — xaosflux Talk 01:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The one I signed to join the FDC (way back in 2014) not only required that I provide photo ID, but that I sign it in person with a WMF counsel witnessing. But then again, I was joining a volunteer committee that essentially controlled about 10% of the total WMF budget at the time, so I don't really think that's a bad thing. That's the one I think, based on its wording, was probably legally binding. Even back when we needed to provide photo ID and sign with our RL names (my first round on Arbcom, and granted CU/OS), the wording of those NDAs didn't really include penalties other than removal of access. And not sure how niche it was, since every member of every Arbcom, as well as all CU/OS/Stewards had to sign them and provide RL info. That stopped around 2016. Risker (talk) 01:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To make things worse, WMF sysadmins are required to sign a completely different NDA, which does seem to involve WMF Legal knowing their real name. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is that worse? Legoktm (talk) 02:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It makes the problem of having too many NDAs worse by adding yet another one. Yes, that was somewhat poor phrasing on my part. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems pretty reasonable to me that sysadmins have a different NDA than on-wiki access. (I also don't see NDA proliferation as a huge issue either, but also I haven't had to sign 12(!!) like Risker). Legoktm (talk) 04:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my mind there is a justification for up to 4 different NDAs:
  • Volunteers dealing with non-public information in on-wiki and wiki-adjacent environments (including things like grant and scholarship applications)
  • Staff members/contractors dealing with general non-public information in the course of their employment
  • Staff members/contractors dealing with legally sensitive information
  • Those with access to non-public information through direct access to servers
That's not to say all of those must or should be different, but I can easily see why they might be. I'm also not ruling out there being good reasons for more than those four, but if there are I can't immediately think of what they are. Thryduulf (talk) 04:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Bishonen I am sorry to say that I have only now become aware of this. To say I'm extremely displeased by this would be an understatement. Hard to imagine how this could possibly have happened. As a functionary, I was asked for my opinion concerning this appointment and gave my strong (and from what I saw snowball) support. There is no other editor for whom I have more respect and trust. My opinion of the current ArbCom has taken a nosedive. Paul August ☎ 13:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
L committee. El_C 20:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Yasuke closed

[edit]
Original announcement

That's weird. Really, it would've made more sense to have GamerGate split back into a standalone CTOP with Yasuke being an obvious part of it. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 23:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CaptainEek complained as much, but judging from the proposed CT remedies, they couldn't define a broader scope they were all happy with. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was commented somewhere (proposed decision talk?) that the evidence presented was all focused on the single topic, so there wasn't any need for something wider demonstrated, contrary to what they were expecting based on the case request (hence both the working case name and much narrower final one). This isn't to say the need doesn't exist (I have no opinion on that) just that it wasn't demonstrated in this case. Thryduulf (talk) 00:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not unprecedented. When the portals case began it was expected to involve the behavior of a decent number of people, instead it was basically "Brown Haired Girl 1" as she was the only user sanctioned. A case is only as good as the evidence presented. I think sometimes people loose sight of the fact that the committee is not going to go dig out diffs for themselves, they need to be gathered and presented to the commitee in the evidence phase. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 00:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that the way the case was set up and evidence asked for, including the particular participants included, of course that would be focused on Yasuke. If the committee wanted a broader case to be properly done, then they needed to set it up and ask for that evidence more directly and firmly. Which didn't really happen and I pointed out the need for a proper broader case in the preliminary discussion. And now we're just going to be back here again the next time the Gamergaters pick a major target. At least their tantrum about Dragon Age Veilguard has largely fizzled outside of them review bombing irrelevant places. SilverserenC 04:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As someone who presented evidence to the case: I sort-of considered trying to present stuff related to broader issues, but making that sort of sweeping connection is difficult. And my experience with past ArbCom cases is that those sorts of big-picture "interpret how this all fits into a big picture" musings rarely go anywhere - ArbCom likes concrete evidence. It's difficult to boil "how does this connect to a broader backlash against inclusion and diversity" into a list of diffs, and even when individual diffs can be found it's hard to translate that into something actionable. Trying to connect the individual disputes being focused on here (which are at least notionally about narrow unrelated facts and how we cover them) to that broader backlash also inevitably involves squinting at editors' actions and statements and trying to read inevitably battleground-y / tendentious intent into them, which risks running afoul of WP:ASPERSIONS and is often just unclear. It's the age-old problem - proving that someone has been uncivil, or has edit-warred, or bludgeoned, or has done something else that is obvious from a single diff is easy. Proving that someone is guilty of WP:BATTLEGROUND / WP:CIVILPOV / WP:TEND editing is very hard, even though those are often the real reason a broader topic area is the way it is. So cases inevitably zoom in to focus on the individual nitty-gritty of the individual edits people made, and largely ignores the broader, more difficult question of why they made them. --Aquillion (talk) 15:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aquillion: What you described is precisely what caused the Omnibus Case to become unstuck when they decided to merge a second, unrelated-save-for-behaviour, dispute into it. It's just overall difficult to divine just how broad the scope of something tangentially-related to the central dispute is if your approach is too "big picture". And yes, I would argue that the academic dispute over Yasuke is overall tangential to diversity and inclusion in video games overall; Assassin's Creed Shadows is ultimately just another blip in a long-running debate. Honestly, this wasn't the best case to try and expand GS to cover DEI-related stuff, since a lot of the debate isn't so much "OMG Black samurai" as it is "OMG people will see this and assume the matter of Yasuke is settled". —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand this argument: the evidence presented was all focused on the single topic, so there wasn't any need for something wider demonstrated. J2UDY7r00CRjH was TBanned without any evidence of wrongdoing being submitted to the Arbs, I was warned without any evidence of bludgeoning, Tinynanorobots got no FoF/remedy notwithstanding ample evidence. Surely the Arbs proved they can make up their mind on what's needed irrespective of the evidence submitted to them. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I watched this case from afar. I think one of the issues is that while there are some problems most of them are low level enough that they are hard to make a case for something more. And when there are problems very often they cross over into the gender-related dispute topic area enough that it can be handled that way even if there is some stuff that doesn't so it isn't ideal. AFAIK, the highest level problems besides Yasuke recently was Sweet Baby Inc.. But while that did need ANI etc at times, it seemed to die out fast enough that there weren't extended problems and so was basically a dead issue on Wikipedia by the time of Yasuke. It probably helped that there was enough that came under the gender dispute umbrella that GG was usable most of the time. For example the article is ECP. I suspect most general articles will be similar since it's most of the fuss tends to cover diversity in all forms. It's only when you get to specific games etc that you might have something completely uncovered. And even for specific games it's often included. For example, I wondered whether there'd be something at Dustborn, but it was low level enough that it didn't really need anything I think, but in any case also comes under GG at least in part. From what I've heard of Dragon Age, fairly sure that would be too. Nil Einne (talk) 06:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like Yasuke was a strange outlier in terms of the amount of activity directed to it. While the article did catch the attention of GamerGate, the problem was a much wider reaching one. Yasuke's inclusion in Assassin's Creed Odyssey was just a catalyst that generated a strange firestorm far across the internet, beyond even the scope of strictly GG as people took more and more umbrage with the historical figure Yasuke and works of scholarship surrounding him. It became presented to some as not just an issue of a video game, but of re-writing history. That fact drew in, and still draws in, folks from beyond GG and into the depths of the Japanese right-wing internet circles at large. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 11:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You mean Shadows, right? Odyssey is in the wrong time period and region. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I meant Shadows. I had Odyssey on the brain. My apologies. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 15:32, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration motions regarding Palestine-Israel articles

[edit]
Original announcement
  • I'm no ArbCom historian, so I'm wondering if Motion 2c is the first time that ArbCom has decided to limit discussion in a contentious topic. Zerotalk 03:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You may be right. I'm not aware of anything similar being applied to a whole topic. I hope it will make editors think more carefully about what they want to say and resist the urge to reply to every opposing comment. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Replying to every opposing comment" is a problem in the area, but 50 words for each of 20 opposing editors (or 100*10) is enough for that, and Motion 2b (admin imposed limits on individuals) can control that. The most effective automatic way would be to restrict editors to their own sections. What concerns me more about 2c is that editors who like to bring reliable sources and quotations from them will reach the limit quite easily but we should be encouraging that approach to content issues. Zerotalk 06:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zero0000 That's a fair criticism. I'd like to see how these new remedies bed in first, but if they cause more problems than they solve I'm happy to look at them again. Admins already have discretion so I hope they wouldn't sanction editors for exceeding a word limit by posting quotes from sources but similarly, if the remedies need fine-tuning to help discussions function effectively, we can look at that. And personally I welcome new ideas for helping the topic area to function. When the workshop phase opens in the case, please do post your suggestion for editors commenting only in their own sections, and any others you have. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I certainly wouldn't count quotations against the word total. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of all the CT, it would appear that PIA is the one where ArbCom seems to be handling the most. As a result, it would appear that they try their new anti-disruption ideas at PIA, and then decide if it should apply to all CTs. Animal lover |666| 21:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The committee passed discussion restrictions in the Iranian politics case. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change to the CheckUser team, November 2024

[edit]
Original announcement
Much joy at reading this. RoySmith (talk) 19:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy dance!-- Ponyobons mots 19:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
:D Giraffer (talk) 22:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great news. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&oldid=1258050601"