Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 128

Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions

 * Original discussion

Initiated by EggRoll97 at 03:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)

Statement by EggRoll97
Multiple pages protected under contentious topics procedures this year alone (see WP:AEL for just a sample) have been protected under arbitration enforcement but have no editnotice or other restriction notice applied to the page. This is despite a line recurring in contentious topics procedures pages being, in part,, and the contentious topics procedures page itself stating that an editnotice is required prior to blocking an editor for a violation, even if they are aware of contentious topics procedures, with the language of

Because of this, I ask for clarification as to whether these editnotices can be added to pages by any editor if the enforcing administrator has not done so, or whether they may only be added by the administrator who has applied the page restriction.


 * Based on your statement, would I be correct in assuming there would be no problem (procedurally-wise?), if, for example, I went through the list of pages logged as "indef ECP" or similar in the enforcement log, and added topic-specific editnotices to them? While I've seen some commentary below about the efficacy of these editnotices, I personally find it helpful to have these types of editnotices present on pages just for the purposes of having a big banner to tell me a certain page is applicable to CTOP. EggRoll97 (talk) 23:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Selfstudier
The edit notice can be added by editors with the page mover permission. Idk whether the idea of CT was to do away with this requirement but I don't think it did so in my usual area (AI/IP), the Arbpia edit notice (and talk page notice which can be added by any editor) is needed in general.Selfstudier (talk) 08:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Firefangledfeathers
Editnotices can be created by administrators, page movers, and template editors. If an editnotice exists, most editors can edit it, and I'd support non-admins rectifying clerical errors wherever possible. Speaking of which, if someone wants to collect some pages that need editnotices, I'm happy to cross a bunch of them off the list.

Arbs, I'd suggest that common practice has moved away from such editnotices being necessary. Between admins forgetting, banner blindness, and mobile editors not seeing them at all, I don't think the notices are meaningful in generating awareness of the restriction. Enforcement of restrictions these days tends to be dependent on both formal CTOP awareness and a request to self-revert being ignored or declined, meaning a few other checks are in place to avoid unwarranted sanctions. Would the committee consider changing this requirement to a recommendation? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Contentious topics restrictions: Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).



Contentious topics restrictions: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * My read of the procedures is that edit notices are not required when an entire topic area is under a particular restriction (e.g. 1RR) or if an individual administrator changes the protection level under the CT procedures. They are required id an individual administrator places a page restriction (other than protection) on an individual page. The key phrasing is, for me, (formatting removed). Barkeep49 (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The main purpose of these edit notices, to me, is informing users about a restriction so they can adhere to it. This is not needed for page protection; MediaWiki both displays details about the protection and prevents restriction violations at the same time. The protection text already contains the needed information . All users automatically adhere to page protections, which is probably why explicitly exempts them from the editnotice requirement.Topic-wide restrictions such as the extended-confirmed restriction can be enforced with blocks as long as a user is (formally) aware of the restriction; edit notices are not required for the imposition or enforcement of topic-wide restrictions. A user restricted from editing about weather must not edit about weather, and they may be blocked to prevent them from continuing to do so even if the affected pages didn't display a huge "this is a weather-related page" edit notice above them.This makes the actual question less relevant than  may have thought, but the answer is that Contentious topics/editnotice, which explains topic-wide restrictions, may be added by anyone technically able to do so, and Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice is for use by administrators who impose a different page restriction than page protection. It will rarely be missing where it is actually required, but it if is actually clearly missing somewhere, I'd recommend simply asking the enforcing administrator to fix the issue. The existence of a page restriction (other than page protection) begins with the creation of the edit notice to my understanding, so failing to place the edit notice doesn't do the action incorrectly, it simply fails to take action at all. This is why, to me, page restrictions other than page protection can't be "fixed" by anyone else. They simply don't exist. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * , I think adding  as an edit notice to pages clearly fully related to   would be helpful, even if no protection has happened yet. Adding   as an edit notice to pages related to   closely enough to justify an existing CTOP page protection would also be helpful. There's an exception though: I wouldn't add   to BLPs, as being in Category:Living people already causes BLP editnotice to appear. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 23:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think this can be closed as answered. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 23:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * To answer whether these editnotices can be added to pages by any editor if the enforcing administrator has not done so, yes; adding an edit notice where one is missing is something anyone (with the correct permissions) is able to do. Primefac (talk) 13:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Clarification request: Desysoppings

 * Original discussion

Initiated by HouseBlaster at 02:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected
 * Arbitration Committee/Procedures and various cases desysopping people

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:


 * (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by HouseBlaster
Simple question: are admins who were desysopped by the committee or who resigned while a party to a case eligible to regain the tools by standing at Administrator elections? I think the answer is yes, and I am even more certain the answer ought to be yes.

I am bringing this up now – and I am deliberately not naming any individual cases – because it is already going to be a drama-fest when a former admin runs to regain the tools and the ArbCom case in question is brought to the forefront. The last thing we need at that point in time is uncertainty regarding whether any particular ex-admin is even eligible for AELECT and then the inevitable ARCA specific to that case attracting yet more drama. House Blaster  (talk · he/they) 02:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)


 * It is described as an alternative to the Requests for Adminship process at WP:ADE, and the rest of the lead describes how it is distinct from RfA. My understanding is that ADE is another way to request adminship, but it is not a big-r Request for Adminship (even though the WP:Requests for adminship page is not capitalized, it is capitalized at WP:ADE and I think that is a good way of communicating the difference) . Thinking out loud, perhaps a motion adding something to WP:ARBPRO stating that unless specified otherwise, "requests for adminship" refers to any method of requesting adminship, including a traditional RfA or a successful candidacy at WP:ADE. (And that this applies retroactively.) House Blaster  (talk · he/they) 03:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Extraordinary Writ
I mean, the community approved a trial, it's on track to be run in October, and the plan is to "run the election as written" with no further RfCs. It seems the community has finalized its plans around elections as much as it's going to, and while it's pretty unlikely that anyone off of WP:FORCAUSE is going to run in October, I think HouseBlaster is right that giving some sort of guidance now could forestall a lot of drama. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Statement by isaacl
In my view, the request for adminship process will have two routes for a trial period: the open voting method, and the secret ballot method. Thus the arbitration committee procedure in question covers both routes. isaacl (talk) 14:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Just Step Sideways
This is an interesting question. My concern would be the fact that discussion goes on before voting starts and is basically forbidden once voting opens. A candidate could give evasive or incomplete answers to questions for three days, or give no answers until just before voting opens, and that's it. I think there is a small but real risk that this could become a back door for previously problematic admins to slip through. I think the safest road would probably be to consider both options going forward, but to leave previous decisions worded as is. There was no expectation at the time these previous decisions were made that there would be any other path to adminship, it doesn't exactly seem fair to the community to basically retroactively give these users a second path. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 19:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Jclemens (resysoping)
There is a small pool of former administrators who remain with the project yet are ineligible to request the tools back at BN; I speak as one of them. Pondering this candidate process, I can think of three separate reasons why the proposed process might actually be ideal for such ex-admins:
 * 1) The records of what the ex-admin did well or badly as an admin aren't hard to find, so the impact of a shorter question/response period will likely be negligible.
 * 2) Voting anonymity gives those who interact cordially with such ex-admins the ability to vote against them having the tools back without offending the ex-admin who continues to contribute to the project.
 * 3) Voting anonymity gives those who have previously tangled with the ex-admins the freedom to vote for them having the tools back without the potential to lose face doing so.

Thus, I recommend ArbCom accept the pilot process as fully equivalent to RfA for ex-admins who are not eligible to request the tools back via BN. Jclemens (talk) 06:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Desysoppings: Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).


 * Recuse, obviously. House Blaster  (talk · he/they) 02:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Desysoppings: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * When I've been asked about this privately my answer is that once the community adopts this formally, we can see if the motions need to be updated. If Admin Elections are considered a way to RfA the standard langauge will work. If it's considered some new way, we can pass a motion to retroactively add it as an option. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @HouseBlaster WP:ADE is at the moment a work in process. Who knows what it says or what RfA will say by the time it's adopted. If the community decides the current process and elections are two paths of the same process, sort of like how you can appeal at AN or AE for CT sanctions, then I don't think we need to do anything. And if the community decides they're different then we act. But I think we should be taking our cues from the community and there is no need for us to act until the community finalized its plans around elections. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look like there will be a consensus to change things for the trial. However, if someone was desyopped and wants to run, I urge them to make a specific request even if we're not going to make any comprehensive change. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, agree with Barkeep. Or we could add something like “or equivalent process” after mention of RfA. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Also agree with Barkeep. If the community establishes a new process to become an admin, editors who are desysoped can also use that process to request/apply for the tools. Requests to update documents can happen if/when those processes are put in place. Z1720 (talk) 04:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Having run at one RfA and at two elections, I'm not a fan of the elections (a lot more uncertainty-induced stress). Putting that aside, this question was asked at Conflict of interest management and the answer is "yes": the point is that they cannot just ask at WP:BN. I'm fine with amending the procedures now, given that this is in front of us now and given Extraordinary Writ's comments. Sdrqaz (talk) 04:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not so gung-ho on letting desysopped admins run until after the test run. If the test run goes fine and dandy, I think the answer is an obvious yes. But if the test run is a failure/the community decides it is not going to adopt the election process after all, that raises some complex issues about legitimacy which would be further complicated by a previously desysopped admin. I'm not certain I understand how the test run will work, so if I'm wrong about the mechanics, please correct me :) CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * To me, any of the committee's references to RfA includes admin elections and includes any trials of the new process, unless the message separately mentions admin elections too. I also don't really see a legitimacy problem specific to desysopped admins in case of a trial failure. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 08:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think this is an example of something falling under "hard cases make bad law". The intention of "may regain tools only through a new RfA" is less to require RfA specifically, but to prohibit asking a bureaucrat for summary restoration. That said, it probably would be cleaner that no former admins with cloudy circumstances in the first election, until we have a sense of how administrator elections work in practice (which would remove an hard or edge case situation). Yet, I don't feel nearly strongly enough about to consider formally making a rule about it; if anything, a sort of a gentlemen's agreement would be more appropriate. Maxim (talk) 14:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This feels like putting the horse a country mile before the cart. I would rather we return to this discussion if the community does this as more than a once off --Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not see a need to change the wording. The text says ..submit a new request for adminship, not ...submit a new Request for Adminship, and one can thus argue per the rationale at WP:SMALLDETAILS (and the spirit of the motion) that "putting my name down for an administrator election" is considered a "request for adminship". Primefac (talk) 11:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is one where I do have strong feelings. I would strongly support a motion clarifying that admin elections are open to desysopped admins if such a motion were proposed. The purpose of RfA and any alternatives is to determine whether an editor has a mandate from the community to be an administrator. I agree it would be cleaner if the first few candidates through the trial process were free of any baggage but in principle I would welcome a candidacy from a desysopped admin; I'm certain there are ex-admins with chequered histories who could be valuable assets. I don't think we need a motion but we can always revisit it if or when one of these ex-admins runs and succeeds. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 19:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I concur with HJ. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 20:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If the community decides that this process should proceed and is a valid way for the community to determine whether or not they believe a candidate who is requesting adminship should receive the administrative tools, then that meets what I believe is the intent of the submit a new request for adminship wording of the relevant procedure. If this becomes an established method of requesting adminship then that wording can be clarified as needed, but I'm not certain that needs to be done yet. - Aoidh (talk) 01:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Amendment request: Suspension of Beeblebrox

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Just Step Sideways at 18:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected
 * 


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) "These failures followed a previous formal warning issued to Beeblebrox in September 2021 by the Arbitration Committee concerning his conduct in off-wiki forums."


 * List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:


 * (initiator)


 * Information about amendment request
 * "These failures followed a previous formal warning issued to Beeblebrox in September 2021 by the Arbitration Committee concerning his conduct in off-wiki forums."
 * This should be struck out as a falsehood

Statement by Just Step Sideways
My apologies to the rest of the community, but there won't be much opportunity for any of you to make informed comments here as the evidence here is private.

It is part of ArbCom's public record that I was issued a "formal warning" in September 2021. This is false. I obviously can't reproduce the email discussion here, but I would ask each arbitrator to search the b-list archives for September 2021 for the thread "FAO: Beeblebrox - regarding recent comments" and tell me if they see a formal warning in there. WTT and myself had a fairly cordial discussion, in which he did make it clear he was speaking on behalf of the committee, but there absolutely is not a "formal warning".

Did the committee vote ont he b-list to issue one? I don't know as I no longer have access to the archives, but I'm pretty sure it would requirte a formal vote to issue a formal warning to a sitting arbitrator.

This was clearly put into this decision to imply there was some precedent of me being warned for discussing private communication on off-wiki criticism sites, when the not-a-warning mainly discussed the tone of my remarks on Commons and off-wiki, and also what I fully admit was an inexcusable comment I made in error on an internal mailing list, which obviously is an entirely seperate issue. The only part of it with any implication of private information two words that probably could've been left unsaid, and again, it was manifestly not a formal warning.

I'm not trying to excuse my own behavior. I did what the committee said I did, but the committee did not do what it said it did. This false information should be struck from the record. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 18:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * If it wasn't a warning, then what exactly did you think it was? It was not worded as a warning, it's a list of concerns, most of which have no relation whatsoever with the reason I was suspended. I explained my position on itat ARBN after the suspension was announced:
 * Three things were mentioned in that incident. One was comments I made on another WMF site about a user on that site, along with a parrelell conversation at Wikipediocracy. It had literally nothing to do with the committee or any kind of confidential information, some people just didn't like it. That's it. No actual policy violation. Another was my supposed outing of the troll who is at the center of all of this. There was no outing. Anyone in possession of even half of the facts knows this. No confidentail information of any kind was involved, and again it was utterly unrelated to any arbcom business. The third thing mentioned in there was a remark I did make on one of the mailing lists that I deeply regret. I beilieve what happened was that I thought I was commenting on the ArbCom list when it was in fact the functionaries list and my comment was about a specific member of that team, and not a very positive one. I never intended to insult this user, let alone to do so in front of their peers. It was an error apparenty due to innatention and I apologized to the user and to other functionaries who expressed their dismay about it. So, that's what that is about. I therefore do not agree that the more recent incident was part of a pattern as it was none of the things I was warned about.
 * Concerns were shared with me, and I responded to those concerns with my honest feedback. There was no hint of "do it again and there will be consequences" which is what a warning is normally understood to be. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I have to admit, I have trouble not being a mouthy smartass when it comes to Fae. I guess it's one of those "you can laugh or you can cry" things, it seems obvious to me that he should've been thrown out of the movement entirely a long time ago, but Commons is so broken as a community that they continue to tolerate his nonsense so long as he continues to make a big deal of the sheer number of robotic uploads he's made. So, I made an extremely sarcastic comment when Fae floated the idea that if the WMF wouldn't pay him, maybe he could get the general public to do so, using a "tip jar" which by my understanding is basically how OnlyFans works, yet somehow pointing that out is the most offensive thing anyone has ever said. That's what actually upset them, the rest is just Fae being Fae. And then when Rodhullandemu started acting as his attack dog that just turned the ridiculousness level up to 11. Two little peas in a pod, both playing the victim and the bully at the same time. And I freely admit that I was very dismissive of his super-dramatic overreaction to the whole thing, re-posting every word I posted on WO as "evidence" that I was directly encouraging people to physically attack his home, which is the apparent basis of this report to T&S. If they find that compelling, I guess I'm done here. If I had actually done that, I would totally deserve an office ban and whatever other ban came my way, but I'm quite certain I did no such thing.

For me, it was distressing to see Fae's outright lies and Rodhulls creepy threats spread onto en.wp by Owen Blacker, who I don't believe had any involvement in the Commons discussion and was clearly acting as Fae's proxy without doing any critical thinking about the merit of the accusations.

On the other hand, the  comment.... I don't know what happened there, I think in my mind I was talking to the committee, or maybe just the OS team, certainly not the full functionaries list. As you all know I often use a more informal tone on our mailing list, and somehow it slipped into another conversation where it was obviously not appropriate. It was a giant screw up and I feel like a jerk about it and have reached out to some of the other functionaries who seemed particularly distressed by it. I was recovering from covid at the time and maybe it made my brain a little ...fuzzy? That's not an excuse but maybe it's at least sort of an explanation.

To the other two points: The Lourdes incident was a good faith error that she made 50 times worse by her very public reaction to it. We've since come to an understanding, as far as I know she has accepted that I honestly meant her no harm and certainly wasn't trying to maliciously out her, and she copped to the fact that the way she approached a solution was exactly the wrong way. It's worth noting that, at that time, it did not require any advanced permissions to see the edits she had made where she self-outed. They had been visible to one and all for about five years.

The thing, all I really said there was reiterating that we were not making a statement on and everyone should just accept that sometimes, we just don't know what really happened.I don't feel like I let out anything that someone couldn't guess for themselves by saying but I o dget the point that that could've gone unsaid.

I suppose I could've said nothing at all, in all honesty that is a skill I have tried to work on, when to just shut up, but I know I miss the mark sometimes. I am also trying to make myself get less screen time on the whole, It's been really bad ever since lockdown last year, and I find that it is often when I've been online all day that I say or do something that upsets people. I'm working on it, I built a tiny little campsite in my backyard and have been thoroughly enjoying sitting out there reading a book, having a campfire, or just watching the trees wave in the wind.

I do apologize if this has caused undo stress or concern to anyone, especially the, thing, which clearly made an unpleasant situation much worse.

Feel free to share this with T&S if that seems like it would be helpful, and my apologies to Joe as well, I know he has enough crap to deal with without this.

As you can see, when these concerns were brought to me, I responded to them by flatly rejecting the validity of large portions of it as not being arbcom business. I apologized for the one glaring error I did make, that in no way involved private information, it was just a screw up. The only part of this laundry list that has any bearing on what came later was two words that were at worst ill considered but did not explicitly reveal anything of real substance. Worm and I talked some more about some of it, but the committee as a whole made no reply to my rejection of the basis of most of this list of concerns.

The committee may have intended it as a formal warning, but it did not come across as one. That's not my fault. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I feel like every time any aspect of this situation is discussed, I keep getting told that I should have known to assume things that were not explicitly stated, because I was an arb and for no other reason. I don't buy that line of argument, at all. I was a party being investigated by the committee and have the same right as anyone else to expect clear and explicit communication from the committee. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't expect an apology, I just want a false statement removed from the official record. I'm not asking for anything more than that.
 * However, it is perhaps worth noting that Fae was eventually banned here and ragequit at Commons, and used a bunch of exceedingly obvious socks over at Meta, and that RH&E was desysopped and banned here, desysopped and blocked at Commons, blocked on Wikidata, and finally globally banned by the office. In light of all that I continue to struggle to see how I was the bad guy here, or why it was any of the committee's business what I said on Commons or WPO about either one of them. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * the existence of that discussion was used as a justification later on the grounds that I had already been warned about leaking material from the mailing list. Do you see where it explicitly says that in the supposed warning, because I do not. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 18:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I do think it would be illuminating for the community if the committee were to post a semi-redacted version of the email to me, as I have done with my reply. Maybe I'm wrong and upon seeing it others will agree with the assertion that it was a formal warning, I really don't know. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 04:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As to the ")a" alluded to below, I think the key sentence is the one right before that. This is the crux of my argument here. This felt to me like a polite reminder more than a formal warning. I understand that there was an apparent intent that it be recieved as a warning, but it was not. To my mind a formal warning would not use language like that and would be more stern.
 * I want to be clear, in case anyone is thinking I'm setting the stage to try and get the entire motion revoked or dismissed or whatever, I am not and will not be doing so. I just think there is a factual error here. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 18:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the proposed ammended language is more reflective of what actually happened and would be satisfied with that outcome. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 19:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I may be a little rusty, but it looks to me like the motion has passwd and should be enacted, and we're done here. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 06:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * thank you for clarifying. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Statement by BilledMammal
CaptainEek, to give some outside perspective; from what you've said I would personally not interpret that as a "formal warning" - I would expect such a warning to call itself a warning, or at a least a synonym.

I probably wouldn't even interpret it as a warning, and while that might be a personal flaw, I think its useful for the committee to remember the cultural and neurological diversity of the community here and be very explicit in their communications. BilledMammal (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Jclemens (JSS)
As a former arbitrator who participated in the deliberations with respect to both Rodhullandemu and Fae during my tenure, I would encourage the members of the current committee to review their history during 2011-12. The fact that both are involved in more drama a decade-ish later suggests that my colleagues and I did not do enough to ensure their permanent removal from all WMF projects. I believe there were adequate, although differing, grounds for such known to the committee (and Jimbo, in at least one of the cases) through private evidence at that time. Had the committee then pursued a remedy those familiar with the situation and subsequent events can endorse in retrospect, large parts of the above message would have been unnecessary.

Now, having said that, JustStepSideways, even if you've been done dirty... what outcome do you want? If an apology? Sure, I get the desire, but I question whether the benefit is worth the drama. The committee isn't the greatest at handling internal dissent, and I doubt it ever will be.

But if the fastest way to end this is to s/formal warning/expression of concern/, such a change requires the active agreement of a team of volunteers whom you've just called liars. If they do it, I'm not sure who comes out looking more magnanimous. Jclemens (talk) 23:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a difference between the committee and JSS over whether the communication given to JSS should have reasonably been perceived to be a formal warning. Here are the top three hits for a DuckDuckGo query for "employment law formal written warning elements". While ArbCom is not a paid position, it certainly involves more work than many such positions, and there are relatively consistent expectations, at least in the United States, for how to go about such a warning. Which elements of written employment warnings were plausibly germane to an ArbCom member? Which ones were clearly and unequivocally delivered? In light of those answers, is it reasonable to continue to call that communication a formal warning? Jclemens (talk) 03:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Statement by 28bytes
Question for the committee: for those of us outside the loop, what is the difference between a “warning” and a “formal warning” in this context? In other Wikipedia contexts it seems like the analogous difference would be “please don’t do X again” versus “if you do X again, you may be/will be blocked”, but I presume the committee has its own procedures and definitions. 28bytes (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Statement by The Wordsmith
From what I've seen, a formal warning usually has the trappings that make it, well, formal. "For the Arbitration Committee" is definitely one of them, but they are generally either Case Remedies or Motions that take the explicit form User:Example is reminded/warned/admonished that.... Here are a few examples of formal warnings I grabbed from the archives; while I obviously don't have access to private motions I'd expect them to be logged privately and have similar trappings to show that they are a motion and a formal warning.

While arbs may have intended the message sent to JSS as a formal warning, the will of Arbcom writ large isn't always the same thing. Formal warnings include those formalities not just as decoration, but to ensure that there is no ambiguity and misunderstandings like this don't happen.

And now I think I've said the word formal so many times that it's formally lost all meaning... The Wordsmith Talk to me 18:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Floq
Is it really that hard to just say "we probably shouldn't have said 'formal warning', we probably should have said 'warning'"? If it's bugging JSS, and does no harm, why not just give him the small win? Even if you don't think it's necessary? Twisting yourself in knots, CaptainEek, to say, essentially, "well even though it wasn't a formal warning, how could he not know it was a formal warning" ... what benefit is served, to anyone? Also, Beeb, please request Oversight back. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Statement by WTT
Who wants an unsolicited opinion by a user that has faded into the past but was relevant at the time? It's what this saga needs isn't it? I'll take some blame here - I took the lead in 2021, and therefore the lack of clarity that came out at the end may well have been at least partially down to me and my style. So was the email a "formal warning" - well it didn't include the word "warning", nor did it include any indication of ramifications if the email was not heeded. It was not a "Warning" by arbcom standards "X is warned that..." However, it was clearly a warning - i.e. cautionary advice - and it was formal - i.e. voted upon, out of the blue for JSS & framed as from the committee. In other words, all sides are right from a point of view and digging heels in won't get anyone anywhere. If that were all I had to say, I wouldn't have dragged my sorry rear end back here - it's patently clear to both sides and should be easy enough to sort out. The problem is hurt, on both sides. Not long ago, JSS was considered one of our best - spoke his mind, engaged with the community and worked hard in the deep meta of Wikipedia. He was attacked for that, as many admins at the coal face are, and since he helped the fall from grace of a few prominent (but oh so problematic) users, he took the brunt of their anger. I saw this, because I took a fair chunk of their anger too. Being in those roles wear at you, and is certainly a contributory factor that I'm not here every day. I could understand if the committee felt that they could not carry on with one of their number acting in a manner at odds with the committee's psyche. I can even imagine that JSS said something somewhere that crossed a line that that meant he needed to be shown the door. But let's be clear here - the manner in which you as a committee did so has left the encyclopedia in a poorer state. The power imbalance between the individual and the committee is something that every committee member should be painfully aware of, the damage that can be done by making a statement must never outweigh the benefit of that statement. I hope that every committee member considers deeply about whether this sort of thing could have been handled by a "quiet word", firmly but away from public eyes, or even encouraging resignation (jump before push). This should be a time for reflection, a time to ask what could have been done better and how. My opinion is that the committee can help repair this, for little to no cost from their side besides climbing back down on the issue. I've said above that you're not wrong, but it's not about being right or wrong, it's about doing the right thing WormTT(talk) 10:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment by Newyorkbrad
To paraphrase Louis Brandeis, the goal of the ArbCom as a whole and of each of its members (past, present, and future) should be to resolve disputes and dramas, not to introduce disputes and dramas of their own. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Darkfrog24
There's a great expression that came up around 2016: "You have a right to your own opinion but not to your own facts." The facts seem to be that ArbCom sent Beeblebrox a message of some kind at the indicated time and about this non-public subject. It also seems that it was intended as a warning. But "Beeblebrox should have understood that it was a warning" is an opinion, and reasonable people may disagree. I think one of the arbs may have hit the nail on the head: "JSS, did you need it spelled out for you that it was bad to do those things and you shouldn't do them again?" It looks like yes they did. And why not do so? Wikipedia is a diverse, multinational project and not everyone thinks the same way or makes the same assumptions.

I think Floq, Maxim, and Worm have it right. If the description of the message as a formal warning is a problem, why not improve it? The substance of the message, whatever it was, will stay the same. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Suspension of Beeblebrox: Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).



Suspension of Beeblebrox: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * When I saw this notification I was thinking "Yeah JSS can request restoration of OS now, I hope addresses what I mention in January because I want to restore." Obviously this is a different request than what I was expecting. I'm going to hold off commenting until some colleagues who weren't on the committee in 2021 and 2023 can weigh in on this (both in terms of what happened in 2021 and whether the wording was fair in what was voted on last year). Barkeep49 (talk) 18:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @28bytes reasonable question. I don't know what the intent was of the arb who did the initial draft of what would become that motion. If the initial draft had been written as "warning" rather than "formal warning" I doubt formal would have been added, but in my mind the formality was that it was voted upon and the email addressing it made clear that it was on behalf of the entire committee. This is in contrast to some discussions, both with Beeblebrox and others, where it's more a "hey please knock that off" type of thing. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Just Step Sideways what did/do you think (a) in the email means? Happy for you to reply privately if you prefer so that neither of us have to speak so obliquely. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Just Step Sideways I've just got to say, and I'm saying this next part as bluntly as I can because so much of this has been your complaints that things weren't written plainly in a way you could understand: you've blown this. When this has come up behind the scenes, I have argued that were you to make a credible promise to not reveal confidential information, something as simple as we not only should but would basically have no choice to restore your OS and to functionaries. Because that is the difference between removal and a suspension and you'd have done your six month suspension so all should now be restored just as it would have been had you been suspended for six months and your term hadn't been up. And I think there was maybe a majority of the committee ready to vote along with me. Instead you want to rehash whether or not we warned you. Maybe the committee will vote to change it to warned from formally warned - serious question: if we did this would you feel satisfied or would you only be satisfied if we struck the warning characterization altogether? If I could just make the decision to change that wording from formal warning to warning I would reagrdless of whether or not it would make you happy, but I am also incredibly uninterested in spending even a fraction of the time I've spent here on other appeals from other people who think we got a word wrong and would be happier if we struck a word.Maybe the committee will decide to make public the 2021 letter, maybe it won't. My first and second thoughts were that we shouldn't because I have become rather skeptical of partial transparency measures in situations like this and am uninterested in defending how we chose to redact it considering that would be two steps (Warning/not a warning->2021 letter redactions) removed from what we should be doing (voting on restoring your OS and functionary status) and one step away from the actual request made here. Now I'm wavering on those thoughts because transparency is important to me and so despite all my concerns, it might still be the right thing to do.But I'm just overwhelmingly sad that this is what is important to you and what we're spending time on. Which means that in six months when you'd be eligible for another appeal (because I imagine that limitation is what will be set regardless of whether we change formal warning to warning) I'll be off the committee. Or if instead you decide to run for ArbCom again in 4 months you won't be able to benefit from the fact that you've had your access restored. I was never - absent you going off the rails in your response to us which didn't happen - going to vote to remove you because I don't think your offenses merit that (one reason why? I think you are innocent of what Fae accused you of) and because of the incredibly high regard I have held you at all times not related to WPO. And rather than take the hint that I dropped for you in January and here (and which perhaps Sdqraz also tried to drop for you for you) and rather than taking the advice that Floq offered you, you just want to be vindicated about the 2021 email. Maybe it will happen, maybe it won't. It just feels so small compared to what could have been. Barkeep49 (talk) 06:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * FWIW - and perhaps no one but me cares and I'm just wasting bytes here - I privately supported (weakly) releasing a redacted version of the 2021 email shortly after making the above comment. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The Committee held a vote on the warning on the b-list, after extensive discussion. The resulting message was then transmitted to JSS with the lead in of "on behalf of the rest of the committee," followed by our list of concerns, and signed "For the Arbitration Committee," which any Arb should know means represents the will of ArbCom writ large. If it wasn't a warning, then what exactly did you think it was? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!</i>⚓ 21:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * JSS, did you need it spelled out for you that it was bad to do those things and you shouldn't do them again? You're a bright guy and held a position of trust. The fact that we didn't begin the message with "this is a formal warning" does not prevent it from being one. A message that is a list of concerns is inherently a statement of "don't do that again please." <b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b> <i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i>⚓ 21:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Like Barkeep, I was not expecting an amendment request on these grounds. I wasn't on the Committee in those years (2021 & 2023); the 2021 message seems clearly caution[ing] or admonish[ing] (someone) against unwise or unacceptable behaviour and therefore a warning. Sdrqaz (talk) 04:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I see the 2021 warning as being on dual bases, one of which was revealing private Committee deliberations (see the "(a)" mentioned by Barkeep and body paragraphs 1, 2, and 4 of the message [not considering the "on behalf of the rest of the committee" bit mentioned by CaptainEek as a paragraph]). I appreciate your pragmatic idea to resolve this, but I don't see how the characterisation of the 2021 message as a "previous formal warning... concerning his conduct in off-wiki forums" is inaccurate at all, even with the benefit of hindsight. However, I could grumble that the warning should have been public given that it was regarding an incumbent member (and I'll check with the others to see if there is any appetite for that now). Sdrqaz (talk) 22:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The "check with the others to see if there is any appetite for that now" is being resolved (and I am in favor). Sdrqaz (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * When the announcement was posted in November, I was initially somewhat mystified by the "previous formal warning", as my recollection was that WTT had more of a conversation with JSS. My understanding of "formal warning" would be that we had sent something like "Beeblebrox is admonished for X", not so much as a conversation between colleagues, although that conversation was motivated by a consensus that existed amongst the Committee. In 2021, Committee consensus about what to do seemed to have coalesced on either "Informal warning / note from an individual committee member" or "Formal warning / note from the committee as a whole", and the resulting email in my opinion is some weird hybrid of these two options. The sentence "These failures followed a previous formal warning issued to Beeblebrox in September 2021 by the Arbitration Committee concerning his conduct in off-wiki forums." would probably be more reasonable as "In September 2021, within the scope of internal Committee discussions, Beeblebrox was advised regarding his off-wiki conduct." As a more general comment, it is not uncommon for sanctioned users, no matter what "sanction" is involved, to want to have the context described correctly, so I don't think that JSS's request is unreasonable. Maxim (talk) 14:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @28bytes: I was the one who originally authored the "previous formal warning" language, if my memory serves me correctly. What I meant to convey with that language was that the warning was not just an "informal warning" from the committee, which I think in my mind would have been something like "other arbitrators say to knock it off". Instead, this warning resulted from formal discussions among the Committee on the -b list without JSS present, and was given "For the Arbitration Committee". (For reference, this is a much less common occurrence than the "informal warnings" as describe above; I might be misremembering but in my years on the committee a "formal warning" happens much less than once per year.) Clearly, the language could have been more clear, and I would not strongly object to changing it now, though I broadly concur also in Barkeep's comments. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 16:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I read through the discussion and the email. I can see arguments for it being interpreted as a formal warning or a list of concerns. However, JSS was told that his behaviour was inappropriate, then repeated that behaviour. Arbs are expected to have a heightened level of knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and procedures, and I would not expect them to need multiple reminders on a topic such as this. So if the motion says "formal warning", "list of concerns", or something else, I don't care. If an arb wants to put forward a motion to change the wording, my general attitude will probably be "shrug".
 * What frustrates me is that changing the wording does not fulfil the first pillar of Wikipedia: that this is an encyclopedia. If JSS asked for OS permissions returned, or lifting other restrictions, that could help make the encyclopedia better because JSS is an experienced editor asking to help maintain the wiki. If JSS's wording was accepted, there would be no change to how Wikipedia operates or what tasks JSS can perform. Multiple editors, ex-arbs and arbs have taken time away from wiki-activities to discuss the definitions of a formal warning and a list of concerns. I would rather that JSS's energy, and the energy of all editors who commented, be put towards improving the encyclopedia instead. I will grow increasingly frustrated if JSS continues to ask ARCA to change the motion's wording instead of asking for ways to help them improve the encyclopedia. Z1720 (talk) 18:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)


 * We can move from "formal warning" to "warning" in the text if it will reduce the drama level. Aquila non capit muscas. The edit, however, does not change the reason why the 2023 committee made the decision it did. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The email in question was formal in the sense that it was not an email from an individual arbitrator, but rather was written on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. However, I wouldn't call it a formal warning in the way that I'm familiar with the concept. I can see valid points for and against it being described as a warning, but a formal warning should be unambiguous in nature. It may be that I'm used to a different standard for what constitutes a warning, but while it outlined concerns about misconduct, it was missing the consequence element that is typically present in a warning. That being said, I think if the word "warning" was changed to "notice" (These failures followed a previous formal notice issued...) it would be an accurate description. - Aoidh (talk) 20:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Motion: Suspension of Beeblebrox
Enacted - Aoidh (talk) 20:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support (Suspension of Beeblebrox)
 * 1) Barkeep49 (talk) 19:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) Z1720 (talk) 20:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 3) Aoidh (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 4) If this is a version everyone can live with and it puts the issue to bed then fine. I'm not convinced that arguing over semantics is a good use of everyone's time but equally it's fair to say that the "warning" did not explicitly call itself such. <b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ Mitchell</b> &#124; <span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts?  20:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 5) --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 6) &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 20:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 7) While I find this to be WP: WIKILAWYERING, and would have rather just outright heard an appeal on the merits, this is a not inaccurate characterization of the 2021 warning. <b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b> <i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i>⚓ 21:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 8) Maxim (talk) 23:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 9) Primefac (talk) 10:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 10) KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 11:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 11) Regular warnings come classified level 2-4. ArbCom warnings analogously are reminded-warned-admonished. For an arbitrator to receive such an email from the rest of the committee and not see it as a warning is (imo) obtuse at best and wikilawyering at worst, on the level of  'depends on what "is" means'.  I'll support the change in wording but with no change in my understanding of its underlying intent and meaning. Cabayi (talk) 11:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose (Suspension of Beeblebrox)
 * 1) Even though I feel some sympathy for Just Step Sideways (I understand a need to set the record straight and correct a perceived injustice) and even though the pragmatic part of me wants to vote for this because it will make this go away, I cannot. Moving past my opinion that this was certainly a formal warning, "within the scope of internal Committee discussions, Beeblebrox was advised that his off-wiki conduct was suboptimal" makes it seem like there was a simple disagreement and someone disliked a member's actions. That happens . What doesn't happen regularly is being kicked off arbcom-en-b while others discuss and vote on your conduct, which is what happened.As someone who wasn't on the Committee in 2021 & 2023 and as someone who isn't 100% sure that the suspension was the right thing to do, I don't feel an instinctive need to defend the actions of those iterations – the fact that I am defending the original wording should maybe hint at the fact that I truly believe that that sentence was right and that this new wording would be misleading the Community. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Abstain (Suspension of Beeblebrox)

ArbCom is not infallible, and while we did not necessarily do anything procedurally incorrectly, we were not as succinct and clear as we should have been, which should be reflected in how we make our statements on-wiki (and off). Primefac (talk) 10:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Arbitrator discussion (Suspension of Beeblebrox)