Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 44

Arbitration motion regarding Ritchie333 and Praxidicae

 * Original announcement


 * Odd. Ritchie doesn't strike me as the sort of person who would need to be told not to interact with another editor. But I suppose if there's bad blood between himself and Praxidicae, it's probably for the best that they go their separate ways. Kurtis (talk) 03:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive304 is background. Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Quite the amount of busy beavers we have in the Arbitration Committee.. [0_0] &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 04:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Any hint on why Arbcom has chosen to do this now, which assuming Galobtter is correct is nine months after the incident in question, and why it's been done in secret? I certainly haven't always agreed with Ritchie333, but forcing a long-standing editor—whom I don't think anyone wouldn't accept was a net positive—into a position where they feel they have no alternative but to retire, and not even giving a hint as to why, is at minimum a discourtesy to everyone else since without giving any indication as to what conduct the committee felt was unacceptable, every editor who wants to avoid becoming the victim of another Night & Fog disappearance in future has no idea what to avoid. I understand why secret cases are on rare occasions necessary, but I find it hard to believe Ritchie333 falls into any of the "serious abuse with potential real-world consequences if we disclose any details" use cases. &#8209; Iridescent 08:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That's old background; this and the back and forth which followed is recent. ——  SerialNumber  54129  08:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Framgate II. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 09:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Who's next. Could be any of us, it seems. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Given the comments from one arb at the current ARCA, it's me. So get in line. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 09:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Why are there no public findings of fact? —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 10:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Other than the announcement, I don't see any public anything. Am I missing it, or was this a bolt from the blue? Jonathunder (talk) 14:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Any watching admins might want to do something about the edit I reverted here - with typo, RC should be RV. (Apols, Leaky caldron, for reverting your reply too.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No case, no evidence, no right to reply? We are very much into First they came ... territory. ArbCom has been called a star chamber before, but that really does not mean that you have to suddenly make people disappear in the middle of the night without a case. These are becoming increasingly dangerous times to be an editor around here. - SchroCat (talk) 11:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , The first five words of the announcement, After discussion with both parties seem to indicate that both parties were given the opportunity to reply in private? SQL Query me!  14:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, the meaning of "discussion" from Arbcom can simply mean they have provided information in a one-way sense. I have been subject to such discussion.  The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 14:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Why don't we stick with the english definition for now, and not assume bad faith. SQL Query me!  14:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to stick with the definition, given how things are being uncovered, and I was right to question the point in the first place. - SchroCat (talk) 21:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow, this looks really, really bad. I can think of few other editors or administrators who have given so much to Wikipedia, and with such goodwill and alacrity, as Ritchie333, and now you've driven him to retire, with zero transparency or accountability or appeal. I agree with TRM that this looks like Framgate II. At least you had the guts to let us know who supported this sanction. Softlavender (talk) 11:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This place is starting to get really creepy. It might be time to start considering a fork.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  11:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This isn't the first time ArbCom have done this. Last year, they imposed a 2-way IBAN on James J. Lambden and Volunteer Marek by motion. Iffy★Chat -- 12:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * But in that case they didn't state that one side was guilty. —Kusma (t·c) 12:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This is terrible.--WaltCip (talk) 13:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Wholly echo the statement above by Softlavender. This really is very worrying. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Coming across this, from Iri's comment over Ritchie's t/p. Not surprised given that AN thread long ago, recent user-page-kerfuffle and that their interactions have been perpetually a net-negative. &#x222F; WBG converse 13:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Between them, perhaps, but not individually. The ruling clearly shows Ritchie as the guilty party.  The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 13:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * But there is just one with a policy mandated higher conduct expectation. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * But none of that explains the secrecy and the clandestine one-way IBAN, regardless. I guess this is an over-reaction to being told by T&S that they can't be trusted to deal with their own problems, so they're really dealing with them now.  Arbcom knows 100% what kind of reaction this in camera hearing, decision, and subsequent retirement is going to have.  If there was any question of failure to meet policy, then Arbcom would have de-sysopped Ritchie.  Try again.  The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 13:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I make no comments on the merits of the (practically) one-way-IBan but greater transparency is welcome. And, as always, ends shall not ever justify the means in any manner.  &#x222F; WBG converse 14:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, make no mistake, it's a one-way IBAN, designed to single Ritchie out as the only guilty party. Utterly unjustified and yes, a completely dangerous precedent where now we just watch as we and our colleagues are picked off in secret.  The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 14:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand the secrecy surrounding the Fram case (since evidence was submitted confidentially), but can't help wondering if a dangerous precedent has been set of increasing secrecy in other proceedings. Sucks to be here lately.  Mini  apolis  13:48, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Very alarming, per Iri and others. Johnbod (talk) 13:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not a huge fan of non-transparent cases, but remember this is just an interaction ban. The similarities with the Fram fiasco are really pretty minimal. I don’t know what happened, and I feel badly for Ritchie because I generally like him, and am surprised it came to this.  Who knows; if I knew the background maybe I’d think this didn’t go far enough, or maybe I’d think it was too heavy handed. I'm really hopeful that Ritchie, who - with all his rough edges - is a real talent, a decent human, and someone who cares about the encyclopedia, will come back after the sting subsides. Just thinking out loud here, not sure if this would make things better or worse.  In cases like this, where the result is just an interaction ban and it was negotiated off-wiki, would it be better not to announce it?  Biggest pro I can think of is that it's less a public rebuke, and more a mutually agreed outcome.  Biggest con I can think of is that it puts monitoring for compliance in the hands of the two parties.  But it seems like usually, reports of non-compliance are made by one of the two parties anyway.  --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As far as we know, T&S have issued interaction bans (or something similar) and not announced them publicly. I am not a fan of such secret restrictions, mostly because of the enforcement issues. When a secret restriction is broken, we will then end up with blocks or desysoppings for "violated a secret restriction", which is likely going to cause a great amount of noise and may Streisand out the original complainant. So it is a bit of a gamble: if the secret restriction is honored, it may work better than a humiliating public sanction, but if it isn't honored, the secrecy may become a problem in the future when you need to enforce it. —Kusma (t·c) 14:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's fundamentally obvious that the one-way IBAN was not mutually accepted, and that this case should have been heard more publicly. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 14:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Huh? Was there some actual case going on somewhere, or is this just a sudden declaration that Fram Ritchie333 is ibanned, out of the blue? Κσυπ Cyp   14:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If anyone is looking for precedent Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_11 is probably the closest thing. I generally agree with WBG and Floq. I think of both Ritchie and Praxidicae as friends, and I'm very saddened by this since they are both excellent contributors. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * And I can assure you that the content of that motion did require off-wiki comms. This one, however, certainly did not.  The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 14:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * At least in that case there was some clarification from a member of the Committee who pointed out that ibans are designed to enable continued productive editing from affected parties without necessarily attributing right or wrong. It would be helpful if others did not now seek to attribute that right or wrong either. I would hope that the same applies in this case.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Too little too late, as Arbcom have certainly attributed blame. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 14:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure. I'm not fully aware of all the details of that one, but I take your word on it. I think it would be helpful if a member of the committee could comment as to if they felt this needed to be private or whether it could have been handled in public ( ping to a random assortment of recently active members I have positive working relationships with.) TonyBallioni (talk) 14:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ritchie is the last person I expected to be IBANNED so I'm rather saddened to see this, Whilst I'm not all for secrets etc I do feel this shouldn't of been announced publicly. (Admittedly I do wonder if a case would've been better but that would've been more drama I guess). – Davey 2010 Talk 14:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Two observations:
 * Like it or not, our friends at WMF T&S have forced a new normal on the community in the wake ofthe FramBan, and I suspect this is just ArbCom responding to that. Effectively they have told us that we must now take off-the-record complaints seriously, and that ArbCom was napping in failing to process such things hitherto. I'm not particularly comfortable with this, and I think some high-level board–Jimbo–Arbcom–WMF negotiations should be held urgently, with community input too, to avoid the ever-increasing feeling that there is a secret police now watching us all. And
 * IMHO on a more pragmatic level, and per Floq, this shouldn't really be a big deal - Ritchie is a particular friend of mine, both on-wiki and at the meet-ups, so I am bemused that he has been singled out as the aggressor in the Praxidiciae IBAN, but ultimately if the two of them really don't get along then it's actually better for all concerned if they don't interact anyway. No sanction is supposed to be a punishment, and arguably the IBAN is the least punishing of all, since it merely mandates a way forward that should be beneficial to all. I would urge the community not to do Bonkers v2 over this. I can certainly understand that Ritchie is hurt and upset by this, I would be too. But I hope that at some point, whenever he is ready, he is able to come back and contribute because we sure as hell need him here. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "No sanction is supposed to be a punishment" irony! But sadly a one-way IBAN is a clear indication to the whole community from Arbcom who they believe was entirely at fault here, and I don't believe that to be the case, but with no evidence or discussion, there's nothing that can be done.  The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 14:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ha yes, cue the sardonic laughter. You never can predict what will happen if you give people the power to be vindictive... But it's right there in black-and-white on the Sanctions page. The sanctions are "to resolve disputes and curtail disruptive behaviour". Certainly concur on the second part of your comment as well. Per I would be very happy if ArbCom clarified that they are not pinning any blame on Ritchie here. We may be holding our breaths for that one though.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No, they absolutely are pinning the blame on Ritchie. Why do you think the wording of the motion is such, and why do you think Ritchie has retired?  Because he's been singled out now as the first subject of the new regime of clandestine disappearances.  The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 14:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with others. There is no punishment here. (And the lesser remedy is functionally two-way, apparently one person agreed and one person did not but if the one person did not agree, we do not know what would have happened).  And as earlier noted, the admin is required to operate under a higher conduct expectation, but not required to be desysopped for every failure. Also, the matter was as easy to determine as possible, with not a single experienced Wikipedian in the administrative function on the committee in descent dissent and every single one (beside inactive or recused) in support. There are naturally and reasonably going to be times when the parties discuss such things by e-mail with the committee and the committee will use its judgement about how much to publicly drag persons out. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC) (struck part out. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC))
 * not a single experienced Wikipedian in the administrative function on the committee in descent - what does that mean? &#x222F; WBG converse 14:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Corrected, thanks. Also, I was about to add to my comment, 'the parties might also discuss it by e-mail with each other.' Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Just my personal thoughts, since I've been pinged. Having heard from both Ritchie and Praxdicae, it was clear that both wanted to stop interacting with the other. I'm not overly keen on the wording (which did have majority support), but intention to actually implement a two way iban was unanimous. Tony has asked if it "needed" to be private, I'll respond that it is better that it was private, meaning both sides could be candid. I certainly hope Ritchie will return, as he is an asset to the encyclopedia. WormTT(talk) 15:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't really the follow the bit where you say "intention to actually implement a two way iban was unanimous", and yet it wasn't implemented? It was just down to the other user agreeing to do so?  The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 15:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * echo 100% what TRM just said. If the "unanimous intention" was to impose a 2-way IBAN, please could I urge and request the committee to go back and amend the wording so that it actually says that? I think that would go a massive way to alleviating the community's concern and annoyance over this. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It is a full enforceable interaction ban on both parties. WormTT(talk) 15:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That's how I read it. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Who drafted this? I implore upon him to improve his skills at writing. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 15:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * At best its ambiguous. Per "Praxidicae has agreed to abide by a mutual interaction ban for the same duration" what happens if they choose to withdraw that agreement? And did Ritchie not "agree" in the same fashion as Praxi? I have no idea now if the committee was trying to make the sanction asymmetric or not. Maybe it doesn't matter on a practical level, but I feel like it would be better to have clarity. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Praxidicae cannot withdraw their agreement, that has been made clear to them. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 15:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I drafted it, and as WTT said, it was approved with majority support. He's already stated what I was going to about the privacy aspect - I believe it was best handled in private to reduce distress for both parties. Since both of them had made a mutual request for the other to stay away from them (see the discussion here), this was essentially formalizing what they'd already publicly stated they wanted so they had recourse if the issue flared up again., Prax's mutual IBAN runs while Ritchie's does - no take backs. Both parties were specifically advised that the IBAN was equally enforceable on both sides, so Prax is no less restricted than Ritchie is. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 15:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ritchie just got named first because he's an Admin? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , thank you for clarifying. OK, so in practice, the IBAN is two-way. But it is very easy to understand the wording as "Ritchie333 is banned from interacting with Praxicidae, and we note that Praxicidae voluntarily won't interact with Ritchie333", which is a much more asymmetrical situation, and clearly looks as if one editor needs to be restrained and the other honourably chooses not to take advantage of that. If you don't want this to be understood as a one-way ban by non-insiders, you need to communicate it more clearly. —Kusma (t·c) 15:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , your wording does not remotely correspond with the committees' explanations and asymmetric nature of a statement is not very difficult to grasp. Either go per Vermont that Ritchie was the aggressor/more guilty of bad behavior and then, stand by your current wording or change it to be more neutral towards both parties. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 16:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Those things are not mutually exclusive. As SilkTork said, we did find that Ritchie was the aggressor and felt that implementing an IBAN was the best way to keep the peace. Rather than leave Ritchie with a one-way IBAN, which historically have been difficult to enforce, we asked Prax to abide by an identical IBAN, with identical force. Since they had both requested the other to leave them alone, we felt this would be minimally objectionable to both parties. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 16:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The amount of arbs and time that took you to say this in a clear-enough manner is abysmal. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 07:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * was there a determination that the community at large was unable to handle this, requiring the final step in dispute resolution to be engaged? IBans are routinely handled at AN(/I). —  xaosflux  Talk 15:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Or was there a determination that this was a matter "unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal, or similar reasons". I think the tension here is coming from a sanction being declared without the policy foundation to support it being included. —  xaosflux  Talk 16:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * We kept the situation private to protect the privacy of both parties, both of whom were more candid in their discussions with us than I believe they would have been comfortable with in public. I don't feel comfortable disclosing any further details of what was said. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 16:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, this was determined to be a private matter unsuitable for public discussion. Ironically, when announcing it, it is no longer a private matter, and it has public consequences. Personally I would have preferred a public case (there is evidence of Richie having been outspoken with several users), but that was seen as inappropriate from various angles, including procedure and public exposure; and, as PMC says, both parties were able to open up in a manner they could not in public. I think there is much still to be learned in how to deal appropriately with potential harassment. I am firmly behind the notion that we need to be aware of incivility and harassment, but there seems to be a difficulty in hearing harassment cases publicly because of concerns that people complaining about popular figures will experience abuse. Yet if cases are heard privately there are concerns about lack of transparency. I am firmly in favour of transparency. I dislike that ArbCom does so much via email rather than here on enwiki. However, if asked to choose between dealing appropriately with harassment, listening carefully to what people have to say, and transparency, then I will choose dealing appropriately with harassment every time. Ideally I would like there to be transparency in dealing with harassment, but until someone comes up with a workable solution, then I will accept, for the greater good of the project, that sometimes we have to deal with harassment in an opaque manner - that being the lesser of two evils, if you will. SilkTork (talk) 16:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * thank you for the reply, perhaps including some sort of statement of why the standard dispute resolution was unavailable (not looking for details here, just some policy based reason such as that the matter was "unsuitable for public discussion for privacy" reasons) for future motions would head off some of the confusion. — xaosflux  Talk 17:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that is good advice. SilkTork (talk) 18:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Does the timing suck? Yeah, kinda. Does this have anything to do with Fram? No. Really, no. Two people who don't like each other and have made that clear on-wiki have, after some private discussion, been asked to make it official. That's it. I certainly hope Ritchie decides in time to return to the project, he's someone I've always liked and whose input I've always appreciated. Opabinia regalis (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The issue was discussed privately with both users. Both users indicated they wanted to stop interacting. A two-way i-ban was seen as appropriate. It was made clear that the ban would be enforceable with block sanctions for both parties. There was a consensus on the Committee for wording which indicated that the i-ban on Richie was imposed by ArbCom as it was felt he had over-stepped the mark. SilkTork (talk) 15:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This wording appears to have been disagreeable to one party, Ritchie, did the second party (perhaps blameless) prefer the weighted determination over simpler "stay out of each others way". cygnis insignis 16:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * And once Ritchie saw that wording, he retired. Great.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If he hadn't retired, would the wording have been acceptable? From what I've seen, Ritchie has been the aggressor in this, and I do not see an issue with the wording, which most definitely cannot be blamed for his subsequent reaction. Vermont (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , the current wording is acceptable from your stance but the ArbCom needs to tell that. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 16:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think SilkTork's comment is quite clear on that: "There was a consensus on the Committee for wording which indicated that the i-ban on Richie was imposed by ArbCom as it was felt he had over-stepped the mark." [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&diff=909626676&oldid=909626477]. – Ammarpad (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a poster child case of why deliberations and evidence must be in the open as much as possible. I can understand why some types of information must be kept confidential, but otherwise deliberations must be public. We have a number of people here rightfully noting how scary this is. ArbCom, take notice. We are volunteers, not employees. Taking action against someone via a private deliberation means the rest of us end up wondering what in hell went wrong and whether or not it would apply to us. Just ibanning someone is woefully insufficient. You're not leaving any direction to other people about what to do in the future. If this is the pathway going forward to handling troublesome behavior, you're going to cause a lot more volunteers to leave the project. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Based upon the personal information disclosed to ArbCom by both parties, which ArbCom is bound by confidentiality to keep private, I would say this was actually the poster case for why confidentiality remains an important option for the community to resolve disputes. I doubt it would have been the best interests of either party for their statements to be made in public. As far as direction to "other people", our policies on conduct and interaction are all public. No new standards of conduct were imposed on either party when this IBAN was implemented. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 18:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The point remains; the secrecy here has a lot of people concerned, and legitimately so. The case could have been held publicly, with evidence that needed to be held private held as such. Without a case declared, even to say it was going to be held privately, we just get an announcement and one of the two people involved ups and retires from the project. It's quite chilling. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:43, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This. There's not even a statement in this announcement that a proceeding was held, that a private proceeding was held, or that evidence was reviewed that needed to be kept private. The Committee can't keep playing fast and loose like this. You can absolutely hold cases privately if need be, provided the Arbitration Policy permits it, the secrecy is kept to the absolute minimum necessary to protect a legitimate private interest, and there is an announcement on the record of the determination reached, when it was reached, and whether (and what) evidence was considered. Announcements like these are functionally indistinguishable from arbitrary and capricious decisions. Announcing remedies without anything else through this questionable motion-in-lieu-of-case proceeding that someone made up years ago is as clear a misuse of the Arbitration process as I have ever seen. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 01:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm twisting myself into contortions, trying to see this from ArbCom's perspective, and I'm having an awful lot of trouble doing so. Knowing Ritchie333 as well as I do, something here does not add up. I strongly urge the Committee to rewrite the ban announcement per multiple other editors above. The current 1.5-way wording is a mistake. I doubt that there is any downside to simply making it 2-way, and there is no good reason for you to dig in your heels over this. Please, just change it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll copy what I said above, as I understand the concerns about lack of transparency, but this was felt to be a matter best handled in private:
 * Yes, this was determined to be a private matter unsuitable for public discussion. Ironically, when announcing it, it is no longer a private matter, and it has public consequences. Personally I would have preferred a public case (there is evidence of Richie having been outspoken with several users), but that was seen as inappropriate from various angles, including procedure and public exposure; and, as PMC says, both parties were able to open up in a manner they could not in public. I think there is much still to be learned in how to deal appropriately with potential harassment. I am firmly behind the notion that we need to be aware of incivility and harassment, but there seems to be a difficulty in hearing harassment cases publicly because of concerns that people complaining about popular figures will experience abuse. Yet if cases are heard privately there are concerns about lack of transparency. I am firmly in favour of transparency. I dislike that ArbCom does so much via email rather than here on enwiki. However, if asked to choose between dealing appropriately with harassment, listening carefully to what people have to say, and transparency, then I will choose dealing appropriately with harassment every time. Ideally I would like there to be transparency in dealing with harassment, but until someone comes up with a workable solution, then I will accept, for the greater good of the project, that sometimes we have to deal with harassment in an opaque manner - that being the lesser of two evils, if you will. SilkTork (talk) 5:49 pm, Today (UTC+1)
 * I hope that is helpful in moving toward understanding our thinking. As pointed out by xaosflux, we could have made clearer in the announcement that this was done "to resolve matters unsuitable for public discussion for privacy ... reasons". SilkTork (talk) 18:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If, per the indenting, that was specifically a reply to me, then I can confirm that I carefully read it and appreciated it the first time. But nothing there negates what I said about rewriting the announcement from 1-way-sort-of to 2-way. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It is a two-way. Enforceable by blocking. The wording that was agreed was intended to underline that of the two parties, though both wanted an iban, Richie had no choice in the matter as it was felt that he had behaved inappropriately. The more this conversation goes on the less helpful it is to either party. ArbCom acted within agreed scope. If the community wish to change that scope then a general discussion can be started (without referencing any individuals). If people are concerned about Richie, then perhaps reach out to him in private. I think that would be more helpful to him right now than continuing to dig publicly into why he was ibanned. I hope that makes sense. SilkTork (talk) 18:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed some of us already have, and it would appear that the account being given here by some is not accurate at all, but considering we have no way of discussing any of it, it's rather a moot and disappointing point really. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 19:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * To clarify and correct my wording. Both clearly told us they did not wish to interact with the other, which is not quite the same as saying they wanted an iban, so that aspect was slightly inaccurate. My mistake. SilkTork (talk) 22:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not a one-way. They are both banned from interacting with one another under the standard IBAN terms. Praxidicae's IBAN persists as long as Ritchie's does; she cannot change her mind and choose not to be IBANned. The enforcement is equal - should either side violate it, it is enforceable with blocks via normal channels. Rewriting would imply that we found Praxidicae equally at fault for the situation, and the consensus we came to after looking into the situation and the history was that that was not the case. I am strongly opposed to any wording which implies that someone who came to us as the victim of harassment is equally at fault: hence the asymmetry. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It does not sound like it was 2-way, despite the intended meaning. I understand what you (collectively) intended to communicate, but the way it ended up being written didn't so much settle the dispute, as prolong it. And I do get it, that 2-way IBANS can be misunderstood as implying either "no-fault" or "equal fault", and that there were valid private reasons for wanting to prevent a misreading as "equal fault". But if It is two-way and It's not one-way, the fact remains that members of the Committee have had to do a lot of explaining here, to get that across, and it should have been clear from the original wording. There would actually have been nothing wrong with saying, instead, that it is a two-way IBAN and that Praxidicae had already agreed to it.--Tryptofish (talk) 19:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , if the reason for the asymmetry is a finding of fact that Ritchie333 harassed Praxidicae, you could have said so. But that should have been in context and with a clear explanation (or a full case), including an explanation why there were no harsher sanctions. If you want to protect victims of harassment, it is also unclear to me how posting on a public noticeboard stating "this person came to us as a victim of harassment" is an effective way of doing so. A no-fault decision might not look fair to someone who knows the details behind the case, but could have been the better outcome overall. —Kusma (t·c) 06:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Can we dial it way back on this page, please? I have the utmost respect for Ritchie, and I don't like his getting sanctioned either, but we're talking about an IBAN here, not a one-year siteban; and coming from the entity that is actually empowered by the community to deal with this sort of thing. This is our mildest possible sanction. Comparisons to framgate are way off the mark. There's certainly a few comments that seem to be more about dumping on ARBCOM, the one body that everyone can criticize without consequence, than about saying anything rational about this. Do y'all realize this is an appealable sanction, unlike that from T&S? Has anyone even asked Ritchie and Praxidicae whether they would have wanted to have this out in public? I thought not. One of the many admirable qualities about Ritchie is is abhorrence of drama, so for that reason if none other, try to discuss this rationally. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think we are at a place of needing to determine what ArbCom's actual remit is. In my view, its remit is not imposing what is worded as (an apparently unappealable) one-way IBan on an administrator in good standing, without either a very clear and detailed explanation plus findings of fact, or a full case. If ArbCom believes this is within its remit, then I am sorely deceived, and I would like a full community agreement/survey that this is within its remit. Softlavender (talk) 00:43, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This looks like a kneejerk from Arbcom to being told by T&S they need to do more when someone says "harassment", but the continued inability for anyone to understand how or what has been considered so heinous to necessitate such privacy (and a poorly worded motion) is really troubling. Moreover I don't understand if the harassment had risen to such a level that it required an in camera examination and resulted in Arbs using terms like "aggressor", how Ritchie, in the eyes of Arbcom, can continue as an admin?  The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 06:40, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm honestly very close to trying to round up a group of experts to rewrite the entire arbitration policy in order firmly to anchor this body back where it belongs: In the adjudication of conduct disputes with a presumption that the proceedings will be public. The misuse of this Committee has gone on far too long. Fortunately, there's a straightforward means for amending the arbitration policy. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 06:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * By all means please do. We can't have ArbCom making out-of-process unexplained unappealable secretive power grabs any more than we can have WMF/T&S making out-of-process unexplained unappealable secretive power grabs. Softlavender (talk) 09:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Ritchie333 and Praxidicae (arbitrary break 1)

 * Comments and Questions: I'm seeing some "between the lines" commentary from Arbs here.
 * WTT says: It is a full enforceable interaction ban on both parties. Ok, that's a bog standard two-way IBAN. That's not, however, what ArbCom has written. The wording of ArbComs statement is clearly geared against Ritchie, and with Praxidicae "agreeing" to leave Ritchie alone.
 * PMC says: Prax's mutual IBAN runs while Ritchie's does - no take backs. Re-affirming the "mutual two-way IBAN" story WTT gave, but carefully crafted to imply that Praxidicae had a choice. Did they?
 * SilkTork says both [a] two-way i-ban was seen as appropriate, but then (in the same post) [t]here was a consensus on the Committee for wording which indicated that the i-ban on Richie was imposed by ArbCom as it was felt he had over-stepped the mark. This means one of a few things:
 * 1) Praxidicae's IBAN was not imposed by ArbCom, in which case by whom was it imposed? (Self-imposed seems likely from PMC's statement, but, potentially, with the threat of it being enforced).
 * 2) ArbCom are not comfortable saying they've imposed an IBAN on Praxidicae. This'd beg the question as to why?
 * 3) This IBAN is really a one-way IBAN with the two-way (1.5 way as someone above called it) writing being a facade. In this case, either ArbCom doesn't think Praxidicae would violate the IBAN and so wrote this to lessen the impact of a one-way sanction on Ritchie, or, they did it to lessen the risk of intrusion from concerned community members – Y'all failed miserable if that was your goal.
 * Presuming that there's really nothing more to this and that this really is a two-way IBAN, per this statement from PMC: They are both banned from interacting with one another under the standard IBAN terms. Why in the ever-loving hell is the wording of the IBAN imposed not just a simple, readable, easy-to-understand, unambiguous, crystal clear, etc, etc: After discussion with both parties, the Committee resolves that Ritchie333 and Praxidicae be indefinitely banned from interacting with, or commenting on each other anywhere on the English Wikipedia. How fucking difficult is it to write plain English? Why does ArbCom need to write in pseudo-legalese riddled with bullet-holes of confusion? Mr rnddude (talk) 06:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Has there ever been an attempt to propose a vote of no confidence in the ArbCom, outside of the usual election procedure? What would happen, given the issue of consensus in RfCs vs actual voting in elections? And how would it affect the next election? Or would that lead to T&S taking over? I ask not just because of this and the Fram debacle but because I think we've even had arbs themselves resigning, claiming dis-satisfaction with what goes on. This isn't the sole seemingly poorly-phrased announcement by the current committee, who seem to spend an inordinate amount of time having to explain what it what they intended to convey. - Sitush (talk) 07:21, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've thought about doing it over the last couple months. I would've done it as an amendment to the Arbitration Policy, phrased as follows: Effective immediately upon the ratification of this Amendment, all members of the Arbitration Committee are hereby dismissed. All pending cases and case requests shall be held in abeyance until elections are completed. Elections are to be held as soon as practicable upon the ratification of this Amendment, and will follow the pattern for normal elections, except that no person who has been an Arbitrator within the past one (1) year shall be eligible to stand for election to the Committee in this election. Any person who is purported to be appointed to the Committee by any process between the ratification of this Amendment and the conclusion of the new elections shall immediately be removed from office. Per WP:ARBPOL, all that's needed to force a referendum on an amendment to the policy is a petition approved by 100 editors in good standing, and then a referendum on ratification will be held. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 07:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * @Sitush: Theoretically by the letter of the law, a majority of Arbcom would need to ratify any vote of no confidence. The lack of a mechanism for the community to remove sitting arbs is by design not by accident, otherwise any well-organised lobby group could in theory keep removing arbs until the committee reached their preferred composition. On paper, the abolition of the committee would lead to direct rule by Jimmy Wales, but in practice I assume he'd be certain to refuse to pick up that poisoned chalice and T&S would hold the fort until a fresh election could be arranged. You may disagree with the current committee, but the alternatives would be a disaster. (Bear in mind that the infrastructure doesn't exist to hold a fresh election, even if we wanted one; we'd need to go cap-in-hand to Jan Eissfeldt asking him to give us temporary access to SecurePoll.)
 * Talk of votes of no confidence is way premature, given that we haven't heard from either party. For all we know Ritchie333 will say "they caught me bang to rights"; my issue here is with the poor communications from the current committee, not necessarily with their actions. &#8209; Iridescent 07:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No, read the arbitration policy: All that's needed to force a referendum is 100 signatures on a petition. Ratification referenda pass if the following conditions are met: (1) A simple majority of votes and (2) at least 100 supports. The moment it crosses that threshold, the amendment is ratified. The Committee itself has no role in it. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 07:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , I totally agree. I have no reason to question the Committee's intentions here, just their communication methods do not work. —Kusma (t·c) 07:40, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I was asking a question. I certainly wouldn't do it. - Sitush (talk) 08:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no reason to question their intentions either. But I have no confidence in their ability to arbitrate in conformance either with the arbitration policy or the expectations of the community. Intentions don't even enter into it. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 07:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I have confidence in the Committee but will urge them to proactively look into the issue of improving communication. Earlier it seemed to be AGK alone (Admin Security circular + GSM) but now, it seems to be affecting other members too. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 07:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Anyone wanting the current committee disbanded should listen to Iridescent's wise words - and be mindful both of what you ask for and of what you're likely to get. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think there'd be any harm at all in opening up a site-wide discussion covering all current events, including this, Framgate, the various retirements and inactive individuals, leading to a skeleton committee etc. And if the community didn't "get they ask for" then I suppose that community would move on or take Wikipedia's content elsewhere. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 09:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The idea of a fork to take Wikipedia's content elsewhere is one that keeps coming up, but it's just a fantasy that's got no chance of happening. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:40, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it's always good to get a handle on these things. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess the more it gets talked about the more likely it is to happen. It's good to talk. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 10:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , this has been a major problem with the current ArbCom. Remember the "admins must enable 2FA, oh no, you misunderstood us" disaster? This tends to be a lot worse with in camera decisions, and unclear wording often gets fixed during open cases. Arbcom should probably either (a) run all communications by some trusted people (clerks, functionaries, ex-arbs) to doublecheck they say what they mean or (b) rely on this "wiki" technology some more, I have heard it works great. —Kusma (t·c) 07:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I would be curious to know if the circumstances of this case bear on the resignation of RickinBaltimore.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I note that Ritchie333 was active just an hour before the announcement, then retired after it. This does seem consistent with something about the announcement itself being surprising in some way. Κσυπ Cyp  07:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I would be curious to know if the circumstances of this case bear on the resignation of RickinBaltimore.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I note that Ritchie333 was active just an hour before the announcement, then retired after it. This does seem consistent with something about the announcement itself being surprising in some way. Κσυπ Cyp  07:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Just noting that I'm pretty disgusted by a whole bunch of elements of this mess. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comments about poor communication noted. I can't speak for the others, but I am rather tired and demotivated by events this year. Under the circumstances it is difficult to give your best. I don't think we communicated enough with Richie about this. There was an intention, but it seems it got missed. And we struggled to articulate promptly and clearly our thinking to the community. I am attempting to keep motivated on the Committee, but it is very difficult. The expectation that we don't just do the job, but that we do it perfectly and accept abuse and insults with a shrug of the shoulder can be a bit much to take when you are tired and dispirited, as such, to avoid disappointing any more members of the community by struggling on when tired I am going to take a break for a while. I do intend to come back, and when I do I will endeavour to communicate more clearly and with a more stoic attitude in the face of the usual ArbCom criticism. SilkTork (talk) 11:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * A thoroughly understandable reaction. You folk simply don't deserve the shit that's increasingly being thrown at you. You've volunteered for a role that I wouldn't do even for significant cash, and I want you to know that at least one of us is grateful to you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think we communicated enough with Richie about this. There was an intention, but it seems it got missed. and as a consequence we have now lost a fine contributor who has been dismissed by some Arbs as an aggressor and who clearly feels that the situation has been misrepresented and who has no public right of reply, even if he did decide to return, which is very unlikely at this point. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 11:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , I wholly understand that you are feeling tired and demotivated. You volunteered for a terrible job and are still doing it, which is admirable in itself. Every time I do criticise ArbCom, I do feel a slight amount of guilt for not being willing to do the job myself. But I think some of the criticism is people trying to help you by saying what you could do better, and you might be more successful by including the community more in your deliberations. Anyway, enjoy your break! —Kusma (t·c) 12:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , It is ridiculous, the (usually after action) demands put on the volunteer committee. And they are often put as different multiple demands, in the most wikilawerly, or just poor way.  There seems to be insistence what we need is both law and bureaucracy, when both are fundamentally inimical to the project and to the project's consensus.  Here the ctte acted both in its remit and relative to the issue in decent order.  Some seem convinced they would always do everything perfectly with perfect communication, but such a thing is a false god (or a lie).  Here, what you had is evidently two editors (one an admin, who is required to know and act better) whose interaction needed addressing and the committee addressed it in a relatively restrained way, limiting dragging anyone through the public mud.  Perfect, no, but it will never be, and can never be perfect. (And all of us have to decide every day to either live with the imperfections here or leave.)  People just have to forgive lack of perfection, and we will always need to forgive ourselves, too.  People also need to realize that when they are not elected to sit in the decision making role, it's not their decision and it won't be done the way they would do it, and reach the conclusion they would always reach.
 * But really enjoy your time away, that's the thing to do. Good for you. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing anyone here claiming that decision made wasn't correct, but I am seeing plenty of criticism (mostly constructive) of the manner in which it was conducted and the manner in which is has been (mis)communicated.  The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 12:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * In any RL scenario, the acceptable botch-up-rate is inversely proportional to the amount of power, vested in them. This was an easily justifiable decision but that you failed to communicate enough with one of the recipients is quite fatal, irrespective of the merits and on the top of that, it took 4 arbitrators to clarify that it was indeed meant to be an asymmetric sanction, in its spirits. This edition of the committee seems to be performing awfully; in the last ~4 years I don't recall such consistent pattern of mistakes and blowouts. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 12:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * In any RL scenario, the acceptable botch-up-rate is inversely proportional to the amount of power, vested in them. This was an easily justifiable decision but that you failed to communicate enough with one of the recipients is quite fatal, irrespective of the merits and on the top of that, it took 4 arbitrators to clarify that it was indeed meant to be an asymmetric sanction, in its spirits. This edition of the committee seems to be performing awfully; in the last ~4 years I don't recall such consistent pattern of mistakes and blowouts. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 12:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Here are just two of my difficulties here.


 * 1) A case heard in secret that comes up with a resolution of an interaction ban has by definition not uncovered any intolerable behaviour. If it had, you'd have desysopped Ritchie and/or banned one or both of the parties. As such, I cannot understand why you would decide not to post more information about this case. As you have just seen from the Fram case, in-camera proceedings are detested by the community and you should not commit to them for anything less than the most serious cases.
 * 2) - and this one's the bigger one. Having come to an offwiki decision about this case, the rights and wrongs of which are arguable (and being argued above), the way you worded the interaction bans was totally unnecessary. You could have just announced a two-way iBan, given that is the result. If you wanted to admonish Ritchie, you should have admonished him. This was like a sly dig. A wink to those in the know.

Just horrible. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Disagree not 'horrible', which also seems like drama fueling word. The committee's statement basically has all the information, and while they can anticipate some questions, if they did not anticipate your question, just ask, but if you want all the damning details just know you are not likely to get it out of reasonable and wise propriety and well placed, policy empowered, elected to perform, discretion.
 * We know from the statement: 1) there was interaction; 2) one of the parties is an administrator; 3) the ctte decided it was in their bailiwick; 4) the ctte decided that e-mail evidence was in order; 5) the ctte decided to reveal that there was email evidence, which together with the prior interaction was sufficient to act; 6) the ctte decided it needed to be two-way (it is written as two way -- it even has the word "mutual" -- even though some seem to argue its not two-way enough). So no, not horrible in the least.Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:43, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , noting that a simple two-way iBan with a separate admonishment for Ritchie would have been a much better way (In my opinion) to handle this, and I am kicking myself for not thinking of it. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 13:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * the lack of an admonishment or any other statement setting aside a concern has left a cloud of doubt of if the committee even considered if Ritchie333 has breached the behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others component of the administrator policy, and if that itself is in need of remedy - of which ArbCom has scope to review. Will someone need to file an actual case request to get an answer to this, referring to the secret evidence you already have? —  xaosflux  Talk 14:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What doubt? The committee decided in their protective function that the way to protect was the "mutual" interaction remedy, nothing more.  That's not doubt about anything. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * IBans are certainly useful remedies for editor:editor issues, the separate issue of "did this administrator violate the administrator policy" and if so, does that itself require a remedy isn't clear to me for sure. A "no they didn't" or "they did, remedy is warning" would. —  xaosflux  Talk 15:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * But there is no reason to do so. I certainly don't doubt R as an admin (And the IBAN does not lead me to doubt) although I fully acknowledge that although R voluntarily took on heightened expectations, R is an imperfect human being, like we all are, and can fall into error.  Nothing in the committee's statement says he can't function as an admin (where uninvolved of course), so there is no doubt from the quarter either.  If some lone person is really in doubt about such a thing and it matters, they could begin steps of dispute resolution (which begins with more discussion) if R ever returns (as we hope) but again, I see no reason for that, and predict it would not go anywhere. --  Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If the committee actually reviewed this component, transparently communicating determinations (while respecting that the evidence is private) is really part of what we elect them to do. — xaosflux  Talk 15:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Better than saying it, they have showed it, permission remains, even when in error, as sometimes occurs. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * A lack of that specific remedy, does not show that the matter was considered in the first place - if it wasn't considered there would also be a lack of remedy. — xaosflux  Talk 16:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No. There was an admin who is before the committee, the host of remedies exist, the proper one is selected, no other remedy was needed to protect the pedia. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Not a response to anyone just thoughts.
 * I don't understand how we cannot disagree with the arbs and yet support the work they are trying to do. Arbs like all people on this project have to be treated with a fundamental level of respect. Our civility policy refers to them too. At the same time, they make mistakes. Dealing with mistakes, having a forum for truly appealing a mistake might go a long way to making the community feel the issues are being respected and met. But none of this gives any of us permission to treat the arbs badly. When we vote them into place we expect we have voted for people who are doing their best. Unloading our anger, frustration on the arbs whether we agree with them or not is self-indulgent. I may guilty of this too whatever my best efforts. Of course they wear out as would any of us. Very few people are truly and long–term productive in negative environments. I'd add it's our system that does not work well. To truly understand a case the entire context must be first displayed and understood and this is not easy in a two dimensional format when what we are dealing with is the multi dimensional aspects of behaviour–editors and arbs both are disadvantaged. The arbs have to be able to do their jobs without burn out and editors have to be able to receive fair treatment which may take a revamp or relook at the the system. I too feel great frustration; we've lost some excellent editors and the arbs are wearing out. Something has to change. Littleolive oil (talk) 12:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a sentiment that I am supporting either the arbs or Ritchie in this statement. I am doing both. I won't judge either side; I don't know enough and I will not speculate. What I am saying is we are dealing with people working in a system that probably does not work. Our civility policy does not just refer to the more superficial use of foul language; it's far deeper than that. It guides this community to an environment which can and will foster collaboration. Attacks on anyone won't support that kind of environment. And what is hardest perhaps is to admit to mistakes and correct them and as a community to foster a culture that admits to multiple viewpoints. It takes a far bigger person to admit to a mistake than to not; I wish we could honour that fact. Littleolive oil (talk) 14:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

a minority viewpoint
ArbCom did the right thing, it is not in the same universe to what T&S pulled with Fram, and the committee does not deserve the intense criticism it's receiving here. I am sorry the decision upset Ritchie and I hope he will return, but sometimes, for the good of both the encyclopedia and the individual editors it's necessary to ask two editors to leave each other alone. Multiple people asked nicely, but the message was not received. Ultimately this was a failure of the community to fix the problem, and when the community fails to fix a problem with editor/admin behavior, it falls to ArbCom to fix it. Well, this is ArbCom trying to fix what the community didn't or couldn't fix it. If you don't like the way they handled it, then get it fixed before ArbCom has to. Because if you let problematic behavior fester and then yell at the committee when they try to address it, the committee is going to be more likely to avoid fixing it, and if the committee doesn't fix it, the WMF will have no choice but do it themselves, and I for one don't want them in that role. Let ArbCom do its job, and yes, this is one of their jobs. 28bytes (talk) 13:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If one was Assuming Good Faith here, you could excuse it as merely a horribly botched operation, performed in camera for no apparent reason, and communicated appallingly badly. If one wasn't Assuming Good Faith, however ... well, 's "This was like a sly dig. A wink to those in the know" might be closer to the truth. Black Kite (talk) 13:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If it were merely a horribly botched operation they would have fixed the botched announcement and included an apology to Ritchie. That they haven't speaks volumes. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What Littleoliveoil said (added post : and 28bytes). We need to treat ARBCOM members as potentially fallible colleagues, not like the representatives of a tinpot dictatorship. They're volunteers trying to do the most thankless job on Wikipedia, and all they're receiving for it at the moment is quantities of snark and bad faith. There's several ways to explain the wording of the ban in its entirety that don't involve any conspiracy theories. Here's one; ARBCOM receives a complaint about this dustup; they talk to both editors about it, and receive frank opinions about each; they decide Ritchie was getting more heated than was appropriate, and that a one-way IBAN was necessary; they decided that Praxidicae did not require a sanction, but to make life a little fairer for Ritchie, because one-way IBANs tend to be messy, they asked Praxidicae to accept an IBAN too. Hence the wording that was posted.  I don't know that this was what went down, or if it was even the right decision; but until I see evidence to the contrary, I can't buy theories about ill intent. Incidentally, this very page illustrates why proceedings may have been carried out in secret; because when someone dares to say that the behavior of a positive contributor was sub-par, it attracts howls of protest from the peanut gallery, most of whom have never attempted to resolve conflicts themselves.  There aren't many editors with the experience, judgement, and motivation to do the job of arbitration well. There's probably not more than three dozen editors I'd trust in this position (Ritchie would have been one). If we burn them out we're left with a less competent ARBCOM, or with none at all: and if that situation would please you, you haven't got Wikipedia's best interests at heart., enjoy your break, and I hope to see you return. Vanamonde (Talk) 13:50, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well said. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , .... when someone dares to say that the behavior of a positive contributor was sub-par, it attracts howls of protest from the peanut gallery, most of whom have never attempted to resolve conflicts themselves .... is absolutely false.
 * I, TRM, Kusma et al have consistently held that this is not about the merits of Ritchie getting sanctioned ( I even wrote of the sanction being fairly expected!) but rather about ArbCom's communication problems about the reasons behind an asymmetrically worded sanction. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 14:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That's terrible logic, . I made a generalization about responses to this incident, framgate, and a few other notable cases. You claim that I'm wrong because three editors didn't fit the pattern in one case? Vanamonde (Talk) 16:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , how am I supposed to understand that you were making a generalization? You have devoted an entire paragraph to this very case and have additionally mentioned nothing 'bout Framgate or any other circumstances.
 * Also add Iri, RdNdude, Dweller, Amakuru and Tryp as another five, who are much more concerned about the language and other aspects of communication, than the merits of the IBan. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 17:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am. I also agree very much with what Dweller has been saying. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I see two possibilities, either the ArbCom acted knowing the firestorm its decision would cause among a community sensitive because of similar actions by T&S, or the community's reaction caught it by surprise. Either is reasonably the subject of discussion by the community.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Vanamonde, your scenario seems possible/probable except that a) there's no need for secret proceedings for someone getting "more heated than was appropriate" and b) "howls of protest" are x100 for secret proceedings. I don't know what others want by posting here, but I'm not looking for anyone's burnout. I'm looking for Ritchie to get an apology, if one's due (and it seems it is) but more importantly, the principle must be that proceedings are in public and the nature of what Arbcom have told us, implictly and explicitly, is that this case should not have been held in secret. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No, matters are usually in public and that is what has happened with this committee, but they are not always and never have been. And it would be bad for Wikipedia and for the poor publicly pilloried Wikipedians, if the committee did not have the discretionary power they do now. And no the committee should most definitely not turn from their obligations to exercise reasoned discretion.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * In principle, proceedings should be in public. If there's a burning need they can be handled in private. It's plainly evident from the committee's responses to it that this case did not need to be handled in secrecy. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No. The committee's responses are not evidence of any such thing. In principle, can you accept that it's not your decision and until you are elected to face the choice to drag someone out in public it won't be your decision, and that the principles of Wikipedia are to grant the ctte has acted in reasoned good faith -- so, that no you are wrong about this case. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that the two parties here should have been put through a full, public case to get an IBAN in place? If not, what other public process could have been used?  GoldenRing (talk) 15:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That all proceedings should be public is a good principle, in principle. It's not always possible in practice, and explains why more eloquently than I could. There's an assumption in your statement that I cannot get behind; that only private evidence allows for a private case. I think there's other legitimate reasons; the ability to be completely frank with a trusted set of arbiters is one; the desire to not deal with the peanut gallery is another. Why should individuals desire public proceedings, when a lot of what the public brings to them is abuse? Vanamonde (Talk) 16:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Where's the evidence that one-way IBANs are messy? I'm under one right now and beside the then-committee handled it, the ban itself has been absolutely without issue, quite nice actually.  No, this is 100% to do with secret proceedings and pointed wording.  The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 14:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Your one-way IBAN is likely the exception that proves the rule. One-way IBANs are easy to game; they are ideal solutions only where the user who isn't sanctioned can be trusted not to game them, or to accidentally make them difficult to abide by. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Demonstrate the fact that IBANs are messy.  Otherwise your input on this is not required. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 23:07, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh please. The evidence is strewn over the ANI archives, and objections on these grounds are brought up every time a one-way IBAN on an experienced editor is concerned; including at the discussion of your IBAN, where I don't see you objecting. And I will leave it up to those users who do not continually disparage me to decide when my input is unhelpful. Last I checked several users thanked me for the above statements, so your diagnosis isn't shared by many. Karellen93 (talk) (Vanamonde93's alternative account) 00:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with ’s statement, and particularly emphasize that the response on this page demonstrates why secret proceedings were chosen. The community had a chance to deal with this unfortunate issue 9 months ago, and the solution was, and I’m not even joking “Can’t we all just get along?”. I like and respect Ritchie a lot. He and I have worked closing together and I have substantial respect for him. One of the reasons I have that respect for him is that he would never have taken part in anything like we’re seeing here: he understood that sometimes things needed to be handled discreetly and there were countless times where he would work behind the scenes to resolve disputes. While I don’t think he likes the outcome here, we have no evidence he even wanted a public case. On the flip side, why would anyone who wants an IBAN from a popular administrator file a public case if this is the response they’d get. The huge irony here is that in responding this way, those who oppose the secrecy are making it more likely because no one in their right mind would open a public case request after seeing this response.There can be legitimate critiques of ArbCom, but acting when the community has refused to act is squarely within its remit. Maybe the wording could have been better, but I think the sanction itself will be for the best of both Ritchie and Praxidicae if Ritchie returns, which I really hope he does. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:50, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I see from the original discussion that you and I both !voted in favour of the IBAN, which would have definitely been a sensible outcome even then. But a number of editors felt it was premature or unnecessary punishment. If the same issue had been raised at ANI again in the nine months since, we might well have seen consensus for the IBAN without need for ArbCom involvement and without the drama we're seeing here, as people are more likely to act on a clear repeated pattern. As an aside, I personally think we should try to get around this stigma regarding IBANs, and remove any association with "punishment" or wrongdoing, simply acknowledging that in a world of 7 billion people, and the 25 quintillion two-way relationships that come with that, not every pair of individuals gets along. If one party is actually engaging in personal attacks, and the other is not, then apply a separate sanction on that user only, but keep the IBAN as a blame-free two-way sanction. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:09, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , I personally have no problem with the decision itself, and I don't think you're necessarily in a minority over that - both Ritchie and Praxi seem to have long-agreed that they needed to stay away from each other. I'm also perfectly happy to assume good faith in ArbCom over this. I just think the communication was poor, in reducing what was essentially a mutual-benefit IBAN into a blame-game where it looked like a punishment imposed on Ritchie, and based on in camera proceedings which are opaque to all. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I see from the original discussion that you and I both !voted in favour of the IBAN, which would have definitely been a sensible outcome even then. But a number of editors felt it was premature or unnecessary punishment. If the same issue had been raised at ANI again in the nine months since, we might well have seen consensus for the IBAN without need for ArbCom involvement and without the drama we're seeing here, as people are more likely to act on a clear repeated pattern. As an aside, I personally think we should try to get around this stigma regarding IBANs, and remove any association with "punishment" or wrongdoing, simply acknowledging that in a world of 7 billion people, and the 25 quintillion two-way relationships that come with that, not every pair of individuals gets along. If one party is actually engaging in personal attacks, and the other is not, then apply a separate sanction on that user only, but keep the IBAN as a blame-free two-way sanction. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:09, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , I personally have no problem with the decision itself, and I don't think you're necessarily in a minority over that - both Ritchie and Praxi seem to have long-agreed that they needed to stay away from each other. I'm also perfectly happy to assume good faith in ArbCom over this. I just think the communication was poor, in reducing what was essentially a mutual-benefit IBAN into a blame-game where it looked like a punishment imposed on Ritchie, and based on in camera proceedings which are opaque to all. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Planning ahead
Three quick comments, without commenting on this specific case:
 * 1) There are some times when ArbCom really does need to handle a matter discreetly and just announce the result. I can think of more than one such situation that arose during my tenure. If the Committee were prohibited from taking any action without an on-wiki case or a full public explanation, then either urgent problems would go unresolved, or ironically it would be necessary for the Committee to forward them to Trust & Safety to resolve them. So a flat prohibition against ArbCom's doing anything without a case is a really bad idea.
 * 2) There is no time for a special election to pick additional arbitrators (unless we wanted to go with a sharply truncated election process, which has its own drawbacks). It is already August. By the time we collectively decided to proceed with a special election it would be later in August. We typically take a few weeks to organize the election and invite people to run, and then another few weeks for the candidate question period, and then a couple of weeks to vote. By the time the new arbitrators were selected it would be October in the most optimistic scenario&mdash;just when we'd be gearing up for the regular annual election.
 * 3) As I opined in last year's RfC, I don't think it makes a lot of difference whether there are 13 or 15 arbitrators, but I anticipate a decision to return to 15 this year. That means there will be 9 vacancies to fill in this year's election, many of which do not have incumbents; I hope there will be a robust pool of candidates. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Response
Since Arbcom didn't or couldn't discuss anything with me in private, I'm posting my main email to them here in the hope somebody else can understand what I'm talking about.

The opening email from Arbcom basically said, neutrally and politely "Can you give some background behind these diffs?" So I did. The email, verbatim, is as follows:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Manifestation&diff=905954108&oldid=905951738

Praxidicae tagged an article for copyright violation. I agreed with their analysis, and redacted the parts of the article in question. Manifestation later pointed out I had incorrectly redacted the lead, which was not a copyvio, so I restored it.

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Homewood&diff=next&oldid=906557291

I saw Bill Homewood's article tagged for G11 on my usual rounds at CAT:CSD. I didn't think it met the criteria, so removed it. I didn't think Praxidicae's tagging of the article with a summary "gutting all the unsourced promotional trash" (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Homewood&diff=906557254&oldid=906556535) was civil and polite, and referring to a new editor's good-faith creation on a (presumably) notable person as "promotional trash" falls below the standard of respect we should treat fellow editors, in my view.

3. (discussion about Bill Homewood generally)

I thought Praxidicae's conduct in the thread, starting "Since my removal of a bunch of totally unsourced puffery on a BLP is challenged" was confrontational and unlikely to lead to a satisfactory conclusion. After one comment, where I pointed out that they really should try and improve the article instead of leaving aggressive messages, I questioned why, if they had retired from the project (per the polemic on their user page "I have no interest in helping a project that willfully allows and condones harassment, intimidation and stalking."), why were they arguing with me here? I then disengaged from the discussion as it clearly was not going anywhere.

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Praxidicae&diff=906842782&oldid=903930334

This follows on from 3, though it is more me getting cross generally with editors who put "This editor has retired due to Framgate" and then carry on editing. While editors are free to quit the project, if they carry on editing regardless then nobody will take their retirement seriously. I think I have called The Rambling Man out for similar behaviour. Anyway, blanking their user page was a stupid and idiotic thing to do, and I took the view if it was reverted (as it was) I would leave it be.

5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ritchie333&diff=907073626&oldid=907073075

This is my personal opinion of Praxidicae following an unsolicited message they left on my talk page. I think it is civil and polite, if blunt and forthright.

From my point of view, I feel like I have been bullied by Praxidicae. I feel hurt and upset about how somebody can be so spiteful and malicious simply by somebody disagreeing with them and thinking that articles should be improved and not deleted, and how nobody else seems to understand my point of view. I don't want to interact them again and as you have probably seen, I have asked Praxidicae to stay off my talk page and not edit there. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ritchie333&diff=next&oldid=907109464). I apologise for rising to the bait on occasion and responding in kind to an argument; however, more often than not I agree with their deletion tags and delete the pages as requested. If you think my level of conduct falls below the expected standard of administrators, I'll draw your attention to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ritchie333/Recall - if two editors on that list tell me to resign, I will do so "under a cloud" and would not be able to-regain the tools without a fresh RfA.

As you can also see from this message (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vermont&diff=prev&oldid=907130397) I have semi-retired from the project. I have a GA review to finish; but beyond that I don't feel like participating for a while. Not wishing to gather a sympathy vote, I come onto WP to learn about new things, write articles and research topics, and if it gets to the stage where I feel harassed and bullied by another editor with no obvious course of appeal, I am completely unmotivated to participate. In the wider world, I feel it's impossible for a man to claim they're being bullied by a woman and for it to be taken seriously.

As I said, I will admit fault for responding in kind in a heated discussion; administrators are expected to set a good example and calm down discussions and become trustworthy.

However, to give you an example of where the conflict is, I have reviewed a couple of Praxidicae's edits from today and can give the following example:


 * At 12:42, the user Malik774 added a link to a Pakistani blog / news site that documented Imran Khan's speech at the Capital Centre, Landover, Maryland (https://www.newpakweb.com/imran-khan-speech-capital-one-arena-wc/) (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Capital_Centre&diff=prev&oldid=907665285). While I do not recognise NewPakWeb as a traditional reliable source, I am aware that the standard for online journalism in Pakistan is not as established as in the West, and consequently sites like this are left to fill the gap. Therefore, the editor is of low value and seems to be only here to cite from their favourite news site, this sounds like a good faith edit.
 * At 13:38, Praxidicae reverts without comment, using the rollback tool (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Capital_Centre&diff=next&oldid=907665285) with no edit summary or messages on Malik774's talk page.

In my opinion, Malik774 is simply an inexperienced user attempt to add an event to an article and supplying a source. It does not look like vandalism, the account is not blocked, and none of the other exceptions for rollback appear to apply.

Other editors do not agree with this view and would dismiss the edits as "SPAM" without a further comment. In my opinion, a discussion is required; it may require escalation to ANI as a single-purpose editor case, but we are not at that stage yet.

Additional: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Specht

Under normal circumstances I would decline the G11 tag and add citations to the Broadway World and Los Angles Times that I discovered via a quick Google News search. This just happened to be the first article I look at at CAT:CSD just now; experience has told me that biographies of women are far more likely to be incorrectly tagged for deletion than just about any other subject.

I got a "thanks for your feedback" pro-forma email from Arbcom and nothing else whatsoever. I don't know what the problem is from their end, or even if they understand what the problem is at my end, which is simply - don't tag new users' articles for deletion with mild insults and don't abuse the rollback tool. Since this view cuts right to the heart of my views as expressed at Requests for adminship/Ritchie333, if Arbcom don't want me doing it - then there is no point me editing here and I'll get on with my family, kids, paid work and whatever else brings me happiness in life.

<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Without any comments about the diffs and the merits, the last paragraph is just awful. If it is indeed true that Ritchie and ArbCom had exchanged no more mails, some of the arbs were flatly lying. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 17:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * In fact, I would call the whole motion, which states there was "discussion" with Ritchie, patently false in light of this revelation. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 17:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * And now a portion of Ritchie's statement here has been revdel'd, ostensibly for "privacy" reasons, but the bit removed only implicates Ritchie's privacy. This is a highly experienced editor who posted this thoughtful, intelligent piece, and you're treating this like it's some teenager posting his home address for no good reason. Ritchie knows exactly what he's doing. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 18:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry but that's just stupid. Even smart, 'highly experienced' people fuck up all the time. Since the statement was evidently just a copy of an email, it's entirely plausible that Ritchie333 forgot or didn't consider the implications of what they were posting. Especially since they seem to be distressed or unhappy about the situation so may not be in the right frame of mind. If Ritchie333 really wants this info to be public and you are correct it only affects their privacy, I'd support them being able to add it back. But this is the internet. It may already be too late to stop it being easy to find with a 30 seconds search. But maybe it's not and the longer it stays up the more likely it will be. It's entirely reasonable to remove the info, while seeking clarification from the editor whether they're sure. If that happened, and I'm hoping it did, it should have happened in private since making a big deal over it like you did just increases the chance people are going to be hunting for it. And yes for this reason I considered not posting this, but decided the harm was already done with your post. Of course the rev-deletion is always going to be visible in the logs, but there's nothing like someone yelling at us that 'hey there's a secret you should hunt down' to ensure we notice. Nil Einne (talk) 18:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC) P.S. I'm assuming that the rev-deletion was the part that is marked redacted and so solely in the original email. If I'm wrong, apologies, of course that's the nature of rev-deletion others can't know what you're talking about so you can expect them to be able to easily understand or accept your point. Nil Einne (talk) 18:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah perfect, someone that posted a "fire-and-forget" message like this, being retired, who clearly only came back to share this e-mail is expected to come back and re-share something. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 18:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow. Not only has my opinion of User:Praxidicae been rather considerably lowered, but so has my estimation of ArbCom. That explanation from Ritchie looks completely reasonable. And the result was an IBAN? That's quite a shock. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Out of respect for the folks involved I don't want to comment substantively until I read through all the histories; but until then, since it's obvious that I've seen this, I want to thank for being so upfront, and say that this doesn't alter the respect I have for you as an editor, no matter what I may think of specific diffs. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 17:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * So why was this all conducted in secret? Nothing needed to be secret. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 18:00, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This. Even if private evidence needed to be considered, this should have been handled as public case request. What an absolute shambles. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 18:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * For some reasons, (not relevant to the dispute but I can't specify), I think that a private case was indeed the best way out; only if the committee had proceeded with due competence .... &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 18:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, perhaps not. There should be a justification on the record of why the case is being handled in this fashion. All it has to be is something like "A private proceeding having been requested and duly considered, the Committee concludes that an arbitration case involving the following parties will be held by e-mail: A.B., C.D. The reason for this is to protect the privacy of individuals participating and due to the fact that most if not all of the relevant evidence is anticipated to be off-wiki or otherwise highly sensitive." It doesn't need to disclose the specifics in such a way as to nullify the reasons for a private hearing, but there needs to be an explanation, and it should be done before the case is held. This is both so stakeholders can come forward and also so there can be an accounting of these cases. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 18:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That sounds very sensible. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:21, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Could a member of ArbCom respond to state whether this was the extent of the "discussion"? Within the confines of hiding behind your little 'privacy' shield, a little openness is now required from you. (And if it wasn't blindingly obvious beforehand, this is a good example of why the secret trial system is a fundamentally bad idea). - SchroCat (talk) 18:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Someone should probably go through User:Praxidicae's use of the rollback tool: it's the single most effective means non-admins have of driving new editors away, and diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff would seem to be some distance from being obvious vandalism and other edits where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear. I'm sure there are good reasons, but, as the behavioural guideline implies, if a reason has to be asked for...it wasn't obvious. R333—like all administrators should be and I'm sure am—has demonstrated himself perfectly willing to revoke the tool when misuse demanded it. I assume any mis/use of the tool was considered and contextualised by the committee? ——  SerialNumber  54129  19:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Someone should probably go through User:Praxidicae's use of the rollback tool Why bother with that, just tell her that for complaining about the behaviour of Ritchie333, she should fuck off. That's what you want to say, isn't it ? Why not just say it. Why not just tell people who have suffered unpleasant behaviour that if they have the sheer fucking audacity to complain, someone will come and dissect every edit, find or invent some issue, and find a new way to make their involvement with Wikipedia a sheer living hell. Nick (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, thanks for the showboating. If you think your approach does anything for editor retention, or protection, then you need to go retune. And re-read WP:RB while you're at it.   ——  SerialNumber  54129  19:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * After reviewing the diffs you provided, my conclusion is that all of them are obvious external link spamming or vandalism and that the reason for reverting is absolutely clear upon cursory inspection of the diffs. I have not reviewed any other diffs beyond the ones that you provided, and I would also advise that if anyone wishes to request removal of Praxidicae's rollback rights that they do so at an appropriate venue. This is not the correct place, especially as Praxidicae would likely be blocked for participating in it. Mz7 (talk) 19:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * . WP:RB or did you mean WP:RBK? — Ched :  ?    —  20:07, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * They're the same thing, but I saved the servers a byte there. Cheers, ——  SerialNumber  54129  20:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't tell due to the indent, but if that's to me, then no, not really. Perhaps not germane to this conversation - but they are actually 2 completely different pages. But I guess it really matters little in the whole scheme of things. — Ched :  ?    —  21:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , Special:Diff/909622126 is not obvious linkspamming, especially in context of the other contributions of this person. I agree that the other rollbacks are absolutely fine. But we should have been discussing this at the ArbCom case that was never initiated, or maybe at the recent ANI that didn't happen. —Kusma (t·c) 20:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No. We actually don't need this discussion at all. It's already caused someone to reveal personal tragedy of the most delicate and dangerous kind. Whether you agree with the reached minor remedy or not just know it is well within the bounds of reason and just stop, and if you can't accept that it might possibly be within reason, try to assume that the people who made it are good people, who did their reasonable best. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I do agree that this needs to stop. It's clear after reviewing all the diffs in this thread that Praxicidae and Ritchie333 don't get along. This is nothing new on Wikipedia and IBANs are a perfectly normal remedy, yet this seems to be blowing out of all proportion. ArbCom has implemented a 2-way IBAN to address the issue (all the quibbling about specific wordings aside). I'm not sure why any more diffs or evidence other than what has been provided here in this discussion are even necessary to establish this (please look at the top of this discussion for more diffs than what Ritchie provided to see some context). Both editors appear to be suffering here (though Praxicidae is silent here, presumably not wanting to violate the IBAN), and the last thing either of these editors need right now is for people to make a witch hunt out of this one way or another. Thank you. Waggie (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "I got a "thanks for your feedback" pro-forma email from Arbcom and nothing else whatsoever." - Strange how the motion states "After discussion with both parties," .... doesn't seem like there was any discussion with both parties or atleast not with one party anyway. – Davey 2010 Talk 20:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No, so they used the word discussion instead of 'e-mailing'. That's not even close to being strange. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. That's an email each. If that was the extent of things, the term "discussion" is utterly misleading. I have asked for a member of ArbCom to clarify, but none have taken up that offer s far. - SchroCat (talk) 20:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The only nonsense is yours, the idea that anyone would flay someone over 'discussion' or 'e-mailing' is extremely silly or worse. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Get a dictionary and look up discussion then. It's fine backing ArbCom or being an apologist for them, but try and keep your mind open and flexible to differentiate the situation and the bullshit. At the moment, you don't seem to be spotting it well enough. - SchroCat (talk) 21:07, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No. If ArbCom didn't communicate with Ritchie from Ritchie's e-mail to the posting of the IBAN notice at AN, then ArbCom's characterization of a "discussion with both parties" is dishonest. That last word is key, because it's the dishonesty that is going to get ArbCom flayed, not using a different word. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Alanscottwalker A discussion is a continued conversation between 2 or more parties correct ? ... One email IMHO isn't a discussion and doesn't come close to being one, I'm not bothered over the terminology (ie emailing or discussion) - I'm bothered that there wasn't an actual discussion between Ritchie & Arbcom. – Davey 2010 Talk 21:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Would someone clarify — is what Richie333 said above true? If so, was the iban mainly based on the above diffs, or is it based on worse ones than listed above? Κσυπ Cyp  20:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Two people saying in no uncertain terms that they want absolutely nothing to do with each other is more than enough. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Necessary break after the attempt to shut down valid discussion

 * WTT, I'm sorry, but there are some fundamental points here that need to be answered by ArbCom. You can't just shut it down and try to ignore it. Even one of predecessors (NYB) has commented here. It's now time for a current member of the committee to clarify things, not shove your collective heads in the sand. - SchroCat (talk) 21:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The section contains violations of an iBan and needs to be shut down, which I have done. As to your question regarding the amount of discussion with Ritchie, we asked for his opinion, he gave it. We were also aware of previous threads between the two, and this issue was brought to our attention in the past (I will have to check on what level of contact we had with Ritchie at the time). This was not a bolt from the blue for him and the above was a breach of the completely necessary interaction ban. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 21:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This is absolutely correct. For those not following in the "shadow docket" of this page's history, WTT hatted this section with the outrageous claim that posting this information is a violation of Ritchie's Committee-imposed IBAN. I have no words for how disgusting this behavior is. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 21:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * So no discussion then? - SchroCat (talk) 21:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * We still have the nuclear option. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 21:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I would not exactly call the above "verbatim". There are some parts omitted but I would say the substance of the emails are represented less the now redacted paragraph. The above was three separate emails sent to the committee, two of which were received by the Arbitration Committee after we sent acknowledgement that we received his response to our questions. We also clearly stated our initial email that we had been made aware of concerns about [Ritchie's] behaviour towards Praxidicae and that it was a continuation of issues brought to our attention previously in October 2018. We sent Praxidicae and Ritchie inquiry emails, they both responded, and we acknowledged receipt of their responses. If "discussion" does not accurately describe it, criticism noted. While I appreciate Ritchie's willingness to disclose his emails despite containing some deeply personal information, presumably to demonstrate the communication extent between him and ArbCom, it, my opinion, violates his IBAN. Ritchie has effectively publicized his entire opinion and criticisms about Praxidicae. Now, Praxidicae has no option to defend herself from these opinions or accusations, or offer her side of the dispute, without also violating the IBAN.
 * Further, comments like this are exactly the reason why editors come to the Arbitration Committee privately rather than opening a public case. Failing to protect the privacy of individuals who felt they were the victims of harassment and failing to protect them from further repercussions and harassment was the entire basis for why the Wikimedia Foundation interceded. In reading this discussion and others like it, we have very little proof to show that we are capable of doing so locally. I am sure this discussion and others like it will be used against those who want local governance on matters related to long-term abuse, harassment, and incivility. (Note: I wrote this before the emails were hatted) <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 21:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I guess this is a position where it is appropriate for me to post the following. I want to begin by pointing out that I have repeatedly defended ArbCom when it was criticized during the Fram debacle, and called for editors who were crying for heads on spikes to dial it down and give ArbCom some breathing space. And I think that some of the comments above, about calling a vote of no confidence and so forth, to be completely over-the-top. But, that said, I'm not seeing a violation of the IBAN by Ritchie. Two arbs, both of them people whom I respect very much, have said that it was. But it seems to me to be the kind of information that Ritchie would normally be expected to post as a rebuttal to evidence against him in a case. And it seems to me that it was reasonable for him to post it here, because it sure sounds like he wasn't given enough of an opportunity to communicate it to ArbCom before ArbCom posted a public announcement that found him at fault for what may not actually have been sufficient grounds for such a finding. The worst thing that the Committee can do right now is to circle the wagons. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The three emails Ritchie sent to us were received between July 22 and July 24. We reviewed everything sent to us by both Praxidicae and Ritchie and reached our decision after a lengthy internal discussion (some 93 emails) and thirteen days later. Ritchie's statement was given due consideration as was the evidence and statements provided by Praxidicae. By re-posting his emails here weeks later, it only accomplishes two things: (1) places a considerable amount of pressure Praxidicae to make their statement and evidence public; (2) it forces a private dispute resolution process to become public without the consent of the others involved. It sends the message that anyone who comes to the Arbitration Committee with privacy concerns should expect the other party to go public with anything they receive if they do not like the outcome. It also says you can continue to potentially talk about another person with whom you have an IBAN as long as you're continuing to litigate your case even if a final decision has been reached. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 22:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that a great deal more pressure was unfairly put on Praxidicae by the Streisanding that resulted from the very poorly worded initial announcement from ArbCom. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I am sure there is some truth in that fact, but stating it as a justification and endorsement to increase the amount of potential harassment someone receives, I am pretty shocked. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 22:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think a lot of us have felt shocked by the past 24 hours, as a matter of fact. I certainly do not want to argue that two wrongs make a right, so I'm with you insofar as that goes. But really, there is a serious and as-yet unrectified problem with the original announcement, and everything else that has happened originates from that. I'm reasonably sure that a simple "two-way" announcement would not have caused Ritchie to retire and would not have led to the wall of text here and would not have led to Ritchie's post here. I really do urge the Committee to revise the announcement. It will save a lot of further anger and angst. There is a take-away from this: when something that involves a complaint of harassment requires a private evaluation of evidence, a lot of care needs to go into the eventual public announcement. Otherwise, the result will be what happened here, which has benefited no one. A public announcement should not leave room for the community to see reasons to put it under a microscope. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:43, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if it would be helpful or not, but I will say that the wording of the announcement was subject to internal debate and three arbitrators, including Worm That Turned and myself, wanted a neutral IBAN only statement. At the end of the day, we all signed our name to it so we all take responsibility for it. Dweller and WTT discussed exchanged replies about the possibility of a neutral IBAN statement and a separate admonishment. At this point, I do not think a correction to that would change the situation. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 22:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Just noting that seems to have confused me with . As the header in my userspace suggests, this is a common mistake. I'm not an Arb. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * neither am I anymorel.  who did you mean?  Doug Weller  talk 14:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I am not confused. I meant Dweller. I am referring to above: . As Doug Weller points out, he is not an Arb either and as far as I am aware, has never discussed a neutral IBAN and separate admonishment before. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk  15:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I do think it would help – a lot. Of course, what has already happened is water under the bridge and cannot be rewound. But I think that a revision to a neutral statement would be easy, and would be very well-received by the community. It's never too late to fix a mistake. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Bravo. Please tell us which Arbs voted in which way for which wording.  That is certainly open material.  And then we can discuss matters further. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 23:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I don't think that would have made a difference - if we'd done as Dweller suggested and implemented an iban + admonishment, people would be demanding to know why there would need to be a separate admonishment, and there'd be one strain of comments wondering why an iban wasn't sanction enough, and one arguing that admonishments are toothless and useless and if we wanted a separate sanction it should've been something of substance. And if we'd done an iban alone, people would be demanding to know why the admin involved wasn't held to a higher standard (which they should!).
 * I don't think the specific form of the wording matters very much - what seems to really matter to people is that they feel like they've had their say and got an opportunity to influence the outcome. That's important, but the challenge in all private actions by arbcom is that that feeling of community investment only really happens with proceedings that happen in public, and public proceedings sometimes come at a cost - it means asking people who already feel stressed and uncomfortable, and who've articulated to the committee a reasonable basis for those feelings, to subject themselves to further unpleasantness without much expectation of support or of an outcome they feel is workable. Also, because whatever we do is not just 'public' to the community, but public to the whole internet, forever - it's quite possible for the Wikipedia community to behave perfectly and yet we can still have problems going on off-site. It's kind of the whole point of private decisions that it's fine to criticize arbcom, or arbs individually, but some of the dynamic here of picking at the users involved - which always happens with this kind of thing - isn't really helpful. I don't think it's reasonable to say that if anyone wants a private discussion about a potentially public outcome, they need to be prepared to make their complaint publicly and put up with whatever anyone may choose to say about them, including in off-site venues. We need to be better than that when it comes to protecting all of our community members.
 * As I said above, this really isn't related to the Fram situation at all, but I do think it underscores the need for us to launch an RfC on what the community is comfortable with in terms of private proceedings and what's realistic to actually implement - with the understandings that those processes should be sufficient to convince people who feel that they've been mistreated to use our local processes and approach our elected bodies rather than using other venues, and reasonably expect they'll get fair treatment. I expect that'll happen as we progress on the Fram case. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Worm that turned, you did fine, and with the IBAN too, Mkdw is right on. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:09, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Private complaints and communication with the Committee have their place, and I wish to retain the English Wikipedia's right to solve its own problems autonomously through an elected ArbCom, but we did not elect the Committee to secretly circumvent our existing dispute resolution methods, without any notice that a situation that had been previously found by those methods not to be insoluble by normal means was being considered by the committee. Moreover, legitimate criticism has been raised here with respect to both the fairness of the announcement and the procedures the Committee followed. Now we are not to be allowed to discuss in the one venue available to us. This is Star Chamber stuff. Injustice, whether real or merely perceived, in responding to a claim of harassment cheapens all claims of harassment, and it is an administrator's job to raise issues with editors who may in their view be behaving in a problematic way. I've lost confidence in the Committee not to damage the project by faulty and high-handed exercise of their authority. I support 's call for recall of all current Committee members and expedited elections to replace them, with one suggested change to the proposal: to exclude from eligibility all editors who have served on ArbCom within the current calendar year, rather than within the past year. you seem to be responding to a different proposal, simply to expedite the next round of elections. Personally, I don't see any great importance in the size of the Committee: some will always be inactive, and I expect them to recuse scrupulously. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * And I do not support a recall. This was not a Star Chamber. It was a series of mistakes. There is a difference. But the mistakes need to be corrected.--Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it has now become a series of mistakes, as Yngvadottir points out above, that have seriously damaged the credibility of ArbCom. Black Kite (talk) 22:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I said it was a series of mistakes. But I want to push back against the "seriously damaged" part of what you say. It's not too late to correct these mistakes. And nobody gains from demonizing anyone. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This is why I've not yet formalized a recall petition. I don't think we're quite there yet, but with every mistake this Committee makes, we inch progressively closer to it being appropriate and necessary to restore this community's trust in the Committee. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 23:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Good, thanks. But FYI I'll oppose such a recall. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I... really don't see why that's relevant? —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 23:17, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess it's just relevant to me. { --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * To be clear, it's not that general discussion is unwelcome or disallowed in some way. WTT hatted an iban violation and what flowed from it - that's it. As I said above, I think a broad, non-situation-specific discussion about private hearings needs to happen - but I think we need to be really thoughtful about what that means, and what risks we might be asking people to take on by raising their issues in public. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Necessary break after the attempt to shut down valid discussion (break 1)
In our quest for transparency, I believe the Wikimedia community has fallen into the hole of being invasive. Arbcom is not equipped to handle these issues but is trying to do so because no one else in the community can. We, as a community, need to work out a solution for that issue. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 10:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC) ,  What the committee has done, here, is within reason. (although, yes, everything can always be improved). And yes, you will always have detractors. I have been watching this ctte since I was dragged to it in a minor way years ago, and this may be apocryphal but I don't think a year has gone by without 'this year is the worst committee ever' from someone. --Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If this is what the secret proceedings will look like, then good luck Fram! Did nobody think that the standard 2 way Iban text would be sufficient, given that’s what multiple arbs have said was the point? Mr Ernie (talk) 03:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Given that apparently one side complained about harassment and the other side about bullying, that would have been the right thing to do (in the absence of a finding of fact about which complaints, if any, were justified). —Kusma (t·c) 05:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It would probably be best if ArbCom did not conduct proceedings in private where each side has a good-faith colorable claim against the other, as seems to be the case here. Instead, arbs in isolation are deciding who is the "aggressor", something about which the community would have something to say, and are applying their own personal beliefs and views.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That is an excellent point, one which is not getting enough attention: The idea of who gets to determine who the "aggressor" is. At present there are no standards that I know of on Wikipedia, and there is no evidence that the Committee are applying any standards that exist (i.e., rather than imposing policy by fiat, which would be a bright-line violation of the arbitration policy). —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 05:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There isn't really any such thing as a status of "aggressor", and this doesn't really have anything to do with "personal beliefs and views" (at least, not any more than a decision by a group of humans ever does). Two people who both don't like each were told they need to make their desire for non-interaction official. That's pretty much it. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * but that's not pretty much it at all. If it were just a simple IBAN, I don't think anyone would mind. I'm fully supportive of the 2-way IBAN, it's overdue really and for the benefit of all concerned. But Arbs have also gone on record above as saying that Ritchie "overstepped the mark" and that Praxi did not. And the sanction is clearly worded asymmetrically to reflect that. Of course, I'm perfectly prepared to accept that maybe Ritchie did overstep the mark and that some sort of warning was appropriate, I haven't looked at all the evidence and presumably you have. But let's not pretend that there is no issue here, or that there aren't legitimate questions on whether Arbcom should have considered and concluded on such a conduct issue behind closed doors rather than as a normal vanilla case. If nothign else, the fact that Ritchie is deeply upset about what happened shows that the case wasn't the cosy and open fireside chat that is implied above. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There isn't really any such thing as a status of "aggressor" well then perhaps members of Arbcom shouldn't use such terms when referring to Ritchie. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 08:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , We did find that Ritchie was the aggressor is a, not just some strawman a disgruntled editor has made up. &#8209; Iridescent 08:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * And on that point, I think we have an example of the Committee's problem. In responding to this matter, a whole lot of things have been said publicly by Committee members and repeatedly Committee members have contradicted one another, suggesting that there's a poor understanding of what exactly was determined and why a particular action was taken. This is why I believe there should be a formal set of FoFs associated with these sorts of cases, even if portions need to rely on private evidence. At this point the only official decision the Committee has made is that there is an IBAN. There shouldn't be this level of disagreement as to what the findings were so quickly after a decision. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 08:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * @Opabinia: I hope that you know me as someone who is not going to go ballistic about wanting ArbCom put up in front of a firing squad, and that I at least try to see things from both sides. So please hear me that I am doing all that I can not to be sputtering in anger. I'm going to reply to all three of the Arbs who have commented most recently, and I'm going to try to be very specific in what I say to each of you. Opabinia: you said "Two people who both don't like each were told they need to make their desire for non-interaction official." Insofar as I can tell, that is what ArbCom have been trying to communicate here, as the conclusion that you, collectively, reached. If what you communicated to the community had actually reflected that, then I think the only griping you would have received would have been the garden-variety type that accompanies pretty much any decision. I personally would have been OK with that. But what happened here was a clearly asymmetric announcement that did, indeed, portray Ritchie as the "aggressor". You deny that ArbCom regarded him as such, but there is no getting around the mixed messaging that has happened. I simply cannot believe that you and your fellow Arbs do not see how some of the comments by Arbs on this talk page do in fact portray Ritchie as the aggressor and Praxicidae as the victim. You cannot have it both ways. I'm not talking about the IBAN remedy as such, so much as about the messaging about it. From what I can see, it was entirely understandable for Ritchie to feel like ArbCom took sides against him, and it's entirely appropriate for me and a great many other editors to be baffled by the absolute resistance of ArbCom to fixing the communication failures. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've commented before on the poor wording in messages from the arbitration committee, so I absolutely agree that a better job should be done. Nonetheless, regarding "garden-variety" griping: various vociferous objectors are raising questions of process, not just communications. Trying to review decisions by consensus is always going to be problematic, because beyond a small group, you're never going to get complete agreement, and the larger the group, the more likely there'll be some loudly vocal opposition to any action. isaacl (talk) 18:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What a clusterfuck, and it's a prime example of why 'going star chamber' is a bad idea. You can conduct an open case and recieve some evidence from either or both party in secret - you've done it in most cases you've conducted, and this was no different. One editor thought they were being harrassed, one thought they were being bullied: from what we've seen, that looks a justifiable position, and one that would merit a neutral two-way IBAN, but as you've decided to hold the whole thing in camera you'll have to put up with us annoying proles pointing out your inadequacies in the way you've dealt with this matter. I hope Fram has another hobby he can take up for the next 10 or 11 months, as I'm not sure you're up to dealing with partially redacted information, stripped of context and without the rather valid and valuable input-by-way-of-response from Fram. I'm not sure when I've ever seen such a poor show from an ArbCom - and that's up against a fairly strong history of inadequacy! - SchroCat (talk) 07:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Excellently put. The Committee's inadequacies and incompetences have been on full display here. This is now the most dysfunctional organ on English Wikipedia, even more so than AN/ANI is, and even more so than RfA ever was. This discussion has exposed a culture of gross negligence in the Committee. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 07:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I am incredibly disappointed by the community's reaction to this situation. This kind of public circus of speculation was the exact kind of thing we were trying to prevent by handling this situation privately. The response here has now confirmed for anyone who wishes to report any kind of harassment that they will receive nothing but scorn and scrutiny until they are driven away entirely.For anyone who made the argument at the FRAMBAN discussion that the WMF should leave en.wiki alone to solve its own problems, this is conclusive evidence that we not only cannot constructively handle complaints of harassment and misbehavior, but that we, as a community, actively choose not to. Instead, we nitpick over the meaning of common-sense wording, complain that the behavior can't possibly have been that bad, and dredge up everything negative we can find to make involved parties look as bad as possible. This could have been a good opportunity to show the WMF that we are mature adults who can handle our own problems; this discussion has demonstrated exactly the opposite.As a community, we failed here today, and there is no doubt in my mind that the WMF will take this situation into account when making decisions about the future governance of the English Wikipedia. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 07:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This kind of public circus of speculation was the exact kind of thing we were trying to prevent by handling this situation privately. Then stop handling these things like this. The response here has now confirmed for anyone who wishes to report any kind of harassment that they will receive nothing but scorn and scrutiny until they are driven away entirely. Not in the least. I see no calling for the alleged victim's head here. For anyone who made the argument at the FRAMBAN discussion that the WMF should leave en.wiki alone to solve its own problems, this is conclusive evidence that we not only cannot constructively handle complaints of harassment and misbehavior, but that we, as a community, actively choose not to. A false dichotomy: This argument improperly presumes that the alternative to T&S rule is "this and only this". If the Committee has been instructed by WMF that "this and only this" is the way allegations of harassment may be handled, I demand that you state as such. If they have not, state as such. This could have been a good opportunity to show the WMF that we are mature adults who can handle our own problems; this discussion has demonstrated exactly the opposite. On the contrary, it has shown that the Committee is utterly incapable of managing a basic dispute between two people in thoughtful manner reflective of the experience of its members and the institutional knowledge of the Committee as an organization. As a community, we failed here today, and there is no doubt in my mind that the WMF will take this situation into account when making decisions about the future governance of the English Wikipedia. Spreading gloom, doom, and FUD is unbecoming of a member of the Arbitration Committee. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 07:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * +Just that. Don’t blame the community for your mishandling of a matter. It’s ArbCom who dropped the ball with a bad approach, poor wording and the decision to go full star chamber. Don’t blame us when you get things wrong. - SchroCat (talk) 08:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I find that outburst a little unseemly really. The community were heavily focused on the way in which Arbcom handled this, I don't recall anyone going after either party.  Ritchie posted what Ritchie posted, and that led to further discussion because it was clear that the community had many unanswered questions.  Going full tilt and accusing the community of poor behaviour is ... well, ironic.  The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 08:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Honestly, if you had wanted to avoid the "public circus of speculation" you shouldn't have posted a decision inviting speculation (if you couldn't tell, you should have your communications double checked by someone more familiar with the typical reactions of this community). A symmetric IBAN here would be absolutely fine (at least as a temporary solution that avoids disruption), but assigning blame without any explanation is not. You seem to currently be making up your own process for "dealing with claims of harassment", but if you want that to work, you need to take the community on board so we trust this process. If your response to our criticism is to circle the wagons and claim we are a community of petulant children, you are unlikely to succeed in de-escalating anything. As to protecting the victims, as far as I can tell, you were the first person to state that Prax had complained about harassment. I am not aware that there had even been public speculation about that before. —Kusma (t·c) 08:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You seem to currently be making up your own process for "dealing with claims of harassment", but if you want that to work, you need to take the community on board so we trust this process. Moreover, and this is key, the Committee cannot be the origin of the substantive aspects of how we define "harassment". This is baked into the arbitration policy. You are free to come up with procedure as appropriate and necessary, and within certain limitations, but you are not free to create substantive policy. But as a prudential matter, you should be consulting people who actually have the knowledge and education in how this stuff works (i.e., not so-called "community safety" experts). It may surprise you to know, but there are ways of balancing the community's interest in transparency with the legitimate privacy interests of parties, and moreover, there are ways of systematizing the analysis of those privacy interests. Actually ask lawyers (i.e., plural, and not just old committee insiders who happen to have legal educations). We work with far thornier things on a daily basis. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 08:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * +1. As far as I can see the only person here who has received nothing but scorn and scrutiny until they are driven away entirely is the person that have driven away entirely with your scorn and scrutiny. &#8209; Iridescent 08:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * +1. I agree with every comment above, worded better than I could, by us "circus". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That's quite enough, . I would like to be able to acknowledge the self-sacrifice that Wikipedians make when volunteering for the committee. But that role comes with a level of responsibility and expectation above and beyond mere editors, mere admins, or mere bureaucrats. There is no concern regarding Praxidicae, Ritchie333, or an IBAN here. There is a small contingent of aware editors who are concerned about your communication and handling of the matter. Your wording, PMC, was inadequate. Instead of hiding behind a false facade of moral concern, own up to it. The common-sense definition of "agreed" is "had a choice". You say Praxidicae didn't have a choice. Well which is it? Cause it can't be both. If it's the former, say it. If it's the latter, fix it. Don't whine at us for questioning you about it. The common-sense definition of "discussion" is "spoke with". Ritchie asserts that you (ArbCom), have not spoken with him in any meaningful capacity since his reply e-mails. You say you had a discussion with both parties. Well which is it? Cause it can't be both. If it's the former, apologize. If it's the latter, then say that Ritchie's wrong. It is you who are being scrutinized. It is you evading that, apparent, threat. You have failed. You screwed this up. If you lack the constitution to handle the criticism for it, please, do everyone a favour, and quit. Drop the Fram case. Because if this is how you handle a simple matter, than whatever stunt you pull with Fram is going to end in disaster. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Obviously you are a part of the community and failed for your lack of competence coupled with a total inability to recognise your own errors and remedy them. And, looking at own circus, wherein each fucking member is directly contradicting one another but yet unanimously voted on a dubious piece of text, may be a more worthful exercise.  &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 09:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * PMC, you say we "cannot constructively handle complaints of harassment and misbehavior", yet neither harassment nor misbehavior are mentioned in the remedy. The committee for some reason deliberately chose to use wording that implies some guilt on Ritchie's part, but without explicitly saying so, or stating what he's guilty of. I can accept that as a good faith mistake, but it should be clear to you by now that it was a mistake. Vague sanctions which are subject to multiple interpretations, even by those who wrote them, do not represent the community getting its house in order. My advice for you is to stop attacking us, go back to your mailing list today, and do the following:
 * Reword the IBAN so that it states simply "After discussion with both parties, the Committee resolves that Ritchie333 and Praxidicae are indefinitely banned from interacting with each other, anywhere on the English Wikipedia. This is subject to the usual exceptions."
 * If the committee has found that Ritchie has done something wrong, announce that in a separate announcement, with its own Support/Oppose votes. Preferably also say what he's guilty of, subject to any privacy concerns.
 * The Worm That Turns says above that they wish the committee had handled it in this manner, so is there any reason why you can't change it now? Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * neither harassment nor misbehavior are mentioned in the remedy This times a thousand! This is far more important and central to this whole issue than anybody seems to understand. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 09:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * @PMC: I want to be very specific in how I reply to what you have said. First of all, I agree with pretty much everything that the editors above me have said. But addressing you, PMC, directly, I take note of your saying that "This kind of public circus of speculation was the exact kind of thing we were trying to prevent by handling this situation privately." You need to understand that communication matters, that choice of words matters. The editing community is not acting like some kind of public circus because we are a bunch of internet trolls. We are responding rationally to what you, yourself, wrote. If any lesson is to be learned from what happened here, it is that it matters very much how ArbCom announces decisions that were, appropriately it seems, handled in private, because a flawed announcement will result in a community reaction that Streisands the problem in a way that does, indeed, serve the interests of preventing harassment very badly. You said earlier that you crafted the wording of the announcement, and other Arbs have said that there was initially some discussion of alternative ways of saying it but that your wording ended up being agreed to. You have said earlier that you feel very strongly that you do not want to create the appearance of a false equivalence when in fact one party was primarily at fault and the other party was primarily a victim. In principle, I agree with that. But please understand that your wording is at the very core of what has caused all the unpleasantness here. That is fixable, but you have to be willing to fix it. I'm going to say something very harsh now, and I know that it is harsh. Your comment above shows a lack of maturity. You need to get over it, and take some ownership of what has gone wrong. If you endorse a sensible revision of the announcement, I'm confident that your colleagues will support it. You have a serious responsibility right now. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I want to be clear that I support PMC's statement. I believe the mutual interaction ban and separate admonishment would have been a better solution, but that doesn't mean the editors who were subject to the motion should then be subject to the sorts of attacks they have received here and off wiki. I don't believe I've ever used the word "toxic" on wiki before, since I remember the word itself becoming toxic after a certain 2014 Wikimania speech, but toxicity is what I'm seeing here. Ritchie and Praxidicae are toxic towards one another - and by that I mean that their interaction do not end productively. There are members of the community who have decided that Arbcom can do no right, their criticism has stopped being productive.
 * "There are members of the community who have decided that Arbcom can do no right, their criticism has stopped being productive". Has it not crossed your collective minds that it is not us who is at fault, but ArbCom? Have you not considered that you are the ones who have been in error here, not the bloody proles? Have you considered that it is ArbCom that is bucking the norm here, not us? That it is ArbCom who have been at fault in method, approach and wording, not us? The mix of arrogance and incompetence I'm getting from this is laughable. Again, there was nothing to stop this case being held as normal, but with the committe considering some informtion from each party in private. There has been nothing demonstrated by any of you that this needed to be held as a star chamber. - SchroCat (talk) 11:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Has it crossed your mind that you are wrong? The use of "proles" to describe oneself, surely suggests having a silly chip on the shoulder.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "a silly chip"? Nope. Have I considered I am wrong? I constantly do, and I find it refreshing to challenge myself. I hope you do the same sometime. - SchroCat (talk) 11:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well good, because you are wrong. And WTT is right. Certainly, there is no reason to question whether he is also self-reflective. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ever thought you may be wrong? And I've not questioned whether WTT himself has self-reflected: I asked if you did (please feel free to read again and question yourself if you've just jumped to an erroneous conclusion). I also asked if the committee as a whole did. Now, if you've had enough having a go at me, then please focus on the role of ArbCom, which is what this thread is actually about. - SchroCat (talk) 11:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , Of course I am aware of failings on the part of the committee. But when I'm also aware of places of what's gone on behind the scenes and what led to the conclusion. I don't think any of us are claiming to be infallible, and in about 3 months, you'll be able to have a say in the individuals who will be taking the these questions forward. As NYB points out above, there will be probably be 9 seats available - it is going to be a very different commmittee. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 11:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Was there any reason why the case could not have been held largely in public, as normal, with some information seen in private? Can you see that it's this star chamber approach that riles people most? It makes it worse when the announcement appears to be flawed, and the Arbs cannot give a co-ordinated response to explain things. - SchroCat (talk) 11:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course I am aware of failings on the part of the committee. Those are good words to use, but when there are no actions to match those words, they lose a great deal of value, as does the Committee, on whose behalf you speak. Please stop devaluing the Committee. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 11:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There are members of the community who have decided that Arbcom can do no right, their criticism has stopped being productive. Have you ever stopped to actually read the stuff I type? I'm not pulling this stuff out of my hat. Issues of jurisdiction, of actually following the arbitration policy, of actually holding hearings and keeping organized records, of publishing things that are appropriate to publish, and so on. I'm trying to give this Committee, in reasonable chunks, the benefit of someone who is involved in functional dispute resolution processes for a living. It is shameful and downright depressing to have a member of the Committee be this dismissive of valid, reasoned, nuanced words from experienced people. In our quest for transparency, I believe the Wikimedia community has fallen into the hole of being invasive. This is quite possibly the worst thing you could be saying right now. What quest for transparency are you on? Because the Committee is clearly holding the map upside-down if that's where they're going. And like PMC's shambles of a comment above, you make the same fallacy of drawing a false dichotomy, between privacy and invasiveness. The Committee, as an official body, is not entitled to privacy. It is required to be transparent. If you look at the last dozen or so posts on this page, the only people really even talking about the parties anymore are arbitrators. The Committee, in continually bringing this back to the need to protect one of the parties (despite repeatedly drawing more and more attention to that party) has all the appearances of having utterly lost the plot. Arbcom is not equipped to handle these issues but is trying to do so because no one else in the community can. We've been doing everything we can to help you handle it in a thoughtful, appropriate manner. The problem is you aren't listening. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 11:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , Regarding my "quest for transparency" comment, I was referring to the goal of the wikipedia community. I don't think I'm wrong in saying that we (the community) want transparency, freedom of information and so on, it's tied into the very nature of the project. However, Arbcom deals with the stuff that can't be transparent in the same way. If you believe you're simply trying to help with process, I'm certainly willing to listen, though it is getting lost in the noise here. Can I recommend a detour to my talk page? <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 11:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll organize some thoughts and come over there later. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 13:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Please remember, few of us a lawyers. From what I have seen, you are. Many of the communication issues appear to be due to well meaning attempts by Arbcom to cover every possible avenue and so making simple matters complicated. Don't make this a place where only lawyers (real and wiki) are the only people who can contribute. Keep It Simple! Leaky caldron (talk) 13:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm no lawyer, but it seems trivially obvious to me that the Arbcom statement is ambiguous and unclear in its scope. The very fact that individual Arbcom members have given different accounts of what it means on this page (some say it's an IBAN only, others say there's a rebuke of Ritchie contained therein) demonstrate that it's unclear. For me at least, and I suspect for many others, that ambiguity is the biggest reason why I'm annoyed about this. I don't mind Arbcom rebuking Ritchie, if they feel there's sound reason for it. I don't mind them imposing an IBAN. Nobody expects Arbcom statements to be written in legalese, or only accessible to those with law skills, but surely it's not too much to ask that the statements be clear and unambiguous? While I appreciate PMC and WTT's continuing engagement on this page, and I condemn anyone who may have launched personal attacks against them, I still remain disappointed that they have not grasped the fundamental problem here despite numerous community veterans and admins saying there's an issue. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * @WormTT: I want to be very specific in what I say to you. I agree with the concept that ArbCom, and not T&S, should be the controlling body here, and I agree with the concept that there are things that ArbCom should handle in private. And in being blunt in what I say here, my intention is to make those very things work better, because this is something where some serious constructive criticism is grievously needed. For me, this isn't about taking away ArbCom's authority to handle cases privately, and it isn't about voting anyone out of office. It's about the right way and the wrong way to communicate findings to the community. What you describe as your initial feelings about the right way to announce it were correct. We would all be a lot better off if your preferred approach had been used instead of PMC's. I've been thinking hard about this, and I have a feeling that one of the more meta problems that the community will have to discuss and deal with is the gendering of how people perceive these kinds of editor conflicts. And I'm not saying that in a one-side-is-wrong-and-the-other-side-is-right way: it's really something where we all need to be on the same team. But in this individual instance, ArbCom needs to stop circling the wagons. Circling the wagons is what I really am seeing here. I've seen it before (including the stink-fest that erupted during the GMO case after I got blocked), and it always ends badly for ArbCom. The best way for ArbCom to take control from T&S is to show a willingness to course-correct right now. Circling the wagons does not show strength. Fixing what is broken does. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Probably, but when my football team loses a match I don't say "you are the worst team ever", though I may say "You played like crap today, do better next time". Indeed, compared to ArbComs of the past, this one is mostly comprised of people I actually respect, rather than ones that make me roll my eyes.  But without stretching the analogy too far, this has been like the team losing 5-0 and the manager blaming the fans for not being supportive enough. Black Kite (talk) 11:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I am sad that right after Framapalooza, Arbcom have collectively decided the absolute best way to resolve the next interaction issue that came along was to change their own processes and do this one on the downlow and promptly fuck it up. The fact Ritchie and Prax are both high-volume editors (and one an admin) increases the volume of opinions that will be thrown in, and the scrutiny, and the potential fallout should things be handled poorly.  Were Ritchie and Praxicadae's interactions toxic?  Absolutely.  That is clear to see from just the diffs above.  Neither party covered themselves in glory.  Was an interaction ban necessary?  Maybe, although I would expect an administrator to be able to talk to anyone civilly and if there's sufficient evidence that they can't do so, they probably shouldn't be an admin.  Importantly, was an Arbcom-imposed formal interaction ban necessary?  Before Framorama, probably not. Certainly not at this point; before May 2019, Arbcom would have bounced this back to ANI or AN and tell both users to explore less formal dispute resolution measures first, such as a standard two-way interaction ban, or just act like real adults do, avoid one another and pretend nothing is wrong.  The fact that they did not do any of these things and went immediately to Code Red is, I suspect, because after Framageddon, the collective editors of Arbcom feel a need to prove to the WMF that they are competent and can manage disputes without creating megabytes of drama and causing more hurt and damage than if they had done nothing.   Well done on that count guys.  And did this need to be done in private?  I really can't see why, at least based on what Ritchie has shared.  It's all on-wiki diffs, there's no outing, the "privacy" thing should be used where someone's privacy is actually an issue.   On a further note, perhaps you need to look at which of your team has the ability to write sensitive, evenly-worded statements, and get them to write you some sensitive, evenly-worded statements. Whatever text generator is producing the statements at the moment is not functioning correctly. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate  11:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Given that one message that came through from the Frama-superlative-X was, "We would have been okay with this if our local ArbCom had done it; it might have been done in secret but at least it would be our local ArbCom who are accountable to us that had done it," I'm not all that surprised that the next time something like it came along, ArbCom tried to handle it locally, with a process that mixed private hearings with as much transparency as they felt they could give. Some people on this thread need to recognise that if they harangue the committee to the point where none of them want to deal with this stuff, it will go straight back to T&S.  GoldenRing (talk) 12:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * (e/c),  Not sure if that is a reply to me but it appears indented that way, so,  according to the ctte they have been made aware of this disruptive interaction well before May.  And the Arbcom policy does empower them to look at the e-mails and decide the case involves private information to be decided privately.  (I read all of Ricthie's unredacted statements unfortunately and there is no doubt that privacy was a good and cogent decision).  We should all be glad that we have a committee that prioritizes protecting people to the greatest extent in their power. (Even if some people will in the end refuse protection)  On the countervailing end there is comparatively basically nothing: whether someone has permissions on a website completely pail in comparison to giving whatever protection is possible; and interest on the internet is just invasive, sometimes prurient.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The above was not a specific response to you. I disagree, based on the information made available by Ritchie, that there were privacy issues that necessitated a hearing in private. There may well be other issues of which we are not aware that would justify a closed court, but I am starting to doubt this.  While I understand that the committee do not enjoy receiving negative feedback - who of us does? - I remain hopeful they will look internally at the reasons for the negative feedback and work to improve and address concerns, rather than give up. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate  12:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, you disagree, but it remains that holding it private was reasonable, and the serious responsibility to decide was in a specific group, not you or I. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Groups of people are frequently dumber than their constituent parts. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate 13:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * So than large groups of those not responsible are particularly dumber. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Up until now, I was optimistic about how Arbcom would wind up handling the Fram case. Now I'm nervous. - Dank (push to talk) 13:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Next steps
So, now we've got two instances of ArbCom handling cases which seem to have all their evidence and communication on-wiki in private. I was willing to accept that Fram was a one-off due to the exceptional circumstances, but I'm not willing to accept backchanneling as a new normal. Perhaps we need to amend ARBPOL to clarify that if no off-wiki communications or otherwise private evidence needs consideration, the case is required to be handled transparently and publicly, period. But we clearly need to do something which is not this. This is exactly why we strongly discourage handling things behind closed doors; it breeds suspicion and distrust. Closed-door handling should only occur when there is private information which must remain so, and even then only for that particular information. We saw that with FRAM, we saw it here, and we need to not see it again. I have no interest in this site becoming one where "moderation" is faceless, unaccountable, and does not explain why they made the decisions they did. Too many sites are like that already. We do things differently, and we should continue to do it differently. (I would not support any motion to remove all the current arbitrators, and this isn't to get after them; they've been confronted with an unprecedented situation. But any changes to the way we do things must be ratified by consensus of the community. Period.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well it's good then that we already have all that. 1) These people on the committee are known. 2) These people are accountable. 3) And anyone of any reason knows what was done here and why. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Anyone of any reason --?? Also, what do we already have? &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 16:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your questions. The comment I was responding to said they don't want this site to not have three things, and I responded we already have those three things (and all are present in the present case).  And one has to have a modicum of ability to reason to understand things. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually,, what I don't want is unneeded private handling, and any case in which all the information is already public does not require private handling. When the ArbCom lays out things like findings of fact and statements in remedies, they are specifying exactly why they came to the decision they did. In this instance, sure, we can guess why they came to that decision, but as we saw in FRAM, such speculation is often harmful and has bad consequences. With a public decision, we can point to that decision and say "That is the exact reason why they decided to implement the remedies they did", and that is the only way we know why the decision was made, because the discussion and decision is transparent and open. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry that is just not the way it is. It has basically always been the case, some people no matter what Arbcom writes will say they did not write it right, and they did not state their reasoning correctly, and they did not actually do what they are saying. Here, I noted earlier we know from the statement: 1) there was interaction; 2) one of the parties is an administrator; 3) the ctte decided it was in their bailiwick; 4) the ctte decided that e-mail evidence was in order; 5) the ctte decided to reveal that there was email evidence, which together with the prior interaction was sufficient to act; 6) the ctte decided it needed to be two-way (it is written as two way -- it even has the word "mutual" -- even though some seem to argue its not two-way enough).  So we know what and why it was done. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * To respond to the claim that "any case in which all the information is already public does not require private handling": Until you have examined the infinite set of all possible cases, you can not know that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom: I'm sure it's very frustrating, feeling attacked both by the community outrage, and by T&S. You're in an unpleasant place where you feel compelled to action. The WMF have expressed that they don't feel the community is capable of handling our own policing. And certainly, you should take note of this. However, the solution is not to become more like T&S. You'll only get the same response from the community that they did. It's easy to become jaded, or feel backed into a corner. We certainly don't expect perfection from you - or at least, we shouldn't. But as others have said here, you should be willing to learn and adjust. Do I think the IBAN was a bad idea? No, although I can't say I'm overly familiar with the particulars beyond reading through a couple diffs. But the communication of it has become a problem, as has the inconsistency of the clarifications. In particular, indicating things like discussion and consent in the initial statement, while then later clarifying that there was no discussion with at least one party, and no consent by the other is a problem. Please, don't continue to double-down like Jan. We can be better. LetUsNotLoseHearT 16:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly :-- ... the communication of it has become a problem, as has the inconsistency of the clarifications. In particular, indicating things like discussion and consent in the initial statement, while then later clarifying that there was no discussion with at least one party ... &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 16:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, there were some fundamental issues with the wording of the motion that required a number of Arbs to "clarify" which then demonstrated that the Arbs didn't have a consistent understanding of the motion's wording and intent.  The proceedings here have been somewhat diverted from the main purposes, namely (a) why wasn't the majority of this conducted in public (b) why was the motion so poorly worded (c) why the inconsistent understanding of the Arbs and (d) why are Arbs resorting to using terms like "aggressor" and attempting to blame the community for this?  If I recall correctly, there was significant support for Arbcom following their well-thought-out statement to T&S following Framgate.  Indeed, I seem to recall supporting it myself.  Yet the handling of this event is unfortunately well below any standards we have come to expect from any committee.  If cases are now, by default, to be held in camera, please let us all know, because so far, there's very little about this case that necessitated such secrecy.  The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 16:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  15:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  20:20, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, my thoughts. I think there are two key questions. 1) Do we want ArbCom to be allowed to handle problems brought privately? 2) Who decides whether a case qualifies for being private? If the answer to 1 is no, that's easy - T&S get the job. If the answer to 1 is yes, then we have to answer question 2. If we make very restrictive hard-and-fast rules as suggested by Seraphimblade, which removes the ability of ArbCom to judge on a case-by-case basis, then there will be complaints that people wish to make privately to ArbCom but which the rules do not allow (as it is simply not possible to codify all possible future cases into universal rules while ensuring fairness). That means one of two things. Either the case can not be held and the complainant has to just suck it up, or such cases would have to be handled by T&S. That, really, is the choice that has to be made - whether to have ArbCom handle sensitive cases according to their judgment, or have T&S do it according to their judgment. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I see the desire for a clarification of ARBPOL such as you have outlined, but the problem that outlines is not going to go away. Setting aside my own feelings about harassment complaints for a moment; a) Wikipedia has a reputation, deserved or otherwise, for being a hostile environment, b) given this environment, we have to take harassment complaints seriously (either because we feel we should as a matter of principle, or because if we don't the WMF will take their handling away from us), and c) there is decades of information, from academia, corporate culture, and other places, showing that dealing with harassment requires a private complaints process. So. We can allow ARBCOM to privately handle cases brought privately even if the evidence is public, and then hold them accountable every December via elections, and via discussion of their decisions if necessary; or we can legislate against ARBCOM holding private cases in the absence of non-public evidence, have those complaints go to T&S, and have no accountability at all. There isn't a third option. We cannot legislate away private dispute resolution, because we can take it away from ARBCOM, but not from T&S, and you can be sure that both genuine victims and drama queens will use one or the other. We're perilously close to the second situation as it is. I, for one, have considerably more trust in the people I voted for. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * and, T&S already backed down. Karen Brown of the WMF, at the Framgate discussion, stated that they would consult with the community before doing anything like this again, and the outcome of that consultation could well be "We should never do this at all." She also stated that it's possible they would offer their help to smaller communities without bodies like an ArbCom, to help deal with something like the az.wikipedia fiasco, but leave larger ones with established processes well enough alone. We absolutely can say no to T&S, and we did, by simply threatening to walk out the door. They can't maintain this site on their own. If that didn't concern them and get their attention, you know they would not have reversed course. So, no, T&S is not the bogeyman, and we can choose how we run our project. We do not need to go to behind-closed-doors type handling just because T&S might like it if we did. As to holding them accountable, hold them accountable for what, and how, if we do not know why they made the decisions they did? It may be that they had a perfectly good reason for something they did, but not knowing it, we "hold them accountable" for something not deserving that; or conversely, it may be that they had terrible reasons for something else, but not knowing them, we can't hold them accountable there either. ArbCom has handled harassment cases before; no private complaints process is necessary for that, as clearly evidenced by the fact that it's been handled without that. (That said, if the community wants to establish a mechanism for such private complaints, that's a totally different story. But only on genuine consensus, not T&S bullying.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, they backed down as far as Fram was concerned, and tossed the hot potato to ARBCOM. But I'm not seeing the degree of wiggle room in those statements that you are: both by reading between the lines, and by stepping back and being realistic, I see our self-governance being entirely conditional on our ability to deal with complaints of harassment (justified or otherwise. I want to emphasize that, because I'm not accusing Ritchie or Fram of anything). If our response to this is to prohibit ARBCOM from holding private cases except where off-wiki evidence exists, I think it's a virtual certainty that the WMF will provide for these complaints to go to T&S, because the need for a private process is taken as a given among institutions that deal with harassment complaints. Also, to be clear, I think there's several arguments of principle for having a private process; my statement was directed at those people, obviously considerable in number, who don't believe in them. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If you think we can choose to arrive at a situation where there is no private complaints process for dealing with, for example, harassment, and that WMF/T&S will sit back and let that happen, I think you're living a fantasy. They have compromised over Fram, but only part way, and the Fram case is still being handled privately. The same goes for "threatening to walk out the door" - go walk out the door if you wish and see what happens, and see how many of the thousands of everyday editors will follow you. You should not overestimate the power of what is actually a very small (and very unrepresentative) minority of the community here. There will be a private complaints process for dealing with harassment, and there's nothing we can do to stop it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * False dichotomy. Unless WMF has stated explicit terms upon which the Committee will continue to have jurisdiction over these cases, there is no need to adhere to some extreme level of secrecy. (and if they have stated such strict terms, we should be told about this, so we can go back to WP:FRAM and resume protesting) Rather, we should be crafting standards by which each request for a private case will be decided. And yes, there should be cases where the complainant is denied a private case. If WMF doesn't like that, we're back to protesting at WP:FRAM as we were a month ago, and WMF has egg on its face again. I see nothing wrong with this as a step in the negotiation process. In the meantime, we can and should develop and ratify an editor bill of rights. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 17:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I never said anything about any "extreme level of secrecy", and I largely agree that "we should be crafting standards by which each request for a private case will be decided." My position is that those standards have to include discretion on the part of those who make the decisions, and that strict qualification rules can not work (as they can not anticipate everything). And yes, of course there should be provision for denying a private case - I'm certainly not suggesting that anyone should be entitled to a private case on demand. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly right. There is no right to an arbcom case in private, and arbcom members are elected for their discretion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, and the fact that ArbCom has handled some cases of harassment without a private process is not evidence that no case ever needs a private process. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure anyone said we would never need a private process.  I just think the majority here believe it should be the last resort to hang, draw, and quarter accused "aggressors" in camera.  It's abundantly clear  that the large majority of evidence in this case did not need to be private at all.  But more importantly, answers to the questions below from Cyp are far more interesting than this repetitiveness. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 17:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, Seraphimblade proposed what sound to me like strict rules that private cases should be disallowed when the evidence itself is public - and I don't see any exceptions being mentioned. And, maybe the large majority of evidence in the R v P case did not need to be private, but I'm not trying to judge that case. My comments are purely meant to address what procedures we put in place for future cases, as I think that's by far the most important aspect of all of this. Do we allow ArbCom the discretion to accept/decline/judge private requests, or do we hand that power to T&S? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , while I mostly agree, we should put things a bit into perspective: the ArbCom did not mean to "hang, draw and quarter" Ritchie. They wanted him to stay away from Prax, and some Arbs wanted to label him as the more guilty party, and then they made a very clumsy announcement, made worse by further Arb statements contradicting each other. I hope this can be a learning experience for the next in camera case: do them only if absolutely necessary, be clear in your findings of fact, use the minimal remedy that is effective, and clearly state what you are doing, why you are doing it and why you can't tell us more about your reasons. Consider alternatives like private warnings or brokering voluntary interaction bans. And if your approach fails and results in an epic clusterfuck instead of instant peace, try to find out what went wrong and learn from it for the next time. —Kusma (t·c) 18:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Boing! said Zebedee that in the end, someone will decide what situations are better handled in private. The community can try to decide who will do it on its part; if it empowers no one, then the WMF will assume this role. In the interim, the community could insist that all complaints be held in abeyance, but this would leave the affected persons in limbo for an indefinite period. On a side note, ArbCom has handled harassment cases before; no private complaints process is necessary for that implies that handling complaints privately is never needed for the main type of interpersonal interaction issue being discussed. But I agree this does not appear to be a majority view. isaacl (talk) 18:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's inductive reasoning, which has its flaws. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Saraphimblade, First, the present case is wholly within current policy. Second, the only ethical and right thing to do is protect people where possible. The effect of what you suggest is that no matter what, we must have a system of public spectacle damaging to individuals because Wikipedia is so deficient and broken that some people here cannot trust even 15 members of the website, nor can they assume good faith about them. And why do we need this always must be a public spectacle? For comparatively nothing: permissions in a website. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * First, the present case is wholly within current policy. It really isn't, but I'm not going to waste my breath arguing that with you. Second, the only ethical and right thing to do is protect people where possible. Hypersimplistic and lacking any semblance of awareness of what the statement even means. Protect people, yes. That includes the accused and that includes the greater community. Moreover, secrecy, as we have seen from the Fram case, is harmful to the complainant as well. The rest of your comment is bordering on nonsensical, and I see no purpose in even responding to it. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 18:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Stop. You just said basically nothing except to demonstrate poor temper or your lack of grasp of issues, and more importantly illustrated an assumption that 15 "good a true" Arbcom members cannot and do not exist in English Wikipedia who would work to protect everyone before them, under the existing privacy provisions of Arbcom policy. If you have not noticed, in almost all Arbcom cases, all parties stand accused in some way. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Why don't you stop? At least stop telling other people just how wrong they are, when you have only a passing grasp of the situation. Every post you have made so far is flawed, including the last one. You don't have to bludgeon everyone who disagrees with ArbCom. - SchroCat (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you not paying attention? I was responding to someone who was responding to me. Nothing in what you just said has any value, here, whatsoever. It can't be that hard to understand the policy has privacy hearings and that 15 good Arbcom people would work to protect those accused and those making accusations.-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course I'm paying attention, but many of your comments have been downright bloody rude. Just knock it off and telling people to stop. Aside from the crap in your above statement, some of the nonsense you've come up with in this discussion is: "No. We actually don't need this discussion at all", "just know it is well within the bounds of reason and just stop"; "The only nonsense is yours"; "extremely silly or worse"; "a silly chip on the shoulder"; "you are wrong"; " large groups of those not responsible are particularly dumber"; "Sorry that is just not the way it is". I'm sorry to break it to you that you are not the font of all knowledge, not are you someone who should be telling people to stop, or demeaning their motives in posting here. We get you disagree - and that's fine - but stop treating everyone else as something on the sole of your shoe. - SchroCat (talk) 19:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Your lecture in that comment is again of no value, here. You wasted time to take a bunch of stuff out of context. Getting back on topic, Arbcom has policy sanctioned discretion to protect people and that is what they want to do, and will do to the best of their ability.  And there is no reason to assume otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanscottwalker (talk • contribs) 20:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * And your posts are not helping when they are clearly only geared to insult people. You have said the things above, and you are being uncivil to a heap of people, so knock it off and tone it down. And learn how to sign your posts properly. - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What you just said is false.  Arbcom's discretion is right on topic, and they have discretion to hold hearings that seek to protect the pedia, the accused and the accuser in private. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, because obviously this hearing has done all of those things, hasn't it? Black Kite (talk) 20:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The Committee has been entrusted, and are good people who tried to be fair to the best of their ability to all parties, and at least some focus seems to be shifted away from either party so they may escape some injury from dragging it all out. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "What you just said is entirely false" oh ffs.... - 20:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify the almost-obvious, would someone confirm that R was clearly informed that there was a full evidence/workshop phase of a secret case going on, and not just some preliminary questions to e.g. decide if a case was needed? Also, I assume all involved parties agreed on a private/secret case? Κσυπ Cyp  17:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * My understanding, actually, is that when a "motion" is had, it means that a summary proceeding is being carried out—that is, without evidence or workshop, and without articulating principles or FoFs (I consider this last portion illegitimate even in cases where there are no material facts in dispute but that's for another discussion). In other words, I don't think it's likely there was a formal... anything in this case. Merely a pronouncement from on high. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 18:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, on reviewing this further, I don't even see how this is within the current wording of ARBPOL. It currently states that ... the Committee will make public detailed rationales for decisions related to cases, unless the matter is unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal or similar reasons. Now, "or similar" might be a bit of weasel wording, but I see nothing "similar" here. There's been no indication there's anything legal involved (and if there is anything legal involved in a case, ArbCom ought to pass that off to Legal before you can say "hot potato"), and there is no indication there are any privacy implications as everything happened publicly. So, it appears our current ARBPOL is actually fine, and the problem is that it appears not to have been followed. If ArbCom would like to change the scope of what does and does not require transparency, I think that requires discussion with the community, not attempting a fait accompli by just starting to do it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The policy is written broadly to give the committee discretion, and yes, the non-public e-mail exchange, and the revelations there, caused the committee to see 'privacy, legal or similar reasons'. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As far as I am concerned, it would be catastrophic if the result here were to take away ArbCom's role in private processes, because that would indeed hand that over to T&S. And I'm seeing a truly Kafkaesque turnaround here: just a few weeks ago, many editors were praising, rightly, ArbCom's response to WMF. And look at how far things have fallen in so short a time. So in one fish's opinion, I'm against changing policy, and I'm against recalling anyone. But I think there is a very significant next step that has to happen, and it comes down to how those necessarily private cases are dealt with. Some of it is making very, very sure that experienced and valued members of the community are given adequate opportunity to not only present their side of the case, but also be given adequate opportunity to rebut accusations made against them. As far as I can tell from the outside, Ritchie didn't get that here. But I also think that's something where the community will really have little ability to monitor it, by the very reason of privacy. But what is very much a public matter is the announcement that is made – and that needs some serious thought. I get it, that some editors are arguing that this is largely a matter of process. But I personally disagree. I think it's very much a matter of communication. And the basic concept is that when a case is intended not to Streisand something that happened to someone, then the announcement had better not cause just that to happen. Announcements should not be crafted to settle scores, which is what happened here. They should be crafted to provide the community with information that reassures the community that the outcome was a reasonable one. And that clearly did not happen here. Don't assume that the community will just shrug and say that we need to trust you. Think a few steps ahead, and anticipate how any given announcement will be received. Don't put things out that will needlessly raise red flags. Please understand: I don't mean any of that in an Orwellian way of how to soothe the masses. What I mean is to be honest and truthful, but also to think about repercussions for the involved parties. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, but let's face it, the sequence
 * "Hi, there's a complaint about you, would you like to respond to it?"
 * "Yes, here's my response".
 * "Thanks for that, we've thought about it in private, you're the aggressor, here's a ban"
 * is exactly what ArbCom said wasn't acceptable from T&S... Black Kite (talk) 20:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That's quite true; I agree. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I am by no means suggesting taking away ArbCom's role in private cases. I am suggesting that ArbCom handle cases privately only when there is something private about them to start with. If the entire case revolves around on-wiki spats between editors, there is no reason to handle it privately, because there is nothing private about it to begin with. And realistically, this kind of outcome is going to encourage Streisanding and digging, whereas holding a regular old case...well, when's the last time you read through an entire ArbCom case just because you wanted to? I can tell you the answer for me is "never", and I suspect that's true of most of us. The case gets held, the decision gets made, and after that people largely forget it ever happened (if they ever noticed in the first place). There are indeed cases where ArbCom needs to handle things partly or totally in private, but this particular case does not in any way appear to be one of those instances. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes and yes again: "If the entire case revolves around on-wiki spats between editors, there is no reason to handle it privately". ArbCom, please note that. Have it engraved on your monitors, chant it as a mantra,have it in your standing orders, but this is so much the key of what you got wrong here. You can have a half open case with some evidence provided privately be either/both party. (That's still not ideal, but given the nature of the internet, it's probably the best pathway you can take). There was no real reason to hold the entire case in camera here, and no reason why certain parts of normal procedure are not openly discussed if the announcement is made so publically. Who voted which way, who agreed and disagreed: no private evidence has to be provided, it can be referred to as "given the circumstances in email 6 from party X, I cannot agree to this finding", etc. We all know RL with all it entails impacts on behaviour here, which is why we've always accepted some private evidence: I do not see the difference here, and there is no need for ArbCom to automatically run scared just because one party has used the H word. - SchroCat (talk) 20:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade: I should clarify that I didn't think you were suggesting that, but I observe that some other editors are. And I agree with both of you. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , Boing and I both are referring not to generic private cases but to private cases without private evidence. Indeed we said that specifically, so I'm not sure why it was misunderstood. I'm repeating this because a bunch of people seem to have missed this point; given the thinking in the wider world about how to deal with harassment, there is no way in hell the WMF is going to let us dispense with that category of cases. Just no way. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , my reply was to Tryptofish's statement, which explicitly said there was some intent to take away ArbCom's role in private processes. I wanted to clarify that this was not what I was proposing. Now, if you, or Boing, or anyone, would like to argue that ArbCom should handle some cases privately despite all the evidence being public, feel free to start an RfC and argue that. Depending on exactly what you're proposing, I might even agree with you. But as it stands today, the expectation is that public evidence = public case, and I do not give a tenth of a damn what the "wider world" thinks about the benefits of secret proceedings. On this project, we decide things like that by consensus of editors, not fait accompli. If you think you can gain such a consensus, by all means attempt to do it, but until and unless someone does, what was done here is not permitted by ARBPOL or years of common practice. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'm not trying to change ARBPOL, or advocate for a fait accompli. Arguing to change it without already having broad support is a waste of time. I'm not even certain it needs to be changed, because "matters unsuitable for public discussion for privacy [...] or similar reasons" has a lot of wiggle room, and we will probably have to clarify the interpretation of that language sometime soon. I'm trying to persuade you, and others, that I believe to be rational individuals, that we need ARBCOM to be able to handle cases of the sort that I just outlined. The weight you or I give to attitudes in the wider world doesn't matter; the people who own our servers do. If we don't provide an outlet for private hearings of on-wiki evidence, the WMF will do so. If the community decides that ARBPOL doesn't allow for that and we're uninterested in changing it, well, that's the community's prerogative; and we'll just have to live with the consequences. I think I've my opinion on what those consequences are fairly clear several times; if you still disagree, that's your prerogative. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 21:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As I said, I want us to maintain our autonomy by having matters dealt with by our own elected Arbitration Committee. But I have lost all trust in this lot. This was not just a mistake, or even a series of mistakes. It was and remains a travesty that has apparently done a deep injustice to a valued admin—one of the admins who endeavored to find a way forward from the WP:FRAM disaster, and not incidentally, an admin who continued to write and improve content. While harassment is a serious issue, and so is the aggressive environment on the project, I know my list of off-puttingly aggressive editors is different from others'; I suspect there are many, many different responses to different ways of interacting. And this is not social media; we are working together to produce an encyclopedia, and it is to protect that encyclopedia and the joint endeavor of writing it and keeping it up that we select admins. This Committee is guilty of driving away a good editor and a good admin, and whatever the intentions may have been, that is more than an oopsie or even a series of oopsies. It's a betrayal of the trust placed in them, particularly since they bypassed normal methods of community dispute resolution that had not been exhausted, thereby exceeding what they were elected to do. I don't trust these people as committee members any more, and part of our self-governance has to be that we get to withdraw our recognition and replace them. In fact it's in the Arbcom rules. As a beginning, we are owed not just contrition about the not just conflicting but less than fully truthful statements above concerning "discussion" with R and P, but a straight answer to the question above concerning whether Ritchie333 was fully informed that that would be his only opportunity to explain his perceptions of the situation and the basis for his actions. I will also add this question: Was the decision to carry out this investigation entirely in secret taken because of instructions or guidelines from WMF Trust & Safety? If so, that would be a small mitigating factor; but the community deserves to know, and I believe absolutely that it deserves an Arbcom that will stand up to the WMF, not one that will act as its tool. For one thing, if the invocation of the word "harassment" automatically leads to punishment of the editor accused of it, there will be irreparable damage to the project. It would place at risk not only all active admins but all experienced and active editors (vandal fighters, those active in contentious political and BLP areas, those who often debate "fringe" issues, those who watch for copyvio, and yes, those active at AfD and in anti-COI/spam efforts). We've been told "We kept the situation private to protect the privacy of both parties, both of whom were more candid in their discussions with us than I believe they would have been comfortable with in public" (Premeditated Chaos) and "this was determined to be a private matter unsuitable for public discussion" (SilkTork, endorsing PMC's statement). Yet as others have noted, the Committee has in the past dealt with disputes with some private evidence. Was it entirely the Committee's decision to do this in total secrecy, or was there arm-twisting from the WMF? We deserve to know before we lose any more editors, whatever the personal opinions of individual committee members may be about what P and R may have thought. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, I can agree with everything you said, and I also would like clear answers to those questions – except that I do not share the opinion of having lost trust in them. People can make mistakes. Hey, rumor has it that I've made some. What is most important to me is to get the mistakes corrected. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your willingness to listen. I don't see any way they can be corrected. We've lost Ritchie, we've lost any reason to trust these arbs will be fair or even straightforward. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I haven't posted much here mainly because I don't want T&S sticking their nose in our business, and because an iBan doesn't remove abilities other than interacting with an individual. One suggestion I have is warnings (we have 5 different ones for vandals, we should be able to allow our registered members as much.)  I don't mind it if you feel the 'in camera' stuff is needed, but first warn whoever you feel deserves sanction.  I think I only saw this mentioned once above ( I think).  First email a private warning (similar to being called into the office and informed behind closed doors), if something more occurs - POST A WARNING ON THE USERS TALK PAGE. A bit difficult to get too upset if you can see it coming.  Be willing to discuss the issue, not one reply - and you didn't convince us - you're sanctioned.  ty for your time — Ched :  ?    —  20:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to take any particular stance on ArbCom's choices on this case (I think everything I would have said there has been said anyway). My suggestions for a better approach for next time:
 * Always post some case content. If something needs to be hidden, say why - "the identities of people making complaints in this case will not be made public due to concerns of retaliation," "the various parties' arguments involve very personal information, and so they were emailed to ArbCom rather than posted." If at all possible, post an anonymized version of the complaint/information with the sender's consent - "anonymous party A was repeatedly harassed for what they believed to be good-faith edits," "(non-anonymous) party B's evidence showed a repeated pattern of abuse of administrative tools," something like that.
 * I alluded to it in the first bullet, but if something has to be hidden, please post as much rationale as you can - again, "fear of retaliation," "personal information/concerns of outing," things like that.
 * Keep all of the procedural parts - public declarations by arbs of accepting/recusing/turning down a case, principles, (anonymized) findings of fact ("based on the evidence presented in private by the parties, SteveFoo has behaved abusively to other editors"), remedies, and enforcement provisions. Again, I recognize that there may be cases where not all of these things are possible, but even just summarizing the off-wiki Arb discussion would go a long way toward improving this.
 * If a case is largely based on private evidence, I'd suggest closing preliminary statements.
 * Separate from the above, I think it might be worthwhile to adopt a resolution providing for sanctions for outing private information/party identities in these cases (I'm not super well-versed in ArbCom procedure, so that might not be the right way to go about it, but I do think it's necessary for somebody to specifically call that out as a Bad Thing which can lead to sanctions). If someone wanted their identity hidden, the last thing anyone needs is for people conducting a witch hunt to try to identify or retaliate against the complainant, as we've seen both at "Framgate" and in this very discussion (I seem to recall someone suggesting careful review of Praxidicae's use of rollback, which I read as implicit threat of retaliation). That behavior needs to stop and needs to be dealt with if anybody does it. creffpublic <sub style="margin-left:-8ex"> a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 20:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , I agree with pretty much everything you've said. As to "sanctions for outing private information/party identities": I think we have those anyway in any circumstances (per WP:OUTING). If offwiki identity/behaviour is pertinant to a case, this is exactly the information that should be sent privately to ArbCom and discussed internally between them. - SchroCat (talk) 20:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , that's true, but given that it's happened anyway (again, I'll cite the "detective work" that happened during Framgate), I think that something is needed - ArbCom resolution, community RfC, something to unquestionably state that if people start digging for complainant identities/specific incidents/etc. there will be significant consequences...and then, you know, we need to actually enforce those consequences. I'm sure people have their justifications for digging, but it needs to be made clear from the start, otherwise it'll just get muddled up with "I didn't know that counted as outing" and "but I found something I'm sure is relevant to the case, so it's okay" creffett (talk) 00:04, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , ah, you were thinking of the Fram case with that, rather than this one. Yes. Definitely. I was uncomfortable seeing some of the information posted there, and I wished it hadn't have happened. The 'Framgate' case was so far out of Wiki normality that lots of things happened that shouldn't (including the case itself). You may be right: a strong reminder about something serious is never a problem if it stops the accidental infringement, and ArbCom cases and decisions do have an effect of heightening emotions and tensions all round. - SchroCat (talk) 00:12, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, ArbCom pages aren't usually the best atmosphere for anything... but, speaking only for myself, I would consider outing identities on an ArbCom case page to be covered by the intent of the oversight policy, since that is not public information, and if it continued after a warning would be willing to make an OversightBlock. I can't speak for the other members of the team, but typically we interpret "non-public information" pretty broadly, and the policy explicitly states that suppression is a tool of first resort, so if there's a question, we suppress and then discuss on the list to see if reversal is needed. I haven't been following the Fram drama, but if something of that sort happens, please contact the oversight team via the list, and someone will review it. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the reminder about oversighting. My concerns/rationales for a statement are twofold: first, in the case of the Fram drama, I would hesitate to call it outing, it was more rampant speculation like "WMF Member so-and-so had lots of bad interactions with Fram, what if they pulled WMF strings to bring the Fram ban" (paraphrasing from month-old memory of the incident). It was inappropriate, it was mob mentality, but to me that doesn't cross the line into outing. If you or the other Oversighters think it does, great, that's one fewer concern. My second reason is less practical and more PR: making such a statement reminds people of the rules and clearly sets a standard, and I think that would be worthwhile. creffett (talk) 01:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It obviously depends on the context, but en.wiki interprets the oversight policy fairly liberally and Suppression is a tool of first resort in removing this information is very much true, so if something were close to the line, we'd review it fairly closely. I can't give a specific answer now because there are obviously no edits to review. Speculation as to whether or not something constitutes outing should be left to oversighters on the list. If something looks like it may qualify for suppression, under any of the criteria, the best response is always to notify an oversighter. This is something that is often misunderstood, which is why I'm clarifying it here more generally. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * How long will it take the committee to understand the reasons behind the largely-unanimous response by the community concerning the multitude of flaws and procedural lapses whilst dealing with this issue? And, then issue some concrete statement excluding the myriad of self-contradictions and self-victimization-narratives, that we have seen till now ? &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 13:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is accurate. Only a small percentage of editors will pay attention to this board but certainly those who do pay attention to WP:AN will have seen the notice and have not commented here. The silent majority haven't complained and of those that have, they are only doing so because Ritchie has posted a retirement notice. If he would have carried on with editing, the thread above would be considerably smaller with fewer complainants. He wasn't desysoped nor was he blocked at the time. It is a two-way IBAN and that is all. Many of the reactions above are blown well out of proportion leading to over-the-top griefing of the committee that isn't deserved.
 * The committee didn't twist Ritchie's arm to retire and they are not to blame for his reaction. It was his choice. He can continue to discuss with the committee via email if further discussion is desired and this is more likely to be productive than this thread which for some has devolved into badgering and harassing.
 * Ritchie will be back.
 * If anything, this thread may produce some process improvements - likely from Seraphimblade's or Tryptofish's comments. Boing's also. Constructive dialog is being impeded by the haranguing, hostility and extra noise though. I do not think that the responses above accurately reflect the overall community's opinions as the majority aren't complaining.
 * , please resign all of your bits because tens of thousands of active editors did not support you and then, I will pay heed to your concerns about silent majority.
 * Ritchie retired due to out-of-blue nature of the sanction, which went contrary to the committee's impressions of the sanction being well-discussed with both parties and thus, I don't see why I am going to consider any hypothetical situations that might have taken place, if he had not retired. That's sheer nonsense logic.
 * I (also) don't generally engage with people who can predict the future so confidently but will note that you had previously proposed for Ritchie to be banned from unblocking, which went on to fail. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 16:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Like Godric I have conerns about the logic there Bearian. It would be extraordinary if the majority complained even if most privately felt the Arb's actions were blatantly unjust. While our Wikipedia community seems relatively virtuous, it's still likely that many are motivated partly by self interest, and won't be keen to speak out against Wiki's most powerful body over a matter that doesn't directly concern them.
 * I doubt Ritchie will be returning to editing any time soon, unless there's some sort of the clarification from the Arbs. Let this be understood – being accused of Harassment can be extremely serious, even life changing. For some, a harasser may be similar to the worst types of abuser such as a rapist. Its only half the story to suggest it was Ritchie's choice how to react. He's a social person and so can't help be impacted by suggestions that he's a harasser, which is antithetical to his values. Ritchie's as pro–woman & progressive as they come. That comes across even from his wiki contributions, & perhaps even more so to those who have met him in RL.
 * There seems no reason to believe the iban was un-warranted, and as the current Arbs seem an excellent bunch of people I'd trust the Arbs probably even had good reason for their suggestion that Ritchie was the one more at fault. But they should have issued a clear statement that any potentially sanctionable behaviour by Ritchie was 'un-collegial editing', not the far more serious 'Harassment'. If the Arbs would make such a statement then the project might indeed be lucky enough to see Ritchie return. Similar logic applies to Fram, who I know less well, but also seems someone who would never harass anyone in the more egregious sense of the word.FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I somewhat agree with (though not on the "silent majority" bit; we do not pass an RfA with 20 opposes and 2 supports because "Well surely more people than that saw it and didn't object". If you want to be counted, speak up, and some have spoken up in support of the action taken here). But I think we certainly do need to, perhaps, codify when private handling is enough. I do, however, have a question for the Committee, and I realized why it had been tickling at the back of my mind.  indicated that the Committee had indeed found Ritchie to be the "aggressor", but the evidence in the email Ritchie cited shows both parties bickering, not one being the aggressor and the other the victim. (I do not, for clarity's sake, endorse the conduct of either party shown there; both had their share of nasty remarks and snark that we could well do without.)  indicated that this was, indeed, the extent of the "communication" with Ritchie. So, one of two things. Either the Committee decided that an unprecedented private case was necessary due to some run-of-the-mill bickering, while not even telling Ritchie that sanctions were under consideration (which would be a very poor decision, especially in view of the reaction to Framgate, but well, arbs are human and like anyone will make some errors.) But the other possibility is that additional evidence against Ritchie was presented and considered by the Committee, and Ritchie was neither informed of it nor given an opportunity to respond. If that's the case, that is substantially more concerning, and that's beyond a simple "Oops". That, whether in a private or public case, must never happen. So, I would appreciate from the Committee if you would clarify whether Ritchie was, indeed, given an opportunity to view and respond to all the evidence against him. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 2 questions: does your question assume that "evidence" is limited to what people write in the past, as opposed to what statements they make in the present? Also isn't Arbcom the only conduct ctte we have with all the powers of permission binding, so when any experienced person is presented with such communication by Arbcom, they know what's what, right?  Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, are not all experienced people generally aware how Arbcom gets private evidence? Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * How are either of those two "statements" relevant to the questions that Seraphimblade was asking? Only members of ArbCom would be able to answer them. Black Kite (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What? No, the committee would not know what assumptions Seraphimblade is making.  That's why the three questions are asked. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , I am afraid neither your questions nor your last statement make a bit of sense. I took what two arbitrators actually said, and drew the only two possible conclusions based upon those statements: First, that ArbCom somehow saw, in the evidence presented to Ritchie, him (and only him) being an "aggressor", while somehow not noticing Praxidicae's similar rude behavior in return. That wasn't an "aggressor" so much as mutual combat. Or, alternatively, they had more evidence against Ritchie than that, but (per WTT's statement that there was no communication with Ritchie other than that), if such evidence purportedly exists and was considered, they did not advise Ritchie of it or give him an opportunity to respond to it. Either one is a bad outcome, but the first is a simple error, and we all make those. The second would be a fundamental failure to treat someone fairly at all, and be substantially more concerning. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:51, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , Thanks. OK, let me explain.  I get that you disagree with whatever aggressor conclusion is put on anyone. (But that's not what my questions are about.)
 * What I was trying to understand is if you agree (apart from any conclusion you would draw were it your job), would you understand Ritchie's email itself, and anyone else's email is also evidence, through non-public means?-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , I believe that some have taken my silent majority comment to infer that I meant that members of the majority may have tacitly approved of the Arbcom action by their silence but this was not my intent. I believe that many aren't commenting in either a support or oppose fashion here because they don't have all of the facts and aren't privy to the private communications. Without all of the evidence, most of us do not know the entirety of the situation. I only broke my silence because there was a poor portrayal that those who have replied represent a "largely-unanimous response by the community" which I believe to be incorrect. I believe that many of those who have responded, particularly many right after Ritchie posted (all oversighted now), have been too quick to judge and take sides without having all of the evidence. I don't believe that accurately represents the community. Many of us are still watching and believe that speaking up to either support or oppose or demand evidence looks premature. Sensible silence is a legitimate position for the majority, yes? The RfA analogy falls short because people have the necessary evidence to evaluate that. I am appreciating your constructive efforts along with a few others though.
 * What I was trying to understand is if you agree (apart from any conclusion you would draw were it your job), would you understand Ritchie's email itself, and anyone else's email is also evidence, through non-public means?-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , I believe that some have taken my silent majority comment to infer that I meant that members of the majority may have tacitly approved of the Arbcom action by their silence but this was not my intent. I believe that many aren't commenting in either a support or oppose fashion here because they don't have all of the facts and aren't privy to the private communications. Without all of the evidence, most of us do not know the entirety of the situation. I only broke my silence because there was a poor portrayal that those who have replied represent a "largely-unanimous response by the community" which I believe to be incorrect. I believe that many of those who have responded, particularly many right after Ritchie posted (all oversighted now), have been too quick to judge and take sides without having all of the evidence. I don't believe that accurately represents the community. Many of us are still watching and believe that speaking up to either support or oppose or demand evidence looks premature. Sensible silence is a legitimate position for the majority, yes? The RfA analogy falls short because people have the necessary evidence to evaluate that. I am appreciating your constructive efforts along with a few others though.
 * Berean Hunter, I certainly cannot find fault with your kind comment about my earlier comments, but I think it misses the point to look at this in terms of what all the rest of the community might think. The same issue was raised about the page where the discussion of the Fram case has been happening. It was wrong there, and it's wrong here. Any consensus on en-wiki is based on the exchange of ideas among the editors who actually participated in the discussion, not on trying to extrapolate what editors who did not take part might or might not think. The fact is, that there is clear consensus here that there have been serious problems, and not that everything is peachy-keen. Also, I agree with everything that Seraphimblade said. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you that's how things ever work on wikipedia. If you start some discussion on some random wikiproject that we should allow any admin to appoint indef block one editor a month with no right of appeal, no reason required, and no other admin allowed to overturn and you get one random IP saying it's a good idea, then you start to implement that because you're an admin, well welcome to level 2 de-sysop. Point being it's well established here that while you can sometimes take silence as consensus in some instances and accept local consensus in others, it really depends what's being discussed, how well it was advertised etc. In this case, this is the discussion about an announcement so it's the right place to offer commentary. And arbitrators and others should take those comments on board. However there's never been any precedent that comments offered here are intended to establish consensus on the decisions. So if there is any any plans to establish consensus for anything, it would need to be properly advertised probably as an RFC and made clear to others that the plan since it goes against the norms of how this noticeboard work. Otherwise what people say here shouldn't be ignored, but it also shouldn't be considered consensus since that's simply not how things work here. I didn't agree with the majority in many areas of the Fram case, but at least the whole thing was well advertised and it was generally made clear when there was some attempt to establish consensus. I read parts of this case at the beginning but have mostly been ignoring it, in part because it I did not expect anyone would have the audacity to claim my silence indicated my views could be ignored and frankly I'm tired of what I consider an overreaction to maybe some minor mistakes. If anyone had ever made it clear there was a consensus process intended here I may very well have taken part. But this was never done and I fully expected it to be treated like other discussion on arbcom decisions where views will hopefully be taken onboard and considered, but where it's recognised that they don't establish consensus, since there is no need to establish consensus on everything. Especially not on decisions already made which are simply being noted and not offered for review. Nil Einne (talk) 14:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess I should clarify what I said, to indicate that it applies to situations in which there has been adequate announcement and adequate opportunity for participation. Certainly, if I held a discussion on my user talk page along with two other editors who are regular watchers of my talk page, that would not establish anything near to community consensus. But what we are talking about here is something that got a huge amount of the kinds of things that make editors aware of a discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Do we get answers?
Starting with, at least four of us have now raised the issue of why the committee decided to conduct this matter in total secrecy. All I see here is two members of the committee saying it was thought best. I don't consider that sufficient response, and I added the question of whether that decision was taken because of instructions or guidelines from WMF Trust & Safety. has also asked whether R was given the opportunity to view and respond to all the evidence against him. When do the committee plan to answer these questions? Yngvadottir (talk) 20:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I want answers to those questions, too. I want to add that I'm having a lot of trouble making something closely related add up: Arbs have said that the private discussion was very helpful in providing frank discussion through which both editors agreed that they wanted to avoid one another – and yet Ritchie's subsequent actions are completely at odds with him feeling that he had been in a productive discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * There appears to be a misconception that we held a full case against Ritchie in private. That's not what happened. The history between Praxidicae and Ritchie was highlighted to the committee, for a second time (in the past year). On the previous occasion, a single arbitrator dealt with the issue off list. This time, we followed the WP:LEVEL2 process for desysop. Ritchie was asked for his point of view, and the committee deliberated over whether it was appropriate to remove his sysop user-right. There was consensus that Ritchie's behaviour did not warrant removal of permissions at this time, however, we decided to implement the interaction ban that was considered at AN previously. Under ArbPol, I would consider this to meet our criteria of scope (request to remove tools & final binding decision on issues the community could not resolve). The wording may have conflated the issues that we had considered, but the underlying decision to interaction ban and not to remove tools was agreed by the majority of the committee. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 10:02, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , can you disclose the final ballot-count of the proposed LEVEL2 desysop? Say, 2-7-1 or 1-9 or .... Also, I am interested in the raw count and not in the names on each side. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 11:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , there wasn't a formal ballot as we were in deliberations. WIthout a formal vote I can't tell you the count, because some arbs did not declare their final positions. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 12:08, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * . Who was the initiating arbitrator and how many supported a desysop, (even amidst the deliberations)? &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 12:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I would guess this was Premeditated Chaos as per WP:LEVEL2 [t]he initiating arbitrator will (a) leave a message on the account's talk page which appears to be this notice. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:14, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , nice observation :-) &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 14:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I initiated the level 2 process because it was brought up in the thread, but I opposed de-sysopping Ritchie. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The Houdiniesque attempts of Arbcom to justify their poor wording—with no comment on the decision itself which may or may not have been as poor—are adventurous, to be sure. On the one hand, we have an admin whose behaviour was so egregious that the committee deliberated over whether it was appropriate to remove his sysop user-right, but, conversely, the interaction ban is mutual. So the committee are saying that a non-admin editor did something as bad that which could have seen the removal of admin editor's bit, and thus they were treated the same in the committee's statement. Interesting. ——  SerialNumber  54129
 * I'm not prepared to answer that question, more than I have already said. It did not pass. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 20:51, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It was not a question. I was merely clarifying the committee's position for you. ——  SerialNumber  54129  09:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the explanation. I still think that leaves several questions unanswered:
 * Why did ArbCom find Ritchie to be the "aggressor" and indicate that in its statement, when both Ritchie and Praxidicae were behaving badly toward one another?
 * If Ritchie had been L2 desysopped and objected to that decision, he would have had the right to demand that formal proceedings be initiated to examine that decision. Does he have that right in this instance? It is certainly clear he objects.
 * Why was Praxidicae offered the option to voluntarily agree to the IBAN, but Ritchie was not made that offer? (If the announcement had said "Due to a history of issues, Ritchie and Praxidicae mutually agree to an interaction ban and asked the Arbitration Committee to formalize it, and the Committee agreed to do so", don't you think that would be much better and would have barely occasioned any notice at all?)
 * Why, after the L2 desysop was denied, was the complainant not directed to file a case on-wiki, given that all the evidence, to the best of anyone's knowledge, is on-wiki? Or was there off-wiki behavior considered (aside from communication with ArbCom by email or the like)? There is no "L2 IBAN" procedure, and doing that off-wiki is extraordinary and generally unacceptable.
 * We still need answers to those, too. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Some very good questions, and I don't actually have the answers to them. I will go back to the committee to discuss on them. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 20:51, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. I recommend, notwithstanding what we are not, the Fifth world certainly appear to be yours and Arbcom's best bet. ——  SerialNumber  54129  21:38, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Worm, that seems to me to be an answer to a different question or two. Scratching my head ... thanks for being forthcoming with that answer, but it seems rather to raise new questions, such as why the committee felt it necessary to respond not once but twice to a complaint by circumventing the noticeboard processes? Maybe that's the same question after all: why such secrecy? Moreover, I've been Level 2 desysopped. At least I knew what it was for. Did know he was being considered for Level 2 desysopping, and for what? Because if not, it probably didn't feel like leniency, and he might have mounted a different kind of defence, and, well, basic fairness 'n all. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, it seems to me that the fact that the initial discussion was about Level 2 has nothing to do with Ritchie still being entitled to due process. I don't think anyone had believed that it was really a full ArbCom case held in private. Even in a more expedited procedure, Ritchie was clearly entitled to more of an opportunity to be aware of, and be able to respond to, the charges against him and the contemplated actions to be taken against him. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I just don't see the relevance, unless there's some implied claim of mercy. So again: was it purely the Committee's decision to handle these complaints in this manner, or was there any level of WMF instruction? And again, I second the questions about what Ritchie was told and whether he was given full opportunity to defend himself. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As for the first time, it is not unusual for this to happen on the committee. If someone comes to us with an issue, which does not meet our criteria, we will explain why we cannot help, but one individual arbitrator may take further action individually. However, as to the Level 2, we did not let Ritchie know that we were considering it. Oddly, it's not a requirement of the procedures - largely because after a a successful L2, they have the option of a case, and after an unsuccessful L2, we generally move on with nothing further done. Were I not embroiled in the Fram stuff, I would be focused on some deep questions on the L2 procedures - I may well pick up this issue in the future. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 20:51, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * WTT, thank you for the honest answer, and I hope that other editors will not jump on you for it. But it is very clear that if Ritchie never knew that an L2 was being considered, he never really knew what he was up against. And we all have to realize that this was a grievous failure of due process, no matter what the existing policy on L2 says. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That the L2 procedures don't require notification, whether on- or off-wiki, is... less than ideal. I think a change would be well received. Wug·a·po·des​ 00:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It would be interesting to know if the initiating arbitrator also dealt with the email correspondence and/or drafted the decision.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This was dealt with by the committee as a whole, and the arbitrators who did the public / private facing communications did so on behalf of the committee. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 07:42, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That's really pretty shabby, and I've informed Ritchie on his user talk. A previous Arbcom gave me more consideration than that, and this Arbcom has recognized R's offense was less than mine by not desysopping him. I'm also noting shabbiness in the continuing failure to answer my question regarding WMF influence in the matter. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , I missed the question, sorry. The WMF did not influence us on this matter, there was no instruction from them, indeed no contact on it at all before the announcement. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 14:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your answer. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * WTT, thank you for your comments. As I read down to here a dooms day editor gave me a splitting headache at least twice and made me shake my head in wonderment a couple of more. Some of the comments were incredulous at the least, disrespectful, and insensitive. It was getting pretty disgusting. There was a reply that equated to if an editor wanted to quit then go ahead. Tempers can rise and anger can raise it's ugly head. This would be a good time to type, breath, and possibly cursor over, delete, and reword. Members of Arbcom need to know that after the Fram affair and the WMF ultimatum fiasco there has been tension. That would likely be the reason for the questioning of if they had a hand in any of this. I had my hand on the door knob during this and while nobody would have likely missed me there were many more, that didn't just flat quit, that surely might have. There was (and proved to be) some monumental errors. I think what we don't need when someone is upset and states "I might just leave" is a response like, "then go ahead". Another terrible comment is to the effect "you might get to vote in a whole new round of ArbCom members. I was starting to think one surely might need considering but the entire concept is that the community needs ArbCom. I don't see that the community will ever accept "do it our way or else" from the WMF or TS or whom ever. I think the majority want (and need) to have that group (that would be ArbCom) that we can trust to work for the continued good of all Wikipedia. We don't want knee-jerk reactions based on a fear of WMF reprisals or some "taking over". We don't want secrecy yet privacy has to sometimes take precedence.
 * A beginning discussion on a case should be 1)- Are there any valid privacy concerns, 2)- Just how private and to what extent to protect sensitive information, or possibly a complainant, is important, and 3)- Is there culpability and who is identified as well as discussing "if there should be sanctions. If not, as seems to be the case, then a failure began when culpability was directed "out of the blue", and 4)- If there is no need for "complete behind closed door" secrecy, then there should not be any. Protect what needs to be protected and show what needs to be shown for transparency.
 * From what I see there are some very valid community issues on this case and you acknowledged at least one that needs solving. That "blame" had to be appointed just does not make sense. If ArbCom cannot see there actually was a one-sided and stacked decision (for whatever reason) when there seems not to have been justification for it then there are severe underlying problems. It does not matter that there was no resulting "severe penalty". The community went to arms over the Fram deal (and I am sure nobody wants that to happen again) and a lot of it was on principles. Here an editor "surely" did not feel things went as led to believe and I imagine "principles" dictated a move that might not have been expected. It was mentioned that the admin wasn't sanctioned to the tune of being desysoped so therefore a need for blame was over the top. There needs to be some resemblance of due process and I feel (and surely many others likely including you) that this crucial step was omitted which is a game-changer from my point of view. It was a possibly unintended snafu but some of the comments and replies I have seen representative of ArbCom was inappropriate. Yes some are upset, and some comments I saw were not appropriate but just imagine (there were several references to it) that the likeness to the Fram Affair was posited. The mere possibility of exchanging one closed door secret decision-making group of "outsiders", for an equally secretive closed door form from those we want to trust, has to be a considered that it would not be well received. I think a diplomacy expected of others, especially Admins, should be equally applicable to ArbCom. If we expect an Admin to attempt to deescalate a situation should not an ArbCom member wear the same hat?
 * If several members of the community have what they deem are valid concerns how you just handled this small part is by far and above a more diplomatic solution. There is never going to be 100% satisfaction or appeasement but an equally combative attitude "will never" solve anything. Stating "Stop" will not put one drop of water on a fire. I want equality for all and not a reversal of roles. Thank you, Otr500 (talk) 08:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

It's all about communication, even if off-wiki
Nosebagbear (talk) 12:13, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Whatever constraints get put on it, there are always going to be offwiki cases. Excellent arguments can be made for variances in that level, so I want to instead cover the fact that one of the big issues was how communication took place (or didn't) with Richie. With the loss of transparency of being onwiki, being fair should be taken even more seriously. I've a few thoughts:
 * 1) Individuals must be notified, both on-wiki and by email, that they are subject to an off-wiki ARBCOM motion or case and, if relevant, the process (e.g. lvl 2 desysopping) being utilised
 * 2) Even in a non full case set-up, an email with the accusations, evidence for them and whatever requests are being made (explanations, reasoning, conceding problems etc) needs to be sent.
 * 3) An explanation needs to be provided, as to why this is an offwiki discussion. A version of this also needs to be provided onwiki, either then or at the conclusion of the case
 * 4) Email discussion with the ARBs needs to continue until either both/all sides feel they have nothing more to say, or the ARBs agree that the communication has become duplicative, with nothing new being said
 * 5) Accused parties need to be notified of potential sanctions - while working out who is guilty is important, letting them submit reasoning/mitigation about specific punishment is also important.
 * 6) Given some confusion above, I'm inclined to think that the final sanction suggestions, at least, should be polled, with names provided onwiki - there seems no reason not to (afaict).
 * I support all of the above suggestions. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:40, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I support all of the above suggestions. These are good suggestions and deserving being "kicked around", but might be just relegated to a couple of comments or maybe some "show of support", without being formally submitted to the community for consideration. This is an ArbCom noticeboard but seems to lack comments from any of those members.  Otr500 (talk) 05:48, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Changes to functionary team

 * Original announcement
 * Happy to have served. All the best to the rest of the team. :) — 🦊 08:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Fox - I hope that this doesn't imply any retirement or resignation from Wikipedia. You're a great user, and we need you more than ever!  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   15:23, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Haha, no it does not. I'm less active here than I was years ago thanks to work and such but I'm not going anywhere. :) — 🦊 23:19, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Resignation of Callanecc

 * Original announcement
 * Very sorry to see this as I particularly enjoyed working with Callanecc last year. Good luck for the future, and I look forward to you coming back! <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 10:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Sad; you seemed to be one of the good folks .... Wish you the best for all your future endeavors and hope to see you back in the not-so-remote future :-) &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 11:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Huh, the fourth resignation from that election batch (out of 8). Based on the Antisemitism in Poland PD being over a month late, Arbs unable to vote even on the temporary injunctions there, things seem pretty dysfunctional. Callanecc cited lack of time for the resignation. Perhaps some real fixes need to be implemented here, especially to move away from the obsolete email list work format. --Pudeo (talk) 12:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm curious what options you think would be better to replace the mailing list? Personally I never really found the mailing list to be the time sink versus reading through evidence and drafting, but this is an unseasonable amount of retirements at this point and it's got to be critically affecting things at this point. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 13:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * When I was aboard, the mailing list was a timesink. Not that people's requests were not important, but if you were to go through and personally action/comment/opine in any detail on all the email that came in, you wouldn't have time for anything else or at least I wouldn't. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 14:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ban all mailing list usage except for cases where privacy is necessary. Pretty sure the process would speed up if all arb comments/discussion were public - probably due to the reduction in opining. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sure this isn't a new idea, but have you folks considered doing business on a private wiki? I've had a lot of work discussions by email, and the fact that people have short memories and are unwilling/find it difficult to search through email for previous discussions causes a lot of trouble. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That sounds a very sensible idea. The concept of a mailing list has been obsolete for around 20 years as far as I'm concerned. Obviously the requests themselves would still have to be via email, but an appropriate process could transclude the comments for further discussion on the wiki. I don't know if there would be security issues around unauthorised access to the wiki, and sensitive discussions, but worth thinking about. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There is already an Arbcom-wiki, actually. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Why not a forum? SMF, phpBB, [insert brand of choice here] - surely one could be setup and customized to ArbCom's needs relatively quick Dax   Bane  11:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Do the clerks have access to the mailing list? Could this work like OTRS, where trusted volunteer clerks handle the email and can move the real hard cases to a specific queue for the arbs? Guy (Help!) 16:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The clerks don't have access to the private mailing list or wiki because at present they are not required to identify to the Wikimedia Foundation. I've discussed potential changes in the role of the clerks, but I suspect that the community would not be on board with any system where unelected clerks can make dispositive rulings on most cases or have access to the type of highly-sensitive information that the arbs routinely deal with. I do agree that ArbCom needs some trusted underlings to help deal with the cases, but I think the clerks don't have the right institutional role for that. Some sort of actual paid employee might work better. Best, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 16:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Subcommittees have been tried and shuttered. (WP:BASC / WP:AUSC). –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 17:04, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Changes from today's practice can of course be made, but community approval would be required first. Clerks are not currently elected by the community; I imagine that the community would require a change to the clerk selection process before empowering them to handle community issues on their own initiative. isaacl (talk) 17:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, asking clerks (or any other group) to decide on the unblocks/ appeals would require a new policy. However, asking clerks or some other group - obviously, with the privacy requirements etc - for example, to prepare incoming unblock / appeal requests in such a form that handling it will take much less time (I do not know, collecting relevant diffs or smth) might save some time to Arbs. However, this is up to Arbs to decide in the first instance.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I imagine to be allowed access to this type of private information, the community will still require a change to the clerk selection process. Although of course theoretically possible, it would mean gaining a consensus for a new process, and if it were to involve elections, for example, a willingness to participate regularly in these elections. isaacl (talk) 17:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Either a semi-private wiki with different content visibility levels for different users or Phabricator, but instead of bugs you'd have reports/inquiries. --Pudeo (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , MediaWiki is not suitable for such "different content visibility levels" per mw:Manual:Preventing_access. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This is btw phab:T230668, with a few earlier tasks merged into that one possibly worth reading (I haven't read them myself). --Izno (talk) 03:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What about something like Slack? Always a possibility (although not open source, sadly)... -- Rockstone   talk to me!   21:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The mailing list is mainly time consuming because of block appeals, which we can't simply stop answering. It works fine for discussions between arbs. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Could some of the block appeal business be shifted to clerks?--Ymblanter (talk) 10:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I doubt it, at least as the Committee is currently constituted. I mean, there are all sorts of ways to reform the Committee to make it more efficient, particularly such that there are fewer redundancies. But as it stands, as long as everything has to be heard by the whole Committee, there's really not much that can be done. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 11:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

At what point do we have too few Arbs to handle the complex and diverse cases we usually see? I believe we're now down to a total of EIGHT active Arbs? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC) Unfortunately, getting meaningful reform to the Committee that actually takes into account the lessons of professional dispute resolution systems seems inevitably to wind up vulnerable to WP:NOTLAW/WP:NOTBURO and similar dismissals. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 17:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I have never seen any real benefit to adding more cooks to the kitchen... Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, let's just vote for a single benevolent dictator cook. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Except this isn't a kitchen. It's a group charged with evaluating behavior for an international group of users. I want a wide range of perspectives and thinking. Too few people can lead to decision making that doesn't think of some potential issues with a possible action. ArbCom is going to be deliberative by its nature. That's good. Let's lean into that where we can. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well true, a kitchen routinely has to deal with more complicated issues than Arbcom's usual glut of 'person said bad thing about me but they are protected' and the obvious Israel government stooges. But professional arbitration in far more complicated cases is routinely handled the world over by Arbiters acting alone or up to 3. SCOTUS - which for better or worse ARBCOM is modelled on - has 9 to handle cases of wide-ranging importance in the US, with the associated complexity. The point of arbitration is to resolve the dispute. Not to make everyone happy. 12 people are not going to substantially improve the ability to resolve disputes over 8, when dealing with simple disputes. Unless of course you are accepting that the popularity contest that elects them in the first place is bound to include a few duds, so you need the numbers to increase your chances of getting an intelligent one. In which case, yes, thats a reasonable argument for having a lot. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Professional arbitrators are not anonymous and so can be chosen on the basis of their credentials, and can work full-time on the matters at hand. If the English Wikipedia community wants to expedite conduct dispute resolution, perhaps it should consider hiring full-time personnel. isaacl (talk) 10:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This has been suggested multiple times by the community, or at least asking the WMF to hire some people with experience in conflict resolution. It always seems to come to naught unsurprisingly - while the WMF seems to prioritise hiring people experienced in conflict escalation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen these requests; whenever I've seen proposals for community-hired staff raised for discussion, the main response is editors disclaiming an interest in having paid personnel be involved in English Wikipedia matters. isaacl (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've talked about it recently. I'm of the opinion that it's something that's actually needful in some way. One of the reformed Committee structures I've thought up is one resembling a professional licensing board: The board (Committee) itself is made up of members of the profession and other stakeholders (here, editors from enwiki) rather than lawyers and judges. Factfinding proceedings, such as ones that determine whether misconduct has occurred and how severe the misconduct is, are conducted by a professional administrative law judge (or ALJ; we could call this a "case manager" or "referee" or similar), who knows how to handle evidence, knows the relevant procedure, can make principled rulings on whether something needs to be confidential, etc. The ALJ, at the end of the proceeding, makes a report containing findings of fact and conclusions of law to the licensing board, perhaps with a recommendation of sanction. The board then will meet and consider whether to accept the report (some systems permit the board to make changes, others require the board to either accept it or request reconsideration), and what (if any) sanction to levy based on the report. Basically, a structure like this would take all the case management and handling of evidence out of the individual arbs' hands and permit everything to be winnowed down to keep it simple. As I discussed below, the Committee is fairly unusual in that it permits FoFs, etc. to be decided by all arbitrators rather than a panel or an individual arbitrator. The result of this is some rather severe inefficiencies, delays, and other problems that you really don't see much in real adjudicative systems. Anyway, that's just one of the ideas I've had. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 18:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have too, in the past and recently. I haven't seen any actual requests to the WMF to hire anyone for the purpose of dispute resolution, as I'm not aware of any consensus agreement on the part of the community to proceed, but of course it may have happened somewhere I wasn't paying attention. If anyone can point me towards any requests, I'd appreciate it! isaacl (talk) 23:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * SCOTUS - which for better or worse ARBCOM is modelled on If this is the case, and I question whether it is, it's probably only true in the sense that all the arbitrators participate in every case. In every other important sense, the Committee functions nothing like the Supreme Court. The Committee only really has original jurisdiction, not appellate jurisdiction, while SCOTUS's jurisdiction is almost exclusively appellate—in other words, it doesn't usually do factfinding; facts are part of the record that come from the trial court, and in the extremely uncommon original jurisdiction case, the modern practice is for SCOTUS to assign these aspects to a special master, who presents a report upon which SCOTUS may rule. The result is that you don't get 9 people voting on every single sentence and paragraph and creating a mishmosh judicial decision, you get a small number of opinions on a narrow question of law. The differences flowing from this single distinction are enormous. I don't mention this simply to nitpick either, but to make clear that in many cases the presumed legal origin of Committee procedure is incorrect, irrelevant, or not properly understood. Handling trial proceedings, which is essentially what a Committee case is, as a panel of this many arbitrators is not only impractical but extremely inefficient. There's a reason why three-judge panels are the standard when a panel is to be used, and really, thought should be given to appointing a subset of arbs to handle cases once they're accepted, just as they already theoretically do by assigning the drafting of decisions.
 * The resignation of an Arbitrator who has been inactive for most of their term does not change the number of active arbitrators. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 19:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, so we're good to go with eight "active" Arbs? With the existing (and vitally important caseload). Brilliant.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That is why a vital question to be answered when considering an ArbCom candidate is: "Will you be able to devote adequate time to the position?" I have not reviewed the "rules" but unforeseen issues cannot be helped. If an ArbCom member becomes inactive for a long duration there should be provisions to examine this and not have a long-term inactive member. Whatever number as is currently accepted should be maintained by either a special election or some use of an alternate position. This becomes more important when the plate is full, and does not include that some extra-unforeseen event could shorten the number to 7. Otr500 (talk) 00:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Because a candidate doesn't have to honor what they say. Here's a good example - Courcelles wrote in their candidate statement SO I've been back to full activity all this year, and am fully prepared for the workload and e-mail volume if I get elected again. If you look at their contribs they've made maybe a dozen edits on Wiki since becoming elected. I think they are active on the mailing list, but no idea if just passively (ie. voting on things someone else proposes). Mr Ernie (talk) 07:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , don't worry, we're only 2-3 months from a large election... Indeed, the RfC is scheduled to start in a little over a week. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 09:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * In my view we had too few arbs from the beginning of this term, and of course the resignations have made that worse, to the point that we're having to suspend cases just to stay on top of things. If you're worried about that, please consider supporting expanding the committee in the upcoming RfC. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I am worried because Wikipedia is currently undergoing its most dangerous crisis since it began and yet those charged with seeing our way through the mire are dropping like flies. We can't wait.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey! -- Someone ping me if they don't see me. I think there are, and have been, too few. I do not understand a mentality I see sometimes. Some push for a reduction in Arbcom or Admin numbers and then complain when there is a crisis and a shortage. I cannot imagine, in this world, why there would be a clear opinion from the WMF that there are things lacking, and that we would want to be caught with our proverbial pants down. I know a specific fiasco created issues, and an Exodus of sorts, and I do not think this has been given the attention it deserves. Very few like or want too much bureaucracy but we have to have appropriate representation to handle issues that arise. I just wonder why (in the US) we have Vice Presidents, Lt. Governors, contingencies for replacing members of Congress or the Senate, and all around the world companies can have emergency meetings to replace a CEO, other organizations have such plans to ensure a smooth operation, and Wikipedia suspends cases, because somehow some form of alternates or special elections are not deemed important. This year we wait until December, and the next time we can wait longer. I suppose some here are a lot smarter than I am and consider these positions like US Federal judges, just do without until someone gets around to it, but ---what if the crap hits the fan --- or did that already happen? Otr500 (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * We should consider in the Rfc enabling the runners-up to automatically step up for the original term if an arb resigns, subject to some level of support in the election. Johnbod (talk) 02:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Meh. The real issue is when you look at the candidates, both successful and unsuccessful. Looking at the 2018 results, there was only one successful candidate (Joe Roe) who was new to the committee, and every other candidate over 60% support was a former arb; 2017 was slightly better, but those "new" people have mostly stepped down already. We are not renewing the committee; in other words, we are not growing new leadership. This is a significant failure on the part of the community.  (Yes, it's on us, not on them. At least these individuals are trying to keep things going by standing for election.) I'm trying to figure out who our next generation of people willing to take on complicated roles will be, since I'm seeing fewer and fewer people willing to stand up. Arbcom's problems are only a symptom of the problems endemic to the community as a whole.  Risker (talk) 03:03, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That kind of begs the question of WHY there aren't more people stepping up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Because, VM, many editors simply don't stand a chance. You don't. TRM doesn't. Johnbod doesn't. Y'all have picked up too many enemies along the way--and so have I, judging from my last attempt. All three of you, all four of us, have been here too long and have been in too many fights. Whether we were right or wrong in any of those fights doesn't really matter here--running for ArbCom is a popularity contest, much more so than AfD. I could seriously vote for any one of you three, because I know you all know the rules and you know how to write content (and I believe I do too), but you simply cannot be in this place for as long as we have and not make so many enemies that it will be taken out on you, in an anonymous vote (and not a !vote, of course) where negative votes can be cast. There's the rub: you need to be here a while to learn all the things, and you need to be active, and the longer you are here the less chance you have of getting in. There are exceptions--I suspect Risker could get elected, and Callannecc got in, and if you don't appreciate GorillaWarfare you're a fool, but most of the experienced editors just won't get in. Drmies (talk) 04:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It was kind of a rhetorical question.  Volunteer Marek   05:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * But a very likely bare bones fact. I have never taken stock of if I have "enemies". My main two redeeming qualities would be that I want to always be fair and don't think "we really need to fight about it". I embrace a lot of technology but would likely have some struggles with some of it. Maybe I just work better behind the scenes. The main thing is that I have never went at this with a goal of running for anything. I have never been one to run with the crowd just to be doing it. Lastly, with all that has been going on, the love offered towards ArbCom when the WMF was involved and the disdain if they screw up or some dislike their decisions, would make me think "who in the hell would want this job". The same with the Admins position so it is really commendable to those that volunteer. A thankless non-paying "job" that seems to promise some heartache at the least. Maybe others feel that way.  Otr500 (talk) 08:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I've never had the slightest temptation to run - the last thing I'd want to do is to face the inbox, and intricate policy arguments. If I did want to run, I'd become an admin first, which I've also never wanted to do. Of course, once I was an admin, I'd never block anyone, or threaten to, because that's the way you build up enemies! Johnbod (talk) 12:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

It's the most thankless job I know of here, and sucks up whatever time an editor may have had for content work. It's a dilemma; we need ArbCom, but qualified folks don't want to serve.  Mini  apolis  13:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC) I'm trying to avoid direct comparisons to judicial systems because I don't think the analogy is quite apt here (and to avoid unhelpful cries of WP:NOTLAW), but the easiest comparison is how the U.S. federal courts of appeals function: Appeals are assigned to a panel which issues a decision, and under certain uncommon circumstances (which aren't particularly relevant for our purposes) the panel decision will be circulated among the appellate judges in regular, active service, who will take a vote on whether to rehear the case en banc. So on rehearing, instead of having three judges, you might have a dozen judges. The whole point is to avoid needless reduplication and wasting of effort. For example, if we have a dozen arbitrators, if they have an e-mail chain going about a case, it's inevitable that someone's going to send an e-mail suggesting something that two others just blew a half hour writing up, and four more were thinking about for that long, and all of whom had to read or at least view the e-mail. When it's just three people working a case, you get diversity of opinion, but without a lot of duplicated effort that could've been spent doing other things, such as hearing other cases. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 19:24, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Paid position? Would not the usual calls to resign (adding, be fired) just increase?  And the inevitable call for annual public performance review turn into worse than RFC/U with trying to destroy the person's effectiveness and character on and off wiki?  And who fires them? Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:34, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * On the "expand the committee" to deal with these types of problems, keep in mind we don't actually have that many people volunteering to get elected to the committee each year that gain sufficient support as it is. Since this is somewhat of an open forum on the topic, here are some of my ideas: (a) grow the committee (b) after growing, and without enforcing a maximum number of arbs per case, show support for having arbs be active on some matters while simultaneously being inactive on others, define some minimum number of particpants per case. Multiple matters could be held without needing to delay for every single arb (let them split the work up) (c) reclaim CU/OS appointments back to the community, this should allow the "bar" for joining the committee to be lowered and let the elections focus on volunteers that are best at dispute management - our "judges" don't need to also be the investigators. I know I would have added some more support votes to some people if it didn't mean they would also become CU/OS's. — xaosflux  Talk 13:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking along similar lines given my belief that we just don't have enough editor workhours to support all the tasks we've set-up for ourselves. Risker's post above also has me thinking. I'm wondering if there are ways we could have some elected body (I think the community election is important in terms of mandate) that would handle some subset of what arbcom does now to both easey ArbCom's plate and create a leadership track. I have also thought of more radical things off Mendaliv's thoughts above about having just two or three drafters lay-out a more detailed version of principles and findings of fact and then have the whole committee vote on remedies without the expectation that they'll have read through all of the case. I'm not sure either of these are actually good ideas. Perhaps it's really just about having a much larger committee made up of people who get above X% (55?) in election combined with the idea that not every arbitrator will be active on every case. I would love to hear more ideas from former arbcom members about ways we could make structural changes - perhaps through the RfC process but if not through ARBPOL - to fix what seems to be a real longterm threat to self-governance. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * after growing, and without enforcing a maximum number of arbs per case Honestly I think having a fixed number of arbs per case is such a good idea, it should replace the current way of doing things. I know of no modern adjudicative system that leaves case management and trial matters to a panel of more than three judges, and even those are rather unusual (and complicated in practice). Even SCOTUS, which in theory could hear an original jurisdiction case before all 9 justices, hasn't done this in the same way the Committee does in at least a century. In original jurisdiction cases, everything's referred to a special master to manage the fact proceedings, with the occasional ruling needing to be made by the court proper. The whole practice of having all the active arbs participate in every case is overall a waste of time, and moreover creates the opportunity for less-active arbs to just start agreeing without really spending enough time on each case. Cases should be heard from start to finish by either a single arbitrator or a panel of three, with the opportunity for a rehearing by the whole Committee if there's some serious, articulable problem (i.e., not merely "I'd have decided that differently if I'd been the arb on that case"). Case requests themselves need to be simplified as well, but that's a whole different topic. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 14:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Real-world adjudication is performed by non-anonymous persons with verifiable credentials. Without this, it's a leap of faith to empower a small number of persons to make final decisions. isaacl (talk) 16:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm? In practice most elected judges require no credentials. And in any case, I'm not proposing a nonappealable panel system. If the panel makes errors they can be appealed. And an arbitrator that engages in misconduct in conducting cases can be removed. It's not really as dangerous as you seem to be suggesting. And really, many of the same criticisms apply to the current free-for-all, with the added problem that arbs are prone to get overwhelmed by the volume of work and consequently either burn out early, or do the minimum in every case, deferring to people who are more enthusiastic on that particular case for some reason. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 16:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no minimum standard for credentials in the United States judicial system, but the credentials for each elected judge is known and can be verified by the electorate and so they can make their decisions accordingly. To whom are panel-issued decisions endorsed by the arbitration committee going to be appealed: the community? isaacl (talk) 17:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No, to the full Committee. The idea is that the main case would be heard by a panel and a decision would be issued. A dissatisfied party could then request a rehearing by the full Committee, which would review the decision for error and could amend the decision or perhaps require a new decision. This would be discretionary, and probably employ a deferential standard of review—sort of like how DRV isn’t “round two”, a rehearing by the full Committee wouldn’t be a “do-over” in most cases. Compare the current system whereby AE sanctions (typically decided by uninvolved admins or a consensus of uninvolved admins) can be appealed to ARCA. So it’s hardly unprecedented for the Committee to delegate tasks like this. I’d honestly argue that doing this would be far more legitimate than how AE works in terms of people getting cases decided by people they elected. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 17:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Leaving aside for the moment that it seems unusual to appeal a decision to the arbitration committee when it has already endorsed it, I don't see how to avoid this being a round two. Discussions at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard are typically full discussions of the issues at hand. Requests for amendment of the sanctions in question also cover the entirety of the situation. isaacl (talk) 18:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh I misread what you said. Panel decisions could be reheard by the full Committee. But once the full Committee heard a case (or denied rehearing) the effect would be the same as a case by the current Committee: There wouldn't be a further appeals mechanism other than petitions for relief of sanctions (i.e., normal unban requests). Basically what I envision is like this: First, a case request is made, discussed, and voted on, probably as we do now. Next, the Committee randomly assigns the accepted case to a panel of three arbitrators who will handle the entire case from start to finish with no input or participation from other arbitrators, and the decision of this panel will be as binding as decisions by the full Committee presently are. Finally, someone aggrieved by the panel's decision may request a rehearing by the full Committee, but this would be discretionary (the Committee would have full discretion to simply refuse to rehear the case) and should generally be deferential in terms of the findings of fact and principles (i.e., the fact that the full Committee would have made different decisions shouldn't be enough to overturn; instead there should be a claim of some significant error or misjudgment or unfair act by the panel, which would be the basis for a rehearing). If a rehearing is granted, generally speaking it would be to adjust the remedies, but in any case it shouldn't reopen the evidence or workshop phases. If a rehearing is denied, the panel decision would stand. If a rehearing is granted, usually the panel decision will be modified in some way, and that would be the controlling decision of the Committee.
 * At least in a United States context this is more true on paper than in reality. I think for some members of our community there is no pleasing them when it comes to ArbCom decisions - we could have arbitrators with verified identities, elected as sysops each with more than 30 FA, from the highest courts of the United States, United Kingdom, and Nigeria and the suggestion would be that we shouldn't have all lawyers because ArbCom is not a legal forum and why should we trust those people when they have such busy day jobs? Every system we could use has benefits and has drawbacks and it's about which drawbacks we're willing to live with in light of the benefits we receive. It seems like we're no longer so accepting of the current drawbacks we're experiencing and so exploring other ways - perhaps to be time limited ala ACTRIAL - feels worth doing. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems like we're no longer so accepting of the current drawbacks we're experiencing and so exploring other ways - perhaps to be time limited ala ACTRIAL - feels worth doing. That's not a bad idea. At the very least, perhaps a working group can be formed to explore alternative arbitration systems (and maybe the general idea of applying alternative dispute resolution techniques to Wikipedia dispute resolution), and a series of mock cases could be conducted to explore the pearls and pitfalls of alternative systems. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 16:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Even in the United States, candidates for judgeships are not anonymous, and so you can verify whatever credentials they have (or don't have). Although it is true there will always be some displeased with any dispute resolution process (which typically makes half the involved persons unhappy), at least a reputable track record will lend credence to decisions made. Elsewhere I have discussed my personal view that we need better content dispute resolution mechanisms that would make poor behaviour a neutral or losing strategy, which would forestall the need for conduct dispute resolution. I am a big fan of trying something, evaluating, re-adjusting as needed, and trying again; I think this will be easier, though, at a lower level of dispute resolution. isaacl (talk) 18:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , can you point me to where you've suggested some idea to try at a lower level? I'd be curious to read about them. Thanks and best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:15, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk page. isaacl (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Although it is true there will always be some displeased with any dispute resolution process (which typically makes half the involved persons unhappy) Honestly as I get more experience in life, I’m progressively becoming of the opinion that an adjudication system that makes any participant happy is not working properly. But that’s an aside. we need better content dispute resolution mechanisms that would make poor behaviour a neutral or losing strategy I can’t agree with this more. Closing down WP:MEDCOM was a step in the wrong direction in my view, though from the sound of things the nonbinding, voluntary nature of it made its actual use very uncommon. But what we have now is almost uniformly (what I’d describe as) the “behavioralization” of content disputes. The number of what I’d call legal fictions to achieve this is astounding. WP:NOTHERE, WP:CIR, describing individuals as a “net negative”, etc. We go through cycles of what fiction is in vogue at AN/ANI, but cases almost always boil down to a disagreement over content that has escalated and gained a behavioral component (which quickly dominates all discourse). 3RR manages to behavioralize most content disputes with inexperienced editors, while characterizing things as “slow edit wars” or violating WP:BRD winds up happening with more experienced editors. So yes, I would agree wholeheartedly that a better system for figuring out content disputes is needed. As to the approach, whether through dry runs and design by committee, or through trying and seeing what happens in practice, I think either way is legitimate. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 18:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Section break

 * Wow. Talk about fiddling while Rome burns.  It doesn't matter how many arbs there are. The case structure doesn't matter.  The bottom line is that we as a community are almost going out of our way to avoid developing people who will be able to fill these roles 2-3-5 years down the road; in fact, we're recycling arbitrators to the point of absurdity, and doing nothing to fix that problem.  The structure doesn't matter if you've still got the same 15-20 people sitting in the chairs.  There are so few "new" candidates that, even if we wanted to, the community couldn't possibly make significant changes in arbcom membership.  This isn't a new problem, it's one that started several years ago. How do we attract and support a much wider range of community members to participate in dispute resolution, ones with different experiences and history?  This is the core problem. Risker (talk) 19:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree completely with Risker's observations in this thread. Iridescent has also written in the past about the history and aging of our community leadership and might have some useful observations to add here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:37, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The way it comes across to me, there's a sort of Catch-22. The stuff that administrators and functionaries deal with is often the ugliest stuff on-wiki, and I hear over and over again how Arbs are always being treated like punching bags. It doesn't sound very appealing. If things were less ugly and Arbs were treated nicer, with an easier workload, then there would be a lot more clueful users stepping forward – but of course that would mean that a lot of the reasons for ArbCom would have gone away, thus the Catch-22. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think an arrangement where runners-up step up when people resign (as I suggested above) might well encourage more candidates. At the moment if you don't get voted on, as most first-time candidates don't, I imagine you get left feeling somewhat foolish. But if we had such an arrangement, the way things are you'd be feel much better, as an arb-in-waiting. The way the candidacies are all announced these days, most right at the last minute, suggests hopefuls are carefully judging how much of a chance they have before declaring. Johnbod (talk) 00:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * A catch-22, by nature, is a reoccurring cause and effect with an equally or worse negative or detrimental outcome. Just adding this thought to a discussion would at least be considering the negatives and how to break the cycle. This would be exploring how to create a virtuous circle, and not necessarily trying to doom a discussion or project.


 * I suggest this be moved to an appropriate section or sub-page, equally appropriately titled ("Resignation of Callanecc" seems inappropriate), as a building block of ideas. Solving problems and issues are important, and some here have touched on a fundamental problem that needs solving. A goal to "satisfy the masses" needs to be of less priority than creating a community atmosphere that is more inviting, and tolerant, while not forgetting that civility is a code of conduct, presented as a "fundamental principle" that is rooted on consideration and respect.
 * I continually see the opposite arise very quickly in discussions. We seem to "allow" a certain amount of incivility (what else is it) in heated conversations or debates. Those we consider as having "tough skins", maybe that has been around awhile, or that can handle themselves, have largely figured out how to work within this atmosphere. Getting to that point is where a vicious circle can begin and "having to survive" should not even be a consideration.
 * The community has many issues and every day will bring as many new problems as was solved the previous. The "harassment" issue, that has been catapulted to a priority with WMF (T&S) involvement, has given a mandate to examine this to ensure future continued "community" self-government without someone having to step in or take over. This has already created problems with some asking can we do it or is there a point when T&S should be brought in. Do we need T&S? It is here so that is not debatable. "They" should "get involved" when there is no other recourse and this community should accept that this may happen "if" we are not diligent to minimize the need.


 * Do we have some committee that somehow interacts with T&S to examine our direction and goals versus their ideas? "They" are not an enemy to the community no more than Admins or ArbCom. When they felt they had to intervene the community jumped into the same fox hole, along with Admins and ArbCom in support that "WE" could administer our own affairs.
 * The WMF, T&S, and our community (maybe the world) uses the word "harassment" most of the time. There is a "catch-22" if ever there was one. "Harassment" is a "repeated offensive behavior". An attack is offensive yet it can be tolerated, and gamed, because it was an isolated, one time event, possibly with no serious apparent negative consequences. If "an attack" fosters a hostile environment for anyone it is problematic. An attack is an act of incivility but our allowed tolerance of "an attack", by continually referencing "harassment" (more than one "attack", or string of events, that are continual), fosters the cycle of allowing "attacks". Now we have T&S, that "the public" can use, to oversee things. This means the community needs to be proactive, through some committee of Admins or ArbCom, possibly with one or two members of the editing community (Admins in training, ArbCom in training) also involved, to work with T&S and not just regard them as "outsiders" trying to handle our business. If an incident arises that was because of a T&S report then a working relationship, that the community will seriously consider incidences brought before it that involves incivility, would show we are committed. Short of that we can consider to always have "big brother" looking over our shoulders.
 * We cannot do these things without the help of the whole community. ArbCom cannot be considered as a friend that just became a boss so is now "one of them company people". Admins are representatives of the community. ArbCom members are representatives of the community. If we want to continue our "self-government" then we have to do just that.
 * This is "our community" and a member (registered or not) still belongs here so any action that makes it feel differently should bring an immediate reminder or reaction of protection. A community cannot police itself. That is why there are police departments in the world. The difference is that we get to choose the "police" by ballot. We may not like some of their decisions but our system has a set of "appeals" to supposedly ensure fairness. If someone has an inherent issue with all police they should call a fireman the next time they are robbed.
 * How can we effectively run our community if members of ArbCom or Admins suddenly become "outsiders" because many will simply not want that portrayal. Transparency is one way to ensure this and any hint of secrecy, that is not 100% needed, will likely draw references of the "Fram Affair" for a long time to come. This should not be a negative, "get ready for a battle" reference. It seems the community feels this was because of "outsiders" trying to take over the community and usurp an "our way only" power. Some may not like lawyers but those with certain knowledge in that field can be indispensable. There is an understandable reason for this possible disdain. Lawyers make laws and in a community that was created within "ignore all rules" that is a natural conflict. It is still necessary just as Admins, ArbCom, or the police. One difference would be that our "police" are also members of the judging panel, possibly as as a "lower court", if you will. Another difference is that instead of 12 members (or whatever the amount in whatever location) we can have several more and "then" the community can get involved so it can become "public". That is a better situation than most organizations in the world.
 * Getting hamstrung by unwarranted secrecy removes any effective community involvement so ArbCom "must" work within the perimeters of providing all information that can be allowed except what is absolutely needed to protect privacy concerns, sensitive information, and certainly any "victims" rights. If it involves redacted reporting then redact what is critical and release the rest. Short of that I will surmise we need to explore some community mandate for "rules of disclosure" which may now be warranted anyway.
 * Since ArbCom is chosen from among "our community", I think mostly from current or past Admins, it seems silly that upon appointment it becomes "us against them", or Admins against ArbCom. Surely that makes sense. If there is an ArbCom issue and community members, especially if two or three Admins are on-board, question things this would be the time to pull out the "stop" card and examine the situation looking for a solution or compromise and not blame or excuses. As I understand it "we the community" has the right to question things without fear we are sticking our nose where it doesn't belong.
 * We have an upcoming election. Is it too close for any considered changes to be explored, find consensus, and be implemented? If not are there any provisions for possible "special elections"? We need help, ArbCom needs help, so how can we break the cycle described above? Surely an option like that explored by User:Johnbod is a possibility. The bar for possible inclusion as an Admin doesn't need to be lowered but the percentage of !votes could be examined for alternatives.


 * The issue I have is with any possibility that ArbCom has to turn down a case because of caseload issues. If a case involves any "civility" issues it should never be turned down but at the least remanded back down. If that happens then this falls into being handled by our various boards, Admins and the community. If the issue involves an Admin then there should have already been some "panel" type system to examine the facts to see if there has been Admin violations. Even that possibility can't be explored if there is simply not enough members. Also, again as far as my understanding, some ultimate final and last decisions could be made at a community-wide level. I think this might have been shown with the WMF (T&S) ultimate and finale ruling on the Fram case. I am just adding that as a possibility, according to what transpired.
 * I am sure ArbCom issues has been discussed but if time restraints or ArbCom size versus caseload is an issue, then the "good" will be worth the consideration. Lawyers are involved and that is one problem. The T&S have these and all they have to do is pull the "legality" card as reason to usurp authority over any case right? That means there needs to be a consideration at the Admin level as well as ArbCom with this in mind. If it "could" involve legalities who would argue against it. I would think any case where there is a remote possibility would be where a working relationship between ArbCom and T&S would be crucial.
 * If we have to make some changes that get close to NOTLAW then we have to find that fine line. We cannot sit on incivility or "harassment" cases. With our world-wide presence, and those that want Wikipedia to fail, be purchased simply for the market value, or even some possible desire to be overseen by T&S, we have to examine all aspects that have a remote relationship to the community environment ("safety and integrity of our users, our contributors, and the public") to show we are serious. Anything short of that will result in a "you guys gave it a good try but since it didn't work...". One ultimate factor that could cause intervention is if "there is a lack of ability by the communities to self-police...".


 * To echo Mendaliv, "That's not a bad idea. At the very least, perhaps a working group can be formed to explore alternative arbitration systems...", as well as examine current practices. At the very least it could prove a lot of unfeasible ideas but "could" find some areas where alternate ideas are deemed worthy to implement.  Otr500 (talk) 08:28, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, my characterization as a Catch-22 certainly stimulated a lot more comments! I want to say some things in follow-up. I agree with Risker that the problem isn't going to be addressed by making procedural changes – this is a cultural issue. For example, the idea of lowering the percentage in the elections might make more editors want to run, but it is unlikely to happen in the first place, because there will likely not be consensus for setting the bar lower. I really think that discussing procedural fixes is a waste of time. Wikipedia needs a better cultural environment – or "hasten the day". I think that User:Kirill Lokshin/Professionalism has never been improved upon. We have to get there. But having a civility police who block everyone who uses a cuss word won't work either. Nor will a WP:RGW crusade for safe spaces. One promising outcome of Framapalooza so far is that ArbCom has floated the idea of having a focused community discussion on what civility should mean going forward. There was already some very good discussion about that at the Fram community response page, and we shouldn't lose that momentum. The best thing that the current ArbCom can do about this problem is to move forward with that community-wide discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I recently urged the arbitration committee to incorporate the context of the recent case request into their planned requests for comments on handling interpersonal interaction issues, so I agree with moving forward on this front. But I also think the community needs to keeps its own momentum going right now. How about we start a discussion at the Village Pump idea lab on the types of behaviour that need to be encouraged, and what needs to be discouraged? Every day that goes by without discussion is a day of lost momentum. isaacl (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Along the keep momentum suggestion: for one of my ideas above I've started Village_pump_(idea_lab) to see if time should be spent exploring it furhter - any feedback there is welcome. —  xaosflux  Talk 15:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This one unfortunately died out, may be it is time to continue with the types of desired behavior?--Ymblanter (talk) 16:34, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Please do! I can help with setting it up but as I am already driving another set of discussions, someone else needs to take the role of shepherding the conversation. Would you like to do so? isaacl (talk) 17:35, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I am afraid I do not immediately know how to start this discussion (what to propose).--Ymblanter (talk) 18:40, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If you are interested in shepherding discussion, we can first go over ideas about the form of the discussion. I have some initial thoughts (though I'm a bit fuzzy on how to proceed after that). isaacl (talk) 19:27, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I can do some shepherding, though ideally I would not be the only one due to real-life constraints: semester starts, research grants etc.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:30, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * And I am very emphatically not offering to do any shepherding, but I can offer a suggestion. It's very likely that this will require multiple sequential RfCs. For a start, it might be worthwhile to ask editors to post statements and have support or oppose of each statement. The outcome of that could help focus what comes next. But – if ArbCom have something in mind that they are going to put in the Fram final decision, I'd rather give them room to do that first. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:39, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I have information collection in mind as a first step, not statements to be supported or opposed, but this digression is getting far afield from the original thread. If anyone is interested in discussing the topic further with me, please let me know. Or, if you have your own ideas and just want to get started, do it! isaacl (talk) 19:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note my encouragement of opening another discussion isn't meant to discourage the check user / oversight discussion, which I don't think has died out yet (consensus requires patience). I feel it is progressing quite well with interesting comments. Please continue that one too! isaacl (talk) 19:27, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

2019 Arbitration Committee pre-election RfC
A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2019 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules. Mz7 (talk) 21:39, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Petition to Amend the Arbitration Policy: Interim Elections
I have started a petition to amend the arbitration policy on interim elections at Village_pump_(policy). All are invited to comment. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Eric Corbett

 * Original announcement

Thank you ArbCom. I can now sleep safer knowing that a typo or two won’t be corrected. (to be clear I am referring to the handful of minor edits by EC’s alleged “sock”) Mr Ernie (talk) 15:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well now, that is unexpected... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * May be we should have a permanent watchlist notice, smth like "Whatever happened, never edit from new accounts to express your frustration". In big pink letters.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Question. I see that Mkdw has blocked  at the same time, which is clearly Eric.  However, unless I'm missing something, that account doesn't look like it's edited disruptively, nor do its edits overlap with Eric, nor has it edited whilst Eric was blocked.  Just to check - are there other accounts involved here editing "abusively", or is the indef purely because Eric claimed he'd retired in the middle of an ArbCom case? Black Kite (talk) 15:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As we said in the motion, the indef was for sockpuppetry and not for merely retiring, and there was more than one account involved: Eric Corbett...has been abusively misusing multiple accounts and disruptively editing while logged out. I will note, though, that even had all edits been productive/non-disruptive, it would still be unacceptable for a person facing possible sanctions in an ArbCom case to "retire" and then begin editing under another account, as it would fall squarely under "avoid[ing] detection or sanctions". GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's also avoiding scrutiny with regard to his existing sanctions. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks GW, it was just that there was only that account listed under "sockpuppets of Eric Corbett". Black Kite (talk) 15:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * My recollection is the Eric (understandably miffed by the Kafkaesque actions), decided to scamble his password. Once that happened, he could only edit as an IP or by creating a new account. Is there some requirement that he identify his old account? The policy says "should" not "must". I don;t see it as remotely " "avoid[ing] detection or sanctions". S Philbrick (Talk)  19:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What you're describing is a WP:CLEANSTART, something that is prohibited for accounts under active sanctions and for those "currently or about to be formally discussed for their conduct (such as at an administrative noticeboard or in an open case with the Arbitration Committee)". Eric falls under both of those categories. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Socking via a registered account & ips? the damage is done :( GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh indeed, I was just intrigued to see whether he'd done any actual damage or not. Black Kite (talk) 15:37, 2 September 2019 (UTC)


 * He'd actually threatened to do that. So, that is sad (and it is, certainly Eric did a great deal of good work), but not terribly unexpected. I'm just sorry to see things end that way, more than anything, but I certainly can't criticize the ArbCom for addressing that. None of us are allowed to do things like that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:42, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, that's unexpected, but it does have the advantage of saving ArbCom and the community another dramafest. I guess this puts Wikipedia into the paradoxical position of having to thank Eric Corbett for going on a socking spree. An indef block is, of course, appropriate under these circumstances.  Sandstein   15:53, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sigh. He should have taken a break. Committed, vested contributors can and often do suffer burnout, we are terrible at helping with this. Guy (Help!) 16:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree: he should have just stayed away for a few months. If he'd come back after a long break, even with an ArbCom decision hanging over his head, things would be different. Both for him & the rest of the community. Coming back to Wikipedia so soon after he claimed he was gone for good is simply not healthy behavior. -- llywrch (talk) 20:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * EC can only blame himself for this. He brought it on himself by being disruptive. Now he has been blocked. I support Arbcoms decision completely. BabbaQ (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , I disagree. I'm not saying that Eric is totally innocent, but "can only blame himself for this" is laughable over-reach.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  18:44, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think honestly that neither your or my opinion matter. As in the end the only one who has to take the consequences of his actions are EC. No one else can be blamed for EC’s behaviour except EC, though of course I can see that EC at times might have been baited. It is sad to see him leave like this, but I could see it a mile away. I will not comment on this any further, what’s done is dons.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Eric Corbett was baited, refused to take the bait, for which he should be applauded. Then inexplicably, someone filed an incoherent case request, and rather than throw it out with prejudice, the committee decided to re-examine his behavior. Kafka would be proud. As for your opinion, I'm sorry you feel it doesn't matter. I dont feel the same about my own opinion. I'm not blaming anyone for Eric's behaviour, but I sure as hell am blaming the community for its behaviour. And there's a lot of blame.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  20:05, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Truth be told, I genuinely feel that the only reason people say my filing was incoherent was because I did write it for the community. I wrote it explicitly to ensure I had solid policy grounds for a full case. The goal of case requests should not be to play to what is popular in the community, but it should be written for the committee's attention only. As likes to consistently point out to people, arbcom is meant to adjudicate disputes which have received an unsatisfactory consideration from the community. Whether you believe Eric's restrictions were unworkable, or whether you believe he was being baited and left with little recourse; the committee was justified in accepting the case. I've still not been able to identify for  an example of restrictions that have actually worked before, but I can certainly tell you that Eric's RFA restrictions were certainly the farthest from it and should have been repealed as obsolete. That will likely never happen now. &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 20:45, 2 September 2019 (UTC)


 * This action was unwise in the same way that the FRAMBAN was unwise, and the two are inextricably linked. What the en.wp community of volunteer editors has learned this summer (winter, for my friends in the Southern Hemisphere) is that it's okay to produce crap content for the enyclopedia and that, above all else, we have to be nice to each other. Personally, I don't think filing multiple AE reports and an RfAr is nice; nor do I think that eviscerating a featured article (the word is mine, I admit I used before Eric did) is nice. I don't think it's nice to drop a snarky comment on a user talk page for no discernible reason; nor is it nice to file an SPI on an IP, who may or not have been Eric, for posting to a talk page. It's not nice that the committee was informed of the other account - the one that made a few copyedits. It's not nice that the committee decided to abrogate their duties, roll up their sleeves, and dig into the sequence of events that brought about the RfAr, but instead decided to indef block for abusive actions without giving the respect of being transparent about those actions. I'd like to see diffs of the abusive account. Because of what I do here I'll never be an admin and as such can never be an arb so I can't claim to understand the amount of pressure and abuse those roles entail, but I can empathize and it would be nice to see equal empathy for content editors who do, most of them quietly, improve the encyclopedia day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, bear the burden of a lifetime or stewardship or having to accept that eventually, sometime, someone will rewrite their work. But none of that is ever discussed on any of our fora; instead we fight, and fight more, and fight again, because the objective is to win. And, yes, I never thought it would come to this, but I have to say it's a toxic atmosphere.Eric shouldn't have done whatever he did, but each and every action others took that brought us to this point shouldn't have been taken either. In my view the Committee has taken the easy way out. That Eric might some day get indeffed has never really been in doubt, but this set of circumstances was truly mean. Nothing nice about it at all. And to top it off there's fight about keeping his user page, for fuck's sake.Apologies for the rant, but I believe very strongly that a frank discussion needs to take place in terms how to solve the various conflicting roles of admin vs. content; staff vs. volunteer; crap content vs. quality content; nice vs. mean. Victoria (tk) 19:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * We're limited by the privacy policy in how transparent we can be with CheckUser blocks. Eric made abusive edits while logged out, so linking directly to diffs would be inappropriate. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 21:24, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , yes I'm vaguely familiar with how things work around here. Unfortunately, like the T & S mo, hiding behind privacy invites Streisanding. I've found one, but unless you have the full technical data on hand, (it's a function I've held elsewhere, not on Wikipedia, so know how it works) then in my view it's iffy. Regardless, also in my view, that's a very very long lag-time to drop the ban hammer, and furthermore I still firmly believe the Committee abrogated its responsibilities in its failure to consider the full sequence of actions. Nothing ever happens in a vacuum, but you don't need me to point that out. Victoria (tk) 21:53, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That is going to be an interesting point Joe, I sincerely hope the Arbcom is aware of the legalities of this public statement. Saying “no legal threats” may prove in itself to be a hollow threat. I am far from convinced EC was a serial user of abusive socks, and you and the Arbcom, if indeed it is the Arbcom, has made a very serious allegation. Giano    (talk) 21:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above, simply announcing his retirement while facing an ArbCom case and then switching to an undisclosed alt or logged-out editing would already be considered an abuse of alt-accounts under WP:SOCK, since it clearly allows him to avoid impending scrutiny. --Aquillion (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * " Eric made abusive edits while logged out, so linking directly to diffs would be inappropriate. "
 * Trouble is, we proles no longer believe it when Party members say such things without evidence. We've seen what the Inner Party did over Fram, and for all those reasons which everyone knows and no-one can mention here for fear of instabanning. Congratulations ArbCom, you've now got all the trust of the British tory party in brexit week. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:25, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Any reason the committee couldn't oversight the IP address and then provide the diff(s) in question? Seems like that would provide some transparency while addressing the legitimate concern about privacy. 28bytes (talk) 23:30, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * (by myself) Black Kite (talk) 23:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It would still violate privacy. I am not sure if I should explain how per WP:BEANS, but it would still reveal the IP address. --Rschen7754 23:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is what Rschen7754 is referring to, but I can say this bit safely; among other things, it would make the links between the account and the IPs visible to Oversighters who are not also CUs (such as myself), and who are not entitled to see the results of a CU. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * To be clear, this is not linked to the Fram situation, "inextricably" or otherwise. Those two decisions weren't even made by the same people. A lot of this whole thread involves trying to draw connections between incidents that really aren't related except that they happened in the same few months. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * apologies for speaking up, but I didn't use the phraseology lightly nor in a sense of hyperbole. Of course the circumstances differ; no two cases are the same. But there are striking similarities: each editor values quality content over quality social-interactions (well the second is subjective, but that's how they're perceived); each editor is considered an "unblockable"; each editor is thought to contribute to the "toxic" environment here; neither editor has been adequately "dealt" with in previous arb requests. T & S stepped in for Fram, but this board statement isn't writing on the wall. It's a clear reminder of the WMF's "strong statement against toxic behaviors", clearly says communities should take it as wake up call and deal with unblockables. What's not explicit is that if we don't, they will. The problem as I see it, is that at the time of the arb request it wasn't the perfect slam dunk case (clearly now it is; but that raises more questions than answers). The case was filed on 18 August, and at that time there didn't seem to be consensus to take on a sprawling case with many parties and undertake a full examination of the events that led up to that date; the request sat there and sat there, basically at no consensus; then a vote shifted it, but there was no consensus re scope; then an arb, who possibly has a COI, who's not been very active, and arguably should have recused, shifted the balance. Yet, still no decision, no consensus. In the meantime the committee "received" information re the new accts other activities (and, no, I'm not referring to the IP post on Eric's page), and voila, a slam dunk. So, yes, very different circumstance. What I'm saying is this: in my view it was incumbent on the committee to accept the case and examine the conduct of everyone involved, because there was a lot of bad behavior. By failing to do so, the committee abrogates its duty to the community and brings us closer, or rather places us squarely in a crossroads: how does en.wp define itself? Are we a social networking site or are we a crowdsourced online encyclopedia? The two are diametrically opposite. Are we independent or are we fully subjects of WMF, OFFICE and T & S. These are the issues that confront this committee and the next, and that's why I said the cases are inextricably intertwined. I get that none of you signed up for any of this and don't want if, but it's where we are. My suggestion is that the entire community work together to find solutions because, otherwise, I believe there's a possibly of sinking. Victoria (tk) 16:10, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What I do not really understand and what you possibly can explain: Isn't it possible to create high quality content and remain civil at the same time? It looks like some users think it is not possible.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Simple answer, when on the shop floor (so to speak) where all the disputes originate, in the heat of the moment, when mud is flying: No. I've lost my cool more than once. But it's not a simple question nor is the answer simple. We need a balance; we need people to be more empathetic and inclusive; we need to talk to each other and not at each other (or even scream at each other); we need to learn mechanisms where it doesn't get to the point that things get out of hand and meek, mild editors like myself lose her cool and start spouting profanities. Plus, what's overlooked more often than not, is not the "bad word" part of civility but the drip drip drip of faux politeness masking passive aggression and an overwhelming drive to win at all costs. It's honestly withering and soul destroying. Victoria (tk) 16:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ugh. No? Really? Anyone who argues it's not possible to contribute quality content while also being civil needs to reexamine their editing habits and their personal investment in editing. Grandpallama (talk) 18:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * why not try editing Indian caste-related topics for a few months, adding and maintaining "quality content" and then report back as to whether you have managed to hold your temper and remain civil (whatever "civil" may mean). I know of no saints on Wikipedia but let's see if you can prove me wrong. - Sitush (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Or take a look at Talk:Cotswold Olimpick Games for the full effect of what happens when someone who is clueless starts wanting changes to be made to an FA and won't stop arguing their ridiculous point despite numerous people explaining that they are wrong. At least three (including me and Eric Corbett) have lost their rag at that one but the clueless is still allowed to persist despite five or six far more experienced people disagreeing with them. Now select some article in which you have invested a massive amount of time and taken through FA etc, then try to think how you would deal with matters if a trenchant IDHT person turned up. - Sitush (talk) 22:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Other people's bad behavior doesn't excuse one's own. And as I said, if you become so personally heavily invested in an article that you can't control your temper, you need to reexamine your editing habits. Take a break, walk away, let other people wrestle with it for a while. There are a multitude of problematic editors on WP, but if your emotional and/or mental well-being hinges on the quality of an article, something is wrong, and self-reflection is required. Grandpallama (talk) 13:06, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Rubbish. Do you want an encyclopaedia that at least is an approximation of accuracy or do you want a social network? You cannot have both. - Sitush (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What's "rubbish" is the bizarre false dichotomy that one must choose either civility or accurate content because they are mutually exclusive, or that one's self-identity is so inextricably intertwined with editing on Wikipedia that they cannot see the forest for the trees. Grandpallama (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The real choice is between trying to use a consensus-like process to deal with interpersonal issues, or having a hierarchy that empowers some users to deal with them. Having a hierarchy allows problems to be dealt with more quickly and expediently, without having to eat up a lot of other users's time building a consensus. There are of course disadvantages with having a hierarchy, but that's the cost of dealing with issues rapidly in order to prevent collaborative editors from getting frustrated with dealing with uncollaborative ones. isaacl (talk) 04:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with several of your points, but one quibble: Based on what do you describe Fram as "unblockable." Before the T&S ban, Fram had never been blocked, much less controversially unblocked; in fact, though I might be mistaken, I don't recall anyone even suggesting on-wiki that he should be blocked. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , yes, that's the oddity, isn't it? There are the two past declined requests, October 2016 Feb. 2018, but I didn't follow either. Certainly you know better than I, (I keep less than half a sleepy eye on Arb proceedings), so don't know whether those cases requested he be blocked or other actions. Fram certainly can't be accused of having a coterie of apologists and enablers following him around, yet in my view his attitude towards accuracy and quality in content writing parallels Eric's, as well as a similar, yet somewhat different, abrasive style of criticism (this from having DYK talk on watch for about a decade). Something about the FRAMBAN triggered the Board's declaration re "unblockables" and "toxic behavior" (sorry, don't have the tab open, paraphrasing broadly), so my impression is that he was thought to fit those characterizations. Victoria (tk) 21:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, he was blocked repeatedly on MediaWiki.org: Can't say that I agree with all of those blocks, but it is a historical fact. --Rschen7754 00:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)


 * This isn't the first time that there have been such accusations: --Rschen7754 19:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * George Ponderevo was a clean start until it was revealed. Then he quickly went back to his own account. That said, I'm not here to debate and won't. I believe, strongly, it was unwise of the committee to refuse to examine the events that elicited the RfAr. Victoria (tk) 20:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The George Ponderevo account was operated concurrently with Eric's other accounts, and participated in some of the same discussions. It absolutely was not a valid CLEANSTART. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 14:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * We (the community and not just ArbCom) need to find better, less rigid, ways to respond to productive users who just happen to have a moment of being angry over something. He should never have needed to scramble his password, but having done so, he should not have been propelled automatically into the category of "violated policy, must block". This was clearly not a run-of-the-mill SPI. There are situations where "indef block" is treated as the only option, when there should in fact be alternative options. I'm picturing in my mind a different outcome, in which each of the sock accounts were blocked but the main account was restored with a new password: would that really have left us worse off? (I'm not saying that ArbCom really had that option under existing policy.) Over the past several months, I've become very discouraged about Wikipedia, because I keep seeing productive editors being lost to the project, following the same pattern. An editor gets temporarily upset over something, makes a bad judgment, gets blocked (because: We must always block for that.TM), and then the situation escalates and the editor ends up leaving. It just happened a few weeks ago with Ritchie333, and with others I can think of not long before that. As I said, I'm very discouraged. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , the comparison to the Ritchie situation isn't accurate at all. We have evidence, there, that the full nature of the sanctions being considered against him were not made clear to Ritchie beforehand, and that's a problem. EC knew damn well socking is prohibited, and did it anyway; and I truly struggle to believe that he was unaware of the variety of options that were available to him: most obviously, creating a new account and immediately disclosing it. That he chose not to do so is hardly ARBCOM's responsibility; nor is it on ARBCOM that EC felt hounded into retiring, which he did before the case was accepted. Even now, he has the option of posting an unblock request from one of his new accounts; realistically, all he has to say is "I won't do this again" and there will be several admins willing to unblock. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:10, 3 September 2019 (UTC) Even now, he has the option of asking ARBCOM for an unblock, and for it to apply to a new account. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , Per the block log, the only venue for an unblock would be to appeal directly to arbcom via email SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  00:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Vanamonde, you are missing my point entirely. I'm not talking about procedures. I'm talking about the culture. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You're right, amended; but it doesn't really affect my point. I don't think I am. I'm saying that Ritchie's block, and possibly even his IBAN, originated from individual incidents that could have happened in the heat of the moment; and I'd even agree that we need to change the culture of blocking immediately and/or indefinitely. In this case, the choice to edit for several days from IPs and undisclosed new accounts cannot be attributed to a moment of anger. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Not quite right, and I feel that it is very important (at least to me!) that I make what I have been trying to say as clear as I can. Before there was the (technical) socking, there was the scrambling of the password. Everything has a context. The announcement of the scrambled password and so forth was unquestionably something that occurred in a moment of anger. Now of course, each individual is, well, individual. So any analogy between EC and Ritchie will be imprecise, and vulnerable to "look here: this part is different!" But what they share is that they are both positive contributors to WP, and they both had understandable moments of anger that led to very possibly losing them forever. Opabinia puts it very well in her kind comment below: frustration and burnout. Remember: Ritchie was blocked because, in a reply to me on his user talk page, he vented about his own frustrations, and an admin (wrongly, in my opinion) blocked him for supposedly having violated an IBAN in his comment to me. And I'll raise this one editor further – in a way that will really get replies of "not the same"! MjolnirPants used an incivil edit summary when reverting a troll on his user talk page (oh, the horror!). The troll opened one of those ANI threads from hell that dragged on for days before the troll was indeffed – but some self-appointed civility police decided to briefly block MPants too because of that edit summary (and, to be fair, some past history). Then, as soon as the block was over, he was re-blocked for having expressed anger in his "unblock request". That got him even more angry (big surprise) and he wrote something that got oversighted and led to him being indeffed in an oversight block. Now I know that those who fail to see the forest for the trees will be quick to say that we should have oversight indeffs, and I'm not disputing that. So what's the common thread? Editors who are clearly not IP vandals get understandably frustrated with something. The way that we handle dispute resolution frustrates them further. The frustration leads to an error of judgment (minimal in Ritchie's case, significant in Eric's and MPants'). And then, lo and behold, we just have to block. As I said, I've become very discouraged about Wikipedia. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is what I've been saying: we need to improve content dispute resolution. As I [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Isaacl/Community/Fostering_collaborative_behaviour&oldid=910689181 discussed in an earlier version of User:Isaacl/Community/Fostering collaborative behaviour], it should not drag on indefinitely nor allow the issue to be rehashed ad infinitum without good reason, and should not allow loquacious participants to drown out everyone else. The cost of this might require introducing some sort of hierarchy to dispute resolution. I understand why many are adverse to this, but honestly trying to interpret rules by consensus just leads to endless discussion and thus frustration. (Again, see [//www.shirky.com/writings/herecomeseverybody/group_enemy.html Clay Shirky's "A Group is its own Worst Enemy"].) isaacl (talk) 00:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to get behind a lot of what you just wrote. I'd agree that we have admins overzealous with respect to civility (and rule-enforcement in general) when it's only a part of collaborative behavior (see my comment here for more thoughts on that). We also have non-admins who are drama-mongers, and who also seem to have more interest in catching people out for violating rules than in building an encyclopedia; as a result, AN/ANI is virtually always a destructive ecosystem. Setting these folks aside for a moment, however, the heart of the matter lies, I think, in a) how we tell a person that they're wrong, and b) in how they respond. I will grant that in both Ritchie's and EC's case mistakes were made with respect to (a); but, when it comes to behavior, there's a world of difference between the two of them with respect to (b). I have, at various points, disagreed quite firmly with Ritchie, but it didn't stop us from working together successfully; whereas I've seen entirely polite disagreement result in EC flying off the handle. I guess what I'm getting at is that yes, we as a community (and especially those of us responsible for enforcing our rules) need to look for ways to move away from enforcement for its own sake. We also need to force a culture shift with respect to what we consider bad behavior, and how we approach it in otherwise constructive contributors. I would contend, though, that we have a handful of editors capable enough to be productive contributors, who are nonetheless completely unable to consistently treat others respectfully; and dealing with them is a conundrum we are never going to be able to solve to general satisfaction. (If you reply, ping me, if you would.) Vanamonde (Talk) 01:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * ...nor can the four months of personal attacks that preceded it. This isn't a story about the system failing Eric Corbett. At any point in time, he could have said "OK I won't do that again" (as he was repeatedly given the option to do in the second AE), and there would have been no sanctions, the Arbcom case would have been declined, and hell, MJL may even have been trouted or worse. EC, after taking a year break, did everything he could to get sanctioned, openly and repeatedly declared that he would say whatever he wanted to whomever he wanted, personally attacked anyone who disagreed with him about anything, and when all that didn't work, "retired" and socked. He ensured that he would be indef'd, one way or the other. He was not baited. He was not let down by the community. He got what he wanted, and he has no one to thank or blame but himself. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich  01:08, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry,, but this kind of post isn't a good look. A long-standing volunteer who has made a lot of high-quality contributions to the project, and established a network of positive relationships with other long-standing volunteers, but also caused a lot of friction and frustration, has left under unpleasant circumstances. Not really a good time for this kind of just-world stuff. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've always thought we're unnecessarily fussy about "socks", and I didn't think the case request that prompted all of this was well-posed or should have been accepted. I probably would've supported another effort to, if not exactly "clean" start, try to return to content work under a less attention-grabbing name. (Though given the history, I don't think a negotiated restart would have worked out.) But come on now - socking around an arbcom case to which you reacted by retiring in a huff is not cool. We all know that; there's no doubt Eric knew that; under other circumstances with other users, arbcom failing to sanction that behavior would prompt a lot of posts on this very same page about how any socking at all is "deceiving the community", and how looking the other way or giving only a mild rebuke would be unfair "special treatment". Tryptofish and JzG above are right - the broader issue here is how poorly we respond to growing frustrations and impending burnout, and the unpleasant experience associated with involvement with our dispute resolution processes. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe you named the broad question precisely, and where can that be discussed? I am frustrated, missing Fram, Ritchie and Eric. What kind of a community are we to not use their great potential to create content? Do we thank them for having taught countless younger editors - such as myself - to do the same? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , as I've said elsewhere, in my opinion, this project has well and truly lost its way. It has become infiltrated by social snowflakes who consider it more important to obsess over pleasantries and political correctness than to write a decent article. However much Wikipedia likes to ignore it, and indicative of the whole Eric saga, Wikipedia has become more of a social network site than it has a serious encyclopaedia.  Cassianto Talk  09:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course, other users are glad that the project is *finally* getting its act together to enforce its so-called policies (which can be ignored when desired by IAR too). Banedon (talk) 10:24, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Other stuff does exists, other users may act differently, but I never was "glad" when we lost a great editor, even if I was in conflict with him or her. The word has a sad ring in the situation. - I don't know if you the remember the situation when Eric was blocked because of alledged "gravedancing", but I made the admin apologize. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:11, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeffing a quality content creator like Eric for making "personal attacks" he didn't make to someone who baited him in the first place is a gross miscarriage of justice. If you can't see the injustice in that then I would consider people like you to be part of the problem.   Cassianto Talk  12:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Try proposing an amendment to WP:CIVIL to allow exceptions if people are 1) a quality content creator and 2) baited. Let's see if the community agrees with you. If it passes, then you'll be the one saying Wikipedia is finally getting its act together, and I'll be the one saying it's well and truly lost its way; however I'm almost certain it will fail. Banedon (talk) 12:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What makes you think I want to waste even so much as a second of my time engaging with those who fetishise over such a policy? The fact I won't be able to change it doesn't make WP:CIVIL right, it only makes it as duplicitous as its authors.  Cassianto Talk  19:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, you are wasting your time complaining here, and people tend to look more favorably on those who attempt to change things instead of just complaining. Of course, if you'd rather just complain, that's up to you. Banedon (talk) 20:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that views may differ on how "abusive" this socking was and whether it warranted an indef block, especially in the context of EC's long productive service and the treatment he received from others. In light of the mishandling of the Fram and Ritchie cases (by T&S in the case of the former, and ArbCom in the case of the latter (possibly both)), many of us do not have confidence in edicts passed on the basis of backroom deliberations. It feels like highly productive contributors who have a tendency to be cantankerous / rub people the wrong way are being eliminated from the project. I urge ArbCom to consider what further details they are able to provide without violation of the privacy policy to justify their block of EC. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 09:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * We can't talk about CheckUser evidence in public, simple as. Eric's sock account was tagged and is easy to find (slightly less easy given the section below, but still). As I've said it would be inappropriate to post direct diffs to his IP edits on a highly public noticeboard like this, but they are also not hard to find. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * By your non-answer, I take it you've not actually found any alleged sock account other than, who doesn't seem to have done anything other than a couple of minor typo fixes, since if you have any evidence you'd be shouting it from the rooftops. &#8209; Iridescent 09:38, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * true. And three (count 'em, three) IP edits which were clearly in the heat of the moment, just so requires indeffing for the good of the project. Quote: "Oh no, somebody's spiked the punch, we better call our parents to take us home". ——  SerialNumber  54129  10:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The Arbcom has said "The Arbitration Committee has been made aware of and has independently confirmed that Eric Corbett, since his public retirement, has been abusively misusing multiple accounts and disruptively editing." I am not seeing any evidence of "abuse" or "disruption" in the edits made by this so called sock and/or the IP. The IP in fact claims to be Eric and even says "this really is me." So the Checkusers was not too onerously exhausted by the detection. Sandstein, with his usual sepulchre joy, talks above about Eric's "socking spree." If he thinks that's a spree, he should see my wife having a spree in Harrods. It's my belief that the truth of this matter is that the WMF "has made the Arbcom aware" because the WMF has had enough of Eric and decided to get rid of him one way or another, and after the last miserable fiasco, has decided to command the Arbcom to do their dirty work for them which is why the Arbcom and checkuser are appearing even more clueless and lacklustre than is its norm. Giano    (talk) 10:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Using a sock-puppet to mislead the community (pretending a retirement) and thus, take a shot at evading potential sanctions from a case seem to be textbook case of abusively misusing multiple accounts. Disruptive edits, I can't find any, though. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 10:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Good block and montion. EC had been given lots of chances over several years, so there's no excuse for him doing this. Nick-D (talk) 11:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * But what did he do? What's visible is uncertain (You've heard of joe-jobbing, right?) and vastly trivial.  When we're having to argue the semantics of whether something even is a sock, rather than a legit non-disruptive alt account, then that is no reason to indef anyone. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Quite right, there were no disruptive edits, so that is Big Lie No 1. Furthermore, an IP saying; "It is I, Eric Corbett" when it is surprise, surprise indeed Eric Corbett is hardly misleading the community, unless the community wishes to be misled. So we come down to "the sock" or new account, whichever term you prefer, making some minor edits which were actually productive. That Eric scrambled his password in a temper in hardly news, that he now obviously wishes he hadn't is hardly news either. What is news is that the community don't want him coming back quietly as a sock or new account, but wants him to put himself publicly in the pillory and humiliatingly say "can I please come back, I promise to be a good boy and love you all?" It's this horrible lust for blood and humiliation which I find quite revolting, especially as I believe the WMF is behind this. Giano    (talk)
 * Giano, do not blank other editor's comments, however much you dislike me. Rules apply to you too. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:25, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * An edit two minutes later in the same section that clobbers another is deliberate blanking? Can you not AGF? —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 17:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


 * While we're on the subject, what was the outcome of admin Scottywong baiting Eric, since it was that that started all this. I may have missed it.   Cassianto Talk  12:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I missed it too. You seem to be having a lot of trouble building support for sanctioning me for my massive transgression. But by all means, keep trying, perhaps you should start another AN thread about it. Have you ever thought that maybe there's no broad support for sanctioning me because the single sentence I posted on Eric's talk page was completely innocuous, especially compared to the average insult that Eric and his posse would hand out on a regular basis? I'm not "trolling" when I state the fact that you set all of this in motion with your reflexive reaction to try to get me in trouble by shining a light on me at the dramah boards. Without your AN post, the Arbcom case wouldn't have happened, or at very least it would have been delayed. Although, I'm flattered that you'd give me credit for making all of this happen. ‑Scottywong <span style="font:0.75em Verdana,sans-serif;color:#444444;">| [confer] ||  12:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you're a and I have no desire to speak with you. Any further attempt to engage me in conversation like this I will take to be harassment.   Cassianto Talk  18:52, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

English Wikipedia's draconian tradition on dealing with sockpuppeteers is a direct consequence of its lack of hierarchy in content dispute resolution. Because the community tries to use a consensus-like process, even though it doesn't scale up, it uses votes to determine strength of arguments. As a result, using multiple accounts as separate identities provides an unfair advantage in discussion. Greater leniency for sockpuppeteers is thus only likely to occur with changes to content dispute resolution that render the use of multiple accounts moot. isaacl (talk) 13:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Huh? We've always blocked socks on sight and banned people who use socks to evade scrutiny under controversial circumstances. Guy (Help!) 14:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agreed that the community has always taken draconian actions against sockpuppeteers. isaacl (talk) 16:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * the community has always taken draconian actions against sockpuppeteers Appropriately so. Grandpallama (talk) 19:00, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I explained the underlying motivation for doing so. isaacl (talk) 00:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Unless someone from the WMF is going to come here and explain their instructions to the Arbcom regarding EC which on their present form is most unlikely, I suggest this section is now archived and filed as yet another monumental disruption causing cock up. Further debate seems pointless. Giano    (talk) 14:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The one causing the disruption is blocked. So I agree, let’s close this thread.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yet again, you seem to have completely missed the point that was being made. You praise on Joe Roe's talk page is noted but, I think, very much the minority view: this iteration of ArbCom has been a disaster. - Sitush (talk) 17:40, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Since this case has closed,, you have systematically gone about "thanking" people for their great work for indeffing a productive editor from the site, here, here, here, here, here, here, and this where I've become bored in finding others. And I dread to think how many of these relate to Eric. I think you should now move on as you come across as someone who seems a little obsessed by all the drama.  Cassianto Talk  18:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't always agree with Cassianto, indeed sometimes I disagree completely, but in this case I agree that, yes, this is distinctly unpleasant behaviour. "Move on" would be the least of my comments here. Black Kite (talk) 18:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, wouldn't it be a boring existence if we all agreed with each other, . I haven't clicked on your link, but I hope it doesn't include my use of a certain word I used earlier, as I've since apologised for that, many times over.  It would be unfair for you to allude to the idea that I still agree with its use, just after I've apologised for using it.   Cassianto Talk  19:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It was that one, but I was picking at "snowflake" rather then the one I know you did apologise for. Black Kite (talk) 21:24, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, thanks.  Cassianto Talk  22:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Aaaand ... I got thanked by BabbaQ for this edit. They need to seriously consider whether their gravedancing is suitable behaviour here. Black Kite (talk) 18:38, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think what we are seeing here is a user who is clearly grave-dancing and an arbitration committee who are willingly ignoring it.  Cassianto Talk  19:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I do believe there'll be Arbcom elections in December, this year. Hmmm. GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That is indeed very true, but sadly several of those that spiked the punch, spread the sawdust, and paid the band need not worry, the dance is only partially over. Seems our most outspoken folks don't come up for reelection for another year, so Sticks and Stones and all that.  — Ched (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * December 2020? wowsers. GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, plenty of time for this sordid affair to be lost to annals of history eh? — Ched (talk) 21:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Just stopping in here to note that the same Arbcom has now And my confidence that this same lot is standing up for Fram's rights—which are of course the test case for all of our rights—against the WMF is as a result minuscule. Shame on you all, committee members. You should all be recalled at once. You have proved you didn't deserve my vote, and managed to perform worse than I had thought you would. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * lost us a decent admin (Ritchie333) through absolutely insulting behind-closed-doors fumbling
 * voted to accept an indefensible case against Eric in order to muck around yet again with an edifice of incompetent sanctions imposed by previous Arbcoms
 * banned Eric because he wanted to resume helping the encyclopedia and they'd caused him to quit and caused it to be while under investigation, making this an offence
 * At least something will change this year. Of the eight Arbs that are up for re-election, four have already resigned.  IMHO, at least three (and perhaps all) of the other four are what I'd call the sensible core of ArbCom.  Hopefully Courcelles, who has done nothing useful this year and hasn't resigned, will also do the honourable thing ... Black Kite (talk) 23:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Personally it makes me wonder if perhaps they just refused to do someone else's bidding - but perhaps they were a bit too professional to say it publicly — Ched (talk) 00:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Another volley by an incompetent committee at a symptom, not a problem, and another great editor lost. Meanwhile does another drive-by trolling without consequence or even a second glance. At least someone had the sense to revert him. What a disgrace. -- Laser brain   (talk)  00:02, 4 September 2019 (UTC)


 * @Cassianto, Sitush, etc - just curious: under what circumstances (if any) would you support an indefinite block of Eric Corbett? Banedon (talk) 08:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm concerned, the only reason anyone, let alone Eric, should be indefinitely blocked would be for obvious vandalism. I couldn't give a monkey's toss how rude someone is, so long as they write good content for the good of the reader.   Cassianto Talk  18:22, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I would suggest, kind sir, that your assertion (that you don't care how rude people are) is untrue, as evidenced by some of your recent actions. ‑Scottywong <span style="font:0.75em Verdana,sans-serif;color:#440044;">| [converse] ||  21:34, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Mr Ernie, please don't revert Scottywong's posts anymore. Apparently they don't see the difference between using profanities in a heated moment and kicking someone when down, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to express this point of view. ---Sluzzelin talk  21:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * When the circumstances dictate, I assume, Banedon; and I think that applies to each and every one one of us. ——  SerialNumber  54129  08:43, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, so what would those circumstances be? I'm interested in examples. Banedon (talk) 08:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Why would you be interested in examples? So that someone could engineer it in a manner rather similar to what has already happened (not saying you would). FWIW, socking to !vote-stack would be one. - Sitush (talk) 09:06, 4 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with several different comments above that may seem mutually contradictory.
 * (1) While we need to retain content editors, we need even more to develop new ones. Experienced editors who react impolitely especially with disputes involving begineeers discourage new editors from participating.  A general attitude of tolerating impoliteness is inapppropriate to a public site, of any sort, let alone one that is founded on the principles of encouraging open cross-culturall participation.
 * (2) I also recognize that people occasionally act poorly. It's wrong to be impolite, but it's also an abuse of power to be draconic in punishing isolated fits of temper or slips.
 * (3) Sockpuppettry is easily detected and is usually not disputably. Considering it as unforgivable regardless of the precipitating situation provides a convenient way for those in possession of power to abuse it.
 * (4) Privacy is important, but only if it's real. Attempts to technically preserve privacy which do not actually prevent disclosure, or to supress evidence which anyone can easily find, arecounter-productive.
 * (5) Acting in private is sometimes absolutely necessary for arb com (and, for that matter, for T&S). Acting privately because it's more convenient is an abuse.
 * (6) The effective way to win arguments at WP is to tempt one's opponent into doing something that is considered unforgivable. The best way to counter this is to not regard things as automatically unforgivable, but to consider context.
 * (6a)The effective way for someone who is acting inappropriately to gain sympathy is to tempt someone in authority to act unfairly.
 * as it applies here:
 * (1) I am in considerable sympathy with the view that the general way that EC (and Fram) have been conducting themselves here over the years is a net disservice to the project. This is no secret: with respect to one of them, I was one of the only two arbs to ever vote for even mild sanctions.
 * (2). They should be judged by their actual long term behavior, not individual matters that were not outrageously disruptive. (and I do not think that a feeble and easily detectable attempt to use another account during the case is an actually seriously disruptive violation, as contrasted with such things as long-term sockpuppettry to violate the terms of use.)
 * (3) We have no agreed standards for this, and no agreed ways of enforcing it. The attempt of the WMF to develop standards for us out of frustration at our lack of action proved to make the problem worse, as anyone familiar with bureaucracies could have predicted.  We need to restore the focus to prevention:  No-fault topic  bans and mutual no-fault interaction bans are effectivuallly preventative.  When two people are fighting, usually it's folly to try to see who started it.   The thing to do is to separate the parties.  DGG ( talk ) 08:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * - the problem with this being that you'd actually have to get the community to accept that these could be no-fault, and thus not judge those with such placed on them. There's always going to be massive blowback against having one if editors think others will treat it as if it was earned by them being at fault. I'm not sure how you could go about doing this. Perhaps time-limited ones (say, 1 month) might be more viable. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:55, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The "problem" with Fram was that he was often outspoken in doing what he thought best for the project, whether that be calling out terrible ideas from the WMF (i.e. VE) or highlighting editors who were causing persistent issues (i.e. Laura Hale). Doing that, you're always going to make a lot of enemies, but I would disagree that Fram was ever a net negative.  Highlighting deficiences in editing or governance cannot ever be wrong, even if you're not correct all the time. Black Kite (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * On that note, can I take it that it would still be unacceptable for a person facing possible sanctions in an ArbCom case to "retire" and then begin editing under another account, as it would fall squarely under "avoid[ing] detection or sanctions" means that Arbcom approves that any further appearances by LH can be blocked on sight? &#8209; Iridescent 15:06, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * At this point, she is not named party of any active ArbCom case, so I would say it can not be automatic (not that I believe that this is a practical question).--Ymblanter (talk) 15:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Even if ArbCom wanted to make her a named party, they couldn't as she has had the Laura Hale account WP:VANISHED. Black Kite (talk) 15:22, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * GW did not use the phrase "named party", so yes, according to the letter of what she wrote, Iridescent reads the room correctly. Of course, it would not happen: arbcom would not allow it. But as an exercise in backpeddling it would be like watching the Tour de France on rewind. ——  SerialNumber  54129  15:31, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Vanishing is not a cleanstart, and if a vanished account returns the policy is to unvanish the former account. re our vanishing policy   "is not intended to be temporary. It is not a way to avoid scrutiny or sanctions. It is not a fresh start and does not guarantee anonymity. Any of the deleted pages may be undeleted after a community discussion. If the user returns, the "vanishing" will likely be fully reversed, the old and new accounts will be linked". Unlike some I respect the letter and spirit of a certain recent vanishing, but should the vanished editor return, they cannot claim the rights of a clean start after vanishing.   Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  15:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * One commonality between Fram and Eric was that both had improved their behaviour or complied with specific sanctions over time, but both were targeted by people who seem convinced that they couldn't be rehabilitated or shouldn't be judged just by their recent edits. If we are to learn at all from recent events, we really need some sort of statute of limitations. We also, and here I have for once to disagree with DGG, we have to avoid falling into the trap of always assuming that a dispute has both sides at at least some fault. There are trolls and others who consider it an achievement to fell one of the tall trees in our forest, and tall trees that are surprisingly vulnerable to a few axe strokes. Sometimes we really do need to say that X started it and should not repeat their provocation. Even if someone has a bit of history here, we should aim to treat them fairly by their recent conformance to applicable policy.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  15:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I said "usually" it's not helpful to se who started, and I'm mainly referring to the sort of intractable disputes that get to an/i and arb com. There will certainly be instances, such as unprovoked attacks on a newcomer for not knowing some non-obvious rule, where it's pretty much one sided. But by the time we get them, it's often been the case that the newcomer has gotten angry also. At that point, however justified their anger, resolution is best served by keeping the two from interacting further. We will then still have to deal with people who frequently get involved in such attacks, because that's preventative in a longer run. But there is nonetheless too much consideration of what someone deserves, rather than how best to deal with them. We don't need to punish, but to stop and prevent disruption. That's the existing theory, in fact. It's not a new idea.
 * As for your metaphor, tall trees are commonly thick. They do not fall at a few axe strokes. It's hard to even get near enough to affect them. People tend to put fences around them and protect them. But what you and I are saying is not incompatible--I'm talking about a shift in emphasis, not a revolution.  DGG ( talk ) 18:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)


 * See Administrators'_noticeboard. Jehochman Talk 18:34, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

- What a tragic end. So Eric socked, but the sock was only WP:HERE to improve the encyclopedia. He could not stop himself from helping us. In light of that, I would have offered a chance at dialogue.  starship .paint  (talk) 01:25, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oh, you all want justice for MJL. You say that EC was a good contributor. He was just ANGRY, and then....he...scrambled his password and wasn't very LEGIT? Abequinn14 (talk) 01:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Request user page be restored
blanked EC's user page citing WP:SOCKTAG. SOCTAG says to tag the socmaster's page but does not require blanking. Regardless of one's feelings about Eric in general or this situation in particular Eric did contribute significantly to the project. This damnatio memoriae is way over the top. Please restore the user page and just place the block and sock tags at the top. Jbh Talk  16:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * To be fair to Joe, it does say "If confirmed by CheckUser, on the sockmaster's user page, replace all content with.." I would still have just tagged it and left the rest, though. Black Kite (talk) 16:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Missed that. Struck. Jbh  Talk  16:19, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So where were the disruptive edits? We know about the few IP edits, which were harmless and understandable steam venting, and also the minor typo edits by the blocked sock. Were those the only 2 accounts? Calling that disruptive is an insult to the actual disruptive editors and trolls. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:44, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppet tags and/or userpage blanking are never mandatory. They're generally only used internally to keep track of who is still making sockpuppets versus who can request a standard offer. In the event of real names being used, often the sockpuppet master's userpage is left alone or simply left empty. I rather doubt it's necessary to use in this case, especially considering the block is an  and thus can only be reversed by the arbitration committee. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I know Eric has many friends here but objectively there is a non-trivial risk of him using sockpuppets to cause further disruption. Is removing the tags not going to make it harder to spot that? Especially since there's no SPI entry of this incident of socking. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't say I've ever needed a tag in my time working SPIs and checkuser. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I was simply following the established procedure. The idea of yet again treating Eric differently to other editors because of his contributions does not sit well with me, but I won't fight it. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not the tagging I object to, it is the blanking. Also, the only time I have commented on EC I strongly advocated for his ban on the basis that all volunteer organizations I have ever worked with ultimately decide that they have no desire for the services of a volunteer who can not get along with others. This was several years ago but I definitely not one of EC's cheerleaders. I simply believe that someone who has contributed, in good faith, to Wikipedia should not have those contributions wiped from public view... It just seems small of us to me...  Jbh  Talk  17:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like the page has been restored and no one has jumped to revert . Thank you. Jbh  Talk  17:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

At least one of three things should happen:
 * 1) Redefine sockmaster so that it covers realistic situations, and doesn't get used in a technical sense when it doesn't remotely apply
 * 2) Rewrite the procedures for dealing with someone in such a situation to make the blanking of a user page optional, and subject to common sense. It isn't remotely applicable here
 * 3) IAR to permit the user page to remain in this case. S Philbrick  (Talk)  18:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have no objection to the userpage content remaining. I get Joe's point, but since people feel strongly about the page content staying there and I don't feel strongly about it being removed, it's not something that's worth arguing over IMO. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Really GorillaWarfare! I’m surprised you can’t bring yourself to acknowledge Eric Corbett’s truly outstanding content contributions to the project, perhaps the most outstanding of any editor ever over a very long period. Without condoning his short temper, would it really stick in your throat to admit that he is a very serious loss to Wikipedia’s content. Giano    (talk) 20:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I would hope nobody would deny this. It is a source of great sadness that he chose to flame out in this way. I didn't know he was formerly Malleus, but I liked Malleus back in the day, and enjoyed EC's contributions. He needed his own Bishzilla, I think. Guy (Help!) 20:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Did I imply he has not made impressive content contributions? Of course he has. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It is indeed a great sadness, and none of this sanctimonious, mealy mouthed grave dancing serves anyone well. Attempting to destroy his user page was an act that discredits those who sanctioned it, and says far more about them than it does about Eric Corbett. Giano    (talk) 20:27, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Resignation of Courcelles

 * Original announcement
 * I'd just like to say thank you to Courcelles for volunteering to serve and I look forward to working with you again in the future. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 23:05, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your work in multiple arbitrator stints, Courcelles.
 * I think another resignation (and another on the way?) demonstrates what demanding work being on ArbCom is. Keep this in mind, potential candidates in November. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 23:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I was sorry to read this. Thank you, Courcelles, for all you've done for the community. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you to Courcelles of course - tons of hard work both on and off of Arbcom for many years, you have my thanks and appreciation. My observations have me wondering if we are at a record for the number of Arbs who have resigned (edit: and/or been removed) in one year.  I wonder why we've seen such an exodus this year. Was there any sort of infighting that led to this?  — Ched (talk) 23:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , we have been under significant strain with such a difficult issue and have largely burned out. As for infighting, no, I haven't really seen that much at all. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 23:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there has not been infighting to speak of. The ArbCom workload is high (higher than it may appear on-wiki, given much of the work involves email), and not friendly to the competing (and often unexpected) demands on time that real life often throws at us. It's also emotionally draining; this year more so than any year I've served in the past. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:43, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Courcelles, thank you for your recent and past work on the Committee. I've enjoyed working with you and hope to do so in the future, on or off the ArbCom. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:43, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Allow me to rain on the parade by expressing my sorrow that you chose to opine and vote in an Arbcom case in which you seem to have held a clear financial conflict of interest through marital relations to a Trust and Safety team member. That was a terrible decision and will be part of your legacy. Carrite (talk) 04:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Uhm, he didn't actually vote on anything though, did he? He made two brief comments on the very first day of the affair back in June and only had a dozen or so edits since, none of them to the Fram case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , as Courcelles was recused in the Fram case, could you tell us which case you are talking about? —Kusma (t·c) 10:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I could have sworn I saw his name in the proposed decision. Thank you for calling this to my attention. best, Carrite (talk) 11:29, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, lacking a definitive answer, I checked in on Arbitration Committee/History. And while this has indeed been the roughest year in a long time with 5 resignations, it seems like 2009 still has the most with 6.  But thanks for the replies regarding other questions I had. — Ched (talk) 10:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * With barely a dozen edits this year and having assured during your ACE2018 run that you would be available for AC work this year - not to mention COIN in the Fram case - this announcement is well overdue. Leaky caldron (talk) 10:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I just want to express my gratitude for Courcelles's work over the years.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I, too, very much appreciate Courcelles' contributions, and am sorry to see him go. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Me thinks there's yet another resignation about to occur. Bringing it to 6, this year. GoodDay (talk) 11:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Why do you think that? Jehochman Talk 11:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I do believe Arbitrator SilkTork may be able to answer that. GoodDay (talk) 11:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Link? What’s going on? Jehochman Talk 11:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * just look at SilkTork's talk page. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Jehochman Talk 11:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , check Silktorks talk page. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 11:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Even without another resignation this is the worst year - as we've lost 5/13 of the arbitrators as compared to 6/15 (hence the functionally unianimous agreement to revert to 15 in the RfC) Nosebagbear (talk) 11:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Purely on the numbers that may well be accurate. To me, the qualitative judgement on the AC decisions will always be the lasting legacy. It's a bit like the recurring Admin. meme - we are losing more than we recruit. An argument which immediately falls flat when the total value of the inactive Admins' activity amounts to zero. Leaky caldron (talk) 11:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * True that. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 11:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a delayed action in this in that the point when we desysop an inactive admin is x months after they become inactive, not immediately after their last edit or admin action. But we usually don't know whether an inactive volunteer is on a multi week break, a multi year break or is permanently gone, hence the inactive who are desyopped for inactivity have not recently been active. But admins who have never been active are vanishingly rare, I'm pretty sure that admins who have actually not used the tools are rarer than admins who appear to have few or no admin actions because we only have logs for such actions since Dec 2004, and some of our former admins had their period of activity before then. Off hand I can't think of any Arbs who resigned without a period of on wiki arb activity, but as only fellow arbs would know about arbs offwiki arb activity, perhaps an arb could tell us if they can recall there ever being an elected arb who never contributed as an arb?  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  12:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't think of one. Everyone is usually pretty enthusiastic in January and February.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, this explains a question I've long had, WereSpielChequers. On the AdminStats page, there are admins without any activity at all...I guess they were active before December 2004 and then went inactive. Otherwise, why become an admin? Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 22:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi this gets complicated, and I may not have the whole story. According to User:JamesR/AdminStats we have 4,162 admins who have made at least one admin action. I'm aware of 2,168 admins via RFA_by_month, to which we can add some admin bots, Jimbo and quite a few WMF staffers, not all of whom have (WMF) in their account name, plus one or two people who have moved their bit between accounts. That still leaves lots of people, probably more than a third of those 4,162 who are only listed on adminstats because of anomalies such as the bug that says people have an admin action when they have done a move over a redirect. Not everyone who has ever made admin has necessarily intended to use those admin tools that are logged in adminstats, most successful RFAs took place in the era before Rollback was unbundled, so it is possible that we have had some active admins who only used rollback and or view deleted. We also know that Admins from the early years who retired before December 2004 won't appear in these statistics. I've checked one of the admins who was desysopped before Dec 2004, and they don't appear on adminstats, but since they were desyopped for misuse of admintools it is a reasonable assumption that they used those tools. I do know of one admin who was "persuaded" to resign almost as soon as they passed RFA due to something that wasn't spotted in the RFA, and there may be other actual admins who genuinely have few or no admin actions. But I'm pretty sure they are rare, and I would continue with the assumption that the lack of logs from before Dec 04, and the inclusion of well over a thousand non admins in Adminstats, gives some people the false impression that we have many admins who have rarely if ever used the tools. Another way of looking at it is that about half the admins in adminstats have logged a significant number of admin actions, and that correlates with a high prportion of admins having at least a few hundred logged actions.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  11:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Ffirehorse is an example of an admin who never made a logged admin action.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I had no idea that if a regular editor made a move over a redirect, that would count as an admin action. Technically, it is considered a deletion and it appears in the deletion log but I bet that regular editors were not cognizant of the fact that they were deleting pages and acting as admins. These moves happen daily and I guess that you are right, that is part of why AdminStats might consider these editors as "admins" if they conduct these moves. It's hard to otherwise imagine that there were ever 4K+ admins! Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 19:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Note: Based on all of the above, and assuming the Committee is expanded back to 15 members in the RfC, there will now be eleven seats to be filled in the upcoming election, at least seven of which will not have incumbents. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The odds are in your favor. 🔥 Jehochman Talk 12:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah well the odds are in NYB's favor anyway if he chooses to run. Over the last 10 ArbCom elections only 5 candidates have broken the 80% support mark. 3 of those were NYB, and the top 3 % supports are held by him. Barring some massive scandal involving NYB (which of course is highly unlikely), he can be on ArbCom whenever he wants to run for election. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I am a bit worried about finding that many good candidates. —Kusma (t·c) 12:43, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * We won't. The average support of ArbCom members elected in this cycle will likely be substantially lower than in years past. With less support possibly comes more criticism of first time arbitrators. It might be a case of 'be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.' --Hammersoft (talk) 12:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well I’m available. BTW, I understand that one of our many WP:UNIVALVED admins has thrown his, er, shell into the ring. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 14:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As long as NYB is there to mentor, we're probably safe. Guy (help!) 14:29, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd run if I had more mainspace edits. That's the main thing preventing me from getting any sort of position like this, I think.--WaltCip (talk) 14:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to call it out, those are seats that "may" be filled - it is possible that the election does not fill all seats. — xaosflux  Talk 14:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Would that be a bad thing? — Ched (talk) 16:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Versus bad candidates? I'd say no, but this year has suggested that if we have another trying year we might as well switch to an appeals court-style triumvirate because we won’t have committee members enough for anything larger :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 17:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your service on ArbCom, Courcelles. I hope you can get back to doing what you enjoy here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your time and service Courcelles -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  17:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your service. — python coder (talk &#124; contribs) 22:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, returning to the original topic is good. Thanks to Courcelles for carrying out one of Wikipedia's toughest jobs, and thanks to all the Arbs who carry out such a difficult duty on behalf of the community. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  07:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that I interacted much with Courcelles, but I always thought the level-headed approach that he brought to ArbCom as well as his sysop work was refreshing to see. Best wishes, friend, and I hope you get well soon! OhKayeSierra (talk) 21:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * My thanks to you for your work C. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 01:25, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your service and hard work, . I hope to see you around . -- The SandDoctor Talk 06:29, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Fram unbanned immediately (temporary injunction in Fram case)

 * Original announcement

Welcome back fram! 💵Money💵emoji💵💸 16:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

shouldn't this appear at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram under temporary injunctions which currently states (none)? Also, did this pass per a "net 4" rule related to Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram/Proposed_decision (4-0, with 5 active not voting)? — xaosflux  Talk 17:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, this passed under the net 4 rule. Since the injunction stated immediately, I did so. I'll sort the temporary injunctions on the case now. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 17:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick reply! — xaosflux  Talk 17:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 2nd the ty for quick info, I was wondering also. Killer Chihuahua 17:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * A fifth arbitrator has now supported, in any event. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome back! And on a somewhat related note, I leave to go to school and almost immediately all of the dramahs afflicting Wikipedia fix themselves. -A la d insane <small style="color:#006600">(Channel 2)  17:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Good. Thank you WTT, GW, and the others who moved this forward. 28bytes (talk) 17:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * A step in the right direction finally, thank you. This should bring shame to the arbitrators that refuses to even comment on the injunction in some kind of bizarre attempt at filibuster. Alex Shih (talk) 17:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , I don't believe there was any intention of keeping Fram banned longer - just an attempt to follow standard process. The entire case is backwards, Fram has started as banned and the agreement we had did not allow him to be unbanned. Normally there's no massive problem with carrying on to get the right decision, indeed it is a laudable outcome - but in this case it was unfair as Fram remained banned throughout. The people we had the agreement with were not the same people as actually banned Fram, so we needed to make sure that agreement carried over. So many problems with this case. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 17:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , from reading between the lines, I disagree with your comment. If there was never any intention from all committee members to keep Fram banned longer, would probably have been more explicit in their comment here rather than the ambiguous "most of us" as it is. Combined with 's response here reflecting on the desire to "wrap up the whole case together" rather than pass the injunction first despite of the obvious split in committee opinion over remedy 2d and 2e, in addition to another committee member's indirect admittance over not wanting to even hear what Fram has to say, I think it’s safe to assume that there are arbitrators that wants to make sure 1) Fram desysopped 2) Case concludes, before even considering unblocking Fram to allow them to participate in the PD, despite of having unanimously agreed that Fram should not have been blocked in the first place. Awaiting some of explicit statement from WMF, in my opinion only, is a reflection on the lack of desire to take responsibility over something that has overwhelming support by the majority of this community as it seems, in addition to several board members. Not to criticise on the cautious approach, but not everything has to be spelled out in explicit terms when so much politics has been involved throughout this case. Alex Shih (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Question - Does WMF have the ability or authority to reverse this?--WaltCip (talk) 19:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The Terms of use give the WMF wide latitude to do whatever they feel needs to be done to protect the wiki, including banning users as office actions. That being said, I highly doubt they would do something as contentious as rebanning Fram after months of scathing criticism and controversy from the community. OhKayeSierra (talk) 20:27, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for doing the right thing. As I've said repeatedly, this si less about Fram and more about due process, which he certainly did not get. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you.  Mini  apolis  22:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


 * @Beeblebrox; it's quite true that Fram did not enjoy the protections of due process in this case, nor did the WMF or ArbCom follow due process. The case is a sham on the face of it because of this, regardless of whatever wrongdoings Fram may or may not have committed. If this case had actually been in court, I strongly suspect it would have been thrown out with prejudice because the prosecution (the WMF and to some extent ArbCom) refused to provide the defense (Fram) with the evidence against them. But let's be clear; Fram, nor any of us, have any right of due process here. The only thing we have here is the Terms of Use. We can either choose to abide by them or leave. What is quite chilling is that the WMF still maintains that it can hold evidence against you without your knowledge and potentially act on that evidence without your having any chance of rebuttal. It doesn't matter that the WMF has handed this case to ArbCom. The situation that created this crisis remains the same, only the symptoms of it are changing (Fram being unbanned). The disease remains. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It would have been dismissed because WMF has plenary authority over editing rights on its websites. Guy (help!) 23:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The WMF certainly does have such authority, but found out rapidly that exercising that authority has severe costs. My analogy though extended to it being outside of that situation, as if the WMF were only a plaintiff in a criminal suit and Fram the defendant, not the WMF being the plenary authority here. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Should User:EngFram be unblocked now? That account is still blocked by WMFOffice. Philbert<tt>2.71828</tt> 23:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've unblocked it. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Two sides to every story
A fundamental part of dispute resolution on this website is that both sides of a dispute will have their behavior looked at. If I come to a noticeboard complaining that someone is reverting my edits, then of course 3rd parties will examine my edits to see if they should have been reverted or not. I can't come to a noticeboard and say that someone's reversions to my edits make me feel harassed, but you aren't allowed to look at my edits. In effect, this is exactly what Arb has done to Fram. A FoF states that all of the evidence is available on-wiki, yet no arb will point to any of this evidence to support the desysop. Yet the Arbs feel confident to cast aspersions against Fram and say they were hounding and bordering on harassment. From what's available out of the dossier, Fram's actions were 100% correct and supported by the community. In the case of Laura Hale, that user was editing for pay disguised as a Wikipedian in Residence, and widely protected by other editors involved in or supporting the scheme, as well as by an undisclosed personal relationship with someone very senior at the WMF. This has resulted in an unfair process that goes completely against the core policies of transparency and fairness. This Committee has done the community a grave disservice. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * When said "protected by other editors involved in or supporting the scheme" logic would dictate that this list of editors can readily be determined.  If this were a normal Arbcom case, instead of the product of an anonymous complaint to T&S, the complainant and list of editors would become the named parties to the case, and the Arbcom would determine what sanctions, if any were appropriate for all parties.  That step is missing here. Hlevy2 (talk) 12:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I assuming that the community will have the chance to 'restore' Fram's administratorship. GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

CheckUser and Oversight appointments 2019

 * Original announcement


 * While I appreciate efficiency, six days seems like a pretty slim window to get the word out and get the best qualified applicants. Hopefully there is something other than just this announcement here to draw attention to the process. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's on T:CENT now. While the self-nom period does seem a bit short, I do think that many of the people who would be interested in appointment were already aware of the process's existence. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * We wanted to shorten the process and give ourselves a little more internal discussion time. It was our experience last year that the candidates who returned applications were the ones who applied early in the window. We contact all those who received applications but haven't returned them by the 24-hour mark before the window closes, and we can grant a short extension if there are extenuating circumstances. Katietalk 19:58, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I'd encourage any experienced administrator who is remotely considering applying to reach out to a functionary you know to ask about it if you have any concerns. Most of us are willing to tell you truthfully what the needs are and answer any concerns you have. I'd also warn anyone who has their real identity known that if you plan on being active with the CheckUser tool, this may put you more at a risk. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I see the original announcement, I see this discussion, but I don't see any place I can make it known that I'd like to offer myself for consideration. Where do potential candidates go to introduce themselves? It was just by accident that I saw this discussion. I did not see any announcement pop up over my watchlist like what happens when there's an RFA. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * see Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2019 CUOS appointments. There's instructions under "Appointment process"; essentially, you nominate yourself via email to ARBCOM, and they send you some questions to answer, also by email. After some scrutiny from ARBCOM, your nomination may be published for public comment, after which ARBCOM makes decisions. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. After looking at what is needed, I am not sure I can manage the time commitment at this point in my life. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland closed

 * Original announcement


 * All of you shall be collectively ashamed for not having the willingness (or competency) to even minimally engage the multitude of folks, including but not limited to administrators and functionaries, who had raised questions about multiple aspects of the PD over the t/p. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 19:47, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Quite many comments below, in light of which I am inquiring as to whether are aware of ARBCOND criterion 1 and 2.  &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 07:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to say I share WBG's disappointment that several arbitrators, despite being active elsewhere, declined to answer questions and pings on the talk page. If you're too busy, then you shouldn't have been closing the case. If the issue is one you consider trivial, then at least have the courtesy to say that. If you've already discussed it elsewhere, then have the courtesy to say that. I hope I'm proved wrong, but I'm fairly certain that the language you used has made some of our most contentious areas more prone to unscholarly historical revisionism. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:30, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You know, I feel like the Committee used FRAM to their advantage; specifically, everyone was paying attention to the Fram case, so they slipped out this contentious decision without many noticing... &#124; abequinnfourteen 23:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreeing with WBG - how embarrassing for all of you. Talk about "checked out". - DoubleCross (talk) 03:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I concur that from my perspective, the ArbCom seems to have ignored most comments on the talk. Sure, it's one thing to consider it all a peanut gallery, but I wonder, what is the purpose of having a talk page open to non-parties or anyone if all we get is an occasional clerk clarification of a technicality, or the 'this is passed on and discussed on arbcom email list', with no follow up. Still, it is possible this will be sufficient to solve the issue, with all the other issues (sources/non-parties) resolving itself. Let's hope for that, since I think this is what the ArbCom did... and hey, if it doesn't work out, it will be the problem for the 2020/2021 Arbitrators, not the current ones, right? :> --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The funny part is that the arbcom talk pages are sectioned so that editors can talk to arbitrators and not to each other. So much for that. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 13:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I share the same concerns as everyone above, and WBG worded the issue at hand extremely well. It’s disconcerting that ArbCom didn’t address the concerns about the PD on the talk page and opted to ramrod through this case instead. What an embarrassment. OhKayeSierra (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I share the concerns of my fellow editors, and have voiced them here. François Robere (talk) 18:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't participate in these case and usually don't edit the area but I agree with the opinion of other editors here --Shrike (talk) 10:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Notification that per this policy, I lodged an appeal - diff. Icewhiz (talk) 18:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Resignation of SilkTork

 * Original announcement
 * As I mentioned on his talk page a little while ago, I'm very sorry to see this - have enjoyed working with on this committee and the last time I did. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 07:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry to see this. Thanks for your service on ArbCom during a difficult period, SilkTork. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:51, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry to hear this, and thanks SilkTork for your excellent work on the committee.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:03, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your service, SilkTork. As a bit of a side note, for 2020 only four current arbitrators (AGK, Mkdw, GorillaWarfare, Joe Roe) will remain on the committee. Assuming that the size of the Arbitration Committee increases to 15 arbitrators in 2020 (see this ongoing RfC), this leaves at most eleven vacant seats up for election in WP:ACE2019. This feels like an unprecedented number. To provide some context, in WP:ACE2018 thirteen candidates stood for election, exactly eleven of which achieved at least 50% support. (Under current rules, only candidates with >50% support can be appointed.) If we ran the same election this year, that means all eleven of those candidates would be appointed. Mz7 (talk) 08:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not an unprecedented number. In 2010 we elected 12. In 2014, we elected 10. The average over the last 10 years is 8.6. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, you're right—I stand corrected. I guess it simply feels large compared to the most recent few elections. Mz7 (talk) 17:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's entirely possible that we'll have more vacancies than we have candidates. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Damn, I wanted to vote for you in the upcoming AC election. Sorry to see you leave the Committee. Many thanks for all your work. El_C 15:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your work on the Committee, SilkTork. &mdash; Javert2113 (Siarad.&#124;&#164;) 15:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, SilkTork. All the best. Buffs (talk) 16:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've just said this in more detail at his talk page, but I too thank you very much for the work that you have done. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the hard work, especially in the atmosphere of criticism. Nice of you to put so much into this project. Seren_Dept 18:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Jiminy Crickets, they’re dropping like flies! <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 11:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And the flies are dropping like crickets. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the thanks, though I don't feel very positive about my participation on ArbCom this year. I think I could have done better, and I certainly wish I had. SilkTork (talk) 13:57, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I know the feeling. You all have had a rough time this year - My term ended just in time. ): Snyway, let me join in the thanks for your service during an unusually difficult year. Doug Weller  talk 19:23, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not certain as how to feel about this. In my 2012 Arbcom case, you opposed my 1-year banishment & supported suspending my 1-year ban. However when I messed up in 2013, you immediately supported my 1-year ban. Anyways, it's kinda interesting - with your resignation & NYB's pending retirement, every arbitrator in my (2012) Arbcom case, will no longer be on Arbcom. In a way, I've outlasted all of you, while proving some of you right & most of you wrong, that I was able to reform myself. GoodDay (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not about you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Bugger. This ArbCom business takes a huge toll. I think it would be good to increase the number of arbs and grab a subset for any specific case. We are burning through our best people at a ridiculous rate. Guy (help!) 23:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * In real life many cases are heard by a single arbitrator. Bigger cases may have a panel of three arbitrators.  I've never seen more.  We need to streamline our process. Jehochman Talk 01:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Couldn't agree more. We can have a roster of 15 arbs, but cases should be heard and decided by panels of 3, appealable to the full committee. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 14:24, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the discussion about quorum is an important one and something I never thought we would need to consider. On the last case, there was a motion technically passing with only one vote which was for support. I voted against in the last few hours to ensure it would not pass by "absolute majority", but it raises the question as to whether something during an arbitration proceeding could pass with as little as a single person voting. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 14:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The question is which ones of this year's cases do you think would not have been appealed? As a practical issue, in the real world, arbitrators are accredited and have a track record; if they fail to rule impartially then they will have difficulty getting hired in future. This helps ensure equitable decisions. isaacl (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * GS, Alex Shih, Enigma, possibly Rama, mostly because I think those admin would have accepted the outcome even if they didn't agree with it, though of course I could be wrong in each case, and I can't speak for them. But I don't think that's "the" question, I think there are other, possibly better questions, like... if it were a 3-arb panel: (1) ...would the cases have had more engagement between arbs and parties, and thus more buy-in from parties to the final decision, reducing the chances of appeal (and/or bitterness)? (2) ...which cases would have had a different, possibly better, result, if it were heard by only 3 arbs? (3) ...how much faster would the cases have been resolved? (4) ...how many more disputes could have been brought to and resolved by arbitration? Frankly I don't see why Arbcom couldn't just establish, as a "procedure" of Arbitration, a quorum of 3, and thereby give themselves the flexibility to try this out and hear some appropriate future case with a 3-arb panel. Just pilot it and see how it goes. I'd say pilot it with PIA–if there are 3 arbs who really want to sink their teeth into it, let them. The other arbs can focus on other things. Worst-case, someone can appeal to the full current Arbcom or next year's Arbcom. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 16:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Honestly, no, I don't think there would be more buy-in. The disputants have entrenched positions that led them to arbitration. I don't believe there would be better results, as I think they may vary depending on which arbitrators were on the panel, which means I don't think the cases would be resolved faster, as they would have led to appeals and the entire committee being involved anyway. And I don't think people are inhibited from filing a request by the arbitration committee workload.
 * I personally don't have an issue with trying new things (I always say, try something, evaluate, adjust, and try again). I suspect though that the community at large would be reluctant to go along with small panels. isaacl (talk) 17:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * With a large enough ArbCom, they could just split off and alternatively declare themselves unavailable for cases - especially when there are simultaneous cases. We have been hearing that we need a "bigger" arbcom - but I'm not seeing it help with case workload if every single member is expected to participate in every single case.  —  xaosflux  Talk 17:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've lost track of all the discussions that have been going on, but I think that someone (maybe SilkTork, as it happens) suggested somewhere that we abandon the two-year terms and tranches, and instead have those elected serve for an indeterminate amount of time, subject to activity minimums (sort of like CuOs). That way, Arbs could dip in and out of activity. I like that idea, because I think it would decrease the burnout we are seeing. And it would fit well with having a smaller quorum for each case. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , it could also mean ARBS hang around indefinitely, and are minimally active. I think the idea of lowering quorum has a lot of merit, but it need not be coupled to indefinite terms of office; We could, for instance, elect 9 arbitrators every year, but only require 9 to sit on a single case; this allows room for inactivity, but will avoid the problem we have with our other advanced permissions, which is that editors hang on to them even if they don't really use them any longer. I'm not casting aspersions here; it's a natural reaction; but for arbitrators, especially, it would be a problem. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:54, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's why I mentioned minimum activity requirements. Not really that different from what we do now with CU and OS. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * With respect, I think it's a bad idea. The only mechanism that people have for voicing dissent with how an arbitrator handles their duties is through the election process. Make it a lifetime appointment, and you erase that. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Not to mention, it will become the standard for arbitrator candidates to be asked "Are you willing to commit to a lifetime appointment?" which will greatly reduce the eligible candidate pool, as I can't think of anyone who would willingly take on such a Sisyphean task, even if it's assumed or expected that they'll drop in and out of activity.--WaltCip (talk) 12:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Silk's post in this thread has stayed with me all day as it just makes me sad. It makes me sad that someone who has given as much as Silk has to the project leaves feeling so down about their own performance which I would say was always satisfactory and at times excellent. I hope with time he can move closer to my appraisal of his performance. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:23, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I feel embarassed to admit that many, many years ago I had a slight disagreement with, over a minor content issue but I rapidly understood what a huge positive he is to Wikipedia. He has his own reasons for abandoning Arbcom, but it will be a net loss for the committee. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I thank you for being a sensible, balanced and eloquent person. And I understand and respect your decision to resign. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 08:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you should un-resign and have a go at helping to reform Arbcom and the rest of our dispute resolution system "from within", because you know better than a lot of us what we need to do to make sure other editors don't go through what you and the other Arbs have been going through this year. Judges have something called "semi-retired" status, just sayin'... – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 16:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz banned

 * Original announcement

Ugh, that's awful. Multiple editors... Sigh...  starship .paint  (talk) 13:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It could be that. Or he could've made the elementary mistake of criticising WP on WO... ——  SerialNumber  54129  14:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming WP -> Wikipedia, but no clue what WO stands for. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipediocracy, but they can't possibly be banning editors here for what they say there. If so, there is a long list of editors to be banned, starting with those involved in doxxing editors. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 15:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * - don't plenty of other editors do that?  starship .paint  (talk) 14:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Eh... if this is what I think it is, then that is a worthy ban.  starship .paint  (talk) 14:19, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * How do they know [it was] Icewhiz and not me? – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich  15:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * - how would I know that?  starship .paint  (talk) 15:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Please do not further the harassment that people are already experiencing by speculating or drawing additional attention to off-wiki harassment. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't recall anyone having a problem with mentioning, um, "that thing", when it was mentioned repeatedly in the recent ANI thread to TBAN and he was accused by implication of being behind "that thing" and using it to canvass on his behalf. But now mention of "that thing" is verboten. Ok. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich  16:02, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't claim to be omnipresent; I'm not familiar with the thread you refer to. But guidance around Linking to external harassment is quite clear that linking to external attacks, privacy violations and other content that harasses any individual should be avoided, and WP:OWH instructs incidents involving it be handled privately. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't link to it, I named it. However it was linked to, a week ago, at ANI, and discussed by a number of editors who speculated who was behind it (nobody named Icewhiz as a potential culprit, but other editors were named). That ANI thread is archived here. Many editors, including admin, commented in that thread; there was not one word of complaint about linking to or discussing it. This is where everyone (myself included) found out about "it". The fact that you're not even aware of this makes me really question your decision here. I don't expect you to be omnipresent, but I expect you to investigate diligently (diligently enough to be aware of how "it" came to light on-wiki in the first place), and I expect you to be fair. I also expect you to be responsive, by the way, which you weren't in the Poland case. For example, there were multiple instances of on-wiki harassment, even on the case pages themselves, raised on the Poland PD talk page. Arbcom did not answer any of our questions about those instances. Arbcom did nothing about those instances. I'm dying to know why this thing was worthy of a site ban on secret evidence, but those other instances of on-wiki harassment weren't even worthy of arbitrators responding to pings. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 16:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The difference between "naming" it here and linking to it is a matter of syntax more than anything; the end result is the same. I have investigated the off-wiki harassment diligently, and disagree that being aware of every ANI thread is a requirement there. As for others not raising the link as an issue, that does not mean it isn't one. As for the Poland case, I was aware I would not have the time to be adequately responsive, and so was inactive on the case. I personally can't speak to issues that arose during that case—though I was somewhat following the case, I was not paying nearly as much attention to it as I would have had I been active, so I'm not comfortable speaking to it more. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , this is a ban based on private evidence so, by definition, you don't have all the information, and you're not going to get it. I'd advise against making assumptions if you don't want to look foolish. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Arbcom really knows how to do an awesome impression of T&S. Spot on. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 17:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Damn, that sucks. I considered Icewhiz A great editor and a friend. I thought he would be a good candidate for admin and I always appreciated his commentary. It stings to see that sig crossed out.... 💵Money💵emoji💵Talk💸Help out at CCI! 15:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hopefully he can clean up and appeal this in the near future. 💵Money💵emoji💵Talk💸Help out at CCI! 15:34, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * - unfortunately, I think there really is no coming back from this one.  starship .paint  (talk) 15:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , Actually, I think there can be, although it will take time. Take for example; He was desyopped and banned for off site harassment (apparently related to IRC) and was later unbanned by arbcom. I think there is hope for him, if he apologizes and waits for a bit. 💵Money💵emoji💵Talk💸Help out at CCI!  15:50, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * - thanks for sharing that. Unfortunately, since Icewhiz denied the allegations, there probably won't be an apology.  starship .paint  (talk) 02:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Colour me unsurprised. We should have topic banned and IBANned him at ANI ages ago, that might possibly have talked him down from the Reichstag. This was already a likely flame-out when the case closed. Not the platonic ideal of an arbitration case, but no real chance of any other outcome, and we really could have handled it ourselves, and maybe saved a contributor and some drama. Oh well. Guy (help!) 16:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * On a general level, how does the ArbCom determine that off-wiki stuff isn't joe jobbing? What is convincing enough? Of course appeals exist, but it would be pretty embarassing for the ArbCom to first accounce this and then repeal it. And how do you prove that you aren't some account on another website? Though I wouldn't be too surprised if Icewhiz did this. He seemeed pretty upset at how things were in the antisemitism/Poland topic area. But joe jobbing is a concern since someone already pretended to be one Polish editor on a neo-Nazi website to make false flag attacks on an AE admin. --Pudeo (talk) 17:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The possibility of joe jobbing was something we discussed and ultimately concluded was unlikely. As Joe said above, the private nature of the evidence means we are unfortunately not able to discuss in further detail what the evidence was and how we arrived at our conclusion. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Did the alleged "harassment" include inappropriate or unwanted public or private communication, following, or any form of stalking per WP:HARASS?
 * How does ArbCom relate anonymous accounts across domains not under WMF control?
 * Has ArbCom consulted IT specialists as part of its investigation?
 * Has ArbCom consulted T&S?
 * Has any part of the evidence been given to Icewhiz?
 * Seeing as ArbCom failed to address on-Wiki harassment for three months, then blocked an editor for alleged off-Wiki behavior just two days after he filed an appeal to, can you see how this could be construed negatively? François Robere (talk) 18:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Seeing as ArbCom failed to address on-Wiki harassment for three months Since I'm the only other party in this case, this claim appears to be directed at me. It is false, nothing like that happened, there's no FoFs to that effect, and making such an accusation constitutes a WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS. Please strike it.  Volunteer Marek   19:15, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You aren't the only one against whom evidence was presented, and there were other FoFs like "incivility" and "hounding".
 * Also, commenting on Icewhiz is a violation of your I-ban. François Robere (talk) 19:44, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I am solely commenting on YOUR false assertion above, regarding a case I was involved in. If you didn't mean me, then please be clear about that. And please specify what this "three months of harassment" was.  Volunteer Marek   20:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * First of all, "the other party" inevitably refers to Icewhiz, so it is a violation. Second, if you don't know for sure who my comment is about, then calling it "false" in all caps is a PA. Third, you yourself made some severe accusations against Icewhiz, so for the off chance I'm actually referring to him here, you should've been more careful. Lastly, "name calling" and "hounding" (per the FoF's) are "harassment", at least in layman's terms. François Robere (talk) 20:44, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's some of what those FoFs were based on, VM: "...his fucked up POV of 'Poles are a bunch of anti semites'...displays some weird obsession with shitting on Poland", "...1) Fuck. You. ...a sleazy weasel...horribly and utterly sleazy, dishonest and scummy... this fucking asshole needs to be banned. Now.", "...you fucking sleazeball." There's also the stuff, which is now at ANI. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich  21:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, behaviourally, no, no and he was given the opportunity to comment, and finally yes, we are aware. Icewhiz's appeal to Jimbo was started very soon after we contacted him for comment about the issues. I don't believe that was a coincidence. Jimbo is welcome to review all evidence, I hope he does. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 19:19, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to make sure - by "communication" we mean emails, phone calls etc. - messages directed at one or more persons with the intent of eliciting a response from them - not some general commentary on a public forum, eg. a social network. Is that correct?
 * Have you consulted any behavioral experts? Has any independent authorship analysis taken place?
 * Yes, but has any of the evidence been given to him, or was he asked to defend himself "blindfolded"?
 * How soon after you contacted Icewhiz did he post his appeal? François Robere (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Communication (like what we are doing right now) is not restricted to "emails, phone calls, etc." Every social media platform and most other websites where discussions take place, such as Wikipedia, have a way to directly message someone as well as target a public comment at someone. I will give you an example, just as we know your public comment here are directed at the Arbitration Committee (a specific group of people). Nowhere on Wikipedia are we required to consult with "behavioral experts" when implementing and enacting local policy. We block vandals based upon behaviour. We block sock puppets based upon behaviour. And we block disruptive editors who harass other editors on or off-wiki based upon behaviour. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk  21:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but "harassment" suggests repeated personal communications, not general, public commentary - that would be PA, and even that's a stretch. Unless you can show that a comment was directed at particular person - as it is here - rather than just about them - as it is there - then that's not "harassment".
 * As for expertise - blocking vandals or disruptive editors doesn't require special expertise; identifying one person's writing with another's does. And here we have several problems: First of all, even experts find it hard - and there are countless examples in literature, forensics, bible studies, history, and others - and you say you can do it with certainty in ten days and 140 characters? By all means, tell me how. Second, we have a concrete example of how poorly this method works right there in SPI: checkusers make mistakes. Last but not least, if you're engaging ArbCom in linguistic analysis, then you're diving head first into content, and that's beyond ArbCom's mandate. François Robere (talk) 23:02, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Off-wiki harassment falls within our jurisdiction. While I am sure the world of professional forensic analysis has varying degrees of sophistication, we do not adhere or require those same standards here on the English Wikipedia. Comparing behavioural evidence is a common practice on the English Wikipedia with respect to editors abusively using multiple accounts or reviewing evidence with respect to harassment. I am sure there are many advantages to a more comprehensive system that relies on professionals to handle harassment and conduct related issues affecting our community, but that same community has made it clear that local governance from within our volunteer community is an essential priority for the project. Wikipedia at its very core is volunteer built and we won't be departing from that culture anytime soon. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 23:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * When we block sock puppets and vandals based on behavior, that's done with an on-wiki, public behavioral analysis. Icewhiz has posted the emails at Commons . Arbcom's first email to Icewhiz was 3 sentences long, included no diffs or links or any evidence whatsoever, just a question whether the two accounts were the same. Icewhiz replied with a denial. Arbcom's second email was informing him he'd been sitebanned: two sentences. Total communication from Arbcom to Icewhiz: 5 sentences. Two emails, less than 48 hours. Way to go, Arbcom, way to–once again–sanction someone without letting them confront the evidence against them, and then passing it off to the community as if it was some in-depth investigation wherein the accused's right to defend themselves were protected. You just up and decided, based on an anonymous report, to siteban someone. There is no way you could have ruled out a joe job. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 23:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * So basically what you're saying is we don't need RS, because it's a community-written encyclopedia? François Robere (talk) 12:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * When we block sock puppets and vandals based on behavior, that's done with an on-wiki, public behavioral analysis. Icewhiz has posted the emails at Commons . Arbcom's first email to Icewhiz was 3 sentences long, included no diffs or links or any evidence whatsoever, just a question whether the two accounts were the same. Icewhiz replied with a denial. Arbcom's second email was informing him he'd been sitebanned: two sentences. Total communication from Arbcom to Icewhiz: 5 sentences. Two emails, less than 48 hours. Way to go, Arbcom, way to–once again–sanction someone without letting them confront the evidence against them, and then passing it off to the community as if it was some in-depth investigation wherein the accused's right to defend themselves were protected. You just up and decided, based on an anonymous report, to siteban someone. There is no way you could have ruled out a joe job. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 23:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * So basically what you're saying is we don't need RS, because it's a community-written encyclopedia? François Robere (talk) 12:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

- Jimbo's comments (bolding is mine): Having briefly reviewed the evidence here, and having consulted with ArbCom, I was advised by a member of ArbCom to post my thoughts, which are that I'm completely persuaded by the reasons for this indefinite block and I don't intend to intervene ... I stand ready whenever necessary to exercise my (theoretical?) reserve powers to call an election if I see a power-mad ArbCom going off the rails. We are very very far from that situation today.  starship .paint  (talk) 02:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * - thought you should know about this whole issue if you haven't.  starship .paint  (talk) 02:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Small text for Smallbones? Just kidding. I have been following from Jimbo's talk page and might even comment there, but just wondering: why ping me? Icewhiz had a "coauthored" submission for this month's Signpost, and it's on permanent hold right now. It looks like we made the right decision and I don't see any reason to change it now. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 02:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * - I pinged you precisely because of that submission, I thought this situation would be very related to your decision to publish or not.  starship .paint  (talk) 03:15, 2 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Hopefully it isn't out of order for me to say this, but I'm fairly confident that I was one of the targets of this harassment. Obviously, I can't and won't link to the material in question. I've no interest in celebrating or grave-dancing or anything of that sort, although I do understand why this decision was made... provided that Icewhiz was in fact responsible for the harassment in question. It's just really saddening to see how much this community has disintegrated over the course of the past six months. I don't know if ArbCom got this right, but I do know that they will receive intense criticism either way. Of course, ranting about ArbCom has been a long-standing pastime in which many, if not most, established editors have indulged at some point, but the general atmosphere of anger is far more intense than I remember it having been in the past. I hope that the clouds will lift soon. Lepricavark (talk) 03:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As an addendum, I'd like to make it absolutely clear that I had no involvement in bringing this to ArbCom. I didn't give the harassment a second thought and I certainly don't feel as though I've been victimized. Of course, other individuals who were targeted might feel differently. Lepricavark (talk) 04:05, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This exact outcome perfectly demonstrates why the committee must take extended precautions to protect the privacy of individual who report being the victims of harassment when sending any evidence to the other involved party. Lately (in at least three recent instances), whatever seems to be sent to the individual frequently ends up being posted publicly on-wiki, on another wiki, or on another website. No greater argument highlights the fact that the committee should presume that whatever is sent to another party will become public. We have also clearly seen that when the identity of the individual who made the report becomes public, they are frequently subject to further harassment and hounding (both on and off-wiki). It has been something an increasing number of editors have expressed a concern about when contacting us. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 03:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The opportunity and likelihood for injustice is something we need to accept. Would we prefer to say that some editors who are being harassed should experience injustice or some editors who are being accused of harassment are going to experience injustice. There is no right answer but I personally applaud the committee for erring on the side of those being harassed. I do not think this committee will use that word except in cases where it is justified and so while I understand the unfairness of secret evidence I think this committee is making the right decision about how to balance these competing needs and desires. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * ~Swarm~ {sting} 22:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Just so I understand it correctly - is Arbcom now policing Twitter, attempting to link Twitter accounts to Wikipedians, and then banning those Wikipedians? If so, I will be sure to report it the next time the WiR, WM DC, or other known Wikipedians using twitter accounts canvass, misrepresent the truth, or tweet something inappropriate. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * We are enforcing Harassment when we receive credible private reports about it, as ArbCom has for many years. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC)


 * And here is the other side of the coin: "chilling" of due criticism, frustration and further disintegration of the community. The numbers of editors, active editors and newly-registered editors of the English Wikipedia seem to have stabilized at around half of what they were at their peak,|line|all|~total|monthly|line|all|~total|monthly|bar|all|~total|monthly and the number of admins is the lowest it's been since 2005. Measures of diversity and inclusiveness across Wikipedia projects are low, with 71% of editors reporting being bullied or harassed on Wikipedia in the last year (with the leading reasons for harassment being ethnicity and gender - surprise surprise ), and around a quarter of editors saying they don't enjoy their time contributing (that's an improvement - it used to be a third). And our arbs are saying that instead of improving the organization - redefining policy, providing training (something I've suggested before ) and involving outside experts where the need arises - we should continue with the sort of "jungle law" that we've had thus far; and why? Because "we're a community, and that's how we do things", which is sort of like saying we don't need RS because we can write articles on our own. Okay... François Robere (talk) 12:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If editors feel bullied or harassed on-wiki, or see evidence of this on another editor, it is up to them to take action to report it, particularly if it is away from highly visible pages; otherwise it will never be fixed. Nor should we pretend that a case like this is the only type of similar harassment going on outside WP, it was just a very visible one on a popular site critical of WP in general; for every visible case like this, there's probably dozens that are unnoticed or in less visible places (and with the additional issue of connecting a WP editor to an external profile). This is not ArbCom's problem to fix, it is educating users where to turn if they feel they have been harassed, including what private channels they can use if they don't want to make that a public matter. --M asem (t) 13:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If editors feel bullied or harassed on-wiki... it is up to them to take action to report it Oh, and you think we didn't? We went to ANI and AE a dozen times, and they didn't do anything. I don't even know how many times I messaged individual admins asking them to react to PA and ASPERSIONS, and they did nothing. On my very talk page I asked a clerk to exercise his discretionary powers, after a rather bizarre block he forced on Icewhiz and he ignored me. Editors are not dumb - in a large percentage of cases the system simply isn't working.
 * it was just a very visible one on a popular site critical of WP in general It's not a "site" (there's no site-wide editorial policy), but "people"; and the fact that so many of them criticize Wikipedia in outside platforms - platforms that, unlike Wikipedia, don't have limitations on free speech - should stand out to you as a giant sign that something is broken in Wikipedia itself. François Robere (talk) 12:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I would like to be very clear that this ban was not placed because someone was critical of Wikipedia or Wikipedians—it was placed because of pretty serious harassment. Again, because of the private nature of this case, we cannot speak more to the who/where/what around this incident—speculating like this is unhelpful, and in this speculation you are beginning to make statements that sound like they are excusing the behavior. Criticism of Wikipedia and Wikipedians is acceptable; harassment is not; please do not conflate the two. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Actually it was PA, but what do I know? I just use the dictionary.
 * As for the "twitter": whether I agree or disagree with what some random person on Twitter says - and I certainly disagree with some - has little bearing on whether they'll continue "twitting", so I made a point of not getting upset about it. What I am concerned with, and what I may be able to influence, is how officers of this community exercise their duties (there's room for improvement); what is it in Wikipedia that pushes so many editors to communicate and "vent" off-Wiki (a bunch of reasons, including - yes - the inability to criticize others on-Wiki ); and most importantly - what convinced two major historians that:
 * "Everything that is related to negative treatment of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust is now being distorted and manipulated – with the goal of promoting a false narrative and sowing confusion on English Wikipedia."


 * "Holocaust revisionism in Wikipedia deserves to be studied in its own right."


 * Icewhiz was right, you see, and ArbCom had a chance to fix it. But instead:
 * "[ArbCom's] decision... all but gives the Polish revisionists free rein on English Wikipedia."


 * Maybe instead of chasing anonymous twitters and T&S's tail ArbCom could start making a change here? François Robere (talk) 11:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Again, what do you expect them to actually do? Tere's no magic "harassment" alarm that brings Arbcom running whenever someone makes a disparaging statement towards another editor. No one expects ArbCom to patrol every talk page looking for signs of bullying and harassment (I would assuming if an ArbCom member did happen to see one in the course of normal editing, they would take that up). Arbcom can do nothing to fix this, at least the expectations you seem to be asking them to do.
 * And the reason that we have chosen to prevent editors from complaining about other editors as persons is to try to maintain a civil discourse in consensus discussions. Complaining about an editor's contributions or their behavior on wikipedia is appropriate and necessary to deal with those that are abusing WP. But there's the bright line that as soon as you direct criticism towards the person behind the keyboard and not what they do on WP, that's a problem as that leads to the road of incivility. Does that mean editors will go elsewhere to vent about other editors? 100% yes, which is why off-wiki harassment and personal attacks related to wiki editing are considered actionable here too. We expect editors to respect each other, on and off-wiki. Hence why Arbcom treats these types of alerts with the same severity as on-wiki attacks. --M asem  (t) 13:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


 * "Due criticism", François Robere?? Are you saying that calling a slew of other editors anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers for the act of !voting on a topic ban discussion is "due criticism"? Because that's what happened here. You want to know why we have editor retention problems? In part it's because anyone editing a remotely-controversial issue can be targeted for harassment, doxxing, and other forms of abuse. There's really not that much the encyclopedia can do about it, but banning those who can be found to be responsible is at least a strong symbol that the community rejects such corrosive behavior. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't recall saying that. I do recall being nearly blocked for a previous version of this that named no names and had no personally identifiable information, just because one editor's panicked rant and because it "backhandedly pokes at multiple admins". According to one notable editor, "some editors even maintain that just mentioning a user group, or even a loosely defined editor type... is tantamount to PA" (as self-contradictory as it sounds). I do recall being blocked for this. And now, because of ArbCom's questionable decision here (you can see comments here and here), the Signpost editor is afraid to publish a piece he would've otherwise published. You see, the problem is that the moment you forbid using those terms you make fighting them all that harder. Antisemites don't need a label - they can be antisemitic all they want without one; it's those who fight antisemitism who need the label. At the moment it's more dangerous in Wikipedia to call out antisemitic content than it is to insert it, regardless of what that Twitter account may or may not have posted (and yes - I would've attached diffs, but that would "PA"). François Robere (talk) 14:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not what I hear. What I hear is that veteran editors feel they're not being heard, and are tired from endless fights on ANI and AE; and "fresh" editors find policy complicated and obtuse, and veterans rude and brash. Why do you think the solution to on-Wiki harassment, where Wikipedia is failing miserably, is expanding to off-Wiki moderation? Get "on-Wiki" right first. François Robere (talk) 15:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh FFS. You're basically whinnying that because you weren't allowed to (indirectly) attack other users (in this case GCB and User:TonyBallioni among others) on Wikipedia via your little nudge-nudge-know-what-I-mean-know-what-I-mean Signpost submission about alleged "racism" (which was also the basis for other people's off wiki harassment) and because ArbCom took steps to deal with extensive offline harassment, then that produced a "chilling effect" and ... we have low editor retention??? Sorry but that's just ass backwards. Yeah, we SHOULD have a "chilling effect" on people who engage in harassment. It takes some serious freakin' audacity for the people who are the ones doing the harassment or actively enabling it to turn around and complain that they're being harassed because they're not allowed to harass others. Freakin' a, this is sick.  Volunteer Marek   15:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Again with the incivility and bad faith, Marek? François Robere (talk) 17:15, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You're trying to defend something that's indefensible. My comment above is 100% correct and applicable.  Volunteer Marek   18:41, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * What am I defending exactly? With diffs, please. François Robere (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * ,, I think it would be a great idea for you both to step away before this escalates further. I don't think anybody is in any doubt as to how either of you feel about this ban, about Icewhiz, or about each other. Guy (help!) 19:25, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey Guy, I didn't ask for this treatment. I didn't even mention Marek. I should have a reasonable expectation of being able to mind my own business, without having him drop out of the blue and start throwing accusations. What do you think? François Robere (talk) 19:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Who's talking about forbidding using those terms where warranted?


 * I have repeatedly taken stands against anti-Semitism - reverting and fixing attempts to whitewash Ben Garrison's anti-Semitic cartoons and Martin Luther's godawful On the Jews and Their Lies, or smears of George Soros with classic "moneychanger" tropes... I could link dozens of diffs. I vehemently oppose anti-Semitism and I firmly believe know the Holocaust killed millions and millions of Jews and other Nazi targets, and was among the worst atrocities in human history. And yet I was among the editors named as an "anti-Semite" and a "Holocaust denier" - merely because I !voted one particular way in a topic ban discussion. If you think that is an acceptable use of those terms, you have a serious problem. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * In the meanwhile I've seen editors promote Żydokomuna; suggest significant collaboration between Jews, Soviets and Nazis (unfounded); promote wartime claims of Jewish "banditry" (again, unfounded); make various claims of Jewish economic power, and suggest current affairs in Poland are manipulated by foreign Jews and driven by greed; suggest some sources are less reliable than others because they're Jewish; and more. And I can't diff even one of these for you, because then I'll have a whole band of editors after me at AE. François Robere (talk) 17:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Icewhiz ban was long overdue,incredibly battleground behaviour,very thinly veiled xenophobia,attempts to ban sources just because they were Polish,constant conflicts with numerous Polish editors,manipulating sources, the current wikistalking is one of the worst I have seen, beyond despicable.It's a shame this decision wasn't made earlier-it would save us from a lot of damage on Wikipedia.MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Re: this - you realize that we already raised the issues with Molobo's editing at ArbCom, and they didn't even comment. What else would you like us to do? François Robere (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You have limited options to re-present the same arguments from a case that has already gone before the committee and a decision has been made. There is no unlimited appeal process. You may consider WP:AFTERARB. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 20:44, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If you have issues with my editing please resolve them through the normal dispute resoultion process.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Looks as though User:Icewhiz may have a claim for mitigation. It appears he has busted a serious long-standing Wikipedia hoax (since 2004) related to false claims about the Holocaust in Warsaw, Poland. See an article in Haaretz dated today (4 October 2019). I should declare an interest as Icewhix has been an ally of mine in the past.
 * Philip Cross (talk) 10:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think anybody is disputing that Icewhiz did some good work, but that in no way excuses or mitigates harassing, outing, and threatening fellow editors off-wiki. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 11:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I disagree with several aspects of those tweets, but I haven't seen anything there that wasn't already available online (and I suspect ArbCom's decision, rather than stymie it, simply gave it a wider reach).
 * What threats? François Robere (talk) 12:06, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * it doesn't matter whether the information is available elsewhere online, or whether you think you've seen everything or not (chances are you haven't), there is simply no reason or excuse to out or harass anyone. Our policies are clear, if you engage in these behaviours you will be blocked and/or banned. Whether you are otherwise a good, bad or indifferent content editor is irrelevant. I recommend you start listening to what you are being told here - defending and/or justifying outing and harassment (which you are a hairs breadth away from doing) will not end well. Thryduulf (talk) 14:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * So for example, does that ↑ constitute harassment? I feel threatened. François Robere (talk) 15:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I keep saying people should not confuse WP:FRINGE with WP:HOAX. Hoaxes happen when somebody intentionally adds information they know are not true to Wikipedia. Fringe concepts like Flat Earth are added because a small minority believes they are truth. Icewhiz identified a fringe theory that was unduly promoted in a number of articles and removed it. Good job, but it sadly is not 'a longest-standing hoax on Wikipedia'. It is just an error, and errors like that are dime a dozen. In the last few weeks I've removed similar errors from several other articles on Polish WWII history, for example the claim that the war started with the bombing of Wielun, another fringe theory that also was present in a number of articles both on Polish and English Wikipedias. If we asked on MILHIST about similar incidents we could probably write a book about hundreds of similar fringe theories people have been and are still removing. The only good moral here is that we still have only 1-2% of GA/FA content, and all the rest, with tons of unsourced stuff, or sourced to low quality sources, may contain similar 'surprises'. Finding such errors is good, going to Twitter, doxing one's wiki-opponents and their families and so on is not, and defending people who resort to such issues is not a great way to improve one's wiki reputation. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:54, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , Well, when the error arises out of myth, it would seem functionally indistinct from hoax.  Either there was a gas chamber killing ~400 a day for years and years or not -- if someone believes there is a gas chamber that did not exist, they believe a hoax, and may act on a hoax. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Neither is gutting a third of an impeccably academically-sourced article, based on a mainstream consensus in one edit on the pretext of excess length.Nishidani (talk) 15:07, 4 October 2019 (UTC)