Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 49

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing closed

 * Original announcement


 * Quick question: One user was "reminded" of something that another user was "warned" of. How does this use of close synonyms affect how those users may edit Wikipedia articles going forward?  If there is no functional difference, why note the distinction?  Is this like "double secret probation"?  -- Jayron 32 12:44, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * They can be thought of like the multi-level warnings given on user talk pages, with "reminded" being further up the scale than "warned"; someone who has been warned is more likely to encounter sanctions upon repeat offences than someone who has only been reminded. Primefac (talk) 12:49, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, so no then. -- Jayron 32 13:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "Admonished" is sometimes also used. Although there is no completely agreement on whether "warned" or "admonished" is the stronger sanction I think more people think "admonished" is the stronger (I personally do); everybody agrees that both are more significant than "reminded". It might be an idea to write this up somewhere central if it hasn't been done already. Thryduulf (talk) 13:34, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There's also "kicked under the table by your mother," and "tapped on the shoulder by an acquaintance who gives a slight shake of their head when you look at them." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:40, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * They run the entire gamut from raises a singular eyebrow to we hit Bruno Tattaglia 4 o'clock this morning :)    SN54129  13:44, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If you really messed up you get this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:49, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that being whacked constitutes a functional difference from being admonished, warned, reminded, or scolded. Tattaglia would be unable to edit Wikipedia (being dead).  Anyone under admonishment, warning, reminder, etc.  is still free to edit, and under no restrictions as to their doing so (in good faith and with good behavior).  -- Jayron 32 13:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Some of the jokes above are amusing, don't get me wrong. But I want to defend the use of the different words accompanied by the explanation that Primefac and Thryduulf have given. By creating a scale (and Thryduulf is right that this should probably be formalized somewhere in Arb space) we do a few things. First, I think we indicate to the various parties how we viewed their conduct. Two things can be wrong but one can still be worse than the other - as in the above examples I would suggest murder is worse than assault - and making this distinction has some value in terms of creating a decision that isn't just a "pox upon all your houses" (sic) situation. Put another way, it more accurately tells the story of what transpired. Second, I do think it has value going forward in terms of saying how thin of ice someone is on. If someone who has been warned is brought before AE or ARCA they will presumably have less grace for any future transgression than someone who is merely reminded. So for these reasons I support ArbCom continuing to use this kind of scale, and to the extent that I draft things will myself continue to use this kind of scale. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:44, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I do respectfully disagree, either you're free to edit wikipedia, or your editing is placed under some kind of restriction. The purpose of a warning is to notify someone that their behavior is inappropriate, and needs to change.  If someone is so made aware of such problems, the word we use in making them aware is irrelevant.  Warnings are for the individual; the community has access to someone's entire editing history, and can decide for themselves how they have behaved.  Warnings don't let the community know anything except that the individual was made aware of the problem.  They don't need different words to do so.  Unless some action has a functional difference in what someone can do at Wikipedia, it's really irrelevant.  We shouldn't get hung up in the weeds on "levels" of warnings.  Either someone was told they did something wrong, or they weren't.  If they were told, and continue to do the wrong thing, they can be sanctioned.  -- Jayron 32 15:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If they were told, and continue to do the wrong thing, they can be sanctioned. This, I believe, is the crux of our point. If I were to write an article and it was a G12-level copyvio, I will likely get a helpful warning from an administrator. If I continue adding in copyrighted material to other articles, I might get subsequent level 2 and 3 warnings. The more warnings I receive the more likely it is that the next instance of copyright infringement will result in me being blocked.We generally do not block people for a single instance of improper editing, assuming it is not an egregious violation, and it is the case here as well. A user that is "reminded" might get one or two more reminders and/or warnings before they get sanctioned, whereas a user that is "warned" might get a single warning if that. I see your point, in that both editors are still able to edit Wikipedia, but I would hardly call the wording difference irrelevant, because it defines the potential roadmap of consequences for their future editing. Obviously if you disagree with that ethos you are welcome to your opinion, but I doubt that ArbCom will change its warning-level system because of it. Primefac (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Warning templates are optional, and you can just tell someone "Stop doing that". There is not now, and has not ever been, any requirement that warning templates are used in telling people to stop doing things.  You can (and I recommend, in most cases, you should) just start a conversation with them and explain why what they did was wrong.  You can do so multiple times, using increasingly stern language, but the use of "levels" is not a requirement for anything.  -- Jayron 32 16:05, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * well that's fine for you as an admin since you can do whatever you want. For us ordinary plebs, we know there's far less of a chance any action is going to result if an someone was not given a strong enough warning, be it using templates or talking to them, so many times we're not going to bother instead just give them a stronger warning. I can't say more since it'll probably cross over into the NPA line, but maybe consider that not everyone has the benefit of you administrative power in the future before your treat our concerns experiences and expectations as not mattering? Nil Einne (talk) 01:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC) 02:09, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There are occasions where admins and others can and do skip some or all of the usual warning levels, I've done so myself, both before and after becoming an admin. But it needs to be justified by the behaviour leading to the sanction. Arbcom has a long record of taking the mop away from heavyhanded admins, and I'm sure they would do so if an admin showed poor judgment in this area.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  10:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Look, if you think I need to have my admin bit taken away because I use personalized conversational messages instead of templates when interacting with people, please start that ArbCom case. I still maintain that using "warning levels" is not required, and documentation on various guidance pages backs me up.  I don't intend to become a worse person just because you insist I can have my admin bit taken away for not using the templates.  If you have examples of me being "heavy-handed", please bring it forward, but sideways threats are not becoming, and you really should speak directly to me if you have a problem.  -- Jayron 32 11:51, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You've really only addressed the second concept there, ignoring the element of an ArbCom case has in (and I don't love this phrase but am not coming up with a better one) telling the story of the conflict. As to the second concept, if I am reminded of something that feels very different to me than if someone warns me of something. People remind me of things all the time, and often I appreciate those reminders where as a warning hits home in a different way. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:58, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but we're discussing different things. When someone (meaning a person with whom I am conversing) warns me, I feel very different than when that specific someone reminds me.  Of course that is true.  Arbcom is not in a conversation with the people here.  They are acting as (for lack of a better word, it's wrong, I know, but it's close enough) a court, and are not merely interlocutors.  They are making official sanctions and remedies for violations.  If a remedy changes the things a person can do at Wikipedia, that's very different than a remedy that does not.  There is a very different psychological effect between being in an individual conversation with someone who either warns or reminds me of something, than does an official body handing down a ruling.  -- Jayron 32 16:05, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that two people having a conversation is different than ArbCom reaching a decision. Where we're going to continue to disagree is the idea that ArbCom doesn't have the same range of nuance as two individuals. To bring it back to the current case, this is why we decided to remind editors about BLP - it seems like those DS had been somewhat forgotten in the event that went down in this conflict. We certainly are not saying all editors have done something wrong. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:11, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess we're just going to disagree on this (again, that's fine. Different is not a synonym for wrong).  I just take a more pragmatic view that either people are able to edit freely or they aren't, and people are either aware of policies or they aren't.  Those are kind of binary conditions, and using nuanced language to describe binary conditions is a pointless exercise for me.  -- Jayron 32 16:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sure I've seen arbs clearly confirm that the order (ascending in severity) is "remind, warn, admonish", and that seems perfectly reasonable to me. Indeed, I interpret "remind" as a "you're treading on the edge of misconduct" while warn/admonish are actual "you're breaking the rules, just not badly enough to be sanctioned". Nosebagbear (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * For me I'd say the scale is something like
 * Remind - what you did wasn't great and while it wasn't bad enough to merit a sanction please don't do it again.
 * Warn - what you did was wrong. It wasn't bad enough to merit a sanction this time, but do not do it again.
 * Admonish - what you did was wrong and could, had circumstances been slightly different, have resulted in a sanction. If you do it again you will almost certainly be sanctioned.
 * I also disagree with @Jayron32 that being aware of policies is a binary. You can be aware of a policy in general but not in detail, especially regarding how it is interpreted and/or how it relates to your own editing in a given situation. Whether one is able to edit freely or not is also not completely black and white - topic bans means one can edit freely in certain areas but not others; interaction bans mean one can edit freely with respect to most people but not others; a COI means you cannot edit freely with regards to that topic whether you have any sanctions or not. If you have a reputation for having issues with a certain topic and/or certain type of editing then your edits will be more closely watched than those without that reputation, regardless of sanction. Thryduulf (talk) 23:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I could argue, almost axiomatically, that having a recent reminder/warning/admonishment *is* being unable to "edit freely". Enterprisey (talk!) 00:09, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you under a topic ban? Are you under an interaction ban?  Are you blocked, either partially or totally?  If not, then you can contribute good faith edits to articles.  No one is going to object to you fixing spelling errors, providing sources to CN tags, or anything like that.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:02, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That is true, but if you have a reputation (rightly or wrongly) for adding misleading sources or refbombing or adding unsuitable sources or adding COI sources, then you can be sure that your adding sources to articles will be more highly scrutinised than someone without that reputation, regardless of sanction and minor errors will be brought up rather than just fixed. Is that editing freely? Yes or no, it depends on your point of view.
 * If you have a topic ban from say 21st century US politics, and you are editing articles about say 18th century French naturalists then you can, in that area, edit just as freely as someone without a topic ban and its unlikely your edits will attract any more scrutiny than anyone else's.
 * The point is that it's not a binary. Thryduulf (talk) 15:55, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding the confusion between "reminded", "warned", "admonished", I think it would be useful for arbcom to publish a standardized glossary of terms, with definitions. It's fine to have subtle gradations in meaning, but it's also good for it to be unambiguous what you mean.  -- RoySmith (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know that it's confusion, as much as disagreement about if it matters or not. I'm feel I'm closer to Jayron32's thoughts on it, either ArbCom told you to cut it out, or they didn't. Putting a subtle grade on it because they will presumably have less grace for any future transgression leaves a lot up to different people's interpretations on the severity levels and such. But as Jayron32 said above, different is not a synonym for wrong. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It's all semantics. Nobody cares. -Roxy the grumpy dog . wooF 16:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The dictionary is that-a-way. I don't think we need a glossary to clarify the definition of common English words. <span style="font:bold 15px 'Bradley Hand','Bradley Hand ITC';color:#044;text-shadow:0 0 4px #033,0 0 10px #077;"> —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 17:19, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If I may step out of the semantics lesson for a moment, I want to say something about how the case itself went. I've participated in quite a few ordeals cases, and (not surprisingly) they are typically accompanied by an awful lot of hostility and battleground-ing between the parties. This case went differently, and in a good way. Editors who were on opposite "sides" nonetheless were often quite collegial with one another. (There was some Javert-style hunting for scalps, but it was mild by ArbCom standards.) Both on case pages and in user space, I've repeatedly seen involved editors communicate with one another with quite a bit of mutual understanding and interest in making things better going forward. I want to make sure that that does not go unnoticed. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I apologize in advance if this is a dumb question: I have never had any involvement with proceedings like this until now. Now that the final decision has been announced, where should the affected editors go to get clarification about how they should be interpreted?  I take Scottywong's point about referring to a dictionary, but WP often uses words with its own specific definition; this is increasingly true as you go up the administrative levels.  I imagine most people reading this have become very used to it, but it can be opaque to a novice.   I will give an example, but it's not exhaustive, there will be more as we go along.  I was reminded of the Discretionary Sanctions of BLPs.  But reading through those, I cannot see anything that I am supposed to do differently.  Obviously the extra requirements are important because they are backed up by threats of serious punitive action - but I just can't see what I am supposed to do differently in order to avoid those sanctions.  So... where can I get clarification on that, and other questions as they come up?--Gronk Oz (talk) 09:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi . DS is notoriously difficult to comprehend. We're actually in the middle of a very long DS reform effort. In the meantime, has the expectations for editors in DS fields – follow those and you'll be fine. The substantive effect of DS is that administrators have greater authority to enforce our norms and policies. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 09:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, on your broader question, asking folks informally is typically the best path. You can also ask here as you have done. In the event that you're facing a new/novel/otherwise significant event requiring a clarification from the full committee, there is also the option to submit a request at WP:ARCA – though you should check informally with others before going to ARCA, as ARCAs are significant events. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 09:39, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, KevinL. Those DS expectations are just Business As Usual, aren't they?  If so, is DS basically just a warning to behave yourselves, or else... --Gronk Oz (talk) 09:57, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's a reasonable way to look at it. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 10:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That is my reading too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:18, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I would put things in this order: Advise; Remind; Warn, Admonish, Sanction. All users can advise, remind and warn. All admins can advise, remind, warn, and sanction. Only ArbCom tends to use admonish, and would tend to use it toward users with higher functions such as admins. If an admin had been reminded, and came before ArbCom again for the same thing, depending on the circumstances it is unlikely that having a previous reminder would weigh heavy on the Committee's mind when considering sanctions, but if a sanction was not considered necessary then it is likely they would be warned against doing it again rather than merely reminded again. If the admin were warned regarding their behaviour in an ArbCom case, and then repeated that behaviour and was brought to ArbCom again, they may or may not be dysopped depending on circumstances. If they had been admonished for their behaviour and came before ArbCom for repeating that behaviour, it is highly likely they would be desyopped. Having said that, none of these words are formalised, and each Committee will approach each case individually, albeit informed by previous cases and previous wordings. If someone wishes to put these words in a glossary, it may be advisable to make clear that such a glossary would be descriptive of past usage rather than a formal guide to current usage, otherwise there would be wikilawyers nit-picking that admin Foo had received an admonishment 15 years ago so can't be admonished again, and should instead be desysopped. Additionally, a formal glossary may tend to limit the creativity of future Committees in coming up with new solutions and wordings. I'd also like to make clear that ArbCom is not a court - ArbCom has no powers. What ArbCom has is the consent of the community to make binding decisions. The community are able at any time to refuse to accept any ArbCom decision. ArbCom operates by consent and common sense not by law. SilkTork (talk) 16:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Truthfully I'm leaning away from a glossary and more towards adding something to procedures saying that when ArbCom uses these words - remind, warn, admonish (and implicitly sanction) - it is meant from mildest to most severe. The community could then do with it what it likes, and future committees could do what they like if someone came before them again, just as you say. But the idea would be for ArbCom to make its intent clear so everyone knows what it is attempting to do. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That makes sense Barkeep49, though I kinda wonder just how much that it is actually needed to explain the difference between remind and warn. If we really need to start explaining everyday words, then Wikipedia guidelines would quickly become unmanageable. In all the years that ArbCom has been issuing reminders and warnings, I think this is the first time anyone has indicated they are unclear on the difference between them (Thryduulf, who continually astounds me with his ability to find information on the history of ArbCom, should be able to confirm or deny that). The distinction between warning and admonishment, though, might be worth clarifying (if there genuinely is a formal distinction - personally I would regard admonishment to be a stronger condemnation than a warning, but in 22 shades of grey they could well be next door neighbours swapping houses day by day). — Preceding unsigned comment added by SilkTork (talk • contribs)
 * , it's definitely not the first time I've seen the question/discussion, which is why when I posted motions with varying words in December I made sure at the top to layout what the scale was. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Like Barkeep, it's not the first time I've seen questions about the difference between remind/warn/admonish and/or whether there is one. I can't point to any exact discussions now (I don't have time to look and my memory is not that good! I also feel the need to opine that @Risker is a better arbcom historian than I am.), but it is why I suggested writing it down somewhere. Thryduulf (talk) 19:18, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If there was some written set of standards, like "If admonished, a person may be blocked indefinitely after XXX, while if warned they may be blocked only after YYY" or some such, that would be fine. If we define what the words mean in Wikipedia context, that's an entirely different story, and then we have concrete ways in which the terms affect a person's ability to edit Wikipedia articles.  If we don't have that, it's all just bluster.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand that ArbCom has essentially become the equivalent of the Supreme Court of Wikipedia, but I'd personally appreciate any efforts that are made to avoid the committee behaving like a court of law or a group of lawyers. Yes, there has to be some level of clarity when rulings are being communicated to the masses, but when we get to the point of people insisting that we need to precisely define common English words like "warn" and "remind", I feel like we're going a bit too far. This is the whole reason why discretionary sanctions are so hard for any normal person to parse and understand: because they were written like a legal contract. My hope would be that ArbCom can resist the urge to turn everything into meticulously-defined legislation, and instead strive to embody the spirit of the rest of Wikipedia outside the walls of the Supreme Court. For instance, WP policies and guidelines are written in plain English that everyone can understand. WP policies and guidelines typically don't have glossary sections to define common English words in the context of the policy/guideline. Outside of ArbCom, the culture of WP is such that we generally assume/trust that we're all adults (I know, at times it's a big assumption), and we can be trusted to properly interpret relatively unambiguous statements without having to spell out every word. Besides, some things are better left undefined. If we create a complex matrix that says "if you've been reminded and then warned, then you may be blocked for 37-49 hours, unless you've also been admonished in which case the block length will be multiplied by pi raised to the power of the number of times you've been advised in the last 90 days", then we leave no room for interpretation by an admin who is trying to deal with a unique situation. It's ok to not define everything precisely. That's why we have admins who are trusted to look at a situation and determine the best course of action, without having to follow rigid rules that might not apply to every situation. <span style="font:bold 15px 'Bradley Hand','Bradley Hand ITC';color:#044;text-shadow:0 0 4px #033,0 0 10px #077;"> —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 19:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand Jayron32's concern, though I am much more in agreement with what Scottywong says. The wording of the remedy is usually clear enough for people to understand, and if it is not, then it can be amended via ARCA (or is amended during the case via comments raised by the community).
 * It's interesting that Barkeep and Thryduulf recall other instances of people being unsure of the distinction between remind and warn. I can understand some uncertainty regarding admonish and warn, as admonish is an unusual word, and carries with it tones of a sanction without an actual sanction being carried out, so could well be seen as equivalent in that warn also carries tones of a sanction without an actual sanction being carried out. Remind and warn, however, are everyday words which are used in the workplace, at school, and at home. Remind is guidance, warn is, well, a warning. SilkTork (talk) 07:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. Remind and warn are quite different, admonish, not so clear but more threatening. Doug Weller  talk 12:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Wording choices aside, I wanted to say that I appreciate the effort ArbCom put into this. It is a complex issue. Unfortunately, I think we'll be back in the future, but I guess that is something to worry about when it happens. - Bilby (talk) 07:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't GSoW be fully identified in the decision, as opposed to just by an abbreviation? There is a redirect in place for GSoW that goes to the Guerrilla Skeptics section of Susan Gerbic's bio article. She has said they are not the same thing. <span style="background:#8FF;border:solid 1px;border-radius:8px;box-shadow:darkgray 4px 4px 4px;padding:1px 4px 0px 4px;"> 5Q5 &#124;&#9993; 17:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @5Q5 it is spelled out in both the section title and the text of the first Finding of Fact. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * GSoW is only identified as an acronym here in the easy to read summary on the Arbcom Noticeboard. I should have specified. <span style="background:#8FF;border:solid 1px;border-radius:8px;box-shadow:darkgray 4px 4px 4px;padding:1px 4px 0px 4px;"> 5Q5 &#124;&#9993; 11:48, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @5Q5 and @Barkeep49 I've boldly expanded the acronym on that page, linking it to the finding of fact that explains what the group is. I'll accept trouts etc if that was too bold. Thryduulf (talk) 12:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll minnow Thryduulf as I admit to being a tad uncomfortable about someone who isn't a clerk/arb modifying an official announcement. But also clear improvement. So not something I want anyone to be in the habit of doing - what is the harm in waiting for me or someone else to circle back around? - but also a clear improvement. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Thryduulf: I'm cool with it to an extent for the reasons Barkeep49 just said, but I'll add that I would've appreciated a ping since the announcement does have my signature on it. { &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 04:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @MJL and @Barkeep49, apologies and noted for future reference Thryduulf (talk) 08:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Supreme Deliciousness

 * Original announcement

Arbitration motion regarding Geschichte

 * Original announcement
 * Quick clarification, by "If such a request is not made within three months of this motion or if Geschichte resigns his administrative tools, this case shall be automatically closed, and Geschichte shall be permanently desysopped." do you mean that in three months, Geschichte will be desysopped? -- TNT (talk • she/her) 05:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Geschichte is temporarily desysopped for the duration of the case, which opened in a suspended status today. If they doesn't request that the case be unsuspended, then the desysop becomes permanent in three months. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 05:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ah, the user rights script still shows "Geschichte (A)", didn't realise they'd already been desysopped :-) -- TNT (talk • she/her) 05:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you may be relying on something like User:Amalthea (bot)/userhighlighter.js/sysop.js; the maintainer for that has been inactive for a while, some of the intadmins update it periodically. You might want to try something like navigation popups instead, which doesn't rely on a manual list. —  xaosflux  Talk 14:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I use User:Mdaniels5757/markAdmins, which is somewhat more regularly updated 🙂 -- TNT (talk • she/her) 14:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You might also want to try this version of markAdmins on testwiki.wiki, it's recently been modified to not require manual updating. (NOTE: it's not working on Wikipedia, maybe someone could port it over?) —<b style="background:#000;color:#FFF;padding:1px;">GMX</b><b style="color:#000;padding:1px">(on the go!)</b> 16:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I think a better solution when an administrator is violating policy by ignoring an arbitration request is to just indef-block them. Admins block users all the time for refusing to communicate. Sample motion: "Geschichte is indefinitely blocked for failure to communicate as required by the accountability requirements stated in the Administrators policy. The only requests for unblock that will be accepted are (1) for the sole purpose of communicating at the reinstated request/case until its conclusion, or (2) resignation of the tools. If such a request is not made within three months of this motion, Geschichte shall be permanently desysopped (only regaining the tools via a successful RfA) and remain blocked; any request for unblock thereafter that contains a clear statement that they understand that communication is required may be granted." If such a proposed motion doesn't motivate them to start communicating at the arbitration request, then nothing will.

Don't open a placeholder case that probably won't go anywhere, don't waste time worrying about nonsense like "incentivizing admins to participate" and "motivation" and "psychological effects", just block and move on. This would actually sanction them for obvious misconduct, and not just procedurally remove access to tools that requires no acknowledgment on their part to rejoin the community. If someone (especially an admin) is not sufficiently motivated to follow policy and communicate after being called before ARBCOM, then they should be forcefully shown the door. The current situation, where an administrator is de-sysopped but otherwise free to go about their business, leaves the rest of us still wondering whether they actually understand policy at all. And it gives the appearance of treating admins differently from regular users for the same crime.

Or maybe just throw it back to the community where it probably belongs: "Hey, ANI, you're perfectly capable of coming to a consensus on whether to block someone for failure to communicate, even if that person is an admin. You don't need us." And then, if the block happens, and is not successfully appealed within three months, there could be an automatic trigger in policy or a procedural ArbCom request to permanently de-sysop a blocked admin. Modulus12 (talk) 01:33, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This line of reasoning makes absolutely no sense. We don't indef people over single incidents unless their far more egregious than "made an involved block". * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 01:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What Pppery said. Removing the admin bit isn't punishment, it is removing risk to the project.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 02:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Nobody is asking for punishment. I just don't see the fairness in Geschichte being able to freely edit for 85 days and then come back here to open a case to argue for his tools back. The WP:ADMINACCT refusal-to-communicate violation of policy is indisputable, right? What is the sanction for that? Why can't we apply that sanction right now? Is a de-sysop the sanction, but only three months from now? Or is the de-sysop always just a procedural thing to "remove risk" and creates no negative implication of wrongdoing? If Geschichte is still an admin (temporarily lacking access to the tools), then he should not be doing anything on this Wikipedia until he answers to the questions about his behavior in this arbitration request. If Geschichte is not an admin and not bound by the Administrators policy, then he should be permanently de-sysopped right now, not three months from now. Modulus12 (talk) 03:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * He's not an admin now. There exists a small chance he could become one, either by successfully taking part in the Arb case, or by a successful RFA, but he is not an admin.  When I voluntarily give up my admin bit (something I've done a few times), I am not an admin.  I'm eligible to become one again, but without the bits, you aren't an admin.  I suppose the clothes make the man, you could say. For all intent and purposes, he is permanently desysopped, for while there exists a sliver of a chance he could regain it, it's pretty clear it won't happen.  In the end I asked them to just permanently desysop, but they chose this route, so I have to respect it.  It is a reasonable conclusion, just not my first choice.  Actually, my first choice would be he comes back, admits a cranial rectal inversion problem, and is convincing enough to regain the bits.  It just isn't likely.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If you can get the admin tools back without an RfA, then I would argue you are still an admin for accountability purposes. (Or, it ideally should work that way.) If, during some period of lacking the tools (wikibreak or inactivity or whatever) someone discovers questionable actions in your history, then I would think that should be the first order of business when you start editing again. You shouldn't be able to just ignore it until some arbitrary time in the future when you want to request your bit back. I don't think we want pseudo-admins running around as regular editors when their understanding of policy is questionable. In the end I asked them to just permanently desysop, but they chose this route, so I have to respect it. I don't know if it's the rules or the culture, but it seems strange that the community can't block an admin at ANI when there's apparently a unanimous belief that they are failing WP:ADMINACCT. I don't think there was a single person defending Geschichte's pretend-this-isn't-happening strategy. Modulus12 (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Admin ARE regular editors. When editing, the standard of conduct is more or less the same, although an admin is (should be) given less leeway simply because they should know better than violate policy, versus a newer editor, for example. Btw, when I give up my admin bit temporarily, WP:ADMINACCT doesn't actually apply to me directly.  That is for accountability for things done with the admin bit, or in your capacity as admin, things a non-admin can't do.  For instance, I regularly patrol and work WP:AE, but if I turn in my bit, I can not post in the "admin" section.  Same for SPI.  Same for AN3, for that matter.  Without the bit, you aren't an admin, even if you are eligible to be one.  I could close an AFD as "keep" (the same as any experienced editor) but I couldn't close it as "delete" without the bit. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 18:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Modulus12 - ADMINACCT, unsurprisingly, relates to admin activity. Editors (admins or not) don't have the same obligation to explain themselves with regards to (for example) an article edit. Indefinite blocks are not a sanction that corresponds to ADMINACCT breaches.
 * We only block people for non-communication when there's an ongoing problem that requires communication to resolve. So had Geschite kept doing this, and Arbcom not removed their ability to do so (neither of which is the case) then the Community could block in an equivalent way. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:Communication is required, which does apply to all editors, even admin/editors. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 17:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Nosebagbear, I think there is still an ongoing problem that requires communication to resolve; there's an ArbCom case where Geschichte is free to restart the drama any time he chooses in the next three months and maybe get his tools back. If we're extending that privilege to admins with ANI flu, then I think it should be combined with an indef-block because they shouldn't be doing anything else until it's resolved. Call it a "procedural" indef-block if you want. Although it's really not procedural in this case, which is why I think the block should remain until Geschichte acknowledges why it occurred. The current motion doesn't actually say Geschichte did anything wrong. Modulus12 (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Blocking an admin that refuses to be held accountable at ANI? I'm not opposed to the idea, and I could have simply blocked Geschichte instead of taking him to Arb, but I felt Arb would be more effective.  Of the two, he probably thinks he would have been better off had I just blocked him.  The only problem is that it is tricky to block an admin for doing "nothing" (failing to comply with WP:ADMINACCT).  If they do "something" that is blockworthy, they have been blocked before, although very rare.  There is no current "bright line" for admin failure, so it's kind of complicated as to what constitutes "having the flu" and "obviously doesn't have the flu". Geschichte went back to editing, which proved he was able to participate.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)


 * It should be a week or two. Any admin called to account who doesn't answer in a week or two, and doesn't ask for an extension, should be summarily desysopped for failing to comply with ADMINACCT. No suspended cases, no trying to encourage participation, just start the timer. Extensions should be freely granted, but this three months suspended case standard is stupidly long. Alternatively, any editor taken to arbcom should get the chance for the same three-month "I can keep editing and answer arbcom later" delay. Levivich 20:56, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what your counterpart to the (currently) temporary desysopping would be in regard to cases regarding someone's ability to keep editing the project, rather than with regard to their ability to keep "admining the project" Nosebagbear (talk) 12:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Imagine I move-warred using page-mover perm, then ignored questions on my user talk page, the ignored an ANI thread about it, and the consequence is I can keep editing but my page mover is suspended for 3 months, and I can resume the discussion about my use of page mover, with a panel of 15 or so admins, at any time in that three month period, and then the panel will decide whether it's reinstated. Idk if that seems ridiculously lenient and a waste of editor time to you but it does to me, and it doesn't matter what the perm is: page mover, rollback, template editor, admin, CU, etc. Levivich 04:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The three month thing is new, and vastly superior to what we were doing before. I would expect it will get fine tuned over the next few years, so I'm pretty patient with it, even when I disagree.  The old solution was "Well, we can have a case in absentia, which isn't fair, or we can do nothing" so they usually did nothing. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree but take it further: 1-2 weeks > 3 months > nothing. Levivich 04:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * An admin is a user with access to the tools. A number of admins run two accounts - one with the tools, one without for when they are travelling and/or using public computers. During the time an admin is travelling and using their non-admin account they are still an admin - there may be a delay in them getting to their tool kit, but they are still an admin. An admin in good standing who asks for the tools to be removed (or they are removed for inactivity) can still get access to them after a 24 hour wait, so they are essentially no different to an admin who is travelling. Indeed, they may even be able to access the tools quicker than an admin who is away from home perhaps unable to even access the internet. When Worm was an ArbCom candidate in 2017, and he had resigned the tools, I don't think anybody who voted for him seriously thought he wasn't an admin - he was in good standing and simply had to ask for the tools back, which he eventually did. He was purposefully making a stand as a non-admin candidate to focus on the issue, but it kinda didn't work because he wasn't really a non-admin.
 * In this situation Geschichte is not an admin because he has been suspended. He has no access to the tools, and he cannot get them back by simply asking. He can only get the tools back by going through an ArbCom case and satisfactorily addressing concerns about his conduct, or going through a successful RfA.
 * I think the essential difference between an admin and a non-admin is that an admin has no policy-based impediment to them gaining access to the tools if they require them. SilkTork (talk) 03:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

MustafaO unblocked

 * Original announcement


 * I just want to note that I opposed this unblock. One of the reasons is that I think ArbCom shouldn't unban a 3X-banned user (or any CBAN'd user) unless the ban was incorrect on the merits. ROPE unblocks of CBAN'd/3X-banned users should be done by the community, not ArbCom (though we can facilitate such a discussion by lifting the checkuserblock part of the block, leaving the CBAN part). If the community wants to change that, that's fine, but the policy as it stands says 3X bans "are subject to the same unban conditions as users banned by community discussion" (WP:3X), and CBANs are reviewable by ArbCom "where there are serious questions about the validity of the ban discussion or its closure" (WP:UNBAN) and notably not for ROPE or other reasons. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 19:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I also think I ended up as a decline though I let my vote be squishy so maybe it was counted for something else. In terms of 3X I had been on that line of thought until did the deep dive into the RfC which created that rule and showed that the understanding at that time was not to take ArbCom appeals out of the picture by passing it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll also note that I voted to decline the appeal on the merits. But I disagree with Kevin re:3X. The short version is: my research shows that 3X was intended to prevent an individual CU from taking unilateral action, not to add an extra layer of bureaucracy onto an already bureaucracy filled ArbCom. That of course doesn't stop us from asking the community when appropriate. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm apparently not seeing what you're seeing, Eek. There's a sidebar in the 2018 RfC about this (brought up by BU Rob13's oppose), but I do not think there is a clear consensus for your interpretation, and it's certainly not present in the current wording of 3X. I could support ArbCom reversing 3X due to a reversal of the CU block on its merits' (that is, the CU blocks involved were inherently faulty for some reason or another, which I would consider analogous to appealing a CBAN to arbcom where there are serious questions about the validity of the ban discussion or its closure), but I can't agree with this, and if you all plan to do this again, "the community recommends that the Arbitration Committee more wholly discuss (via a well-publicized request for comments) modifying or clarifying 3X". SubjectiveNotability <sub style="margin-left:-12ex"> a GN franchise (talk to the boss) 20:24, 21 March 2022 (UTC) SubjectiveNotability
 * @GeneralNotability Here's an amended version of what I wrote up on the ArbList, which is a bit more nuanced than my above statement (please note the tone is sharper and less refined than I would otherwise write with on-Wiki, I hope you will overlook that in the interest of transparency and please don't twist my words): I asked around in the Discord, and read through the thread that led to 3X being implemented about 3 or 4 years ago. Only one person in the thread brought up ArbCom, in the context of bureaucracy. If the community had wanted to restrain ArbCom, I'd have expected many folks to talk about that, so the fact that nobody but BURob mentioned it makes me think it wasn't the community's intent. @TonyBallioni (who was the proposer) indicated that 3X effectively wouldn't apply to ArbCom and that it would be a non-issue. He seemed to be of the opinion that 3X was just to prevent individual CU's from unblocking, and to send a strong message to socks. Is that what the community feels now? There was some amusing discussion about statutory interpretation with the Discordites, but I didn't get any clear answers. We could ostensibly interpret policy to mean that we can do with 3X blocks as we please; I think that bears truth based on Tony's "legislative intent". Ultimately though, we may need some kind of clarifying RFC, unless we want to just keep punting to the community.
 * If the community wishes to be consulted on all 3X blocks, there are some issues. First, we need a better way to keep track of 3X blocks. Perhaps the blocking CU on the third occasion should be labelling blocks as such in the log? Second, we need to clarify the criteria. For example, does each additional sockpuppet count as one "occasion" or does just each time they get caught? What if I catch two of their socks this morning, and catch three more later today because I took a break from CU'ing? Is that one or two occasions? Third, we should rethink the CU appeal route. If editors must secure ArbCom and the Community's permission, that creates a lot of bureaucracy, because most socks fall under 3X. At that point, the community is close to saying that it would like to handle all CU unblocks. I don't think I would complain, we spend hundreds of manhours a month on CU appeals. But does the community really want to take that on? Or is the community instead saying that there is no way for socks to ever return short of perfection? CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't object to the unblock, but as others have said, let's straighten out the policy. My comment is this: as a checkuser who has dealt with a number of sock investigations in this sock-infested area, including this particular user, I would have expected a little more consultation. I don't mean that I demand ArbCom gets my approval for an unblock, but I probably know some things that you probably don't. Due diligence and all that. Maybe I just missed the email. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I doubt I fully understand the true intent behind ArbCom members expressing their minority opposition to a decision (I can't help but think that it's partly to distance themselves from a potentially unpopular decision to minimize its impact on their next election?), but perhaps this would be an argument for the committee to do more of its work on-wiki, in plain sight, so that any interested person can read the discussion and understand the nuance of each arbitrator's position. If that were the case, then these kinds of "dissenting opinion" posts would become unnecessary. To be honest, I'd prefer either public deliberations whenever possible, or that the committee acts as a unified body and presents its decisions to the community without individual members expressing how they voted. We realize that most decisions are unlikely to be unanimous, but it seems a bit unfair for one member of the committee to express their opposition when other members aren't given an opportunity to express their support. (And if we did provide a venue for all committee members to express their opinion on every decision, then how would that be much different than just conducting the conversation on-wiki?) I understand that some decisions require the examination of private/sensitive evidence that cannot be posted publicly, but for all other cases: either be fully transparent or don't be transparent at all. <span style="font:bold 15px 'Bradley Hand','Bradley Hand ITC';color:#044;text-shadow:0 0 4px #033,0 0 10px #077;"> —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 23:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * One possible way to address this would be for the announcements to contain the vote, like 6-3, to indicate how divided the committee was about each incident or how united they were. But this might just prompt questions of how individual arbs voted if people tried to guess so it might not be the best solution. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 00:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Scotty, I'll answer since I seem to be the one you're referring to. Just to clarify, you think arbs should refrain from publicly posting their positions unless the entire discussion was public, because it's unfair to the other committee members? Happy to be corrected if I'm misunderstanding. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 00:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I support what Scottywong has said. My preference would be open discussions, failing that, then give the consensus decision and everyone support it, even if they don't agree with it. That's kinda the way consensus operates on Wikipedia. I also understood that what happens in camera on ArbCom is not publicly revealed without consensus agreement. SilkTork (talk) 03:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't intend to direct my comments at anyone in particular (since multiple arbs had expressed their opinions above), but I suppose you started this discussion so it makes sense. I think you've summarized my position fairly well. If a discussion occurs off-wiki and a decision is made, my opinion is that it would be better for the committee to present that decision to the project in a unified way, rather than each arb individually expressing their support/opposition to the decision. Putting myself in the shoes of an arbitrator that supported the majority opinion to unblock in this case, if I came upon this discussion where several arbs express their disagreement with the decision along with their reasons, I would feel as if I'd need to defend the decision and start providing the reasons why I supported it (since none of that information is available to the public), otherwise the community might start to believe that a poor decision was made. This could lead to a rehashing of the entire discussion on-wiki, which isn't particularly efficient. Or worse, it could lead to fractures within the relationships between various arbs, and reduce their ability to work with one another constructively. In short, I don't think it's reasonable to assume that you can talk about off-wiki discussions here in the same way that you can talk about on-wiki discussions. When you choose to have secret deliberations, the rules change. In my opinion (as someone who has never been an arbitrator and likely never will), the committee should strive to do the vast majority of their work on-wiki with full transparency. In cases where private/sensitive information is involved, some part of those cases will always need to be handled in private. <span style="font:bold 15px 'Bradley Hand','Bradley Hand ITC';color:#044;text-shadow:0 0 4px #033,0 0 10px #077;"> —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 06:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that's a reasonable norm to adopt but I don't think it's the norm we do have currently. It's quite normal for us to publish the votes for decisions reached off-wiki, including when the decision is not unanimous (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4). Even when the vote is not explicitly published, it is well within the norms for arbitrators to note their opinion; e.g. at this recent discussion, I was in the majority but appreciated the public notes of two arbitrators who expressed their opposition, which I don't at all think was unfair. There are times when we can't have the full discussion on-wiki but we try to be as transparent as possible, and I think that's the right balance to strike and works reasonably well. In this case, I think my note called attention to a real policy question, about 3X, which I think is proper to discuss publicly. But I'm very open to being convinced otherwise, because the effectiveness and collegiality of ArbCom is important to me – let me know if you want to continue this discussion, possibly on my talk page if you prefer. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 06:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I personally appreciate the dissenters noting such, and their reasoning - in fact, I really appreciate it. You're absolutely right, Scotty, that it might cause that reaction from the majority, but I don't think it would become the norm, and transparency often involves a certain degree of inefficiency and is accepted as a fair trade. We want as much transparency as can be achieved with off-wiki ARBCOM decisions, and here, the detail helped kickstart a discussion on Arbcom/3X engagement. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If the committee wants to highlight specific matters for clarification in order to kickstart community conversation, that's great. I think it can be helpful (though not always necessary) for it to issue a consolidated statement where it discusses various aspects of its reasoning. However, I don't think it's a good idea for individual arbitrators to freelance opinions appended onto a decision statement. In the interest of moving onto implementing the decision, versus multiple sides continuing to argue their points, if any details on the discussion are released, I feel it is better to present them all at once in a concise manner. isaacl (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * FWIW, it doesn't bother me if some members want to post their individual dissents. I'm not that concerned about process here. I think it's possible to have discussions of decisions that were not unanimous, and not bother with discussions when there is no disagreement. I wouldn't want any Arbs to be made to feel reluctant to speak out when they think it could be informative to the community to do so, and I don't see much value in having to stick to a standard procedure for doing it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of the appeals we handle privately actually lack meaningful contention because the cases are so obvious. (As you might identify, this is not one such case, though the contention was not acrimonious.)
 * I agree that in general, we should not be discussing how the sausage was made for decisions taken in private. (There are pros and cons to the practice of 'what's said in the room doesn't leave the room', probably some more obvious than others.) Of course, I would love to discuss what my opinion was in this case, but I'll try not to put my foot in my mouth today.
 * Regarding more public appeals, more recently than not (but starting before the latest tranche), we have started to remove the CUOS portions of the blocks that have standing to be appealed to ArbCom if we come to the conclusion that the CUOS concerns are sorted, and then providing the community the opportunity to take appeals from users. This has a few detractors internally, I think due to the bureaucracy (15 admins should be able to sort out whether a user should be unblocked, I think is the general direction, at the loss of the community getting an opportunity to discuss a user). I know we've talked internally about a broader discussion on whether this is a valuable practice. Izno (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Izno are these sanctions that, notwithstanding the CUOS aspect, would usually be heard by an individual admin on a user talk page? Nosebagbear (talk) 14:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I would say so. First we check to see if there's standing (WP:Arbitration Committee/Ban appeals + #4 all other unblock appeals avenues exhausted). Users get punted onwiki/to UTRS if not. For #1 (CUOS) appeals, while they occasionally have private components ticking off #2 there (that aren't CU related), I'd say that's more rare than not and that individual admins or checkusers could take the appeal. Izno (talk) 22:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I would say so. First we check to see if there's standing (WP:Arbitration Committee/Ban appeals + #4 all other unblock appeals avenues exhausted). Users get punted onwiki/to UTRS if not. For #1 (CUOS) appeals, while they occasionally have private components ticking off #2 there (that aren't CU related), I'd say that's more rare than not and that individual admins or checkusers could take the appeal. Izno (talk) 22:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I have long been a supporter of the committee being as transparent as possible, but it would be a terrible idea to bring every unblock appeal we get to an on-wiki discussion, due to the sheer volume of appeals. As Izno says above, in most cases four or more arbs will quickly agree that the appeal is without merit and it will be declined. I do also think there is some benefit to having a private email conversation with the blocked or banned user. All that being said, when we do announce something like this, where there was a split decision, those who did not support it have every right to say so, and to explain why. (for the record I took a short break while this was being discussed and therefore did not vote on it at all.) Beeblebrox (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Why not have on-Wiki discussions for only those that are likely to be accepted, or some kind of consultation period after it's decided to unblock? Nick-D (talk) 23:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * See my response to you below. Primefac (talk) 07:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * While I presume that this unblock was within policy, I think that it's entirely inappropriate for ArbCom to consider ban and block appeals like this in non-public forums. I really don't understand why the ArbCom unblock process is almost always done in private when most of its comparable business is handled through complex and very public cases. ArbCom should generally also not be in the business of overturning community bans without consultations given that mechanisms for the community to consider whether the ban is still needed exist - for instance, if ArbCom thought that the ban appeal had merit here, why not start a discussion at AN or ANI? I've had some involvement with the problems in this area of editing, and I'm not convinced that ArbCom really understands the implications of what it's just done. As the community doesn't know what assurances the editor provided, this also doesn't inspire confidence. Nick-D (talk) 23:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * For starters, even for those users that are likely to be unblocked there are often private aspects of the conversation, and it would not make sense to have half the conversation on-wiki and half the conversation on the email list; the vague "no CU results" that you get a AN or an SPI report would not suffice in determining if someone has actually managed to stay off-wiki, as the specific details need to be discussed. Additionally, we will sometimes need to comment on off-wiki activity (usually things that happened around the time of the block) which would also be inappropriate to mention on-wiki.If the Community wants to be in control over 3X and CU unblocks, then by all means get consensus to do so; it would take much work off our plates, and I doubt you would find many Arbs opposed to such a proposal. Primefac (talk) 07:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Give 'em enough rope...
As I wrote out my above response to GN, I was struck by a further thought that I'd like folk's feedback on. I increasingly get the sense that the community does not want the committee to grant WP:ROPE unblocks. Is my perception correct? If so, why does the community feel this? I'll elaborate by saying that many of our unblocks are ROPE in the sense that it is a second chance. Once in a while we do truly reverse a block because we thought it was wrong, but I can only think of one off the top of my head. Our CU team does a pretty great job :) CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It's definitely an interesting question —I believe I've had two or so of my CU blocks unblocked as a "second chance" (normally accompanied by a "one-account restriction"). It does beg the question as to why this is limited to just ArbCom, as although I see y'all as fully competent functionaries able to evaluate the CheckUser evidence, providing a second chance unblock doesn't really rely on any more private technical data than "just how badly did they sock?". You're all busy enough, so kicking these sorts of things back to the CU team would hopefully reduce your workload a little, and probably speed up the appeal process a little? ~TNT (talk • she/her) 00:01, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I was pleased to see Maxim reach out on the Functionaries list the other day asking for some more background information regarding an arbcom block from several years ago. Consultation of the form of "we've received an unblock request from X, if you are familiar with the circumstances surrounding the block and you know something relevant that you think we might not, please share it with us by email" need not be bureaucratic and is likely to ensure the committee is aware of any strong feelings the community has. Thryduulf (talk) 00:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear your positive feedback on that, Thryduulf. When we don't do that, we try to email the CU who made the block to give them a chance to comment if there's a reasonable chance we'll grant the appeal. I'm just worried that if we routinely use functs-en, 70% of the functs-en threads will just be appeals . I'll ponder it a bit more. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 00:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, there will be a balance that needs to be struck between being positively communicative and being negatively overwhelming. Obviously there is no need to ask for feedback about ones that you will definitely not be accepting. Metrics to consider as part of your pondering might be "Is there something potentially ambiguous about the situation that led to the block?", "Would granting the appeal likely be controversial?", "Are we (the arbs) significantly divided over the appeal?" or "Are we finding ourselves trying to read between the lines of a community decision/comment/whatever in order to decide whether to accept or reject?". These may or may not be good metrics but if they aren't at least you/we will know they aren't, which will likely be an aid to working out what metrics would be.
 * Consultation needn't be restricted to the Functionaries list of course - in a few (likely not many) cases, a (possibly anonymous) that you've received an appeal involving X issue and would be interested in hearing thoughts about it. Thryduulf (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Any appeal that stands a legitimate chance of being accepted takes a fair amount of discussion. Involving a much larger group, for whom there are not clear methods for knowing when a decision is reached (net 4 or majority for ArbCom) is just going to suck up time from a larger group of people and perhaps make decision making harder. If people are interested in these kinds of appeals, I'd encourage them to run for the committee. We could truly benefit from having people excited to do this work. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)


 * My understanding is not that people are against ArbCom issuing ROPE unblocks, but that a lot of community members are not comfortable with ArbCom lifting a ban imposed by the community, without community discussion/consultation (unless there are defects identified with the validity of the ban itself); ArbCom can facilitate said community unban discussion (i.e. by letting the banned user request an unban to the community, etc.) The idea that "community bans should be lifted by community consensus" seems to be an understandable position. On the other hand, Arbitrators are also community members, and were specifically elected by the community to represent a narrow, dedicated slice of the community with the purpose of tackling particularly tricky disputes and issues. So the current status quo that "ArbCom can lift community bans without community consultation" does not seem unreasonable either. Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  00:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * : WP:ROPE may seem like a reasonable course of action in normal circumstances, but in this particular case, given the extensive record of disruptive activity and the lengths to which they'd gone to evade scrutiny, one wonders what it would take to not be offered a second chance. This is especially pertinent here since they have gone through multiple socking accounts already, so in theory, they've had multiple ROPEs. I obviously can not speak for the community, but as someone who has had a fair amount of dealings with this editor either on their SPIs or cleaning the mess after their socks are blocked, this just feels like the committee is unloading future work on the community (check users who will be running potential future SPIs, admins who will be dealing with future disruptions, as well as the general population of editors on the project) without consultation with the community. It feels like a decision that can come about relatively easily for the committee, but one whose price is paid for by the community. --Kzl55 (talk) 01:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've absolutely no objection to ARBCOM issuing ROPE unblocks for general CUblocks, and I would be a "mild support" for Arbcom being able to directly handle 3X unblocks, including ROPE unblocks, but would like our policy to be amended to match that. I am, however, firmly opposed to ArbCom issuing complete ROPE unblocks in cases where someone has both an ARBCOM block/ban and a (non-3X) CBAN. ArbCom can obviously remove their own sanction, but it should then be sent to community. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the volume concerns can be alleviated by the Committee only requesting consultation from the community if they would consider granting the appeal&mdash;that doesn't happen all that often, and I don't think would be an undue burden. If the Committee is relatively clear that the decision is an obvious "no", decline and move on. On the other hand, if there is a lot of dissent about the appeal or the Committee is considering granting it, I think community consultation would generally be in order. It is generally a matter of public record, via an SPI, which accounts were socks of the banned user, and obviously the community would not need to know any private technical details to make the decision&mdash;the concern there is behavior, and presumably at that point ArbCom has decided that there is no reasonable question of the accuracy of the CheckUser findings. (Obviously, if ArbCom decides that the CheckUser findings were inaccurate and the editor in question was erroneously accused of socking, they should just lift the ban outright as invalid to begin with, but to my knowledge that is extremely rare.) At that point, ArbCom could lift the CU portion of the block (after, if possible, consulting with the checkuser who placed it and considering any concerns they may have based upon private data), and open a community discussion in regards to whether the community ban should also be lifted, and if so with what if any restrictions in place. That discussion could, of course, include a statement from the banned editor which they have agreed to having made public. But it should be an exceedingly rare occurrence for ArbCom to modify or remove a community-based sanction, and I do not think doing so simply for a "second chance" is appropriate. That decision should be left to the community, regardless of how the CBAN came to be placed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 21:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Other restrictions still in force?
It appears from the block log that was 3 strikes banned as a result of SPI's into. I can't tell if those SPI's definitively identified the former as a sock of the latter but if so, would that not mean that MustafaO is still topic banned from Somalia-related topics? Apologies in advance to both editors and the committee if I've confused or misinterpreted anything. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)


 * If a restriction is not lifted then it is still in force -- Guerillero  Parlez Moi 14:28, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you. I guess I really should have been more direct with my question and I apologize for not doing so. The real question is: Are the Middayexpress account and the MustafaO account operated by the same person? If yes, then it appears the outstanding restrictions placed on the former still incumbent on the latter. Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 21:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think it has ever been determined that Middayexpress = MustafaO. Unless I'm missing something, the SPIs are pretty clear about that – that's why the reports were split from each other in April 2020. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 19:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , thanks for clarifying. Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 20:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration motion: Opening of proceedings amendment

 * Original announcement

Appeals updated
I wanted to draw a little attention to the quarterly reports ArbCom has been providing around appeals. In particular given some recent discussions, for this report I can thought it would be useful to know that of the 5 appeals ArbCom accepted, 2 were unblock with conditions (that were posted here), 2 were downgrades to allow the community to handle through normal processes (i.e. still blocked but removing the checkuser element of the block), and 1 was an accept on merit (no error by the CU) due to some unusual circumstances. The merit accept is a little unusual and it's also unusual to not have any that an Arb acted on as an individual admin/CU. But a couple accepted with conditional unblocks and a couple downgraded for community review does feel pretty typical for us each quarter. Also of interest to me is that Q1 came in with fewer appeals than any from last year. Q1 might actually be a lighter than normal quarter for appeals, contrary to conventional wisdom as last year's Q1 was artificially inflated by the large carryover. It will be interesting, assuming this is still being done in a year, to see what happens for Q1 2023. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposed motion to modify the Arbitration Committee Procedures

 * Original announcement

Changes to the functionary team

 * Original announcement


 * Welcome back. There's plenty of work for you to do :-)  -- RoySmith (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, yeah, but when there's a storm warning? He's gonna ditch us in a heartbeat. ;-) Glad to see you back! Katietalk 15:38, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding clerk terms

 * Original announcement

Arbitration motion regarding St Christopher

 * Original announcement

Arbitration motion regarding Ryulong

 * Original announcement

Noted.— Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 23:35, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I find it interesting that ArbCom's looking into remedies from older cases moreso than it has in the past so far this year. Is this mainly the result of internal deliberations about retiring old, mainly unused/obsolete sanctions? —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i> v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 00:14, 8 May 2022 (UTC)


 * This one was because I filed a clarification request. They didn't just do this out of thin air.— Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 00:50, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I can find three other modifications of old cases in 2022: Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 13, Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 13, and Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 13. This one and the first case in my list were straightforward ARCA requests, the second case in my list was a result of WP:DS2021, and the third case was a result of an arbitrator stumbling across a reference to the remedy by chance when doing work unrelated to the arbitration committee. So no evidence of a general desire to review old cases can be seen (unless DS2021 counts), only a few coincidences. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 01:56, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the DS reviews is probably giving a stronger feeling that ArbCom has been looking at old cases, even though it's distinct from the specific modifications Nosebagbear (talk) 11:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Jéské Couriano You are correct in noticing that we've cleared out a lot of older cases this year. As part of DS reform, we focused first on finding obsolete sanctions from the past to clear out the clutter and more effectively assess the DS scheme. We're not looking to rehash old cases, just remove ones which are long stale. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

What about Ryulong? GoodDay (talk) 00:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)


 * What about him? He wasn't blocked per this case, just desysopped and admonished. His ban came later, at GamerGate. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 01:28, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ryulong in this context is the name of an arbitration case, and the fact that it's also an editor's username is not important to this remedy. So, nothing. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 01:56, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

DS reform on the horizon!
Have you been stranded in the doldrums of DS? Driftless on the AE sea? Well fear not, for the crows nest has spotted a fast approaching DS reform consultation! That's right: the Arbs stranded on Arb Island have been busy bashing on our coconut typewriters to implement all the feedback we got last year in WP:DS2021. The practical effects are as follows: Thank you all for your patience on this matter. Smooth sailing, CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Your feedback has been turned into a series of proposals. Within the next month (and aiming for June 1) we will release an RfC style consultation on these proposals which will run for one month.
 * Once the consult is closed, we'll go back to the drafting table to implement feedback, and polish changes.
 * Then by sometime in the late summer or fall we'll put up the final draft, to be voted on by the Arbs.
 * The drafting team has changed. The inestimable Barkeep49 took the lead last year, for which we are very thankful. Unfortunately, all that work on the coconut typewriter has put him out of action, so myself and Wugapodes will be filling in. Kevin will remain a drafter, for which we are also very thankful. Shoutout to all the work Kevin and Barkeep put into DS reform!


 * Have you considered the efficiency might be enhanced by provision of coconut rum? Nosebagbear (talk) 11:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If ArbCom doesn't want it, I do. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What? The reform or the provision of coconut rum? <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 15:55, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ha! Maybe they're the same thing. (Starts humming...) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Rachel Marsden

 * Original announcement

Changes to the functionaries team

 * Original announcement

Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject Tropical Cyclones closed

 * Original announcement


 * Just a question of clarification; what precipitated remedy #10 given that findings of fact #1 & 2 already showed that best practices were in place at the relevant off-wiki forum and still did not prevent problems? Best practices are great and all, but a) they were in place and b) it didn't matter to the case at hand... Curious as to the intent of including it as a remedy... -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Jayron32 there was a bunch of evidence that didn't happen in meaningful ways in that server. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I take it the moderator-pinned warning was considered insufficient to the purpose here? -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The warning didn't come from a moderator. It came from an outside uninvolved administrator (and Arb as it so happens). Pinning a rule would be a passive moderation technique. Stopping things that happen in the moment is active and while there were some messages as things occurred, those messages were inconsistent and somewhat undercut by the mod in question also doing that behavior. The most forceful attempts to stop canvassing came, from the evidence I saw, from Hurricane Noah and not a mod. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As a nit, when I read, "MarioProtIV & NAC", it took me a while to figure out that was referring to WP:NAC. Could it be linked in the original?  -- RoySmith (talk) 17:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Firefly promoted to full clerk

 * Original announcement


 * Congratulations to on his appointment! I'd like to take this chance to express my deepest gratitude to Firefly and the entire clerk team  for their unsung dedication, without which ArbCom's work would come grinding to a halt. While we're here, I also want to thank our departing clerk, who yesterday stepped down (in excellent standing) from the clerk team after three years of dedicated service – we will miss you. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 16:50, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Congrats Firefly! Welcome to the full clerk team!
 * Now you get to have the full Fez hat instead of the cut in half one that trainees get . Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 17:52, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Congrats, Firefly! :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I thought you were already a full-time clerk. Shows how great a job, you've been doing. GoodDay (talk) 03:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, ! -- The SandDoctor Talk 13:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks all :) firefly  ( t · c ) 13:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Geschichte closed

 * Original announcement

Five-word summary: Geschichte's administrator privileges are revoked. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i> v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 21:34, 31 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Sad but necessary. Or sadly necessary. Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sadnecessary. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:00, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * On a related note, I'm thoroughly disappointed and grateful to all the ex-admins who decided to go for a 172-styled exit - disappointed because they would rather not face their mistakes, and grateful because it means ArbCom doesn't have to juggle too many cases at once, given the marathon pace of most Arbitrations nowadays. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 02:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 5 recusals! Izno (talk) 03:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That case is the first time something like this was done, and that's what you latch onto? —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 03:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


 * What's sad is that it could have been avoided with so little effort but they were unwilling.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:11, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I think we'd all be happy if the admins dragged to ArbCom over misuse of tools didn't just go the 172 route and quit Wikipedia in an effort to dodge Arbitration. An admin who's hesitant to defend their actions with the tools is a red flag in itself. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 16:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It does have real "you can't fire me, I quit" energy whenever this sort of situation happens. Personally I think everyone should be willing to defend and be held accountable to* the actions they make, both on and off-wiki, but alas that doesn't seem to be a universally held view.
 * * some exceptions apply, eg health related Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Overall, I think this approach was the right fit. It gave the subject more than adequate time to respond, while also insuring they could not just ignore it and retain the tools. The aspect which didn't work all that well is that March to August is more than three months. We have another admin conduct case that is going to hit its expiration date later this month, hopefully we'll get that dealt with in a more timely fashion. --Beeblebrox (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing closed

 * Original announcement


 * Ummm, what? How is the remedy of warning Lugnuts about behavior in deletion discussions going to be useful, when you have also banned him from them, and then also site banned him? An un-site ban request could always include conditions if they were to be useful later. — xaosflux  Talk 22:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That assumes that Lugnuts' blowup yesterday - which looks more like a suicide-by-administrator action in my eyes - didn't burn any bridges with the community. In fact, I'm pretty certain that blowup was sparked by the voting on the siteban for him, as it makes direct references to some of the arbitrators' rationales. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 22:30, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This might have gone very differently. The total ban was only barely passing when he detonated, and at least one of the arbs who'd voted in favor of it hadn't edited the page since before the middle-of-the-road topic ban was proposed. —Cryptic 22:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If the ban is appealed (however unlikely that now seems) the warning and topic ban will presumably remain in place for some time before becoming successfully appealable. The warning isn't entirely redundant with the topic ban - "disruptive deletion behavior" is broader than deletion discussions and deprodding - and I'd expect it would remain in place after an appeal of the topic ban besides. —Cryptic 22:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * In real life a person can be served up to multiple life imprisonment but I think a site-ban supersedes the topic ban imposed on Lugnuts. Thingofme (talk) 01:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If one wanted to nitpick, one could say that a topic ban's scope isn't entirely subsumed by a siteban's, because in most cases (although not this one) a sitebanned user can edit their talkpage, but would still have to comply with the TBAN on that page. Setting that aside, though, yes, a siteban supersedes a topic ban while the siteban is in effect. If the user is un-sitebanned, the topic ban remains in effect. And there have been a lot of users over the years who've gotten a TBAN+siteban at once, with the latter but not the former later repealed. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 01:11, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The block (is) the enforcement of a official ban and they may include topic bans but after a site ban is appealed, the topic ban remains in effect and they have to appeal again the topic ban... Thingofme (talk) 01:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I admit I was a bit surprised by the warning, in part because of the triple action against Lugnuts and in part because no one else was warned and banned although I definitely recall a number of cases in the past where someone was both warned and banned in some way. And by the same token, I'm sure I recall a number cases in the past where someone was both sitebanned and topic banned, with the assumption if they want to come back the siteban will be lifted, but they will need to prove via editing for their topic ban to be lifted. While unban conditions could be imposed which include a topic ban, IMO it's fine for arbitrators who've viewed all the evidence hopefully in depth and considered everything carefully to decide if they feel if the editor ever comes back, these are some conditions that will be imposed. It also helps clarify to the editor some of what they should expect and may make the appeal less stressful. While more conditions could still be imposed on appeal of the siteban, I suspect it's less likely when there are already conditions ready to be imposed. The only thing which makes this case slightly unique (although I seem to recall this happening at least once before), is what the editor did which made a siteban appeal far more difficult. I guess this gets to the life sentence bit, on wikipedia there isn't really supposed to be a life sentence except perhaps some of those imposed by the WMF. (I know the WMF has an appeal mechanism now, but there seems to be some recognition some bans explicitly those done for childprotect reasons may never be lifted.) An indefinite block or ban is explicitly supposed to be something an editor may eventually successfully appeal. This case may have unfortunately gone into one of those where it's likely to be far harder, however I still can't fault arbcom for applying the principle that it's expected an appeal may one day be successful. Nil Einne (talk) 09:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow. Sorry it came to this. I liked and will miss . Hopefully, they will eventually regain their perspective and return. There is hope in redefining oneself and one's role on Wikipedia. I returned after a three year hiatus, adapted to the changes, and now do things I never considered before. Redefining oneself may or may not come more easily for those who are not blocked and site banned. These are long term users who had been net positives before this debacle. I have only hope and best wishes for them all.
 * I thought the same, perhaps Lugnuts can take this all in for the eventual return-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't imagine how hurt and humiliated they feel. Particularly Lugnuts. So the explosive departure is probably a manifestation of humiliation and hurt. We sometimes forget we are dealing with people with feelings. --  Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:42, 2 August 2022 (UTC)


 * In light of the full text of the remedy about requesting community comment, it would be good if ArbCom makes some kind of announcement that includes those details and/or gets the process under way. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for following up on this Trypto. I will make sure this stays on our agenda and will hope to have a public update soon, though for ArbCom soon means closer to weeks than days. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 23:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I will be disappointed if our next announcement isn't closer to days than weeks. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:49, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Is the banned user template for editors banned by ARBCOM supposed to be hidden? It was apparently caused by this change in 2016. suppress the banner on user pages of users banned by arbcom, and instead add them to a hidden category  starship .paint  (exalt) 06:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * apparently, yes, but it really shouldn't be. Still shows up in the category of users banned by ARBCOM -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  06:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I checked the history of my userpage, for when I was banned from Apr 2013 to May 2014. The template can't be seen, during that time period. GoodDay (talk) 06:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. It was a good change. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 06:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, why was it changed? -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  08:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Rockstone35 I believe this was covered in this discussion which I see you've already been a participant in. covers it well at that discussion. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 08:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Huh, that does answer my question. Somehow, I barely remember participating in that! See you when I ask the same thing in 2025! --  Rockstone  Send me a message!  08:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Related to this, these edits have shown up on my watchlist:, . I have a gut feeling that this should not have been done, and it was flawed reasoning to conclude it from the Lugnuts example. But I don't want to act unilaterally, as it's above my paygrade, so I'm asking for clarification here. Courtesy ping to . --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This is now being discussed at WT:RFAR. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 3 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Meanwhile, the whole deletion-related area is still a toxic dumpster fire. Black Kite (talk) 09:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that the community is continuing to struggle with how to handle the large changes to the Sports SNG. That is in scope of the RfC. If you have other ideas of how we should address it I am open to those thoughts, because I too recognize the issues that are present. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:24, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I've been in a 'few' Sports-related AfDs. My response to any questions on what position I take is simply "I'll let the closer decide on whether my 'post' should be ignored or not". I never let myself get bludgeoned. -- GoodDay (talk) 15:11, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * And I don't have a hazmat suit. I abandoned all hope for that part of W long ago. Some things never change. I remember reading of an ArbCom case because an admin pointily deleted what was then Votes for deletion. (Before my time.) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I have not got much time recently, and I try to avoid AfD when possible, so I did not follow the case closely, and I do not have any opinion on its merits. What I would like to say, however, is that back in 2018, Lugnuts for some reason unclear to me was following me around, commenting in the same discussions I commented, trolling, and trying to keep as close to the line as possible without formally crossing it. At some point, I overreacted, and I got a warning of an administrator that I would be blocked soon, and she was really serious. (Lugnuts did not receive a warning). This was the only serious block warning which I have got on any Wikimedia project in 15 years. I stopped editing, stopped checking my watchlist, but at the end decided to come back and continue editing. I am writing this to say that Lugnuts had the guts, completely unprovoked, a year later to come to my talk page and apologize. Most of the users who behaved in a similar way never did, most of them doubled down when they had a chance. I hope Lugnuts will find some way to appeal the ban and to become a constructive user.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It is nearly always my hope that when someone is banned, they see it as an opportunity to take a break, and maybe return in the future after re-assessing what was motivating them to act in such a way that it led to them being banned. So, even though I was the first one to vote in support of banning them, I hope the same. It's unfortunate that they chose to go out the way they did, that will certainly make it more difficult to return, but this community can be very forgiving if a person is patient, honest, and sincere when they do appeal. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There's a reason that bans can be indefinite, but never lifetime or forever - we always have some hope that the user will understand the error in their ways and make a successful appeal. Most don't, and for some it will be harder than others, but the option is certainly there. 93.172.250.2 (talk) 00:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Global bans are forever. Ymblanter (talk) 05:49, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Ymblanter The foundation established a Case Review Committee a couple of years back to handle appeals for certain types of foundation bans, and community imposed global bans can be overturned via an RFC on meta. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Some foundation bans are not forever and maybe in one project, like Fram case in 2019. Thingofme (talk) 15:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Thingofme The foundation stopped using time limited or individual project bans a few years back, after the fallout from the Fram ban, see the note at the bottom of Office actions. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's an interesting thing. During my 1-year vacation, many of the items I wash pushing for at some British & Irish political pages (which partially led to my ban), eventually got passed without my participation. So sometimes, the message is correct, but the messenger just isn't arguing for it properly. GoodDay (talk) 13:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Lugnuts "blowup" was relatively mild as such things go, so I wouldn't worry about it. Maybe more worth mentioning: at bottom, at least regarding Lugnuts, this is a bot or meatbot case.  The proposed rfc about mass deletion is also about how to deal with certain [meat]bot issues.  That doesn't seem to have been remarked in the case itself. The suggestion of requiring Lugnuts to fix his own mess imho reflects naivety or inexperience of whoever made it.  It's an attractive and well-meaning idea, but Beeblebrox got it right: it never works.  Anyone who has seen enough of these cases should understand that by now.  There is also supposedly a Korean saying, that if a doctor makes you sick, don't go to the same doctor to ask him or her to make you better.  I don't see much new here.  Fast and repetitive editing (typically automated even if the person doesn't admit this) makes people crazy.  This is just another example. Maybe I've missed a few incidents but the mass deletion RFC doesn't sound that promising.  Mass deletion proposals arise from different kinds of situations, and treating them case by case has been ok as far as I know.  Before launching an RFC, I'd suggest doing a study of past situations to see if there are enough observable common patterns to support generalization.  I wouldn't support proposals that aren't based on observation of that sort.  2601:648:8201:5DD0:0:0:0:34C5 (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That was a blowup? Drmies (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Krakatoa -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:19, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Community Comment and RFC
One of the next steps listed is the development of an RFC on how to handle mass nominations for deletion, and possibly how to deal with mass creations. Two arbitrators, User:L235 and User:Barkeep49, have referred to the fact that this is a next step. I think that there should be a preliminary period of discussion before the publication of the RFC, intended to refine the scope and wording of the RFC. I am willing to moderate the preliminary period of discussion, which will include asking the community for specific neutrally worded questions to include in the RFC. I think that at least some editors agree that some RFCs fail to determine consensus because they are not properly worded, and that it will be useful to work on an RFC of this importance before it is published.

Moderated discussion in the development of the RFC will not be the same as the role of a moderator after the RFC is published. Post-publication moderation will consist largely of collapsing off-topic or tangential discussion, while pre-publication moderation has to do largely with determining the wording of the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Above all, we'd have to be extra determined not to allow bludgeoning, in such an RFC. GoodDay (talk) 13:06, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Given that there's an explicit ask for the mod(s) to consult the community there will definitely be a pre RfC phase. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:GoodDay that it is necessary to prevent bludgeoning. How I would try to prevent it as moderator would be to provide a section for back-and-forth discussion and to disallow back-and-forth discussion or responses to other editors except in the section for the purpose.  Pre-RFC, the moderator asks questions, and the editors address their replies to the moderator and the community.  Back-and-forth discussion is permitted only in the section for that purpose.  In the RFC, answers to the questions with supporting statements and back-and-forth discussion are again in separate sections.  If back-and-forth discussion gets out of hand, or one editor comments on everything, the discussion will be collapsed; but any out-of-place replies will immediately be collapsed with a warning.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * When is it going to open? –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 23:16, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The arbs are actively discussing possible mods and closers. I'm hoping we can announce those (or at least the mod) soon so that the community consultation phase can begin. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Reviewing the Stubs
Another, unrelated next step is that there should be a process to review at least some of the stubs created by Lugnuts, in particular to selectively check them to sample whether they contain errors or copyvio (based on the parting comment that may have been trolling), as well as to answer (based on a sample) any other questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I believe some people did/have been doing spot checks at a CCI and found no CV issues (most of the articles are too short to have any real CV in them). Not sure if they were checked for facts but IMO those comments were trolling and unlikely to be factual. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 06:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That is what some of us thought, and is a relief. Trolling by an editor who is being sanctioned is very undesirable, but not nearly as bad as what was falsely described, which would have been long-term systemic vandalism.  Lugnuts is a stubborn editor, not a vandal.  Genseric was a Vandal.  Robert McClenon (talk) 12:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * True enough, but I've lost what shred of sympathy I might have had for them when they went out like that. The display of utter contempt for community processes is indicative of what Lugnuts really thought about Wikipedia, that it was their show, the rest of us be damned. The above expressions of desire that Lugnuts may one day return in light of the years of ANI discussions and their reaction to this case mystify me. -Indy beetle (talk) 14:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I politely disagree, and I have sympathy. To make 93,000 Wikipedia stubs is an extraordinary commitment to building an encyclopaedia, and I believe that a lot of Lugnuts' interactions were with editors who liked and admired him.  He thought he was a rock star -- he clearly wasn't expecting to be sitebanned, and when he realized that was what was really happening, I think he reacted like an employee who sees security coming to escort him out of the building.  He kicked over the wastebasket, spat on the floor and waved two fingers at his manager as he went.  That's not really contempt for the community, it's stress and pain coming out.  We can forget him: he's not going to start again from scratch and try to write another 93,000 stubs.As for dealing with his 93,000 stubs, I would propose that we create WP:CSD#X3 -- a special speedy deletion criterion that applies only to stubs created by Lugnuts that have never contained more than 500 words and never cited any source that isn't a database.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 21:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * They are not enough to speedy deletion, they may be reconsidered by case-by-case basis. We don't create new CSD criteria to solve articles created by solely one editor, see WP:NEWCSD. Thingofme (talk) 01:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Instead, we should open 100 AfDs a day for two and a half years to consider them on case-by-case. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, we do. WP:X1 * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 01:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure Neelix once had a special CSD to remove all of his unwarranted redirects, but that may have been too long ago. (EDIT: was ninja'd by Pppery.) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Special CSDs for one editor can be represented as G5 but this is only a violation of his ban, however those stubs maybe contestable and not merit a CSD (we only consider very short stubs, less than 500 words) Thingofme (talk) 04:17, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that discussing or organizing a review of his articles is probably better-suited for WP:VP or possibly WT:CSD or WP:AN. IznoPublic (talk) 04:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I have been reviewing many of the women's cricket articles created by Lugnuts, which he conveniently listed in User:Lugnuts/Cricket and, as a sample, I would say well over 50% need attention. Typically, they contain two or three short sentences with an information box. All the information has been lifted from a statistical database and converted to basic text. They are little use to anyone and must surely discourage readers, so they are a constraint on Wikipedia and not a benefit as the cricket project members apparently believe. I certainly think they should be removed somehow and the ideas raised above seem to me to be worth pursuing.
 * Lugnuts is not, however, the sole creator of large numbers of minimal info stubs in the cricket project and I think the community needs to include other members of that project in its deliberations. AssociateAffiliate, for example, claims to have made over 60k creations. I looked at these and the vast majority of them are stubs with a size of 3–5 kB, if that. I would propose a CSD#X3 for all cricket articles, not just those by Lugnuts, which do not meet the 500 word limit suggested by User:S Marshall above.
 * I am going to be away for a period after today but I will keep this in my watchlist and will try to help when I come back. Thank you.
 * Sistorian (talk) 13:02, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem extends beyond cricket, and even beyond sports. I believe we need to do two things. First, we need to stop future mass creation of articles without community consensus. Second, we need to address the historic mass creation of articles.
 * For the first, we need to make it clearer that WP:MASSCREATE applies to large numbers of similar manually created articles, and we need to monitor article creation to identify when editors are violating this requirement. We also need a clear process for approving mass creation; approval should require a clear scope and an RfC.
 * For the second, I am looking to identify articles sourced only to database sources; unfortunately due to templates like Template:Sports links this list is extensive, and individual items will need to be discussed. Once identified, I suggest we group the articles in some manner - by creator, by creation month, or by category - and have a discussion proposing that they are all moved out of article space. If moved interested editors would be free to improve them or create new articles in their place, if they meet WP:GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 14:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No, we should not be speedy deleting all cricket stubs solely because they're stubs. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * We need to implement an efficient process to delete those. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 14:54, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I thought we were here to build an encyclopedia. There is no "efficient process' to determine the notability of the subject of any article. Even a stub. A thorough WP:BEFORE and then a WP:ProD or WP:AfD --  Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

If it were up to me (but it isn't), I'd have all the stubs deleted. Re-start with a clean slate. GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You'd support demolishing more than a third of the entire website?!? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Lug's stubs, only. GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The way that that the big fuzzy wp:notability system actually works How Wikipedia notability works is that topics that are clearly highly encyclopedic / have unusually strong compliance with wp:not get a more lenient notability sourcing standard applied. Regarding stubs, this applies to geographic places and species and maybe one more highly enclyclopedic category that didn't come to mid.  IMO those should stay.  Once you set those aside, the remaining stubs are are probably about 10% of Wikipedia's articles and roughly 0% of it's enclyclopedic content. And I'd say yes, delete all of those. A good place to start would be all "database only" stubs about individual people.  Or Lug's stubs about individual people.  <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk)
 * I agree with GoodDay and in part with North8000 relative to keeping the species stubs. As for the geographic places, there's no shortage of maps and tourist brochures, so delete them rather than committing other volunteers to spending countless hours verifying their notability. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme  💬 📧 16:14, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, in particular bios, living or not. Stubs don't really helps the encyclopedia with these, plus are not watched by anyone, adding to the potential for abuse.  With plants and animals, those tend to get fleshed out over time, as the parent categories get worked on my knowledgeable individuals. Same with geography stubs, something I actually work on.  Often, it is just taking one or two sentences and turning it into two paragraphs, but that is still useful for towns, counties, etc.  Geo stubs or species can be deleted or kept, depending on if they have at least something credible as a source.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 16:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Fwiw I'm fairly sure Lugnuts had the vast majority of their stubs on a watchlist - based on what happened whenever I edited one. I imagine my watchlist is 50% stubs at least, although nowhere near as extensive as theirs. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Far more than a third. Levivich 20:23, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Modified proposal
When you're trying to eat an elephant, do it one plate at a time. Eating the elephant in individual tiny nibbles at AfD is impractical, but so is trying to swallow it whole. The best method for enacting a speedy deletion criterion is to define it clearly and strictly, then ask the community to authorise it at RfC.

I propose that we set up a series of subpages with names like Articles for deletion/Projects/Lugnuts stubs, Articles for deletion/Projects/BLP stubs sourced only to databases, etc. At each subpage we develop a proposal for a very specific and tightly-constrained temporary speedy deletion criterion. When each proposal's fully developed we move it to Articles for deletion/Projects/Lugnuts stubs/RfC, etc., so there's a clean-sheet page where we hold a full RfC for the community to decide whether to enact it. These RfCs should be listed at WP:CENT. If passed, they should generate a fresh index number, so the first to pass is WP:CSD#X3, and others are CSD#X4 and on.

After my experiences with WP:CSD#X2 I suggest that before each RfC is closed, we work up a complete list of the pages that would be affected, identify at least three named editors who're willing to work through each backlog, and at least two named sysops who're willing to actually carry out the speedy deletions when the stubs are appropriately reviewed and tagged. It's particularly important that we don't enact a rule that generates an endless string of queries and quibbles from the sysops who're asked to enforce it, so keep things very clear and rigorously-defined at all times.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 17:39, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I must admit. I'm impressed with 'how many' stubs one editor can create. GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Ovinus (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * An issue you'll face will be identifying which articles are sourced only to databases. Some "database only" sources actually contain considerable prose. Take, for example, CricInfo, a source likely to be considered a "database". Well, the problem is that it isn't always just a database. For example, this CricInfo profile is clearly not simply a database entry, whereas this one is. I began looking through a list of over 1,000 stubs created by which would probably be ones that are similar, if not worse. I'm tending to find that between 15 and 20% have some kind of prose profile in their CricInfo link - so in these cases it's not just a database. The same can be true of CricketArchive and of Olympedia I'm afraid: in some cases they're prose sources as well as database sources.
 * I've no idea how to resolve this - but there is plenty of evidence that with time and sourcing there are articles which can be developed into absolutely decent quality articles with plenty of sourcing - one nominated at AfD earlier this year now has in excess of 50 sources. Not every article will do that, but I can easily find another two in the same boat: all three Lugnuts articles with only database sourcing. We're in danger of throwing the baby out with the bath water here and losing really nice content - apparently in all three cases the nominator had done a thorough BEFORE - the three articles combined now have 135 sources... Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I am genuinely thrilled that these articles are being developed. But if we delete a database stub, what is stopping people from recreating it in with more references? The issue is that a large number of these stubs are not notable. It takes less than five (leisurely) minutes to create a stub, but perhaps over an hour of editor time (often painful and stressful) to conduct an extensive search of sources and conclude a lack of notability. One could argue that these stubs are seed crystals for substantial articles, but the majority are not. There is simply no existing, standard process to clean up the mess.
 * Anyway, I think this debate has occurred ad nauseam but I think a well-moderated RfC should sort things out. Ovinus (talk) 23:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , see Brandolini's law. 😆 <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 18:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I was a perhaps minor player in the X1 cleanup project and recreation of any deleted content by a user in good standing was explicitly allowed then, and probably should be now. The idea, then and now, is to streamline the process, and that includes streamlining objections to specific deletions. (it still took nearly three years to complete... hopefully we're not in that deep this time around) Beeblebrox (talk) 00:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Worth noting that in the case of cricketers that there are very often suitable lists to redirect to - i.e. an ATD. That makes expansion much more likely in my view - I don't have to find the sources that act as the seed myself. It might take a little more time though - although, as below, categorisation would help. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:08, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hm, a reasonable compromise would be to recommend eager use of redirect targets (per ATD, as you say), and only speedy delete (or speedy move to special draft space, etc.) those database stubs with no plausible target. One oft-cited concern of the database stubs is that they can "shadow" more notable subjects, but a redirect seems unproblematic: An editor would probably see that, no, 1923 British cricketer John Smith redirecting to XYZ team is not the bloke I want to write about. Either way, the friction for cricket enjoyers to create well-referenced articles is minor—just convert the redirect.
 * As an aside, thank you, Blue Square, for shaping up many of these stubs at AFD. I trust your comment below, that more of the stubs than I thought, perhaps more than half (!) in some classes of stubs, are candidates for substantial articles. Ovinus (talk) 07:27, 6 August 2022 (UTC) Revised 08:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Just a quickie to reinforce, that’s a subset. Essentially all British county cricketers. That’s where using categories will help.
 * Redirect will mostly help though. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:48, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. Fwiw, taking a look at a fairly random sample of Lugnuts cricket stubs, I haven't found any obvious factual errors beyond the odd typo. Similar sorts of proportions seem to apply in similar situations as well and it would be possible to also create a list of higher priority articles to work on (ones such as William Neale (cricketer) for example) - but redirecting will help this process so much. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Going back to the BlackJack list of a little over 1,000 - my gut feeling is that 50% are very, very clearly candidates for substantial articles. That's a specific sub-set of cricket stubs which might be partly identified using categorisation. If that can be done first then it might be possible to manually identify the articles that we think are definite seed crystals in a relatively short period Billed Mammal started a conversation at the cricket wiki project and I've managed to do this myself for over 300 of the 1000 BlackJack stubs in a couple of days - and, fwiw, I was being harsh in my judgement. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:08, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I would note that almost all prose in cricinfo entries is simply statistics in prose form, rather than anything approaching WP:SIGCOV.
 * However, this is why I prefer moving them out of article space instead of deleting them; though I generally agree with Ovinus, I believe there are a few benefits and no harm in keeping the articles around outside of article space. BilledMammal (talk) 02:43, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Even if it were true that the prose in CricInfo profiles were simply stats, sports are generally statistical in nature. Of course there are stats in the prose - but that context is what makes then not a database. I thought the point here was that we were identifying the articles which are only linked to database sources: that's the objection, isn't it? In which case you need to filter out the articles that do have non-database sources, surely? And that prose often has plenty of context that would form the basis of a great article: try any of the articles linked from Template:Kent County Cricket Club squad, for example. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:08, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * My objection is to the large numbers of mass created articles that don't demonstrate notability, are often on non-notable topics, and violate WP:NOTDATABASE. The reason for this is that they make the encyclopedia worse; they are detrimental to the reading experience, they lower the public perception of Wikipedia, and they make it harder to improve and maintain Wikipedia. In addition, the quantity of them makes it almost impossible to review them individually.
 * Identifying these articles at scale is difficult, which is why one proposed technique is to look at articles that are sourced solely to database sources. Rarely, this will include articles whose database source includes prose that provides significant context to the stats rather than merely repeating them, but I don't see that as an issue, because these articles still violate WP:NOTDATABASE. For example, this list articles created in February 2015 sourced solely to a partial list of database sources.
 * An alternative technique is to identify editors who have engaged in the mass creation of articles and produce a list of articles that they have created that are currently short, and have received minimal contributions from other editors. For example, see this list of articles created by Lugnuts.
 * Both of these can then be refined; for example, we can limit the lists to stub-class biographies on gymnasts, and I would note that neither of these techniques would result in any of the articles linked in that template being removed from article space.
 * Personally, I am leaning towards the alternative technique for practical reasons; the queries take considerably less time to run, and producing a complete list of database sources will be difficult. BilledMammal (talk) 09:29, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand that reviewing all of a large quantity of articles manually is problematic, but when you start talking in more general terms it gets to the stage where there needs to be a manual review of each article. Now, if you can give me a list of dead cricketers where the article is less than about 500 words and sourced only to either CricInfo or CricketArchive (or other database style profiles) I'll tell you how long it'll take to manually review each source and determine a redirect target, or whether there isn't one or whether there is prose sourcing in either of those sources. How long it'd take will depend on whether I can convince other people to contribute to that process. That process might then be applicable to other sports - there are way more football, baseball, basketball, gridiron etc... editors for example - assuming that there are editors who are willing to undertake the work and will accept the need to compromise for the benefit of speed. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)


 * What's the best method to go about opposing all of this and to more easily and actively remove all prods and such added to any of Lugnuts' stub articles (prods that I can basically 100% guarantee will have involved 0% WP:BEFORE done by the nominators)? What's the easiest way to prevent this active attempt to harm Wikipedia by all those above? Because you know what the solution is to Lugnuts being banned? Doing absolutely nothing in response. CCI has already shown that his copyvio claim was boasting nonsense and there's no evidence whatsoever that his articles have general problems, especially those that are stubs and are short enough to not even have copyvio or other such issues in the first place. Silver  seren C 03:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Mass created microstubs are a problem on their own for various reasons, not least WP:NOTDATABASE. BilledMammal (talk) 03:47, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Also the fact that (especially with Lugnuts' banning) we now have a ton of stubs that have nobody watching them at all. New articles get patrolled, at least, so a new article created with obvious BLP issues or the like will get caught; but completely-unwatched articles are ticking time bombs in the sense that if we don't have some way to either get eyes on them or delete them, eventually one of them is going to end up saying something awful on par with the incident that originally led us to create WP:BLP in the first place. It is not enough to simplycreate articles, we have to be able to maintain them. --Aquillion (talk) 08:27, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Is there a way as an interim solution to create an effective watchlist for the stubs that the community could track of? Pale Aqua (talk) 18:41, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Silver seren, the "best" method is to convince concerned editors that the stubs are not a problem, or to propose alternative solutions or compromises which address their concerns. As a relative newcomer here, I can understand the passion people have over the sports stubs, and also the annoyance at their creation; from the latter perspective the stubs are essentially a giant fait accompli. But so far, those in favor in deletion generally seem more willing to compromise. Ovinus (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely that there needs to be compromise. Fwiw I've seen fairly fundamentalist behaviour from both sides of the debate and whenever I've suggested that there needs to be middle way seem to have been largely ignored much of the time. The ways in which we compromise needn't necessarily be the same on each type of article (BLPs, for example, are clearly in a different sort of category), but if compromise can make all of this a lot more manageable then that's certainly to the good. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I think BLP stubs based only on a database are more of a serious problem than other database stubs as BLPs are abide to a more stricter rules and BLP cited only on a database can be WP:BLPPRODed. Thingofme (talk) 13:15, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * BLPPROD only applies to BLPs with no sources in any form. I don't think that applies to any of these stubs, and mass nominating them under BLPPROD will probably be seem as disruptive behavior to make a point. (Not saying that you're going to do so, of course.) Ovinus (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Such databases shouldn't count as reliable sources. I've worked on data integrity, and the idea of relying solely on a database for prove that someone exist is just bad. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:04, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Part of the point is that they're aren't just databases in all cases. I've literally just finished working on an article based, in part, on this "database entry". If anyone wants to quibble with the authority of Wisden in cricketing matters feel free to take it up with someone important... Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If Wisden had a database with an entry of a player name, and details of one first class match that that player played in in 1935, and none of those details could be verified elsewhere (onus on creator), then yes I very well "quibble" with with its authenticity whether it's from Wisden or St. J. Anderson ( long my he bowl ). Everyone sane should as well. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Blue Square Thing - Regarding the prose-profiles on Olympedia and Cricinfo: it is not clear where this data comes from and I have seen instances of it being flat-out wrong (eg wrong death-dates, life-history etc.). It appears to have been written by volunteer, wiki-like projects, often on the basis of what appears to have been input from the families of the people in question, without rigorous fact-checking. Why should this data be treated as reliably sourced? FOARP (talk) 09:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I suppose that depends: in this case, for example, I'd suggest that, despite the minor inaccuracy, that the source is generally considered reliable. Published sources like that will often be used on CricInfo - and published sources do contain errors occasionally, as do newspaper articles and websites; you'd hope they'd still be seen as reliable in general. I've used Olympedia less, so I know less about it, but the prose seems useful as a starting point for where to look for more detail. If you're telling me that we're at IMdB levels of problem, then, OK, sure. But we're not at anywhere near that level with CricInfo or, where it exists, the prose elements of CricketArchive for that matter. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposal for X3
On the one hand, I agree with User:S Marshall that we should create a special CSD category X3 to deal with the Lugnuts stubs. I disagree with those editors who say that we shouldn't create a special category to deal with one editor, and S Marshall is right that there has been a precedent of X1 for the redirects. On the other hand, we should not create that CSD category now, but should wait until after the RFC is worked out and published, because creating the CSD category can and should be one of the actions in the RFC, which will probably be multiple RFCs or a multi-part RFC. In other words, any discussion of the Lugnuts stubs now is pre-discussion, knowing that it will be re-discussed. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:20, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe this would be something to discuss/raise at WT:CSD. Primefac (talk) 11:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I object to any speedy deletion of Lugnuts' stubs. They each should be judged on their own merit. Many (probably most) are notable, some are not. We should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Which is it? You object to speedy deleting any of them, or they should be judged on their own merit? Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 14:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm saying none should be speedy deleted. Some may need to be brought to AFD, PROD, but CSD is not a sensible option in my opinion. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. Unless a claim for the regular CSDs or BLPProd can be made for a given article, it should only be deleted via Prod or AFD. Nominate them at a rate of 5 per day at PROD, and if contested then they can go to AFD at a rate of maximum 5 per day. 80.230.59.139 (talk) 16:02, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 40000 stubs / (5 stubs / day) = 8000 days ≈ 21 years. Ovinus (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Based on the number of 93,000 stubs stated above by, at a rate of 5 stubs per day, it would take 18,600 days or 50.92 years to PROD all, assuming the worst case scenario that all are worthy of deletion. Similarly if all are contested at PROD, then it would take another 50.92 years to nominate all for AFD. So such a proposed cleanup could theoretically take over a century in the worst case scenario. While the number of bad stubs will hopefully be lower than that, you're still talking about multiple decades of cleanup via this mechanism, which based on similar multi-year cleanup operations at CCI is just not feasible. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't care how many stubs he has created. Articles still should not be speedy deleted just for being stubs. That's completely nonsensical. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * At the risk of spoiling everyone's argument, there is the draftification option that was used for Sander.v.Ginkel: draftify all the stubs, and let interested individuals save/improve/restore the useful drafts. Anything that is not sufficiently improved will eventually be deleted via G13. It gives everyone plenty of time to save the useful pages without speedy, but also means that the pages that no one will ever touch still get deleted. Primefac (talk) 19:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * With the exception of one editor above whose suggestion doesn't seem to be gathering much traction, I don't think anyone has said the stubs should be deleted purely because they are stubs. Most above have pointed out the significant sourcing issues with the stubs created by Lugnuts, which results in them failing guidelines like WP:GNG and WP:SNG.
 * Re-framing the problem, we have 93,000 stubs of which many fail our notability guidelines. A speed limit of 5 PRODs and 5 AFDs per day, would result in a cleanup taking up to a century in the worst case scenario of all of the stubs being bad. How do you propose we solve this problem in a timely manner, and that does not in the long term take significant editorial energy and time away from other important content areas? Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think anything needs to be done about his stubs. If someone thinks he created an article failing GNG – nominate it for AFD or PROD. Also, I oppose any speed limit for nominating his articles at AFD. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that taking them to AfD without a speed limit isn't very realistic. Editors complain, and they're right to do that, because there's a limited amount of time and attention available at AfD and we can't spend it all on Lugnuts for the next several years.  The arbitration case that gave rise to this discussion is, to a substantial extent, about people overusing AfD.  What we need to do is follow Wikipedia policy.In this case the relevant policy is set out in WP:BLP:  Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources.  These are mostly biographies of living people to which that rule applies with full force.  We shouldn't use AfD, because it's a mass-cleanup job, and AfD is not for cleanup, so editors will rightly reject its use for that purpose.  And as a further consideration it's not procedurally fair to use AfD.  Lugnuts was creating these articles at the rate of one every two or three minutes, and a properly conducted WP:BEFORE takes at least ten or twelve, so it's disproportionate and unfair to expect a full WP:BEFORE on each one.  Where sourced only to databases these articles never complied with policy, so the process should be check, tag, and where appropriate immediately delete without an individual discussion.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 22:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Fwiw, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if this ends up being about a lot more than Lugnuts' stubs. From memory, the ArbCom suggestion was for an RfC regarding mass creation/deletion, yes? That seems like it's a lot broader than just however many of Lugnuts' articles are database-only stubs and, given what happened with the sport notability RfC, it seems likely that this RfC will end up much broader than these. I'm hopeful that some of the comments above about moderation will help, but given how a small number of users dominated the sports RfC I imagine we'll see the same sort of process here. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It will end up being about more than Lugnuts stubs, and that's why I suggested a series of RfCs.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 12:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)


 * But on the same coin of "anyone can take mass stub articles to AFD", anyone can recreate the articles if they could find good coverage other than Lugnuts' databases. I prefer we TNT all these "X player exists + infobox + database" articles in exchange for better manually created articles. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:47, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I think we might be able to adopt slightly different approaches depending on the subject matter. Right now I don't think we know too much about how many articles we're dealing with and what they cover; we suspect we have a lot of biographies of athletes, but those fall into different categories and not all of them are stubs and not all of those stubs simply rely on database sources. What works for cricketers (where, best guess, Lugnuts created perhaps 10,000 articles, almost all of which will have a sensible redirect target) might not work at all for cyclists or gymnasts. For me, with cricketers redirection works much, much better than deleting the articles - we'll just create a bunch of red links from the lists which creates all sorts of other problems.
 * Another factor is the time frame that people have in mind to deal with these. I don't know what the time frame was in the other cases people have referenced here. Obviously 50 years is far too long, but what sort of time frame do people have in mind? Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:REDLINK is the relevant policy; we shouldn't be trying to avoid them if it is possible that the topic is notable. BilledMammal (talk) 10:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I've found enough random incoming links that no one thought to check in articles to understand why red links to people's names are a really, really bad idea in stuff like this. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - Violation of WP:MASSCREATE should be a stand-alone basis for PROD, and WP:BUNDLE and should be explicitly mentioned as so.
 * Blue Square Thing - "Sensible redirect target" is a bit of a red herring since in nearly every case the "sensible" redirect target will be a page where the subject isn't at all mentioned and in many cases will be only one of a number of clubs for which the player played, and that player is typically only one of many people with that name so it is in reality not a very sensible redirect target at all. Articles for deletion/Harry Oppenheim is the classic example of this - the subject wasn't actually called "Harry" but Heinrich, we already have an article about a Heinrich Oppenheim, "Harry" Oppenheim was one of half-a-dozen people who were similarly (non) notable to have names that could be nick-named "Harry", the redirect target was a team they played for  once  and not the team they played for multiple times (though this also is a page where they are never going to be mentioned).
 * In reality if these redirects were being created from-fresh NPP and others would be quickly asking questions as to what the creator was doing. Instead they are created at AFD where no-one would be bothered to DELREV a redirect close into a delete close because ultimately it would be pointless and the trouts would come thick and fast for anyone who tried it. I'm OK with that, up to the point where the possibility of redirection becomes something that stops us clearing these notability-failing stubs up, at which point they are no longer simply WP:CHEAP. But for those cases where a redirect does make sense, deletion does not prevent re-creation as a redirect, so it is not clear why it should be a barrier to doing a thorough clean-up anyway. FOARP (talk) 10:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I was specifically discussing cricketers, where there is an established precedent going back years that we redirect if there is not suitable sourcing to support a standalone article. We can usually find a sensible redirect target - the major side, a list by year etc... Personally I'd rather keep the sourcing we have as that's often the basis for establishing a well sourced article later on and avoids having to find the darned sources again. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I think it's a little rich that those who effectively made these stubs non-notable by changing the SNGs at WP:NFOOTY, WP:NCRIC etc. are now whining because it's going to take a long time to achieve the result that they wanted when they started the whole process. I am opposed to a speedy deletion criteria here. Black Kite (talk) 13:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Primefac that this belongs at WT:CSD and Im not sure why it hasnt been clerked as off-topic here. You arent going to set CSD policy on WT:ACN. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 14:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This page clearly isn't the venue to create a new CSD criterion. But the discussion is relevant to ArbCom: one open question for the RfC mandated by Remedy 11 is whether consideration of a new CSD or other measures for responding to Lugnuts's creations is in-scope for the mandated RfC. I see the RfC's role as supporting the community's resolution processes. So if the community decides to handle that discussion elsewhere, of course I would support that. But if the community wants it to be part of the ArbCom-mandated RfC, I will advocate for that too. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 16:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Deletion RfC moderator appointments

 * Original announcement


 * If the moderators have any questions about what worked or didn't work in the GMO RfC please let me know. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I said this at the case, but will say it again here. I think having an RfC about mass deletion without having an RfC about mass creation isn't just leaving it unfinished but actually a bad idea. The unresolved procedures and resultant messes related to mass creation -- and, perhaps more importantly, the very much still ongoing anger and tension around it -- will have a major effect on an RfC about mass deletion, and I worry about the implications when dealing with something as consequential as this. As worded, if addressed at all, I'd expect mass creation would only really be addressed in conjunction with the mass deletion RfC, but it really needs to be taken care of first. Mass deletion is inextricable from mass creation; the reverse isn't true. I know some people say it's already settled, but lots of long noticeboard and talk page threads disagree. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 12:50, 17 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I think this is important feedback and I hope the mods (pinging them - ) will incorporate this idea because I consider it very much in scope. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:12, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and I'll note that at the PD I made a similar comment. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 15:35, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * As did I. - Donald Albury 17:17, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, it might be necessary to have (concurrently) an RFC on article creations. GoodDay (talk) 13:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * What if the RfC covered all "mass activities related to articles" - creation, deletion, modification, and (un)protection? Would that be too unwieldy? –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 17:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Disagree. The only way to avoid the cloud of mass creation skewing results at an RfC about mass deletion is to settle it first (rather than concurrently). &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 18:06, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * A discussion that attempted to do all of that would, I think, cover way too much ground and risk spiralling out of focus. I'm not even sure that attempting to combine creation and deletion will actually work - it may end up coming down to "hey, USER created XXX articles; I don't like them; lets delete them all", which seems to me to be regressive. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:29, 18 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I think the intended scope is "actions that could overwhelm our deletion processes", which would include article creations so prolific that it's not reasonably feasible to AfD them.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 22:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with S Marshall's reading of it. The firehose needs to have its water cut off. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 22:52, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The less pages created, the less pages nominated for deletion. GoodDay (talk) 22:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I would like to thank the ArbCom for appointing the moderators, and the moderators User:Valereee and User:Xeno for agreeing to conduct the moderated discussion. It is my understanding that the moderators will conduct pre-RFC discussions to get rough consensus on the scope of the RFC or RFCs, which includes ensuring that mass creation gets addressed as well as mass deletion.  I will ask where and when the pre-RFC moderated discussion will take place.  I would also like to suggest to the moderators that they impose relatively strict controls on discussions that authorize the collapsing of off-topic or disruptive material.  In particular, I would suggest that they minimize back-and-forth discussion between editors, and ask editors to address their comments to the moderators and the community.  This will minimize two problems that I sometimes see.  The first is increasingly deeply nested back-and-forth discussions that become unable to follow on a mobile device.  The second is bludgeoning, in which one editor responds to every editor with whom they disagree.  Thank you, arbitrators, User:Valereee, User:Xeno.  Robert McClenon (talk) 06:11, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree here. The NSPORTS RfC, complete with its wall of text and 13 proposals, became impossible to follow and ended up with "consensus" without really considering the impacts. Hopefully moderation will be able to deal with the impacts of that and reduce the ways that it feels, when you attempt to read it back, to be unfocussed and how it drove interested editors away as a result of the sprawl. Good luck - I suspect you may need it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:29, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I came here to make a similar comment; I suspect this noticeboard isn't the best place for wide-ranging discussions on RfC scope. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with Rhododendrites. Stifle (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Other comments on structure and scope are welcome here while we work on an initial approach. We'll post here and at AN and VPP when/where the discussion will be held. Valereee (talk) 15:12, 18 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I just saw this comment, a few hours after posting above. So here goes; please let me know if we should move this elsewhere. The RFC needs to examine the concept of "presumed notability". We use that language in many places and it's been interpreted in so many different ways. I have read innumerable AfDs where !votes were evenly split between those arguing that since the presumption of notability was met, meeting GNG wasn't needed; and those arguing that a presumption was insufficient, and that at AfD, meeting GNG was necessary. Crucially, this occurs extremely often when NSPORTS and GEOLAND are concerned, which, I believe, are two of the most common justifications for mass-creation (and therefore targets for mass-deletion). The others that I'm aware of are mass creation for vertebrate species, and for politicians meeting NPOL, neither of which seem to attract the same level of controversy at AfD.) Given that true mass-creation is likely very difficult when GNG is the threshold one is trying to meet, precisely laying out what "presumed notable" means, and how it affects the SNG-GNG relationship, is crucial to handling this mess. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:19, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Mass Creation and Mass Deletion
I think that one reason that mass creation needs to be discussed somehow is a way in which mass creation is unlike mass deletion. That is that deletion requests automatically are publicly notified in a way that creation is not, because deletion requests are posted. (Creation does go into NPP, but it is less public than AFD.) As a result, a mass creation can be done by stealth, in a way that mass deletion cannot. We need to discuss mass cretion and mass deletion in a joint discussion so as to decide how to minimize the risk of stealth mass creation. Should I be saying that somewhere else? I think that this is pre-discussion rather than discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:37, 19 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is pre-discussion while Xeno and I focus on structure and the very basics of scope. We'll ask for input on other stuff later and open that discussion (with that structure and basic scope defined) somewhere else. Right now we're thinking this probably needs to be a multi-step process. Valereee (talk) 12:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * the issue has come up at WT:N, so a point from there would be good. as well as the other current-accepted-in-practice SNGs M asem (t) 13:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, to add into input: please make sure that the RFC should consider the implications of when RFCs affect the retention of a large number of articles that should processes like grandfathering or sunsetting be automatically considered as to avoid the mess that the change NSPORT left behind, as to avoid FAIT-type actions. M asem (t) 13:14, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The "mess" only exists when users actively seek to subvert the consensus of the community. If editors accepted the change, didn't label editors trying to work on a clean up and worked constructively to iron out the grey areas then there would be no issues to cause "mess" Spartaz Humbug! 13:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed, where there's no mass creation, there's no mass deletion. One can't AfD a page, that doesn't exist. GoodDay (talk) 13:44, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Draft structure

 * I've created a draft for starting the pre-discussion for the RfC on article creation at scale; please feel free to comment on the proposed structure at User talk:Valereee/draft. Valereee (talk) 17:18, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Deletion RfC Closers sought

 * Original announcement

Statement regarding harassment on off-wiki chat platforms

 * Original announcement
 * That statement is being a bit loose with the truth when it says "these chat platforms are not supervised by any particular project community". Given the history, I would say it verges on an outright falsehood. The main IRC channels were effectively under the control of current/ex-technical WMF staff, directly recieved funding by the WMF, and moderated almost entirely by those with advanced permissions on ENWP. Part of the criticism of IRC is that it regularly enabled off-wiki discussions & subsequent actions (enforcement action that resembled laughably evidenced witch hunts) that were hidden to those not in the club. Coupled with the anti-transparency rules around logging and abuse of the WP:Harrassment policy to prevent/make it very difficult to take on-wiki action (E.g regarding the reporting of stuff everyones favorite admin "throat-puncher" used to throw out), the idea that IRC was not supervised by any particular project community is a disingenuous one at best. Discord is also moderated primarily by admins, and given the demographics of the voting users here I dont see any reason it will avoid the same issues. Passing the buck to a WMF department that already has proven itself to be highly questionable in its operation, when you have the ability & knowledge to take the required corrective action when someone threatens to bathe another user in acid? This seems like more of the same abuse-enabling that ARBCOM engaged in for years with IRC. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:43, 22 August 2022 (UTC)


 * So this is basically a request to T&S to consider expanding event bans to include the mentioned Wikimedia related venues, correct? Is the intent to prevent someone who is event banned from participating on these platforms outright, or just Wikimedia-related events on these platforms? (for example, the Discord participated in some Wikimania related stuff- presumably someone event banned would not be able to participate in in that) Thank you, Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Moneytrees at a guess (and I speak purely on my own thoughts, not as a Discord mod) it would be more "outgoing", rather than "incoming". The WMF couldn't impose any restrictions on someone using the Discord but could use poor behaviour on a Discord as grounds to prevent, say, someone from attending virtual (or all) events that they do have a formal role in. Currently event bans are very physical focused, which is not really surprising. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Special Circumstances Blocks

 * Original announcement

It's subtle, but ArbCom has significantly exceeded its authority here by turning what was once an optional process into a required one. It's important to note that there are two different but easily-confused policy provisions at play:
 * WP:BLOCKEVIDENCE says that admins cannot unilaterally block based on information that will not be made available to all administrators.
 * WP:ADMIN says

The latter aplies to a considerably broader category than the former. A sockmaster's tells can be shared with other admins, but should still be kept private. A COI editor's identity can, per WP:OUTING, be discussed privately by admins, but must be kept private. BLOCKEVIDENCE allows blocking unilaterally in these circumstances. ADMIN allows referring such cases to ArbCom, but does not outright require it. And, apparently, basically no one has exercised that option on a case that wasn't "highly sensitive" until I did a few weeks ago on a very complex behavioral block, I gather sparking this discussion.

So, that's fine, ArbCom can restrict how admins make "appeal to ArbCom" blocks, because there's no circumstance where the community requires admins to use that option.

What ArbCom cannot do is restrict how admins make non-ArbCom-related blocks that are allowed by community-made policy. And when ArbCom says Administrators should contact the appropriate group rather than issue a block covered above, they are prohibiting admins from doing what community consensus allows, and that substantially exceeds the Commmittee's constitutional authority as an arbitrating rather than governing entity. BLOCKEVIDENCE draws the line: The community's consensus is that admins may issue blocks based on private evidence, so long as it's private evidence they can discuss with other admins. ArbCom cannot move that line. ArbCom cannot overrule that provision of policy.

(That's setting aside the logistical concerns here of suddenly requiring rather than merely permitting the use of this process. Does the CU team really want to handle every single case of John DistinctiveName, who writes spammy things about Acme Corp., which has a director of marketing named John DistinctiveName? Does the CU team really want to decide every case of behavioral-evidence-only sockpuppetry that has some off-wiki component? CUs are, as several have acknowledged to me directly, not necessarily selected based on skill at reviewing behavioral evidence of sockpuppetry.)

-- Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 23:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I think at the very least, they should clarify their guidance because followed literally, it will lead to unnecessary WP:BURO in cases such as those you've mentioned. -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 23:48, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks @Tamzin. We have spent a little while discussing the announcement, largely looking back at what happened a decade ago and focussing on "Blocks that can only be appealed by Arbcom". I don't believe, as a committee, we were aiming to stop any form of off-wiki block. That's said, I do think that the community should possibly review those sorts of blocks - Wikipedia is not an island, but the level of information that is required to make a Wikipedia account means that it is not difficult to "Joe-job" based on off-wiki evidence. <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 09:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)


 * That does seem to be an overreach of authority. One of the traditional points of contention is whether Arb has the authority to create or change policy (for the record, no), versus establish procedure. As someone who worked SPI a great deal, I would echo the sentiment that CUs aren't chosen for the behavioral review skills, and in fact, tend to avoid it at SPI, instead providing technical information and almost always leaving behavioral analysis to other admin. CUs tend to be the slowest to respond as well, when compared to OS or Admin for their respective duties. CUs have the highest level of workload vs how many people have the bit, and it has always been this way, which may be part of the reason the tradition of seldom connecting behavioral evidence exists. So it does seem an overreach compounded by a requirement to use the slowest and least willing group of people here. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 10:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi @Tamzin. Thank you for writing. Let me try to clarify: blocks that are not based on private off-wiki evidence are not covered by this announcement. If I'm not mistaken, the block that you last marked as "appealable only to ArbCom" relied only on a behavioral analysis of evidence available on-wiki. You could have made it without marking it appealable only to ArbCom before, and you still can now. (Now, I do think it was wise for you to send it to ArbCom, and I think it would continue to be wise if you sent it to the checkuser queue, either for action or for information. But this statement doesn't prevent you from having the authority from enacting the block.) The only blocks, as you write, are (1) off-wiki evidence of socking/UPE/spam, (2) oversight blocks, and (3) "Highly sensitive and private information". As to your other points, I think you and I interpret WP:BLOCKEVIDENCE differently. As I understand it, means information that all administrators have technical access to: deleted revisions, UTRS, etc. It does not cover "email me and I'll send you the off-wiki evidence": I don't have meaningful access to that information unless you send it to me, and if you're taking a wikibreak or you retired and I want that evidence, I'm out of luck and so is the appellant. (Am I supposed to unblock them? Or just assume the evidence was legit?) That's why this announcement tells you to send it to the checkuser queue, where the evidence will be permanently archived and available for review on appeal. This statement is ArbCom's attempt to issue guidance that is compliant with both BLOCKEVIDENCE and the ADMIN subsection – no easy feat, as you know, given the state of those policies . It was reviewed by the functionary team and was thoroughly revised, probably on at least half a dozen occasions, before it was voted on. It's not exactly the statement that I would write on a blank slate, but ArbCom – as you point out – is bound by policy, so I don't get to write on a blank slate. I'm happy to answer additional questions as they come up, and hope this clarification is helpful. If you think there are workload challenges that come up, I'd love to discuss those too, and talk about how to resolve them, whether by seeking community amendment of the underlying policy, or by appointing more CUs with different backgrounds. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 15:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand what is going on here. My interpretation is that any WP:DUCK blocks for sock puppetry or paid editing are still fine (as they are based on onwiki evidence), but for anything that requires sleuthing (say, looking at a Facebook post or some other social media stuff that requires me to log in), I should consider the question of blocking to be Someone Else's Problem? (I don't quite understand why I shouldn't just block and let a functionary take over the block if they want to make it irreversible). Or to put it differently: if I am not interested in making irreversible blocks, why do I need to change anything about my blocking habits? —Kusma (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If it needs sleuthing, it should go to one of the CU email queues. @Kusma, if that's going to mess with your workflow, that's not what we meant to do and I will work to fix that. Is there a system that you would prefer more? Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 15:54, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Given the way I currently work (mostly content, a little bit of CSD work and some related blocks) this won't mess with my workflow very much, other than to turn me off from doing even the most trivial sleuthing work (like, say, googling for the username + company they promote; don't want to bother the checkusers with that kind of stuff). The vast majority of my blocks are onwiki evidence only anyway (and are rather trivial blocks of fairly new accounts). —Kusma (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Kusma, the "irreversible block" element was a big push behind this statement for me. So if you don't want to make those kinds of blocks and are otherwise in compliance with our blocking and admin policies you're fine from my point of view. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That's great, but the statement Administrators should contact the appropriate group rather than issue a block covered above seems to apply to all blocks, not just to irreversible ones. If this is only meant to cover irreversible blocks, could you clarify that? —Kusma (talk) 16:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies if I'm misreading or asking a stupid question. Regarding off-wiki evidence (facebook sleuthing or even company website) - in non-unusual circumstances, Administrators should contact the appropriate group rather than issue a block covered above. which seems very odd. I can see why there is a desire for the evidence to be logged somewhere accessible should the admin become inaccessible, but I don't see why I couldn't issue the block and then send an email. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding @Nosebagbear's note specifically, I would be supportive of such a system. But I will note that's not what policy establishes now and would be a considerable expansion of the role of individual admins: to make blocks appealable only to CUs, on a routine basis. I therefore don't think ArbCom could establish that system under current policy but I would support a community RfC on that. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 16:36, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Why would Nosebagbear's block be appealable only to CUs? —Kusma (talk) 16:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If you emailed your evidence into the CU queue, wouldn't it make sense that only CUs would be able to review or lift the block? Other admins wouldn't have access to the relevant evidence. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 17:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * To put it bluntly: as the person who has handled over 80% of the ~275 paid queue tickets closed in the past year, I cannot begin to quantify how uninterested I am in handling emails from admins to the effect of "LinkedIn says this person's name matches the marketing manager of the company they're writing crap articles about, but that connection cannot be made using on-wiki evidence, block please," and any for-the-record emails made after such a block will receive even less attention. GeneralNotability (talk) 17:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If CUs think the block should not be reviewed by non-CUs, they can reblock stating so. If they don't do that, any admin should be allowed to unblock under the usual rules. —Kusma (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @L235 - the storage point for evidence could always be tweaked, so as to not clog the "actual" CU stuff. Additionally, that route will only be used when the blocking admin isn't accessible in the current fashion in a few days. And they'd always have the email as well, if they couldn't remember directly. CU time is one of the most finite resources we have - upping the CU-appeals (or CU-blocks if we use the current wording) in this fashion would be an unnecessary loss. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The concern about admins going inactive and evidence being lost to time is absolutely a valid one, and one I've had as well. And there's a number of ways ArbCom could fix it. ArbCom or an individual arb could propose amending BLOCKEVIDENCE to say what it's being construed here to say, which I think goes against its plain-text meaning. (will not be made available to all administrators seems to encompass material that is not, by default, available to all administrators. Otherwise it would say is not available to all administrators.) ArbCom could create a "dropbox" email account to which admins can send documentation of blocks based on off-wiki information without expectation of a response, and then propose that usage of that account be made mandatory for such blocks. ArbCom could push for an admin wiki like the Italian Wikipedia has, where this information could be logged. None of those things exceed ArbCom's authority. The approach taken here does.Don't get me wrong, I understand how this kind of thing happens. I'd consider myself friendly with more than half of the Committee, and I don't think any of y'all are attempting some power-grab. Groupthink is real. If JFK could land men at the Bay of Pigs with a "retreat" plan that required going through enemy lines and impassable terrain, so too can 13 volunteers, debating something for a few weeks, settle on an outcome that at one point goes beyond what they are allowed to mandate. But ArbCom should recognize that error and correct it. All that is necessary to bring this statement in line, I think, is prepending In cases where the reason for a block could not be shared with other administrators to the sentence at issue. If BLOCKEVIDENCE is at some point changed to restrict a broader category of unblocks, a new statement can be issued to match that. Or the policy-violating sentence could be edited to say Administrators should consult WP:BLOCKEVIDENCE to determine whether it is appropriate to block a user or instead to contact the appropriate group as described above. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 20:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Tamzin: I understand your position that ArbCom's statement here violates policy. I've described why I don't think it does – I believe your interpretation of BLOCKEVIDENCE is colorable but I don't think it's the one we've adopted. I'm not here to litigate that disagreement, but I very much am open to ideas on how to rework the system more broadly. I don't know how old BLOCKEVIDENCE is, but I'm sure it was written well before e.g. UPE blocks based on off-wiki evidence became extremely common. Would I support a system that, for example, retains the "I'll email evidence to reviewing admin" but establishes an ArbCom evidence "drop box" email as a backstop? Very probably, yes. That has to be a decision the community's involved in, though – it's surprising to me that you think implementing such a system is within ArbCom's sole power but not a statement written specifically to comply with existing policy. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 22:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Like I said, ArbCom could set up such a system, and then propose to the community to make it mandatory. Failing community support, it would be voluntary. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 22:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I was curious how often this comes up, so I did a little Quarry hacking (https://quarry.wmcloud.org/query/66527). My SQL is not great, so I'm sure there's a better query that could be written, but this should at least give a reasonable upper bound of a few times a year.  -- RoySmith (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @RoySmith the affected bubble is bigger than it might be on first glance, as it's applicable to any regular block issued by a regular admin, who got any of the evidence off-wiki (most commonly from the company's own website), and I don't believe that quarry could detect those (I'm not sure any could easily do so). Nosebagbear (talk) 08:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's true. Per WP:BLOCKEVIDENCE, administrators should never be making unilateral blocks based fundamentally on off-wiki evidence, i.e. where there would not be enough evidence to make the block if not for the off-wiki evidence. On the flip side, administrators can and should continue to make unilateral blocks where there is enough on-wiki evidence to justify it, even if there may be off-wiki components that the administrator is privy to. To take Tamzin's example above of John DistinctiveName, who writes spammy things about Acme Corp., which has a director of marketing named John DistinctiveName—in such a case, administrators may unilaterally block the account because the act of writing "spammy things about Acme Corp." is inherently disruptive, and a block would be justifiable based solely on the on-wiki evidence. There would be no need to contact the CU team or ArbCom unless the editor is being sneaky about it (e.g. they're trying their best to write a neutral article and perhaps actually succeeding, but we found a posting on an online job board that confirms it's an undisclosed paid job and thus violates our policy). Mz7 (talk) 02:22, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I came here to see if others had noticed this part of the update. Not because I have a strong opinion on whether it would be a good change or not, but rather because it is an unexpected, significant change that seems to affect all future non-CU blocks based on off-wiki evidence. As Tamzin has described in detail, the resulting situation is unclear; the announcement needs clarification. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * In my view, ArbCom has not exceeded its authority. The relevant policy is WP:ARBPOL, which states that The Committee's decisions may interpret existing policy and guidelines, recognise and call attention to standards of user conduct, or create procedures through which policy and guidelines may be enforced. In this case, ArbCom is interpreting existing policy to mean that administrators are prohibited from making any block that is based on information that not all administrators "have technical access to" (as L235 put it above; e.g. deleted revisions, UTRS appeals). WP:BLOCKEVIDENCE delegates the authority to make these sorts of blocks only to the Arbitration Committee or a checkuser or oversighter. This is the correct interpretation, and the procedure that ArbCom establishes here is in line with the existing policy. Tamzin claims that BLOCKEVIDENCE does allow administrators to make blocks based on private evidence (e.g. emails, Facebook posts, non-WMF websites) as long as they are willing to provide that evidence on request to other administrators. I'm afraid that is not correct. As L235 points out, that is not really making the evidence available to all administrators—especially in the case that the blocking administrator retires. The community has never agreed that admins may issue blocks based on private evidence, so long as it's private evidence they can discuss with other admins. ArbCom is not overstepping its authority by forbidding administrators from making these kinds of blocks because the community never allowed administrators to make these blocks in the first place. Mz7 (talk) 01:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Mz7 I'm not sure about that either- see the first point at Administrators: "Rarely, in blocking an editor, an administrator will have to note that their block "should be lifted only by the Arbitration Committee" or that "any appeal from this block is to ArbCom only". Such a provision must only be made if the nature of the block demands that its circumstances not be further discussed on-wiki (and instead be considered further only in a confidential environment)"? It basically condones these sort of blocks. It seems like that part of the problem is that the section at BLOCKEVIDENCE and the one at ADMIN contradict each other.
 * I made an "appeal to Arbcom block" one time (Special:Contributions/LaceyUF) which was eventually upgraded to a regular Arbcom Block. In hindsight I probably didn't need to do that- I could have just blocked for disruptive editing and sent the related evidence to the committee. At the time I was under the impression that there was nothing wrong with how I made the block, and I wasn't told otherwise by any Arbs. This announcement confuses me a bit with regards to that block; it fell under the purview of the committee as far as I understood since it dealt with offsite disruption that was spilling over on-wiki, but that sort of offsite disruption doesn't appear to be explicitly covered by this announcement. It could be that I'm seriously misunderstanding, or the committee is implying but not directly making a statement about these sorts of offsite-behavior blocks with the "Highly sensitive and private information" section of the announcement; even then, that seems like a large stretch. But since they don't explicitly say anything about these sorts of offsite-behavior blocks, I'm guessing this announcement is really only outlining best practices for impersonation/socking/spam/UPE "private evidence blocks".
 * The committee cannot override the sections at ADMIN or BLOCKEVIDENCE, right? So the question of whether offsite-behavior/private evidence blocks not related to impersonation issues, socking, or UPE are allowed is still a matter that needs to be decided by the community, since policy is unclear. This announcement isn't really taking a stance on that issue. That is my understanding of the issue- an arb or someone else in the know should feel free to correct me.
 * If my understanding is correct, then I would like to start an RfC or something on the matter to figure out what the community currently thinks about these blocks. Related to that, I was wondering if any past/present Arbs could tell me if they ever found these sorts of "appeal to the committee" blocks in the vein I mention above useful. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:18, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, I suppose I did forget to analyze how that paragraph at ADMIN fits into the picture. I don't necessarily think BLOCKEVIDENCE and that text at ADMIN are irreconcilable, but I will admit that their relationship is confusing. The paragraph at ADMIN was added boldly in August 2012 by AGK (then an ArbCom member) following this reminder from ArbCom about these kinds of blocks. (Based on that, it seems to me that the genesis of that paragraph at ADMIN was in fact the ArbCom motion that the current ArbCom is now amending with the current announcement... makes for a bit of a headache, to be sure.) The specific examples it highlights of the kinds of blocks that could be made in this manner are situations where discussion would reveal or emphasize information whose disclosure could jeopardize an editor's physical or mental well-being, where on-wiki discussion would identify an anonymous editor, or where the underlying block reason would be defamatory if the block was unjustified. I'm not sure whether this irreconcilably conflicts with BLOCKEVIDENCE's prohibition on private-evidence-only blocks—it could just be allowing administrators to restrict appeals to ArbCom in cases where there are extenuating privacy-related factors that should be taken into consideration when reviewing the block, but also where the fundamental reason for the block would still be related to on-wiki behavior (BLOCKEVIDENCE only prohibits admins from making blocks solely based on private evidence). Definitely tricky though. Maybe you're right that an RfC may be necessary after all. Mz7 (talk) 05:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd already been talking with L235 and a few other editors about getting an RfC started on this. Want me to drop a note on your talkpage when we've got something ready for primetime? --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 14:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure! Mz7 (talk) 02:22, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Just catching up on this. I would be interested as well. This poses some interesting questions best suited for an RfC.  The SandDoctor  Talk 03:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Adding to the chorus here, but, since I probably make more of these kind blocks than most: my understanding of WP:BLOCKEVIDENCE has always been the precise opposite of yours, . Like Kevin says, based on information that will not be made available to all administrators means information that is available to all administrators now, not is hypothetically available if they have an off-wiki line of communication to you. Otherwise the system would break down every time the blocking admin becomes inactive. This has always been a poorly-documented area of policy and I think a clarifying RfC would be welcome, but fundamentally this announcement from ArbCom is just a restatement of the status quo and well within their community-approved remit to resolve matters unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal, or similar reasons. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 14:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I've started a follow-up discussion on improving the documentation of UPE blocks at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 15:34, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Geschichte
On the official noticeboard, there is a comment that a closing statement for this case would be posted at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Geschichte but there is no statement or any motion mentioned that concerned the closing of this case. There is just a note at the top of the page that "Case closed on 9:50 am, 31 July 2022". I think a final statement by the committee didn't get copied over to the case page.

Also, today, an editor removed this page from Category:Open ArbCom Cases, an edit I reverted because it seems like it should be done by an AC clerk. But I thought I'd bring it up since it looks like there might have been some steps overlooked last month when you decided to officially close this case. Thank you. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 00:53, 20 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Actually, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Horn of Africa is also in the Open Case category, it should be removed as well. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 00:56, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I’ve removed the category from both of those cases - as you say we must have forgotten to remove them when closing up. Thanks! firefly  ( t · c ) 06:54, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to make things crystal clear, has Geschichte permamently lost their admin status or not? There is no notice on the editor's talk page either, although there is a note of the temporary 3-month removal.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:54, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. Geschichte has been desysopped by the Arbitration Committee since they did not request re-opening of the case within three months. This is considered a loss of tools "under a cloud" and they will need to successfully RfA again to regain the tools. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:25, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This is standard procedure, going back to WP:Requests for arbitration/172 2, when an admin opts to "quit the project" (scare quotes deliberate) in an effort to avoid scrutiny of their administrative actions. It both saves time and frustration on trying to run a case where the respondent is refusing to engage with the process and stops them from just coming back and wreaking havoc by waiting until it's all blown over. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 18:05, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand (and do not disagree with) the closure, I just think that the announcement may be clearer about the implications (i.e. that the editor in question has lost their admin rights and would need to reapply via RfA if they want them back). Similar considerations apply to the announcement about the Jonathunder case below.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jonathunder closed automatically

 * Original announcement

Yet another 172 exit. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i> v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 23:06, 28 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Not sure if the present-day WP community has the long-term Cognition to recognize that particular name.
 * ...I'll see myself out. Kurtis (talk) 01:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The case page still has a notice saying the case is open - seems to have been overlooked. I think I'm still technically an arb clerk but I'm not nearly up to speed with things to go editing this sort of thing. GoldenRing (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Ooh that's interesting - Geschichte has the same issue. I thought it just worked on what was in, but evidently not. Will do some digging! firefly  ( t · c ) 17:53, 29 August 2022 (UTC)


 * It's not in a template, it's just been pasted into the page. Just edit the page and remove it.  GoldenRing (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @GoldenRing Derp. There's me looking for a complex solution when it's the most low-tech one going. Fixed! :) firefly  ( t · c ) 16:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Muhammed images Discretionary sanctions

 * Original announcement


 * For those wondering, the 2 month sunset was designed to give time for the community to consider whether it wishes for this to turn into a community general sanction topic area as several editors expressed that this area might still need more than the ordinary process. Speaking only for myself, the community can do several things that it would not be appropriate for ArbCom to do and this includes having GS (DS) that are more about a reasonable worst case scenario than current conditions. I look forward to seeing what, if any, decision the community makes about this topic area. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:41, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It would be useful if the announcement included a link to the motion, and for the case page to be updated with the amendment. Apologies if these things are already in train.  GoldenRing (talk) 11:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @GoldenRing the case page is linked. I have added a link to the motion. This is why I always prefer for clerks to do these things, but alas they were busy so I had to resort to trying things myself. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

2022 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: announcement

 * Original announcement

Discretionary sanctions draft: community comment

 * Original announcement

Three giant Arbcom RFCs (ace, ds, AfD) at the same time maybe wasn't the best idea, they're too much to read. Each one will be an echo chamber filled with just whoever has time for this. It's like 30 proposals across the three RFCs and more coming in. Who has time to read and think about that much? It's a holiday weekend in the US and September is "back to school" month here, one of the busiest times of year for students and parents. What's done is done but in the future, Arbcom, fewer simultaneous giant RFCs please. Levivich 16:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Pretty sure the community can walk and chew gum at the same time. I fear ArbCom would get criticism regardless of how these were run - they've already caught flak for how long the DS reform process has taken. firefly  ( t · c ) 16:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Walk and chew gum are two things that are done at the same time. Are you capable of reading two texts simultaneously? I don't think so. I think you have to read one and then the other just like the rest of us. So it's not "walk and chew gum", it's "walk then chew gum" and I'm telling you I don't have time to chew dozens of pieces of gum one after the other in the next 30 days and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Levivich 16:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's a fair criticism though only one of those - DS - was really in the committee's control. One of them is a community process (ACE) and one of them came out of a case whose timing we obviously don't control. That one's also not actually at the RfC stage yet even so that seems like an easy one for people who are overwhelmed to tune out. As for DS, essentially if it didn't go up now it might not have been completed this year. I really wish that it had happened on the original timetable, and I accept some responsibility that it didn't, but I think it's worthwhile to be done. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll echo Barkeep: I too bear some responsibility for not getting DS reform out on the original timetable, and I deeply appreciate the community's patience. But I think the quality of the reform is all the better for having had enough time to "ferment". The Committee went back and forth on a lot of proposals, really focusing on the nitty gritty, and I'm quite happy with the outcome. Plus, this will run for an entire month, so there should be more than enough time for comment :) CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 16:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Odds are there won't be earth-shattering changes in the arbitration elections RfC. (I have, of course, ensured I will look foolish in a month by writing down that sentence.) The biggest things that have happened most recently, as I recall, are sending talk page notifications, and the various changes in committee size, both of which were significant, but in the end, not revolutionary. I don't anticipate another change in size occurring. The voting system is one possible dark horse that has come up in the past few years, but no one has publicly announced they've done the prep work needed to establish a case for change, or to ensure that a new system could be deployed in this year's election. isaacl (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

FWIW - How many Arbcom RFCs are active & which are they? GoodDay (talk) 16:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The deletion related RFC was the result of an ArbCom decision, but is a discussion among the community about policies related to deletion, because ArbCom is not empowered to make policy changes. Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2022 is the annual pre-election RFC for the December elections, it is not in any way controlled by the committee. So the answer as I see it is this one RFC is an "ArbCom RFC" as it is actually presented by the committee itself and could directly impact arbitration procedures and practices. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the committee was aware there were two ongoing when it launched the third, no? But you're right: three giant concurrent RFCs is too many, regardless of who launches them. Levivich 19:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 3 concurrent RfCs is only really a lot if they're all on topics that are hard to change once the RfC is over and if they're all truly huge. ACERFC is both inherently changeable, and can be checked that nothing extremely off the wall is proposed in under a minute. It's also run on a long timescale, so it isn't a giant RfC in an onerous sense. The DS one certainly would tick those boxes (if it were three RfCs all like the DS one, I'd agree), but the mass creation/deletion one isn't. While the close to this RfC is only appealable to Arbcom, the community can always run its own should we find the results don't work well in practice. In any case, two large RfCs at once is not anomalous or too many.
 * I would find it odd if they decide to go for the minimum 7 days listed in the rules - to me there's no reason it shouldn't run for the whole month, which gives plenty of time for consideration. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The minimum 7 days is for the workshop. The RfC will run 30. Valereee (talk) 22:51, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If think these three RFCs are "large" because they would take hours to read. Add in their talk pages and it's even more. In two weeks they'll each be twice as large at least. There are more RFCs/elections to follow after the first and third close. If we count the WP:CUOS2022, that's four. Levivich 00:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Levivich, I've been thinking more about this since your initial comment. I will continue to agree it would have been better if we had started the DS consult earlier in the year. But the keyword there is that it is a consult. So the community will offer valuable feedback - it's already happening - but ultimately ArbCom not the Community will make the decision. Same with CUOS. And with DS there will be at least one more chance to weigh in - before the final vote happens so it's not even like this is the community's only chance to give an opinion. So in terms of large actual RfCs that are on the community there are really two that are ArbCom related and only one that is under ArbCom's control. And the good news is that one is currently in the pre-RfC stage so there will be periods of non-overlap between those two. So for editors like you concerned about where to invest their time, I would suggest investing their time in the community run RfC (ACE) and in the Creation/Deletion RfC once it starts. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, my OP is a request: Levivich 01:32, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * And my OP was that we could have avoided one of these simultaneous discussions. However, as you have continued to express concern, and then brought in a new discussion into the mix, I thought it worth sharing the thinking I've done about your OP since my first reply. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:38, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say I've "continued to express concerns" (phraseology that implies not dropping sticks) so much as that I responded to three editors who denied that my concerns were legitimate, by saying that participating in the three RFCs is as easy as walking and chewing gum, that it's not really three arbcom RFCs but only one, or that they're not really large. I was expecting the response to be a quick "yeah we'll try to avoid this in the future", because nobody actually thinks it's actually ideal to have these three run concurrently, which is all I'm saying (and I think we're saying the same thing BK).
 * My response to you is because you said "for editors like you concerned about where to invest their time" but I'm not concerned about where to invest my time. I'm concerned that we won't get meaningful consensus from these RFCs if we don't have meaningful participation, and that we won't have meaningful participation if there are too many running at the same time. And I recognize and appreciate that you acknowledged it was a legitimate concern. Levivich 01:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying that your concern is we won't have meaningful consensus in the RfCs. To some extent we'll have to wait and see what happens in the two RfCs. ACE was the first RfC to launch and participation is down from this time last year but so are the number of proposals suggesting less community energy in general around the topic. We'll see when the Creation/Deletion RfC launches but it looks from my read like there will be a week or two gap between the two which should help the community pace itself as we look to find consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The arbitration elections process is mature so there's no big opportunities lost if it runs just like last year. (There's always another election next year for changes to happen.) I suspect there is a distinct subgroup of editors who are interested in rapid creation/deletion of articles but aren't that interested in the details of empowering admins to take additional enforcement actions, so I hope at least that group remains engaged with the creation/deletion process discussion. isaacl (talk) 04:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies if my response seemed dismissive - I'm still not sure that there is much of an issue here, for the various reasons listed above (ACE is mostly low-stakes and usually only results in minor changes, CUOS22 is much much smaller in scope, and the 'new' RfCs will be long-running enough that I think the community will have ample time to respond - and that is assuming that there will be significant overlap in participation). However, being personally unconvinced of an issue doesn't mean there isn't one, and it seems that it'd be worth bearing 'overlap' issues in mind to some degree in future. firefly  ( t · c ) 10:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The arbitration elections RfC used to be a fairly quiet, sleepy one, with users trusting the election co-ordinators to follow previous traditions and use their best judgement. As with all processes that rely on consensus support, though, as the group of interested people gets larger, their views become more divergent, and so the group is no longer satisfied with delegating decisions to a small subset of the group. Some things ought to have consensus discussion (say, what should or shouldn't trigger talk page notices to everyone), while others are of much less importance and could be left to the co-ordinators (such as day of the week on which the election starts). For better or worse, though, English Wikipedia tradition means that filtering proposals is generally not done, and so the elections RfC has ballooned in size. isaacl (talk) 20:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Lightbreather unban appeal

 * Original announcement

Follow-up RfC to past discussion on this page about BLOCKEVIDENCE
Please see WP:VPP. (Past discussion at .) --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 22:02, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Request for comment closers appointed

 * Original announcement

Oh gosh, Hammersoft is correct. Looking at the mechanics of this RfC, we all seem to be sleepwalking into an inadvertent over-reach by ArbCom. It may be worth looking into the consequences of the mechanics of this RfC. Whose RfC is this? Is it an ArbCom RfC, or a community RfC? ArbCom have appointed moderators and closers, and as written only ArbCom can hear appeals about the outcome. This appears to be an ArbCom RfC in which the community will be allowed to take part, but essential features are under the control of ArbCom. I'm not clear where this RfC falls under ArbCom's remit, as this is pushing in the area of governance of content creation and deletion rather than dealing with either private matters or misconduct. As work has started on the RfC, and there is some movement, I don't think it would be appropriate to stop the RfC, simply to rework the mechanics to ensure this is a community RfC, and to allow ArbCom to step back. This can probably be quickly resolved by a short seven day RfC for the community to take over the RfC, confirming the existing moderators and closers; and a motion to amend the wording of Remedy 11 so that it is clear that the RfC is owned by the community, and the closure can be challenged and amended as per normal procedures. SilkTork (talk) 14:59, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Excellent choices, thanks to all three! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Could someone please explain to the idiot signing this post why ArbCom has invested itself in deciding process modifications on the project? Near as I can tell, this RfC could result in changes to how the project manages AfD. Any consensus evaluated by the ArbCom appointed overseers of this RfC can not be appealed without ArbCom. Arbitration/Policy clearly lays out ArbCom's scope. Deciding changes in processes is not covered by this scope. The community never devolved this responsibility to ArbCom. From my chair, it appears anything ArbCom decides on this is outside their scope and therefore void. I don't see a reason to follow it. It appears to be no different than ArbCom attempting to modify anything at Policies and guidelines, and only allowing appeals to those changes to go through them. This is not their responsibility. ArbCom was never elected to decide procedures, guidelines, policy, or any consensus bounded decisions on the project. Such concepts are entirely outside their remit. Nobody voted them into office on the understanding that this would be their role, and thus nobody has considered whether any of the current consist of ArbCom is capable of managing this. Thoughts? --Hammersoft (talk) 00:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd encourage you to read through the case evidence or at least the findings of fact to see why the elected arbitrators, on the whole, felt that this was a solution to . An RfC has been a part of previous cases, including around Jerusalem, which formed the basis for this RfC wording, and GMO. You will notice that the committee has not even set the questions for discussion and the any changes which gain consensus will do so through a typical RfC process that is used to modify policies and guidelines. I hope that answers your question. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:36, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I do recall a number of times when RfCs were generated because of ArbCom decisions (examples; 1, 2). So far as I can recall, such RfCs have never been controlled by ArbCom, and overturning their conclusions via any new consensus garnering mechanism has always been left to the community, not ArbCom. This is new. I was not previously aware of Requests for comment/Jerusalem, but that RfC was to resolve a dispute (which is within the remit of ArbCom). It was not to decide how any process on Wikipedia is to be run, which is what this RfC seems to cover. I would like to note that I'm not the only one who has raised concerns about ArbCom's scope with regards to RfCs. One of ArbCom's own has done this in the past; see this comment. And now we have an opposition to this RfC based on remit grounds as well from Worm . Worm is right. This is not within ArbCom's scope of responsibilities. Any decision made by ArbCom with regards to the RfC is void. No process run by ArbCom, much less one where it can't be appealed except through ArbCom, is going to modify Deletion policy, and thus will not modify Articles for deletion, which is descendant from that policy. Such modifications are clearly outside of ArbCom's remit. ArbCom does not set guideline or policy here; the community does. If ArbCom can't modify either of those, such an RfC will be meaningless as it will result in no changes that are enforceable. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at WT:ACAS, and the discussion there is raising questions about WP:SIGCOV, what constitutes a valid stub, what shouldn't be allowed as a stub, whether an editor should be allowed to create a stub, etc. These are operational issues. This isn't a dispute between parties. This RfC can not and must not go forward. ArbCom is about to embark on controlling article development. What concludes from this RfC can not be changed without appealing to ArbCom. This is unequivocally wrong. This is about as far outside of ArbCom's remit as you can possibly get. If ArbCom claims some right to do this, then they can wave the "DISPUTE!" banner at anything on Wikipedia and claim jurisdictional right over it. There have been disputes on probably every policy and guideline on the project. Are we just to hand the reigns of policy and guideline management over to ArbCom? If ArbCom wants to provide a "friend of the court" sort of brief to help inform the community in regards to an RfC, fine. But, ArbCom has no valid right to dictate the RfC by way of appointing people to control it and preventing appeals except through them. The power for this unequivocally lies with the community. If ArbCom (or its appointed delegates) dares to modify WP:DP, WP:AFD, or WP:AFC the community is going to blow sky high over it. There will be hell to pay. Alternatively, if a well meaning editor attempts to modify any of those based on the conclusions of this RfC, there will be hell to pay when people find out they can't change those pages because ArbCom said so. ArbCom, you can NOT do this. You are completely out of line. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll point out that's actually just an argument -- much of which appears to be rhetorical -- among several editors, which I've unsubscribed from and will be archiving when the RfC starts. It is not an actual part of any phase of this process. Valereee (talk) 15:49, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and just closed it and asked the editors involved to discuss elsewhere. Valereee (talk) 15:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand that "appeal only to ArbCom" provision looks heavy handed, but think of any other large-scale RfC where you or another editor doesn't like the outcome. What's your recourse? There isn't much, since with that level of scrutiny, you're very unlikely to see an egregious close that doesn't accurately summarize consensus. Here, there's a built-in appeal mechanism--and after a while, it would probably be appropriate to consider the new situation to be settled, and for ArbCom to relinquish that control. --BDD (talk) 15:53, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ArbCom shouldn't have that control to begin with. They don't have that privilege. Only the community does. The way to overturn an RfC is to start a new one that gains consensus. We can't approach this with the philosophy that everything will be ok in the long run. This sort of action sets a precedent of allowing ArbCom to dictate policy and guideline. This simply isn't in their remit to do. To be blunt BDD, if you or anyone else from ArbCom or its delegates attempts to change policy or guideline as a result of this RfC, it will almost certainly be reverted by someone in the community as a result of jurisdictional isssues. What's the next step after that? ArbCom starts threatening people who change policy against ArbCom's wishes? Do you really want that fiasco on ArbCom's hands? ArbCom is creating a serious issue here, not solving one. Stop it NOW, I urge you. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you're WP:WIKILAWYERING or confused about what's happening here. No one is giving ArbCom authority over policy issues. They have previously responded to another conduct dispute, as is ArbCom's responsibility. They also identified a root cause of one conflict as "there is no community consensus on how to handle the consideration of mass nominations of articles at Articles for Deletion. This has created conflict in the community about how to respond to Lugnuts' article creation". Recognizing that it's the community's responsibility to define our best practices, they invited us to have an RFC and start figuring that out. There are editors who have tried to push that process off track, either trying to expand the RFC to something outside of the issue of mass creation/deletion actions, or trying to shut down the discussion entirely. But RFCs necessarily involve a consensus building process. ArbCom has no role there other than to be a forum of last resort for any conduct issues. In the meantime, the moderators / closers are as good as any other volunteer for guaranteeing a collaborative approach to problem solving. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:32, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Two points. First, unlike the Jerusalem RfC, the one about GMOs was not initiated by ArbCom, although it arose out of the ArbCom case. I asked that there be an RfC, ArbCom declined to initiate it, and an administrator agreed to take it on as a generous reading of DS. Second, although I strongly support having the RfC in this case, ArbCom could (as I suggested in another discussion thread) decrease the appearance of ArbCom overstepping by saying explicitly that the close by the RfC closers could not only be appealed to ArbCom, but also to AE or to a new RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's anywhere near as dire as you think, though if an individual tried to ignore consensus from the RfC citing "jurisdictional issues", I'd be shocked if community sentiment wouldn't be strongly against that person. If a second RfC strongly rejected the outcome of the first, then yes, there should be a recognition that consensus has changed. If that means the formality of an ARCA to validate that second RfC, I don't see that as a big deal (and if the ArbCom at that point chose not to do so because of "jurisdictional issues", they would be wrong to do so). --BDD (talk) 21:01, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I haven't been clear. Allow me to explain this again. There isn't a subjective analysis of how bad this is or isn't. It's an either/or situation, 100% one way or the other. There is no middle ground. Either ArbCom is overstepping their scope and remit, or they are not. It's blatantly clear they are. What will come of that, who knows. The implications to the project could be quite damaging. People have faith in this project because the will of the community controls it, NOT ArbCom. I sincerely hope you are well aware of the consequences that happened when the Wikimedia Foundation tried to overstep their bounds on this project. If ArbCom tries a similar tack, there IS going to be hell to pay. I think at a minimum if ArbCom tries to pull this stunt and take over administration of Deletion policy (which is a likely outcome of this RfC) I will initiate an RfC at the same time to determine community consensus on whether ArbCom has the authority to do so, and if the ArbCom RfC is therefore void. I think it is crystal clear that ArbCom does not have the power to set policy on this project. ArbCom can avoid a lot of this controversy by taking Tryptofish's excellent advice above. What is ArbCom afraid of? --Hammersoft (talk) 23:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi @Hammersoft, I hear your concern. Does this comment above – which confirms that the community is of course free to modify the results of this moderated RfC at any point in the future through a new RfC – alleviate your concerns? It seemed to be acceptable to Tryptofish. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 23:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That isn't made clear in any respect at the decision. Change the decision such that it reads that the consensus of the RfC can be overturned by the community through a new consensus mechanism at any time, then you'll have something. ArbCom would still be putting their noses under the tent of policy making (which is completely out of line) but at least the community can undo the damage. As written, there's no possibility of that, and ArbCom will be administering policy. If the wording isn't changed, I maintain my position. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Got it. Thanks for your input, much appreciated. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 00:18, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Kevin, in that comment above, you told me that you figured that it would be self-evident that the community could hold a new RfC any time, and that you wouldn't want to take the step of clarifying the point unless other editors beside me interpreted the language to mean that ArbCom was reserving an exclusive role for itself. Well, in the discussion here, you have an abundance of evidence that I wasn't the only person who read it that way. I think it's becoming very clear that ArbCom needs to change the language in the case remedy. As I said above, the change should be from saying that the only way to challenge the result of the RfC is by going to ArbCom, to saying it can be challenged either at ArbCom, AE, or through a new RfC. I'd advise ArbCom against ignoring this concern. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I hear you. Thanks for the explicit note. On the merits, I don't know why we would allow an appeal to AE – ultimately AE is also an extension of ArbCom's authority and anything AE decides can later be reversed by ArbCom, so it seems faster and simpler to just skip to ArbCom. I'm curious to hear whether the following language works: Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 20:10, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Kevin. For that language, you should drop "or of the panel close" from the part about what can only be taken to ARCA, because otherwise it partially contradicts the new language. And including AE serves some useful purposes. Although AE is an extension of ArbCom, it isn't ArbCom. And it can be an ideal place to efficiently deal with simple proposals. As I said somewhere above, in the GMO RfC there was only one request for change, and it was made by me. It was simply to make a trivial correction of linter errors, and it was dealt with easily at AE. Not the kind of thing where you would want an RfC (or ARCA, for that matter). Trivial things can come up, and one would still want some sort of defined mechanism to deal with them, so that you don't have some random user changing the result because "it was trivial". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree with Hammersoft's point, which I think also raised somewhere recently. At first blush, the notion that Arbcom is going to order a policy-changing RFC, appoint the moderators (who decide the question), appoint the closers, and hear the appeal... you gotta be kidding me, right? Why don't you just edit the PAG directly if you're going to control every aspect of the decision-making process? And holding RFCs, appointing moderators and closers, and hearing appeals of RFCs are nowhere in WP:ARBPOL. It's just not a power that Arbcom has.
 * So here comes the "but"... three buts actually:
 * But WP:IAR. This creation/deletion thing is a serious mess; we all know this is true; we all know we've been trying without success for years to bring some kind of stability to this area. What the hell, let's try this out and see if it works. There is some precedent for some parts of this (prior Arbcom RFCs have worked, although they were a long time ago and very rare). We're a wiki after all, let's be bold and experiment. Who knows, it just might work!
 * But who cares anyway. Let's say Arbcom didn't "order" or "require" any of these things. Suppose they were all suggestions: they suggest having an RFC, they suggest who the moderators are, they suggest who the closers are, and they'll take a first crack at reviewing any appeals and suggesting an outcome. None of these "suggestions" would stick without the community's ratification. That is: if everyone hates Arbcom's suggestions, no one will participate, and the whole thing will die. So who cares if Arbcom wants to suggest a very specific RFC procedure that involves a huge role for Arbcom? If other editors think it's a good idea and want to try it out, let's let them. There is little risk of harm because of "but #3":
 * But it's harmless because it's all ultimately governed by the community anyway. Arbcom might say the outcome can only be appealed to Arbcom, but we can ignore that. We could hear the appeal at AN. What are the arbs going to do, block the participants? Alternatively, we could let Arbcom hear an appeal, and if we don't like what they say, the community can just overturn it. We could launch another RFC right afterwards to overturn the prior RFC. We could modify WP:ARBPOL to specifically prohibit Arbcom from doing this. We can make these changes apply retroactively. We could disband Arbcom altogether. "Consensus can do whatever the hell it damn well pleases" and the community is always the ultimate last stop appeal authority, even when it delegates some of that authority to a body like Arbcom, we can always take it back. Arbcom has no actual enforcement powers over the community writ large. We have all the power over Arbcom, so there's little risk to trying this experiment. If it doesn't work, or if it ends in a bad result, we have the power to "undo" it just like any other edit.
 * So in sum, I agree it's outside of policy, but I think it's a low-risk proposition to IAR and try it out anyway. Levivich (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we can all agree that there is no bad intent here, and that having a discussion to resolve a known problem is an obvious positive; however, allowing ArbCom so much control in an area where long standing consensus says they should not have control, merely because we feel it's a good idea that something is being done, is - unfortunately - setting a precedent, and without firm and clear push-back, will be accepted as establishing consensus to do such a thing again. Now, if that is deliberately what we want: for ArbCom to have control over deciding content related issues, because we want ArbCom to have that authority, then we need to make that clear to the community and hold a RfC on that. Essentially, we either deliberately make this RfC a community issue (or deliberately make this an ArbCom issue - whichever the community prefers), or we quietly allow it to happen without awareness or protest so it becomes both precedent and consensus. Essentially, this is the time to protest and sort this, not the next time it happens, because once something has happened and nobody objected it has both precedent and consensus (see Silence and consensus), and it becomes more difficult to overturn, especially if this particular RfC is successful. Now, whichever the community wants is fair by me (ArbCom can not decide content matters, or ArbCom can decide content matters and can order the community to make changes to content matters, which can then only be appealed to them), but we shouldn't allow this shift in ArbCom's remit and authority to occur blindly because nobody - except it seems Joe and Hammersoft, noticed the implications of what is happening here. If we are going to put this down to an IAR situation, then that in itself should be made clear in writing, so it is clear that this is a one-off. But, even then, let us at least retain community control over content matters and have the wording changed that concerns regarding the outcome of this RfC can only be appealed to ArbCom. SilkTork (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I am pleased to report that the community is not quietly allowing it to happen without awareness or protest :-) See 's PD comment, Joe's comment at the top of this page from two weeks ago that I referred to earlier, and of course Hammersoft's comment in this thread.
 * The concerns you raise, and that they raised, are legitimate and I share them. But the number of editors participating in this outweighs the number of editors protesting it by a healthy margin, and I take that as a sign that the community seems willing to give it a shot. (Which surprises me, I was expecting there to be far more pushback than there has been.)
 * Personally, I think the most efficient way to handle it is to have an RFC about this RFC after this RFC is done, to analyze how it went and decide what changes to ARBPOL we want to make as a result (either explicitly authorizing Arbcom to do this sort of thing in the future, or restricting it). I feel that if we were to have an RFC about this RFC now, we would also end up having a second one later, after the RFC closed. So I see this as a 'test case' in essence. But I fundamentally agree about deciding this issue (whether/how Arbcom can run RFCs) explicitly (with an RFC) rather than implicitly (by just allowing it to happen and saying nothing). Levivich (talk) 19:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * These are quite important "buts". Thanks for keeping an open mind. While I suspect it's mostly rhetorical, as for "Why don't you just edit the PAG directly", I think you've (inadvertently?) hit the nail on the head: I'm not going to declare what PAG should or shouldn't say,* much less the committee as a whole. The mandate here, such as it is, is a question. The answers, up to and including "that's the wrong question" remains in the community's hands.
 * * Subject to the usual caveats. I could make such declarations, but they wouldn't be ex arbcom, just my own position, no more or less important than any other editor's. --BDD (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Except, it isn't. The decision makes clear that the ArbCom appointed moderators will decide what questions will be presented. That, ultimately, also controls the answers. Thus, the questions and answers are being controlled (even if by proxy) by ArbCom. Further, whatever decisions the moderators make can only be appealed to ArbCom. ArbCom's really thrown up their dinner on the carpet on this one and expected the community to eat it whole, while telling us it will all work out in the end. Sorry, I don't accept that. I would also like to note that precedent doesn't make something right. I can allow, as SilkTork has noted, that ArbCom has headed into this inadvertently and created a total wreck situation by accident. I can't allow from this point forward that there is no bad intent on ArbCom's part now that the issue is clearly on the table and clearly laid out. If ArbCom presses forward with this they are directly and willfully involved in a massive disruption to the project, all the while willfully violating WP:ARBPOL. ArbCom can not modify that policy without going through a formal amendment process. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Hammersoft, additional questions (those not developed from the workshop phase) can be added by anyone for the first seven days of the RfC with no interference from moderators, and after that by requesting the moderators to present further additional suggested questions. There is a rough draft of the RfC at User:Valereee/rfc draft which you or anyone else can comment on at that page's talk until the RfC start is finalized. Valereee (talk) 19:33, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I've been watching the development of the discussion, and I can confirm that, per Valereee, the moderators are in no way dictating to the community what questions will or will not be asked. It's been a very open and collaborative process. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:42, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I should add: what the moderators will have the authority to do, appealable only to ArbCom, is to enforce conduct matters during the RfC, such as page-blocking someone who disrupts the discussion. I think that's entirely appropriate. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * So this draft is in userspace? And the community has been made aware of it how? Sounds like it's in an out of service bathroom in a basement, locked in a filing cabinet with a warning sign about large cats on it. Good lord. I'd tried to find this draft RfC before and thought it would be at Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale. You know, where the community might actually see it? The only thing that seems to have come from that is a discussion about division of labor being shut down, even though such a discussion is central to the core issue. Ummmm...what? If ArbCom wants this to be transparent and non-confusing as possible, they sure are doing a bang up job of doing the opposite. Valeree, why did you shut down this discussion? Why is the draft in your userspace? You're not a member of ArbCom, nor a clerk with ArbCom, and are not one of the appointed moderators of the RfC. Even more confusing. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:14, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Hammersoft, Valereee is indeed a moderator. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 20:17, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. My apologies. Striking that portion of my comment. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You appear to have missed the archives at that workshop, @Hammersoft. I shut down the most recent discussion because you were describing it right here in this discussion as something it wasn't. It was a stray after-discussion that wasn't even being included in the draft for the RfC. Scroll up two days and you'll see my response to you; my next response was that I'd asked the editors to go discuss somewhere else, as I'd told them the workshop phase was over and I was now working on the draft and that further proposals could be added once the draft was published. Pinging you since you apparently aren't keeping up with the discussion here and must not be seeing my responses to your not-so-veiled accusations of my general sly wrongdoings that I think I'm hiding but, oops, gosh, can everyone actually see that? @Hammersoft Valereee (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't "miss" it. One shouldn't be required to read every scrap of everything that went into the recent ArbCom case in order to find fault with the outcome of it. If there is a problem with how this decision is framed, and how the announcements are being made about it, the issue is not with me, but with ArbCom for failing to be clear and candid with what it is they are doing. As of now, they are failing quite miserably in this regard. I am not the only one to feel this way. Accusations? No, Valeree, no. Things being developed outside of where they should be? Absolutely. I fail to understand why this is being done in userspace and not in Wikipedia space. I did look around, and did not find your userspace draft. Please kindly drop your stick and back away. Finding fault with this process does not mean I am attacking you nor any other person in an individual manner. I do find grave fault with ArbCom. I am not criticizng any one person's role in this. It would be illogical to do so; the entire thing is a catastrophic failure, too big for any one person to be responsible for it. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Tryptofish, per the decision, the moderators will also have the power to close the RfC and decide consensus. There function isn't just clerking and trying to ensure the RfC stays on point. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:14, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hammersoft, you misread what it says. (Yes, I know, this stuff needs a scorecard to keep track of.) The moderators do not close the RfC. There is a separate panel of three closers who do that. And, per the top of this discussion section, those three closers (none of whom is one of the moderators) were recently named. Just to make this clear: the moderators are Valereee and Xeno, whereas the closers are KrakatoaKatie, RoySmith, and TheSandDoctor. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow. You're right, I did misread it. The same problem sustains though. It doesn't change anything. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Hammersoft, you've misread, misinterpreted, and misstated a lot here, and much of it has been in a way that vilifies me personally. Valereee (talk) 18:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh good grief. I did nothing of the sort. Yet, here YOU are attacking me as having misread, misinterpreted, and misstated a lot. Drop the stick Valereee. This isn't a war to be won. I'm after ArbCom's dramatically poor decision making process in this and trying to prevent significant damage to the project. I'm not after anyone. I was asking questions which were pertinent to you as the draft is in your userspace. If asking why it is in your userspace counts as an attack, then you or anyone else might as well just indefinitely block me now because I fully intend to keep asking people asking pertinent questions. If you continue to insist I am somehow attacking you, you are quite welcome to make a report at WP:AN/I. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:00, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Hammersoft, you said
 * Valeree, why did you shut down this discussion? Why is the draft in your userspace? You're not a member of ArbCom, nor a clerk with ArbCom, and are not one of the appointed moderators of the RfC. Even more confusing. That is an accusation of overstepping on my part.
 * Now looking at the (very oddly placed, seemingly unannounced) draft of the RfC at User:Valereee/rfc_draft,. That is an accusation that I've somehow tried to hide it.
 * So this draft is in userspace? And the community has been made aware of it how? Sounds like it's in an out of service bathroom in a basement, locked in a filing cabinet with a warning sign about large cats on it. Good lord. Again an accusation I'm hiding something.
 * Valereee (talk) 19:20, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Accusation of overstepping? No. Question? yes. Accusation of trying to hide it? No. Questioning its placement where it should be more in the public eye? Yes. There is a difference Valereee. You might think I'm not using WP:AGF here, but if that's really the case...neither are you. Please, there's no further point in having a meta discussion reading between lines about true intent, etc. I wasn't attacking you. Let's AGF both ways and move on. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Because questions can't be accusations. They're just questions, forgodssake! Valereee (talk) 19:26, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Then after the fact you were misreading, misstating, misinterpreting was point out to you:
 * I stand corrected.
 * Wow. You're right, I did misread it.
 * I'm not the one holding the stick here. Valereee (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok. I hope you have a nice day. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hammersoft, you've made accusations and I've objected. If you want to claim that stating those accusations as questions means they weren't accusations, there's not much I'm willing to do about it. Taking people to ANI isn't something I really do on my own behalf. But you're in the wrong w/re me and my actions, here. I would have accepted a sincere apology, FWIW. Valereee (talk) 20:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Taking it to talk. This is well, well beyond the bounds of this conversation. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:35, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't actually think dealing with accusations made in this discussion and not retracted in this discussion is beyond this discussion. However, in the interests of the rest of the world I'll just unequivocally state that the accusations made by Hammersoft are absolutely untrue and I'm more than happy to answer any questions at my user. Valereee (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Now looking at the (very oddly placed, seemingly unannounced) draft of the RfC at User:Valereee/rfc_draft, it only took to the section proposed question to come up with something that would come out of this RfC that would change guideline. See User:Valereee/rfc_draft. ''Modify the General notability guideline (GNG)/Subject-specific notability guidelines (SNG) at WP:Notability...". So these guidelines would be modified by this RfC and the only way to change it again would be appealing to ArbCom. I.e., if this question reaches consensus, ArbCom will now be in control of Notability and descendant notability guidelines. Could someone please point me to where there was a consensus decision to devolve community control of the Notability guideline to ArbCom? Please? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Hammersoft, I am curious to hear whether an amendment in the form I mentioned here would resolve this concern. ArbCom certainly doesn't want to own the policy. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 20:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's half way better, but not all. As I noted elsewhere above, this is still putting the nose of ArbCom under the tent of the community's role of administering policy and guideline. I still think the best way forward is to have ArbCom act as a friend of the court sort of situation, not be the ones in charge of this. This proposal would be enough to muddy the picture in such a way that ArbCom can plausibly deny controlling policy and guideline, but it's still wrong. ArbCom needs to get out of this business entirely. I don't know why it's necessary for ArbCom to appoint moderators, and I don't know why it's necessary that ArbCom appoint closers with the sole power to evaluate and close the RfC. ArbCom's role needs to be one of assisting in preventing disruption and misconduct on the project. That's ArbCom's scope and remit, not administering RfCs. Allowing the community to overturn the result is just a bandaid on the problem. Nevermind that ArbCom doesn't have the power to "allow" the community to overturn it. The community already has that power, and such power was never devolved to ArbCom. Don't believe this? Imagine an RfC started a couple of months after ArbCom's RfC was implemented and found to be a collosal mess. Imagine that RfC overwhelmingly agreed that ArbCom's RfC was wrong, and overturned it. What's ArbCom going to do, block the people who supported overturning it? Block the people who changed ArbCom's modifications to WP:NOTABILITY? Maybe (maybe) ArbCom has the theoretical power to do something like this, but if ArbCom tried it the damage to the project would be worse than framgate. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:32, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Hammersoft, re your accusations at Now looking at the (very oddly placed, seemingly unannounced) draft of the RfC at User:Valereee/rfc_draft, that is a working draft, placed where I can work on it to try to distill the proposals brought up in the workshop phase -- which was announced in several prominent places -- before I move it to WP:ACAS and where it will indeed again be announced. I do not know why you'd think there was anything weird about me drafting in my user space or why such a draft, which is clearly labelled as such, is "oddly placed" there.
 * I understand you are treating this as me 'not dropping the stick'. The person making accusations isn't in charge of deciding who needs to drop the stick. The person being accused gets to keep defending until the person making the accusations rescinds them or proves them true. You picked up that stick. You're holding that stick. I'm just trying to make sure it's clear I didn't kill the horse. Valereee (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Any chance of an answer here? Valereee (talk) 20:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess that's a no. Valereee (talk) 09:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

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


 * As we discuss this RFC, I think it's important to bear in mind the significant difference between a theoretical or abstract question of policy, and a risk of actual harm to the project. In theory, by selecting moderators, selecting closers, and/or deciding close appeals, arbcom could, if it wanted to, attempt to influence the outcome via its decisions about moderators, closers, and/or appeals. But in reality, there is actually zero chance of this happening; there is no real risk of harm. This is because the theoretical harm contemplates a conspiracy amongst 20 or 25 editors, some of whom would get themselves elected in two election cycles so as to be on arbcom, one of whom would then file a mass-creation/mass-deletion-related case request, so that the conspirators could vote to have an RFC and appoint their co-conspirators as moderators and closers, so that they could then influence the choice of RFC questions and the assessment of consensus, and guarantee the outcome of any appeals, in order to make a change to our policies about mass creation and mass deletion that, presumably, the community would not otherwise adopt. Being familiar with the editors on arbcom, and the moderators, and the closers, I believe that if they all shared the same agenda regarding mass creation and mass deletion, they have been doing an amazing job of keeping it secret all these years. I have no idea what it could possibly be, and if I'm wrong and there is a non-zero chance of such a conspiracy actually being afoot, I would like us to let it play out just so I can find out what the ending is. If I'm right and this is a purely theoretical issue, having to do with jurisdictional lines in our consensus and arbcom policies, then I am happy to try out this practical test and see what happens, which I think will greatly inform our subsequent decision resolving these theoretical questions. Levivich (talk) 21:22, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * One doesn't need to imagine a conspiracy theory in order to consider the serious negative potential of this plan. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:09, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's entirely possible that the right thing to do is amend the remedy so the close can be appealed to the community. As Kevin noted above, the community was already free to change the consensus reached anytime it wanted (and we don't even really know what the topic that's going to be considered is because that too is being set by the community with only one current Arb, participating substantively in those discussions and he's clearly participating as an individual).But I'm actually having a hard time weighing all that because I'm also being told that this ArbCom is about to commit a FRAM level mistake. And I joined the committee ready to evaluate decisions of ArbCom and the WMF to ensure it didn't happen. The first question I ask is has been done in private that the community wasn't reasonably aware of and the reasoning for it can't be understood because it's a secret? No. The case was public. The discussion about the remedy was public. The feedback about the remedy discussion was public. The vote was public. This specific remedy has been posted or linked at least 4 times to AN and ACN since August when it closed so ArbCom has clearly been announcing that it exists. We don't have the secrecy and surprise aspects of FRAM and so already we don't have a FRAM situation. But do we have a policy overreach? This is the heart of what Hammersoft is allegeding. As noted I am absolutely willing to consider that we need to amend parts, but while the demands have changed (which in fairness is somewhat like FRAM) at various points in the discussion I don't think this is the clear cut overreach that they do otherwise I wouldn't have voted for it in the first place. And one reason I think that is because of my last question: is there nearly universal concern about what has happened? The answer to this is no. Dozens of editors have talked about the remedy and/or participated in the RfC process to date and they are not overwhelmingly united that something is wrong. There are definitely concerns, and I am taking those concerns seriously hence this reply. But I also need to note that what i see are a handful of editors upset at ACN. There are often a handful of editors upset at ACN and those people are often disappointed to see that they don't have quite the same support off this page as they do on it. This far more closely resembles that normal situation than it resembles FRAM or say WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU in terms of how united passionate enwiki editor's opinions are about the topic. Again I take all concerns seriously but I look at things far differently when I see clear community consensus than when I see a range of opinions (as is the Wikipedia norm). I think the FRAM comparison, therefore, does a disservice to the ideas expressed here which is why I'm at the point of saying "maybe we should amend it." But if the people most advocating for the change are telling me that the reason we should amend it is because we're about to start FRAM2 then then I can feel with confidence that "there's no reason to amend" because I don't think we're at risk of that. But if I'm being asked instead whether ArbCom got the remedy perfect or if there is a way to improve it in ways that will reassure members of the community who I respect, well that's a different question altogether and one I am likely to reach a different answer about. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:04, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * For the record, I am in the just-need-to-make-it-clearer camp. I don't think for a second that anyone on ArbCom was overreaching, even unintentionally. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:14, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ArbCom taking over the administration of any portion of policy or guideline on this project would be a fundamental shift in the nature of how this project is managed. That's what makes this so deeply disturbing on the level of framgate, regardless of how public or not public this was (and, to be clear, being public doesn't mean controlled by the community). If consensus is achieved on this RfC on any question that affects policy or guideline (this, is just one potential example), then ArbCom is taking over administration of that policy/guideline. This crosses a bridge that has never been crossed before, and one that is clearly outside the scope and responsibilities of ArbCom as confirmed by the community. If ArbCom attempts to change policy or guideline as a result of this RfC, any editor in good standing would have the authority to undo that change, as ArbCom does not have this power. "Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are developed by the community..." (Policies and guidelines). Nowhere in that policy does the community devolve power to create or change policy to ArbCom. I see no motivating reason why ArbCom has to create an RfC, appoint moderators to the RfC, control the outcome of the RfC, and handle appeals of this RfC. So, ArbCom is inducing this crisis....why? --Hammersoft (talk) 22:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I look around for the signs of a crisis and I don't see it. I don't see a FRAM type crisis, I don't see an Eostrix type crisis, I don't see the elements I saw once in 2021 and once this year from the WMF that through partnership never turned into a crisis. You feel that ArbCom is taking over the administration of a policy and guideline. I feel that ArbCom is facilitating a community process so the community can decide how it wants to handle the policies and guidelines because the community was unable to handle editor conduct about the policies and guidelines which is what ARBPOL tells ArbCom to do. You're telling me that because we view this differently we're about to have a crisis and I have explained at length above, and more briefly here, why that's not true for me and it remains that way despite you insisting it's so. That doesn't mean I don't take you seriously. If we can make a change that assuages you and others with concerns without undermining something that will potentially help stop serious conduct disputes that community has been unable to resolve I believe in doing that even if I don't think your passion of feeling is shared by the community. My question is whether it would actually assuage you and others with concerns. When you continue to tell me it's inducing a crisis it tells me you wouldn't be assuaged so why go through the effort of trying because it wouldn't stop you from taking the next steps you feel are necessary. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * For the record, I did support the case remedy to have an RfC. I have not participated in any discussion or action by the ArbCom regarding the RfC since then. I did not have anything to do with the choice or designation of the moderators or closers. I have not been in communication with any member of ArbCom, or any other Wikipedian, about this RfC, except on the public pages. I will recuse from any future discussion in or action by ArbCom regarding or arising from this RfC. I am participating purely as an editor. Donald Albury 23:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)


 * FWIW, my assumption had been that ArbCom, having ordered an RfC specifically so that the community could solve this problem instead of ArbCom solving it for us, didn't want to have handed down what amounted to an unfunded mandate. So they appointed panels of moderators and closers, set aside a location, ordered broad announcement.
 * I personally have no problem with appeals of my decisions being handled somewhere else. If anyone's got a problem with anything I've done so far, I await the notification on my user talk. Uh, I'll be travelling from the 18th-27th, checking in as frequently as I can but not as available as usual, so don't nobody accuse me of ANI or XRV or whatever flu.
 * I also have zero problem with anyone else who wants to take over as moderator because they think I'm some sort of shill for or puppet of ArbCom. Step right up. Hammersoft, I await your owl. I have notes I can give you. :D Valereee (talk) 15:58, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Valereee, I appreciate the smiley face as it adds levity here! I most certainly have never thought of you as a shill or puppet. Sorry, no owls. Somebody cast an avada kedavra and missed, hitting my owl by accident. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Regarding appeals, the text in question is: Any appeals of a moderator decision or of the panel close may only be made to the Arbitration Committee at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. The extent to which the RfC will be binding is the same as any other RfC. If you want to challenge the closure, you have to go to ArbCom, but nothing prevents a subsequent RfC from asking whether consensus has changed on the matter. In other words, the statement above doesn't say that that policies, guidelines, etc. affected by the RfC cannot be changed in the future. It's a statement about how this RfC is to be conducted, not indefinitely protecting its outcomes. There would be nothing preventing another RfC in the future from effectively overturning the RfC without challenging the closure of this RfC. That said, I don't know how much benefit the line really adds. Do we really have a lot of trouble with challenges/wikilawyering of coordinated panel-closed RfCs such that their decision needs an additional layer of protection? &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 16:26, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this should be clarified. In ArbCom proceedings where a desysop happens, it is common for there to be phrasing that says "They may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful RfA". Similar wording should be added here, something along the lines of "The consensus results of this RfC may be changed by another consensus." I too see no reason why ArbCom has to be the only place where the decisions of the closers can be appealed. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:12, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added that, seems completely uncontroversial. Valereee (talk) 09:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

pre-RfC mass-article creation discussion has begun

 * Original announcement


 * Yeesh... did I miss the principle that abolished WP:NOTBURO? And what is the basis for enforcing these onerous rules when this isn't even the RfC requested in the remedies (which was "how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion")? This seems like a bit of an overreach... –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If it stops the obvious bludgeoning that has, at times, so obviously impacted past discussions around notability, I'll accept whatever rules are deemed necessary. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:11, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I am more worried by the combination of declaring a) that only two people are allowed to close this mega-RfC ( and ) and b) their decision can only appealed to ArbCom. Essentially that's locking the wider community out of a very important part of policy-making (closing and challenging closes), and now the 'moderators' have decided that their ArbCom-granted authority extends to a 'pre-RfC' on a completely different topic, it feels like we're on a slippery slope. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 12:57, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I can understand your concern, but have very little experience in this part of the project - honestly, I'm only involved to try to get some sort of balance and to watch for bludgeoning again. I'll defer to your opinion on this. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:07, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Multiple arbcom members told us they considered it definitely within scope to include both deletion and creation and multiple editors told us they believed the two questions were inextricably tied together and that it was necessary to address creation at minimum concurrently and ideally as a precursor. The pre-RfC is workshopping both issues and is intended in part to decide the question of whether we can run them as a single RfC or should split them up. Valereee (talk) 13:51, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ETA: Xeno and I aren't closing the RfC. We're only developing (in process now) and then moderating it; a panel of three is being appointed for closing it. We'll only be closing the workshop phase. Valereee (talk) 14:38, 3 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't that be "mass-article deletion" instead of "mass-article creation"? Risker (talk) 08:44, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * pre-pre-RFC discussion expressed opinions that it was simply not possible to deal with mass deletion without first dealing with mass creation. I disagreed with this, expressing the view that it all needs to be dealt with together, but did so too late. Thryduulf (talk) 08:57, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * We're actually dealing with them together right now. Valereee (talk) 13:28, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ETA: (sorry, hadn't had enough coffee to be clear enough) Part of what the current pre-RfC workshop is to do for us is help determine whether it's feasible to run this as a single RfC or whether we'll have to run them separately. Valereee (talk) 14:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Current opinions on mass deletion are directly based on problems associated with mass creation. I support figuring out where mass creation stands first to avoid skewing the debate about mass deletion. i.e. if people think our rules about mass creation are weak or ambiguous, they're going to support making it easier to delete things because of the time it takes to deal with large numbers of bad articles, so it would be good to have a clear picture of what sort of mass creation is allowed when opining on what sort of mass deletion is reasonable. As for bureaucracy, for topics that have taken a huge amount of time, tend to attract the heat of current disputes and controversial personalities, pose the risk of codifying rules with far-reaching effects based on narrower problems, haven't had much forward progress for a long time, repeatedly come up all over the project, and have a tendency to sprawl, it is reasonable to try something new (like structure and moderation). I don't know if it's the best way, but it's a path worth exploring IMO. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 13:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Moderated discussions are not new nor unprecedented in English Wikipedia (see, eg. 2012 moderated RfC construction, 2012 moderated RFC discussion). RfC has always been discussion, moderated by structure and procedure, and closers of an RfC find community consensus or not. Nothing new. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Valereee was too kind to blame the rules on me, but I had suggested using rules similar to those previously used at WP:GMORFC. As stated just above, nothing new. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The objection seems to be mostly to the fact appealing moderator decisions and the panel closing is limited to a request at ArbCom, a rule which was set in place by ArbCom in the original decision, not by me or Xeno or the GMORFC rules. And I think those GMORFC rules are a great template for any RfC that has the potential for tempers running high! Very helpful, IMO.
 * At any rate, unless that appeals restriction was overreach by ArbCom, it wasn't overreach. Valereee (talk) 12:38, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It was, to me, overreach by ArbCom - I specifically raised the appeal aspect on the talk page during proposed decisions, but alas it still made it in. I like the designated mods, and many of other rules, but that is poor. I also really dislike non-threaded discussion. As it means if someone makes a point, and another person makes a rebuttal it's vastly less likely that all other readers will pair up that comment and that rebuttal. As such, rebuttals to points become vastly less efficacious. The same holds true for clarifications and expansions - it's impossible to mentally hold up the various threads within a discussion when they're spread across so many sections. More aggressive modding should reduce the negatives of threaded discussion, so to me, we should have stuck with the norm for RfCs. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The GMO rules were set for something that was an extreme battlefield, with polarized sides and people expressing outright hatred, so they were very necessary then. I have a feeling that the present RfC will not be nearly as bad, or at least I certainly hope not, so the rules may end up being too much, although that's probably better than too little. As for threaded discussions, I see those as being like ANI, whereas separate sections are like AE – and let's just say that I think ANI is problematic. Having less replying to replies can be a feature, not a bug. It can be even harder to mentally hold up a back-and-forth that gets tl;dr. Combining separate sections with word count limits forces editors to say what really matters, and let the rest go. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh man. The last time I saw multiple people closing an RfC, it was at SCHOOLOUTCOMES, and it was total cockup. Oh well. So, where are some examples of mass article creation and deletion? I can't really say much until l see some examples. Also a statement of the actual problem we are supposed to solve here? Too many articles being mass created, or too few? Too many articles being deleted, or too few? Too many articles being created and then deleted and its a waste of time? Or what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herostratus (talk • contribs) 08:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's the appeal only to ArbCom bit that I was suggesting was an overreach, since it gives ArbCom the final say on what policy should be. It might help if they clarified that while your close can only be "appealed" to ArbCom, the community can modify it later in the usual way.
 * Whether or not you like your discussions to take place under 500 words of rules is a matter of taste, I suppose. Though I would say that the more complicated you make the format, the more the discussion is going to favour 'insiders' who are used to it. That's one thing if we're talking about specific niche topics that have already proved contentious, quite another if we're considering restricting the ability of all editors to create articles. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 13:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * About the appeals to ArbCom, if I read it correctly, that applies only to decisions made by the moderators during the course of the RfC – things like p-blocking a disruptive user from further participation in the RfC. The moderators and the closers are two different groups. It has nothing to do with the closing consensus or any policies or page contents. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC) Woops, thanks Valereee. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * They said both at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing: Any appeals of a moderator decision or of the panel close may only be made to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA. Valereee (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, at the pre-RfC talk page it does just say moderators, which is what I saw when I made that comment, but it's true that the ArbCom decision says both. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Correct! I had edited that for the workshop phase because there was no "panel close" there, apologies for making things less clear! Valereee (talk) 19:41, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thinking (again) about what we did with the GMO case, something ArbCom could consider with respect to appeals of the RfC close, particularly if there is a shift in community consensus over time, would be to also allow going to (1) WP:AE, for a consensus of participating AE administrators, or (2) to another community-wide RfC, with publication, participation, and moderation and closing similar to the original. (See closers' statement, second sentence of second paragraph.) Allowing these alternatives, in addition to going to ArbCom, would take it out of the situation of ArbCom taking for itself an exclusive role in a content decision. That might help with the concerns expressed here, without making it easy to end-run the consensus. (In the GMO situation, there was only one rather trivial request for a change, filed by me, that was simply to correct Linter errors in the text. It went to AE, and was dealt with easily.) If that sounds like something ArbCom might want to do, I'd be willing to file an amendment request. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Tryptofish, I'm following this discussion and the other feedback from the deletion case, as well as the pre-RfC discussion. If we receive an ArbCom appeal, I would be open to considering delegating the decision of that appeal to AE. Also, note that unlike GMO or Jerusalem, the results of the close are not "final" – they are not irrevocable by the community, and the community can amend them at any time through a new RfC. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 05:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks Kevin, I'll sit tight on any action about that for now. However, I'm now confused about what you say about the community being free to amend through a new RfC. The remedy in the ArbCom decision says that the close may only be appealed to ArbCom, but nothing one way or the other about it subsequently being changed by the community without ArbCom consultation. I suppose I could parse it to mean that only ArbCom can overturn the close of the RfC, but a new RfC, not questioning the previous RfC consensus but just seeking a new consensus, is permitted. However, that's not clear. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This is the correct interpretation. Unlike prior ArbCom-mandated RfCs, there is no period during which this RfC is "binding" in that it is unamendable; we speak clearly when we mandate otherwise. For example, in WP:RFC/J (Special:Permalink/531640266), we decided that the closure . If this is a point of active disagreement, I would be happy to so clarify at ARCA, but I didn't realize anyone had a different interpretation so I would hold off from ARCAing unless others took the incorrect interpretation. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 17:54, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * OK by me. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I agree with Kevin that the consensus that comes out of the RfC will be no different than any other consensus and so the community may change its outcome at any time through normal processes. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)


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

Level 1 desysop of Staxringold

 * Original announcement


 * Man, I wish I knew what the account wrote that was bad enough to get reverted and removed from the edit history. Hopefully this gets sorted out quickly! -- Rockstone Send me a message!  21:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * To the extent that there is run of the mill OSable material this was that. In other words nothing particularly exciting when I pressed the OS buttons. But I certainly recall my interest before I had the buttons so I understand the statement. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:38, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * To be honest what was written is not anything that is particularly interesting. Just self promotion and vandalism by the compromiser, none of which really needed to stay around. Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 21:39, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * For whatever my opinion is worth, I support deleting and even oversighting (a more thorough form of deletion) any material, whether good or bad, where authorship is misattributed to an account because that account was compromised. Jehochman Talk 22:09, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * To be clear, that's not why any of this was revdelled/oversighted. The edit summaries were RD2s, the edit content was RD3 (with a dash of DENY), one new page was deleted by the compromiser, and another new page was deleted under CSD A7. I requested oversight on the latter two sets of edits for, as Barkeep says, very boring reasons. Automatically deleting or OSing compromised accounts' edits would require changes to the applicable policies, and isn't what happened here. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 02:02, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that edits after an account takeover should be deleted no matter what because they are misattributed. Our system is designed to attribute each edit to an author. If somebody breaks into my account and makes edits, those edits should not be attributed to me because I am not the author. (If my understanding is wrong, please let me know.) If you requested oversight for other reasons, then those reasons are further justification. Jehochman Talk 13:23, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily disagree with that (would have to think further), but if you want that to be policy, you should propose it at WT:REVDEL or WT:OS, because it's not currently what happens (in an era where we're averaging 5 compromises per week). My instinct is that there wouldn't be consensus to add it to the OS criteria, but might be to add it to CRD. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 23:18, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thinking about this further, I think I would support this on the request of the compromisee. If we made it the default action, the problem we'd run into is that it's not always clear when an account is compromised. I've made several compromise blocks where a CU later told me that nope, the person had just suddenly gone, e.g. Wrugtrab. I've also made ones where a CU told me they honestly couldn't tell whether the account was a compromised 0-edit account or a sleeper. And given how many compromises are of 0-edit or <10-edit accounts, there's rarely someone whose good name needs to be restored—in many cases the original owner has probably forgotten that the account exists. So it's only the much rarer scenario like this, where an established user is compromised, where revdelling is likely to matter, and I think that could be differentiated easily enough by allowing revdel but only at the user's requst. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 23:31, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * An admin who, apart from deleting some images that they had uploaded themselves, hadn't made an admin action for NINE years. Our inactivity criteria are still worse than useless, aren't they? Black Kite (talk) 14:47, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Please wait until February 2023 before pulling out that old chestnut, as the process was overhauled specifically for cases like this; bemoaning something that has already been fixed (albeit with a delay) is a bit of a waste of time. Primefac (talk) 14:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I thought it was decided that January 1, 2023, was the date? :) Izno (talk) 21:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Give the new rules a chance for a month, before proclaiming their shortcomings... isaacl (talk) 21:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Staxringold was within 31 edits of meeting the new minimums just before his edits on September 10, and the initial notifications to admins not meeting those minimums aren't set to go out until October 1. The chances that he would've been in the first group to be desysopped on January 1 (currently down to 175) seem... slim.  —Cryptic 22:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * My recollection of the last discussion is that it was something like, "We know this isn't really where we want to be, but it's a step in the right direction so let's do that and revisit this when we see how well it is working". -- RoySmith (talk) 22:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello all. This is the real Staxringold (no, I promise, it really is, sending the appropriate email/messages to get unblocked). This is a rather frightening thing to discover. I did receive the notification about admin inactivity and fully admit to having gone hardcore inactive for some time. Thus, I fully understand if I end up losing those powers. However, as Cryptic suggested, I was intending to meet at least those minimal requirements to maintain them, for whatever that's worth. 75.150.91.37 (talk) 16:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Staxingrold acknowledged using this IP in 2014. So either a very very elaborate impersonation, or, much more likely, the real deal. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 21:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Can't a CU verify the above post with older Staxingrold edits? or is this situation outside of CU's actions? -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 21:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @FlightTime: Hi. ArbCom is in communication with who we believe to be Staxringold. The standard procedure is for WMF to verify that Staxringold is back in control of their account and for WMF to unlock the account. That's good news: no detective work or sleuthing by the community is required on this one. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 21:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * CUs are unwilling to connect IP addresses and accounts. That aside, is there any reason whatsoever to doubt the identity of this IP? Presumably when WMF Trust & Safety re-establishes Staxringold's access to their account, Staxringold can confirm the IP was them to clear any lingering shadows of doubt and there would be no good reason for a checkuser even if one were allowed. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 22:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I was considering points made by you both, that's why I asked. For what it's worth, I also think the IP post is "the real deal" Thanks for your replies. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 22:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wasn't trying to get into all of the logistics of account reclamation here, as it's a pretty well-established, smoothly-run process at this point. Was just trying to use some SPI clerk skills to head off any questions about whether the IP above is legit. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 22:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I attempted the password reset procedure, but I still receive the same message upon logging in with the temporary password "This account is globally locked. You will not be able to log in to any Wikimedia wikis. Please contact the stewards if you have any questions." I have messaged the stewards, per the link that message directs me to, so I will await their response. Thanks! 75.150.91.37 (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You will not be able to password reset or log in until you are no longer globally locked. — xaosflux  Talk 14:26, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You need to follow the instructions at meta:Help:Compromised accounts and email to regain access to your account. When an account is locked it is impossible to log into it. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I did so yesterday, I'll await their reply. Thanks! 75.150.91.37 (talk) 18:37, 13 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Non-arb update: Staxringold is now unblocked. No user permission changes as of yet. — python coder (talk &#124; contribs) 02:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * We are in communication with Staxringold. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:36, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * FYI I can confirm those anonymous IP edits above were me. Apologies to everybody, this was a strange one. Staxringold talkcontribs 13:52, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing

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


 * Thanks for clarifying this. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 03:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Change to the CheckUser team

 * Original announcement


 * I'd echo the thanks in this announcement. Happy editing, Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 21:04, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Likewise here. GorillaWarfare has been one of my exemplars of how to be a good checkuser and I will miss her from the team.  -- RoySmith (talk) 17:19, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * what are you talking about? GorillaWarfare wasn’t active at all as a checkuser I never saw her around at SPI ever. 2402:3A80:198F:BD27:E4E6:CE6F:3D3:9A4F (talk) 11:21, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Different things surely. How to be an "exemplar.. how to be a good CheckUser" could mean communicating well, being excellent at technical investigation, discrete and helpful in guiding other CheckUsers. None of that would be visible at SPI, and SPI is not the only place a CheckUser can be active. MarcGarver (talk) 15:22, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Lightbreather

 * Original announcement

We all deserve a second chance. Welcome back Lightbreather. GoodDay (talk) 23:23, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Welcome back, Lightbreather! GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:26, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Staxringold restoration of permissions

 * Original announcement


 * Access restored following request at WP:BN. — xaosflux  Talk 18:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I am curious to know why some arbitrators opposed the motion. --Rschen7754 18:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Probably due to the discussion currently going on at WP:ARM about tightening the account security expectations for administrators. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 18:18, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Rschen7754: Thank you for asking. Some arbitrators, myself included, were not impressed by the account's pre-breach security practices. Ultimately, there was a split about the best way to address it going forward: whether withholding restoration of permissions and/or policy development on account security would be advisable going forward. I personally supported the motion because I thought public discussion about account security in a general sense (independent of this specific instance) would be best, but I also think that it was reasonable for arbitrators to vote to not restore sysop status. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 18:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:RETURN presently frames our assessment in terms of the password security before the compromise, not after. If you go and review the legislative history in the context of WP:RETURN's last amendment, both onwiki and on arbcom-en-l, it's pretty clear that the 2019 ARBCOM was sick of admins not taking WP:SECUREADMIN seriously.
 * As a note, the motion posted had several second choices voting in support. An alternative motion not to resysop Staxringold was a split at 5-5-1 (though the 1 was more in opposition to the motion than not). Izno (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The alternative to not resysop was at 5-4-1 (in favor of not resysopping). The motion to straight resysop was 5-5. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * True. I thought it made sense to elide that the arb who didn't ultimately vote on the not-resysop motion was ideologically opposed to it based on their comment in the context of the posted motion, but sure. :) Izno (talk) 18:47, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * So you went through all of that trouble to return the bit to an administrator who hadn't made a useful admin actions for nine years. I have to say, I wouldn't have bothered. Black Kite (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Inactivity of the administrator in question was commented on by one arb, but I personally (and I would assume the majority of arbs) did not think it was within our remit to consider their activity as part of an assessment of the security of their account. If you think it should be, the ARM discussion is available to you. Izno (talk) 18:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think its worth derailing the discussion there, which may be useful, especially as it's become clear recently that enforcing any sort of useful inactivity criteria is going to be a very long process. Black Kite (talk) 19:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, will Straxingold re-gaining the bit affect how they might be impacted by the admin activity requirements that come into force in January? I tried to find him on WTT's activity page but couldn't find an entry for him when searching. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:34, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Admins are impacted by WP:INACTIVITY whether or not they are listed in a certain place. :) Izno (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I thank everyone for their efforts on this and do not take the somewhat ignoble honor of my resysopping generating this much discussion lightly. Now that I have the privileges reinstated, I just turned on two-factor authentication. I hope that, as a result, this is the last you will be hearing from me (re: account security) and (as I'd previously mentioned) the activity requirements were a bit of a kick in my butt to get a little active again. Best, Staxringold talkcontribs 20:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Staxringold I'm glad to have another inactive admin come back and get more involved. We need all the help we can get.  I would, however, caution you to go slowly.  Things have changed in the time since you were last active, both in terms of policies and community sentiment about how things are supposed to work.  So, read up on the policy docs and ask questions if you're not sure about something.  I think the one big take-away from the past year is that people are willing to forgive mistakes, but are intolerant of admins who don't take WP:ADMINACCT seriously.  So if somebody asks you a question about something you did, be quick to respond.  If it turns out you did something incorrectly, as long as you're quick to fix the problem, you'll be OK. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:19, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan, thanks RoySmith! Staxringold talkcontribs 12:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

RfC which may be of interest

 * Original announcement

Resignation of Donald Albury

 * Original announcement


 * Thank you for your service, Donald, and it's been a pleasure to serve beside you. Thanks for taking this step that will allow that spot to be filled in the upcoming elections. --BDD (talk) 20:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it was a very gracious statement, and I appreciate it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I echo my friend Tryptofish. Thanks a lot for this step, and thanks for your service. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:46, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your service to Wikipedia. — python coder (talk &#124; contribs) 04:14, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I just want to add my thanks to Donald Albury - for giving it a go, even if it wasn't what you expected. It's hard to prepare someone for quite the amount of nonsense that happens behind the scenes and I am glad that we haven't put you off the wider project! <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 08:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Donald, thank you for volunteering your time. The actions you are taking now only underscore the fact that it was to right decision to vote you in as a member of ArbCom. If you ever decide to run again, because life changes, I would be the first to support that. You are amazing! -- A Rose Wolf  13:00, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It was nice working with you, and I hope you enjoy returning to the volunteer work you enjoy. Thanks for stepping up, and thanks for giving so much consideration to the rest of the committee in making this decision. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for serving, and thanks for sticking with it 'til the end of the year. Your concern & consideration for the good of the wiki shines through. Cabayi (talk) 12:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Donald, thank you for your service and thank you for stepping down rather than staying and not being able to do the job to your best. It takes a strong person to admitt something like this and take the appropriate action. Best of luck going forward. --Malerooster (talk) 21:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Saddened by this news, but I understand, and thank you for coming forward. ArbCom is not a cakewalk, and it is good to know that you will be continuing in your admin capacity. My best wishes to the Don! <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 22:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I appreciate everyone's comments. To answer one question, I doubt I will be running for any position, again. For one thing, I was in grad school when pocket calculators replaced slide rules (I still have my slide rule). ` Donald Albury 01:16, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi . I'm really sorry to see you leave, I gave you a glowing write up here but I fully understand your reasons. My Dad gave me a slide rule for my 8th birthday. Best wishes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I thought slides rules were really cool, though I hated logarithms and logarithm tables. SilkTork (talk) 08:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

2022 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: candidates appointed

 * Original announcement


 * Congrats to Firefly and Blablubbs for appointment as CUs. Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 09:09, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Congratulations and well deserved — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 09:13, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Congratulations to both. :-) Katietalk 11:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I forget how this works. We take away your fez and, um, give you a different color fez?  In any case, glad to have you on board.  -- RoySmith (talk) 13:39, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Congratulations to Blablubbs and Firefly on the new hats! --   LuK3      (Talk)   17:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Changes to the functionary team

 * Original announcement


 * Thanks to Joe and DGG for their work as checkusers (and arbitrators). Your work is appreciated. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Athaenara

 * Original announcement

Arbitration motion regarding the reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara’s block

 * Original announcement

Level II desysop of Athaenara

 * Original announcement


 * Does this preclude the need for a case then?--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  18:41, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, my reading of the Arbitration procedure means that now a case is required. Which was part of my hesitance to LEVELII. I had identified this issue previously, and that's why I wrote up the "Return of Permissions" motion currently at WP:ARM. Unfortunately, that motion has not yet passed, and that means we are stuck with the current wording. It reads: If the editor in question requests it, or if the Committee determines that a routine reinstatement of permissions is not appropriate, normal arbitration proceedings shall be opened to examine the removal of permissions and any surrounding circumstances. (underlined for emphasis). That means that if we choose to not return permissions here, we must open a case. <b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b> <i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i>⚓ 18:45, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You could open the case and then motion to close it in the same edit -- Guerillero  Parlez Moi 18:46, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Though I would say perhaps that wouldn't be normal arbitration proceedings. Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 18:53, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I am confident that should Athaenara request a case, we will be flexible and consider what kinds of proceedings will be best suited to the situation. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 18:56, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think my bigger question would be what there would even be left as a case. The original case request was essentially just a call for a LII desysop which has been done, and my reading of the original ANI thread is that the community stands behind the indefinite block. I just saw theres a new thread concerning a CBAN that Arbcom could weigh in on, but apart from that I don't see any substantial matters the case could even find. I also concur with Guerillero that if a strict reading of policy requires that a case must be opened it could immediately be closed by motion -- Asartea   Talk  &#124;  Contribs  19:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Technical questions: Are we still able to unblock ourselves? I vaguely recall that function having been removed. And, could a blocked admin still block whomever even while blocked? Thanks. El_C 18:56, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @El C I'm pretty sure all you can do is block the admin who blocked you. Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 18:58, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There was also confirmation that a blocked admin can still see private edit filters, but cannot view deleted pages or revisions. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:01, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If you could prove this confirmation, it would be much appreciated, as it addresses a lot of my concern in the delay of the desysop (as shown in my statements at the case request). What I see from the linked phabricator task is that is in the 'backlog' and thus still in the works. Clover moss  (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Clovermoss Saw that task linked when I did the list repair for this discussion. There was a discussion last night on the Wikimedia Discord relating to this, where the ability of a blocked admin to see deleted pages, deleted revisions, and private edit filters was tested over on testwiki. Per that discussion a blocked admin gets the standard "you are blocked" message whenever trying to view a revdeled comment or deleted page, but can still view private edit filters after a block.
 * I've linked the Phab task in that discussion now, and made sure the task filer was aware of the discussion. It was only a quick test done last night, so some further testing will be needed to figure out if a blocked admin can still edit public or private edit filters. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:44, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That gives me some reassurance at least. I vaguely remember trying out Discord a year or two ago but I never got really involved in it. It was more of a observe and occasional comment for a day or two thing. Is there some sort of precedent of an on-wiki record of what people do that's relevant to the broader movement or is it more of a people chip in when it's relevant thing? If there's something like the former I'd like to watch it so I don't miss out on developments like this.
 * Also pinging because as far as I'm aware, he's the only other editor that explicitly mentioned the viewdeleted edits concern. I admit I'm a bit curious on his thoughts on this, too, if he feels like throwing in his two cents.  Clover moss  (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm aware the only official stance on this is a 2021 RfC on Discord logs, where consensus was to treat them the same way as IRC logs. Otherwise the regular concerns of WP:OUTING applies due to it being off-site content, which is why I was very careful to paraphrase the discussion and not post actual logs of it.
 * A discussion on the usefulness of it should probably be held elsewhere as it's off-topic for this announcement. But I will say that it's useful for brief ad-hoc/informal discussions, and raising/investigating technical concerns prior to filing bug reports. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * To be clear, on the thoughts thing, I was talking about how an admin apparently can't see deleted edits if they're blocked so I was wondering if that changed Levivich's position at all since he also brought that up as a concern. I realize that this likely isn't the venue for broader discussion about Discord. Thanks for letting me know about that 2021 RfC, I was unaware of it. Clover moss  (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I suppose that takes some of the urgency out of it, but it doesn't really change my view on anything. The benefit of swift action is to send a clear message, and the risk of slow action is dithering. What bothers me the most is, as many have said, if someone opposed an RFA because the candidate was Black, we wouldn't be having any of these discussions at all, it'd all be done and over with by now. It's important to me that we process transphobia the same as we'd process racism. Not processing it the same way suggests that it's not the same thing, and thus that trans editors aren't afforded the same protections here as other groups. But I think the arbs are doing the best they can given the sort of out-of-blue shocking nature of this, the fact that our policies aren't written to account for this kind of thing, and as we're all learning these past few days, the fact that a surprisingly large portion of our regular editors seemingly aren't actually all that bothered by it (eg, see next section). Levivich (talk) 03:16, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You expressed what I was trying to get at. It takes some of the urgency out of the every second message I was conveying, but not the overall intent. Hate speech, especially directed at a specific person, isn't okay. I understand that not everybody's values align and you can't force people to agree on everything... but I hope for a day where people's rights to exist are not up for debate because they shouldn't be. I also agree that the arbs are doing the best they can under the circumstances. It doesn't seem like a "kangaroo court" to me. Clover moss  (talk) 14:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * When blocked, you can block the blocker. You can only unblock yourself if you blocked yourself. —  xaosflux  Talk 19:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Mutually assured destruction, I see. El_C 19:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @El C it's mostly to allow a stop to a compromised admin account that is going around blocking other admins. — xaosflux  Talk 19:07, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I gathered. I'm just being an idiot. Please ignore. El_C 19:08, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * From Blocking policy: “Historically, administrators were able to unblock themselves (the unblockself user right), but this ability was removed in November 2018. Stewards can still unblock themselves, and self-imposed blocks can still be removed.” Here’s the change: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T150826 28bytes (talk) 19:12, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you to the committee for taking this step. 28bytes (talk) 19:00, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Just noting that since this motion was posted, the following arbitrators have also voted to support it: BDD, Donald Albury, Opabinia regalis, and Cabayi. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 19:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Just noting that since this motion was posted, the following arbitrators have also voted to support it: BDD, Donald Albury, Opabinia regalis, and Cabayi. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 19:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Timing
I obviously view the Arbitration Committee as nothing more than a kangaroo court, but if it's to have any legitimacy, people being attacked by the virtual mob should be given at least a week to respond. Lots of people have responsibilities such as childcare or work or vacation or medical issues to attend to. A bit of time gives people the opportunity to reflect and formulate a decent response instead of being in full defensive and reactive mode. There are many good reasons we require a wait period for deletion discussions or admin promotions, for example. We should do the same here.

It's also puzzling that quite a few people noted the lack of urgency required here, and yet that wasn't enough to stave off a summary beheading. A small silver lining might be that now that the virtual mob has collected its pound of flesh, it might disperse. But that, of course, seems unlikely. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:13, 12 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Under the Level 2 procedures, Athaenara will be given normal arbitration proceedings to have the desysop discussed and looked into further. This means that she has the option to be given plenty of time to respond in a case. Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 22:23, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * A "summary beheading"? "Pound of flesh"? If you're trying to accuse people of being overly emotional and worked up, the physician might look into healing thyself before attending to the masses. Parabolist (talk) 06:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * (Off-topic discussion moved. Enterprisey (talk!) 19:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC))
 * Let's not beat around the bush here, there is no reply that is going to resolve this situation without a desysopping, so it is a moot point. ~Swarm~  {sting} 15:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The ball was in solely in Athaenara's court. She retains talk page access even now. Rather than apologising, the only responses from her were defensive of her position. If she wants to respond, she can. RfAs and AfDs are false equivalences as in those cases the ball is in the !voters' court, with each !voter editing at different times, some of whom may only be able to come one day of the week and thus 7 days is reasonable. &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 19:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * First I'll note I had no idea about any of this, haven't been active for the past few days and only just looked into it briefly so I'm not aware of all the circumstances. But given that, as other's have said, Athaenara still has the option to participate a case, I don't see why we need to give her lots of time to respond. There was significant concerns over her acting in an administrative capacity and while what she can do while blocked is limited, it's not zero and she did not really respond at all to the concerns nor indicate she needed more time to respond. Anyone with any experience with ANI as well as AN and stuff which does not hit the noticeboards will know that for regular blocks we definitely do not give editors a week to respond, in fact I would say it's extremely rare. It's fairly common for editors to be blocked after only a day or two of not responding. If editors say I need more time and stopped doing whatever they were doing that needed a response, they'd generally be given the time but if there was nothing or an inadequate response, it'll be sorry not sorry and a block no matter what and especially in a case where the editor did respond but simply very inadequately. If they respond afterwards, their comments will be considered but this is similar to the situation Athaenara. I'd note even a cban only has to be open for 3 days and it used to be 1 day and before that there wasn't a clear requirement with some closed in less than a day. And while most editors would give time for editors to respond if it was felt necessary, and especially if the editor under scrutiny said they needed it, this is again not that different from the situation for Athaenara. In fact, I'd go as far to say that although it's true Athaenara was already blocked, to me User:MZMcBride comments are extremely offensive in suggesting that admins at least when it comes to their admin bit, should somehow be treated super special compared to us plebs which I acknowledge includes MZMcBride themselves, who do not get that time. Especially since although this is just speculation since it's not something I've followed very well, I strongly suspect any other lesser permissions which regular admins can add or remove are treated the same away as blocks and bans and you're definitely not given a week to respond if you give no indication you need extra time. Note that I'm not saying giving editors adequate time doesn't matter, in fact it was only a few weeks ago I was complaining IIRC more than once that some editors seem to think volunteers need to be ready to drop everything and fix or respond about some non urgent situation in an article in a day or two; I'm simply saying the possible temporary removal of admin permissions should not treated so different from anything else by giving it a courtesy no one else receives. (I also supported giving an editor I won't name so I don't bring them in to something which does not concern them, a lot of time to respond at ARE when they asked for it provided they stopped edits causing concern.) Nil Einne (talk) 22:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's entirely reasonable to treat a drive-by vandal differently than someone who's been volunteering here for years. That's how basically every community in the world operates, people get different/better/more lenient treatment based on their reputation, experience, social connections, etc. This has nothing to do with whether someone is an admin, tho of course you'll often see some correlation between long-time contributors and admins.
 * Your argument seems to be largely "we treat others poorly all the time, why should this be different?" and I don't accept the premise. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:47, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That might have been true 10 years ago where you had contributors spewing vile vitriol at each other (the infobox wars in particular come to mind) and basically getting away with it on the premise of their reputation. But I think the tenor has changed around here to where that is no longer the case. And I think it's going to continue to trend in that direction. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  18:57, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Could someone link somewhere to what actually happened? I can't see any evidence and I've been doing other things for a few days. Secretlondon (talk) 11:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Special:PermaLink/1116499056 has most of it. — xaosflux  Talk 12:38, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

MJL promoted to full clerk

 * Original announcement
 * Congratulations to @MJL! KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 19:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Congrats MJL! :) firefly  ( t · c ) 20:10, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Congrats! Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 21:06, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I fear MJL's plans for world domination are nearly complete. Levivich (talk) 21:38, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, MJL! I appreciate that you've been a level-headed force for positivity on the encyclopedia for all these years and I trust that you'll be a great addition to the ArbCom clerks! <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 00:30, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Couldn’t have said it better, MJL. You are a great asset to this project. ~Swarm~  {sting} 02:31, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, MJL! I hope you find it an interesting job assignment on Wikipedia. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 03:32, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I can't thank you all enough for your incredibly kind words. I'm honored to have this opportunity and will do my best to represent the committee in this position as asked to. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 15:19, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding temporary checkuser privileges for scrutineers

 * Original announcement

Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block closed

 * Original announcement


 * A case that will be cited for years to come as how not to handle cases. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Trainsandotherthings: This was nowhere near GamerGate (2015) which barely makes its way into the top-10 worst managed cases --  Guerillero  Parlez Moi 23:29, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean, we know with every single case that somebody will say it was a terrible decision by the worst committee ever, so this is not unexpected, it's just wrongheaded. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't put words up my mouth. I said it was poorly handled; I made no comments on the character of the members of the committee. That you chose to interpret my comments in such a manner is entirely your choice. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Obviously you did not say exactly that. It's just 100% predictable that no matter what we do, no matter how many chances a case subject has to walk away unsanctioned, it still happens that someone immediately comes along the second the case is closed to tell us how bad of a job we did. Since you've offered nothing specific it's hard to see what the point even is. I don't even know why I commented on it to begin with. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Trainsandotherthings at the proposed decision talk page you wrote Your observation that we didn't have an SOP for publicly handling cases involving CUOS is correct because in most instances it would be impossible to do publicly and there has been no desire from the functionary for it to be public. So trying to figure out if there could be structural improvements in any future situations is something productive I think this committee should do. Besides the workshop thought, do you have other ideas about what the SOP should look like in this situation? Barkeep49 (talk) 00:45, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * To be honest, looking back on the events here, I think that the SOP should be "CUOS cases will be handled privately". In a normal case, the community has full view of the events leading up to the case and can freely view any and all evidence. Not so with CUOS. And I think that contributed to the heat in this case (hell, I am partially to blame myself, literally just above I said some things I shouldn't have). I can understand the committee wanting to respect TNT's request for the case to be held publicly, but I think it did more harm than good, and that blame falls as much on TNT as it does anyone else, I'm afraid. I still maintain this ended extremely poorly, but upon reflection I think the committee tried to handle the poor situation they'd been given as best as they could.
 * For a public case involving advanced permissions, I think it's pertinent that the committee promptly agree upon on and publicly post a full and complete timeline of all events involving advanced permissions (use of CU/OS, etc) that are not freely visible to non-functionaries and are pertinent to the case. Rather than the timeline being first revealed in the proposed decision, that should be placed prominently at the very top of the evidence section as soon as a public case involving CU/OS use is accepted. Everyone should be referring to the same set of facts as a neutral starting point. For this case, TNT's uses of the CU tool were posted in the case request, but not the pertinent information that other CUs had performed checks previously. I'm not remembering the entirety of the timeline, as I sat most of the case out due to my existing relationship with TNT (someone I'd consider a wikifriend) making it pretty impossible for me to contribute to the evidence in a neutral manner), but I'm not sure it was definitively established by the committee that previous checks were made, prior to the proposed decision. Correct me if I am wrong.
 * I also think the week of silence between closing of the evidence phase and the posting of the proposed decision left time for things to escalate, without any new information and with the community collectively holding its breath waiting for the proposed decision to arrive. I'm sure we can all imagine the pressure TNT and Lourdes must have felt during this time. What's the solution to this? I'm not certain. But I hope what I've posted here gives the arbs something to think about. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:17, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Let me give some thoughts I have about your suggestions and analysis. I'm going to go ahead and hat this beause it's quite long and I don't want to clog the page.

I think it's reasonable to say "CUOS cases will be handled privately", I just don't agree. For me the default of all committee actions is public. In CUOS situations there are very good reasons to do it privately. Once TNT asked for a public case there was no good reason I can think of to have this case be private. Normally we wouldn't be able to release pertinent information publicly. In this case, once TNT agreed we could release the CU logs (minus the specific IP address of course) it felt like all major evidence could be disclosed publicly. Beyond the fact that I think the committee needs to default to public proceedings, overruling TNT's wishes strikes me as saying that we knew better than TNT. But by definition we should be trusting functionaries to make difficult decisions including about themselves. So if we honestly thought that we knew better than TNT we shouldn't trust them to be a functionary. And that's not where I was at when we had to make that decision. That said, this could be an interesting question to ask candidates at ACE because I would anticipate some candidates will agree with your thinking. In this particular situation GN's check of Athaenara was definitely known but you are correct that I do not believe the other two checks had been publicly revealed before the PD. The committee has set the precedent this year of posting as evidence some on-wiki diffs it receives as part of evidence that has to be submitted privately due to WP:OUTING. But it's not the committee compiling that evidence it's other editors and the committee is just making the evidence suitable for public consideration. The first time the committee establishes something is during the PD. So the idea of a committee established timeline would be a huge departure from other cases and not one I'm sure would be well received by the community as a whole or by future parties who might feel the committee was prejudging the situation.There is also the element of arb workload. Putting together a timeline takes real effort and time. This is also the reason for the week between the close of the community phases (evidence/workshop - which I'll discuss in a moment). The committee considered shortening that time given the limited scope of this case but abandoned that idea after learning TNT would have been unavailable. It strikes me that it would have been incredibly unfair to post a decision and vote on it without offering TNT any opportunity for a timely reply, so we stuck to the week. Truthfully if we had done a shorter PD writing period I expect we'd have missed the deadline and that would have been its own stress.As for no workshop the committee has routinely received feedback that in editor conduct cases with 1 or 2 parties (like this case) that the Workshop feels awful for those parties. That it ends up being a lot of editors getting very heated with each other and, because drafting is hard, the committee doesn't even end up using many/any of the suggestions. That is it produces a lot of heat and virtually zero light. I feel like the community did provide us the kind of feedback that would have normally happened at a Workshop through the evidence and talk pages. And by getting rid of the workshop the case was able to run for 1 week less than in a typical case timeline and a fast resolution was a priority here.I really do want to thank you for your thoughts. I definitely think next year's committee should consider an ArbCom procedure that all CUOS misconduct cases are private. I wouldn't support but a majority of arbs might. I think your observation about making as much private information public in policy compliant ways is good; while the privacy policy prevents public disclosure of who ran checks with-out the CU's permission the committee could have disclosed the three checks prior to TNT's before the PD. And yes the committee should continue to look for ways to shorten the timeline of cases even if there are some practical limitations to that.


 * Thanks again,Barkeep49 (talk) 01:58, 3 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Well, if Athaenara's intent was to throw a grenade into our midst and take up a ton of everyone's time and energy, they succeeded beyond wildest expectations. We're down two admins (not counting Athaenara) and probably another dozen good users have been pushed closer to the breaking point. A shame all around. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:32, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The real shame of it to me is how utterly unnecessary all of it was, from Athaenara's initial comment right up to poorly thought out accusations and attacks made as recently as yesterday. We could've just gotten rid of one bigoted user and moved on, and everyone would be happier for it. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:49, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Definitely; as a result of this mess, one of the most trusted (Based on user rights) users has been driven off of. the project, and may lose their steward status in February as well. ( I have a hard time seeing them pass confirmation given that they had local CU and OS removed for cause.)Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * To say TNT was "driven off" is to ignore pretty much all the key aspects of how this case developed. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:59, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm probably one of the very few here who still consider Athaenara a Wikipedia friend, despite that completely inappropriate comment that they made. I think they had no intention of throwing "a grenade into our midst" and did not foresee the ramification of their actions. I don't know their state of mind at the time that they posted that remark but I think something snapped and they lashed out. If they had known it would lead to their desysop and indefinite block, I don't think they would have said it. There is something to be said to counting to 10 (or 100? 1000?) before posting a personal opinion on this project, especially one that might lead to the conclusion by others that one is a hateful bigot. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 03:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If they had known it would lead to their desysop and indefinite block, I don't think they would have said it. Not to relitigate the situation, but she bloody well knew there would be consequences, given that she appended "Go ahead, "cancel" me, I don't care." to her inflammatory remark. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 18:23, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * While I fully respect TNT's to be left alone in this, I would would like to urge the incoming ArbCom to conduct an internal review of this case, with a particular focus on how it was handled on and off-wiki. There are so many things that went wrong in this case, that ultimately lead to an outcome that I suspect Athaenara would not be dissatisfied with, based on her comment made in the RfA. I find it particularly perverse that on the one hand members of the committee remarked on temperature raising comments made by TNT, while on the other allowing an arbitrator to make a without any public rebuke. And then, to add further insult, TNT's response to the provocation by that arbitrator was . I would like every committee member, including those who recused, and particularly the one who made the temperature rasing comment, to ask themselves a simple question. If that comment had not been made, if TNT had not been provoked by that comment, which accused the restating of their apology as desperation, would this case have had a different outcome? Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:45, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * We already had that discussion on the same page as the diffs you have posted. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this assessment denies TNT any agency. Beeblebrox chose to say what he said. TNT chose to respond how they responded. We shouldn't infantilize TNT by acting like a single negative comment left them with no choice but to reply in kind. They're an adult. Can we please just let this case die? --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 02:27, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think I agree that this denies agency. I don't see this as a a single negative comment left them with no choice but to reply in kind, I see it more as "final straw" in a very tense and stressful situation. While it is true that TNT is ultimately responsible for how they acted and responded, it is also true that committee is responsible for how they responded, both as individual members and as a whole. Given the circumstances, I think it is sensible that the committee and its members should ask themselves "did we make this worse? And if so, how can we prevent this from happening again?" Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:45, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Many people, when sanctioned by ArbCom, choose to leave Wikipedia, for a time or forever. I probably would if in the same position. I don't think that's a problem for ArbCom to fix. It's just human nature. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 02:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think those admins/editors who stick around after an arbitration case are more the exception than the rule. But there are some notable examples of individuals who have continued to be productive editors even after a sanction, desysop or adminishment. I'm sure it's humbling beyond imagination but it is possible to continue to be active here. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 03:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I suggest it would have been helpful to narrow the scope of evidence phase, given that this was not a standard arbitration case, but a review of checkuser usage being held in public. The committee could have presented the equivalent of the timeline history it would have gathered in private, leaving participants to propose additions. I also think it would have been helpful to explicitly state if the arbitration committee wanted to hear arguments on interpreting checkuser policy. As per (and the associated ), the arbitration committee has the authority to decide on the appropriate course of action on its own, but of course it can choose to consult with the community. isaacl (talk) 01:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

, I concur with Beeblebrox (but then, I mostly do and have done for over a decade - there are some people whom one meets in real life and takes an instant liking to. There are other people who may seem friendly enough but who will throw you under a bus). I think Arbcom sometimes deserves all the criticism it gets especially when it comes from hardworking and highly respected members of the community. I am greatly saddened by the turmoil the Committee has caused - again. Despite my own feelings about Arbcom, I have always believed that the Committee's remit - on paper at least - was to be fair, defuse, and encourage, rather than going out of its way to seek the most contentious 'solutions' within its powers and punish people. Now we've lost another valuable member of our community and scolded another admin who will now probably withdraw their support for Wikipedia. Ultimately, the Committee does just as much to harm Wikipedia as any of the issues it tries to resolve.

TNT's valedictory is no worse than any of the others by admins who have felt they were unfairly treated or excessively punished for just doing their voluntary job in what they clearly believed to be in the interests of Wikipedia. Arbcom committees and the peanut gallery that populates ANI just love rubbing salt into wounds and causing character assassinations. The thing that has escaped the notice of ever single past and present member of Arbcom is that the very nature of the community is to pile on with drama. Arbcom as a body wouldn't be allowed to exist in RL - they would be run out of town. As I said already on this issue, it's time to give it a rest. It's time to give TNT a warm hug and thank her for everything she's done for Wikipedia and wish her well - she's worth more than ten of people like any of us; removing rights without any chance of appeal and suggesting the peanut gallery decide on their future is almost medieaval in its concept. It's time to disband Arbcom and its tedious and complex bureaucracy and replace it with something else. 04:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kudpung (talk • contribs) Sorry,, I type a tilde too few. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree this case had problems, but my read of what those problems appears to be different from other people so far. It appears to me from ArbCom's initial reluctance to take the case, and from the relative speed and unanimity of ArbCom's votes on the various parts of the case, that ArbCom had decided very early on that TNT was WP:INVOLVED. (And to be clear, I think this was a very reasonable call by itself.) Because of this, TNT really didn't have any options available to them that would satisfy ArbCom but to apologize. But TNT didn't know this until the proposed decision was actually handed down. So TNT committed to an ultimately counterproductive strategy of arguing that they were, technically speaking, not WP:INVOLVED, or at least that they fell into an exception to the normal rules for involved admins. I think that this was unfair to TNT and amounts to ArbCom tricking someone into publicly embarrassing themselves (and also into completely wasting their opportunity to argue their own case until after the evidence phase closed and it was too late). My read for how to avoid this in future is for ArbCom to not try to be coy about their conclusions if they've made conclusions in the early parts of a case. Loki (talk) 04:35, 3 November 2022 (UTC)


 * A couple points:
 * The committee first attempted to have a private, collegial conversation with TNT about whether these actions violated the involved admin policy. They declined to do this and insisted on a full public case.
 * Early in the case, 12 days before the PD was voted on, Kevin asked them directly if they still considered them to be so. They responded with a firm "no."
 * Nearly every single case of admin misconduct this committee has ever taken had IMVOLVED at its core.
 * There was no trickery, INVOLVED was clearly a core aspect of this case before it even was a case. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand that TNT is the one who insisted on a case. My contention here is not that that it was unclear that WP:INVOLVED was a part of the case, it's that it was unclear that ArbCom had already made up their mind that TNT was INVOLVED from the start. You did ask TNT if they considered themselves to be INVOLVED several times, and they said "no" several times, but at no point did you say "don't bother arguing that you're not INVOLVED because we think you obviously were". (Or alternatively you could have just refused the case: if you don't need further evidence, there's no point in having an evidence phase, and a case without an evidence phase or a workshop phase isn't a case.) Loki (talk) 17:58, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I knew where I stood and knew where a couple of other arbs stood and I suspected it was a majority opinion. But I didn't know if it was unanimous and I only suspected but I didn't know where the committee as a whole stood. We hadn't reached that point in our discussions before the case went public and once that happened the kinds of substantive discussion we have in private changes. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:02, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I'll quote a minor essay I wrote a few years ago: ''When a high profile user leaves for what appears to be good, for whatever reason, it is important to first and foremost remember that they are a person with feelings equally as valid as your own. If they have left on bad terms, do not grave dance. If there's a template that could be placed on their userpage and the blocking administrator did not place it, do not feel like it is your place to do so. It isn't. Let them leave in peace, even if the conduct was less than ideal. If they return and evade their block, they will be dealt with, but that can wait until it happens.If the circumstances are sudden and the retirement is announced in a noticeable way, it's often worth considering whether or not there are circumstances that led to it, and if there's a right way to respond to it on-wiki. Often times there are good reasons why people leave: they could be facing harassment, their mental health could be suffering because of the project, they could have a lot of things going on in real life and Wikipedia just adds frustration to it, or they even could have decided they hate all of us here. In each of these circumstances, making a big deal of the situation is less than ideal. An important part of respecting the person in these circumstances is letting them leave in peace.''Might I suggest that in this case, perhaps the best way to let someone leave in peace is not to draw even more attention for longer to the manner of their leaving by debating the process. I've certainly been critical of the committee in the past, but it just isn't helpful in this circumstance. There's an election in a few weeks that people can vote in or run in if they feel there's a very strong need for reform. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:40, 3 November 2022 (UTC) I know this post is full of the usual aggrieved whingers every noticeboard post gets after ArbCom makes a decision that they don't like, but I'd like to congratulate ArbCom for making a difficult but fair decision given the unfortunate circumstances that led to the case. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:40, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Fully agree with Tony's point above. We elect the committee to take these difficult decisions for us, and the close is a reasonable one under the circumstances. It would be unusual if everyone agreed with a particular decision, but it's best if sticks can be dropped once the case is closed, and if you really want systemic change and think the community will agree with you, then proposing new ways of working via RFC and electing new Arbs are your ways forward. Finally, I do hope TNT returns to editing; obviously that's up to them and where their head is at, I can understand the hurt that an Arbcom rebuke might cause, but their contributions are valued despite this decision. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:39, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have a lot of thoughts about this case, have gone over it with a fine tooth comb in my mind. I can see a couple of things I would have done differently in hindsight, but I do not believe they would have changed the course of the case, nor the outcome. I'm terrifically saddened by the whole ordeal, as I have a lot of respect for TNT on many levels, but Tony is right, further discussion here only serves to exacerbate things. My email is open to any community member who wants to debrief in confidence, offer suggestions on how the committee could improve or vent about how awful the committee is. Or, indeed, anything else. <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 08:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I appreciate everyone involved with this discussion being as calm and rational as possible. I am sorry for TheresNoTime, But im glad that their punishment was not more than what was necessary. I do wish the best for everyone involved. PerryPerryD  Talk To Me 16:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * At least nobody is calling for a recall this time, as I've seen in the previous years. I do think this is one of the saddest cases I've seen in a while, but I don't believe at all that the case was incompetently handled. I do think perhaps the evidence phase got a bit out-of-hand because incidents were being brought up that was out of the case's scope. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  13:27, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

It is claimed that sanctions against editors should be preventative and not punitive. How true this is depends on anyone's personal opinion, but the final judgement of the Arbitration Committee - in all its past and present compositions - rarely adheres to this construct. To be lenient or forgiving does not mean IAR, because there are no policies that oblige the Committee to accept a case or enact a sentence if they do. However, amateur jurists on the Committee enjoy their power as policy police, they do not weigh the cost/benefit of their decisions: the cost of assassination of a volunteer's character and its human toll and the resulting loss of the benefits their participation on Wikipedia.

Most cases of this kind are closed with a punishment because it's what the Committee can, and wants to do. It's interesting to note that  describes the outcome of this case as a punishment, for there is indeed no other portrait for it. It may not have been incompetently handled, but no court of law in a civilised democracy is generally incompetent, but the Committee is inept and is composed of amateur jurists, juries, and executioners, and enfranchised communities will get what they vote for. The real guilty parties in Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block vs. Wikipedia are those who voted to open the case. This paper should be compulsory set reading for every Committee aspirant. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:03, 5 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Kudpung, I'll be blunt. You need to get a grip. You seem to view this 10x one-sidedness as iron, but it is actually mush. And worse still, it's pouring gasoline on the flame, just as it is dying down — to what end? And I say that as someone who both supported TNT throughout some of this ordeal (like here and here), but also offered a fair critique (like here). The fact is that TNT requested for this case to be opened. You say that the Committee is inept — your comment is inept. Inept in its tunnel vision and in its failure to be grounded. In its failure to de-escalate.
 * I value TNT, I continue to value them. We've had laughs together and we've collaborated in making the project a safer place for marginalized people. But they made some serious mistakes — driven by a dark undertone of persecution of trans people that shocked many of us (beyond the RfA's disgraceful TERF impetus), yes, but mistakes nonetheless. You are not helping them and you are not helping the project by this misdirected sowing of discord. So please stop with the legalese; stop with the attacks (Committee members are persons, too); stop with hyperbole. Just stop. El_C 03:30, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Kudpung, I don't think that's unique to this committee. NOTPUNITIVE can be aspirational, if not outright euphemistic or Orwellian, because it's a fine line. Virtually any sanction will feel punitive to whoever it's applied to, and I think we'd all be rightly upset if someone were sanctioned "preventatively" before doing anything wrong. Perhaps we are too quick to raise the specter of "likelihood of repetition" as justification for a facially preventative block; on the other hand, higher privileges always come with greater scrutiny. --BDD (talk) 16:43, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Isn't it about time that the overall use of CheckUser tools be discussed, all things considered? What right does some random user promoted to admin have to access a long-standing user's CU history? TNT has been rightfully admonished for doing so, but what is being done to prevent further misuse going forward? This is a completely unacceptable situation. At the very least, an extended-confirmed user should be immediately advised by an automated message on their talk page that an admin has run their username through the CU tools. This is something that should be done as a bare minimum, and the very thought of this may hopefully deter others from misusing the CU tools. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:36, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I thank the committee for their work in this case. I occasionally comment in these post closes but rarely participate in cases, most of the time I barely even look at them. To the extent some may know I didn't look to see if the evidence phase was still open before commenting so that my close comment was rightly removed. In this case I only commented because I felt some editors were missing the important point, in a such profile case like this, there is almost no chance we can put the genie back in the bottle. While I believe no harm was intended and TNT thought they were doing something for the best of the project, a decision taken when involved and this cannot not be reversed. The fact that the wrong decision was made is a good example of why editors should not make a decision when involved, the same reason why in so many other examples in the world the same principle is followed. No matter how good someone is and how well intentioned they are, and how much they try, people often cannot properly put their conflict of interest aside. Which means they make decisions they wouldn't have otherwise. An important point I tried to make in that deleted comment is that even if it was found that an uninvolved CU may have made the same decision, quite a few editors would likely not be convinced or would still think it's wrong, fairly IMO. As is turns out the committee didn't find this so that point is largely moot although if you feel they're wrong and an uninvolved CU would have made the same decision, well that just seem to further prove the point of the harm from someone doing something when involved. As others have said, while the situation was very stressful, it's imperative that good decisions are made even then, especially when it involves something like our privacy policy hence why CUs are such a trusted position. I don't really know Athaenara other than what I've seen of their views which I despise, but they too are entitled to fairness especially when it comes to our strong privacy policy. Otherwise we might as well endorse unfairness for every editor since for good reason there is nothing in our privacy policy which says if an editor is likely to be removed from the community or has unacceptable views, you do not need to follow this policy. Of course it wasn't just them who was affected anyway, and while from what I've read before, perhaps Lourdes doesn't doesn't care that much, this also doesn't make it okay since it's entirely reasonable some other editor may care and the only way we can ensure they aren't affected is be ensuring it's always upheld. Nil Einne (talk) 08:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC)


 * "Random users promoted to admin" do not have access to checkuser information, only checkusers do. See CheckUser for details, but breifly, there are only two ways to become a checkuser (1) be elected to the arbitration committee, (2) be appointed by the arbitration committee. The latter only happens after self-nomination in the annual round of nominations and the committee being satisfied that the candidate is suitable following public and private consultation. There are currently 54 checkusers on the English Wikipedia, you can see them all at Special:ListUsers/checkuser (for comparison there are currently 1021 admins). Abuse of the tools is taken extremely seriously by the Arbitration Committee and the Ombuds Commission, and the logs are regularly audited to identify potential misuse - if any activity is seen that is not obviously correct usage the Committee will ask the CU concerned for an explanation. If no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming then the permissions will be removed. Alerting someone automatically when a checkuser has been run on them would, AIUI, require a software change. Enabling it has been discussed and rejected in the past, but I can't remember what the reasons were. Thryduulf (talk) 03:20, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Level II desysop of Stephen

 * Original announcement


 * From watching recent events at ITN I think I can make an educated guess at who the harassed user was. This is just so disappointing. Stephen was one the most dedicated admins working at ITN. I'm really shocked.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Say it ain't so, Joe. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:01, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You've got to be kidding me!!! As PK3 stated, I think I can guess as well what was going on -- but you'd just never know by the way he let on. --🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  19:30, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What a shame. -- Victor Trevor  ( talk ) 20:09, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If I'm reading the situation correctly, the desysop was appropriate. However, if a non-admin had engaged in the same behavior -- using IPs to harass another editor -- they would certainly have been blocked, at least temporarily. Was that considered in this instance, especially considering that the harassment may have included attempted log-ins to the victim editor's account? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:58, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The Level 2 desysop does not preclude further action being taken against Stephen, but a Level 2 desysop is also only for removal of administrative permissions and does not consider further sanctions. Primefac (talk) 22:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Good question. Building on what Primefac said, I will say that the discussion about blocking was raised and briefly discussed but the priority was on acting on the Level 2 desysop which only ArbCom could do. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * <hat type="CU">I do not see technical evidence indicating that Stephen is related to the failed login attempts.
 * <hat type="been doing this too long">Quarterly reminder that repeated failed login attempts like this are generally intended to intimidate rather than to actually log in. Also, they're frequently done by a third party to stir up trouble and make people suspicious of each other, a favorite during arbcom cases.
 * GeneralNotability (talk) 23:18, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @GeneralNotability what are you talking about? I don't see anything about "failed login attempts" in the announcement or otherwise mentioned in this section. — xaosflux  Talk 23:27, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * , sorry, clarifying - it was mentioned in another thread that a harass-ee had received several failed login attempts, BMK alluded to it above at the end of their statement. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * GN, I presume that to be usually the case, but I can't help but think that you've just spilled the WP:BEANS about CUs being able to review login attempts. I didn't know that and I doubt many others did. Oh well, I guess the out of the bag now. As for, I'm saddened to learn about this. What a drag. In regards to blocking (or lack thereof, rather), I don't think it's a WP:SUPERMARIO so much as their self-destruction being an extension of them previously spearheading (and persevering) against the ethnocentric shit. If he were on the side of the ethnocentrism rather than being against it, I highly doubt ArbCom (or any Floq-esque admin, for that matter) would have held off on insta-blocking him, like with the admin in the TERF incident that shall not be named. Which is perhaps understandable, in so far as that sort of harassment goes. That is to say, the hate speech and the non-hate speech variety. El_C 23:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thinking back on it, there have been a few drive-by IP edits against users who eventually were blocked from ITN, such as this one here. I can't help but wonder if the rabbit hole ran deeper than just the superficial trolling mentioned above. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  00:09, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * the ability to check logins (and all other technical aspects of the tool) is documented on mw:Extension:CheckUser, so it's not really something that only CUs would know. ansh. 666 00:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's been around for a while. — xaosflux  Talk 00:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. El_C 00:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That is actually me Walt, you better have some more than me just being an IP. We have interacted after that as well. Is is policy compliant to wildly speculate, paint people badly and all of that without a shred of evidence? 85.16.47.145 (talk) 00:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no evidence, and have struck the remark. I'm only trying to make sense of a trusted admin suddenly doing this. I also understand if this is a blockable offense, and I apologize. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  01:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No worries, situation resolved. Talked about it, sorted it. Almost as if we were adults... Does that sound right to you? Has a funny sound to me lol. 85.16.46.255 (talk) 01:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Floq-esque admin? --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You know, the guy that does the thing. El_C 02:28, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I could be wrong, but I believe that was a compliment. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I was left with that question as well. Floq-esque? I'll puzzle over that one. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 09:13, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, compliment. I say the thing; he does the thing. Don't forget to flo(q)ss! El_C 15:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * AFAICT, Floq is the only admin to intentionally for-cause indef another admin, not as a CU or ArbCom action, since September 2018, and the only case where it "stuck" since... 2010, I think?. So it seems an apt term. (Indefs of admins · all blocks of admins, although these have false negatives on people who've been desysopped post-block and false positives on people who were blocked pre-adminship.) --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 15:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Arbcom can you comment on whether this is a Super Mario situation? In particular, if the harrassment is sufficient to desysop, why is there no other action taken? Or are you implying that the bar required to desysop is significantly lower than the bar required for further action? Banedon (talk) 04:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * We are still looking into matters. A level 2 desysop is not the end of a discussion. Izno (talk) 04:27, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I just want to note two Arbs (including myself) had already commented on this upthread. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks to the committee for continuing to consider the matter. I do not know Stephen or the person I assume was his target, nor do I follow ITN, but I *am* concerned that Wiki-justice treats both admins and non-admins equally. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * A shame, indeed. Stephen was a regular at ITN and the project, on the whole, benefitted a great deal from their admin work in the said area. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 09:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I know nothing about Stephen but I wanted to say something because I figure the person he harrassed could be keeping up with this thread. I just wanted to say it's a shame that someone who had authority chose to harrass you and hide behind IPs to harass you. You don't deserve that and I hope you're doing as well as you can under the circumstances. Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 10:09, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking decisive action on what sounds like completely unacceptable behaviour. This is why we have Level II. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:57, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well this is rather a surprising piece of news for a Tuesday morning. I'd echo others about Stephen's generally good work on the main page, although FWIW he has had some minor breaches of ADMINCOND in the past - I have several times had to warn him about breaching WP:WHEEL on the ITN template, by editing through protection to restore a reverted edit, and even accusing me of having a "chilling effect" when I brought it up. I let the matter pass though, because I didn't think the cost of losing a generally good admin was worth it. Today's news about harassment clearly warranted action, however, so kudos to the committee for acting and that's certainly disappointing to hear. I await news of further developments or an explanation from Stephen. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I also chided Stephen about wheelwarring a couple of times recently but they self-reverted and so that seemed reasonable. At ITN, there's a natural tension between getting things done to keep the process moving and trying to respect the consensus of a fractious forum.
 * This latest incident is presumably this ANI report. The conflict with  seems to be a clash of particular personalities rather than a general problem.  An interaction ban would therefore be more appropriate than a block if more action seemed needed.  But the desysop is already a major sanction which will have a big impact. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:36, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Andrew Davidson @Amakuru as Beeblebrox notes below a full case is on the table. From your perspectives should the committee consider this incident when deciding whether or not to resysop Stephen? Barkeep49 (talk) 01:11, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * ITN has developed a community and Amakuru and myself are both regulars. The primary incident was grounded in ITN history and so our comments seem relevant as background, helping to understand how things go there and the extent to which others like Sca and Stephen were invested in it. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:42, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm very disappointed in Stephen, and his work at ITN will be greatly missed. He's one of the most active admins there, and the rest of us will need to pick up the slack.  However, this kind of situation is very much behavior unbecoming of an admin, and we can't have someone with such poor judgement in control of the mop.  What a shame.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:05, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I am new to some of these procedures, so, if what I say is out of line, I seek your pardon. If there is a way to reinstate Stephen with some selective punishment / reprimand -- I would urge the Arbitration committee to consider doing that. At the WP:ITN we have been discussing about how our procedures have a high level of concentration. E.g., Stephen was responsible for ~30% of all promotion of articles to the mainpage and would also handle a very high number of complaints at WP:ERRORS. His unavailability will result in a spike in workload for the other active admins on our project there. Yes, I have noticed the issues called out by admin  above and another admin  also pointed out a few procedural lapses that potentially exposes us. But, if there is a way to check with Stephen if they acknowledge these lapses and are able to work them, I humbly request a consideration. Ktin (talk) 16:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Everybody here is replaceable. Not to say that their efforts were not welcome and appreciated or wont be missed, but every single editor on Wikipedia, including all the AC members, including even me (gasp), is replaceable. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * See also You are not irreplaceable. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not disagree. We all do mistakes. I do not know this one in particular. But, if there is an acknowledgement from the other side and a willingness to work better, I am of the view that we should offer a second chance. However, if my request above is inappropriate, I stand down. Thanks for your consideration. Ktin (talk) 16:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree that a path towards redemption should always be available; but I also don't think a simple mea culpa is sufficient here for Stephen. The kind of harassment it appears he engaged in is a bit beyond the pale.  Admins have come back from desysoppings like this in the past, but it almost always involves some rehabilitation within the community and a new RFA.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:53, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * According to WP:RETURN, the level 2 desysop is intended as a preventative measure and is not ipso facto the end of the story. In theory the mop could be returned if a satisfactory explanation were offered by Stephen. And he's also I think entitled to a full case if he wishes. It seems likely the desysop would stick though, it's a fairly serious issue here. And as noted, we can always continue handling things at ITN and elsewhere when we lose people, that's not a reason to be extra lenient. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Piling on the agreement here. Stephen will be missed at ITN, but other admins can and will step up to the plate. Regardless of anything else, it is his choice whether they even want to return to being an admin (at the moment) - if they do then they can either provide an explanation that satisfies arbcom, ask for a full case and/or nominate themselves at RFA. As they have made no publicly visible contributions since ~4 hours before ArbCom posted this announcement we have no way of knowing if they even want to remain an editor. Thryduulf (talk) 18:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That is accurate. A full case is very much on the table, we are discussing the matter with Stephen now. If this goes forward, it would likely be a hybrid case, as there are private aspects of it involving CU data, but the committee has noted the comments here about other possible issues with wheel warring and so on, which would be discussed publicly in the usual manner. Any additional feedback from the community on those aspects would be appreciated. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Is reverting a change to Template:In the news to restore the established consensus wording at WP:ITN/C really wheel-warring? I may be wrong but I'm not sure that WP:WHEEL was intended to cover edits to fully-protected pages. I don't think Stephen has a case to answer on that score. Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:55, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The policy's purview encompasses the gamut of administrative actions with a few reasonable exceptions, but a reversion that proceeded from consensus should not ideally be considered an instance of it. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 19:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Given that we didn't sanction another admin who did actually wheel war at WP:ITN/C (as well as accuse another admin of doing it when they hadn't) and then made a lot of seriously suboptimal decisions with their tools, I think it would be best to concentrate on the issue at hand, rather than trying to throw a load of half-arsed supposed "misdeeds" into a case. That's how ArbCom ended up with the appalling clusterf*ck that was the Portals decision. Black Kite (talk) 19:09, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Generally, I agree with you. What would be helpful to the committee right now would be if someone would proffer actual diffs of the alleged wheel warring. Unless I've missed it, that has not yet been provided. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The committee has not asked. There is not even a case request yet, let alone an open case. Seems a bit premature to ask for evidence? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Look at it this way Martin, we have separate editors suggesting that Stephen has violated WHEEL in multiple recent incident. Those suggestions without evidence are casting aspersions and should be backed up with some sort of evidence. Level II is not designed to be a permanent solution, it's designed to protect the encyclopedia until the issues are resolved (directly to Arbcom or at RfA), or a wider case has confirmed or denied the short term action. So, @Amakuru and @Andrew Davidson, please either provide diffs for your claims of multiple accounts of wheel warring, or strike those comments. <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 08:37, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's an example of the chiding I mentioned. Stephen seemed to immediately take my point as they self-reverted.  I then thanked Stephen for his action and so considered the incident resolved. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:20, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Cart before the horse. If you want to examine Stephen's behaviour please open a case and then ask for evidence. This is a talk page and not the place for evidence. I have also spoken to Stephen on more than one occasion about problematic admin actions, but until the case if opened and scope is known, I will not know if my points are relevant (I have long ago considered them resolved). I often cringe when a case request becomes an evidence page, but this is one step further back! &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:27, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * MSGJ, Worm just asked for evidence from Andrew and Amakuru; please do not berate someone for doing what they were asked to do. Primefac (talk) 09:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe @MSGJ was chastising me, rather than Andrew - and I'm asking for evidence under "casting aspersions" not under evidence. This isn't a case request, but if you make a statement about someone doing bright line violations on multiple occasions - anywhere on the encyclopedia, you should be able to back up that statement. <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 10:17, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair point; it can be easy to misread the threading of a conversation sometimes for instance, I have bumped your comment one : as I see it as a reply to me, but feel free to de-indent if I am incorrect. Primefac (talk) 10:58, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Chastising is too strong a word Dave :)) But yes I was replying to you &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:11, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I will provide further evidence later on once I've had a chance to look at it (I'm busy right now), although I had thought my link to a user-talk page discussion regarding the issue above would be enough to avoid accusations of "casting aspersions". Like Martin and Andrew, I regard these previous issues as resolved and wouldn't advocate any action against Stephen beyond a mild warning and advice not to do it again, if the only reason for such a case is the wheel warring. It might become relevant if a full case is opened on the other issues, but that's hard to predict at this stage. On a point of order, please could you confirm whether the committee considers editing a fully protected template to constitute an "admin action" from the point of view of WP:WHEEL (assuming there isn't a clear consensus evident to reinstate the change)? I have always assumed editing through protection to be included, but some above seem to be questioning whether any of this even matters. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:19, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Stephen has reverted me on WP:ITN on several occasions through the years. At times, my first impulse was: hey, this is not your fiefdom, but for the most part I later realized that they were actually right on policy and procedure. I never once considered that as WHEEL, though. Obviously, that's limited to my own personal experience. El_C 15:59, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * (replying to El C because it's easier to click "reply" than figure out the stupid indenting, but this is more a general comment) Because of its nature (usually time sensitive, fully protected, high visibility of the page), several portions of the main page - and ITN in particular - are more prone to WHEEL-adjacent edits than other places. From my generally outside observation of ITN (I don't participate at ITN very much; it's too chaotic and rude for my tastes, even by main page standards), there is a distinct "what happens at ITN stays at ITN" vibe, and the community that has developed there usually muddles thru.  By a strict definition, wheel warring happens more frequently there, but almost always with good intentions, and almost never spirals out of control. I think any focus on "wheel warring" at ITN is distracting from the main point here, and is a page-based problem, not a Stephen-based problem. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:13, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with this comment in its entirety. El_C 16:38, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Look, I'm not talking about simple reversions or questions of being "right on policy", but straight-up edit warring on the main page over minor issues, where sitewide policy or consensus isn't necessarily clear. For example the instance I was alluding to above: This is not enforcing consensus or policy, it's just a difference of opinion of the sort that is common across the Wiki. Except that when it comes to differences of opinion on things only admins can do, we're supposed to adhere to WP:WHEEL. Or so I thought. This issue may seem trivial to you, but I don't appreciate it being dismissed like this when it affects the day-to-day work of those of us who work in this area. If most editors are following one set of rules, while one or two others decide to break them when they see fit, that's not a good collaborative environment for anyone and I think ArbCom or the community should give us a definitive answer to this question to there's a level playing field.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:02, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Amakuru I agree it's an important question. The issue, of course, is that ArbCom can only issue guidance if there's a case where it is in scope. If we don't accept a case that has this issue in scope, perhaps going the community/RFC route could be productive. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

 * Thank you for all the comments. All I can say for now is that the harassment wasn't by me, but from someone very close to me.  I've been dealing with this for many years and must now take time to focus on these personal issues.  I have been in communication with arbcom to explain things in as much more detail as I can allow.  Best wishes, Stephen 23:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to the CU information - and if I did, I wouldn't understand it. I'm not saying this proves ArbCom is wrong and Stephen should be resysopped immediately or anything. The multiple people looking at the CU data are no doubt aware of things I'm not.  But I just want to say, technical issues aside, this sounds really true.  We have years and years of evidence that this isn't the kind of thing Stephen does, and one piece of evidence which ArbCom says shows he did (which, by its very nature, no one can be positive of).  I know about WP:NOTME, but there also should be WP:NOTAUTOMATICALLYYOU, when we have years of observable behavior.  Oh, wait, we have that already. Like I said, I'm not saying an immediate resysop is in order, but let's show Stephen some grace. We've been cutting off our noses to spite our faces too much recently, and losing too many admins in the process. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks Floq, this sounds really true is something we're discussing and would (continue to) be part of the full case that we're entertaining. Izno (talk) 00:01, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Floquenbeam: I really hate to say this, but my opinion is that the committee has not made a mistake interpreting the data in this instance, from a technical and behavioral standpoint based on the data available to me. I wholeheartedly wish it were not so, and I believe this to be a huge loss for the project. This is a sad day. SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query Me!  00:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's funny how much political weight is given to WP:LITTLEBROTHER considering that it's a humorous essay, in which it is explicitly declared: It is not, has never been, nor will ever be, a Wikipedia policy or guideline. But I don't know on what grounds Stephen would be able to prove this in arbitration proceedings. A signed and notarized affidavit from the person involved? Either way, I find it difficult to form a judgment until we have a full case. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  13:32, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * this is the key point - nobody should be forming a judgement unless and until they are in possession of all the facts. One of the few things we know for certain about all this is that those of us who are not arbitrators do not have all the facts. Thryduulf (talk) 15:30, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Not a comment on the specifics here, wrt the new revelation, but it's a common misconception that something need to be a policy or guideline to be cited on the project. And likewise for humor (though, I generally am not a fan of humorous pieces meant to be cited in a serious way). WP:BEANS is humorous as is The Wrong Version, etc. Those pieces can reflect important values or maxims held by the community, even with the levity and them being essays or whatever. El_C 15:39, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I generally am not a fan of humorous pieces meant to be cited in a serious way. That's really all I was commenting on. I certainly do not think we should never cite essays as part of an administrative decision; we have regular use of WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE and recently WP:NONAZIS as proof of that. It's the use of a humorous essay that I think is a bit off-kilter, particularly because marking an essay as humorous generally in my experience gives it a robust shield against deletion or criticism. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  16:10, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we need a serious essay saying much the same, that once you've claimed your account is WP:COMPROMISED there's almost zero scope for credibly retracting the claim. Cabayi (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2022 (UTC) For clarity, that's just a response to your point concerning the essay, nothing to do with Stephen. Cabayi (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Right, I remember adding mention of WP:NEEDTOKNOW to WP:BEANS with the hopes that it sees greater usage as such (it didn't work!). El_C 16:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Uh, a long term issue of someone posting on someone else's account - who happens to be an admin - and all I hear is tumbleweed? I am no fan of authentication, but before the mop is returned there needs to be some assurance that no one else is posting on an admin account regardless of the harm or not engendered (sic). LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Either I've missed something or you have @LessHeard vanU. There have been no claims by Stephen that someone else posted on his account. Are you referring to something else? Barkeep49 (talk) 17:04, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What? Stephen allegedly made the harassing comments while logged out, so there's no authentication issue. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 17:05, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I am then mis-understanding, as @Stephen indicates just after the arb.break that "someone close" is responsible for the harrasment; if it is not being done via his account, by whomever, why are we discussing this desysop and what was the desysop for? LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * So the question isn't who edited from Stephen's account - we have no evidence it was ever anyone but Stephen. The question before us is who edited from the same IP as Stephen's account. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Barkeep49, correct. --Malerooster (talk) 19:48, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wasn't it multiple IPs, all geolocating to the same place? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:24, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * And I assumed using the same agent, etc. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:25, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * . GeneralNotability (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * , you know better than to go fishing for CU results. Cabayi (talk) 20:37, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I wasn't fishing, I was -- I thought -- correcting a statement made by Barkeep: "The question before us is who edited from the same IP as Stephen's account." If the incident is the one that everyone is assuming it is, more than one IP made the harassing remarks, as shown by the history of the user's page, and they all geolocated to the same place.  As for the assumption that it was the same agent, I can't see where ArbCom would desysop unless there was positive evidence that the edits came from the same source.  I could be wrong, but that's the only way it made sense to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:55, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Beyond My Ken Even if CUs could comment on that, why would it matter? The only relevant question is was the person doing the harassment Stephen or not? If it was Stephen then it doesn't make much difference whether they used 1 or 100 IP addresses to harass the victim. If the harasser wasn't Stephen then the number of IP addresses used by the person (or people) who is/are doesn't make much difference to whether Stephen should be desysopped or not. Thryduulf (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If Arbs/CU's don't want BMK to go down that path, we probably shouldn't ask him to go down that path. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * A note that the motion opening the case will go up tomorrow. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:59, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not a checkuser (and probably will never be one), but from my knowledge of this incident and my technical understanding, there is sufficient evidence in my view to reasonably suspect that Stephen is telling the truth. Here is a similar example. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  09:54, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, because having an IP block for a public library you use is really the same as "from someone very close to me. I've been dealing with this for many years and must now take time to focus on these personal issues.", sure... Fram (talk) 11:02, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I haven't been a checkuser for a long time and I have no specific knowledge regarding this case. I will say that the explanation offered by Stephen, with variations, is one that I heard a number of times, including from forcibly desysopped administrators, and there were ways from a technical and behavioral standpoint to assess its likelihood. Mackensen (talk) 12:56, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I urge everyone not to build chains of supposition based on what might have been said. We can afford to wait to consider direct statements from the editor in question, rather than extrapolate and speculate from small tidbits. isaacl (talk) 17:20, 17 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Also, the editor is not blocked or banned - they are still active on Wikipedia. The lengthy chains of conversation (of which I've contributed to) read rather unpleasantly as gossip. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  17:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Stephen - case request

 * Original announcement
 * The case is now live at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stephen. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 06:05, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding contacting admins for Level 2

 * Original announcement

Nominations now open for the 2022 ArbCom elections
Eligible editors may now nominate themselves as candidates in the 2022 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections. Nominations must be transcluded by 23:59, 22 November 2022 (UTC). Please note that there is a change to the process this year: per WP:ACERFC2022, questions may only be asked on the official questions pages after the nomination period is over. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:42, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Reminder WP:ACE2022 nominations close today
Please be aware, self-nominations for ArbCom are still open, closing at 23:59, 22 November 2022 (UTC). Best regards, — xaosflux  Talk 01:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Twsabin unblocked

 * Original announcement

My username change request was accepted today; it was changed from Twsabin to Alalch E. twsabin 03:04, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Stephen arbitration case closed

 * Original announcement

Glad to hear this was resolved amicably, and that Stephen has been reinstated. He's an invaluable admin to Wikipedia, and he's loss was very impactful, as I expect will be his return in a positive manner. Welcome back Stephen! -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC) It's never an easy case to settle when two of the FoF hinge on whether or not someone's testimony is believable absent other concrete evidence. Although we elect our arbitrators to be finders of fact, I doubt we have the capability to forensically assess whether someone's account of what took place meets the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. So for what it's worth, I believe the committee made the correct call by erring on the benefit of the doubt, even if that outcome was not born out of a unanimous decision. Now that being said, I do also think that even though the correct call was made here, it was still the outcome of unique individuals exercising their own personal judgment. The case's outcome could have easily been the opposite with a slightly different group of arbitrators. I'm not certain what it says about this particular process. --🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  14:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd like to welcome back Stephen as well, and I think the Committee made the right decision. To maintain the desysop with little or no behavioral evidence to back up the checkuser findings would have been unfair in my opinion. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:38, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Uh...I don't think that's what happened. From what I gather the behavioral evidence existed prima facie, and nearly every arb expressed to some degree that they were not convinced by his defense, but that his story was "plausible" enough, and it was a situation in which they couldn't know the truth either way. Supporter Maxim said the two scenarios could be "equally likely". Even most of the arbs who voted to accept his explanation expressed doubts as to whether they actually believed it entirely. The one arb who explicitly stated that they believed Stephen threatened a desysop that sticks if it happens again. A 6-4-3 finding that an administrator is not guilty of harassment, with multiple arbs saying they're cutting him a break because they don't know the truth, kind of feels like a big deal. I cannot imagine thinner possible ice for an admin to be on. ~Swarm~  {sting} 18:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The arbs could just as easily have said that they didn't know the truth, but that they were keeping the desysop in place because enough doubt exists that the community can no longer maintain their trust of him, and that would have been an equally valid outcome. Thin ice or not, they gave him back the mop. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  19:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sure, I'm just saying let's not sweep all of the context under the rug, it's certainly not as black and white as there being "little or no behavioral evidence to back up the checkuser findings" and the desysop being "unfair". Steve seemingly got let off by the skin of his teeth here and we should not pretend otherwise. ~Swarm~  {sting} 00:18, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I can recall at least two similar cases from my time as a checkuser/arbitrator, and it went 50/50 on whether we believed the accused. The one we chose to believe went on to a long and productive editing career, though they're inactive now. The other never regained the community's trust. I should add that in the latter case, the technical and behavioral evidence was such that the checkusers were united and adamant in their belief about what had happened, and that the user in question eventually confessed after the fact. Ugly business in both cases. It goes without saying that there can be no repetition. Mackensen (talk) 15:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I sincerely hope that the "someone who is very close" to Stephen does not gain access to their account at some point in the future. I'm sure a compromised admin account, especially in the hands of someone who knows what they're doing, could cause a lot of damage. MaterialsPsych (talk) 20:46, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Using a different device on an IP address that has also been used by a Wikipedia editor is very different than having access to a device that is logged into Wikipedia by that editor. I don't think there's any reason to believe that a potential future compromised account is a concern here. - Aoidh (talk) 21:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC)


 * As indicated by my votes in the case, I think we came to the wrong conclusion. Regardless of whether Stephen made the harassing edits or not, he is, by his own admission, at least partially responsible for them, and I just don't think that is something we should be able to say about an admin. The best case scenario at this point is that we never know what actually happened here because it never happens again. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:31, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd frame the best case scenario differently. The best case scenario is we keep a longtime active admin making admin contributions many find useful and who has no demonstrated track record of harassment continuing to make admin contributions without any further harassment incidents. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "without any further harassment incidents" ...but we're expecting this because this case was a serious warning shot. Not because we're convinced he was innocent. You yourself did not even endorse the FoF that would formally exonerate him. I'm not trying to stir the pot, but I don't think this result should be downplayed. The concerns raised are serious, and nothing about this situation should be brushed off. Especially by the arbitrators themselves. ~Swarm~  {sting} 00:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree we should not brush off what happened here. I attempted ot make this clear during the case and am happy to reaffirm it here. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:13, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you saying so, Barkeep. ~Swarm~  {sting} 01:48, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Regardless of my personal opinion on this one, I am intrigued by the fact that it appears to be OK for certain Arbs to pretty much come out and call Stephen a liar, which is of course a personal attack. Perhaps they should look at WTT's comment about how they opposed the resysop as to how to actually phrase an opposing vote. Black Kite (talk) 22:03, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's within bounds for Arbs to say whether or not they believed what he said. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There are ways of phrasing things, though. And let's not forget that at least one admin has been desysopped in the past partly because ArbCom decided that calling people liars was unacceptable, even when what they said was demonstrably untrue. Black Kite (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Discussions on Wikipedia behavioural issues are opaque enough already, without adding on an extra layer of obfuscation through Unparliamentary language. Would the discussions on the proposed decision page really be improved if the arbs you are referring to said something like "was economical with the truth" or "had used a terminological inexactitude"? Or perhaps some lesser known modern variation of those examples? Sideswipe9th (talk) 06:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Black Kite Do you have a link to WTT's comment? I'm not finding it. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Probably this: . --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, that one, which I probably should have linked - apologies. Black Kite (talk) 22:49, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We effectively call people liars all the time at SPI. A suspected sock says, "That's not me.  I only have one account.  I've never heard of that other guy before".  I run CU and get an exact match on the two accounts, so I block them.  What other possible conclusion can somebody reach other than I think they're lying, even if I don't say so in as many words? -- RoySmith (talk) 01:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * , genuinely curious: what would you have arbs do when they simply do not believe an explanation? Worm's comment focused on Stephen's behavior following the incident rather than the plausibility of Stephen's claim, so I don't think it's an especially generalizable example of "here's the right way to say you think someone is lying". I get that calling someone a liar is a personal attack, but at some point "I do not believe this explanation" is something that people need to be able to communicate, no? GeneralNotability (talk) 02:00, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but suggesting that there is incontrovertible evidence that they are lying (i.e. Captain Eek's vote justification of "Logged out harassment of users is unacceptable behavior for any editor, let alone an administrator."), rather than it being a balance of probabilities, is completely different from something along the lines of "I am unconvinced that..." Black Kite (talk) 08:18, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm actually more bothered by Black Kite's Tone policing than any comment made by any arb in this discussion. Regardless of Black Kite's insistence, at no time did anyone call Stephen a liar.  They just didn't.  Every one of them commented on behavior alone, and on their own beliefs regarding the behavior itself.  That's always fine, and the loquaciousness of the arb response is not a measure of its appropriateness.  If an arb doesn't believe someone, they can just say it.  That is not an attack.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not "tone policing" anyone. I'm saying that an unequivocal statement that it was definitely Stephen who committed the offence (such as in Captain Eek's comment) is not one that it appears possible to make. Black Kite (talk) 10:39, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Saying someone lied is not the same as calling them a liar, just as saying someone told the truth is not the same as calling them honest. And saying you didn't believe what someone said is not the same as saying they lied, just as saying you believed someone is not the same as saying they told the truth. Levivich (talk) 07:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The issue here is that Stephen was asked for a mitigating explanation for why these edits took place, and he gave it. However flimsy or ironclad that explanation was, he gave it. Reviewing the prima facie explanation absent any other sort of evidence that would tip the balance, and then concluding that it may be plausible but not believing the user anyway, essentially all but outright says "I do not feel that you would be honest even if asked to be". 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  14:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that this clearly falls under AGF is not a suicide pact and the more general fact that WP:AGF is about an assumption of good faith, which can be tested and even broken by sufficient evidence. Regardless of whether you believe him or not, the entire purpose of an ArbCom case in this situation is to determine whether the evidence, overall, reaches the point where it breaks the presumption of good faith. If ArbComs cannot say that believe it does break that presumption in the context of formal findings of fact, what would be the point of having ArbCom in the first place? --Aquillion (talk) 08:18, 9 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Speaking only for myself, I have twice been elected to this committee with a platform of trying to be as open and direct as possible. Admin conduct cases in particular are a vital function of this committee, and you don't have to look far into the past to see other instances where we have felt it necessary to publicly question the sincerity of a case subject's explanation of events. That is our job. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think Black Kite is right to point out that the words arbs use when thinking through a case and explaining that thinking to the community matter. However, as someone who voted on the other side of Beeblebrox in this case, I agree with him, Jayron, Sideswipe9th, and others both in terms of what happened in this case and about the role Arbitrators are elected by the community to do more generally. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to note, words do matter, and no Arb used the words that Black Kite said they did. Yes, words matter.  But it's also important not to put words in the mouths of people when they didn't say them.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:04, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Right, but you don't necessarily need to use the word "liar" in order to implicitly call someone a liar. In the entirety of the proposed decision page, CaptainEek never once uses that word or any of its synonyms in her voting rationales&mdash;however, it is still eminently clear that she believes Stephen is lying. That is the point Black Kite is making. There is a lot of ambiguity as to whether or not Stephen told ArbCom the truth; we can't speak with 100% certainty either way. Which is why I share his feeling that in cases such as this, we should avoid communicating from a presumption of guilt. There is a difference in sentiment between "based on a preponderance of the evidence, I remain unconvinced that he is telling us the complete truth" and "he's clearly lying". The former at least acknowledges a reasonable possibility of innocence. Kurtis (talk) 10:32, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is the point that I'm trying - obviously badly - to make, in that it appears that an unequivocal statement along the lines of "Stephen definitely did it" (a la Captain Eek's statement) does not appear to be possible to make, given the statements from the other Arbs (on both sides of the decision). Black Kite (talk) 10:39, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I hesitate to add this comment, because I appreciate what Black Kite just said, and I feel like the topic has been beaten to death by now, but (and this is the only reason that I am commenting) I think the discussion has been a bit unfair to CaptainEek. Yes, CaptainEek's comment expresses disbelief in the veracity of what Stephen said. On the other hand, WTT's comment (which I am not finding fault with) characterizes Stephen's early replies to the Committee as "obstructive". Given that some members were opposing the proposal that "Stephen's explanations [were] sufficient", it's unrealistic to expect that their rationales would be scrubbed of any suggestion that there had been something wrong with those explanations. I think that CaptainEek's comment was appropriate in context, and WTT's comment was appropriate in context, and really none of the Arbs said anything on the PD page that I would object to. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Whether for tone or for underlying substance, I think that the Arbs did a good job with a no-win situation. Given circumstances where it was impossible to know for certain what really happened, it looks to me like members on both sides of the decision approached it thoughtfully and carefully. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Though I appreciate why editors want to comment, I encourage everyone not to speculate on the effectiveness of private conversations. Regarding the term "liar": it has certain connotations that aren't necessarily conveyed with other forms of expression. Also, someone not convinced by an explanation doesn't necessarily think they are being deliberately lied to: there can be a miscommunication, misunderstanding from either side, different contexts, or other mismatches in viewpoints. I agree we should not be cavalier with the literal term "lie" and its variants, but that doesn't preclude being straightforward in expressing one's views in non-emotional terms. isaacl (talk) 22:42, 9 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Not being privy to the in camera case but knowing some of the committee quite well, I think the outcome is more of erring on the side of caution than giving Stephen the benefit of the doubt. Which seems to reveal that the current composition, whichever way the members voted, is capable of deep and sincere thought and proper deliberation. It makes for a refreshing change. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:30, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Contentious topics procedure adopted

 * Original announcement


 * Yay. Thanks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * CT W. El_C 22:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Excellent, I think this will lead to a big increase in comprehension for less-experienced editors, and a decrease in complexity and harassment for those trying to operate the system. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:50, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, at least so far, it doesn't appear to be contentious. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a substantial achievement. Not to be assigning work to others, but it would be helpful if any Arb or anyone else would volunteer to summarize the changes and new provisions in a cheat sheet.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @SPECIFICO, each of the sections on the proposed decision carries a brief version of the reason for change or inclusion if you'd like to get a summary. Izno (talk) 23:20, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Compiling those in a single place does seem like something useful we could provide the community. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Interesting. GoodDay (talk) 23:09, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks like a positive change.
 * For "Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction", I think there is a small issue; it doesn't consider the circumstance of an admin continuing to be an admin, but currently being inactive. BilledMammal (talk) 23:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I'd appreciate it if someone would fill me in on what exactly is happening here or links to some related previous discussions because I feel like I'm missing something and I'm a bit confused. I'm vaguely aware of stuff like discretionary sanctions existing... the impression I get from this is that it's being renamed to contentious topics procedures and that ArbCom is reviewing what falls under that? Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 02:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Clover two possible starting places. First would be the discussion and voting on this. Alternatively given that you've said your'e only vaguely aware of DS, a better place might be Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Draft which starting with the nutshell are designed to kind of let you know what this system is. The drafters might have some other suggestions as well. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:06, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I said "vaguely aware" because it hasn't really been all that relevant to me even though I've spent some time before now trying to understand it. I've looked at a list somewhere of where sanctions apply, how notifications work, interaction/topic bans existing as a concept, etc. It's also difficult not to figure out some of this stuff by osmosis when you've been around for 4 years, although I'm surprised no one's ever given me a DS notice (I'm probably jinxing this now). That said, that link looks incredibly helpful and I'll take a look at it. Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 02:11, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Kinda sad that I proposed the name "Safeguarded topics" instead of "Contentious topics" extremely late into the proposed decision phase and there was basically zero discussion on it, neither positive nor negative. My reasons and rationale are at WT:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Proposed decision. Is it too late or can I file for a review or something? I'm not really aware of how ArbCom works or anything about that. I've never been here before, and wouldn't even know about the review process if I hadn't read candidate statements at ACE2022. Thanks! &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 12:47, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Filing an request for clarification or amendment is the normal way that questions are asked about decisions. However, the arbitrators will be watching this discussion and so should see your comments on this, so there may be no need to file it. Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 16:35, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * CX, the name has been something that has occupied considerable arb attention going back to last year when we did a couple of straw polls, followed by more straw polls this year, followed by the vote in public. I think that's one reason that you might not have gotten feedback on your idea. At minimum it's why I didn't comment on it because I was more concerned with trying to find consensus among arbs and in other issues that were before us with the reform. As for changing it now, if there's quick consensus among arbs that it's good I could see this working otherwise the idea of delaying implementation (and creating some confusion by changing an already announced name) doesn't seem worth it to me. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:04, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * As I've made my own alternate suggestions, I also have concerns about "contentious topics". However, personally I don't feel "safeguarded topics" is a great fit. To me, it conveys a connotation that there is a form of page protection on related pages, limiting who can edit them. I also think it has a connotation of placing greater priority on the topics in question. I appreciate that others may have different connotations with the word "safeguarded". isaacl (talk) 18:07, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Safeguarding has a pretty specific meaning in some places. I am making no comment about the proposal, just commenting on the word itself. Primefac (talk) 20:25, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, to me it has a connotation of taking specific actions to ensure protection, as would be the case for safeguarding vulnerable people. In my view, authorizing administrators to perform additional actions on their individual authority is more of a reactive mode. isaacl (talk) 22:14, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Very nice work, but this probably will be confusing to a lot of editors for a while until the new policies are understood and a body of case law is created. What needs to be done at the scores of articles with page notices listing which discretionary sanction is in effect? Do they still apply until the Contentious topic notices are in placed? Mr Ernie (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * DS will still apply during this transitional period, coordinating that transition is taking place at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Implementation Beeblebrox (talk) 04:29, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Iranian Politics disruption continues

 * Original announcement

Are there more details about this disruption that can be made public, like diffs or a more-specific description? Levivich (talk) 17:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)


 * @Levivich I wish there were more details that could be made public. Unfortunately what's been shared, at least for the moment, falls well into the confidential realm and I hesitate to even characterize why it's confidential in this case. That said the foundation did have a briefing for the wider FUNCTIONARY team which was attended by myself, Eek, Primefac, L235, Doug Weller, Risker, and GeneralNotability so there are some non-arbs who have been briefed and will, I expect, confirm the legitimacy and seriousness about what has been shared. Speaking only for myself, the goal with this announcement is two-fold. First to give the community some background/awareness if ArbCom and the WMF take some actions (with some of the brainstormed actions being new approaches to disruption) and second to try to generate some interest in the topic which might render the need for those actions less necessary. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks BK. For the record I don't doubt the legitimacy or seriousness of the issue. I'm having a failure of imagination, because, unlike conduct disruption such as harassment, I can't imagine what sort of content disruption (disinformation) would need to remain confidential, e.g. tag team edit warring, RFC vote stacking, that sort of thing. But if there's nothing more specific that can be said about this disruption without breaching confidentiality, then that's that. Levivich (talk) 18:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think I misunderstood your question and so some answers can be given. Besides what Risker notes below, I would just say the issues that led to the principles from the case and the sorts of conduct/content issues described in the FoF (if not necessarily those specific editors) remain present. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:55, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You may be interested to read Office actions/December 2022 statement, if you weren't aware of it beforehand. Per Wikimedia regions, "MENA" refers to Middle East and North Africa. (At least, I assume that the statement is relevant to this case...) Sdrqaz (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . Levivich (talk) 18:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Glad to see this is on the radar. The area was a morass of POV-warring even before the most recent protests, and the need for attention is more acute than ever. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There are definitely some areas where we, as an editing community, can take some action. One in particular would be to really examine the antecedents of a lot of the sources that are being used: for example, are they from truly independent organizations, or from media sources that have very close connections to the government and/or opposition. It can be difficult for us, who are mainly not well informed of this kind of information, to ensure that the reference sources being used are high quality and as independent as possible. We would probably benefit from watching targeted articles and seeing how editors modify them, particularly if they go from unusually favourable to the "opposition" to favourable to the "government". Many of those would be in relation to the current protests, but also those that relate to politicians, political organizations, governmental organizations, and so on. Because of the limited number of editors who are both unbiased and familiar with the subjects, it is an area ripe for disinformation.  Risker (talk) 18:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Let me +1 everything Risker said and to expand on one point: We would probably benefit from watching targeted articles and seeing how editors modify them, particularly if they go from unusually favourable to the "opposition" to favourable to the "government" or go from unusually favourable to the "government" to unusually favourable to the "opposition". Barkeep49 (talk) 18:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * But if we do not know which articles are targeted it is a bit difficult to watch them. Ymblanter (talk) 14:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you should list some articles that need more eyes. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 14:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)


 * North and Ymblanter the idea of asking "which articles to watch" is a reasonable one. However, it needs to be emphasized that this disruption is throughout the topic area. This is similar to how an ask of "what articles should we watch in the American politics topic area?" would mention big names like Donald Trump and Joe Biden, and the many related articles about those two figures, but would likely not mention Scott Baugh or Libs of TikTok to name two articles which have recently received article restrictions. In the last report from the disinformation team (which doesn't cover the most recent activities) there were over 100 different articles mentioned as having been disrupted by editors.However, because it's a reasonable ask and as a place to start here are some topics with-in the broader Iranian Politics area which are likely to have ongoing disruption and/or have had disruption in the past and in no particular order:
 * Articles related to and about Ali Khamenei
 * Articles related to and about Ebrahim Raisi
 * Articles related to and about 21st Century Protests in Iran
 * Articles related to and about Banned and exiled Iranian political parties and their leaders
 * In particular articles related to and about the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (MEK) and its leaders Maryam Rajavi and Massoud Rajavi
 * Articles related to and about Iran/Saudi Arabia conflicts, particularly those in the 21st Century
 * Articles related to and about the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)
 * Articles related to and about IRGC commanders and other IRGC leaders
 * Please note that this is a list I have compiled myself and is not something I have run by any other arb or the WMF disinformation team. Also note that some of the 100+ articles mentioned above were in other topics I didn't include above in the hopes of having a somewhat manageable list and for the sake of BEANS. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:52, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I am not sure whether the talk pages of these articles have AE template, but of not it would be a good idea to add the templates. This will make the articles easily findable, in addition to the main function of the template. Ymblanter (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I used the related changes "watchlist" trick on User:GeneralNotability/watchlists/Iran_protests, for some specific articles related to the ongoing protests. (For those who don't know the trick: make a page that's a list of links to articles of interest, then use Special:RelatedChanges to see changes on pages linked to or from that page and get a recent changes feed. Great way to make pseudo-watchlists for specific topic areas) GeneralNotability (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. I added yesterday templates at some talk pages, but there is more work to be done. Ymblanter (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I worry that an officialish list kept by arbcom would make a lot of editors uncomfortable but I think GN's method of watching a topic area is a good one, and one ArbCom could link to, if the community, or perhaps even just the functionaries, maintained the pages. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:50, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Change to the Checkuser team

 * Original announcement
 * Welcome back ! -- Ponyo bons mots 20:34, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

2023 Arbitration Committee

 * Original announcement


 * Congratulations to all of the reelected and incoming arbitrators, and to those whose terms are expiring, thank you for your service. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:30, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd like to thank the election commission and the scrutineers for their work on this. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:43, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Congrats to all, and echo the thanks for the scrutineers work. Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 00:04, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks to everyone who made the election possible, as well as to the unsuccessful candidates, the arbitrators-elect, and the retiring arbitrators. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 00:27, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * My condolences to all the successful candidates. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:27, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Also passing along my holiday condolences. <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 08:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * With fewer than 30 hours until the Committee's self-imposed deadline, I would like to ask if it is still on track to meet it. This is the latest the Committee has made announcements regarding departing members' permissions in a decade. If it is still deliberating, I suggest that it would set a poor precedent to allow a user to retain access to these sensitive permissions if they haven't met the expectations of the role – while incumbents are not subject to the minimum logged activity levels, they are expected to remain active and be responsive to the Committee's queries. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a plan for the announcement to go up later today. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:54, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Outgoing members of the 2022 Arbitration Committee

 * Original announcement


 * Was the Committee able to successfully contact all outgoing members? Sdrqaz (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No, we were unable to get in contact with one of the members successfully. That is the primary cause of the delay in this announcement that you asked about above. The astute observer will plausibly identify who that person is and accordingly why the outgoing message is worded the way it is, say, in comparison to previous years. Izno (talk) 23:31, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I figured as much. As members of the Committee are undoubtedly aware, functionaries-en has several subscribers who have been inactive for lengthy periods of time. Is there a plan to address this, given the sensitive information that is shared on it? Sdrqaz (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We last did an activity audit in late 2021 so it feels appropriate to do one again soon. However, as we are in the transition period there aren't really plans for much of anything at the moment. As with many things whether or not this is done will boil down to an Arb or Functionary (likely one of the list owners) making this a priority. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:47, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The last time someone was unsubscribed for inactivity, it seems that it was done unilaterally by a list admin. The optimist in me hopes that it will be similarly straightforward next time.As an aside, while I was pleased to see that the default outcome from lack of response to CU/OS queries is retention of those permissions, I was disappointed to see that the removal without a holder's explicit consent was not made clearer in the announcement, given that inactivity removals are routinely announced. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:08, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ... which was the secondary cause for the delay, as there was quite some discussion on the point. What's in the announcement text is something I think I'd call a compromise as a true statement, but that's my personal feeling on it. We're looking to set up either some internal procedure or possibly adding something to WP:ARBPRO to make it clear for the future how to handle this very-much-an-edge case situation (historically, the outgoing have reached out to let us know, and the counterexamples were rare). I don't think anyone has discussed how it should be framed in the announcement in the context of going forward, so I'm happy to have gotten the feedback. Izno (talk) 01:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Since arbs are exempt from the activity requirements for the duration of their terms, this is not an inactivity removal. So,this was done under the committee's procedures at Arbitration Committee/Procedures. I also wouldn't say that it was involuntary, really. Not indicating a preference is a choice to just let the permissions lapse. As always, we should keep it in mind that everybody here is a real person with a real life, and arbs don't get paid any more than anyone else. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * While that procedure was clearly important for Beeblebrox, I don't know that other arbs relied on that procedure when making their decision and in fact my read of their votes would suggest they didn't. But I could be wrong about that. Barkeep49 (talk) 05:11, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean, I guess we did kind of just make it up to a certain extent, (hence the probably ongoing discusion in the new year to codify something) but I believe it is also supported by that provision of our procedures. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:14, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that section is directly relevant to the removal of CU/OS, since it's for calculation of vote totals and majorities. The member in question had moved themself to the inactive list a long time ago. Also, if a Committee member or clerk sees this, cross-posting the motion on Meta (so it can be enacted by the stewards) would be appreciated. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:08, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep. Now that it's the new year, we will action this. Thanks for the reminder, @Sdrqaz; I will also note that we've done a number of Committee transitions over the years and have gotten pretty good at making sure everything that needs to get done gets done. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 02:37, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course – I hadn't intended to imply otherwise. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:00, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's better than 2019 when the Committee omitted the inactive member entirely from their announcement and no one noticed. Primefac (talk) 09:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, yeah, yeah, rub it in why dontcha Katietalk 19:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Wasn't trying to! I just happened to find a similar situation that had a completely different outcome. Like... I'm genuinely surprised that no one, not even the peanut gallery (who managed to find mkdw was missing off the list) didn't notice. No blame on you at all. Primefac (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * To all the outgoing arbs, thank you for volunteering to serve in this role. Also a belated congratulations to all the successful candidates who were elected or reelected. Mz7 (talk) 21:33, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposed motion for amendment to Arbitration procedures: Closing Clarification and Amendment Requests

 * Original announcement

the message on the noticeboard directs comments here, but there is an explicit space for community comments below the motion (Arbitration/Requests/Motions). As there are comments there and none here, would it make sense to adjust the ACN post to point there? Thryduulf (talk) 12:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * @Thryduulf - the ACN post points to both places, somewhat annoyingly! My post directed comments to the correct place (Comments are welcomed in the relevant section), but then the automated ArbClerkBot addition directed comments here. I'll see if I can remove the automated addition without the bot sticking it back! firefly  ( t · c ) 12:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Bot stuck it back I guess another solution would be editing the ArbClerkBot link so it points to the right place. –FlyingAce✈hello 17:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Or pinging the operators Bradv and AmandaNP and asking them to code in an exception so that it doesn't edit war and/or there is a way of telling it not to add the usual links. Thryduulf (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * AmandaNP was already pinged, and she's working on it. Primefac (talk) 21:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I looked at Brad's talk page but must have forgotten to look at Amanda's! Sorry. Thryduulf (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Not sure of the code obviously but could it just be commented out? If the bot is just looking for that text it'll still be there but just not visible. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * That's a good idea and I've tried it. The official line of code that checks is https://github.com/arbcom/ArbClerkBot/blob/master/acnxpost.py#L67 but I think I will leave the code as is for now if this works. -- Amanda (she/her)  00:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding an amendment to arbitration procedures

 * Original announcement

Possible Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 case under discussion

 * Original announcement

Simple-engineer unblocked

 * Original announcement


 * Years-long history of blocks, then tried so insta-cleanstart, got only as far as 50 edits over 6 days then indef-blocked. Now arbcom-unblocked with TBAN from Kurd topics and first edit to Dardanelles. Hmm.... Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  06:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

ToBeFree appointed trainee clerk

 * Original announcement


 * Congratulations! And now I understand why it was you who was going around fixing up the duplicates; the new hire always gets the crap jobs :-)  -- RoySmith (talk) 17:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Emoji_u1f604.svg (nah, I happened to be online in the minute the duplicates arrived.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * TBF volunteered for that duty, and then we decided had done enough of our dirty work to do more  be recognized for it. Izno (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the team! Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 18:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Happy to see this. All the best, ToBeFree! Sdrqaz (talk) 19:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Congrats and good luck! DanCherek (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Welcome Aboard! SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query Me!  02:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Change to the CheckUser team

 * Original announcement

Proposed motion for amendment to Arbitration procedures: Documenting transition procedures

 * Original announcement