Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests

Can comments from Wikipediocracy be linked directly on a request for arbitration case?

Per multiple recent discussions at ANI, I believe it is currently in the community's best interests to disregard the results of the RfC that determined posting links to comments made by Wikipedia users on Wikipediocracy be considered "outing". The website is toxic, which has resulted in doxing, harassment, homophobic slurs, insults, hounding and incivility. If a case is ever made about the conduct of Wikipedia users on Wikipediocracy, such conduct would obviously need to be linked. Can the committee clarify on whether this is possible? It may be a prescient issue in the near future. Kind regards, Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 03:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

You have been informed repeatedly that ArbCom will accept evidence via email where there are privacy issues. What exactly is preventing you from doing so, rather than repeating such allegations while failing to provide the necessary evidence to anyone? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm referring to a public Arb case, i.e., one that is available for all to see. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 03:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

For reference, an ongoing discussion as to whether Homeostasis07 should be topic-banned from discussing Wikipediocracy is currently under way.[1] Clearly, this would not include ArbCom, though I would request that if and when ArbCom decides to act, they make it clear that hiding behind supposed privacy concerns while failing to even provide evidence by email to back up the allegations made above is likely to have severe negative consequences. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

The entire issue is linked to harassment suffered by Lightburst for several months now. Numerous WPOs have been harassing Lightburst, me, and multiple other users for a very long time. The website has a long history of outing, which is arguably their main claim to fame (Hillsborough disaster Wikipedia posts). Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 03:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I hope that ArbCom will see fit to take the above further stonewalling into account if and when any case is being considered. Specific allegations have been made. Multiple requests have been made that the evidence regarding this specific allegation be emailed to ArbCom. Instead, we get yet more unsubstantiated allegations... AndyTheGrump (talk)

I linked to WPO posts directly in an active arbitration case last year, in two of my four submissions (link). These were not deemed worthy of summarizing, though (don't ask). El_C 20:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

The times I have seen where such links have been removed, they are usually also suppressed, usually not because of the exact post linked to but because there was content elsewhere in the same thread that, if posted here instead of there, would violate WP:OUTING (as opposed to doxxing, which is not at all the same thing as violating our local outing policy despite some using the terms interchangeably), and linking to it in effect does post it here. This is of course made difficult/hazy by the extrememe length of many WPO threads. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Parties

One arb has said People adding and removing parties to this case outside of procedures is cringe. Is there actually a rule or procedure for who can or cannot add or remove parties while a case is still a request? Obviously once there is a full case that's a matter for the arbs to decide but at a glance I'm not seeing any guidance on how it works during the request phase. Not 100% sure it is needed as I don't recall this being a common issue. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Personally I feel it falls under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration § Responding to requests: If you are named as an involved party in a request for an arbitration case, or if you feel you must respond to any request or to comments made by others in any request, then you may make a statement on the case page. ... If you must respond to some statement by another editor on the arbitration request, then you must do so in your own section. Editors aren't supposed to change what others have written. Clerks and arbitrators can do so, and so they can be asked to revise the list of parties. isaacl (talk) 18:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

See this short thread from July. At Template:Arbitration amendment request and Template:Arbitration clarification request, a <!-- hidden note --> was added to clarify this in July, but it hadn't been added to Template:Arbitration case request until now.

While there doesn't seem to be a rule saying so, choosing the name and parties for a case request are matters for the user filing the request. Except for clerks or arbs, others generally shouldn't be editing the case request. (However, I'd tend to think that adding oneself as a proposed party is presumptively okay.) SilverLocust 💬 19:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that, that seems entirely reasonable. I do agree that the adding and removing that has been going on is unecessary, but there's been a lot of unecessary crap around this whole topic, so not super surprising. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I was hoping one of the arbitrators would point out that changing other people's edits is not standard practice, rather than just cringing, especially as it was discussed in July... isaacl (talk) 21:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

That's a fair point. It may not be obvious to those less familiar with the process that the list of parties is "someone else's edit" but I don't think that was the issue in this particular case. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Changing tack slightly, can someone clarify what difference being named as a party at this stage of the proceedings makes? Given that it is far from clear to me (and from the look of it, quite a few other people) what this case is actually supposed to be about, it would seem rather premature to expect an exhaustive list of possible parties. Are we expected to request that individuals be added onto the list on the offchance that their behaviour might be relevant? I could certainly name individuals now who I consider might be relevant to the discussion if it goes in one particular direction, but that involves speculation on my behalf. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

The filter of a case is required to provide a list of proposed parties, with themselves included as a party regardless of their prior involvement. So the current list is very much a rough draft. If and when it's clear that a case will be accepted, the committee will have a discussion (on the mailing list, usually) regarding the drafting arbs, the defined scope of the case, and who is officially included as a party, which is entirely their decision and could include persons not currently listed and could omit some that are. So, at the end of the day it isn't that big of a deal who is and is not on it currently. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

While on the committee I worked on (and the committee adopted) a guide for parties to a case. Here's what the guide says about parties. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

From the guide linked above: Parties are the editors who the Arbitration Committee has identified as having an important role in the dispute the committee is examining. I think this may be at the root of the problem we've seen, discussed above, with people messing around with the list. The 'parties' weren't 'identified by the committee', they were instead listed by one particular individual, the filer. This use of the same terminology comes across (whether intended or not) as an attempt to preempt ArbCom, and to define the scope of later discussions. If there is going to be some sort of 'provisional parties' list, it should be labelled as such, and a better mechanism for constructing it needs to be found than leaving it to the filer, and/or anyone and everyone adding and subtracting to it at will. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

If there is going to be some sort of 'provisional parties' list, it should be labelled as such Like, "Proposed Parties"? Levivich (talk) 16:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd suggest adding between the bolded section (which is as reasonably named) and the list of proposed parties: Unless otherwise indicated, the parties below were listed by the filer of this case. If a case moves forward, the Arbitration Committee will determine the actual parties. This would hopefully both make clear where it came from and make clear that only arbs/clerks should be adding others. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

That would certainly address some of my concerns. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I added a hidden-text note based on Barkeep's suggestion. SilverLocust 💬 18:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Uh, if the guy gets indeffed/cbanned during a case request, what happens to the case?

Inquiring minds want to know. jp×g🗯️ 10:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Uh, in this case the case continues, since more is involved than one editor. And if it isn't then I'm sure a motion would suffice. The wheels of God grind slow, but they grind exceeding small. SerialNumber54129 11:02, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

It's only about more than one editor insofar as those that have been excusing his behaviour and derailing discussions are culpable. TarnishedPath^talk 12:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

We are in agreement. SerialNumber54129 15:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

As a general rule, if a subject at the centre of a case gets 86'd or pulls a "you can't fire me I quit", and there are no matters in controversy that don't involve that editor and their behaviour, then the case generally gets closed as moot. This also includes 172 exits (i.e. administrators going on Wikibreak/quitting the project to dodge an Arbitration that jeopardises their tools). See K1, Orthogonal, Wareware, ESZ, Ed Poor, JarlaxleArtemis 2, R. fiend, Kingofmann, Noloop, A Nobody, Rodhullandemu, SchuminWeb, Media Viewer RfC, Toddst1, Technical 13, Neelix, Andrevan, Alex Shih, Carlossuarez46, and Mzajac. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

That is quite a pile of precedent, but we also don't know the extent of what has been emailed to the committee, the number of commenters saying they have sent something in suggests there is a considerable volume of it, not all related to LB. I don't envy them the task of sorting all that out. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 16:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

There is also the possibility that, if the CBAN does go thru (as is likely to happen, if I'm grokking the discussion right) that ArbCom steps in to endorse it, which would turn it into an Arbitration siteban and limit his ability to appeal it. I can see this happening if the private evidence is extensive enough that any public unban discussion would be problematic from a privacy or victimisation standpoint; see also Rp2006's recent ban endorsements. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 21:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

If possible, an indeffed/cbanned editor should be allowed to continue to participate in a case request & (if accepted) arbcom case. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I think they could maybe submit evidence via email or their talk page, but given the sheer strength of the consensus for a cban that's about it. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 17:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom can always pass an injunction (assuming a case is accepted) unblocking them but banning them from everything but the Arbitration and their user talk page. They've done so before. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

If I'm being comletely honest, the strength of the "evidence" he presented yesterday suggests that his particpation would not be helpful, incuding to himself, but yeah, they could do that if he asked for it. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano: I'm not familiar with the term "172 exit" -- is that just another term for "resigned under a cloud"? Where does the reference come from? ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Can disregard, I believe I've figured it out (it appears to be a reference to when User:172 did it). ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Correct; more specifically it's a reference to 172's second ArbCom case, which was basically the first time an admin "quit the project" to avoid scrutiny of his tool use and which lays out the de facto reasoning for deopping anyone else who "quits the project" in the face of an ArbCom case that would endanger those tools. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 21:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Notes

Request for word limit extension

Since it appears that this case may be going somewhere, can I have a word limit extension please? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Bump. If I'm not asking in the right place here, where should I be asking? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I said I needed one on the case page and nobody seemed to notice, so then I posted a bolded request for one and it was granted extremely quickly. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

This page is an entirely fine place to put an extension request, this time it just took longer than usual to get an answer. SilverLocust 💬 18:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Crosstalk

I thought there was not to be discussions between commenters, and that we were to address our comments to the arbcom. Probably personal asides should go on individual talk pages. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Clarification of "Someone said"

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Moved from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case § Marine 69-71  – SilverLocust 💬 00:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC) JPxG says just above that "Someone said the filer has been following Tony around to give him a hard time -- not in a position to aggressively fact-check this at the moment -- but very lame if true." That may be the lamest statement I've seen on this page. "Someone said", really? Dig it out. "Not in a position to aggressively fact-check"? Wait until you are. How is it acceptable to attack a non-admin for a rumor which the admin speaker can't even remember where they read? Bishonen | tålk 09:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC). Sorry for the confusion -- "lame if true" is here used in the normal sense of conditional statements in the English language (e.g. P → Q, and $\neg$P → $\neg$Q). If it is not true, then it is not lame. jp×g🗯️ 17:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC) To spread nasty rumors by hiding behind "someone said" is not OK, and mansplaining what if means doesn't improve it. Bishonen | tålk 09:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC). I still have no idea what you are talking about "hiding behind" or "spreading", since what I said was a direct reference to another person's comment several paragraphs above mine, on the exact same page. If you want to say that Hammersoft's accusations were "nasty rumors", I have no idea why you would make no mention of their claims, and personally attack me for briefly mentioning them, without saying they were true, or even that I believed they were true. jp×g🗯️ 10:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't initially clear that you were referring to the Statement by Hammersoft, JPxG, so I have added a link to that section in your statement. With that clarified, I think your and Bishonen's responses to each other are no longer needed, so I've moved them here and hatted them. SilverLocust 💬 00:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

What does "scope" mean?

Just for my own edification, what does it actually mean for arbcom to accept a case with a particular scope? Is that just general guidance about what you're going to concentrate on, or is it a strict boundary which cannot be crossed, even if things develop in an unexpected direction as the investigation progresses? RoySmith (talk) 15:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

The scope of a case is essentially the specific issues (and anything arising from those issues) ArbCom is looking at in a given case. For example, the scope of WTC is the behaviour of members of WP:WikiProject Tropical Cyclones, more specifically their use of Discord to collude in their topic area. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Obviously the current ArbCom should answer how they see the scope. As a bit of institutional memory, this was formally added early on in my first term. It came in response to feedback that it was hard for community members to know what kind of evidence they should be submitting and that this resulted in all sorts of evidence which wasn't germane to the case. This evidence could be upsetting to the person it was presented about and it could be upsetting to the person who submitted it when it was ignored. So the scope was made a formal part of the process to try and help signal better to everyone. In my experience as a drafter, the scope became irrelevant in terms of the final decision - I went wherever the evidence led. This could be the same scope or a narrower scope. The only times you could say there was a broader scope is when parties would get added, which is why the committees I was on helped formalize a process where parties could be added after the case began if evidence justified it but those parties would still have a reasonable chance to participate in the case without being penalized for being added late. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• I see scope as a natural evolution of our cases. Engineering a scope allows us to target exactly the issue we want to solve. If we didn't have a case scope, then a case could be about anything that parties put forth evidence of, which would derail proceedings. Indeed, we've seen ample examples in the past of parties using cases as general excuses to sling grievances against other editors, which has ultimately been a waste of time and energy. Also, if a scope is too large, it can be hard to pin down exactly what we're doing, and the evidence of parties may pass each other like ships in the night, not ever addressing the same issue. Scope delineates what is relevant, and what isn't, and keeps us focused. That's not to say that we'll never hear evidence outside of our initial scope, but there's going to have to be a good reason. At any rate, we often end up changing a scope as a case goes on. Sometimes the issue isn't as big as we thought it was initially, and we'll drill down on one aspect. Othertimes, we will add new parties as it becomes clear that the misconduct was broader than first thought. TLDR: scope is a soft guideline, which we have a right to change, but which we aim to follow. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)